Does why a person comes to believe matter?

[Sideline]

You might be surprised, but I’m the LAST person who’s going to get upset with you about being emotional…! I would LOVE it if more people got “fired up”, and not so damned “LUKEWARM” about their beliefs…!

Thanks for your fire…!

Glad you liked it.

No one will EVER change my mind about the existence of God. that is not arrogance,… that is simple fact.

That isn’t arrogance in my opion either. But where it gets into arrogance is when you assume that everything you believe about God has the same sacredness of that initial belief. “I believe in God so I can’t be wrong about my beliefs about Him.”

I DO claim that belief in God is superior to non-belief in Him. That WOULD satisfy the conditions of being “arrogant”.

If it is arrogant, then practically everyone who believes anything is arrogant. But that isn’t arrogance as for as I’m concerned.

But,… quite often, it’s safer to be a coward than brave,… and that is CERTAINLY the case of one having ANY core beliefs that aren’t Christian.

Welcome to the Land of Arrogance!
Are you Reckless? Beligerant? Resistant to change or new information? Don’t worry, when you live here, you are always right!

So, as long as you are Christian, any stupid idea that pops into your head is gospel? And who decides if any “core beliefs aren’t Christian”, you? That’s certainly convieniant. I actually have to consider each new challenge on a case-by-case basis. It would be so nice to be able to say, “Well, since my core beliefs are right, then I’m good to go.”

(Normally, I would be more even-handed in my response, but since you asked for fire, I felt moved to provide. )

 

[Keikiolu]

LOL! Nice job, I was going to bust out the old propositional calculus on this one but you beat me to it.

I like to respond in kind,… when I can figure out what “kind” I’m dealing with.

Keikiolu, God’s existence is not axiomatic in any logical sense.

You’re absolutely right…!!

The difference between a believer and a non-believer is this:

The believer accepts the axiom and seeks evidence that the axiom is true, which he will always find.

The non-believer refuses to accept the axiom, and seeks evidence that the axiom is untrue, which he will always find.

The above “logic” is also axiomatic.

There is no way to prove that God exists, just as there is no way to prove your predicate of “God doesn’ t do that” to whatever subject you choose to append this to.

You can truly, and justifiably, say that because you are a non-believer.

I make the exactly opposite statement, justifiably, because I am a believer.

The process of “discovery” is always that of finding something “postulable”, a possible axiom, a hypothesis, and search for evidence to confirm the truth of the hypothesis.

The unique thing about the subject of “discovery of God” is that the outcome of the search will ALWAYS be determined ONLY by what is chosen as the initial hypothesis.

And,… I DO agree with you that there is in fact no “proof” of the existence of God.

Why?

My answer is that a “proof” of God violates God, and a “proof” of the non-existence of God violates God.

I am perfectly satisfied.

Since you will only find evidence of the non-existence of God, YOU are perfectly satisfied.

But,… since there are more “weird” things in the world than scientifically provable refutations of “weird things”, the odds are that you will convert to my axiom before I will to yours.

We’re at impasse here. What would you like to talk about next…?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:No one will EVER change my mind about the existence of God. that is not arrogance,… that is simple fact. That isn’t arrogance in my opion either. But where it gets into arrogance is when you assume that everything you believe about God has the same sacredness of that initial belief. “I believe in God so I can’t be wrong about my beliefs about Him.”

I only believe in God in as much as I have beliefs about Him.

To say, “I believe in God who is a big guy in a red cloak in the sky pointing east-north-east”, is to not believe in God.

It is to believe in a god, who is an idol, created by a man.

To say, “I believe in God who is ‘the universe’”, is also to be an atheistic idolator.

How do you say you believe in God?

Quote:I DO claim that belief in God is superior to non-belief in Him. That WOULD satisfy the conditions of being “arrogant”. If it is arrogant, then practically everyone who believes anything is arrogant. But that isn’t arrogance as for as I’m concerned.

Quote:But,… quite often, it’s safer to be a coward than brave,… and that is CERTAINLY the case of one having ANY core beliefs that aren’t Christian. Welcome to the Land of Arrogance!
Are you Reckless? Beligerant? Resistant to change or new information? Don’t worry, when you live here, you are always right!

