Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[Spock]

Funny. Because when I critically thought about atheism, 90% of the arguments I saw were epic train wrecks.

Let’s use the standard “tactics” employed by the posters around here: “obviously did not understand those arguments”. How do you like this “method”? Don’t you find it insulting? I do, when it is used. It is not fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

This is not the place to go into details, and besides the “temporary” ban is still in effect. Maybe that “temporary” ban will be lifted sometime in the future, and then we can get into that discussion (if we are still alive and around).

 

[Spock]

Don’t their insights on concepts such as reality stand up in the present day?

No, they do not. And it is not relevant in this discussion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you believe in the concept of Good and evil?

When ever I see that question or questions like it it seems as though the person asking also views these concepts as something that have a tangible embodiment and that there exists a vessel of pure good or a vessel of pure evil from which all things that are classified as good or evil have been doused. This is much different than another interpretation that could come from the wording; "Do you believe there exist mental classifications which many people label with the words “good” and “evil” into which people will classify some things.

 

[benedictus2]

When ever I see that question or questions like it it seems as though the person asking also views these concepts as something that have a tangible embodiment and that there exists a vessel of pure good or a vessel of pure evil from which all things that are classified as good or evil have been doused. This is much different than another interpretation that could come from the wording; "Do you believe there exist mental classifications which many people label with the words “good” and “evil” into which people will classify some things.

Are you a nominalist?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you a nominalist?

Don’t know, couldn’t say. Up until now I had never heard of the term. I’m hesitant to say because even though I’ve looked up a definition to the word I don’t know any of the other nuances that may be associated with the concept. I’d rather not call myself by a label without a fuller understanding of what is attached to that label.

For what it’s worth the previous question looks similar to me to some one asking “Do you believe that light and dense exists” or “Do you believe that tall and short exists” and so on. If one is using those those words as adjectives then we are on the same page. If they are used as pronouns to refer to something else that is light or dense or something that is tall or short I can also follow that. If we want to wok with the concepts as abstractions and not nail them down to something physical that’s also doable. Good and Evil are also associated with emotional experiences, so were I asked to identify something that might invoke that experience I know what is being asked. If you ask my to go find some pure heavy or pure short or pure evil then at that point I’ve got no clue what is being asked and further explanation would be needed.

 

[benedictus2]

Argumentum ad populum? Just another boring fallacy. There was a very proper observation: “Almost everyone believed in God, until some philosophers tried to prove it”. But that is neither here nor there.

Actually you are the one in error here or you do not understand the proper application of the fallacy.

So let’s take it step by step.

You said: “Nonsense. The so-called evidence is simply insufficient for critical thinkers.”

By saying that, you are in effect saying that those who believed those so called evidence aren not-critical thinkers. Following this so far?

So Heuchler was quite correct to list the names of brilliant “critical” thinkers to prove you wrong. The evidence was obviously sufficient for those brilliant critical thinkers. Get that now.

But you are in some way correct as well, because one name would have been sufficient. And the kind of so called “critical thinking” that I have seen come from you in this forums could not hold a candle to the kind of critical thinking of the least critical thinker in that list.

That is the topic, and don’t try to derail it.

Do you not realize that if there was a derailment it would have been you who caused it by your comment? Heuchler’s reply followed perfectly from your “point”.

Adding a little “argumentum ad numeram” for good measure’s sake.

Most people do not even thing about God, or any god. Even when I look at the modern day believers, they conduct their life as if there was no God. Maybe they attend chruch once in a while (and that number is also decreasing) but otherwise they go on their merry way.

Hmmm, for a self-described critical thinker, you do not seem to be doing much of that with this post.

Heuchler said: Exactly and through his statement, Spock also said that the majority of humanity for all of history haven’t been critical thinkers, but that he is. This is the bias that I hate that comes from Atheism.

How is that ad numeram and what has the fact that some people do not even think about God got to do with his comment?

If you read it again, all he is saying is that in reference to your point earlier, you have labelled the “majority of humanity in the past as non-critical thinkers” but that (drumroll and trumpet blasting) you are. Arrogance camouflaging the critical bereftness of your thinking is what is in display so far.

I keep hearing about the “crisis” of church attendance, about the millions of “good” Catholics, who thumb their noses to Rome by practicing contraception, supporting abortion, and generally shrugging off what the Vatican says. So I would suggest to get off your high horse and face reality: “most people do not care any more”.

And how is that relevant in any way? If a majority of people still think that the earth is flat, would that make it true?

And correction, it is YOU who need to dismount your pony (yes, it is no Arabian steed ) because most people still do. Intelligent and critical thinking people do. If you think that hot air constitutes a valid argument you need to really start doing some criticial thinking.

