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.

Just because they have failed to convince you, does not mean they have failed

De Maria  Doug Shaver • a day ago

Doug Shaver

Hello Doug, I am a former atheist convert to Catholicism.

Right. So far, so good.

I've seen plenty of theological commentary on faith. I don't see a connection between what the theologians are talking about and my willingness to take my neighbor's word for it that my house is on fire.

I understand. But we who have faith in God trust Him do see the connection because we believe God is as real as our neighbor and we trust Him more than our neighbor.

However, when I did not believe that God existed, I couldn't trust in Him. Goes without saying, doesn't it?

Doug ShaverThis assumes facts not yet in evidence. The OT stories emphasize the need to trust certain people who claim to be speaking on God's behalf. Anybody can say, "Thus saith the Lord" and then accuse any skeptic of questioning God himself. The issue whether, when a man says "Thus saith the Lord," we should just take his word for it.

Those words are attributed to Jesus. Why should I believe that he actually spoke them?

 Because of the eyewitness testimony of those who wrote the Gospels.

Because church tradition says so?

 That too

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

 Please.

I think I see some equivocation here. If I can prove something, then I most certainly do believe it. I do also believe many things that I cannot prove, but I don't stop believing when I find proof.

 Precisely why I now believe in God. And I don't just mean believing in His existence. I trust Him totally. I trust Him more than my neighbor.

Obviously, I cannot believe a proposition that I do not understand at all.

 Agreed.

But I need more than understanding.

 ???

I need a reason to believe. The authority of the person uttering the proposition might be sufficient reason, but then I need to understand how he got his authority.

I'm not sure why you need more than understanding to believe? Nor why you would need someone of authority. If a child tells me something which makes sense to me, I believe it.

If I understand, and agree, I believe.

If I think I understand, yet disagree, then I won't accept and will reject. Therefore, I won't believe. This is the process I went through to reject atheism.

And how do I know that God has revealed those truths? Because the church says so, right?

 That is the logical conclusion which I drew after much study.

The claim that certain documents were produced by men who knew him is at the heart of the Catholic faith.

 Agreed.

Translation: Faith is willingness to do what the church tells you to do.

 Only if and after you come to the conclusion that the Church speaks for God.

This skeptic does not say, and never has said, that reason explains everything about reality. And he has rarely, if ever, heard any other skeptic say it.

 Agreed.

No, it does not. This is a caricature, not a characterization. Atheism requires none of those things.

 Agreed. 

I cannot either trust or distrust an entity that I don't believe exists. When a man tells me what God will do or has done for me, it is he whom I am not trusting.

 Agreed.

Yeah, we've all heard it, and some of us atheists disagree with it as strongly as Christians do. But we disagree only with use of the definite article. Faith is not "the source" of those things. It is "a source." Another source would be any secular ideology that thinks itself incapable of error.

 Ok. But I'm pretty sure that the majority of atheists call religion (i.e. Faith), THE opiate of the masses. You are the first atheist, in memory, who does not agree, wholeheartedly, with this axiom.

Harris is mistaken. He seems to think that if A and B share certain characteristics, then A must be of the same nature as B. Political ideologies can be like religions in certain respects, but that doesn't make them religions.

 I agree. I consider them "ideologies".

Apologists have been striving for two millennia. I have not seen one succeed yet.

 I'd say that depends upon how you count success. Just because they have failed to convince you, does not mean they have failed to convince anyone.