An unbeliever thinks about a 'try belief' challenge/experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hokomai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


  1. *]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.

  1. 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).
 
Good friend Hokomai,

It must seem a bit intellectually unfair to be asked to believe in God, before you believe in Him, so that you might believe in Him :rolleyes:

There is no need for a list; there is only one thing you can do, which has been mentioned.

Every day, or when you remember, simply put out the thought “God, if you are real, please show me.” Then you must be fair and open in your attitude about it, even as in science. Where it differs from science is you cannot devise tests and see if He passes or not. Simply ask, and if He is real, He will show it on His terms.

If He is not real, then you’ve lost nothing. If He is real, then you have everything to gain. What do you say? 😉
 
=Hokomai;9612068]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.
(You then listed your 15 points)
You’ve got an incurably intellectual approach to God. Yet God’s a Person (or 3 Persons to be a bit more accurate), and like a human person seeks a relationship.

Even the Trinity underscores this fundamental fact of an inter-Personal relationship.

Personally I think you need an “experience” of God before all these other points will even start to make sense. So I’ll comment on a couple of mine.

I’ve said before in another stream that the night my father died, he appeared in my room, starting with an apology and finishing with one almighty scream just before he disappeared.

You commented that you thought the experience was “real to me” while as far as I was concerned, it was just plain real, full stop.

Leaving that aside, there have been other experiences. One of these is “double whammies” (so called by my Catholic psychiatrist, who has experienced them also). It’s like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot, very pronounced, and clearly imposed from outside.

The first time this happened, I’d only been a Christian for about a year or so. I was on a “beach mission” at a place called Forest Glen Caravan Park near Nambour in SE Queensland. I was a Protestant at the time, and I was part of a Scripture Union team (non denominational group that run “missions” at holiday parks amongst other things).

Just before this camp started, I’d been going through a divorce, had been chewed out by the boss, felt out of my depth in this camp, was struggling with personal issues, didn’t feel particularly accepted, and wasn’t in the best of moods. And I was also thinking, “How do I know all this stuff is real, and not just a psychological prop?” You could say I felt a mite cynical.

It was the tradition to have a “camp leaders” Bible study each afternoon for about half an hour. It was quite warm, being summer over here in a sub tropical climate, and we were sitting in a circle on seats or benches under a large tent (marquis). Despite my cynicism, I was almost dozing off.

Anyway the camp leader was reading from Samuel (I think) when he read a passage referring to King David, and quoted “… a man after my own heart…”. Precisely as he read that passage, this “double whammy” hit me, and these waves of breath like pulses just coursed down me from head to toe.

I got such a shock I nearly fell off the seat. I looked around in amazement to see what the others were making of it, and of course they weren’t taking the least bit of notice, as it hadn’t happened to them. They were simply sitting there listening to the leader giving the remainder of his homily.

I spoke to my pastor about this afterwards, and he commented, “The Lord knew you’d been through a tough time, and just needed some encouragement.”

I had two more of these “double whammies” over the next year or two, both times in church, and both times they were used to highlight specific words being spoken by another. They haven’t happened since. But as I said other people get them too eg. my Catholic psychiatist.

Since that first “double whammy”, I’ve never been able to go back to my original atheism of years back. I’d just be kidding myself. There’s a spiritual world there, believe me, and any time it wants to, it can contact you. But it remains hidden from everybody else. When I got that first “double whammy”, not one other person around me had a clue what was happening to me.

Incidentally, if that was God, we move billions of miles in a couple of years through space as the earth spins around the sun, the sun spins around the Milky Way, and the Milky Way spins around the universe. But on 3 distinct occasions, He knew where to find me, what was about to be said, and how to highlight the particular comment on each occasion without anybody else being aware of it, remaining hidden the whole time. I still remember the relevant phrase that was said on all three occasions, word for word, and ***only because ***of the “double whammies”

On a more mechanical note, my old pastor commented that when people die, “clocks stop”. I’ve even seen a note on one of the forums here where a woman wrote in to say that when her father-in-law died, both her and her sister-in-law’s clocks stopped at precisely the minute he died. A formal study carried out in hospices and nursing homes in the UK found that it was common for clocks to stop synchronistically when people died (there were other phenomena as well).
Comfort for the dying: five year retrospective and one year prospective studies of end of life experiences.
Fenwick P, Lovelace H, Brayne S.
SourceKings College Institute of Psychiatry and Department of Neuropsychiatry, Southampton University UK, Neuropsychiatry Office, 42 Herne Hill, London SE24 9QP, UK. peter_fenwick@compuserve.com
Abstract
Many cultures have reported end-of-life experiences (ELEs) as part of the dying process. However, few studies have examined the mental states of the dying in the weeks and days before death. Following an ELE pilot study with a palliative care team, 38 nurses, doctors and end-of-life carers from two hospices and a nursing home took part in a 5-year retrospective followed by a 1-year prospective ELE study. Interviewees’ reports (first-hand and second-hand accounts from relatives, patients and residents) suggested that ELEs are not uncommon. ELEs included deathbed phenomena (DBP) such as visions, coincidences and the desire to reconcile with estranged family members. These experiences seemed to comfort both the dying and the bereaved. Interviewees described other phenomena such as clocks stopping synchronistically at the time of death, shapes leaving the body, light surrounding the body and strange animal behavior. Interviewees confirmed that ELEs differed from drug-induced hallucinations and occurred in clear consciousness. Most expressed concern about a lack of specialist ELE training and education and recommended that ELE modules be included in their training courses. ELEs provided comfort and hope for the dying and consolation for the bereaved. Further research is required to find the true prevalence and range of ELE phenomena.
So I recently asked a local watchmaker if he’d ever had anybody come to him with clocks that had stopped when someone died. His reply was “often”. They stop to the minute of the person’s death. He said many people had brought clocks to him with this story. In most cases, they just needed a simple service and they went again.

So on a mechanical note (which should appeal to your intellectual atheism), why don’t you start by going to local watchmakers who repair clocks, and ask them if any of their customers have had this experience. There is no good physical reason why clocks should stop working when someone dies (particularly if they are a mixture of mechanical, crystal and digital clocks), which means God’s giving us a hint, virtue of our time pieces, that there’s more to reality than mere mechanical physics.

Go ahead and ask, and see what your own watchmakers tell you.
 
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 don’t quite understand. Why do you need to believe to “just act as if [you] were a believer”?

The experiment proposed is to do the things believers typically do in the hopes that you will acquire their faith. (NB: please do not do things which would be inappropriate for an unbeliever, such as take communion.)

For example, believers typically say several short prayers throughout the day. You don’t have to believe in God to say the words of a prayer.

Another example: many Christians read a little bit of the Bible everyday, and then meditate about what it means. I already know from this forum that you read the Bible (ad hoc, I assume) and meditate (publicly) about what it means, so I doubt this will be much of a burden.

In addition to praying and reading the Bible, you may try refraining from a few things Christians consider sins and doing a few things Christians consider virtues. For example, don’t use the Lord’s name in any curses or vulgar expressions and refrain from meat on Friday. Again, this shouldn’t be difficult, and it doesn’t require belief.

Best wishes for your experiment,

-Dave
 
Thanks to all who have responded. I will post further thoughts later. 🙂
 
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.


  1. *]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.
    *]God created everything and everything depends on God’s existence for its continued being.
    *]God is all-powerful. God is all-loving. God is good.
    *]Before human beings existed, for billions of years on earth, and who knows how long on other planets, living things suffered great pain and distress despite their innocence and their creation by the all-powerful, all-loving, good God.
    *]There is something called ‘sin’ which consists of going against the will of God.
    *]Human beings, at some point in the past, sinned against God in a way that made all their offspring be born with ‘original sin’, which prevents them gaining eternal happiness
    *]God is not a single person, but three, but still one none-the-less, and one of these people was sent to earth to be born of a virgin, suffer and die in order to overcome original sin.
    *]Original sin, although overcome, still exists and is the cause of human pain and suffering.
    *] Humans, despite original sin being overcome, continue to sin. If they die in a state of serious sin, they condemn themselves to eternal pain and torment in a place created by the all-loving, all-powerful God.
    *]We know everything after (1) is true because scripture says so or, if it does not, the Church does, as God expresses his truth through these.
    *]All contradictions in scripture are either minor, or can be explained
    *]God can communicate with us through the Holy Spirit, and we can communicate with God, the angels, and saints through prayer
    *] Despite his omnipotence, God wants us to praise, worship and adore him, and will reward us if we do
    *]God is capable of intervening, and does intervene, in the material world.

