The theology of the Catholic faith rises or falls on the evidence for Gods existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m curious, AntiTheist – how do you define “extraordinary claim”? Throughout most of human history, the claim of God’s existence was seen as quite ordinary.
 
NaturalEnquirer said:
I’m curious, AntiTheist – how do you define “extraordinary claim”? Throughout most of human history, the claim of God’s existence was seen as quite ordinary.
Click to expand...
All claims require evidence – the designation of a claim as “extraordinary” is merely a personal indication that you would not be willing to accept the claim without some good evidence.

For example, I think that the claim that I own a pet is a very ordinary claim, but if some guy came along and said he thought it was an extraordinary claim (and sheesh, what a life he must have if he’s consistent about his standards of evidence, eh?), I could certainly produce really good evidence that I have a pet.

If you think that your god claim is ordinary, then that’s fine. But when we discuss it, we’re discussing the evidence for it. If you’d rather just sit around and believe that it’s an ordinary claim and that you don’t need good evidence to believe in it, then fine – just don’t go starting conversations on the subject in a public forum with people who don’t agree. Unless, of course, you actually have good evidence.

EDIT: I just read my other post again, and the sentence, “The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence one needs to support it” is indeed confusing. I wasn’t making it clear that I was talking about a personal judgment of extraordinariness. Hopefully, I’ve made things clearer.
 
I’m glad that none of the atheist scientists believe that life exists on other planets. The hypocrisy would be unbearable.
 
AntiTheist said:
All claims require evidence – the designation of a claim as “extraordinary” is merely a personal indication that you would not be willing to accept the claim without some good evidence.

For example, I think that the claim that I own a pet is a very ordinary claim, but if some guy came along and said he thought it was an extraordinary claim (and sheesh, what a life he must have if he’s consistent about his standards of evidence, eh?), I could certainly produce really good evidence that I have a pet.

If you think that your god claim is ordinary, then that’s fine. But when we discuss it, we’re discussing the evidence for it. If you’d rather just sit around and believe that it’s an ordinary claim and that you don’t need good evidence to believe in it, then fine – just don’t go starting conversations on the subject in a public forum with people who don’t agree. Unless, of course, you actually have good evidence.

EDIT: I just read my other post again, and the sentence, “The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence one needs to support it” is indeed confusing. I wasn’t making it clear that I was talking about a personal judgment of extraordinariness. Hopefully, I’ve made things clearer.
Click to expand...
This statement would be perfectly fine in a mathematics or physics fourm, but in a philosophy forum it is simply absurd.
 
AntiTheist said:
If you think that your god claim is ordinary, then that’s fine.
Click to expand...
  1. At the outset all explanations of reality are equally likely.
  2. Our primary datum is our existence as intangible, conscious beings.
  3. It is reasonable to claim that we owe our existence to one intangible, conscious Being.
  4. The onus is on the person who rejects this claim to explain why it is false and to produce a superior explanation.
 
Maybe the title of the thread should be: “The theology of the Catholic faith rises or falls on the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection.”

It is Jesus who points the way to the Father. And He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

However, atheists do not use the same framework of proofs, or evidence from nature and reality. They reject the metaphysical connection of the various disciplines (science and philosophy) and seem to be stuck in the scientific method, requiring empirical evidence for a philosophy that is complete and convincing in and of itself. They limit themselves.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Catholic Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond Brown argued that there were theologically erroneous opinions in the Bible, so apparently that is a valid option for Catholics to take.
Click to expand...
what theologically erroneous opinions? :confused:
 
JohnDamian said:
I am afraid I must ask; if it was so self evident why did St Paul require God’s intervention?
Click to expand...
St. Paul (as all of the first christians) was a Jew…i.e. He believed that God existed before his conversion to Christianity.
 
If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it.

The arguments against God are useless. It’s what God says that counts.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

Christ here does not make exceptions for invincible ignorance, and offers no free pass for atheists. Nor does Paul as we see in 2nd Timothy 2:11-12

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”

Neither Christ nor Paul are in error.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” But he has only fooled himself.
 
“In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” Blaise Pascal
 
Charlemagne_II said:
The arguments against God are useless. It’s what God says that counts.
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to understand the point of this thread. I am not saying that an atheist can prove Gods non-existence. I am saying that if they can prove that in principle there is no argument that can prove the existence of God, then Catholic theology is flawed and undermined. It is apart of the Catholic belief system to believe that Gods existence can in principle be proven to exist. If the atheist proves otherwise, it seems like its game over for Catholics; but this doesn’t in-itself disprove the existence of God. It would only disprove the catholic religion and perhaps Judaism. The only other way out is by saying that there are erroneous opinions in the bible that do not actually express the dogmatic teachings of the faith, but rather it expresses the opinions of Paul and who ever else believes that Gods existence can be proven. But this would seem to undermine papal infallibility as it seems that the Pope speaks Ex cathedra when he says that Gods existence can be known by the aid of reason. It seems if you knock one domino down, the rest come tumbling after. Thus, unless I am wrong about Paul and the ex-cathedra, to be a Catholic is necessarily to believe that Gods existence can in principle be proven with a degree of certainty which reasonable atheists, free of any brain disorder, cannot deny without being irrational, illogical and self deceptive.

If you can prove me wrong, then so be it.
 
MindOverMatter

*If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it. *

These are your own words from post # 1 and they are utterly absurd.

