Apologia

I have a separate post called “Why I Am A Catholic”, which is more my faith journey, but the reasons and evidence here undergird that faith.

This apologia exists mostly for my own reference: theology and apologetics endlessly fascinate me, and I wanted a running tally of the most common—and most interesting—arguments and counterarguments for:

God's Existence  
└── Christianity  
    └── Catholicism

🛐 Best Arguments for God’s Existence

• Aquinas’ Argument from Motion. (a.k.a. Argument of the Unmoved Mover). Each change has a cause, but an infinite regress is impossible, and so there must be a first mover.
• Argument from Contingency (Leibniz/Aquinas’ Third Way). Everything in the universe is contingent—it could have failed to exist, and depends on something else for its existence. But an infinite regress of contingent things explains nothing; you can’t account for why anything exists by pointing to another thing that itself needs explaining. There must be a necessary being to ground the whole chain (i.e., one that exists by its own nature, not dependent on anything else). Leibniz said the fundamental question is “why is there something rather than nothing?” and contingent beings, by definition, can never be the final answer to that question.
• The Finely-tuned Universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. “The Penrose Number”¹, The Cosmological Constant², and the overall intelligibility and knowability of the universe…or as Eugene Wigner puts (right in the title of his article): the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences”³. And not just the universe, but the earth being so anomalous⁴.
• Argument from the Origin of Life. The statistical improbability of spontaneous generation of self-replicating systems with genetic information (abiogenesis), even given billions of years and ideal conditions.
• Argument from Desire. “If there is a desire in my heart which corresponds to nothing in this world, perhaps I am made for another world?” Best musically formulated by U2.
• Argument from Morality. We intuit moral laws⁵, and laws require a lawgiver.
• Argument from Consciousness. The emergence of subjective experience, qualia, and self-awareness from purely material processes poses what philosopher David Chalmers calls the “hard problem of consciousness.”
• Argument from Reason. (Reason from non-reason [Reliable Cognition].) If our cognitive faculties are the product of undirected evolutionary processes aimed only at survival (not truth), we have no reason to trust them when they venture beyond immediate survival needs into abstract reasoning about reality.

✝️ Best Arguments for Christianity

• C.S. Lewis’ “Liar, Lunatic, Lord” Paradigm. People like the idea of saying that Jesus was “good moral teacher who was bringing a message of peace and forgiveness to the world yadda yadda” but Lewis makes the case that He didn’t leave open that possibility as His claims and assertions (about being God)—remember that’s why he was crucified?—were either true or else blasphemous whether knowingly (liar) or unknowingly (lunatic).
• Events surrounding the Resurrection. The empty tomb, Paul’s accounts (Resurrected Christ appearing to the 500, etc.), early Christians going to their deaths proclaiming the Gospel, etc.
• Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies. Jesus fulfilled numerous messianic prophecies, including:
  • Birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
  • Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)⁶
  • Ministry in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1-2)
  • Entry into Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)
  • Betrayal for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13)
  • Crucifixion details (Psalm 22)

🇻🇦 Best Arguments for Catholicism

• The longevity of the Church. The idea that the Church, run by broken, sinful, misguided humans has outlasted the Roman Empire by one and a half millennia is incredible. It should’ve been run aground long ago. It’s almost as if it’s being guided by an invisible hand. Hilaire Belloc makes this point persuasively:

  The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine—but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.

• Eucharistic Miracles. e.g.: Miracle of Lanciano (8th century), The Corporal of Bolsena (13th century), The Eucharistic Miracle of Santarém (13th century), The Hosts of Siena, Italy (18th century), The Miracle of Chirattakonam, India (21st century). Not to mention countless incidents that are unapproved and private revelation (e.g., this one).
• Marian Apparitions. Guadalupe, Fátima, Lourdes, La Salette, Knock, Champion, and so many others.
• Near-death Experiences. There are certainly bogus accounts, people suffering psychoses or delusions, or disingenuous characters in search of attention/fame⁷; but in my estimation it’s a small percentage and doesn’t explain away all accounts…that have, by the way, remarkable consistencies; many of which are quite thematically, doctrinally Catholic.

