Christianity Illogical?

[OTavern]

When I ask any specific substantiation of a seemingly unnecessary event (for example thousands of innocent animals perishing in a wild-fire), I was always answered that we don’t know, we cannot know, but there must be “something” to explain it, if God chose to do it. Clear hogwash. If the experiment contradicts the hypothesis, it is intellectually dishonest to declare it “inconclusive” or “measurement error”.

There is also something intellectually dishonest about claiming that science can peer into a realm, like the internal motives of infinite immaterial Being, with the same precision it can when dealing with material causes.

If the assumption is made that only material causes exist, then that will affect your results, since only material causes will be considered. Here is your own “scientific no-no” in play. Assume material causation then look for material causes. This sounds like the same game you accused the “theologian” of playing.

The spread of Christianity across the world has material causes but if “spiritual” forces are ruled out a priori then these are never considered. St. Paul’s conversion “experience” is ruled out or attributed to some other material event – illness, trauma, etc.
No matter how “subjectively” cogent this experience is to explaining the spiritual impetus of the spread of Christianity, no matter how adamant Paul is in claiming the veracity of the experience, no matter how effective it is in explaining the utterly fanatical drive Paul had in pursuing his mission, a materialist merely “explains it away” as irrelevant or inconclusive. It is not believable because it is “internal” and not verifiable. This seems just as intellectually dishonest.

There was a materialist (I am too lazy to look up his name) who said: “The last thing you want to do is look for evidence for God’s existence. Rather, you must presuppose that God does not exist, and then you will be in the position to ignore all evidence of God’s existence.”

 

[ateista]

The revelation you are looking for is to be found at the very core of your being. How much clearer do you want it? By being completely sincere, truthful and authentic you will find yourself and God. The simple sign is “Ateista is here!” As Plato said, “Know thyself!” But it means unchaining yourself from assumptions, delusions and false notions.

Much, much clearer. When I look into myself, I only see me. As you say: “Ateista is here!”. No supernatural, no God. The sign should be perfectly clear, something that cannot be mistaken for anything else. “Delusions”, you say? What is a delusion about reality?

The commandment you are looking for is very simple and direct: Love God with all your heart, soul and being. Entrust all to Him – not to your ideas or possible misconceptions about Him. Trust God, not yourself or others – trust God!

How could I do that, when there is absolutely no sign that God exists?

A truly good mechanical engineer would create robots to do exactly as He designed them to.

Yes, that is the only way to to assure that what the designer wants to fulfill will acutally happen. Though there are some inferor ways that could make it sure, too. One way to do that would be never creating those people who will “fall short” of the requirements. Whose only fate is to fail - and God supposedly knows that before he created them.

A truly and intensely personal God would create persons capable of independent identity and choice and bear the risk having something “go wrong” then take complete responsibility by putting Himself wholly into His creation – i.e., become fully human – to repair the derailment and bear the consequences – be crucified by his own creation; the cost of creating independent beings capable of free choice.

Sorry, that will not wash. God, who is not made of flash and bllod is not capable of suffering. Besides, Jesus never claimed that he was God. This role has been “imposed” on him much later.

Ask any parent about the “price” they pay for their children’s free choices.

Very bad analogy. A human parent cannot assure his children’s well-being. He will not be around when his children actually grow up. He does not have the power to protect his children from problems. If he could, he would - and I mean a good parent. Not someone, who gives one “warning” and when his is disobeyed, he kicks his “children” out of his house, to fend for themselves as they can. Not someone who curses his children for disobedience. Or is the whole story of the “original sin” just another allegory?

Is this too frightening a prospect? That God would be willing to risk so much in turn for creating “free determining” and “independent” beings with the capacity to “know” and choose? He allowed humans to be “out of His control” in the hope that they would return to Him of their own choice. I suspect He remains hidden until these independent creatures are “ready” to come back, then he reveals Himself to them.

No, it is not frightening, it is stupid.

It is not clear to me that an “overwhelming majority” will be “hell-fodder” as you claim.

According to the Bible, the only way to God is through Jesus. If anyone does not believe in Jesus, which is the overwhelming majority of the people, they will land in hell.

When Jesus speaks of the 100 sheep, the one that is lost and how the Good Shepherd will stop at nothing to find and return that one implies something about proportions of who ends up where.

I suspect that the “many” not making it is intended to be read as “too many.” Even one is “too many.”

Does he now? I and many other asked for Jesus to show up and show me his wounds, so I could be certain. Jesus promised, that whatever we ask from him, will be fulfilled. It was not a conditional promise. But it never happens! Was Jesus a liar? Promising something and then never, ever fulfilling it?

Why are you letting a possible “misconception” that you fully comprehend God’s intentions for the destiny of humanity colour your perspective? Why not take a “wait and see” position on this issue? When everyone is lined up at the final judgement and you are convinced of the injustice of God’s decision regarding humanity then would be the time to voice your disagreement. I suspect that believing yourself to be more “just” or “merciful” than God needs to be reconsidered. Why jeopardize your own destiny by having a false notion at this time?

