Not enough evidence sir

[User124]

I think it ought to cause you to reconsider how you’re phrasing things. If you keep getting misunderstood, then you need to make yourself more clear the first time.

Ok!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It does seem curious that God would go through so much to come to earth via a virgin birth, speak very important messages, be tortured and crucified, then have the stories about it all passed along orally for decades after his death until someone wrote them down…and then, not ensure that any original copies of these books survive!

I’d ask God about the reasoning behind that!
That might have made the origin and meaning of Jesus’ words a bit clearer for many.

Good remarks. The answer: Put yourself in the place and time just after the decent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles. This was the official beginning of the Church. You had a ragged band of ordinary and poor men and women beginning to spread the word of God. Immediately they dispersed to spread the Word. No one had time to write down anything and they were too busy to do it anyway and the means to do so were hard to get ( and even the hand operated printing press was about 1,500 years in in the future.

Then too, it was the custom of the peoples of that age to pass on information by word of mouth. They were very good at that.

And remember the destruction of Jerusalem happened about 70 A.D. and the christian community was warned about that, so that provided added confusion to prevent a " writing down " of the story of salvation. But remember, most of the O.T. had been written down and had been passed on.

Also remember that Jesus told Peter he would be the head of the church and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and that He would be with them ( in the Holy Spirit) until the end of time and that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things.

And as far as the N.T. is concerned, it began to be written about 60 A.D., and when St. John wrote his Gospel he said he didn’t think all the books in the world could hold all that Jesus said and did. So obviously there was something more important than the written word ( that is a Protestant fixation. Due to their rejection of Papal authority and the authority of the Catholic Church, they hung on to Sola Scriptora as their only source of truth). By doing that they cut themselves off from the truth of Tradition ( the handing on of the Word by word of mouth) and the infallable authority of the Church ( i.e. the Magisterium).

Of course the Catholic Church always, from the earliest days, held the written word in the highest regard. The problem was that for a few of hundred years a lot of diverse copies of the O.T. and the N.T. were circulating and there was no Approved copy. This was settled at the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church set the recognized Canon the the O.T. and the N.T. Until this time all texts the Protestants used were acquired through the Catholic Church. Without the Catholic Church there would have been no N.T. at all and the O.T. would have been much less complete. Of course the Protestants did not accept the new Canon adopted by Rome. Though today they are less resistant to it. However, even today, they have not officially accepted the Canon.

So there is your answer in a nutshell.:tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

Ok!

 

[djames99]

Firstly, dj, please learn how to use the quote feature properly. There are several threads that detail how to do this.

Secondly, you have allowed yourself to indict others here, but seem to have a problem when others do that.

You are simply being called on this double standard.

Nonsense. I gave you a reasoned doctrinal answer to your argument which you object to and are determined to echo ad nauseum. More seriously, this implies your rejection of doctrine and your eagerness to remain uncharitable. You seem to have difficulty in the concepts of fraternal correction which I suggest you give some study.

It is obvious your scrapping the bottom of the barrel with your calling to my attention my grammar. I don’t edit, I’m too comfortable in my jammies and slippers to be so formal. :yawn:

You seem to have taken on representing phantom others on this forum with your use of “we” and “us” backing your arguments. This is taking liberties and being presumptuous of others, and assumes that you think they cannot present their own arguments. Bad debating strategy.

I’ll be waiting for some progress from you before I answer any more of your posts.

Meanwhile I sincerely wish you success.

 

[djames99]

Mat 7:1, 1 Cor 4,5 The perils of judgement.

1435 Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.

1829 The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

“Indictment”

The choice is yours, but I would caution there is a vast difference between formal accusation and simple observation. I could accept the latter if the intent is a fraternal correction.

 

[djames99]

Almost forgot. Concerning John7:24 Jesus is addressing the crowd, not specific individuals, who acts out for the sake of the common good, a collective as it were.

The collective may judge to carry out God’s mandate and is sanctioned by him

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to have difficulty in the concepts of fraternal correction which I suggest you give some study

All I am saying is that you seem to allow yourself the ability to correct others, but take offense when others do that.

It goes both ways. You are allowed to fraternally correct.

But so am I.