  1. Here goes an exercise in futility:
    1-Yes… it’s called the Universe.
    2-The search for God doesn’t mean that all other religions are worshipping “other Gods”, their understanding of God is what is murky. I found interesting an article that Aztec priests would believe in a “great spirit” that for the common people would take form in several shapes. God revealed Himself fully through Jesus Christ in a way that everyone can understand. It is the only Revelation that leaves no space for doubts. He gave Everything. He is the LOGOS.
    3- More or less Panentheism. A Deist Universe has no meaning. It is the same as an atheistic universe, meaningless, pointless, and not existent. A universe with Love, Justice, Beauty is the creation of the Triune God.
    4- All powerful: created the Universe and everything in it. Check
    Loving: “For God so loved the world He send His only Son to die for our Sins” Check
    Good: Good > Go od > God. Check.
    5-I don’t see where this is going… I also kill cows to eat. I also kill plants to eat. Does that make me “not good”? The billions of years part is not very clear. I think Life on Earth only has 400 million years or so.
    6-The proper definition of Sin is a little bit more complex but for the purpose of this exercise in futility just consider Sin to be that which contradicts Life, meaning Death.
    It is not clear to understand what is the Will of God. It is easier to think that Sin is that which negates Life. That’s why murder is one of the easier types of sin to identify.
    7-Or better yet, all humans are born with the potential to do good and evil.
    8-Tough one… God is Love, but as you yourself have realised it is hard to feel loved if you are alone. It is also hard to love if there is no one else to love right? How could God be Love without 3 persons? And the reason why Three are One is because Love brings everything into One. That is why Jesus wants us to be “One”. One with Him as He and the Father are One. That doesn’t mean we are no longer ourselves, but that in our Love for God we become One with Him. The rest is just narrative…
    9&10-It’s called “Free Will”.
    11-We find these to be true because God Incarnated, died and Ressurected. The Bible and the Church are Witness to that Unversal Truth.
    12-So you think if two narrators say two different things about the same event mean that one is lying or the event didn’t happen? Explain that…
    13-God can communicate with us in different ways. The other day I needed a kick in the back and He literally called me an “***”. (details on that for a further episode)
    We can communicate with Him by loving Him.
    14-I think your understanding of Heaven and Hell as rewards seem a little too “carrot in front of a stick” like. Heaven is the realisation of the Love you experienced on Earth without the constraints of time and physical. Hell is the absence of Love, hence the horror.
    15-The other day he gave a job to a lazy *** friend of mine just because I prayed for it… the nerve!

    I hope you take this in a light tone.
    God Bless you and I will be praying for you!
    D.
 
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.


  1. *]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.
    *]God created everything and everything depends on God’s existence for its continued being.
    *]God is all-powerful. God is all-loving. God is good.
    *]Before human beings existed, for billions of years on earth, and who knows how long on other planets, living things suffered great pain and distress despite their innocence and their creation by the all-powerful, all-loving, good God.
    *]There is something called ‘sin’ which consists of going against the will of God.
    *]Human beings, at some point in the past, sinned against God in a way that made all their offspring be born with ‘original sin’, which prevents them gaining eternal happiness
    *]God is not a single person, but three, but still one none-the-less, and one of these people was sent to earth to be born of a virgin, suffer and die in order to overcome original sin.
    *]Original sin, although overcome, still exists and is the cause of human pain and suffering.
    *] Humans, despite original sin being overcome, continue to sin. If they die in a state of serious sin, they condemn themselves to eternal pain and torment in a place created by the all-loving, all-powerful God.
    *]We know everything after (1) is true because scripture says so or, if it does not, the Church does, as God expresses his truth through these.
    *]All contradictions in scripture are either minor, or can be explained
    *]God can communicate with us through the Holy Spirit, and we can communicate with God, the angels, and saints through prayer
    *] Despite his omnipotence, God wants us to praise, worship and adore him, and will reward us if we do
    *]God is capable of intervening, and does intervene, in the material world.

  1. The Catholic Christian message is that God exists, God is good, God, is just, God is merciful, God is love. Love is foundational in some manner to this universe. The rest is peripheral, relatively speaking. Plausible arguments for or against the existence of such a God are plentiful and misunderstandings about the nature and will of God are also abundant. For myself, I didn’t truly express faith in that God until I needed Him, until I was at the end of my rope, at which time I called out and He answered.
 
I don’t think that will ever happen. I don’t see how God can ever be proven, nor am I sure He wants to. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it 😃

It’s a leap of faith. It’s called that for a reason.

Besides, original sin is a later invention by St. Augustine. There was no calvinistic view of original sin before him and still it is only found in Western Christianity. You shouldn’t worry about it too much.
So why do non-western Christianities think God became incarnate and allowed himself to be sacrificed?
 
The fact that we are here and the universe exists is proof of, if not the christian god, then some form of god.

The universe could not have come into existence completely by itself. This is indirect proof of an “uncaused causer” or god which began the course of history as we know it.
If this were true, it might indeed point to a higher possibility of a god as ‘causer’. But is it true? It certainly does not seem obvious to me. The argument made in favour of this proposition, and I have read many, all seem to be complex repetitions of the conclusion they seek to prove. I understand what you mean, however. the universe is ‘awesome’ in the old sense of the world, and it is hard to think of it without thinking of a designer. But that does not make this thinking correct - just natural.
 
Its not easy being a Christian. We have all been told that.
But I can kind of relate/understand where you coming from a little bit in that I struggle with some aspects but we now have very wise priest who is able to guide in a way that really does bring me nearer to God.
I think that we think too much. Sorry there is any pun intented there. But satan/devil loves to get us thinking away at things and of course we start looking for prove because we need to see it to believe it


You don’t need to try at being a believer - you just need to try at being yourself open to God. We all think and feel and respond different as unique individuals that we are. Going for a walk in the park. Sitting watching tv. chatting with friends. enjoying the garden. All is prayer when you are aware of the presence of God and only you with God will know when that is.

We make believing to be hard work. When actually its all quite simple. As the priest told me. ‘its so simple that most find it hard to do’. I reckon that is because we have a strange need of making everything complicated. The more qualifications you got and the more important you want to be etc the harder you will find it being this simplistic because you will create all sorts of roots to get there by rather than just being there as you are.

People want to ask scientific questions and have fully answered responses. God don’t work like that and its not going to happen. Pure simplistic love is all God wants of us and he gives in return. I don’t know how people can walk away from such luxurious love that God gives us no conditions. Just there whenever we turn to him
peace be with you
Thanks for thinking about me. I have seem some very good human results from the type of simple Christianity you suggest, but as for stopping thinking so much - it may be too late! However, I’ll look for times to slow my mind down before it does so of its own accord.
 
Sounds sort of like a “prayer experiment.” The error of these kinds of “tests” are that they treat God like some sort of natural cause, rather than as a personal, rational Being. These types of experiments were not set up to test God, a superhuman, supernatural intelligence, with an entirely benevolent will, but only one aspect of God, His omnipotence. These tests are to find out whether God will do what we think is best; that is, they are a good test for the existence of a cosmic genie, but not for the existence of God.

So, how do we come to have faith?

Perhaps the following (taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) will help you on your journey:

ISo, my advice would be to pray to Mary the Mother of God would intercede on your behalf with the Holy Spirit that you may recieve the gift of faith and have the courage and strength to assent to it.
An interesting selection. I quite like the CCC because unlike many Church documents, I can understand much of what it is saying. It is more direct, and less obscure than much else, especially things produced by the Vatican. I’ll have a think about the ‘faith is certain’ proposition.
 
A most interesting list…I like it…

A question if I may - When you say above “If I could accept”…do you mean “If I could believe”, or “if I could be open to the possibility”??
The one (belief) obviously requires a firm assent, the other only requires avoiding a firm rejection…

The answer to the above might have a profound impact on your list AND on the possibility of a fair and “unbiased” experiment…so I ask you to consider this carefully…

Peace
James
I think I am talking close to ‘open to the possibility’ rather than ‘believe with certainty’. I think I would say ‘conclude that on the balance of probabilities it is likely’.
 
Thanks for all the posts - still thinking about thee one to which I have not responded yet. Will do an omnibus post soon.
 
Hi,
faith in God is a journey, it’s one step at a time which seems to be what you are doing.
I wonder if part of your experiment in faith is to try and go to an adoration chapel or even a weekly mass. You don’t have to pray but just go and sit in church or the chapel and be.
You can sit in the back or whatever your comfort level is. It is just a thought to add in your experiment. I have used this analogy before but I’ll use it again, God is like the wind. You can’t see it but you know it is there. Sometimes you can feel it, sometimes you can’t. Sometimes it is obviously blowing and sometimes not. I’ll keep you in my prayers. I think you laid out a very detailed plan of steps in faith. As always, it is just one step at a time.
 