🛐 Best Arguments Against God’s Existence

• Theodicy (a.k.a. “The Problem of Evil”). The existence of profound suffering seems incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. Why would such a being permit genocide, childhood cancer, natural disasters, etc.? One of the most difficult counterarguments—in fact, I believe Aquinas admitted that—as it is emotionally gripping.
  • Sed contra: It can be convincingly argued theologically (Wisdom 9:16-17; the entire Book of Job): are you equipped to understand God’s purposes?
• Divine Hiddenness. If God exists and desires a relationship with humans, He would make His existence more evident and accessible to everyone. The uneven distribution of religious experience and belief (seemingly based on cultural and familial context) suggests natural rather than supernatural causes, and seems to contradict the existence of an all-loving, omnipotent deity.
  • Sed contra: The x factor here is free will, necessary for agape.
• Faith vs. Reason / Faith vs. Science. This one is ubiquitous and cited nowadays as a top reason—if not the top reason—for disaffiliation.
  • Sed contra: It surprises me somewhat that people find it so compelling since a) it’s a falsely-aporetic conflict, and b) looking to the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God is self-refuting. Faith and reason are complementary paths to truth, not contradictory ones. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” The scientific method, valuable as it is, is designed to investigate material causes within the natural world, not transcendent reality. Expecting science to prove or disprove God is like trying to use a metal detector to find love: wrong tool for the question at hand, and it’s what we call “scientism”.
• Occam’s Razor. Natural explanations for the universe, life, consciousness, and morality don’t require positing supernatural entities, making theism an unnecessary hypothesis.
  • Sed contra: But they do. Natural explanations alone fall short when it comes to metaphysical questions. As Thomas Aquinas argued, God is not a complex addition to our ontology but rather the simple, necessary foundation of all contingent reality.

✝️ Best Arguments Against Christianity

• Geographic/Cultural Hypothesis of Religious Adherence. The “born into it” principle (e.g., if you’re born in Saudi Arabia, you’re statistically unlikely to become Christian). Of course this is less true today than it was years ago (in our globalizing, secularizing world).
  • Sed contra: Trotted out frequently, because, well, people find it gripping, but ultimately, this is classic genetic fallacy.
• Historical Reliability Concerns. Critical scholarship raises questions about New Testament reliability (e.g., Gospels written decades after events by non-eyewitnesses, contradictions or inconsistencies among Gospel accounts, limited non-Christian corroboration for extraordinary claims, evidence of theological development and embellishment over time).
  • Sed contra: Au contraire, monsieur: the Gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, when false claims could’ve still been challenged. Also, the original disciples died martyrs’ deaths rather than recant their testimony. Early non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) confirm key aspects of Christian claims. The alleged contradictions are actually complementary perspectives that enrich rather than undermine the historical account.
• Pagan Parallels. Elements of Jesus’ story (virgin birth, resurrection, miracle-working) have parallels in pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, suggesting cultural borrowing.
  • Sed contra: This comes out a lot: “What about Sol Invictus or Osiris?” But these are almost always exaggerated or superficial or based on post-Christian sources. Then there’s the fact that the gospels trade in historical accounts; not myth-writing.
• Questionable Prophecies. Jesus’ prediction of his imminent return and the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:1, 13:30) hasn’t materialized after 2,000 years.
  • Sed contra: I chalk this up to bad biblical interpretation / exegesis (e.g., Mk 9:1 referring to the Transfiguration or Pentecost; not the Second Coming).
• Scientific Conflicts. Biblical accounts of creation, the flood, and other miraculous events conflict with established scientific understanding.

