Dishonest Apologetics

[Cinette]

Hello again.
Thanks for sharing your reasons.

I also think the world is a wonderful place and know how powerful love can be, but for me it seems like it could be this way regardless of whether there’s a God.

I’ve looked into all three of these in the past. From what I’ve heard so far, they all seem to have reasonable natural explanations. I would like to look into Fatima more and maybe I’ll start a thread on it at some point.

I just don’t think I could force myself to believe in something when everything I’ve seen so far makes me think it doesn’t exist.

I agree with you that all of these would be incredibly impressive. I guess that’s why I want to see decent evidence before I believe in them. It’s a bit like how I’d believe someone if they told me their name, but I’d want to see very good evidence if they said they had invented a teleportation machine.

I’ve read some of it, mostly the parts intended for atheists or skeptics. I just thought that his arguments were the standard arguments for God that I’ve already encountered. None of them seem to be really solid.

If there is a God, I sure hope I find out before I die (and if he’s omnibenevolent, I think I will). Yeah, you mentioned your husband, and I thought it was pretty impressive. If faith is a virus, maybe God should have made it more of a pandemic.

A person such as you who seeks is bound to find. You are not indifferent which is the worst state to be. You have a curiosity which is healthy and I believe you keep God amused. Good for you!

You know, I think many people of Faith experience moments of doubt because we do not feel our faith all the time. Sometimes we may say, “what if…?” I remember an occasion when someone on the radio said that there is evidence that Jesus’ grave was found in the South of France where he had a child with M Magdelena )&%$$##@!!! Bla bla bla……and for a moment I tried to imagine life without the resurrection. And in that moment I felt intense pain and emptiness.

We creatures think, we love, we have emotion, imagination – we are creative, we sacrifice, we suffer, we endure…………….our hearts swell. I believe God created us just short of perfection and we were not satisfied - we wanted to be like Him, we wanted His power and we yielded to the powers of evil. He gave us another chance and free will to choose.

You know I never had a conversation like this with my husband. I thought it was hopeless. I just prayed. Did I tell you that when he announced that he believed, we were crossing the road together and there we were in the middle of traffic!!! My heart leapt!

As I said to you, when it happens to you it will come suddenly and unexpectedly and will catch you by surprise.

Yes Fatima is something. But in all three cases the children (and Don Deigo) were told things of which they were totally ignorant and therefore could not have made up. Do you know the significance of the picture of Our Lady of Guadaloupe and how when photography was discovered they were able to amplify her eyes and what they saw in them? Did you know that the mantle with image was made of cactus fibre and should only last for about 5 years and yet it was exposed to the elements for about 100 years or more and people would take bits off it and it did not diminish or decay? Now about 500 years later it is still uncorrupted and the colours are vivid and rich? Did you know that a nurse placed a stethoscope on the Lady’s stomach and heartbeats were heard? There are many other characteristics of the mantle.

Lourdes – some of the doctors who were attached to the team of doctors over the years were atheist? Etc. etc. etc.

Happy searching my friend!

 

[cranster]

anEvilAtheist one of the things I like about you is that you don’t have the biting sarcasm that allot of atheists do, You stick to making the best arguments you can without belittling the people you talk to.

If you haven’t read Antony Flew’s “There is a god, how the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind” I suggest you do. I have an extra copy and would be happy to send it to you if you’re interested.

Antony is a world class philosopher who used to debate one of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis.

Personally I think you have to start at a fundamental level in first determining if a being that has the characteristics of God could logically exist. Then try to determine if the Christian God makes the most sense, and if the Christian God makes the most sense, would He establish a Church, and preserve it intact up through today.

It goes to the most fundamental question in philosophy, why something rather than nothing? what is the best explanation of “Something” rather than nothing. What is the most fundamental and sufficient reason for existence itself? We know that physics break down at the singularity of the big bang and you can’t really look before that event. That event some theorize is the beginning of time, space, and matter, and you can’t look before that event because there was no before. I know there are theory’s about multi verses, and maybe an endless string of big bangs, but none of those theories adequately account for “Existence” itself. It’s as if the size of a series itself is sufficient reason for the series to exist. Just because you have an endless series of big bangs, or multiverses doesn’t explain why there are big bangs or multiverses at all. All things that are caused have a beginning. You can trace your own cause back to the big bang… your parents, their parents, ida the transitional monkey, slime, molten rock, planet, accretion disk, star, hot dense pocket of dust in a nebula, galaxy, singularity… ?

