On agnosticism (Calling Atheists and Agnostics)

[Matthias123]

This is not one of those attack threads. I am not trying to pick a fight, I am just using this is a place to test my arguments.

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

– Saint Thomas Aquinas – Doctor of the Catholic Church and clear on the teaching that faith is not contrary to reason.

“"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12
In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. “
– Catechism of the Catholic Church

On Modern Errors

Truly we are passing through disastrous times, when we may well make our own the lamentation of the Prophet: “There is no truth, and there is no mercy, and there is no knowledge of God in the land” (Hosea 4:1)”

~ Pope Saint Pius X

“We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject.”

– Pope Saint Pius X: PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

Numerous errors are contained within “Modernism”, and I will not address all of them. However I would like to touch on a few that I find most disturbing and obviously in error.

The most disturbing of the modern errors that came out of 18th & 19th century philosophy is that of Agnosticism.

“.According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits.”

Let me first say, that is order for this to be true, one must “overstep these limits” in order to presuppose the metaphysical truths that would make this doctrine valid.

You cannot with complete certainty know that these phenomenons that are being observed actually exist. From the point of extreme scepticism, you could be the only being that actually exists (We know that at least you exist due to Cogito, ergo sum “I think therefore I am”). Thus everything around you could potentially be an illusion. There is no way to prove that there are other brains then your own by the light of human reason. This presupposition must be taken on faith, because it is beyond the ability of the human intellect to fully know for certain.

Thus even to consider such a doctrine you would have to presuppose many metaphysical truths with fides et ratio (Faith and reason). Thus considering such a doctrine is actually contradicting it, because you are doing the very thing that the doctrine teaches is restricted, namely acting with the right and power to overstep the limits of human reason by faith.

Without faith, a human being cannot function properly. So the whole notion of only believing what can be discovered by the light of human reason is absurd.

Here is another example, it is true that the sky is blue; however what you call blue may actually be experienced differently by another man. What you see as blue may actually be red, and what he sees as red may actually be orange et cetera. It is impossible to know that what you experience as blue is shared. However every man identifies that the sky is blue, and what we know about physics and biology can support the notion that we share a common experience of blue. However the data that they view can also be doubted by extreme scepticism thus we cannot know for certain that we have a common experience of blue. It is known that it is a common understanding or belief among men that we share common experience of blue, because of the vast evidence to support the notion. Thus even the belief that the sky is seen the same way by all people is not held completely by human reason alone, but by fides et ratio, faith and reason. According to the doctrine of there agnostics, we do not have to right to hold the belief that all men see the sky the same, because it is not known completely by human reason. This is a completely ridiculous position, because very few things can be known in completely certainty without presupposing metaphysical truths, and every agnostic actually makes these assumptions, so they contradict their own doctrine on an everyday basis.

Another and perhaps the worst error of modernists is that they turn science into an end all. The scientific method is the best method we have to explain the order of the natural world. However the limitations of this method are quite clear – I can name five things that science cannot prove:
Science cannot prove logical and mathematical truths. It presupposed logical and mathematical truths in order for the method to work as intended.

Science cannot prove metaphysical truths. It cannot prove that they are other brains other then your own and it cannot prove that the universe wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. These are metaphysical truths and are impossible to determine by this method.

Science cannot prove Aesthetics judgments. For example it cannot prove that a painting is beautiful or not.

The scientific method itself cannot be justified by the scientific method, because of the inherent inconsistencies within science itself, and because it cannot prove metaphysical truths. First of all, science is very inconsistent. For example we do not know for sure that light travels in a straight line. We have all the reasoning in the world to believe is does, but this is not completely certain. There is nothing preventing Edward Witten from the Institute of Advanced Studies to come up with the idea that light travels not straight, but on a slight angle, and that is how we are to bridge Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a unified Theory of Everything. This is an extremely unlikely scenario, but it is at least possible. Much of our understanding of the universe is based on the belief that light travels in a straight line, when, it is possible for this not to be so. Therefore, much of our understanding of the universe is potentially false or at least not fully understood in complete fullness.

Also because metaphysical truths cannot be determined by science, we cannot know for certain that the phenomenon being observed actually exists, and is not an illusion. We presuppose that what we are observing actually exists.

Therefore the scientific method cannot justify itself on its own, metaphysical truths that are in the most part, beyond the faculties of human reason to know for certain must be presupposed with faith for this method to have any hope of explaining our natural world.