Because by then it is too late. Once you are dead and gone, there is no more chance. You will be judged.

How do you know the extent that God will go to ensure that “all” are saved? Taking the form of man and being crucified should at least alert you that He does not take human destiny lightly. Would you be willing to suffer excruciating pain and humiliation in order to spare your worst enemy just retribution?

Because the Bible denies this. I can doubt it, but you should not.

Will continue tomorrow. Please forgive me if I am too assertive. I enjoy your (name removed by moderator)ut, but see too many problems with your arguments.

 

[ateista]

The difficulty here is the nature of the framework. You are dealing with a concrete, externally verifiable framework which by its very “nature” has consistently acted in a way that can be measured, poked, prodded and tested.

The framework I am speaking of is an internal, subjective and immaterial framework which is not subject to the same “rules” of verifiability.

And here you have expressed the very nature of the problem. I am not asking for “more”. I am asking for the same. It would not be beyond God’s powers to give an unambiguous, unmistakable revelation, would it?

A revelation, which is subjective is of no use to others. Each revelation can be misinterpreted. Only an objective, unmistakable revelation can be accepted as genuine. That is what I meant when I said: “Kilroy was here”. What is wrong with it?

It still would not be compelling, in the sense that it would “force” us to accept God, to take away our ability to “reject” God - if we so chose - but at least it would be clear that God actually eixsts.

However, there have been many consistent, documented, personal affirmations throughout history of similar subjective experiences. The internal spiritual experiences of thousands and millions of individuals through time are the verification and these are used by countless people to make sense of their own internal “state” in the same way that scientific “concepts” can be used to verify external phenomena.

A million stories does not amount to one single, verifyiable fact.

 

[ateista]

There is also something intellectually dishonest about claiming that science can peer into a realm, like the internal motives of infinite immaterial Being, with the same precision it can when dealing with material causes.

No, there is nothing dishonest about it. It is the absolute responsibility of this being to give unmistakable sign of his existence and the clearly enumerated requirements of his wishes - as long as he wishes us to conform to his requirements and will judge us for our deviations.

A mysterious, misinterpretable “revelation” is worse than nothing. It speaks of disdain toward his creation. We are not “worthy” to be told in an unmistakable manner how should we behave. (And I am not talking about: “Love thy God…”, I am talking about the innumerable requirements, like not eating meat and diary products from the same plate, or forbidding sexual relationships among the same genders, and uncountable other ones - if, of course any verse of the Bible is to be taken literally.)

Besides, a creator should never “judge” his creation, because he judges himself.

This reminds me of the story of the Flood, whether it is taken literally of allegorically. In the story God is dissatisfied with his creation, and “wipes out” some (99.99999…%) of it. Instead of admitting that he “messed up”, and redesign from scratch, he just continues with the original, flawed design. That is not how a good designer works - especially an all-knowing and all-powerful one.

If the assumption is made that only material causes exist, then that will affect your results, since only material causes will be considered. Here is your own “scientific no-no” in play. Assume material causation then look for material causes. This sounds like the same game you accused the “theologian” of playing.

You are wrong. I am not discarding a-priori, that immaterial cuases may exist. I just don’t see anything to indicate that they are any more than a figment of other people’s imagination. Precisely because they are subjective.

The spread of Christianity across the world has material causes but if “spiritual” forces are ruled out a priori then these are never considered. St. Paul’s conversion “experience” is ruled out or attributed to some other material event – illness, trauma, etc.
No matter how “subjectively” cogent this experience is to explaining the spiritual impetus of the spread of Christianity, no matter how adamant Paul is in claiming the veracity of the experience, no matter how effective it is in explaining the utterly fanatical drive Paul had in pursuing his mission, a materialist merely “explains it away” as irrelevant or inconclusive. It is not believable because it is “internal” and not verifiable. This seems just as intellectually dishonest.

Not dishonest, just using the very same measuring stick. Not more is required, only the same. If someone came to me and asserted that an invisible magical leprechaun sits of his head, I would not ask him for “more” proof, than if someone came and said that he won the jackpot on the lottery on five consectutive weeks. The same rules apply.

As a matter of fact, once I used the cute phrase: “Extraordinary events require extraordinary proofs”, and a poster - very correctly - rubbed my nose into it. He pointed out that it **would be **intellectually dishonest to require two different measuning sticks. He was right and I was wiping tomato off my face (figuratively speaking, of course).

Anyhow, I want to wish you a very happy Easter, and apologize again if my words came out too strong.

 

[Filius99993]

Is this a hypothetical question or a real one? If it is real, then cut your finger a little (not too much) with a sharp object and see if it hurts. God cannot feel pain, not being material. If it hurts, you are real.

Not everything is material, and that’s the point I’m trying to make. And everything that is material is relative. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. You are too narrow-minded to look beyond what you can actually see.

