Arguments for God?

[FightingFat]

Indeed.

Absolutely. Here we are in agreement. People can and do start believing in god or gods for no better reason than they just sort of “feel like it.” They have some intuitive sense that the world was “made” by someone or that someone “should” be looking out for them in times of crisis, and that intuition becomes their basis for making a leap to the conclusion that “therefore, there is such a being.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me to be honest!

The problem, of course, is that our intuitive reactions to things are often wrong. For example, our intuitive sense is that the sun goes around the earth, rather than the other way around; our intuitive sense is that the world is flat; our intuitive sense is that we’re at the center of things, etc., etc.

Errrr I don’t have an intuitive sense of either of those examples.

We are fallible, flawed creatures who jump to all kinds of assumptions because that’s the kind of creature we are. To turn outward to the world of experience and to use data from the world to come to conclusions – tentative conclusions based on the best evidence available – is to attempt to rectify the problem. To turn inward to the world of our own “intuitive” assumptions is to miss the boat entirely and to get lost in a dream world that just kind of “feels good.”

I see your point, but it seems to me that if you deny the intuitive, the interior, the metaphysical, you are not drawing your conclusions from all the data, and thus your conclusion is destined to be flawed.

 

[vz71]

The problem, of course, is that our intuitive reactions to things are often wrong. For example, our intuitive sense is that the sun goes around the earth, rather than the other way around; our intuitive sense is that the world is flat; our intuitive sense is that we’re at the center of things, etc., etc.

One of the reasons that humans developed evidence-based inquiry is the fact that our natural perceptive faculties are so often dead wrong about the world around us.

Can you please supply something other then conjecture to back this?

It has been my experience that intuition is largely correct.

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t have an intuitive sense of either of those examples.

Well, without the aid of evidence and reason, most people would falsely conclude that the sun goes around the earth as an “obvious truth.” Perhaps you’re one of the wise few who wouldn’t make that mistake, but that doesn’t change the point I’m making.

I see your point, but it seems to me that if you deny the intuitive, the interior, the metaphysical, you are not drawing your conclusions from all the data, and thus your conclusion is destined to be flawed.

I don’t “deny the inutitive and the interior” – I accept that people have a sense of “intuition” and interior experiences. But what I don’t accept is the claim that this “intuition” and interior experience can adequately support claims about the external world.

vz71:

It has been my experience that intuition is largely correct.

Depends on what you mean by the “inutition.”

In the context that I’m using the term, I mean that it might seem intuitive to think that the lines in an optical illusion are curved when they’re actually straight; or it might seem intuitive to turn the wheel of your car against a skid, when in fact it’s better to turn into the skid; there are lots and lots of examples of things that are counterintuitive.

Placing your trust in what “seems reasonable to me” – in the sense of trusting the immediate answer that occurs to you and “feels right” – isn’t really all that reasonable an approach to the big questions.

 

[vz71]

Well, without the aid of evidence and reason, most people would falsely conclude that the sun goes around the earth as an “obvious truth.” Perhaps you’re one of the wise few who wouldn’t make that mistake, but that doesn’t change the point I’m making.

OK, so where are the facts here?
You have arrived at this grand conclusion to stake your claim, but I see nothing here but speculation and conjecture.

I am uncertain the point you wish to be making, but the point I have received is that your case is founded upon uncertainty.

 

[FightingFat]

Well, without the aid of evidence and reason, most people would falsely conclude that the sun goes around the earth as an “obvious truth.” Perhaps you’re one of the wise few who wouldn’t make that mistake, but that doesn’t change the point I’m making.

I understand, but I think you’re making a bit of an assumption and using your own surmise to prove your own point, which is bad science to be honest.

bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

I don’t “deny the inutitive and the interior” – I accept that people have a sense of “intuition” and interior experiences. But what I don’t accept is the claim that this “intuition” and interior experience can adequately support claims about the external world.

Surely all scientific endeavour develops from what we experience by means of the senses? Newton observed the apple and hypothesised gravity, Archimedes got in the bath and yelled ‘Eureka!’

These people had an intuition about something they could not have had any prior knowledge of based on their observations. At some point this intuition was confirmed in a way which was demonstrable.

The same is true of God. The most common and oldest known arguments for the existence of God are called ‘cosmological arguments’. Such arguments begin from human experience of what is in the world (cosmos) and reason to the necessary existence of a being, naturally called ‘God’, which enables the cosmos we experience to exist.

The first known cosmological proofs are those of the pre-Christian Greek pagan philosophers beginning with Anaximander (c. 610 BC–c. 546 BC), who argued that there must be some first principle (apeiron) of all things. Anaximander also began a tradition of philosophical reflection on the nature of this first principle by arguing, for example, that it must be eternal and ageless and not some material thing like water. Later in same tradition, Plato (428/427 BC – 348/347 BC) and Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) offered arguments for the existence of a first ‘unmoved mover’ of everything that moves.

The key steps of Aristotle’s argument are shown below. Note that what Aristotle means by ‘movement’ also means ‘change’, which may be change that is from place to place, or qualitative (such as hot to cold) or quantitative (such as growth):

1 Everything that is moving was initially moved by another mover.
2 This mover is either itself moving, or not.
3 If this mover is moving it is either moved by another or is self-moving.
4 Each series of movers has members that are each moved by its antecedent. This series necessitates an initiating self-mover at the beginning of such a series. Otherwise there could be no movement at all.
5 Each member of this series then either moves because it is a self-mover, or only by virtue of its antecedent, i.e. it is the first mover that in fact causes the series’ movement.
6 This first mover must be completely immobile (because it has no antecedent causing it to move) and eternal because movement itself is observed to be continuous and eternal.

In summary, the series of beings that are both move and are themselves moved has to start with a being that moves without being moved.

A more detailed version of the argument to an unmoved mover is given by Aquinas as the first of his five ways of showing the existence of God. All of these five ways are found in ST I, q.2, a.3:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

 

[FightingFat]

The steps of the argument in the passage above can be set out as follows:

1. Some things experienced in the world are in a process of motion (change).
2. Something in motion is moved by another because:
   (a) Those bodies in motion are not at the terminus of their motion (i.e. are in potency)
   (b) All such bodies in potency require an act as the cause of their movement.
   (c) According to the law of non-contradiction nothing can be in potency and act at the same time in the same respect.
   (d) Therefore, any such thing in motion, being in potency, must require another (in act) to account for its movements
3. This other, if also in motion, must in turn be moved by another for the same reasons.
4. This regression of movers cannot be infinite as:
   (a) Without a first cause of motion there would be no motion as observed .
   (b) The intermediary movers in the regression are only efficient by virtue of the first mover.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause of motion which is not moved by another. This first mover we understand to be God.

In the steps shown above, note that the main steps, labelled ‘1’, ‘2’ etc., are sufficient to understand the flow of the argument as a whole; the indented items, labelled ‘a’, ‘b’ etc., are the subsidiary arguments to justify particular major steps. Note also that the first subsidiary argument refers to the terms potency and act: a particular potency (or potential) can be thought of a capacity to be in a particular act. For example, for example, bricks and mortar have the potency to be built into a house, a human being has the potency to become a pianist and a pianist who is digging the garden has the potency to actually play the piano. 2(c) above points out that nothing can be in potency and act at the same time in the same respect. So, for example, a pianist who is digging the garden has the potency to play the piano but a pianist who is playing the piano cannot, at the same time, have the potency to play the piano. 2(d) argues that any potency, such as the capacity to play the piano, requires another in act, such as the act of choice by the pianist, to itself be put in act. In other words, a potency cannot be self-actualising; there is always a dependency on something else that is actualised, leading to a causal chain. In the rest of the argument, Aquinas argues that this regression of causes cannot be infinite, but must terminate in a special being that causes motion but is not put in motion by another, which we understand to be ‘God’.

This, as is the case with all the three kinds of cosmological proofs, proves ‘God’ as a common noun, not as a proper name. Indeed, as Ralph McInerny has pointed out, the ambiguity is pronounced in the original text since Latin lacks the indefinite article ‘a’, where in English we can disambiguate between ‘God’ and ‘a god’. ** In other words, what they prove is that there is an unmoved mover or first efficient cause or absolutely necessary being that is commonly called ‘god’ or ‘a god’.** So two common objections or problems that are raised with regard to these proofs are: first, they do not, in themselves, exclude the possibility that there may be more than one ‘god’; second, they do not reveal a great deal about God, let alone enable us to identify the unmoved mover with the God of Revelation.

