Catholic Asks For Answers

[ReachingFaith]

as regards the above post, why would they feel so badly towards the faith without some reason? I know why my RA feels the way he does. Nobody ever gave him the answers to anything, and the examples of the “wonderful” catholic people around him have made him more cynical than before.
I’m just trying to see the other side.

 

[bzkoss236]

as regards the above post, why would they feel so badly towards the faith without some reason? I know why my RA feels the way he does. Nobody ever gave him the answers to anything, and the examples of the “wonderful” catholic people around him have made him more cynical than before.
I’m just trying to see the other side.

Some feel victimized somehow, whether they feel like they were forced into it by their parents, they’ve had bad experiences of some kind, or their own pride.

The sad thing is, Christians can be the same way. Some Christians are stubborn and aggressive with atheists for the same reasons of feeling victimized, bad experiences, or their own pride.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, I know that. My point is that most of the atheists I know say most often that they don’t believe in “God” referring to our God instead of the plural.

Well, I doubt if you and any given atheist are going to spend any time talking about Shiva.

And some of them too have very negative views of Christianity, which obviously played into their disbelief.

I have some negative views about the religion, but that doesn’t, indeed cannot, have an influence on what I believe or not. I can’t conceive of anyone being able to say: I have negative views about Catholics, therefore I don’t believe in God. The two sentiments are not connected from my perspective.

Their view on other religions with gods, like pagan culture, is passive.

Quite possibly because pagans aren’t trying to prevent gay marriage, subordinate women and argue against contraception. Matters which directly affect me. If a religion doesn’t impact on my personal life, then I am indeed quite passive towards it. I would be with Catholicism also.

 

[ReachingFaith]

Well, I doubt if you and any given atheist are going to spend any time talking about Shiva.

I have some negative views about the religion, but that doesn’t, indeed cannot, have an influence on what I believe or not. I can’t conceive of anyone being able to say: I have negative views about Catholics, therefore I don’t believe in God. The two sentiments are not connected from my perspective.

Quite possibly because pagans aren’t trying to prevent gay marriage, subordinate women and argue against contraception. Matters which directly affect me. If a religion doesn’t impact on my personal life, then I am indeed quite passive towards it. I would be with Catholicism also.

oh, yeah, the subordination thing. Another issue I struggle with. But I’m guessing that is just pride? But why oh why would God want a woman to be inferior to a man?

 

[PRmerger]

oh, yeah, the subordination thing. Another issue I struggle with. But I’m guessing that is just pride? But why oh why would God want a woman to be inferior to a man?

Subordination does not mean inferior, Reaching.

 

[PRmerger]

Now, hold on. I know the routine…if you’re not able to answer/don’t want to, please don’t post here. I am dead serious about getting rational, reasonable, LOGICAL proofs to make me believe much more in my faith. Please, please no “opinion” posts. I need real answers, not prayer promises–though pray, if you feel called to! Let me also warn you that I have been put-off by this site in a big way. It makes me doubt more than anything.
So here’s what I basically really believe, for sure and not because I was told to: I believe in God.
Now, here are my questions, one at a time.
When speaking to an atheist (I always take that view point when forming an answer to a religion question), how do I convince him/her that there is a God? This is the big thing the apologetics book I studided forgot to answer. Rather, it sloughed over it with big words that still left me confused. Simple terms, if you can. Just give me some basic ways to prove to anyone that there is a God, who–my resident atheist asked me this just today–came out of nothing, and always was. He said: “Do you believe in evolution?” I said no, that nothing can not produce something. He then said that believing in God makes that statement untrue, as God came from nothing, in a manner of speaking.
Ok, help welcome.

I suggest this site: 20 Arguments for the Existence of God

Now, one argument may not be convincing. In fact, all 20 arguments may not be convincing. But all of them together certainly add up to a zillion reasons to believe.

 

[Bradski]

The Anglican church in Sydney has just brought out new marriage vows. A woman is now required to say ‘love, honour and submit’. If you submit, you are in a subordinate position.

Do you expect your wife to submit to you, PRmerger? Assuming that you’re a married man. I know the response I’d get from my wife if I suggested that she do so. She’d submit without a problem. Submit me to a week or so of misery.

 

[PRmerger]

The Anglican church in Sydney has just brought out new marriage vows. A woman is now required to say ‘love, honour and submit’. If you submit, you are in a subordinate position.

Do you expect your wife to submit to you, PRmerger? Assuming that you’re a married man. I know the response I’d get from my wife if I suggested that she do so. She’d submit without a problem. Submit me to a week or so of misery.

Hiya, Bradski!

