Evidence against?

[Areopagite]

Let me ask you - mostly the believers, but whoever wishes to chip in - what do you consider as enough evidence to doubt? I have seen zillions of examples that believers consider evidence for belief. There is no need to go there. This time I would like to see the other side of the coin.

Just for clarification, this is what the Church means by Faith (particularly, the supernatural/theological virtue of faith … opposed to a natural faith … like believing that your friend isn’t going to betray you … or something.)

The Church says that the mere belief/knowledge of God’s existence is not solely achieved by faith. You do not have to be Christian to believe/know that God exists. Most people nowadays think that God’s existence is simply a religious thing, but it’s not. In fact, so says the Church, any human, by natural means, should come to the conclusion that God exists. That is why the idea of proving the existence of God (as Aquinas tries to do) isn’t opposed to the idea of faith. However, just because God exists, it does not logically follow that Christianity is true at all.

What the Church* does* mean by faith, is the belief in the explicitly Christian doctrines, most importantly the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Trinity is something about the nature of God that one cannot figure out by natural reason, but when known by faith, it lends an insight into God and consequently into all of creation (although it cannot be fully understood ever). Likewise, the Incarnation (that is, the 2nd Person of the Trinity taking on a particular human nature … resulting in Jesus Christ) is something that not only cannot be discovered by natural means but also didn’t have to happen (at least not in the particular way that it did happen.) So, stuff like this, is what “faith” deals with (that is, once again, the Catholic faith).

So, what are some reasons why one would doubt that, for example, Jesus is God? Well, one popular objection is that, when Christ resurrected … why didn’t he make it more obvious to a greater amount of people? Also, why would God have chosen such a small setting for the Incarnation (backwater town of Bethlehem). Why doesn’t Jesus reveal himself to everyone right now? Why did He ascend into heaven and appoint Peter (and the following Popes) to stand in for Him (in Church matters)? In general, why doesn’t Jesus make Himself more obvious?

Those are a few popular ones. Was this the kind of answer you were looking for?

 

[NowAgnostic]

In another thread the following remark was made:

That is an interesting point. Let me ask you - mostly the believers, but whoever wishes to chip in - what do you consider as enough evidence to doubt? I have seen zillions of examples that believers consider evidence for belief. There is no need to go there. This time I would like to see the other side of the coin.

Well since I’m a former believer, a former Catholic, I’m perhaps the kind of person you’d like to hear from. But first let me point out that from the Catholic point of view there can never be any such thing as sufficient evidence for doubt by definition, no matter what - that if you doubt you are a heretic, guilty of one of the worst sins imaginable - not even if the evidence is so strong as to maybe leave only objectively a 1% likelihood of Catholicism being true in your mind. Because Catholicism demands an “act of faith” where you believe with infallible certitude, as the Catechism says, “on the authority of God revealing, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” - and you are supposed to accept unquestioningly what the Church’s magisterium says. Read Vatican I, which if any Catholic denies he is not Catholic by definition.

This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.

…those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the church can **never **have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question…

Therefore we **define **that every assertion [of reason] contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false…

…Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

…If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.

…If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema…

Once you can get past that, evidence for doubt is not difficult to find. Just for starters, there’s no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of two (Adam & Eve) or eight (flood), while there is plenty of genetic evidence supporting common descent with other primates from a common ancestor. Science provides no evidence supporting a human “soul” - the neuroscientific research goes the other direction. Libertarian free will is incompatible with orthodox monotheism, as I pointed out on another thread (and all the theologians including Aquinas, Augustine, and Molina were compatibilists) - so why doesn’t God save everyone and cause them to love Him - but, paradoxically, He somehow “sincerely wishes” the salvation of all anyway. There is no evidence whatsoever of a Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, or of a slaughter of innocents. The timelines of Jesus’s birth don’t jive in the Gospels. God appears as a bloodthirsty, vengeful tyrant in the Old Testament. The church changed its view on usury and geocentrism, over the centuries and suddenly on a bunch of things at Vatican II. Heck, even the excerpt from Vatican I contains an error: miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of Christianity be proven from them with certainty. I could go on all night. Now I’m familiar with all the contortions believers make to handle all these difficulties (but yes, these are not mere “theological opinion” but they are at least indirectly, and sometimes directly, related to de fide pronouncements of faith). But if you need to constantly make contortions, maybe the simplest explanation is the best - the Church isn’t what it claims to be, it’s a human, not a divine institution. To the charge that I am neglecting evidence in favor of the Church’s claims, would you believe my claim to be an “infallible” math problem solver if I got the first 99 correct but pretty obviously flubbed the 100th? Would you believe my supporters if they went to contortions to somehow excuse my failure, saying you should just “believe” because of my prior success?

 

[Matthias123]

Just for starters, there’s no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of two (Adam & Eve) or eight (flood), while there is plenty of genetic evidence supporting common descent with other primates from a common ancestor. Science provides no evidence supporting a human “soul” - the neuroscientific research goes the other direction. Libertarian free will is incompatible with orthodox monotheism, as I pointed out on another thread (and all the theologians including Aquinas, Augustine, and Molina were compatibilists) - so why doesn’t God save everyone and cause them to love Him - but, paradoxically, He somehow “sincerely wishes” the salvation of all anyway. There is no evidence whatsoever of a Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, or of a slaughter of innocents. The timelines of Jesus’s birth don’t jive in the Gospels. God appears as a bloodthirsty, vengeful tyrant in the Old Testament. The church changed its view on usury and geocentrism, over the centuries and suddenly on a bunch of things at Vatican II. Heck, even the excerpt from Vatican I contains an error: miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of Christianity be proven from them with certainty. I could go on all night. Now I’m familiar with all the contortions believers make to handle all these difficulties (but yes, these are not mere “theological opinion” but they are at least indirectly, and sometimes directly, related to de fide pronouncements of faith). But if you need to constantly make contortions, maybe the simplest explanation is the best - the Church isn’t what it claims to be, it’s a human, not a divine institution. To the charge that I am neglecting evidence in favor of the Church’s claims, would you believe my claim to be an “infallible” math problem solver if I got the first 99 correct but pretty obviously flubbed the 100th? Would you believe my supporters if they went to contortions to somehow excuse my failure, saying you should just “believe” because of my prior success?

Just for starters, there’s no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of two (Adam & Eve) or eight (flood), while there is plenty of genetic evidence supporting common descent with other primates from a common ancestor.

Firstly we do not have enough genetic evidence to come to conclusions about bottlenecks 200,000 years ago at this time. Secondly polygenism has not been the scientific consensus since the 1950s. Thirdly, we are not bound by doctrine to hold the biblical flood as literal at all. What has not been proven false is in the realm of faith.

Science provides no evidence supporting a human “soul” - the neuroscientific research goes the other direction.

You surprise me – in your other threads you seemed so reasonable. How could science provide evidence for a soul when it operates under methodological naturalism? The idea that science can disprove the spiritual is not science it is scientism.

Libertarian free will is incompatible with orthodox monotheism, as I pointed out on another thread (and all the theologians including Aquinas, Augustine, and Molina were compatibilists) - so why doesn’t God save everyone and cause them to love Him - but, paradoxically, He somehow “sincerely wishes” the salvation of all anyway.

First of all, I would disagree with this. Secondly, I must point out the indeterminism in qauntum mechanics. I believe certain aspects of determinism are false. Your final comment sounds like it came from the mouth of one of the “New Atheists”, it is a theological error commited by a person without a proper understanding of theological truths. I will leave with one for someone else to argue against as I am short on time.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, or of a slaughter of innocents.

Richard Carrier! You actually bought that guy’s fantasies? It was most likely an illegal briefly established custom that was employed to appease the Jews, and prevent a rebellion. The Romans were kings of compromise – and secondly in the Craig Carrier debate William Lane Craig pointed out that there was an instance in Egypt that prisoners were released.

A person, who denies that Jesus even existed, is so far out there in reference to the scholarly consensus – I would be very careful in evaluating his views.

The timelines of Jesus’s birth don’t jive in the Gospels.

We know – you need to read some Joseph Ratzingers work.

God appears as a bloodthirsty, vengeful tyrant in the Old Testament.

You don’t understand, I would advise reading up on the philosophy of justice and jurisprudence.

The church changed its view on usury and geocentrism, over the centuries and suddenly on a bunch of things at Vatican II. Heck, even the excerpt from Vatican I contains an error: miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of Christianity be proven from them with certainty.

Because she knew she was in error? You are going to have to back up that accusation of error.

But if you need to constantly make contortions, maybe the simplest explanation is the best - the Church isn’t what it claims to be, it’s a human, not a divine institution. To the charge that I am neglecting evidence in favor of the Church’s claims, would you believe my claim to be an “infallible” math problem solver if I got the first 99 correct but pretty obviously flubbed the 100th? Would you believe my supporters if they went to contortions to somehow excuse my failure, saying you should just “believe” because of my prior success?

You don’t understand there difference between the theological weight of teachings. There is a difference between “Of the faith” and a theological certain teaching. Mother Church has never erred on a de fide teaching.

In my opinion you abandoned your faith instead of being militant and researching the difficulties you had. I will pray for you.

 

[Areopagite]

But first let me point out that from the Catholic point of view there can never be any such thing as sufficient evidence for doubt by definition, no matter what - that if you doubt you are a heretic, guilty of one of the worst sins imaginable - not even if the evidence is so strong as to maybe leave only objectively a 1% likelihood of Catholicism being true in your mind.

Just FYI, Vatican I in those excerpts were addressing Christians who already had the faith. Those who have no had the faith are not heretics (but simple unbeliever). You first need to have the faith (and then reject it) to be some kind of heretic. Once you have the faith, once you have the knowledge that Jesus is divine (along with the other doctrines), then rejecting that knowledge brings you into the particular anathemas they were talking about.

Also, there must be a distinction made between two kinds of doubt. I suppose you could call it sufficient doubt vs. capacity to doubt (there might be better words for it). The Church does say that sufficient doubt is impossible, namely, there is no truth that exists that gives adequate reason for doubting the faith. However, this is different from the capacity to doubt. Even if we know something is true, it doesn’t stop us from being able to doubt it. Our mind can accomplish this if there is enough ignorance of a thing that coincides with what we do know of the thing. If we had full, complete, absolute knowledge of something, then … we would be completely unable to doubt it. Such knowledge is not possible in life (but is possible in heaven when we see God … eliminating the capacity for doubt).

Just for starters, there’s no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of two (Adam & Eve) or eight (flood), while there is plenty of genetic evidence supporting common descent with other primates from a common ancestor.

Depends what scientist you talk to. Even non-Christian scientists have no consensus on this issue. It’s very unresolved at the moment.

Science provides no evidence supporting a human “soul” - the neuroscientific research goes the other direction.

Depends what you mean by “science.” If you are referring to the narrow, modern definition of “any one of the physical sciences” then it’s little surprise that they haven’t found evidence for the human soul because … the humans soul is not-physical. The physical sciences study material things, so obviously, if the soul indeed exists, a science that observes physical things would obviously not be able to find something non-physical.

However, if you mean science as “organized body of knowledge” then there is metaphysics … then demonstrating the existence of the soul becomes possible.

Libertarian free will is incompatible with orthodox monotheism, as I pointed out on another thread (and all the theologians including Aquinas, Augustine, and Molina were compatibilists) - so why doesn’t God save everyone and cause them to love Him - but, paradoxically, He somehow “sincerely wishes” the salvation of all anyway.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. When we say that “God saves us” it could mean a variety of things. The thing it most often means (in Catholicism … not in Protestantism necessarily) is that God has made grace available to humanity, but the individual application to each human happens with each individual acceptance of it. Does that answer your question? I’m not clear what the issue is.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, or of a slaughter of innocents.

Well, there’s the New Testament. That’s evidence.

The Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover might have been a short-lived one that never made it into prominent records (although it might have … but they were lost).

Now, I might be totally off, but if I remember learning correctly, Bethlehem was an incredibly small village at that time … something like a population around 100 or less. Thus, the slaughter was not on a massive scale whatsoever. It wouldn’t really have made the history books … there was much crazier things going on at that time.

And once again, maybe these were recorded but the documents were lost. The very violent and ongoing Roman-Jewish Wars probably caused one or two annals to be lost.

The church changed its view on usury and geocentrism, over the centuries and suddenly on a bunch of things at Vatican II.

