Why choose the Catholic faith?

[ignatius77]

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

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. “If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed”.[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

So, when someone makes a claim, whether it’s positive or negative, that someone has the onus of proof.

 

[snarflemike]

Er, no. If we don’t know something better to admit that than use the default ‘insert a god’

Atheists “know” there is no God. Thus it follows that atheists know that the existence of the universe can be accounted for in non-supernatural, that is in natural terms. So account away.

To say “there is no God” is to say “the existence of the universe can be accounted for in natural terms”. It really is that simple.

EDIT: or you can just say that it is a matter of faith that the universe can be accounted for in natural terms.

 

[ignatius77]

I think it is safe to assume that there is no proof of any God. In that respect any religions who claim they have a god do so on a equal footing. No one can say that one religion is more true than others. They are are all man-made. Until we have evidence I feel that best you can say is that the above just an opinion.

In the quote above, what you’re actually doing is CONCLUDING that there is not proof of any God, not ASSUMING. You make an assumption (as the first premise) before you try to make an argument, but here you certainly aren’t making any argument at all. You are just making assertions.

Now, since you’re concluding that there is no proof of any God, can you prove this statement?

Again, if you’ve made a statement, whether or not it is a positive claim, you have the burden of proof:

• When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.*

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

 

[aprilfloyd]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. “If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed”.[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

So, when someone makes a claim, whether it’s positive or negative, that someone has the onus of proof.

Exactly. That is point. The catholic church claims it’s god I’d THE god. So the burden of proof is on them.

 

[ignatius77]

Exactly. That is point. The catholic church claims it’s god I’d THE god. So the burden of proof is on them.

As I said above, you made the claim there is no proof of any God.

I never made any statements about the existence of God here in this thread. Also, as I said, I am a seeker and I haven’t been confirmed to The Catholic Church, as of typing.

So, proof?

 

[aprilfloyd]

As I said above, you made the claim there is no proof of any God.

I never made any statements about the existence of God here in this thread. Also, as I said, I am a seeker and I haven’t been confirmed to The Catholic Church, as of typing.

So, proof?

I think it is well accepted that there is no proof for or against the existence of god.

I thought you were of the view god existed

 

[Ignatius]

A challenging question I have been asked is, With so many gods and religions over the centuries, why be catholic? What makes it any more right or true than the others? In it’s simplist form, I try to chalk it up to Jesus as a real person in history and trusting his authority and word. Just wondering what others might think about these question. Thx

Here’s why : Come Home to The Catholic Church

 

[ignatius77]

I think it is well accepted that there is no proof for or against the existence of god.

I thought you were of the view god existed

There are many proofs/arguments put forward for the existence of God. You just have to look for them. There’s Google. If you don’t accept them, it doesn’t mean that other people won’t. Again, the only watertight proof you can have is in the field of Mathematics.

As I said, I’m a seeker, and I have not been confirmed to the Catholic Church, so I’m not of that view, as of typing. Do I need to repeat myself?

The reason why I am against you is that you concluded that there is no proof of any God. Which I think is very ignorant. Again, Google it. You can read works written by St. Thomas Aquinas, Edward Feser, Peter Kreeft, William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga, and other philosophers.

If you do have a good reason to believe that there is no proof for any God or if you have an argument for it, please put if forward. Maybe you can end my journey to seek for the truth as of now, for good. So I don’t have to go back to this forum and ask questions any more,

So, help me?

 

[dshix]

Catholics do not believe in the majority of Gods. You could call them 99% atheist.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

aprilfloyd, I applaud you. You have surpassed yourself.

That is, I believe, the most stupid remark I have ever read on CAF.

I will remember this post and quote it whenever someone asks me if I think you have any semblance of reason left. Thank you.

I think it is well accepted that there is no proof for or against the existence of god.

The cosmological argument and law of motion and conservation of energy prove that there must have been a first mover, so therefore there was A god.

 

[aprilfloyd]

There are many proofs/arguments put forward for the existence of God. You just have to look for them. There’s Google. If you don’t accept them, it doesn’t mean that other people won’t. Again, the only watertight proof you can have is in the field of Mathematics.

As I said, I’m a seeker, and I have not been confirmed to the Catholic Church, so I’m not of that view, as of typing. Do I need to repeat myself?

The reason why I am against you is that you concluded that there is no proof of any God. Which I think is very ignorant. Again, Google it. You can read works written by St. Thomas Aquinas, Edward Feser, Peter Kreeft, William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga, and other philosophers.

If you do have a good reason to believe that there is no proof for any God or if you have an argument for it, please put if forward. Maybe you can end my journey to seek for the truth as of now, for good. So I don’t have to go back to this forum and ask questions any more,

So, help me?

