Calling out St Michael, CUT TO THE CHASE DEBATE!

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Calling out St Michael, CUT TO THE CHASE DEBATE!

St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.

I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.

NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?

1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!

 

[MOD MOVE: Moved to Atheist Vs Theist.  PLEASE PEOPLE MAKE SURE TO NEVER POST AN ATHEIST VS THEIST DEBATE IN THE FREETHINKERS FORUM!]

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


YARN
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Wow, rage coupled with ad

Wow, rage coupled with ad hominem attacks. Nice. The answer, of course, is that God did it. God, not being a material human agent, but the supreme being, has more latitude in these matters than we do. If God were simply "a spirit" (as in "immatarial spirit" ) then there would be a problem in terms of interfacing with the material world. Don't think of God as a mere ghost, but an entity with power over all creation, and it is really quite simple.

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hi Yarn, I see some

Hi Yarn,

I see some indignation focused at one who dodges questions while claiming he answers them but no ad hom.

Do you have any evidence for the rest of your post? It seems like you're saying, "It's all simple as long as you believe in magic." 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ad hominem takes the

Ad hominem takes the following form:

A claims X.

A has the quality Y, which is a bad quality.

Therefore, X is false.

Brian's statement takes the following form:

StM claims X.

StM dodges Y, which refutes X.

Therefore, StM, please stop dodging and answer the questions.

How is this ad hominem, please?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


YARN
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
ad hominem translates as

ad hominem translates as "against the man"

Let's take a look at some choice comments:

"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu

StM claims X

StM does not have the ability to focus

StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract

Therefore, StM's claim is wrong

In this case, our interlocutor taunts StM to respond adequately by arguing that StM lacks the capacity to respond adequately. Not only an ad hom, but the respondent demands a contradiction - a rock bigger than StM can lift.

 

Cheers.  

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
YARN wrote: ad hominem

YARN wrote:

ad hominem translates as "against the man"

Let's take a look at some choice comments:

"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu

StM claims X

StM does not have the ability to focus

StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract

Therefore, StM's claim is wrong

In this case, our interlocutor taunts StM to respond adequately by arguing that StM lacks the capacity to respond adequately. Not only an ad hom, but the respondent demands a contradiction - a rock bigger than StM can lift.

 

Cheers.

 

 

If I claimed I had a 50 foot penis and truely bleiveed it was real and you challenged me to "prove it" and all I did was dodge with psuedo science and metaphore, how the fuck is that ad homin?

I am calling a duck a duck and he cannot in any way prove his magical claims. I dont call that ad homin, I call that reality.

Now, your problem is that you are not used to the blunt questions and challenges. This is not an attack on him. This is facing him with an absurd claim.

If I claimed that I could fart a Lamborginni out of my ass how would that be an ad homin if you said, "Bullshit"?

You'd be right, in saying "bullshit" if I really claimed and really believed that I could do that.

Girls dont get knocked up by invisible beings and dead fleash doesnt get up after three days of death. That is not an ad homin. That is merely me telling him he believes in a lie he as bought. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Guess what? I'm not going

Guess what? I'm not going to argue this with you. Know why? You obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

Want to know why that's not ad-hominem?

I have proof.

Check this out... Brian's own words:

Quote:

St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.

I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.

Do you see a "Therefore" in here? There isn't one. Brian's statements:

1) Brian suspects StM doesn't have the ability to focus.

2) Brian asserts that most theists use a lack of focus to dodge questions.

Did you see anywhere the conclusion that because StM and Theists don't focus, they are wrong? No. Because it's not there. The implied conclusion is that they are wrong AND they don't focus. This is not ad hominem.

Just so you can't say I quoted out of context, here's the rest of Brian's quote:

Quote:

NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?

1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!

See the word, "Therefore?" It's not there.

All that's here is two questions, and an admonishion to avoid dodging the questions. Nothing about dodging questions causing StM to be wrong.

 

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man&quotEye-wink consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

*******************

Brian is not replying to an argument, so right out of the gate, this cannot be true ad hominem.

Brian has asked two questions, and speculated that StM cannot stick to a subject. This does not fall under the definition of ad hominem.

 

Now, here's why my statement about you is not ad hominem...

I submit that you do not have good reading comprehension skills. Here is my proof. Your own words:

Quote:

Let's take a look at some choice comments:

"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu

StM claims X

StM does not have the ability to focus

StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract

Therefore, StM's claim is wrong

Aha! You have read Brian's post, and yet, you did not comprehend that nowhere is there a statement that StM is wrong BECAUSE he can't focus. You proved your mistake by putting it in print.

So enough about the ad hominem, already. You're wrong. Admit it and we'll think more highly of you and possible take your arguments a little more seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand why you

I don't understand why you are so angry at me in the first place. If I have dodged your questions in the past and not answered them as directly as possible, you ought to point it out instead of merely accusing me of ducking your questions.

However, in this context, I will be happy to answer your questions. But, first, I want to make a bit of a caveat. These claims that you address, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection of the dead, are not things that can be established with certainty as having occurred. I would argue that belief in them is rational, which I intend to do, showing that there is no inherent contradiction in the statements themselves, but I cannot prove them with argument from naturally known principles. They can only be established as having actually occurred by faith. Belief in these articles is, however, not irrational.

Two claims were made, namely:


Quote:
1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

"God did it" is not a real answer if that is where you stop. But it is if we look at the nature of God. He is an immaterial being in Himself, but He is likewise the cause of all existent things, from angels to rocks. By His will, He causes things to exist. If He created the world, including your own reproductive material, He can fertilize an egg in the Blessed Virgin's womb in a special act of creation.

 

Quote:
2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

Further, we are not merely talking about rigor mortis and cellular death. We are talking about total and utter decay and decomposition. Apart from Christ's Resurrection after three days, God will resurrect every man, woman, and child who ever lived in the general resurrection that my religion professes.

 How is this possible? Again, it is not stretching that if God created the world and human beings in the first place to see how He would easily have the power to create new bodies from nothing and reunite them with our souls. He has already done something very much like this before.

 I can answer more to clarify if necessary (which I suppose will be necessary).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't understand why you are so angry at me in the first place. If I have dodged your questions in the past and not answered them as directly as possible, you ought to point it out instead of merely accusing me of ducking your questions.

However, in this context, I will be happy to answer your questions. But, first, I want to make a bit of a caveat. These claims that you address, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection of the dead, are not things that can be established with certainty as having occurred. I would argue that belief in them is rational, which I intend to do, showing that there is no inherent contradiction in the statements themselves, but I cannot prove them with argument from naturally known principles. They can only be established as having actually occurred by faith. Belief in these articles is, however, not irrational.

Two claims were made, namely:


Quote:
1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

"God did it" is not a real answer if that is where you stop. But it is if we look at the nature of God. He is an immaterial being in Himself, but He is likewise the cause of all existent things, from angels to rocks. By His will, He causes things to exist. If He created the world, including your own reproductive material, He can fertilize an egg in the Blessed Virgin's womb in a special act of creation.

 

Quote:
2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

Further, we are not merely talking about rigor mortis and cellular death. We are talking about total and utter decay and decomposition. Apart from Christ's Resurrection after three days, God will resurrect every man, woman, and child who ever lived in the general resurrection that my religion professes.

How is this possible? Again, it is not stretching that if God created the world and human beings in the first place to see how He would easily have the power to create new bodies from nothing and reunite them with our souls. He has already done something very much like this before.

I can answer more to clarify if necessary (which I suppose will be necessary).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Who said I was angrey at you personally? I am angrey at people continuing to pass of fiction as fact.

Quote:
These claims that you address, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection of the dead, are not things that can be established with certainty as having occurred. I would argue that belief in them is rational, which I intend to do,

No shit Sherlock, of course they cannot be confermed anymore than I can conferm farting a Lamborgini out of my ass.

Quote:
Again, it is not stretching that if God created the world and human beings in the first place to see how He would easily have the power to create new bodies from nothing and reunite them with our souls.

If he could easly reconstitute a body then it should be nothing for him to make a Lamborginni come out of my ass? Right? God can do anything? Or is it only that he can do what wont distroy the illusion of bullshit you have baught in your brain? 

Claiming that claimed being can do anything is not the same as proving how it happened or even that claimed being exists in the first place. All you have done is made a claim.

"My deity said I could fart a Lamborginni out of my ass" So it must be true. Right?

Just the same as you claim that he knocked up a girl? Or could it be that it is merely something you like to claim ?

"Cavet" I cant prove I can fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, I just like to believe I can, so by proxy that I have claimed it, and that we know Lamborginni's exist, farting one in my snarfwigits name is possible because this computer exists and because this message exists I am proving to you that my snarfwidgit will make me fart a lamborginni out of my ass?

I claimed it so it must be true.

No ST Micheal, I am NOT angrey at you. Just tired of people playing capture the flag over goverments and the globe based on Micky Mouse vs Lex Luthor.

You may like what you believe, and I am sure you truely believe it. But you have no more evidence of a virgin birth or resurection than I would if I claimed I could fart a Lamborginni out of my ass.

I would not expect you to buy claims of Muslims 72 virgins or milk and wine heavens anymore than I would claims of multiple armed deities.

I hate to burst your bubble, but no god, or gost or boogieman or even Micky mouse got a girl pregnant so that they could save your life anymore than a magical tampon saved me from worshiping vampires. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
These are articles of

These are articles of faith, but they are not irrational. They are rational because the source from which we believe such things are themselves trustworthy. Namely, Christ and His Church came displaying manifest miracles to prove that they were truly from God. It is on God's authority as revealing that we understand that these things happened. There exists, however, no logical contradiction in the nature of the event itself.

 God would not make a Lamborghini come out of your butt for the reason that that is not how He works. Further, I would maintain there is some sort of contradiction (as your butt is not nearly large enough, presumably?, to contain a Lamborghini of its ordinary and considerable size; if a toy one fell out of your butt, I would just conclude that you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing). Two other considerations (one I mentioned earlier): First, we have no reason for thinking that God did do such a thing, as the only reason we would have would be His revelation. Second, He might be able to make any number of events happen, but He does not for a number of reasons apart from revelation. God acts on things naturally, and does violence to no thing. So, for example, miracles are not totally arbitrary events. This would indicate a sort of chaos in the universe. But God does not act in a chaotic fashion. Miracles are clearly supernatural in origin, but ordered according to God's wisdom in conformity with the natural order He likewise established. So, He would not make cars fly out of your butt (and I'm not sure what that would prove either; miracles are to confirm His messages, not to play with) because this would be contrary to the ordinary course of nature, but He would make water into wine. This is an event that ordinarily happens in a natural manner (vines take up water and make grapes, which makes wine, ect.), but in this case of miraculous working, it happens in an utterly supernatural manner (instantly and without any means other than God's power). In a certain sense, there is always a sort of internal consistency in God's miracles, as God is Eternal Wisdom.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: These are

StMichael wrote:

These are articles of faith, but they are not irrational. They are rational because the source from which we believe such things are themselves trustworthy. Namely, Christ and His Church came displaying manifest miracles to prove that they were truly from God. It is on God's authority as revealing that we understand that these things happened. There exists, however, no logical contradiction in the nature of the event itself.