Now I am sure there are many that will now say that I am a religious person that is anti-science. On the contrary, I adore the scientific method, and I promote it as the best way to explain the natural order of things. However once must be realistic to its limitations, otherwise a disservice is done, not only to human intellectual thought, but to science itself, because you enter scientific research with false expectations. When is comes down to it, there are things that can be know for certain by the light of human reason, however there are many things that can’t, and this becomes evident once one takes a position of extreme scepticism. Faith is needed to complement human reason in order to hold what that is beyond the light of human reason as truth.

Another error of modernists is that the existence of God cannot be established with certainty by the light of human reason. Either through the reasoning faculties becoming aware of the supernatural relationship between God and man that transcends human reason, as man is created by God for God, or by logical conclusions based on the order of the natural world. The mystical relationship between God and man (that can be recognized by the reasoning faculties), and human reason can establish the existence of God as a certainty.

 

[Matthias123]

The following is a re-composition of the metaphysical argument that was rewritten by James Kidd, as a combination of several of Thomas Aquinas’s arguments in Summa Theologica, and then written in my own words:

I first start with Cogito ergo sum – “I think therefore I am”. It is impossible to deny one’s existence logically. I understand there are those who choose to believe they in fact don’t exist but I assert that this notion is absurd. As even the doubting of ones existence is an act of one that exists is, thus proving existence. It is possible to be deceived by perception but no matter what this deception is the fact remains that you exists. Now there must be an “act of being” that all beings participate. Without the act of existence nothing would exist and it as been already demonstrated that at least one entity exists (Yourself). Therefore the act of existence exists and must be an entity, this entity is called Esse.

Now potentially is a deficiency of a pure actually. The act of existence must be a pure actually otherwise the act of existence would be a deficiency of a pure actually thus still resulting in the existence of a outside greater pure actually. In order to exist there must be an act of existence, thus it would be impossible for an outside greater pure actually to exist because this pure actually would be outside the bounds of the act of existence. Thus the act of existence is a pure actually and must exist.

Esse has to be one, since distinctions would contradict pure actually. Esse also needs to be immutable because changes would also contradict pure actually. Now space is the changing of something here to something over there. So anything that is actually here and potentially there is not a pure actually. Therefore esse exists outside of space making him omnipresent. Now we know that we have the capacity to know; esse being the pure actually will be able to know all that is known by the potentially actual. Therefore esse is omniscient. Being potentially actual we are able to do some things logically possible, but esse is a pure actually therefore he is able to do everything that is logically possible thus making him omnipotent. We know that since esse is the act of existence it must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist. We know that you exist and esse exists therefore esse is also Eternal.

I have now demonstrated that for certain you exist and that esse exists as a single immutable omnipresent omniscient omnipotent eternal entity. Esse is what men call God.

(The rest of this note is written by me.)

Now some men may pose the following fallacious argument:

It would seem that beings can be made actual by the means of an eternal universe, because a universe can be a pure actuality as long as there is no potentiality. If the universe is a pure actuality then it is possible for things coming into existence by a mechanical series of free necessaries. The entity, termed Uni, would be purely actual because it would be changeless due to it’s eternal nature. Therefore the universe itself is the cause of beings transitioning from potential existence to actual existence.

However is can be answered by the following:

On the contrary, the entity known as Uni cannot be purely actual, because the universe has potentiality.

The universe cannot be purely actual because it contains things that have potentiality. If the universe was purely actual, then it would be impossible to have change within itself, and things would just actually exist in their entirety. It is true that things in our physical world change. Things that potentially exist one moment actually exist in the next moment. Therefore the entity Uni must contain potentiality otherwise this would not be so. It is true that what is purely actual cannot contain potentiality; therefore the universe is not purely actual.

Truth should be sought out always. There are too many people who would rather shut their minds off because the Truth would be inconvenient for them. All I ask is for everyone to pursue Truth selflessly – don’t think about how that Truth will affect you. Rather think of the importance of knowing that Truth – because if you don’t know the Truth – you are most likely believing in an error. When it comes down to it – no matter how much that belief makes you feel good – if it is not true – it is no good to you.

I feel it would be appropriate at this time to conclude my note with a quote from the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio (Latin: Faith and Reason) written by Pope John Paul the Great “to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the subject of ‘Faith and Reason”:

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”

Further reading:

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS: ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Fides et ratio

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Metaphysics:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Summa Theologica:

newadvent.org/summa/

A Proof of the Existence of God By James Kidd:

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

 

[StrawberryJam]

Christian apologists are not helping me to see God being Real. The ideas of the apologists sound great, but I think they help believers to be strengthened more than they help someone who lacks belief.

