As a former believer, in some ways I miss believing

[JDaniel]

I hope I read your question right, and my answer is, simply, no. No, I do not have proof. That is why I am a “questioner”, which makes people angry. Amend: some people. As for why I believe in God, I don’t know. Isn’t that stupid? I really don’t know. I guess I see Him around me, or feel Him at those terrible times, but I couldn’t tell you why I do.
Does that make me bad?

RF:

Nope. That is just how He is communicating with you at this time in your life. But, unless you are specifically selected for it, He will probably never lay it all out for you as you are requiring. We are told that He wants our assent and our faith out of our darkness. The closest thing I can quickly think of, as an analogy is, say your parents accuse you of doing something, and you didn’t do whatever it was. Have you ever requested, even required, their faith and trust in you? Don’t you deserve that faith and trust as their child? God, as our Father, wants this of all of us.

 

[John_Martin]

Jesus is the Son of God, but also part of Him, which is another thing I really don’t understand. And how can God have existed from all time…did He make himself? Does that make any sense?
Maybe I’ll start another thread on that one…

A curious thing - saying Jesus is the Son of God means he is human; saying Jesus is the Son of Man means he is divine. The Son of God is the annointed King from the line of David, whom God declares to be His Son, thus “elevating Him” to heaven. The Son of Man is One from heaven, appearing in the likeness of a Son of Man and coming down from heaven. (book of Daniel, et. al.)

As to the questions about the being of God, St. Thomas can give the most precise answers for someone who seriously wants to know (I say “seriously” because it is very strenuous to read his Summa, but totally worth every drop of sweat).

God did not exist from all time, but created time, and space, and matter, and energy, and all spiritual things we cannot perceive. Maybe a better way of saying it is that God knows time, space, matter, energy, etc. within himself, and knows himself creating these. And we are the objective reality of his knowing - what he knows, he speaks, and what he speaks is reality.

God also knows himself as a person, and speaks himself as a person (thus the Son is also called the Word), and that spoken person loves the person who knows him (the Son loves the Father. The Son is God, because the Son is God as known by God.
If “Love” can be considered a person (and it is), that is the Holy Spirit - as the Father’s Word is an actual reality, the breath of the Father and the Son is also God going out from them and doing goodness. You were given this Person as a gift and a seal of your life when you were baptized and in fullness when you were confirmed.

God is One, but he is a Person in a Father speaking. God is a Person, a Son, in the objective reality of the Word spoken. And God is a Person, Love or the Holy Spirit, in the reality of the breath of God being all of God, for Love is a Person (two Persons) giving his Life to the person(s) he Loves, thus the Holy Spirit is the full life of God, himself, being given to you and inspiring you.

Being - One; Relationship of Persons - Three.

John Martin

 

[snarflemike]

I think you’re missing the point here. The existence of God is a truth claim that requires extraordinary evidence, because it’s an extraordinary claim.

As is the implicit claim that the universe came into existence by natural means, or that it has existed forever.

If science can’t prove that the Universe got started by known natural processes, that doesn’t mean that God exists, it just means we can’t be sure how the universe got started.

But atheists ARE sure. By saying God doesn’t exist, they are making a positive claim that the universe came into being through naturalistic means, or that it has always existed. So let them prove it.

The two are not exclusive options

Of course they are. If not, suggest a third.

 

[snarflemike]

Atheism isn’t about explaining the world and our existence. It’s simply a denial of an unevidenced supernatural explanation.

That’s just evasive. Natural or supernatural, those are the only two choices. If you deny one you must believe the other. There is no via media.

 

[Waiting]

You know if Jesus let me put my fingers in his wounds I would probably believe in Him too.

You talk about proofs that you have and when God talked to you. It is funny, because when I was a believer I had proofs too. I thought about different times that God had proven himself to me and spoken to me. When I stopped believing I started actually analyzing these situations and realized there was nothing super natural about them. They were coincidences or regular biological functions relating to severe stress that caused these “proofs.”

