Does God exist?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Sure I did. I told you to look up, and look down. That’s all the data you need.

God could have created what I see around me, or an impersonal natural force. Or maybe it was something else entirely. The evidence isn’t very revealing.

The way in which God “could have” created reality is very simple, and perfectly accurately and precisely describable:

“He spoke and all things were created.”

What is the way in which this “impersonal natural force” could have created reality? I’d really like a description. What is that description?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Prayer!

Correctly DONE prayer, of course, but the work necessary is called “prayer”.

I have prayed before, and it never really accomplished anything.

Then what you think you meant by “accomplished” is in need of adjustment.

Are you interested in a better definition of “accomplishment” when used in reference to prayer?

:shamrock2:

 

[SeekingHeaven]

The Big Bang was actually scientifically proven by red drift, where everything in the universe is still drifting from the force of the explosion, and by a series of other things.

Can the Big Bang theory actually be proven? I’ll tell you why it can NEVER be proven.

The #1 rule about science, the rule that makes science what it is, is that it can be REPEATED. It’s reliable. That means in order for the Big Bang theory to be proven, it has to be repeteable, i.e. the discovery of other galaxies, worlds, and people who are very similar to us in every way. Single cell organisms on Mars do not qualify, as the life of that organism is not like us in any way, shape, or form.

If you throw a handful of pennies in the air at random, the same EXACT positioning can never be replicated at random again. It will come out different every time. This is not science.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well, I shall believe you until you prove that your anti-faith/science-war stance is bogus.

If you are being honest, I applaud you in your unusual-ness for one who is not a God-believer. :clapping:

:shamrock2:

Thanks.

A proof of God’s existence is not required for God, should He exist (which He does), to create reality ex nihilo.

A proof of God’s existence is only YOUR requirement for YOU to believe in Him.

Right, I agree there.
"CatsAndDogs:

I have my proof that He exists. That you don’t is your problem! The fact is that we each must do our own work to get this proof.

I still don’t understand - what is your proof that God exists?

CatsAndDogs:

So, then, you don’t believe that ANYTHING created reality, or don’t believe that it’s creation was unnecessary because it “always existed”?

How DO you think that reality came to be as it is?

I don’t know how reality came to be - I only idly speculate at this point.

CatsAndDogs:

If you have no “hard evidence”, and since you only believe that which is supported by “hard evidence”, you can’t (logically) believe that there exists a “cause” for reality.

Existence does not require a cause, for there must always have been some level of existence. Something cannot come from nothing.

CatsAndDogs:

Are you actively (or even passively) looking for this “hard evidence”? Why? What “prompts” you to want to know?

Why do you care?

:shamrock2:

I like debating.

Ahh, but miracles by definition are not repeatable. If they could be replicated they would just become a normal part of our understanding of the natural world.

Then I’m not looking for a miracle - let’s just say I’m looking for supernatural intervention.
"Grateful4mercy:

Let’s take a different discovery and ponder its meaning. Dark energy. It was BELIEVED that there must be something missing from the mass of the universe, but until recently there was zero evidence. I’m not even sure I 100% subscribe to the “we can’t see it, or measure it, but we know it’s out there” explanation. But look at what an amazing discovery this is, and look at how it will change our view of the universe in the coming years. To say that there is no possible way to measure the existence of God is jumping the gun a little. Maybe we just haven’t figured out how to look for it yet.

Well the idea with “dark energy” or “dark matter” is that we cannot measure it directly, but we can detect its effects. Even if God is undetectable, we should at least be able to see his actions.

The reason that the Church (Catholic) is the single trustworthy source is because it is the one source authorized by God to give us the truth in the realm of that which it is authorized to give us.

One knows that the Church is correct in this claim (of truthtelling) by being so informed by God, personally, in such a way that that information is confirmable by reference to the Magisterium of the Church.

That this is not an “acceptable” method of information and confirmation is of no import to the truth of the matter.

Ok, but how do we know that God authorized the Catholic Church? The biblical texts that we have on the matter were written some 20+ years after Jesus’s death, you know.
"CatsAndDogs:

But you have had personal revelation. In fact, nearly constantly are you, and I, and everyone else, having personal revelation. But to recognize it AS such requires a “tuning”, and education, in how to do so.

That education, even if given by others in childhood, requires a WANTING on the part of the “student” to truly do what is necessary.

