Arguments for God?

[Mystic_Banana]

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

There is doctrine in the Church about revealed truth, whereby Gods intevention is absolutely undeniable, as far as I understand it. The Church holds that this would bypass the universal doubt presented by Descartes

Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever experienced that. But technically speaking, you can’t be sure that, say, you’re not a brain in a vat being fed a hallucinatory world ala The Matrix.

Hallucination is a tricky concept, and we are indoctrinated (and I don’t use that term lightly) by modern society to assume any experience beyond the physical world is illusory. That they are such has never been proved. However, I can’t say that I know how to prove the reverse either.

Then again, you can’t absolutely prove Belgium exists.

We could go into the degrees and so on, but in the end, I think it boils down to reasoned faith. And that goes as to whether you believe the experience to be real or imagination.

Of course, I’d say the argument that such experiences are probably real, or at least that such real experiences of divinity do exist, is stronger, and to put your faith in that they are, is the most reasonable of all

 

[samiam1611]

Someone else pointed out to me the portions of CCC that pertain to the existence of God. They are 31, 33-35, 46, 48, 286, and 2127.
The problem though is that atheists don’t really care what religious documents say.
What might help you is to find out why they don’t believe in God, and then you can give your argument on their level. Wikipedia actually as an article on the existence of God with a section on arguments against the existence of God.

I think most would agree that believing in God requires faith.
“To practice the virtue of faith, one must be willing to suspend one’s sight and one’s judgment; one must be willing to live with the unintelligible, with that which cannot be conceptualized or integrated into the rest of one’s knowledge, and to induce a trance like illusion of understanding. One must be **willing to repress one’s critical faculty **and hold it as one’s guilt; one must be willing to drown any questions that rise in protest—to strangle any trust of reason convulsively seeking to assert its proper function as the protector of one’s life and cognitive integrity.”
Personally, the above quote describes the core reason why I do not believe in God. So if you wanted to argue the existence of God with me, having a well thought out response to that would be necessary. Others may have their own reasons, and so you would be best prepared to argue the existence of God to an atheist by familiarizing yourself with some of those reasons.

 

[Glennonite]

Mystic Banana, Samiam 1611:

Thank you both. Well-said each of you; I like your manners of speaking and I will chew on your words. Ultimately, I think it’ll come down to “terra firma” vs.“leap of faith”…not a very savory choice.

I guess my ultimate questions must be:

God, knowing that there is a reasonable doubt as to your existance, why not give doubters credit for using their reason? Just show up and settle the question. With such high-stakes, (eternal heaven or eternal hell) why the “game”, why the mystery?

 

[levinas12]

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.

How would you address the issue of quantum fluctuations which “happen” supposedly without a cause? If this were “true”, then all “events” or “beings” are contingent. Reality is “baseless”. There is no ground to stand on. No Ultimate Necessity. Just Chance. Randomness. Inscrutable Fate (Homeric). Geworfenheit (Heidegger). It’s amazing how Nietzschean late 20th century cosmology sounds.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi levinas,

What I like about the Third Way argument is that it only requires a modest causal principle. Out of nothing comes nothing is still true on the quantum level, where fluctuations arise spontaneously out of the vacuum’s energy. Energy, of course, is something, not nothing.

On the other hand, if a deterministic model of quantum mechanics is correct (see David Bohm’s model, for instance), then the issue doesn’t even come up.

 

[levinas12]

Hi levinas,

What I like about the Third Way argument is that it only requires a modest causal principle. Out of nothing comes nothing is still true on the quantum level, where fluctuations arise spontaneously out of the vacuum’s energy. Energy, of course, is something, not nothing.

On the other hand, if a deterministic model of quantum mechanics is correct (see David Bohm’s model, for instance), then the issue doesn’t even come up.

Thanks for the clarification. Your “modest causal principle” is intriguing. But is it enough to maintain Thomas’ metaphysical principle of causality? In what sense is energy an efficient cause in the light of quantum indeterminacy - that some “particular” events have no “particular” causes. And what would Thomas think of the multiverse?

