An afterlife literally isn't a tangible outcome. Death and thus the vague concept of what happens after life is an inevitability.
It's not tangible in this dimension. But the nature of the claim is that after death there is a tangible reality that the person gets to experience.
It does promise a tangible outcome that no one (living) ever sees come to frutition.
We cannot directly prove God exists.
Yep. And that's why I'm not religious. FYI, You can't indirectly prove it either.
Your arguments seem to keep ignoring the starting premise that you cannot directly prove the existence of God
Actually that's the foundation of my entire argument. If you can't prove something or offer valid evidence to show that it's true then I have no reason to believe it.
There is no argument, except one which you never brought up nor are interested in learning about from us.
You asked us why we believe, and we've told you.
I am not trying to convert you. Nor am I interested in doing so. And the concept of esoteric debate is not something which you proposed with your initial question.
You make wonderful follow-up questions, but this is not the appropriate forum nor am I the appropriate person for you to enter these discussions with.
If you live within the United States, there should be a Catholic Church within a 20 mile radius from you. May I suggest discussing with a priest?
If you are interested in the esoteric, perhaps discuss things with one who is trained in the esoteric.
Off the cuff remarks with people on a political website, with loosely related follow-up questions isn't exactly the hallmarks of interested debate or good-faith attempts to learn about the person on the other side of the inquiry.
I doubt talking to a catholic priest is going to turn up any evidence. All I'd get there is a bunch of sophistry to convince me that evidence isn't needed in the first place.
And how come you didn't tell me to go to my local mormon church to ask questions? Why Catholicism? (special pleading perhaps?)
You can say you're not trying to convert me or convince me, but you are making claims.
And whether or not it's your intention, I am faced with an internal question about whether or not to believe your claims.
So if I question or scrutinize your claims it's not because I want you to change your position, but because I'm evaluating your claims. And if you think it's inappropriate for me to scrutinize and evaluate your claims, then perhaps you shouldn't be making those claims in public.
You asked me why I believe. I answered why I believe.
The Catholic Church is the greatest repository of knowledge in human history simply because of its sheer age. Furthermore, because of the various crises of faith it has endured, it has built the most robust knowledge-base to make its arguments.
You don't have to believe my claims. I'm not trying to get you to believe my claims. I am, to the best of my ability, merely answering your question as to why I believe.
I can lay claim my beliefs if I so choose. If you question them, good on you and you are free to do so. And I can choose to place them where I find them to be appropriate - the trash.
You do not seek truth or learning, but rather seek to prove your own point. If you want to learn, talk to one who is best suited for your discussion. Outright claiming whatever argument comes from one trained to counter your argument is not an attack on sophistry but utter close-mindedness.
I've removed the base from where you make your arguments - faith simply cannot be proven your idea of logic presupposes you have a complete understanding. You do not have a complete understanding. You've deconstructed the term logic to be a rather incomplete understanding of logic. Or proofs. But when asking something as total and encompassing as the existence of God, you need to be humble enough to understand that at best you do not have the information to know about God. Thus the role of faith.
I am not proving the existence of God. I have faith in God. You on the other hand seem intent on trying to disprove the existence of God by attacking my faith.
Again, you asked why I believe in God. I have answered it. I'm not engaging any further and if you are truly interested in knowing more about the subject, then discuss with a priest. If you want to cling to your atheism, that's fine and it's adorable that patting yourself in the back in an empty room instead of seeking truth in the obvious avenues is the way you want to go about your inquiry.
I will hold my faith public. You will keep your militant atheism public.
The Catholic Church is the greatest repository of knowledge in human history simply because of its sheer age.
Sorry friend. But I think the internet is the greatest repository of knowledge in human history. If not that then maybe the Library of Congress.
I'm sure the Vatican secret archives could re-write much of European history, but I doubt it contains any huge scientific revelations we haven't already figured out. Hard to say though, since it's all secret.
Can we talk about epistemology? Like as in what are your standards for gathering and validating knowledge? What does it take before you reject a claim, and what do you require before you claim to "know" something?
The reason I ask is because in my opinion religious "knowledge" is always gathered and evaluated using a completely different standard than any other type of knowledge. In my opinion if a religious person actually applied the same standards to their religion as they do everything else, it would be impossible for them to maintain belief.
So, I'm curious about your process of validating knowledge and whether or not you're willing to explore the possibility of there being a double standard.
Say for example... You want to buy a new TV from a website. But you want to "know" the website is legit and not going to scam you and steal your money before you give them your credit card number.
