S
St_Francis
Guest
I’m going to go ahead and post this, but it is more to illustrate that it is not unreasonable to believe in God. As another poster mentioned, it is not unreasonable to believe in love, courage, and the like, altho we cannot prove their existence scientifically.
Several CAF members have recently challenged me to ‘try belief’ and just act as if I were a believer in the hope that I would believe ‘by believing’. I thought about this, but found it hard to even start, given my unbelief. I decided to list all of those things I would have to accept before I could even contemplate such an experiment. Here they are, in order of magnitude, as I see them. That is, if I could accept 1) and 2) I might be able to begin religious practice, but only if I accepted all 15 could I begin to accept Catholicism. Note: I have put this in Non-Catholic religions because I thought it was a good fit, even though I don’t have a religion, although many on CAF say I do(!). And this is not a thread about atheism; it is a thread about Catholic belief.
*]Observable things will be found, or have been found that only the existence of a god or gods can explain.
*]Of all the possible gods in which people do, or have, believed, only one, the God of Christianity, exists.
I am only going to look at your first one with this post. I am not sure where you got it from, it is not Catholic belief, since we do not believe that we will get any more material proof than we already have any time soon (which will come out in my second post, if you don’t mind my posting all this stuff…).
Way back when I was for all practical purposes an atheist, I used to kind of laugh at what Christians offered when challenged for proof of God’s existence. They would say, We know God exists because of this and that. ETA: it seemed to me that, believing in God, they then came up with these ideas to “prove” His existence, but that original belief was founded on nothing.
But that is not the way that the arguments came up originally. These are Aristotelian arguments, and he lived before Christ and knew nothing (or very little) about Jewish theology. What he did was to say, Let’s look at the world and see what we can learn from it.
What Aristotle came up with, from observing and thinking alone, was the proofs for the existence of a Being: the Prime Mover, the Prime Causer, etc.
What Aristotle came up with is what we call natural knowledge about the Being.
Now, what the Jews believe and what we Catholics believe comes from revealed knowledge: the Being *taught *us those things and we would have been unable to figure them out ourselves.
This is the Being Who has been encountered and Whom we call God.
So first, one has to consider the issue of a Deity, a Being, a Prime Mover, Cause, etc. That is not scientific knowledge, so it can’t be proven mathematically or with the scientific method. It is “proven” in the same way that we all understand that courage is better than cowardice, that love is better than hate, that truth is better than lying. It is simply in accord with the world as observed (not to mention the laws of thermodynamics).