 

[Matthias123]

Christian apologists are not helping me to see God being Real. The ideas of the apologists sound great, but I think they help believers to be strengthened more than they help someone who lacks belief.

Well, if your hang up is not philosophical then I am not sure what it is. I mean there are two ways to know something, either through belief, or through experience (reasoning through it, or observing it)

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Your first post is a mix of opinion and things that are true framed in a way to make atheists and agnostics look stupid. For example, it is indeed true that science cannot prove anything with absolute certainty. But we have countless examples of science making correct predictions, and we have good reason to think that it is an extremely reliable way of learning what is true. However, with religion, we do not have good evidence that it is a reliable path to truth.

Regarding the second post, yes I have heard that argument before. I have written a partial response because I am planning on starting a thread on it at some point (whenever I get a lot of free time), but I’d want to get my thoughts in order first. It’s a complicated argument, and I don’t want to spend the time to do a thorough critique of it right now. I also think it would be better discussed in a thread exclusively about the argument itself, instead of a thread asking for responses from atheists to a whole bunch of different things.

 

[liquidpele]

“.According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits.”

Hmm? Who made that definition? I believe that is more like physicalism. You’re whole argument about physicality is dependent upon a false definition.

Without faith, a human being cannot function properly. So the whole notion of only believing what can be discovered by the light of human reason is absurd.

That’s quite the statement. How are you defining faith there, because usually it’s only with a religious undertone. Belief and expectation are not faith.

Science cannot prove metaphysical truths. It cannot prove that they are other brains other then your own and it cannot prove that the universe wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. These are metaphysical truths and are impossible to determine by this method.

Science is more about disproving than proving.

Science cannot prove Aesthetics judgments. For example it cannot prove that a painting is beautiful or not.

But it *could *do a survey to decide what a majority thought. Your point about science having limitations is accepted though.

The scientific method itself cannot be justified by the scientific method

Now you’re just making stuff up. It’s based off of causality, which while is a theory has never been disproven ever in the history of the world. You’re welcome to take a crack at it.

The rest of your post is a half-baked examination of the creation of the cosmos. Considering we barely even know how the matter we can hold works, I’m fairly certain that your attempts there are in vain, but at least you’re attempting.

My own thoughts are below.

The universe exists, we are in it, it appears to be expanding from current studies, and it’s so unfathomably big that it’s hard to really tell much else. The end.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well, if your hang up is not philosophical then I am not sure what it is. I mean there are two ways to know something, either through belief, or through experience (reasoning through it, or observing it)

Although I do think the argument is flawed, I think that it’s reasonable for someone not to be persuaded by an argument even if they can’t immediately find a flaw in it. If someone does not have a philosophical background and is presented with a very complex argument, the chances that they will find a flaw even if there is one is very low.

Consider if you were presented with a complex mathematical “proof” that 1=0. You might not have enough background in mathematics to be able to spot a flaw, but that doesn’t mean that you should be convinced of it. Would you say that someone refusing to accept that 1=0 was disregarding mathematics, or would you just say that their position was reasonable?

 

[Spock]

Without the intent of derailing the thread it is child’s play to prove that 1 = 0. Here it comes:

Step 1: Let a = b.
Step 2: Mulitply both sides with “a” and get: a^2 = ab,
Step 3: Let’s add a^2 to bothe sides: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: Which can be written as: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: Subtract 2ab from bothe sides: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab,
Step 6: Which is: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2 * (a^2 - ab) = 1 * (a^2 - ab),
Step 8: and cancelling the common factor of (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 2 = 1
Step 9: which equals 1 = 0.

Where is the error?

 

[liquidpele]

Without the intent of derailing the thread it is child’s play to prove that 1 = 0. Here it comes:

Step 1: Let a = b.
Step 2: Mulitply both sides with “a” and get: a^2 = ab,
Step 3: Let’s add a^2 to bothe sides: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: Which can be written as: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: Subtract 2ab from bothe sides: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab,
Step 6: Which is: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2 * (a^2 - ab) = 1 * (a^2 - ab),
Step 8: and cancelling the common factor of (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 2 = 1
Step 9: which equals 1 = 0.

Where is the error?

Fantastic metaphor! I’ll have to remember that one.

 

[Matthias123]

Your first post is a mix of opinion and things that are true framed in a way to make atheists and agnostics look stupid. For example, it is indeed true that science cannot prove anything with absolute certainty. But we have countless examples of science making correct predictions, and we have good reason to think that it is an extremely reliable way of learning what is true. However, with religion, we do not have good evidence that it is a reliable path to truth.

