Please please help.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Job42

Duly noted. But still, I wouldn't say a Christian's belief is comprised of "independent beliefs." A Christian's life is by nature a "personal relationship" with Christ (and a communal relationship w/ the Body of Christ), expressed through a life of "morality" and nurtured primarily via things like "prayer," (and the Sacraments for Catholics) "Bible," "other Christians," and secondarily reinforced by things like "creation" and "logical arguments." They are all interrelated.

Sorry if I implied they were completely unrelated. By "independent" I meant that if one belief was refuted (for whatever reason), the rest of the network would still stand. Of course they are related, that's why the "network" analogy is so accurate.

The point is, no one is going to bring your faith to a crashing halt with a single argument. Even if you accept the argument as true, the other "nodes" in the "network" will still be left standing.

[Job42]

The point is, no one is going to bring your faith to a crashing halt with a single argument. Even if you accept the argument as true, the other "nodes" in the "network" will still be left standing.

Well if that is the whole point then he is not making much of a point. It can be applied to any belief system, including that of an atheist.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Zimm3r

I give him credence because he seems genuine and it took a lot of work to make those videos (why take all that time just to troll). Even if he is trolling his objects still matter amd they are what worry me.

I did not say he was trolling. That is something entirely different. Judging someone's genuineness from a video on Youtube is impossible really. There are many videos on Youtube that seem "genuine" but are not made with a wholesome purpose.

Why not seek the advice of a Catholic spiritual director? Someone who can truly guide you to the truth and not just more Youtube videos. Wikipedia and Youtube are the opposite of truth.

[empther]

Zimm3r

I was the one who asked you to write down some of the arguments this guy in the video was using and you did in post 19. Thank you.

Going through the list of his arguments, I found them trivial and ignorant.
For example: he says there's no scientific evidence for the flood.

Really! This is amateurish debating that would put middle school kids to shame.
This is his kind of argument?

He's a charlatan, a crank, and totally incompetent to talk about these serious matters.
My advice is to laugh at his videos and then forget them.

[Gidras05]

Hey Zimm3r,

You mention that you really like logical proofs like the other Apologists you mentioned.

Honestly, going on Youtube and watching college kids tell you why the internet taught them that theism is wrong and "look at all these objections" etc etc.... Haven't you ever wondered why you're hearing this now?

The reason why you're exposed to it is because we have the ability to communicate easily thanks to the internet. But that does NOT mean that these questions haven't been asked in the 2000 years since Christ formed the Catholic Church. Remember, Christianity started with 12 little individual apostles versus a world against their beliefs. Obviously people had questions, and GOOD ones at that.

And therefore you must realize that there are 2000 years of theologians and apologists and teachings dedicated to defending against these claims. Don't get me wrong, going on this forum is a great way for answers but honestly?

Your best bet is go to the experts, the people who actually STUDY all of this, not people who can give you why they think this youtube guy doesn't seem "right". A lot of people here are very informed, but others might not give you what you're looking for.

If you're looking for logic? Proof? Scientific evidence of God? Here's two books for you to start: Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft
New Proofs for the Existence of God by Fr Robert J Spitzer

The first book handles a TON of philosophy and covers everything from Faith vs Reason, to the 20 Philosophical proofs for God's existence, to the Historical accuracy of the Bible, Christ's divinity, Resurrection, Heaven/Hell, etc etc.

The second book is much much more hardcore. It covers the scientific achievements of the last 40 years in regards to the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. It was published very recently, and is being hailed greatly as being quite definitive in its examination of arguments for and against theism, using physics and cosmology.

Just so you get an idea, here are some chapters in the book:

A Lonerganian Proof for God's existence
Large Scale and Fine-Structure Constants and the Extreme Improbability of our Anthropic Universe
Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universes and how they Require a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem's Boundary to Past Time
Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for any Conditioned Reality
Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities

These are literally like a 20th of the topics that book covers.

Both of these guys are experts in their field. I would give them a read and I guarantee you'll feel more at ease. Read more Apologists!

Oh and just as an aside- Fr Spitzer? yeah he's a Jesuit scholar. I think you'll find it interesting to note that so far every single one of the spokespeople for the New Atheist movement have outright refused to pubicly debate a Jesuit scholar. Each time they've been turned down. Interesting huh? Jesuit scholars are responsible for some of the greatest scientific achievements of the past 2000 years. They're no joke.

[Zimm3r]

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

I did not say he was trolling. That is something entirely different. Judging someone's genuineness from a video on Youtube is impossible really. There are many videos on Youtube that seem "genuine" but are not made with a wholesome purpose.

Why not seek the advice of a Catholic spiritual director? Someone who can truly guide you to the truth and not just more Youtube videos. Wikipedia and Youtube are the opposite of truth.

I apologise I thought you were suggesting he was trolling. Genuiness doesn't really matter in the end it is the logical thought process that I care about.

As for the suggestion of the advice of a Catholic spiritual director seems contradictory to what I am trying to do, find the truth you should try and disprove things not prove them. (For example the null hypothesis http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html you can't ever prrove it you can only prove that within a certain certainty it is probabilistic)

Thank You for your reply

Originally Posted by empther

Zimm3r

I was the one who asked you to write down some of the arguments this guy in the video was using and you did in post 19. Thank you.

Going through the list of his arguments, I found them trivial and ignorant.
For example: he says there's no scientific evidence for the flood.

Really! This is amateurish debating that would put middle school kids to shame.
This is his kind of argument?

He's a charlatan, a crank, and totally incompetent to talk about these serious matters.
My advice is to laugh at his videos and then forget them.

Sorry I forgot who asked and my brain was tired :-). I do agree they are trivial but there are still some arguments against this global flood that the bible says happened (for example http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html)

Amateurish or not shouldn't matter it is whether it can be disproved.

No offence but seems you got more emotion out of this then logical counters to his claims.

Thank you for your reply :-)

Originally Posted by Gidras05

Hey Zimm3r,

You mention that you really like logical proofs like the other Apologists you mentioned.

Honestly, going on Youtube and watching college kids tell you why the internet taught them that theism is wrong and "look at all these objections" etc etc.... Haven't you ever wondered why you're hearing this now?

The reason why you're exposed to it is because we have the ability to communicate easily thanks to the internet. But that does NOT mean that these questions haven't been asked in the 2000 years since Christ formed the Catholic Church. Remember, Christianity started with 12 little individual apostles versus a world against their beliefs. Obviously people had questions, and GOOD ones at that.

SECTION REMOVED TO FIT < 6000 CHARACTERS

The second book is much much more hardcore. It covers the scientific achievements of the last 40 years in regards to the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. It was published very recently, and is being hailed greatly as being quite definitive in its examination of arguments for and against theism, using physics and cosmology.

Just so you get an idea, here are some chapters in the book:

A Lonerganian Proof for God's existence
Large Scale and Fine-Structure Constants and the Extreme Improbability of our Anthropic Universe
Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universes and how they Require a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem's Boundary to Past Time
Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for any Conditioned Reality
Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities

These are literally like a 20th of the topics that book covers.

Both of these guys are experts in their field. I would give them a read and I guarantee you'll feel more at ease. Read more Apologists!

Oh and just as an aside- Fr Spitzer? yeah he's a Jesuit scholar. I think you'll find it interesting to note that so far every single one of the spokespeople for the New Atheist movement have outright refused to pubicly debate a Jesuit scholar. Each time they've been turned down. Interesting huh? Jesuit scholars are responsible for some of the greatest scientific achievements of the past 2000 years. They're no joke.

Wow thank you for the time you put in :-) I have heard of the first book from friends (I go to a catholic school most of my friends are catholic and several are well versed in defending their beliefs (sadly better then the teachers ).

What is the problem with internet sources or atheistic sources they are no more less credible then a book, the credibility is determined by their content not the publishing method or differing view point (not saying that is why but just want to cover for anyone else)?

Also again I'll post what I said above on proving vs disproving

As for the suggestion of the advice of a Catholic spiritual director seems contradictory to what I am trying to do, find the truth you should try and disprove things not prove them. (For example the null hypothesis http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html you can't ever prrove it you can only prove that within a certain certainty it is probabilistic)

Again thank you all for your replies I know it may not seem I am grateful because I am "fighting" with it but I truly am I just always have trouble believing things and am defiantly a cynic.

Thanks again :-)

[Gidras05]

Originally Posted by Zimm3r

Wow thank you for the time you put in :-) I have heard of the first book from friends (I go to a catholic school most of my friends are catholic and several are well versed in defending their beliefs (sadly better then the teachers ).