I see from the above posts that you’ve (finally!) learned how to use the quote feature. Good for you!

And, as for expecting my wife to submit, you should see my signature, which tells you that I am a woman.

But sure, I submit to my husband, in the same way that the Church submits to Christ.

For doesn’t submission come from the word “mission”–and if my DH and I are “under the same mission”, what’s not to like?

 

[yppop]

Now, here are my questions, one at a time.
When speaking to an atheist (I always take that view point when forming an answer to a religion question), how do I convince him/her that there is a God? This is the big thing the apologetics book I studided forgot to answer. Rather, it sloughed over it with big words that still left me confused. Simple terms, if you can. Just give me some basic ways to prove to anyone that there is a God, who–my resident atheist asked me this just today–came out of nothing, and always was. He said: “Do you believe in evolution?” I said no, that nothing can not produce something. He then said that believing in God makes that statement untrue, as God came from nothing, in a manner of speaking.
Ok, help welcome.

Hi RF
A Theist is someone that believes God does exist.
An atheist is someone that believes that God does not exist.

AXIOM 1: We can neither prove that God exists nor prove that God does not exist.

Thus we have a standoff: a fair debate demands that both sides bear the burden of proof, not just the theist, hence since neither side can formally prove their belief the debate then rests on plausibility, i.e., which belief is more reasonable.

AXIOM 2: The big bang theory is the most plausible explanation of the creation of “objective reality”.
Objective reality consists of the four “physical” elements: space, matter, energy, and time that emerged from the singularity. In other words, neither space, nor matter, nor energy, nor time existed “prior to the big bang”.

Given axiom 2 the question then becomes: what existed “prior to the big bang”? The theist answers, “God”. The atheist answers, “Nothing existed”. In order to proceed along a fair line of argument, the theist must describe what is meant by “God exists” and the atheist must describe what is meant by “Nothing Exists”.

The atheist-problem as I see it: “Nothing exists” implies that, prior to the bb, not only was there no space, matter, energy, and time, but even more so, there was no “pure existence”. Pure existence is imagined as dimensionality, to say that nothing existed means that there is no dimensionality, which can only imagined as no “space”. The atheist is left with only a single dimensionless point and that is impossible to imagine.

So what about “God exists”, how is that imagined, especially as regards the creation of reality. Well if “nothing exists” means the absence of dimensionality, then by “God exists” I mean: God has dimensionality and if God has dimensionality then the dimensionality must be infinite. If God was finite; we could only imagine God existing in some greater dimensionality, which if finite would lead to an infinite regress consisting of a finite dimension within another finite dimension all the way out to infinity.

By dimensionality I mean a three dimensional volume of space. I contend that God exists in an infinite extension of three dimensions of space. But since axiom 2 states that the space that defines the dimensions of the universe (objective reality) emerged from the singularity as described by the big bang theory, the space that God inhabited prior to the big bang must be different than the space that emerged from the BB.

Space can be described mathematically in two modalities: discrete and continuous. This duality of space allows a construction of a model of objective reality that explains how God exists that is more plausible than any that the atheist can construct from the “nothing” he/she is stuck with.

To explain the model of dual reality that I have proposed and partially described in two threads in this forum requires far more involvement than the nature of this forum allows. I present this brief view of the direction of an argument I would present to atheists merely to show you that there is a comprehensive approach that theists can develop to counter the atheist one-sided demand for proof.

Is this the kind of information you were looking for??
Yppop

 

[Bradski]

And, as for expecting my wife to submit, you should see my signature, which tells you that I am a woman.

Ah, my apologies. Although I don’t see anything in the signature…but, again, sorry for the mistake.

But sure, I submit to my husband, in the same way that the Church submits to Christ. For doesn’t submission come from the word “mission”–and if my DH and I are “under the same mission”, what’s not to like?

Yep, that’s what the church down here said: ‘In the same way that the Church submits to Christ’. But the obvious question is then – why doesn’t the man submit to the woman as the Church submits to Christ. You’re both under the same mission.

Equal but not equal?

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, my apologies. Although I don’t see anything in the signature…but, again, sorry for the mistake.

Yep, that’s what the church down here said: ‘In the same way that the Church submits to Christ’. But the obvious question is then – why doesn’t the man submit to the woman as the Church submits to Christ. You’re both under the same mission.

Equal but not equal?

Because in the analogy, the man is the head and Christ is the head. The woman is the body as the Church is the Body.

It makes no sense to have the Church as the Head and Christ as the Body, yes?

Similarly, it makes no sense to have the Woman as the Head and the Man as the Body.

