Search results

Well, it obviously isn't a complete list of all the doctrines he holds too but I'm asking about what is needed to be saved, not what is needed to be a good Catholic.

The issue might not be what it doesn't say but what it does say, which I know nothing about. Is there anything in it that conflicts with the gospel proper as I have presented it? Do you, as a Catholic, affirm all of the following without caveat, qualification, addition or omission (i.e. in so...

How are those two sentences not contradictory? Of course I can. I suppose it depends on just what one means by assumption, which is why I've been adding the word "mere" to it. What I'm suggesting is that for many atheists their belief that there is no God isn't born out of mindless sort of...

All true but it wouldn't move an atheist an inch because they do not accept the existence of the God we claim that passage is about and even written by. They don't have to prove it unless affirmative evidence to the contrary is presented. It is NOT unreasonable to presume the non-existence of a...

They don't usually claim that they can prove it, at least the smart one's don't. That's why it's the THEORY of evolution. If they are making a faith based claim, yes. The claim that it's a mere assumption is a claim that a skilled debater would ask you to prove. He would point out that your...

They can and do! Your point here is actually well taken but you should have added the word "rightly"... "Law makers and public officials cannot RIGHTLY take public actions based on illogical and unsupported notions."

No goo lead to me or anyone else. The term "goo" implies a random collection of lifeless chemicals not intricately designed sperm cells, ovum and countless other things with millions of WILDLY complex biochemical machines working in concert to produce a new human life. Clete

I can understand the sentiment but sound reason is not a matter of opinion. The only thing anyone must prove is the veracity of their own arguments, which includes the veracity of the premises upon which those arguments are built. The only way it would their burden to prove the non-existence of...

You are the problem because I repeatedly invited you to make an argument and what you showed up with is mindless bigotry. You could just as easily posted what you just said and then I would have asked you to establish how that has anything to do with whether any particular Catholic denies one...

Two wrongs do not make a right. Right? If an atheist is being irrational and tries to make a faith based scientific argument, that doesn't give us the right to make the same error. On the contrary, the way to win such a debate would be to point out the atheist's error, not endorse it by copying...

Just as I thought. You've got exactly NOTHING! You show up here, making patently idiot and insulting claims with absolutely no basis whatsoever other than some indefensible anti-Catholic bigotry. Clete

Two things here... First, "God exists" is not a negative so I'm still confused as to your point. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. We just aren't in sync here yet. Second, it is not impossible to prove a negative. That's sort of a common misconception because there are so many...

I agree but simply making that claim isn't an argument, right? And, if you're debating an atheist who doesn't care about Genesis chapter 1 then it would be you who had the burden to prove the veracity of that claim, not the atheist's burden to disprove it because you're the one making the...

No, that isn't how science (or sound reason) works. Theories are perfectly valid aspects of science and of clear thinking in general. You're effectively back to asking them to disprove God's existence again. Evolution is, by its very nature, a naturalistic theory. In other words, the...

Yeah, well there are people here who claim to not ever sin anymore, too! So... Would believe what; that there's no need to reconcile the two? Well, there's confusion on that point anyway, right?

I don't understand the point of the question here. So what if it was written in the present tense?

I don't think that this much is in dispute, is it? Isn't it a main feature of the argument presented in favor of Paul's authorship the idea that since it was written to the Hebrews, that there's no need to reconcile what it teaches to the Hebrews with that which Paul taught to the Gentiles? In...

I'm not so sure that "strong reasons" is accurate but they are reasons and what I love about this post is that it makes an actual argument! I don't have to persuaded to appreciate when people actually engage with something intelligent and substantive. I'd have to say that this is the first time...

So what? That's no surprise, right? You can't prove the false to be true. Did you mean to say, "...any more than they can prove God IS NOT real."? If not then, why would they be concerned about not being able to prove that God IS real? I guess I just don't get the point you're making here.

It might be good for our morale but then again, they can't prove that striped flamingos don't exist, either. Precisely! And so where is the profit in telling them to prove that God doesn't exist? How is not the same? If failing to disprove that the resurrection happened isn't proof that it did...