Does God exist?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
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.

Yes. But my contention is not that 2+2=4 is true, but that with my dreadfully bad mathematical education I can’t tell you that it is true.

The analogy you are making presumes that I really am missing out on a personal revelation, that you are right and I am wrong.

No. You’re not listening again.

The analogy I’m making is that one with a bad education shouldn’t (though they often do) claim that they’ve had a good education when they are demonstratively BAD at doing what a good education would have allowed them to do.

You never missed any “personal revelation” that anyone else ever was given them. You simply didn’t see that which was given you AS what it was.

And, yes. I am right and you are wrong, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

That you can say you had a good religious education, and yet believe as you do is proof that the teacher/student combination that was your “schooling” was not very good, and lacking in actual teaching (and/or learning) of what was (supposedly) being taught.

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

"CatsAndDogs:

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.

What I meant was that a personal experience of God is not out in the open for all to critically examine. It’s very much geared towards the individual.

CatsAndDogs:

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?

As long as it doesn’t require an inordinate investment of time and energy, certainly.

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

The basics can be known a priori - sorry for not mentioning that before. I can reason that I am conscious without having to refer to the real world, and I can reason that existence exists, but I cannot conclude that this tree or that car exist by reason alone. It is then that I must switch to “empirical mode”.
"CatsAndDogs:

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

Well, presumably, to create existence, God would have to exist - which would be a level of existence.

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.

How do you know that you did not hallucinate? You have said that you refer back to the Church, but how do you know that they are right?
"CatsAndDogs:

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?

The difference is in the way the scientific community works. Studies, tests, etc. are published publically, anybody can challenge anything, or set up their own experiment. Results can be directly tested, and if false, thrown out.

In short, I know that the scientific community is right because their work makes successful predictions time and time again. The theory of nuclear fission was borne out by the New Mexico test, Newtonian physics are demonstrated when a ball is thrown against a wall, and so on.

CatsAndDogs:

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”?

Anything that goes against established bodies of evidence, I treat with a high degree of skepticism.

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”?

By universe, I meant the collection of stars, galaxies, etc. that seem to have been born in the Big Bang. Whatever preceded the Big Bang certainly had to exist in order to create it.

This is not a trick question.

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

:shamrock2:

I have no idea, really, I’ve never psychoanalyzed myself before.

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.

My experiences/visions were fairly atheistic.
"CatsAndDogs:

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”).

But how do we know that the Catholic Church is correct?

CatsAndDogs:

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?

By “fantastic”, I simply mean something unconventional that goes against what I already know. I do not proclaim it impossible immediately, but rather treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

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

Ok. What do I pray to find God?

CatsAndDogs:

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.

You are presuming that you are right to justify your conviction that you are right?

An atheistic reality makes sense to me.

CatsAndDogs:

Where are you in this array of personages?

I don’t think I fit into any of them. I have found no evidence of God, nor has a personal revelation of God ever come to me, so I make the assumption that God does not exist. Of course, if future evidence comes up (a documented regeneration of an amputated limb, a sincere personal revelation, etc.) I’d be happy to consider it.

 

[crowonsnow]

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.

A god is anything any one person imagines or pretends or states it to be. That’s a basic problem when it comes to discussing gods.

 

[crowonsnow]

Of course, if future evidence comes up (a documented regeneration of an amputated limb, a sincere personal revelation, etc.) I’d be happy to consider it.

If you don’t mind my asking, what might you then consider it to be?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

What I meant was that a personal experience of God is not out in the open for all to critically examine. It’s very much geared towards the individual.

Agreed. And since it’s ONLY subject to being experienced by the individual individually, how can you ask for it to be experienced by you in any other way?

Your are simply admitting that you demand the impossible to prove a truth, and since you aren’t given the impossible (as one can’t be given the actually impossible!), you declare the truth as falsehood because your impossible requirement wasn’t given you!

It must be lovely to be able to define truths out of your “perceptability of existence” (making it “nonexistent” to you), for whatever reason you want to do so.

The question is: Why do you want to do so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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?

As long as it doesn’t require an inordinate investment of time and energy, certainly.

Hmmmm… would you like that energy calculation in joules or kilocalories? (work or heat?)

One either has a NEED to answer this (potentially extremely important) question, or not (implying that it’s not particularly important).

If one has a weak need to answer the question, then the question will not be answered, simply and ONLY because the questioner will give up on the work necessary.

If one has a strong need to answer the question, then the question WILL be answered, and it will ALWAYS be answered by “God exists”.

So, one either needs God to exist, which will be confirmed, or one will not need God to exist, which will also be (with a “false positive”) confirmed.

But, one who THINKS that they have no need for God to exist CAN (accidentally ) discover that they DO actually need God to exist, and be massively surprised that he does in fact get the proof he needs to confirm it!

Now, the usual objection at this point is, “So, needing God to exist MAKES God exist for people, then! I choose to believe only in things that don’t first require that I believe in them!”

Needing God doesn’t “create” God. Needing God simply allows one to perceive God.

Once again, I’m not trying to convince you (quite obviously) to have a “need” for God. That is not my job. That job is for " the circumstances of your life" (aka God) to do. My “arguments”, which really aren’t arguments but only statements of fact, are not intended to be persuasive to one who is in no need of God.

One who is “interested”, in the subject of God, as you say you are, has some need for God, although possibly only a tiny little minuscule need.

The only question is whether this manifest need will blossom into the need to find God (out of love), or the need to “kill God” (out of hate).

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
On what “hard evidence” do you base the statement “Something cannot come from nothing”?

The basics can be known a priori - sorry for not mentioning that before.

So, you’re allowed an “a priori” (axiomatic) belief in “something cannot come from nothing”, while I’m NOT allowed an “a priori” (axiomatic) belief in “God the creator and sustainer of reality”?

Why is that?

I can reason that I am conscious without having to refer to the real world,…

No you can’t. Unless you are somehow not PART of the “real world”?

Are you not part of the real world? Wouldn’t that make you, by definition a “super-natural being”?

Are you a supernatural being?

and I can reason that existence exists,…

No. You can OBSERVE that existence exists, but there is no “reasoning” involved.

The “reason” that existence “seems” to exist is that it’s observable. Existence doesn’t “seem” to exist because it’s “reasonable”!

but I cannot conclude that this tree or that car exist(s) by reason alone. It is then that I must switch to “empirical mode”.

Correct! (Surprisingly, considering what you had just said…)

You DON’T conclude that a thing exists by it’s reasonableness. You conclude that it exists because it’s an “it”, and observable thing.

I do wish that the first part of your sentences were as “logically consistent” (reasonable) as the ending parts of your sentences.

Perhaps you should use shorter sentences, so that we can more easily disentangle your nonsense from your good sense?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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

Well, presumably, to create existence, God would have to exist - which would be a level of existence.

God IS existence. Haven’t you heard that before, or did they manage to leave that out of your “excellent religious education”?

I do actually agree with you in this respect: God has always existed, and will always exist. But His creation, which is the only “thing” (THE singular universe) that the atheist (and the practical atheists called “agnostics”) believes is the “container” (subject to having the property of) existence, did not always exist. It had a beginning.

So, to actually believe that “some level of existence has always existed” is ONLY possible if one believes either in God, or simply in an “ever existing universe”.

You seem to choose the latter. So, on what “hard evidential” basis (since you’ve made “hard evidence” a requirement for “legitimate” belief) do you make that claim?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
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.

How do you know that you did not hallucinate? You have said that you refer back to the Church, but how do you know that they are right?

To you I did hallucinate. To me I received, first, direct information from God, then had that information confirmed by reference to the understanding of God by the Church.

I know they (more properly “it”, or even more properly “She”, or as properly as “She” but in another sense “He” Right, so I’ve fully conjugated the pronoun!) are right because they have not been proven wrong in their being right.

When the Church (Catholic) is proven wrong, I’ll be off to the REAL Church. I have no faith that I’ll be moving any time soon.

Please don’t try to convince me that the Church is wrong about anything, as any argument that you can “innovate” has been dealt with.

But, if you want to learn about how the Church has been right, just ask questions as to how what seems to be wrong (within Church dogma) is not wrong. I’m only interested in educating you, and have no interest whatsoever in learning about the Church FROM you.

So, either ask questions, or stop talking to me. (Is that direct enough for 'ya?)

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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?

The difference is in the way the scientific community works. Studies, tests, etc. are published publically, anybody can challenge anything, or set up their own experiment. Results can be directly tested, and if false, thrown out.

In short, I know that the scientific community is right because their work makes successful predictions time and time again. The theory of nuclear fission was borne out by the New Mexico test, Newtonian physics are demonstrated when a ball is thrown against a wall, and so on.

A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed.

Your answer is “yes”.

Thanks for agreeing that being logically sensible in decision making, as is appropriate for the subject area involved, is a good thing.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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”?

Anything that goes against established bodies of evidence, I treat with a high degree of skepticism.

That’s a very good explanation of why you are skeptical about some things, but it doesn’t answer my questions.

My question is: Why do you choose to reject anything “God related” as “delusional nonsense”?

And further: Why do you do that if you’re not willing to “do your research”?

And further yet: Are you simply being a “lazy unjust judgementalist”?

It would really be nice if you would answer the questions asked, and refrain from answer unasked questions.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
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”?

By universe, I meant the collection of stars, galaxies, etc. that seem to have been born in the Big Bang. Whatever preceded the Big Bang certainly had to exist in order to create it.

Yeah! We agree on something! The universe is the product of some “big bang”, and therefore is not “ever existing”, and God did precede said “big bang” by an eternity.

Hoorah! It’s so nice to find common ground.

Now, if you’d only have actually answered the question asked!

Do you have any “hard evidence” for an “ever existing” version of the universe? (A “yes” or “no” is quite acceptable, by the way. )

:shamrock2:

 

[SeekingHeaven]

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

lol C’mon, seriously? You’re living in the world and can see everything that was created around you. What more ‘evidence’ is there to display?

Do you believe this is the year 2009? Doctors, scientists, common knowledge and instinct all tell us that we need air to breathe in order to live. You’ve seen or heard about people drowning, suffocating, etc. due to lack of air and as a result death ensues. Obviously it is real and the truth. Now what you’re saying now is “Prove it.” It has been proven and can be a million more times. There is nothing left to prove.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
This is not a trick question.

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

I have no idea, really, I’ve never psychoanalyzed myself before.

Isn’t “know thyself” a “socratic-oid directive” of some sort?

You’re interested in debate about “God”, but have none about everything that “God” implies?

Perhaps you’re not interested in ethics, and only in how to avoid ethics, by “killing God”?

Is that possible?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Only by doing our own work of prayer to find God.

Ok. What do I pray to find God?

You don’t pray a “what”. Prayer is not “magical incantation”.

You pray. Prayer is “prayer”.

Do that. When you haven’t found God, pray better. When you find God, pray a whole lot better still.

Just as there is no “end” to finding “the fruits of science”, there is no “end” to finding the “fruits of God”.

Why should there be any “end” to either?

:shamrock2:

 

[crowonsnow]

lol C’mon, seriously? You’re living in the world and can see everything that was created around you. What more ‘evidence’ is there to display?

Why exactly should there not be a universe?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

You are presuming that you are right to justify your conviction that you are right?

An atheistic reality makes sense to me.

An “atheistic reality” makes sense (a logical sense, considering only it’s “axioms and operations”) to me too. The problem is that it’s simply wrong.

It is wrong because it DOESN’T make sense once one is aware of how it’s axioms and operations are wrong.

Does something that “makes sense” have to be correct? What if one’s “sense of sense” is incorrect?

You can certainly claim that I’m just as likely to be as wrong or right as you are, but you can’t claim that I’m more wrong (or right, although that would be correct) than you are because you have no “standard” by which to measure that claim.

My standard is “God’s revealed truth”. That tells me that I’m right and you’re wrong.

What is your standard which tells you that I’m wrong? If you do have one, is it just another example of “revelation” (coming from “somewhere other than God”)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Where are you in this array of personages?

I don’t think I fit into any of them. I have found no evidence of God, nor has a personal revelation of God ever come to me, so I make the assumption that God does not exist. Of course, if future evidence comes up (a documented regeneration of an amputated limb, a sincere personal revelation, etc.) I’d be happy to consider it.

So, you’re just not buying the “you are interpreting God’s revelations to you incorrectly” idea at all, then?

Didn’t think so.

We really have nothing more to talk about. My work here is done, as they say. <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle!>

Worshipers at the idol of “false evidence” (and “dictionary worshipers”) are of no interest to me to converse with once they’ve sufficiently proven that they will use the usual tools (their “utility idols”) to play cat and mouse in the service of their primary idol,… anti-God.

Any clue as to who “anti-God” is, or did your “excellent religious education” leave that tidbit out as well?

Go raibh an Tiarna libh.

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

"Crowonsnow:

If you don’t mind my asking, what might you then consider it to be?

Speaking from my current perspective, I’d probably seriously consider the possibility that it was divine intervention. I don’t know for certain, though, since such a situation has not arisen.

CatsAndDogs:

Agreed. And since it’s ONLY subject to being experienced by the individual individually, how can you ask for it to be experienced by you in any other way?

Oh, no, I am not asking to experience your experience. What I am looking for specifically when I refer to “hard evidence” would be a miracle (regeneration of an amputated limb under controlled circumstances), or something similar.

So, you’re allowed an “a priori” (axiomatic) belief in “something cannot come from nothing”, while I’m NOT allowed an “a priori” (axiomatic) belief in “God the creator and sustainer of reality”?

Why is that?

I think that “existence exists” is an axiom, while “God exists” is not an axiom. Can you explain your position to me?
"CatsAndDogs:

No you can’t. Unless you are somehow not PART of the “real world”?

I mean that I can reason out that existence exists without having to default to empirical observations. It is a priori, for to deny that existence exists is to assume that you exist in order to make that denial. It’s a contradiction.

CatsAndDogs:

You DON’T conclude that a thing exists by it’s reasonableness. You conclude that it exists because it’s an “it”, and observable thing.

Generally, yes, but with regard to existence, I used to be a solipsist of sorts, before I realized that denying that existence existed was a contradiction.

God IS existence. Haven’t you heard that before, or did they manage to leave that out of your “excellent religious education”?

God, according to my understanding of Christianity, is more than existence - he is a divine, perfect intelligence. What I am trying to discover is whether this intelligence exists, or whether nature is impersonal (or whatever other alternative there might be).
"CatsAndDogs:

You seem to choose the latter. So, on what “hard evidential” basis (since you’ve made “hard evidence” a requirement for “legitimate” belief) do you make that claim?

Not necessarily God, but perhaps that impersonal, natural force, or perhaps some other scenario that I cannot imagine.

When the Church (Catholic) is proven wrong, I’ll be off to the REAL Church. I have no faith that I’ll be moving any time soon.

If I understand this correctly, you accept the authority of the Church because they have not been proven wrong. Please explain this to me, for it is important.

A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed.

Your answer is “yes”.

It was “yes”, but with a qualifier.

My question is: Why do you choose to reject anything “God related” as “delusional nonsense”?

And further: Why do you do that if you’re not willing to “do your research”?

And further yet: Are you simply being a “lazy unjust judgementalist”?

It would really be nice if you would answer the questions asked, and refrain from answer unasked questions.

:shamrock2:

I do not automatically reject anything God related as delusional nonsense. I treat it with skepticism because it goes against the body of evidence.

Well, I am not certain that the research (prayer, yes?) is valid. Studies of brain-states show that certain areas light up when one is praying/meditating deeply.

salon.com/books/int/2006/09/20/newberg/

The significance of this may be that the experiences one has during prayer are only a result of the brain’s activity, not a result of divinity.

Do you have any “hard evidence” for an “ever existing” version of the universe? (A “yes” or “no” is quite acceptable, by the way. )

Not an “ever-existing” version of the universe, but something that has always existed, whether outside of time and our observable universe or not. I do not have any evidence for this belief - it’s a logical certainty.

lol C’mon, seriously? You’re living in the world and can see everything that was created around you. What more ‘evidence’ is there to display?

Do you believe this is the year 2009? Doctors, scientists, common knowledge and instinct all tell us that we need air to breathe in order to live. You’ve seen or heard about people drowning, suffocating, etc. due to lack of air and as a result death ensues. Obviously it is real and the truth. Now what you’re saying now is “Prove it.” It has been proven and can be a million more times. There is nothing left to prove.

There is quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that this is the year 2009, that people drown when their lungs are filled, etc. I am not so sure that the issue of God is quite so obvious.

Isn’t “know thyself” a “socratic-oid directive” of some sort?

You’re interested in debate about “God”, but have none about everything that “God” implies?

Perhaps you’re not interested in ethics, and only in how to avoid ethics, by “killing God”?

I know my own motivations, strengths, weaknesses, etc., but I don’t have time to explore sub-conscious reasons for my own fondness for debating. I would guess that it’s a difficult, imprecise process that takes a lot of training.

I have no interest in killing God, but I do have an interest in discovering hard evidence of a miracle or two.

CatsAndDogs:

It is wrong because it DOESN’T make sense once one is aware of how it’s axioms and operations are wrong.

Ok. Can you explain what its axioms and operations are, and why they are wrong?

 

[Shredderbeam]

So, you’re just not buying the “you are interpreting God’s revelations to you incorrectly” idea at all, then?

Didn’t think so.

That could be the case, but that rather presumes that God exists. Which brings us back to the argument over how one can trust the Church’s authority, and one’s own personal experiences.

 

[RosaryFan]

Give up, everyone. Shredderbeam knows everything and is always right. I refer you to his comments in the thread entitled “Tell me why you’re pro-life” in Social Justice.

Either he is all-knowing, or he just likes to antagonize the Catholics.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Give up, everyone. Shredderbeam knows everything and is always right. I refer you to his comments in the thread entitled “Tell me why you’re pro-life” in Social Justice.

Either he is all-knowing, or he just likes to antagonize the Catholics.

Oh yeah. My ignore list was updated at the end of that last posting of mine. (…before that actually, but I couldn’t help myself “peeking” at his nonsense, which ended up in my responding.)

Yet another “Look at the Catholic dance! Look at the Catholic DANCE!” player.

Typical.

:shamrock2: