Miracles to convince me, a non-believer

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wkj_123 said:
Faith is often spoken of as a net positive attribute, but why? The inclination to believe in things that have no evidence or are logically not sound is actually a bad thing. It’s not something to be praised. Unfortunately where faith is needed, where faith has to be the single most important thing, is when there is no God, but you need to sell people one.
Click to expand...
You assume that all faith is blind. Religious faith is not blind. True faith requires reasoning and an evaluation of the evidence.
 
Bradskii said:
I just want to know if you personally would think it more credible. And apparently you do. You’d be more than happy to cite those cicumstances as proof.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would create credibility, although perhaps I’d agree that some of these would be useful in a discussion of Fatima.

The “current living witnesses” suggestion doesn’t strike me as helpful, though. It seems to give credence to the notion that ‘truth’ is somehow a function of ‘time’ – that is, the assertion of things that happen within our lifetime is more true than things that happened in the past. (In other words, as time progresses, assertions of events lose “truth”. That’s just nonsensical.)
Bradskii said:
let’s say we have two proposals you’d like people to believe: A and B. Now B has a greater weight of evidence than A. But B is rejected by an authority to which you would defer. How does that affect the proposal for A which has lesser evidence?

You’d look pretty foolish trying to claim that the weight of evidence for A is sufficient when the greater evidence for B has been rejected.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming a greater amount of evidence for B? Or just a greater believability for B?

Are you assuming that the same standards hold for A and B? What if A only requires a lesser burden of proof – and it meets it, whereas B requires a greater burden, but fails to achieve it, even though (objectively) there’s more evidence for B than A?

If I try to take this out of the abstract, I can imagine situations in which an ‘A’ can be affirmed where a corresponding ‘B’ is rejected. For example, in jurisprudence.
Bradskii said:
It wouldn’t make any sense, would it.
Click to expand...
There are some situations in which it might…
 
mrsdizzyd said:
You assume that all faith is blind. Religious faith is not blind. True faith requires reasoning and an evaluation of the evidence
Click to expand...
For the most part it is. You may not think it’s blind but it is. I have been there, done that.
 
So you ask for evidence. Don’t even look at the evidence. And then refuse to believe the evidence that you asked for and refused to look at?

Why are you here at all?
 
wkj_123 said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
You assume that all faith is blind. Religious faith is not blind. True faith requires reasoning and an evaluation of the evidence
Click to expand...
For the most part it is. You may not think it’s blind but it is. I have been there, done that.
Click to expand...
How presumptuous of you to assume you know what my faith is based on!

My faith is not blind. It is based in part on a personal revelation I had while I was in a period of disbelief, and in part based on logic and reason.
 
So you are going to log into a catholic forum everyday for the rest of your life, asking catholics for evidence, and then refusing to look at that evidence, or believe evidence that you haven’t even looked at, Even though you deliberately logged into a catholic forum website and asked for evidence to be provided?

Why are you here?
 
YoungCatholicGuy said:
So you are going to log into a catholic forum everyday for the rest of your life, asking catholics for evidence, and then refusing to look at that evidence, or believe evidence that you haven’t even looked at, Even though you deliberately logged into a catholic forum website and asked for evidence to be provided?

Why are you here?
Click to expand...
Asking catholics for evidence of God while already deciding he is not going to read up on or look into or follow the links provided. Attacking other catholic beliefs (off topic to the thread),

Not a genuine thread genuinely looking for answers. Just an opportunity to attack catholics for their faith in God.

Guys this aetheist thread starter is just spamming. You are not aetheist, but an aetheist anticatholic who is using this forum to attack us for our beliefs. You have no interest whatsoever in reading up on, or following any of the links we have provided to you, as yoi yourself said.
 
Last edited:
wkj_123 said:
So if the full knowledge of Christianity somehow we’re totally lost, you think it could be re created based on logic and natural evidence alone?
Click to expand...
What is lost? The documents? History? Space and Time?

By natural do you mean solely material evidence? Do you deny that some things are immaterial?
 