 

[ateista]

Not everything is material, and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

Well, then your example or question was unwisely chosen. If there is anything that we are certain about is our own existence. No one can honestly say: “maybe I do not exist”, and avoid the insane asylum.

And everything that is material is relative.

Relative to what?

But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.

The word “exists” is undefined in this sentence. We are aware of two different types of existence: material and conceptual. Obviously God “exists” as a concept. But so does a leprechaun. You posit a different kind of existence. Where is some proof that there is such a third kind of existence?

You are too narrow-minded to look beyond what you can actually see.

Now, you can say a lot about me, but “narrow-mindedness” is not one of them. Is it narrow-mindedness not to accept someone else’s word? If someone came up to me and asserted that he won 5 jackpots on the Powerball of 5 consecutive weeks, should I just accept his word, or ask for evidence? Sorry, a simple acceptance of such a claim would not be “open-minded” it would be stupid and gullible.

Not that it actually matters, but I took a few psychological evaluations, and my open-mindedness simply went off the scale. All the questions pertaining to that particular trait indicated that my openness to new concepts and ideas is simply 100%. There is nothing that I would discard out of hand, just becasue it seems improbable or outlandish. But I am not gullible. I am willing to contemplate actual evidence. As the old commercial went: “Where is beef?”. Where is the evidence?

Real evidence, not your word, not the Pope’s word, not the ancient collection of stories called the Bible. Real, tangible, observable, concrete, testable evidence. Mind you I am not even asking for proof, only evidence… a much smaller requirement.

 

[Filius99993]

Well, then your example or question was unwisely chosen. If there is anything that we are certain about is our own existence. No one can honestly say: “maybe I do not exist”, and avoid the insane asylum.

WE are of God’s conception. Why would we need a God if there wasn’t one whom already existed? You are only looking at what is laid out in front of you, and you close yourself to Him. Just because he has not appeared to you personally, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

Science proves to us that everything material is relative… but there are things that are not material, that aren’t merely concepts of the mind. By saying that maybe you do not exist, I meant that, there is no way for me to prove to myself, that you really think for yourself or have feelings. So, maybe you do not exist. And perhaps I do not exist to you, because you have never been inside my head and listened to my thoughts and felt my feelings. And so, you cannot prove that anything exists at all. But that doesn’t make them non-existent.

 

[geekborj]

These are not contradictions, of course. Reality is more complicated than a few convenient labels.

As we all agree, Reality and Truth are more complicated than a few convenient labels. As for the Nature of God, “One God in Three Persons” is the simplest that our human mind can “express” and thus we also “label” as the Trinitarian Concept.

However, one of God’s alleged attributes is that God is simple - meaning that God has no “parts”. That cannot be reconciled with the Father-Son-Holy-spirit. Something is either a simple, indivisible entity, or 3 distinct entities. The contradiction is still there.

As pointed elsewhere in this thread by others, the problem arises from using the same “label” on two different ideas. The clause “one indivisible entity” pertains to being one as in SINGLE. The second clause “in three Persons” is an acceptance since by virtue of the same One God’s infinite power, He tries to manifest/reveal Himself to the Man in three distinct Ways (Creator/Godhead/Father, Judge/Lord/Son, Comforter/Paraclete/Love). We attribute all his Works in three distinct Persona (if you may, “roles”). As you have said, these are just labels for us to be able to discuss the Idea.

If I may indulge and hope not to commit heresy (the Church judge me) in what follows. Trinity is quite like the nature of light. According to Science, light is BOTH a particle and a wave AT THE SAME TIME! We labeled this as the Particle-Wave Duality of Light principle. Now, the explanation is that, light can BEHAVE like a particle on one moment of examination (experiment/experience/observation) BUT BEHAVE like a wave on another. Is there anything SIMPLER than this same Natural Phenomena explaining Trinity – God AT THE SAME TIME behave as FATHER, as SON, and as HOLY SPIRIT?

Further, why do we have to concede with the Complexity of Nature and insist on the “simplicity” of God when Nature is God’s? How can something already complex be of something that is less complex?

Jesus as “immutable God” going through phases of human life? Catholic Faith tells us that “the Word was made Flesh.” From this truth, isn’t it just necessary that Jesus (truly human) should undergo the same life cycle that we have? Accounts written during the Apostolic times (we label as “the gospel according to…”) even say and attest that the same Jesus “wept,” “became angry,” “felt sorrow,” suffered, etc, and even “died.” Fully human as He is God, he can do anything (not contradicting actions of course) He wishes!

 

[geekborj]

No, there is nothing dishonest about it. It is the absolute responsibility of this being to give unmistakable sign of his existence and the clearly enumerated requirements of his wishes - as long as he wishes us to conform to his requirements and will judge us for our deviations.

I have answered this elsewhere.

A mysterious, misinterpretable “revelation” is worse than nothing. It speaks of disdain toward his creation. We are not “worthy” to be told in an unmistakable manner how should we behave. (And I am not talking about: “Love thy God…”, I am talking about the innumerable requirements, like not eating meat and diary products from the same plate, or forbidding sexual relationships among the same genders, and uncountable other ones - if, of course any verse of the Bible is to be taken literally.)

