There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, you didn’t have to choose the ancient Aztecs as an example. My idea was to find any isolated civilization, it could be modern or ancient.

[for things like moral questions in Ireland of the past, there are such things as online census records. Those record the persons religion. And Catholics and undoubtably protestants do not approve of adultery. We are not God and all we can do is take people at face value. If they record they approve or disapprove of something that will be sufficient, the Irish are an honourable and courageous people.]

Census of Ireland 1901/1911
census.nationalarchives.ie/

You are still not addressing what I actually said I see

How can you prove that 19th century Irish people didn’t secretly approve of adultery?

Only by taking their actions at face value.

And if you apply that same standard to the Aztecs, it appears that they did indeed approve of human sacrifice as a group (because they practiced it for so long and on such a large scale).

 

[Spock]

This is a philosophy forum on a Catholic forum, so yes the existence of God is a given. If I were to go to an atheist forum or agnostic forum the non-existence of God would the starting premises.

I don’t think so, but let me ask this: are the absolute goodness of God, or his omniscience, or the infallibility of the church (etc… etc…) also a “given”? Because if they are, then you could just shut down the forum for anyone but Catholics (since protestants tend to disagree). Also is the absolute othodoxy also a requirement (since most of the posters are die-hard conservatives). If that is true, youe could deny the participation of those millions of pesky “cafeteria catholics” who dare to oppose Rome… indeed the board would be very nice and uniform and boring as hell…

You are absolutely right that you cannot prove a negative.

How welcome you are, you have no idea. But just look around how many times this nonsense is demanded.

But as been said many times on this forum: we understand we cannot give you scientific proof God exists so demanding proof that he does is as exasperating to us as asking you to prove God doesn’t exist is to you. We have told you our belief is based in faith.

In that you are somewhat mistaken. Indeed I have heard very, very few times that your belief is based on faith, and thus demanding a proof is futile and maybe even ridiculous. Personally, if someone refers to their faith, I accept that position and will not pursue it any further. However, this stance is extremely rare, and it is also contrary to the dogmas and the catechism, which explicitly says that “God’s existence can be know through reason only, and no faith is required”. Since this is a De Fide utterance, I think that I am not unreasonable to ask: “how?” - since the catechism does not give any details.

Faith that is generally back by personal and subjective experiences. Answered prayers, moments where you avoided a very large disaster, etc. I understand that you would say “well that’s just luck, chance and probability.” Maybe, but my experiences have been that luck is a bit too neat for me to be comfortable saying it is just chance.

As I said, I do not quarrel with this representation.

Besides if you are a man of science have you given religion a real try? You tell us it doesn’t look good on paper. We say: yes we know but it is more than the sum of its part. Your next step is: that’s illogical. What your next step should be is: Why do they think there is more to this? Go to Mass for a few months. Sit there and ask God to help you understand our faith. See what happens. Isn’t that how you pursue knowledge? Experiments?

Sorry to “disppoint” you. I used to be religious (a very long time ago), and not too long ago I accepted the advice of a forum member who told me to go to a catholic cathedral, specifically to Mary’s chapel, and with the aid of a few other catholics - pray the rosary and ask for a revelation. The type of the revelation was left to God, whatever he wanted to choose. He “assured” me that it will be successful. Needless to say, nothing happened. (Oh, and I also went tothe St. Peter’s Cathedral, because I happened to be in Rome).

I can anticipate the next objection: “maybe I did not recognize the revelation, because I already closed my ‘heart’ (what a ridiculous euphemism)”. Do not smile: I got this reply already. Or that I have to wait a few more decades, since God will answer in his time, not mine… or something equally inane. So my answer is: been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it.

 

[Spock]

This recurring “prove that God exists” theme is very dumb. Would be nice to see the end of it.

Tell it to the catechism, which explictly states that God’s existence can be know through reason only. Why shouldn’t I ask for the details, which the catechism (conveniently) left off? (And, just in case you did not hear before: “imitation is the highest form of flattery”.)

 

[tomarin]

Tell it to the catechism, which explictly states that God’s existence can be know through reason only. Why shouldn’t I ask for the details, which the catechism (conveniently) left off? (And, just in case you did not hear before: “imitation is the highest form of flattery”.)

Why do humans have a moral conscience, if God doesn’t exist?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Did he die for your sins?

I’ll have to check

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Answered prayers are verifiable results but without faith you probably won’t ever have those results…so as long as you’re trying not to believe in God, you’ll lack the verifiable results which you claim don’t exist. I guess you could call it self-fulfilling denial

An experiment where the experimentors already believe that there is only one possible answer before it even starts is worthless. Because they will inevitably interpret whatever data they gather to fit the predetermined conclusion.

 

[Spock]

If what I am saying is true, it is NECESSARILY TRUE FOR EVERYONE.

If what I am saying is false, it is NECESSARILY FALSE FOR EVERYONE.