God would not make a Lamborghini come out of your butt for the reason that that is not how He works. Further, I would maintain there is some sort of contradiction (as your butt is not nearly large enough, presumably?, to contain a Lamborghini of its ordinary and considerable size; if a toy one fell out of your butt, I would just conclude that you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing). Two other considerations (one I mentioned earlier): First, we have no reason for thinking that God did do such a thing, as the only reason we would have would be His revelation. Second, He might be able to make any number of events happen, but He does not for a number of reasons apart from revelation. God acts on things naturally, and does violence to no thing. So, for example, miracles are not totally arbitrary events. This would indicate a sort of chaos in the universe. But God does not act in a chaotic fashion. Miracles are clearly supernatural in origin, but ordered according to God's wisdom in conformity with the natural order He likewise established. So, He would not make cars fly out of your butt (and I'm not sure what that would prove either; miracles are to confirm His messages, not to play with) because this would be contrary to the ordinary course of nature, but He would make water into wine. This is an event that ordinarily happens in a natural manner (vines take up water and make grapes, which makes wine, ect.), but in this case of miraculous working, it happens in an utterly supernatural manner (instantly and without any means other than God's power). In a certain sense, there is always a sort of internal consistency in God's miracles, as God is Eternal Wisdom.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

 

This is too easy.

GOD:

Quote:
I can knock up a girl, but cant make a Lamborginni fly out of Brian's ass because I St Micheal say that an "all powerfull" being wouldn't do that

   CALL CNN GOD DOESNT DO PARLOR TRICKS EVEN THOUGH HE COULD.

Sounds like a wimp to me. No wait. Sounds like you are the wimp who cant face that your claims are absurd and that bearded men in the sky dont exist and you merely like the myth you have been sold.

NOW:

SHOW ME THE DEFINITION OF "SPIRIT" AND HOW A "SPIRIT" PROVIDED HALF THE DNA OF A HUMAN?

You cant, any more than I could prove that because I purchaced a pint of Pensoil at a Mobil Gas station that blue garefnargutst helped cure my crabs.

"God did it" might as well mean "My garden hose got my cat pregnant"

Or "My shoe horn touched my dead aunt and turned her into Mel Gibson in recarnate"

PROVE IT, you cant because you have nothing!

Show me the mechinisms of a "spirit" and how exactly does a "spirit" knock up a girl?

Exactly how magically does a brian survive rigor mortis?

DIDNT HAPPEN AND YOU KNOW IT, you just want a super hero and will do anything mentally to protect the fiction you have been indocrtinated in. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
St Micheal, here is what I

St Micheal, here is what I am demonstrating in "absurdity" and please mind you it would go for any theistic claim, not just your claim:

EXAMPLE:

A guy walks up to me and says, "Hey Brian, if you kiss the gold ring on my finger, Heidi Klum will give you a blow job".

I say, " Ok" and I do it, but nothing happens?

"Where is she" I ask.

"She will do it when you truely believe and may do it when you cant feel it, or when you dont expect it, and she may not take on the forum you expect"

So ST Micheal, your claims of virgin births or dead rising might as well be claims of George Jetson inventing a time machine or Bryant Gumble instantaniously turning into Pamela Anderson.

Why? Because if it sounds absurd it is. If it is absurd to get a blow job from Heidi Klum by kissing a ring it is just as absurd that a spirit knocked up a girl so you could get to the eternal "Weel of Fortune" final round.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It is not absurd. It is

It is not absurd. It is absurd to believe these latter things because they have no evidence at all indicating that these will probably happen. We however have probable evidence, namely miracles, which support the Revelation we believe in, such as the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, or the Trinity, or anything else like this. We could clearly test these other things, and we have no evidence that such would be the case. It is faith, but reasonable faith in these articles based on the demonstrated authority of the one revealing.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It is not

StMichael wrote:

It is not absurd. It is absurd to believe these latter things because they have no evidence at all indicating that these will probably happen. We however have probable evidence, namely miracles, which support the Revelation we believe in, such as the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, or the Trinity, or anything else like this. We could clearly test these other things, and we have no evidence that such would be the case. It is faith, but reasonable faith in these articles based on the demonstrated authority of the one revealing.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Prove it!

I cant get a magical blow job from Heidi Klum? Why not?

BECAUS IT IS ABSURD!

DUH DUMBASS! OF COURSE IT IS ABSURD, JUST AS ABSURD AS YOUR CLAIMS!

I dont care if you claimed that George Bush or Sean Hanity claimed to have the sperm of God.

Your claim is as absurd as if Ohmar claimed to have the finger prints of Allah.

And just as absurd as if Joe Leiberman claimed to have a colonostomy exam of Yahywey.

You have it on good athority?

NO, you have it on a tradition passed down to you that you baught as "good athority".

You might as well believe that I can fart Lamborginnis out of my ass just as you find it absurd that Allah will give Muslims 72 virgins.

Shout your myth from the rooftops all you wish St Micheal, it is not and never will be "good athority".

It is just a claim that you bought and you like, nothing more. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


YARN
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Guess what? I'm not going


Guess what? I'm not going to argue this with you. Know why? You obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

WOW - You have to be the most immoderate moderator I have met yet. Smiling

And I love the performative contradiction - You say that you are not going to argue with me and then proceed to dissertate at length! I also get a kick out of how you run behind the apron strings of Wikipedia, but since you have apparently checked Wiki out please see the subsection titled Ad Hominem abusive / ad personam (it's the one that talks about belittling or insulting one's opponent - strange that you didn't cut and paste that one - also, notice that I am using this argument strategy above).

Want to know why that's not ad-hominem?

I have proof.

Check this out... Brian's own words:

Quote:

St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.

I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.

Do you see a "Therefore" in here? There isn't one.

Do you know what an enthymeme is? Are you aware of the fact that most logical arguments proceed without stating all of the "therefores" and "whereas" clauses? What matters is what is implicit in a given communicative context. If you don't get conversational implicature, I am afraid I won't be able to explain it to you here.

Brian's statements:

1) Brian suspects StM doesn't have the ability to focus.

2) Brian asserts that most theists use a lack of focus to dodge questions.

Did you see anywhere the conclusion that because StM and Theists don't focus, they are wrong? No. Because it's not there. The implied conclusion is that they are wrong AND they don't focus. This is not ad hominem.

Just so you can't say I quoted out of context, here's the rest of Brian's quote:

Quote:

NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?

1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!

See the word, "Therefore?" It's not there.

All that's here is two questions, and an admonishion to avoid dodging the questions. Nothing about dodging questions causing StM to be wrong.

 

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man&quotEye-wink consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

*******************

Brian is not replying to an argument, so right out of the gate, this cannot be true ad hominem.

You don't have to be responding to an argument to make an ad hominem attack. But I like how you are backpeddling here though. You now say it cannot be a "true" ad hominem attack. Are you willing grant that it is an ad hominem-like attack?

Brian has asked two questions, and speculated that StM cannot stick to a subject. This does not fall under the definition of ad hominem.

 

Now, here's why my statement about you is not ad hominem...

I submit that you do not have good reading comprehension skills. Here is my proof. Your own words:

Quote:

Let's take a look at some choice comments:

"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu

StM claims X

StM does not have the ability to focus

StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract

Therefore, StM's claim is wrong

Aha! You have read Brian's post, and yet, you did not comprehend that nowhere is there a statement that StM is wrong BECAUSE he can't focus. You proved your mistake by putting it in print.

So enough about the ad hominem, already. You're wrong. Admit it and we'll think more highly of you and possible take your arguments a little more seriously.

Even if I granted your panicky and meanspirited little tirade (which I don't) it is a perfect illustration of why I find this website so amusing. I have read only a few posts by StM, but he appears to be patient and polite. I find this site comforting because it lets me know that when theism finally passes away humanity will still be intolerant, hateful, and cruel. If you don't believe in God, that's fine. What I don't get is why, if you are so happy about being an atheist, that you have to go on a website that agonistically defines itself in terms of that which it purports to transcend.

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
YARN wrote: Guess what?

YARN wrote:

Guess what? I'm not going to argue this with you. Know why? You obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

WOW - You have to be the most immoderate moderator I have met yet. Smiling

And I love the performative contradiction - You say that you are not going to argue with me and then proceed to dissertate at length! I also get a kick out of how you run behind the apron strings of Wikipedia, but since you have apparently checked Wiki out please see the subsection titled Ad Hominem abusive / ad personam (it's the one that talks about belittling or insulting one's opponent - strange that you didn't cut and paste that one - also, notice that I am using this argument strategy above).

Want to know why that's not ad-hominem?

I have proof.

Check this out... Brian's own words:

Quote:

St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.

I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.

Do you see a "Therefore" in here? There isn't one.

Do you know what an enthymeme is? Are you aware of the fact that most logical arguments proceed without stating all of the "therefores" and "whereas" clauses? What matters is what is implicit in a given communicative context. If you don't get conversational implicature, I am afraid I won't be able to explain it to you here.

Brian's statements:

1) Brian suspects StM doesn't have the ability to focus.

2) Brian asserts that most theists use a lack of focus to dodge questions.

Did you see anywhere the conclusion that because StM and Theists don't focus, they are wrong? No. Because it's not there. The implied conclusion is that they are wrong AND they don't focus. This is not ad hominem.

Just so you can't say I quoted out of context, here's the rest of Brian's quote:

Quote:

NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?

1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.

2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!

See the word, "Therefore?" It's not there.

All that's here is two questions, and an admonishion to avoid dodging the questions. Nothing about dodging questions causing StM to be wrong.

 

From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man&quotEye-wink consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

*******************

Brian is not replying to an argument, so right out of the gate, this cannot be true ad hominem.

