Does God exist?

[CatsAndDogs]

How do you know that he didn’t merely dream that he saw God, much like one might dream that they met a race of aliens?

We don’t.

He did.

Why is it important for you to know what is not your business?

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

What I was asking was what your experience would tell you about an alleged “divine intervener.” Would it be any different than our ancestors’ reaction to lightning or a football player thanking his lord and savior for making him victorious? It seems like the same thing to me. “Divine intervention” is the same as saying “I don’t understand the phenomenon completely,” or “I’m very happy right now.”

You are correct, “God of the gaps” logic is frequently (and incorrectly) used. That is why I am hesitant to give an example of something that would seem to indicate divine intervention, for fear that the cause be natural and unknown to us.

However, it really does seem to be impossible for a human limb to spontaneously regenerate - perhaps that is why it has never happened in recorded medical history.

The Eucharist is a Mystery, as Fr. Groeschel is fond of saying. It is not observable with anything but the heart.

So, as an empirical claim, it’s useless?
"Grateful4mercy:

The substance of the bread and wine changes to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, the accidents of bread and wine remain the same. You are more than water, protein, and a hand full of elements (the accidents of your being). The substance of your human person is not observable with normal means. I can’t possibly describe it further than that without risking exposing my ignorance

I am more than the sum of my parts because I have a neural network in my brain that somehow enables consciousness. Bread and wine do not, though. There is no “something more” to them that can be changed - do you have a link to a place where the Church might have described this?

We don’t.

He did.

Why is it important for you to know what is not your business?

Mrlsla put that story forward as his reason for believing in God. Given that he posted it in a public place, I assumed that he was open to questions.

Of course, Mrlsla, if you do not wish to answer for any reason, there is no pressure. My apologies if this is the case.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
We don’t.

He did.

Why is it important for you to know what is not your business?

Mrlsla put that story forward as his reason for believing in God. Given that he posted it in a public place, I assumed that he was open to questions.

He put forth his experience as HIS reason for believing in God. He didn’t put it forward as a reason for YOU to believe in God.

He’s merely saying that HE has found, through his own “work”, a reason to believe in God.

He’s “pointing”, as a suggestion, toward what YOU might do to come to the same conclusion.

Once again, this all boils down to people refusing to do what they say they want to do because they MUST only do it in a way that THEY SPECIFY which makes getting what they say they want an impossibility.

Faithful belief in hope must come before proof of God. That is simply the way it is. That that invalidates God, or at least makes Him “unknowable” in the mind of the unwilling investigator is that particular investigator’s problem, and not anyone’s else’s to solve for him.

If I could do your work for you, I would, as it would be less energy consuming. But it’s simply not possible to do so, so your entreaties for help, which you refuse to take, are wasted effort.

Although, it’s quite possible, and perhaps likely, that the example set by the “unwilling investigator” helps others to see that it might just be worth them doing THEIR work to get what they say they want, if they really DO want it.

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

He put forth his experience as HIS reason for believing in God. He didn’t put it forward as a reason for YOU to believe in God.

He’s merely saying that HE has found, through his own “work”, a reason to believe in God.

I know, and I made an assumption that since he posted it in a public place, he would not mind me asking a question.

CatsAndDogs:

Faithful belief in hope must come before proof of God. That is simply the way it is.

I don’t understand what you mean by that. Can you elaborate, please?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Faithful belief in hope must come before proof of God. That is simply the way it is.

I don’t understand what you mean by that. Can you elaborate, please?

No.

You must (at least provisionally) faithfully believe (hold a belief for some period of time) with the hope that the promises promised (which we’ll have to assume are “good” things to hope eventually do happen) will be given, in the area of anything to do with “God”, for you to receive personal proof that God (or “God stuff”) exists.

You will, of course, object to this “procedure” as mere “self-fulfilling wish fulfillment” (placebo).

The only way to tell the difference between the reality of this process and the “placebo effect” is to do both. Any “inductive reasoning” which tells you that this “prayerful” process is simply an instance of the “placebo effect” is faulty due to lack of data (if you don’t do the required work involved).

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

No.

You must (at least provisionally) faithfully believe (hold a belief for some period of time) with the hope that the promises promised (which we’ll have to assume are “good” things to hope eventually do happen) will be given, in the area of anything to do with “God”, for you to receive personal proof that God (or “God stuff”) exists.

You will, of course, object to this “procedure” as mere “self-fulfilling wish fulfillment” (placebo).

The only way to tell the difference between the reality of this process and the “placebo effect” is to do both. Any “inductive reasoning” which tells you that this “prayerful” process is simply an instance of the “placebo effect” is faulty due to lack of data (if you don’t do the required work involved).