First of all, I don’t think they said anything against established doctrine in Vatican II … but hypothetically, they could have, and it still wouldn’t be a problem. This is because Vatican II was a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one. They didn’t make any new dogmatic statements … thus infallibility for that council doesn’t apply. The function of a pastoral council is to provide ways to better integrate the faith to the current times of the world. Still, even though it is possible that they said something against established Church teaching (because it was never intended to be an infallible dogmatic council), I’ve never seen any proof that it* does* go against established doctrine. It’s been accused many times of that, but no one ever points out how exactly it did. I’ve met super conservative Catholic and liberal Catholics who argue that it did, but they never prove it with anything concrete.

Also, I don’t think the overall episcopate in communion with the Pope has ever dogmatically taught that geocentricity is true. Copernicus was honored by the Pope himself for his scientific research. Though it is true that Galileo was condemned by a local group of clerics (but this has never amounted to infallible teaching).

The Church may have had alternating rules on the treatment usury, but they never spoke dogmatically on it. Just because the Church makes certain rules at a certain time does not mean they are making an infallible dogmatic statement about it. Rules can be tailor-made for particular times in history.

Heck, even the excerpt from Vatican I contains an error: miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of Christianity be proven from them with certainty.

Where’s the error?

maybe the simplest explanation is the best - the Church isn’t what it claims to be, it’s a human, not a divine institution.

Well, the Church claims that it is both a human and a divine institution. The infallible teachings come from God … the what constitutes infallible teaching is the overall teaching of the bishops in communion with the Pope.

 

[Fran65]

Hi Liquidpele,

No, there isn’t any ‘evidence’ that I can think of that would result in my believing that there is no God.

There are personal challenges such as the problem of suffering (both universal and personal) and the lack of empirical evidence for God’s existence.

However, I find that personal suffering is ameliorated by my faith and that universal suffering may be (partly) understood theologically and partly accepted as a mystery. The latter isn’t an issue for me. There are very coherent and consistent explanations for this lack of evidence elsewhere on this site (tonyrey has provided several posts on this theme) and I’m not going to rehearse them.

 

[Spock]

By “a normal person” I mean a person who is conscious, rational, autonomous, moral and purposeful together with a capacity for emotion and love.

Thanks for the clarification. You seem to say that these attributes are part of the definition of abstract “perfection”. Is that correct?

 

[Spock]

Just for clarification, this is what the Church means by Faith (particularly, the supernatural/theological virtue of faith … opposed to a natural faith … like believing that your friend isn’t going to betray you … or something.)

The Church says that the mere belief/knowledge of God’s existence is not solely achieved by faith. You do not have to be Christian to believe/know that God exists. Most people nowadays think that God’s existence is simply a religious thing, but it’s not. In fact, so says the Church, any human, by natural means, should come to the conclusion that God exists. That is why the idea of proving the existence of God (as Aquinas tries to do) isn’t opposed to the idea of faith. However, just because God exists, it does not logically follow that Christianity is true at all.

What the Church* does* mean by faith, is the belief in the explicitly Christian doctrines, most importantly the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Trinity is something about the nature of God that one cannot figure out by natural reason, but when known by faith, it lends an insight into God and consequently into all of creation (although it cannot be fully understood ever). Likewise, the Incarnation (that is, the 2nd Person of the Trinity taking on a particular human nature … resulting in Jesus Christ) is something that not only cannot be discovered by natural means but also didn’t have to happen (at least not in the particular way that it did happen.) So, stuff like this, is what “faith” deals with (that is, once again, the Catholic faith).

So, what are some reasons why one would doubt that, for example, Jesus is God? Well, one popular objection is that, when Christ resurrected … why didn’t he make it more obvious to a greater amount of people? Also, why would God have chosen such a small setting for the Incarnation (backwater town of Bethlehem). Why doesn’t Jesus reveal himself to everyone right now? Why did He ascend into heaven and appoint Peter (and the following Popes) to stand in for Him (in Church matters)? In general, why doesn’t Jesus make Himself more obvious?

Those are a few popular ones. Was this the kind of answer you were looking for?

Something along these lines. Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Of course whatever the Church says is of no consequence, as far as I am concerned. The Church may assert that one can reach the belief (but not knowledge) about the existence of “some” god (even if it were not the God of Christianity). Many people did, that is correct. However, that does not say anything about the correctness of such beliefs. Also, many people look at the same phenomena which are taken as evidence for some god’s existence, and see no evidence at all. Nevertheless, I appreciate your post. Thanks again.

