Logical argument for Catholicism?

[Linusthe2nd]

I also find it implausable that this orinating primal principle would require worship, could be placated by prayer, or “reveal” himself or itself in oblique and arcane literature (the bible) and then choose to actually select one class of the species (the hebrews) as its “chosen people” to be far fetched and fanciful thinking. Additionally, since what is written in this seminal text is presumably at the inspiration of the diety, then that it would require interpretation by another favored class (the clergy), then altogether, this is simply too imaginative to be reasonably entertained by rational persons. I am afraid that you must count me out on revealed religion.

You have the wrong idea. God revealed himself because mankind wasn’t making any progress towards the truth about himself and his proper end. God chose the Israelites for no other reason than he wanted to demonstrate Who He Was by His relations with a particular group of people.

You are on a Christian site please refrain from derogatory appelations in speaking of the Bible or any Religion or Religous group.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have a similar impression. I would never say this pertains to you, but, there are certainly folks who refuse to yield to rational argument. When something seems to make sense, they shut it out because it conflicts with an inviolable paradigm which their belief system conditions them to reject as an assault by demons or other otherwordly sources intent on leading the faithful astray. Hence, a closed mind. Anyone suffering from an inability to question, to explore possibilities or to otherwise give free reign to one’s intellectual faculties should stive to recover and break loose in order to live a full and productive life.

So we are to follow all the secular, " liberated " limmings off the cliff ? No thanks, I’ve see the shattered wrecks that so many leave behind. The first thing that strikes me about them is that none of them are really happy and content and generally they are angry all the time. Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

You have the wrong idea. God revealed himself because mankind wasn’t making any progress towards the truth about himself and his proper end. God chose the Israelites for no other reason than he wanted to demonstrate Who He Was by His relations with a particular group of people.

You are on a Christian site please refrain from derogatory appelations in speaking of the Bible or any Religion or Religous group.

Yet, Catholicism goes back to when God revealed Himself to the first two humans at the beginning of human history. Wouldn’t this fact be a logical argument for Catholicism?

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

Yet, Catholicism goes back to when God revealed Himself to the first two humans at the beginning of human history. Wouldn’t this fact be a logical argument for Catholicism?

Only if you know that God did in fact reveal Himself to the first two humans.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Only if you know that God did in fact reveal Himself to the first two humans.

All religion depends on the activity of faith within the believer in order to benefit from the life of that religion in the soul and in the practical realities of everday living.

Reason assists faith, but does not dominate it.

Is that the reason you are no longer Catholic? You lost your faith?

Faith is a theological virtue, dependent on our regular practice of it, regular prayer, regular spiritual efforts, regular reading of scripture, regular adult catechesis (formally or informally), and the regular practice of informing oneself, not to mention being open the action of the Divine within us.

IOW, faith is not dependent on sure “knowledge.”

 

[grannymh]

Only if you know that God did in fact reveal Himself to the first two humans.

I am just a granny.

I was referring to Catholicism in that it starts from the beginning of human history. If an organization starts its teaching with the beginning of human history, I would think that is pretty good logic. However, it is up to you, not me, to determine your own personal worldview. I am just the messenger.

Speaking about a message…one does have to logically analyze all the messages regardless of what other people choose to think. For example. Are the messages logical in reference to life? If the messages are logical, then that becomes a logical argument for Catholicism. People can discuss beliefs etc. 'til the cows come home. I am more interested in the logic…as in the thread title.

 

[ColdComfort]

Then i am a dishonest man, since in my eyes the cosmological argument falls flat by concluding from our experience in this universe that everything has a cause, causual loops cannot exist and that causual chains cannot be of infinite length.

Everything that moves has a cause. Not everything. Or anything that could possibly not exist has a cause. Not everything. If something moves it’s motion must be caused by something else. If something exists such that it’s non-existence is possible then it must have a cause outside itself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yet, Catholicism goes back to when God revealed Himself to the first two humans at the beginning of human history. Wouldn’t this fact be a logical argument for Catholicism?

Yes, of couse. Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yet, Catholicism goes back to when God revealed Himself to the first two humans at the beginning of human history. Wouldn’t this fact be a logical argument for Catholicism?

Yes, of couse. Linus2nd

There are more logical arguments for Catholicism ???

