B
BlaineTog
Guest
That’s not actually what the OP was saying. He didn’t make the second half of the syllogism.
- Status
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
You got it right that this is a can of worms, and the free will “defense” just doesn’t cut it.
Then you just denied the omnipotence of God. And you are also opposing all Catholic theologians and philosophers up to this point. Whatever school you wish to follow, Thomism or Molinism, they both hold that God can, in fact, infallibly move use to choose good over evil without violating our free will - they just differ on the precise means God uses to do it. But of course you see you must take back your assent in order to save the free will defense.
Actually it has been done in a very clear way by both Thomists and Molinists. According to Thomism, God, as First Mover, is able to move our wills by a “physical premotion” - the details of which are perhaps obscure - but surely He can move the neurons in the brain in the correct way. According to Molinism, God knows infallibly beforehand how each individual will respond in each given circumstance to each individual offered grace, and therefore is able to offer a particular grace which He infallibly knows will be successful due to His prior knowledge.
Yes it is true, according to both Thomism and Molinism.
No, the Thomist would say that that free assent is also the result of the efficacious grace, or a prior efficacious grace, not the precondition. If you deny that this free assent is also the result of grace, then you are a Pelagian. If you admit this, then you’ve merely moved the question one step further backward, as to why the grace that would cause this “free assent” is efficacious or only merely sufficient.
Again if by this you mean we can choose God at some fundamental level without the assistance of grace then this is semi-Pelagianism.
But God can cause us to accept the sufficient grace and therefore the efficacious grace.
Yes, and the best theologians and philosophers are saying differently then you.
But God can cause us not to reject His loving grace! This is the whole crux of the matter.
I beg to differ.
D
Dameedna
Guest
No, I cannot.
When it comes to proof, as we in the modern world understand that word to mean, it requires emperical evidence that supports a hypothesis, evidence garnered through the scientific method.
If you would like to put forth a hypothesis as to the existance of a God or anything else feel free, then do the research and provide the evidence as do all scientists that work with the concept of “proof”.
Until you do that, your hypothesis is just that. An idea…that has yet to be supported by anything the scientific method can prove.
Most scientists do not waste their time on the hypothesis of another, they spend it on their own. They will ONLY spend their time on a hypothesis, when a fellow scientist, has claimed they have imprical evidence. Only then, is there cause for debate.
An Athiest is no different. Why would we spend our time , refuting your hypothesis, when you haven’t actully produced any evidence for it in the first place? You have to GIVE us evidence, before we can challenge it. That’s the way “proof” and science works and when you do that with YOUR idea there is a God, we can do our research and refute your findings if you are wrong.
You dont’ seem to realize, that you give us more support by making this statement than anything else you can do. You are on the edge of faith. You need proof as much as we do…it doesnt’ take much to put you over the edge to a place of disbelief, IF it is proof you require.
There is none…and you know it. This question, is the last dying gasp of a future non-believer.
And we know it
Ciao
When it comes to proof, as we in the modern world understand that word to mean, it requires emperical evidence that supports a hypothesis, evidence garnered through the scientific method.
If you would like to put forth a hypothesis as to the existance of a God or anything else feel free, then do the research and provide the evidence as do all scientists that work with the concept of “proof”.
Until you do that, your hypothesis is just that. An idea…that has yet to be supported by anything the scientific method can prove.
Most scientists do not waste their time on the hypothesis of another, they spend it on their own. They will ONLY spend their time on a hypothesis, when a fellow scientist, has claimed they have imprical evidence. Only then, is there cause for debate.
An Athiest is no different. Why would we spend our time , refuting your hypothesis, when you haven’t actully produced any evidence for it in the first place? You have to GIVE us evidence, before we can challenge it. That’s the way “proof” and science works and when you do that with YOUR idea there is a God, we can do our research and refute your findings if you are wrong.
You dont’ seem to realize, that you give us more support by making this statement than anything else you can do. You are on the edge of faith. You need proof as much as we do…it doesnt’ take much to put you over the edge to a place of disbelief, IF it is proof you require.
There is none…and you know it. This question, is the last dying gasp of a future non-believer.
And we know it
Ciao
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Why do you get to decide how belief must function? Why must out belief system be subject to the intricacies of yours? Isn’t it only fair that we get to put yours on our chopping block as well?
P
packermann
Guest
Inherent within your argument is the assumption that we should only beieve what can be proven scientifically. But this assumption itself is somthing that cannot proven scientifically.No, I cannot.
When it comes to proof, as we in the modern world understand that word to mean, it requires emperical evidence that supports a hypothesis, evidence garnered through the scientific method.
If you would like to put forth a hypothesis as to the existance of a God or anything else feel free, then do the research and provide the evidence as do all scientists that work with the concept of “proof”.
