Sorry for misunderstanding. Any and all suffering here on earth can be joined, in a spiritual manner, to the suffering of Christ in His passion and death. This joining gives us fellowship with Christ in His Resurrection, it is a spiritual blessing that brings us closer to our Lord and to the Father.
I see.
Faith is a choice, not a conclusion.
Faith is not knowledge. Faith is choice.
I don’t expect good things or bad things. I don’t rely on God for any material blessing. I rely on God for the mental strength to deal with whatever material outcome I find myself in. If I do pray for material blessings, I usually feel compelled to add, “but your will be done.” If I pray for the mental fortitude to deal with whatever reality visits me, I don’t feel compelled to add that qualifier.
Consider praying to St. Thomas. He had the benefit of evidence. You have the opportunity of choice. Blessed are those who did not have sufficient evidence, and yet chose to believe.
This is what I have a hard time understanding. My claim is that since we don’t know the origin of the universe, “I don’t know” is the appropriate answer. A “believer,” on the other hand, attempts to fill in the blanks with (I don’t mean this to be disrespectful but I can’t think of another way to say it) feel-good myths, legends, and fairy tales from an ancient text.
No offense taken. I appreciate your respectful opinion.
Thank you for your kind thoughts.I hope you find the peace of this “confusion” one day! It’s changed my life for the infinite better and I hope it will change your’s as well.
Hmm… I’m not certain that this is the proper conclusion. By this standard, every assertion in metaphysics and spirituality – including the atheists’ argument that “God does not exist” – must be rejected. That doesn’t sound quite right…
Not quite. Occam’s Razor only suggests that, for two theories with equal predictive power, the one with fewer assumptions is preferred. It doesn’t suggest that the one with fewer assumptions is better; just that, between these equal theories, one is ‘preferred.’ So, you’re left with a couple of problems: first, you need to show that the materialist’s theory has fewer assumptions. Second (and most problematic), you need to demonstrate that its predictive power is not inferior to the theist’s…
Hmm. You said, “the absence of God I feel then tips the scale in favor of atheism.” Did you not mean that you feel the absence of God – that is, that your lack of a feeling of God’s existence is what decides the argument for you? Perhaps I’m misreading you…?
OK; fair enough. However, you’re still making claims that are, by their very definition, logically impossible to refute (and therefore, are making unreasonable claims). If “practical certainty” is engaged only in ‘experimentation’ – and therefore, in empirical evidence – then “practical certainty” cannot address questions of metaphysics and of spiritual beings (like God). Therefore, your “practical certainty” is of no use in the present discussion, and cannot be brought to bear in order to prove or disprove any assertion.
Hmm…
I would assert that this has less to do with “practical certainty” than it does with raw belief. An American who sees no police car has no certainty that there is no police presence… just a belief that they may not be, and therefore, he acts according to his faith…!
Sure. In each of Jesus’ miracles – especially in the Gospel of John – we see that they are signs. Their purpose was to reveal Jesus as the Son of God. (In fact, as we read through the Gospels, we see that Jesus often told the person He healed not to tell anyone about it. In other words, its value as a sign was oriented towards its retelling following Jesus’ death and resurrection – that is, during the time of the Church and its evangelization of the nations.
This a huge question – and one that is highly relevant to every Christian. Reformation Christians assert that they receive inspiration individually; Catholics believe that this gift of interpretation is given to the Church, rather than to each Christian. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to pick up this question in a separate thread. Briefly, though, perhaps it would suffice to suggest that you should read the Bible on your own in order to encounter God; and that you should consult the Church and her interpretation of the Bible in order to come to a more full understanding of the implications of the texts you’ve read.
Umm… that wasn’t what I said. The healings Jesus performed are for all of us – just not as an indication that we will all be healed physically. (Or am I misunderstanding what you’re asking?)
A couple of observations: first, “much of the OT” is not “inconsequential and obsolete”! It tells of a lot about how God works with us – not piling a bunch of theology on us that we can’t handle, but rather, working with us over time, slowly and patiently. It points us in the direction of Jesus, showing us what our human needs are – and how we fail to love God, if we resort to our human solutions – and how our needs will be met by our Savior.
No it is YOUR job to prove He does exist
Setting aside the fact that hints don’t prove something – they only hint at it – no, I don’t see any such hints coming from materialism. There are hints that Christianity is true, but not enough to persuade most Japanese, apparently. (or, for that matter, much Western Europe and America)
I can’t prove either one. That’s why I’m agnostic. You seem not to be following my posts. I cannot “prove” that atheism is true any more than I can “prove” that theism is true. I can point out problems with theistic proofs that give me pause.
I think I said evidence for atheism, not proofs.
