T
Thursdayhat
Guest
I have been holding a bit of a debate via private messages with someone on youtube. I have only been presenting negative arguments-- which is to say, attempting to refute his arguments, as I have no particular desire to convince him that my beliefs are true, but rather only that his arguments against my beliefs are false. This, admittedly, is not a particularly inspiring means of directing one towards belief, but might be useful for someone wishing to study apologetics. Or maybe it isn’t, and I am conceited concerning the power of my argumentation. Or maybe it is useful, and I am still conceited concerning the power of my argumentation.
The debate, if it may be so called, has centered primarily around the trustworthiness of the gospels. While I do not believe that my opponent (whom I assume is an atheist) has the necessary grounding in epistemology to understand why his arguments are invalid, and why I think my responses are sufficient to demonstrate they are invalid, I think it is still useful to hold the debate. I am asking on catholic answers if anyone would read it and offer critiques, because, while I am not a Catholic myself, when I am debating I find it useful to argue from the Catholic perspective, insofar as, it provides a common conception of the grounds on which the debate is taking place (given that Catholic views are, perhaps, more widely known than other branches of Christianity), and because I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas was correct with regards to metaphysics and general philosophy. Also, I had an account on catholic answers already, as I wanted to ask a question prior to this one. At any rate, despite not being a Catholic, I hold views which are sufficiently similar to the traditional Catholic world view, that it is easy to argue from it. I am furthermore asking specifically in this forum whether anyone would read the debate and offer their opinions, because the debate primarily deals with the veracity and the veridicality of the gospels, which is apparently the purpose of this forum.
If this is not the appropriate place to post this, or if this is not something people would be interested in reading, just say so; I will wait until positive affirmation that this would be the correct place, before posting the previously mentioned debate.
edit: just to reiterate, my hope in posting this here would be to receive constructive criticism, or feedback of any sort, regarding the validity of my argumentation.
The debate, if it may be so called, has centered primarily around the trustworthiness of the gospels. While I do not believe that my opponent (whom I assume is an atheist) has the necessary grounding in epistemology to understand why his arguments are invalid, and why I think my responses are sufficient to demonstrate they are invalid, I think it is still useful to hold the debate. I am asking on catholic answers if anyone would read it and offer critiques, because, while I am not a Catholic myself, when I am debating I find it useful to argue from the Catholic perspective, insofar as, it provides a common conception of the grounds on which the debate is taking place (given that Catholic views are, perhaps, more widely known than other branches of Christianity), and because I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas was correct with regards to metaphysics and general philosophy. Also, I had an account on catholic answers already, as I wanted to ask a question prior to this one. At any rate, despite not being a Catholic, I hold views which are sufficiently similar to the traditional Catholic world view, that it is easy to argue from it. I am furthermore asking specifically in this forum whether anyone would read the debate and offer their opinions, because the debate primarily deals with the veracity and the veridicality of the gospels, which is apparently the purpose of this forum.
If this is not the appropriate place to post this, or if this is not something people would be interested in reading, just say so; I will wait until positive affirmation that this would be the correct place, before posting the previously mentioned debate.
edit: just to reiterate, my hope in posting this here would be to receive constructive criticism, or feedback of any sort, regarding the validity of my argumentation.