In my own current understanding of the Teachings of the Church, Revelation can be of two parts: (1) Revelation of Himself (I AM WHO AM).
(2) Revelation of what humans really are (ultimate origin and purpose) and out of his Love, provide us a means to “live fully” as we were originally designed.
It is from these revelations that we derive the HOWs of Life. How to love God fully? How to be humans and live as it fully? It is well known by Science and Reason that those “requirements” and “rules” are necessary to attain this human perfection as we were originally designed as we were (before the Fall of Man).

To follow your examples, we have as follows.
(1) “not eating meat and diary products from the same plate.” This i believe was never stated in the Teachings of the Church. Probably in Mosaic time but i never encountered this (pardon for my limitations on this). But, hey current Science tells us that this is not hygienic in most cases. If my children are yet not able to fully comprehend the importance of hygiene, i’ll surely promulgate the same “requirement.”
(2) “forbidding sexual relationships among the same genders.” Science also reveals the same requirement. This is the very reason why there is such operation as “sex change” in an attempt to fully realize the “sexual relationships among the same genders.” Isn’t this need just a figment of one’s imagination as a result of Social Pressure, hence not really part of the Truth? Again, this “requirement” is the consequence of the same God who wants humans to “live fully.”

Besides, a creator should never “judge” his creation, because he judges himself.

Appealing proposal. BUT note that He already judged Himself by calling His Creations as “good.” (See first chapter of Genesis) He is judging the Will of Man to take Pride and go around with God’s requirement/rules/laws/precepts/guidance being God as the true Truth (see the story of the Fall of Man). It is from this Pride that sin (and therefore “problems” of the World, including suffering and death) came into this World.

This reminds me of the story of the Flood, whether it is taken literally of allegorically. In the story God is dissatisfied with his creation, and “wipes out” some (99.99999…%) of it. Instead of admitting that he “messed up”, and redesign from scratch, he just continues with the original, flawed design. That is not how a good designer works - especially an all-knowing and all-powerful one.

This is also an attractive proposal. However, God loves his creation because He wants us to exist (“persist” could be applicable). In fact, the “wipe out” story in the Great Flood is the consequence of God’s infinite Justice. He has to do something to EVERY violation of the Law He laid down. But He also has INFINITE mercy to think of ways to go around this Justice to the point of becoming human Himself as Jesus! What kind of Love can you still ask after this?

<continued…>

 

[geekborj]

You are wrong. I am not discarding a-priori, that immaterial cuases may exist. I just don’t see anything to indicate that they are any more than a figment of other people’s imagination. Precisely because they are subjective.

An encouraging position you have here. However, Science also have his own “figment of … people’s imagination,” and precisely that all of it is always subjective no matter how “objective” Science does “observe” and “measure.” Subjectivity cannot be removed. This is the Nature of Man as designed. If we argue that these “measurements” in Science are not figment of imagination since they used all five senses to do that, why don’t we be satisfied with the accounts of the Fore-Fathers, the Jewish race, the Apostles, the other Disciples, the early Christians, the Saints of the Church, and the Church herself as to the “observations” and “measurement” we seek of God?

Not dishonest, just using the very same measuring stick. Not more is required, only the same. If someone came to me and asserted that an invisible magical leprechaun sits of his head, I would not ask him for “more” proof, than if someone came and said that he won the jackpot on the lottery on five consectutive weeks. The same rules apply.

Again, this dilemma comes from Man’s weakness of his Patience (derivable from original Pride). Assuming that both instances presented are true (leprechaun and jackpot series). The problem lies with the development of understanding and not of the fact. Thus, it will truly take a lot of time and effort to fully realize the fact that there is the invisible leprechaun than of the fact that a jackpot series happened.

Indeed, the same rules apply. It took God thousands of human years to Reveal Himself fully to us (Jesus) and still we are grasping to fully understand that very Revelation. Maybe even the same thousand years would be needed to pass to fully realize and understand that there is a leprechaun indeed! The real question is this: are we willing to try to understand if the leprechaun truly sits on his head? If we are, are we not willing to get guidance on how to get there?

As a matter of fact, once I used the cute phrase: “Extraordinary events require extraordinary proofs”, and a poster - very correctly - rubbed my nose into it. He pointed out that it **would be **intellectually dishonest to require two different measuning sticks. He was right and I was wiping tomato off my face (figuratively speaking, of course).

Einstein clearly puts it: “Theories must be simple, but not that simple.” In other words, the anti-thesis of the “cute phrase”: “Extraordinary events must be explained by the simplest possible explanation.” This World being the most complex Event must be explained by one simple fact: one God. Compare that with the complicated (if not extraordinary themselves) Laws of Nature that Science proposes (so far).

Eventually, Science will realize that there is only one Law: “God said…” so that the World “became so.”

