PROVE Catholicism True!

[Logan]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

 

[TimOliv]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

I don’t need to PROVE it is true to know it is true. Those who turn away from the church, however, seem to constantly insist on finding any way possible to PROVE Catholicism is wrong. Sounds like they are the ones with issues of doubt in their beliefs.

 

[Damascus]

'cause I said so sometimes works.
Try it. Toddlers do it all the time. They get their way a lot.

 

[TimOliv]

'cause I said so sometimes works.
Try it. Toddlers do it all the time. They get their way a lot.

:tiphat:

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

If you’ve studied philosophy and theology, you will note that nothing seems proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Even one’s own existence has been doubted by some philosophers.

Beliefs are derived from three things:

1. experience
2. reason
3. testimony of others

One can reasonably conclude from the preponderance of evidence that Catholicism is true. That is not a proof in the strict sense. In fact, very few things believed by mankind are proven in this strict manner (called “deductive reasoning”). Other forms of non-deductive reasoning are certainly valid, and more commonly used to draw conclusions in all sorts of fields, such as science, law, economics, military studies, politics, philosophy, and theology.

Reasoning called “inductive” is exemplified by the following…

1. All observed beginnings have a cause
2. Therefore, everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Inductive reasoning is no strict proof, like deductive reasoning is, because a valid inductive argument is not guaranteed to be true. It can be highly probable, based upon the preponderance of evidence, but there may be that one-in-a-gazillion unobserved “beginning,” for instance, that didn’t have a cause. We simply cannot be absolutely sure in the strictest sense because we have not oberved everything that has had a beginning.

So, the best we can do is state that based upon the preponderance of evidence, every time we have observed something with a beginning, it has had a cause. Thus, we can infer from the significant statistical sample we have observed, that with great confidence, “everything which has a beginning has a cause.”

In deductive reasoning, if terms are clear, and the premises are true, and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (the argument is valid), then the conclusion must be true.

For example,

1. Everything that has a beginning, has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If premise #1 and #2 are clearly understood and true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

Catholicism cannot be proven deductively like the example above. Nor has Catholicism been proven wrong. Nontheless, Catholicism can be shown to be a reasonable conclusion based upon non-deductive arguments.

 

[VociMike]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

I don’t even know what such a proof would look like. What axioms would it rest upon?

 

[Sandtigress]

Honestly, my question would be, can you prove its wrong? I’ve seen a lot of people try it, and never succeed. Catholicism is proven right again and again and again. We often say you can never fully prove something is true without any doubt, but all you need is one example to prove something is wrong. I have yet to see that one example for Catholicism, and people have been trying for 2000 years. I doubt they’ll ever do it.

 

[Liberian]

Logan,

A good first response is that before I can PROVE Catholicism to be true, I need to know what the standards of proof are. Please prove the following:

• Prove that you exist.
• Prove that atoms exist.
• Prove that quarks exist.
• Prove that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
• Prove that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo.
• Prove that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
• Prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
• Prove that the book of James belongs in the Bible.

In general, we cannot “prove Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt” because the doubter will simply say “I do not accept your proof.” There is, unfortunately, no logical theorem that says “This much proof is enough.”

On the other hand, it is not possible to prove Catholicism wrong. I have found that the “proofs” that Catholicism is wrong tend to be laughably inadequate.

• Liberian

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

If you’ve studied philosophy and theology, you will note that nothing seems proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Even one’s own existence has been doubted by some philosophers.

Beliefs are derived from three things:

1. experience
2. reason
3. testimony of others

One can reasonably conclude from the preponderance of evidence that Catholicism is true. That is not a proof in the strict sense. In fact, very few things believed by mankind are proven in this strict manner (called “deductive reasoning”). Other forms of non-deductive reasoning are certainly valid, and more commonly used to draw conclusions in all sorts of fields, such as science, law, economics, military studies, politics, philosophy, and theology.

Reasoning called “inductive” is exemplified by the following…

1. All observed beginnings have a cause
2. Therefore, everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Inductive reasoning is no strict proof, like deductive reasoning is, because a valid inductive argument is not guaranteed to be true. It can be highly probable, based upon the preponderance of evidence, but there may be that one-in-a-gazillion unobserved “beginning,” for instance, that didn’t have a cause. We simply cannot be absolutely sure in the strictest sense because we have not oberved everything that has had a beginning.

