The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
Dmot
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points

Catholicism Is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 43017
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will argue that Catholicism is false, and whoever accepts this debate will argue that it is true.

First round is acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro


Thanks for accepting.


If the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) contains the slightest logical inconsistency, then Catholicism is false. Pope John Paul II said, upon approval of the CCC, “I declare [the CCC] to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”


According to the CCC, “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Yet, a few sentences down, we are allowed “to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.


Since it's already settled that no one can be saved without Baptism, to hope that children who've died without it can be saved is illogical.


Thus, Catholicism is false.


http://www.vatican.va...


Dmot

Con

Your comments in bold, mine in regular print. First, I comment on your arguments then I move on to mine.

If the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) contains the slightest logical inconsistency, then Catholicism is false.


This would only be the case if the Catechism was considered infallible. However it is not.

This is what Archbishop Leveda said quoting former Pope Benedict when he was a cardinal:

"As a compendium of Catholic doctrine, moreover, the individual doctrines which are present in the catechism have the weight and authority which they bear in the dogmatic tradition of the church. As Cardinal Ratzinger remarked, "The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess. What is important is the catechism in its totality: It reflects the church's teaching; anyone who rejects it overall separates himself unequivocally from the faith and teaching of the church" ("The Catechism and the Optimism of the Redeemed," 479)."


Read what apologist Jimmy Akin has to say:http://jimmyakin.com...



Pope John Paul II said, upon approval of the CCC, “I declare [the CCC] to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

A sure norm of teaching is something that is useful to teach the Faith. This does not mean that it is a dogmatic statement that can contain no errors. This simply means it is a good explanation and representation of Catholic belief. Catholics consider the Catechism to be infallible insofar as it teaches what was taught by the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. As a whole it contains infallible truth, and this is what the Pope means, however, not every word choice is to be understood as infallible.

Church teaching is considered infallible in its exact formulation (that is, word for word infallible teaching) only when it is an act of the extraordinary magisterium, that means, a formal statement with full authority of the Pope or a Church council. Otherwise, the teachings may still be infallible but not in their exact form, word choice, or style.

It does not mean every word is infallible. Besides, even if the Pope had said "the Catechism is infallible" it would not be necessary so unless the Pope had taught this "ex Cathedra" that means using his full authority as Pope. There is no reason that his statement is to be considered infallible. Further, no commentator or theologian in the Church has thought the Pope taught this infallibly. That is illogical.
According to the CCC, “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Yet, a few sentences down, we are allowed “to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

Theologians have generally distinguished between the necessity of precept and means.
Precept- something is necessary by precept if God commands it to all without exeption. Baptism is necessary in this sense according to the Church. See the Catechism or any theologian


Means- This means that without this, it is impossible to get to heaven. Sanctifying grace for instance is absolutely necessary by means. Now, something can be ordinarily necessary by means or absoultely. Absolutely admits no exception, ordinarily admits some exceptions in extraordinary cases. Baptism is to be taken as necessary in the second sense. Read any prominent Catholic theolgian and they will tell you this. http://www.newadvent.org...

http://www.cin.org... See question 154

Thus, Catholicism is false.

Now, in making this debate, I understand that you are taking the BOP in arguing Catholicism is false, all I have to do is show you are wrong. However, I have more space and thus will argue it is true. Obviously, I have not enough room to make a full argument. I will simply make a few brief points


1) God exists
-We know God exists from reason alone. A simply argument is this: Contingent things exist. Continent things by their own nature cannot explain their own existence. If everything were contingent, existence would be uninteligable at best and impossible at worst. Since neither of these options is reasonable, there must be a necessary being.