You don't have to be responding to an argument to make an ad hominem attack. But I like how you are backpeddling here though. You now say it cannot be a "true" ad hominem attack. Are you willing grant that it is an ad hominem-like attack?

Brian has asked two questions, and speculated that StM cannot stick to a subject. This does not fall under the definition of ad hominem.

 

Now, here's why my statement about you is not ad hominem...

I submit that you do not have good reading comprehension skills. Here is my proof. Your own words:

Quote:

Let's take a look at some choice comments:

"I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocu

StM claims X

StM does not have the ability to focus

StM uses "hocus pocus" to distract

Therefore, StM's claim is wrong

Aha! You have read Brian's post, and yet, you did not comprehend that nowhere is there a statement that StM is wrong BECAUSE he can't focus. You proved your mistake by putting it in print.

So enough about the ad hominem, already. You're wrong. Admit it and we'll think more highly of you and possible take your arguments a little more seriously.

Even if I granted your panicky and meanspirited little tirade (which I don't) it is a perfect illustration of why I find this website so amusing. I have read only a few posts by StM, but he appears to be patient and polite. I find this site comforting because it lets me know that when theism finally passes away humanity will still be intolerant, hateful, and cruel. If you don't believe in God, that's fine. What I don't get is why, if you are so happy about being an atheist, that you have to go on a website that agonistically defines itself in terms of that which it purports to transcend.

Of course I am being impatient. Why the hell should anyone accept a fairy tale when all they asked for was an explination? 

If St Micheal wants to explain the world by Gostbuster orgies and Mel Gibson movie Cliche's I cant stop him.

But if you expect me to be polite when someone is trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge because they claim Harry Potter made it, I am sorry. Why should I lie to myself or anyone else when bunk is bunk? 

For the same reason you'd rightly reject my claim of farting a Lamborginni out of my ass, I'd hope you'd also rightly reject Apollo pulling the sun across the sky with a chairot, I'd also hope you'd reject Allah and 72 virgins as well as Superman flying.

Just because someone likes a claim, and people have believed the claim for years and generations and centuries doesnt make it true.

So forgive me if I am impatient for not wanting a great species to continue to cling to Santa when it is clear the species doesnt need it. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I think you misunderstand

I think you misunderstand my arguments. But I think that what I say will not do any good, as it seems you already have your mind made up about things. The point of difference between such Catholic articles of faith and your examples is simple and can be reduced to a dichotomy: blind faith versus reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing a proposition contrary to reason or without any reason at all. Reasonable faith relies on probable reasons to support the certainty of its propositions. So, for example, I believe the moon not to be made of green cheese because I trust scientists who know more than I do about using light and telescopy to prove this with light wavelengths as well as astronauts who have been there. It is a reasonable belief. Religious belief is of the same species, but slightly different in some ways. I believe that Christ was God because He performed miracles to substantiate His claim. Likewise, His Church continues to perform miracles to substantiate its claim to be from God. These establish a probable foundation for belief. But if we accept this, the belief becomes more than probable; it rather is more certain than any other knowledge because it derives not from a more or less credible human authority, but from God Himself, who is the highest authority.

If you continue merely to assert that such faith is just absurd without reason, I will have to discontinue my conversation.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: These are

StMichael wrote:

These are articles of faith, but they are not irrational. They are rational because the source from which we believe such things are themselves trustworthy. Namely, Christ and His Church came displaying manifest miracles to prove that they were truly from God. It is on God's authority as revealing that we understand that these things happened. There exists, however, no logical contradiction in the nature of the event itself.

 

so you believe unsubstantiated hearsay (and vastly improbable hearsay at that) based on more unsubstantiated hearsay. how's that rational?

 

Rill


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
"but He would make water

"but He would make water into wine. This is an event that ordinarily happens in a natural manner (vines take up water and make grapes, which makes wine, ect.), but in this case of miraculous working, it happens in an utterly supernatural manner (instantly and without any means other than God's power)."

And this is yet only one of the cases where we can prove that the religious accounts of such an event, if you are to be considered correct, are purely literary in their intent. That is to say; If god really did just "speed up" a natural occurrance, there would have been far more in that cup than water. Unfortunately, a cup full of dirty, excrement-filled water isn't exactly romantic. It is how a vine would manage to turn water into wine, however.

If your argument goes further to contend that, because all things are made of the same matter but only the organization differs from element to element, clearly all the necessary ingredients were there to make the wine, we can conclude even more. There is clearly enough matter present in a given space(when one considers the air and the earth as well) to spontaneously create a lambo., and even if it were not present one would have to assume that transporting this matter to the place of need would be trivial. If you're particularly opposed to the claim that an individual can produce a lambo. out of his rectum, would you be opposed to the claim that I personally can turn coal into diamonds with my bare hands? Of course. But why? Because I'm not a trusted source? Surely it isn't because I'm not strong enough; my muscles have nothing to do with it, I'm creating the diamonds through the will of a supernatural power which can accomplish anything.

"They are rational because the source from which we believe such things are themselves trustworthy. Namely, Christ and His Church came displaying manifest miracles to prove that they were truly from God. It is on God's authority as revealing that we understand that these things happened."

Christ and His Church existed and allegedly performed these miracles thousands of years before your birth. Why do you have more reason to believe in them than the alleged miracles of prophets of other faiths?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
They are quite more than

They are quite more than unsubstantiated heresay. Also, the miracles continually happening in the Catholic Church are likewise proof of the same divine charism.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: They are

StMichael wrote:
They are quite more than unsubstantiated heresay. Also, the miracles continually happening in the Catholic Church are likewise proof of the same divine charism.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Doesn't it still boil down to people with agendas that would benefit from these miracles (past, present and future) saying, "Hey, these are really miracles. Trust us."?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: They are

StMichael wrote:
They are quite more than unsubstantiated heresay. Also, the miracles continually happening in the Catholic Church are likewise proof of the same divine charism.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

I've heard so much about Jesus in a potato chip or tree. That is the best he can do? REALLY? His dad could end suffering tommorow POOF! INSTANTANIOUSLY, but the best that seems to happen is parlor tricks?

Seeing shapes in objects is not becuse the immage is real, but because our brains precieve prior patterns.

It woud be a "Miricale" if my nuts POOF instantanously in a nanosecond turned into a vagina." NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

Still you have not adressed the birth or death of Jesus. You have no way of replicating, demonstrating or falsifying those claims. THATS ALL THEY ARE, CLAIMS.

It's fine with me if you like myth. Just dont expect me to buy it.

So, once again you dodge. I ask you to provide evidence of how a "spirit" gets a girl pregnant, and how human flesh survives rigor mortis after three days. YOU LOST YOUR FOCUS ONCE AGAIN!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: They are

StMichael wrote:
They are quite more than unsubstantiated heresay. Also, the miracles continually happening in the Catholic Church are likewise proof of the same divine charism.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Can you please give examples of current miracles? The incorruptables don't cut it in my book, I've provided evidence as to why in another thread if you choose to read it.

What's more, and as others have suggested, how is it that you can *know* something is a miracle, and something else is just something we don't yet understand? Is everything we don't yet understand a miracle? What happens when we do understand?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, miracles do not boil

First, miracles do not boil down to people with agendas. For example, any miracle in canonization hearings must be attested to by non-Catholic scientists/doctors. There are a great deal of checks and balances to eliminate interference of that sort.
Second, I never claimed to see Our Lord or Lady in a potatoe chip or a tree.
Third, the life of Our Lord is attested to in many historical documents, including the Gospels and the letters of St. Paul. Further, the lives of the Apostles and the history of the early Church is likewise credible evidence to support that.
Fourth, we of course have no way of replicating any claims about Our Lord's virgin birth or resurrection in any meaningful way because it is a miracle. We do, however, have numerous accounts of saints throughout history who raised the dead to life, which I believe counts as a replication of resurrection (not like Our Lord, but still a miracle).
Fifth, any claims of Christ's life is a matter of faith. We have no repeatable, falsifiable evidence for these claims, but it is not irrational to believe in it. We have evidence that such claims are reliable from historical witnesses and the credibility of the Apostles themselves, as well as the evidence of miracles being performed in the Catholic Church throughout history.
Sixth, I have again pointed out that there is no demonstrable device by which I could replicate or demonstrate in controlled conditions how either the virgin birth or the resurrection is possible (which, however, is not the survival of rigor mortis). No such test is possible because such was utterly beyond human capacity; it was a miracle, which by definition can only be performed by God. It is not, however, irrational to believe that these things happened just from the facts given above, in combination with the earlier posts which descibe why we ought to believe that God can do these things.
Seventh, I have not lost any focus on the matter. There are many different questions being proposed. If you want, I can ignore every other question in this room and focus only on yours, but I would not find that fair to the others.
Eighth, absurd miracles serve no purpose. For this reason, God would not perform them. I already explained this.
Ninth, the criticism of the incorruptibles given in the other room was rather unsubstantiated in its claims. I point out that many such incorruptibles exist and merely one being discounted is not proof against the rest. Further, the miracle is the lack of decay affecting the bodies, and often the scents arising from them, as well as miracles that occur at their tombs (some have been known to move or levitate, for example); dessication occurs in some of the incorruptibles, but not all.
Tenth, it is necessary to lay out two forms of miracles: by way of substance and by way of production. Miracles of the first sort (substance) occur for example when a man is raised for the dead or the cure of a man born blind, or something like this. The second (production) is something that can happen through an natural agent, but instantly and without any natural intervention. So, for example, most medical miracles occur according to the way of production, where a terminal illness is cured instantly and without treatment at all. I would point out that the first (production) is never able to be replicated by medical science. It has nothing to do with something we cannot understand, but has a great deal to do with things that simply cannot be done. The second type are done by natural agents ordinarily, but the circumstances clearly indicate a manner in which they can never be done by natural agents.
Eleventh, I would point to, for example, the Lourdes International Medical Committee, which records voluminously the miracles that occur at the Lourdes shrine in France. The panel is made up mainly of skeptics who are not Catholic. They have documents many cases of miracles medical in nature. Then, there are the countless miracles attested to in canonization proceedings and whose records are open to the public at the Holy See, or in the diocese in which the process occurred. Then, there are those miracles which are perpetual, such as Saint Januarius (however, this is disputed), or the incorruptibles, or the Eucharistic miracles. These and many others give good reason to accept Roman Catholicism's claims for divine institution.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: They are

StMichael wrote:
They are quite more than unsubstantiated heresay. Also, the miracles continually happening in the Catholic Church are likewise proof of the same divine charism.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

HOW are they more than unsubstantiated hearsay? you have seen them yourself? you have tested them and found them to be truly supernatural miracles? you have been able to prove their source once you have established they are indeed supernatural? show me how you aren't basing your entire life on unsubstantiated hearsay.