 

[PRmerger]

Without the Catholic Church there would have been no N.T. at all and the O.T. would have been much less complete.

This is a trenchant point, Linus. Each and every time a Protestant quotes, say, the Gospel of Mark, as being inspired, he is giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church.

For it is only through the CC that anyone know that the Gospel of Mark, rather than the Gospel of Thomas, is inspired.

 

[beehumble]

I’ve been pondering Bertrand Russells response to the question he was asked… “What if you’re wrong and God does exist. What are you going to say to Him?” To which Russell replied… “You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”. I’ve been pondering several hypothetical follow up questions to that response which God… (Provided of course that He does exist, and is Jesus which we Catholics believe) could potentially ask.

Actually God knows this: we have an innate knowledge of a creator-God that He gave to us (some of the details about God were revealed to the Jews and then to Christians; ancient cultures knew there had to be superior beings) - those who deny Him are either purposefully lying or have a mental defect. God knows the case for Russell.

God bless you.

 

[User124]

Actually God knows this: we have an innate knowledge of a creator-God that He gave to us (some of the details about God were revealed to the Jews and then to Christians; ancient cultures knew there had to be superior beings) - those who deny Him are either purposefully lying or have a mental defect. God knows the case for Russell.

God bless you.

Do you have any reasonable argument on how a person’s disbelief is a result of one of these two: “lying or mental defect”?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Do you have any reasonable argument on how a person’s disbelief is a result of one of these two: “lying or mental defect”?

Well, obviously beehumble is not capable of replying to your challenge.

I will. It is not necessarily either. I myself might have succumbed to atheism a few years ago, after I figured out that it was very likely that the origin of life had natural causes, see my article on the evolution website Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

However, at the time my philosophical knowledge, acquired under fortunate circumstances, prevented me from taking the leap. Subsequently I kept informing myself, and discovered the power of the argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (also relating to science), and of the Argument from Reason.

So no, neither would I have been lying nor would I have had a mental defect had I embraced atheism. I would simply have been uninformed.

 

[User124]

Well, obviously beehumble is not capable of replying to your challenge.

I will. It is not necessarily either. I myself might have succumbed to atheism a few years ago, after I figured out that it was very likely that the origin of life had natural causes, see my article on the evolution website Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

However, at the time my philosophical knowledge, acquired under fortunate circumstances, prevented me from taking the leap. Subsequently I kept informing myself, and discovered the power of the argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (also relating to science), and of the Argument from Reason.

So no, neither would I have been lying nor would I have had a mental defect had I embraced atheism. I would simply have been uninformed.

Well, saying " uninformed" about several things is more logical than claiming of having a mental defect or lying.

Explain what do you mean by “informed”?

There is many great scientists and philosophers who were atheists, they aren’t "informed " because they are atheists?

 

[User124]

Well, obviously beehumble is not capable of replying to your challenge.

I will. It is not necessarily either. I myself might have succumbed to atheism a few years ago, after I figured out that it was very likely that the origin of life had natural causes, see my article on the evolution website Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

However, at the time my philosophical knowledge, acquired under fortunate circumstances, prevented me from taking the leap. Subsequently I kept informing myself, and discovered the power of the argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (also relating to science), and of the Argument from Reason.

So no, neither would I have been lying nor would I have had a mental defect had I embraced atheism. I would simply have been uninformed.

Well, saying " uninformed" about several things is more logical than claiming of having a mental defect or lying.

But explain what do you mean by “uninformed”? How can you say who is “uninformed” and who’s not?

I used to be a believer too, what does this serve?

The many scientists and great philosophers are “uninformed” too because they embraced atheism?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I just wanted to make a quick point. The polytheist gods are nothing like the Abrahamic/monotheistic God and share nothing but the title. Atheists will sometimes try to use the belief or disbelief of polytheistic gods as an argument against the monotheistic one. The problem is they are homonyms, but are defined in very different ways and to compare them is an erroneous equivication. Zues was not omnicient, nor was he omnipotent, nor omnipresent, nor eternal, nor omnibenevolent… Barely benevolent. If you were to climb mount olympus and find the Greek pantheon would you worship them? Or would you just concede that very powerful beings do exist on top of mount olympus who were worshiped as gods? If i gained super powers to hurl lightning would you worship me? I hope not. Pagan gods are superfluous, lack any reason or evidence for existing, but if they did exist they too would be finite beings and unworthy of worship, just like i would be unworthy even with super powers. God, however, is defined as being transcendant, as existing necessarily, as not comtingent, eternal, and omibenevolent. Theistic arguments would not even work with pagan gods ( which is why philosophers like plato, aristotle, and probably socrates rejected them as foolish but shifted to monotheism through reason alone). There is evidence for God but no evidence for gods.