Clarify yourself! :mad:
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
You don’t seem to understand the point of this thread. I am not saying that an atheist can prove Gods non-existence. I am saying that if they can prove that in principle there is no argument that can prove the existence of God, then Catholic theology is flawed and undermined. It is apart of the Catholic belief system to believe that Gods existence can in principle be proven to exist. If the atheist proves otherwise, it seems like its game over for Catholics; but this doesn’t in-itself disprove the existence of God. It would only disprove the catholic religion and perhaps Judaism. The only other way out is by saying that there are erroneous opinions in the bible that do not actually express the dogmatic teachings of the faith, but rather it expresses the opinions of Paul and who ever else believes that Gods existence can be proven. But this would seem to undermine papal infallibility as it seems that the Pope speaks Ex cathedra when he says that Gods existence can be known by the aid of reason. It seems if you knock one domino down, the rest come tumbling after. Thus, unless I am wrong about Paul and the ex-cathedra, to be a Catholic is necessarily to believe that Gods existence can in principle be proven with a degree of certainty which reasonable atheists, free of any brain disorder, cannot deny without being irrational, illogical and self deceptive.

If you can prove me wrong, then so be it.
Click to expand...
MoM:

So what you are in fact saying is, even though it is often iterated that the five proofs were called “Ways,” they have to be Proofs or they do not comply with that statement. We can’t have wishy-washy statements that merely seem to indicate an Eternal presence of some sort. That’s why they have been impossible to refute once understood.

God bless,
jd
 
Charlemagne_II said:
MindOverMatter

*If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it. *

These are your own words from post # 1 and they are utterly absurd.

Clarify yourself! :mad:
Click to expand...
I think I have made myself clear enough. Unless you can point out what it is exactly that you find absurd, I cannot help you, since my argument follows consistently from the premise that is presented by St Paul. I am reacting to what St.Paul said. This is not something I made up to upset you.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
MindOverMatter
*If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it. *
Click to expand...
I shall make it simple for you Charlemagne.

If an atheist can demonstrate; using Logic that it is impossible to prove God exists; then St Paul has been proven incorrect.

Proving God as not-existing is an impossible, as a negative claim of such scope is impossible to verify. However;** if an Atheist were to prove St. Paul was incorrect when St Paul said that we can know God by Reason.** then that would demonstrate that the Bible; or the Church was at least; in part - incorrect.
Click to expand...
 
JohnDamien

*Proving God as not-existing is an impossible, as a negative claim of such scope is impossible to verify. However; if an Atheist were to prove St. Paul was incorrect when St Paul said that we can know God by Reason. then that would demonstrate that the Bible; or the Church was at least; in part - incorrect. *

If I am not mistaken, you have introduced two different questions that are confused with each other. When Paul says that we can know God by reason, I don’t think he is offering the same kind of proof that is demanded by the atheist. The stock objection from the atheist is that there is no visible sign of God. What Paul is talking about is the reasonable inference that God exists based on the reasons of the heart rather than the reasons of the senses. The reasons of the heart are not refutable. Unless you don’t want God to exist. But that certainly doesn’t qualify as a rational reason, as Plato indicates in the quote below.
 
If I am not mistaken, you have introduced two different questions that are confused with each other. When Paul says that we can know God by reason, I don’t think he is offering the same kind of proof that is demanded by the atheist. The stock objection from the atheist is that there is no visible sign of God. What Paul is talking about is the reasonable inference that God exists based on the reasons of the heart rather than the reasons of the senses. The reasons of the heart are not refutable. Unless you don’t want God to exist. But that certainly doesn’t qualify as a rational reason, as Plato indicates in the quote below.
Click to expand...
Paul did not mean necessarily inferance. Paul was speaking of a general via positiva methodology; as aversed to a via negativa methodology. Nonetheless; evidence; a priori; a posteriori are all emcompassed by a via positiva approach to the discussion of God.

To say via negativa justifies anything per se is to tacitly concede that other religions who have via negativa practices; such as theosis in schismatics; bhuddhists; and anyone who can lay a claim on “spiritual” or “supernatural” experiences. Via positiva methodologies avoid this problem; and are categorised by “reason” instead of “faith”. When Paul talks of reason he essentially is advocating via positiva methodologies.

This would; of course; include a priori arguments such as seen in Proslogion; as well as a posteriori arguments as seen in Summa fratris Alexandri. It would also; if available; encompass physical evidence.

Now; if an Atheist were to totally debunk the via positiva methodologies of a posteriori and a priori he would per se be demonstrating that Pauls’ claim on via positiva methodologies was incorrect; it follows from this that the bible would then be incorrect and so on and so forth; in essence debunking Catholocism and Christianity in general but not Theism per se.

However; as no Atheist seems to have been capable of; as yet - demonstrating such - there is no problem.
 
John Damien

*Paul did not mean necessarily inferance. Paul was speaking of a general via positiva methodology; as aversed to a via negativa methodology. Nonetheless; evidence; a priori; a posteriori are all emcompassed by a via positiva approach to the discussion of God.

To say via negativa justifies anything per se is to tacitly concede that other religions who have via negativa practices; such as theosis in schismatics; bhuddhists; and anyone who can lay a claim on “spiritual” or “supernatural” experiences. Via positiva methodologies avoid this problem; and are categorised by “reason” instead of “faith”. When Paul talks of reason he essentially is advocating via positiva methodologies.
*

What are you drinking? I need some of that! :D:thumbsup:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
What are you drinking? I need some of that! :D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Tea.

Seriously however; there is a difference between “reason” and “faith” even if they can lead to the same things.

Knowing something with “reason” necessarily means a priori or a posteriori logic; or empirical evidence in general.

What you said; about “knowing with the heart” is more akin to faith than reason; not that it diminishes the value of the belief - it is merely not what Paul was saying when he stated that reason could lead us to know God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top