Demanding proof of God

[meme1961]

Well you could certainly say it is God’s fault for not letting himself be known. If God exists, he obviously has the ability to prove it in an undeniable fashion.

“Proof”, is a statement of faith. To deny you the choice to believe in what you will, would be to destroy the gift of free will.

In other words: no, it is not God’s fault that he chose to make you free, instead of a total, abject slave. It is your choice NOT to believe.

 

[meme1961]

Modern science must exclude God in its operation, if it is going to be effective. Scientists wouldn’t get very far if they just said “God did it” and left it at that every time they couldn’t figure out something. They have to assume that some natural explanation exists for everything and try to find it.

Now, if it gets to the point where they try to declare that there is no God (which many do), then they are being ridiculous because there’s no way they could measure or detect a supernatural being anyway.

I disagree. There are plenty of scientists who say: “God did it!” Then they take the next step: “But, how did he do it?” I would defined science as the originator’s did: as “Natural Philosophy”, so in effect, all scientists are studying God’s creation.

I found my way back to God after a hiatus, because I was studying evolution. When I got to the point of truly understanding it, I said: “Wow! This algorithm demonstrates God-like intelligence!”

 

[meme1961]

My response: ok, so you have no proof. Great.

No, we have proof. You just don’t accept it as proof.

Why? Because “proof” is a statement of belief. It is, essentially, where the boundary between science (material evidence) and the supernatural (the meaning and conclusions one draws from what is necessarily incomplete evidence, imperfectly understood) exists in this particular context.

 

[ReapReason]

Yes, it is.

No its not.

But please, give a reasoned argument, if you have one, and not just a statement of faith.

“I think therefore I am” is not a statement of faith.

 

[meme1961]

Do you really nag your head over a proof for your existence?

There is a lot of proof for our existence.

None proof of any god’s existence.

If it happens and there is a god(s), which one?

If we exists, does it mean that there must be a designer?

If a designer exists, who designed that designer?

This road is too long to stop, we may get tired before arriving.

There is no proof of the existence of anything else but ourselves. Yet scientists regularly claim to have “proved” something. Not, you know, GOOD scientists, as a good scientist knows that he can’t prove anything, ever, without stepping outside the bounds of science.

As to god(s). By definition, God is not an instance of a genus. He is pure actuality, infinite and complete. IOW, your statement contains a fallacious premise.

If anything exists within time, there must be a cause. Unless time is circular, then there must be an initial cause. If time is circular, however, then science is founded upon fallacious axioms (there is no such thing as cause and effect).

There is no requirement that the designer/designed be a infinite regress, IF THE DESIGNER IS INFINITE. In other words, God can be our designer without requiring a designer.

What you probably meant is: “Which particular model or definition of God is closest to the Truth?” That is a long conversation, but there are some absolute requirements:

1. The true religion must be one of both faith and reason. Catholicism is.
2. The true religion must not be falsifiable by the general, specific, or natural philosophies. Catholicism is not falsifiable by any system I have yet studied, and no one has been able to do so successfully in over 2000 years.
3. The true religion must be based on divine revelation, preferably a revelation that happens multiple times, and can be checked by/with multiple people. Catholicism can be (it is based on a divine revelation given, simultaneously, to a very large group of people, and includes proofs given across time to multiple different people, including miracles up to and including resurrection of the dead.)
4. The true religion must have predictive capability. Catholicism does, including thousands of years of prophecies fulfilled, as well as being able to both explain the universe, and predict what will happen, in ways no other system can.
5. The one true religion must be timeless. Catholicism is.

and etc. But I won’t list them all.

I am Catholic by an act of faith, AND REASON. And the decision was one of the most carefully reasoned decisions, worked out over the longest period of time, of any I’ve ever made. Catholicism is provably the one true religion, successfully answering every challenge I or other people could throw at it, providing true assertion to every attempt to falsify it.

But, we’re all human, and by God’s gift, we have the right to believe anything we want to, blindly, if necessary. That’s free will.

 

[ReapReason]

There is no proof of the existence of anything else but ourselves.

There is Proof of God. Proving God is not dependent on proving the objectivity of the universe.

We have certain knowledge of change in so far as the fact that we can witness potential experience becoming actual experience. Whether or not those experiences actually represent an objective universe is besides the point and is irrelevant. There has to be an esse-first-cause of those experiences, and that first cause has to have attributes that I do not have as a changing experiencer.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There is no proof of the existence of anything else but ourselves. Yet scientists regularly claim to have “proved” something. Not, you know, GOOD scientists, as a good scientist knows that he can’t prove anything, ever, without stepping outside the bounds of science.

Main stream publications tend to translate findings to wording that sounds far more confident than the original source. The claims of proof tend not to be from the actual scientist, but from such translations.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I have no interest in the topic of black holes.

This is what I would do if I had the unfortunate luck of being seated next to an individual at a dinner who said, “So what role, [sip of wine], do you, PR, believe black holes play in the possibility of the annihilation of gamma radiation?”

However if someone were to be seated next to me and say, “I was raised Catholic and now I’m an atheist.” I’d be all
whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/21635002005/when-a-guy-plays-hard-to-get-with-me

but in a good way.

