Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

It does exist, and you have heard it, but you have not really heard it, because if you had, you would arguing in this forum from my side of the divide.

And, if you held the same standards for evidence that we do, you'd be on this side of the divide. What you call evidence clearly is not. If it were, there would be 7-1/2 billion cathy-licks in the world.

Assuming that I had no personal experience of God? Still no.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". 14

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

[Randy Carson]

I also understand that you cannot see the evidence and proofs for Christianity and God clearly. It does exist,

Put up or shut up Randy, it's that simple..same as anything in life.  I hope you don't mind that I snipped the rest of your faith based comments.  I don't require them and they are -fundamentally unconvincing- to me.  You claim to have evidence -and- proofs, plural...no less.  Get to work on that or be satisfied as a liar for christ, it's always been your call.

Why am I a liar for accepting evidence that you cannot understand? You have not (apparently) received the grace necessary to see, so nothing I can do can open your eyes. I could speak of:

• the fact that Jesus was a real person and not a myth
  
• the historical reliability of the New Testament
  
• the evidence for the resurrection
  
• the change in the disciples after the resurrection appearances
  
• the change from Sabbath worship to worship on the first day of the week - unthinkable for Jews!
  
• the change from circumcision to non-circumcision - unthinkable for Jews!
  
• the rise of the early Church in the face of immense persecution
  
• the spread of the Christian message throughout the world
  
• the unbroken apostolic succession from Peter to Pope Francis over 2,000 years
  

I could argue:

• the Kalam Cosmological Argument
  
• the Teleological Argument
  
• or any one of nearly two dozen logical proofs of God which are discussed even today at the highest levels of academia (while being dismissed soooo easily by Internet forum denizens)
  

I could refer you to dozens (if not hundreds) of Old Testament prophecies that point to Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.

I could cite personal testimonies not of cradle Christians but of former atheists - philosophers and scientists - who came to a position of faith in a personal God.

So, in all I could cite:

Historical Evidence
Philosophical Proofs
Old Testament Prophecy
Personal Testimony

And with all of this and more arrayed before you, you would continue to ASSERT that there simply is no evidence.

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolutely.

But you can't or won't see it. That's spiritual blindness.

(And mark my words, it won't be more than an hour or so before someone in this forum takes it upon himself or herself to go down my lists above and cite the reasons I'm wrong in each and every case. But the refutation offered won't make a dent in what I've said, because I haven't even scratched the surface of what is available to support faith in a personal creator God. That would take volumes.)

[The Grand Nudger]

And mark my words, it won't be more than an hour or so before someone in this forum takes it upon himself or herself to go down my lists above and cite the reasons I'm wrong in each and every case. 

That your knockdown case for the existence of a god, so evident that it may as well be obvious to hear you tell it, can be demolished, utterly and entirely ........in less than an hour.....- by some random guy or gal on the internet- ought to really give you pause.  Yet it never does, does it?

[Randy Carson]

And mark my words, it won't be more than an hour or so before someone in this forum takes it upon himself or herself to go down my lists above and cite the reasons I'm wrong in each and every case. 

That your knockdown case for the existence of a god, so evident that it may as well be obvious to hear you tell it, can be demolished, utterly and entirely ........in less than an hour.....- by some random guy or gal on the internet- ought to really give you pause.  Yet it never does, does it?

It never surprises me that someone would try. If for no other reason than to calm their own jitters at seeing what I posted.

Rhythm, you think you have all the answers. You know God does not exist (or at least you're pretty sure he doesn't).

I think you're all talk. Easy to do when you've got backup from every other member of the forum.

So, why don't YOU put up or shut up? Why don't you man up and spend as much time in a Catholic forum as I have invested here?

Think you've got the chops to put in 6-8 hours a day in that setting like I do here sometimes? Prove it.

Let me know. I'll be there.

And you will be treated much better there than I have been received here, I promise you that.

[Catholic_Lady]

That your knockdown case for the existence of a god, so evident that it may as well be obvious to hear you tell it, can be demolished, utterly and entirely ........in less than an hour.....- by some random guy or gal on the internet- ought to really give you pause.  Yet it never does, does it?

It never surprises me that someone would try. If for no other reason than to calm their own jitters at seeing what I posted.

Rhythm, you think you have all the answers. You know God does not exist (or at least you're pretty sure he doesn't).

I think you're all talk. Easy to do when you've got backup from every other member of the forum.

So, why don't YOU put up or shut up? Why don't you man up and spend as much time in a Catholic forum as I have invested here?

Think you've got the chops to put in 6-8 hours a day in that setting like I do here sometimes? Prove it.

Let me know. I'll be there.

And you will be treated much better there than I have been received here, I promise you that.

That is true.

[Esquilax]

Why am I a liar for accepting evidence that you cannot understand? You have not (apparently) received the grace necessary to see, so nothing I can do can open your eyes. I could speak of:

"If you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you!"

[*]the fact that Jesus was a real person and not a myth

Not in evidence, once again you're overstressing your case by calling that a "fact."

[*]the historical reliability of the New Testament

During which you'll ignore, yet again, that other historically reliable texts exist which contain supernatural claims that are, as a matter of course in the absence of better evidence, dismissed as the thinking of the time, rather than a strictly true event.

[*]the evidence for the resurrection

Which there isn't, despite how proud you people tend to be of the empty tomb argument ("Look at all this nothing!")

[*]the change in the disciples after the resurrection appearances

As if no other religion can boast personal changes in its adherents.

[*]the change from Sabbath worship to worship on the first day of the week - unthinkable for Jews!

"Something changed, therefore god!"

[*]the change from circumcision to non-circumcision - unthinkable for Jews!

See above.

[*]the rise of the early Church in the face of immense persecution

Much of that persecution was factually incorrect or outright fictional, but you might note that the same argument also applies to the Jews, so I guess Judaism is true too!

[*]the spread of the Christian message throughout the world

Seriously? The argument from popularity?

[*]the unbroken apostolic succession from Peter to Pope Francis over 2,000 years

So what?

[*]the Kalam Cosmological Argument

So you'd argue for something that we've already proved to you is wrong and fallacious earlier? An argument that you literally retracted your claim of being scientifically supported?

[*]the Teleological Argument

So, you're just going to assert design, so there?

[*]or any one of nearly two dozen logical proofs of God which are discussed even today at the highest levels of academia (while being dismissed soooo easily by Internet forum denizens)

Then do so. Don't just beat around the bush and massage your ego by pretending you've got tons of arguments.

I could refer you to dozens (if not hundreds) of Old Testament prophecies that point to Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.

All of which are little more than retrofits.

I could cite personal testimonies not of cradle Christians but of former atheists - philosophers and scientists - who came to a position of faith in a personal God.

We already know people can be wrong. You're not going to gain much traction here with an argument from authority, either.

And with all of this and more arrayed before you, you would continue to ASSERT that there simply is no evidence.

We've already gone through the fallacies involved in your argumentation in numerous other threads: quit pretending that what's happening here is fiat dismissal.

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolutely.

You list a lot of proof, but you don't actually provide any. You'll go on and on about how there's "no question" on the things you assert, but that's as far as you go. Sorry, but "because I said so," is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, unless you have a profoundly inflated opinion of yourself.

But you can't or won't see it. That's spiritual blindness.

"If you disagree with me, there's something wrong with you!"

(And mark my words, it won't be more than an hour or so before someone in this forum takes it upon himself or herself to go down my lists above and cite the reasons I'm wrong in each and every case.

Have you considered being less wrong?

But the refutation offered won't make a dent in what I've said, because I haven't even scratched the surface of what is available to support faith in a personal creator God. That would take volumes.)

You're basically all empty bluster, aren't you?

[Ravenshire]

And you will be treated much better there than I have been received here, I promise you that.

If I went to a christer board acting as smug and condescending as you do with no real arguments beyond an army of straw men, I would expect to be banned and quickly. You've been here over a month and while I wouldn't miss you if the mods drop the hammer on you, I'm not campaigning for it.

Please, tell us again how persecuted you are by coming into our house, shitting on our floor and being scolded for it.

[Catholic_Lady]

And you will be treated much better there than I have been received here, I promise you that.

If I went to a christer board acting as smug and condescending as you do with no real arguments beyond an army of straw men, I would expect to be banned and quickly. You've been here over a month and while I wouldn't miss you if the mods drop the hammer on you, I'm not campaigning for it.

Please, tell us again how persecuted you are by coming into our house, shitting on our floor and being scolded for it.

I can attest to that. I used to be very active on the Catholic forum Randy is referring to. There are atheists on there who are extremely outspoken and don't get treated nearly as badly there as he does here.

[Esquilax]

I can attest to that. I used to be very active on the Catholic forum Randy is referring to. There are atheists on there who are extremely outspoken and don't get treated nearly as badly there as he does here.

I submit to you that "extremely outspoken" is a very different, far more innocent endeavor than the campaign of dishonesty, hypocrisy, condescension and fiat accusations made to impugn our character that Randy has been waging since it became clear his arguments weren't going to fly. We aren't talking about outspoken here, we're talking about a guy who comes into our house with the same old warmed over apologist nonsense, and who responds to our disagreement on those points by telling us what we think and that there must be something wrong with us for not immediately converting.

Totally different kettle of fish.

[Randy Carson]

I can attest to that. I used to be very active on the Catholic forum Randy is referring to. There are atheists on there who are extremely outspoken and don't get treated nearly as badly there as he does here.

I submit to you that "extremely outspoken" is a very different, far more innocent endeavor than the campaign of dishonesty, hypocrisy, condescension and fiat accusations made to impugn our character that Randy has been waging since it became clear his arguments weren't going to fly. We aren't talking about outspoken here, we're talking about a guy who comes into our house with the same old warmed over apologist nonsense, and who responds to our disagreement on those points by telling us what we think and that there must be something wrong with us for not immediately converting.

Totally different kettle of fish.

Hey, you forgot to say that I'm a liar. That's been another part of my campaign...simply making stuff up, remember?

If I'm going to go to all that trouble, I at least want to get credit for it. "Dishonesty" is FAR too subtle for what I've done.

Sheesh.