9 ms·

> As to why the specific teachings of the Catholic church? It literally comes down to "God said so and God wouldn't lie." How do you know god said so? How do y

by ajuc 8y ago

> As to why the specific teachings of the Catholic church? It literally comes down to "God said so and God wouldn't lie." How do you know god said so? How do you know there even is a god? How do you know god wouldn't lie? You assumed it (in one way or another). Blind faith. BTW, regarding the whole "god doesn't lie" thing: > O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. Jeremiah 20:7 > And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Ezekiel 14:9 > And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thessalonians 2:11 But Bible is full of contradictions, it's not like anybody can be persuaded by pointing them out. Faith doesn't care about contradictions :) > these have to do with a variety of purely rational, if not always convincing arguments. Arguments using circular reasoning are indeed not very convincing :) > that God, the first cause (principium) and last end of all things, can, from created things, be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason There's no way to deduce anything about the first cause. Not the fact that it would also necessarily be the end of all things. Not that it was something conscious with a free will. Much less again that it was a personal god. Much less still that it was the God as Catholics define him. And it's perfectly possible that there was no first cause at all (the chain of causes could be infinite for all we know). > Catholics believe that the existence of God can be proved with reason. And that's blind faith, because they can't actually prove it, they just declare it's possible. You're arguing my point for me here ;)

foldr 8y ago
Again, you're confusing blind faith with belief on the basis of an argument that you think is bad. We know that you are not convinced by any arguments for the existence of God. But believing that God exists on the basis of a rational argument isn't blind faith.
- ajuc 8y ago
  You cannot turn irrational belief into rational one just by making a flawed argument about it. Belief: "Earth is flat" Argument: "If earth was flat it would look flat. Earth looks flat therefore it must be flat." It's no longer faith, it's reason now. Doesn't matter that you ignore all the counterarguments.
  - foldr 8y ago
    Believing that the Earth is flat on the basis of that argument certainly isn't belief on the basis of faith. Catholics as a group don't "ignore all the counterarguments". So for example, Ed Feser recently published a book presenting five arguments for the existence of God (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?keywords=%22five+arguments%22+feser&qid=1555582013&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmr0 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/...). The book responds to the various counterarguments that atheists and agnostics usually make to these arguments. You might not be convinced by the responses, but the counterarguments are not ignored. Again, I am not trying to argue here that Catholicism can ultimately be rationally justified. I'm not a Catholic, and it's not particularly important to me whether it can or can't be. But it's unfair to caricature Catholics as a group as irrational faith heads (though no doubt some individuals may meet this description).
  - astine 8y ago
    "Argument: "If earth was flat it would look flat. Earth looks flat therefore it must be flat." It's no longer faith, it's reason now. Doesn't matter that you ignore all the counterarguments." Exactly! Otherwise literally everyone on earth could be said to be acting on 'blind faith' because nearly everyone holds at least one or two mistaken beliefs out of some prejudice or unwillingness to examine the counterarguments.
astine 8y ago
"How do you know god said so? How do you know there even is a god? How do you know god wouldn't lie?" I don't know any of these things. I don't believe in a God. But you're missing the whole point which is that just because you disagree with the reasoning and beliefs of Catholics doesn't mean that you can impose a doctrine upon them which they do not believe. "And that's blind faith, because they can't actually prove it, they just declare it's possible." They believe that they can prove it, and I've met many who will attempt to a do so at the drop of a hat. If you'd read the link I provided you'd actually see some of those attempts. Whether they actually can prove it is beside the issue, however. What matters is whether they believe that their proofs are valid.

by ajuc 8y ago

foldr 8y ago

Again, you're confusing blind faith with belief on the basis of an argument that you think is bad. We know that you are not convinced by any arguments for the existence of God. But believing that God exists on the basis of a rational argument isn't blind faith.

ajuc 8y ago
You cannot turn irrational belief into rational one just by making a flawed argument about it. Belief: "Earth is flat" Argument: "If earth was flat it would look flat. Earth looks flat therefore it must be flat." It's no longer faith, it's reason now. Doesn't matter that you ignore all the counterarguments.
- foldr 8y ago
  Believing that the Earth is flat on the basis of that argument certainly isn't belief on the basis of faith. Catholics as a group don't "ignore all the counterarguments". So for example, Ed Feser recently published a book presenting five arguments for the existence of God (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?keywords=%22five+arguments%22+feser&qid=1555582013&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmr0 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/...). The book responds to the various counterarguments that atheists and agnostics usually make to these arguments. You might not be convinced by the responses, but the counterarguments are not ignored. Again, I am not trying to argue here that Catholicism can ultimately be rationally justified. I'm not a Catholic, and it's not particularly important to me whether it can or can't be. But it's unfair to caricature Catholics as a group as irrational faith heads (though no doubt some individuals may meet this description).
- astine 8y ago
  "Argument: "If earth was flat it would look flat. Earth looks flat therefore it must be flat." It's no longer faith, it's reason now. Doesn't matter that you ignore all the counterarguments." Exactly! Otherwise literally everyone on earth could be said to be acting on 'blind faith' because nearly everyone holds at least one or two mistaken beliefs out of some prejudice or unwillingness to examine the counterarguments.

astine 8y ago

"How do you know god said so? How do you know there even is a god? How do you know god wouldn't lie?" I don't know any of these things. I don't believe in a God. But you're missing the whole point which is that just because you disagree with the reasoning and beliefs of Catholics doesn't mean that you can impose a doctrine upon them which they do not believe. "And that's blind faith, because they can't actually prove it, they just declare it's possible." They believe that they can prove it, and I've met many who will attempt to a do so at the drop of a hat. If you'd read the link I provided you'd actually see some of those attempts. Whether they actually can prove it is beside the issue, however. What matters is whether they believe that their proofs are valid.