Perhaps the prior universe going back to it’s big bang ad infinitum. You can’t have an infinite series of events extending in the past prior to the present and reach the present. You have to start somewhere to reach the present. an infinite series extending in to the past prior to the present has no beginning, yet here we are which indicates a beginning. What causes beginnings? The universe has no will or intellect so how could it bring itself to be when it wasn’t before? I think a person should think long and hard about that one. What’s the sufficient reason for existence itself?
I don’t think science can answer that question. I think you have to walk across the bridge from the physical to the metaphysical to find that answer. The only thing that makes sense to me is there has to be one thing whose nature is to exist. A thing that exists beyond space, time, and matter. A thing that has unlimited power and intellect that can cause something to come from nothing, especially something as complex as a universe, and a human being. I think that is the best explanation for the question of existence. no other answer do I find sufficient but that, and that thing I call God.

Once you get over that wall, if you can, then it’s a matter of deciding if it’s logically possible for God to exist, then would God make Himself known. Then you can start looking for the most likely candidate for the manifestation of the knowledge of Himself.

Then there is the matter of all the miracles, Eucharistic miracles, stigmata’s, fatima… on, and on. The “EXPERIENCE” of the Sacraments. All of these things are for me too compelling to not believe.

I see you are sincerely searching for answers, but can you answer to yourself honestly that you’ve sought out God for who He is with your whole heart, whole mind, and whole soul for a sufficient amount of time. Only you know the answer to that. I’ve had too many experiences to deny the existence of God.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

When something is well known, you don’t need to elaborate so much on it. The same is the case with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It was not until the 3rd century, when objections were being raised, that the church had to explain and document this doctrine. It doesn’t mean that the doctrine was invented at that time! In the same way, John, who is writing the last book of the gospel, makes sure that he puts as much detail as he possibly can, for the benifit of the future generations.

Yeah, I’m not saying that any of this is evidence that the biblical account is false. I was just saying that it is all pretty consistent with some alternative possibilities. Since the biblical account is so incredible and miraculous, I think that if there are reasonable natural explanations, those are more likely to be true. I think that natural explanations are usually more likely to be correct. For example, if a long-term couple had been waiting to have sex with each other until marriage and the woman became pregnant, I think that the woman having been unfaithful is a much more likely explanation than that it was going to be a virgin birth. So that’s why I like to look for natural explanations before concluding that something was supernatural.

This reveals the double standards of Mr. Licona. How did he know that Peter denied Jesus? It’s through the gospels! The same gospels whose authenticity he denies. How can he do a selective reading of the book, like Peter’s denial, and reject all the other facts, like Jesus’ miracles, or the very fact that Jesus himself said he would be crucified and rise on the third day? Also, if Jesus did not rise on the third day, then where is his body?

I think you’re misinterpreting what I was saying. Mike Licona does believe in the authenticity of the gospels and is a firm believer that the biblical account was correct. He wrote the “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” and believes that the resurrection is the best explanation. I was using his quote to show that dreams or visions are at least a reasonable explanation for the individual appearances, and it’s not just atheists who think so.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

A person such as you who seeks is bound to find. You are not indifferent which is the worst state to be. You have a curiosity which is healthy and I believe you keep God amused. Good for you!

You know, I think many people of Faith experience moments of doubt because we do not feel our faith all the time. Sometimes we may say, “what if…?” I remember an occasion when someone on the radio said that there is evidence that Jesus’ grave was found in the South of France where he had a child with M Magdelena )&%$$##@!!! Bla bla bla……and for a moment I tried to imagine life without the resurrection. And in that moment I felt intense pain and emptiness.

We creatures think, we love, we have emotion, imagination – we are creative, we sacrifice, we suffer, we endure…………….our hearts swell. I believe God created us just short of perfection and we were not satisfied - we wanted to be like Him, we wanted His power and we yielded to the powers of evil. He gave us another chance and free will to choose.

I really appreciate how honest and heartfelt your posts are. I think it’s important to try to understand how other people see things and I think you’ve helped me do that a little bit.

You know I never had a conversation like this with my husband. I thought it was hopeless. I just prayed. Did I tell you that when he announced that he believed, we were crossing the road together and there we were in the middle of traffic!!! My heart leapt!

As I said to you, when it happens to you it will come suddenly and unexpectedly and will catch you by surprise.

Wow, I can just imagine how happy you must have been. I smiled a little when I read that.

