Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Proofs for the Existence of God
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostIt is given through the incarnation of the Word who was also the Messiah, who brought about the restoration of Israel, which is the Catholic Church, with her seven sacraments as efficient causes of grace.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo the word, the logos, wisdom, whatever you want to call it, just one of the attributes of god, became flesh. Does that really make sense to you?
JM
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo, god is divisible, part of god, the son, can be down here on earth, while the other part, the father, is up the in heaven?
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostGod is relational. The Word is a substantial relation within the divine essence. There are no parts in God, which is essentially simple.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYes, so how is it that the son was down here on earth, while the father was in heaven? Jesus said it himself, "why do you call me good, there is only one good and that is the father who is in heaven." Paraphrasing of course.
How did this happen? Nobody knows, other than God, for He can do what creatures cannot do.
We also know the Son revealed He was God incarnate, and He did not reveal that the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated. The union the Son had with the F and HS before the incarnation continues after the incarnation, and the Word as incarnate continues now in Heaven.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostThe Catholic faith cannot be explained rationally, but it can be defended rationally from the attacks of the rationalists. We have been told that only the Son became incarnate and not the Father, or Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and do not change. Therefore they are everywhere, yet only the Son became man. We know the Son is a real, divine person, who is not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. We also know that as God, the Son can do whatever can be done. As the Son became incarnate, and proved He was God by His miracles, we know the Son can become incarnate.
How did this happen? Nobody knows, other than God, for He can do what creatures cannot do.
We also know the Son revealed He was God incarnate, and He did not reveal that the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated. The union the Son had with the F and HS before the incarnation continues after the incarnation, and the Word as incarnate continues now in Heaven.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, so basically the idea of the trinity is irrational, at least from the human perspective, so there is no point in rational debate over its validity.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post1) Conclude from reason that there is a supreme being.
2) The supreme being is eminently supreme above all created perfections, which includes the supreme being having a supreme life, beyond that of creation.
Your reasoning that there is a supreme being was summed up thus:
Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand?
Given your subsequent claims that creatures are supreme to inanimate objects and humans are supreme to non-humans, the supreme being of all the beings on Earth will be a human. Unless you have evidence of intelligent space aliens or can demonstrate the existence of god(s) in some other way*, the supreme being your reasoning leads to is a human.
Unless you think humans are eminently supreme above all created perfections, your argument fails.
Roy
*Assuming your God exists at this stage would lead to circular argumentJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View Postthere's no-one other than you who believes the arguments anyway.
Unless you'd like to show us where Thomas Aquinas committed the fallacy of the inverse?
A creature is contingent
Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
God is not a creature
Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostSimple.
Your reasoning that there is a supreme being was summed up thus:
Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand?
Given your subsequent claims that creatures are supreme to inanimate objects and humans are supreme to non-humans, the supreme being of all the beings on Earth will be a human. Unless you have evidence of intelligent space aliens or can demonstrate the existence of god(s) in some other way*, the supreme being your reasoning leads to is a human.
Unless you think humans are eminently supreme above all created perfections, your argument fails.
Roy
*Assuming your God exists at this stage would lead to circular argument
Post 31
If the 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is a creature, then 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is contingent.
But what is contingent, is dependent
But what is dependent is not supreme
But 'Ultimate Natural Existence is the supreme 'Source'
Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not a creature.
A creature is contingent
Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not a creature
Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not composed of potency and act.
What is not composed is simple
Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is pure act.
The prime being is pure act, which is also the Supreme being. Anything composed of potency and act is not the supreme being.
Its all very easy to prove the existence of the supreme being, which is pure act.
JMLast edited by JohnMartin; 06-28-2016, 07:33 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostYes, I know. But your presentation is a garbled version of the originals that has been around for a few days and promotes only your demonstrable incompetence.
Unless you'd like to show us where Thomas Aquinas committed the fallacy of the inverse?
Hence the fallacy of the inverse is avoided.
Wiki gives the following example of denying the antecedent -
If it is raining, then the grass is wet.
It is not raining.
Therefore, the grass is not wet.
JM
Comment
-
Its all very easy to prove the existence of the supreme being, which is pure act.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
421 responses
1,847 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:59 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,228 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
371 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment