New member, looking for discussion

[wasmit]

Some have generally strayed quite far from the subject and apologetics of what the Catholic Church believes and proofs for those beliefs. One member has drawn you into purely philosophical arguments, all of which could be properly discussed with a sufficient knowledge of The Summa Theologica, which is the leading basis for proofs in discussions regarding proofs of the existence of God, God’s nature, how God is known to us, etc.
Unless one really wants to learn about that side of philosophical knowledge, it is foolish to present the skeptic with small portions of the well known proofs, since the skeptic will always come back with shallow meaningless questions or assertions. The skeptic would generally be prevented from any disagreement or frivolous arguments since those arguments most likely have already been revealed as false by Acquinas and other philosophers.

Can you show how my refutations of aquinas’ arguments are false, instead of just saying “all counter arguments to aquinas’ points have most likely been falsified”?

It is very evident that those who want to argue over good answers given, such as proofs of the existence of God, how did creation occur, etc., have never read any of the works of Acquinas.

Why would anyone bother to read the entire length of the (Quinquae viae) when the core points can be summarised in one page? Furthermore, one would need to learn latin before this book can be read.

It is rather easy for an apologetics expert to explain from the bible and historical evidence why the Catholic Church is the correct church. In sufficient time and space this is quite easy. However, when a person questions every sound and historical evidence provided in a short discussion as we have, and only uses small portions of scripture to support their erroneous position, it then becomes folly to discuss truth with someone who really has no desire to learn the truth; but wants primarily to always take a disagreeable position. I’ve seen that happen about two months ago, and it is a disservice to those who truly want to learn.

Then do it! I am willing to listen/read.

For any person who really wants firm evidence that reveals The Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by Jesus, that type of apologetics can be provided by requesting it through a separate personal request, either in book form or from a lengthly discourse that I have on that subject.

Can you please post this?

 

[wasmit]

Wasmit,

After reading some of the simple acts that you have already done, it appears that your original question is just a continuation of your search for God. **I don’t think anything could be said to change your mind much. ** You don’t want words or pious thoughts. You want God himself. This is at the deepest center of every person.

God may be in the very act of preparing your heart to receive Him, in a Big Way. “Do not give up your search and keep looking up!”
What is needed now is the Grace that only God can give.

Many times when our pride is defeated and we finally realize that (by our own efforts) we cannot pierce the veil of the heaven and ascend to God and that it is only God that can reveal Himself to us, we are at the beginning of true Humility.

Bruce

My mind is changed through the use of rational arguments.

 

[wasmit]

Steve b :I think it’s easy to narrow down possibilities [in pascals wager] considerably without too much effort.

wasmit: how?

by not assuming that all religions are true.

I agree with this

while all religions might have some truth, not all that they believe is true. As far as I know only one religion claims to be the fullness of truth.

Then you haven’t looked very far! Try starting here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

All belief ystems have a certain amount of evidentiary proof, and a certain amount of faith within them.

ok

for the rationalist, they will gravitate towards only what is evidentiary, not faith based.

yes.

Evidence that is proven narrows the selection down drastically…also for the atheists

If we are relying on claims that are proven*, the list redices to zero.
Following this line of thought when looking at pascals wager, one must include all religions (if proof is not reqired), or include none (if proof is required). There is no logical way to reduce the list without eliminating the whole list.

 

[wasmit]

wasmit: Assuming that after a person’s death, there is a moment in which they can compare the situaton after death with their actions before death (this is the only way in which pascal’s wager works),

Steveb: True. But if one assumes

(A) God does NOT exist, (that requires proof also) then paschal’s wager is useless anyway, … true?

No, pascals wager looks at both possibilities. To state that if one possibility occurs then the argument is useless contradicts the text of the argument. (Also Russel’s Teapot).

(B) If (A) is true then one will NOT know anything after they take their last breath. It will be as if they never even existed. One’s life in that case was pure happenstance and random, with no particular importance to THEM personally, other than they may have had a very comfortable life or one of abject misery or somewhere in the middle… If there is NO God, they won’t have an opinion of anything pertaining to their lifeanyway because there will be NOTHING at their moment of death.

That’s true, I was assuming that there was a moment of lucidity after death in order to asess the outcome of the wager. An equivalent assumption would be looking at the situation from a third party perspective, with knowledge of the outcome of the wager. My point is that there is a very large loss if you choose wrongly and there is no god, and that loss is in the form of tens of thousands of wasted hours, the unfounded emotional distress, and the uncountable waste of physical resources, especially money.

But here is where the rubber meets the road. One who doesn’t believe, can’t just assume there is NO God without supplying the same strict scrutiny for proof and evidence that one is expected to use to prove or disprove ANYTHING…true?

Yes, this is the principle of the burden of proof. See Russel’s Teapot.

 

[steve_b]

Try starting here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Wiki is not very reliable.
was:

.

If we are relying on claims that are proven*, the list redices to zero.

you avoided answering the following

Are you familiar with this fellow?
msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

What do you believe is true even though you can’t prove it?
arn.org/docs/williams/pw_comparingdawkinsflew.htm%between%
was:

Following this line of thought when looking at pascals wager, one must include all religions (if proof is not reqired), or include none (if proof is required). There is no logical way to reduce the list without eliminating the whole list.

I’m not using Paschal’s wager or that line of thought.

 

[steve_b]

:
from steve

Evidence that is proven narrows the selection down drastically…also for the atheists

:
from was

If we are relying on claims that are proven*, the list redices to zero.

steve:

we haven’t even started getting into proofs yet.

 

[wasmit]

Are you familiar with this fellow?
msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

I haven’t heard of him before today.

The article mentions that Antony Flew converted to deism.

*A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. *
Personal incredulity

Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved,”
Personal incredulity

*“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,” *
God of the gaps

The arguments in the article are quite easily refuted - they are very simple, and wrong. Given that Mr. Flew takes an evedential approach, his arguments might be more robust than those in the article.

What do you believe is true even though you can’t prove it?

I don’t know, I can’t think of anything off the top of my head. Probably nothing. I use the word proof in the loose sense.

 

[steve_b]

That’s true, I was assuming that there was a moment of lucidity after death in order to asess the outcome of the wager.

An equivalent assumption would be looking at the situation from a third party perspective, with knowledge of the outcome of the wager.

This presumes a force that is greater than the one who dies, allowing for even the possibility for this to occur.
was:

My point is that there is a very large loss if you choose wrongly and there is no god, and that loss is in the form of tens of thousands of wasted hours, the unfounded emotional distress, and the uncountable waste of physical resources, especially money.

the reverse is ALSO true. The loss is huge if you choose wrongly and there IS a GOD.

If you are comfortable accepting the former, you have to also be willing to accept the latter as well.

 

[wasmit]

Wiki is not very reliable.

However, it is generally unbiased, with no agenda, unlike the arn.org link you provided.

It is also a good place to start when looking at an issue.

 

[steve_b]

I haven’t heard of him before today.

The article mentions that Antony Flew converted to deism.

*A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. *
Personal incredulity

Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved,”
Personal incredulity

*“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,” *
God of the gaps

The arguments in the article are quite easily refuted - they are very simple, and wrong. Given that Mr. Flew takes an evedential approach, his arguments might be more robust than those in the article.

Are you trying to refute Flew’s points with these wiki articles? They don’t do it.
was:

I don’t know, I can’t think of anything off the top of my head. Probably nothing. I use the word proof in the loose sense.

read the link

 

[wasmit]

Buddhism makes no claim to Truth. It doesn’t even claim to be a religion, as such.

the word buddhism can be substituted for any of the thousands of religions.

“once a person hears the teachings of islam, following any of the other, lesser religions is no longer the best they know.”

“once a person hears the teachings of zoroaster, following any of the other, lesser religions is no longer the best they know.”

 

[steve_b]

However, it is generally unbiased, with no agenda, unlike the arn.org link you provided.

It is also a good place to start when looking at an issue.

Even High School teachers won’t allow wiki as a resource. That’s because anyone can edit the articles.

 

[wasmit]

Wasmit, Your Russell’s Teapot link was interesting, but doesn’t disprove the existence of God. All it proves is that you would have to take Bertand Russells’s claim on pure faith that there actually is a teapot floating in space. How do we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Unless you were the person who discovered this or have subsequently tested and proved it, you are believing someone else. I choose to believe that God exists, that he created everything, that he loves me and sent his Son to redeem my sins, and that if I live according to his teachings, I may one day reach Heaven. You can either choose to believe it or not. The great thing about God is that it is always YOUR choice. I choose to believe because the thought of his not existing is too frightening.

Russel’s Teapot is an analogy for the concept of Burden of Proof.

It sounds like you have been threatened into belief, possibly by the mention of hell or nothingness. Why do you not fear the proposed negative consequences of other religions, such as a bad reincarnation, hades, or diyu? This is why an unsubstantiated threat of bad consequences would not work for me.

 

[wasmit]

Even High School teachers won’t allow wiki as a resource. That’s because anyone can edit the articles.

And anyone can see the history of edits, and their justification!

getting back on track, I gave a list of religions, which happened to be on wikipedia. My point was that a great many of them claim to be true, which was in response to you saying: “As far as I know only one religion claims to be the fullness of truth.”. Do you have a substantial response to this point?

 

[wasmit]

Rather than an infinite regression of causes, trying to get to the 1st cause of everything, God is just known as the un caused cause, the 1st cause of everything.

The big bang was an effect. It wasn’t a/the cause . Therefore

• the cause of the big bang has to be addressed first.
• the cause of singularity MUST be addressed.
  It would be intellectually dishonest of science to just expect the assumption singularity was always there, just waiting for things to happen from it, like the big bang. I would suggest, That’s faith posing as science. And as you know that is not allowed in science.

It is OK to withhold opinion until evidence is available.

The big bang may have been uncaused - we don’t know. We can’t truthfully say that it was caused by something, as we don’t know.

Furthermore, “the cause of singularity MUST be addressed.” is false. There is no imperative to address this issue. Forcing someone to choose one of the many hypotheses is forcing many (or all!) to be wrong.

 

[wasmit]

Following this line of thought when looking at pascals wager, one must include all religions (if proof is not reqired), or include none (if proof is required). There is no logical way to reduce the list without eliminating the whole list.

You brought up Pascal’s wager in post 192 of this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4729293&postcount=192

You introduced the (reducing the list of religions that pascal’s wager applies to) line of thought in post 228 of this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4776532#post4776532

What are you trying to do here?

 

[wasmit]

Originally Posted by steve

Where did this quote come from? You quote yourself saying it, in this post but you have never actually said these words before in this thread.

that said, you can talk about proofs, I am happy to read what you write.

 

[wasmit]

This presumes a force that is greater than the one who dies, allowing for even the possibility for this to occur.

Yes, otherwise the entire concept of a wager is pointless, as you will not know if you have won if you choose (no god) correctly. The assumption is to enable to thought exercise that is pascal’s wager to continue.

the reverse is ALSO true. The loss is huge if you choose wrongly and there IS a GOD.

That depends on which god we are talking about.

If you are comfortable accepting the former, you have to also be willing to accept the latter as well.

That depends on which god we are talking about.

 

[rookieonedge]

no it doesn’t (burden of proof) /QUOTE (from the National Catholic Register) Myth: The burden of proof is on the religious.

Atheists often say that the default position of mankind should be lack of belief, since there is “no proof” of God’s existence. Others say agnosticism should be the default position of mankind: We should start out by saying “We’re not sure,” and work from there. Anthony Flew, the prominent atheist who recently converted to a position of belief in “the God of Aristotle” said that the default position of mankind should be belief, since, after all, the universe and its complicated laws exists, and you have to deny the obvious to say that there is no creator. Flew saw three irrefutable proofs that there must be a god in the laws of nature, life with its singular organization and the existence of the universe.

Myth: Science makes God obsolete.

There is a widespread assumption that somehow the progress of science has challenged, or will challenge, the reasons that previous generations had for believing in God. But why should it? Imagine if human beings were the size of microbes and lived on a tuna noodle casserole instead of our current size on the earth. Imagine we became so scientifically advanced, we identified all the different constituent parts of the casserole we lived on, and even started to explore the vast kitchen outside the casserole. It would be ridiculous for us to claim that, since we know the ingredients so well, there must not have been a cook.

Myth: Science is a reliable guide for us.

In fact, if you look at the history of science, you don’t see the history of an infallible learning method slowly but surely widening our understanding of the universe. Science is an excellent instrument for fact-finding, but one that has been wrong about fundamental things at every point in its history. Theories of spontaneous generation seemed entirely reasonable at the dawn of science. Paul Ehrlich’s theories expecting mass famine due to overpopulation seemed plausible at the beginning of the 1970s. What theories of today will prove just as false? Scientific knowledge at any stage of its history is merely tentative,and new discoveries are continually refining or discarding previous theories.

 

[rookieonedge]

This contradicts the catholic idea that their god is both omniscient and omnipotent.

How? Why can’t God be both all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time?