Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[EricFilmer]

benedictus2;8353036:

You claim to be a theist.

So you believe in a creator God.

With this post, you have practically stated that converting water to wine is far beyond the capability of the God who created the universe out of nothing.

I’ve figured that you never read a word I wrote…

According to the theory I’ve devised, God created the universe out of energy. He is limited by the three natural energy laws as well as by logic, including mathematical logic. He is also limited by the constraints of the secondary physical laws he designed…

(This is a simplified expression of my ideas.)

Be aware that I have no interest whatsoever in defending these concepts to you or other dogmatists, because that would be impossible. My ideas were devised to assist one person, myself, in the understanding of the true nature of the human mind and the purpose of human existence. They have proven useful to a very small number of others, and I present them in various rants and snippets in the expectation that they will be useful to those non-dogmatists who are dissatisfied with current belief systems…

…I do ask that you avoid posts like yours which attempt to make me look self-contradictory. Be responsible enough to do your homework first, please. No more similarly disingenuous posts. They are tacky.

Much can be achieved by clear concise answers.

Firstly, answer the question of where the energy that God used to create the universe come from.
If you answer it was always there (from eternity) then, since as razredge pointed out in another thread, matter=energy, therefore you are saying that matter and energy were never created by God.

Is this your position?

Greylorn, I believe the statements made by benedictus2 (and others) are relevant to this thread discussion. Here’s why…

I have been following this thread from the beginning and have read your various statements, including the brief overview of your cosmological concept (and if you prefer a different term then let me know).

The title you chose for this thread emphatically states that “water cannot be transformed into good wine.” In Post #39 you explained the purpose of this thread in the following way:

“My water into wine example was intended to illustrate an absurd application of mindless faith, a miracle so complex that it cannot be performed by God Himself. Yet, I have no problem whatsoever accepting the belief that Christ touched the retinas of some blind guys with his mind, maybe cleared out a blood clot here and there, bypassed some blocked nerves, or rebalanced some internal parts to restore the eyes’ normal chemistry. Faith must be balanced against alternative possibilities, else it is utterly mindless. Does mindless faith honor God? I hope not.”

It should also be noted that this discussion is taking place on a forum that is designated by Catholic Answers as “Discussion of philosophy, with an emphasis on Catholic contributions” (see the sub-heading description at the top of the Apologetics Page).

The expectation, therefore, is that something presented in this thread is going to be critiqued through the lens of Catholicism in an intellectual debate. Naturally, that does not mean that your position has to be in tune with Catholic teaching. You stated (in Post #96) that your concept of God and miracles is different from the concept found within Catholicism, and there is nothing wrong with someone posting material from such a viewpoint. But while critiquing the validity of your assessment of the water into wine miracle in your OP, you should naturally expect us to critique the validity of your cosmology as well, seeing as it is the basis of your statement that such a miracle cannot be performed, even by God. And yet when benedictus2 (and others) attempt to examine your cosmology in greater detail, you tend to act as if such a venue is off-topic.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Speaking not as a dogmatist but as a person who knows and appreciates the importance of critical thinking, I think that the logic of your position in this thread cannot be demonstrated unless you first sufficiently defend the logic underlining your cosmology, at least as it pertains to the topic at hand. I think you would agree that you represent a position which is very uncommon (compared to other belief systems). And yet it is the tool with which you use to assess the possibility of water being turned into wine. Hence, the principles of critical thinking call for more examination of your cosmology.

Think of it this way: If an insurance agent told you that he used his compound teraflactic multi-garanaded dilarboruous tool to determine that your house is defective and is in dire need of an insurance policy upgrade, I am sure that you would first ask “Exactly what is a compound teraflactic multi-garanaded dilarboruous tool, what exactly is it that you claim it measures, and how do I know it actually (and accurately) measures what you claim it does?” In other words, to use the terminology associated with statistics, you would want the tool to demonstrate validity and reliability, especially seeing as the tool being presented was unknown to you. The Catholics in this discussion are basically desiring the same thing in terms of the “tool” that you have used to determine that not even God can transform water into good wine. (As a side note, naturally I do not expect your cosmology to specifically demonstrate statistical validity and reliability; I am using such terms in a more general sense).