 

[User124]

I just wanted to make a quick point. The polytheist gods are nothing like the Abrahamic/monotheistic God and share nothing but the title. Atheists will sometimes try to use the belief or disbelief of polytheistic gods as an argument against the monotheistic one. The problem is they are homonyms, but are defined in very different ways and to compare them is an erroneous equivication. Zues was not omnicient, nor was he omnipotent, nor omnipresent, nor eternal, nor omnibenevolent… Barely benevolent. If you were to climb mount olympus and find the Greek pantheon would you worship them? Or would you just concede that very powerful beings do exist on top of mount olympus who were worshiped as gods? If i gained super powers to hurl lightning would you worship me? I hope not. Pagan gods are superfluous, lack any reason or evidence for existing, but if they did exist they too would be finite beings and unworthy of worship, just like i would be unworthy even with super powers. God, however, is defined as being transcendant, as existing necessarily, as not comtingent, eternal, and omibenevolent. Theistic arguments would not even work with pagan gods ( which is why philosophers like plato, aristotle, and probably socrates rejected them as foolish but shifted to monotheism through reason alone). There is evidence for God but no evidence for gods.

There is evidence for God but no evidence for gods.

You are only pointing to the differences in characters between these gods and what they’ve done. How does what you mentioned serve the existence of one god?

Our imagination is able to create the characters of finite beings, as well the character of an infinite being.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Why do Christians always think there can not be an infinite past? An infinite past is not a problem, and even if it were, why would that mean that there had to be a god?

If there were an infinite past we’d still be in the past and we would never be able to reach the present, let alone the future. The problem is one of infinite regression. The present is contingent on the past, yesterday is contingent on the day before. If we continue this process infinitely… How did we ever get to today?

It does not inherently show tgere must be a God. But it does require a prime mover. It also requires time to have a beginning. In order for something to come into existence it must be caused. What caused time must be transcendant of time. A transcendat prime mover would probably be God. If it were not God, what else would it or could it be?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

There is evidence for God but no evidence for gods.

You are only pointing to the differences in characters between these gods and what they’ve done. How does what you mentioned serve the existence of one god?

Our imagination is able to create the characters of finite beings, as well the character of an infinite being.

None of the arguments for God could be applied to gods because gods are contingent and cannot be deduced or inferred the way God is. Even if the gods existed… These gods were created even in their respective mythologies. Even Chronos, the father of the Greek gods, died. Pagan gods are no more or less gods than are superheroes. Thats not being facetious, thats an accurate comparison.

You are absolutely correct. But imagined infinite beings do not discredit actual infinite beings as much as imagined finite beings do not discredit actual finite beings. By infinite here i mean eternal (in the sense of transcendant).

Also, i would challenge you to imagine an infinite being that can be defended as God can without this imagined being you imagined being a homonym for God. My purpose for this challenge is that im not convinced that infinite beings, whom i would argue a necessary beings, can be imagined. If they are imagined, they are probably finite beings posing as infinite ones. This is why i ask you to defend it.

 

[User124]

None of the arguments for God could be applied to gods because gods are contingent and cannot be deduced or inferred the way God is. Even if the gods existed… These gods were created even in their respective mythologies. Even Chronos, the father of the Greek gods, died. Pagan gods are no more or less gods than are superheroes. Thats not being facetious, thats an accurate comparison.

You are absolutely correct. But imagined infinite beings do not discredit actual infinite beings as much as imagined finite beings do not discredit actual finite beings. By infinite here i mean eternal (in the sense of transcendant).

Also, i would challenge you to imagine an infinite being that can be defended as God can without this imagined being you imagined being a homonym for God. My purpose for this challenge is that im not convinced that infinite beings, whom i would argue a necessary beings, can be imagined. If they are imagined, they are probably finite beings posing as infinite ones. This is why i ask you to defend it.

I can imagine two infinite beings that decided to make love, the fruit of their love was the universe, it begins as small and it’s expanding inside the wombs of both of these beings, till one day comes and this universe will become a third infinite being.

Now, I imagine a God, living in a Kingdom, with creatures called angels, gave them free will, some angels decided to rebel against that God, they became demons, this God created the whole universe, decided to look for a single specie on a small planet called Earth, made them live in a place called Eden, this specie ( Us humans ) decided to take fruits from a forbidden tree of knowledge, God was angry. Later God decided to send His son (yes it turned out that he has a son, and he is his son, don’t ask how), to sacrifice his life for the original sin of what two humans did, the son was killed by humans and then resurrected to prove that God is love, and whoever accept this story should live forever and escape the physical death.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If you were to climb mount olympus and find the Greek pantheon would you worship them? Or would you just concede that very powerful beings do exist on top of mount olympus who were worshiped as gods? If i gained super powers to hurl lightning would you worship me?

From what I recall many of the polytheistic deities don’t demand worship. They may be seen as having some function (god of fertility, god of fortune, so on) and thus there would be an inventive to make one of them happy for personal reasons. As a human you would not need to gain super powers to get people to worship you. If you had some inventive that was strong enough (either a reward or a threat) you could get some group to worship you. Walk into a room with a gun, demand the people in the room worship you, and some will comply for as long as you can maintain the threat. If you have enough money to hand out and promise to give it to whoever pleases you the most and some will worship you.

So I conjecture that if one encountered the Greek pantheon and the pantheon offered threats and/or rewards that one might be motivated to worship.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I can imagine two infinite beings that decided to make love, the fruit of their love was the universe, it begins as small and it’s expanding inside the wombs of both of these beings, till one day comes and this universe will become a third infinite being.

Now, I imagine a God, living in a Kingdom, with creatures called angels, gave them free will, some angels decided to rebel against that God, they became demons, this God created the whole universe, decided to look for a single specie on a small planet called Earth, made them live in a place called Eden, this specie ( Us humans ) decided to take fruits from a forbidden tree of knowledge, God was angry. Later God decided to send His son (yes it turned out that he has a son, and he is his son, don’t ask how), to sacrifice his life for the original sin of what two humans did, the son was killed by humans and then resurrected to prove that God is love, and whoever accept this story should live forever and escape the physical death.

Tangent and then a counter-argument.

Tangent: It’s interesting. In the Bible the Apostle Paul wrote about how he knows how foolish the faith can sound. God to earth as a man, in humility, and died on a cross to atone for the sins of wretched people whom he loves? This was hard to accept even for the pagan Greeks. And yet Paul explains that it is through the power of God, through the miracles taking place, and through eye-witness testimony that Paul and the rest of believers have put their trust in these doctrines. I know there are many Christian doctrines that seem “superfluous” and unnecessary, yet that does not mean they arent true. What I find convincing is 1) the Theistic arguments for God and 2) the evidence for Jesus, his death, and his resurrection. I believe the former can be determined by reason, the second only by faith, but through a reasonable faith and not a blind one. If these two things are true, everything else falls into place. If A than B.

Counter Argument: Two infinite beings is a logical contradiction. Some people, even Theists, would say that even only one being cannot logically be actually infinite or a realized infinite. The second is debatable, the first one is not. Also, we could argue about how Occam’s razor applies to the first but not necessarily to the second. It would only apply to the second if we can sufficiently explain the Universe through materialist or naturalistic means, which we cannot. Or, if we can, a working proposition has not yet been brought forth. I don’t believe in God because I can imagine God. I believe in God first from personal experience, but intellectually/rationally through inference and deductive reasoning. Even if I found out Christianity was untrue, I would still believe in God because the evidence, as I understand it, supports that and no other worldview.

If its a matter of doctrine, that would rise or fall with the truth of Christ’s death and resurrection.
If it is a matter of God and His existence, that would be a matter of reason. It is not faith until you attribute something to that God (i.e. God loves us).