Does God Exist?

[Spirithound]

Sure, but does God also not have a choice to damn those people that refuse God’s love? A merciful God, IMHO, would not choose to do so.

What’s the alternative then? An eternity separate from God, wallowing happily in your own individualism?

 

[benedictus2]

The complete lack of evidence. That is why I agree with you that faith is a gift. In some sense it is a miracle that I am a theist at all. I can’t explain it either.

That is true. Can I ask you to pray for the same gift for others? I always pray them. For a different kind of seeing.

I love St Augustine’s words: Faith is believing in something we cannot see, the gift of Faith is seing what we believe.

Peace!

ps. when you say complete lack of evidence,what sort of evidence are you referring to? Scientific? Logical?

 

[benedictus2]

Sure, but does God also not have a choice to damn those people that refuse God’s love? A merciful God, IMHO, would not choose to do so.

What’s the alternative then? An eternity separate from God, wallowing happily in your own individualism?

I think these points were answered in a way in another thread in relation to pre-destination. I will post an organized reply when I have recovered from this terrible flu.

 

[Peregrino]

What’s the alternative then? An eternity separate from God, wallowing happily in your own individualism?

I assume a merciful God would not keep you separate.

 

[Peregrino]

That is true. Can I ask you to pray for the same gift for others?

You bet!

For a different kind of seeing.

Exactly!

I love St Augustine’s words: Faith is believing in something we cannot see, the gift of Faith is seing what we believe.

I think that the more “faithfully” we live, the more we see of what we believe.

ps. when you say complete lack of evidence,what sort of evidence are you referring to? Scientific? Logical?

Both.

 

[Spirithound]

I assume a merciful God would not keep you separate.

I assume the God which would require the sacrifice of His own Son for our redemption would respect our decision.

 

[Peregrino]

I assume the God which would require the sacrifice of His own Son for our redemption would respect our decision.

I see your point. I think we might each be talking about a different God. Personally, I would hope that your God wouldn’t respect my decision and would grant me mercy…

 

[benedictus2]

I have thought about it - a lot. I really don’t believe in a creator per se. There is so much we don’t know about the universe - it could all be a natural series of events. There is a thread in the philosophy section dealing with the first cause and a fellow named Merry Athiest made some really good points on why the universe is no proof of a creator. The post was made in the past day or two. One of his points dealt with the question of what we mean by “god/God”. Maybe the universe was created by many gods, maybe the gods have moved on to other things, maybe what we refer to as a god is really totally natural and we just don’t understand it yet. There are so many “maybes” and I just have no way of knowing. I think I mentioned that I agree with some tenets of Buddhism. Basically, I think the universe/existence is way more vast can we can comprehend. I think there are various levels/planes of existence, various types of existence. There are “supernatural” energies/entities/gods out there. But like the Buddhists, I don’t think they are important. They aren’t personal gods. I think our sprit evolves over eons, I think karma plays a role in the speed of our progress. What are we progressing toward? Enlightenment, some sort of godlike state (note the small “g”)? Perhaps it is infinite. It is beyond our current ability to comprehend. So you could say I see a purpose in this life, I don’t think this is “it” as it were. But I find revealed religions to be extremely narrow in their interpretation of “out there” - the universe, existence, etc. I think mankind has created “God” in his own image, not the other way around.

If that is too vague, let me know and I’ll try again.

Also, since you are interested in former believers, there is a website you might really find helpful. There is a forum, a “testimony” section, and a reference/book section with book recommendations and links. The site is ex-christian.net. People post testimonies of why they left, discuss this and other issues, such as dealing with family and friends (coming out, as it were). The discussion and intellect level are pretty high and I think you might enjoy reading what others have to say. I find it to be quite enlightening. Some folks are now agnostic, some atheist, and some have gone to other belief systems.

Thanks Swan. I have to digest this and reference it back to other arguments and counter arguments I’ve come across before.

