If the pope truly is infallible, why doesn't he prove so, and thus the existence of god by playing a chess game? it would be nothing but good for the church. the amount of people it would "save" would pretty much be the entire world.

For starters, he is not infallible on everything he says and does as Pope. It concerns faith and morals only, and has only been used twice, since it has been defined by the Church, it has always been part of the Petrine ministry.

yeah. use it on a game of chess. invoke "ex cathedra", then prove the existance of god. that most definately concerns faith.

if the pope did this and won a game, even one, against deep blue, i know i would convert.

Indigo, don't be petty, its bad fashion.

i'm sorry?

i'm sorry? i think you misconstrued my meaning. this isnt petty. i believe proving or disproving the existence of god to be an extremely big deal. in fact i believe even the possibility for TESTING the existence of god to be an even bigger deal. i do not understand why, if the pope has the power to invoke infallibility, he cant prove or disprove the existence of god.

forgive me, but i would like a straight ansewer or else i would not have asked the question.

i understand the process of invoking ex cathedra. it was invoked only once in 1950 in regards to the assumption of mary. just because its rare does not mean that it cant be used on a chess game in regards to the existance of god. i guess the only difference would be, instead of the decree being made verbally, it would be made by the result of the game.

While an interesting thought, there are a few issues with it being viable.

One of those being that most of the world would not necessarily believe
in God should the Pope win a chess match. Even if it was with Deep Blue.
There are many, many reasons to not believe even when they know better.

Another reason would be that, as a mere human, infallibility is somewhat
beyond the Pope.

mark

By the same standard mark, your comment would be consider beyond infallible. Anyway, you believe scripture to be infallible, and it was written by men, guided by the Spirit, just like a papal declaration on faith and morals. Or do you deny the infallibility of Scripture?

so you dont believe in papal infallibility mark?

...

oops... wrong account... twice...

He obviously doesn't, as he's a Protestant (evangelicals and modern fundamentalists being offshoots of the original Protestants).

A note on my own belief - I don't buy Papal Infallibility either. The previous Pope, John Paul II, was a decent guy at least though. My feelings on the present Pope though are not printable.

Correct Indigo.
At the risk of truly offending my Catholic brethren, I will reiterate that I do not
believe in papal infallibility.
Yes, Chotock I am quite aware that by my own standards I am fallible.

on a tangent, not all of us have Protestant roots NM.


mark

I was speaking broadly, of the movements

Though you do believe the teachings of the first Pope as being infallible. Funny how that works huh

Ouch!

nope, sure don't.

Isn't Peter considered to have been the first pope?

That is standard Catholic teaching, yes.
there are some problems with that though.
Leaving off that the Catholic denomination wasn't formed until a couple hundred
years after Peter left the scene..
The Pope is the head of the Catholic denomination, which is a gentile branch of the
church as a whole.
Peter was given charge to preach to the Jewish people, and was part of the
plurality of elders guiding the Jewish christians.
Paul was the Apostle who was tasked with reaching the Gentiles.

Galatians 2
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas
the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen,
and they unto the circumcision.

hmmm
now, you could make a case for Paul being the first pope I guess...
since he was actually in Rome... and exercised some authority over
the Gentile churches that were planted under his ministry...

interesting thought, that.

Wow! Interesting thread Indigo_Love. I am not a beleiver in Papal Infalibility but it's a heck of a thought!

I think I can see a couple of problems with the test too.

First of all, Deep Blue has been dismantled.

Second, Gary Kasparov played Deep Blue's last incarnation to a draw three times, and won against previous incarnations. I don't think this makes him an agent of the divine; it just makes him really good at chess.

Third, if chess-playing was some kind of indicator of infallibility, shouldn't we be worshipping Deep Blue?

Fourth and finally, suppose for a moment that we agree that winning a chess match against Deep Blue would satisfactorily demonstrate that the Pope is infallible, and therefore God as described in the Bible and in Catholic tradition is real. Even so...does that make him worthy of worship? Especially as he's described in the Bible?

That last is a non-trivial question. I can absolutely prove the physical existence of my own supreme being of choice, but I also understand why not everyone chooses to recognize its divinity.

heh oh come on. give a chess player his fantasies. deep blue is like a legend

anyways it isnt chess playing itself that is an indicator, but the idea that the pope declares ex cathedra that turns the game into an indicator because the pope, if truly infallible, would not be able to make a wrong move.

but it seems like most people who posted here aren't catholic. what do you say chotock?