Does Faith mean we can never be certain that God exists?

[Birdpreacher]

Well - everyone except the person having the supernatural experience.

Last time I checked, when you start telling people that God is talking to you- they hand you some meds.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I appreciate your answer but I will have to point out what the CCC says on faith:

This submission of the intellect requires us to take our Holy Book as divine truth. We are called to suspend our disbelief to make the commitment to making the Bible our version of the truth.

Precisely the same is true regarding submitting of our intellects to the “truth” in any general sense. Which could mean, simply, disposing your intellect to the truth, which is not “suspending” your reason, but making full use of it by aiming it definitively towards the truth.
The alternative is to continue spinning wheels and going nowhere.

The point is, begin the journey, make truth the destination and seek the truth alone without faltering. If questions arise, look into them always with an eye to the truth. By continuing to seek the truth, the nature of the truth becomes more clear and apparent. It is a process of fine tuning your “truth sensibilities” by engaging them.

The alternative is to keep doubting everything and go nowhere.

 

[jmcrae]

Last time I checked, when you start telling people that God is talking to you- they hand you some meds.

Hopefully, the consolations of God don’t include hearing strange voices …

 

[Peter_Plato]

The insistence of physical evidence is rooted in the fact that ANYTHING can have supernatural possibility. For the atheist, Odin may very well stand on the same level as Jesus in the Bible.

Only someone who has superficially looked into both could make such a claim. Look into both in a consistent, disciplined and scholarly way and there is no way that they can be viewed as similar claims on an equal footing. Odin was clearly intended to be a myth, Jesus was clearly an historical person.

The flying spaghetti monster can be created and as soon as you say that this creature exists in the spiritual realm-no one can disagree with you.

You can make an argument for GOd, but we cannot prove his existence. You can also make an argument for a flying spaghetti monster.

This argument has always been a silly one to me. Either God exists or the principle of sufficient reason is an empty logical proposition. The same cannot be said about the non-existence of the FSM. The FSM could very well not exist and that “fact” leaves the principle of sufficient reason intact.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Precisely the same is true regarding submitting of our intellects to the “truth” in any general sense. Which could mean, simply, disposing your intellect to the truth, which is not “suspending” your reason, but making full use of it by aiming it definitively towards the truth.

SUBMIT: to accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person

Truth in the natural world requires no submission, it engages the intellect. The mind is free to follow the scientific method to whatever conclusion is presented. This is the opposite of Faith which requires us to submit to the authority of our Holy Book.

The alternative is to keep doubting everything and go nowhere.

This is what atheists believe, and most see nothing wrong with going nowhere and merely enjoying existence in this world. It is a romantic position to take, but our Faith calls on us to humble ourselves by believing in the Bible.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Only someone who has superficially looked into both could make such a claim. Look into both in a consistent, disciplined and scholarly way and there is no way that they can be viewed as similar claims on an equal footing. Odin was clearly intended to be a myth, Jesus was clearly an historical person.

Then would Buddha or Mohammed tickle your fancy? How about David Koresh? WHy not ancient god-king pharaohs. Just because someone existed in history does not mean that they have a greater claim to being a supernatural entity. If anything Odin has the argument that he influenced Nordic Culture to a great degree without existing in this world-see how powerful he is.

This argument has always been a silly one to me. Either God exists or the principle of sufficient reason is an empty logical proposition. The same cannot be said about the non-existence of the FSM. The FSM could very well not exist and that “fact” leaves the principle of sufficient reason intact.

Please enlighten me- what is this principle of sufficient reasoning?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Truth in the natural world requires no submission, it engages the intellect. The mind is free to follow the scientific method to whatever conclusion is presented. This is the opposite of Faith which requires us to submit to the authority of our Holy Book.

This is what atheists believe, and most see nothing wrong with going nowhere and merely enjoying existence in this world. It is a romantic position to take, but our Faith calls on us to humble ourselves by believing in the Bible.

So they have submitted to ease, comfort, desire, hedonism or self-flattery as if these were the truth. Submission has still occurred. Certainly, it was an easy submission, but why should we assume that the truth would be the “easy” option that requires no submission?

What I currently think is the easiest thing to continue believing and requires no submission of me because I am already submitted to it. That no submission is required does not make it true or worth hanging on to.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents: Having faith means being certain of God’s existence.

John 20:28-31 - Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Thomas had faith in His senses; they and his experiences in the world dictated what was real. He could not “believe” otherwise, so that faith in the resurrection would appear to be a matter of wishful thinking, a denial of reality.
How can someone uncertain about the existence of God, suddenly decide to adopt ideas they had, or would have previously thought ridiculous?
In coming to believe, one is blessed with a transforming encounter with God. In Thomas’ case it was through his sensory experience of the risen Lord that the truth was revealed.
Living two thousand years later, we did not see Him, but we are blessed.
Some people are certain because their capacity to reason or intuition has revealed the reality of His existence.
Others reach Him in the pursuit of what is beautiful, and/or through their experiences with love.
In suffering, many come to know that He is always with us, sharing in our burdens, consoling us and healing our brokenness.
Through what has been written, our participation in the totality that is His Church, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, we grow ever more deeply in our understanding and knowledge of God.

So, why isn’t everyone a believer? Why are some uncertain?

Matt 13:3-9 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

Truly blessed are those who believe.

 

[Estevao]

No, faith in the classical Christian theist tradition is much like how the average man on the street has “faith” that e=mc^2, i.e. based on a legitimate authority, like that of scientists, or his high school physics teacher. You can prove the existence of God, His existence can be known with certainty, as Vatican I declared. Faith is not a “leap in the dark”, fideism is not Catholic and out to be rejected by a Catholic.

 

[KrazyKat]

But thats not Faith,

faith is suspending your reason and choosing to believe in something that is not of this world-that is- something we can not KNOW in the sense that we know about how the earth works and the planets orbit the sun.

Really Birdpreacher. What are you saying? I know He is, can I explain Him to doubters, no. Do those who say they have faith but are always searching for explanations really have faith? If so, then I do not have faith, I know He is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please enlighten me- what is this principle of sufficient reasoning?

The principle of sufficient reason is a logical principle that basically states the requirements for having an explanation for anything that is worthy of truly being an explanation. In order to explain anything “sufficiently” it necessary to have an explanation that sufficiently explains all the attendant qualities of the thing being explained.

The FSM does not even explain its own existence, let alone being a requirement in the explanation of anything else. Therefore, we can safely dismiss its existence until we have good reason to entertain it.

Science does not sufficiently explain the entities with which it engages. Science seeks causal explanations, but these are mere connectors to past states which also need explanation along with why causality itself exists. Why should causal antecedents effect subsequent entities the way they do? Science does explain, for example, the role that gravity or other definable constants play in the causal order, but leaves unexplained why gravity or any constant exists to begin with. It leaves these unexplained and is therefore insufficient as a full explanation.

God, especially in Thomistic metaphysics, is First Cause or Uncaused Cause in the order of ipsum esse subsistens, which entails that in order to logically have a sufficient explanation for all that exists, that explanation cannot be found in a “caused” or contingent entity, a sufficient explanation will necessarily be one where the explanatory nature of the thing will be necessary and self-subsistent. That is a logical entailment from the fact that the effects in the causal order cannot explain their own existence, ergo whatever will be a sufficient explanation cannot be conditional and cannot be an object of science, which by method is constrained to precisely those kinds of realities.

Science cannot prove or disprove God because the limitations of its methods restrict it to looking at causal dependency not explanatory sufficiency.

A first principle of logic is the principle of sufficient reason. Properly understood, that principle leads to a logical requirement in terms of what is necessary to adequately hexplain why something exists rather than nothing. For something to exist, and undeniably something does exist, it is necessary to have a cause, itself not caused, that contains within itself the sufficient explanation for all that is found to exist. The FSM does not adequately address the principle of sufficient reason, but God (defined as ipsum esse subsistens) does.