 

[Heuchler]

Argumentum ad populum? Just another boring fallacy. There was a very proper observation: “Almost everyone believed in God, until some philosophers tried to prove it”. But that is neither here nor there.

The fact is that I do not find any of these 666 “proofs” of God compelling: “proofs of God” and therefore if God would care about my salvation, he MUST use whatever method he finds compelling for me. Since he keeps playing “hard to get”, I draw the conclusion that he does not care - quite contrary what you believers keep saying.

That is the topic, and don’t try to derail it.

Adding a little “argumentum ad numeram” for good measure’s sake.

Most people do not even thing about God, or any god. Even when I look at the modern day believers, they conduct their life as if there was no God. Maybe they attend chruch once in a while (and that number is also decreasing) but otherwise they go on their merry way. I keep hearing about the “crisis” of church attendance, about the millions of “good” Catholics, who thumb their noses to Rome by practicing contraception, supporting abortion, and generally shrugging off what the Vatican says. So I would suggest to get off your high horse and face reality: “most people do not care any more”.

You implied that if we were critical thinkers, we would see the error of our ways. I was simply providing you evidence that many critical thinkers have believed and have constituted and created western civilization. And stop acting like I said something so stupid and wrong by just saying “boring fallacy”, get off your high horse and prove it.

You said," He MUST use whatever methods he finds compelling for me." Yet you will reject any miracle as a hallucination, you reject anything historical because every human being is going to lie, and you reject logical arguments. You have hardened your heart and God respects that decision.

 

[Spock]

You said," He MUST use whatever methods he finds compelling for me." Yet you will reject any miracle as a hallucination, you reject anything historical because every human being is going to lie, and you reject logical arguments. You have hardened your heart and God respects that decision.

There are no “miracles”, only stories about miracles. There are no historical evidences, only stories about alleged history. You say that I believe that “every human being is going to lie” - what is your evidence for that? Just got it out of thin air, did you? There are no logical arguments, only fallacies.

My heart is nicely pumping blood, thank you very much. It has nothing to do with the question at hand, and your inane little euphemisms carry no weight whatsoever. I explicitly ask for evidence, and I get none.

1. You, believers say that God wishes everyone to be “saved”.
2. If God exists, he must know that I only accept actual, physical, observable proof.
3. He is able to provide that , according to your stories.
4. If he would care about my salvation, he would provide it.
5. I explictly ask for such demonstration. There is none. Period.

Your sniding little remark about my “hardened heart” is just another attempt to wiggle out from the fact, that your assertion about God “wishing everyone to be saved” is just another unfounded and empty proposition. And you think that I should trust you, who is not even willing to admit that? Think again.

 

[benedictus2]

There are no “miracles”, only stories about miracles. There are no historical evidences, only stories about alleged history. You say that I believe that “every human being is going to lie” - what is your evidence for that? Just got it out of thin air, did you?

And what is your evidence for your claim that there are no miracles? Are you able to prove that all claimed miracles are indeed not so?

Since you are absolutely sure about this, then you must be able to prove it - right?

So let’s pick one. The Miracle at Fatima. Prove that it is all false.
You can google it if you like if you are not familiar with it.

There are no logical arguments, only fallacies.

That does seem to be true for your posts.

 

[benedictus2]

Again, I need to KNOW that there is a valid choice out there.

What constitutes a valid choice?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There are no “miracles”, only stories about miracles. There are no historical evidences, only stories about alleged history. You say that I believe that “every human being is going to lie” - what is your evidence for that? Just got it out of thin air, did you? There are no logical arguments, only fallacies.

My heart is nicely pumping blood, thank you very much. It has nothing to do with the question at hand, and your inane little euphemisms carry no weight whatsoever. I explicitly ask for evidence, and I get none.

1. You, believers say that God wishes everyone to be “saved”.
2. If God exists, he must know that I only accept actual, physical, observable proof.
3. He is able to provide that , according to your stories.
4. If he would care about my salvation, he would provide it.
5. I explictly ask for such demonstration. There is none. Period.

Your sniding little remark about my “hardened heart” is just another attempt to wiggle out from the fact, that your assertion about God “wishing everyone to be saved” is just another unfounded and empty proposition. And you think that I should trust you, who is not even willing to admit that? Think again.

If you are so confident that everything you’re saying is in fact true, than there really is no reason for you to be here. I am sure you have got better things to do than to argue with dogmatic gullible people, which is obviously what you think of us Catholics. If all you got going for you is coming to this forum, then i have to say thats a sad way to waste a finite existence. Don’t spend your whole meaningless existence having a rant.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Spock:

If he would care about my salvation, he would provide it.

Spock,

I’m not convinced of the veracity of the proposition that if God cared about our salvation he would give in to each of our individual demands.