Rill


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: First,

StMichael wrote:
First, miracles do not boil down to people with agendas. For example, any miracle in canonization hearings must be attested to by non-Catholic scientists/doctors. There are a great deal of checks and balances to eliminate interference of that sort.

Can you cite one doctor who has presented a miracle claim to a peer reviewed medical journal?

If not, how can you claim that any medical doctor has ever witnessed a miracle event? How could they 1) affirm a miracle and 2) yet not even bother to publish their findings?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I think

StMichael wrote:

I think you misunderstand my arguments. But I think that what I say will not do any good, as it seems you already have your mind made up about things. The point of difference between such Catholic articles of faith and your examples is simple and can be reduced to a dichotomy: blind faith versus reasonable faith.

there is no such dichotomy. there is no such thing as "reasonable faith." it is an oxymoron. faith by its very nature is irrational. you cannot have rational irrationality.

Quote:
Blind faith is believing a proposition contrary to reason or without any reason at all. Reasonable faith relies on probable reasons to support the certainty of its propositions. So, for example, I believe the moon not to be made of green cheese because I trust scientists who know more than I do about using light and telescopy to prove this with light wavelengths as well as astronauts who have been there. It is a reasonable belief.

this example is fatally flawed, because it is not an example of FAITH. scientists base their conclusions about the composition of the moon on evidence. faith (by definition) provides no such evidence.

Quote:
Religious belief is of the same species, but slightly different in some ways. I believe that Christ was God because He performed miracles to substantiate His claim. Likewise, His Church continues to perform miracles to substantiate its claim to be from God. These establish a probable foundation for belief. But if we accept this, the belief becomes more than probable; it rather is more certain than any other knowledge because it derives not from a more or less credible human authority, but from God Himself, who is the highest authority.

If you continue merely to assert that such faith is just absurd without reason, I will have to discontinue my conversation.

but it is absurd and without reason. all faith is without reason. no matter how much you justify your faith to yourself, it will never be reasonable.

Rill


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Juvenile Narcissist

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
StMichael wrote:

I think you misunderstand my arguments. But I think that what I say will not do any good, as it seems you already have your mind made up about things. The point of difference between such Catholic articles of faith and your examples is simple and can be reduced to a dichotomy: blind faith versus reasonable faith.

there is no such dichotomy. there is no such thing as "reasonable faith." it is an oxymoron. faith by its very nature is irrational. you cannot have rational irrationality.

He's had this error pointed out to him ad nauseum. He's utterly incapable of recognizing the error, let alone correcting it.

I've even cited his own bible for him, but he just rationalizes it away.

Theistic faith is unjustified belief... if you have justifications for your belief, you can't hold to your belief without justification!

Quote:
Blind faith is believing a proposition contrary to reason or without any reason at all. Reasonable faith relies on probable reasons to support the certainty of its propositions. So, for example, I believe the moon not to be made of green cheese because I trust scientists who know more than I do about using light and telescopy to prove this with light wavelengths as well as astronauts who have been there. It is a reasonable belief.

Quote:

this example is fatally flawed, because it is not an example of FAITH. scientists base their conclusions about the composition of the moon on evidence. faith (by definition) provides no such evidence.

Again, new post for him, same error. He conflates theistic faith with colloquial usages of the term faith that equate faith with trust or exerperience. Probabilty is induction, not faith!

What a blunder!

The theologian cannot rely on these colloquial usages, for he cannot have experience of the supernatural by definition. If he had an inductive basis for his claim, then his claim would fall under the perview of science....

The theologian an only take it on unjustified belief that his natural experiences point to their very antithesis: a realm beyond nature.

A real theology student would know this.

Quote:
Religious belief is of the same species, but slightly different in some ways. I believe that Christ was God because He performed miracles to substantiate His claim. Likewise, His Church continues to perform miracles to substantiate its claim to be from God. These establish a probable foundation for belief. But if we accept this, the belief becomes more than probable; it rather is more certain than any other knowledge because it derives not from a more or less credible human authority, but from God Himself, who is the highest authority.

If you continue merely to assert that such faith is just absurd without reason, I will have to discontinue my conversation.

Quote:

but it is absurd and without reason. all faith is without reason. no matter how much you justify your faith to yourself, it will never be reasonable.

Quite. If Mike can't work out that theistic faith is necessarily unjustified belief, and that, in fact, it must be this way for the theist, (for there can be no grounds for belief in something beyond nature, by definition) then there's little hope in continuing a fruitful discussion with him.

In fact, the very fact that theists are so prone to claiming that their faith is 'reasoned faith' just demonstrates that they are too embarrassed to concede that faith is unjustified belief...... why even combine 'faith' with the word 'reason' in the first place? What 'does' faith add, if you have reasons for your belief?! What does he even think 'faith' means?

Notice you'll never get a straight answer on that from Mike - well, you'll get one rather odd response: he has conceded that 'faith' begins by assuming god's existence (!), but he insists that's not
"properly" begging the question..... so in other words, I don't even think he can follow his own line of reasoning, let alone yours...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1216
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Well! Looks like Brian went

Well! Looks like Brian went a little postal in this thread, but I'll admit I find it quite entertaining LOL! Michael & I are currently on the topic of miracles here, feel free to join us. But really quick, rergarding your distinction between "blind faith" and "reasonable faith": You illuminate this dichotomy by the moon of green cheese example. The thing about the green cheese moon belief is that it is falsifiable. There exists a means for determining whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. Yet you yourself acknowledge that the virgin birth and resurrection are not falsifiable. Of course, you cannot permit them to be falsifiable, because, then the god who authored them would be falsifiable, and the whole artifice would come crashing asunder. Therefore, not reasonable faith.

Yarn is correct - you have remained polite. So far, my patience has matched yours...let's see if it lasts.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Quite. If

todangst wrote:

Quite. If Mike can't work out that theistic faith is necessarily unjustified belief, and that, in fact, it must be this way for the theist, (for there can be no grounds for belief in something beyond nature, by definition) then there's little hope in continuing a fruitful discussion with him.

In fact, the very fact that theists are so prone to claiming that their faith is 'reasoned faith' just demonstrates that they are too embarrassed to concede that faith is unjustified belief...... why even combine 'faith' with the word 'reason' in the first place?

Notice you'll never get a straight answer on that from Mike.

not sure why christians should be embarrassed. their own text holds unjustified belief to be a virtue. i've often asked christians why they simply don't admit their faith to be so because of this. and i've never gotten an answer. apparently reason has left its indelible mark on them if they can be embarrassed by a "virtue."

Rill


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Ninth, the

StMichael wrote:
Ninth, the criticism of the incorruptibles given in the other room was rather unsubstantiated in its claims. I point out that many such incorruptibles exist and merely one being discounted is not proof against the rest. Further, the miracle is the lack of decay affecting the bodies, and often the scents arising from them, as well as miracles that occur at their tombs (some have been known to move or levitate, for example); dessication occurs in some of the incorruptibles, but not all.

Unsubstantiated?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0895550660/roberttoddcarrolA/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0879758406/roberttoddcarrolA/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0786404922/roberttoddcarrolA/

Those are three of the four books cited on the main page itself. Follow any of the links, and you'll find even more. While I back up my claims with the opinions of people who obviously know more about this than I do, you simply decree things; you declare my evidence unsubstantiated, yet you have provided no such link of any kind, not even an unsubstantiated one, let alone one which cites many sources.

Further, the fact that one incorruptable *can* be disproven is plenty of evidence to suggest that they all *could* be. You're of the opinion that no scientist will ever come up with a real answer, you conceded the point already, you just don't know it yet.

More than that, it doesn't matter that this or that particular body can be shown or proven to have been preserved. What matters far more is that you don't *only* find these "incorruptibles" amongst christianity. IF you look, you will find them in roughly equal proportion everywhere. But ONLY if you seek to find them in other places. If you seek to convince yourself that it's all saints and other christian folk, and thus this is proof of god, you'll succeed; but only in convincing yourself.

StMichael wrote:

Eleventh, I would point to, for example, the Lourdes International Medical Committee, which records voluminously the miracles that occur at the Lourdes shrine in France. The panel is made up mainly of skeptics who are not Catholic. They have documents many cases of miracles medical in nature. Then, there are the countless miracles attested to in canonization proceedings and whose records are open to the public at the Holy See, or in the diocese in which the process occurred. Then, there are those miracles which are perpetual, such as Saint Januarius (however, this is disputed), or the incorruptibles, or the Eucharistic miracles. These and many others give good reason to accept Roman Catholicism's claims for divine institution.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Are you of the opinion that this is some sort of warm-up period? That the "real" debate is coming later or something like that? Because if not, why say " I would point to...", and not actually point there. You've said a whole lot of stuff in this paragraph, but NONE of it matters because you haven't provided me with one iota of proof in your favor. The fact that you seem unable to do so places me in such a position as to think you a liar on the face of it. You probably don't know any of that for sure, even if any of it is true, you're just repeating what you heard from someone else.

If you read that in a book, WHICH book? If on an official website, provide a link. It's not hard, I've done it several times already. Or maybe you don't understand how I've done it, and it's a miracle?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Juvenile Narcissist

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
todangst wrote:

Quite. If Mike can't work out that theistic faith is necessarily unjustified belief, and that, in fact, it must be this way for the theist, (for there can be no grounds for belief in something beyond nature, by definition) then there's little hope in continuing a fruitful discussion with him.

In fact, the very fact that theists are so prone to claiming that their faith is 'reasoned faith' just demonstrates that they are too embarrassed to concede that faith is unjustified belief...... why even combine 'faith' with the word 'reason' in the first place?

Notice you'll never get a straight answer on that from Mike.

not sure why christians should be embarrassed. their own text holds unjustified belief to be a virtue.


Yet they ARE embarrassed to concede that faith is unjustified belief... you'll often meet a theist who says "I don't believe, I know!"

Quote:

i've often asked christians why they simply don't admit their faith to be so because of this. and i've never gotten an answer. apparently reason has left its indelible mark on them if they can be embarrassed by a "virtue."

Yes. Quite!