Yes Fatima is something. But in all three cases the children (and Don Deigo) were told things of which they were totally ignorant and therefore could not have made up. Do you know the significance of the picture of Our Lady of Guadaloupe and how when photography was discovered they were able to amplify her eyes and what they saw in them? Did you know that the mantle with image was made of cactus fibre and should only last for about 5 years and yet it was exposed to the elements for about 100 years or more and people would take bits off it and it did not diminish or decay? Now about 500 years later it is still uncorrupted and the colours are vivid and rich? Did you know that a nurse placed a stethoscope on the Lady’s stomach and heartbeats were heard? There are many other characteristics of the mantle.

Lourdes – some of the doctors who were attached to the team of doctors over the years were atheist? Etc. etc. etc.

Happy searching my friend!

I think it’s good to start off a little skeptical of supposed miracles. I’ve learned a little bit about them and am still skeptical. But maybe as I learn more, I will find undisputed facts that I just can’t explain if God does not exist. I still don’t think that will happen, but who knows.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist one of the things I like about you is that you don’t have the biting sarcasm that allot of atheists do, You stick to making the best arguments you can without belittling the people you talk to.

Believe me, I can be pretty sarcastic too . I just think that sarcasm is usually counterproductive if you’re trying to have a real religious discussion instead of just trying to bash the other side.

If you haven’t read Antony Flew’s “There is a god, how the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind” I suggest you do. I have an extra copy and would be happy to send it to you if you’re interested.

Antony is a world class philosopher who used to debate one of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis.

Well, I’ve definitely heard of his book. I’ve read Victor Stenger and Richard Carrier’s accounts of Flew’s conversion and based on that, Flews reasons for believing in God don’t seem that good to me. I’ve also read a couple things online by Flew himself where he explains why he now believes in God and I didn’t find them convincing at all. I suppose I should get around to reading it at some point, but right now it’s definitely not at the top of my list of things to read. If you still want to send me a copy, I guess that’s okay. It just might be a little while until I get around to reading it. I’ve heard of Flew’s debating, and I’ve really been meaning to watch more of his debates. I saw his debate with William Lane Craig online and thought that Craig completely destroyed him (though I don’t know how much of that was because of Flew’s cold).

Personally I think you have to start at a fundamental level in first determining if a being that has the characteristics of God could logically exist. Then try to determine if the Christian God makes the most sense, and if the Christian God makes the most sense, would He establish a Church, and preserve it intact up through today.

Nothing I’ve seen so far makes God logically impossible, though there certainly could be some contradiction that I don’t know about. However, I think you’re skipping the step of whether I think there probably is a God. I mean it is also logically possible that the universe was created a few minutes ago, but I’d want to actually believe this was true before trying to figure out exactly how many minutes old it is.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It goes to the most fundamental question in philosophy, why something rather than nothing? what is the best explanation of “Something” rather than nothing. What is the most fundamental and sufficient reason for existence itself? We know that physics break down at the singularity of the big bang and you can’t really look before that event. That event some theorize is the beginning of time, space, and matter, and you can’t look before that event because there was no before. I know there are theory’s about multi verses, and maybe an endless string of big bangs, but none of those theories adequately account for “Existence” itself. It’s as if the size of a series itself is sufficient reason for the series to exist. Just because you have an endless series of big bangs, or multiverses doesn’t explain why there are big bangs or multiverses at all. All things that are caused have a beginning. You can trace your own cause back to the big bang… your parents, their parents, ida the transitional monkey, slime, molten rock, planet, accretion disk, star, hot dense pocket of dust in a nebula, galaxy, singularity… ?

I find the something rather than nothing question to be very fascinating, but I think it is just as fascinating if God exists. Why is there God, and the rest of existence, instead of nothing? Even if God was logically necessary in order for matter to exist, why must matter exist? In the end, I think the question of why something exists instead of nothing is no easier to answer if God exists. I agree with you that all things that are caused have to have a beginning, but I don’t understand why the universe must definitely have to have had an outside cause.

Perhaps the prior universe going back to it’s big bang ad infinitum. You can’t have an infinite series of events extending in the past prior to the present and reach the present. You have to start somewhere to reach the present. an infinite series extending in to the past prior to the present has no beginning, yet here we are which indicates a beginning. What causes beginnings? The universe has no will or intellect so how could it bring itself to be when it wasn’t before? I think a person should think long and hard about that one. What’s the sufficient reason for existence itself?

I agree that you can’t have an infinite number of events between the beginning of the universe and today, but the key is that if the universe is infinitely old then it didn’t have a beginning. If the universe is infinitely old, you would still have a finite amount of time between any point in the past and the present. I don’t think you, or anyone else I’ve heard, has adequately explained why there must have been some beginning.

