Logical argument for Catholicism?

[polytropos]

If a god exists, there is no reason to suppose that the Holy Bible (as the allegedly revealed word of that god) is any more logical than the alleged revelation to Muhammad, or the Torah, or the belief in Rainbow Serpent and the Dreaming, or the polytheistic Greeks and Romans, or whomever else one could name among the diverse forms of worship on the planet.

…

Why would Catholicism be more logical than another religion?

I think it is hard to be certain (for me, at least, it is). I think one must look at history and try to decide whether or not they agree that the Catholic account of Jesus’s actions is legitimate. The Jews might disagree - but Catholicism adds onto Judaism, so if Jesus did what the Catholic Church says he did, then it’s Catholicism (or Protestantism - but then you would have to explain why [insert Protestant protagonist] fulfilled Christ’s teachings when Christ could not).

 

[polytropos]

Really, people will believe anything, and it’s nearly always the faith tradition in which they were raised. This is hardly surprising.
Quite often, they will die for it.

Incidentally, many of the early martyrs who were ostensible witnesses to Christ were not born into the Faith.

 

[jochoa]

Okay, let’s say you’ve managed to reach the conclusion there is a God. Great.

Is there a logical argument to actually lead from that to the conclusion that Catholicism/Christianity is true?

Solving what must logically happen for the Creator of Everything to create an unlimited number of true friends reveals the Holy Bible, Catechisms, Doctrines, Sacraments, and Creeds of Catholicism were the first complete source of such logic. This information could have only been known by the Creator who was there and made it happen, therefore, the Leaders of the Church were truly inspired by God when writing the Word.

 

[PJM]

=Sultan Of Swing;10802381]Okay, let’s say you’ve managed to reach the conclusion there is a God. Great.

Is there a logical argument to actually lead from that to the conclusion that Catholicism/Christianity is true?

ABSOLUTELY

Here it is in “LOGIC 101”

There IS but One true God [the First cause]

That God can be by observation, be determined to be “good and perfect”

The Universe itself is Good

The Natural Laws are perfect

From this with LOGIC we can determine that a Good and Perfect God MUST [absolutely] hold only one set of Faith beliefs. It would be illogical; theoligically an morally impossible for our One Good God to hold differing views [many even contradictiory] on LONG defined issues.

And God throughout recoreded history has [for reasons ONLY He fully understands] "one chosen people in the OT /Old Covenant and One Church in the NT / New Covenant.

The Bible proves this clearly; logically, and indespuitably as truth is, must be singular.

PROOF OF ONE GOD

ONE FAITH

One Church [today’s Catholic churches]

TAKE CAREFUL NOTE OF WHO CHRIST IS ADDRESSING; DIRECTLY; PRECISELY AND EXCLUSIVELY. HIS APOSTLES; FOUNDERS IN CHRIST NAME OF TODAYS CC.

Parts of Mt. 10:1-8 “And having called his twelve disciples together,** he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities**. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother… These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils”

Mt. 16:15-19 “Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?** Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God**. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this[YOU] rock I will build my church: SINGULAR], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it**. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven**. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

Mt. 18:18 These powers are granted to ALL of the Apostles through Peter

Jn. 14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you” Jn. 20:21-22 “He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you.** As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.** When he had said this**, he breathed on them**; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost”

Mk. 16:14-15 “At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Mt. 28: 19-20 “ Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold** I am with you** all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

There is a GREAT deal more but space and time limits

God Bless you,
Pat /PJM

 

[Abu]

Sultan Of Swing
Okay, let’s say you’ve managed to reach the conclusion there is a God. Great.
Is there a logical argument to actually lead from that to the conclusion that Catholicism/Christianity is true?

Jesus of Nazareth, proved He is God by His Resurrection.

No other religious founder claimed to be God—not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.
The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His Resurrection and many recorded miracles. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion their own beliefs and morals.

 

[Birdmanman]

As others have probably said before; Catholicism cannot be arrived at with certainty (deductively) by an argument from reason alone, and if it were, it would be contradictory to Catholic Teaching as seen here in Vatican I:

1. If anyone says that the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema.
   ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

However, I think that inductive reasoning or what Newman might call the “cumulation of probabilities” can get one close to the acceptance of the Catholic Faith, albeit with only inductive knowledge (if it is based on reason alone).

We mere humans need grace to have Faith, to have certainty in our knowledge of the truth of Catholicism.

 

[prodigalson2011]

As others have probably said before; Catholicism cannot be arrived at with certainty (deductively) by an argument from reason alone, and if it were, it would be contradictory to Catholic Teaching as seen here in Vatican I:

However, I think that inductive reasoning or what Newman might call the “cumulation of probabilities” can get one close to the acceptance of the Catholic Faith, albeit with only inductive knowledge (if it is based on reason alone).

We mere humans need grace to have Faith, to have certainty in our knowledge of the truth of Catholicism.

