Logical argument for Catholicism?

[bbbeatt]

In the effort to convince the skeptical, I find the logical arguments for God’s existence to be irrefutable by an intellectually honest man but I have not been able to find such proofs for Catholicism as a religion.

Certainly we can prove the Jesus existed and we can conclude that the reports about him from eye witnesses were most likely true, but that’s not what I’m after.

I’m looking for something akin to the cosmological argument for God, where logically or observably correct premises necessitate the conclusion. What is the purely logical argument for Catholicism?

Bort,
I have below numerous supernatural evidences that the Bible is God’s word in TWO posts.

Summary:

1. The Bible contains scientific knowledge not available at the time the Bible was written (thousands of years ago).
2. The supernatural validation of John 3:16), the Bible’s plan of salvation.
3. The constellations at the time of Christ birth and death indicated who Christ was: King, lamb, death and virgin (Ruler, paid penalty for sins by his death, and born of a virgin).

POST 1

1. The BIBLE CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN (thousands of years ago).

1A)
The Account of Noah’s ark contained engineering knowledge not known in 4500 BC and is therefore proof that the Bible is God’s word.

The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of 6:1 (6 times longer than it was wide, Genesis 6:15). This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.

In 4500 BC, how did Noah, a farmer, know the 6:1 ratio? God’s told him.

1B)
The Account of Noah’s ark, 4500 BC, contained knowledge regarding the worlds animals not known to people of that area and time and is therefore proof that the Bible is God’s word.

Primitive peoples rarely traveled over 50 miles from their birthplace. If the story was fabricated, the ark would have been sized to contain only the animals known to the writer (50 mile radius).

The ark was huge, longer than a football field & 3 stories high. Large enough for the animals from all the continents that Noah had never even heard of: The ark could hold 125,280 sheep. But the average size of animals on earth is smaller than a cat! Over 99% of earth’s species are bacteria, marine life (not taken) or insects (tiny) leaving 21000 species (40% birds)! They fit in 56% of the ark, leaving 44% for food.

carm . org / could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals.

1C)
In 1948, Israel became a nation again as the Bible prophesied in 750 BC.

This is proof that the Bible is God’s word.

Israel had been conquered and it’s people scattered around the world. It hadn’t been a sovereign nation since 586 BC.

"I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the Lord your God. Amos 9:14,15, Ezekiel 37:21-22, Ezekiel 34:13, Jeremiah 31:10

1D)
That God made man from dust was written in the Bible 4000 years ago.

“The Lord God formed the man from the DUST OF THE GROUND and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7

How would Moses have known 4000 years ago that the components of man are found in the dust? Every element on the planet is found in dust.

Because the Bible is God’s word. His word is for you. Christ came to offer you peace. “Come to me all you are weary and burdened and I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28 NIV

1E)
Geology:
Earth started as a DARK, molten steamy mass. As the earth cooled and its atmosphere cleared, VAGUE SUNLIGHT (but not the sun) would become visible from earth’s surface… then later the sun and moon would become identifiable as the atmosphere cleared further with the cooling of the earth.

ORDER: Darkness, then light, then identifiable sun, moon & stars.

Bible:
Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
v2 Now the earth was formless and empty, DARKNESS was over the surface of the deep…
v3-5 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was LIGHT… the first day.
v 14 God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven … the great light… the small light and the stars…. the 4th day

ORDER: Darkness, then light, then identifiable sun, moon & stars.

Explanation:
In verse 1, the earth and heavenly bodies were created. In verse 2, the earth is DARK. From the earth’s perspective, LIGHT, but not the sun appeared in the first day. The SUN, MOON & STARS appeared in the 4th day… just like current scientific theory. Darkness, then light, then identifiable sun, moon & stars as the earth’s atmosphere cleared.

Moses recorded it in 2000 BC, nearly 4000 years before scientists thought of it.
If you doubt, pray with your whole heart:

God, if you exist… please reveal yourself to me!

1F)
The account of Peleg, 2250BC, contained knowledge not known to people of that time about Pangea.

It is proof that the Bible is God’s word.

Scientists believe that there was one continent called Pangea which separated into the 7 continents. On a globe you can see that the Americas could fit into Europe and Africa.
“Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was DIVIDED” Genesis 10:25 The Hebrew word Peleg means a dividing by a “small channel of water”.

