Help me beat up an Irish Catholic, please.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A Chairde,

There is quite a lot of Atheists in the World and on this Forum. Some of you reading this are probably Atheists. In the past I have been criticized on this forum for not presenting rational arguments for my beliefs or for being evasive. Although this is not correct, I may have come across that way and for that I apologize. The reason for my short posts and unwilling manner was that I did not want to get into the Science vs. Religion debate, which has claimed many threads. But, I now feel I must present some rational proofs for the Catholic argument, in addition to the Blind Faith I previously sited to avoid argument. This does not mean Blind faith is invalid as an argument, merely that it is not suited to debate with these self styled Rational thinkers because it causes the arguments to around in circles. We men of faith will prove ourselves the more adaptable, by adopting a rational outlook for this article, and hopefully some quality debates with the Atheists. I highly doubt that this new departure will yield any more significant results than the "I believe", "but you have no proof" threads, but hopefully, with the help of God , better quality threads will be the result. And now, to begin:

I will cover this in two topics; One against Atheism, or rather for theism. I will focus on Christian theism, but others may feel free to use the base of my arguments in order to support the claims of their own religion, that is fine. In the second Argument, I will present my reasons why Christianity is the way and in the second part of that, why Catholicism is the correct form of Christianity. This way everybody can choose a point at which they want to not read any further/ at all, which parts they deem correct etc. These Rational ideas are my views only, in detail, which everybody is free to adopt or ignore.

Firstly: Some Atheists argue against the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God of Christianity and this is the basis of their atheism. But even if this God did not exist, Which I believe he does, and know in my heart and soul he does, even if this God did not exist, it would not be proof that Atheism is correct. It would merely mean that we do not know, or could not know the characteristics of God.

Atheist Argument is based on the fact that God can not be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted i.e. the five senses. Yet the same is true for Air and Gravity and for Wind and these are facts. The God of Christianity did manifest himself in material form several times in the bible, e.g. the Burning Bush, but his natural state is the spiritual one. Ergo, any attempt to understand or experience God by the five senses would be utterly pointless and useless, and without basis in reason, the key to Atheist Arguments. The Previously mentioned Wind cannot be seen, yet we can see its effects. So it is with God: We cannot see him directly, but it is possible for us to experience his effects, or indirect influence. One might feel his presence in a spiritual manner, and it may cause physical movement or emotions which are clearly tangible to observers.

Next is the conscience. That peculiar internal sense of what is right and wrong. Some Atheists point out that Conscience is completely independent of Religion when theists site religion as positive for teaching us the difference between right and wrong. In my view the Atheists are totally correct here; Conscience is independent. And it exists in all humans, even those who are sometimes classed as amoral, because, amoral means they do not care about right or wrong but they understand the difference otherwise they would have nothing to not care about and therefore could not possible be amoral. So, where did this knowledge of right and wrong come from? I suppose secularly speaking, it must be a part of the subconscious brain? Let us examine that view: If Conscience wasn't given to us by God, it must have developed independently of God, like all our other senses. Was it natural selection, then, through the medium of evolution which caused this "conscience"? Natural selection chooses that which is beneficial to the species and rejects that which is harmful, and it is highly impossible that Conscience could come into being this way never mind develop and survive. Consciousness would have had to be present for natural selection to multiply it. Therefore it is not possible.The only rational explanation for conscience is that it was given to us by God so we could understand right and wrong. God has reason for doing this; It Gives Humans knowledge what is right and wrong without impeding free will. God has the ability to do this; This solves the dilemma of how conscience came into being.

Rational thought is the Basis of Atheism. This is a glaring and cruel irony. In Atheism the greatest thing that exists is the Universe. It is made up of inorganic substances, space and energy. Can one reasonably expect inorganic material to gain consciousness? Of course not : A Comet does not know it is a comet, Space has no capability for knowledge etc. Whence came this consciousness?! It cannot be an invention of man's clearly, for it would require conscious thought to invent. And if there is no explanation for Consciousness other than the existence of God, there is no explanation for rational thought other than the existence of God. But, the same as Consciousness, Rational thought cannot be the product of natural selection because it does not make sense. Our Hearing could enhance because of evolution but we still would not know the slightest thing about sound waves. Our Intelligence could grow better and better but we would not gain any insight into thought. These are Gifts from God. Why would God give Humans Rational thought? It is simple really; God give humans existence so they could have a relationship with God. They must have Free Will otherwise it is not a relationship but something which is required. They must be given rational thought to enhance their free will. Rational thought, instead of being used to show God's existence, is mis-used to try and show he does not exist.