 

[Bradski]

A Theist is someone that believes God does exist.
An atheist is someone that believes that God does not exist.

I think that you’ve started off on the wrong foot.

A theist is someone who believes that a god or gods exist (not necessarily your God with an upper case ‘G’). And an atheist isn’t someone who believes that God (capital ‘G’) doesn’t exist. He doesn’t believe that a god or gods exist. There’s a huge difference.

AXIOM 1: We can neither prove that God exists nor prove that God does not exist. Thus we have a standoff: a fair debate demands that both sides bear the burden of proof, not just the theist, hence since neither side can formally prove their belief the debate then rests on plausibility, i.e., which belief is more reasonable.

You’ve enough posts for me to think that someone must have mentioned to you at some point that you can’t prove a negative. I know that you can’t ‘prove God’. But I say that I don’t believe in Him (capital ‘H’ here because we’re specifically talking your God), so there’s nothing to prove. I’m not saying that He’s not there. I’m saying that I don’t believe that He’s not there. Even if I said ‘He doesn’t exist’, then trying to prove that is logically impossible. Just like it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of a celestial teapot.

Given axiom 2 the question then becomes: what existed “prior to the big bang”? The theist answers, “God”. The atheist answers, “Nothing existed”.

Well, if you can find an atheist that says ‘nothing’ then take him to task. This atheist says the only sensible thing it’s possible to say: I don’t know. And if I do find out, I’ll get back to you.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

I am starting with a proof that the temporal universe has not existed forever, because it will be helpful to refer to this fact in my later arguments.

Why no temporal universe has existed infinitely into the past:

1. “The past” signifies what has already occurred.
2. An infinite past would mean that infinite time has already occurred.
3. This would mean that an infinite sequence of time has ended (because the present occurs after the past, which means that the past of the present moment has already occurred or ended - see #1 of this argument), which is a contradiction.

Why God exists:

1. In the universe, we observe that certain things are effects, which depend upon causes. Those causes depend upon other things, because they were also caused. Example: a series of dominoes. Each falling domino is an effect, which is produced by the cause of a domino falling behind it, which is also produced by another domino falling behind it, etc.
2. However far back this chain of cause and effect goes, we must reach a point where there was a cause that was not an effect of another cause. Otherwise, we would end up with a chain of infinite causes and effects having already happened, which is impossible, because that would mean that an infinite series of causes and effects has ended, which is a contradiction.
3. This first cause which was not itself caused is what we call God.

Why God is personal:

1. The cause of the universe must not be bound by time, because otherwise we would experience the problems of:
   a. a temporal being existing infinitely into the past (see the first argument - the same problem applies, because the temporal being could not have existed infinitely into the past, because then infinite time would have passed, which is a contradiction)
   b. a temporal being beginning its existence, which would mean that something had to cause it, and it would not be the uncaused cause.
2. If the cause of the universe is not personal, then it could not have made a personal choice, and must have somehow created the universe simply by its own being or by what it is.
3. Since the cause of the universe is not bound by time, it would not experience temporal succession (certain moments happening after other moments) because that is a quality of temporal existence.
4. Since it would not experience temporal succession, it could not change.
5. Therefore, if the cause of the universe is not personal, all of the conditions necessary for it to create the universe must have existed eternally, and the temporal universe would be infinitely old.
6. The temporal universe is not infinitely old.
7. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be impersonal.
8. The cause of the universe in fact must be personal because that is the only way to avoid the problem above. If the cause of the universe chooses to create the temporal universe, then it bypasses the problem of all of the conditions for the creation of the universe existing eternally, because it would be able to target the “moment” for the beginning of time. But to do so is an act of a will.
9. This personal cause of the universe is what we call God.

Note: I’m not saying these are the only arguments to prove these facts, but they’re the ones I decided to use.

One important thing to understand: God did not create Himself - He always was, is, and will be, because He is necessarily eternal as the creator of the universe. If He were not eternal, then He would be temporal, and what is temporal cannot have existed forever into the past. But if God has not always existed, then He would not be the first cause of the universe, because He would have come into existence at some point which would indicate that God was caused. But we proved God by referencing the need for an uncaused creator. So God was not caused. So God must have always existed, and He must not be temporal - He must be eternal. As a being outside of time, God was not created - He is “self-existent” or the cause which itself was not caused.

It is, by the way, perfectly logical to insist that God was not created or caused, because our arguments show that God must be outside of time and eternal, so He is not bound by temporal cause and effect laws or time in general.

The existence of God is certain by reason. The First Vatican Council’s Dei Filius says: “The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things” (Chap. 2. Revelation). From the same Council: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema [note: an anathema is a penalty].”

