S
sans_Delilah
Guest
In the spirit of intellectual debate, if you could stop ad hominem attacks on atheists, it would be greatly appreciated.
And if your god WASN’T merciful, he wouldn’t be worth your worship, would he?
- Status
And if your god WASN’T merciful, he wouldn’t be worth your worship, would he?
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
Yes, it is utterly illogical. Unless you put God into the equation, of course, then it’s expected. I highly recommend you go to my Youtube page and watch the documentry featured about the shroud of Turin all the way through. I know it seems outlandish, but it’s what the evidence supports. I highly recommend not passing it off as a 16th century fake.
youtube.com/user/MrZetterlund777
R
robsully
Guest
Hello Benedictus2.
I don’t see this as a “all things are possible through God” debate/question. If what I asked were logical would they be given so much importance in the Christian faith?
Those events were illogical, but could only happen through the intervention of God, thus making them miracles.
The question is not did it or didn’t happen. Nor is it do I believe it or I don’t.
Many things in the bible defy logic. But that is why one must have faith?
Thank you
I don’t see this as a “all things are possible through God” debate/question. If what I asked were logical would they be given so much importance in the Christian faith?
Those events were illogical, but could only happen through the intervention of God, thus making them miracles.
The question is not did it or didn’t happen. Nor is it do I believe it or I don’t.
Many things in the bible defy logic. But that is why one must have faith?
Thank you
P
prodigalson12
Guest
Why, are they going to cry??? lol. You are correct, if he wasn’t merciful he wouldn’t be worthy of worship, he is so, so much more then just that which makes him that much more worthy of worship.
R
robsully
Guest
Hey buddy prodigalson12;
Thank you so much for the kind words and christian charity. I’m glad you crawled out from underneath the bridge to rejoin the debate. Did you check out the scripture reading I recommended? My friends were missing you… when they weren’t trying to sell me out.
We are still kidding around…right?
Praise be Waqu
Thank you so much for the kind words and christian charity. I’m glad you crawled out from underneath the bridge to rejoin the debate. Did you check out the scripture reading I recommended? My friends were missing you… when they weren’t trying to sell me out.
We are still kidding around…right?
Praise be Waqu
S
sans_Delilah
Guest
This has degenerated into nothing more than a flame war and I’ll have no more part in it. I’m sorry for having contributed to it with that Waqu post.
I’m done here.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
proof of what exactly?
B
benedictus2
Guest
First of all you have already made a greatly erroneous assumption that the Christian faith is illogical when your concept of what is and what is not logical is what is deficient here.
The virgin birth and resurrection from the dead is not a matter of logical or rational conclusions. On the other hand the proof for the existence of God is.
The virgin birth and resurrection pertain more to physical realities, so if this is going to be addressed at all it will be in the physical scientific realm, i.e. by natural means, meaning are these two events possible at all?
But logic has nothing at all to do with these things unless you take the economy of salvation as a given and take it from there. From the Christian perspective of the economy of salvation both these events are logical. But then I would have to explain the economy of salvation to you which is as I said pretty involved to explain to someone who has miniscule and even erroneous apprehension of Christianity and salvation. Yes, again, much like explaining nuclear physics to a 2 year old.
Events are neither logical or illogical in themselves, e.g. it is logical to predict a bushfire in summer but a bushfire in summer is not a result of logical conclusions. Logical pertains to the conclusions we derive from an event or line of thinking. As I have said above, the question is whether these event are possible.
Perhaps what you are getting at is that you believe that people who believe in these events are highly illogical. In which case, the burden of proof shifts to your court.
No, many things in the Bible do not defy logic. They however do defy belief or comprehension based on the current level of knowlege of the physical sciences alone.
Yes, and faith is not in defiance of logic but in defiance of what we perceive scientifically in the natural world.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Read back through the posts so you know what I was replying to and what the post I was replying to was replying to and so forth and so on
P
prodigalson12
Guest
It’s charity posting here for you guys, really it is, I have better things to be doing.
Ok, point 11, create a thread with a title that draws in Atheists and take what they say, finally in one thread, down to the end of their logical debate to show other atheists, their own logic is flawed and here is a resource do draw upon. Thank you so much for the Troll add on’s, loved that finishing touch.
You guys played right into it hook line and sinker.Point 12, Show for the world, this final little debate has degraded down to the wolf pack, online forum hack mentality and it’s now a matter of a few individuals ganging up, upon one trying to get them to be ostrisized away from their peers… no substance, just simple put downs and that’s about it… well, my peers are those that believe in Christ, not yours, who do not, so that one backfired quite well.
Point 13, From now on, every where you guys go, the people you deal with that are believers will know full well, you are not here to learn, you have total and complete distain for Christianity and zero interest in anything it teaches. You are here with a sinister agenda and are not people we should ever keep company with., It’s not my fault you choose to be damned, but I will not permit any significant waste of my lifes time dialogging with you, you are going away for pretty much forever with only a few exceptions, quit wasting my valuable time, bottom line and I so hope the other board members would adopt the same mindset.
Bottom line, this is Catholic Answers Forum, not atheists debate with christian forum, you are out manned, outgunned, and at best, are a thorn on our sides. Go away, is the final statement I have to make of you and your non believing followers that are like minded.
R
robsully
Guest
Hello benedictus2. Yes I think the events are illogical no I don’t think the believers of the events are illogical.
But… if these events are logical why would there be a need for a God to explain them?
Is it becasue all things are only explained via God?
Please don’t take my tone with prodigalson12 to be the same as my tone is on this post.
But… if these events are logical why would there be a need for a God to explain them?
Is it becasue all things are only explained via God?