For the sake of this thread, we do not have to have an exhaustive examination of everything that composes your belief system. It suffices for people to spot potential logical flaws within your line of reasoning and have you give a proper defense of your position. But instead, these are the kinds of responses you have been making thus far…

However correct your remark is, it has nothing to do with my OP. Thank you anyway. You might want to initiate a thread of your own on that topic.

We could argue that, but would need another thread, and I doubt that anyone else would be interested. There are other things I’d prefer to discuss with you.

Be aware that I have no interest whatsoever in defending these concepts to you or other dogmatists, because that would be impossible. My ideas were devised to assist one person, myself, in the understanding of the true nature of the human mind and the purpose of human existence.

In light of everything I’ve said, I think it would be both relevant to (and beneficial for) the thread discussion at hand for you to answer the question benedictus2 recently presented which I will re-post here:

Firstly, answer the question of where the energy that God used to create the universe come from.
If you answer it was always there (from eternity) then, since as razredge pointed out in another thread, matter=energy, therefore you are saying that matter and energy were never created by God.

Is this your position?

Although I lack any notable background in physics, I do have a background in metaphysics (as part of an extensive graduate school curriculum). Therefore, I think I pretty much know where benedictus2 is going with this, and this is why I believe his question to be properly on-topic.

If, however, you disagree with anything I’ve said, including my assessment as to how this is all in keeping with the principles of critical thinking, then I ask you to clearly explain why.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Because that is the only way I can ascertain that he actually exists. Remember, unless I KNOW that there is a God, I cannot take the next step - which WOULD be to find out what HIS requirements are - as you properly observed. Not that I want something he did not do before - allegedly. Just prove it to me that he exists. Maybe you might ask why don’t I accept your word for it. The answer is simple: I don’t trust you. In a matter of this importance I don’t trust anyone, except myself.

Of course if God does not care about my salvation, he is under no obligation to do anything. You see, it is you, the believers who assert all sorts of nonsense about God, like that God “cares” about us. And that God “loves” us. All I am doing is making logical inferences from what YOU say about God.

But, again with respect, is that TRULY the only way you can ascertain He actually exists, or is it simply that you THINK it is the only way and have closed your mind to any other possibility?

Perhaps He has been trying to show Himself to you and to speak to you, but you have determined that ‘in this way and this only will I be assured, that God must speak to me on MY terms and meet MY requirements’, and you are not hearing or seeing Him as He truly is?

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 see, you really have set yourself up as your own god, and since the true God, being the True God, is not subject to you and your arbitrary ‘limits’ and ‘requirements’, you won’t ‘know’ Him because you don’t want to know HIM. What YOU want is to have God subject to you, submitting His will to yours.

You think it’s a trust issue? “Blessed is he who has not seen, but believes” might have been written especially for you. I think it is a trust issue but it isn’t God who is failing you in lack of trust, it’s you who is failing Him. There really is nothing but your EGO and your own stubborn and wilful determination that it must be YOUR way or the Highway that stands between you and God. That, dear sir, is no fault of God’s. You knew Him once and YOU rejected Him, by ‘outgrowing’ Him. . .not the other way around. He never rejected you. He is still there waiting for you, and ALL He asks is your trust. If you cannot give it, it is not God’s fault but your own, because you knew Him once, and because He gave you sufficient grace to accept Him. . .and gives it still. It is solely up to you. You can accept or reject. I pray you accept.

Love, dear Spock, does not consist in a Being’s subjection to YOUR terms because only then–you SAY–can you accept that being and salvation.

Because through all eternity, that Being has ALREADY taken on your sins, your mistrust, your personal failings. . .AND LOVES YOU ANYWAY. He’s already done MORE than subject Himself to ‘one’ man; He has taken on the sins of all and FREED us for salvation, given us His Holy Word, given us His body and His blood. . .

But you want a ‘personal’ assurance?

Be CAREFUL what you wish for, Spock. It may be that He WILL give you His personal ‘visitation’. . .and then what will you do? If He manifests Himself to you, will you then come back to us here and testify? Will you ‘give what you have to the poor’ and follow Him, heart and soul? Or do you think that once He has appeared to you in glory, you can then continue on exactly as you do now, just with a ‘certainty’ that oh yeah, he exists, now I’ll be careful to follow the ‘letter of the law’, because he only appeared to save me, I’m saved, I can relax?

What WOULD you do, Spock, if you were SURE God existed, and why won’t you do it if you are NOT sure?

