Why choose the Catholic faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ejp123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gricken said:
I would argue that most of the arguments for god rely not on faith, but on how illogical the idea that this universe came together on it’s own is. I would argue that you seem to rely n faith to prove god DOESN’T exist.
Click to expand...
Hi Gricken,

As far as I am aware we (as in mankind) have not yet discovered, what happened before the big bang or what ‘caused’ the Big Bang.

I don’t understand why people insert a god, or a miracle to something that they don’t understand.

I don’t have faith that God does not exist. I can’t prove he does or he does not - no one can
 
TomD123 said:
You clearly haven’t read much philosophy then. I assure you, arguments for the existence of God do not rely on lack of evidence to the contrary.
Look at St. Thomas’s 5 arguments
Or St. Anselm’s ontological
or any of the others…

I think your’e not being too rigorous in your logic here…
Click to expand...
Do you mean these:-
  1. Motion - First Mover - Sequence Can’t be infinite. - I don’t understand this - SO there must be a God
  2. Efficient Causes - Series - Can’t be infinite - I don’t understand this - SO there must be a god.
Basically, the argument goes - I don’t understand something SO it must be God.

That is not logic or reason or proof, it is wishful thinking. None of the 5 explain the missing link between ‘I don’t understand something’ -to ‘So it must be God’

They could be used for explaining the existence of ‘anything’ instead of ‘God’
 
aprilfloyd said:
Hi snarflemike,

I am happy to be educated.🙂
Click to expand...
april,

I actually agree with you on this count; snarflemike’s response did nothing to prove his point. 😃

In answer to what he was answering, I have this question: “What KIND of proof do you look for when looking for proof for God?”

There is no (or very little, rather) physical proof for God. God is found by proofs of reason, proofs of philosophy, and there are a number of hints in nature, including quantum physics.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Do you mean these:-
  1. Motion - First Mover - Sequence Can’t be infinite. - I don’t understand this - SO there must be a God
  2. Efficient Causes - Series - Can’t be infinite - I don’t understand this - SO there must be a god.
Basically, the argument goes - I don’t understand something SO it must be God.

That is not logic or reason or proof, it is wishful thinking. None of the 5 explain the missing link between ‘I don’t understand something’ -to ‘So it must be God’

They could be used for explaining the existence of ‘anything’ instead of ‘God’
Click to expand...
No, the argument is not used to say that there must be a God because we “don’t understand something.”

These arguments PROVE, logically, that there must have been a first mover. Now, to get from first mover to God is an additional step, but it isn’t a hard step. If there was one first mover who/that created everything, then he/it must have been quite powerful.

Now, if you object that these arguments prove that there was a first mover, you need to examine them again, as logicians through the ages have always agreed on their validity.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Hi snarflemike,

I am happy to be educated.🙂
Click to expand...
Well, the Summa Contra Gentiles was mentioned, and it is available online.

The Greeks, culminating in Aristotle, offered proofs of God’s existence. So did the Jews and the Muslims many centuries ago. Aquinas offers 5 proofs (the Five Ways), which must be understood in their entirety, not just the poor summaries often found. Peter Kreeft offers some 20 proofs. William Lane Craig is an active purveyor of an philosophical proof of God. Edward Feser is as well. And check out the story of Anthony Flew. Or philosophy-trained author John C Wright.

Just to keep you from being too cocky regarding which “side” has the weight of proof/evidence/righteousness, ponder this quote from Feser:
(the new atheism) is also a belief system that is, as I have said, deeply irrational and immoral, indeed the very negation of reason and morality. Thus do I call it the last superstition…the ultimate superstition, “the mother of all superstitions”.
Click to expand...
-The Last Superstition
 
dshix said:
april,

I actually agree with you on this count; snarflemike’s response did nothing to prove his point. 😃
Click to expand...
When one is presented with the statement “there is no evidence that Einstein’s theories of relativity are true”, should one post a thousand-page refutation, or simply roll one’s eyes and suggest that the person get acquainted with the literature. I don’t think we are required to summarize 2500 years of philosophy in each post.
 
snarflemike said:
When one is presented with the statement “there is no evidence that Einstein’s theories of relativity are true”, should one post a thousand-page refutation, or simply roll one’s eyes and suggest that the person get acquainted with the literature. I don’t think we are required to summarize 2500 years of philosophy in each post.
Click to expand...
No, but your former post, which I remarked on, was an ad hominem attack, and nothing more. It did nothing to gain you a point, (actually you lost a few) and it just gave her more fuel.

Calling a person ignorant for disagreeing with you merits you nothing, even if you are right.
 
dshix said:
Gotta love going in circles, huh? 😛
Click to expand...
I’m trying to decide if he (she?) just missed my post, or is ignoring it because they don’t want to argue the point. I hope it’s the former, because if it’s the latter no amount of discussion is going to do them any good.
 
dshix said:
No, but your former post, which I remarked on, was an ad hominem attack, and nothing more. It did nothing to gain you a point, (actually you lost a few) and it just gave her more fuel.

Calling a person ignorant for disagreeing with you merits you nothing, even if you are right.
Click to expand...
I did not call the poster ignorant for disagreeing with me. I called the poster ignorant for saying something that only somebody very ignorant of the subject could possibly say. That is not ad hominem. Is it ad hominem to point out a person’s ignorance who denies the depredations of the Nazis or the Soviets?

“Ignorance” has a meaning, and I used the word correctly. In fact, I assumed the most charitable explanation for the poster’s comment - I did not call the poster stupid or a liar. Being ignorant is not a moral defect (unless the ignorance is willful, which is not something I assumed in my reply).
 
dshix said:
See here and here.
Click to expand...
Sort of what I figured. Too bad, to chose to ignore rational arguments because you don’t want to admit they’re right means that the culpability is on your head. All we can do is pray for her.
 
snarflemike said:
I did not call the poster ignorant for disagreeing with me. I called the poster ignorant for saying something that only somebody very ignorant of the subject could possibly say. That is not ad hominem. Is it ad hominem to point out a person’s ignorance who denies the depredations of the Nazis or the Soviets?

“Ignorance” has a meaning, and I used the word correctly. In fact, I assumed the most charitable explanation for the poster’s comment - I did not call the poster stupid or a liar.
Click to expand...
Fine, fine. If you won’t take a tip, don’t take it.

I do, however, understand your frustration with aprilfloyd.
 
dshix said:
No, the argument is not used to say that there must be a God because we “don’t understand something.”

These arguments PROVE, logically, that there must have been a first mover. Now, to get from first mover to God is an additional step, but it isn’t a hard step. If there was one first mover who/that created everything, then he/it must have been quite powerful.

Now, if you object that these arguments prove that there was a first mover, you need to examine them again, as logicians through the ages have always agreed on their validity.
Click to expand...
With all due respect they only show that the author outlines phenomena that he does not understand and then suggests they prove god. It is hard to see this as proof in the strict sense of that word. He is flying a kite
 
dshix said:
😛

If you read the context of the two posts I quoted, and the things april said on those threads, you’ll get a complete idea of just how circular these conversations can get 😃
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I figured I was talking to a young person who had no idea of the vast literature regarding proofs / evidence of God, and needed to be jolted out of that youthful complacency. Now I see that I figured wrong.

BTW, aprilfloyd, did you know that the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that the existence of God can be known through natural reason alone? Just sayin’…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top