 

[Spock]

Well since I’m a former believer, a former Catholic, I’m perhaps the kind of person you’d like to hear from. But first let me point out that from the Catholic point of view there can never be any such thing as sufficient evidence for doubt by definition, no matter what - that if you doubt you are a heretic, guilty of one of the worst sins imaginable - not even if the evidence is so strong as to maybe leave only objectively a 1% likelihood of Catholicism being true in your mind. Because Catholicism demands an “act of faith” where you believe with infallible certitude, as the Catechism says, “on the authority of God revealing, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” - and you are supposed to accept unquestioningly what the Church’s magisterium says. Read Vatican I, which if any Catholic denies he is not Catholic by definition.

You know, I have read all of your posts so far, and was delighted by the clear language and reasoning. This quote from Vatican I makes me shiver.

Once you can get past that, evidence for doubt is not difficult to find. Just for starters, there’s no evidence for a genetic bottleneck of two (Adam & Eve) or eight (flood), while there is plenty of genetic evidence supporting common descent with other primates from a common ancestor. Science provides no evidence supporting a human “soul” - the neuroscientific research goes the other direction. Libertarian free will is incompatible with orthodox monotheism, as I pointed out on another thread (and all the theologians including Aquinas, Augustine, and Molina were compatibilists) - so why doesn’t God save everyone and cause them to love Him - but, paradoxically, He somehow “sincerely wishes” the salvation of all anyway. There is no evidence whatsoever of a Roman custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, or of a slaughter of innocents. The timelines of Jesus’s birth don’t jive in the Gospels. God appears as a bloodthirsty, vengeful tyrant in the Old Testament. The church changed its view on usury and geocentrism, over the centuries and suddenly on a bunch of things at Vatican II. Heck, even the excerpt from Vatican I contains an error: miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of Christianity be proven from them with certainty. I could go on all night. Now I’m familiar with all the contortions believers make to handle all these difficulties (but yes, these are not mere “theological opinion” but they are at least indirectly, and sometimes directly, related to de fide pronouncements of faith). But if you need to constantly make contortions, maybe the simplest explanation is the best - the Church isn’t what it claims to be, it’s a human, not a divine institution. To the charge that I am neglecting evidence in favor of the Church’s claims, would you believe my claim to be an “infallible” math problem solver if I got the first 99 correct but pretty obviously flubbed the 100th? Would you believe my supporters if they went to contortions to somehow excuse my failure, saying you should just “believe” because of my prior success?

Right you are. I am constantly amazed at the stubborn denial of facts, the distortions and contortions the apologists undertake. As a matter of fact, I sometimes present the same questions with “leading” wording in two different ways, and grin, when the same people vigorously argue for and against the same question. (One example might be the concept of hell. The same people will argue that hell is a punishment - sometime even say that it is not a sufficient punishment, we deserve much worse - and that hell is not a punishment, it is the sign of God’s love and mercy. It is an eternal separation from God, yet God is omnipresent in hell. It seems that no amount of contradiction is unacceptable when faith is contradicted by reason.)

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for the clarification. You seem to say that these attributes are part of the definition of abstract “perfection”. Is that correct?

I am saying that a perfect person must have all these attributes…

 

[wanstronian]

This quote from Vatican I makes me shiver.

It’s madness, isn’t it. Effectively, “If science incontrivertibly proves something that doesn’t tally with what we, the church, say, you are forbidden to believe it. Anything that contradicts what we say - no matter what we say - is just plain wrong, period.”

 

[Areopagite]

Something along these lines. Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

No problem.

This quote from Vatican I makes me shiver.

Good. That was sort of the point (maybe?). However, it’s a lot less menacing if you consider that what it’s essentially saying is, “If you believe some things that contradict the faith, then you really don’t have the faith.” People get really scared when they hear the word “Anathema” and stuff … but all that really means is that “you aren’t a Catholic if you don’t believe in Catholicism.” It’s showing what is required to believe if you wish to remain Catholic. That’s really all it’s saying. Still shivering?

Also, one may get a sense that this Vatican I excerpt is implying that you can’t believe in some part of reason if it contradicts faith. That’s not what it’s saying. What it is saying is, “You can’t believe an opinion contradictory to the faith claiming that it is a discovery of reason/science.” The Church, even here, is assuming that faith and reason do not contradict each other. Let’s review the quote again:

All faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith

So, if you look closely, they are not saying “forbidden to defend legitimate conclusions of science” but “forbidden to defend certain opinions as if they were legitimate conclusions of science.” Big, huge difference.