I am using as the first logical argument – The teachings of Catholicism start with the beginning of human history. The reason I omitted God revealing Himself is that I think that the logical arguments should first address the visible Catholic Church on earth.

What about a logical argument such as – Catholicism is self-sustaining on an universal basis.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yet, Catholicism goes back to when God revealed Himself to the first two humans at the beginning of human history. Wouldn’t this fact be a logical argument for Catholicism?

There are more logical arguments for Catholicism ???

I am using as the first logical argument – The teachings of Catholicism start with the beginning of human history. The reason I omitted God revealing Himself is that I think that the logical arguments should first address the visible Catholic Church on earth.

What about a logical argument such as – Catholicism is self-sustaining on an universal basis.

Well, it just seemed to me we should begin at the beginning and work up to the founding of the " visible " Church. I guess it is really a matter of what seems best to whoever is answering the question. Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Jack, it’s certainly true - as you intimate - that arguments for existence of God are neither unchallengeable nor convincing to everyone. However, I’d like to look a bit more at some of your statements.

I fail to see how either of these propositions translates to a personal dieity. That is much too much like anthromorphism to suit me. We may as well say that “mathematics” is also a person or has personal attritubes like wisdom or goodness. Altogether it seems to be a throwback to paganism.

I think there is something that’s being missed here. It’s hard to see how an originating principle of the universe that is responsible for the conforming universal laws to the intelligible mind can be anything but a mind. Why? Because for the universe to be rationally understood, and have this understanding as in-built in its structure, requires its creator or originating principle (whichever you prefer) to have a sense of design and purpose, or else we would have to conclude that this was all random, which seems less likely than the alternative. As far as we know, design and purpose and intelligibility are properties of minds, regardless of how complex these minds are. That’s why the comparison of mathematics doesn’t work: mathematics is essentially a language that helps us “decode” the structure of the universe; it isn’t itself the cause or principle of anything.

Now, does this mean that the principle has to be a “personal God”. Well, I guess you could argue that though it is clearly a supremely complex and intelligent mind to have created the universe as it was, it really has no personality. And indeed, if you simply knew design or cosmological arguments, that is probably what you might conclude.

However, I think the moral argument - which I find incredibly persuasive - suggests personality, since morality (unlike design or creativity) is necessarily a quality of persons. Animals don’t have morals, though they may be able to design and be creative and purpose to a point.

So I think any “anthropomorphism” actually goes the other way around: we are only ourselves able to be anthropomorphic about God because the originating principle displays such qualities.

Secondly, while I think the preponderence of the evidence is that there was a historical Jesus,However, I can also see similarities to the development of a legendary figure. Much like the story of King Authur, for example. While most historians believe that there was a historical figure corresponding to the famous Authur, the story of the round table and the
Camalot-esque themes developed along lines of legend rather than fact.

Again, you are absolutely right about legends being built around an historical figure. However, as has been argued elsewhere by more competent historians, it is extremely unlikely that this kind of legend about Jesus would have developed within one generation among Jewish people. Jews had an inbuilt resistance to this kind of thing through their religion: to suddenly and inexplicably adopt this crucified man as not only risen from the dead, but Messiah and Son of God is difficult to believe. Historical legends about Arthur developed hundreds of years after his passing; if the bulk of “Jesus material” is legendary, it was developed within 20 or so years, by Jews who knew him - even one who hated him!

I would argue that catholicism is best understood as a historical movement within a context. It has made valuable contributions to our species particularly to western culture, but, to be --as you put it–intellectually honest, you will also have to recognize it had its ugly moments.

Again, I can’t but agree. Obviously Catholicism is an historical movement - Christianity is an historical religion! - and so the context of the faith is important. Nor should we whitewash the “ugly moments”. However, I don’t think it is “best understood” as solely historical, that is, relative to cultural context, because if so, it is difficult to understand its main theological beliefs. I mean, how on earth do the Resurrection, the Eucharist, other sacraments, etc. fit a Jewish or Roman first century context?

Thanks for the considered response.

Jonathan

 

[carn]

Everything that moves has a cause.

How could we know?

Not yet having seen everything, everything that moves has a cause, is just an assumption. A good one for the world we live in. For others, its validity is unkown.

 

[jonathan_hili]

How could we know?

Not yet having seen everything, everything that moves has a cause, is just an assumption. A good one for the world we live in. For others, its validity is unkown.