-As the cause of the world, the necessary being would have to contain in itself the perfections of its creation to be said to be an actual cause of these things. The perfections of creatures by either be contained in their exact form in the necessary being or as ideas in an intellect. The former is impossible because a necessary being is absoultely simple (non-composite) (that is because to be composite is to exist through parts rather than by its own nature which is by definition not-necessary) that means the latter must be true


2) We have an immaterial soul

-One material substance cannot have intrinsic meaning, it cannot be "about" another material substance because it cannot contain the essence of another thing in itself without being that thing.
-Our intellects can contain the essences of many things and our thoughts can have inherent meaning. Therefore, intellectual activity and the will that follows upon that must be acts of an immaterial component to man

3) If God reveals something, we ought to believe it
4) There is good evidence that God reveals Himself through Jesus
-The best explanation of the events of early Christianity is the ressurection. Otherwise, the early Christians either died for a lie or a delusion. It is ridiculous to die for a lie. As for a delusion, it would have to be a mass delusion. Yet the Romans or the Jews couldve disproved the delusion by presenting the body of Jesus or simply wiping out a small number of the deluded. Yet despite the efforts of hte most powerful government in the world, and the counter-intuitive, hard to accpet claims of the random Jewish carpenter somehow compelled belief and overcame the efforts of the government


5) Revelation only makes sense with an interpreting body to continue to teach God's revelation throughout history. Otherwise, we can never know what God actually revealed. As we see, there are many disagreements among protestants. How do we know who is right? What interpretation is correct? How do we apply ancient teachings to todays world? The only answer is an infallible Church. Also, the early Christians clearly believed in the authority of Peter.


6) There are good signs today of the truth of Catholicism. Here are examples:

http://www.miraclehunter.com...
http://shroud.com...
http://www.michaeljournal.org...
http://www.therealpresence.org...









Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Wow, I did not know that the CCC wasn't considered infallible. That's pretty stupid on the Church's part, I have to say. They are promoting a book loaded with speculation and stuff that may not even be true, without even distinguishing which parts are de fide dogma (infallible) and which could be simply not true.

Ridiculous. Nevertheless, I will continue this debate from a different angle. From here on, all sources are from de fide dogma, which is officially considered infallible by the Church, and which I've found from this list:

http://jloughnan.tripod.com...

  • 183: Grace cannot be merited by natural works

  • 212: Grace can be increased by good works.
  • 215: By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
  • 216: A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace [...]

The first line contradicts the other 3. Line 183 we can't earn grace, while the other 3 basically say we can.

  • 43: God is infinitely just.
  • 44: God is infinitely merciful.

  • 191: God[...] predestines certain men [...] to eternal rejection.

That isn't very just or merciful, much-less infinitely just or merciful.

Dmot

Con

Your comments once again in bold.


Wow, I did not know that the CCC wasn't considered infallible.
You misunderstand what a Catechism is and the degrees of infallibility. A catechism is a guide to teach the faith. As such, it contains truths considered infallible. (E.g. Jesus is God). John Paul II declared it to be a sure norm of truth because it teaches these infallible truths. However, in itself it is not infallible in every word or phrase. As the links/quotes I provided explain, as a whole it is a valuable resource, teaches the faith accurately, etc. because it is an act of what is known as the "Ordinary Magisterium." However, it is not mean to define any dogmas and as such it is not infallible in every word choice or sentence even though the doctrines they present as a whole are infallible (not really because they are in the Catechism, more because they have been continuously taught by the Ordinary Magisterium including by the Catechism OR taught in an "extraordinary manner"...you need some background knowledge on the Magisterium to understand this point, so if you would like I can elaborate or provide a link. A good place to start is to check out the Catechism or an older one like the Baltimore Catechism. Also Catholic Answers is a good resource).

That's pretty stupid on the Church's part, I have to say. They are promoting a book loaded with speculation and stuff that may not even be true,


Well see my above. That's not an accurate representation of what the Catechism is. It certainly contains doctrines but itself is not an act of the extraordinary magisterium, therefore, we need not take every sentence to be absolute, final, and literal.

without even distinguishing which parts are de fide dogma (infallible) and which could be simply not true.

That's not entirely true either. For instance, the part you sight above about infants dying without baptism it explicitly states " to hope" which means possibly true but speculative. Also, read the references in Denzinger and other places that the Catechism sites. This should help clarify which is infallible and which is not.
Ridiculous. Nevertheless, I will continue this debate from a different angle.
However, a Catholic may concede that the Catechism was a bad idea and that it is "pretty stupid" because infallibility does not apply to the prudentail matters of Church leadership.

These doctrines are taken from Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma." Therefore, I suggest you get a copy and read the explanations he provides before making these sweeping assertions. However, I will save you some work since I have a copy and either quote or paraphrase for you.

183: Grace cannot be merited by natural works
on page 236: "That the first grace cannot be merited is obvious from this that there is an intrinsic lack of a proportion between nature and grace...and because of the impossibility of meriting the grace which is essential to supernatural merit."

  • 212: Grace can be increased by good works.

    page 262 discusses this issue. It is discussing the inequality of something called "sanctifying grace" which is an accident of the soul which makes us pleasing to God. Catholic theology teaches that once we are in the state of grace, that is, we have sanctifying grace, we can then merit. However, this is because of the grace in our soul. If you look above, the "intrinsic impossibility" dissapears because once grace is on the soul, the proportion no longer is between grace and nature, as man now has grace and therefore with grace he can earn more. The above is speaking of "natural works" which are good works which proceed from man's nature alone. However, once he has grace on his soul, he no longer acts by natural works but his works have supernatural value. Therefore, there is no contradiction between 183 and "Secondary graces can be merited by supernatural works" because these presupose an unmerited grace. This answer should suffice to show that your other arguments below are faulty. They make the same mistake
  • 215: By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
  • 216: A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace [...]

The first line contradicts the other 3. Line 183 we can't earn grace, while the other 3 basically say we can.

  • 43: God is infinitely just.
  • 44: God is infinitely merciful.

  • 191: God[...] predestines certain men [...] to eternal rejection.


    This leaves out the important "on account of their forseen sins" which the original Ott has where you have [...] on page 245. This is important. Now, we could argue all day about the justice of hell but that's really another debate. There are questions over how a just God could send someone to eternal torment, however that is a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE/QUESTION NOT a SELF-CONTRADICTION in Catholicism.


    Further, Ott also clarifies "Heretical...predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of futre demerits. This was rejected as false..."


    Ott also quotes St. Augustine "God is good, God is just. He can save a person without good works, because he is good, but He cannot condemn anyone without evil works because He is just." Now this raises important theological questions on grace, however, these are discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestination and in Ott's book on pages 242-250.





    Also, you did not answer any of my arguments, so they seem to stand as of now.

Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • You misunderstand what a Catechism is and the degrees of infallibility.”

Either something is infallible or it isn't. There are no degrees of infallibility, as there no degrees of truth. Something is either true, or it isn't. It's really simple. Any claim to the contrary is just an excuse to pass off the CCC as God's law.

  • [The CCC] teaches the faith accurately”
Obviously not, as you've just explained yourself.
  • However, a Catholic may concede that the Catechism was a bad idea and that it is "pretty stupid"
I agree.

I quoted de fide dogma saying that grace can be increased through works and merited through works, then showed a contradictory passage (also de fide) that says that grace can't be merited through works.

Your best argument is that they are talking about different types of grace, which is an invalid argument seeing as these passages do not claim to be discussing different types of grace. “Grace” applies to all grace, including supernatural grace, since it is a form of it.

I argued that God can't be both infinitely just & merciful, but also predestine some people to Hell, as the CCC states (again, de fide dogma).

You said that because anyone predestined to Hell is only predestined so because God looked into the future and say their evil deeds that made them deserve hell. However, I argue that the existance of an infinitely merciful God means that no sin is so great that it would end you up in hell without this infinite mercy to forgive you.

Yes, the other arguments are dropped because I didn't know until round 2 that the CCC isn't considered infallible.

Dmot

Con

Either something is infallible or it isn't. There are no degrees of infallibility, as there no degrees of truth. Something is either true, or it isn't
Actually, you aren't right about infallibility. Infallible and true are similar but not the same. Infallible involves the certainty. There can be different degrees of certainty. Something can be plain and simple infallible, whereas other things can be pretty certain, and others can be mere theological speculation.
http://www.beginningcatholic.com...

You quoted Dr. Ott's book from an online source. In this very book, degrees of certainty are discussed, for instance de fide vs. sent. certa.



Obviously not, as you've just explained yourself.


The Catechism is accurate on the whole as it basically contains the Catholic faith. This does not entail that every sentence is itself infallible and every word is true. It just means in chunks it can be considered a pretty accurate representation of Catholicism.


The doctrines of the CCC are infallible insofar as they reflect the continued teachings of the Bishops and Popes through the centuries and insofar as they reflect definitive decisions by the Popes in encyclicals or the Church at councils. Hence the CCC contains infallible truths however it is not SIMPLY because they are in the Catechism that they are infallible. Further, a truth can be infallible in the Catechism but the exact articulation may be poor. Hence the Church issues revisions of the CCC.

Your best argument is that they are talking about different types of grace, which is an invalid argument seeing as these passages do not claim to be discussing different types of grace

Actually, you are just quoting what is used as headings in the book, since I own a copy of the book and quoted the actually original source...

It is not so much different kinds of grace but different kinds of works. The first statement is "grace cannot be increased by natural works" The other statements are speaking of "justified man" and "supernatural works" and "merit." All of which (with a sound understanding of Catholic Theology as well as reading Dr. Ott's actual work rather than quoting it out of context) demonstrate there is no contradiction. The first statement is speaking of naturally good works, which are those that a man without grace performs. Supernaturally good works can merit an increase in grace but this is no contradiction.

Also, if you really want to see, these "de fide" doctrines are not de fide because Ott listed them as such. They are de fide because Church councils defined them. So if you really want to know, go to the original Church documents. Ott sites a reference guide called Denzinger's sources of Catholic Doctrine. This is also cited by the Catechism. This contains many Church documents so see for yourslef.


As for grace, the Council of Trent is the original source: http://history.hanover.edu...

"CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. "

Emphasis mine






However, I argue that the existance of an infinitely merciful God means that no sin is so great that it would end you up in hell without this infinite mercy to forgive you

This is a tough theological question. Yet it does not show Catholicism is false on the face of it. It is not an internal, self-contradiction. It is a difficult doctrine to understand. There are many answers given throughout history by theologians

e.g.
http://www.catholic.com...
http://www.newadvent.org...



Although its a deep question, the short of it is like this:
If you make a fundamental choice against God through mortal sin, you are decided to reject God and WOULDN"T EVEN BE HAPPY IN HEAVEN because heaven is God's eternal presence. You couldn't enjoy God forever if you made a conscious and deliberate choice against him. A conscious and deliberate choice against God is what is meant by mortal sin in Catholicism. Because of this, God offers you a chance for mercy. He wants you to repent. However, if you chose not too, you cannot recieve God's mercy because you willfully deny it.


At death, you step outside this life of change, regular physical time, space, etc. You become what you have chosen and you fully recognize your choice. If you have not repented, you cannot change. Sister Josefa Mendez http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com...; divine.htmlhttp://www.mysticsofthechurch.com...;

States that "one act of love would deliver a damned soul from hell yet they refuse to make that act of love" (paraphrase). This means that a damned soul chooses by their own eternal choice to remain apart from God.


Finally, human souls are by nature immortal. This is part of what it means to be made in God's image. They have chosen hell, God ratifies the choice. This is truly a mystery, and my answer doesn't even attempt to explain everything. The point is that God's infinite mercy is there for all who want it. If someone doesn't want it, God won't force them to recieve it.


This however isn't a debate about the existence of hell, its about whether or not Catholicism is false. Pointing to a tough theological question doesn't falsify Catholicism unless you show an internal logical contradiction. Which there is none here at least. Articles of faith are mysteries beyond our understanding that is why St. Anselm says "faith seeking understanding" not the other way around.

Yes, the other arguments are dropped because I didn't know until round 2 that the CCC isn't considered infallible

No my 6 step argument in my first post had nothing to do with the CCC. Although, since you have the BOP is not necessary that my argument succeeds, I just wanted to call your attention to it.
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I pointed out how it's an logical inconsistency to claim that God has infinite mercy, yet at the same time say that one can still be damned to hell.

I explained how no act of sin would be so grave that infinite mercy wouldn't allow for forgiveness.

You responded with:

  • its a deep question &
  • It is not an internal, self-contradiction.

I disagree. I think it's pretty obvious that the stance of the Catholic Church makes no logical sense.

You said theologians have provided answers to this problem throughout history, but you didn't mention any of these arguments.

  • "If you make a fundamental choice against God through mortal sin, you are decided to reject God and WOULDN"T EVEN BE HAPPY IN HEAVEN because heaven is God's eternal presence. You couldn't enjoy God forever if you made a conscious and deliberate choice against him. A conscious and deliberate choice against God is what is meant by mortal sin in Catholicism."

I know enough about Catholicism to understand that Venial Sins are also a conscious and deliberate choice against God, so if Venial Sins are forgiven by this infinite mercy, why not mortal ones too?

Surely a mere human being cannot suck dry the resources of an infinite mercy!?

Dmot

Con

I explained how no act of sin would be so grave that infinite mercy wouldn't allow for forgiveness

All sins can be forgiven. That is what the Catholic Church teaches. Even mortal sins allow for forgiveness. So your argument fails. There is no sin that can exhaust God's mercy.

However, if one refuses to accept God's mercy, then the limit is not on God's mercy but on man's willingness to recieve that mercy. You don't have to agree with Catholicism to see the difference here, and even if you think the answer to the problem of hell doesn't work, it does show that there is no internal contradiction between infinite mercy and eternal suffering. The solution to the logical inconsistency is that the mercy can forgive any sin but mercy means forgiveness for those who are willing. God wants to forgive all, yet if you willingly chose not to accept God's forgiveness, you willingly reject God and your sin is not forgiven.


but you didn't mention any of these arguments.

I linked to them for your own reference. I also provided one of my own. I also provided a quote from a mystic of the Church who claims to have seen hell. She explains how people in hell are there by their own free choice to "not make a single act of love."



so if Venial Sins are forgiven by this infinite mercy, why not mortal ones too?

In order to get to heaven, it is necessary that we have what is called sanctifying grace on our soul. This is a quality that makes our soul capable of entering into heaven. You see, Catholic theology teaches that heaven is a SUPERnatural end. A natural end is a thing's inherent purpose based on what that thing is. For instance, the eye has the natural end of sight simply because of what it is, that is, its the type of thing that is ordered towards detecting light and transmitting this information to the brain. There are philosophical arguments, like the ones given by St. Thomas Aquinas (see the links I gave above and look around, you can find them) that show man must have a natural end in the service of God.


One simple argument, not given by St. Thomas as far as I know, but still comprehensible is the idea that anything God creates must be created to manifest His glory as His glory is the only thing in itself that is infinitely perfect. Therefore, man is created to manifest God's glory. Irrational things do this simply by existing and acting as God has made them, however, since man is free, He must glorify God by his free acts. It is from here that moral theologians have deduced the virtues and precepts of the natural law.


Now, Catholic theology states that this natural end (purpose) was raised by God to a supernatural end. This doesn't mean we have a different inherent purpose. It means that when we reach our purpose, it takes on a new supernatural dimension. It is a more perfect closeness with God. An analogy with other natural ends is this: It would be like if whenever the eye saw things of the natural world it could also see the future things that would happen there. So this power would not be in the eye but nor would it contradict the eye's powers. Another analogy more directly related with theology is our natural end is like becoming friends with God whereas our supernatural end involves being adpoted and sharing in His very own life.


However, a supernatural end requires supernatural means, that is, we cannot reach this end on our own. We need an extra quality and this is what Catholics call grace. Grace comes into our soul with the virtue of charity. We can freely chose to live according to this virtue (that is, accept grace as a gift from God and live accordingly) or freely chose to reject it (and not love God). However the rejecting of grace by definition kicks grace out of our soul. We direct ourselves against our natural and supernatural end when we freely choose to do what we know to be seriously wrong (by seriously wrong I mean completely opposed to the love of God that exists within our soul).


If we choose to remain in this state opposed to God, God allows us to freely live apart from Him after we die. However, the consequence of this is suffering forever. Since we are by nature immortal, as this is part of what human dignity entails, we must suffer forever. There are other reasons as well for the everlasting nature of this punishment. However, it is not as though God lights us on fire forever because He can't get enough punishment. Rather, man freely chooses to reject God and by His own free choice punishes Himself. Of course there are many saints, theologians, Catholics and non-Catholics alike who have written on this topic and explored it. I suggest taking a look at St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Cajetan, Pope John Paul II, Bl. Cardinal Newman, Pope Benedict, or the Catholic encyclopedia for starters.


In any case, hell does not contradict the mercy of God because it is not as though there is a sin so great God can't forgive it. It is that when one chooses not to accept God's forgiveness, He is by definition rejecting grace, and making it metaphysically impossible to enjoy God in heaven.


Further, to answer your question about venial sin: Venial sin is a type of turn from God that does not prevent us from reaching our end. By the type of act that it is, it can coexist with the virtue of charity on our souls. This means one can commit venial sin without destroying grace. Although it hurts our relationship with God, it does not destroy it. Much like how a husband could yell at a wife without destroying the marriage but if he had an affair this would not be the case.
The difference fundamentally lies in whether or not the sin (both objectively and subjectively considered) is compatible with grace on a fundamental metaphysical level.




Surely not. I suggest looking into the "Divine Mercy" devotion by St. Faustina and approved by Pope John Paul II. Very inspiring, interesting, and informative.


The Gospels also teach how God's mercy is infinite in stories like the Prodigal Son.


The point is that although man cannot suck dry the resources of infinite mercy (and it is for this reason that we ought to place complete trust in God's mercy) man CAN refuse to accept these resources.




My central claims


In the beginning of this debate you made an argument about the Catechism. I showed that to be completely false on two levels: Your interpretation of the Catechism and your understanding of the authority of the Catechism. Hence your argument to show Catholicism false failed.


Then, you tried to make an argument based on the inconsistency of dogmas taken from the source "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," referenced on a website. I corrected your errors regarding those inconsistencies by discussing Catholic theology and actually quoting from the original book which I happen to own. You persisted in the next round with your arguments until I further explained how you were dealing with not only different graces but different types of good works. Catholic theology is much more nuanced. In order to support my argument I also explained how Ott was actually referencing Catholic Councils and provided a link to the original council which discusses the issue you were concerned with. Hence I showed that argument false.


Finally, you brought up the argument about damnation. At first, I showed that your quote left out the fundamental point of Divine reprobation, namely, that it is on account of forseen sins and thus there is no such thing as unconditional predestination to hell (which is considered heresy as my quote from Ott demonstrated). In order to maintain your argument you asked a very specific theological question about how eternity in hell is reconciable with God's mercy. Although this is admittadly a tough theological question, it is not exactly the topic of the debate. Further, I showed that there are plausible theological answers. However, even if you do not like these theological answers, there is no inherent contradiction. Thus you have not demonstrated an inherent failure of Catholicism and have not lived up to your burden of proof to show Catholicism to be false. I also explained how as hell is an article of faith it is a mystery with lots we don't know and lots of speculation. I provided references to mystics who spoke of God's mercy and the importance of trust in God's mercy. I also recommend taking a look at the Sacred Heart Devotion to Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org...;

So it seems as though you bring up an interesting argument, it is not enough to show Catholicism is false.