I don’t think science can answer that question. I think you have to walk across the bridge from the physical to the metaphysical to find that answer. The only thing that makes sense to me is there has to be one thing whose nature is to exist. A thing that exists beyond space, time, and matter. A thing that has unlimited power and intellect that can cause something to come from nothing, especially something as complex as a universe, and a human being. I think that is the best explanation for the question of existence. no other answer do I find sufficient but that, and that thing I call God.

I agree with you that science cannot answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. But at the same time, I do not assume that humans will ever be capable of knowing all there is to know. I do not assume that there must have been some purpose that decided whether the universe existed or whether there would be nothing, and I would find the existence or non-existence of the universe to be equally inexplicable. Unless our existence seems contradictory without God, I don’t think that not knowing the answer to this question means that we should believe.

Once you get over that wall, if you can, then it’s a matter of deciding if it’s logically possible for God to exist, then would God make Himself known. Then you can start looking for the most likely candidate for the manifestation of the knowledge of Himself.

Then there is the matter of all the miracles, Eucharistic miracles, stigmata’s, fatima… on, and on. The “EXPERIENCE” of the Sacraments. All of these things are for me too compelling to not believe.

Based on what I currently know, I don’t think I can get over the wall (of course anything is possible). And even if I believed that there was some god, I don’t know if I’d assume that the entire universe was created just for humanity. If it wasn’t than I think that there’s a good chance that God would not make himself known. And actually, if he existed, I’d think he would have done a better job of making himself known. But if I was to get past all of that and believe that God exists and would want to make himself known to us, then I would most likely end up being a Christian.

I see you are sincerely searching for answers, but can you answer to yourself honestly that you’ve sought out God for who He is with your whole heart, whole mind, and whole soul for a sufficient amount of time. Only you know the answer to that. I’ve had too many experiences to deny the existence of God.

I don’t know if it would be possible for me to search out God with my “whole heart, whole mind, and whole soul” since I don’t think he exists. I just don’t think I could single-mindedly devote myself to searching for something when I was pretty sure that my effort would be a waste. But I do think that I have spent far more time than most atheists trying to seriously consider the best reasons to believe that God exists.

 

[Sinner82]

Nothing I’ve seen so far makes God logically impossible, though there certainly could be some contradiction that I don’t know about. However, I think you’re skipping the step of whether I think there probably is a God. I mean it is also logically possible that the universe was created a few minutes ago, but I’d want to actually believe this was true before trying to figure out exactly how many minutes old it is.

Sorry the thread is so long, perhaps you have already answered some of my questions.

1. How do you want God to reveal Himself to you?
2. What evidence do you want for you to believe He is real?
3. Why are you looking for God? For you, what kind of a God do the Catholics worship?
4. If logically God is possible,
   a) what is the most logical thing He should be doing with His powers?
   b) what is the logical way to reveal Himself?
   c) how should man and God show each others love over the centuries?
   d) do you think a human knows better than Him?
5. Do you think our life is more valuable than a rock on Mars from a universal point of view? If humans and our planet is gone will it matter to the universe?
   Alot of animals went extinct even those on top of the food chain, great empires and cilizations fall, thousands die of natural disasters, meteors get disintegrated in some planets atmosphere, planets swallowed by some expanding star or some black hole, nothing last forever in this universe.

Again sorry anEvilAtheist for my many questions for you. Thank you for your time.

 

[Lampo]

AEA…Have you read or listened to Kreeft’s “Argument of Desire”, and if so, could you give us your opinion on that argument?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Wow, that’s a lot of questions. I’ll do my best to answer them.

Sorry the thread is so long, perhaps you have already answered some of my questions.

1. How do you want God to reveal Himself to you?

If he exists, I’d want him to reveal himself however he thinks is best.

1. What evidence do you want for you to believe He is real?

I’m pretty much okay with any evidence that distinguishes him from a non-existent God. If the evidence is something that I could easily find regardless of whether he exists, then that wouldn’t be enough for me to believe. As an example of good evidence, if prayer was shown to be effective in study after study, I’d find that pretty hard to explain without resorting to something supernatural.

1. Why are you looking for God? For you, what kind of a God do the Catholics worship?

Well initially I wanted to know if he existed. After examining a lot of arguments, I currently don’t think there’s much chance that he exists but I still look into it because I find the philosophy of religion to be an interesting topic (and there’s always a chance that I’ll find an argument that shows that God probably exists). I think the Catholic God is very mysterious, and by mysterious I mean that there are many seeming contradictions. However, I don’t think these mysteries are enough to rule him out if there was really good evidence that he exists.

1. If logically God is possible,

I don’t think I can honestly claim to know whether or not he is possible. From what I’ve seen so far, he seems theoretically possible, but very improbable.

       a) what is the most logical thing He should be doing with His powers?
       b) what is the logical way to reveal Himself?

My problem with these questions is that they presuppose that God is similar to the Catholic idea of God. If all we’ve established is that an all powerful being exists, I don’t think we can assume that he’d want to reveal himself to us.

       c) how should man and God show each others love over the centuries?

I don’t know.

       d) do you think a human knows better than Him?

If God is omniscient, obviously not. But I don’t think that we should believe in something that doesn’t exist just because it would be smarter than us if it existed.

1. Do you think our life is more valuable than a rock on Mars from a universal point of view? If humans and our planet is gone will it matter to the universe?

In some ways, I think this is like asking what a rock’s favorite flavor of ice cream is. I think people value things and inanimate objects don’t. So my life is very valuable to me, those who care about me, and society as a whole.

 Alot of animals went extinct even those on top of the food chain, great empires and cilizations fall, thousands die of natural disasters, meteors get disintegrated in some planets atmosphere, planets swallowed by some expanding star or some black hole, nothing last forever in this universe.

I agree.

Again sorry anEvilAtheist for my many questions for you. Thank you for your time.

No problem. If you have any follow-ups fell free to ask those too.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

AEA…Have you read or listened to Kreeft’s “Argument of Desire”, and if so, could you give us your opinion on that argument?

Yeah, I read all 20 of Kreeft’s arguments a while ago, but I took another look at it to jog my memory. I’ll try not to write a book-length response this time, so if there’s something you think I didn’t address well, let me know.

My first thought was that you could also think about the first premise as saying that there is either something in nature that fulfills our innate desire, or we invent something that fulfills it. For example, humans have a natural desire to have sex without consequences. Unfortunately, there was no easy natural way of preventing pregnancy (other than abusing or killing the woman), so humans have constantly been striving to invent better ways of preventing pregnancy. We currently have contraceptives that fulfill this desire (Even if they’re not 100% effective, they’re still pretty good. And using multiple methods can make the risk vanishingly small.)

Similarly, we all want something that answers all our questions, to think we will be rewarded for all our suffering, and to think we will live forever. Religion is something that can satisfy those desires. The question is whether religion is merely some human creation or whether there actually is a God.

Finally, just because there is something that fulfills our innate desires when we can create something that fulfills them does not mean that there is something that fulfills ALL innate desires. If someone wants to have all their questions answered correctly, actually be rewarded for all their suffering, and actually live forever, and there is nothing that can fulfill those desires, that person cannot do anything about it. It makes sense that there would be something to fulfill our desires as long as we are able to invent something that fulfills them, but it is not clear that there must also be something that fulfills those desires whose fulfillment we can have no control over.

 

[Thing]

If he exists, I’d want him to reveal himself however he thinks is best.

.

You’re really just anEvilAgnostic, are’nt you…

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You’re really just anEvilAgnostic, are’nt you…

Well I consider myself an agnostic atheist, but anEvilAgnosticAtheist just doesn’t have the same ring to it. I don’t think we can know with certainty whether any God exists, but I think the chance that there is a God (at least in the traditional sense) is incredibly small.

I got into this a little bit earlier, so you might want to check out this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5195006#post5195006.

 

[steve_b]

do you stop using bad arguments once you find out that they’re flawed?

The one interested in truth will.
EA:

do you keep using the argument anyway, hoping that the person you’re using it on won’t be smart enough to spot the flaw?

The one not interested in truth but only arguing, will.
EA:

Do the ends justify the means as long as you lead them to the right place, or is it more important to make honest arguments?

It’s more important to give the truth.
EA:

Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be true. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe. One problem is that religion isn’t completely costless

Belief in Catholicism is not a matter of making a bet. This isn’t a game of chance.
EA:

Since there are many contradictory religions, someone would have to consider every possible religion, and pick the one with the most evidence. It would take more than one lifetime to thoroughly consider the evidence for the many thousands of religions (and only considering the most popular is not good enough).

One only has to look at the founder. It narrows the choice quickly.

 

[Sinner82]

In some ways, I think this is like asking what a rock’s favorite flavor of ice cream is. I think people value things and inanimate objects don’t. So my life is very valuable to me, those who care about me, and society as a whole.

Amazing you are so smart I was hoping to know what is the universal truth on the value of human life to an atheist. I guess a person’s value depends on the person itself and the people around him. The last time I check at the mall, a Fossil Watch an inanimate object is valued at $150-$180. Some people kill others for an inanimate object like drugs, sometimes a person’s life can be lesser than an inanimate object. If a man loses all the people he knows, then his value is his own. We may define our value but if death is the end of all things we are no different from an inanimate object that won’t last forever, can’t reason, of no value to us, and has no purpose. We are like working for a corporation that we know is certain to die. It is only with God that our life has a meaning, value and purpose.

The Catholic God is always consistent with his message of love and justice in all of history. Only you know how much have you open yourself to God. God is calling us and it is up to us to answer that call. I guess if your expectations of a God does not coincide with a Catholic God then you can’t find him.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Amazing you are so smart I was hoping to know what is the universal truth on the value of human life to an atheist.

There is no universal agreement on this among atheists. Some feel that human life has inherent value, and others think it does not. Atheism is merely the position that God does not exist and it is separate from our view of morality. Unfortunately, it is a little harder for atheists because our religious beliefs do not come prepackaged with an ethical system. Instead we have to figure out for ourselves which one, if any, is true. I am currently exploring a couple different systems of morality right now, and I’m not yet sure which one is correct.

I guess a person’s value depends on the person itself and the people around him.

Value to whom? Remember, I already said that I don’t think the universe itself has opinions about our worth. A person’s value to themselves is always immense. If I die, that’s it. Everything is over. So I really cherish the time I have on earth, and it would take quite a lot for me to be willing to give it all up.

But if you mean societal value, then I think it could vary by the person. It’s of course a very difficult issue, and I don’t have all the answers, but if someone was completely brain-dead with no chance of recovery, I think it is at least reasonable for society to value this person less than you or me. If I had to choose between saving your life and saving the life of someone whose life was already over, I would prefer to save you.

The last time I check at the mall, a Fossil Watch an inanimate object is valued at $150-$180.

And according to the U.S. legal system, human life is worth somewhere around $3 million. I don’t think it’s fair to put a finite value on someone’s life, but it is a grim necessity (at least from a legal perspective). Should the government spend $1 trillion on a new safety program that will have a one in one million chance of saving even one life?

Some people kill others for an inanimate object like drugs, sometimes a person’s life can be lesser than an inanimate object. If a man loses all the people he knows, then his value is his own.

But he still values his own life, and by pretty much all moral systems, it would still be morally wrong to kill him.

We may define our value but if death is the end of all things we are no different from an inanimate object that won’t last forever, can’t reason, of no value to us, and has no purpose. We are like working for a corporation that we know is certain to die. It is only with God that our life has a meaning, value and purpose.

Well one difference between me and a rock is that I can think and feel pain, and I value life. I don’t see how the existence of God would make my life any more valuable. Here’s a question for you: who gave God’s life meaning and purpose?

The Catholic God is always consistent with his message of love and justice in all of history.

If half of what happened in the Old Testament is true, he certainly doesn’t seem consistent with the message of love.

Only you know how much have you open yourself to God. God is calling us and it is up to us to answer that call. I guess if your expectations of a God does not coincide with a Catholic God then you can’t find him.

Thank you for your reply.

If God is calling me, I haven’t heard anything yet. And I really have no expectations of what God would be like if he existed.

 

[benedictus2]

By bad arguments, I mean those that are either logically invalid, or rest on very questionable assumptions. I’ll give you a few examples to let you know where I’m coming from. One argument I hear a lot of atheists use is …
…
…
imaginary. Another common argument is that religious people have done very bad things in the past. This does not show that their religion is false, just that members of any religion are humans, and have flaws. Both atheists and Christians have been brutal murderers and both atheists and Christians have been generous humanitarians.

Three thumbs up for clear thinking . Hmm I should go back to grade one and learn how to count.

As an atheist, I obviously think that many Christian arguments are flawed, and I’ll mention a couple of them. Sometimes Christians say that their beliefs must be reasonable since so many people share their beliefs and atheists must be wrong since there are fewer of us. The problem is that popularity is not a good way of establishing what the truth is. Christianity is no more or less true today than it was when it consisted of a few hundred people.

Rational Christians (with a modicum of logic) will not use this argument. I am Christian and I think that argument is plain stupid. So one down.

Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be true. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe. One problem is that religion isn’t completely costless (going to mass, giving money to the church). So in order for the wager to work, there must be some evidence that Catholicism is true, otherwise we should give all our money to anyone who walks up >>>> >>>

han those who did not. However, so far no properly conducted study has discovered a significant effect.

Pascal’s wager is some sort of insurance for safety but not really a proof of God let alone the Christian God. So you are right there again. Two down.

The arguments that intelligient Christians use are none of the above. Mostly they are St Thomas’s proofs or the Metaphysical proofs. These proofs however point to a creator but do not point to the pesonal, loving God that you find in the Bible. A great degree of faith is required and it is a gift, and it is experiential.

Some have come to belief through rational thinking but true faith is a gift that comes when are humble enough to accept it.

As for the bad arguments resurfacing, well not every one is all that good with logic. What they posses is a solid faith which if it is real cannot be explained in its entirety in rational propositions. If they are logically weak, then they will propose arguments that their own capacity for reasoning will allow. That is the best they can do. That is all there is to that.

And if they say it does not matter, to a degree they are right. For their salvation will not depend on how well they understood the logical proofs for the existence of God but how well they followed God’s commandments of Love.

 

[benedictus2]

Wow, that’s a lot of questions. I’ll do my best to answer them.

If he exists, I’d want him to reveal himself however he thinks is best.

And He does. But do we have the eyes to see? Is there a certain degree of willful blindness in operation? Is it possible that the demand for proof is what constitutes willful blindness?

 

[twb1621]

My big problem is with how unreliable the historical account of Jesus is. There is little historical evidence that Jesus even existed (though I believe that he did), let alone that the Bible’s account of his life is correct. I think that the story in the Bible is more likely to be a legend developed around a kernel of historical truth as it is to accurately depict what actually happened. Not only has a natural explanation historically been shown to be more likely than a supernatural one, but I think that the amount of inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Bible would be more likely if it was a legend built up over the years.

There is plenty of stuff that (although not convincing to those who want absolute proof), that would convince me that God exists. For example, if instead of one poorly recorded event that happened in one area of the world during a superstitious period of time, God had proclaimed a message to all the peoples of the world at the same time in their own languages. If all of the peoples of the world had stories of God proclaiming the same message at the same time, I would find it very hard to explain that naturally. Now some may say that there could be a psychological explanation, and maybe they’d be right. But to me, that would seem like a pretty good reason to believe in God. I don’t need proof, just something that makes God’s existence seem more likely than his nonexistence.

Aside from the History of the Church which was founded by the very Apostles who accompanied Jesus and witnessed His ministry, here is additional information to follow;
Even though early secular reports on Jesus may have been rare, there are still a few surviving references to Him. Not too surprisingly, the earliest non-Christian reports were made by the Jews. Flavius Josephus, who lived until 98 A.D., was a romanized Jewish historian. He wrote books on Jewish history for the Roman people. In his book, Jewish Antiquities, he made references to Jesus. In one reference he wrote:

About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2]

Even though several different forms of this particular text have survived through the twenty centuries, they all agree with the above cited version. This version is considered to be the closest to the original - the least suspected of Christian text-tampering. Elsewhere in this book, Josephus also reported the execution of St. John the Baptist [XVIII 5.2] and St. James the Just [XX 9.1], even referring to James as “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.” It should be noted that the past tense in the clause, “Jesus who was called Christ,” argues against Christian text-tampering since a Christian would prefer to write instead, “Jesus who is called Christ.”
Another Jewish source, the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is “the collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.” Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him or His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text.
The Talmud makes note of Jesus’ miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as “on the eve of the Feast of the Passover” in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus’ death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events.
By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

…it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food… [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, “to Christ as a god,” an early secular witness to the belief in Christ’s divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.
continued at;

users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html

 

[twb1621]

My big problem is with how unreliable the historical account of Jesus is. There is little historical evidence that Jesus even existed (though I believe that he did), let alone that the Bible’s account of his life is correct. I think that the story in the Bible is more likely to be a legend developed around a kernel of historical truth as it is to accurately depict what actually happened. Not only has a natural explanation historically been shown to be more likely than a supernatural one, but I think that the amount of inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Bible would be more likely if it was a legend built up over the years.

There is plenty of stuff that (although not convincing to those who want absolute proof), that would convince me that God exists. For example, if instead of one poorly recorded event that happened in one area of the world during a superstitious period of time, God had proclaimed a message to all the peoples of the world at the same time in their own languages. If all of the peoples of the world had stories of God proclaiming the same message at the same time, I would find it very hard to explain that naturally. Now some may say that there could be a psychological explanation, and maybe they’d be right. But to me, that would seem like a pretty good reason to believe in God. I don’t need proof, just something that makes God’s existence seem more likely than his nonexistence.