What is the problem with internet sources or atheistic sources they are no more less credible then a book, the credibility is determined by their content not the publishing method or differing view point (not saying that is why but just want to cover for anyone else)?

Good question. To me, the biggest difference is the credentials of the author. It's a very different atmosphere of debate when you're using points from those with PhD's in Philosphy or Physics or Metaphysics (on either theist or atheist sides), versus atheist blogs or atheist youtube videos of students still in their undergraduate years, grabbing inconsistent arguments from here and there and mashing them into their version of a "coherent" argument. While some questions they have may be good, that does NOT mean that there aren't answers for them.

Oh and one last thing. God will never give you a trial that you can't overcome. Persevere my friend!

[Zimm3r]

Originally Posted by Gidras05

Good question. To me, the biggest difference is the credentials of the author. It's a very different atmosphere of debate when you're using points from those with PhD's in Philosphy or Physics or Metaphysics (on either theist or atheist sides), versus atheist blogs or atheist youtube videos of students still in their undergraduate years, grabbing inconsistent arguments from here and there and mashing them into their version of a "coherent" argument. While some questions they have may be good, that does NOT mean that there aren't answers for them.

Oh and one last thing. God will never give you a trial that you can't overcome. Persevere my friend!

Wow you replied really fast thanks.

No doubt that the author of it caries wait but also even a nobody saying 1+1=2 would still be correct (unless they say it to a relativist ) . Though I do agree with you no doubt you want someone versed in logic (though you want to make sure it isn't just an appeal from authority ). Will check those books out though thanks

[Gidras05]

Originally Posted by Zimm3r

Wow you replied really fast thanks.

No doubt that the author of it caries wait but also even a nobody saying 1+1=2 would still be correct (unless they say it to a relativist ) . Though I do agree with you no doubt you want someone versed in logic (though you want to make sure it isn't just an appeal from authority ). Will check those books out though thanks

Good point- Appeal to authority can be flawed.

Let me know if you do check out those books- and until you do, don't make any definitive positions on your faith. Make sure to read thoroughly both sides of any argument =)

Lastly, if you need more book recommendations about any topic, please let me know. I guarantee to have excellent books on any topic of contention for you!

[Zimm3r]

Originally Posted by Gidras05

Good point- Appeal to authority can be flawed.

Let me know if you do check out those books- and until you do, don't make any definitive positions on your faith. Make sure to read thoroughly both sides of any argument =)

Lastly, if you need more book recommendations about any topic, please let me know. I guarantee to have excellent books on any topic of contention for you!

Thanks reading the first pages of "A Handbook of Christian Apologetics" on Amazon.

[wcknight]

Zimm, look at why he decided to turn atheist. He became flustered because he could not answer some questions by his professor, and he found problems with his own interpretations of the Bible.

Firstoff, he was no expert in either the Bible nor Christianity. His training and upbringing simply did not match his professors.

Second, his pride made him believe that he was somehow infallible in interpreting scriptures ( a huge protestant misconception - that anyone who reads scriptures will be guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret it in every case for every situation), That is simply not true. This is a huge reason why the Catholic Church has a large number of folks specializing in interpreting scriptures.

It is great if we read scrpitures also, BUT we will all get into problems if we start to apply it to all life situations like the protestants do.

SO this wannabe Bible expert thought he could take on any atheist and failed to convince his professor that atheism was wrong. Well he did not have the expertise to do so, and he mistakenly thought that he was unbeatable or infallible in his thinking. He set himself up to fail from the very start.

[Zimm3r]

Originally Posted by wcknight

Zimm, look at why he decided to turn atheist. He became flustered because he could not answer some questions by his professor, and he found problems with his own interpretations of the Bible.

Firstoff, he was no expert in either the Bible nor Christianity. His training and upbringing simply did not match his professors.

Second, his pride made him believe that he was somehow infallible in interpreting scriptures ( a huge protestant misconception - that anyone who reads scriptures will be guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret it in every case for every situation), That is simply not true. This is a huge reason why the Catholic Church has a large number of folks specializing in interpreting scriptures.

It is great if we read scrpitures also, BUT we will all get into problems if we start to apply it to all life situations like the protestants do.