1G)
Was there a World Wide Flood?
The Biblical account of Noah says that there was. Every major culture on earth has a flood legend. Of over 200 flood legends, 95% say the flood was universal. So, the histories of the world’s cultures agree with the Biblical Account.

Sure, primitive cultures had many fantasy legends. But why do ALL the major cultures have the flood legend… unless it really happened.

carm . org / could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals

CONTINUED IN POST 2

 

[bbbeatt]

In the effort to convince the skeptical, I find the logical arguments for God’s existence to be irrefutable by an intellectually honest man but I have not been able to find such proofs for Catholicism as a religion.

Certainly we can prove the Jesus existed and we can conclude that the reports about him from eye witnesses were most likely true, but that’s not what I’m after.

I’m looking for something akin to the cosmological argument for God, where logically or observably correct premises necessitate the conclusion. What is the purely logical argument for Catholicism?

POST 2

1. THE SUPERNATURAL VALIDATION OF JOHN 3:16, THE BIBLE’S PLAN OF SALVATION.

John 3:16 : “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.”

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 do you explain all those 3:16s?

Random Chance Odds:
How many quarterbacks 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

1. THE CONSTELLATIONS AT THE TIME OF CHRIST INDICATED WHO CHRIST WAS

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.

 

[jonathan_hili]

How can we know that logical impossible things cannot exist?

Because the very definition of x includes certain necessary properties that are essential to x = x. If you deny or contradict those properties, you could not have x. For example, a triangle necessarily has three sides. There cannot be a triangle in any possible world that has < or > three sides. If it did, it wouldn’t be a triangle. Now, I can’t see how anyone could imagine a possible triangle without three sides. Similarly, it is impossible to imagine logically impossible things. I mean, just give me one example.

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.

Umm that’s just nonsense. A circle doesn’t have any angles and cannot have angles. If it did it wouldn’t be a circle.

How?
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.

We can say the same thing about God because we have established that logically impossible things are – well, impossible! Hence, God could not create a stone so heavy He couldn’t lift it.

It’s because we understand the nature of what a contradiction is, that is, the denial of the posited assertion. God, for instance, could not create a determined free human being because the quality of being determined fundamentally contradicts the quality of being free. One can be either determined or free at the same time, or determined at some point and free at another, but one cannot be determined and free at the same time.

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.

Now that is illogical. If you are denying our capacity to know “truth”, how can you say it “doesn’t make it right”? We wouldn’t even know if there was a “right” or “wrong”.

The problem is that you assert existence is illogical or could be without any evidence – it’s just an assertion. All the evidence points the other way. Now, you could then assert that because existence is illogical, the evidence doesn’t matter as our reason is incapable of understanding the illogical nature of the universe. But that’s simply not how humans work. We operate on a daily basis as if the universe does have meaning and reason behind it.

Indeed, the whole point seems self-refuting. If we cannot know what the universe is really like and all our reasonings are so much rubbish, then to argue that the universe is fundamentally illogical and that logically contradictory things can occur is to undermine the very argument being made. It is logic (and the rules that underpin logic, like the law of non-contradiction) and intelligibility that support your argument: if you knock them out, your argument becomes worthless, no longer an argument, merely an assertion.

See, with you, I would disagree with the statement: “I find the logical arguments for God’s existence to be irrefutable by an intellectually honest man”. Not because they are not good arguments, and not because the man is not intellectually honest, but because reasoning to truth is a difficult thing to do and can be easily coloured by learned prejudices.

Rather, I’d suggest that the strongest argument for God’s existence is the reasonable and intelligible nature of the universe, our ability to discern this, and the surprising fittingness that an intelligent, rational and moral animal like man has in the world.

 

[carn]

Similarly, it is impossible to imagine logically impossible things.

To highlight my point:
Similarly, it is impossible for us to imagine logically impossible things.

We are not the measuring stick for what is true and what is not true. If we cannot imagine something, that is of no consequence.

Umm that’s just nonsense. A circle doesn’t have any angles and cannot have angles. If it did it wouldn’t be a circle.

No it is not nonsense:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature#Total_curvature
“The sum of the angles of a triangle on a surface of positive curvature will exceed π, while the sum of the angles of a triangle on a surface of negative curvature will be less than π.”
If the angle of the triangle are all 180°, it would look like a circle.

Now that is illogical. If you are denying our capacity to know “truth”, how can you say it “doesn’t make it right”? We wouldn’t even know if there was a “right” or “wrong”.

Again, just because we know or do not know or can imagine or cannot imagine, does not change anything. If we die tomorrow, the issue of a first cause would not change the slightest, only there would be no one left to discuss it.

There is nothing illogical about assuming existance being illogical so that humans are unable to comprehend it - we are then simply a failure.

The problem is that you assert existence is illogical or could be without any evidence – it’s just an assertion.

Just as the assertion that its logical.

All the evidence points the other way.

Thats just empirical evidence and its only about our universe. Since any true cause might be outside our universe, the empirical evidence is useless in respect to a potential first cause.

Now, you could then assert that because existence is illogical, the evidence doesn’t matter as our reason is incapable of understanding the illogical nature of the universe. But that’s simply not how humans work. We operate on a daily basis as if the universe does have meaning and reason behind it.

Yes, would be pretty hard on us and our thinking. But why should existance care that its “truth” is hard on us?

if you knock them out, your argument becomes worthless, no longer an argument, merely an assertion.

Yes, but an irrefutable one. Since it cannot be refuted, proving there must be a first cause becomes impossible.

I only have a bone with the claim, that first cause can be proven. It can only, if we assume that logic works outside our universe or even further, simply anywhere.

 

[jonathan_hili]

To highlight my point:
Similarly, it is impossible for us to imagine logically impossible things.
We are not the measuring stick for what is true and what is not true. If we cannot imagine something, that is of no consequence.

But I think we have a difference in kind here, rather than degree. I mean, neither you nor I could imagine (that is, image in our minds) an island with 4,000,000 trees on it or a line that begins at one point and continues to infinity. We are just not capable of doing this. However, it certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that such things could exist or that someone could imagine them.

Yet logically impossible things are impossible to imagine anyone doing them or they being instantiated at all. One can’t see how such a thing could possibly occur.

No it is not nonsense:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature#Total_curvature
“The sum of the angles of a triangle on a surface of positive curvature will exceed π, while the sum of the angles of a triangle on a surface of negative curvature will be less than π.”
If the angle of the triangle are all 180°, it would look like a circle.

Sure, it may look like a circle because of its curvature, but it still is a triangle, not a circle. To be frank, it doesn’t really look like a circle.

Again, just because we know or do not know or can imagine or cannot imagine, does not change anything. If we die tomorrow, the issue of a first cause would not change the slightest, only there would be no one left to discuss it.

There is nothing illogical about assuming existance being illogical so that humans are unable to comprehend it - we are then simply a failure.

Okay, but what is your assumption based on? Isn’t it based on some kind of reasoning? I mean, I could assert that I’m the only person that exists and everyone else is a figment of my imagination, but it would be a pretty baseless assertion.

I think there is something illogical about assuming existence to be illogical because you are relying on logic to assume this.

Just as the assertion that its logical.

No it isn’t. We actually apply our reason to the world, and it works! Mathematics works, our moral reasoning works, we formulate scientific laws that work, there is logical consistency in the way things generally happen, etc. If a horse suddenly appeared in my room out of nowhere, my bed turned to jello, and I thought I was a Tahitian lime tree, okay, I’d grant that our reasoning about reality is baseless - but this just does not happen, which suggests there is logic and intelligibility to the universe.

Thats just empirical evidence and its only about our universe. Since any true cause might be outside our universe, the empirical evidence is useless in respect to a potential first cause.

Perhaps, but not in understanding what a cause is.

Yes, but an irrefutable one. Since it cannot be refuted, proving there must be a first cause becomes impossible.
I only have a bone with the claim, that first cause can be proven. It can only, if we assume that logic works outside our universe or even further, simply anywhere.

I’m not sure what to say. To me, it seems obvious that logic would work irrespective of where it operates: it’s a self-referential reality. 1+1 will always equal 2, it doesn’t matter if it’s in a parallel universe or wherever. Similarly, a cause will always be something which brings about something else, it can’t not be, since that is its definition.

If the universe had a beginning, that is, it began to exist, something must have caused to exist unless it caused itself. To suggest that the universe just popped out of nothing without a cause is neither helpful nor an explanation. I mean, imagine we used that recourse for anything that happened?

 

[WmJackP]

WmJack
**
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.**

This full and productive life is experienced by many Christians … even the many (like myself) who have explored the possibilities of atheism and found them to be narrow and suffocating.

