How do you prove the Catholic God is the true God?

[Pax]

Wormwood:

If that is what you call logic, then yes, I disagree. Their arguments are based on assumptions. For example the mover of the unmoved(beggining of perpetual motion or however you know the theory). This theory assumes that something HAD to set the universe in motion. Then you must also assume that God has therefore always existed…why could one not assume that the universe has simply always existed? See it is flawed logic. Also consider that you can use mathematics to both prove and disprove the existance of God…both also flawed because they are based on certain assumtions that must be made when dealing with the nature of the divine.

If you believe that Aquinas is illogical then you need an education. Or am I missing something?

 

[Pax]

Wormwood,

Try reading Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics as well as his book Christianity for Modern Pagans. You might change your mind about the arguments for and against your position. Kreeft explores all of the arguments and explores the strenghts and weaknesses of each. These books are really worth reading and they are all about the logic.

 

[Wormwood]

If you believe that Aquinas is illogical then you need an education. Or am I missing something?

Yes, independant thought. I clearly showed how the arguments were flawed…to disprove me, point out my error in logic or reason.

Try reading Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics as well as his book Christianity for Modern Pagans.

I try to avoid biased religious texts, all of the information is one sided and built to support an argument.

 

[Genesis315]

Wormwood:

I try to avoid biased religious texts, all of the information is one sided and built to support an argument.

Hahahaha, well, you’re not going to find a convincing argument for Christianity from a non-Christian. If his argument was convincing, he would convert to Christianity!

It’s like when people get worked up about there being little or no writings about Jesus from non-Christians of His time. Well, if they were during His time, they would either have believed Him and wrote about Him or they would have brushed Him off as just another nut with a following who got executed and wouldn’t have bothered to write extensively about Him.

 

[Pax]

Wormwood:

Yes, independant thought. I clearly showed how the arguments were flawed…to disprove me, point out my error in logic or reason.

I try to avoid biased religious texts, all of the information is one sided and built to support an argument.

Since you avoid biased religious texts or what you believe to be biased texts, it is unlikely that you will ever give the other side a fair shake. I think you would find Kreeft’s work a great challenge to your “unbiased(?)” thinking.

I do not need to provide any defense of Acquinas. Minds far greater than mine and yours almost universally admire the logic of Acquinas. If you wish to attack Acquinas your best shot is at what some might term his “assumptions.” Even this is difficult and in some ways perhaps speculative. Otherwise, the logic is extremely good. Nothing you have written even remotely dislodges the Summa Theologica.

 

[c659smith]

Can you prove that God Exists ?
Well I say lets do some backward reasoning and logic. Iam sure you will agree that there has been numerous unexplained miracles such as the Lady of Fatima or would you say that thousands of witnesses are not logical.
Would you say the sudden appearance of stigmata’s to which the science community has inspected throughout the centuries cannot explain.
Would you deny the existence of Jesus Christ of course not He is in the history books.
The Harvard Law school has time and again had legal debates and the result was that Jesus was and is God. Utilizing facts and logic is how this far from right wing institution of education came up to it legal findings.
Logic: The Apostles for the most part after Jesus’s Passion had run away and then after the ressurection most became martyrs. Logic asks why.
Now lets continue to go back in history. The old Testament and the prophets had 100s of documented predictions that would make Nostradamus look like a school boy.
Does the pyramids exists and who built them? History states the Jews for the most part as slaves Now this wonder of the pyramids that we still cannot recreate in size, material used, or magnitude and how were the Jews freed. Logic Egypt was the stongest power on earth at the time and unarmed slaves defeated this army or simply escaped.
I am not by no means an apologist and yes much is on our faith but if you want logic look deeper, read the bible (a history book) and oh yes 1.2 billion catholics alone not to mention other christians are all fooled and have no logic. I am sorry but your logic does not make sense.

 

[Maranatha]

Genesis315:

Hahahaha, well, you’re not going to find a convincing argument for Christianity from a non-Christian. If his argument was convincing, he would convert to Christianity!

LOL :clapping:

 

[Maranatha]

Wormwood:

If that is what you call logic, then yes, I disagree. Their arguments are based on assumptions. For …

Logical Proofs can be true or false. They believed them to be true but what they wanted was for you to read the proofs and make up your own mind.

 

[pilchard]

salival:

I really apreciate all the help.

But the atheist I was talking with simply said the following.

"You are just speculating, you have no proof that God is a trinity, that God is who or what the Catholic Church says he is or even that God actually aproves of what Catholicism says about it. You simply have no proof at all and anything you say about it is pure speculationg. Anyone can do that, the pagans did it, the muslim did it, the romans, etc…everyone. Yet none of them have any proof on support of their particular god."