On a side note, I gave a brief series of steps showing Catholicism is at least probably true. Although I did not have the BOP to show that it was true, as I am arguing against the notion "Catholicism is false" I did take the time to make those arguments just on the side. I didn't want to make the debate about those, but it would've been nice that you at least recognize they were there in order to show a possible problem or difficulty fundamental to one of the steps.


All in all, it appears as though your arguments fail and mine just remains. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
lol FluffyCactus I'm actually Catholic
Posted by FluffyCactus 3 years ago
FluffyCactus
It seems to me that Pro came at this debate with the idea that Catholicism is not Christianity and is trying to prove that it is illogical. It seems to me that Pro is in fact a Christian, though he doesn't consider Catholics to be Christian.
In any case, Con gave an excellent defense of the Catholic faith. As a catechumen, it helped me immensely. Unfortunately I cannot vote yet. Your incredibly thorough defense was, I thought, largely undeserved. Thus I was most impressed by Con's patience, and the gracious manner with which he instructed his opponent in Catholic doctrine.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Lol, ty
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Wow, what venom! Good luck with your argument. Good luck to Con, as well!
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
No, I seriously can't believe I had to clarify that. That's like me making a debate on "Apples are awesome!" and you asking me if I'm talking about how awesome apples specifically are, or how awesome fruit in general is.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
How about making your position a little less vague and then you won't have to feign outrage when questioned.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I can't believe I have to clarify this, but I specifically said Catholicism. I didn't mention Christianity anywhere.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Are you referring to Christianity in a vague term, or is there some specific issue you intend to argue against the Catholic church?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
GarretKadeDupreDmotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an uphill battle for con from the beginning. Due to the nature of the resolution, pro can prove one flaw or inconsistency with Catholicism and win the debate. While con did present a good case against the the inconsistent nature of infallibility, at the end of the day, con never upheld his heavy burden of proof, because it is still an inconsistency. Con did have greater, more relevant sources than pro did, so he gains those points.
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
GarretKadeDupreDmotTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Perhaps I have a bias here since I'm Catholic, but I looked at this as objectively as possible. Pro raised some valid questions about Catholic theology, but they were explainable with a better understanding of what the Church actually teaches. After reading it twice, I feel like Con won the arguments. Pro clearly conceded the first round of arguments. The arguments about grace and good works were easily explained and refuted by Con. Pro's counter rebuttal to the grace rebuttal was invalid, as it disregarded the context of the passage in CCC. The bit about infallibility was explained by Con, but I don't think Pro quite understood what he meant by it. Since the BOP was on Pro and his arguments were well refuted by Con, he can't have won. Con's sources also supported his argument better. Good job to both sides!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
GarretKadeDupreDmotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con allowed Pro to set his burden too high. To say that all of Catholicism is false should even a single mistake be found is a big claim, and it forces Con to defend every single line. I buy Pro's argument on infallibility and what it means to the overarching concept of whether Catholicism is true or not, so since Con has allowed the debate to be decided based on any inconsistencies or difficulties, I end up leaning Pro. Even if the inconsistencies are thought to be more reasonable in context, they're still inconsistencies. At the end of the day, if Con had spent more time arguing that it's a balance of truth vs. falsehood, Con would have won this debate. It simply wasn't enough to jump the hurdle that Pro placed in this instance. Con's sources were more reliable, he just had to do more work challenging the structure of the debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
GarretKadeDupreDmotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro pointed out a slight error, winning him the debate.