Atheists believe the Universe and our existence is without meaning, without purpose. Just a Random group of coincidences each more exceedingly unlikely than the next, which has, in an impossible fluke, caused us to be here today, and the entire world to exist. Not only is divine creation far more likely it makes logical, rational sense. If the Universe had no meaning and we had no purpose, we should never have found out that we have no meaning or the universe has no purpose. If we have no reason for being here, we should never have discovered that we have no reason for being here.

One has only to consider the chance of all this happening independently of a God to reject Atheism. The Universe just happened. A Big Bang caused it. . The Universe just happened to expand at that magic one percent chance rate that things could develop as they have? The earth just happens to be on an axis which allows sunlight to reach all places? It just happens to be the right distance away from the sun to avail of it's benefits without being close enough to be caused harm by it? (and I mean harm to the planet). We just happened to develop rational thought and consciousness? Jesus just happened to fulfill the prophecies? I would pay good money to have someone work out the odds. Especially considering for the last one alone the odds are 1 in 10 to the power of 157

How did creatures without consciousness come to the realization that they existed? For something to realize that it exists, it has to have the thought that it exists. To think, a being must have the ability to think. But thinking is a conscious behavior- a being must be aware of what it is thinking and the fact that it is thinking. Since thinking is a conscious behavior, it must not be the reason for consciousness.

The Order of the Universe and the planet are elements in why we believe. Everything has it's purpose and is mutually reliant. Plants rely on Sun, are relied on by herbivores, in turn relied on by carnivores etc. Such an ordered system reflects intelligent design. Not only is this intelligent design supremely functional however, it is also faultlessly beautiful. Rolling green hills, vast blue oceans, and personally I love Ireland on a wet day . These sights are spiritual in nature, and awe - evoking.

The Big one: The most regularly invoked atheistic argument now : Evil exists, therefore God is improbable. But, would that not make the existence of good cause God to be Probable? In any case the explanation for this one is the easiest. As already explained God created humans to have a relationship with them. In order to have a relationship, it cannot be based on obedience, it must be agreed upon. So humans have free will. And if their choice is Good and nothing, that's not free will is it? They must have a choice. They are given conscience to know which the correct is choice but the choice is still theirs. It is not that God is incapable of destroying Evil, it is that without evil there is no free will, and to remove evil is in fact a negative.

"God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a being more powerful than himself, or he cannot undo past events or he cannot create an object to heavy for himself to lift." They are questions of existence, not of power. There can be no being more powerful than God, it can not exist. There can be no object too heavy for God, it can not exist. And God Created Time, so he is of course capable of changing past events if he wanted to, though I cannot imagine any reason why he would want to. God can not lie, it says so in the bible! I propose that God can lie, but it would change the fact that he is God. He would still be the creator of heaven and earth, but not the God of the Bible, therefore he does not do this. He is consistent. Just as Christianity is entirely consistent.


Questions are welcomed, I look forward to debate on this with atheists. I hope they acknowledge that by making the step from using Blind faith we're doing it to encourage debate, not to nullify Blind Faith as religious justification.


One More thing: If my arguments can not be disproved, I shall join a social group called "Skeptics and Rationalists" being satisfied of being the latter.

That was cheeky

[Animavore]

He thinks air, gravity and wind can't be picked up by any of the five senses (and two of those things are practically the same).

[klr]

Where was that tripe originally posted?

And how dare he use that name.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Where was that tripe originally posted?

And how dare he use that name.

http://www.historum.com/religion/19254- ... heism.html

[klr]

Where was that tripe originally posted?

And how dare he use that name.

http://www.historum.com/religion/19254- ... heism.html

He can't even create an avatar without squashing the picture of Big Mick. Is nothing sacred?

[Feck]

No it's the same argument again the same strawmen about random chance . The same gobshite ' Christianity is entirely consistent ' No it's not ,has he even read the book ?