 

[punkforchrist]

I would love to ask Thomas some of those same questions. When it comes to the modest causal principle (CP), any of the four causes could be appealed to. There is at least a material cause of fluctuations, even if there is no efficient cause. This allows us to step back and apply a most general causal principle (if one of the four applies to X, then X has a cause).

The Third Way makes use of all four types of causes, so if one thing appears to be materially uncaused, it still has an efficient cause, or vice-versa. As long as something arises from something else, the CP appears justified.

 

[levinas12]

I would love to ask Thomas some of those same questions. When it comes to the modest causal principle (CP), any of the four causes could be appealed to. There is at least a material cause of fluctuations, even if there is no efficient cause. This allows us to step back and apply a most general causal principle (if one of the four applies to X, then X has a cause).

The Third Way makes use of all four types of causes, so if one thing appears to be materially uncaused, it still has an efficient cause, or vice-versa. As long as something arises from something else, the CP appears justified.

Quod erat demonstrandum!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Mystic Banana, Samiam 1611:

Thank you both. Well-said each of you; I like your manners of speaking and I will chew on your words. Ultimately, I think it’ll come down to “terra firma” vs.“leap of faith”…not a very savory choice.

I guess my ultimate questions must be:

God, knowing that there is a reasonable doubt as to your existance, why not give doubters credit for using their reason? Just show up and settle the question. With such high-stakes, (eternal heaven or eternal hell) why the “game”, why the mystery?

Free will. If we know that God exists, we would serve him out of pure self interest. To have choice, we must therefore have sufficient room for doubt.

 

[Glennonite]

Free will. If we know that God exists, we would serve him out of pure self interest. To have choice, we must therefore have sufficient room for doubt.

I don’t see that. Actually, a certainty of God would make the relationship real and therefore the choice would be equally real. The angels who rejected God knew Him and willingly turned their backs. Likewise, those angels who remained faithful out of love for a God that they knew, chose out of a real love…I think.

Self-interest? Any love based upon fear of punishment for not loving…is not true love, but fear. Any love based upon eternal separation as a consequence for not loving, makes no sense; if there is no love, what’s so bad about eternal separation?

I’m sorry, but I still want to know that faith is not self-delusion. Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explaination is probably the most likely.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I don’t see that. Actually, a certainty of God would make the relationship real and therefore the choice would be equally real. The angels who rejected God knew Him and willingly turned their backs. Likewise, those angels who remained faithful out of love for a God that they knew, chose out of a real love…I think.

Self-interest? Any love based upon fear of punishment for not loving…is not true love, but fear. Any love based upon eternal separation as a consequence for not loving, makes no sense; if there is no love, what’s so bad about eternal separation?

I’m sorry, but I still want to know that faith is not self-delusion. Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explaination is probably the most likely.

Are you saying that relationship that involves faith isn’t real relationship? I think maybe you should re-examine your understanding of the concept of relationships, I’m afraid! :ehh:

We seperate ourselves from Gods love in proudly rejecting it - our punishment is to make our own fate apart from God by rejecting him, I think

Applying Occams razor, surely the explanation of reality of experience is at least as simple, if not moreso, than complicated theories of hallucination based on unproven but assumed physical, social, cognitive, chemical (etc.) factors?

 

[Glennonite]

"

Are you saying that relationship that involves faith isn’t real relationship? I think maybe you should re-examine your understanding of the concept of relationships, I’m afraid! :ehh:

We seperate ourselves from Gods love in proudly rejecting it - our punishment is to make our own fate apart from God by rejecting him, I think

Applying Occams razor, surely the explanation of reality of experience is at least as simple, if not moreso, than complicated theories of hallucination based on unproven but assumed physical, social, cognitive, chemical (etc.) factors?

"

I guess I am saying that: a) uncertainty of another’s existance leads naturally to b) uncertainty of the relationship. They must go hand-in-hand; the first begets the second.

I think mental delusion is way simpler than “Omnipresent, Ominscient, Creator of the Universe”. Come on, not even a close-call. At least I can point to someone who has been diagnosed as delusional. And an infinite-Being is…really, really a stretch.

As far as rejecting or separating ourselves from God— no, I wouldn’t do that if I knew for sure that He exists; I’m very pro-God.
I just want to have a cup of coffee with Him for 5 mins. so I can know it’s all for real.

I mean, there’s no harm in living a life full of the Sacraments and prayer, (see: Pascals Wager) but I’d feel like I’d be faking it. That just wouldn’t be right… I’ve actually been to Mass with friends and wanted to receive Eucharist. I couldn’t, because I lacked the certainty of the reality of the Presence. Isn’t that crazy!?

In all candor, I’ve been using this Lent to meditate the Rosary each morning, and have been watching Mass daily on EWTN. I’m also thinking of starting the Marian devotion of the 5 First Fridays (Rosarys, Reconciliation, Mass, the whole enchalada). I do wanna believe.

I am a “cradle-Catholic” after all. Two more things: I appriciate your time and responses; and, what’s Mystic Banana all about? (if ya don’t mind my asking.)

Peace, Glennonite

 

[samiam1611]

I guess I am saying that: a) uncertainty of another’s existance leads naturally to b) uncertainty of the relationship. They must go hand-in-hand; the first begets the second.

I think mental delusion is way simpler than “Omnipresent, Ominscient, Creator of the Universe”. Come on, not even a close-call. At least I can point to someone who has been diagnosed as delusional. And an infinite-Being is…really, really a stretch.

As far as rejecting or separating ourselves from God— no, I wouldn’t do that if I knew for sure that He exists; I’m very pro-God.
I just want to have a cup of coffee with Him for 5 mins. so I can know it’s all for real.

I mean, there’s no harm in living a life full of the Sacraments and prayer, (see: Pascals Wager) but I’d feel like I’d be faking it. That just wouldn’t be right… I’ve actually been to Mass with friends and wanted to receive Eucharist. I couldn’t, because I lacked the certainty of the reality of the Presence. Isn’t that crazy!? no

In all candor, I’ve been using this Lent to meditate the Rosary each morning, and have been watching Mass daily on EWTN. I’m also thinking of starting the Marian devotion of the 5 First Fridays (Rosarys, Reconciliation, Mass, the whole enchalada). I do wanna believe.

I am a “cradle-Catholic” after all. Two more things: I appriciate your time and responses; and, what’s Mystic Banana all about? (if ya don’t mind my asking.)

Peace, Glennonite

I think it shows intelligence to question the religion/beliefs you grew up with. I can’t help but judge cradle Catholics (I mean the really devout, convinced ones) that their narrow education in religion is holding them back from making an informed decision. Judge is not quite the right word…more like question. But with a bias. (I am admitting that I am basically judging and know that’s wrong - hey that’s one reason I’m here, to hear individuals so that I can get rid of that bias.) I can’t encourage you to leave the Church - but I think I can encourage you to educate yourself on alternatives to Catholicism, including atheism, so that you can eventually say, with some confidence, that your beliefs are the result of an open, educated mind. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would be a good read for you. He puts just a touch of agnosticism in there to make it accessible to anyone with a questioning mind, not just atheists who don’t need more convincing!
(Also look in to Humanism, Christian humanism, agnostic theism and agnostic atheism) Meanwhile, keep on doing what you’re doing so that you don’t feel too bad if you decide to stick with Catholicism. Don’t worry, from the CCC:
“The human person: with his openness to truth…questions himself about God’s existence.”
I take this to mean it’s not the end of the world to question your faith. If you read more of that section (scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1 )you will see that the Church doesn’t necessarily expect you to throw reason out the window to find God. (Even though I completely disagree with that, but my opinion is neither here nor there.) Point is, if you seek the truth, you’re more likely to be satisfied with what you find than if you sit back and assume that what you were raised with is true.
Here’s a quote I like: “If a man has **failed to find any good reason **for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly **natural and rational that he should not believe **that there is a God…” ~Robert Flint

 

[Glennonite]

"

I can’t encourage you to leave the Church - but I think I can encourage you to educate yourself on alternatives to Catholicism, including atheism, so that you can eventually say, with some confidence, that your beliefs are the result of an open, educated mind. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would be a good read for you. He puts just a touch of agnosticism in there to make it accessible to anyone with a questioning mind, not just atheists who don’t need more convincing!
(Also look in to Humanism, Christian humanism, agnostic theism and agnostic atheism) Meanwhile, keep on doing what you’re doing so that you don’t feel too bad if you decide to stick with Catholicism.