That section of the Vatican I document you quote doesn’t mean what you’re implying it does. All it is saying is that if anyone says that the only way to receive the faith is through arguments from human reason, they shall be anathema. It does not follow that a rational and convincing case cannot be made for the truth of the Catholic Church (though, as the document points out elsewhere, many of the mysteries within the faith cannot be fully penetrated by human reason.) If what you’re suggesting were the case, St. Thomas Aquinas would be considered a heretic.

 

[Abu]

From the acceptance of the reality of God to the truth of Catholicism is based on the history of Christ Himself.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].

Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

It was Jesus who said to His Apostles “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16)

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus was His Catholic Church founded.

 

[PoorKnight]

I should have started my first post with a proviso:

You are NEVER going to find 100% proof. God would not do that. He wants you to freely choose, to freely LOVE Him. So to present enough evidence so as to over-ride your free-will would be against His plan. You will, at some point, have to choose and have faith for the rest. So, if you’re waiting for that argument that will make everything so clear that it is undeniable, your looking for the wrong thing. Faith must play a role in your decision along side of reason. The same is true for the decision to be Agnostic and Atheist… at some point you must place faith in those beliefs too.

That being said, there are plenty of reasons to put faith into Catholicism over all other religions, but they’re not going to fall into your lap… how much are you willing to look? How much are you willing to Pray?

Even if Christ was predicted, how does that enhance the logicality of him? The Australian Aborigines believed in the oneness of creation probably 30,000 years before anyone in the middle east did. Some belief systems do not rely on Messiahs, specific gods or any historicity.
Which is logical–the creative ancestors that existed from before time, or a Christ that some ancient texts happen to predict?
If you don’t believe in those texts, then the resulting theology is completely illogical, even ridiculous. To believe that Christ was the logical progression from the old to the new testaments, one would need to believe in the texts themselves. If they’re just ancient writings, with some degree of historicity to them, then they stand as primarily historical texts. The difference, obviously, is whether you believe in them or not.
Which god is the right one? Which text? Which prophet?

One cannot just gloss over that fact Jesus was the only religious leader ever pre-announced.

I purposely did not claim anything for the Bible except as an ancient text. If you had ancient texts that predicted some one or something in very specific ways and they all came true, reason would dictate you should take a second look at these texts.

Add to it that these ancient texts are the most accurate ever, regarding ancient titles, times, people etc.

How does the fact that other ancient peoples had yearnings to discover God, address my information at all? It comes across as merely a distraction from the issue.

Muhammad was not predicted in any text that we know of.True, but he’s never presented as a God. He’s a prophet. Most prophets were not predicted. Therefore, I can state, logically, that pre-announcement is not necessary for prophets.

Where do you get the conclusion that “Most prophets were not predicted”. If it’s from the Bible, you just denied the veracity of the Bible when it came to Christ. If it’s from another source, why would you place any authority in that other source? Did it correctly predict the coming of a religious leader? Is it more accurate than any other ancient text?

Also, if I accept your premise, you still have to conclude that Jesus was greater than Muhammad. Muhammad didn’t claim to be God. Jesus DID.

What exactly can you state “logically”? That an unnamed, questionable authoritative source - that you have place your faith in - says that Muhammad is a prophet, that “most” prophets were not predicted and there fore Muhammad didn’t need to be predicted?

Yet, people will willingly die for a theology they believe to be true.

You mis-quoted my words. That is NOT what I said.

I said no one dies for what they KNOW TO BE FALSE. The rest of your argument is based off of a misunderstanding and therefore not valid.

The Apostles, who claimed to have seen Jesus Christ risen from the dead, would have known if they had seen him or not. 11 or the 12 died horrible deaths when all they had to say was “it’s not true” and it would stop.

On top of that, they did not gain wealth, popularity (fame) or pleasure. They lived in poverty, were scorned from their Jewish and secular communities, they commonly were beaten, tortured, ridiculed etc. for their trouble.

There is a logical conclusion for why they would do this: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is true.

Really, people will believe anything, and it’s nearly always the faith tradition in which they were raised. This is hardly surprising.

That’s an opinion presented as fact.

Is it in reference to the Apostles? If so your assumption is wrong. None of the Apostles were raised with the idea of Christ as Messiah, or with his teachings. In that regard, they were all converts… Especially Paul.

Again, show me the “nearly always”. If you want to be logical you cannot make these assumptions that the relativists, agnostics and atheists want you to make.

Yes “people will believe anything”… especially relativism, agnosticism and atheism.

God Bless you in your Journey of Faith

 

[hansard]

People nearly always follow the faith in which they were raised. It’s a fairly clear idea. It’s not a reference to the apostles, who were clearly converts to the new faith.
Converts are comparatively few (that is, comparative to the number of people who remain attached to the faith of their upbringing).

Problem with this?

 

[hansard]

I might add this: if Christianity is ever found to be the “correct” faith, then Catholicism is probably the logical choice from the multitude of denominations. It would seem to have the strongest claims to authenticity among the Christian churches. I’m not sure if that’s the same as being “logically” the true church.

 

[aemcpa]

I might add this: if Christianity is ever found to be the “correct” faith, then Catholicism is probably the logical choice from the multitude of denominations. It would seem to have the strongest claims to authenticity among the Christian churches. I’m not sure if that’s the same as being “logically” the true church.