Just for the sake or argument, can you, if you try, imagine (say in a fairy tale world) a God who is totally master of all and loves you so unconditionally?
If not that is the end of the question.

If yes, what would His unconditional love mean?

 

[benedictus2]

I assume the God which would require the sacrifice of His own Son for our redemption would respect our decision.

I see your point. I think we might each be talking about a different God. Personally, I would hope that your God** wouldn’t** respect my decision and would grant me mercy…

God respects our decision. It would be pointless to create us free and then just override our free will. Christ’s life, death and resurrection and everything else he has taught then becomes rather pointless.

Christ died for us when we were still sinners so here you already have God’s mercy in abundance.

But it is equally true that we can refuse that mercy.

God does not damn us, we damn ourselves. But God till the very end does not cease to offer us the grace to turn back to Him.

The tricky thing is how to reconcile Grace and Free Will.

The two major schools of thought on this subject are the Thomist and Molinist.

Below is an extract of my post on the topic of predestination, grace and free will on another thread.

Definitions:
efficacious (irresistible) grace is a special gif of God by which a soul incapable by its own natural resources to perform an act conducive to eternal salvation, is given supernatural powers to freely perform said act.
Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision.(wikipedia)
The issue:
The question for both the Molinist and the Thomist is how to reconcile the efficacy of grace and the infallibility of its effect with the freedom of the human will because they seem to be mutually exclusive.

When does the infallible effect of efficacious grace come into effect without impairing the freedom of the will?

The differences:
Thomists: start from the point of efficacious grace
Molinists: proceed from a clear concept of freedom.
Thomist: maintains that God gives the grace only to those He has chosen (the elect)
Molinist: believes that God bestows the grace on everyone.
Thomist: Grace is intrinsically efficacious
Molinist: Grace extrinsically efficacious
Thomis: The will moves from potency into act by will of God
Molinist: The will freely consents to prevenient grace and this consent renders the completely sufficient grace efficacious.

My comments:
It seems to me that the Thomist position is almost similar to the Calvinist (which the Church rejects), because it says that the will is moved to a free act by grace. To my thinking, if grace is efficacious such that it’s effect is infallible, the response from the will is no longer free.

I think the Molinist view is more reconcilable with a God who is Love. If we take the Thomist view, then damnation becomes the sole act of God and not contingent at all upon our response to grace. Since God is the creator and has infallible foreknowledge, the Thomist view paints a God that creates man for the sole reason of damning them.

The expressed view of the Church is that God created us for himself.
Unless I have misunderstood Thomism, its thesis could only be reconciled with a loving God who made us for Himself, if we posit that though there is a Hell, it is highly unlikely that anyone will end up there since grace is efficacious and God loves everyone equally.

I think however that grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient.

I think in discussing predestinatio,n God’s Infinite Love should be the main premise from which all other (grace and free will) proceed.

Thomism’s objection to Molinism is that, due to its over-emphasis on man’s freedom of will, it diminishes the supremacy of God over His Creation.

However, I personally think that this objection is without basis because it can be argued that it is still God who wills that this is the way that grace and free will should play out. God is still the one who decided to effect salvation in this manner; that in pulling us out of the ravine, He would require us to place our hands on His, even though He could quite easily have yanked us out without our cooperation.

The Thomist and Molinist view I think can be reconciled if we situate the former as operative during our last moment, and the latter during our lifetime.

The way I see it, the action of grace on the will in the Molinist view can be somewhat compared to building muscles. The more you exercise a particular muscle the more you increase the muscle mass and the easier the exercise becomes.

To apply to the Molinist view, sufficient grace is given so that the will can respond with a yes, and if the response is a yes, then the infallible conclusion to goodness ensues and so it goes during our lifetime. Sufficient grace is always given to elicit a yes from us. But not being efficacious, it is therefore fallible. Our assent to grace however effects a change in the soul such that the merely sufficient grace becomes efficacious. The more we say yes to God the easier it is to say yes.
Such that at the end of our lives, saying yes is the only way we could have responded to God.