The Church is also referring to many different issues at this time … such as (my guess) the theory of evolution, which some scientists said was scientific proof against Christianity. The Church was not against evolution, it was against the illogical connection that evolution was somehow a disproof of Christianity.

It’s madness, isn’t it. Effectively, “If science incontrivertibly proves something that doesn’t tally with what we, the church, say, you are forbidden to believe it. Anything that contradicts what we say - no matter what we say - is just plain wrong, period.”

Once again, this is not what it’s saying (see above). Also, once again, it is forbidding Christians to believe allegedly scientific proofs against Christianity … because, of course, that means they don’t believe in Christianity. It’s kind of common sense. You see, some people believed that you could believe that reason contradicted Christianity … but that you could still be Christian. However, the Church rejected this idea, reaffirming that faith and reason do not contradict each other. Is this clear to anyone?

Right you are. I am constantly amazed at the stubborn denial of facts, the distortions and contortions the apologists undertake.

Ouch. Well, some apologists probably do such stuff. I can’t deny that. Incompetent, dishonest, and illogical apologists are one of the worst things ever. However, you can’t deny that there are a lot of unbelieving scientists who do the same thing to try and discredit Christianity. In fact, most rants against Christianity I’ve read contain horrible contradictions that even a child could see. But whatever.

Hopefully, truth will out.

As a matter of fact, I sometimes present the same questions with “leading” wording in two different ways, and grin, when the same people vigorously argue for and against the same question.

Yeah, I’ve done that a few times … but I eventually figured it out. We’re not perfect … and sometimes we’re morons too.

(One example might be the concept of hell. The same people will argue that hell is a punishment - sometime even say that it is not a sufficient punishment, we deserve much worse - and that hell is not a punishment, it is the sign of God’s love and mercy. It is an eternal separation from God, yet God is omnipresent in hell. It seems that no amount of contradiction is unacceptable when faith is contradicted by reason.)

Yeah, this is a good question. It troubled me greatly. But here’s what I gathered (and much of this is thanks to St. Catherine of Genoa).

God’s Presence in Hell
God is present in hell insofar as He acts to maintain the existence of the souls in Hell. It is the doctrine of conservation that anything exists must be actively maintained in existence by God (things can’t exist completely apart from God in that way). God, however, is *not *present in Hell insofar as grace is concerned (and maybe for other reasons … but this is probably the most important one). That is, the souls completely have no fulfilling knowledge of God, they have no hope of reaching God, and there is no meaningful love or interaction with God. Besides having existence, they really have no connection to God whatsoever.

Hell as Merciful
If one does not go to hell (eternal separation from God) then one ultimately goes to heaven. In heaven, by definition, you behold God Himself. However, (based on a vision of St. Catherine of Genoa) for a soul with sin on its soul, the soul would rather suffer an eternity of the fiercest kinds of hell than look on God unworthily … it would pain the soul too much. There is some reasonableness to this. Surely, there are instances even in this life where one feels unworthy and undeserving of things (even if they are good things) and would thus rather not have them. God is goodness Himself, so Hell would naturally then be the place for such a soul to be. In that sense, then, Hell is merciful … and would actually hurt less than being in heaven with sin. Some say that, because of this, Hell is not a Punishment … because the alternative (being heaven with sin) is so much worse and more painful. Personally, I would simply say it’s merciful punishment, but a punishment nonetheless.

Hell as Sufficient Punishment
If in fact we do reject God, who is an infinite being, goodness and love itself (etc), then we have committed an infinitely heinous act. No punishment is too great. In that sense, Hell is not sufficient. However, since it is God who has been offended, He gets to assign the punishment. He assigns a punishment of some limited degree of suffering … though there is no limit to the amount of punishment instilled on Him since it was an infinitely heinous act. He would have had the right to increase the sufferings in hell, but He doesn’t … out of mercy.

I hope I’m not in error with anything I said.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I hope I’m not in error with anything I said.

You are explaining with extraordinary charity so much as to be only acceptable by those who lack the need of it.

 

[Spock]

I am saying that a perfect person must have all these attributes…

I get you. Are those attributes the only ones, which pertain to perfection?

