Why choose the Catholic faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ejp123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
snarflemike said:
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’…
Click to expand...
I’m just sayin

:D:D

Muhahaha.
 
aprilfloyd said:
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
Click to expand...
This statement was irrelevant to what I said in my post. I said that the proofs for God which you named prove the existence of a first mover, and you even acknowledged that in your post. Did you change your mind?
 
First off, why wouldn’t you be Catholic? Second, it’s the church the Jesus Himself started. Read any history book to verify. Third, "And so I say to you, you are Peter(Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
 
snarflemike said:
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 Last Superstition
Click to expand...
Not familiar with New Atheism. Atheism is just a word to describe someone who does not believe in gods. It is no more helpful than having a word to describe someone who does not believe in Santa

Catholics do not believe in the majority of Gods. You could call them 99% atheist.
 
snarflemike said:
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’…
Click to expand...
It may teach it, but it still gets it wrong

Religions all make claims for there religions, but that does not in and of itself make it true.

A lot of religious belief appears synonymous with superstition
 
aprilfloyd said:
It may teach it, but it still gets it wrong

Religions all make claims for there religions, but that does not in and of itself make it true.

A lot of religious belief appears synonymous with superstition
Click to expand...
Other gods have not come to earth to fulfill their claims. Jesus did.

Other gods and religious events have no history or interaction with historical groups and figures. Jesus did.

Thats one huge difference.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Not familiar with New Atheism. Atheism is just a word to describe someone who does not believe in gods. It is no more helpful than having a word to describe someone who does not believe in Santa

Catholics do not believe in the majority of Gods. You could call them 99% atheist.
Click to expand...
Or you could say 99% of them are just believe what the majority of humans have believed in (a higher power)?

telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

It’s a bit arrogant to claim the opposite is true, when belief in God is what the majority of humans have held since a long time ago, don’t you think? Unless you have evidence/proof/argument NOT to believe in one. Then show us. Don’t tell me that the onus is on the believer. That’s not true, don’t make excuses. Being a Mathematics student myself, we are often asked to prove the non-existence of something, e.g. prove that there exists no rational number such that the square equals to the real number 2.

By the way, I’m a seeker. And as of typing, I have not been confirmed into the Catholic Church.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Not familiar with New Atheism. Atheism is just a word to describe someone who does not believe in gods. It is no more helpful than having a word to describe someone who does not believe in Santa

Catholics do not believe in the majority of Gods. You could call them 99% atheist.
Click to expand...
Evasive. So I conclude that when you said “educate me” you did not mean it.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Proof in a religious sense appears to be of a much lower standard, than say law or science
Click to expand...
Also, the only subject where you can have a watertight proof is Mathematics. Not even law or philosophy. Then again, in Mathematics, you have to have assumptions, e.g. Principle of Induction.

Have you not ever wondered why a lot of Mathematicians agree on things much more than in other fields, such as Philosophy or Law? Consider the proof for the existence of God in the field of Philosophy. Consensus? No. Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem in Mathematics? Consensus? Yes. That’s because of what I have mentioned. Opinions can differ much between philosophers, but between mathematicians, there’s almost always a consensus, which is because of the ability for mathematicians to form a watertight proof.
 
ignatius77 said:
Or you could say 99% of them are just believe what the majority of humans have believed in (a higher power)?

telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

It’s a bit arrogant to claim the opposite is true, when belief in God is what the majority of humans have held since a long time ago, don’t you think? Unless you have evidence/proof/argument NOT to believe in one. Then show us. Don’t tell me that the onus is on the believer. That’s not true, don’t make excuses. Being a Mathematics student myself, we are often asked to prove the non-existence of something, e.g. prove that there exists no rational number such that the square equals to the real number 2.

By the way, I’m a seeker. And as of typing, I have not been confirmed into the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Surely if someone suggests a god exists then the onus is on them to show some evidence.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Surely if someone suggests a god exists then the onus is on them to show some evidence.
Click to expand...
Surely if someone suggests that the universe exists without recourse to God, then the onus is on them to show some evidence.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Surely if someone suggests a god exists then the onus is on them to show some evidence.
Click to expand...
Nope. As I stated above, no. Imagine if in an exam I came across a question that says: ‘Prove that there does not exist a real number such that it’s square equals (-1)?’, and I wrote: ‘Examiner, the onus is on you.’

Do you think the examiner will write: ‘Oh, I’m sorry. The onus is on me.’?

LOL
 
snarflemike said:
Surely if someone suggests that the universe exists without recourse to God, then the onus is on them to show some evidence.
Click to expand...
Er, no. If we don’t know something better to admit that than use the default ‘insert a god’
 
ignatius77 said:
Nope. As I stated above, no. Imagine if in an exam I came across a question that says: ‘Prove that there does not exist a real number such that it’s square equals (-1)?’, and I wrote: ‘Examiner, the onus is on you.’

Do you think the examiner will write: ‘Oh, I’m sorry. The onus is on me.’?

LOL
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that is evasive. You are avoiding the point. Sitting a maths test the onus is on you. Suggesting a god created the universe the onus is on you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top