I wrote a post about some of the things I discussed above here: romanlight.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-logical-necessity-of-faith.html

Of course, there are more arguments to get from these philosophical/logical necessities to the Catholic faith, but the arguments exist and they work. It’s time for me to go, though, so I won’t be able to type them out.

 

[Bradski]

Because in the analogy, the man is the head and Christ is the head. The woman is the body as the Church is the Body. It makes no sense to have the Church as the Head and Christ as the Body, yes?

Well, you are subordinating the woman in the first instance, then setting up the analogy from there. The analogy only works if you accept the subordinate position in the first instance. You can’t therefore use the analogy to say: this is why it occurs.

Similarly, it makes no sense to have the Woman as the Head and the Man as the Body.

I’m not sure why. Apart from again stating the obvious Catholic position that the woman must be in the subordinate position. From that starting position, yes, it would make no sense. But why do you start from there? Why not start from a position of equality?

 

[Spirithound]

I believe in God.
Now, here are my questions, one at a time.
When speaking to an atheist, how do I convince him/her that there is a God? This is the big thing the apologetics book I studied forgot to answer. Just give me some basic ways to prove to anyone that there is a God, who–my resident atheist asked me this just today–came out of nothing, and always was. He said: “Do you believe in evolution?” I said no, that nothing can not produce something. He then said that believing in God makes that statement untrue, as God came from nothing, in a manner of speaking.

As Catholics, we are allowed to believe in evolution as a mechanism by which life developed on Earth. As Catholics, we further believe that this process was guided by the First Cause, God.

Also, God did not come from nothing. God always was.

That’s the very same proof my book gave me! But it seems to leave the same thing out: Why does it have to be “God”? Do you understand what I mean? If I told an atheist what you posted, he would and has! tell/told me that I have not proved anything.

This thing is God, but first we recognize that it is the First Cause. The law of inertia says that things don’t start unless they are moved from outside, so we know that the First Cause was not an impersonal thing, but a person (as distinct from a human). That is, the First Cause has free will, and therefore rationality. Perhaps the next person can guide you towards this “First Cause’s” infinite attributes. Peace!

 

[Bradski]

This thing is God, but first we recognize that it is the First Cause. The law of inertia says that things don’t start unless they are moved from outside…

If you lived just two hundred years ago and you told someone that you would be able to connect with a person on the other side of the planet instantaneously in real time, both visually and verbally, then you would be treated as an idiot. Our knowledge simply hadn’t reached a point where that was even imaginable. Relativity, dna, quantum mechanics…all unimaginable.

Even today is it possible to understand that something can be in more than one place at the same time? Of course not, yet it can. Can a celestial body have an instantaneous effect on another body over astronomical distances? Of course not, yet it can. Can particles pop into and out of existence without cause? Of course not, yet they do. Can something behave exactly as a wave and a particle at the same time? Of course not, yet it can.

As J. B. S. Haldane said: The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

You say that the Universe can’t have existed without a cause because, well, it’s obvious isn’t it? But you could say that about each of the facts above. There’s possibly an answer waiting. But we just can’t begin to imagine what it is. We’re stone age people looking at a mobile phone. We’re the apes at the beginning of 2001 screeching at the obelisk.

We have no idea yet of the immensity of what we don’t know, let alone trying to come to terms with what we do.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, if you can find an atheist that says ‘nothing’ then take him to task. This atheist says the only sensible thing it’s possible to say: I don’t know. And if I do find out, I’ll get back to you.

I’ve noticed this a lot in the last few years, atheists defining themselves as agnostics but using the atheist label. But I don’t think any atheist can really say they don’t believe God, god or gods exist without defining the term. My question always was always: what is it exactly you do not “believe in?”

Atheists up to this time have always refused to answer. Do you have an answer?

If you lived just two hundred years ago and you told someone that you would be able to connect with a person on the other side of the planet instantaneously in real time, both visually and verbally, then you would be treated as an idiot. Our knowledge simply hadn’t reached a point where that was even imaginable. Relativity, dna, quantum mechanics…all unimaginable.

You’ll actually find quantum mechanics in the writings of most mystics. They just use other terms.

You will never die. Can you imagine that?

 

[bzkoss236]

I have some negative views about the religion, but that doesn’t, indeed cannot, have an influence on what I believe or not. I can’t conceive of anyone being able to say: I have negative views about Catholics, therefore I don’t believe in God. The two sentiments are not connected from my perspective.

And yet it happens. It may not be the case with you, but with some others it is. Their reasoning is that they have a negative association with Christians (or some other religion), and they believe in God or gods, I don’t want to be anything like them, so I will chose not to believe or acknowledge God or gods.