 

[Spock]

Ouch. Well, some apologists probably do such stuff. I can’t deny that. Incompetent, dishonest, and illogical apologists are one of the worst things ever.

I do not accuse them of dishonesty. I am pretty sure (or at least I give the benefit of doubt) that they sincerely believe what they say - when they say it. Now, your other two adjectives are a different issue. I have no quarrel with that.

Yeah, this is a good question. It troubled me greatly. But here’s what I gathered (and much of this is thanks to St. Catherine of Genoa).

I hope you do not think that a vision is convincing for me. A genuine video of guided tour would be better.

God’s Presence in Hell
God is present in hell insofar as He acts to maintain the existence of the souls in Hell. It is the doctrine of conservation that anything exists must be actively maintained in existence by God (things can’t exist completely apart from God in that way). God, however, is *not *present in Hell insofar as grace is concerned (and maybe for other reasons … but this is probably the most important one). That is, the souls completely have no fulfilling knowledge of God, they have no hope of reaching God, and there is no meaningful love or interaction with God. Besides having existence, they really have no connection to God whatsoever.

The question is: is God present in hell or not? Allegedly God cannot tolerate evil in his presence - that has been said innumerable times. Therefore, either there is no “evil” in hell, or God is not present there. The two are contradictory. This is precisely the problem I see. Having two contradictory assertions and asserting both of them - depending on the circumstances.

Hell as Merciful
If one does not go to hell (eternal separation from God) then one ultimately goes to heaven. In heaven, by definition, you behold God Himself. However, (based on a vision of St. Catherine of Genoa) for a soul with sin on its soul, the soul would rather suffer an eternity of the fiercest kinds of hell than look on God unworthily … it would pain the soul too much. There is some reasonableness to this. Surely, there are instances even in this life where one feels unworthy and undeserving of things (even if they are good things) and would thus rather not have them. God is goodness Himself, so Hell would naturally then be the place for such a soul to be. In that sense, then, Hell is merciful … and would actually hurt less than being in heaven with sin. Some say that, because of this, Hell is not a Punishment … because the alternative (being heaven with sin) is so much worse and more painful. Personally, I would simply say it’s merciful punishment, but a punishment nonetheless.

Sorry, that just makes no sense.

Hell as Sufficient Punishment
If in fact we do reject God, who is an infinite being, goodness and love itself (etc), then we have committed an infinitely heinous act. No punishment is too great. In that sense, Hell is not sufficient. However, since it is God who has been offended, He gets to assign the punishment. He assigns a punishment of some limited degree of suffering … though there is no limit to the amount of punishment instilled on Him since it was an infinitely heinous act. He would have had the right to increase the sufferings in hell, but He doesn’t … out of mercy.

Well, supposedly hell is the worst thing that can happen. That is contradicted by the previous paragraph you wrote, that an even bigger pain would be to be forced into God’s presence.

And I must repeat it again: no one “rejects” God. No one has absolute positive knowledge about God’s existence. No one can honestly say that they know. Therefore the rejection of the concept of God is not the same as rejecting God himself. I am “guilty” of the former, but innocent of the latter. The next question here: why would God be offended (a very anthropomorphic term) by someone’s reluctance to believe in some flimsy evidence, which is only asserted by some people? Such emotions, which are attributed to God are so derogatory, that nothing I could say about God could be “worse”. As I said before: for me the strongest evidence for God’s nonexistence is the fact that he does not come down and does not slap the believers for speaking so disrespectfully of him.

The Creator of the Universe would be offended by someone who dares to use his God-given reason and rejects the very inconclusive “evidence” for God’s existence? The highest being ever would be offended by our private actions in the bedroom? Is he a “peeping Tom”? The most rational Being would demand blind faith over reason? These and such assertions are so disrespectful, that if I were God, I would come down and kick some serious butt.

 

[Areopagite]

The question is: is God present in hell or not? Allegedly God cannot tolerate evil in his presence - that has been said innumerable times. Therefore, either there is no “evil” in hell, or God is not present there. The two are contradictory. This is precisely the problem I see. Having two contradictory assertions and asserting both of them - depending on the circumstances.