 

[Peregrino]

God respects our decision. It would be pointless to create us free and then just override our free will. Christ’s life, death and resurrection and everything else he has taught then becomes rather pointless.

Christ died for us when we were still sinners so here you already have God’s mercy in abundance.

But it is equally true that we can refuse that mercy.

God does not damn us, we damn ourselves. But God till the very end does not cease to offer us the grace to turn back to Him.

Does a parent allow a child to step in front of a speeding truck out of respect for their freewill? This doesn’t make sense. Nor does a “sane” parent require the death of their child to satisfy their own plan. Certainly an “all powerful” parent could create a plan that does not require the death of their own child. This is a twisted form of “love” at best. If God is perfect then certainly God understands this better than I…

I think historically christians have been too caught up with trying to create/apply a theory to explain the death of Jesus rather than trying to emulate his life.

 

[Sideline]

It seems there are either no, or very few posts by non-believers. I guess I’ll try and even that out.

I don’t believe in a god, because every argument I’ve heard for a god is really bad. Either they just aren’t true, or the god that they “prove” is completely different than the one people seem to believe in.

Let’s say that the definition of the one, true God is this:

***An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omnipresent, creator.
Not a force, but a true person. God must also know us not just as “humanity”, but as individuals. He is infinitely just and infinitely merciful. ***

For the sake of this argument let’s call this definition of God the OTG. We aren’t interested if any God exists, right? We are only interested in whether this God exists.

Now, does Pascal’s wager prove that this being exists? Nope, it just proves that it is better to choose heaven over hell.

How about the argument from morality? No, even if it is correct, it only argues that morality has an ultimate yard stick. This does not need to be the OTG. It does not prove that the “law giving god” has any of the important qualities of the OTG.

What about if Jesus were truly ressurected, would that prove the OTG exists? Every argument that I’ve read for this is rather weak as well. It seems to rely a lot on what “no sane person would do”. But the people who are deciding this don’t seem to know people all that well, nor have they studied history all that well. But I digress. No, whether people have been resurrected does not prove the OTG exists. Even if the person in question believed in the OTG. All it proves is that they were somehow resurrected.

What about if there were a First Cause? No, there is no reason to believe that the First Cause is the OTG. The first cause need not be a true person, all-loving, etc. It only poses an interesting debate point about the nature of causality.

I could go on and on.

The only arguments that seem to be arguing for a real God (OTG) are the ontological arguments. However, they have their own (long and tedious) problems as well.

 

[Peregrino]

It seems there are either no, or very few posts by non-believers. I guess I’ll try and even that out.

I don’t believe in a god, because every argument I’ve heard for a god is really bad. Either they just aren’t true, or the god that they “prove” is completely different than the one people seem to believe in.

Let’s say that the definition of the one, true God is this:

***An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omnipresent, creator.
Not a force, but a true person. God must also know us not just as “humanity”, but as individuals. He is infinitely just and infinitely merciful. ***

For the sake of this argument let’s call this definition of God the OTG. We aren’t interested if any God exists, right? We are only interested in whether this God exists.

Now, does Pascal’s wager prove that this being exists? Nope, it just proves that it is better to choose heaven over hell.

How about the argument from morality? No, even if it is correct, it only argues that morality has an ultimate yard stick. This does not need to be the OTG. It does not prove that the “law giving god” has any of the important qualities of the OTG.

What about if Jesus were truly ressurected, would that prove the OTG exists? Every argument that I’ve read for this is rather weak as well. It seems to rely a lot on what “no sane person would do”. But the people who are deciding this don’t seem to know people all that well, nor have they studied history all that well. But I digress. No, whether people have been resurrected does not prove the OTG exists. Even if the person in question believed in the OTG. All it proves is that they were somehow resurrected.

