Logical argument for a creator and an explanation of why I am a Catholic

I am A seminarian right now training to be a Catholic priest atheist will ask me why do you have so much faith in an imaginary man. You seem intelligent but you grow up religious must be just be brainwashed to believe that. I then respond by telling them there are perfectly logical ways to come to the realization God's existence. Many athiest will scoff at that notion but when I begin to explain they will either leave before i finish or have no response so I thought I would post it here.

My purely logical argument comes from a combination of Platonic mathematics, Spinoza and Christian Wolf's Principle of Sufficient Reason which bare similarities to Aristotle's first mover and the complexity argument.

In short explanations,
Platonic mathematics is something I could talk about for a while but for brevity's sake it talks about Natural Laws had to predate material things. These laws are immaterial and govern al material things, had to be created by something immaterial this immaterial law creator is God who created the laws every material beings abide by and then created all material beings.

PSR states that everything had to happen because of something or caused by something. For example, I exist only because I was born, I was only born because I was conceived, and so on and so for to an infinite string of causes.
1. PSR states that there is an explanation for the existence of anything and everything.
2 If this were false then events without explanation would exist but as science believes there is a logical explanation for everything so PSR is true.
3. So there has to be a reason for the existence of the world.
4. Athiest point to the big bang but according to PSR there has to be a reason for the big bang to occur.
5. Even if you could come up with an infinitely long string of events that lead to the existence of the world you would have to come up with a reason for why this infinite string existence since all things is subject to PSR.
6. Something not bound by PSR had to start this chain of events and since everything in our universe is subject to PSR it has to be something outside our universe and perhaps interdimensional.
7. We call this being God

I am sure you are all familiar with the complexity argument which states things are so complicated and well ordered it had to be intelligently designed so I won't say any more on that.

Put those three arguments together and you have a ration argument for God.

As for why I am Catholic.
1. there are historical documents (not just the bible) of a man named Jesus in the middle east practicing miracles who was crucified and whose body went missing so Jesus existed whether you believe he was the son of God or not.
2. His followers proceeded to work miracles in his name and it had to be more than just a lie because they took their faith so far that they died for it.
3. Christianity is different than the other mainstream religions. Other mainstream religions believe we can by our own actions achieve salvation and please God through our actions where Christianity believes God had to come to earth as man and sacrifice himself to establish a new covenant for our salvation.
4. Christianity was established on the Cross and its leaders willingly died for the religion and were not people out for their own controlling self-interest like atheist claim all religion is for its leaders to control the followers.
5. Catholicism is different from all other forms of Christianity as it is the only one with apostolic lineage established by Jesus and breaking from it is breaking from the church Jesus established.

That's my argument in short. Thoughts? Both sides of the argument, please be civil and refrain from empty insults.

 

Where does the notion of a "being" enter to this equation? In your post, it just appears in the conclusion without any reference before it. I am perhaps rare among the non-religious in that I find the outline of the cosmological arguments persuasive, but I find it strange how the god whose existence is derived as such is supposed to relate to God of the Bible, or many other god concepts.

It seems to me the kind of god that the cosmological arguments promote should be uncomplicated and probably have no concept of many of the concerns traditionally associated with god. Seeing how this god needs to not be contingent on anything else, it seems strange that it should have anything like a will or an interest above maybe that of maintaining very basic natural laws.

For example, consider the idea that if there was no natural laws, then there'd be no law keeping natural laws from coming into existence spontaneously (until such a law came into existence, spontaneously). That seems to me a potential outline of the sort of cause-violating notion which might cause a universe. It is very simple, and fundamentally concerned with the laws of nature and less with the laws of man. Linking it with the traditional god of for instance the Bible seems like equivocation to me.

Here, the god answer is fundamentally unfalsifiable, there is no state of the world for which could disprove the idea that God created it (since we don't know the rules by which God will have wanted to create it), giving it effectively an unfair advantage (like picking lotto numbers after the winning numbers have been announced).