So, how can I deal with this?

salival

Firstly - there is no empirical proof. If I presented God on a plate to you you would have every right to expose me as a fraud. God does not sit on plates. There is more to life then the empirical - what we can see, what we can touch what we can smell…

Physical things have to be knkown to be loved. Spiritual things have to be loved to be known

(Blondel (or was it Pascal??))

The Trinity question… This is a very difficult question. The only answer that I can think of that might register with a non-believer is Walter Kasper’s argument - outlined below. Perhaps someone else can think of a better one? Dialoging with a believer on the other hand – one would turn to scriptural evidence and the teaching authority of the Church – but this is more Catechesis than Evangelization.

The following argument was made by Walter Kasper in his book “God and Man”. We believe that God is immutable - unchanging. A changing God is Theologically suspect for all manner of reasons; for one thing it seems to confine God within a framework of Time – since ‘Time is change’ without change there would be no time. Ask yourself the question - how could there be time if there are no events (things changing)? But we also believe that God is eternal, which means not so much that He existed forever – but that He exists outside of time.

Given that God is eternal and immutable, therefore, the question that we then need to ask is – How can God do anything? Action implies a dynamic of some kind – but how can such a dynamic spring from a changeless (immutable) being. The answer lies in God’s inner life – the inner life of the Trinity.

Coming at this from another angle - starting with the “given” - the datum - of religious experience - an experience of a personal God - one could ask the question “who is the ‘other’ of God’s personhood” (since a person cannot be a person in isolation - a person is a being in relationship). Starting from the datum of our experience of a personal God one asks the question - who is the “other”. Now one answer to this question might be to say that we are - that we are the “other” of God’s personhood - but the problem with this is that it implies God needs us in some way - He needs us to fulfil His personhood - but one cannot say “God needs” - because God is omnipotent. Indeed, taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we actually have to say that the “other” of God’s personhood, in light of God’s omnipotents (God’s “Not needing anything”) is God Himself. So God, therefore, isn’t so much a person - but persons. (Now ok - this doesn’t quite get us to the Trinity but it’s not bad going!)

Another possible avenue is St Augustines line about there being vestigaes of the trinity in the world. One example of this is marriage. You have the love between a man and a woman that is so real that it becomes another person - a child. You have the love of the Father for the Son that is so real that it is another person - the Holy Spirit.

Another way to the Trinity that has just occured to me is a comparative religion approach.

Buddhism belives in the God within - well we believe in the God within - the Holy Spirit

Hinduhism / New Age believes in the God without - well we believe in the God without - the Son

Islam believes in the “God Beyond” - well we believe in the “God Beyond” - the Father

This comparative religions approach is from a sermon by my PP - and so I guess he might have read it in a book somewhere (if tjis is so - apologies for not attributing the author)

And finally…

I would reiterate again that (from a previous post above) - it is significant that all three major monotheistic world religions profess a belief in “the God of Abraham”. I guess this ties in with Kreefts line - that Religion is man’s search for God - Faith is God’s search for man!!!. Christianity is the end of religion. Christianity is a Faith. A Faith in a God wh tabernacled among us

 

[pilchard]

WORD OF WARNING

Further to my previous post…

WORMWOOD makes a really good point (above)

The question of your friend sounds very negative to me. My suspsion is that he is not really interested in the answer. Beaing this in mind the first thing I would do is challenge him about that. “Do not cast pearls before swine”. Really ask him - "you’re asking me these quesitons about my faith - but before answering I would like to ask you - are you really going to listen to the answers that I give??? Are you really searching or are you just in it for the argument?

 

[Wormwood]

Hahahaha, well, you’re not going to find a convincing argument for Christianity from a non-Christian. If his argument was convincing, he would convert to Christianity!

I never said the author must be non-christian, just non biased. Someone with a churchly title in front of their name is going to have a biased opinion and express arguments, parts of which must be taken on faith.

Since you avoid biased religious texts or what you believe to be biased texts, it is unlikely that you will ever give the other side a fair shake.

How is a completely one sided argument based on speculation a “fair shake”? I don’t need to get drwn into a book which will just irritate me with flaws in reasoning. If there is something specifically profound or irrefutable I would love to hear it from you.

Logical Proofs can be true or false. They believed them to be true but what they wanted was for you to read the proofs and make up your own mind.

I still stand beside my argument that the argument is based on the fallacy that there must have been something to set the universe in motion.

WORD OF WARNING

Further to my previous post…

WORMWOOD makes a really good point (above)

That’s it people, the end of days is upon us…ME complimented HERE twice in one day…it does not look good for humanity

 

[pilchard]

… and it shall come to pass in the latter days…

 

[john_doran]

Wormwood:

The first was in response to a challenge that no one could refute a certain logic. I stand by my claim that no such “logic” concerning God exists.
The second statement was pointing out that no such “brilliant” argument has yet been presented. I see the connection you are trying to force between these two statements, but they actually both agree.

if you say so. i guess i just don’t understand the difference between “irrefutable” and “undeniable”; that is, i’m unsure as to how there can be, at one and the same time, no arguments that are irrefutable, but truths that are undeniable…

 

[iamrefreshed]

Wormwood:

This is a good argument. The main difference here is that people that are alive now are in space. They can see the round earth. Mathematically the earth is round. And if you drink (7up i think) you could win a trip to space and see for yourself.