Until you do that, your hypothesis is just that. An idea…that has yet to be supported by anything the scientific method can prove.
Most scientists do not waste their time on the hypothesis of another, they spend it on their own. They will ONLY spend their time on a hypothesis, when a fellow scientist, has claimed they have imprical evidence. Only then, is there cause for debate.
An Athiest is no different. Why would we spend our time , refuting your hypothesis, when you haven’t actully produced any evidence for it in the first place? You have to GIVE us evidence, before we can challenge it. That’s the way “proof” and science works and when you do that with YOUR idea there is a God, we can do our research and refute your findings if you are wrong.
You dont’ seem to realize, that you give us more support by making this statement than anything else you can do. You are on the edge of faith. You need proof as much as we do…it doesnt’ take much to put you over the edge to a place of disbelief, IF it is proof you require.
There is none…and you know it. This question, is the last dying gasp of a future non-believer.
And we know it
Ciao
In order to even do science, there has to be certain presuppositions made:
- That there is order in the universe.
- That since there is order in the universe, scientific evidence reflects reality.
- That we are rational beings capable of making accurate determination based on scientific evidence.
Even if the belief in God is nothing but an assumption, so what? The truth of science itself is an assumption.
Atheism, even though atheists argue against God because of no scientific evidence, eventually leads to the death of science. Once atheism becomes the accept norm, science itself becomes an illusion, because atheism challenges all three assumtions previously stated.
Take Nietczhie. He argued that that his fellow atheist were too mushy - rejecting God but still wanting to hold onto Christian idea. According to Nietchie, athists have to be bold enough to be complete atheists. That meant that since there is no God, there is no reason to believe that there is order in the universe at all. It only APPEARS to us to have order. But how how do we know that this is not just an illusion.
And as far as we being rational beings, if naturalism is correct, forget it! All our thoughts are mere products of random banging of our processes within our brains. All our thinking is biologically or environmentally determined. So if that is that case, how can ever trust our own anaylsis of scientific data?
Rejecting rejecting God leads to the rejecting of absolute truth. Rejecting absolute truth leads to the rejection of reality. Atheism eventually leads to questioning even our own existence.
B
BlazingBolt
Guest
There is a difference between right and wrong. I have searched high and low and not found anything approaching an acceptable materialistic answer to this fundamental self evident truth. This difference proves that God exists.
To have no concept of right and wrong means you are insane.
An atheist either knows God exists or is insane. Usually they are not insane, they simply prefer the convenience of denying right and wrong whenever they fancy. Atheists are fooling themselves. It is a convenient and easy thing to do while you live and all is well, not so easy when things are hard or your facing death’s door…wonder why that is.
To have no concept of right and wrong means you are insane.
An atheist either knows God exists or is insane. Usually they are not insane, they simply prefer the convenience of denying right and wrong whenever they fancy. Atheists are fooling themselves. It is a convenient and easy thing to do while you live and all is well, not so easy when things are hard or your facing death’s door…wonder why that is.
M
mlchance
Guest
Nonsense. Proof, as we in the modern world can discover by looking in a dictionary, has several definitions:
1 a**:** the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b**:** the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete : experience
3**:** something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5**:** evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6 aplural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b**:** a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c**:** a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d**:** a test photographic print made from a negative
7**:** a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8 a**:** the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b**:** strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol>
The single definition you propose above unnecessary constrains the term “proof” in an intellectually dishonest manner. But, after all, that is par for the course for atheism.
– Mark L. Chance.
K
Kristopher
Guest
God regreted what he had done to such an extent, that he wiped humanity off the face of the planet to the exclusion of Noah, this at least provides a scriptural basis for what God has done to stop evil in the world, by way of recognition of the responsibility he had for his own creation, man.
God promised: never again to do such a thing by water. It is said, next it will happen by fire. In the meantime, denial of God certainly may not stop all the good things God does in the lives of those who believe in him, but it may hinder God from doing good things in the lives of those who deny God; though, I doubt it: the good done in other peoples lives, that believe, tends to be of benefit even among those in denial. The Ten Commandments are something good. The story goes: they were given directly by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Civilizations ever since have been maintained, restored, and saved as a consequence of adherence to them. How is it possible to remain untouched by the good, done in our world across the history both of Judaism, and The Church, among those in denial? God does much to stop evil in the world, inclusive of allowing the existence of freewill–some deny God / most accept God. Most people I know: have had good lives.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Faith is a gift from God. That there is an existence, that that existence is ordered according to certain principles, that Man exists in the image of God and can rationally understand the existence around him - these are proofs of the existence of God. Science cannot explain why there is a reality at all, why that reality is governed by principles or laws, why the forces in reality are in such delicate balance so that life is possible.