The main contender here is of course evolution, in one form or another. If the God explanation was true, then we'd have no particular reason to see complexity in any particular place. If evolution is true, then we would expect complexity only to arise in objects which reproduce and are subject to some sort of natural selection (or things created by such objects, like technology). It seems to me that the vast majority, if not every single instance, of complexity is indeed found in things that reproduce (the most complex of rock structures or archipelagos pale in comparison to even the simplest of bacteria).

I don't particularly have a problem with the idea of someone named Jesus existing. Many stories of the time were based on true characters/events but with a bit of embellishment. Similarly, I would think the works of the followers are pretty easily explained between embellishments of stories and the fact that people can believe things even when they're not true.

It seems to me only point 5 actually says anything about Catholicism, even thought that is the supposedly the purpose of the list. The argument there is one of apostolic lineage, but I don't see why that has any impact on what one should believe. It seems to me like an excellent PR point, but not actually having any bearing on why one would be a Catholic.

 

I admit that Being is inserted but the true point of PSR is that something interdimensional not bound to PSR had to create the universe. PSR does not prove the Christian God it just points to that there is a God. I said Being but God is not a being like any other and in the sense that we use the word God is not a being at all. I believe God resides in a higher dimension and since we are limited to 3 dimensional through pure human logic thinking God is undefinable but human reason can come to the realization of a God because of PSR. PSR is a cosmological argument that shows there is a God and nothing else. By PSR alone I cannot define him as a Christian God but you cant define him as any other type of God either.

I agree with your statement about the complexity argument when it is a stand-alone argument. However, when coupled with PSR and Platonic mathematics enhances the argument but it is not a good stand-alone argument for me.

You talk about stories being embellished and stories told about him which I see your point but I am not talking about the stories the are roman government record that had been found that discuss the crucifixion of Jesus on the charge of sorcery and blasphemy.

There are other reasons to believe but they start to flirt with the line between faith and reason or venture into faith or are not explainable by science and reason and for the purposes of this thread I am trying to keep it to reason alone.

Through reason alone my argument Boils down to this.

PSR proves there is a God

Unbiased Historical records proved Jesus existed claimed he was the son of God and was killed for it an his body went missing possibly rose from the dead.

His followers continued to proclaim his word unto their death so they weren’t motivated by power

Christianity is different than all other mainstream religions

Christianity has revolution

Catholics are different as they have apostolic linniage

Thanks for the response

 

Non sequitur, as no universal truth can be reliably inferred from the bare fact that anyone - or, for that matter, everyone - believes anything.

 

Given that the criteria for this concept is only that it violates causality, it seems unjustified to couple this concept with the word God. There are many non-religious who also acknowledge an uncaused event, but who disagree with calling it God, on the basis of it being not a being, or not intentional and so on.

In what sense does the coupling make it enhanced? It's pretty easy to construct almost-convincing arguments for ideas that simply aren't true, for an argument to be persuasive, its own logic should be sound and self-contained.

Again, I don't really find that indicative of Christianity. What is it that the Roman sources say about him that indicates anything more than a person existing? Would you say that others having been tried for sorcery means they were also Christs?

Worry not, I would have questions about those as well, but let's stick to the ones we're already discussing.

Given that humans long have disagreed on what God means, how do you justify thinking that the causality argument talks about the same god as Jesus did?

I don't have a particular problem with the followers _thinking_ that Christianity was true (and therefore defending it until their death). However, does that give us any information as to whether Christianity _is_ true? It's not like people from religions all around the world have been killed for their religion and maintain their religion even in the face of persecution.

I think most if not all religions have unique angles.

I'm not sure what this means, or what impact it has on the believability of Christianity.

What impact does that supposedly have on believability? What is it about apostolic lineage that makes that persuasive?

 

It should be pointed out that this isn’t a specifically atheist thing. Not all atheists support the idea of the Big Bang and not all supporters of the idea are atheist.