 

[glendab]

Hello Bird.

But thats not Faith,

faith is suspending your reason and choosing to believe in something that is not of this world-that is- something we can not KNOW in the sense that we know about how the earth works and the planets orbit the sun.

Your definition of faith isn’t mine. My faith doesn’t have to stand up to the rigors of science to be proven. Nothing God does has to.

Stand outside and watch the stars at night and be fascinated by their complexities and the rules that keep them in place, but know that they are simply there because God wills it to be that way. All those stars are in the hand of God He holds all creation together in Himself and nothing came to be without His willing it.

I believe…you need proof.
Glenda

 

[Secant]

What does it mean to be certain that God exists? Would you accept a list of scientific, logical, historical, and philosophical arguments or do you require a mathematical proof? If you require a mathematical proof, then yes, we can never be certain that God exists. There is no mathematical proof of God’s existence, or your (generic you) own. However, if you will accept the others, than we can be certain that God exists, within the grounds of reasoned certainty.

Just as a note, we have faith in every aspect of our lives. There is no way to mathematically prove that a+b=b+a, which is why it is an axiom, not a proof, though most of mathematics is based on that principle. Most everyone believes that there are three laws of logic which allow us to function in this world. The laws are: the law of identity (example: water is water, not alcohol, petroleum, or helium), the law of non-contradiction (a person cannot have only two hands and have more than two hands at the same time), and the law of excluded middle (example: either God exists or God does not exist, there is no third option).

These laws are assumed (or taken with Faith) for us to even be able to prove anything, so in short, I suppose that faith means that we can never be certain that God exists. However, without faith in SOMETHING, we can never be certain that ANYTHING exists, even our own selves.

 

[Lokadottir]

You’re right. There will never be proof of God. Catholics and Christians everywhere try to give proof of God’s existence because the secularists demand it. Atheists are stubborn about believing in things they don’t have “proof” of, and we want them to convert so we try to give them that proof. The funny thing is, they don’t really have proof of anything at all. Atheists have no proof of their scientific theories, just logical conclusions the same as any Christian. It’s frustrating.

I agree with you, though. Faith is a beautiful thing. It’s searching deep within yourself to find your own “proof” and not shutting away anything you can’t touch or see. I don’t understand why a person would lock themselves in the tiny little box of the physical world when there’s an amazing, beautiful spiritual world out there. Or maybe I do. It’s because they’re scared. They’re scared to be wrong, and they want proof of things that they can’t see with their eyes. It’s like being scared to walk outside at night, and you need utter reassurance that there are no burglars hiding in the bushes. But you can never know that without looking in the bushes and you can’t look in the bushes without trusting that there are no burglars there in the first place, so you lock yourself inside your house and refuse to even peek out the window. And you cover up your fear with excuses like no one wants to be outside at night anyways, it’s too cold there, I have better things to do inside. And so you never get to see the stars.

So we try to give them proof. But no matter how many logical conclusions we are able to draw, we can never give proof. We’re meant to have faith, and that’s a good thing. Everybody needs faith in something. We can’t know everything; there are some points in time where you’ve just got to believe.

Some are like that. I don’t agree with them at all. But I want proof also when one religion starts seeping into legislation. Otherwise I don’t care if you believe in cheeseburger-farting unicorns in the sky as long as you don’t harm anyone.

 

[Lokadottir]

But thats not Faith,

faith is suspending your reason and choosing to believe in something that is not of this world-that is- something we can not KNOW in the sense that we know about how the earth works and the planets orbit the sun.

My stomach just flipped. I’ll quote Godspell:
“God endows us with sense and intellect.
God endows us with reason we neglect.
And despite the abolition by the current inquisition,
Of any intuition that they don’t choose.
When it comes to God, I can’t believe that he designed
A human being with a mind he’s not suppose to use.”