That wanting is often lacking, because of the frustrations introduced by having had a very poor “primary” education in such matters.

:shamrock2:

I had a pretty decent Catholic education, having grown up in Ireland, but I have not recognized this personal revelation.

The way in which God “could have” created reality is very simple, and perfectly accurately and precisely describable:

“He spoke and all things were created.”

What is the way in which this “impersonal natural force” could have created reality? I’d really like a description. What is that description?

I don’t know - I’m speculating. I am not seriously postulating it.

CatsAndDogs:

Then what you think you meant by “accomplished” is in need of adjustment.

Are you interested in a better definition of “accomplishment” when used in reference to prayer?

:shamrock2:

Ok.

SeekingHeaven:

The #1 rule about science, the rule that makes science what it is, is that it can be REPEATED. It’s reliable. That means in order for the Big Bang theory to be proven, it has to be repeteable, i.e. the discovery of other galaxies, worlds, and people who are very similar to us in every way. Single cell organisms on Mars do not qualify, as the life of that organism is not like us in any way, shape, or form.

The Big Bang theory does not depend upon the discovery of other races similar to humans, as it makes no such predictions. It’s a theory about the beginning part of the universe, not its inhabitants.

 

[SeekingHeaven]

The Big Bang theory does not depend upon the discovery of other races similar to humans, as it makes no such predictions. It’s a theory about the beginning part of the universe, not its inhabitants.

If the earth itself and all life on earth allegedly evolved from one ogranism, then it is all connected and relevant. If we can repeat this ‘experiment’ of creating worlds and races, then it is science and therefore proven. However, none of us will ever live that long to watch things evolve. So it remains a theory.

But taking it a step further, even if the Big Bang theory is correct in terms of how the UNIVERSE was created, that still doesn’t contradict anything in the story of creation. It doesn’t state HOW God made the universe, just that he did. So perhaps it’d be more correct to call it the Big Story of Creation Bang theory

 

[Philthy]

Shredderbeam:

Personal experience tells me that reality overrules the mind.

I see. Personal experience is your idea of empiricism?

A man may think he can fly, but upon jumping off a skyscraper, he will die.

And this specific example is applicable to all situations in reality?

Evidence of a miracle would work nicely.

Please define a miracle that would work nicely and the burden of proof you would require.

No, I recognize that even if a God is undetectable, the effects of his interfering with reality can be measured objectively.

How could you possibly know this?

 

[Sinner1]

The reason that the Church (Catholic) is the single trustworthy source is because it is the one source authorized by God to give us the truth in the realm of that which it is authorized to give us.

One knows that the Church is correct in this claim (of truthtelling) by being so informed by God, personally, in such a way that that information is confirmable by reference to the Magisterium of the Church.

This seems rather contradictory.

The Church is the only trustworthy source. Yet the only we can come to trust to the Church is to trust our own senses that God is personally informing us of this fact.

 

[Shredderbeam]

If the earth itself and all life on earth allegedly evolved from one ogranism, then it is all connected and relevant. If we can repeat this ‘experiment’ of creating worlds and races, then it is science and therefore proven. However, none of us will ever live that long to watch things evolve. So it remains a theory.

The theories of planetary formation and abiogenesis are different from the theory that describes the primary expansion of the universe.
"SeekingHeaven:

But taking it a step further, even if the Big Bang theory is correct in terms of how the UNIVERSE was created, that still doesn’t contradict anything in the story of creation. It doesn’t state HOW God made the universe, just that he did. So perhaps it’d be more correct to call it the Big Story of Creation Bang theory

I’d like evidence that God was responsible for creating the universe before I accept that he did.

I see. Personal experience is your idea of empiricism?

No, personal experience is what tells me that reality is primary, and consciousness secondary.

Philthy:

And this specific example is applicable to all situations in reality?

Presumably. I have never heard of a situation where a man, by sheer force of will, managed to change the nature of reality solely by convincing himself of something

Philthy:

Please define a miracle that would work nicely and the burden of proof you would require.

A great example would be the regeneration of an amputated limb. It would have to be under a controlled setting, video taped, supervised by various unbiased medical experts, and so on.

Philthy:

How could you possibly know this?