What about if there were a First Cause? No, there is no reason to believe that the First Cause is the OTG. The first cause need not be a true person, all-loving, etc. It only poses an interesting debate point about the nature of causality.

I could go on and on.

The only arguments that seem to be arguing for a real God (OTG) are the ontological arguments. However, they have their own (long and tedious) problems as well.

I don’t think the CA forum is the best place to find unbelievers…lol

You are exactly right on all points about believing based on arguments and logic.

If there is any benefit to having faith, it is perhaps in that it helps us keep going in spite of all of life’s existential dilemmas. IMHO, it doesn’t make us any better or worse, more or less privileged or any less wrong or right than non-theists. It gives us no moral standing beyond the examples we create with our own actions.

Hopefully through our “faith filled” actions we can create the world we want to see. Sadly, whenever I think along these lines I can’t help but remember Gandhi’s statement that he would have been christian “but for the example of christians”…

 

[benedictus2]

Does a parent allow a child to step in front of a speeding truck out of respect for their freewill? .

No, but this analogy does not hold because there is a presumption that the child does not know that it should not step in front of the speeding truck.

To change this analogy slightly, does a parent of a 23 year old child stop the child from drinking.when it could very well be that under the influence of alcohol he might stepping in front of a speedin truck?

To argue otherwise would mean that the parent should be blamed for the son step in front of the truck.

Most of the time we know the evil that we commit. We tell a lot of lies to ourselves so we will feel good about commiting the evil.

Christ’s death and ressurection has brought about the forgiveness of sins. But He will not force you, he will rather woo you to repentance.

Think about it, if you go forward with this line of reasoning, then God becomes responsible for all the evils in this world.

 

[benedictus2]

Now, does Pascal’s wager prove that this being exists? Nope, it just proves that it is better to choose heaven over hell.

Pascals wages was never about proof of God.

What about if Jesus were truly ressurected, would that prove the OTG exists? Every argument that I’ve read for this is rather weak as well. It seems to rely a lot on what “no sane person would do”. But the people who are deciding this don’t seem to know people all that well, nor have they studied history all that well. But I digress. No, whether people have been resurrected does not prove the OTG exists. Even if the person in question believed in the OTG. All it proves is that they were somehow resurrected.

Christ ressurection is never used as proof of God because that would be arguing from the Bible and would beg the question.

What about if there were a First Cause? No, there is no reason to believe that the First Cause is the OTG. The first cause need not be a true person, all-loving, etc. It only poses an interesting debate point about the nature of causality.

The first cause argument was only designed to arrive at A “God” but not to arrive at what you call the OTG.

So first off, you might start getting the premises and conclusions in order

 

[benedictus2]

I think historically christians have been too caught up with trying to create/apply a theory to explain the death of Jesus rather than trying to emulate his life.

It is important to understand the interplay of grace and free will for other wise How do we explain all the ills in the world?

My agnostic friend does not believe in God because he says if there is really is a God how come all so many innocent people suffer.

And one of the examples he gave was an incident where a nurse coming from her birthday party was struck dead by a drunk driver.
He says if God does exist then he is a cruel God for allowing this to happen. So I said to him, if you were the drunk driver, would you blame God for making you drunk and irresponsibly driving under the influence?

 

[Swan]

It is important to understand the interplay of grace and free will for other wise How do we explain all the ills in the world?

My agnostic friend does not believe in God because he says if there is really is a God how come all so many innocent people suffer.

And one of the examples he gave was an incident where a nurse coming from her birthday party was struck dead by a drunk driver.
He says if God does exist then he is a cruel God for allowing this to happen. So I said to him, if you were the drunk driver, would you blame God for making you drunk and irresponsibly driving under the influence?