What I also enjoy is the fact that one of the most common theist attacks on atheism is that atheism is a faith! Tells you all you need to know about what they really think about faith.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: . Yet

zarathustra wrote:
. Yet you yourself acknowledge that the virgin birth and resurrection are not falsifiable. Of course, you cannot permit them to be falsifiable, because, then the god who authored them would be falsifiable, and the whole artifice would come crashing asunder. Therefore, not reasonable faith.

Another fine point, if one is still needed, to affirm that theological faith is unjustified belief, and that attempts to conflate theistic faith with colloquial usages of 'faith' is nothing more than a fallacy of equivocation.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: Are you of

Spewn wrote:

Are you of the opinion that this is some sort of warm-up period? That the "real" debate is coming later or something like that?

If so, the warm up period began with his first post, and continues to this very minute.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Fourth, we

StMichael wrote:
Fourth, we of course have no way of replicating any claims about Our Lord's virgin birth or resurrection in any meaningful way because it is a miracle. We do, however, have numerous accounts of saints throughout history who raised the dead to life, which I believe counts as a replication of resurrection (not like Our Lord, but still a miracle).

Sorry, I should have put this in my previous reply, but I thought of it late. We have accounts, sure, but that's not the same as proof. There are accounts of all of the pagan gods doing all kinds of things. Does that make them true on the face of it? Someone said it, it must be true! The fact that they've been repeated throughout the ages just indicates people are no less gullible now than they were years ago.

Again, you've failed to provide any actual information to read aside from what you yourself have written. I do not believe every word you say as a matter of principle(don't take it personally, nobody holds that accord in my life, nobody ever will), so why would you think it sufficient to simply bang away on the keyboard and press the "submit" button without providing me with actual information? You telling me that "We do, however, have numerous accounts of saints throughout history who raised the dead to life" doesn't actually provide me with these accounts. If you want me to believe them, I'll actually have to read them first. You really, really, really need to learn how to start citing your sources.

It's impossible to respond to what you're saying because I can't gather any information about it, and you do nothing to provide me with any clue as to what specifically you're talking about. Instead all I can do is respond to the nature of your argument itself. What you've actually argued has become less important than how you've gone about arguing it. You're out of the realm where evidence matters anymore; You say things like "No such test is possible because such was utterly beyond human capacity; it was a miracle, which by definition can only be performed by God" on the matter of determining whether something is a miracle or not. The problem with that statement is it assumes one knows everything there is to know about science. Doctors today who "raise" people from the "dead", are they working miracles? No. They are using science to do what someone without knowledge of such capability might otherwise call a miracle. Am I suggesting someone paddle-shocked Jesus from the grave? No, mainly because I know that no such technology existed at the time, but partly because I don't believe he ever rose from the grave anyways. What I'm saying is that just because you now determine something to be "beyond the realm of science" and therefore determine that the act "can only be performed by God", doesn't meant it is, it only means that you lack the knowledge to understand how it could be done without a god.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Yet they

todangst wrote:

Yet they ARE embarrassed to concede that faith is unjustified belief... you'll often meet a theist who says "I don't believe, I know!"

ah, yes, i'm quite familiar with that one. my mom uses it. i try to explain to her that her faith isn't based on reason, and her response is usually something like, "why are you so angry at god?"

Quote:
Yes. Quite!

What I also enjoy is the fact that one of the most common theist attacks on atheism is that atheism is a faith! Tells you all you need to know about what they really think about faith.

yep. how flattering to faith to be used as an insult.

Rill


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, the miracles that are

First, the miracles that are constantly being manifested within the Catholic Church are not unsubstantiated heresay. That would imply that one heard the event through another with no evidence to support that a miracle occurred. However, we have great grounds to believe that these things occurred, as miracles in the Catholic Church are recorded in cases of canonization hearings with mounds of evidence, miracles at shrines are documented by the shrines themselves (such as the standing International Lourdes Medical Committee), miracles are attested to by the scientists themselves who investigate the miracles in independent studies, ect. The amount of evidence alone indicates something clearly other than unsubstantiated heresay. You might claim that all of it is false, but it is neither unsubstantiated nor heresay.

Second, todangst, you have still yet to provide me with a single reason why colloquial faith is being improperly applied to religious faith. You have no grounds to claim that it is incorrect. The history of theology clearly has been using that definition since its inception, and, frankly, its our term and you can't impose whatever meaning you like on what we believe. You can claim, for instance, not to believe in the Mass and to criticize our belief, but you can't define what transubstantiation is. It is a great big non sequitur.

Third, I have cited medical doctors who published their findings in medical journals. One of the more recent ones I previously cited was in the October 2000 Hawaiian Medical Journal, which involved a case being presented in the canonization hearings of Fr. Damien (who was a priest who worked with lepers in Hawaii). Further, all cases of canonization in the Catholic Church must be exhaustively verified and documented by professionals, preferrably non-Catholics.

Fourth, when todangst claims that

Quote:

The theologian cannot rely on these colloquial usages, for he cannot have experience of the supernatural by definition. If he had an inductive basis for his claim, then his claim would fall under the perview of science....

he is very wrong. Read, for instance, the Council of Trent, or the First Vatican Council. This definition of faith is explicitly repudiated by the Catholic Church. And what I believe is what matters, not what todangst wants me to believe. The discussion is about my beliefs, not about the beliefs todangst has about theology, as I have pointed out before.

Quote:

The theologian an only take it on unjustified belief that his natural experiences point to their very antithesis: a realm beyond nature.

And, of course, the natural is related to the supernatural as effect to cause. Therefore, meaningful propositions are clearly applicable. Read Boethius, Anselm, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory, or Aquinas - via eminentia or Aquinas' doctrine of analogy. Further, even the via negativa can establish something about God that is true of Him.

Fifth, I never claimed that faith assumes God's existence. Faith has God's existence as a preamble, which means that faith reveals something about God's existence that is naturally knowable. In this way, faith "assumes" something that can be proven naturally. God chose to reveal His existence, even though we could know it naturally, to allow people to know that He exists with certainty, where if He had not, people would only have discovered it after a long time and with much admixture of error.

Sixth, you say,

Quote:

The thing about the green cheese moon belief is that it is falsifiable. Yet you yourself acknowledge that the virgin birth and resurrection are not falsifiable. Of course, you cannot permit them to be falsifiable, because, then the god who authored them would be falsifiable, and the whole artifice would come crashing asunder. Therefore, not reasonable faith.

If you cannot experience the moon directly, you have no truly empirical knowledge that the moon is really not made of cheese. This is faith, regardless of whether it is rational or not. While you use the word "falsifiable," I think that a loaded word. It might be better to call it, "able to be proven." While the moon is able to be experienced, it is not a logically demonstrable necessity, as is the fact that something cannot both be and not be in the same respect. It is probable knowledge; it is reasonable probable knowledge, however. The discovery of faith and the movement to accept it occurs by means of probable proofs for the authority of the one revealing. So, for example, we hear Christ say, "Your sins are forgiven." Then, we say, "How can a man forgive sins; only God can do this." Then, Christ answers, "Which is easier to say, 'rise and walk' or 'your sins are forgiven you'?" He then heals a man. Thus, we have a reasonable faith in His authority as God. The existence of God, as I repeatedly point out, is a logically demonstrable fact that can be known with certainty. However, the articles of faith, such as the virgin birth of Christ or His resurrection on the third day, are supported by these variety of probable arguments from His authority and the authority of the Church. When we accept their authority, however, these articles gain an infinite certitude because the one revealing these things is God, who has infinite trustworthiness, even beyond natural certainty.

Seventh, Scripture holds that faith is not unjustified, as you claim, but rationally justified. Thus, Saint Peter can say, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." Or, for example, the many instances of such phrases as the one on my signature.

Eighth, I would point out that those books you cited against the Incorruptibles, namely the book by Cruz, is actually in favor of them and contains citations of the medical documents which support their claims to authenticity.

Ninth, there have been disputed incorruptibles, like Saint Francis Xavier and the like. But many others have never been so disputed and their particular mode of incorruption defies medical science.

Tenth, whereas there have been various types of incorruptiblity in various cultures (NOT with equal frequency to Catholic saints, I may add), the Catholic saints who are incorrupt notioriously so in the face of extraordinary circumstances where they were buried in situations where bodies rotted all around them, and they alone were left incorrupt, or where their lack of decay was not naturally explainable. There are cases of natural incorruption where one is frozen, or falls into a peat bog, or is placed in a specific type of catacomb under the right conditions, but the miracle is that the incorruptibles have not been in these conditions. Rather, they have been found in adverse conditions which cause corruption and have not been embalmed. Hence, the miracle.

Eleventh, so why doesn't the Lourdes commission matter? I post a link to their website at the shrine's: http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=491#.
I would encourage reading a list of the cures which were approved by the Church, as well as the methodology by which they decide to call a cure miraculous. You can read the recent decisions and minutes of the International Medical Committee, as well as the credentials of the chair (who happens to be a member of the French Academy of Medicine).

I think that is enough for now. I am sure there is plenty here to discuss Smiling

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

PS - Happy Solemnity of the Presentation of Our Lord (Candlemas)!