Well, at least in principle. If God levitates a car in the middle of New York City for 20 minutes, God himself might not be detectable, but his actions (the levitating car) certainly would be.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I have my proof that He exists. That you don’t is your problem! The fact is that we each must do our own work to get this proof.

I still don’t understand - what is your proof that God exists?

Are you simply not listening to me? I said, “The fact is that we each must do our own work to get this proof.”

My proof is only valid for me. Your proof must be found (or more properly “received”) by you, and is only valid FOR you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
So, then, you don’t believe that ANYTHING created reality, or don’t believe that it’s creation was unnecessary because it “always existed”?

How DO you think that reality came to be as it is?

I don’t know how reality came to be - I only idly speculate at this point.

I didn’t ask you if you KNOW how reality came to be. I asked you how you THINK reality came to be.

So, how do you THINK reality came to be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
If you have no “hard evidence”, and since you only believe that which is supported by “hard evidence”, you can’t (logically) believe that there exists a “cause” for reality.

Existence does not require a cause, for there must always have been some level of existence. Something cannot come from nothing.

Why do you believe that there “must have always been some level of existence”?

Where is that favorite requisite of the atheist, “hard evidence”, which PROVES that there has “always been some level of existence”?

Revelation tells me (and all Catholics) that something, in fact everything, has come from nothing.

That is what creation “ex nihilo” means.

Please show me YOUR hard evidence that “there has always been some level of existence”.

You apparently believe in some version of “the ever existing universe”. Why do you believe that? Show me your “hard evidence”?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Are you actively (or even passively) looking for this “hard evidence”? Why? What “prompts” you to want to know?

Why do you care?

I like debating.

Let me elaborate my question then. Why do you care about this particular subject?

You still haven’t answered these questions:

Are you actively (or even passively) looking for this “hard evidence”?

If you ARE doing the above (“looking”), why?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
The reason that the Church (Catholic) is the single trustworthy source is because it is the one source authorized by God to give us the truth in the realm of that which it is authorized to give us.

One knows that the Church is correct in this claim (of truthtelling) by being so informed by God, personally, in such a way that that information is confirmable by reference to the Magisterium of the Church.

That this is not an “acceptable” method of information and confirmation is of no import to the truth of the matter.

Ok, but how do we know that God authorized the Catholic Church?

I know because it has been revealed to me personally (privately), which was confirmed by my investigation of public revelation.

You may not yet have had that revelation, or checked it with against public revelation, which would explain why you would ask such an “odd” question.

The biblical texts that we have on the matter were written some 20+ years after Jesus’s death, you know.

…and your point in saying this (the above “yellow boxed bunch o’ words”) is…?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
But you have had personal revelation. In fact, nearly constantly are you, and I, and everyone else, having personal revelation. But to recognize it AS such requires a “tuning”, and education, in how to do so.

That education, even if given by others in childhood, requires a WANTING on the part of the “student” to truly do what is necessary.

That wanting is often lacking, because of the frustrations introduced by having had a very poor “primary” education in such matters.

I had a pretty decent Catholic education, having grown up in Ireland, but I have not recognized this personal revelation.

Which is precisely like saying, “I can’t add 2 plus 2 and get the right answer, but I had a FINE mathematical education!”

The proof is in the pudding. The cook of your pudding was, shall we say, somehow “lacking”.

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

Are you simply not listening to me? I said, “The fact is that we each must do our own work to get this proof.”

Well, I have done the work, and I have not received the proof.
"CatsAndDogs:

My proof is only valid for me. Your proof must be found (or more properly “received”) by you, and is only valid FOR you.

I’m not looking for a subjective experience, I’m looking for objective data.

CatsAndDogs:

I didn’t ask you if you KNOW how reality came to be. I asked you how you THINK reality came to be.

So, how do you THINK reality came to be?

I haven’t studied it enough to make up my mind.

CatsAndDogs:

Why do you believe that there “must have always been some level of existuence”?

If the present universe was created by a deity, then that deity existed. If that deity came into existence previously, then the source existed. Something cannot come from nothing.

CatsAndDogs:

Where is that favorite requisite of the atheist, “hard evidence”, which PROVES that there has “always been some level of existence”?

There is no hard evidence. The basics can be reasoned out (existence exists, I am conscious, etc.).

CatsAndDogs:

Revelation tells me (and all Catholics) that something, in fact everything, has come from nothing.

That is what creation “ex nihilo” means.

You are taking the word of an organization, then, unless God has personally appeared to you and revealed these things.

CatsAndDogs:

You apparently believe in some version of “the ever existing universe”. Why do you believe that? Show me your “hard evidence”?

It doesn’t have to be the universe, it just has to be some form of existence.

Let me elaborate my question then. Why do you care about this particular subject?

I find it interesting.

I know because it has been revealed to me personally (privately), which was confirmed by my investigation of public revelation.

If you want to believe in visions you have had, you’re entitled to, but I cannot accept your word that these visions are true. I’ve had visions of a less than religious nature, but I don’t try to claim that my personal experiences are a solid reason for others to believe.
"CatsAndDogs:

You may not yet have had that revelation, or checked it with against public revelation, which would explain why you would ask such an “odd” question.

Humans are biological creatures, and from time to time we may have hallucinations. I cannot be sure of my senses if they begin to indicate fantastic things unless it can be independently verified.

CatsAndDogs:

…and your point in saying this (the above “yellow boxed bunch o’ words”) is…?

I was preemptively defending against the “Jesus authorized the Catholic Church” argument, which I guessed that you might use.

All I want to know is how we can confirm that the Catholic Church is correct. If I have a personal experience that verifies everything that they tell me, well and good, but what if it doesn’t? What if my personal experience tells me something completely different?

Which is precisely like saying, “I can’t add 2 plus 2 and get the right answer, but I had a FINE mathematical education!”

2+2 really does equal 4, though. The analogy you are making presumes that I really am missing out on a personal revelation, that you are right and I am wrong.

CatsAndDogs:

The proof is in the pudding. The cook of your pudding was, shall we say, somehow “lacking”.

I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Are you simply not listening to me? I said, “The fact is that we each must do our own work to get this proof.”

Well, I have done the work, and I have not received the proof.

Well then, there are two possibilites:

1. You are simply not going to be graced by God to receive that proof no matter how truly you want it (which I personally do not consider a possibility at all, although some people do).
2. You gave up too early.

That you didn’t get what you thought you wanted means that what you thought you wanted was not what you were supposed to get. You got what you needed. You just didn’t recognize it as being what you needed, because you were too distracted by what you wanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
My proof is only valid for me. Your proof must be found (or more properly “received”) by you, and is only valid FOR you.

I’m not looking for a subjective experience, I’m looking for objective data.

If what you want is proof of God’s existence, then you’ll get what you need, and not what you want.

An individual’s “proof of God’s existence” is not subject to such “masks” as “subjective experience” or “objective experience”.

It is what it is.

Just as God is He who IS.

Until you want what you need, and not what you want, the grace you seek you will deflect and your proof of God will never come.

Now, the question is, do you REALLY want to find out how to figure out what you need, or remain where you are, mired in your want?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Why do you believe that there “must have always been some level of existuence”?

If the present universe was created by a deity, then that deity existed. If that deity came into existence previously, then the source existed. Something cannot come from nothing.

On what “hard evidence” do you base the statement “Something cannot come from nothing”?

What “revelation” have you received, and what is it’s source, that tells you this?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Where is that favorite requisite of the atheist, “hard evidence”, which PROVES that there has “always been some level of existence”?

There is no hard evidence. The basics can be reasoned out (existence exists, I am conscious, etc.).

I thought you only based your “beliefs” on hard evidence? Why do WE have to abide by one set of rules and you apparently don’t?

“Existence existing” is no basis for existence to ALWAYS have existed. How do you think it does?

Your being “conscious” is also no basis for existence to always have existed. Why would you think it does?

Are you simply being arbitrary in deciding that “existence always having existed” is preferable to “existence having been created by God”?

If it’s NOT an arbitrary decision on your part, what is your “hard evidence” for deciding thus?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Revelation tells me (and all Catholics) that something, in fact everything, has come from nothing.

That is what creation “ex nihilo” means.

You are taking the word of an organization, then, unless God has personally appeared to you and revealed these things.

Both.

God has personally revealed that He exists to me. I then checked that revelation with the public revelation of the Church, and my private revelation didn’t violate that public revelation, thus allowing me to believe the truth of that revelation.

Why do you believe what you believe? Is it not because the truth of some “observation” fit your understanding of “reality” such that “it made sense”, which you then checked against the accumulated understanding of “the experts” in whatever realm the observation was concerned with?

That is the process for both of us.

You just choose to not accept, for “prejudicial reasons”, that anything “God” related is automatically “delusional nonsense”.

Why do you do that, when you’re not willing to do the work necessary to find out the truth of the matter for yourself? Isn’t that simply being lazy in your inquiry and unjust in your “judgementalism”?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You apparently believe in some version of “the ever existing universe”. Why do you believe that? Show me your “hard evidence”?

It doesn’t have to be the universe, it just has to be some form of existence.

What do you think “universe” means?

It means “all that exists”.

There is no existence but that contained in “the universe”.

So, what is your “hard evidence” for an “ever existing universe”?

You demand “hard evidence” of us. I shall insist that you provide your “hard evidence” for what you believe, as while we admit that our “hard evidence” is not what you’d call “hard evidence”, YOUR hard evidence should CERTAINLY be actual, according to your defintion, “HARD EVIDENCE”.

So, produce it?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Let me elaborate my question then. Why do you care about this particular subject?

I find it interesting.

This is not a trick question.

WHY do you find it interesting? What “itch” does “debating” this interesting subject area “scratch”?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
I know because it has been revealed to me personally (privately), which was confirmed by my investigation of public revelation.

If you want to believe in visions you have had, you’re entitled to, but I cannot accept your word that these visions are true.

As usual, you fail to understand what I’ve been saying.

I’m not interested in YOU accepting MY word about MY “visions”. I’m interested in YOU accepting YOUR experiences as “visions” which can be confirmed as proof of God.

I’ve had visions of a less than religious nature, but I don’t try to claim that my personal experiences are a solid reason for others to believe.

I don’t either. That’s why I’m catholic. All revelations must be checked against the “appropriate authoritative authority” according to the “subject area” of the revelation (“revelation” simply meaning “observation”).

The real question is how you can distinguish “less than religious natured visions” from “religious natured visions”?

…and why you discount one and not the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You may not yet have had that revelation, or checked it with against public revelation, which would explain why you would ask such an “odd” question.

Humans are biological creatures, and from time to time we may have hallucinations.

Agreed!

I cannot be sure of my senses if they begin to indicate fantastic things unless it can be independently verified.

Also quite true.

But why do you suppose that “religious revelations” are your “fantastic things”?

And, doesn’t what you accept as “independently verifiability” defined by what you accept as “verity”?

Could your definition of “verity” be conveniently, and narrowly, defined specifically to exclude the “non-fantastic” (yet wonderful) verities (truths) of God’s action and existence?

Why is it “convenient” for you to “define God” out of existence?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
…and your point in saying this (the above “yellow boxed bunch o’ words”) is…?

I was preemptively defending against the “Jesus authorized the Catholic Church” argument, which I guessed that you might use.

All I want to know is how we can confirm that the Catholic Church is correct.

Only by doing our own work of prayer to find God.

If I have a personal experience that verifies everything that they tell me, well and good, but what if it doesn’t? What if my personal experience tells me something completely different?

If your personal experience tells you that God (qua God [as God is as the Church knows Him]) doesn’t exist, then either your personal experience is correct, or it is incorrect.

If it is correct, then what you have proof of is not that God doesn’t exist, but that what you think “God” means doesn’t exist.

If it is incorrect, then you are simply wrong, based on bad data.

But in either case, how can you tell the difference?

The answer is: You can’t.

So, why am I so certain that I’m right, that God exists, and that His authorized “Teaching Authority” (the meaning of “Magisterium”) is what it says it is?

Only because I happen to be right. Only by me being right (correct) does reality make sense.

One who isn’t right, who comes to the conclusion that God doesn’t, or even MIGHTN’T, exist, is the one who simply can’t be sure whether they are correctly mistaking the nonexistent non-God for God, or simply wrong due to having bad data.

The sensible but lazy person decides to become agnostic as regards God, as it’s too much “bother” to find the answer to such a “trivial and silly” question.

The not-sensible and malicious person (due mostly to frustration and envy born of pride) decides to become atheistic as regards God, as it shouldn’t be so hard to get an answer to this very important question, which can only mean that God simply doesn’t exist, or is actually an EVIL THING to be combated.

Where are you in this array of personages?

:shamrock2: