B
buffalo
Guest
Ahh - I see - you are genuinely trying to help her answer her question.
- Status
S
Swan
Guest
I knew that right away. I’ve found that in many cases when a Catholic or Christian asks others how to appeal to a non-believer (or anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular stance on an issue) are not really open to hearing from those of us who disagree and wish to state the reasons for our disagreement and/or the reasons why their arguments are doomed to fail. What they seem to really want (not in all cases, but in many) is some sort of reaffirmation that they are correct from like-minded believers.
I’ve seen countless arguments on the existence of “god” being argued with the intent on the believers part to prove not only that there is a god, but that that god is the Judeo/Christian “GOD”. To me, this just falls flat. You touched on the reason earlier when you said something about the meaning of the word “god”. I believe in beings that might be called “gods” (small “g”) but not the big “G”, for example. Convincing me of the big “G”, which is what the OP was trying to do, is not the same as convincing me that there are unexplainable phenomena.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
The OP isn’t asking for objections to the existence of God and has had “lengthy debate” on that already. Please confine your responses to the OP’s request for answers. There are plenty of existing threads discussing objections. Thank you all.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Not really…even the strictest secular materialist is confined to a forensic study of matter. To the OP, the Easter Bunny analogy is thus an irrational and illogical comparison.
J
Jenny_Z
Guest
Thank you for the helpful answers, guys… I’ll have some things to say when we start up again tomorrow 
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Hey, if the Easter Bunny isn’t real, where does Easter come from?
Seriously though, realize that you’re debating cultural preferences. You might as well be debating whether red is a better color than green or “3” is a better number than “7”.
Seriously though, realize that you’re debating cultural preferences. You might as well be debating whether red is a better color than green or “3” is a better number than “7”.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
It’s important to lay down definitions and figure out different ‘proofs’, if they mean the empirical train of thought (experimental science), then no, you can’t, and neither can they. Proofs of God to do with reason are best approached with a rational method, which is obviously more difficult and requires both parties to agree on the different claims. For e.g.
The ordely nature of the universe and the fact that there is consistency in the laws of physics indicates that there is a great possibility that something brought this about with intent, just as we invent something and they work in an orderly manner, the order is brought about something. <—This isn’t complete and it’s in no way a rigorous proof, but you have to set about it going this way. Preferably bringing in Lemaitre’s idea about the Big Bang, mixing in as much as you can.
Remember to never say ‘thus it’s definitely proved’ or anything along those lines, because using the abduction reasoning method is just to show the differences in possibility of one thing existing and the other not.
As for the easter bunny argument, they’d have to demonstrate some valid reasonings as to how this is on par with “God”, simply put, God is linked with society, whether you are atheist or not, because government constitutions, legal standings, scientific development, music development, etc etc. has revolved around religion, therefore whilst not offering a ‘proof’ of God, the easter bunny is just a conjecture, and not really an argument, even if it was, it isn’t a sound argument.
The ordely nature of the universe and the fact that there is consistency in the laws of physics indicates that there is a great possibility that something brought this about with intent, just as we invent something and they work in an orderly manner, the order is brought about something. <—This isn’t complete and it’s in no way a rigorous proof, but you have to set about it going this way. Preferably bringing in Lemaitre’s idea about the Big Bang, mixing in as much as you can.
Remember to never say ‘thus it’s definitely proved’ or anything along those lines, because using the abduction reasoning method is just to show the differences in possibility of one thing existing and the other not.
As for the easter bunny argument, they’d have to demonstrate some valid reasonings as to how this is on par with “God”, simply put, God is linked with society, whether you are atheist or not, because government constitutions, legal standings, scientific development, music development, etc etc. has revolved around religion, therefore whilst not offering a ‘proof’ of God, the easter bunny is just a conjecture, and not really an argument, even if it was, it isn’t a sound argument.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
The paradox for the theist however is how to account for gods.
If the universe is something intentional then all this “intent” comes from that which is completely unintentional, namely gods.
If the universe is something “designed” then all this design comes from that which is completely undesigned, namely gods.
If the universe allegedly bears witness to an act of “creation” then all this creation comes from that which is completely uncreated.
If the universe is “intelligently designed” then all this intelligent design comes from that which is not “intelligently designed.”
The creationist theist is literally arguing that creation comes from non-creation, intent comes from non-intent, and that design comes from non-design. These gods end up having the same qualities as a universe. They are purposeless, unintentional, uncreated, uncaused, and lacking a reason to exist.
This fundamental inconsistency in the creationist position is inescapable and therefore easily and reasonably refuted.
B
buffalo
Guest
Except for the fact that physicists thing that the universe has purpose.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Once again, everyone, stick to the OP’s original question. Take any side issues to new or existing threads. Thank you all.
B
buffalo
Guest
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Very nifty indeed!
Thanks!
I
Isambard
Guest
Id be careful with that source. Anyone with a cursorary understanding of history, academic sources, or logical fallacies will pick it apart.
Honestly, the best apologetics I’ve ever seen is to be found in Dante’s Comedy.
5
55442andy
Guest
There is ample evidence for the “big bang”. Most branches of “science” accept it.
The big bang is the creation of the universe out of nothing.
Anthropic constants underline the intensity and simplicity of the design.
If the universe was created , there must have been a creator.
Though the bible is an excellent gift from God, we can see his evidence in astro-physics, cosmology and genetics and without the need to quote the bible.
The big bang is the creation of the universe out of nothing.
Anthropic constants underline the intensity and simplicity of the design.
If the universe was created , there must have been a creator.
Though the bible is an excellent gift from God, we can see his evidence in astro-physics, cosmology and genetics and without the need to quote the bible.
C
coleraine
Guest
say “science changes all the time. And the answers to questions change. you cant prove what you go on to be true and i cant disprove it. however, the catholic faith can work with science. we have scientists at work all the time. we use science to explain how things happen, and faith to explain why” or maybe you cant convince him. for many people it takes a personal revelation to get through there thick skulls:shrug:
J
JDaniel
Guest
You are going to have a Mission Impossible unless you and your debate partner agree on at least one thing: you must agree to communicate honestly. That means, not to argue out of rudeness, contempt, the desire to confuse with meaninglessness, intentional, or unintentional, misunderstanding(s), failure to agree on definitions, bad intentions against one another, etc.
Your debate partner has already violated this rule: the Easter bunny argument is a meaningless and specious argument thrown at you to muddy up your thought processes. Either that, or, they are seriously muddied thinkers themselves.
There are a relatively small number of unimpeachable “proofs” for God’s existence. You might want to read St. Thomas’s Summa Teologica and get thoroughly familiar with his five proofs. St. Augustine also provides proofs.
Henri Bergson provides an interesting proof from an epistomological perspective. Bergson says that “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” I like this proof because, when one thinks it through, one discovers that he/she can and does in fact conceive of God, in this way.
So, it is not that difficult to conceive of that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But, if we think of God as not having existence, then it is we that have the problem: because, without “existence,” something greater can yet be conceived and we can conceive it and can know it.
The atheist understands what God is, then, denies His existence. This is his undoing.
First, learn and understand all of Aquinas’ five proofs, then learn those presented by St. Augustine, then – as a last resort, if you are sure your opponent communicates with honesty – provide him/her with the fully thought out Bergsonian argument.
God bless and good luck!
Your debate partner has already violated this rule: the Easter bunny argument is a meaningless and specious argument thrown at you to muddy up your thought processes. Either that, or, they are seriously muddied thinkers themselves.
There are a relatively small number of unimpeachable “proofs” for God’s existence. You might want to read St. Thomas’s Summa Teologica and get thoroughly familiar with his five proofs. St. Augustine also provides proofs.
Henri Bergson provides an interesting proof from an epistomological perspective. Bergson says that “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” I like this proof because, when one thinks it through, one discovers that he/she can and does in fact conceive of God, in this way.
So, it is not that difficult to conceive of that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But, if we think of God as not having existence, then it is we that have the problem: because, without “existence,” something greater can yet be conceived and we can conceive it and can know it.
The atheist understands what God is, then, denies His existence. This is his undoing.
First, learn and understand all of Aquinas’ five proofs, then learn those presented by St. Augustine, then – as a last resort, if you are sure your opponent communicates with honesty – provide him/her with the fully thought out Bergsonian argument.
God bless and good luck!
- Status