Regarding the second post, yes I have heard that argument before. I have written a partial response because I am planning on starting a thread on it at some point (whenever I get a lot of free time), but I’d want to get my thoughts in order first. It’s a complicated argument, and I don’t want to spend the time to do a thorough critique of it right now. I also think it would be better discussed in a thread exclusively about the argument itself, instead of a thread asking for responses from atheists to a whole bunch of different things.

The first post is flawed, but not for the reasons you stated. I am suprised nobody caught it yet.

But we have countless examples of science making correct predictions, and we have good reason to think that it is an extremely reliable way of learning what is true.

I concur.

However, with religion, we do not have good evidence that it is a reliable path to truth.

It would depend on the philosophical positions that underpin the religion. I mean when you say “religion” you are lumping together everyone from voodoo practisers, Muslims Catholics, to YEC Christians. Do you see how this is also making many religions look stupid?

Religion is a search for truth in our world. It is a response to the natural human desire to know. The motivation for religion is the same motivation for sceince.

Regarding the second post, yes I have heard that argument before.

PM me when you make this thread. I wanna read!

 

[Matthias123]

Hmm? Who made that definition? I believe that is more like physicalism. You’re whole argument about physicality is dependent upon a false definition.

That’s quite the statement. How are you defining faith there, because usually it’s only with a religious undertone. Belief and expectation are not faith.

Science is more about disproving than proving.

But it *could *do a survey to decide what a majority thought. Your point about science having limitations is accepted though.

Now you’re just making stuff up. It’s based off of causality, which while is a theory has never been disproven ever in the history of the world. You’re welcome to take a crack at it.

The rest of your post is a half-baked examination of the creation of the cosmos. Considering we barely even know how the matter we can hold works, I’m fairly certain that your attempts there are in vain, but at least you’re attempting.

My own thoughts are below.

The universe exists, we are in it, it appears to be expanding from current studies, and it’s so unfathomably big that it’s hard to really tell much else. The end.

That’s quite the statement. How are you defining faith there, because usually it’s only with a religious undertone. Belief and expectation are not faith.

“A belief that is not held entirely by human reason.” Faith is used to complement reason in order to hold something that cannot be explained by human reason as truth.

Science is more about disproving than proving.

I concur.

The rest of your post is a half-baked examination of the creation of the cosmos. Considering we barely even know how the matter we can hold works, I’m fairly certain that your attempts there are in vain, but at least you’re attempting.

First of all calling my argument “half-baked” in order dismiss it is not appreciated; it has no point in argument other then showing frustration. Also this argument does not even depend on the truth that matter actually exists. So I am not sure why you are talking about matter. This response did not attempt to refute my argument, it just insulted me. Why did you do this? If it is “half-baked” as you say why wont you refute it?

Now you’re just making stuff up. It’s based off of causality, which while is a theory has never been disproven ever in the history of the world. You’re welcome to take a crack at it.

I don’t understand what you are saying, perhaps you misunderstood or I worded it poorly. You cannot use the process of the scientific method to test and prove the method itself. (What does this mean? Absolutely nothing, I am just defending my point that science cannot define everything.) If this is what you understood please explain.

Hmm? Who made that definition? I believe that is more like physicalism. You’re whole argument about physicality is dependent upon a false definition.

Not all agnostics hold the same doctrines, just like not all Christians hold the same doctrines.

 

[Dameedna]

As alway’s , we start up with assumptions, that lead to arguments that lead to “gods” reality, never realizing through all the logical arguments that the very premise is based…on an assumption.

What is the point of this thread?

 

[Dameedna]

Without the intent of derailing the thread it is child’s play to prove that 1 = 0. Here it comes:

Step 1: Let a = b.
Step 2: Mulitply both sides with “a” and get: a^2 = ab,
Step 3: Let’s add a^2 to bothe sides: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: Which can be written as: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: Subtract 2ab from bothe sides: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab,
Step 6: Which is: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2 * (a^2 - ab) = 1 * (a^2 - ab),
Step 8: and cancelling the common factor of (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 2 = 1
Step 9: which equals 1 = 0.

Where is the error?

When I was a child, I thought that bee’s used a wand to make honey.

This is not childs play, so the smug attitude is not required. It’s good though. I do like

What does this show us however? That math can prove things that are untrue? or that math can be illogical? or that logic, can actually be illogical?