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: First, the

StMichael wrote:
First, the miracles that are constantly being manifested within the Catholic Church are not unsubstantiated heresay. That would imply that one heard the event through another with no evidence to support that a miracle occurred. However, we have great grounds to believe that these things occurred, as miracles in the Catholic Church are recorded in cases of canonization hearings with mounds of evidence, miracles at shrines are documented by the shrines themselves (such as the standing International Lourdes Medical Committee), miracles are attested to by the scientists themselves who investigate the miracles in independent studies, ect. The amount of evidence alone indicates something clearly other than unsubstantiated heresay. You might claim that all of it is false, but it is neither unsubstantiated nor heresay. Second, todangst, you have still yet to provide me with a single reason why colloquial faith is being improperly applied to religious faith. You have no grounds to claim that it is incorrect. The history of theology clearly has been using that definition since its inception, and, frankly, its our term and you can't impose whatever meaning you like on what we believe. You can claim, for instance, not to believe in the Mass and to criticize our belief, but you can't define what transubstantiation is. It is a great big non sequitur. Third, I have cited medical doctors who published their findings in medical journals. One of the more recent ones I previously cited was in the October 2000 Hawaiian Medical Journal, which involved a case being presented in the canonization hearings of Fr. Damien (who was a priest who worked with lepers in Hawaii). Further, all cases of canonization in the Catholic Church must be exhaustively verified and documented by professionals, preferrably non-Catholics. Fourth, when todangst claims that
Quote:
The theologian cannot rely on these colloquial usages, for he cannot have experience of the supernatural by definition. If he had an inductive basis for his claim, then his claim would fall under the perview of science....
he is very wrong. Read, for instance, the Council of Trent, or the First Vatican Council. This definition of faith is explicitly repudiated by the Catholic Church. And what I believe is what matters, not what todangst wants me to believe. The discussion is about my beliefs, not about the beliefs todangst has about theology, as I have pointed out before.
Quote:
The theologian an only take it on unjustified belief that his natural experiences point to their very antithesis: a realm beyond nature.
And, of course, the natural is related to the supernatural as effect to cause. Therefore, meaningful propositions are clearly applicable. Read Boethius, Anselm, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory, or Aquinas - via eminentia or Aquinas' doctrine of analogy. Further, even the via negativa can establish something about God that is true of Him. Fifth, I never claimed that faith assumes God's existence. Faith has God's existence as a preamble, which means that faith reveals something about God's existence that is naturally knowable. In this way, faith "assumes" something that can be proven naturally. God chose to reveal His existence, even though we could know it naturally, to allow people to know that He exists with certainty, where if He had not, people would only have discovered it after a long time and with much admixture of error. Sixth, you say,
Quote:
The thing about the green cheese moon belief is that it is falsifiable. Yet you yourself acknowledge that the virgin birth and resurrection are not falsifiable. Of course, you cannot permit them to be falsifiable, because, then the god who authored them would be falsifiable, and the whole artifice would come crashing asunder. Therefore, not reasonable faith.
If you cannot experience the moon directly, you have no truly empirical knowledge that the moon is really not made of cheese. This is faith, regardless of whether it is rational or not. While you use the word "falsifiable," I think that a loaded word. It might be better to call it, "able to be proven." While the moon is able to be experienced, it is not a logically demonstrable necessity, as is the fact that something cannot both be and not be in the same respect. It is probable knowledge; it is reasonable probable knowledge, however. The discovery of faith and the movement to accept it occurs by means of probable proofs for the authority of the one revealing. So, for example, we hear Christ say, "Your sins are forgiven." Then, we say, "How can a man forgive sins; only God can do this." Then, Christ answers, "Which is easier to say, 'rise and walk' or 'your sins are forgiven you'?" He then heals a man. Thus, we have a reasonable faith in His authority as God. The existence of God, as I repeatedly point out, is a logically demonstrable fact that can be known with certainty. However, the articles of faith, such as the virgin birth of Christ or His resurrection on the third day, are supported by these variety of probable arguments from His authority and the authority of the Church. When we accept their authority, however, these articles gain an infinite certitude because the one revealing these things is God, who has infinite trustworthiness, even beyond natural certainty. Seventh, Scripture holds that faith is not unjustified, as you claim, but rationally justified. Thus, Saint Peter can say, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." Or, for example, the many instances of such phrases as the one on my signature. Eighth, I would point out that those books you cited against the Incorruptibles, namely the book by Cruz, is actually in favor of them and contains citations of the medical documents which support their claims to authenticity. Ninth, there have been disputed incorruptibles, like Saint Francis Xavier and the like. But many others have never been so disputed and their particular mode of incorruption defies medical science. Tenth, whereas there have been various types of incorruptiblity in various cultures (NOT with equal frequency to Catholic saints, I may add), the Catholic saints who are incorrupt notioriously so in the face of extraordinary circumstances where they were buried in situations where bodies rotted all around them, and they alone were left incorrupt, or where their lack of decay was not naturally explainable. There are cases of natural incorruption where one is frozen, or falls into a peat bog, or is placed in a specific type of catacomb under the right conditions, but the miracle is that the incorruptibles have not been in these conditions. Rather, they have been found in adverse conditions which cause corruption and have not been embalmed. Hence, the miracle. Eleventh, so why doesn't the Lourdes commission matter? I post a link to their website at the shrine's: http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=491#. I would encourage reading a list of the cures which were approved by the Church, as well as the methodology by which they decide to call a cure miraculous. You can read the recent decisions and minutes of the International Medical Committee, as well as the credentials of the chair (who happens to be a member of the French Academy of Medicine). I think that is enough for now. I am sure there is plenty here to discuss Smiling Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael PS - Happy Solemnity of the Presentation of Our Lord (Candlemas)!

Hello McFly.....Anyone there?

This thread was adressing the spacific issues of HOW a "spirit" can get a girl pregnant and how a human can survive rigor mortis.

THATS ALL THIS THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT,

Yet you drone on and on and on about what amounts to Star Trec fans fawning over Captain Kirk while speaking Klingon.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:  

StMichael wrote:
  Fourth, when todangst claims that
Quote:
The theologian cannot rely on these colloquial usages, for he cannot have experience of the supernatural by definition. If he had an inductive basis for his claim, then his claim would fall under the perview of science....
he is very wrong.

Naked assertions are of no value in rational discourse.

If you have a reason for your belief, why even use the word 'faith'? at all?

Recall in our past encouters where I pointed out to you that faith is simply unjustified belief, and you responded by conceding that theistic faith begins with an assumption.

You refuted yourself here. Your failure to acknowledge this is not a refutation.  All you could do was say 'well, it's an assumption, but it's not properly begging the question."  But assuming what you seek to prove IS properly begging the question.

QED 

 

Quote:

Read, for instance, the Council of Trent, or the First Vatican Council. This definition of faith is explicitly repudiated by the Catholic Church. And what I believe is what matters, not what todangst wants me to believe. 

In other words, no matter what argument I give you, you'll just naysay it, and hold to what you want to believe.

Thanks for the honesty. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, sir, if you want me to

Well, sir, if you want me to not respond to others, YOU tell them to be quiet and you ask the moderators to move them. Otherwise, you and others will see it as being unable to answer their questions and I will be damned if I do and damned if I don't.
As for your original question, however, I see no further talking about it. I have since pointed out that there is no way to repeat in an labratory condition the virgin birth or resurrection precisely because they are miracles of God, and hence not repeatable in an ordinary manner. If you want me to explain how God did such things, I can likewise offer no explanation, because there is no human method. He caused the instantaneous fertilization of an egg in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and likewise instantaneously resurrected Christ's dead body, recreating it of the matter of the resurrection. Such an action is beyond human power and unexplainable outside of God's intervention. We can know that it did happen by proof of faith, relying on God's authority as revealing that it did happen (as per His miracles which substantiate His authority), but we still cannot explain how it happened. If you want me to say how it happened, other than because God miraculously interevened, I have nothing more to say.

Quote:

Naked assertions are of no value in rational discourse.

If you have a reason for your belief, why even use the word 'faith'? at all?

Reason is not incompatible with faith. You are using differently meaning terms univocally. Reason as opposed to faith has a different meaning from "reasons" in the sense of a "why." Reason in the first sense denotes the natural human ability to know from naturally known precepts. The second sense of reasons merely indicates the "why" somebody holds a particular belief. I point out Christans have always held that the second is requisite in faith. Saint Peter in his first letter explicitly says that we should always be ready with reasons for our belief. Likewise, Saint Augustine famously remarked that "no one believes in something without finding it worthy of belief."

Quote:

Recall in our past encouters where I pointed out to you that faith is simply unjustified belief, and you responded by conceding that theistic faith begins with an assumption.

No, I did not. What I said was that faith "presumes" certain things which natural reason already knows which is far different from saying that it assumes things unjustifiedly. So, for example, faith in a certain sense presumes that the human soul exists, because faith says that it is immortal. Or, in another way, that truth in human knowledge is possible, as it clearly proposes truths for human beings to accept. But these are not things properly "assumed," as in fact faith itself likewise confirms the truth of these things which can be known naturally. So, for example, though we can know that God exists naturally speaking, faith likewise proposes that we accept that God exists in order to prevent the error that inevitably comes into human reasoning. Then, as we see, faith both "presumes" and "confirms" what reason can naturally know.

Quote:

You refuted yourself here. Your failure to acknowledge this is not a refutation. All you could do was say 'well, it's an assumption, but it's not properly begging the question." But assuming what you seek to prove IS properly begging the question.

I never said that faith presumed what it intended to prove (assumed its conclusions in its premises). That it does not do. Only if it did so would it beg the question.

Quote:

In other words, no matter what argument I give you, you'll just naysay it, and hold to what you want to believe.

If, of course, you offered an argument, I would listen to it. However, redefining a term that I hold according to your preconceptions is not an argument. I am the one that claims to have faith and believe it is rational, not you. If we are discussing whether faith is rational or not, it is my term that we must use. Or, for example, I could then critique your view of science by saying that "science" is "to believe that the world was 200 years old" (which, to make perfectly clear, I think is ridiculous). This of course you would object to. However, then you must be irrational because you don't accept my definition. Hence, all your arguments are irrational because you don't accept my defintion.
If we are going to criticize a viewpoint, we must first accept what the viewpoint is (not to accept the view as true) and then proceed to criticize what it claims. Otherwise, we are merely arguing against ourselves.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I have since pointed out that there is no way to repeat in an labratory

BINGO!

Neither the birth or death of the supposed Jesus character can be replicated or falsified.

You are right, you admit to not having evidence. So why are your here at this site?

I suppose for the same reason I've heard Muslim apoligists try to convince me that the Quran proved that Allah gave them plate techonics.

HERE IS THE BOTTEM LINE,

Like you said, you have no evidence for those claims nor any other fantastic claim in the bible.

You, like Jews and Muslims, merely like what you believe.

But isn't it amazing that you can teach cell division to a Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Hindu student sitting right next to each other IN A LAB!

I find it funny that you burry your admission in the middle of a extreemly long post. It is as if you know I'll read but hope others wont see your admission.

But, like you said, and this is the one thing we do agree on. There is no need to go on because you admited you had no evidence.

Maybe you should examine your own claims. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: BINGO! Neither the

Quote:
BINGO!

Neither the birth or death of the supposed Jesus character can be replicated or falsified.

You are right, you admit to not having evidence. So why are your here at this site?

[...]

Like you said, you have no evidence for those claims nor any other fantastic claim in the bible.

You, like Jews and Muslims, merely like what you believe.

