P
PRmerger
Guest
I can demonstrate that you speak English. I can demonstrate that you exist.
However…perhaps you are a bot, yes?
Thus…I don’t have…100% certainty you exist.
Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?
- Status
However…perhaps you are a bot, yes?
Thus…I don’t have…100% certainty you exist.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
Okay, sounds good my friend . Also, I would like to quote from Peter Kreeft. And I must say, though he does not use the phrase 100% certain, you must be willing to understand that other terms necessarily imply it -
"But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.
Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.
If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.
In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the **proof **that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being."
Keep in mind that Dr. Kreeft is a professional philosopher, and so he doesn’t use words like the average man on the street. He uses clear and unequivocal language here. He says the universe would be impossible, not very, very, very, very improbable, without a first cause. He says there must be a first cause. Not that it’s so extremely probable, but not an absolute necessity. He says that nothing could exist without an independent being. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Please read that quotation carefully, as well as the rest of Kreeft’s First Cause Proof. Since Karlo is in California I will email him now…it’s 11:30 here but 8:30 there
God bless you my friend!
. Also, I would like to quote from Peter Kreeft. And I must say, though he does not use the phrase 100% certain, you must be willing to understand that other terms necessarily imply it -"But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.
Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.
If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.
In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the **proof **that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being."
Keep in mind that Dr. Kreeft is a professional philosopher, and so he doesn’t use words like the average man on the street. He uses clear and unequivocal language here. He says the universe would be impossible, not very, very, very, very improbable, without a first cause. He says there must be a first cause. Not that it’s so extremely probable, but not an absolute necessity. He says that nothing could exist without an independent being. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Please read that quotation carefully, as well as the rest of Kreeft’s First Cause Proof. Since Karlo is in California I will email him now…it’s 11:30 here but 8:30 there
God bless you my friend!
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
I do think you are misunderstanding what demonstration means to a philosopher dear friend. Hold on just a moment.I can demonstrate that you speak English. I can demonstrate that you exist.
However…perhaps you are a bot, yes?
Thus…I don’t have…100% certainty you exist.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
Here we go (and you can also discuss this with Karlo if you like) -
“Definition: An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false while its premises are true.”
“We also talk of deductively valid arguments as being demonstrative.”
A deductively valid argument, a.k.a. a demonstration or demonstrative proof, is only such if it is impossible that the conclusion is false while the premises are true. And, as the Magisterium (Pope Pius XII) and numerous Catholic philosophers tell us, we can in fact demonstrate God’s existence, proving His non-existence to be literally impossible, not merely massively improbable.
I also suggest re-reading the Strange Notions page, which makes the point of absolute certainty well.
As always, God bless you, and be well my friend!
“Definition: An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false while its premises are true.”
“We also talk of deductively valid arguments as being demonstrative.”
A deductively valid argument, a.k.a. a demonstration or demonstrative proof, is only such if it is impossible that the conclusion is false while the premises are true. And, as the Magisterium (Pope Pius XII) and numerous Catholic philosophers tell us, we can in fact demonstrate God’s existence, proving His non-existence to be literally impossible, not merely massively improbable.
I also suggest re-reading the Strange Notions page, which makes the point of absolute certainty well.
As always, God bless you, and be well my friend!
P
PRmerger
Guest
We are arguing the same thing, my little friend.
All the references you offer, I offer back to you (save for that of Mr, Kidd) to say: yes, we can have proof of God’s existence. We can argue cogently, trenchantly, and intelligently for God’s existence…and argue this with a certain conclusion.
Just not 100% certainty.
And you haven’t offered, despite my NUMEROUS requests, a single magisterial document which states that we can know, with 100% certitude, that God exists.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
I did my big friend.We are arguing the same thing, my little friend.
All the references you offer, I offer back to you (save for that of Mr, Kidd) to say: yes, we can have proof of God’s existence. We can argue cogently, trenchantly, and intelligently for God’s existence…and argue this with a certain conclusion.
Just not 100% certainty.
And you haven’t offered, despite my NUMEROUS requests, a single magisterial document which states that we can know, with 100% certitude, that God exists.