Please don’t take my tone with prodigalson12 to be the same as my tone is on this post.
B
benedictus2
Guest
We do not need to be all warm and fuzzy lovey dovey in this forum. We can be as combative as we want but hurling insults below the belt can perhaps be avoided as it only derails the issue and lowers the quality of our discussion.
I can understand atheists not comprehending Christian teaching because essentially they base their apprehension of reality on the merely scientific.
It would be much like a Hindu trying to make me believe in their gods and me saying that their comprehension of reality is wrong.
And this is why this is Catholic Answers Forum. We try our best to give our Catholic Answers not only to Catholic Questions but also to those questions which at first glance may not seem to be Catholic related.
R
robsully
Guest
Hey prodigalson12
Does this mean we are no longer kidding around any more.
I was just getting to know you. In fact I was begining to like you. Really, I was.
I thought we could be friends. Unless you were going to sell me out?
Does this mean we are no longer kidding around any more.
I was just getting to know you. In fact I was begining to like you. Really, I was.
I thought we could be friends. Unless you were going to sell me out?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Well then I suggest you study what “illogical” means.
That’s good to know.
Okay I will momentarily ride with you here and posit that these events are “logical”.
Now why would God need to explain them. If a child needs an operation which is highly complicated (beyond it’s little mind’s grasp) then the parent tries to explain this to the child.
That is just to answer the “why”.
But your question itself is faulty because as I have said before events are not logical. And what we are trying to understand with this events are its significance not its logic. And no God per se is not explaning them so much as revealing the truth slowly as He patiently strips the bilnders from our eyes.
Okay here is a little insight into Christian thought. We are made by God in God’s image. Ride with that thought for a moment. If we are made by a higher being in His image, then obviously, our intellect is but a sharing in that Super Intellect. That Super Intellect apprehends reality, actually much more than apprehendes reality but is the Source of reality. So therefore, all our perceptions of reality comes only from our understanding of God. The closer we come to God’s knowing, the closer we get to the real knowing.
R
robsully
Guest
Hello Benedictus2
Please help me- The logical way for a woman to become pregnant is via a man? A women becoming pregnant via a god is also logical as well? And the women remains a virgin.
Please help me- The logical way for a woman to become pregnant is via a man? A women becoming pregnant via a god is also logical as well? And the women remains a virgin.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Not that is not the “logical” way, but that is the “natural” way. Logic is a concept of rationality or thought and nothing to do with nature in operation.
No it is not “logical” because as I keep saying “logic” has nothing to do with it. The virgin birth is not “natural” but “super natural”.
I do suggest you google what ‘logic’, rational propositions and the like actually mean so we know that we are talking about the same thing.
P
prodigalson12
Guest
I already tried to sell you out, I didn’t have enough money to pay to get rid of you.
A
abucs
Guest
Yes but that is only one question.
If you ask, was there an intelligent beginning to the universe ? Then since it can’t be proved you say the skeptical view should hold for science. Therefore science says there was no intelligent beginning to the universe.
But it is just as valid to ask was there a non intelligent beginning to the universe. This can’t be proved either and so following your logic science should be just as skeptical about this claim and therefore science should say that there was not a non intelligent beginning to the universe.
So under that logic we have science being skeptical and saying the default is both that there was not an intelligent beginning and also there was not a non intelligent begininng depending on which question was asked.
Doing the logic transformation on the above sentences would then have science saying that there was both a non intelligent and an intelligent beginning to the universe.
This of course doesn’t make sense. I am saying that you can’t say the scientific default is always skepticism. Science can be skeptical of any claim made but it can’t then believe that the opposite is true because then science is made to look stupid depending on what question was asked.
The correct scientific position i believe to both questions is to say it cannot judge on the matter. There are arguments both ways with individual people deciding that either position is better depending on the evidence they consider credible.
Science was created to look at the material. The question of God cannot be directly tackled by science because God is defined as being immaterial and in fact creating all matter. The best science can do is look at the material and suggest evidence either way on its origin and relationship through scientific law.
To say matter and scientific law is all there is would be to take a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Once you take that philosophical position then by definition anything outside of that position cannot be admitted. But it is not admitted because of your philosophy, not because of science, which is strictly neutral on the matter.
God Bless.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
Actually, I got a pretty good case for both of these. I was watching a meeting about the Ark of the Covenant once, and they claimed to have found the blood of our Savior. The human body is composed of 46 chromosomes. The blood found only had 24. All of them, X chromosomes. Accept for one Y chromosome that is both dominant, and seemingly unatural. When asked who’s blood it was, he responded in tears.
Also on the ressurection, the image of the shroud of Turin was caused by a radiation braught on by natural phenomina (some would call supernatural) believed to be a direct result of the ressurection by experts. The man who discovered this was a man purely of science. He always refused to believe in mirricals that defy natural laws.
I know it all seems rediculous. But this is what we come up with when we research this kind of suff. But whatever the case, what you believe is what you believe.
S
sans_Delilah
Guest
This was a rather well-put argument. And yes, you’re right. The scientific position is (or at least should be) that we can prove neither, therefore neither is fact.
You’re right.
But to say that because I CAN’T prove that “God” DOESN’T exist, he must therefore exist is fallacy. It would be just as fallacious for me to say "you can’t proof “God” exists, therefore he must not exist.
I don’t deal in absolutes, to say that “God” DEFINITELY doesn’t exist would be foolish. I have no proof. And vice versa.
I allow for the possibility that “God” exists, but I regard that possibility as remote.
In my view, if such a powerful cosmic consciousness existed, I would think that it would manifest itself in VERY noticeable ways DAILY. I haven’t noticed any of his, so I regard his existence as a remote possibility.
- Status