You don’t understand, I didn’t THINK I heard the voice of Jesus, the answer to my request came as sudden and loud as if a radio had suddenly been turned on. I HEARD HIM. Were I an atheist at the time, I would still have to admit that someone spoke to me. It clearly was not imagined. I could not possibly be an agnostic or atheist. My very logical mind would scoff at me. You’re letting the voice of Satan lead you away from all that is good and beautiful. You need to kick his butt and return to the Lord who will always be pursuing you until your last breath. God loves you. I don’t think God ever stops loving you, even if you reject Him and choose hell. Good luck.

 

[Michelle9]

Atheism isn’t about explaining the world and our existence. It’s simply a denial of an unevidenced supernatural explanation.

Must it? Why? Scientific experiments seem to suggest otherwise.

The world in all its magnificient splendor is not evidence enough for you? Then short of God coming down and speaking directly to you, I don’t know what else would suffice for you.

 

[JDaniel]

I think you’re missing the point here. The existence of God is a truth claim that requires extraordinary evidence, because it’s an extraordinary claim.

Where is this law written?

If science can’t prove that the Universe got started by known natural processes, that doesn’t mean that God exists, it just means we can’t be sure how the universe got started.

But, it might.

The two are not exclusive options, and for that matter, the likelihood of each option is not 50%.

And your empirical proof for these claims is?

Science has provided many robust models of natural processes that provide plausible evidence for the way our universe is.

Models? A model, as M.O’ Drury vouchsafes, will never be anything but a model, and as such will be replete with imagination.

Religion, on the other hand, has never vouchsafed us a single objective truth about our world (to paraphrase Jerry Coyne.)

At the worst, the arguments for the position you hold are equal in weight to those that I hold. At best, mine, with the logic and dialectics of St. Thomas, with the logic and dialectics of Fr. Spitzer, and with the logic, dialectics and additional proofs from world famous physicists and mathematicians will swamp yours. Why don’t you stop with the innuendos and simply state your refutations - as we have? You can even start a new thread on each.

 

[norain]

@interestedman,

I’m not sure I get what you mean. Of course everything happens for a reason.

 

[carn]

Here’s the thing, at least in my case, and maybe in the OP’s…in order for me to be truly and firmly Catholic, I need concrete proof.

You are certain?
What concrete proof would convince you?

Before answering read that:
bbspot.com/News/2001/06/atheist.html

And remember that at least according to Bible the first humans had concrete proof of God and still turned against him. (And Satan also had concrete proof and still has, yet he is still fighting God.)

I think that concrete proof does not help and would be even harmful for many, because the issue is seldom that the proof in favor of God is unconvincing, but the start point is often “It does not feel true/just/sensible” (e.g. it isnt just that i have a somewhat nice live, while others suffered and died horribly before getting out of childhood). Only then the mind starts to note that empirical evidence for God is somewhat rare.

But just as the satire article shows, even if God turned someone into a coffee maker or made the universe disappear, this would still be no undeniable evidence for Gods existance.

@interestedman
What do you think of your parents being catholic?
If catholicism is wrong, they made a stupid mistake in being catholic.

But this could have a interesting consequence. Considering you claim they are devout catholics, it might be that their decision to marry and to have children was cruicially dependent upon them being catholic (statistics show a correlation between number of children and religiositiy in general with atheists having a lot less children than most other people). Then their stupid mistake was necessary for you to live. Could it nonetheless be a mistake? And if they didnt commit an error by being religious, how do you know that you are not commiting an error?

(Yep, this argument only supports being religious in general, not specifically catholicism.)

@all other atheists in the thread:
Please describe a scenario/events or the like after which you would certainly conclude “Yes, God exists”.

I am curious, because for example even something like the sun miracle of fatima is something science could pull off one day, some large optical devices in a low orbit might do the trick. So whatever kind of potentially supernatural experience you might have´, you would always have to consider that it might be just some aliens fooling you and you would have no way to decide whether it was God or something else. (after all from atheist point of view aliens capable of using wormholes to make exploration or recreation trips including studying/having fun with humans being fooled to believe in some god are not more unlikely than God and therefore also have to be considered.)

 

[Perplexity]

carn: I just need a sound deductive argument, a strong inductive argument or an appropriate experience to become theist.

 

[vera_dicere]

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

I actually don’t like that “just open your heart and God will reveal himself”. I think that’s rather arrogant to assume that God will operate that way with everyone.

