The Iambic Pen said:
Valz, would you mind elaborating on this a bit? If an atheist does not accept the authority of the Bible, they would say the Bible is wrong because it conflicts with the Quran, Webster’s Dictionary and today’s newspaper. How do you think contradiction proves Islam false? Can you please give me more reasons? Does the Quran contradict itself? Does it contradict what is now taught or logic? Have teachings changed? These seem more cogent arguments.
Sure, check your PM.
Ahhh, but most religious martyrs die for what they have been told. These men died for what they personally witnessed.
it’s as bad as - if not worse than - the idiotic suggestion that the efficacy of prayer can be tested by praying for one set of patients, and not for another.Gottle of Geer said:## That sort of argument is disgusting
The stupidity of supposedly intelligent people never ceases to be astonishing.
The whole point about the Resurrection of Christ is that it is a purely Divine act, in which what is created and of this world has no part; one which is for that reason completely beyond being measured or calculated by human reason. One either believes - or one denies. What one does not even dream of doing, is trying to prove it. It cannot be proved, because it is without any analogies in human experience: there is nothing with which to compare it; any more than there is anything which which to compare God; or the creation by God of all things from nothing.
Even to say why it cannot be proved concedes too much to human reason and the world of human experience - if one believes it happened, the only proper reaction is worship of the Risen Christ.
It is intolerable that a purely Divine act should be accepted on any basis other than faith. No other basis is provided, is needed, is appropriate to the nature of the Resurrection. ##
Well I challenge you to post anything that you think can not be refuted, and I will show you an agnostic who can refute it.
True, but an inevitable truth is undeniable. If you have a truly brilliant argument, it will be saturated with undeniable truth.
Or so you’ve read. This will not convince any atheist of anything. This kind of argument is just going to assure him of what he already believes about you.
Well Buddha had a miraculous birth, and performed “miricles”. So he must be the true God too. And Marduk and Osiris(or was it Horus) had a resurection, both were the sons of gods…so they must be true too. Jesus set in motion christianity, not catholicism specifically.Again this argument is worthless, because you use one suspect “fact” to support another. If the atheist in question, wants to debate religion, it is most likely to point out your errors in reasoning, not expose his own. If he truly seeks truth, that is another matter and you may be able to convince him by refering him to other ancient texts including the ones that major portions of the OT were borrowed from. That is what started to open me up to judaism and christianity as philosophies.
This probably is not much help but isn’t proof sort of relative? Don’t you have to have faith in someone else’s opinion or observation sometimes?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
with this:
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.
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.
So, how can I deal with this?
St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo both used logic to create proofs about God. Since they were both sainted, you obviously disagree with the Catholic Church about the value of logic.
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.