Why not move the nurse out of the way? She wasn’t at fault, she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But lets move to another example. What about people born with terrible diseases? That’s not a cause (drink driver) and effect (dead nurse) issue at all. As you know I’m biploar - but there are many folks with worse mental illnesses than mine. I think I find mental illness the cruelest of all because it robs you or your ability to reason, to think in a rational way. Suicide is sometimes the result. My dad killed himself, I checked myself into the psych ward. So far, I’m still here. But the idea is often very appealing. Who does this benefit? Being so depressed (and void of reason) that God, if there was one, seemed so totally absent that a person puts a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger. God can’t or won’t intervene. Sounds pretty sadistic to me.

This is from another thread and I think is sums it up nicely.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

 

[Peregrino]

No, but this analogy does not hold because there is a presumption that the child does not know that it should not step in front of the speeding truck.

Not necessarily; it certainly could be that the child disbelieves that a truck is coming…

Think about it, if you go forward with this line of reasoning, then God becomes responsible for all the evils in this world.

Not at all though the problem and presence of evil in the world is a real one. I firmly believe the humans create all the evil we need without God’s help…

I am only addressing what happens after we die. Certainly God has a choice in the “disposition of our case” after death. An all powerful, merciful God would not need to sacrifice Jesus in order to accomplish “the plan”. In my eyes this seems both twisted and wrong…

 

[Sideline]

Pascals wages was never about proof of God.

Funny, that’s almost exactly what I posted. And yet, this argument is trotted out incredibly frequently on this site. And it is listed in Peter Kreeft’s 20 Arguments for the Existence of God.

Christ ressurection is never used as proof of God because that would be arguing from the Bible and would beg the question.

Funny, in this very thread it is listed as a person’s reason for believing in God at post #4, and you responded to that person with much more respect than you have shown me.

Also in post #2 “the Church” was listed as an argument for God and you responded without any attacks at all.

The first cause argument was only designed to arrive at A “God” but not to arrive at what you call the OTG.

That is my point. Catholics use this argument as their reason for believing in God more than any other, yet the “First Cause” does not match with the definition of God. Not mine, nor the one listed in the catechism.

I understand the difference, and yet is is routinely used as an argument as if that god and the Catholic “God” were the same thing.

Did you not catch that I thought these were poor arguments?

So first off, you might start getting the premises and conclusions in order

Just for future reference, I promise that I will be far more civil to you if you post an answer to a thread I start asking for the opinions of Catholics.

Or, I would, if I wasn’t currently putting you onto my ignore list.

 

[Sideline]

You are exactly right on all points about believing based on arguments and logic.

Thank-you so much. I rarely read that people think my opinions are valid.

If there is any benefit to having faith, it is perhaps in that it helps us keep going in spite of all of life’s existential dilemmas. IMHO, it doesn’t make us any better or worse, more or less privileged or any less wrong or right than non-theists. It gives us no moral standing beyond the examples we create with our own actions.

You have no idea how happy I felt when I read this. I agree completely. Personally, I don’t have faith in a god, but I feel the loss of not having that. Not because I think I would be a better person, certainly not because people of faith seem more logical, but because I often feel those existential pangs, and often feel very alone with them.

Hopefully through our “faith filled” actions we can create the world we want to see. Sadly, whenever I think along these lines I can’t help but remember Gandhi’s statement that he would have been christian “but for the example of christians”…

If it is any consolation, I often cringe when either I, or another professed atheist, does something that makes us seem like a group of jerks. As you can probably tell, I have a very quick temper. Whenever I blow up during religious discussions I think to myself, “Oh no, I really hope that people don’t judge all non-believers by me.”

 

[benedictus2]

An all powerful, merciful God would not need to sacrifice Jesus in order to accomplish “the plan”. In my eyes this seems both twisted and wrong…

Then since you believe in Christ and you says that you are Catholic, what Do you make of His life, death, and ressurection?

And the verse “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son?”

There is a really good book called “Why Does God Permit Evil” by Dom Brunno Webb that goes into detail about this. It is a bit hard to condense the book and I have attempted to do this in another thread but it looses the punch.

I highly recommend this to anyone trying to make sense of the evil in this world.