:shamrock2:

Ok. Thank you for your time and help.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ok. Thank you for your time and help.

Thanks for taking “no” for an answer!

Not many people do.

:shamrock2:

 

[wasmit]

You must (at least provisionally) faithfully believe (hold a belief for some period of time) with the hope that the promises promised (which we’ll have to assume are “good” things to hope eventually do happen) will be given, in the area of anything to do with “God”, for you to receive personal proof that God (or “God stuff”) exists.

This implies that a rational person can never believe in the christian god, as it requires irrationality to receive the personal proof.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This implies that a rational person can never believe in the christian god, as it requires irrationality to receive the personal proof.

By your definition of “rational”, and “person”, you’re absolutely right.

Unfortunately, or fortunately perhaps, for you, this only points to the fact that you’ve got a few definitions wrong.

There is no “christian god”, by the way. There is God.

So, nearly every word that you used in that “response” is in need of definitional adjustment.

Are you interested in adjusting yourself, or not? (My guess would be “no”.)

(( This is the primary reason that so-called atheists are militantly anti-Catholic [aka anti-Christian]. Catholics {Christians] are seen as irrational and dangerous, by definition, and the “scientistic so-called ‘rationalist’” is required by “scientistic [not ‘scientific’] reason” to eliminate all “irrationalism”. Thus, eventually, genocide. ))

:shamrock2:

 

[wasmit]

These are the definitions I use.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rational
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/person

Can you please explain how I have got these wrong?
What do you mean when you say There is no “christian god” ?

(( This is the primary reason that so-called atheists are militantly anti-Catholic [aka anti-Christian]. Catholics {Christians] are seen as irrational and dangerous, by definition, and the “scientistic so-called ‘rationalist’” is required by “scientistic [not ‘scientific’] reason” to eliminate all “irrationalism”. Thus, eventually, genocide. ))

wtf

 

[CatsAndDogs]

These are the definitions I use.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rational
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/person

Can you please explain how I have got these wrong?

You assume that a rational person cannot have a religious faith, because faith, by (your) definition, is irrational. This is incorrect.

Your definition of “person” is incorrect, because your definition (most likely) doesn’t include non-human angelic beings or God, and (probably) includes non-human animal beings. Though, I don’t really know that, which makes me a “mind reader”, which is a GRIEVOUS sin on my part!

I shall be off to reconciliation soon(ish) to rectify that evil-doing of mine.

What do you mean when you say There is no “christian god” ?

Just that there is no christian god. There is, though, God, which is not the “god of the Christians”, but the God that is, for all of creation.

He is who is. That’s His name, for goodness sakes!

wtf

What does the “f” stand for in that “texting shortcut”?

:shamrock2:

 

[Shlomey]

“no proof for whatsoever they believe in”

This was something an antitheist told me about us Christians.
Now, I asked him to study medicine, fly over to Italy and visit the place Lanciano and check one piece of evidence there for himself.

 

[wasmit]

“no proof for whatsoever they believe in”

This was something an antitheist told me about us Christians.
Now, I asked him to study medicine, fly over to Italy and visit the place Lanciano and check one piece of evidence there for himself.

newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Alt/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/2007-01/msg00221.pdf

---

also:
(1) The alleged miracle occurred in the 8th century.

(2) There is nothing even remotely existing what we would all a chain of custody.

(3) There is only cardiac tissue and dried blood.

(4) Old blood types AB regardless of the original type

(5) Only one physician performed the analyses.

(6) Analyses were only performed in Italy and not referred to any other sources for confirmation.

(7) No peer reviewed study has been published.

 

[wasmit]

also:

tonyspelledbackwardsisynot.blogspot.com/

 

[wasmit]

Is it a miracle when there is a eucharist ceremony at a mass, but nothing visibly changes?

 

[danaemariejoan]

Is it a miracle when there is a eucharist ceremony at a mass, but nothing visibly changes?

Yes, indeed because the miracle is rarely visibly seen. Christ becomes one with the bread and wine. You do not have to see a miracle to know that it happened.

 

[wasmit]

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.

 

[danaemariejoan]

I understand what you are trying to say, but do you actually believe it? This is another person’s words not your own. I mean no offense by it, just asking.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.
:

Are you really that bad?

 

[bnapgh]

This implies that a rational person can never believe in the christian god, as it requires irrationality to receive the personal proof.

Again, you are confusing rationality with empirical evidence.

Being ‘‘rational’’ is a function of ‘‘reason’’ not ‘‘empirical proof’’.

Reason deals with the fact patterns and logic available, and is not frustrated by that which is not available and therefore irrelevant.

I suspect you, personally, have not reviewed and tested the empirical evidence of the Big Bang or Relativity or fission, right?

It is your ‘‘reason’’ and ‘‘logic’’ that permits you to process that third hand info against your own first hand ‘‘experiences’’ to ‘‘choose’’ what you ‘‘believe’’. In these cases YOU choose to accept them, even though I suspect you (like 99.999% of us) have not mastered them and therefore really do not ‘‘understand’’ exactly how they work. This acceptance is not ‘‘irrational’’. Similarly, the acceptance by Christians of the logic and the facts presented by the Bible and the Magisterium must be validated by their personal ‘‘experiences’’ and rational analysis. When it passes that test then they ‘‘believe’’, and rightfully so.

It seems some people foolishly feign superiority by wrapping themselves in a security ‘‘denial’’ blanket of ‘‘scientific empirical proof’’. Perhaps some do this because they cannot reason things through for themselves. Perhaps some are frustrated with a personal experience which failed to validate their own attempts at Faith. Perhaps some just like to pull the legs of believers, or some other malicious mischief. Perhaps some tryuly want to understand and believe, too.

I hope you are the latter.

If so, please respond to my earlier post, partially quoted below:

debate requires definition of terms

Proof: clear, replicatable, scientific facts that can be interpretted in NO OTHER WAY.

Evidence: either facts or experiences (1st or 2nd hand, 3rd hand is hearsay ). The Bible’s prose in and unto itself is not evidence unless supported by reason or third part corroboration.

Logic: three types: 1) Aristotlean or syllogism; 2) deductive; 3) inductive. All logic is admissable unless shown to be specious. For this discussion logic does not connotate a Proof.

Reason: seperates humans from animals. The ‘‘Why?’’ question. The basis for the Love choice.

Brain: physiological tool demonstrates intelligence, reasoning.

Soul: that which makes each person who he/she is. spiritual not physical .

Based on this we should all agree that there is no Proof that God exists. That said, this is ONLY because God does NOT WANT there to be such proof.

There is a totally logical and thesis necessary answer.

God is LOVE!!!

Love is the opposite—not of hate but ---- of SELFISHNESS!!!

Pascal’s wager is totally SELFISH and therefore antithetical to God or Love.

If anyone chooses God out of selfishness then (s)he still doesn’t ‘‘get it’’ — the Love thing!

Now, even though there is no Proof that God exists there is incredible EVIDENCE that He does. The only one who denies this is a person who resigns him/herself to a world without reason. If you accept the Big Bang then you accept a beginning. If you accept a beginning and cannot explain why then you must rely on something ‘‘greater’’, or a ‘‘creator’’’.

If one runs the probabilities of the physical conditions necessary but not sufficient for our earth to exist as it does then even Carl sagan’s ‘‘billions and billions’’ of stars are not sufficient to make this earth probable. As a matter of fact, the odds are a SQUARE of the star count!!!

The Bible’s integrity is PROVEN by the Dead Sea Scrolls. …the text (e.g. just take the symetry of Abraham’s intrerupted sacrifice of Issac with God’s sacrifice of Jesus) (shows) many Old & New Testament correlations that CANNOT — logically — be interpreted as chance.

Would it be logical that thousands of early Christians (especially thsose who personnally KNEW Jesus) would willingly go to their death as martyrs rather than lying and denying Christ risen??

How logical would it be to plan a joke and all you have to do is die horrible deaths? If these were idiots who prayed themselves into frenzy then they would not write such a coherently intergrated and logical book. If they were charlatans they would not have included nebulous verses that cause consternation among scholars, would they?

If an armed force demanded that you denounce the existence of George Washington (or the Holocast or the lunar landing) or they would kill you, would you so denounce??

If not, how sure must you be to die for your belief?

If one cannot yet believe in God, try believing in Love (since it is the same thing).

The more you love, the less selfish you become (have you been a parent or a grand parent?).

The more you love the more logic you will see in the Bible.

The more logical you become the more open you will be to God’s revelations.

The more open you are to His Revelation, the more sure you will be in Him.

Then you, too, might be willing to lay down your life for love and for God.

BTW how does religion hurt anyone??

Is such an assertion based the specious logic of going from the particular to the universal?

If there were no Christianity then the whole world would most likely be ruled by folks like the Taliban. Is that what you prefer, dog eat dog?

If one had prayed for the majority of one’s life, and yet did not receive what was he/she sought, then it is most likely that this person isn’t clearly seeing what is best for him/her. It is not from a hard heart but from a biased perspective.