Jesus many times claims to be someone quite special. In Mark 2:28, Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10). He also claims to be greater than the Prophet Jonah (Matt 12:41), King Solomon (Matt 12:42) and even the Temple (Matt 12:6). According to Mark 2:1-12, Jesus claims authority to forgive sins and performs a miraculous cure to prove it. The scribes are angered because they believe that only God has the authority to forgive sins. These claims are quite extraordinary for someone who is “humble in heart.” [Matt 11:29]
Jesus, while arguing with the scribes, makes an interesting statement about Himself and Abraham:

Jesus answered them: “I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM.” At that they picked up rocks to throw at Jesus… [John 8:58-59; NAB]

Jesus claims to have existed also before Abraham - something impossible for a mere human. Moreover the statement sounds grammatically awkward due to tense disagreement. It would sound better if He had said “I WAS” instead of “I AM.” The present tense implies Christ’s eternal existence as God.
Even though Jesus does not explicitly call Himself “God”, He does refer to Himself with a form of God’s name. The full meaning of His statement in John 8:58 is best understood in connection with Exodus 3:14. In Exodus God reveals His name to Moses:

God replied, “I AM WHO AM.” Then He added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.” [Exodus 3:14; NAB]

God’s name - YHWH (Yahweh) - translates as “I AM WHO AM” or simply “I AM.” In John 8:24 & 58, Jesus is referring to Himself with God’s name. The scribes understand Him as such and respond by throwing rocks at Him. They wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy - referring to Himself as God (John 5:18).
Other people in the Gospels also bear witness to His divinity. Even before His birth, He is referred to as Lord. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth greets the pregnant Mary:

“But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Luke 1:43; NAB]

Elizabeth refers to Mary as “the mother of my Lord.” Elsewhere in Luke 1, the title “Lord” refers to God, e.g. “an angel of the Lord” [Luke 1:11]. It should be noted that the name YHWH, being too sacred, could not be uttered, so the Hebrews said “Lord” instead. This passage in Luke suggests that Jesus was God while in the womb of Mary. Also when Jesus was an infant, the wise men worshipped Him according to Matthew 2:11. If the Christ Child were not divine, then this Gospel passage would present idolatry in a positive light. Later Jesus even allows people to worship-adore Him, as in John 9: 38. Finally after the Resurrection, Thomas greets Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” [John 20:28; cf. Ps 35:23] Jesus confirms this greeting without any hesitation, objection or correction. As a teacher Jesus would be obliged to correct an error, especially a blasphemous error.
According to secular reports, the 2nd-century Christians worshipped Christ as God. Pagans mocked the early Christians for worshipping a crucified God. According to 2nd-century Roman graffiti discovered in 1856 on Palatine, a Christian is caricatured as praying to a crucified figure. Its caption reads, “Alexamenos worships his god.” In 111 A.D. Pliny the Younger wrote in a letter to Emperor Trajan about Christians:

…it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turn a form of words to Christ as a god." [Pliny, Epistle 97]

users.binary.net/polycarp/divinity.html

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The arguments that intelligient Christians use are none of the above. Mostly they are St Thomas’s proofs or the Metaphysical proofs. These proofs however point to a creator but do not point to the pesonal, loving God that you find in the Bible. A great degree of faith is required and it is a gift, and it is experiential.

Yeah, I definitely realize that these are not typically the arguments that well-read Christians make. I tried to avoid including any arguments that were overly controversial so this thread wouldn’t become an argument about every single one of the arguments I brought up. I was more interested in what people thought about the issue of using arguments that you know don’t work. I think the more advanced arguments deserve to be discussed in their own threads.

There were plenty more arguments (on both sides) that I find very unconvincing. Since you think that St Thomas’s proofs or the Metaphysical proofs provide good evidence that a God exists (while still requiring faith that the Catholic interpretation is correct), I was wondering which proof in particular you find most persuasive. I have looked at a lot of proofs so far and have yet to find one that makes me think there is probably some sort of God.
benedictus2;5245851:

As for the bad arguments resurfacing, well not every one is all that good with logic. What they posses is a solid faith which if it is real cannot be explained in its entirety in rational propositions. If they are logically weak, then they will propose arguments that their own capacity for reasoning will allow. That is the best they can do. That is all there is to that.

I know. And there are certainly some atheists who think they should try to go out and convert people and who are also at bad at judging whether an argument is valid. I think all the bad arguments by both groups can make it harder to know what’s true.

And He does. But do we have the eyes to see? Is there a certain degree of willful blindness in operation? Is it possible that the demand for proof is what constitutes willful blindness?

I don’t think I am willfully blinding myself, but of course maybe that’s just what someone willfully blinding themselves would say. I think it is unreasonable for atheists to make a demand for proof. For me to believe, I would just need to think that there probably is a God.