Oooooo… That’s what Hume said, but it seems wrong, and I think this is why:

(Oh, by the way, you don’t have to “see everything” to know this.)

(i) If x moves, it means x has changed from point a to point b;
(ii) Point a and point b are different states or places;
(iii) For x to move, requires that x is moved either by itself or something else;
(iv) If x has no mover, then x will not move;
(v) Any mover is a cause;
(vi) Therefore, for x to move requires a cause.

Now, as far as I ca see, propositions (i) and (ii) are indisputable. Propositions (iii) and (iv) are probably what you argue against. However, I don’t see how it is either metaphysically or logically possible for the contrary to be true; even if we grant the logical possibility, the truth of propositions (iii) and (iv) are more likely than their contrary. Point (v) I think follows from these, as does the conclusion.

 

[grannymh]

Well, it just seemed to me we should begin at the beginning and work up to the founding of the " visible " Church. I guess it is really a matter of what seems best to whoever is answering the question. Linus2nd

You’ll take the high road and I’ll take the low road, And I’ll be in Scotland afore you.


Dang! Now I can’t get that old song out of my head. I think it is best that together we find the logical arguments for Catholicism from both directions. What would be your beginning?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’ll take the high road and I’ll take the low road, And I’ll be in Scotland afore you.


Dang! Now I can’t get that old song out of my head. I think it is best that together we find the logical arguments for Catholicism from both directions. What would be your beginning?

What is most effective would be the best road if we just knew which it was??? Linus2nd

I think a better question would be just where does philosophy come into all this? My thought is it is better to follow Paul who said, “…for me, from now on I will preach the Lord and him cursified…” And Paul and the Apostles nearly always started from Christ crusified and Reserected. Paul pretty much gave up on philosophy, he found that the returns weren’t worth the effort. Perhaps we should do the same. It is pretty obvious from this forum that the returns are hardly worth the effort - however intertaining it might be.

Philosophy has its place of course but I think its main value is as the " hand maid of Theology " proper. Linus2nd

 

[PRmerger]

Is that the reason you are no longer Catholic? You lost your faith?

Indeed. Faith is an act of the will. One must first will to submit, and then reason his way to the truth.

 

[carn]

Now, as far as I ca see, propositions (i) and (ii) are indisputable.

For (i) and (ii) x must have be capable of having a position and must have only one position. Hence, we already have the problem with xs, that either can be neither at a nor b or that can be at both a and b at once.

Propositions (iii) and (iv) are probably what you argue against. However, I don’t see how it is either metaphysically or logically possible for the contrary to be true;

Why does it have to logical?
How could we know that the very foundation of existance isnt a contradiction?

Furthermore, “metaphysically … true” implies that the truth can be formulated in human terms. What if the basis for all is such that our words are incapable at describing it?

Thats not a far fetched thought, already this universe might be such that we are incapable of describing it, since it might have all sorts of curled up microdimensions both beyond what human mind and human computers can handle.

even if we grant the logical possibility, the truth of propositions (iii) and (iv) are more likely than their contrary.

How can we decide which is more likely?
I suspect that we only find the one thing more likely because our guts are hardwired to causality.

 

[jonathan_hili]

For (i) and (ii) x must have be capable of having a position and must have only one position. Hence, we already have the problem with xs, that either can be neither at a nor b or that can be at both a and b at once.

X need not have a spatio-temporal position but can be a state, for instance, the movement from the state of happiness to sadness. Now, the beginning of the universe from nothing (that is, no thing), would not have a spatio-temporal position but would have a state of non-existence moving to existence. Does this make sense? Not in itself, but it does in a mind. Our minds do this all the time, where concepts or ideas are moved into states of existence.

Why does it have to logical?
How could we know that the very foundation of existance isnt a contradiction?

The very foundation of existence could not possibly be a contradiction because it would be a logically impossibility so would not only be logically impossible but metaphysically impossible too. It is logical because something that moves has, by its very definition, a mover - be it itself or another. To say that something can move without a mover is like saying “a circle can have three angles”. Sure, you can utter the words but when you analyse the concepts they make no sense.

While we might not be capable of describing the universe, that is, it is beyond our intelligence and linguistic capability, we can still be sure that it is not illogical. We can say the same thing about God. Who can fully understand God using human intelligence and language? No one. But we know even God can’t make a square circle or a determined free human being.