Last edited:
YoungCatholicGuy said:
So you are going to log into a catholic forum everyday for the rest of your life, asking catholics for evidence, and then refusing to look at that evidence, or believe evidence that you haven’t even looked at, Even though you deliberately logged into a catholic forum website and asked for evidence to be provided?

Why are you here?
Click to expand...
Ok so are you having a conversation with yourself here? I’m not following. Are you speaking in reference to me or @fivelinden?
Click to expand...
 
You called me an ineffective teacher,

And you are completely refusing to read up on or listen to any of the links provided, despite the fact that you went to a catholic website to ask for evidence.

Don’t call someone an ineffective teacher,
When you yourself are responding like a completely lazy and uninterested student who just wants to play ‘devils advocate’ with catholics. You have not looked up or listened to any links provided (and stated so yourself).

There is a difference between an aetheist. And someone who comes here as an anti-catholic because they have an agenda agains the catholic church
 
Last edited:
I’m still not sure where you’re going with this. Much evidence has been presented for the miracle at Fatima. Do you believe the evidence, why or why not?
 
YoungCatholicGuy said:
You called me an ineffective teacher,

And you are completely refusing to read up on or listen to any of the links provided, despite the fact that you went to a catholic website to ask for evidence.

Not an ineffective teacher,

But a completely lazy and uninterested student who just wants to play ‘devils advocate’ with catholics.

There is a difference between an aetheist. And someone who comes here as an anti-catholic because they have an agenda agains the catholic church
Click to expand...
Sir Im sorry but your being very confusing. See my above posts. I really don’t know half the time who your talking to.
 
You don’t want evidence.
You yourself said you won’t look at any of the links people are providing to you.

You want to attack catholic beliefs.
 
YoungCatholicGuy said:
When you yourself are responding like a completely lazy and uninterested student who just wants to play ‘devils advocate’ with catholics.
Click to expand...
Again sir I can’t watch videos on my phone. I have stated that. I can only read articles. Again sir I’m very familiar with most Catholic miracles. You are fussing at me for a technological problem, but you haven’t responded to my miracle eithier.
 
So are you going to go to the library or use your laptop to follow up on the links you asked for?

Or are you here to ask for evidence that you will never read up upon and waste the time of genuine catholics interested in sharing their faith?

If I was an aetheist genuinely interested in the Catholic Faith, and someone provided me of some youtube clips from the Vatican Approved Roman Catholic Charismatic renewal, of miracles of healing taking place live on video,
I would go to the library with headphones, or to a friends house, or something, to listen to such videos,

If I was an aetheist genuinely was interested in the Catholic faith
 
Last edited:
Such a proof of God would mean nothing to your benefit. If you were to see such a proof, and then “believe”, your faith would be of exactly the same order as of the demons who believe because they have seen proofs, yet remain damned and miserable demons.
Jas 2:17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
…
Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
Click to expand...
Such faith is called “acquired”, or "natural’, rooted in physical observations and reasoning. Such faith is lifeless - dead - empty of what is needed for eternal and beatific life: divine grace. That kind of faith - which is given by grace - is not acquired, but is called “infused” - supernatural - a gift from God - given with grace, which is a participation in His very life.

I say this to tell you, that such a miracle-on-demand would give you nothing - even less than nothing, because you think that it would prove something to you. It would only prove something about you, that you would not like to know, and that you might not be able to recover from.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
You’re talking about the Gospels? They were written (or dictated) by eyewitnesses. There are no reports that they contradicted what had been being preached since the beginning of the Church (since they were accepted by those who had heard them being preached orally). They were written in the language commonly used for written texts in that time and place.
Click to expand...
This is not the view held by the majority of biblical scholars about the evidence. Suggest having a look at Bart Herman’s works. They are very convincing.
 
YoungCatholicGuy said:
So are you going to go to the library or use your laptop to follow up on the links you asked for?
Click to expand...
I don’t recall asking for links. I have been looking for evidence. But yes, I check them out. Charismatic healing events are held by many religions and claims of cures beyond placebo have not to my knowledge been demonstrated. I note again that no one has yet been cured of being dead and decayed or having a missing limb - events that a God wanting to demonstrate his power could do. Why does God do only healing miracles that could occur naturally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top