 

[You]

Originally Posted by Spock
Because that is the only way I can ascertain that he actually exists. Remember, unless I KNOW that there is a God, I cannot take the next step - which WOULD be to find out what HIS requirements are - as you properly observed. Not that I want something he did not do before - allegedly. Just prove it to me that he exists. Maybe you might ask why don’t I accept your word for it. The answer is simple: I don’t trust you. In a matter of this importance I don’t trust anyone, except myself.

amm… but what have you got to lose, spock. If thats your argument, you don’t trust us. We won’t laugh at you, honest. And its not like a Good God asks you to do anything Bad. And what about all this trial software we get, try it for 30 days free then buy it except this idea does not cost you really…

 

[Spock]

But, again with respect, is that TRULY the only way you can ascertain He actually exists, or is it simply that you THINK it is the only way and have closed your mind to any other possibility?

How could it be different? If I THINK that there is only one way, then there is only one way.

Perhaps He has been trying to show Himself to you and to speak to you, but you have determined that ‘in this way and this only will I be assured, that God must speak to me on MY terms and meet MY requirements’, and you are not hearing or seeing Him as He truly is?

That is his fault then. As you all assert he knows me better then I can know myself, and as such he must know what would be totally convincing for me. If he wants to convince me, fine. If he does not care to convince me, that is fine, too.

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.

You see, you really have set yourself up as your own god, and since the true God, being the True God, is not subject to you and your arbitrary ‘limits’ and ‘requirements’, you won’t ‘know’ Him because you don’t want to know HIM. What YOU want is to have God subject to you, submitting His will to yours.

You are insulting me now. You say that “I do not WANT to know God”. It is insulting to assert that you know what I want and don’t want.

You think it’s a trust issue? “Blessed is he who has not seen, but believes” might have been written especially for you.

And I am especially disgusted with this cop-out. Because that is what it is; a huge cop-out. I don’t care care if that makes me “not blessed”.

I think it is a trust issue but it isn’t God who is failing you in lack of trust, it’s you who is failing Him. There really is nothing but your EGO and your own stubborn and wilful determination that it must be YOUR way or the Highway that stands between you and God. That, dear sir, is no fault of God’s. You knew Him once and YOU rejected Him, by ‘outgrowing’ Him. . .not the other way around.

Ah, again, it is MY fault, it is MY ego, it is MY stubbornness which prevents the po’ God to get to me. This is the next round of insults. No, I never KNEW him, I only believed that he exists when I was a child, and did not develop the necessary critical skills to see through the charade. When I grew up, I saw all the nonsense and all the contradictions, I realized that it was all wishful thinking.

He never rejected you. He is still there waiting for you, and ALL He asks is your trust.

Looks like you still do not understand. It is impossible to “trust” someone, whose very existence is in doubt. Can’t we get past that simple fact???

Be CAREFUL what you wish for, Spock. It may be that He WILL give you His personal ‘visitation’. . .and then what will you do?

We shall cross that bridge when we get there.

If He manifests Himself to you, will you then come back to us here and testify? Will you ‘give what you have to the poor’ and follow Him, heart and soul? Or do you think that once He has appeared to you in glory, you can then continue on exactly as you do now, just with a ‘certainty’ that oh yeah, he exists, now I’ll be careful to follow the ‘letter of the law’, because he only appeared to save me, I’m saved, I can relax?

What WOULD you do, Spock, if you were SURE God existed, and why won’t you do it if you are NOT sure?

That is something that is premature to ponder until we actually get there. But rest assured, I would ask him a whole lot of questions, and base my attitude on the answers he might give me. Contrary to what some blithering fools say, a visitation from God would not take away my “freedom” to accept or reject him.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

I have done this many times. You refuse to accept it.

 

[Spock]

I have done this many times. You refuse to accept it.

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

 

[EricFilmer]

Tantum ergo;8354685:

You think it’s a trust issue? “Blessed is he who has not seen, but believes” might have been written especially for you. I think it is a trust issue…

And I am especially disgusted with this cop-out. Because that is what it is; a huge cop-out. I don’t care care if that makes me “not blessed”.

Spock, objectively speaking I do not criticize your statement here. If I were an atheist I could certainly see myself declaring such ideas to be cop-outs.

