estesbob:
Well I guess we’ll agree to disagree. It was the very foundation the rest of his proof of God’s existence was built on. At least thats the way the Jesuits taught me
Can we agree he was a smart gut who beleived in God?
Sounds good to me.
buffalo:
We are not at that point yet as to why I am Catholic. The subject at hand is “There is no God”. IS there a first cause or not?
6 entries found for science.
sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
Code:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
- Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
- An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
- Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
- Science Christian Science.
Understanding - accept as agreed fact.
I’m not sure how either definition supports your conclusions. Furthermore, when it comes to what science is, I’d take the word of a philosopher (namely Karl Popper) over the editors of the dictionary. Falsifiability is generally considered to be the criterion for deciding whether a hypothesis is scientific or not.
buffalo:
The difference between catholic faith and other world religions is that our faith is an example of God reaching out to us. Other religions are examples of man trying to find God.
The catholic church clearly states that we can’t be sure if people of other religions can be saved. We can however be sure that salvation exists through christ. Salvation is up to Christ.
Why don’t you admit the personal experiences of billions of people who do belive in something more then mans limited perspective? I guess you reject all of them as well.
Your first paragraph seems like an unsupported assertion. What are the reasons for believing that Catholics’ personal experiences are the result of a God reaching out to them and the religious experiences of others are a result of their reaching out to God?
Regarding the second paragraph, the validity of Christian principles - such as the existence of God (and hence salvation, etc) - is what is up for debate.
Your final paragraph is, in a sense, my question: why do you accept the experiences of Catholics and not the experiences of Hindus as evidence? Now, regardless of this particular complication, it is a bad argument that takes the following form: “Many people believe X. Therefore belief in X is reasonable.” As Galileo said: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” His statement applies to more than just science: we ought to appeal to arguments to support our position, not the number of people who believe as we do. In addition to this, I am doubtful of an argument that runs as follows:
-Many people have had personal experience of God
-Therefore it is reasonable to believe that God exists
As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - in particular if this phenomenon can be explained through “natural” means, such as psychology.
Kristina P.:
I do admit the personal experiences of other people as evidence for other religions. And I look at all such evidence, including my own personal experience in light of the historical and other evidence for and against Christianity.
When I say personal experience, by the way, I don’t mean that I’ve had visions or anything. I just mean rather subjective things like a sense of peace, conviction over sin, etc., things that could easily be written off as psychological phenomena. I cannot write them off because I have experienced them and am unable to believe that they were the result of an inside force. As for personal experience pointing to the god one is already believing in, certainly this is usually true. Perhaps all such experience or some of it is psychological phenomena. Perhaps these are cases when an experience of the true deity is filtered through cultural lenses. Maybe demons are involved. I don’t know.
By the way, thanks for being reasonable and gracious here.
I’m just using “personal experience” to summarize a wide variety of phenomenon. I think it works fairly well as a generalization.
Anyways, so your argument for the existence of the Christian God is, more or less (?):
-Myself and others have had personal experiences of the Christian God
-Historical events support the existence of the Christian God
-Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the Christian God exists
And thank you for being gracious as well. It’s very nice to be able to discuss these things in a friendly atmosphere.
