I can't control what you believe

De Maria  Doug Shaver • 2 hours ago

If you wish to debate the existence of my
neighbor, we can do that, but I assume you'll stipulate it for the sake of discussion.

Funny.

 And this discussion began with the issue of why I should believe that your God exists.

No, no. I would never put myself in that situation. I can't control what you believe. I am explaining why I believe in God by using your responses as counterpoints.

I am writing to you, but I am writing for those who may be reading these exchanges and seeking to understand their faith (or lack thereof).

If, by any chance, you also are moved by my responses, it is simple gravy for me. But I don't seek to convince you of anything.

I do, however, intend to show why I consider your logic in regards to God's nonexistence, false. Again, simply for the benefit of others who may be reading the exchange.

What eyewitness testimony?

The Gospels.

 I think I have good reason to doubt that we have any.

What are your reasons?

Can we talk about the differences between church tradition and my neighbor's claim that my house is on fire?

 Please.

You can start by telling me how they are relevantly similar.

Hm? When you asked, "Can we talk about the differences between church tradition and my neighbor's claim that my house is on fire?" I thought you were going to expound upon the differences that you see between the two.

Is this an admission that you see no differences?

If understanding were sufficient, then for every belief I held, I would also believe its contrary. I would believe that Barack Obama was president of the United States, but I would also believe that he was not the president…..The statement "My wife is out shopping for groceries" makes perfect sense, but at this moment I know that it isn't true.

That is why I said, "if I understand and agree, I believe.

So, we seem to agree on that point.

I did not say that an authority was necessary. I said that an authority could be sufficient under certain conditions.

I agree with that point.

Sounds like your faith actually is in the church.

It is both. My first step, was actually composed of two, simultaneously. I accepted that God must exist and simultaneously, without comment or fanfare, rejected Atheism.

My next step was long and arduous. Since I now believed that God exists, and I'm not the first man to step on this earth, there must be somebody who can tell me about Him.

So, I sifted through many religions before I finally came to trust in one. The Catholic Church.

So, I have faith in both God and what I have come to believe is His Church.

Suit yourself. I will not equate the word of any man with the word of God.

??? It kind of sounds as though you're saying, "I believe God exists, but I don't believe any man can speak for Him". But I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain what you actually mean.

As for me, I believe that God exists. I believe the definition of the word "God" includes "omnipotence". Therefore, I believe that God can speak through rocks if He wants to.

If Apologists had convinced everyone, there would be no atheists. There are atheists. Therefore, they have not convinced everyone.

But, in my opinion, they may have convinced some. That is what I was actually intending to convey. And, in fact, I've read many conversion stories that assert this truth.

I don't judge an argument by the number of people who find it persuasive. What I mean by a successful apologetic is one for which no cogent counterargument exists.

Is the word "cogent", a subjective or objective term?

As for me, when I was atheist, I thought I had many cogent arguments against the existence of God. I now know that I had none at all and that none exist. Not for me.