I was a practicing Catholic for 18 years before I had any sort of experience that said “yes, God truly exists”. 18 years of wondering, questioning, but always accepting there was a God, but no, He wasn’t going to just zap me in the backside with absolute proof, like what he did with some saints and clergy.

I know people who’ve lived longer then me, and have never had any sort of religious experience, and yet they still go to Church, they still beleive, they have faith that while God hasn’t given them an “experience” that he still exists.

I don’t know why God gives experiences of a spiritual nature to some and not to others. That’s part of the mystery of faith, I suppose.

For me, I can never be an atheist, I can never be anything but Catholic, God has shown me too much.

But when I die and if it turns out there’s nothing after death, and all of what God showed me was nothing more than wishful thinking or an actual mental health issue, then who cares? I’m a corpse in a box rotting in the ground, with no awareness of my present state or any memory of my life. The people who went to my funeral mass and prayed for me, and sung my favourite hymns and listened to my favourite funeral gospel choices, they’ll all think I’m in heaven, with God, when in actual fact I’m just maggot food. Just like they’ll be.

I have no fear of that reality. If it turns out to be true. Great. No eternal judge pointing the finger at my hideous sins, no shame, no fear, no desperation in pointing out to God that I accepted the sacrifice of his Son for payment of my debt. And how can I be annoyed that there’s no eternal peace for me if I have nothing to compare it to now?

How much easier would that be? Sometimes I think atheists have a better sense of calm about death then some Christians. I worry when I haven’t been to confession in a while about my eternal destination if I get hit by a bus. Yet what does the atheist worry about, who’ll take care of his family, won’t his friends be sad? Yes, those are justified worries, but life goes on. He just doesn’t accept there’s an eternal life for anyone.

Unfortunately for the atheist, there is life after death. There is a God. He gave us a “get out of jail free card” with Christ’s image stamped on the front. Whether the atheist accepts that, well, that’s up to them. But for the staunchest atheist, who knows, perhaps God gives them one final poke in the ribs just at the moment of death. I’m certainly praying for that for all the atheists in my life.

 

[carn]

an appropriate experience to become theist.

Would being turned into a coffee maker and back qualify?
If yes, why? You could just have hallucinated.
If no, why not?

carn: I just need a sound deductive argument, a strong inductive argument

Both need something true to start with, either general true premises or true examples.
Even if someone would offer a good argument, how would you know that the error is not in the premises/examples?

E.g. someone tries to pull of some “universe is ordered … therefore there must be a creator” stuff, but better than Thomas. That would not yield much, because that the universe is ordered is not written in stone, maybe the laws of the universe are unstable and we are just in one of those rare long phases where the laws are stable and tomorrow gravity constant will triple and the electroweak force ceases to exist, shattering the whole argument (and as a side effect killing us all).

 

[John_Martin]

carn: I just need a sound deductive argument, a strong inductive argument or an appropriate experience to become theist.

I believe you need to analyze that question about whether there is a God with your own reason, if you wish to come to the reasonable conclusion that there is a God. It still would not make you a Christian, of course - that God of the Christians is revealed.
It is a long term task to discipline your reason so that it rejects sophistries and recognizes truth, what is “really real”.

If you want samples of the reasoning, you can find the Summa of St Thomas online ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.html, or Aristotle, also.

If important to you, you will work your way through it.

John Martin

 

[Perplexity]

I believe you need to analyze that question about whether there is a God with your own reason, if you wish to come to the reasonable conclusion that there is a God. It still would not make you a Christian, of course - that God of the Christians is revealed.
It is a long term task to discipline your reason so that it rejects sophistries and recognizes truth, what is “really real”.

If you want samples of the reasoning, you can find the Summa of St Thomas online ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.html, or Aristotle, also.

If important to you, you will work your way through it.

John Martin

Thanks John. You know, I think the hardest work that goes into discerning whether an argument for or against God’s existence works is sifting through the objections to its premises, and the responses to those objections etc. You might one day have an impressive amount of confidence that an argument for God succeeds and the next encounter information you were previously unaware of, information which completely robs you of your confidence.

Sometimes, an argument can be regarded as challenging for a position until years down the line when someone finally discovers a really good rebuttal. Take the logical problem of evil for example. This was regarded as a significant challenge for theism until Alvin Plantinga came along and showed us ‘the’ free-will defense.