You’re doing more than just giving it a random name though. You’re assigning a very specific identity to it with a strongly defined set of characteristics and ideas. There’s absolutely zero logical justification for this step, the only valid conclusion is that there is some form of unknown trigger for the chain of cause and effect. We don’t (and possibly can’t) know anything at all about what that could be.

I’m not sure it’s legitimate to lump these two questions together. The idea of there being some form of initial creative force is several steps away from which contemporary religious practices individuals follow today.

There is independent historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and some of the other people, evets and places referred to in the Bible (though not always entirely consistently with the biblical text or Christian interpretation). I’m not convinced there is reliable evidence of actual miracles (and arguably, if it actually happened, it isn’t a miracle).

I don’t see how your religion being different to all others is an argument for its accuracy or legitimacy. Obviously other religions are just as different from yours and they all purport to have key unique elements that make them more legitimate than any other.

That’s just a doctrinal claim by the modern Catholic Church though. There’s no actual direct link between the apostles and the senior priesthood in the western church today.

 

I think that in the non-religious but theist sense God means the creator of the universe (I guess I could be wrong). So as this event caused the universe could be God and since this event is interdimensional and nothing we can undisputably define what it was me calling it God and you calling it not God has or rather lacks the validity to say what it was. I admit it does take a little bit of faith to make it all the way to a Christian God but it also would take the same amount of faith to say it is not God and simply a cause because you are still limited to third-dimensional thinking and really you don't know. I chose to belive it is God.

The complexity argument because since PSR shows an interdimensional cause the complexity argument allows us to say that since the odds are so astronomical that the universe would be this perfect. This complexity of the universe shows that this cause proven by PSR more than likely had some ability to design the universe as opposed to a random cause.

From here on it is not really proof of God as much as why I choose the Catholic religion over all others

But the roman records validate the probability of the stories in the Gospel even the resurrection.

one argument people have against religion is that is nothing more than something the leadership will use to control the masses. My statement about the leaders sacrificing themselves disputes that theory by showing the leaders and founders weren't in it for themselves/power over others. Yes, other people have died for their religion but their God did not willingly accept death on a Cross like Jesus did and those people that are sacrificing themselves are the followers, not the leaders.

Yes, all religions have their own spin on things but the base defining factor and structure of every mainstream religion is you can achieve salvation on your own power where Christianity is the only mainstream religion that God comes down and sacrifices himself for us out of love and mercy. Christianity is entirely different because of its base structure and defining philosophy and our driving factor is to give thanks and praise and share in God's love unlike Jews and Islam which is different in many ways but their base and structure is the same which is achieve salvation by your own actions and the driving motivation is followed Gods will no matter what that means. Because it is different at it's core it makes is special.

I meant to say revelation not revolution auto correct screwed that up. Sorry.

The last part is one reason why I am Catholic and not just any other Christian religion nothing about proof of God.

I admit Faith is required to make the jump from causality to the Christian religion but it also takes just as much faith to go from causality to "it is just a cause and there is no way it is an intelligent God" like many atheists do. My point in this thread was to show Christians and theist are not just brainwashed individuals that don't think like many atheists say they are. Also, to show that belief in God is not irrational and can be proven plausible by reason alone.

 

Your right it is not just an atheist thing but I had to start with something and it is something a lot of atheist will point to

As in my last post, I said yes it takes a little faith to make this Jump to God but it takes the same amount of faith to say it cant be God since God in simplest nonreligious terms is the creator of the universe and by the simple fact this interventional event created the universe that is God in its simplest terms.

I lump the two questions together because the next logical question from an atheist that I get almost everytime is "well even if you believe that why be religious? Just pick one they would all have the same validity by that reasoning." so I thought I would just go ahead and throw it in.

It does take faith to believe the bible stories which I came to believe from personal experiences and I could tell you them if you want but as I said for the purposes of that post i did not venture into things that ventured into areas of faith and personal experiences.

Read my last post to get my comment on the difference in religions. It boils down to Christianities core structure and motivation is different while the other religions have superficial differences from each other.

The apostolic lineage is that Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church.

 

I’m not saying it can’t be God. I’m not saying anything about whether there is/was some kind of initial creative force or what that might be.

The problem is that the word God, especially when you capitalise it, carries a whole load of meaning and baggage which is entirely unrelated to what you say you’re talking about and all of that conveniently pushes us from a generic concept of some form of creative force towards the sentient being of monotheistic religions like Christianity. It’s like talking about the best kind of vehicle but using the word Ford when discussing the concept. There’s no good reason to use the word God in this context but a clear biased and dishonest one.

I’d suggest those questions are usually the other way around though. You might be asked (of feel like justifying) why you’re religious but present ideas which could relate to any kind of god so then get a follow-up question about why your specific religion, sect or denomination.

Anyway, my general point is that there is no justification for linking the question of universal structure or origins with specific religious groupings at all. Religion doesn’t give any insight in to the possible answers and more often it only seeks to close off many lines of inquiry or possible answers.

Do you really think that if you’d been born in somewhere like Saudi Arabia or India and had the same experiences, you would have still become Catholic rather than Muslim or Hindu? Much like how you talk about a creator as (the Christian) God, I think cultural background and biases significantly influence how people respond to experiences, ideas and feelings which at their core are the same as those experienced by people all around the world.

But no direct lineage to the current Pope (or many before him). He came to his position via election (of sorts) not hereditary right. The current leadership of the Catholic Church has no more (or less) connection to the early Christians as those of any other mainstream denomination.

 

Neither the existance of natural laws or PSR mandates or necessitates the existance of a god. Your entire arguement boils down to the arguement that existance mandates god. That does not follow logically.

 

The natural explanation for everything you state do not require anything supernatural and have proofs behind them. The most simple explanation is usually correct and God is FAR from simple, in fact it has absolutely no explanation at all.

 

The main problem with PSR is that it attempts to claim that the universe requires a cause. But the universe is space and time, and the very concept of causality requires space and time. To say it requires a cause is the equivalent of saying that causality needs a cause, which is nonsensical. My apologies for abusing an often-repeated analogy, but asking what came before the universe is like asking what is north of the north pole.

 

Right here is where your logic breaks down. You have zero evidence to support these two jumps and everything else in your argument is based on them.

 

What exactly are these historical documents outside of the Bible that confirm Jesus's existence and miracles and that his body went missing? The related entry in Josephus is well known in academic circles to be a marginal insertion by a later scribe and Tacitus only confirms Christians existed and what they believed, he doesn't confirm those beliefs are accurate.

Exactly what source do you have confirming his followers worked miracles outside of the Bible? Lots of people have died for other faiths. Does that make those religions true?

So why are you not Baha'i? The Bab died for his religion and certainly wasn't in it for self-interest.

So the Catholic Church claims, without any supporting evidence.

 

Catholicism is not the only Christian tradition that claims apostolic lineage.

 

I am a Catholic Jesuit.

I love our Pope.

He is the first Jesuit Pope.

 

If the PSR is true, there is an infinity regression of causes. Claiming there is an uncaused "first cause" violates these assumptions. God himself would need a cause if the assumptions above are true.

 

This argument has gone on for a very long time. Seldom are the minds of atheists changed, if ever, by these arguments, and seldom will the theists change their minds, if ever. And you can have well skilled and intellectually honed people, well schooled in the traditional and very old arguments from both sides. And nothing ever really changes. Minds just do not change. It is the nature of the beast, obviously.

So no one ever wins this argument. Yet each generation will continue the debates. It is like two bald men, fighting over a comb. Neither need or can use it, so we must just love to fight, for the sake of fighting.

 

they sharpen each others blade, albeit the ones always arguing usually have dull blades.

 

Pretty sure I already answered this.

 

So what alternative would you prefer ???

 

Until you Bozo's learn Hebrew and Greek and Latin for yourselves you will never understand the Word Of God.

 

Why would I (or anyone else) have a preferred alternative? While it can be a little fun speculating, I don’t see how we can ever know the origins of the universe or how it would have any practical impact on our lives if we somehow did.

Wow, so many questions come to mind from one little reply;

Why would anyone need to learn Hebrew, Greek and Latin to understand the Bible? It was originally written in Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, which I suspect only a handful of academics are fluent in, so we’re all reading translations regardless of the language.

Are you suggesting that anyone who isn’t fluent in all three of those languages is incapable of understanding the Bible?

Are you fluent in all three of those languages?

Does your interpretation of the Bible include support for calling people “bozos” for not being multi-lingual?

 

And it has gone on for so long. There are even famous debates involving this, by very intelligent philosophers and theists, and no one ever wins. I guess it is just a fact of human existence, given how long it has gone one, while never changing the minds of those who get involved in these fruitless debates and arguments.

This is perhaps one reason I was literally forced into the agnostic camp. Hell, if I cannot know with certainty, no one else can either. And that is where man has always been, in reality. Those that are so arrogant as to express certainty, no matter what their IQ is, give us some plausible certainty, but that certainty involves them being liars, most times, unintentional liars, but liars nontheless. We simply lack the means of having certainty, which means our beliefs are just that, beliefs, with no way of proving them to be true. Yet neither side will ever admit the self evident. It almost seems like this refusal to admit what is self evident is genetically determined in some manner.

The only half arse certainty that my mind entertains, is that I have never discovered the means to know the answer to this age old question. I have thought many times that the existence of a creator, for me is perhaps what Occam's Razor would infer, that it would be the simplest explanation for what we know of the universe, and yet there is no proof in this. And while my own personality sees this option as better than a universe based upon the roll of the dice, chance and randomness, there is no problem with me also seeing this is driven by this mind preferring purpose over purposelessness. And if one is honest with oneself, this must be taken into consideration. And I do. It along with other lines of thought drove me into being agnostic. I have always thought this was the most intellectually honest position to take.

I can still remember what caused my mind to question the anthropomorphic God of monotheism. And I was literally raised up in a Prot Church, from the time I was a baby until I left home to join the military to serve my country in the vietnam war. In short, the idea of the christian, jewish, islamic god as portrayed in their religious manuals, just seemed like utter nonsense to me, and not worthy of the creator of this universe. He was too petty, too sadistic, too human- like in his character, demanding a morality from his creation that he would not follow. Not befitting of a proper creator of this universe. And so I had to reject this image created clearly by the mind of man. That is one thing about the human brain, in that it is so creative, and can imagine so many things. And then it starts to believe in its own mental creation. Forgetting that it created it.

I am quite satisfied in not being capable of knowing the answer to this question and have accepted it, and yet my own mind is not closed to the possibility. For if someone really feels deeply that he simply does not know, this does not put one in the same frame of mind as the theist or the atheist. The atheist, from what I can tell, has a mind closed to the existence of a God, while the theist is the other side of the coin, and also possesses a closed mind. And this explains why this age old argument and debate will continue on with never a resolution to the two sides. For me, not being either side of this coin is in a sense, a sort of freedom, if nothing more than a freedom from the hypocrisy of expressing certainty, where such certainty is a most basic lie, or perhaps being kinder would be, delusion, or illusion.

Being agnostic is not being in chains, chains which are nothing but the creation of the mind, but still as binding as literal chains. A state of mind, of being, which is still open to possibility, which is part and parcel of having an open mind. I find that honestly not knowing is a not unpleasant state of mind to have. It creates its own humility, which is lacking among the atheists and theists generally speaking.

 

That is why I say it has to be a cause from another dimension and is above space and time. You cant be any more certain that there wanst a cause than I can that there was a cause the difference is that through reason regression and observation I can get to my claim through reason while you have no string of reason or events to point to that don't have a cause.