 

[wmw]

There is a problem in the question in that faith first assumes there is someone to have faith in, namely God. The Christian definitions of faith assume a monotheistic minimal foundation. The definitions talk to the hope of the promises of God whether of Christ’s first coming in the OT or the promises of grace and eternal life of the NT.

The journey of the Christian life is first to accept that there is a God. This then leads to asking what kind of God do we have. This leads us to the promises of the Bible and accepting by faith that obtaining these promises is a realistic hope.

To ask if faith means added uncertainty about God’s existance is to make faith’s object (the thing you have faith in) something that is in question is a circular trap that is illogical.

I’m not sure that sentence is clear so I’ll use a semi-mathmatical notation:
Does faith in X = true? if X can be either true or false.
Since X can be false then having faith in it is only a doubtful thing.

Conclusion: You have to be sure of someone to have faith in them and any degree of faith has no power to change the reality of God or any object of our faith. The existance question is a completely seperate question from faith and to mix the questions is illogical.

 

[hasantas]

QUOTE]

I think the term “being satisfied” is more significant than “be certain” in that issue. There are many levels and grades in one’s faith. With a very low degree of faith some knows that there is a God. With proofs and inner experiences one’s faith gain power. To believe or not is an exam for humanbeing. İf exam were so certain and obvious there were no mean.

Ofcourse there may be some hidden points in faith but that does not mean the faith can not be certain because there are many obvious and valid evidences that there is a God.

We can not see God but with moral and spiritual discovery thousands morally high people could see angels, heavens which support faith. Every one can experience something like that with high morality and with good deeds.

But there is not a certainity in keeping and saving faith until depart. So we must keeping on good deeds, rituals and confess/repent after sin.

 

[tonyrey]

Birdpreacher;11828741:

QUOTE]

I think the term “being satisfied” is more significant than “be certain” in that issue. There are many levels and grades in one’s faith. With a very low degree of faith some knows that there is a God. With proofs and inner experiences one’s faith gain power. To believe or not is an exam for human beings. İf exam were so certain and obvious there were no mean.

Of course there may be some hidden points in faith but that does not mean the faith can not be certain because there are many obvious and valid evidences that there is a God.

We can not see God but with moral and spiritual discovery thousands morally high people could see angels, heavens which support faith. Every one can experience something like that with high morality and with good deeds.

But there is not a certainty in keeping and saving faith until depart. So we must keeping on good deeds, rituals and confess/repent after sin.

Moral certainty is far more important than mathematical certainty…

 

[tonyrey]

My stomach just flipped. I’ll quote Godspell:
“God endows us with sense and intellect.
God endows us with reason we neglect.
And despite the abolition by the current inquisition,
Of any intuition that they don’t choose.
When it comes to God, I can’t believe that he designed
A human being with a mind he’s not suppose to use.”

Precisely!

 

[tonyrey]

What does it mean to be certain that God exists? Would you accept a list of scientific, logical, historical, and philosophical arguments or do you require a mathematical proof? If you require a mathematical proof, then yes, we can never be certain that God exists. There is no mathematical proof of God’s existence, or your (generic you) own. However, if you will accept the others, than we can be certain that God exists, within the grounds of reasoned certainty.

Just as a note, we have faith in every aspect of our lives. There is no way to mathematically prove that a+b=b+a, which is why it is an axiom, not a proof, though most of mathematics is based on that principle. Most everyone believes that there are three laws of logic which allow us to function in this world. The laws are: the law of identity (example: water is water, not alcohol, petroleum, or helium), the law of non-contradiction (a person cannot have only two hands and have more than two hands at the same time), and the law of excluded middle (example: either God exists or God does not exist, there is no third option).

These laws are assumed (or taken with Faith) for us to even be able to prove anything, so in short, I suppose that faith means that we can never be certain that God exists. However, without faith in SOMETHING, we can never be certain that ANYTHING exists, even our own selves.

Welcome to the forum.

If we doubted everything we wouldn’t survive very long!