I used to endorse Aquinas’ Ways, but ended up rejecting them. That could change again. It’s all about acquiring information and trying to organize it in the most coherent manner, I think.

 

[ReapReason]

I miss feeling comfortable with the way things were going. “Everything happens for a reason” is a mantra that can’t really be reconciled with a world view without some sort of God. It was calming believing that something bigger was always looking out for me. It was nice praying at night as a way to unwind and relay my thoughts to an all loving being.

But believing in God is not something you can just choose to do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that there is a God and unless some world changing thing happened, I doubt that will change.

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

But it was nice when everything happened for a reason. Life was a little less stressful.

Personally i find life more difficult and stressful believing in God. I constantly worry and have to decipher whether my life and actions are true to the will of God. Responsibility to God is an enormous weight on ones shoulders. You have to live with the idea that you are a sinner, not to mention the daunting proposition that all the glory of good is Gods alone to judge…

When i was an atheist, as spiritually empty as life was without God, life was a free lunch and i only had to worry about the actions of other human beings. Ultimately i was my own God. So long as you’re economically fortunate, life is straight forward; hence the term pertaining to atheists and foxholes.

No honest person truly wants to believe that their lives are beholden to a being more powerful then they are. They either believe because they realize their life has no worth without God, or because they see evidence of God in their experiences.

 

[JDaniel]

carn: I just need a sound deductive argument, a strong inductive argument or an appropriate experience to become theist.

Perplexity:

How much stronger must inductive arguments be? Aquinas gives us five, for God’s existence, and many others for other truths concerning God. I found that when one refuses to believe the one-liner-anti-theists, the ones who state the naked assertions that Aquinas’ proofs are debunked, with pompous assurance, and consider those arguments as fully as possible for myself, I will happen upon the truth. You’re a thinker. It is not impossible for you to happen upon the truth.

God bless,
jd

 

[interestedman]

interestedman;9756200:

While I was a believer I was very familiar with prominent atheist figures and their stances. But I watched the “atheist tapes” on netflix and something resonated with me. At some point while watching them I decided that the logical view point was that a God likely did not exist. I reexamined why I believed in God and how I came to my beliefs.

What do atheists have to offer to explain the world and our existence? Even evolution must have been started by a supernatural being.

Evolution must have been started by a supernatural being? How do you figure? Evolution absolutely does not need a supernatural being.

 

[interestedman]

As is the implicit claim that the universe came into existence by natural means, or that it has existed forever.

But atheists ARE sure. By saying God doesn’t exist, they are making a positive claim that the universe came into being through naturalistic means, or that it has always existed. So let them prove it.

Of course they are. If not, suggest a third.

Even IF the universe was started by some being it certainly doesn’t mean that it is the Christian God.

 

[interestedman]

At the worst, the arguments for the position you hold are equal in weight to those that I hold. At best, mine, with the logic and dialectics of St. Thomas, with the logic and dialectics of Fr. Spitzer, and with the logic, dialectics and additional proofs from world famous physicists and mathematicians will swamp yours. Why don’t you stop with the innuendos and simply state your refutations - as we have? You can even start a new thread on each.

I have to disagree with this. My refutations of God is that there is no real proof that God exists. Christianity is here for one reason and one reason only: Constantine’s conversion. If Constantine never converted Christianity would have died with the Roman empire.

 

[pete_29]

Personally i find life more difficult and stressful believing in God. I constantly worry and have to decipher whether my life and actions are true to the will of God. Responsibility to God is an enormous weight on ones shoulders. You have to live with the idea that you are a sinner, not to mention the daunting proposition that all the glory of good is Gods alone to judge…

When i was an atheist, as spiritually empty as life was without God, life was a free lunch and i only had to worry about the actions of other human beings. Ultimately i was my own God. So long as you’re economically fortunate, life is straight forward; hence the term pertaining to atheists and foxholes.

No honest person truly wants to believe that their lives are beholden to a being more powerful then they are. They either believe because they realize their life has no worth without God, or because they see evidence of God in their experiences.

It’s not that hard. Do your best, regret when you mess up. You probably do that already.