I think I am talking close to ‘open to the possibility’ rather than ‘believe with certainty’. I think I would say ‘conclude that on the balance of probabilities it is likely’.
Well - I have to say that being “close to” the open to the possibility might still cause problems…Though I respect the difficulties in achieving such openness.
For myself - I just can’t bring myself to place belief in an almighty on a balance of “probabilities”…🤷

Of course perhaps that is just my way of dealing with the “Pascal’s wager” issue/idea…

OR perhaps it is just that when I put “eternal life” (along with the great majesty and mystery of the universe) on the one side of the “balance” it would take an awful lot of weight against{/u] God’s existence for me (to invert your comment) to, "conclude that on the balance of probabilities it is unlikely.

Anyway - I appreciate your response to my earlier question and wish you only the best as you move forward with this proposition.

Peace
James
 
Hokomai, I give you a lot of credit. Despite being a staunch atheist who is unafraid to make his views known I still find you to be a polite, challenging, and fascinating poster who makes a positive contribution to the forum by making us all think. Unlike a lot of the atheists I see here, you actually show your reasoning when rejecting our arguments. You sir, have my respect. 🙂
 
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.


  1. *]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.
    *]God created everything and everything depends on God’s existence for its continued being.
    *]God is all-powerful. God is all-loving. God is good.
    *]Before human beings existed, for billions of years on earth, and who knows how long on other planets, living things suffered great pain and distress despite their innocence and their creation by the all-powerful, all-loving, good God.
    *]There is something called ‘sin’ which consists of going against the will of God.
    *]Human beings, at some point in the past, sinned against God in a way that made all their offspring be born with ‘original sin’, which prevents them gaining eternal happiness
    *]God is not a single person, but three, but still one none-the-less, and one of these people was sent to earth to be born of a virgin, suffer and die in order to overcome original sin.
    *]Original sin, although overcome, still exists and is the cause of human pain and suffering.
    *] Humans, despite original sin being overcome, continue to sin. If they die in a state of serious sin, they condemn themselves to eternal pain and torment in a place created by the all-loving, all-powerful God.
    *]We know everything after (1) is true because scripture says so or, if it does not, the Church does, as God expresses his truth through these.
    *]All contradictions in scripture are either minor, or can be explained
    *]God can communicate with us through the Holy Spirit, and we can communicate with God, the angels, and saints through prayer
    *] Despite his omnipotence, God wants us to praise, worship and adore him, and will reward us if we do
    *]God is capable of intervening, and does intervene, in the material world.

  1. Since you are looking at 15 items, I would like for you to consider just 1.
    Carry a blessed Green Scapular in your wallet.
    I will do the praying for you every day if you agree.

    Just look at it as a trial thing like the other 15 items.
    I don’t ask anything other than just carring it in you wallet. It’s flat and easy to carry there.

    What could be easier and simplier.

    You can get a free one by googling “green scapular”.

    PM me.
 
If this were true, it might indeed point to a higher possibility of a god as ‘causer’. But is it true? It certainly does not seem obvious to me. The argument made in favour of this proposition, and I have read many, all seem to be complex repetitions of the conclusion they seek to prove. I understand what you mean, however. the universe is ‘awesome’ in the old sense of the world, and it is hard to think of it without thinking of a designer. But that does not make this thinking correct - just natural.
well, what is more likely in your opinion,
  1. the universe just spontaneously popped into existence by itself with all of the complex laws of physics intact
  2. the universe is eternal, therefore it has no beginning (but this assertion was actually disproven by the big bang theory). not to mention, this assertion also betrays logic since there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. its the same on the number line, its infinite in either direction but you still need to start somewhere on the number line to go in either direction!
  3. then theres the theistic assertion. that something outside of the universe and physical matter caused the universe. therefore the universe was caused by a supernatural force.
as a rationalist myself, i can only go with the most logical conclusion. which is the third.
 
Since you are looking at 15 items, I would like for you to consider just 1.
Carry a blessed Green Scapular in your wallet.
I will do the praying for you every day if you agree.

Just look at it as a trial thing like the other 15 items.
I don’t ask anything other than just carring it in you wallet. It’s flat and easy to carry there.

What could be easier and simplier.

You can get a free one by googling “green scapular”.

PM me.
If a green scapular comes my way, I will carry it for a year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top