How can we decide which is more likely?
I suspect that we only find the one thing more likely because our guts are hardwired to causality.

Like all things, we use a combination of our experience, reason and intuition. I don’t think that anyone has ever experienced something that moved without a mover; nor, can it be reasoned; and intuitively, I think we feel it makes no sense. Therefore, we can conclude that the opposite is more likely. Sure, you can claim that we don’t know enough, our reason is flawed, and our intuition conditioned, but if you want to do so for such a basic thing as cause and effect, you might as well undermine everything in human epistemology and forget about philosophising at all!

 

[grannymh]

What is most effective would be the best road if we just knew which it was??? Linus2nd

I think a better question would be just where does philosophy come into all this? My thought is it is better to follow Paul who said, “…for me, from now on I will preach the Lord and him cursified…” And Paul and the Apostles nearly always started from Christ crusified and Reserected. Paul pretty much gave up on philosophy, he found that the returns weren’t worth the effort. Perhaps we should do the same. It is pretty obvious from this forum that the returns are hardly worth the effort - however intertaining it might be.

Philosophy has its place of course but I think its main value is as the " hand maid of Theology " proper. Linus2nd

I gave up philosophy when the philosophers being studied in a survey course could not figure out if they existed.
On the other hand, I consider philosophy as a way of understanding the world around us and thus I see it as the “hand maid of Theology”. Perhaps what I see as reasonable is a form of philosophy??? When I can, I like to probe to the essence of a “question”.

As I was thinking about authenticity as a logical argument for Catholicism, I realized that I was leading to the “Marks of the Catholic Church.” The last time I seriously thought about them, outside of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was in 2000 when I did a “Facts of Faith” as a parish bulletin insert. Of course, those Catholics who attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday recite the four Marks, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, in the Creed.

To me, the four Marks of the Catholic Church, go to the essence of the visible Catholic Church. For example, the Mark of holiness. The Catholic Church is seen as Holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. Jesus said: “And behold, I am with you always …” (Matthew 28: 16-20) Jesus, Supreme Holiness, is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist.

 

[carn]

The very foundation of existence could not possibly be a contradiction because it would be a logically impossibility so would not only be logically impossible but metaphysically impossible too.

How can we know that logical impossible things cannot exist?

To say that something can move without a mover is like saying “a circle can have three angles”.

Normal triangle have an angle sum of 180°. By having a positivly curved space that sum increases. My guess is (without doing the maths) that with an infinite curvature the angle sum would be 540°, in which case the triangle would look like a circle. Hence, a circle with three angles could actually work, though it would only look like a circle for one observer and a triangle for the other.

we can still be sure that it is not illogical. We can say the same thing about God.

How?

But we know even God can’t make a square circle or a determined free human being.

We can only say that, because we have the ideas in mind “contradiction=not perfect” and “God=perfect”. But we cannot use Gods qualities in arguing about first cause, because the very existance is in such discussion in question.

Sure, you can claim that we don’t know enough, our reason is flawed, and our intuition conditioned, but if you want to do so for such a basic thing as cause and effect, you might as well undermine everything in human epistemology and forget about philosophising at all!

Of course!
But just that we might based on such approach simply jump out of the next window without remorse, because nothing would matter anyway, doesn’t make it right. And that argument doesn’t even work vs all the nihilist not jumping out of windows, because if existence is illogical, then it doesn’t matter that not jumping out of the window is also illogical.

Ok, i admit, the people in favor of a completely causeless (and hence arbitrary, illogical and meaningless) existence, who agree that its in that case completely irrelevant whether they jump out of the next window (and therefore are consistent) are probably rare enough, that the original quote, which started this issue:
“I find the logical arguments for God’s existence to be irrefutable by an intellectually honest man”

is probably sensible (at least in respect to a first cause, first cause=God is a bit more difficult), because most people having positions amounting to causeless existence are claiming to argue logical and yet inventing myriads of pesky reasons not to jump out of the window.

For me the whole cosmological argument is pretty irrelevant, since in my eyes it can be either way, because in one case there is some sense in existing, which i should better try to live up to, and in the other existence is illogical and meaningless, in which case i can without remorse brainwash myself into believing that there is sense, which i should better try to live up to.