WHY should we assume/suspect that the Christian doctrine is true?

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Many things in the world are round. There are squares, of course, but a perfect square is an impossibility, … I’m afraid that going down this path will only lead to nonsense at best and some dangerous esoterical crap at worst.

Again, only if you ignore the facts which are all around. But the fact is that a perfect circle does exist. In the invisible world of ideas and mathematics. And these mathematical ideas are absolutes. They are the foundation of our understanding of how the universe works. It is based upon these ideas of perfect circles and squares that we can calculate the paths of satellites that we shoot around the world and the other crafts that we send to other planets. They are the basis of the television programs that you see in your home but originate hundreds of miles away. They are the basis of how you listen to someone on the phone. And on and on.

Mathematics is the language of God.

This is the most classical God of the Gaps fallacy.

Fallacy is a misnomer. For example, there are people who say that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy. They mean that it is wrong. But in fact, arguments from authority are the most highly regarded because authorities frequently know what they are talking about. There is only a slight possibility that they are wrong. Thus, if an argument from authority is poor, why do most people use them.

Thus, when detractors say, “God of the gaps” and attach “fallacy” to it, they simply mean that they don’t believe it. But the overwhelming evidence points to it being true. There is not even a theory which contradicts it. All they can say is, “I don’t believe it.”

Please read about how Newton was thinking that God must be preventing the world from imploding. AFAIK a scientific explanation why the world is not imploding has been already found.

I’ve read it. The fact remains that you can provide no better explanation for the existence of the universe even though OBJECTIVE and non religious scientists have produced much evidence that it should not. These scientists were not trying to prove the existence of God. They were simply studying the universe. Have you heard of the “fine tuned univerrse”. That scientific find has forced many atheists to convert.

The problem of this fallacy is that the fact that science cannot explain a NATURAL phenonenon yet simply means that science is not advanced enough yet and not that the problem is unexplanable by science! Again, even theologians reject this line of argument.!

Lol! How long will it take? They have discovered DNA. A language that is embedded in every creature. Only intelligent beings speak language. Yet, there it is, embedded in every biological creature, a language that is universal.

Then, they have discovered laws which govern the entire universe. Who is the Law maker who makes laws that govern an entire universe?!

The more discoveries that science makes, the closer they come to proving the existence of God. The evidence is not moving in the other direction.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

That may be so, however if it is true then the argument must be more subtle than that, probably more akin to Aquinas’ FIve Ways cited in this thread a few times already. To citing Thomas my answer is “maybe”:

Again, you’re simply reaching. You make up arguments where there are none.

I’m to weak philosophycally to judge.

That weakness is not our fault. It is yours. And your weakness is not an argument against the evidence placed before you.

Intelligent Design … If this is not what You mean , then I’m sorry.

Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design are virtually identical. I personally don’t see a difference.
One is Catholic, the other is Protestant.

Intelligent Design fallacy incorrectly assumes…

On the contrary, the incorrect assumption is that something intelligent isn’t guiding the universe. Have you ever seen a car guide itself through the streets without benefit of an intelligent guidance system? Many times, cars have rolled off without guidance and crashed to a stop.

Those who claim that the laws of the universe and the biological processes and the many other wonders of the world, came to be by unguided, unintelligent random accidents are the ones making the incorrect and uninformed assumptions. Essentially, they are making what you called the weakest argument. “It doesn’t feel right to me, therefore, it can’t be true.”

I can bolster my feelings with evidence. They bolster their feelings by denying the evidence presented.

If, on the other hand, you mean Aquina’s argument …

Why would I use arguments that you already said you don’t understand or doubt? I’m simply speaking to you in regular English. Please simply focus on my words. Forget about Aquinas. Have I mentioned his name?

 

[De_Maria]

I’m 90% sure

Based on what? Are you using some sort of mathematical calculation? Or are you using what you consider the weakest argument, your feelings?

that your argument from anti-matter is fallacious EVEN UNDER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY

Name the Catholic Doctrine which mentions anti-matter at all, much less, rejects it.

and, say, 70% sure that the same can be said about your argument from trinity.

So, you’re using your feelings to argue against evidence we can see and which is proven mathematically. The three dimensional quality of the universe is proven, you do know that, right?

This may look more convincing for me.

THis is because the same cannot be told about the argument from the Law Maker.

You mean that with your unscientific feelings, you regard one argument more convincing than another. For someone who considers “feelings” to be unconvincing, you sure rely on them, a lot.

 

[Vonsalza]

It shoulnd’t be.

I agree. You should just adopt my standards for what’s “reasonable” and there wouldn’t be a fuss.

I hope you see the point.

Maybe. I only know that some scientists claim that applying for example the game theory yields good results in not only explaining, but even predicting people’s behaviors. However, I’m not knowledgeable in the field enough to know how well founded these claims are.

Game theory doesn’t predict, necessarily. In the most popular “game”, everyone acting on behalf of the whole group maximizes total value across all participants while the individual acting purely egotistically maximizes personal value; particularly when you’re the only egoist.

It doesn’t really tell you anything you don’t already know.

Isn’t Singularitarianism a pretty radical ideology itself?

Sure. But it’s not, in itself, synonymous with the general concept of radical ideology; which is what we were talking about.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Read Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, the two best Catholic writers of each millennium.

 

[2towers]

People claim to have personal relationship with God? Little children tend to have their imaginary friends. Little children believe their imaginary friends are real. Little children have personal relationship with their imaginary friends

I never had such illusions or fantasies, and don’t know of any kids who did except on TV. No offense at all, but that part of your argument against the supernatural doesn’t hold any water.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Proven, yes. But, surprisingly few things that are of utmost importance in our relationships are “scientifically proven,” properly understood.

For instance, I was born in Stuttgart, Germany…or so I’m told. Not scientifically provable, but proven by the preponderance of evidence based upon witness testimony. Lots of very important things in my life depend upon the circumstances of my birth, especially legal rights, and many other nonscientific ally provable things.

Moreover, even some things considered “scientifically proven,” are more properly called a “hypothesis,” which although may have pretty good supporting evidence, may still require further experiential or experimental evidence to increase our certainty. (I’m an engineer who works in space operations, so I’m familiar with the scientific method and the inherent limits of that method for proving things).

I’ve never seen the dark side of the moon. Very few humans have. What can be said about it relies heavily on witness testimony for just about everybody. Consequently, even in science, we are dependent upon the honest testimony of others.

Yet, if God is considered the ultimate cause of all things, God’s existence can be proved by reasoning (but not by experiment, which is the proper method of science). For instance,

1. Every contingent being has the possibility of non-existence.
2. It is mathematically impossible to have an infinite amount of contingent beings.
3. For a contingent being to exist, a non-contingent being (I.e., being that depends upon nothing else for existence) must have been the ultimate cause.

The evidence, therefore, is more like courtroom evidence, and the proofs more like courtroom or philosophical arguments, where one must draw conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence, where there exists converging clues that lead us to the truth of the matter.

God bless,
Dave