To answer the first objection, we need to understand that for human beings it is possible to distinguish a particular human being from human nature. So, for example, Peter is a human being but is distinct from human nature, which is also shared, for example, with Paul. Such a distinction is not possible, however, for God. God and the divine essence are not distinct, as if ‘God’ is one member of a genus, for then some principle – the divine essence – would be set over and above God, contrary to God being the first principle. So God cannot be one member of a class of beings, G’. Second, if God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being, then the question arises of how to distinguish God-1 from God-2 from God-n etc. For two beings to differ, something would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. Such privations would be contrary to the essence of God, and so no principle of distinction is possible. Since no distinction is possible, no distinct ‘Gods’ are possible. The third proof for the unicity of God is shown by the unity of the world, by which order is discerned in the cosmos and things are ordered to and serve one another. Such harmony would not, Aquinas claims, be possible without a single ultimate ordering principle rather than multiple ultimate principles. Indeed, Aristotle seems to be thinking in a similar way by his citation of the Iliad (II 204) at the end of his Metaphysics, Book XII, “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler.”

 

[FightingFat]

I’m sorry, I’m getting carried away (as usual)

I bet you’re not at all interested in even reading all that and believe me, I could go on!

In short, I respect your position, but my honest opinion is that you are mistaken, from every angle. I also ***know ***you’re mistaken (as well as considering it as a fact intellectually) because I know and love God. In fact, after struggling with disbelief, it has been given to me that God does exist in such unequivocal terms that I could not even begin to explain my certainty to you!

 

[AntiTheist]

Surely all scientific endeavour develops from what we experience by means of the senses? Newton observed the apple and hypothesised gravity, Archimedes got in the bath and yelled ‘Eureka!’

These people had an intuition about something they could not have had any prior knowledge of based on their observations. At some point this intuition was confirmed in a way which was demonstrable.

And the key phrase here is “confirmed in a way which was demonstrable.”

“Intuition,” in the sense of “a hunch based on an observation” isn’t a path to truth – it is, at best, a quick gut-check of what’s probably going on. It is, as you observe in your examples, the beginning of inquiry, not the end.

It’s all fine and well to have “internal experiences” and “intuitions” of “gods,” but if you want to demonstrate – and that really is a key word here – that this is anything other than your own mind at work, you’ll need more than your intuition.

first cause

And even if we grant every step of your argument and say, “Ok, there was a likely a first cause,” it doesn’t tell us anything about that first cause – it doesn’t tell us, for example, whether it was an intelligent first cause or not. It’s possible that the “first cause” was some blind force of the universe or pre-universe.

 

[AntiTheist]

I also ***know ***you’re mistaken (as well as considering it as a fact intellectually) because I know and love God. In fact, after struggling with disbelief, it has been given to me that God does exist in such unequivocal terms that I could not even begin to explain my certainty to you!

Well, this is the problem: your real reason for believing is an experience that you’ve had, and now you’re trying to convince me by means of something other than an experience.

If it took an experience to convince you, why do you think that appeals to “intuition” and some philosophical word games are going to do anything at all to convince me?

As I’ve indicated, I think you’re mistaken because “experience” cannot yield conclusions: experience is part of the evidence we use to come to reasonable conclusions, and the fact that you’ve had an inner experience of some kind cannot demonstrate that an external entity exists. It can demonstrate only that you’ve had an inner experience of some kind.

 

[FightingFat]

Well, this is the problem: your real reason for believing is an experience that you’ve had, and now you’re trying to convince me by means of something other than an experience.

That’s because I believe that understanding this concept is possible through faith and through reason.

If it took an experience to convince you, why do you think that appeals to “intuition” and some philosophical word games are going to do anything at all to convince me?

I don’t, I’m not trying to convince you of anything other than the existence of a valid argument.

My own study of philosophical showed me that the arguments are extremely valid, although they take some understanding.

As I’ve indicated, I think you’re mistaken because “experience” cannot yield conclusions: experience is part of the evidence we use to come to reasonable conclusions, and the fact that you’ve had an inner experience of some kind cannot demonstrate that an external entity exists. It can demonstrate only that you’ve had an inner experience of some kind.

Actually I have had an outer experience of some kind, some series of kinds, but that was a very personal affirmation of what I thought and believed which was relevant at that time for me as someone with an openness to understanding and humility before the answers.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

That’s a really good question. No particular arguement ever came close to convincing me, I can more or less see immediately where they all break down.

BUT - it’s the people. Some very clever, intelligent, sincere and scientific/inquisitive people ARE convinced there must be a God. This intrigues me, because we know from their personal history they were not indoctrinated in a faith, nor did they blindly accept things.

Yet at some point, they chose to suspend logic and make that leap of faith.

Those people sometimes make me wonder, more than any verbal arguement, which I usually find can be knocked down easily enough.

Sarah x

If you check out Aristotle (and St. Aquinas’) understanding of a creator, as posted by FightingFat, there is no logical conclusion for the existence of ANYTHING other than that it was created.

That having been said, to have faith in any God, be it Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc. requires an act of faith but not a suspension of disbelief or logic.

There are those who would argue that everything was created in 7 literal 24 hour days, that the earth is only 6-7 thousand years old, that evolution did not occur, etc. etc. But there is no proof that the universe was created that way and by definition we cannot prove it. Modern scholarship would point to the book of Genesis being allegorical and referring to an unknown length of time (numerology, despite being admittedly silly, has some import in biblical analysis: for instance the number 7 always representing the “fullness” of something, the number 40 being equated with trials, the number 6 being incompleteness, the number 14 being equated with the line of David, etc. etc.) so there is no need to hold to that.

I will not insult you with my base explanations for my faith, most especially since I have already admitted that it required an act of faith, but do not discount the logical analysis which will unfailingly lead to the conclusion that a “creator” exists.

FSC

P.S. I am one who holds to the idea that random, Darwinian, evolution is not a feasible method to produce the diversity of species that we see today. However, I am not willing to ignore that a guided evolution could have occurred. But the fact that I disagree with others does not mean that I am closed to their thoughts, theories, explanations, or questions. In fact I hold what Evelyn Beatrice Hall first said as relatively paramount to my way of life, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Just so you know where I stand

 

[FightingFat]

As I’ve indicated, I think you’re mistaken because “experience” cannot yield conclusions: experience is part of the evidence we use to come to reasonable conclusions, and the fact that you’ve had an inner experience of some kind cannot demonstrate that an external entity exists. It can demonstrate only that you’ve had an inner experience of some kind.

On a more theological note; in the parables Jesus wants to show us how something we have hitherto not perceived can be glimpsed via a reality that does fall within our range of experience. In this way Jesus leads us to the mystery of God—to the light that our eyes cannot bear and that we therefore try to escape. In order to make this accessible to us, He shows how the divine light shines through in the things of this world and in the realities of our everyday life. Through everyday events, He wants to show us the real ground of all things and thus the true direction we have to take in our day to day lives if we want to go the right way. He shows us God: not in an abstract God, but the God who acts, who intervenes in our lives, and wants to take us by the hand.

Can we reject the reality of this God? There are a thousand rational objections—not only in Jesus time, but throughout all generations and today maybe more than ever. For we have developed a concept of reality that excludes reality’s translucence to God. The only thing that counts as real is what can be experimentally proven. In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) the rich man dies and in knowledge of what awaits his family cries out for more evidence of revelation to be sent to his family. The highest truths cannot be forced into the type of empirical evidence that only applies to material reality. If a miracle were indeed provided as the rich man requests, there is still every possibility that it will simply lead to a hardening of hearts as evidenced in John 11:45-53.

God cannot be constrained into experimentation and thus we are free to reject the parables’ message. This means, though, that the parables are ultimately an expression of God’s hiddenness in this world and of the fact that knowledge of God always lays claim to the whole person—that such a knowledge is one with life itself. Knowledge of God only comes through the gift of God’s love becoming visible to you—but this gift too has to be accepted.

God’s sign for men is the Son of Man; it is Jesus himself. And at the deepest level, he is this sign in his Paschal Mystery, in the mystery of His death and resurrection.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I dont believe we ‘‘came into existence’’ as you put it. I believe we evolved. Sorry, but I havent the time right now to link to all the excellent evolutionary work being done but it’s all out there and easy to find.
I find the logic compelling. Science doesnt not have all the answers, and I dont believe it ever will, because as we find out more, the goal posts move. But the answer, ‘‘I dont know’’ is a perfectly reasonable one to me. There’s no need to move from there, to the supernatural, in my view. The fact we dont know now, just means we have people workinig on it, and we will eventually know.
Look at bacteria, dna, atoms, chromozones - none of which we understood or even knew existed a few centuries back - yet today kids are taught about it in school and its all pretty much common knowledge. That knowledge has allowed us to go on and do wonderful, brillant things for the betterment of mankind.
What was once supernatural - is now natural. We understand. We continue to grow in our understanding. There’s gaps in this understanding for sure - but those gaps dont need to be filled with anything other than ‘‘currently we dont know’’ - in my view of course. I accept I am in the minority and hope Ive contributed in a way that has not caused offence to anyone.

Sarah x

When I say came into existence, I mean come to be by whatever way, shape, or form. I’ve seen loads of evolutionary stuff, and, sorry, it still does naught to justify the irrational belief
that life sparked up by chance, never mind that we turned up as a result of what may or may not be unguided evolution. The odds, when not explained away by the denial of the existence of the same, or by the hysterical (and most unscientific) belief in infinite realities
simply to justify the improbability of this one turning up by chance can surely be ignored by only the most blindly dogmatic atheist

We fool ourselves that we understand - but the proof is only ever the best proof, and humanity, and the world, suffers, while Science experiments upon it in the name of progress. The gaps are too often filled with a “must be this wholly unevidenced theory, because at least it’s theoretically materialist, rather than anything epistemelogically supported, but not (gasp) materialistically!”

…and so science drags logic to a nosedive. Again

What once was supernatural is still such, or never was - if you assume a material explaination, then even the most ridiculous physical explanation will appeal more than a supernatural one. And still, we don’t know exactly why people sometimes people see things that aren’t physically there. Not, that is, if we are honest with ourselves

And science isn’t always atheisms friend. If we’d never discovered germs, we’d still be believing abiogenesis happened all the time, rather than being such an absurd unlikelihood we’re still trying to dream how it happens without…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Modern scholarship would point to the book of Genesis being allegorical and referring to an unknown length of time (numerology, despite being admittedly silly, has some import in biblical analysis: for instance the number 7 always representing the “fullness” of something, the number 40 being equated with trials, the number 6 being incompleteness, the number 14 being equated with the line of David, etc. etc.) so there is no need to hold to that.

Well, it’s not very modern scholarship, is it? St. Augustine, wasn’t it? About a millennia and a half before Darwin… or was it Aquinas, a rather later 800 years before Darwin? And about 400 years before a Catholic Bishop invented stratigraphy…

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Well, it’s not very modern scholarship, is it? St. Augustine, wasn’t it? About a millennia and a half before Darwin… or was it Aquinas, a rather later 800 years before Darwin? And about 400 years before a Catholic Bishop invented stratigraphy…

Touche’ (anyone know how to type that little accented e on a forum?)

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Brenlae,

If I could recommend a class of arguments to you, it would be contingency arguments. Take, for example, the reasonable supposition that nothing contingent needs to exist right now, nor was anything contingent necessary at any moment in the past. In short, it is possible that there was a past time at which nothing contingent existed. Yet, something does exist right now, and if there were ever a time in the past at which nothing existed, it would follow that nothing would exist at present, which is patently false. So, what explains the fact that something, anything, exists? We can sum it up like this:

1. Every existing entity is either temporally contingent or temporally necessary. (Definition)
2. Something exists right now. (Premise)
3. Necessarily, if something exists right now, then something has always existed. (Premise)
4. Possibly, there was a time in the past at which nothing temporally contingent existed. (Premise)
5. Therefore, a temporally necessary entity exists. (Conclusion)

Why does this conclusion follow? Consider (7): A temporally necessary entity does not exist. (7) and (3), together with (1) and (2), imply (8): Necessarily, a temporally contingent entity has always existed. However, (8) contradicts (4). Therefore, it is false that a temporally necessary entity does not exist. Therefore, a temporally necessary entity exists.