Pope Pius XII tells us that we can demonstratively prove the existence of God. See the definition I just provided of demonstration. I am sorry though, I foolishly forgot to provide the source, that was my mistake. Again, I ask you to shake yourself of the notion that the Church’s Magisterium is going to use the term “100% certain” in a Magisterial document. Also, I would encourage you to unblock e_c, as he made a very insightful post earlier, something to the effect of, what kind of certainty is the Magisterium talking about? 99% 73%. No, simple certitude, which is 100%.
I just sent an email to Karlo, so I can hope that you will be hearing from him soon. He generally responds to my emails quickly, although the last one I sent, not so much, which may be the result of his busy schedule with all of the wonderful work he does defending and promoting truth. I do admire him and appreciate his work.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
Also, in your shunning of Mr. Kidd, you have still failed to provide me with any valid reason why you reject the truth he expounds. Also, you do not back me on the Strange Notions or on the Peter Kreeft source, or on the Dr. Mirus source, or the Karlo Broussard source. Or the Pius XII source. Looking pretty scant .
.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_1.html
Here’s that source, sorry.
Here’s that source, sorry.
E
e_c
Guest
Find me a single magisterial document that says “Jesus is fully man and fully God fur realz you guys, like, totally legit, this ain’t a joke.”We are arguing the same thing, my little friend.
All the references you offer, I offer back to you (save for that of Mr, Kidd) to say: yes, we can have proof of God’s existence. We can argue cogently, trenchantly, and intelligently for God’s existence…and argue this with a certain conclusion.
Just not 100% certainty.
And you haven’t offered, despite my NUMEROUS requests, a single magisterial document which states that we can know, with 100% certitude, that God exists.
Otherwise, it seems the Church doesn’t teach that it’s fur realz, and that it isn’t totally legit and might be a joke. Oh, it may be true and all that, but just not fur realz or totally legit and it may still be a joke. It has yet to rise to that level of seriousness…
Use all the memes and gifs you like PR, you are just plain wrong. “Demonstrate” and “certainty” do not mean “confident guesses” or even “mere knowledge” in the language of these documents. They mean, just as everyone but you seems to understand, PERFECT CERTAINTY. No, it does not say “100%,” as, frankly, that would be a wildly silly phrasing for a papal or conciliar document and would also be redundant. It would also be repetitive. It would also say the same thing over again.
Vatican I was not a text message. Please simply admit that you are wrong. Or are you 100% certain that you are right?
You ignore/block me because I challenge you. That seems to be pretty poor form. In this thread I simply want to bring you the truth the Church teaches, which you are rejecting. I understand that is a hard pill to swallow, but it is not a major fault provided you aren’t obstinate in your assertion that you MUST be right. It sucks to be wrong, trust me, I know. Believe it or not, it happens to me too sometimes. Try to be happy we’ve taught you something.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
To say that I am certain - but just not 100% certain - is an amphibology.
It’s like having more than one “best” friend.
Or using the expression “we don’t have certainty” when what you mean is “I don’t have certainty”.
If YOU can demonstrate Gods existence with certainty, how on earth is it that YOU are not certain?
L
LethalMouse
Guest
By the very definition of this thread we can prove a lack of 100% certainty.
If it was provable to that 100% mark there would be NO ONE who doesn’t believe.
One person sees a miracle, others say “well it could be”
For example even if one of these miracle searchers saw a man rise 3 days from the dead. They might speculate that their was some undetectable coma thing going on.
If they saw Jesus appear touched him and he floated away into heaven they might assume a grand illusion.
So if the miracle is true, it still cannot be proven with 100% certainty. Hence faith. Which applies to about everything.
As an example once used on another thread. I have exactly the same amount of evidence Julius Ceasar exists as I do for Jesus. Actually given claims of apparitions, I have more evidence Jesus exists.
So we all here know of Ceasar, but we could easily have been bamboozled and some such man never was. How can you disprove 100% or prove to me 100% that ceasar existed???
P
PRmerger
Guest
He doesn’t use it, LT, because he, like William Lane Craig, doesn’t believe that God’s existence can be known with 100% certainty.Okay, sounds good my friend
Just like the Church doesn’t use it.
Do we have certainty?
Absolutely.
Just not absolute certainty.
P
PRmerger
Guest
All of the above sources are what I give back to you (save for the Kidd article) to say: yes, my friend, we can have certainty of God’s existence.Also, in your shunning of Mr. Kidd, you have still failed to provide me with any valid reason why you reject the truth he expounds. Also, you do not back me on the Strange Notions or on the Peter Kreeft source, or on the Dr. Mirus source, or the Karlo Broussard source. Or the Pius XII source. Looking pretty scant
But you will note, that NONE OF THEM, assert that we have 100% certainty.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I keep this silly and innocuous name even though I am a cantankerous and “boorish provocateur” because I find the contrast humorous also.
Pumpkin Cookie.
Your name makes me smile and your post makes me laugh!
If this ever happens, please give me the exclusive on the story, okay?
.
A miracle liked I described captured on video would be the biggest news story in quite some time. I think I’m going to need at least 50% of all associated revenue and royalties in perpetuity.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I’ve made a full disclosure multiple times: I am absolutely convinced Catholicism is false. However, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be convinced otherwise with the right evidence and reason.
The recurrent miracle of St. Januarius strikes me as fraudulent and silly. There is no verifiable chain of custody for the material inside, and ample opportunity to tamper with it. Let’s keep it in an independent ab for the next year under video surveillance, test it for DNA, then see if it liquefies right on schedule anyway.
However, to capture the re-growth of a full limb within a few minutes on video immediately after a Catholic clergy invokes highly-specific Catholic theological claims: now that would be quite convincing.
To answer other objections: there are ways to determine whether a video has been tampered with. There are tiny digital time-stamps in each frame, and the footage can be analyzed to see if the frames are continuous or if there have been splices.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Because it doesn’t work! Sorry, couldn’t resist.And you think that it is not enough to accept Catholicism as such “working hypothesis”, because…?
Also, there are ways to prove that a video is unedited. That’s why courts approve their admittance into evidence. We can also verify chain of custody and authorship for video much better than ancient texts.
OK. What if I said, “hey, MPat: I speak for God. That’s right: I’m the mouthpiece of God on earth. I’m infallible on matters of faith and morals, and I’ve never contradicted myself. So, you better believe everything I tell you to believe, or you’re on the outs with God. Why? Cuz I say so.”Why don’t you start with a proof that the claim is outrageous?
Is that convincing to you? Wouldn’t you want to see some proof that I’m God’s official spokesman? Isn’t outrageous for me to claim something like that? Who the heck am I, a pumpkincookie, to claim to speak for God? The hubris is staggering.
I do believe the St. Januarius “miracle” could be faked quite easily, and is a giant fraud perpetrated against simpletons for the purpose of robbing them.Oh, but such statements “could be easily faked”.
In fact, you have claimed that a miracle “could be easily faked” without explaining how that could be done, but I can explain how your statement could be faked: either by lying or by failure to predict how you would act in circumstances that have never happened before.
By the way, if we took a weaker claim (that you think you would convert), it could be proved with a martyrdom - but I hope you will be able to see why giving such a proof would be a bad idea… Which would further show that sometimes one shouldn’t give a stronger proof, even if that was possible.
However, bone-fide limb-regrowth captured on video could NOT easily be faked (assuming the video has been verified by experts to be genuine).
If I saw the miracle I described with my own eyes, I would definitely convert. If I saw it on video, I’d want to make sure it was genuine, but if it were, I would convert.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
If you would like to make a thread about me and my personal motivations please feel free to do so. I’d be happy to discuss my reasons for leaving the RCC. I’ve got a lot of them, and none of them have to do with particular individuals in the Church.
Um, you’re not! You’ve made a blind commitment. How about this: if I could show you strong evidence that the RCC has contradicted herself multiple times throughout history and that many of her doctrines offend not only reason but objective fact and history, would you leave? I doubt you’ll agree to that right? But, I have admitted I would be perfectly willing to convert if I saw a miracle similar to the one I described.
You seem weirdly fixated on marital infidelity. I’m so sorry for you if you have been cheated on.