I quite agree that one can find meaning in their faith. Kirkegaard’s philosophy is predominately devoted to finding meaning (eg. his concept of “leap of faith”) in his Christianity. Furthermore, just as you may be aquainted with atheists who seem to have no where to go when they need solace or who find themselves faced with an absurd existence, I also have known religious zealots who allow themselves to be trapped and isolated intellectually because of the stiffiling influence of their faith. I have also known of Christians who have taken their beliefs to such extremes that it borders on a pathological condition, and, those who are so twisted in ritual and arcane practices that there is nothing to seperate them from the conventionally superstitious.

Nonetheless, I am actually glad for you if you find your peace and purpose in your faith. However, as for me, I found an unbrideled freedom in letting go of the ritual,and, what I perceive to be the artificialility of this belief system. I find the world much more beautiful, that way, and, I easily find meaning in study, athletics, the creation of art and in stimulating intellectual discourse. That is where meaning is for me.

Please allow me to also add that I would never presume to force it on others, so, as I said, I am happy for you.

 

[WmJackP]

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.”

Do you agree that for a proposition to be believed, that the proposition must be worthy of belief?

And if you agree then what makes a proposition worthy of belief?

 

[WmJackP]

The worship of God, in the Hebrew-Christian tradition, is a form of relationship with God, not simply some form of tribute as it was in some pagan religions.

I don’t think most of your comments withstand serious scruntiny.

Of course God requires worship. The first commandment given to Moses speaks to that. I have also heard many times that he is also a jealous god, and, hence not to be messed with. How can you convincingly translate that to a relational context?

Is God to be placated? I would think you make my argument each time you pray.

Do I confuse elements of paganism with those of Christian ritual? Certainly, but, that is not because such confusion arises from my inability to distinguish Christian from pagan. Rather it is because historically the two are intertwined and fused with one another.

 

[Foofaraw]

In the effort to convince the skeptical, I find the logical arguments for God’s existence to be irrefutable by an intellectually honest man but I have not been able to find such proofs for Catholicism as a religion.

Certainly we can prove the Jesus existed and we can conclude that the reports about him from eye witnesses were most likely true, but that’s not what I’m after.

I’m looking for something akin to the cosmological argument for God, where logically or observably correct premises necessitate the conclusion. What is the purely logical argument for Catholicism?

You seem to have a bit of rethinking to do, and other contributors to this thread are doing their best to help. Personally, I think that you would do well to reconsider your basic premise, that the cosmological argument actually proves the existence of a specific God. All such arguments point to a beginning involving a cause, but no where do they specify the properties of that cause.

Most Abrahamic religions insert their own belief, an almighty, all-knowing God as “cause,” despite that the existence of such an entity is illogical and fraught with contradictions, and thus is in violation of the alleged logic used to arrive at the need for a cause in the first place.

Modern scientists employ the Big Bang as cause, citing its origin as the sudden explosion of a physical singularity that just happened to contain all the mass and energy in the universe plus the laws of physics that make the universe work. This is also an illogical concept, and is very similar to the God hypothesis in that it hypothesizes something that cannot be known or scientifically experimented upon.

I’m partial to the banned Greylorn’s hypothesis about the beginnings of things because it makes logical sense and can be empirically verified, at least to a large extent. Plus it deals effectively with the motivation question.

As for the value of any particular religion, beliefs are unnecessary when the ideas that they support are perfectly logical and can be generally verified. Astronomers do not need to attend weekly services to assure them of the reality of stars, galaxies, and black holes. Physicists do not attend weekly meetings to assure them that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are still in force, unchanged from their original inceptions. That would not even be true, because they have changed since then.

When scientists do attend meetings, their purpose is rarely to affirm existing principles, but rather to extend those principles or consider entirely new ones. IMO that is exactly what should be happening in churches today. Instead of reciting dogma and re-reading ancient scriptures, a live church could be figuring out how its notions of God and the human soul fit into modern scientific understanding.

 

[Foofaraw]

While it’s off the topic of my original question, for the sake of enjoyable discourse, assume you were a creator God and there was a specific way you had intended for your creatures to act, but also wanted to give them the free will to disobey those commands. How would you choose to reveal your code of morality?

I would have them either blow up or disintegrate into a glob of goo upon the first disobedience. I would expect the surviving creatures to learn quickly from the mistakes of their fellows. Assuming that I could not manage to make them any smarter than humans, I would make a lot of these creatures, to deal with the anticipated high attrition rate.