Anyhow, I want to wish you a very happy Easter, and apologize again if my words came out too strong.

Arguments are indeed strong but they bear weight on the very point of the Dilemma so we can hope clear it out.

A meaningful Easter Season to you and everyone!

 

[geekborj]

Is this a hypothetical question or a real one? If it is real, then cut your finger a little (not too much) with a sharp object and see if it hurts. God cannot feel pain, not being material. If it hurts, you are real.

At this depth on this part of the thread i don’t wish to write again what i have written elsewhere (within this topic).

I wish to provide a proof on the reality of God. According to the revealed truth to the Church, God became truly human as Jesus. How real could this God be? What kind of “observable” miracle could the human Heart could still ask for just to believe? Would the blood of the Martyrs be not enough for their Testament of the Truth to us?

 

[geekborj]

Well, then your example or question was unwisely chosen. If there is anything that we are certain about is our own existence. No one can honestly say: “maybe I do not exist”, and avoid the insane asylum.

The statement “not every truth is material” comes from the very ability of the human mind to create (as we are the Image of God, though imperfect). A typical example is the concept of number. Do numbers have to be a thing to exist? What about Time? Space itself?

Relative to what?

“Every observation is dependent on the relative motion of observers to each other.” – Relativity

As the presented concept of “reality” depends on observation, that same reality is therefore under the curse of Relativity.

The word “exists” is undefined in this sentence. We are aware of two different types of existence: material and conceptual. Obviously God “exists” as a concept. But so does a leprechaun. You posit a different kind of existence. Where is some proof that there is such a third kind of existence?

Again, we ignore the thousand-year historical and individual testaments of the Church as to the “proofs” that the argument seeks. As for the leprechaun, history has never produced an irrefutable proof that it exists.

Now, you can say a lot about me, but “narrow-mindedness” is not one of them. Is it narrow-mindedness not to accept someone else’s word? If someone came up to me and asserted that he won 5 jackpots on the Powerball of 5 consecutive weeks, should I just accept his word, or ask for evidence? Sorry, a simple acceptance of such a claim would not be “open-minded” it would be stupid and gullible.

We shall never speak of any argument about the persona. Only ourselves (and God) knows the true nature of our Hearts (and Will).

Now, as for the evidence being asked, sometimes it is just so obvious that a person did win because he is now some filthy rich guy being one of the richest (materially) person in this World. Unless we stop ignoring some obvious proofs of the Truth, we can never realize and examine It further. “Credo ut intelligam.”

I am willing to contemplate actual evidence. As the old commercial went: “Where is beef?”. Where is the evidence?

Read the Bible as being interpreted by the Church who produced and “legalized” (canonized) the use of its books.

Real evidence, not your word, not the Pope’s word, not the ancient collection of stories called the Bible. Real, tangible, observable, concrete, testable evidence. Mind you I am not even asking for proof, only evidence… a much smaller requirement.

This REQUIREMENT is not “smaller” as stated. Do you have by yourself “Real, tangible, observable, concrete, testable evidence” of ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE? Don’t we believe on the existence of these laws because our Colleagues and those before us had written that they have observed and experience? Isn’t the same proof that the argument above tries to render invalid?

It seems that this “ancient collection of stories called the Bible” is under question. Should we also question the more “recent collection of ‘imagination’ called Encyclopedia”? I do not wish to go to the idea of defending the validity of the Bible as a written account of God’s work in the history of Man.

To a more personal level: If you are asking for proof, why not look at yourself? Your good arguments, creations, and examples reveal how extraordinary you are. This must require that your Maker must be that extraordinary. “I think, therefore I am. I think there is such thing as before. Now, before me, who is?”

To be more objective: Look at the Nature itself, doesn’t It demonstrate the true Marvel of Its Maker? Look how wonderful the Design is? It is here that we say and wonder how Perfect this World must be… only if we can discover how It works.

I say: Ask the Maker, listen to His Word, listen to those sent by this Word to testify and preach what has been revealed.

 

[gdibella]

Having read through the discussion so far, I was thinking about the following raised by atheista (sp?).

1. The sad limitations and self-referntialibilty of relying on that which is empirically verifiable.

Hume’s theory, the Emotive Theory of Values, states that we cannot know good or evil. An illustration is needed here. Let’s say you witness the murdering and mugging of an elderly lady. Hume says that you have not seen evil at all, but instead a series of sense impressions, as in a knife moves, a cry is emitted, and blood falls from a body. Hume says that we call this association or group of events evil, but in a strict sense, we have not seen evil at all. Our assigning of moral good or evil is a result of our feelings towards the event, not any verifiable quality, like that of our five senses. Even more importantly, for Hume, our feelings are subjective, and do not reveal anything except that we feel bad (or good) about the situation. Put simply, “morality” is a projection of our subjective feelings onto the act.

To address Hume (with whom I disagree), note that the empirically verifiable five senses cannot provide comprehension of a moral quality, but that this is neither the role of the five senses nor an indictment of morality in general.

The assignation of a moral quality goes beyond the idea that “I feel bad that lady was killed”, as Hume would have us believe.

It goes further saying, “My distaste is indicative of a general idea that such action is wrong.”

It is not verifiable as our sense of touch or smell is, but a moral judgment can still be true or false.

The reason for this, that Hume and many moderns miss, is that ethics is not about our feelings, ethics is our feelings’ correspondence to that of which is in reality right or wrong. An analogy would be that color is not about our seeing, but that color is what we see. We speak of right and wrong feelings because feelings alone are not a standard for morality, nor always right. In the same way, people argue about morality because there are competing conceptions of right and wrong, ideas about imperative statements (one should do this, etc.).

Even more important, Hume’s principle, that only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful, is self-referential. We cannot assess the truth of Hume’s ideas about morality through our five senses, and can see that such a principle must not account for what makes up “meaningful ideas”. Put another way, our feelings are said to conform to another standard just as our recognition of color can be right or wrong (as in a color-blind person), and are thus are not the same as our faculty of sight or perception of moral qualities.

This long post is intended to support the conclusion that data and inferences from the 5-senses ought not be the standard for moral perscriptive ideas and actions. The standard for moral statements’ rectitude or deviation is not reducible to trains of thought that run as follows: “Hey, I can’t see God right now! But I can observe rust forming in the lab. God must not exist then.” The point being that empiric verifiability is not a test of existence (how do you empirically verify the existence of justice, for example?), as many elements of the human experience that exist (crazy and zany things like love, charity, and familial bonds) fall outside empiricism. Philosophical proofs and logical proofs are not the same as scientific proofs.
The inability to go into lab and set up a redox reaction that proves God exists is nothing new.

There are other classes of proof that are not empirical, logical and (more speciically) philosophical ones. These kinds of proof resolve the moral issues raised in this discussion.

 

[ateista]

WE are of God’s conception. Why would we need a God if there wasn’t one whom already existed?

I have no idea why anyone “needs” God. I certainly do not.

You are only looking at what is laid out in front of you, and you close yourself to Him. Just because he has not appeared to you personally, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

Of course it does not. But I do not accept other people’s testimony, unless that testimony is reasonable… and maybe even not then. I need to trust the source.

Science proves to us that everything material is relative… but there are things that are not material, that aren’t merely concepts of the mind.

I have no idea what you talk about.

By saying that maybe you do not exist, I meant that, there is no way for me to prove to myself, that you really think for yourself or have feelings.

Well, you certainly can know that there is “someone” on the other end of this conversation. You might not know a lot about me, but my **existence **cannot be doubted. There are a few things that no sane person can doubt: their own existence and their own sanity. Anyone who doubts his own existence or his own sanity is already clinically insane. There are some people - the solipsists - who doubt the objective existence of the world around them. I think they are simply insane.

So, maybe you do not exist.

If you really doubt my existence, then you must think that my posts are a figment of your imagination. And since I express thoughts which are not the product of your mind, then you must think that you have a split personality. Do you really think so?

And perhaps I do not exist to you, because you have never been inside my head and listened to my thoughts and felt my feelings.

I cannot know you introspectively, but I am absolutely certain that you (as someone who is not I) actually exists.

And so, you cannot prove that anything exists at all. But that doesn’t make them non-existent.

Prove? Who needs proof that the universe exists? Axioms do not need proof.

 

[OTavern]

Sorry, that will not wash. God, who is not made of flash and bllod is not capable of suffering. Besides, Jesus never claimed that he was God. This role has been “imposed” on him much later.

There is your problem: you are assuming the role was imposed by others, when the facts clearly work the other way around. Jesus convinced his followers by His actions, words, death and resurrection.

It is interesting how your burden of “proof” fluctuates from minimal standards to uncompromisingly rigorous when you wish to accept or reject whatever supports your bias. Minimal when you wish to claim the role of God was imposed on Jesus after his death and absolutely uncompromising when proving historical authenticity of the Scriptures.

This is just intellectually dishonest on your part and betrays something of your commitment to truth and why God may be having a difficult time convincing you of anything besides what you decide to be true.

Paul’s writings, in particular, and much of the New Testament corpus are as historically verifiable as any writings could be hoped from that period. To deny this or to claim these have been commandeered for some illicit purpose by a group of fishermen or their followers is ‘ridiculous’ and flies in the face of the incontrovertible scope and range of interconnectivity between the Old and New Testaments. The close association is not one that could be easily contrived and, even if true, could not explain the commitment of the Apostles and early disciples to hold to their claims even when that meant breaking away from their cherished community and faith to be tortured and martyred in foreign lands.

I doubt you would have a similar commitment to your beliefs.

Jesus claimed many times that He was God or “one with God” and that is the principal reason he was crucified. This was blasphemy in the eyes of the Sanhedrin.