"

Thanks, I appriciate the atheistic support. Regarding alternatives to Catholicism, the issue more basic: faith vs. none at all. (theism vs. atheism)

Once one jumps into the “faith camp”, Catholicism makes the most sense. Hmm, I just realized something. Atheism requires an intelligent, reasoned mind; I think Catholicism is by far the most level-minded, ordered, thoughtful, approach to faith that there is. It even trumps Buddism and Taoism. I’m all-in or fold, I guess.

As far as other schools of faith/philosophy, I’ve always devoured religous-systems; it’s my passion. I will look into The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins as you suggest.

Peace, Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

"

(scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1 )

"

BTW, This was fantastic; thanks for putting it in my hands.

Peace, Glennonite

 

[FightingFat]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would be a good read for you. He puts just a touch of agnosticism in there to make it accessible to anyone with a questioning mind, not just atheists who don’t need more convincing!

I think The God Delusion is a great book to read because Dawkins asks honest questions about faith and gives everyone interested in the truth a solid line of questioning to follow. It’s just a shame he hasn’t bothered finding out what theology has to say about any of the issues raised. When you have studied a bit, it contains lots of good questions your 11 year old might ask. When challenged on his shallow perspective he retorted “One doesn’t have to study gnomes to know they do not exist.” Nice one Richard

…the Church doesn’t necessarily expect you to throw reason out the window to find God. (Even though I completely disagree with that, but my opinion is neither here nor there.) Point is, if you seek the truth, you’re more likely to be satisfied with what you find than if you sit back and assume that what you were raised with is true.

Very sage advice, and samian is right, the Church positively encourages the use of reason, see Fides et Ratio for a full exposition. It begins thus:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

 

[murtsi]

Hey if you want good philosophical arguments for God, C.s lewis’s “Mere christianity” is a great book, he uses the concept of “moral law” to bring forth the idea of a Higher Power. also dr peter kreeft uses alot of his arguments from C.S lewis

www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm

Mere Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hope it helps

God bless

 

[chessmane4e5]

It is a historic fact that a man named Jesus Christ lived, was regarded as a great teacher (both by his followers and enemies), and was crucified.

Knowing this, let’s examine other historic evidence and the claims of the Apostles.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? At first glance, this seems like a pretty easy thing to dismiss, I mean the Apostles could have lied about it, end of argument. But wait, lets use our reason and think about this. Why would the Apostles lie about something like this? What did they stand to gain by pretending that Jesus had risen from the dead? Nothing. In fact they all knew that continuing to preach could only lead to their own death.

So, what can we make of this.
a) The Apostles were telling the truth
or
b) They were crazy and lied

Maybe they were crazy. Maybe Jesus was really good at finding crazy people to follow Him. But if these guys were all crazy how do we explain:

1. The 11 (plus Matthias) all started separate churches in the surrounding areas, yet all these Churches were united. Seems to me, that these 12 “crazy” guys would have gone out and started their own churches and tried to gain something. Yet, all the Churches that were started we all united, they were Catholic (meaning universal) in their beliefs.
2. What about Paul? He was not one of the original 12 and he was surely not crazy. He was a well respected Pharisee who was making a name for himself by persecuting the Christians. Yet he suddenly converted. Why?

So, if the Apostles were not crazy and liars, then they were telling the truth. Jesus did in fact come back from the dead, which is something that has never happened before in history. The only explanation is that Jesus was telling the truth as well and He is God.

Now I know all this is not 100% proof for God existence, but it is pretty tough for atheists to rationalize the historic account. The atheists that I have presented with this usually just hold to the belief that the Apostles were crazy and lied. Makes me wonder who’s faith is blind, because God has given us plenty of reason to believe, we don’t have blind faith, we have true faith (faith means trust, which is what we are called to do, trust in God).