🇻🇦 Best Arguments Against Catholicism

• Papal Authority Claims. Let’s just admit that there have been terrible popes. And at the very least, early church leadership was more collegial than papal, with Rome gradually asserting primacy over centuries.
  • Sed contra: I think many people get the concept of papal infallibility wrong, and don’t understand that the pope errs like anyone else and rarely speaks ex cathedra. One must separate the man from the office.
• Biblical/Textual Arguments Against Petrine Primacy. The Catholic case for the papacy leans heavily on Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”), but critics argue the text doesn’t bear that weight: (1) in Greek, Petros (Peter, a stone) and petra (bedrock) are technically different words, leaving room to argue Christ built on Peter’s confession rather than Peter himself; (2) elsewhere the apostles collectively are called the Church’s foundation (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), and Paul rebukes Peter publicly in Galatians 2:11-14—hard to square with a supreme, binding teaching office; (3) the NT never shows Peter exercising singular jurisdiction over the other apostles—James, not Peter, appears to preside at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15); (4) no verse states Peter’s authority, whatever its scope, was meant to transfer to future bishops of Rome specifically.
  • Sed contra: The Petros/petra distinction is a Greek translation artifact—Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic, where Kepha covers both “Peter” and “rock” with no distinction, which is why the Aramaic Peshitta and the Church Fathers read Peter himself as the rock. Scripture holds both truths at once: Peter alone receives the keys (Mt 16:19, echoing Isaiah 22:22’s steward office), while the apostles as a body are elsewhere called foundational too—the offices aren’t exclusive, and Peter is consistently listed and addressed first. At Jerusalem, presiding is a matter of hosting, not doctrinal supremacy—it’s Peter’s speech (Acts 15:7-11) that settles the theological question before James ratifies it. And succession isn’t spelled out biblically any more than the canon itself is—both rest on apostolic Tradition, which rapidly and uniformly recognized Rome’s bishop (not Antioch’s, not Jerusalem’s) as authoritative: Clement of Rome intervening in Corinth’s affairs (c. 96 AD) and Irenaeus naming Roman succession as the standard for orthodoxy by 180 AD.
• Doctrinal Innovations / Biblical Contradictions Many Catholic doctrines (purgatory, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility) developed centuries after the apostolic period with debatable biblical support. Similarly, practices like priestly celibacy, prohibition of female clergy, and prayer to saints appear to contradict certain biblical passages.
  • Sed contra: There actually is biblical support for all of these; even if each one isn’t explicitly mentioned in scripture. And that’s precisely why there is a (one) church, guided by the H.S.; and not leaving interpretation to each one (yielding ~30k Protestant churches).
• Historical Hypocrisy - The Inquisition, Crusades, corruption scandals, and clergy abuse crises undermine claims of divine guidance and moral authority. I.e., if Christianity is true, it should make its adherents good, and the world should be able to recognize the Faith’s truth by its adherents’ good works. And yet, to quote Fr. Lupe from my friend Fr. Jeremy’s article⁸, “I’ve had a deep conviction that most middle-class Catholics are phony Christians, just as materialistic and self-seeking, and as liable to go along with others, as any non-Christian, and often more so.” So true.
  • Sed contra: As Frank Turek says, “when someone plays Beethoven poorly you don’t blame Beethoven; you blame the player.” Ergo, the Church (in the words of Pope Francis) is a “hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints.” Also, Christ himself predicted the Church would contain both wheat and weeds (Matthew 13:24-30), and warned that scandals would come (Matthew 18:7). The Church’s survival despite human failings actually supports her divine guidance—what other human institution could withstand such corruption? And then on the other side, one has to admit some good: i.e., the Church as western civilization’s greatest source of hospitals, universities, scientific advancement, artistic achievement, and humanitarian aid.

In spite of all these useful and compelling arguments, si enim comprehendis, non est Deus, as St. Augustine puts it, which is a proper and humble qualification when you’re dealing with the mystery and transcendence of God.

Now I’ll put the onus on you, Neighbor: what (or what set of things) would have to be true for you to believe in God, Christianity, and Catholicism?

— ᴘ. ᴍ. ʙ.