Well now you are seated next to an agnostic who would not wish to discourage your Catholicism, but would prefer you did not consume too much wine.

Do you have time for some questions not related to astronomy?

If so, might you be able to give consideration to the following:

1. What is meant by God being labeled as “all-powerful?”
2. What is meant by God being considered “all-knowing?”

 

[PRmerger]

Well now you are seated next to an agnostic who would not wish to discourage your Catholicism, but would prefer you did not consume too much wine.

I have only done that once (or maybe twice) and I don’t intend to do that ever again. :nope:

(And of course I am referring to consumption of wine, not to being seated next to an agnostic.)

1. What is meant by God being labeled as “all-powerful?”

In short, it means the perfection of true power.

As the Catechism proclaims: We believe that his might is universal, for God who created everything also rules everything and can do everything. God’s power is loving, for he is our Father, and mysterious, for only faith can discern it when it “is made perfect in weakness”.

1. What is meant by God being considered “all-knowing?”

In short, it means the perfection of all knowledge.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I have only done that once (or maybe twice) and I don’t intend to do that ever again. :nope:

(And of course I am referring to consumption of wine, not to being seated next to an agnostic.)

Well the two might be just as bad…

In short, it means the perfection of true power.

As the Catechism proclaims: We believe that his might is universal, for God who created everything also rules everything and can do everything. God’s power is loving, for he is our Father, and mysterious, for only faith can discern it when it “is made perfect in weakness”.

In short, it means the perfection of all knowledge.

What is meant by God being termed infinite?

Does time pass in Heaven?

 

[davidv]

Well the two might be just as bad…

What is meant by God being termed infinite?

He has no bounds

Does time pass in Heaven?

No, I believe that heaven is outside of time.

 

[PRmerger]

What is meant by God being termed infinite?

That which the finite mind cannot encompass.

Does time pass in Heaven?

No, there is no time in heaven, unless you want to call the Eternal Now “time”.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

That which the finite mind cannot encompass.

No, there is no time in heaven, unless you want to call the Eternal Now “time”.

Do souls in Heaven exist in this Eternal Now along with God?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

He has no bounds

Would that make him awfully heavy?

No, I believe that heaven is outside of time.

What do you think: do souls exist in Heaven along with God in an eternal now?

 

[PRmerger]

Do souls in Heaven exist in this Eternal Now along with God?

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that they experience everything, as God does, as one point in time: the eternal now?

If that’s what you mean, I wouldn’t think so.

However, this is mostly speculation as what souls in heaven experience hasn’t been revealed to this degree.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that they experience everything, as God does, as one point in time: the eternal now?

If that’s what you mean, I wouldn’t think so.

However, this is mostly speculation as what souls in heaven experience hasn’t been revealed to this degree.

I suppose what appears problematic is that if a soul is able to arrive in Heaven to be in proximity to God, would there not then be a “time” at which it could be said that a soul “arrived?” Would there not also be a “time” before the soul came to be there?

Alternately, if no such time might be stated, would not a soul existing in a non-time environment have necessarily always been there in an eternal sense? If so, would not all souls destined for Heaven necessarily already be, and have always been, there?

 

[User124]

As soon as you resort to mocking belief in God by comparing it to belief in cartoon mice and turtles, you lose all credibility with me, and I doubt that I am alone in that regard.

You have an utter lack of understanding of how Catholic theologians perceive the nature of God and His attributes. This is all elegantly explained in the Summa Theologica. Of course, that work requires a great deal of intellectual effort.

And wiki? Really? Unacceptable source reference, even for most high school teachers.

You didn’t answer my question, the wiki link I sent has nothing to do with whether you trust wikipedia or not, it was to clear up the whole thing that the burden proof is up to those who claim that something exists, whether it’s Jehovah or a giant invisible turtle.

Do you consider pagans and those who believe in other “cartoon things” as stupid for believing differently than you?

What reasons do you have to not consider the Catholic god a mockery, just like the giant turtle?

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose what appears problematic is that if a soul is able to arrive in Heaven to be in proximity to God, would there not then be a “time” at which it could be said that a soul “arrived?” Would there not also be a “time” before the soul came to be there?

Sure. And then everything exists in the Eternal Now, to the degree that one is joined to God and experiences the Beaitific Vision.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sure. And then everything exists in the Eternal Now, to the degree that one is joined to God and experiences the Beaitific Vision.

So time passes until one joins the “Now” of God?

Did God not then experience a moment of “prior” to the joining and then “after” the joining?

Is one able to think while in this “Now?”

 

[PRmerger]

So time passes until one joins the “Now” of God?

I wouldn’t use the word “until”, but, yes, time passes, and then we join the Now of God.

Did God not then experience a moment of “prior” to the joining and then “after” the joining?

I would say not.

It’s all One Point in Time to Him.

As Pope JPII proclaims: Being God, absolute fullness of being, (ipsum Esse subsistens), his eternity “inscribed in the terminology of being” must be understood as the “indivisible, perfect, and simultaneous possession of an unending life,” and therefore as the attribute of being absolutely “beyond time”

Is one able to think while in this “Now?”

I wouldn’t describe what occurs in heaven as thinking.