Nonsense. It is merely your opinion - shared with millions of others and opposed by millions of different others. There is no “ordered use” (ordered by whom, by the way?) of those organs and no “illicit” use of them either.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Only thing left for those Without a Case is to Question, and Avoid Our Questions, and** The** Obvious Answers. We love the discussions. Know Who began Western Higher Education, Philosophy? Catholic Seminaries in the 1100’s: expanded to Higher Education to secular Leaders: Padua, Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, Venice, then in the USA: Harvard, Princeton, etc., etc. (Protestant Seminaries)

The Catholic Church was in many ways built on the system, structures, and authority of the Roman Empire. Should we therefore give the Roman Empire credit for everything Catholicism has done?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is a philosophy forum, so there are no “givens”.

Well, I have an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my basement. Its ever-present existence protects me from all sins. Can prove that it does not exist? This recurring “prove that God does not exist” theme is very dumb. Would be nice to see the end of it.

Maybe your dragon can play with Harvey

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… fellow catholics and other believers : can i warn you not to play these hate games with atheists , as it will do no good , hate opens the door for satan to enter , love opens the door for god to enter , these atheists are unwittingly perhaps trying to get you to invite satan into the argument so they can really have the best chance of winning and destroying your faith , don’t play the game their evil ways , and perhaps the atheists can tell us all the many great and wonderful blessings we’ll get from atheism , but they can’t just focus on how they’ll free us from our delusion and superstitious deity , if atheism is so wonderful why are these atheists the most horrible nasty people i’ve seen in a long time ??? , can they explain please ??? , and then catholics and other believers can talk about the endless blessings and benefits of believing in god and the church , let us have a genuine comparison with full honesty and see which faith is truly the best : atheism or catholicism or your faith as the case may be dearest friends …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist
Science might not be absolutely trustworthy (but what is), however its more trustworthy than religion because it has verifiable results (unlike religion generally speaking). Moreover, science creates technology, which is far more impressive than the spotty record of achievements for religion.

The spotty achievement of religion is that, morally speaking, it makes some people better than they might otherwise be; but other people refuse the offer.

The achievement of science by comparison is dismal; it does not make people morally better at all.

Science is never absolutely trustworthy: See the most recent proof below.

telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html

Its debatable whether or not religion actually makes anyone better.

And that fact that it often makes people worse appears undeniable.
Two good examples are the Aztecs and the modern day Taliban.

 

[StarFireKK]

In that you are somewhat mistaken. Indeed I have heard very, very few times that your belief is based on faith, and thus demanding a proof is futile and maybe even ridiculous. Personally, if someone refers to their faith, I accept that position and will not pursue it any further. However, this stance is extremely rare, and it is also contrary to the dogmas and the catechism, which explicitly says that “God’s existence can be know through reason only, and no faith is required”. Since this is a De Fide utterance, I think that I am not unreasonable to ask: “how?” - since the catechism does not give any details.

Thank you for such a thoughtful response to my post. I will state more later but I wanted to start with this because I need more clarification. Can you give me the citation for “God’s existence can be know through reason only, and no faith is required”?

In all my lifelong exposure to Catholicism I have NEVER been told faith is not required.

I would love to response to this but I need to know where the idea came from first.

Thanks!

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Absolute Truth Exists

You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God’s existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).

In the introduction page I mentioned ‘logical proof.’ The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.

Laws of Logic Exist

The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.

Laws of Mathematics Exist

Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.

Laws of Science Exist

I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws ‘prescribe’ how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.

Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.

Absolute Moral Laws Exist

By reaching this page you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they ‘abstract’ entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?

Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Material

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are made of matter, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them? Rather than have you produce a material, physical law I will narrow down the field for you… just show me the number ‘3’ somewhere in nature. Not ‘three things,’ not a written representation of the number 3 but the real physical, material number 3.

It is my hope and prayer that you come to see the futility of trying find an abstract entity in nature, and return to seek the truth, otherwise your road to this site’s proof that God exists ends here."

All blue excerpts quoted from: proofthatgodexists.org/

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Absolute Truth Exists

You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God’s existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).

In the introduction page I mentioned ‘logical proof.’ The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.

Laws of Logic Exist

The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.

Laws of Mathematics Exist

Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.

Laws of Science Exist

I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws ‘prescribe’ how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.

Absolute Moral Laws Exist

By reaching this page you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they ‘abstract’ entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?

Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Immaterial

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are made of matter, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them? Rather than have you produce a material, physical law I will narrow down the field for you… just show me the number ‘3’ somewhere in nature. Not ‘three things,’ not a written representation of the number 3 but the real physical, material number 3.

It is my hope and prayer that you come to see the futility of trying find an abstract entity in nature, and return to seek the truth, otherwise your road to this site’s proof that God exists ends here.

You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?

Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Universal

You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.…."

All blue excerpts quoted from: proofthatgodexists.org/

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Unchanging

To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…

**The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. **

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality."

All blue excerpts quoted from: proofthatgodexists.org/

 

[SwizzleStick]

"God Does Not Exist?

Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God’s existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God’s existence offered on this website. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but ‘Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?’ Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn’t it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?

Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding…"

All blue excerpts quoted from: proofthatgodexists.org/

 

[StarFireKK]

I don’t think so, but let me ask this: are the absolute goodness of God, or his omniscience, or the infallibility of the church (etc… etc…) also a “given”? Because if they are, then you could just shut down the forum for anyone but Catholics (since protestants tend to disagree). Also is the absolute othodoxy also a requirement (since most of the posters are die-hard conservatives). If that is true, youe could deny the participation of those millions of pesky “cafeteria catholics” who dare to oppose Rome… indeed the board would be very nice and uniform and boring as hell…

You have a very good point, given was a bad word for me to use. My desire was never to shut down a discussion. I think it is very important for people to feel they can ask questions provided they are looking for a real answer and not just to stir the pot. Catholicism is a very complex religion you can’t understand it without asking questions.

My suggestion that we should follow the Catholic position if we are going to start with A) God exists or B) God doesn’t exist was because CAF isn’t a free-for-all. There are certain rules to this forum. You must be respectful of the Church’s teachings, you can’t misrepresent the Church’s teachings and you cannot be an occasion of sin. There have been several threads shut down on CAF because the discussion has gotten so heated the posters were becoming uncharitable with each other. I was just thinking it is more likely the conversation will remain civil and within those rules if we start with the Catholic position. That’s not saying you can’t discuss it.

Sorry to “disppoint” you. I used to be religious (a very long time ago), and not too long ago I accepted the advice of a forum member who told me to go to a catholic cathedral, specifically to Mary’s chapel, and with the aid of a few other catholics - pray the rosary and ask for a revelation. The type of the revelation was left to God, whatever he wanted to choose. He “assured” me that it will be successful. Needless to say, nothing happened. (Oh, and I also went tothe St. Peter’s Cathedral, because I happened to be in Rome).

I can anticipate the next objection: “maybe I did not recognize the revelation, because I already closed my ‘heart’ (what a ridiculous euphemism)”. Do not smile: I got this reply already. Or that I have to wait a few more decades, since God will answer in his time, not mine… or something equally inane. So my answer is: been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it.

You didn’t disappoint me at all. In fact, this gives you more credibility in my eyes because it lets me know you aren’t just looking to get us Catholics all riled up.

I think that advice was very well-meaning, if a bit misguided. Instant conversions are not as common as some seem to think. That’s pretty much what the poster was hoping for…there is no other way you were going to get a “revelation.”

I’m a much bigger fan of talking about faith as a process, I wasn’t expecting you to get a revelation. I think it is very discouraging for a lot of people to hear “It’ll all be clear to you!” because as AlanfromWichita stated- most of us have moments of doubt we must work through.

But anyways…as you said your quarrel isn’t with faith so it is a moot point.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Since the navigator Spock wants to act as “judge” evaluating and grading entries, we must assume with good reason that all answers are perfectly understood before all good willed posts are made

What kind of non-sense is this. Questions are asked followed by a grading system by the one who requires the answer?

And then Spock gets the answer and says…yes that is the answer, now prove that God exists please.?

A constant railroad suggesting an authoritative position which all participants in this thread
are only interested in…for the sake of self ego.

This thread is a demonstration of not faith in God , but weakness in ego. No one considers other thoughts or refer to points made in fellow members offering. What is this? No wonder
this world is what it is…

A 14 year old with an average IQ…would easily see the manipulation.

All Spock does is select, evaluate, complain for a miracle, change topics.

No order, no quality, no nothing…the fruits of a dis-ordered initiative attacking the well
known order in creation…

I’m sorry buts theres zero quality going on here…total dis-order, no doubt about it.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Overall the studies I’m familiar with that tried to test the impact that prayer had on recovering patients were inconclusive. That’s not to say that prayer doesn’t work (perhaps those in the study were not praying to the right god). Of the studies that had the most positive result the metrics being used were more subjective.There doesn’t seem to be an abundance of reliable information on the topic.

The “abundance of reliable information” won’t be found in “studies” any more than proof of God will be found in laboratories.
If you don’t want to believe in God, you will always have a reason. As I said before, it’s a case of self fulfilling denial.
God exists with or without your belief though, you’re not going to DIS-believe Him out of His own existence. You CAN deny Him out of your own person but that’s hardly the condition you will want to spend eternity in.

 

[Wardog]

Sorry to “disppoint” you. I used to be religious (a very long time ago), and not too long ago I accepted the advice of a forum member who told me to go to a catholic cathedral, specifically to Mary’s chapel, and with the aid of a few other catholics - pray the rosary and ask for a revelation. The type of the revelation was left to God, whatever he wanted to choose. He “assured” me that it will be successful. Needless to say, nothing happened. (Oh, and I also went tothe St. Peter’s Cathedral, because I happened to be in Rome).
FONT]

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is No.