Logical argument for Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bort
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bort said:
There is a lot that has developed over these pages to which I would like to reply but it would not serve my purpose nor anyone else’s to do so, but allow me to make some clarifications in the interest of maintaining the original intent of the thread.
  1. A lot of words from other posters might have been made unnecessary had I bothered to label my religion as Roman Catholic. You don’t need to convince me, just help me convince other people.
  2. The posts by BBBEATT were very interesting and convincing but they only provide “most likely true,” not “irrefutable logical proof.” Thank you for posting them though. I did not know much of that.
  3. Again, my real goal is to construct a rational syllogism proving Catholicism is the correct religion (a lofty goal, I know). It doesn’t matter how many premises and conclusions it takes to reach that goal so long as they all logically interconnect. I believe this syllogism begins with the cosmological argument, but it doesn’t have to.
  4. Contrary to what I believe someone asserted at some point, I do not believe the cosmological argument to be an argument for a “personal” God. Only that an uncaused cause must exist outside the knowable universe. For the sake of simplicity, we can call this cause “God.” The goal then becomes to define God’s properties which should hopefully eventually lead us through Christ being the son of God to the conclusion that the Pope is Catholic and we should follow him.
  5. Again, I don’t believe the historical anecdotes or biblical quotes can be used effectively here because the skeptic will not recognize their validity. If we approach the goal from a standpoint of pure and simple reason, only the unreasonable can object (as they have in this thread) and we will know to move on to more reasonable men because convincing the unreasonable is futile.
  6. That said, this discussion must assume that there is objective truth and that we humans can know it with certainty. To do otherwise is to waste everyone’s time. This does not mean that there cannot be concepts beyond our comprehension, just that there are concepts that certainly are within it. I see nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries of human understanding anyway, so even something outside our current comprehension doesn’t have to be off limits, such as the uncaused cause being outside the knowable universe.
Click to expand...
Bort,

Consider the following for your 4th paragraph. The second argument is not in the format you are looking for (Premises, whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion must be valid). I have not found the time to do so. I use the following arguments to witness to atheists.

Father in heaven, fill Bort continually with that inexpressible joy that comes only from your presence. Amen!

The Information in Genes is a Recipe. All Recipes were created by an Intelligent Being. So… the Information in Genes was created by an Intelligent Being.

IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE.

Genome News Network: Each gene is a set of instructions for making one specific protein.
Webster: A recipe is set of instructions for making things from various ingredients

IG is R; Every R is CIB; IG is CIB

IG = Information in Genes; R= Recipe; CIB= Created by an Intelligent Being

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
  1. The universe always existed. Can’t be… A star can’t burn forever.
  2. The universe had a beginning: Nothing turned into Everything with help from Nothing & No One.
  3. Big Bang: The ENTIRE UNIVERSE was once “smaller than a subatomic particle”. (And I have the Moon in my pocket.)
The only credible choice is: Something besides the universe created the universe.

That something must have unfathomable power and intelligence… God.
 
Bort said:
I recall this comment from your previous post, but I don’t quite see how it fits. What secular authority would recognize the marks of the true church?
Click to expand...
The marks (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) are objective truth in that their existence does not depend on anyone’s affirmation. Of course, anyone could disagree as to their importance. So what? Also, some could still say that the marks do not prove a “true” church. So what?

When presenting an argument for Catholicism, the person’s main responsibility is to present a good, fair, logical argument. The person is not responsible for someone else’s response. Yet, when possible, the person should try to respond correctly to questions and oppositions.

Here is an example. The Catholic Church is the oldest, ongoing organization in the world. This does not address its message. It addresses its endurance. Is endurance a logical argument for an organization? Yes. Is endurance a logical argument for the Catholic Church? Also yes. Endurance is expressed by the Apostolic Mark.

Our church is seen as Apostolic because it is a single Church founded by Jesus and existing today through the succession of the Popes beginning with St. Peter. An historical list of Popes can be found in the front of some Catholic Bibles. The whole Catholic Church is Apostolic in that all her members, including us, share in the mission of the Apostles to establish the Kingdom of God for all.