I really wish you had read that post. I never claimed that it was just because of personal preference that I believe something. I cannot replicate the virgin birth, but that does not make it irrational. I cannot go to Pluto and verify that it is not purple Brugge cheese, but I can very probably conclude that such is the case. I do not accept it just because I "like" it. I accept it because it is supported by external evidence of authority in the person revealing. This is what I meant when I said that the miracles of Christ and His Church support their belief in things which we cannot see. So, for example, if Christ shows Himself God by His miracles, I have a good claim from this to say that I ought to believe it when He says that God is Three Persons and One God. The faith is clearly grounded in reasons why I believe in what the Church proposes for my belief.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
BINGO! Neither the birth or death of the supposed Jesus character can be replicated or falsified. You are right, you admit to not having evidence. So why are your here at this site? [...] Like you said, you have no evidence for those claims nor any other fantastic claim in the bible. You, like Jews and Muslims, merely like what you believe.
I really wish you had read that post. I never claimed that it was just because of personal preference that I believe something. I cannot replicate the virgin birth, but that does not make it irrational. I cannot go to Pluto and verify that it is not purple Brugge cheese, but I can very probably conclude that such is the case. I do not accept it just because I "like" it. I accept it because it is supported by external evidence of authority in the person revealing. This is what I meant when I said that the miracles of Christ and His Church support their belief in things which we cannot see. So, for example, if Christ shows Himself God by His miracles, I have a good claim from this to say that I ought to believe it when He says that God is Three Persons and One God. The faith is clearly grounded in reasons why I believe in what the Church proposes for my belief. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Quote:
I really wish you had read that post. I never claimed that it was just because of personal preference that I believe something. I cannot replicate the virgin birth, but that does not make it irrational.

I know I you wernt claiming it was personal preferance. I AM TELLING YOU, you have been dupped into wanting to believe it, so now that you do, the mental gymnastics kick in your brain to justify it. I never said that you were aware that you were doing that to yourself.

You cannot repicate the virgin birth anymore than a Hindu can replicate Vishnu anymore than I could fart a lamborginni out of my ass.

You have no evidence, you admited to it. Again, maybe you need to examine exactly what it is you believe. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
OK, if I am duped into

OK, if I am duped into believing it, I obviously do not think I am being duped. Why don't you help my unbelief and elaborate a little?
Further, I hold very clearly to the fact that while these events are not repeatable in labratory conditions (of course, I believe God can do these things whenever He wishes even though He doesn't do so). Why is the fact that it is not repeatable a reason why it cannot be? It is impossible to repeat the invasion of Normandy in 1944, but I have no doubt that it happened.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1216
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: OK, if I

StMichael wrote:
OK, if I am duped into believing it, I obviously do not think I am being duped. Why don't you help my unbelief and elaborate a little? Further, I hold very clearly to the fact that while these events are not repeatable in labratory conditions (of course, I believe God can do these things whenever He wishes even though He doesn't do so). Why is the fact that it is not repeatable a reason why it cannot be? It is impossible to repeat the invasion of Normandy in 1944, but I have no doubt that it happened.

We have dead bodies buried in Normandy.  We have shell casings.  We have multiple, independent accounts of it happening.  It is not an article of faith.  It is not something that only catholics or scientologists believe, while hindus and muslims deny, and agnostics are just unsure of.  And no detail of the invasion of Normandy is not hailed as a miraculous event, much less evidence for some old man in the sky who really wishes we would believe in him.   

AND...

It would take only one shred of evidence to raise the notion that the entire invasion was a hoax, and historically inaccurate.   What evidence would you accept to disprove the virgin birth? 

Start the tape... 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I might be willing to let

I might be willing to let go of your unusual uses of the words "reason," "faith," etc, but not what they mean in context.  So fine, you have reason for your faith.  While I still agree with todangst and others that you (and the Catholic Church, apparently) are changing the uses of the words unjustifiably, I'm willing to overlook it to get to the point.

 Your reasons for believing are insufficient for me.  And I cannot envision how I could see them otherwise.  You say you believe because the source is trustworthy.  I disagree.  i don't see anything at all about the Bible that makes it more authoritative than any other holy text, thus the claims within are not acceptable to me.  

And since the only source of information I have about Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and the Christian/Jewisg concept of God (YHWH)ultimately come from the canonical Bible and the other scriptures from the same time period--none of which I take as authoritative in terms of ontology, metaphysics, physics, cosmology, biology, or even particularly good philosophically (although I like some of Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and some others)--so if I don't consider the collection of books to be authoritative, I cannot take the writers or characters as authoritative.

 If they are not authoritative, then they are not even potentially trust-worthy.  Thus, you say that you have your reasons based on trust in the persons involved, I say that they are not trustworthy--or at ;east that I see no reason to see them as such.

This thing about special pleading is involved here too.  By giving special treatement to your beloved Bible, you must show why the Bible is more authoritative.  

I'm sure you, StMichael, have addressed this before, but I don't remember, and I'm up for a laugh anyway.

 But if you seriously do have an argument, I'm listening.  Like I've said many times; If there is a god (or gods), I really want to know.

 Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
You do accept, however, on

You do accept, however, on faith that the invasion of Normandy happened. It is good and probable knowledge, but it is still probable. Somebody could have planted the shell casings. Somebody could have falsified every document on the face of the planet. It could have been a mass hallucination. People have problems accepting that the Holocaust happens and we have equally clear evidence that this occurred. So, no, I don't think it far off to place reasonable faith in Christ's and His Church's doctrines. We have multiple and independent accounts of miracles both by Christ and by His saints that substantiate His divinity and the divine character of His doctrines. Thus, I find it perfectly rational to place belief in this.

Of course, the knowledge of religious faith goes beyond this because, upon accepting God's authority, such objects of belief gain infinite certitude.

However, an evidence to the contrary of Normandy could easily be found, but it would not invalidate the probable belief entirely. For example, I could find a mad Frenchman who was cackling and planting shells in the sand of Normany, perfectly aged and so forth. This would not, however, make me doubt that Normandy happened. It might in some small sense make it less probable, but I still find said belief reasonable. I likewise see no reason to lack reason to believe in Christ's divinity and His Church's divine origin due to the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of substantiating evidence in the form of miracles which have happened, currently happen, and will happen in the future, within the Church. Even if I found a mad monk who forged a couple of miracle stories in the Middle Ages, I think the overwhelming and (just for fun, I'll bold it) multiple, independent accounts of them happening substantiates my belief.

So there you have it.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1216
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
You do accept, however, on faith that the invasion of Normandy happened. It is good and probable knowledge, but it is still probable. Somebody could have planted the shell casings....People have problems accepting that the Holocaust happens and we have equally clear evidence that this occurred. So, no, I don't think it far off to place reasonable faith in Christ's and His Church's doctrines...

Even those who would deny the invasion of Normandy, or the Holocaust would not say they were denying a miracle. Even if you think either event is historically innaccurate, neither requires a suspension of basic logic to accept. It is not illogical to believe that soldiers storming a beach under heavy fire would result in lots of corpses and shell casings, whether you believed it happened or not. Even if one doesn't think 11 million people were actually exterminated (despite evidence), he would not think it required a miracle to do so. In the time spanning the 1930s and 1940s, there existed the means to exterminate millions of people, whether or not you think it was done. Whether or not you accept the evidence for these events, no extraordinary proof is required to believe that either event was possible. We do not need to posit a divine being who intervened to make either event possible. Yet to think that a female member of Homo sapiens became pregnant and delivered a child with no contribution of sperm from a male member of Homo sapiens taxes not only probability but also possibility. By your own admission, it requires a god acting from above to make it so. Even if we had Mary's placenta, the umbilical chord and jesus' foreskin sitting in the Pope's fridge like holy relics as evidence, we would still have to believe in your church's Horny Spirit to believe that a virgin birth took place.

Yes, the windfall of evidence for either modern event could be an entire fabrication. New evidence of a mad frenchman planting casings and corpses on the beach would indeed challenge Normandy's historicity. New evidence of Germanophobes creating fake mass graves, fake gas chambers, fake birth records, and fake accounts of gold and jewelry in Swiss banks would indeed challenge the Holocaust's historicity. New evidence could lead to the rewriting of history. And it has. Many times over. I asked you flat on - FLAT ON! - what new evidence would you accept to disprove the truthfulness of the virgin birth. You did not respond. Michael, is there anything that would challenge your belief in the virgin birth ? Not disprove, just challenge, much the same way that a mad frenchman would not disprove, just challenge the invasion of Normandy. I have asked again. Will you respond?

At any rate, get off the comparison to Normandy or the Holocaust. True, either event may false, although countermanding evidence awaits. But if either event did occur, you are grossly insulting those who died therein, all for the sake of defending your illogical belief.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Now we are talking about

Now we are talking about the invasion of France?

You already admited you had no evidence for the virgin birth or death of Jesus. You even said that their was nothing left to talk about, yet now we are talking about the invasion of france.

St. Michael, I have never seen such a lack of focus.

Seems to me you are desperate to cling to this belief so badly that even your admission that you cant replicate or falsify your claims, that you have to resort to distractive tactics.

VIRGIN BIRTH AND DEATH OF JESUS,

Ok, is it that hard for you to focus? 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37, there is no lack of

Brian37, there is no lack of focus. We are talking DIRECTLY about what you want to talk about, which is the evidence we have for belief in those articles of faith, such as the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. Thus, my discussion is not "off focus."

Quote:

Your reasons for believing are insufficient for me. And I cannot envision how I could see them otherwise. You say you believe because the source is trustworthy. I disagree. i don't see anything at all about the Bible that makes it more authoritative than any other holy text, thus the claims within are not acceptable to me.

The Bible is NOT the primary source of what we know about God through revelation. This is true only of Protestants. The Bible forms a substantial portion and can be said in a certain sense to be the source of all doctrine, but not in the sense you mean here. The primary way in which we recieve God's Revelation is through Christ and His Church, Christ Himself being THE Revelation of God. The Church itself is the source from which the Scriptures, Tradition (the passed-on interpretation of the Scriptures), and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) all form one coherent whole in Christ. The source itself is trustworthy because of the miracles that it has displayed since its inception in Christ until the present day.
I would also argue that we can establish the trustworthiness of the Scriptures (at least the New Testament) in a humanly context, without miracles (though miracles would eventually be necessary; in another way of putting it, we can give human reasons for why there is no impediment to belief, negative reasons, but only miracles can provide a positive reason). I would argue that it is clear that the Scriptures are trustworthy as we have them today because we have independent historical evidence that indicates, first, that they are the same today as they were in the time of the Apostles. Thus, the texts themselves are trustworthy. Secondly, the people writing the texts were trustworthy, as these people all died horrible horrendous deaths to support their claims that Jesus Christ was a real man in Palestine who died and rose from the dead and who was really the one God of the Hebrew people. They were under duress at the time to recant their statements which brought them into conflict with both the secular Roman authorities as well as the religious Jewish authorities. If they wanted, even one could have confessed that it was a lie and a fabrication. They were being tortured to do so! However, not one did. Thus, from a human point of view, it seems that the Apostles were clearly telling the truth, or at least had no knowledge that they taught a lie. Thirdly, the secular authorities of the time, while not directly confirming Christ or His life, clearly indicate that men and women existed who knew of Him and believed in His divinity. Fourth, the account of Saint Paul, who testifies that many believers had seen the risen Christ, likewise seems particularly trustworthy in light of the fact that he, like the other apostles, seemed clearly to believe that a man - Christ - died and rose from the dead, and that people had seen Christ after His rising, and Saint Paul went to death for this fact. We can go and examine his tomb (in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside-the-Walls). Fifth, we have the testimonies of those who knew the Apostles, like Saint Polycarp and Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who clearly indicate that the belief of the Apostles themselves (being direct students of the Apostles and writing in the lifetimes likewise of the Apostles) was the one I am claiming of Christ - that He was real man and likewise really God who died and rose again.
Lastly, in addition to the miracles we find performed by the Church in every age, I see clear supernatural proof of Christ and His Church in both the Jewish prophecies of His coming as well as in the independent prophecies of the pagan oracles (and for this reason these are depicted in Catholic churches often as prophets of His coming).