It might not be good for us, in the long run.

VC

 

[HelenaMT]

The point here is that mathematics, geometry and all the other abstract systems are based upon arbitrarily chosen axioms. Not all axiomatic systems are equally useful, of course, but as long as they are without internal inconsistencies, they are all “valid” - and they are all creations of the mind. Some can be “mapped” quite well onto the physical reality, but that is just a lucky incident.

So, do you mean that had we come up with a different set of arbitrary axioms , we might not have figured out how to describe physical reality mathematically ? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Spock,

I’m not convinced of the veracity of the proposition that if God cared about our salvation he would give in to each of our individual demands.

A similar response came up on page 9 or 10 of this thread.

Tantum ergo;8354685:

The God you are positing is not the Almighty God, but a kind of lars and penates ‘household god’ who works for YOU, subject to you, and you alone. . .basically a god formed in your image. A God who exists not to establish creation but only to somehow have to prove himself to the satisfaction OF that creation is not an almighty God at all. . .

You are mistaken. I am not asking to deliver a bagful of diamonds and grant me perfect health and youth for the next 100000 years. I am only asking to give me a positive proof of his existence. I don’t think that there is anything unreasonable in this.

There’s more discussion on that point in the messages that follow that one.

 

[benedictus2]

Only in your dreams buddy. God’s existence cannot be proven by some mystical or pseudo-philosophical hand-waving.

Totally true. That is why most like MoM2 did not use pseudo-philosophical hand waving. I wonder though what a pseudo-philosophical hand waving is. Since it seems you might be the only one who know precisely what that term means, can we infer that you have employed this in your discourse?

Now if you cannot grasp philosophical thought well enough, that is another matter.

As I have explained to you before, to expect a natural proof for a Supernatural being would be absurd. Question is do you grasp the absurdity of such a requirement?

 

[Abba]

Your attempts to proselytize are off-topic and inappropriate. Kindly thump your Bible in private, or on CAF sections devoted to reiterations of dogma. This is a philosophy section.

I would like to remind you of the Mission of Catholic Answers:

MISSION STATEMENT
Catholic Answers is one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Its mission statement explains its purpose:
Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.

I like the way it was put on another catholic forum and I quote:

1. Proselytizing – It doesn’t matter if it’s anti-Catholic, anti-religious, anti-pope, etc. This is a CATHOLIC forum, which exists to teach about the Catholic faith. Debates here are challenges to that faith, and will be answered most often through the teachings of the Church, because that is our mission. Now, if you really don’t like discussing Catholicism…we’d have to ask why you’re here. So please don’t expect us to be timid about the faith we’re here to teach about.catholicforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=115243

All of CAF’s sections are devoted to lead people to the fullness of the faith.

I can reference Sacred Scripture anywhere I want on CAF. As a matter of fact, I think I will do just that right now on my next post.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

A similar response came up on page 9 or 10 of this thread.

Thank you for pointing that out, I hadn’t seen it.

Although I worded my observation generically as “individual demands”, I think it could be taken more specifically – that I’m not convinced of the veracity of the proposition that if God cared about Spock’s salvation he would prove himself to Spock’s satisfaction. I understand that Spock asserts that his demand is reasonable, but does he somewhere show why it is reasonable?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Spock]

And what is your evidence for your claim that there are no miracles? Are you able to prove that all claimed miracles are indeed not so? Since you are absolutely sure about this, then you must be able to prove it - right?

Next time, when I will say that there are no fairies and leprechauns, you will probably ask for positive proof of their nonexistence. As soon as you will present the positive proof for the nonexistence of the Flying Spagetti Monster - I will present mine. A hint: there can be no positive proof for the nonexistence of something, unless that purported “thing” is a logical contradiction, like a married bachelor, or a God who is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

 

[Spock]

If you are so confident that everything you’re saying is in fact true, than there really is no reason for you to be here. I am sure you have got better things to do than to argue with dogmatic gullible people, which is **obviously **what you think of us Catholics.

Obviously? Not at all. I have met quite a few excellent, non-dogmatic people here, with whom I could conduct a most satisfying and mutually beneficial conversation. I learned from them and they learned from me. Unfortunately, you are not one of them, more is the pity. That is why I usually do not respond to your posts. This time I made an exception, but that will not create a precedent.

But it is true, I consider MANY (but not all) posters around here to be dogmatic, and after a few times I place them into my “ignore” list. But I first give them the benefit of doubt.

 

[Spock]

I’m not convinced of the veracity of the proposition that if God cared about our salvation he would give in to each of our individual demands.

It might not be good for us, in the long run.

Why on Earth not? If we had actual proof, we could make informed decisions. As I said before, I do not ask for outrageous presentations, just a simple proof that God actually exists.