 

[jonathan_hili]

You seem to have a bit of rethinking to do, and other contributors to this thread are doing their best to help. Personally, I think that you would do well to reconsider your basic premise, that the cosmological argument actually proves the existence of a specific God. All such arguments point to a beginning involving a cause, but no where do they specify the properties of that cause.

Precisely. It is problematic to assume too much from a single argument. Of course, the argument can point in certain directions and can be used in a cumulative case but standing alone, it doesn’t tell us that much.

Most Abrahamic religions insert their own belief, an almighty, all-knowing God as “cause,” despite that the existence of such an entity is illogical and fraught with contradictions, and thus is in violation of the alleged logic used to arrive at the need for a cause in the first place.

How so?

Modern scientists employ the Big Bang as cause, citing its origin as the sudden explosion of a physical singularity that just happened to contain all the mass and energy in the universe plus the laws of physics that make the universe work. This is also an illogical concept, and is very similar to the God hypothesis in that it hypothesizes something that cannot be known or scientifically experimented upon.

I’m not getting what’s illogical about the Big Bang hypothesis, Foofaraw. Just because something cannot be known - which is a matter of debate - or scientifically experimented upon, it doesn’t mean it’s illogical. There are lots of reasonable and true things that can be neither fully known nor experimented upon which we would not call illogical.

I’m partial to the banned Greylorn’s hypothesis about the beginnings of things because it makes logical sense and can be empirically verified, at least to a large extent. Plus it deals effectively with the motivation question.

Can you explain this hypothesis, as I’ve never heard of it?

As for the value of any particular religion, beliefs are unnecessary when the ideas that they support are perfectly logical and can be generally verified. Astronomers do not need to attend weekly services to assure them of the reality of stars, galaxies, and black holes. Physicists do not attend weekly meetings to assure them that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are still in force, unchanged from their original inceptions. That would not even be true, because they have changed since then.

When scientists do attend meetings, their purpose is rarely to affirm existing principles, but rather to extend those principles or consider entirely new ones. IMO that is exactly what should be happening in churches today. Instead of reciting dogma and re-reading ancient scriptures, a live church could be figuring out how its notions of God and the human soul fit into modern scientific understanding.

Hmmm it doesn’t sound like you understand what religion is, Foofaraw. Religion is primarily based on acts of revelation, not human intuition, philosophising or scientific experimentation. And attending church or such services is generally a form of communion and worship, not an educational session. In fact, many theologians are working at how notions of God and the human soul align or do not align with modern scientific understanding.

 

[Foofaraw]

:
Most Abrahamic religions insert their own belief, an almighty, all-knowing God as “cause,” despite that the existence of such an entity is illogical and fraught with contradictions, and thus is in violation of the alleged logic used to arrive at the need for a cause in the first place.

How so?

Here are just a few examples.

Omnipotence cannot be used in this universe. Were God to apply infinite force to a single proton, the proton would instantly accelerate to light speed, at which point it would acquire infinite mass, thus becoming an infinitely massive black hole that instantly attracts all matter and energy in the universe into it, thus destroying the universe.

Omnipotence contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, or is contradicted by that Law, depending upon your perspective. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. God can neither create it nor destroy it. If he created it, as religious people believe, then he can also destroy it, rendering the 1st Law invalid. And, mind you, this is the most important law in all of physics— if it is false, so is every other physics principle.

Omniscience contradicts the notion that humans have free will. If an omnipotent and omniscient entity knows that you are going to eat a bean next Sunday at exactly 4am your time, you will wake up, get out of bed, and find a bean to eat, even if you must sleepwalk to do so. You may tell yourself that you chose to eat that bean, but honest logic says otherwise. (As a result of this logic, there is at least one major Protestant religion that believes in predestination.)

If God is omniscient he knows everything and therefore cannot have a creative thought. (This contradicts his Old Testament behavior, in which he clearly expresses no knowledge of forthcoming events. Read the story of Job.) If God cannot have a creative thought, then he cannot do something that even we lowly humans do on a regular basis. How is it that the Creator of the Universe cannot have a creative thought? Makes no sense to me. .

I’m not getting what’s illogical about the Big Bang hypothesis, Foofaraw. Just because something cannot be known - which is a matter of debate - or scientifically experimented upon, it doesn’t mean it’s illogical. There are lots of reasonable and true things that can be neither fully known nor experimented upon which we would not call illogical.