I take it you are refering to the apostles being willing to die for christ after his death.(?) If so, good because no one else would die for their religion…well except the muslims…and those buddhist monks during vietnam…and unrepentant pagans…well you get the point.

I understand that the people who are alive today have seen the round world. Regardless of this, there must be faith in the source for those who have not witnessed it personally?. Is faith relative? Is there such a thing as a little faith, a lot? You either know something firsthand or you do not. In the end, if you have not witnessed, faith is needed.

I don’t know what you mean by the second statement. Please explain.

 

[john_doran]

Wormwood:

If that is what you call logic, then yes, I disagree. Their arguments are based on assumptions. For example the mover of the unmoved(beggining of perpetual motion or however you know the theory). This theory assumes that something HAD to set the universe in motion. Then you must also assume that God has therefore always existed…why could one not assume that the universe has simply always existed? See it is flawed logic.

not really. the argument assumes that there cannot be an infinite regress in movers and things moved. since the universe is in motion, then it must be moved by something else; but since the series cannot go on forever, there must, of necessity, be an unmoved mover.

that’s perfectly sound logic. though you may disagree with the assumption concerning infinite regresses. but that has nothing to do with the logic of aquinas’ original argument.

Wormwood:

Also consider that you can use mathematics to both prove and disprove the existance of God…both also flawed because they are based on certain assumtions that must be made when dealing with the nature of the divine.

to which “mathematical” arguments are you referring here?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

salival:

I really apreciate all the help.

But the atheist I was talking with simply said the following.

"You are just speculating, you have no proof that God is a trinity, that God is who or what the Catholic Church says he is or even that God actually aproves of what Catholicism says about it. You simply have no proof at all and anything you say about it is pure speculationg. Anyone can do that, the pagans did it, the muslim did it, the romans, etc…everyone. Yet none of them have any proof on support of their particular god."

So, how can I deal with this?

salival

God cannot be proved - He *can *be known. God is a theorem in maths - God is a Person. He is more fully personal than we are: that is why we cannot experience Him directly.​

All one can do is to say, like the Psalmist: “Taste and see that the Lord is good”. God cannot be known at second- hand - no one can believe instead of someone else: we have to to experience Him, have to taste of His good things, at first hand, by the mediation of Our Lord; He is how we know His Father. The way to see God in the world, is to have hearts open to being prepared to see Him: we won’t see Him, if we refuse to try to do so, or don’t want to.

Christian faith in God is not belief in some absent impersonal vague Almighty Something-or-other; our knowledge of God is given its detail by being revealed, in Christ. God is revealed as having a certain definite character - a moral character; for God is a “hands-on” God, deeply involved in all that takes place. And God is not our poodle.

Nor is Christian faith a belief in an Explanation for whatever we don’t yet know. Even if we knew all creation inside-out, belief in God would still be necessary: because we need God, if we are to become truly alive.

The Trinity is a mystery, the mystery of God’s “interior life” - it can only be lived: not proved by argument. Argument is far too feeble a way to know it; it’s childish even to suggest that reason could “prove” the Trinity. People who insist on proof for such things are like people trying to prove the reality of a married couple’s love by measuring their waists & heights. For some things, reason is utterly inadequate - just as no one ever built a house by reciting poetry, or cooked a meal by playing football. Some methods of doing things just don’t work. And so we cannot come to God by reason - God must come to us, in His own good time; which will always be the best time.

Until then, “he who asks will receive, he who seeks will find, and to him who knocks the door will be opened.” Our business is to be faithful to what is already given us - if we are, then we will be the sort of people who will appreciate what we seek to find. We would not seek at all, if we had not found something of what we were looking for. Seeking God is the most practical thing any man can do - and to find Him fully, takes a lifetime. ##

 

[Pax]

Wormwood:

I never said the author must be non-christian, just non biased. Someone with a churchly title in front of their name is going to have a biased opinion and express arguments, parts of which must be taken on faith.

How is a completely one sided argument based on speculation a “fair shake”? I don’t need to get drwn into a book which will just irritate me with flaws in reasoning. If there is something specifically profound or irrefutable I would love to hear it from you.

Wormwood,

Peter Kreeft doesn’t have a churchy title in front of his name. He happens to be a university professor with a doctorate in philosophy. If you think you have the mental skills to duel it out with Kreeft and if you believe that his books are filled with flaws in reasoning, then you gravely underestimate this gifted man while flattering yourself and over estimating your own mental gifts.

His works are worth the read.