 

[yppop]

I think that you’ve started off on the wrong foot.

A theist is someone who believes that a god or gods exist (not necessarily your God with an upper case ‘G’). And an atheist isn’t someone who believes that God (capital ‘G’) doesn’t exist. He doesn’t believe that a god or gods exist. There’s a huge difference.

Ah Bradski! I see we have to begin with a little diversionary word play, the classic forensic approach popular with atheists and liberals. Consider these definitions for “atheist”:

Oxford English Dictionary: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.
New Oxford American Dictionary: a theory or belief that God does not exist.
Webster’s New World Dictionary: a person who believes there is no God.

Here’s my problem: I believe that God exists, but I don’t believe that gods exist;. Does that make me an atheist? The OED and your definition and that seemingly innocuous word “OR” seem to indicate as much.

Okay enough of the word play, let’s get back to my basic intent, which is to advise the respondent of the OP to challenge his atheist friend to provide a non-God explanation of the big bang.

You’ve enough posts for me to think that someone must have mentioned to you at some point that you can’t prove a negative. I know that you can’t ‘prove God’. But I say that I don’t believe in Him (capital ‘H’ here because we’re specifically talking your God), so there’s nothing to prove. I’m not saying that He’s not there. I’m saying that I don’t believe that He’s not there. Even if I said ‘He doesn’t exist’, then trying to prove that is logically impossible. Just like it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of a celestial teapot.

Ah! another superfluous diversion. Didn’t I concede that you can’t prove the non-existence of God? If the reason for this is the negative nature of the statement, what does that matter. Non-proof is non-proof however is occurs. I am not asking you to prove anything; I my challenge to the atheist is to supply a plausible explanation for the big bang sans a God.

Incidentally you may want to save yourself some trouble in the future and read the article in the following SKEPTIC web site entitled: “You Can Prove a Negative”. The author contends that the claim that you can’t prove a negative is a myth.

skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/

Well, if you can find an atheist that says ‘nothing’ then take him to task. This atheist says the only sensible thing it’s possible to say: I don’t know. And if I do find out, I’ll get back to you.

If the atheist’s answer to the question, "What existed “prior to the big bang”? is “I don’t know” then you have lost the plausibility argument by default.

By the way Bradski, you any relation to Brewski?

YPPOP

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Temporal reality cannot have existed without a cause because its existence began (see the first argument in my earlier post). The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, “The Existence of God” (1909) says: “We must start by assuming the objective certainty and validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason — an assumption upon which the value of the physical sciences and of human knowledge generally is based. To question its objective certainty … would open the door to subjectivism and universal scepticism. It is impossible to prove the principle of causality, just as it is impossible to prove the principle of contradiction; but it is not difficult to see that if the former is denied the latter may also be denied and the whole process of human reasoning declared fallacious.”

If we accept the law of causality, then it must apply to the universe. The only way to avoid that consequence is to deny causality altogether. But if you are going to deny causality, then natural science doesn’t mean anything anymore because every scientific experiment depends on causality. Attacking an argument for the existence of God by denying causality is like attacking a mathematical proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus by denying that any number equals itself. “What if 1 actually equals 2?”, for example. 1 doesn’t equal 2, but we assume that - and perfectly validly.

If temporal reality began to exist, then an eternal reality must have caused it. There is a fork in the logical road at this point:

1. An eternal reality created the temporal universe
2. An eternal reality became the temporal universe

2 is impossible because an eternal reality would not experience temporal succession and therefore could not change, which means it could not become temporal. Therefore the only option is 1: an eternal reality created the temporal universe.

This eternal reality must be either:

1. impersonal
2. personal

1 is impossible because of the argument I posted in my earlier post. We’re left with 2: the eternal reality is personal.

If atheism necessarily leads to the denial of reason - and I don’t see how atheism could lead to anything but that when it is faced with the facts about existence - then it’s self-refuting. If the argument that leads to God’s existence is valid, then what can one do but accept the conclusion? If a valid argument isn’t good enough, then what is? If nothing, then one is just starting from the premise that God doesn’t exist, which isn’t very reasonable

“We don’t know” just isn’t good enough because there are a lot of things that we do know and this is the conclusion that they necessarily lead to.

(By the way, I like to make the logical framework of my thoughts and writings on this subject very clear, and I think it sometimes might cause my posts to sound a bit too intense or like I’m hitting the reader in the face with arguments. That’s not my intention - I just mean to be very clear and very precise so my conclusions cannot be denied.)