Evidence includes pain and suffering that is inexplicable under Christianity – for example, why there are so many unanswered prayers, e.g. why Jesus doesn’t heal pious people who receive the Eucharist. Atheism clearly explains these observations; Christians can only assume there’s a good explanation that they don’t know (as far as I’ve seen, which perhaps isn’t very far).
I’m guessing that ‘Really?’ was rhetorical. I think it comes as no surprise that many famous scientists are amateur philosophers. I’m thinking most necessarily will be, since to become a great scientist today means to focus on your specialty to the exclusion of much of the world, putting long hours into only that one scientific topic.Really?
I thought materialism/determinism was becoming increasingly unsustainable as a worldview with each and every new quantum discovery and theory. Stephen Hawking famously capitulated and despaired of humans ever realising a grand Unified Theory of Everything
According to renowned physicist George Ellis, we are rapidly approaching the ‘dead-end’ point at which it will be impossible for us to know ‘more’ about physics unless and until we transcend the laws of physics - which as far as humans are concerned is impossible. In other words, there is so much we don’t know - so many gaps - and we simply lack the tools to discover the answers.
Many (atheist) scientists are realising this and effectively conceding that on many big… “meaning of life” questions, the supposed underpinning materialism in question is untestable in a scientific sense. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll recently declared that if theory is “sufficiently elegant” and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally.
Can you imagine if a biblical theist said the God Conclusion is so sufficiently elegant that it need not be tested experimentally?
No, but thanks for the anecdote.
No, but thanks for the anecdote.
You might as well ask, “Who created God?” You are assuming that the universe was created in the same way this question assumes that God was created. It appears to me that we don’t know that the universe is finite in time, despite what Catholic Answers claims.
I don’t know how life on earth began, but again, you would be assuming what you are seeking to prove by answering God to this question.
Unless you have experienced a miracle, you are assuming that miracles occur – or, you are assuming the reports you have read are both reliable and correct. I have never been able to verify a miraculous event occurring as reported. A few cases have been, at best, “Well, that’s intriguing, but it’s too remote! I don’t even know who this author is, or if he’s trustworthy.” I was shocked to find how little Japanese Christians here regard or even know about Our Lady of Akita, casting doubt on this testimony declaring it was a national event, on national news, ‘capturing the attention of the nation’.
Briefly, the fine-tuning argument is false because it is analysis of our descriptions of the universe, not an analysis of how the universe exists in an absolute sense.
lol … 0.5% of Japan is catholic Christian,* and you’re asking me if my university has a Newman Center. Yes: Me.
There is no Blessed Sacrament exposed here like in some American churches, but I sat before the Tabernacle in the Sanctuary – i.e., in the first pew – for more than ten minutes. The experience was overall more evidence in favor of atheism: It seemed more absence of God and me talking to myself than God talking to me or the Holy Spirit inspiring me.
This seems simply false, because material circumstances, including drugs – material objects – affect and can even dictate what you are saying is “spiritual”. If the two are linked so closely in this way, how do you distinguish between them? How are you doing more than simply assuming that they exist spiritually?
This seems a little beyond me (perhaps you could explain more), but it raises another problem: How can we speak meaningfully of anything other than God if God is, by definition, infinite: without boundary? Phrasing this question the other way 'round (the answer coming to mind in parentheses following): It does not seem meaningful to declare that we are “nothing” (that “we are made of nothing” as Frank Sheed writes) when we are ostensibly something.
This suggestion angers me, because I’m tired of taking people’s advice that doesn’t help – as I just did sitting in the Sanctuary – and, more to the point, I’ve already tried this. The “surprise” I got was the feeling of talking into the air.
Interestingly enough, though the majority of Japan remains “not Christian” there are Christian martyr shrines dotted across the country. Seems Christianity was getting a foothold until the Japanese daimyos (regional war lords) decided Christianity was a threat to the continuation of traditional Japanese culture so banned foreigners and enforced the “no Christians” policy with the threat of death. I was intrigued by a Jehovah Witness evangelist I met while in Japan; she was a native born Japanese woman in her early forties. I asked about why she chose to believe in God and wasn’t Shinto or Buddhist. God works everywhere even when the majority of the culture and political leaders want to keep Him out.
Addressing this question about current astronomical theory, you’re arguing from a “god of the gaps” perspective: I urge you to instead argue more like a “god of necessity” like Aristotle and Aquinas did; it is far more convincing.
It appears to me you are assuming that the motion of the universe isn’t a brute fact. It appears to me you are assuming everything must have an explanation: This assumption necessarily implies the God of philosophy (who ‘holds His existence within Himself’) because you must “tie off” this explanatory chain to avoid an infinite regress of explanation.
If our brain was enough for salvation, that’s all God would have given us. What does your heart say about God? While you sat in Adoration, did you try to silence your thoughts and listen for God in the whisper?
Sorry, I’m not much for sentimentalism: My heart doesn’t say anything – my heart pumps blood.