Response?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sowinskija
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sowinskija

Guest
How do I respond to these claims:
  1. “one can never really know anything for sure”
    2.’'you impose your false/questionable viewpoint on others"
  2. “one religion is just as good as another”
    4.“Truth is relative”
  3. “There are physical and spiritual truths–spiritual truths cant be proven”
–These were mostly from a Catholic… so verses from the Holy Bible might just work. Logical arguments are always good too though.

Thanks and God Bless!
 
sowinskija said:
How do I respond to these claims:
  1. “one can never really know anything for sure”
    2.’'you impose your false/questionable viewpoint on others"
  2. “one religion is just as good as another”
    4.“Truth is relative”
  3. “There are physical and spiritual truths–spiritual truths cant be proven”
–These were mostly from a Catholic… so verses from the Holy Bible might just work. Logical arguments are always good too though.

Thanks and God Bless!
Click to expand...
  1. Which includes the assertion that “one can never really know anything for sure”
  2. Prove they are false and good luck doing so if 1 is true
  3. As valid as saying pseudoscience is just as valid as science
  4. Science disproves this
  5. If 4 is true than physical truths can’t be proven, if 4 is false than at best you can only claim we have yet to find a method to prove spiritual truths
 
oldcatholicguy said:
  1. Which includes the assertion that “one can never really know anything for sure”
  2. Prove they are false and good luck doing so if 1 is true
  3. As valid as saying pseudoscience is just as valid as science
  4. Science disproves this
  5. If 4 is true than physical truths can’t be proven, if 4 is false than at best you can only claim we have yet to find a method to prove spiritual truths
Click to expand...
Heh, heh, heh. Checkmate.

And here’s another point… if #1 is true, then how can they assert ANY of the other four as true?
 
I usually start with:

Truth is relative? Interesting. Are you **absolutely **true there are no absolutes? pause for irony to sink in
 
Here are some responses you might try to these questions:
  1. “one can never really know anything for sure”
Like this statement? Also, I know I exist because I am sentient and can think. Beyond that, I guess everything else I know could be an illusion (though I highly doubt it). However, the universality of this claim doesn’t hold.

2.’'you impose your false/questionable viewpoint on others"

I’m wondering if this is supposed to say “you CAN’T impose…”? That is what I often encounter anyways, so that is what I’ll answer.
If someone tells you that you cannot impose your viewpoint on others, they are attempting to push their viewpoint on you, and are, in a sense, hypocrites. Still, this doesn’t hold either. We have laws that impose rules and beliefs on others, yet most people are still in favor of those. This statement doesn’t hold either.
  1. “one religion is just as good as another”
Now this is total bogus, and I’m surprised anyone would claim it. If one religion is the truth, then all the others are delusions and lead you away from the truth, possibly into punishment. If all are false, then none has the truth. However, some religions, such as Islam, breed radicalism, which can be highly destructive, while other religions, promote learning, art, peace, etc.

4.“Truth is relative”

If it is relative, then this statement might not be true for all people. That means objective truth applies to them. However, if objective truth applies to them, it applies to everybody, since that is what makes it objective. Also, it is true that there is no such thing as a 10 sided square. A person can deny it as much as they want, but they cannot create the logically impossible (another universal).
  1. “There are physical and spiritual truths–spiritual truths cant be proven”
Well, this seems to be implying physical truths can be proven, however, that would contradict the last statement. Now, maybe I’ll agree with the fact that we cannot prove a spiritual truth before death (such as angels exists), but that doesn’t mean we cannot prove them after death. I guess it depends on what the person is getting at here. However, if there is no spirit world, and all our thoughts and statements are just composed or random electrical impulses, atoms, and sounds waves, why should we believe them?
 
sowinskija said:
How do I respond to these claims:
  1. “one can never really know anything for sure”
    2.’'you impose your false/questionable viewpoint on others"
  2. “one religion is just as good as another”
    4.“Truth is relative”
  3. “There are physical and spiritual truths–spiritual truths cant be proven”
–These were mostly from a Catholic… so verses from the Holy Bible might just work. Logical arguments are always good too though.

Thanks and God Bless!
Click to expand...
Approach gently. These are all empty truisms which may not be well thought out. They are best disregarded - pressing too hard to refute them may just reinforce them.

Instead, invite him to Mass. Invite him to ask questions afterwards. Encourage him to enter RCIA to learn more. Get him engaged, thinking as a Catholic rather than as an Atheist!
 
Here’s how I might respond to somebody who poses these questions:

1. "one can never really know anything for sure"
So, then we also don’t know whether slavery was wrong or whether Hitler was guilty of evil acts? Were we wrong to put Nazi’s on trial since there’s clearly no way for us to know whether genocide is evil?

2.’'you impose your false/questionable viewpoint on others"
Do you not impose your viewpoints on others by opposing racism or bigotry? A neo-nazi might find your viewpoints to be false and questionable… Why is it OK for you to impose your beliefs on a neo-nazi but it is not OK for a christian to want to impose their beliefs on those who murder children, etc?

3. "one religion is just as good as another"
God can only have one will. Either God appointed the Catholic Church as the bride of Christ or He didn’t. Either contraception is a grave sin or it isn’t. God can’t have two opinions on the same subject. Therefore, for one religion to be correct all others must have at least some grave theological misunderstanding about God’s Will (otherwise there would have been no reason for them to split in the first place).

4."Truth is relative"
Again, so it is possible for somebody to justify slavery or the holocaust as a morally permissable actions? What about peadophilia?
**
5. “There are physical and spiritual truths–spiritual truths cant be proven”
**
Can we even prove physical truths? Can you prove that I exist? What if you were blind and you couldn’t see this post, how then would you prove that I exist?

The reason why we can’t prove to people that God exists is because people are spiritually blind and refuse to see Him. That doesn’t mean that He isn’t there!

Hope this helps! 🙂
 
runningdude said:
Approach gently. These are all empty truisms which may not be well thought out. They are best disregarded - pressing too hard to refute them may just reinforce them.

Instead, invite him to Mass. Invite him to ask questions afterwards. Encourage him to enter RCIA to learn more. Get him engaged, thinking as a Catholic rather than as an Atheist!
Click to expand...
I am pulling these arguments from both my history teacher and a friend (kinda). Interestingly enough, they are both Catholic, though I do not believe either of them are practicing. 🤷

Great idea otherwise
 
  1. “one can never really know anything for sure”
Click to expand...
Punch them in the face. Then ask, “who punched you?” “Are you sure?” Repeat as necessary. That we truly know things is just plain common sense. It is as plain as the nose on your face. (In fact, instead of punching them, you could simply ask if they have a nose, that would work too–it just wouldn’t be as fun).

Common sense is the very foundation of philosophy. In fact, one of the primary tools of the philosopher is called the reductio ad absurdum, (the reduction to the absurd). What is does is follows a certain line of reasoning to its natural conclusions and then pause and asks the question, “Is this conclusion stupid?” “Does it pass the common sense test?” If not, the original line of reasoning or premises must be incorrect. Without common sense, and a basic acceptance of the relaity we immediately perceive through the senses, we could not think or operation as rational beings.
 
Truth is relative? 2+2=4 Maybe I think 5? Joe says 3. Michelle says 10. So then, all must be correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top