Singularities commonly arise in mathematics, such as when a finite number is divided by zero, or if one attempts to calculate the tangent of 90 degrees. The product is an unknown result that mathematicians who disavow finite-number theory have labeled “infinity.” Infinity is not a real or finite number, but by these confused mathematicians is treated as if it was.

Enter physics. Now and then a physics student will formulate a problem in such a manner that a term which appears in the denominator of a fraction calculates out to zero, producing “infinity” as the problem’s final solution. Such hapless students always get an “F” for their solution.

Yet cosmology professors have seen fit to hypothesize something they call a “physical singularity,” a thing that was infinitely small (occupying no space) and which contained all the matter and energy now distributed throughout our universe. They deserve a bit fat “F” for their efforts.

Moreover, although we live in a cause-effect universe, they fail to offer any notion as to what caused their cosmic singularity to blow up. Finally, attempts to mathematically work out exactly how the explosion created the many different subatomic particles that comprise ordinary matter fail miserably. Dark energy is not even mentioned in their expansion models. (BTW Greylorn’s book explains “dark energy” rather effectively, and effortlessly, in a manner that non-physicists can easily understand.)

The physical singularity model cannot be experimentally verified, cannot be modeled in a computer, and fails to explain the details of universe formation. Real physics prides itself upon the predictive value of its important theories (e.g. E=mc[sup]2[/sup] predicted atomic energy and time dilation before these things were observed.) If Big Bang theory was worth a hoot, it would at least have predicted the discovery of dark energy (which comprises 75% of the universe) and dark matter (about 20%). Thus, Big Bang theory fails to meet any of the normal standards of physics.

 

[Foofaraw]

Can you explain this hypothesis, as I’ve never heard of it?

Greylorn’s hypothesis is too deep and way too controversial for this forum. Plus it requires some background. His book, Digital Universe, Analog Soul can be found on Amazon. If you get it, read it at least twice. I read it three times, finding good ideas that I’d missed on the first two passes. Be prepared to dislike Greylorn, but without his arrogance and curious sense of humor, he’d probably not have been able to write that book.

Hmmm it doesn’t sound like you understand what religion is, Foofaraw. Religion is primarily based on acts of revelation, not human intuition, philosophising or scientific experimentation. And attending church or such services is generally a form of communion and worship, not an educational session. In fact, many theologians are working at how notions of God and the human soul align or do not align with modern scientific understanding.

We all can take different things from the same event, and I have no doubt that religion, for you, takes on different aspects than it did for me. I was a Catholic for two decades, and have since attended many masses. I’ve also shown up at other services, typically at the behest of a cherished friend. For me, little seems to have changed. Some Catholic and other services now begin with a little ritual that consists of saying something nice to and shaking hands with pew neighbors, complete strangers that I’ve never met again. Mostly the Catholic services I’ve recently attended consisted of the old rituals, except in English instead of Latin, with a smattering of parishioner participation. I’ve not heard a sermon that was not right out of the sermon-books-- nothing to provoke thought-- plenty to initiate slumber. So my comments were based upon my personal experiences. It is good that yours are different.

BTW, I know that a few theologians are trying to reconcile Catholic dogma with science, but IMO they are too constrained by that dogma to do so effectively. Greylorn does a decent, if controversial job of integrating theology with physics and biological evolution, but his ideas are an entirely new take on theology because he uses his physics perspective from the get-go (after first explaining the necessary physics in a clear and simple manner). Few theologians understand physics, and so are ill-equipped to even evaluate such unique ideas.

I’d actually like to see theology, even alternative theologies, discussed in a church setting. Such meetings won’t be for everyone, but a diverse religious group will normally contain an interesting mix of people with different educations and backgrounds, and a full range of human imagination. If the setting was open to all possible ideas, especially potential heresies, and if it was thoughtfully guided, I’ll wager that one church in a university city would do better job of idea integration than all the theologians on the planet.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the effort to convince the skeptical, I find the logical arguments for God’s existence to be irrefutable by an intellectually honest man but I have not been able to find such proofs for Catholicism as a religion.

Certainly we can prove the Jesus existed and we can conclude that the reports about him from eye witnesses were most likely true, but that’s not what I’m after.

I’m looking for something akin to the cosmological argument for God, where logically or observably correct premises necessitate the conclusion. What is the purely logical argument for Catholicism?

Try reading Grammar of Assent and Apologia Pro Via Sua by Cardinal John Henry Newman. Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

Okay, you raise some good points that I’d like to address, Foofaraw.

Omnipotence cannot be used in this universe.