To not believe in God because, with our limited human understanding, we can’t grasp everything there is to know about Him is arrogant and foolish. Atheists should repent now, For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
To not believe in God because, with our limited human understanding, we can’t grasp everything there is to know about Him is arrogant and foolish. Atheists should repent now, For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
People certainly do become so-called atheists in mid-life, or early life. They do so because it’s easy to become disenchanted (scandalized) by people, which teaches them not to trust people and rely on themselves, and lose all “faith” (trust) in anyone but themselves.An Athiest is no different. Why would we spend our time , refuting your hypothesis, when you haven’t actully produced any evidence for it in the first place? You have to GIVE us evidence, before we can challenge it. That’s the way “proof” and science works and when you do that with YOUR idea there is a God, we can do our research and refute your findings if you are wrong.
You dont’ seem to realize, that you give us more support by making this statement than anything else you can do. You are on the edge of faith. You need proof as much as we do…it doesnt’ take much to put you over the edge to a place of disbelief, IF it is proof you require.
There is none…and you know it. This question, is the last dying gasp of a future non-believer.
And we know it
Ciao
It is also easy to become disenchanted with “nature” if some terrible natural disaster causes them to lose “faith” in any “overarching order” of the universe, which teaches them to be like animals and cling violently to “now” and “mine”.
But ALL so-called atheists, when they truly discover the meaning of their own mortality, and not just the intellectual concept of their mortality, suddenly find God, and scramble to jetison those things which pull them from Him.
There are no near-dead so-called atheists.
M
Monarchy
Guest
The whole problem is this is a silly statement. I also can’t disprove the existence of Allah, Budda, Ra, Unicorns, Big Foot, Santa Claus, etc…
The way it goes is the person making the positive statement proves their assertion is true. And before you even say it, I DO NOT claim that god does not exist, I just require proof.
M
Monarchy
Guest
Wow, I beg to differ. I have spoke with several atheists who have faced death and have had not one spark of anything. This includes me. The whole “There are no atheists in fox holes” is complete bunk.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
We’ll see.
Or rather, YOU’LL see.
Once “out from under death’s threat” it’s back to “egomania time” for many MANY people, which is MUCH more likely to occur with “back from the death threatened” so-called atheists than “normal” people.
The reason? Because they have to show “personal consistency/integrity” to their fellows (and their enemies), and to their “wounded” egos for having “fallen” (into religion), if only internally and not-outwardly-observably.
What, in your opinion, does a so-called atheist “give himself up to” at death? The answer to that is why nearly all so-called atheists are only atheists so-called.
M
mlchance
Guest
I get the feeling you’re being a bit disengenuos.
Proof.
More proof.
I’ll be out of town all week. That should give you plenty of time to read, reflect, and, if at all possible, refute. Should you honestly fail to do any those, the next honest thing to do is admit you’ve been presented with your required proof. Then a quick check in your Yellow Pages can give the location of the nearest Catholic Church so that you can enroll in RCIA.
– Mark L. Chance.
M
Monarchy
Guest
Oh I’ll read them don’t worry. I’m willing to bet the arey nothing but logical falacies and hearsay (what I get most of the time from Christians)
M
Monarchy
Guest
Did you read my post? I have faced death, and the thought of God never entered my mind, nor ‘will I go on?’We’ll see.
Or rather, YOU’LL see.
So you can read peoples minds? You ‘know’ what they are thinking? That’s pretty presumptious.
See above.
Unlike you, I am honest and say I don’t know. But the fact that I have seen not one shred of evidence to show that I will continue to exist after I die I suspect the answer is nothing.
M
Monarchy
Guest
No I am not. I am a weak athiest (or atheist-agnostic if you prefer) I am simply without god belief, I do not claim God does not exist.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Then just read the second one. Personally, I don’t put much stock in so-called “proofs” for the existence of God (except for the Argument from Aesthetics, #17 in the first link
). However, the second link offers a much stronger series of dilemmas with an emphasis on merely being reasonable, rather than fallacious syllogisms.
G
Gamera
Guest
Yeah, but they don’t have to. It’s normally impossible to prove a negative. The party making an affirmative proposition is the one bearing the burden of proof. “There is a God” is an affirmative proposition. “There is no god” is not an affirmative proposition. I think we who believe in God can meet our burden, but I don’t think we can shift the initial burden to the atheists.
But if an atheist makes a related affirmative proposition such as “religion is all a mass hallucination” then he bears the burden of proof because now he’s the one making the affirmative proposition.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Or we could simply all try to discover the truth, whatever that may be, without the fetters of “sides.” Just a thought.
- Status