So, the best we can do is state that based upon the preponderance of evidence, every time we have observed something with a beginning, it has had a cause. Thus, we can infer from the significant statistical sample we have observed, that with great confidence, “everything which has a beginning has a cause.”

In deductive reasoning, if terms are clear, and the premises are true, and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (the argument is valid), then the conclusion must be true.

For example,

1. Everything that has a beginning, has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If premise #1 and #2 are clearly understood and true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

Catholicism cannot be proven deductively like the example above. Nor has Catholicism been proven wrong. Nontheless, Catholicism can be shown to be a reasonable conclusion based upon non-deductive arguments.

:whacky: Pfew! I think I grasp this…

My question would be - is everything always the way it seems? My concern is that, often, things seem to flow in succession a certain way, when in reality, it is only an illusion and there isn’t acutally any connection whatsoever. Don’t ask me to give an example - I’m not up to it at the moment

Looking at it objectively, it is impossible for me to look back over the past 2000 years and be able to say with certainty that this was what Christ intended for the church. I feel there must be a rule of measure, and I believe Scripture is that rule of measure (as I’m sure the Catholic church would even agree - at least to an extent)

That is why I am currently more concerned with the fruits of a church vs the doctrine or history.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Oops. I meant to say, in connection between scripture as a rule of measure and “proof”, that even satan can twist scripture (not implying that the Catholic church is satanic ). I’ve seen many people do this, and some are quite good at it. You can seemingly support many heresies with scripture. I see many things within the Catholic faith that seem contrary to scripture, and i’ve seen how the Catholic church defends those things (I’m sure you’re going to ask for a list… ), but I’m not convinced that the arguments in the church’s defense are actually good support, or excuses that seem to build upon scripture.

 

[Truthstalker]

One thing that will not help at all is that Jesus has this thing about trusting Him. He likes faith. Loves it. If you found a solid proof but didn’t want to believe, even though you knew it to be true, where would that leave you? He also has this thing about free will and not forcing people to believe. Lots of people walked away from Him while He was on earth. He is a lot more interested in those who will follow Him no matter what.

That being said, I will not tell you whether I have such a proof.

 

[Logan]

Honestly, my question would be, can you prove its wrong? I’ve seen a lot of people try it, and never succeed. Catholicism is proven right again and again and again. We often say you can never fully prove something is true without any doubt, but all you need is one example to prove something is wrong. I have yet to see that one example for Catholicism, and people have been trying for 2000 years. I doubt they’ll ever do it.

How???

 

[mozart-250]

First of all in any “Proof” you must define your assumptions.

Even mathematics starts with a small number of assumptions and builds from there.

My problem has always been that given the assumptions concerning Christianity that I believe (by faith) are true, I can not convincingly demonstrate Catholicism as being true. The best I can do is that I can not prove it false.

This poses an insurmountable obstacle for me should I ever consider becoming Catholic, because there are certain dogmas she says I “must believe” that I have no way of testing (1 Thess 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good).

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

One thing that will not help at all is that Jesus has this thing about trusting Him. He likes faith. Loves it. If you found a solid proof but didn’t want to believe, even though you knew it to be true, where would that leave you? He also has this thing about free will and not forcing people to believe. Lots of people walked away from Him while He was on earth. He is a lot more interested in those who will follow Him no matter what.

That being said, I will not tell you whether I have such a proof.

I would have to disagree with this. I don’t think God expects faith based on absolutely nothing. If so, what was the point of Jesus’ miracles? For that matter, what is the point of revelation? Even pagans have faith in God.

Your assumption seem to be that everyone has the truth revealed to them and they choose not to follow that truth. I assure you that is not always the case.

 

[catholicbudgie]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

No, you can’t. But as others have said, this is not really the point. You cannot make somebody change their opinion, however right in fact you may be.

There is a scientific maxim that a theory holds until it is disproved. That’s why the strident anti-catholics spend so much time trying to disprove Catholicism. They’ll look at any reason to say it’s wrong.

So, don’t waste your time on conclusive proofs in favour.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Your assumption seem to be that everyone has the truth revealed to them and they choose not to follow that truth. I assure you that is not always the case.

Again, let me clarify (maybe I ought to give this up - I’m not good at expressing myself tonight ).

Of course, I do believe the truth has been revealed, and although I’m sure some people choose to go against what they perceive as truth, I don’t think everyone has the correct understanding of that truth to enable them to willfully choose to go against it in the first place.

I think it all boils down to authority and a rule of measure. Catholics would say they have not gone beyone Scripture as a rule of measure, and many non-Catholics disagree.