 

[AntiTheist]

It is a historic fact that a man named Jesus Christ lived, was regarded as a great teacher (both by his followers and enemies), and was crucified.

Yes, if by “historic fact,” you mean, “claimed in a few manuscripts liberally peppered with supernatural events and written decades – at the earliest – after the supposed events.”

To be clear, I’m not saying that there definitely was no Jesus – in fact, I think it likely that there was a person upon whom the legends were based – but I am saying that there is insufficient evidence to think that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually existed.

So, what can we make of this.
a) The Apostles were telling the truth
or
b) They were crazy and lied

Or c) they were sincere in their beliefs and mistaken.

Or d) they were fictional parts of the Gospel legends, possibly based on real people

What about Paul?

What about him? He never met Jesus – he just claims to have had some kind of “experience” on the Road to Damascus. People nowadays have all sorts of experiences – of Jesus, Krishna, Shiva, Buddha, and all kinds of other gods. They also have experiences of UFO abductions, seeing Bigfoot, etc. Many of these people are very sincere in their beliefs, but they are mistaken.

You can be sincere and still mistaken.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

“”

I guess I am saying that: a) uncertainty of another’s existance leads naturally to b) uncertainty of the relationship. They must go hand-in-hand; the first begets the second.

I think mental delusion is way simpler than “Omnipresent, Ominscient, Creator of the Universe”. Come on, not even a close-call. At least I can point to someone who has been diagnosed as delusional. And an infinite-Being is…really, really a stretch.

As far as rejecting or separating ourselves from God— no, I wouldn’t do that if I knew for sure that He exists; I’m very pro-God.
I just want to have a cup of coffee with Him for 5 mins. so I can know it’s all for real.

I mean, there’s no harm in living a life full of the Sacraments and prayer, (see: Pascals Wager) but I’d feel like I’d be faking it. That just wouldn’t be right… I’ve actually been to Mass with friends and wanted to receive Eucharist. I couldn’t, because I lacked the certainty of the reality of the Presence. Isn’t that crazy!?

In all candor, I’ve been using this Lent to meditate the Rosary each morning, and have been watching Mass daily on EWTN. I’m also thinking of starting the Marian devotion of the 5 First Fridays (Rosarys, Reconciliation, Mass, the whole enchalada). I do wanna believe.

I am a “cradle-Catholic” after all. Two more things: I appriciate your time and responses; and, what’s Mystic Banana all about? (if ya don’t mind my asking.)

Peace, Glennonite

Thing is, we can never really know for sure that each of us are as we expect each other to be. God, I suppose, is an extreme of that. You could marry someone and find out 15 years down the line they were using you as a cashcow whilst being bigamously married to 5 other people (with 15 children) - are they the same person? Did you really have a relationship with them? Did the person you think you were having a relationship with actually exist? Is there significant difference between risking having a relationship with someone who may not be as they present themselves to be (hence not being who you thought they were, a person that does not exist) and one who you can only have a sense of, feeling exists, but not confirm in a conventional fashion?

Diagnosis does not neccesarily mean truth. It just means that someone considered by others to be knowledgable thinks that something is the case, based on certain inconclusive theories. Oddly, you seem to have had a fairly convincing experience! Inevitably, however, as I say, modernist dogma will fight that. I admit, I think it probably happens, mind, but then, we’re all conditioned to believe that to be the case, according to the belief systems that define modern culture.

A 3 ‘O’ deity silly? Compare that to any of the regular series of attempts to justify existence without one. Then tell me God is technically more complicated!

I’ve been full of doubt, full of sin, for that matter, and I can’t see a reason *not *to go to Church, to pray, at least to try. Pascals wager works effectively as a bedrock. All the arguments for how we could even come to be without God, quite frankly, collapse ridiculously under skeptical examination. From there, the only way is up, or to sit where you are, I think

Mystic banana is about whatever he’s in the mood to about, thankyouverymuch!!!