Perhaps the clearest indication is Jesus’ claim in John 8:58, that “before Abraham ever was, I am.” It is a bizarre statement for his followers to attribute to Him and resulted in an appropriate response from the Jews nearby when they picked up stones to throw at him. They, at least recognized the gravity of this claim. Why would his disciples – good, conservative Jewish boys, that they were – even think to attribute such outlandish and dangerous statements to Him unless they were absolutely convinced that He was God?

In fact, the Apostle, John, in his first letter stipulates this as the one way of identifying a believer. This is John’s reply to your demand for evidence, if you will.

We accept the testimony of human witnesses, but God’s testimony is much greater, and this is God’s testimony, given as evidence for his Son. Everybody who believes in the Son of God has this testimony inside him; and anyone who will not believe God is making God out to be a liar, because he has not trusted the testimony God has given about his Son. This is the testimony: God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son; anyone who has the Son has life, anyone who does not have the Son does not have life. 1 John 5:9-12

You can tell the spirits that come from God by this: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh is from God… 1 John 4:2

The fact that there are so many individuals through history that have understood the power of this truth, that God Himself has implanted within them, is a powerful piece of evidence. This message is clearly understood by those who accept it and is followed by a similar experience of “formation” in the Spirit. One that is witnessed to by a powerful and enduring commitment to its veracity, by many believers, even to martyrdom.

You can chalk it up to irrational fanaticism if you like, but countless committed followers through history, like Jesus himself, have been super-ordinary in their reason, judgement, clarity, virtues and faith.

This short read might temper some of your misconceptions: The Irrational Atheist

and

Peter Kreeft dishes up a number of strong counter arguments on his site.

 

[OTavern]

Well, you certainly can know that there is “someone” on the other end of this conversation. You might not know a lot about me, but my **existence **cannot be doubted. There are a few things that no sane person can doubt: their own existence and their own sanity. Anyone who doubts his own existence or his own sanity is already clinically insane. There are some people - the solipsists - who doubt the objective existence of the world around them. I think they are simply insane.

There is no doubt “something” or someone is typing your posts, but the question is “who?”

Perhaps a group of CIA agents or a Satanic cult (or both together), interested in controverting the beliefs of Catholics, is surreptitiously typing your entries.

Or perhaps a faithful Catholic believer named ateista really died a few years ago and a group of his followers aided by the CIA and a Satanic cult, are hiding his body in a frozen state, and attempting to convince the world that atheista was really an atheist before uncovering his remains.

Or perhaps a powerful supercomputer run by an atheist foreign government is playing a discursive game of “de-convert Catholics” on this forum.

How can we know for sure? Especially since we are not really interested in following up our beliefs about you by checking any further. Whatever your claims, we can counter with cogent disproofs or close our ears and repeatedly sing, “La la la la la.”

Go ahead “prove” your existence when we really don’t want to believe anything you say!

 

[OTavern]

ateista:

Well, you certainly can know that there is “someone” on the other end of this conversation. You might not know a lot about me, but my existence cannot be doubted. There are a few things that no sane person can doubt: their own existence and their own sanity. Anyone who doubts his own existence or his own sanity is already clinically insane. There are some people - the solipsists - who doubt the objective existence of the world around them. I think they are simply insane.

Bold-face emphasis above is mine.

When I reflect on my experience of God, it amounts to a deeper, richer, more full participation in “existence.” There are times when that clarity is so intense and full that I cannot deny “God exists.”

The reason for this is that the experience is one that, far from being a “doubting” of my own existence, is an intense awareness of it, far beyond ‘usual’ self knowledge, to experiencing God far, far beyond all possibility of doubt, well beyond the possibility of the kind of doubt even your “sane man” could deny. Anyone who has had that experience will corroborate it.

That is why a true believer would willingly suffer death and martyrdom, because the experience is far beyond the intense personal experience of “self” that you claim only an insane man could deny. This is the kind of “testimony” John the Apostle is talking about – it is undeniable.

Everybody who believes in the Son of God has this testimony inside him; and anyone who will not believe God is making God out to be a liar, because he has not trusted the testimony God has given about his Son.

Anyone who has truly experienced God, will have an intense and complete knowledge of “self,” a distinct though unparalleled sense of the presence of God and an equally unparalleled and enduring sense of “emptiness” or alienation from God when the experience “subsides.” In fact, the “God” experience illuminates “self” far beyond what mere self-knowledge does – it is like shining a complete light on your “self,” revealing all of you - making the sane man even saner - but also revealing the “light” itself.

So if you are willing to claim self-knowledge as proof (as you say any sane man would) of the existence of self, then an unparalleled and a far more intense but distinctive internal experience of God, corroborated by many who have had such an experience should hold equal sway in your mind.

This kind of experience is also witnessed to by Hindu (Atman), Buddhist (Anatta), Taoist (Tao) and other faith “practitioners.” More corroboration.

The fact that God is “Being” and “Person” means that the only way to experience Him as such would logically be the same way we experience ourselves, as internally and subjectively known “phenomena.” To expect some other kind of evidence would be akin to your insane man demanding some other kind of proof for his own existence. Only a “madman” would expect it.