Let’s see,… your concerns are:
*) recklessness
*) beligerence
*) stubborness
*) imperceptiveness
*) righteousness

…this tells me the things that have been done to you, your injuries, which you THINK the Church would probably inflict on you if you had to deal with it.

The thing is,… you are simply projecting your hurts onto the one thing (the Church) which not only accepts and understands why you would do that, but which can help you do anything about healing your wounds.

Thanks for being here and having those, most likely unconscious, yearnings to get help with your wounds.

We’re just here to help you on your path.

So, as long as you are Christian, any stupid idea that pops into your head is gospel?

Only that which is stated as dogma by the Magisterium is to be taken as irrefutable truth.

All else is for me, as an intelligent person, to decide upon.

Are you a bit angry at authority figures… perhaps…? Why would that be…?

And who decides if any “core beliefs aren’t Christian”, you?

NO…! Most certainly not me. That’s a heretical protestant thing…!

That’s certainly convieniant. I actually have to consider each new challenge on a case-by-case basis.

Gee whiz…!! So do I…!!

It’s just that in matters of faith and morals, I have some VERY well connected experts on my side, and I choose, through convicted faith, to believe them and to act according to their dogmas.

You’re the one who gets to “make it up by yourself as you go along”.

Best of luck with that.

It would be so nice to be able to say, “Well, since my core beliefs are right, then I’m good to go.”

Have you noticed that “contraversy” around these parts having to do with “Once saved always saved”…?

That is also a protestant thing.

My core beliefs ARE right,… but I have to actually impliment them correctly, and do so forever, to be “good to go”.

(Normally, I would be more even-handed in my response, but since you asked for fire, I felt moved to provide. )

I don’t want even-handedness from you…!!
I want YOU…!!

I Want Your Fire…!

…that’s how we really get to know each other.

 

[Peregrino]

You can truly, and justifiably, say that because you are a non-believer.

I make the exactly opposite statement, justifiably, because I am a believer.

You are absolutely wrong. I am a believer and I will be the first to admit that this belief, from a rational/empirical standpoint is ludicrous! I am happy with that!

And,… I DO agree with you that there is in fact no “proof” of the existence of God.

Why?

My answer is that a “proof” of God violates God

Only because you believe that free-will is a part of the equation, i.e. God wants (requires) our faith, absent evidence. This itself is not justified on any grounds other than within a framework which anthropomorphizes God. The fact that there is “revelation” of some type would go against your argument that God wants only faith (or as you would say “proof violates God”).

How much revelation violates God then since revelation is by definition a proof of God’s existence?

Since you will only find evidence of the non-existence of God, YOU are perfectly satisfied.

I do nothing of the kind. You have a flair for attributing positions to people that they do not hold.

But,… since there are more “weird” things in the world than scientifically provable refutations of “weird things”, the odds are that you will convert to my axiom before I will to yours.

Only if I 1) lack faith and 2) use poor rational/empirical methods of deduction/induction!..

We’re at impasse here. What would you like to talk about next…?

I truly enjoy discussing items with you when are not insulting me and calling names. You have some good insights.

 

[cpayne]

You are absolutely wrong. I am a believer and I will be the first to admit that this belief, from a rational/empirical standpoint is ludicrous! I am happy with that!

Well, not to be name-calling, but the CC has long considered fideism a heresy.

Earlier you wrote, “There is no way to prove that God exists.” Not to sound Clintonesque, but what do you mean by “prove”?

 

[Peregrino]

Well, not to be name-calling, but the CC has long considered fideism a heresy.

Lol! Thanks for your concern! Feel free to call me a heretic-I would be violating my conscience to claim that my faith is based on logic or empiricism.

Earlier you wrote, “There is no way to prove that God exists.” Not to sound Clintonesque, but what do you mean by “prove”?

Fantastic question! When I use the term “prove”, I mean by normal rational/empirical methods available to everyone.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You can truly, and justifiably, say that because you are a non-believer.

I make the exactly opposite statement, justifiably, because I am a believer.*

You are absolutely wrong. I am a believer and I will be the first to admit that this belief, from a rational/empirical standpoint is ludicrous! I am happy with that!

But that’s not what I say…!

I have EMPIRICAL evidence for my belief…! But my empirical belief was PRECEEDED by my faith that it COULD be true…!

From a rational standpoint, I’ve gotten confirmation of my belief, which I at first held as a hypothesis, which is how ANY hypothesis is “proved”. That IS the process of “rationality”.

From an empirical standpoint, I HAVE PROOF…!

No one else can SEE my empirical evidence, because of the very nature OF the evidence, but I have been perfectly rational and empirical in “proving” my belief to the only person whom that proof is evidence.

My belief is not ludicrous.

The idea that anyone ELSE should BELIEVE my proof can be THEIR proof IS ludicrous, though.

So maybe we do agree,… sideways like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*And,… I DO agree with you that there is in fact no “proof” of the existence of God.

Why?

My answer is that a “proof” of God violates God*

Only because you believe that free-will is a part of the equation, i.e. God wants (requires) our faith, absent evidence. This itself is not justified on any grounds other than within a framework which anthropomorphizes God. The fact that there is “revelation” of some type would go against your argument that God wants only faith (or as you would say “proof violates God”).

God doesn’t ONLY want faith to be a factor in belief in Him, silly.
Only “absolute proof”, sufficient to obviate the necessity FOR faith would be to violate God.

That free will is part of the equation is also an axiom of anything to do with God.

Once again,… accept that or not. If you don’t, then you are an atheist.

How much revelation violates God then since revelation is by definition a proof of God’s existence?

Revelation is not a proof of God’s existence. It is an evidence of God’s existence.

To the atheist, it is insufficient evidence.

To ME it is insufficient evidence,… unless matched with the empirical evidence generated by “prayer” on that evidence.

…I’ll get to the rest later.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Sideline]

My answer is that a “proof” of God violates God, and a “proof” of the non-existence of God violates God.

I am perfectly satisfied.

Since you will only find evidence of the non-existence of God, YOU are perfectly satisfied.

I’m certainly not satisfied. This is meaningless gibberish. If I said to you, “God exists because broccoli, firetruck, bannanas. There I’ve proven it!” Would you be satisfied?

I know that my Catholic friend Peregrino would not be satisfied with a response like that. (Where did you get the impression he wasn’t a believer?)

But,… since there are more “weird” things in the world than scientifically provable refutations of “weird things”, the odds are that you will convert to my axiom before I will to yours.

So hold on. Do you believe in God because of weird things, or because to prove him or disprove him violates Him? (You chose “violate”, not me.)

 

[cpayne]

Lol! Thanks for your concern! Feel free to call me a heretic-I would be violating my conscience to claim that my faith is based on logic or empiricism.

Fantastic question! When I use the term “prove”, I mean by normal rational/empirical methods available to everyone.

Then we disagree. God’s existence can be known by normal rational/empirical methods available to everyone, IMHO.

Where I think we might agree: I would agree that my previous sentence really means very little. In other words, if someone by rational/empirical investigation came to the conclusion that God exists, that IN ITSELF would mean almost nothing regarding that person’s salvation and the condition of his or her soul. The statement “I believe in God” means a great deal more than “I believe that God exists.”

 

[Keikiolu]

…meanwhile:

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Since you will only find evidence of the non-existence of God, YOU are perfectly satisfied.
I do nothing of the kind. You have a flair for attributing positions to people that they do not hold.

I have a flair for exposing positions people have that even THEY don’t know they have…!

Oooo,… no ego on my part THERE, eh…!? Heh heh heh…

But,… when I see an “attribute” in the words that someone uses, I’d be remiss if I didn’t comment on it.

If I see it, I see it, and it’s there to me. I’m may be “hallucinating”, but the hallucination is caused by SOMETHING, and that “something” is just more fodder for conversation with someone interesting, such as your-bad-self.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

But,… since there are more “weird” things in the world than scientifically provable refutations of “weird things”, the odds are that you will convert to my axiom before I will to yours.
Only if I 1) lack faith and 2) use poor rational/empirical methods of deduction/induction!..

Whose lack of faith?

If you use “poor methods”, and your premise is that “there is no God as the Church says there is”, then it’s probable that you’ll stumble into believing what the Church says, because your methods (poor ones) are working AGAINST your goals (untrue ones).

If you use “good methods”, and your premise is that “there is God as the Church says there is”, then it’s not possible that you’ll not believe what the Church says, because your methods (good ones) will find your goal (God).

Reason and Empirical experiment, which “contains” reason, using initially the hypothesis of faith as it’s base, will ALWAYS result in the Truth, when searching for God.

It’s just that all “materialists” refuse to do the experiment,… because it’s a “silly experiment” to them.

Thus, they defy their own principles, and prove that they are in fact fools, who claim to believe what they believe, then show they don’t believe it.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

We’re at impasse here. What would you like to talk about next…?
I truly enjoy discussing items with you when are not insulting me and calling names. You have some good insights.

I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking those wacky demons that have hold of the “true you”, which you mistake as being integral parts of you.

That tactic of mine is seldom actually effective, until the “attackee” figures out that I’m attacking their paracites, and not them.

There are LOTS of nice leaders-to-truth-by-niceness pastoral leaders-of-the-deluded out there, and God bless them as they are SO MUCH MORE Christ-like than I am,… but in this particular venue, I indulge my sin of “responsorial verbal combative fun”,… and no doubt will pay a LONG stretch in pugatory, or worse, for it…!

Amen.

Best of the BEST to 'ya, little buckeroo…! Yeehaw…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Sideline]

To say, “I believe in God who is a big guy in a red cloak in the sky pointing east-north-east”, is to not believe in God…
To say, “I believe in God who is ‘the universe’”, is also to be an atheistic idolator.

!!! It looks like you’ve decided to answer the original question !!!
!!!This thread is back on track!!!
:extrahappy: :clapping: :bowdown2: :clapping: :extrahappy:

Let me see if I have this straight, it is not enough to say, "I believe in God. You have to believe in the right God. So not every statement about God is valid. So if I describe God:

1. God is loving.
2. God is eternal.
3. God is powerless.

Then I haven’t actually described a valid belief in God, in your opion. If I use an argument to prove such a being exists, I don’t actually prove that God exists, right?

Now, later on in your post you said:

Only that which is stated as dogma by the Magisterium is to be taken as irrefutable truth.

Now, at one point you made a claim. That God would be violated by either a proof or non-proof of his existence. Earlier still you said that proving God would disprove God, and that He wouldn’t allow Himself to be disproved, because that you be a contradiction.

This as I said make no sense. There is nothing in this claim that has any validity logically, and it doesn’t actually reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does the Catholic Church say that proving God would disprove him. It is utterly false.

So you are now faced with a question: Do you continue with this erroneous belief about God, or not?

Now that my arguments have been made, I’ll hop up on the couch and let you psycho-analyse me.

…this tells me the things that have been done to you, your injuries, which you THINK the Church would probably inflict on you if you had to deal with it.

I think the Church is wrong, but then again, most of the people on earth do. I don’t agree with it philosophically or ethically. The thing that really bugs me about many Catholics, is that they assume that everyone who disagrees with them, doesn’t understand them. That is so indescribably frustrating. It’s as if they believe that being Catholic has imbued them with more intelligence than everyone else on earth.

Are you a bit angry at authority figures… perhaps…? Why would that be…?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you are not an authority figure.

It’s just that in matters of faith and morals, I have some VERY well connected experts on my side, and I choose, through convicted faith, to believe them and to act according to their dogmas.

You also choose to believe, on convicted faith, that they are well connected individuals.

 

[Keikiolu]

Let me see if I have this straight, it is not enough to say, "I believe in God. You have to believe in the right God.

That would be correct.

So not every statement about God is valid. So if I describe God:

1. God is loving.
2. God is eternal.
3. God is powerless.

Then I haven’t actually described a valid belief in God, in your opion.

That would also be correct. You position #3 is wrong.

You have described your god, of the infinite possible gods out there, but you haven’t described God AS God.

If I use an argument to prove such a being exists, I don’t actually prove that God exists, right?

You can only prove that God, or a god, exists to yourself.

Your “proof” is no proof to anyone but you, and since you contruct your “proofs” not to convince youself but other’s, the actual “proof” serves no actual function other than to “scam” those whom you’d inflict it on,… as you don’t really believe it.

Why don’t you believe it? Because the creation of a “proof” of God, or gods, is to first believe it, then do the experiment based on that hypothesis, and to actually DO that experiment with any other GOAL than the real GOD is to have the experiment fail.

The experiment is prayer. To pray to not-God is get no answer back other than the experimenters wants, at best.

The obstinant “idolater” will them claim that their god is “proved” by them getting an “answer”. The idolater will then misuse their “proof” by trying to inflict it on others, instead of urging others to do their own experiment.

No one can prove God, or even a god, exists to another person.

Now, later on in your post you said:

Quote:Only that which is stated as dogma by the Magisterium is to be taken as irrefutable truth.
Now, at one point you made a claim. That God would be violated by either a proof or non-proof of his existence. Earlier still you said that proving God would disprove God, and that He wouldn’t allow Himself to be disproved, because that you be a contradiction.

That would be correct.

This as I said make no sense. There is nothing in this claim that has any validity logically, and it doesn’t actually reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does the Catholic Church say that proving God would disprove him. It is utterly false.

The Church states that God created creation. That is a statement that God exists.

God is all truth, and can’t allow a true contradiction to exist. Only apparent contradictions exist, because of our human perspective.

Faith in God is necessary: (CCC) **161 **Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. “Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”

If faith is necessary, then God can’t destroy faith, which absolute objective (interpersonally communicable) proof of either “God’s existence” or " God’s non-existence" would do,… then God will not do either.

Keep asking how this works if you still don’t get it.

So you are now faced with a question: Do you continue with this erroneous belief about God, or not?

What erroneous belief? You haven’t made your case.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Now that my arguments have been made, I’ll hop up on the couch and let you psycho-analyse me.

OK, then…

You simply hold to the idea, belief, that there is no authority capable of telling you the truth. They can only approximate the truth.

This is perfectly right,… except in one area of life. Religion.

You have found “salvation” in materialistic scientism, and you’ve found “consolation” in “religion as nice fanstacy”. You “justify” your “god-ish religion” as a thing UTTERLY separated from all actual reality, as a nice dream, but it only “imposes” on the world as a good story imposes on the world.

If God is utterly powerless,… you don’t have to worry about Him.

This will work while you are “comfortable”. Considering what happens when you lose your “comfort” in this world is simply good planning. Yet,… so many are opiated into a grog where planning means finding the next “cool thing”.

Quote:
…this tells me the things that have been done to you, your injuries, which you THINK the Church would probably inflict on you if you had to deal with it.

I think the Church is wrong, but then again, most of the people on earth do. I don’t agree with it philosophically or ethically.

That is because you don’t know what you’re talking about…!

You can’t compare what you don’t know to something you only barely know.

The thing that really bugs me about many Catholics, is that they assume that everyone who disagrees with them, doesn’t understand them.

Then I must be incredibly annoying…!

It still doesn’t answer the question of why it is you DON’T know what you’re talking about re; the Church.

The simple answer is that you’d rather be self-righteous in your indignation than bother to do the work necessary.

Some would call that obstinant laziness.

That is so indescribably frustrating. It’s as if they believe that being Catholic has imbued them with more intelligence than everyone else on earth.

Not more intelligence. Just that they have more will to be humble and DO THE EXPERIMENT which answers the questions that they have about God.

You don’t do the experiment, then complain that other people have done the experiment, because they SHOULDN’T be DOING the experiment,… because it’s HUMBLING to do the experiment,… and “I’m not gonna humble myself to ANYONE or ANYTHING…!”

Quote:
Are you a bit angry at authority figures… perhaps…? Why would that be…?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you are not an authority figure.

I’m not saying you’re angry at me. I don’t actually CARE if your angry at me.

You’re angry at the concept of “authority”, that anything could be MORE IMPORTANT than you. And anyone who claims to have any actual TRUTH, is certainly being “superior” to you, because they’re proposing that there is a thing SUPERIOR to you.

I’m certainly no authority on anything. Just a conduit for actual truths, as given me gratuitously by an actual God given authority.

Quote:
It’s just that in matters of faith and morals, I have some VERY well connected experts on my side, and I choose, through convicted faith, to believe them and to act according to their dogmas.

You also choose to believe, on convicted faith, that they are well connected individuals.

And I have proof that they do,… but it’s against the rules for me to be able to make you believe my proof.

…and thus,… we come full circle,… where all atheists are stuck,… until their atheism is lost.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[catharina]

OP, while I mean no disrespect to the apparent seriousness of your question, I keep thinking that the manner in which he came to believe might have mattered to St. Paul. Saul, struck off and his horse and hearing the voice of God and blinded for a year: it would be hard to second-guess that conversion experience.

For the rest of us, isn’t conversion a matter of grace for all?