A religion typically has both practical and theoretical aspects.

Yes, and the practical aspects, such as for example the experience of love, seem to be widely ignored on this mostly Catholic blog, which brings in to question how rational this process really is.

The value of the experience of love can be tested in anyone's personal life, without regard to any beliefs they may have or not have, except of course a willingness to experiment. Thus, this is the most promising realm of engagement between Catholics and atheists, and yet the subject seems to be almost completely ignored here.

If we must exclusively do theology, then we could immediately refer to the Apostle John, who said "God is love" which should immediately bring up practical questions regarding how one can explore the experience of love.

It makes little sense in a dialog between Catholics and atheists to focus almost exclusively on unproven and unprovable theories such as "God exists" given that very many atheists have repeatedly and enthusiastically stated that such enormous claims present the biggest obstacle to an interest in religion.

Having thus whined, here's a constructive suggestion or two.

1) Send the intellectuals, theologians and clerics who write for this blog (including wanna be theologians such as myself) on vacation, and bring on the nuns.

2) If you're at all serious about making Catholicism relevant and accessible to the modern world, petition the Pope to have the priests and nuns swap jobs for awhile.

Look I have nothing personal against the male clergy, most of whom I assume to be entirely decent people, but let's face some facts.

1) They've lost the Church's traditional European homeland. Big failure!!

2) They've allowed the reputation and moral authority of Catholicism to be dragged through the mud in a manner which will take at least a century to recover from. Even bigger failure!!!!

The male clergy aren't bad people, but they've blown it.

Bring on the nuns.

religion had always been a disease to the world like a virus, There had been scientific tests that Children and adults imagine a none existing figure or actually to cheat to achieve their goals

By the end of the Viking age, pretty much all of the Norse kings were Christian. Many of these conversions came about in efforts to modernize the culture. The process of Europe's conversion was much more about accretion and appropriation than it was about oppression or destruction.

Tolkien's literature is at least as informed by his Catholic faith as it is by his interest in Norse myths.

OK. I'm halfway convinced that these types of conversations need to happen in person, to add in the vocal nuances of meaning, the nonverbal gestures and body language that add such dynamically detailed degrees of certainty and emphasis, the ingrained habits of face-to-face politeness and empathy, the ease of interrupting to seek clarification and dispute mistakes, and the overall jolly camaraderie of such discussion. But only halfway convinced, because I've had these types of conversations in person many times, too, and we always end up wishing we had the editable exactness of expression, the ability to stop and think carefully before replying, the ability to organize and systematize our thoughts, the opportunity to research before making a claim, and the ease of recalling and reviewing what the other has said.

In any case, my silence here simply means my priorities lie elsewhere - work, family, friends, personal projects, beautifully refreshing swimming holes in the river when it's a sunny summer day, etc. Much the same is true of us all. Also I like to let others have the last word when it's clear that we disagree and have made our points sufficiently.

If you like I'll back up to a previous point in the thread and make more transparent the connections between your questions and my responses to them.

Briefly.

>I would say the question was imprecise or perhaps poorly
formed. I would agree with that assessment.

K’ay.

>When I said evidence, I meant any type of evidence.
Philosophical argument from first principles or something more empirical. Perhaps many people thing evidence = empirical, but I am not one of those.

I see, I tend to makea distinction between “evidence” vs “logical argument”.

>The YEC doesn't understand the 2nd law. The YEC error is
that the earth is not a closed system. Not sure what that has to do with metaphysics.

He treats a scientific law of physics as if it were a metaphysical principle that reality tends toward disorder thus requires something
to impose order. All the second law means is in a closed system energy will run out. With Earth that will happen in a few hundred
Trillion years (assuming during the Red Giant phase gravity shifts the Earth into a higher orbit around the sun) when the Sun enters it’s Black Dwarf phase. The opposite error would be when idiots like
Dawkins treats “motion” in Aquinas’ first way as Newtonian momentum & as a scientific description or explaination.
When in fact it is a metaphysical description of a potency being made actual.

>What is the best argument for God's existence? You don't
have to outline it. Just let me know which one. Perhaps this would be the best place to start. It is the most basic question.

I might start with the 5 ways, argument from reason, etc. Not sure about the ontological argument though….

>The problem of evil is not a good argument?

Only if you believe God is a moral agent unequivocally comparable
to a human moral agent with equivalent divine power. God is metaphysically and ontologically Good but not “morally good” the way we are morally good. God has no obligations to us and God didn’t even have to create us. Given God’s Classical Nature and relation to us all His good acts toward us are purely gratuitous. The problem of evil in the modern sense presupposes a “god” who has obligations to us His creatures. Thus theodicy is out forth to try to justify God’s inaction in the face of an evil He Providence foresees and permits. I am a strong Atheist in regard to the existence of such a “deity”. A Classic Theistic God needs a Theodicy like
a fish needs a Bicycle. Leave the Theodicies for some weak Theistic Personalist “god” I wouldn’t sacrifice a field mouse to worship.

>New atheists don't believe in logical positivism. A new
atheist is an atheist who not only lacks belief in gods, but also is glad that religion is not true, or believes that religion is harmful.

I said Positivism not Logical Positivism otherwise known as
Scientism and in my experience New Atheist Polemics rely totally on that for their polemical framework like a Protestant relies on Sola Scriptura.

But both ideologies are self referential.

>I was thinking the argument that God loves perfectly and
perfect love must love another. Therefore there is a second person. Perfect love begets another. Therefore there is a third. There is a serious problem with this argument.

At best that is an explanation(not argument) of why God is a Trinity or why the First Person eternally generates the Second but it presupposes you already via trusted revelation know God is a Trinity.

I will try to give you the last word since like Oscar Wilde
I can resist anything except temptation.

I guess I wasn’t brief? Well take the last word I have other fish to fry and I thank you again for the stimulating remarks.

Cheers too you.

Fair enough.

Christi pax.