How do you know God guarantees that certainty?

I've already answered that question.

Usually it seems that it is a combination of history and philosophy. Thus, history and philosophy are the foundations for your claims about the certainty of the Catholic Church.

Were the foundation of my claims. Past tense.

A claim can only be as strong as its weakest link. In this case that link is history and philosophy. This is why I don't understand why the original poster claimed that catholic teachings are more certain than the truths of philosophy.

You will if you ever follow the same path.

What do you say to a muslim who interprets history and philosophy as demonstrating that Islam is true? Many of the arguments that you make could be said about Islam.

What do you say to a muslim who interprets history and philosophy as demonstrating that Islam is true? Many of the arguments that you make could be said about Islam.

I haven't had one to do so. I have had one who said that the Gospels would be thrown out of court. Here's what I said to him.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

That is true. I find that to be especially strong argument against atheism. Since atheism has no positive evidence for any of its claims. Atheism is based upon denial and denial is its strongest argument.

I don't find it frustrating to be proven wrong. When that happens, I gain new knowledge and am rid of false knowledge. It is frustrating to dialogue with someone who not only does not understand mathematical and scientific concepts, but then claims that they are right about those concepts when they are clearly wrong.

You still haven't shown that you understand what a random process is.

I'll let the readers decide who understands what between you and I.

Before you add faith, what did you think about God? Was he all-loving or all-powerful?

All powerful and all loving.

As I understand your arguments, you think that a God was necessary to bring about the design of the universe. My objection to this is that the universe is rather poorly designed

In your opinion. If you don't like this universe, design your own.

- this is why I do not find design based arguments convincing. CS Lewis writes that poor design is the best argument against God, so I am usually surprised when theists claim that it is the argument that convinces them.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

To what are you comparing this universe which you say is poorly designed?

But you have historical/philosophical reasons for believing that Jesus is God, correct?

Correct.

This historical and philosophical grounding for your belief in the Supernatural is as certain as you can get. The Supernatural claims should be the least certain of your beliefs, because they are the farthest from your core historical and philosophical beliefs. Let me illustrate this with an example:

Suppose I believe in Catholicism, because I am convinced that the Gospels were largely historic and that I experienced the presence of God in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, many philosophical deductions that I make are similar to what the Church teaches. However, there are things that I do not understand in Catholic teaching and there are things that do not completely agree with my philosophy. For the sake of this example, let's say I don't agree with the Church on gay marriage, abortion, Mary's Ascension into Heaven, or contraception. However, because I have other reasons for accepting Catholicism, which I judge to be good, I also accept the teachings that I do not understand. It would seem that I would be less certain about the teachings that I do not understand then the ones that I do understand and accept based on reason. Teachings on contraception are far from the philosophical/theological/historical belief that Jesus is God and that he guides the Roman Church. I hope that makes sense.

Not to me. I've already explained that at one point, all I had were philosophy and history. I didn't even have faith at the time. I had no reason to trust God (i.e. faith).

When I realized that God exists, I had to revisit all my philosophy and history and re evaluate them based upon my new world view. I had to test the premise again. Does God exist? And this time, I came up with a vehement, "Yes!"

Now that I knew that God existed, that left me with a problem. What am I supposed to do now? Obviously, to my mind anyway, if there's this all powerful Being, I need to be right with Him. So, I had to dig further and my tools, at the time, were science, logic, philosophy, theology and history. History was no help at that time. I mean, everything looks bleak if you look at history from outside the Catholic Church.

One other thing I had was a strong bias against the Catholic Church. Since I had converted out of the Catholic Church, it was not even on my radar.

However, I had a Christian bias. Being raised in the US, I leaned towards believing in Christianity. But the first thing that I encountered were two doctrines which I dismissed outright. I tried to force myself to believe them. But I couldn't sustain the hypocrisy. Scripture alone and faith alone. They are, in my opinion, self contradicting and illogical doctrines. So, I soon rejected those theologies which teach those doctrines.

This is getting kind of long, so, suffice to say that I searched outside of Christianity for a Theistic philosophy (i.e. religion) which lined up with history, science, and reality in general. That led me, reluctantly, back to the Catholic Church.

And this is when I discovered the richness, elegance and beauty of Catholic Teaching. This is when I began to truly trust in God. And this is when I discovered that certainty which is far more than one can have with mere human wisdom.

My answer, guarantee the certainty? What?

My answer is in agreement that Catholic Doctrine possesses that certainty. That certainty is guaranteed by God.

How do you know God guarantees that certainty? Usually it seems that it is a combination of history and philosophy. Thus, history and philosophy are the foundations for your claims about the certainty of the Catholic Church. A claim can only be as strong as its weakest link. In this case that link is history and philosophy. This is why I don't understand why the original poster claimed that catholic teachings are more certain than the truths of philosophy.

What do you say to a muslim who interprets history and philosophy as demonstrating that Islam is true? Many of the arguments that you make could be said about Islam.

Again, I believe it is and many Catholics believe the same as I. Therefore, I will leave it up to the readers whether my reasons are properly grounded. Especially since you have nothing but denials to substantiate your beliefs.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Its frustrating when you're proven wrong.

I don't find it frustrating to be proven wrong. When that happens, I gain new knowledge and am rid of false knowledge. It is frustrating to dialogue with someone who not only does not understand mathematical and scientific concepts, but then claims that they are right about those concepts when they are clearly wrong.

You still haven't shown that you understand what a random process is.

As for me, I wasn't seeking for absolute certainty when I began my search for the true Faith of God. I was seeking to make sense of the world as it is in light of my new found realization that God exists.

Before you add faith, what did you think about God? Was he all-loving or all-powerful? As I understand your arguments, you think that a God was necessary to bring about the design of the universe. My objection to this is that the universe is rather poorly designed - this is why I do not find design based arguments convincing. CS Lewis writes that poor design is the best argument against God, so I am usually surprised when theists claim that it is the argument that convinces them.

Philosophy and history led me to a very unexpected place. The Catholic Church. I did not come to greater certainty of her Doctrines until I accepted the Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ as true. Its only logical, that if I believe that Jesus Christ pronounced these truths. And if I believe that Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, I have a supernatural basis for my beliefs. And that is much higher than philosophy and history.

But you have historical/philosophical reasons for believing that Jesus is God, correct? This historical and philosophical grounding for your belief in the Supernatural is as certain as you can get. The Supernatural claims should be the least certain of your beliefs, because they are the farthest from your core historical and philosophical beliefs. Let me illustrate this with an example:

Suppose I believe in Catholicism, because I am convinced that the Gospels were largely historic and that I experienced the presence of God in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, many philosophical deductions that I make are similar to what the Church teaches. However, there are things that I do not understand in Catholic teaching and there are things that do not completely agree with my philosophy. For the sake of this example, let's say I don't agree with the Church on gay marriage, abortion, Mary's Ascension into Heaven, or contraception. However, because I have other reasons for accepting Catholicism, which I judge to be good, I also accept the teachings that I do not understand. It would seem that I would be less certain about the teachings that I do not understand then the ones that I do understand and accept based on reason. Teachings on contraception are far from the philosophical/theological/historical belief that Jesus is God and that he guides the Roman Church. I hope that makes sense.

Yes, and your answer does not guarantee the certainty that the original poster was claiming Catholic Doctrine possesses.

My answer, guarantee the certainty? What?

My answer is in agreement that Catholic Doctrine possesses that certainty. That certainty is guaranteed by God.

To be honest, I really don't find your answer all that convincing.

I don't respond to these answers to convince atheists of anything. I do it to edify my fellow Catholics.

Perhaps your certainty is greater, but that does not mean that your certainty is properly grounded.

Again, I believe it is and many Catholics believe the same as I. Therefore, I will leave it up to the readers whether my reasons are properly grounded. Especially since you have nothing but denials to substantiate your beliefs.

I wouldn't be so bold as to claim that you proved any of my claims false. I explained several times the difference between random and non-random processes and how the scientific method works. You clearly misunderstood the distinction between a random process and a non-random process, and did not seem to care about how mathematicians and physicists think about the two. It was rather frustrating, so I stopped commenting.

Its frustrating when you're proven wrong.

If you read my reply in the context of the comment that I was replying to, then it would have been clear that that is what I was curious about.

Ok. Good point. I only addressed the question because it was repeated in several comments.

This is my question as well. If the foundation if the claim lies in philosophy or history, I do not see how the claim can be any more certain than the foundation.

As for me, I wasn't seeking for absolute certainty when I began my search for the true Faith of God. I was seeking to make sense of the world as it is in light of my new found realization that God exists.

Philosophy and history led me to a very unexpected place. The Catholic Church. I did not come to greater certainty of her Doctrines until I accepted the Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ as true. Its only logical, that if I believe that Jesus Christ pronounced these truths. And if I believe that Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, I have a supernatural basis for my beliefs. And that is much higher than philosophy and history.

1. I answered your question. Not the OP. You asked, and I quote, "How do YOU know that the magisterium is divinely-guided?"

I gave you MY answer

Yes, and your answer does not guarantee the certainty that the original poster was claiming Catholic Doctrine possesses. To be honest, I really don't find your answer all that convincing.

2. Your question asks how I know that the Magisterium is led by God (i.e. divinely guided). It does not ask about my level of certainty. Which, by the way, is a greater level of certainty than that of an atheists.

Perhaps your certainty is greater, but that does not mean that your certainty is properly grounded.

3. Your question makes no mention of philosophical vs. theological nor any other field.

If you read my reply in the context of the comment that I was replying to, then it would have been clear that that is what I was curious about.

Deductive logic properly applied. And I've used it several times to prove your claims false already. Remember our discussion about abiogenesis?

I wouldn't be so bold as to claim that you proved any of my claims false. I explained several times the difference between random and non-random processes and how the scientific method works. You clearly misunderstood the distinction between a random process and a non-random process, and did not seem to care about how mathematicians and physicists think about the two. It was rather frustrating, so I stopped commenting.

If you correctly applied deductive logic to the question of God's existence, you would believe in God.

Perhaps, but you are not applying it correctly to draw that conclusion.

The original post claimed that magisterial truths are known with more certainty than philosophical truths. The strong atheist claim is a philosophical claim.

What does that have to do with the price of beans?

1. I answered your question. Not the OP. You asked, and I quote, "How do YOU know that the magisterium is divinely-guided?"

I gave you MY answer.

2. Your question asks how I know that the Magisterium is led by God (i.e. divinely guided). It does not ask about my level of certainty. Which, by the way, is a greater level of certainty than that of an atheists.

3. Your question makes no mention of philosophical vs. theological nor any other field.

The best answer is to deny the existence of a tri-Omni god.

That's not an answer to anything. That's another unsupported denial. It doesn't even address the question.

Not true. The recent Feser post makes a claim about Catholic Doctrine that is false.

Ugh. Really? Your sentence doesn't even make sense. Am I supposed to assume that Feser proved Catholic Doctrine false? Or that he makes a claim that is false?

Deductive logic. What do you use?

Deductive logic properly applied. And I've used it several times to prove your claims false already. Remember our discussion about abiogenesis?

If you correctly applied deductive logic to the question of God's existence, you would believe in God.

The same way that strong atheists claim to know that there is no god.

The original post claimed that magisterial truths are known with more certainty than philosophical truths. The strong atheist claim is a philosophical claim.

And I expect it to have the answers to the problems which I perceive in the world. Questions like, "Why does a good God permit good people to suffer?" The best answer, in my opinion, is in Catholic Theology.

The best answer is to deny the existence of a tri-Omni god.

There is no contradiction in Catholic Theology. A problem that is pervasive in every other religion. There is no error in Catholic Doctrine.

Not true. The recent Feser post makes a claim about Catholic Doctrine that is false.

How else do you prove something for yourself?

Deductive logic. What do you use?

"How do you know that the magisterium is divinely-guided?"

The same way that strong atheists claim to know that there is no god.

I have no problem "knowing" that the Catholic Church is divinely guided. Perhaps the problem lies, not in the divinely guided entity, but in your expectations of what a divinely guided entity should look like?

I was once what I consider to be a "strong" atheist. I knew that no god existed, anywhere. But, when I suddenly realized that I was wrong, I knew that God existed, then I had to face reality. This world, as you Reilly, have noted, is not neat and tidy. And this world, is divinely guided. The entire world. You and every atheist in it. Everything is divinely guided.

Therefore, based upon the problems that I see in the entire world, I don't expect an institute, which is divinely guided, to be neat and tidy.

I expect to see an institution that is beset by problems. But in the end, that institution overcomes the problems and persists in its mission. All the while, fighting off and overcoming problems.

And I expect it to have the answers to the problems which I perceive in the world. Questions like, "Why does a good God permit good people to suffer?" The best answer, in my opinion, is in Catholic Theology.

There is no contradiction in Catholic Theology. A problem that is pervasive in every other religion. There is no error in Catholic Doctrine. All the things which I perceived as error have been explained to my satisfaction. There's no substitute for studying and seeking the truth.

How else do you prove something for yourself?

I think we are both on the same page here, Jim, although I am not quite sure what "canonical forms" means.

When I said "seekers of loopholes," I was talking about Catholics who wrongly believe that Baptism is unnecessary for salvation, and who try to stretch certain parts of Catholic theology in order to make it as unnecessary as they can (IOW, they search for loopholes). They are doing great damage to the Church with heterodox teachings. David Nickol touched on this, and I was simply agreeing with him.

Too many Catholics have been led to believe that Baptism isn't a big deal, because they think it is cruel or unfair for a man to be damned simply because he was never Baptized.