Our Church relies on the faith of the Apostolic Age. St. Paul writes “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received…” (1 Corinthians 15: 1-11)

The continuity of our Apostolic Faith is seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Footnotes quote Genesis, continuing through all of Scripture, the early Church Fathers, the Councils, the great saints, right down to our own time with Vatican II and the modern Popes. This universal Catechism’s Index of Citations, pages 689-752, lists the sources for our Faith.

The above is factual; thus, it does not depend on the acceptance of secular or religious authority.
 
I ultimately agree with your origin of the universe conclusion but I don’t think the “genes are a recipe” conclusion holds up. If the required conclusion from “genes are a recipe” is that “recipes are created by intelligent beings” then one simply has to deny the premise that genes are a recipe.

In this case, it’s just playing with semantics to get the desired outcome. While genes may be similar to a recipe, we could also call them a pattern which does not require an intelligent design to exist.
 
Bort said:
I ultimately agree with your origin of the universe conclusion but I don’t think the “genes are a recipe” conclusion holds up. If the required conclusion from “genes are a recipe” is that “recipes are created by intelligent beings” then one simply has to deny the premise that genes are a recipe.

In this case, it’s just playing with semantics to get the desired outcome. While genes may be similar to a recipe, we could also call them a pattern which does not require an intelligent design to exist.
Click to expand...
Blue prints for a house are infinitely less complicated than the specifications in DNA. An honest person will acknowledge that blue prints must be designed by intelligence.

PROOF GOD EXISTS:

Genome News Network: “Each gene is a set of instructions for making one specific protein. “

The cell has no choice but to make protein according to the information in the genes and can make no protein unless instructions are contained in the genes for that protein. The instruction exists before the making of protein. Yet the instructions cannot exist without the cell which is made of proteins. So, both must have come into existence simultaneously… in other words CREATED.

To believe THERE IS NO GOD and contend that your beliefs are based on proven science is INCONSISTENT since the nonexistence of God cannot be proven.

To believe the universe MAY have been created by God & that evolution is independent of God is INCONSISTENT, since God could have caused all lifeforms.

To accept, by FAITH, that God exists & created the universe is THE ONLY CONSISTENT POSITION.

Pray: God, if you exist, please reveal yourself to me. If he is, he will. If he isn’t, he won’t.
 
bbbeatt said:
PROOF GOD EXISTS

Pray: God, if you exist, please reveal yourself to me. If he is, he will. If he isn’t, he won’t.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not trying to prove God exists. I already believe I’ve done that. The proof I’m searching for is “Why is religion, and the Catholic religion specifically, correct?”

While there’s more to my story, your prayer at the end there was essentially how I was converted straight from atheist to Catholic.
 
Bort said:
Again, I’m not trying to prove God exists. I already believe I’ve done that. The proof I’m searching for is “Why is religion, and the Catholic religion specifically, correct?”

While there’s more to my story, your prayer at the end there was essentially how I was converted straight from atheist to Catholic.
Click to expand...
How about this chain of logic?


  1. *]God is
    *]Jesus is the Son of God
    *]Jesus became man
    *]Jesus suffered, died, was buried and rose from the dead
    *]After Jesus rose from the dead, He started a church
    *]Based on the history of apostalic succession and the consistency of her teachings over the course many centurys, the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus started.
 
davidv said:
How about this chain of logic?


  1. *]God is
    *]Jesus is the Son of God
    *]Jesus became man
    *]Jesus suffered, died, was buried and rose from the dead
    *]After Jesus rose from the dead, He started a church
    *]Based on the history of apostalic succession and the consistency of her teachings over the course many centurys, the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus started.
Click to expand...

  1. An athiest would incorrectly dispute number 1.
    A deist would dispute number 2 without a supporting proof.
    A skeptic would dispute number 4 without supporting proof beyond eye witness accounts.
    A protestant would incorrectly dispute number 6.

    If we could handle the disputes against 2 and 4 this would be fine, but again, this is not a logical proof. This is another historic proof. History is debatable. That’s the reason a logical proof is so powerful. It can only be debated by the unreasonable, by definition.
 
Bort said:
An athiest would incorrectly dispute number 1.
A deist would dispute number 2 without a supporting proof.
A skeptic would dispute number 4 without supporting proof beyond eye witness accounts.
A protestant would incorrectly dispute number 6.