You aren’t one of those are you?

By the way, this does not preclude that God may “manifest” His existence through the “material” world, just as human beings may reveal their “selves” in their effects upon the world; but external manifestations do not equate to strict proof, neither for God nor the existence of human “selves.”

The question should be asked, “Why doesn’t everyone have such an experience?” The answer may be found in why some individuals do not or cannot even experience or affirm their own “selves.” Something is not “right” in their 'beings;" they are “broken” or separated from themselves. Perhaps the same holds true for God: we are “separated” from Him for some reason. I believe it is called “sin.”

 

[Filius99993]

Prove? Who needs proof that the universe exists? Axioms do not need proof.

Then do we need proof to show that God exists?

 

[ateista]

You have given me a lot of answers, and I will attempt to respond. I cannot promise that I will be able to reflect on every sentence, however.

Again, we ignore the thousand-year historical and individual testaments of the Church as to the “proofs” that the argument seeks. As for the leprechaun, history has never produced an irrefutable proof that it exists.

History can never “prove” anyhing since it is not a natural science. It can describe what allegedly happened, subject to the limitations and prejudicies of the historians. And yes, I am ignoring the testaments of a few thousand years, because they are irrelevant. One actual fact speaks clearer, than a thousand years of testimonials.

Let’s remember, the point of this line of thought was that I am missing the direct sign, that the Church’s teachings are factual.

Now, as for the evidence being asked, sometimes it is just so obvious that a person did win because he is now some filthy rich guy being one of the richest (materially) person in this World. Unless we stop ignoring some obvious proofs of the Truth, we can never realize and examine It further. “Credo ut intelligam.”

Bill Gates is even richer, but I would not believe him if he asserted that he won all his money on the lottery. That is precisely the kind of “evidence” I am having problems with. Ambiguous, subject to misinterpretation.

Read the Bible as being interpreted by the Church who produced and “legalized” (canonized) the use of its books.

Circular argument! You assume that the Bible authenicates the Church, and the Church can direct you to the proper interpretation of the Bible. A true divine revelation should and would be crystal clear, it could not be “misread” or “misinterpreted”.

This REQUIREMENT is not “smaller” as stated. Do you have by yourself “Real, tangible, observable, concrete, testable evidence” of ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE? Don’t we believe on the existence of these laws because our Colleagues and those before us had written that they have observed and experience? Isn’t the same proof that the argument above tries to render invalid?

Now we get to the meat of the problem.

The answer is: "of course I did not attempt to verify all that - personally ". Yes, I rely on others to do the “dirty” work for me. But that does not help your argument. Because I can do it, if I so choose. The so called reliance on authority (or testimonials) is only a covenient epistemological shortcut, to save time and effort.

It is not a substitute. Any and all of the discoveries of the scientists goes under scrutiny and is subject to intense “attacks”. The scientists are not above petty jealousy, they want their own recognition, so they try to drag down the others. That is my (and your) assurance that whatever emerges after this long “battle” called peer-review has a decent chance of being accurate. Of course it is not fire-proof, as zillions of examples clearly show.

There is no such process when it comes to the problem of religious assertions. Those only rely on authority, interpretations, testimonials. These testimonials are not epistemological shortcuts, which could be circumvented if one wished to examine the “raw data” directly, because there is no “raw data”.

Let me reiterate: I am not asking for more, I am asking for the same.

It seems that this “ancient collection of stories called the Bible” is under question. Should we also question the more “recent collection of ‘imagination’ called Encyclopedia”? I do not wish to go to the idea of defending the validity of the Bible as a written account of God’s work in the history of Man.

Yes, it is also questioned, as it should be. The Encyclopedia is not cast in stone. It is always subject to criticism.

To a more personal level: If you are asking for proof, why not look at yourself?

It always comes to that. How do you know that I did not? Because I certainly did and found nothing. Let me spare you the next question: “Yes, I looked long and hard enough.”

Your good arguments, creations, and examples reveal how extraordinary you are. This must require that your Maker must be that extraordinary. “I think, therefore I am. I think there is such thing as before. Now, before me, who is?”

My parents.

To be more objective: Look at the Nature itself, doesn’t It demonstrate the true Marvel of Its Maker? Look how wonderful the Design is? It is here that we say and wonder how Perfect this World must be… only if we can discover how It works.

The world definitely exhibits order, but order should not be confused with design.

I say: Ask the Maker, listen to His Word, listen to those sent by this Word to testify and preach what has been revealed.

Sorry, my friend. God is silent. He never answers questions or prayers. You may think that he sometimes answers with a “yes”, other times with a “no”. But you are mistaken. Even if God does fulfill a prayer (of which there is no evidence) it is not an “answer of yes”. If he does not filfill a prayer, that is not an “answer of no”. There is no communication, there are no answers. There is only silence.

 

[ateista]

Then do we need proof to show that God exists?

I do. Maybe you think that God’s existence is axiomatic, but I certainly do not.