SO this wannabe Bible expert thought he could take on any atheist and failed to convince his professor that atheism was wrong. Well he did not have the expertise to do so, and he mistakenly thought that he was unbeatable or infallible in his thinking. He set himself up to fail from the very start.

No doubt the professor out classed him that is my point the professor provided arguments, his faith is irrelevant.

To your second point I won't get in to much about the church but suffice it to say the church was transformed during the middle ages from the church that Christ created, that Peter lead, and Paul defended to a corrupt political organisation that still has not gotten close to its former glory (though some have tried and done well (Blessed Pope John Paul II))

To not apply scripture would be keeping your religion compartmentalised and not fully "who you are"

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by Job42

He explains elementary school-level concepts with fancy graphics and diagrams as if he were teaching quantum physics. He says he is trying to reach out to believers but he is making my neck hurt from having to look up to him on his pedestal. Also, what is with the high qualitiy of his video? Did he have some help from some anti-religion group?

It's Apple Keynote (you may be more familiar with Power Point, they are similar in concept). It's designed to allow some one to easily produce a presentation with background music, transitions, and narration. And it's fairly inexpensive! You can get it on the OS X and iOS. After I saw him using it I tried it out and had a good amount of success in making nice videos (though mine are on Computer Science topics and not religious ones).

While I think most in this forum would find the concepts easy to grasp in reaching for a broader audience I think he decided to err on the side of possibly explaining more than needed instead of less. I think this was influenced from experiences he had in teaching students in Computer Science and sometimes finding that a student may not have yet grasped onto a simple concept tht is necessary for an explanation he's provided.

Originally Posted by empther

Why don't you write out the atheist arguments this guy makes and we'll refute them.

The video series was originally intended as a recollection of his transition from being a Christian and how his faith in Christianity was erroded over time without him initiall being aware that it was being erroded. So the first part of the series doesn't have much arguments per se. He's also a candidate for PhD and his concentration in the area of Computer Science. More specifically on Evidentialism applied to the area of AI. Evidentialism becomes an underlying theme within these vids and part of the foundation of what he later tries to support (which s also implied by his user name Evid3nc3). The last two videos he's completed at this time are centered on Evidentialism and the objetions to it.

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by wcknight

Zimm, look at why he decided to turn atheist. He became flustered because he could not answer some questions by his professor, and he found problems with his own interpretations of the Bible.

That was a contributor to him walking away from Christianity but not the only contributor. He's shared other contributors, but they are spread throughout the first 90 minutes of his presentations. From what he's said in video 2.0 what he's presented is simplified (time marker 2:18-2:38). So it could be said that not all of the reasons are presented.

[heaintheavy]

Originally Posted by wcknight

Atheists have a bunch of arguments on why they think God does not exist, BUT none have ever definitively proved that God does not exist, and they never will.

Even the famous astro physicists Card Sagan, NEil Tyson, and Steven Hawking have NOT proved that there is no God.

It is an impossibility and IF they are honest they will admit that to you. What some of them have proved (or think they have proved) is that the universe could have come into existence by natural means. In their way of thinking there is no 'need' for God. BUT that is a far cry from proving that there is no God.

These folks are very smart people BUT that does not make them right. And based on my readings, experiences and from the experiences of folks who I know and trust, I am 100% certain that they are dead wrong. I would encourage you to read about the lives of the saints, and about some of the experiences of the folks on this web site (including my own and those of my close friends).

The spiritual realm DOES exist, and God is very much a part of the spiritual realm, and the Catholic Church has it right. It takes time to build up a faith strong enough to
discount all the rubbish that is thrown out by those who do not believe. These folks have closed their minds off to the possibility of God, and they will explain away everything as delusion or hoaxes or myths. BUT there are far too many very good people, who are sincere and honest, who have experienced these things first hand for them ALL not to be true.

Even IF a large part of them were liars and trying to mislead folks, the remaining folks would be more than enough to make the existence of God and the spiritual realm true.

Scientists (and most atheists) are disputing the existence of God based on man's understanding of the physical world. BUT God is spirit, He is beyond anything that they can comprehend or observe. Let the scientists stick to this universe, God is far beyond this physical universe.

Of course one can't "prove" that God doesn't exist. I can tell you that there is the spirit of a table in front of you, and you can't prove to me that I'm wrong.
But by the same token, one can't prove God does exist, too! It's often a matter of what you believe, not what is real or true or not.