God’s omnipotence means He has the power to do anything if it is not logically contradictory (that is, impossible by definition). Now just because God can do something, it doesn’t mean that He chooses to do something, especially if doing it will cause the destruction of the universe! (Incidentally, it may very well be possible for God to isolate a particular proton so that it would not have an affect on those around it.) God’s omnipotence doesn’t mean that He exerts maximal force all the time on everything in the universe.

Omnipotence contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, or is contradicted by that Law…

A scientific natural law is only a formulation of predictability in observed and calculated events. If God chose to change the structure of the universe, we may very well find that the First Law of Thermodynamics no longer applies. Again, just because God can do something, it does mean He will.

Omniscience contradicts the notion that humans have free will.

Knowing something doesn’t cause something. For instance, we know that Napoleon lost at Waterloo. Now, imagine we went back in time to Waterloo, just before the battle. We know that Napoleon is going to lose. Does that mean we caused him to lose or that he has no free will in his actions? Obviously not. God is outside of time and space, therefore all times are present to Him. I guess another analogy might be reading a novel. As a reader, you know what will happen, is happening and has happened to a particular character in the novel at a particular time. But you didn’t write the novel. You just know it from being outside the novel and so not limited by the novel’s chronology.

And I don’t really understand how being omniscient, that is, knowing all things and all contingencies, means that you cannot be creative. I mean, I might know everything there is to know about baking bread, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t be creative about the way I do it.

Thus, Big Bang theory fails to meet any of the normal standards of physics.

Even if this were true - I don’t know enough about physics to decide whether it is or not - it doesn’t mean that it is either illogical or untrue.

As for your evaluation of Catholic Mass, well, I guess it depends on your approach to it too. I find basketball exceedingly dull and so when I watch it on TV I nearly fall asleep. But some people are just enthralled by it. I understand why by what they say, though not by personal experience. I guess Mass may be the same way for you. For myself, I feel lifted into Christ’s presence during Mass and, on many occasions, have been overcome by the love and beauty of God that it has brought me to tears.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

What I get from your post is that a rational human being can choose to make themselves irrational by an act of will. Not only that, but can convince themselves that irrationality is, additionally, a meaningful aesthetic exercise.

Okay.

However, you cannot then go around asking for a rationally convincing means of overcoming your leap into irrationality since you won’t accept that rationality is anything but self-inflicted brainwashing. How can you expect a rational or logical argument to be an effective means of changing your thinking when you renounce reason as the very grounds for doing so?

You have, it seems, chosen your poison. Not only that, but you also claim that your chosen poison is an exquisite experience. You seem to be requesting an antidote, but refuse to swallow it until you are convinced that the antidote is better than the poison. However, it seems equally clear that your standard of evidence, cannot be founded on rational grounds, but rather on your personal aesthetic taste. How is this different from an addict so tied to their choice of drug that they cannot see beyond its euphoria to the possibility that they inhabit an existence that is a mere illusion and not reality at all?

I suspect, because of the internal ramparts you have so carefully constructed as a bulwark against “foreign” ideas, that the only one (besides God) who can help you overcome yourself is you. This seems very much in accord with the fact that any temptation to evil (or irrationality) is compelling or alluring until it is not. At the point of “waking up,” reality can only be known when the necessary blunt force has been applied to cast off the illusion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Greylorn’s hypothesis is too deep and way too controversial for this forum. Plus it requires some background. His book, Digital Universe, Analog Soul can be found on Amazon. If you get it, read it at least twice. I read it three times, finding good ideas that I’d missed on the first two passes. Be prepared to dislike Greylorn, but without his arrogance and curious sense of humor, he’d probably not have been able to write that book.

Methinks Greylorn is back. At least the ghost of…

For the record…

Greylorn is/was quite a likable fellow. Apparently, the reports of his departure were greatly exaggerated.

 

[Bort]

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.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Since most people are wedded to the idea that something has to be seen before it can be believed…My suggestion is to start with the visible Catholic Church on earth. Use the four marks of this Church, one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic. Those who attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday know that these attributes are professed in the Creed.

#6 – Objective truth. Very few people understand the meaning of objective reasoning which normally would lead to objective truth. The difficulty is when both objective and subjective are used – which by the way, can be valid depending on how each is used and recognized as such.

 

[Bort]

My suggestion is to start with the visible Catholic Church on earth. Use the four marks of this Church, one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic.

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?