 

[AnthonyM2]

One thing that will not help at all is that Jesus has this thing about trusting Him. He likes faith. Loves it. If you found a solid proof but didn’t want to believe, even though you knew it to be true, where would that leave you? He also has this thing about free will and not forcing people to believe. Lots of people walked away from Him while He was on earth. He is a lot more interested in those who will follow Him no matter what.

Exactly, it ultimately comes down to faith. Faith based on reason, yes, but at some point you have to take the leap and believe without absolute proof otherwise we would not be truly free to accept or reject the Truth, that is Jesus and His Church with trust.

 

[Church_Militant]

Can you PROVE Catholicism true beyond a shadow of a doubt? In my quest to “learn” Apologetics I keep coming across articles, etc that “prove” Catholicism is wrong. In what ways can Catholicism be PROVEN true? Thanks. God bless.

There are a couple of things that no one seems to have thought of since we seem to be dealing with legal terms for proof.

“The preponderance of evidence”

This is the primary way in which I came home to the faith, though now I am indeed convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that has come after going out of my way to research each and every assertion/allegation that is offered against the Catholic Church’s teachings. In fact it was just such an anti-Catholic allegation (You Catholics worship Mary.) that started me on the path to see if any of that garbage is true…net result, I have learned that without fail the a-Cs are dead wrong in every respect. I have yet to find even one assertion that has merit. There are those who disagree with Catholic doctrines for their own reasons, but almost without fail I have found that they are either very badly mistaken in their understanding or they nurture some sort of personal agenda/interest that insists that the Catholic Church must be wrong…whether it is or not.

I have not found one valid argument against he Catholic Church and most of the more far fetched attacks (Like E.G. White’s SDA writings and the trash on sites that actually have backfired and discerdited their proponents because they either lie outright or totally miscontrue the teachings and even history of the Catholic Church and in some cases secular history as well.

Now, I am unafraid to face whatever foolishness those who contend against our most holy faith have to offer. I have discovered that with only a few radical exceptions all of it has been answered many, many, many times before by the church. Often all I have to do is go find those answers. A task I find easier each day.

So…someone is rattling your cage about the Catholic faith? Rejoice!!! You will have the blessing of getting the answers that you need and when all is said and done, your faith will be pretty amazing…even to you personally.

Feel free to PM or e-mail me if I can assist in any way.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[Logan]

Back to my original question. As Catholics we can say Catholicism can be proved by history, the unbroken line of Popes since Peter, the early Church Fathers, etc. But some of the Protestants have “claims” of their own, which I can’t really disprove either, so what do we do in a case like that? One arguement is the Baptist trail of blood (I think that’s what they call it). Another web site I was on disputed the fact that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity by saying Catholicism started in the 300’s. So how do we as Catholics prove our beliefs over those of the protestants?

 

[ribozyme]

Honestly, my question would be, can you prove its wrong? I’ve seen a lot of people try it, and never succeed. Catholicism is proven right again and again and again. We often say you can never fully prove something is true without any doubt, but all you need is one example to prove something is wrong. I have yet to see that one example for Catholicism, and people have been trying for 2000 years. I doubt they’ll ever do it.

Hmm… here’s a challenge… Does the so-called doctrine of transubstantiation make a testable prediction? I suggest after the conscreation of the Eucharistic wine, that one adds nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (unreduced) to the solution of the “Blood of Christ,” next add alcohol dehydrogenase to the solution. This normally would cause this reaction to occur in the presense of an ethanol (which is formed as a result of anaerobic respiration):

CH3-CH3OH + NAD+ ------(Alcohol dehydrogenase)----> CH3-CHO (acetaldehyde) + NADH + H+

Of course, this should be done with a control reaction without the wine being consecrated. One should perform high performance liquid chromatography to check the presence of acetaldehyde in both of the reaction mixtures. Presumably, if the same amount of NAD+ was added to the solution in both of the reaction mixtures, the concentration of acetaldehyde would be the same in both mixtures as the independent veriable of consecration would have no effect on the equilbrium (a catalyst merely speeds up the approach to equilbrium by lowering the activation energy) of the above reaction.

So, this belief cannot be falsified in any way. One could respond that the “blood” has the accidental appearence of wine (and its shares chemical properties). So there is nothing special when one could claim that your belief system has not been falsified. For example, try to falsify the notion that there are fairies living in people’s gardens.
Richard Dawkins:

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies? From