Quote:

And since the only source of information I have about Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and the Christian/Jewisg concept of God (YHWH)ultimately come from the canonical Bible and the other scriptures from the same time period--none of which I take as authoritative in terms of ontology, metaphysics, physics, cosmology, biology, or even particularly good philosophically (although I like some of Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and some others)--so if I don't consider the collection of books to be authoritative, I cannot take the writers or characters as authoritative.

I see no reason to dismiss the Scriptures because they contain no physics or cosmology or biology. They are revealing what is necessary for salvation. God could write a science textbook, but it wouldn't be particularly useful for our salvation. There is, however, nothing in Sacred Scripture that conflicts with science or philosophy. If something appears to, it is clear that such must be mere misinterepretation or misreading (mistranslation, ect.) of the text.

Quote:

But if you seriously do have an argument, I'm listening. Like I've said many times; If there is a god (or gods), I really want to know.

As I have said, while miracles and revelation does obviously support belief in God, it is not necessary to arrive at said knowledge. In fact, such knowledge, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is easily attainable from natural reason and can be known with certainty. Miracles not necessary. We need miracles to prove those things which are beyond reason (hear me, Brian37?) such as the virgin birth of Christ and the perpetual virginity of His Blessed Mother, or the Triune nature of God.

Quote:

Even those who would deny the invasion of Normandy, or the Holocaust would not say they were denying a miracle.

I never claimed that they were denying a miracle. I was merely indicating that they are denying something for which we have clear and reasonable evidence that obliges belief/

Quote:

Even if you think either event is historically innaccurate, neither requires a suspension of basic logic to accept.

The same is true of articles of faith. If a suspension of logic was necessary, I would say that the article of faith was clearly false, because it would violate basic standards of truth and falsity. Articles of faith build on what we know naturally, and do not break it down. This is clearly seen in the fact that, if the article of faith is true, truth cannot conflict with other truth. They must form, to borrow a phrase, a "unified theory of everything."

Quote:

It is not illogical to believe that soldiers storming a beach under heavy fire would result in lots of corpses and shell casings, whether you believed it happened or not. Even if one doesn't think 11 million people were actually exterminated (despite evidence), he would not think it required a miracle to do so. In the time spanning the 1930s and 1940s, there existed the means to exterminate millions of people, whether or not you think it was done. Whether or not you accept the evidence for these events, no extraordinary proof is required to believe that either event was possible.

These are human events and so only an ordinary proof that corresponds to the human event is required. For an extraordinary doctrine, extraordinary proof is required.

Quote:
We do not need to posit a divine being who intervened to make either event possible.

I never claimed that Normandy was a miracle. I claimed that we can establish articles of faith as reasonable considering the overwhelming evidence of miracles. Further, as I said above to Shaun, these miracles are not necessary to come to a firm and certain knowledge that God exists. That can be made clear from your reason alone. Miracles properly exist to verify supernatural truths, like the fact that Christ was truly God.

Quote:

Yet to think that a female member of Homo sapiens became pregnant and delivered a child with no contribution of sperm from a male member of Homo sapiens taxes not only probability but also possibility. By your own admission, it requires a god acting from above to make it so.

Yep. But there is no contradiction in the miracle. It could easily happen (in terms of absolute possibility) that God caused by miracle a contribution of genetic material in the Blessed Mother's womb so that Christ was concieved. It might seem to be improbable, but it is not impossible.

Quote:

Even if we had Mary's placenta, the umbilical chord and jesus' foreskin sitting in the Pope's fridge like holy relics as evidence, we would still have to believe in your church's Horny Spirit to believe that a virgin birth took place.

Well, that is not at all hostile. However, just for fun, I do believe that there is a church somewhere that claims to possess a relic of Christ's foreskin. And yes, to believe in Christ's virgin birth and conception, you would have to believe in God and His ability to work miracles.

Quote:

Yes, the windfall of evidence for either modern event could be an entire fabrication. New evidence of a mad frenchman planting casings and corpses on the beach would indeed challenge Normandy's historicity. New evidence of Germanophobes creating fake mass graves, fake gas chambers, fake birth records, and fake accounts of gold and jewelry in Swiss banks would indeed challenge the Holocaust's historicity. New evidence could lead to the rewriting of history. And it has. Many times over.

OK, then don't accept Normany or the Holocaust.
I am not arguing for a total skepticism, as is clearly not the case. I am merely arguing that reasonable grounds do exist for belief in these human things, and reasonable grounds for belief likewise exist for supernatural things.

Quote:

I asked you flat on - FLAT ON! - what new evidence would you accept to disprove the truthfulness of the virgin birth. You did not respond. Michael, is there anything that would challenge your belief in the virgin birth ? Not disprove, just challenge, much the same way that a mad frenchman would not disprove, just challenge the invasion of Normandy. I have asked again. Will you respond?

No, because I hold firmly to a belief in the fact that God has revealed this and so His word is infallible. I am more sure of this than, for example, the natural certainty that I have that 2 and 2 equals 4. But that doesn't make my grounds for belief irrational. The reasons for belief itself are reasonably probable, but belief itself is not. Accepting the divine author of revelation clearly calls for an infinite assent to the beliefs accepted. This is why belief is likewise a theological virtue, as such faith is beyond human ability in object and in assent.

Quote:

At any rate, get off the comparison to Normandy or the Holocaust. True, either event may false, although countermanding evidence awaits. But if either event did occur, you are grossly insulting those who died therein, all for the sake of defending your illogical belief.

I am not insulting anyone. Those who died in Normandy by far believed in Christ and went to their deaths with Him in mind. I feel that your belief would MUCH more seriously insult their memories. Likewise, the Holocaust was almost entirely believers in God, Jews and Christians. Many Catholics died in the Holocaust and they have no reason to find my comparison at all insulting.
Further, I am not saying that these events never occurred. I am clearly advocating the contrary. I think we have more than enough of a probable and reasonable ground to believe that these events happened and that one would have to be nearly insane to question them.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1216
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Even if you think either event is historically innaccurate, neither requires a suspension of basic logic to accept.
The same is true of articles of faith. If a suspension of logic was necessary, I would say that the article of faith was clearly false, because it would violate basic standards of truth and falsity. Articles of faith build on what we know naturally, and do not break it down. This is clearly seen in the fact that, if the article of faith is true, truth cannot conflict with other truth. They must form, to borrow a phrase, a "unified theory of everything."

Michael, the same is not true, and you know it! You know very well the distinction here, and I pointed it out to you. Normandy and the Holocaust do not need a god to intervene from above. The virgin birth does. We do not know "naturally" that a human female can beget a child without insemination by a human male.

StMichael wrote:

These are human events and so only an ordinary proof that corresponds to the human event is required. For an extraordinary doctrine, extraordinary proof is required.

Then why did you even bring up these human events, except as a smoke screen? And I fully agree - since the virgin birth is so much more extraordinary a claim than any human event, it requires extraordinary proof. You are yet to provide it. Squealing "faith" or "revelation" is not extraordinary proof.

StMichael wrote:
I never claimed that Normandy was a miracle. I claimed that we can establish articles of faith as reasonable considering the overwhelming evidence of miracles.

Then don't take the discussion off track by bringing up non-miracles to support belief in your "miracle". If the method of finding truth or falsity for a human event is different than the method for finding truth or falsity about a miraculous event, it is useless for you to even mention human events.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
...By your own admission, it requires a god acting from above to make it so.
Yep. But there is no contradiction in the miracle. It could easily happen (in terms of absolute possibility) that God caused by miracle a contribution of genetic material in the Blessed Mother's womb so that Christ was concieved. It might seem to be improbable, but it is not impossible.

So now I think we are at the crux of the matter. "It could easily happen (in terms of absolute possibility) that God caused by miracle..." So at long last, the only argument for the truth of the virgin birth is your belief in god. God and "absolute possibility". Nothing else.

StMichael wrote:
No, because I hold firmly to a belief in the fact that God has revealed this and so His word is infallible. I am more sure of this than, for example, the natural certainty that I have that 2 and 2 equals 4. But that doesn't make my grounds for belief irrational. The reasons for belief itself are reasonably probable, but belief itself is not. Accepting the divine author of revelation clearly calls for an infinite assent to the beliefs accepted. This is why belief is likewise a theological virtue, as such faith is beyond human ability in object and in assent.

There you go.  His belief system does not even permit that he might be wrong. He is more sure of the virgin birth than 2 + 2 = 4. He admits that you must have infinite assent to the beliefs. And to believe in these things as more sure than 2 + 2 = 4 is "a theological virtue".

StMichael wrote:
I am not insulting anyone. Those who died in Normandy by far believed in Christ and went to their deaths with Him in mind. I feel that your belief would MUCH more seriously insult their memories.

Who cares what they believed in, "by far"? They were human beings who died. Would it be less of a tragedy if they didn't believe in your christ? How does my lack of belief insult their memories?

StMichael wrote:
Likewise, the Holocaust was almost entirely believers in God, Jews and Christians.

Again, who cares? If they didn't believe in god, it would be ok? There were gypsies, homosexuals, and other non-jews/non-christians. Did these ones deserve to die?

Ultimately, the number of christians who died in the 20th century in no way advances the truth of either the virgin birth or the resurrection. So get of your high horse. Fast.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††