Anyway, there is a place for the animal and the rational in marriage and in life in general of course. All of us are always both.
If you want to start another thread on your “God of the Almighty Self” we can do that. It would be an interesting discussion also.
For now though, why don’t you come up with a better answer to the main question?
There is ample opportunity to capture a miracle on video, and yet nothing particularly impressive has been recorded. Why? Our ancient ancestors from all cultures recorded all kinds of fantastic stuff on the best technology they had at the time. Why are we flunking out when we have ever great opportunity and there more of us in more places all over the world?
Funny enough, my favorite video of a “miracle” is one which proves it to be a fraud: youtube.com/watch?v=EDmW2mDfrI0
E
e_c
Guest
There are two traps people are falling into… One is of equivocation, another is some other fallacy which I am not sure the name of.
“Certain” does not always mean “perfectly certain.” But in the writings of the schoolmen, and of the Church, “certain” DOES mean “perfectly certain,” not only because of the intellectual heritage of the word, but also because it is not ever distinguished from another kind of certainty. Once you begin to speak of “mostly certain” versus “perfectly certain,” then there is a different meaning to the word - it starts meaning “confident.”
And, for what it’s worth… one does not need to hold that any proofs that have ever been offered for God’s existence are true demonstrations (which provide perfect certainty), one merely needs to hold that such is possible. But this is a bit “out there.”
The second fallacy (extension fallacy? something like that) is that since it is 100% certain it means that everyone possesses such certainty. This doesn’t follow… The proposition of Vatican I says that certitude CAN BE attained, not that it IS attained by ALL. It is a claim about the thing-in-itself, not about the thing-as-it-is-experienced. Noumenal vs. phenomenal. Belief is not a measure of certainty.
I’ll return to my ridiculous image of Pio Nono sitting in the nave of St. Peter’s with an abacus trying to figure what percentage of certainty to ascribe to the natural knowledge of God.
Only a few kinds of things can be demonstrated… They never involve measurement or empirical verification or induction of any kind. Math, pre-defined syllogisms, and several items of metaphysics, starting with the principle of non-contradiction.
E
e_c
Guest
What a weak argument. “Mass hallucination,” “telephone game,” etc. No, someone dying for something doesn’t make it true, but hundreds of people - actually thousands and thousands, if we include the public ministry - saying, “I saw it, go ahead and kill me”… no, not a demonstration (that whole 100% certainty thing), but EXTREMELY convincing.
Once again - ancient peoples were not stoopid. Pay close attention to the texts - especially the intro in Luke and Paul’s challenge to go and talk to these hundreds of people who saw the Risen Christ - EVERYBODY was aware of what was going on in those days, at least the public ministry. You can’t make this stuff up… It would be like saying, in your magazine, “Hey everyone, remember that time New York City was invaded by aliens 50 years ago, the president was abducted by them, and they blew up a continent?” Your readership wouldn’t buy it, because it would have been what everyone was talking about for the past half a century. “Hey everyone, remember about 50 years ago when that guy from a backwater town in Judea had tens of thousands of people crowding to see him, morally destroyed the center of the Jewish world (the Temple), healed all kinds of people who are still around to talk about it, even raised some people from the dead with tons and tons of people watching, then willingly handed himself over to be killed, then appeared to hundreds of people alive a few days later?”
Having a vision is one thing. Having repeated visions - with multiple people corroborating - that is another. Further still is a vision which you can touch, and a vision which eats and drinks in front of you. “A ghost does not have flesh and blood as I have.” AND FURTHER STILL, a vision would make the person look the same. The Risen Christ did not look the same… but He had the wounds, which means it was not a look-alike. (Important how it is Thomas “the Twin” Didymus who had that experience, eh?)
You will have no success when comparing your theory against the text and the natural human context in which it was written and put forth.
And no, I did not quote John’s Gospel.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
It can be known with certainty, but cant be proven to everyone is the issue.
God comes and talks to me I can know 100% certain for sure.
Not everyone can despite God being clearly proven real.
We are discussing not the people who can know certainly. But the ability to prove in our current states to another certainty.
- Status