Maybe there’s an error in there. The whole 1* thing, seems suspicsious to me

 

[tbcrawford]

Hello everyone i am a catholic and proud of it for many years i was agnostic i’ve never been atheist though i have questioned Gods existence.My dh is agnostic a lot of my friends (good people) are agnostic or atheist.At present my kids are agnostic although brought up in catholic faith.
I dont think reasoned scientific argument or “proof” of Gods exsitence is helpful in encouraging our brothers and sisters (yes i regard you all as my brothers and sisters no matter religious or not)to know or love God.
For my personal journey i have had tragedies in my life that i wrongly blamed God for and it took becoming a Grandmother to make me realise Gods plan for me.I would love to convert you all to catholicism as i feel it is Gods will.
I dont wish to try to make people believe something just on my say so or my own belief.

I do believe however in the power of prayer.God had truly answered my prayers and im so very grateful.If you want to you could try a prayer see what happens for you?

You could try…
Lord hear our prayer
Show yourself to all who seek you in sincerity of heart-
Lord Jesus Christ,light of all the nations,shine upon
those who walk in darkness and in the shadow of death
Be with all those who suffer in mind,body or spirit
show mercy to the dead,bring them to rejoice in the
company of the blessed Virgin Mary and all your saints

Amen

I respect each and every one of your in your views and you are all in my prayers
Peace

 

[liquidpele]

Hello everyone i am a catholic and proud of it for many years i was agnostic i’ve never been atheist though i have questioned Gods existence.My dh is agnostic a lot of my friends (good people) are agnostic or atheist.At present my kids are agnostic although brought up in catholic faith.
I dont think reasoned scientific argument or “proof” of Gods exsitence is helpful in encouraging our brothers and sisters (yes i regard you all as my brothers and sisters no matter religious or not)to know or love God.
For my personal journey i have had tragedies in my life that i wrongly blamed God for and it took becoming a Grandmother to make me realise Gods plan for me.I would love to convert you all to catholicism as i feel it is Gods will.
I dont wish to try to make people believe something just on my say so or my own belief.

I do believe however in the power of prayer.God had truly answered my prayers and im so very grateful.If you want to you could try a prayer see what happens for you?

You could try…
Lord hear our prayer
Show yourself to all who seek you in sincerity of heart-
Lord Jesus Christ,light of all the nations,shine upon
those who walk in darkness and in the shadow of death
Be with all those who suffer in mind,body or spirit
show mercy to the dead,bring them to rejoice in the
company of the blessed Virgin Mary and all your saints

Amen

I respect each and every one of your in your views and you are all in my prayers
Peace

Dear lord… please heal all the amputees in the world.
Amen.

 

[liquidpele]

First of all calling my argument “half-baked” in order dismiss it is not appreciated; it has no point in argument other then showing frustration. Also this argument does not even depend on the truth that matter actually exists. So I am not sure why you are talking about matter. This response did not attempt to refute my argument, it just insulted me. Why did you do this? If it is “half-baked” as you say why wont you refute it?

I don’t understand what you are saying, perhaps you misunderstood or I worded it poorly. You cannot use the process of the scientific method to test and prove the method itself. (What does this mean? Absolutely nothing, I am just defending my point that science cannot define everything.) If this is what you understood please explain.

Not all agnostics hold the same doctrines, just like not all Christians hold the same doctrines.

I called it half baked because it’s just a bunch of ideas, nothing substantial with predictive abilities. Thus to me, it’s not solid - half baked.

I’m saying that the scientific method is based off of causality… which is assumed because otherwise the universe would be pretty much crazy. There is no need for the scientific method to test itself, that’s ridiculous, like saying that a road should drive on itself to test that it can be driven on by cars.

I agree, no group of people all hold the exact same beliefs. I typically speak for myself more than anything.

 

[tjm190]

Remember that proving a nondescript supernatural being does not prove Christianity.

 

[Matthias123]

I called it half baked because it’s just a bunch of ideas, nothing substantial with predictive abilities. Thus to me, it’s not solid - half baked.

It is a bunch of ideas that certainly do have substance to argue the Aristotelian God. We do not have to have it predict anything. This is not science we are talking about, this is philosophy. The credibility of a philosophical argument is not to be judged on the same criteria as a scientific argument.

 

[Matthias123]

Remember that proving a nondescript supernatural being does not prove Christianity.

Never said it did. I am arguing for the Aristotelian God.

 

[liquidpele]

It is a bunch of ideas that certainly do have substance to argue the Aristotelian God. We do not have to have it predict anything. This is not science we are talking about, this is philosophy. The credibility of a philosophical argument is not to be judged on the same criteria as a scientific argument.

Ah, so philosophically, it’s okay to assume there is a Giant cupcake in the center of the universe. Got it.