Do you just trust the website by default until someone comes along and proves they are a scam, or do you wait until you have positive evidence showing they are legit?
It's not tangible in this dimension. But the nature of the claim is that after death there is a tangible reality that the person gets to experience.
It does promise a tangible outcome that no one (living) ever sees come to frutition.
Yep. And that's why I'm not religious. FYI, You can't indirectly prove it either.
Actually that's the foundation of my entire argument. If you can't prove something or offer valid evidence to show that it's true then I have no reason to believe it.
There is no argument, except one which you never brought up nor are interested in learning about from us.
You asked us why we believe, and we've told you.
I am not trying to convert you. Nor am I interested in doing so. And the concept of esoteric debate is not something which you proposed with your initial question.
You make wonderful follow-up questions, but this is not the appropriate forum nor am I the appropriate person for you to enter these discussions with.
If you live within the United States, there should be a Catholic Church within a 20 mile radius from you. May I suggest discussing with a priest? If you are interested in the esoteric, perhaps discuss things with one who is trained in the esoteric.
Off the cuff remarks with people on a political website, with loosely related follow-up questions isn't exactly the hallmarks of interested debate or good-faith attempts to learn about the person on the other side of the inquiry.
I doubt talking to a catholic priest is going to turn up any evidence. All I'd get there is a bunch of sophistry to convince me that evidence isn't needed in the first place.
And how come you didn't tell me to go to my local mormon church to ask questions? Why Catholicism? (special pleading perhaps?)
You can say you're not trying to convert me or convince me, but you are making claims.
And whether or not it's your intention, I am faced with an internal question about whether or not to believe your claims.
So if I question or scrutinize your claims it's not because I want you to change your position, but because I'm evaluating your claims. And if you think it's inappropriate for me to scrutinize and evaluate your claims, then perhaps you shouldn't be making those claims in public.
You asked me why I believe. I answered why I believe.
The Catholic Church is the greatest repository of knowledge in human history simply because of its sheer age. Furthermore, because of the various crises of faith it has endured, it has built the most robust knowledge-base to make its arguments.
You don't have to believe my claims. I'm not trying to get you to believe my claims. I am, to the best of my ability, merely answering your question as to why I believe.
I can lay claim my beliefs if I so choose. If you question them, good on you and you are free to do so. And I can choose to place them where I find them to be appropriate - the trash.
You do not seek truth or learning, but rather seek to prove your own point. If you want to learn, talk to one who is best suited for your discussion. Outright claiming whatever argument comes from one trained to counter your argument is not an attack on sophistry but utter close-mindedness.
I've removed the base from where you make your arguments - faith simply cannot be proven your idea of logic presupposes you have a complete understanding. You do not have a complete understanding. You've deconstructed the term logic to be a rather incomplete understanding of logic. Or proofs. But when asking something as total and encompassing as the existence of God, you need to be humble enough to understand that at best you do not have the information to know about God. Thus the role of faith.
I am not proving the existence of God. I have faith in God. You on the other hand seem intent on trying to disprove the existence of God by attacking my faith.
Again, you asked why I believe in God. I have answered it. I'm not engaging any further and if you are truly interested in knowing more about the subject, then discuss with a priest. If you want to cling to your atheism, that's fine and it's adorable that patting yourself in the back in an empty room instead of seeking truth in the obvious avenues is the way you want to go about your inquiry.
I will hold my faith public. You will keep your militant atheism public.
Sorry friend. But I think the internet is the greatest repository of knowledge in human history. If not that then maybe the Library of Congress.
I'm sure the Vatican secret archives could re-write much of European history, but I doubt it contains any huge scientific revelations we haven't already figured out. Hard to say though, since it's all secret.
Can we talk about epistemology? Like as in what are your standards for gathering and validating knowledge? What does it take before you reject a claim, and what do you require before you claim to "know" something?
The reason I ask is because in my opinion religious "knowledge" is always gathered and evaluated using a completely different standard than any other type of knowledge. In my opinion if a religious person actually applied the same standards to their religion as they do everything else, it would be impossible for them to maintain belief.
So, I'm curious about your process of validating knowledge and whether or not you're willing to explore the possibility of there being a double standard.
Say for example... You want to buy a new TV from a website. But you want to "know" the website is legit and not going to scam you and steal your money before you give them your credit card number.
Do you just trust the website by default until someone comes along and proves they are a scam, or do you wait until you have positive evidence showing they are legit?