There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Benedictus, dear Benedictus, there’s a hole in my bucket…:harp:…Then fix it dear Surfmeister, dear Surfmeister…etc. etc. etc. …How?..etc. etc. …
Wow! I have not read this post till Mary replied to it but what a beautiful presentation. Completely spot on.Yes indeed, my argument(because its not really mine) has never been successfully refuted; consider this:
-Have you posted this questioning post on web forums of each and all world religions? If your answer is no, please list which religous forums you have posted this exact question to.
-Have you found you have only posted this exact question on a Catholic forum?
-Are you aware that Catholicism teaches that God alone leads a person to Himself.
-Are you here because you find some attraction in some part of Catholicism; or an attraction in debating Catholicism - which you might not find with debating atheists, or pagans or sun worshippers or hindus etc.
-You are aware that you must be strictly honest with yourself; that does not mean you need to answer anybodys questions, just your own.
-No doubt you know that a central tenet of Christs teaching, and Catholicisms, is that old familliar ‘seek and you shall find’.
-Catholicism is therefore the simplist of ‘religions’ to prove to oneself. Its founder, ‘God’, states categorically that anyone who seeks Him will find Him. In other words, the Almighty Creator of the Universe has given you a cast iron guarantee that you will find Him if you look.
To recap; A man is called to God by God. Gods ‘call’ to man is often a sense of attraction to what is His. If one finds oneself on Catholic websites reading and debating, one may wish to consider if there is something there. Then, with a strictly honest answer to oneself, if in the affirmative, it is a simple matter of clasping ones courage in both hands and casting out into the deep; seeking, with the guarantee of finding.
OK. Then let’s just say that the scriptures first give the definition of God and who and what He is, and hence they must be considered as the first scientific text on the matter. (btw I am a scientist (physics) )
What do you mean Sartre acknowledged God at the end of his life?Surfmeister, I don’t want to turn this into a polemic.
I repeat that I mentioned Einstein because here was a prominent scientist who had deep knowledge of science and came to a point where even he acknowledged the existence of God. He realised that he could not find all the answers in Science. That’s all.
Furthermore, Jean Paul Sartre, another atheist, also acknowledged God at the end of his life.
I do not consider either Einstein or Satre to be examples of apologetics but merely wanted to illustrate that such men sometimes can and do reach a point where they may acknowledge the existence of God.
If, in your opinion, this is “dishonest apologetics” then it remains just that - your opinion.
AMEN!!
This is Sartre’s before-death profession, according to Pierre Victor: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.”What do you mean Sartre acknowledged God at the end of his life?
“Sartre’s atheism was foundational for his style of existentialist philosophy. In March 1980, about a month before his death, he was interviewed by his assistant, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed his interest in Judaism which was inspired by Levy’s renewed interest in the faith. Through Sartre’s study of Jewish history he became particularly interested in the messianic idea of the faith. Some people apparently took this to indicate a deathbed conversion; however, the text of the interviews makes it clear that he did not consider himself a Jew, and was interested in the ethical and “metaphysical character” of the Jewish religion, while continuing to reject the idea of an existing God.”
False deathbed conversion stories are a fine example of dishonest apologetics.
*Jean Paul Sartre was a militant atheist most of his life. In fact he and his lover, Simone de Bouvoir, became two of the 20th century's foremost atheists. Though de Bouvoir remained an atheist until the very end, Sartre appears to have come to the realization that he had been wrong -- to the shock and dismay of all his followers and admirers.*
The one who revealed Sartre’s astonishing change was his friend and ex-Maoist, Pierre Victor (A.k.a. Benny Levy), who spent much of his time with the dying Sartre and interviewed him on several of his views. According to Victor, Sartre had a drastic change of mind about the existence of God and started gravitating toward Messianic Judaism. This is Sartre’s before-death profession, according to Pierre Victor: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.”* Further evidence that supports Sartre’s move toward belief in God is found in an unlikely source, “theinfidels.org.” This fanatical atheist web site, tells us that in 1980, about a month before Sartre's death, he was interviewed by one of his assistants, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed interest in Messianic Judaism. The web site again adds that Sartre was only interested in the “metaphysical” aspects of Judaism, but that he continued to reject the idea of an existing God.[iii]
In the next paragraph they admit that in a 1974, in an interview with Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre said that at times he saw himself "as a being that could, it seems, only come from a creator." However, they point out, he added that "this is not a clear, exact idea..." As expected, they then proceed to assure us that before and after these statements Sartre makes clear that he was and remained an atheist. [iv]
Finally they admit that Sartre’s supporters were upset about Sartre’s acceptance of “something” in Judaism, which was a clear rejection of Marxism, a philosophy which had been a huge and central part of his philosophical thoughts. Unfortunately for them, Sartre confirmed that Levy’s interviews were authentic. [v]
One cannot but smile at the reticence on the part of these atheists to admit that the evidence betrays that something “major” was happening in Sartre’s thinking. By putting two and two together it appears that Sartre did not have a last minute conversion at all, but that over several years there was a gradual transformation in his thinking that he “hesitantly” admitted to in 1974, probably so as not to upset De Bouvoir and his followers, and that he finally appears to have fully confessed his transformation to his dear friend Victor before his death. The fact that he confirmed that Victor’s interviews were genuine adds plenty of support to this conclusion. Thus, the fanatical atheist, Jean Paul Sartre, appears to have seen the light toward the last years of his life -- unfortunately after having influenced many around the world into accepting the philosophy of Atheism.*
Gosh you seize on something and are like a pitbull - you don’t let go.
I think this is a very valid point in general. I don’t think I would use the term dishonest because, with dishonesty come the conscious intention to deceive.
Judge not! We can never know what actually takes place at the moment of death. As Christians we can only hope that a person who had led a life separated from God will turn to God at the end because there is much at stake.
“You cannot discount or reject or ignore death-bed conversions and brush them off. It is not your place to do so.”Judge not! We can never know what actually takes place at the moment of death. As Christians we can only hope that a person who had led a life separated from God will turn to God at the end because there is much at stake.
You cannot discount or reject or ignore death-bed conversions and brush them off. It is not your place to do so. You cannot say if and when a person was lucid. You can only hope. By the way are you Christian?
Like the thief crucified next to Jesus on the cross we can all repent and be accepted.
We simply don’t know what is in anyone’s heart - we can but hope. If we are Christian we should want to share our Faith with the whole human race - we have a duty to do so - and we should be concerned for all souls.
Cinette
A very thoughtful post, codebilly!
Intent to deceive is definitely to be considered.It is pretty obvious that I am unable to communicate with you. It might be my fault - perhaps I am not articulate enough. But I have tried.
Actually, it’s only obvious that you and I are at odds as to your motivations. I feel I understand you quite fully. You have yet to persuade me otherwise. Each post further solidifies my position. I am truly sorry that we cannot come together on this. I feel it is an important issue, apologetics being of special interest to me.
But this does not answer my question.
You said that you do not discount the possibility that there is something outside the knowable physical world.
So I asked, why would you discount the possibility that that something that is outside of the known physical world is the God of the Bible?
I do not say that it is impossible. However, there are a large number of specific actions that God is said to have performed in the Bible. If we have no good evidence that the biblical God exists, the probability that a God exactly like that described in the Bible exists is trivially small. Much like a monkey typing on a typewriter could happen to reproduce Shakespeare, the real God could happen to match every detail of Christian belief. However, the probability of either happening is so small.
benedictus2:
Well, there are some claims that seem especially unlikely. But I was just saying that if you’re merely guessing what God is like without evidence, the probability of getting so many details about him correct is infinitesimally small.
I don’t think I was intending to draw such a distinction. However, I think it is possible that the God of the Bible could be different than the Catholic God, so perhaps I should be more careful to avoid using the terms synonymously.