If we could handle the disputes against 2 and 4 this would be fine, but again, this is not a logical proof. This is another historic proof. History is debatable. That’s the reason a logical proof is so powerful. It can only be debated by the unreasonable, by definition.
Click to expand...
To make this really work, we have to start with number “6. Based on the history of apostolic succession and the consistency of her teachings over the course many centurys, the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus started.”

Keep in mind that it is easier to deny God’s existence than it is to deny the existence of Pope Francis.

Reference: Post 82 above. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10512110&postcount=82
 
grannymh said:
To make this really work, we have to start with number “6. Based on the history of apostolic succession and the consistency of her teachings over the course many centurys, the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus started.”

Keep in mind that it is easier to deny God’s existence than it is to deny the existence of Pope Francis.

Reference: Post 82 above. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10512110&postcount=82
Click to expand...
Since I’ve never really found much validity in the protestant arguments against the Catholic Church’s authority, I find this to be a fine end to logical chain. It’s the middle part that I find difficult to logically prove; the part that logically proves Jesus is who he said he was. To prove this is to prove the validity of his teachings and everything thereafter.
 
Here is an example. The Catholic Church is the oldest, ongoing organization in the world. This does not address its message. It addresses its endurance. Is endurance a logical argument for an organization? Yes. Is endurance a logical argument for the Catholic Church? Also yes. Endurance is expressed by the Apostolic Mark.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the followers of Judaism would be surprised to find out that the Catholic Church predates them. As would many other organizations.
 
Bort said:
Since I’ve never really found much validity in the protestant arguments against the Catholic Church’s authority, I find this to be a fine end to logical chain. It’s the middle part that I find difficult to logically prove; the part that logically proves Jesus is who he said he was. To prove this is to prove the validity of his teachings and everything thereafter.
Click to expand...
The following are not exactly what you are looking for but are helpful. Please excuse if I have already posted these to you.
The poetry in the stars is very interesting. The paths of the stars and planets can be forecasted and historically researched using software. The Crucifixion can be dated by finding dates that fit the Jewish Passover and the occurrence of the Blood Moon (eclipse) during the reign of Pilot, the Roman governor in office when Christ died. The constellations at that time symbolized King, lamb, death and virgin (all applicable to Christ). SO, THE STARS TOLD WHO CHRIST WAS.

The star of Bethlehem can be shown to have been an extremely unusual real event that occurred at the time of the birth of Christ. The Bible says that the star STOOD STILL over Bethlehem. That star did appear to stand still by RETROGRADE MOTION. The star they saw was a conjunction of Jupiter (the king planet) and Venus (the mother planet) making the brightest star that any spectator had ever seen.

Documentation and scientific endorsements are available online at bethlehemstar . n e t, endorsed by 1) Former Director, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, 2) NASA’s Chief Engineer for the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, and 3) President, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
After Tim Tebow’s 2009 BCS Championship he was forbidden to put John 3:16 on his cheek. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” When Denver beat Pittsburgh (2011), Tebow passed 316 yards, 31.6 yards per pass. The final 1/4 hour TV game rating was 31.6. Key interception by Denver on 3rd & 16. Damaryius Thomas, who caught the game winning pass, was born Dec. 25th (Christ’s birth). GOD ENDORSED JOHN 3:16 !

Man prohibited “3:16” in Tebow’s game. God put “3:16” all over the game. Or was it a coincidence? What were the odds of those 5 things occurring in one game? Occurring to Tim Tebow… a public advocate of John 3:16, who was prohibited from writing it on his face. The receiver who caught the game winning pass was born on Christmas day, Christ’s birthday. How can all those 3:16s be explained?

Rough Odds Calculation:
How many quarter backs put John 3:16 on their face during games and then were prohibited. I’ll assume 100. How many quarterbacks have there been? 100,000 U. S. public schools over 100 years = 10,000,000 quarterbacks. Odds = 1/100,000

How many games had 316 yards passing? With 100,000 U. S. public schools and say 1,000,000 games/year. Over 100 years there were about 100,000,000 games. How many had 316 yards passing. I’ll guess 1000. Odds = 1/100,000

Odds of TWO stats: 1 in 10 Billion

Lord of Heaven and Earth, by your spirit and by your power, may your truth and salvation go out through Bort to the ends of the earth. Amen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top