Now, what else can we know about this temporally necessary entity? For starters, we can know that it has to be eternal, since there can be no time at which something temporally necessary fails to exist. It must also be enormously powerful, since the more something has an inclination toward corruption, the more that entity has a mark of weakness. In other words, powerful entities don’t go away easily, whereas weak entities do.

Does this prove Christianity, or even show that God is everything we believe Him to be? Probably not, but it’s a good start. We can use arguments such as the above as part of a cumulative case for belief in God. For example, you could talk about the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe in particular, or the order of the cosmos in general. You could talk about the existence of abstract objects, and how they need to be grounded in a necessary, omniscient mind. Finally, there is the witness of the Holy Spirit, the evidences of Jesus Christ, including personal experiences and the rationality of assent to his resurrection.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Touche’ (anyone know how to type that little accented e on a forum?)

I get carried away sometimes…

well, you can cheat and copy/paste it from somewhere else…I think…

touché

Ah - apparently so!

 

[Glennonite]

What would help me is an answer to this question:

Knowing that the mind can delude itself through various mental illnesses or states, how can one tell the difference between true communion with God on a personal level, and mere delusion?

I want to KNOW that I am truely following the God of All, and not my own invention. Is there a way to be certain that my mind isn’t just inventing what it wants to believe? Not to be impertainant towards God, but:

Can’t God just show up in a demonstrable fashion, face-to-face, Being-to-being, and talk to me plainly like any reasonable…person? What could it hurt?

 

[FightingFat]

What would help me is an answer to this question:

Knowing that the mind can delude itself through various mental illnesses or states, how can one tell the difference between true communion with God on a personal level, and mere delusion?

I want to KNOW that I am truely following the God of All, and not my own invention. Is there a way to be certain that my mind isn’t just inventing what it wants to believe? Not to be impertainant towards God, but:

Can’t God just show up in a demonstrable fashion, face-to-face, Being-to-being, and talk to me plainly like any reasonable…person? What could it hurt?

Loads. It would deny your free will and your opportunity to chose. I believe I have felt the presence of God. It was like every molecule in the room was energised to the points of exploding, like this vast enormous majesty that just forced me to my knees. It made me feel tiny and utterly terrified, though the presence was love, and great sorrow (because of my sin).

I am a questioner, a disbeliever, a doubting Thomas, who has been given many great proofs as a result of my urgent prayer for proof. I was given many little gifts of proof, gentle little touches, but even the most real of them receded into the past of my experience and led me to question the reality of that experience, and I prayed with ever more urgency. The way that my doubt was taken away was so dreadful you don’t want to know what it was, but now I have absolutely no doubt. But I wish I did. I wish I hadn’t asked. I wish I had just had the faith.

 

[Glennonite]

Loads. It would deny your free will and your opportunity to chose. I believe I have felt the presence of God. It was like every molecule in the room was energised to the points of exploding, like this vast enormous majesty that just forced me to my knees. It made me feel tiny and utterly terrified, though the presence was love, and great sorrow (because of my sin).

I am a questioner, a disbeliever, a doubting Thomas, who has been given many great proofs as a result of my urgent prayer for proof. I was given many little gifts of proof, gentle little touches, but even the most real of them receded into the past of my experience and led me to question the reality of that experience, and I prayed with ever more urgency. The way that my doubt was taken away was so dreadful you don’t want to know what it was, but now I have absolutely no doubt. But I wish I did. I wish I hadn’t asked. I wish I had just had the faith.

Yes, thank you. However, in my faith life, I also have felt a very “true” personal connection with Jesus. I have slept in my sleepingbag on the marble floor before the tabernacle in my church (it was a great, comforting, restful sleep). I have, in deep prayer, rested my head on the lap of my Savior while praising Him and bringing my sorrows and petitions to him.

My question remains: how can I know that it wasn’t a manufactured product of my mind? I’m not mentally ill or have ever been, but I do think that it’s very possible that what I experienced could simply and only be what I wanted to experience. What’s the “tell” to be sure?

I’m not trying to be obstanant and I really don’t think anyone can give me an answer. But if there is an answer, I am listening. Thanks