But if I put forth the common Christian proposition that there is a Creator God who desires such things from us as love, trust, faith and belief, all of which are to be offered in a state of freewill, then it seems fair that the system be designed in a manner in which we can freely, and rationally, choose not to love / trust / have faith in / believe in God. Under these circumstances, I think there has to be elements which one person can reasonable claim to be “the way things are” while another person can reasonably claim to be a “cop-out.” Therefore, I think that Christianity can be fully true, and yet not be free of potential cop-out accusations. I am about to head out the door, so I haven’t fully tested my theory yet, but I thought I would go ahead and throw this idea out there. This also may more properly deserve a thread discussion of its own.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How could it be different? If I THINK that there is only one way, then there is only one way.

With respect, no. Your thinking is narrowed, by your own choice. I think you need to read some Plato and Aristotle to see why this assertion of yours is a real misunderstanding of the nature of reality on your part.

That is his fault then. As you all assert he knows me better then I can know myself, and as such he must know what would be totally convincing for me. If he wants to convince me, fine. If he does not care to convince me, that is fine, too. With respect, then perhaps your being ‘totally convinced’ is, despite your assertion, not ‘required’ of you for salvation. So instead of it being a problem of ‘God’, yes, once again, it is really you, Spock, who needs to ‘rethink’.

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.
Really? Why are you different from all other humanity? Not even the apostles had ‘positive proof’ of God’s existence, though Christ walked with them in physical body, and taught them truth. Even after He had risen from the dead and came among them, some STILL DOUBTED, Spock. Even hearing Christ say, “I am” (the name of God), even seeing Him be crucified, buried 3 days, rise from the dead, eat and drink with them, even with some PUTTING THEIR HANDS Into the marks of the nail wounds on his body, SOME STILL DOUBTED the ‘positive proof’ of an existence of God.

You are insulting me now. You say that “I do not WANT to know God”. It is insulting to assert that you know what I want and don’t want. No, I’m not insulting you. Nor am I saying what you want or don’t want. I am saying that because you fail to see who God IS, and because you want for Him to be what He is not, it is not GOD you want to know, but some ‘false god.’

And I am especially disgusted with this cop-out. Because that is what it is; a huge cop-out. I don’t care care if that makes me “not blessed”.
It’s not a cop out. And I’m not the one blessing you or not. I’m making a statement of fact. Calling it names doesn’t make it less factual.

Ah, again, it is MY fault, it is MY ego, it is MY stubbornness which prevents the po’ God to get to me. This is the next round of insults. No, I never KNEW him, I only believed that he exists when I was a child, and did not develop the necessary critical skills to see through the charade. When I grew up, I saw all the nonsense and all the contradictions, I realized that it was all wishful thinking. Again I am NOT insulting you. But really, if God doesn’t exist, why are you spending so much time berating believers because you once ‘believed?’ It seems to me that if you really thought there was no God, you wouldn’t even be going to a forum like this.

Looks like you still do not understand. It is impossible to “trust” someone, whose very existence is in doubt. Can’t we get past that simple fact??? No. Do you TRUST that George Washington existed? How about Genghis Khan? Julius Caesar? Heck how about Calvin Coolidge even? They all died before you were born, you never knew them in the flesh. Everything you ‘know’ about them is based on testimony from other people; even their own ‘writing’ you are trusting was really theirs and not some monstrous forgery or conspiracy. You’re living a life FULL of trust on people and concepts that you can’t really be sure existed. . .

We shall cross that bridge when we get there.

That is something that is premature to ponder until we actually get there. But rest assured, I would ask him a whole lot of questions, and base my attitude on the answers he might give me. Contrary to what some blithering fools say, a visitation from God would not take away my “freedom” to accept or reject him.

NOBODY here said you wouldn’t have the freedom to accept or reject Him. But you sure seem to be arguing that just KNOWING for sure God exists would make a difference in your life. . .so again I’m wondering just how you’d change your life if you were sure God --and I mean the TRUE God, whom we at least know, love and serve–existed. . .and WAS that God. . .

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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

Thankfully i have never used mystical or pseudo-philosophical hand-waving. I use rational discourse with a more than sufficient understanding of what constitutes acceptable evidence of God. Metaphysics is capable of producing certain knowledge of Gods existence. You use in your defense a warped and fallacious understanding of scientific epistemology, and just general pseudo-science. Which is a shame, because thats the only thing stopping you from knowing that God exists. Thats assuming you’re honest person of course.

 

[Heuchler]

Spock, the situation of unbelief is just like love. We are told we are loved and there is a little evidence for it. It could be all a facade or it could be love. Now we can either trust them and say I love you too, or we can be paranoid and say, prove it. God respects you and your freedom of choice enough to let you be wrong. He wants you to choose Heaven, He doesn’t want to take you there. He wants you to choose it. So, God says here I am, I have given enough evidence, the universe and the logic of the theologians are enough evidence. Theres still a possibility that some will deny it but it is enough for those who truly seek. And God waits for our reply. If we trust him then we have the possibility to become children of God. If not He will leave you as you are. But all you have to do is choose if you accept it and rid yourself of the “disease of the soul” that is atheism. If you don’t, then be prepared for either nothing, or seperation from the one joy you have been searching for your entire life. But like a loving man asking his girlfriend to marry him, God doesn’t force the decision on you.

 

[Spock]

NOBODY here said you wouldn’t have the freedom to accept or reject Him.

You probably have missed quite a few idiotic posts which asserted presicely that.

But you sure seem to be arguing that just KNOWING for sure God exists would make a difference in your life. . .so again I’m wondering just how you’d change your life if you were sure God --and I mean the TRUE God, whom we at least know, love and serve–existed. . .and WAS that God. . .

I would not change my lifestyle one bit, even if I had positive proof of God’s existence, because I already live my life to MY highest standards.

If God would come and assert that the teaching of the catholic church are right on the money, I most certainly would reject God. I would never wish to “worship” such a being - but that is the topic of a different discussion. Fortuantely there is no chance of that, since the Christian God is just a “married bachelor”; a walking logical contradiction.

You question about “past people” is just ridiculous. God is supposed to exist now. It is a whole different ballgame.

No, I do not need to read Plato or Aristotele. They have nothing to say which would be even remotely relevant.

 

[Spock]

Spock, the situation of unbelief is just like love. We are told we are loved and there is a little evidence for it. It could be all a facade or it could be love. Now we can either trust them and say I love you too, or we can be paranoid and say, prove it. God respects you and your freedom of choice enough to let you be wrong. He wants you to choose Heaven, He doesn’t want to take you there. He wants you to choose it.

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

So, God says here I am, I have given enough evidence, the universe and the logic of the theologians are enough evidence.

Nonsense. The so-called evidence is simply insufficient for critical thinkers.

 

[Heuchler]

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

Of course its a valid choice to believe in God. Its not like this creates a logical contradiction.

Nonsense. The so-called evidence is simply insufficient for critical thinkers.

Please don’t act like you are better than us and that we aren’t critical thinkers. Be mature and grow up if you are going to try and have a logical conversation on this forum. Now back to the topic.

Insufficient for critical thinkers. You mean like C.S. Lewis, J.R. R. Tolkien, St. Thomas Aquinas, T.S. Elliot, Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, G. K. Chesterton, Robert Boyle, Aristotle, Micheal Faraday, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, John Milton, Dante, Dostoievski, John Locke, Peter Kreeft, Samuel Morse, Tolstoy, Vivaldi, Martin Luther King Jr., Edith Stein, St. Augustine, Georges Lemaitre, George Washington, and many, many, many other “critical thinkers” who have believed with this “insufficient evidence”.

 

[Pieman333272]

Nonsense. The so-called evidence is simply insufficient for critical thinkers.

Funny. Because when I critically thought about atheism, 90% of the arguments I saw were epic train wrecks. There are a handful of intelligent, thoughtful arguments against theism out there (even then most based on a misunderstanding or refuted), but things like the problems of evil and hell, rejecting miracles because they were “scientifically impossible” (funny, because miracles are a HISTORICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL issue, not a SCIENTIFIC one), the Christ myth pseudohistory, the idea that evolution somehow causes problems for theists, and a plethora of other “problems” for Christianity are all either completely crushed from a scientific, historical, and/or philosophical standpoint, built on opinions, emotions and egotism, or based on a misunderstanding.

I thought critically when I read atheist arguments. I also think critically when I read arguments for Catholicism, or Wicca, or Buddhism. And from what I’ve seen so far, Catholicism simply has the most valid reasoning behind it.

