Good exists - a Catholic comments

[The Valkyrie]

Prove that it wasn't Me who created the Universe.  It's been a while, so it might have slipped My mind... 

So, you MAY have created it, and I want to destroy it.

I'm the Anti-Astreja!

Does that mean there'll be an Earth-Shattering Kaboom if we ever meet IRL?

Yes!

[The Valkyrie]

Norway is proof Odin exists.

And since Odin is AllFather this is proof that the Abrahamic deity either doesn't exist or is a minor functionary.

It doesn’t matter what you call God, but I’ve given the evidence, what’s your story to refute it. Sarcasm is fun but not useful. 
Cheers Barry

Your claim is not evidence.

Moving on.

[Ravenshire]

It doesn’t matter what you call God, but I’ve given the evidence, what’s your story to refute it. Sarcasm is fun but not useful. 
Cheers Barry

(my bold)

What you've given @Barry is shit flung at walls. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bucky Ball]

None of you ever slow down, take a breath, and work to give a better account of your faith Barry.  That's the real sin.

Hi O Grand one,
Great advice. I’m trying to work on my own knowledge. I was just driving 3 grandkids to school and on the way to picking them up  and after dropping them off I was listening to a 23 hour audio book on Catholic Apologetics. Just started it. And I’m also watching a 7 hour video series on the existence of god. 
Chatting in this forum is actually helping me focus on the issues being discussed in these programs I’m studying.  
Cheers Barry

We knew you were a beginner.

Now there are 34 guests, what is this, a fucking motel ?

[The Valkyrie]

None of you ever slow down, take a breath, and work to give a better account of your faith Barry.  That's the real sin.

Hi O Grand one,
Great advice. I’m trying to work on my own knowledge. I was just driving 3 grandkids to school and on the way to picking them up  and after dropping them off I was listening to a 23 hour audio book on Catholic Apologetics. Just started it. And I’m also watching a 7 hour video series on the existence of god. 
Chatting in this forum is actually helping me focus on the issues being discussed in these programs I’m studying.  
Cheers Barry

If something needs apologetics then it's fundamentally flawed.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK. I think we can all call a mulligan. It's rare for us to describe or explain something right, and the very first time. The trouble with christian apologetics is that it's not an attempt to get things right the second time. It's an attempt to reassert the troubled bits some other way, the second time. Inevitably necessitating a third, and a fourth, and a...rinse and repeat for centuries.

[Gwaithmir]

Prove it!

Hi Gwaithmir
Good point. I presume you can’t prove God doesn’t exist? So you have a problem there. The burden of proof isn’t just mine. 

But let’s presume it is. 

What would convince you that God exists? 

Cheers Barry

No, we don't have a problem here. Logic does not require me to disprove a claim that you haven't proven to be true. The burden of proof IS yours.

Also, you presume wrongly. I CAN prove that the Christian God does not exist. To wit:

>The Christian God is defined by mainstream Christianity as being all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, and all just. Yet even a cursory reading of the bible reveals a God who is cruel, unjust, tyrannical, unloving and eternally vengeful. Ergo, the Christian God does not exist by reason of self-contradiction.

>An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God, by definition, cannot create evil or permit evil to exist in the world. And yet, evil exists. Ergo, God, as he is defined by mainstream Christianity, does not exist on the grounds of self-contradiction.

>The law of conservation of matter and energy states that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but neither can be created or destroyed. Ergo, the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. God is unnecessary by the Principle of Parsimony.

>The natural histories of religions are well-documented. The behavioral causes of religions are well-known. There is no evidence that gods and religions are the products of anything other than human ingenuity and imagination. Ergo, atheism is rational and skeptically unassailable.

What would convince me that God exists? For starters, let's see God move the needle on my Yo, God! Detector.

[Bucky Ball]

Good, work on your own knowledge.  Let's see some of that in the thread shall we?  Stop, please stop, saying silly shit.  It disrespects you, it disrespects us, and it disrespects whatever fucking god you believe in.  

Hell, I tried to save you seven hours (apparently) a bit earlier.  Plantinga's modal ontological argument.  There it is.  That's the only one.  There's nothing else.  I can understand that you'd assume there were more...but there isn't.  Learn that one, and you'll finally be able to checkmate some atheists.  Sure, it won't describe why you actually believe.  This is clearly not an issue for you anyway, given your previous comments...and yes, I'm entirely certain that you believe for reasons™ every bit as silly as the ones you've shared in thread - but there it is.

Plantigna's Ontological Argument (from Anslem), is nothing but a series of non-sequiturs. 
How he managed to fake his way into his position and keeping his position at Notre Dame is beyond me. 
A testament to the ignorance of the Notre Dame Board.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not a series of non seqs...or any fallacy, at all. That's why it's deemed successful. It might be wrong for any number of reasons, but logical validity isn't one of them.

My personal favorite objection is to start with an antithetical initial premise. Just as, if you accept that a god possibly exists in some world, modal logic will tell you that a god necessarily exists in all worlds..if you accept the premise that a god possibly does not exist in some world, modal logic will tell you that gods are necessarily nonexistent in all worlds. Technically, the antithetical premise is implicit in the possible world god premise (as all the worlds without gods are worlds where it's not only possible, but actual, that a god does not exist).

-and that, is why it's famously described as successful, but unconvincing. Sometimes it helps to think of logic like a word game. Just as a tv mentalist can arrange for an initial set of variables that inevitably leads to just one conclusion after any number of seemingly complicated steps in their at-home audience .... a committed logician can exclude all but the desirable answer by an identical process. It's not that this is invalid, a fallacy, against the rules.....it's just a limitation of our logical system. It's a game, so it can be gamed.

[LinuxGal]

IDK.   I think we can all call a mulligan.  It's rare for us to describe or explain something right, and the very first time.  The trouble with christian apologetics is that it's not an attempt to get things right the second time.  It's an attempt to reassert the troubled bits some other way, the second time.  Inevitably necessitating a third, and a fourth, and a...rinse and repeat for centuries.

Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood...

2nd Century BCE (after nothing happened): "Oh, it was sixty-two weeks of YEARS!"

2nd Century CE (after Rome wiped out the city): "The flood part referred to the legions.  It was a flood of soldiers."

1975 CE: "The Soviet Union will destroy Jerusalem"

1995 CE: "The Russians will destroy Jerusalem"

2029 CE: "China will destroy Jerusalem."

Lather, rinse, repeat.