Catholicism does follow logically from the truth that Christ is God. There is no other logical conclusion.

 

[Abu]

hansard #28 31/5/13 8:53 pm
…if Christianity is ever found to be the “correct” faith, then Catholicism is probably the logical choice from the multitude of denominations. It would seem to have the strongest claims to authenticity among the Christian churches.

Why the conjecture? The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus of Nazareth who is the Son of God – you have been shown that clearly.

What are your remaining uncertainties?

 

[PoorKnight]

People nearly always follow the faith in which they were raised. It’s a fairly clear idea. It’s not a reference to the apostles, who were clearly converts to the new faith.
Converts are comparatively few (that is, comparative to the number of people who remain attached to the faith of their upbringing).

Problem with this?

I still don’t see how this leads to any logical conclusion about the truth of Catholicism. If someone believes something because they were told to, it does not logically follow that the thing they were raised to believe was either true or false.

This, again, is a distracting argument that atheists, relativists and agnostics have told you to believe.

I’ll go with your premise for the sake of discussion. Let’s follow it then. Since the Apostles were converts, that would mean they were heavily motivated to change, as “momentum” to remain in a given faith tradition would be very high.

Questions: What would their motivation be? Fame? Worldly power? Wealth? Worldly pleasures? Worldly comforts? Or Truth?

Study the lives of these 12 men and then tell me what their motivation was.

God Bless you on your journey of faith,

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think that once you reach the conclusion that God exists, you should be asking yourself the question whether God has a relationship with the human race, i.e. whether he has revealed himself to us. The most common argument against this idea is that if God cared about us then he wouldn’t allow suffering. All this means however is that God does not do things the way we want him to. So we can chunk that idea. Then we are faced with the problem of the many, many religions in the world. However this is not such a problem if you think about it. First of all the vast majority of world religions are either based on mythos (Hinduism, etc.) or some philosophy of a man who did not necessarily claim to have any actual connection with God but had certain beliefs about life, death, and the world, etc. (Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.). So in terms of deciding a religion that is objectively true, there are a set of reasonable assumptions we can make:

1. The religion should still exist. If it does not then it is not believable. There are extremely few worshippers of Zeus today and these few are the first in probably thousands of years and do not worship him in the same way that their ancestors did. So we can only accept modern religions.
2. The religion has to be “revelational,” that is, it has to involve a prophet or prophets who have some revelation from God. If it is not revelational, then there is no reason for us to believe that it is from God. The more prophets confirming the revelation, miracles, etc. the better.
3. These prophecies have to have a solid starting point: we should be able to point in history to the time that they claim to have been received, (and fulfilled, if indeed they have been fulfilled) and should line up with recognizable events in history.

These two requirements narrow us down pretty far, we basically have Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism (there are probably others to list here but I don’t know about them).

1. If the religion itself is based on fulfilled prophecy, then it has to be consistent with the teachings of the religion it is fulfilling as well as history in general. There can be no revisionism. “Revised history” only makes sense if there is real, solid evidence that our history has been changed.

This third requirement rules out Islam because of the revision of the “corrupted” old testament and gospel accounts, as well as Mormonism because of both the book of Mormon itself being out of line with the teachings of scripture and of the Church, as well as their beliefs in Jesus appearing to the Native Americans, etc. Consequently it also rules out a large degree of Protestantism/Evangelicalism, at least among those who believe that the list of popes were made up or that the early church was basically a Bible-only Baptist church with symbolic sacraments and no central authority.

So we’re down to Christianity (apostolic) and Judaism. These are the two we have to consider. In both we can learn about divine attributes that are logically consistent with the nature of an infinite God, such as his unchanging nature (nothing that is infinite can logically be subject to change), the notion of creation in general: of God creating the finite universe out of nothing, etc. The Bible contains a combination of mythos (in Genesis) and history as well, from Abraham, to the formation of Israel and the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, to the kings of Israel, the multiple exiles, etc. There is timeless wisdom in the Old Testament, such as from Job, from Ecclesiastes, and other such books, about the meaning of life and the futility of worldly pursuits. There is a solid moral code and philosophy on life when you read the gospels, esp. the beatitudes, and the letters of St. Paul that resonate with the human conscience. There is prophecy after prophecy, leading up to the messianic prophecies which we believe are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. You can read up on Isaiah and learn about this. Anyways this is a very brief exploration of the validity of the Christian faith so I would encourage you to continue to learn for yourself.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Answering the thread’s question:

Assuming first you believe that God exists, there is a logical nexus to be made with the Christian God.

Three sources are very worth examining.

Pensees by Blaise Pascal

Evidences of Christianity by William Paley

The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton

The first two are mainly rational approaches. Chesterton’s is historic and divinely inspired.

 

[fisherman_carl]

1. Jesus rose from the dead validating his claims to be the Son of God since God would not raise a liar from the dead.
2. Jesus started a church.
3. That church is the Catholic Church.
4. Therefore, you should be a Catholic