 

[Heuchler]

Funny. Because when I critically thought about atheism, 90% of the arguments I saw were epic train wrecks. There are a handful of intelligent, thoughtful arguments against theism out there (even then most based on a misunderstanding or refuted), but things like the problems of evil and hell, rejecting miracles because they were “scientifically impossible” (funny, because miracles are a HISTORICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL issue, not a SCIENTIFIC one), the Christ myth pseudohistory, the idea that evolution somehow causes problems for theists, and a plethora of other “problems” for Christianity are all either completely crushed from a scientific, historical, and/or philosophical standpoint, built on opinions, emotions and egotism, or based on a misunderstanding.

I thought critically when I read atheist arguments. I also think critically when I read arguments for Catholicism, or Wicca, or Buddhism. And from what I’ve seen so far, Catholicism simply has the most valid reasoning behind it.

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.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You probably have missed quite a few idiotic posts which asserted presicely that.

I would not change my lifestyle one bit, even if I had positive proof of God’s existence, because I already live my life to MY highest standards.
In a way, that’s good, because you are then obviously trying to live to a high standard and not just ‘slide by’. However, in a way, it’s bad, because when you are only going to your ‘own’ standards, you run the risk of making many ‘wrong’ decisions. As it is, I venture to say that your highest standards, in many areas, differ from those of other people who LIKEWISE claim to be living to THEIR highest standards. Now, for those who see those two people who are each claiming ‘high’ standards, how would a third, or fourth, or fifth person then have an idea of which standard was ‘higher’?

If there are standards, then that means there is an absolute somewhere, because if there is no absolute or ‘ultimate’ high standard, then you can’t be living to any high standards at all. You can only be living to a relative ‘best for ME’ approach, in which the ‘best’ might not be even good. If something is ‘good for me, not you’, how THEN can YOU determine it is a HIGH standard?

Suppose your highest standard of living a balanced diet is between the four major food groups --sugar, salt, fat, and chocolate. You might have the ‘best lifestyle for ME’ down perfectly, but compared to the actual standard of a true balanced diet, you’re completely off the mark.

If God would come and assert that the teaching of the catholic church are right on the money, I most certainly would reject God. I would never wish to “worship” such a being - but that is the topic of a different discussion. Fortuantely there is no chance of that, since the Christian God is just a “married bachelor”; a walking logical contradiction.
Hmmmm. And of course, no supreme being could appear to be a contradiction in the eyes of its limited creation. . .

It’s interesting that you have a definite God --the "Catholic God’==that you absolutely wouldn’t worship, even if you knew it WAS God, because you’re sure that you know better than He what is ‘logical’ and could not worship someone who didn’t meet your requirements. . .or so it seems to me.

You question about “past people” is just ridiculous. God is supposed to exist now. It is a whole different ballgame.

Really? Explain how it is different. After all, Jesus Christ existed in historical time just as much as Julius Caesar. If you believe in Caesar based on the testimony of those who knew him, or knew ‘of’ Him, what makes Jesus Christ different? Based on the testimony of those who were ‘there’, Christ ‘rose’ to the Father BUT is still ‘present’, body and blood, soul and divinity, on earth. . .why don’t you believe?

No, I do not need to read Plato or Aristotele. They have nothing to say which would be even remotely relevant.

Really? Why are they not relevant? Don’t they both understand logic and reason? Didn’t they use those qualities such that they have influenced scholars to the present day? Don’t their insights on concepts such as reality stand up in the present day? Why would they NOT be relevant?

 

[James224]

In the sense that 20 years ago you may have deemed a handheld mp3 player containing thousands of tracks chemically impossible?

Great analogy! A truth is not something just in the mind - the mind merely discovers it. 2 + 2 = 4 even before you discover it, ie, you are right!

 

[wheels10]

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

Nonsense. The so-called evidence is simply insufficient for critical thinkers.

Do you believe in the concept of Good and evil?

 

[Spock]

Insufficient for critical thinkers. You mean like C.S. Lewis, J.R. R. Tolkien, St. Thomas Aquinas, T.S. Elliot, Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, G. K. Chesterton, Robert Boyle, Aristotle, Micheal Faraday, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, John Milton, Dante, Dostoievski, John Locke, Peter Kreeft, Samuel Morse, Tolstoy, Vivaldi, Martin Luther King Jr., Edith Stein, St. Augustine, Georges Lemaitre, George Washington, and many, many, many other “critical thinkers” who have believed with this “insufficient evidence”.

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.

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.

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”.