I am saying that is accepted that one cannot prove or disprove a god.
I can’t help you. I watched Craig on many videos and debates and he talks a lot about proof, but just repeats himself and never actually gets around to the proof bit

 

[dshix]

I am saying that is accepted that one cannot prove or disprove a god.
I can’t help you. I watched Craig on many videos and debates and he talks a lot about proof, but just repeats himself and never actually gets around to the proof bit

I am saying that one can prove God, and you aren’t accepting what I say. Take a look at this: youtu.be/ZDY6o-VP8Lo. This video drops a few hints.

Oh, and I will know you didn’t look at it if the conversation’s tone doesn’t answer it relevantly.

 

[aprilfloyd]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

aprilfloyd, I applaud you. You have surpassed yourself.

That is, I believe, the most stupid remark I have ever read on CAF.

I will remember this post and quote it whenever someone asks me if I think you have any semblance of reason left. Thank you.

The cosmological argument and law of motion and conservation of energy prove that there must have been a first mover, so therefore there was A god.

Thanks

Those arguments don’t show any proof. They just say - I don’t know the answer, so I will just ‘insert a god’.

 

[dshix]

Thanks

Those arguments don’t show any proof. They just say - I don’t know the answer, so I will just ‘insert a god’.

I already disproved that. I gave a deeper answer on another thread, if you condescended to read it.

Do you or do you not believe in a first mover?

 

[aprilfloyd]

I already disproved that. I gave a deeper answer on another thread, if you condescended to read it.

Do you or do you not believe in a first mover?

Of course not. I would rather we found out than just believe.

 

[snarflemike]

Those arguments don’t show any proof. They just say - I don’t know the answer, so I will just ‘insert a god’.

Would I be wrong to think that you would say - I don’t know the answer so I will just insert a natural explanation? If I would be wrong, please explain.

 

[snarflemike]

Of course not. I would rather we found out than just believe.

Does this mean you are agnostic or atheist?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Would I be wrong to think that you would say - I don’t know the answer so I will just insert a natural explanation? If I would be wrong, please explain.

What do you mean?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Does this mean you are agnostic or atheist?

I am neither, I am just curious.

 

[dshix]

Of course not. I would rather we found out than just believe.

I used the wrong word. DO YOU ACCEPT THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT there was a first mover?

If you do not, then you are denying the existence of the universe. What theory can you provide which supports the idea of no creator? How do you say the universe came into being?

Does this mean you are agnostic or atheist?

She is an agnostic, whether she admits it or not.

 

[ignatius77]

I am saying that is accepted that one cannot prove or disprove a god.
I can’t help you. I watched Craig on many videos and debates and he talks a lot about proof, but just repeats himself and never actually gets around to the proof bit

He actually mentions a lot of arguments. About repeating an argument, do you really expect there to be thousands of arguments for a statement? In my experience, in Mathematics, more often than not, there’s probably only one or two proofs for a statement. Maybe there’s more if that statement has to do with a lot of sub fields of Mathematics. My point is, if it his argument is a good one, why is it not okay for him to repeat his arguments at debates? Why should he create a new one every time he goes to debate a different person?

I don’t know whether one cannot prove or disprove a god is the consensus or not. However, you should make up your mind by thinking for yourself.

As of typing, I’m a seeker, a skeptic, I haven’t made up my mind yet. I think you should keep an open mind as well. I’m currently reading up on Edward Feser’s (a philosopher) stuff.

Here an article of his:
edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

You can access his blog from there.

The reason why I’m following him is because he was raised a Catholic, then became an atheist for about a decade, then became a Catholic again, until now. He said that he had to teach philosophy for a while, and one of the most interesting topics the students want to know was, lo and behold, the existence of God. As a teacher, he had to read the arguments for it, and over time, he saw that the arguments for the existence God that he came across, for example, from St. Thomas Aquinas, had misunderstandings of it or was only a caricature of it, which is why it seems weak (also, for example, there have been many straw man that states that philosophers argue that ‘Everything has a cause’, where in fact NO major philosophers has said anything like that, where philosophers actually say ‘Everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause’). And also, Aristotle came into the picture. Long story short, he became a Catholic.

That is the reason why I’m interested in reading his works. I want to know, how he changed his view from an atheistic one to a Catholic one. I want to follow his journey, and see if that makes sense for me.

Maybe you should do that too. Just a suggestion. Keeping an open mind won’t hurt.

In the end, a skeptic shouldn’t aim to be something, A skeptic should aim to look for truth.