It is obvious there are stories that are imaginative. It is equally obvious there are those that are true. Evidence will favor one or the other.
Yes, all that is acceptable. The question is what does one call evidence?
There is plenty of evidence for God and Jesus. There is little evidence for imaginative stories. There is no evidence for the FSM.
There is precisely as much “tangible” evidence for God as there is for the FSM.
No not at all. That is the crux of the argument. What is proof vs what is evident. By definition science is limited by 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Empirical science is testable, repeatable and predictable. This is a pretty narrow view.
Narrow? You have a strange way with words. The method encompasses the whole physical world.
If you wish to believe that is all there is, so be it.
I do, because there is no evidence (which would be convincing to me) to the contrary.
But you must consider the irrationality of it and your expectations that empirical science will prove God. God is outside of our abilities. He is the creator we are the creatures.
If you would now say that we need faith (and nothing but faith) to get “closer” to God, we could just finish this exchange with prefect agreement.
We can come to know He exists by studying His creation.
But unfortunately you did not finish there, and immediately follow up with logical fallacy. You presuppose that God exists, and that the world is his creation. That is what you are supposed to show, prove, demonstrate or substantiate, so you cannot start with supposing your end result! By the way, I thank you for saving me the time to quote the catechism, because that is exactly what I wanted to do.
Here is the line: “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason”.
It contains one error and one omission. The error is what you comitted, the presumption that the world was created by God - “from the created world”. Clear circular reasoning. The omission is that it leaves the procedure of “how can we use reason…?” empty and blank. It is one thing to say that the God’s existence can be known by the light of reason, but to leave out the “how” renders the whole proposition empty and void.
The other is entering into a relationship with Him.
Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. Just another empty claim.
You offer surface objections. In your response to the human heart you called it a joke, knowing full well what is meant by that. Some argument…
Of course I know what you meant. I am simply tired of the same dumb euphemism. And no part of “mine” desires to know God. My intellect is curious, I am willing to concede defeat if a sound argument would pop up, but I do not “desire” to know God.
If one has a desire that cannot be met by 3 dimensions, time and senses, then there must exist something outside of it. Now you must deny that billions of people have/had this desire.
“Must” exist??? Coupled with “argument from numbers” which is another age-old falllacy.
Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”) CS Lewis
Please. I don’t care if you quote Lewis, or anyone else. It is still a dumb propositon. Two remarks: What about acquired desires? And a newborn does not have a sophisticated enough brain to have “desires”. It is a bunch of reflexes.
By the way, even Lewis was honset enough to say “most probable explanation” - which is a far cry from being evidence. And, of course a much more probable explanation is that the poor sucker simply engaged in wishful thinking.
