L
likuske
Guest
How can we know the existence of God just by looking at nature without looking at revelation? Thanks.
- Status
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
there are lots of arguments from Aquinas, Anselm, et al.
but why cant you just trust all the books, in the Bible that document the relationship of G-d and man? thats not entirely revelation, the NT is mostly eyewitness testimony.
C
canne
Guest
L
likuske
Guest
You assume that I do not trust what the Bible says but I absolutely do. I am asking this question to know how to answer people that do not consider the Bible or any form of religious revelation as legitimate. They want to take the Bible and revelation out of the picture completely because to them religion doesn’t count and they look at religion as the cause of many wars and misunderstanding and fanatical thought.
I know what I believe as a Catholic but sometimes it’s hard to explain it properly and since I am not an apologist it takes a bit of time and research to explain certain things about the faith. I didn’t want to go into a whole speil about why I was asking the question in the first place. Since this is a Catholic forum (I mainly joined to learn more about the faith and be able to explain it better to other people) I didn’t think I needed to explain why I was asking. Maybe next time I’ll give a short reason why so that people understand where I am coming from.
L
likuske
Guest
Thanks!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
im pointing out that much of the Bible, especially the New Testament is not revelation, its eyewitness testimony.
we have atheists try it all the time here. you will find that they tend to have a double standard of evidence for any historical event they didnt witness. one standard for things they wish to be true like the moonlanding, the original magna carta, the American Revolution, etc. and then they have another set for events they hope are not true. any Biblical event. you can always hold their feet to the fire over the issue of hypocritical double standards, you can cause them to expose some pretty embarrassing cognitive dissonance.
there is no reason to cede their position, not when you can turn it back on them and expose the entire paradigm of disbelief, as little more than a matter of poor critical thinking skills.
as too religion being the cause of fanatical thought and wars, you can simply point out that the officially atheistic regimes of stalin, mao, pol pot, castro, et al, have resulted in the murder of more thna 100 million human beings in just the last century. the entire inquisition took several centuries to execute a few thousand people. there is no comparison as to the more dangerous ideaology
H
hatsoff
Guest
Scientists have not been able to confirm or disconfirm the existence of God through rigorous empirical investigation. The same goes for historians and their methods.
As for philosophers, they are quite divided in their opinions on rational warrant for the existence of God. Notable apologists such as William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne champion theism, but although they have a sizable following in the academic community, theirs remains a minority position.
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009) is a great start if you’re interested in natural theology. It includes such common arguments as the KCA, fine tuning, and the argument for the Resurrection from historical inquiry.
I cannot help but add that, as an atheist, I regard all such arguments as seriously flawed. But some very bright folks dissent with my opinion, and if you want to hear their side of the story, then Blackwell is the best introductory text I know.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
empiricism, or the claim that knowledge only arises through the senses, is not knowledge itself that arises from the senses. ergo, it is a logical contradiction, a self refuting argument, and therefore, a false measure of truth.
but for a great many disbelievers, the claim that science should be able to verify the existence of G-d, depends on this logical contradiction.
disbelief on a scientific basis is a futile endeavor.
insofar as we have a single standard of evidence, i dont see a problem.
true enough.
- Status