The phrase “God cannot tolerate evil” could mean many things. The most common thing, I think, it means is: God will punish those who do evil and not let them go off completely free. It’s not like God actually is allergic to the presence of evil. He can certainly be present where evil exists … and He does that only to take care of business. And once again, God can be present in different ways … He is present in Hell insofar as He maintains the damned souls in existence, but He is not in Hell insofar as He withholds His grace from them.

Sorry, that just makes no sense.

What part?

Well, supposedly hell is the worst thing that can happen. That is contradicted by the previous paragraph you wrote, that an even bigger pain would be to be forced into God’s presence.

“Hell is the worst thing that can happen” is true in the sense that there would never be anything worse God will subject you to. However, it is not true insofar as it is not as bad as going to heaven with sin on your soul. This is hypothetically possible, for God could possibly do that, but … as is pretty clear from divine revelation … He decides that He won’t do that.

And I must repeat it again: no one “rejects” God. No one has absolute positive knowledge about God’s existence. No one can honestly say that they know. Therefore the rejection of the concept of God is not the same as rejecting God himself. I am “guilty” of the former, but innocent of the latter.

I don’t think I agree with this reasoning. I can have no true concept of the sun … but I can still refer to it. I can still curse it. But I might never know that it’s a gaseous ball in outer space. Just because you have no [complete] concept of something, doesn’t mean you can’t reject it.

The next question here: why would God be offended (a very anthropomorphic term) by someone’s reluctance to believe in some flimsy evidence, which is only asserted by some people? Such emotions, which are attributed to God are so derogatory, that nothing I could say about God could be “worse”.

I not talking about “offense” as in the emotional sense, but in the judicial sense. One is offended when an injustice is done to them, despite one’s feelings.

As I said before: for me the strongest evidence for God’s nonexistence is the fact that he does not come down and does not slap the believers for speaking so disrespectfully of him.

I agree.

The highest being ever would be offended by our private actions in the bedroom? Is he a “peeping Tom”?

Oh, come now. Omniscience is omniscience.

If some sexual acts are indeed perverse and go against the natural order, then it wrongs God.

The most rational Being would demand blind faith over reason?

He doesn’t demand “blind faith” (and I assume “blind faith” means total belief and no knowledge). The theological virtue of faith is a combination of knowledge and belief. When one has faith, he actually has knowledge of God, but a small fraction of it … and the rest is mere belief. So, I don’t think He demands blind faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Are those attributes the only ones, which pertain to perfection?

There may well be others but I am not omniscient…

 

[Spock]

The phrase “God cannot tolerate evil” could mean many things. The most common thing, I think, it means is: God will punish those who do evil and not let them go off completely free. It’s not like God actually is allergic to the presence of evil. He can certainly be present where evil exists … and He does that only to take care of business. And once again, God can be present in different ways … He is present in Hell insofar as He maintains the damned souls in existence, but He is not in Hell insofar as He withholds His grace from them.

The phrase is “God cannot tolerate evil in his presence” - and that is why there is hell - to be separated from God. This seems to be pretty clear-cut to me.

I don’t think I agree with this reasoning. I can have no true concept of the sun … but I can still refer to it. I can still curse it. But I might never know that it’s a gaseous ball in outer space. Just because you have no [complete] concept of something, doesn’t mean you can’t reject it.

The analogy is not accurate. I am rejecting the concept of God, for multiple reasons: the attributes are partially nonsensical (the omnimax ones, timeless yet active existence) partially internally inconsistent (justice and mercy) and partially contradict everything we experience (benevolence). This is a far cry from not having exact and precise understanding of the sun’s nature. In essence, the attributes of God are almost identical to the those of the Invisible Pink Unicorn…

I not talking about “offense” as in the emotional sense, but in the judicial sense. One is offended when an injustice is done to them, despite one’s feelings.

If the “rules of conduct” are not presented in an unambiguous fashion, the demand to strict adherence to those rules in manifestly unjust. The only presented “rules” are certain passages of an ancient book, and human interpretations of those passages. And that is not sufficient. The saying that “ignorance of the laws excuses nothing” is not applicable here - because it presupposes that you should be aware of the law, and that does not apply. There is no other source of infornation than the ones I presented.

Oh, come now. Omniscience is omniscience.

If some sexual acts are indeed perverse and go against the natural order, then it wrongs God.

Three observations. One: “omniscience” is nonsense. Two, who says that those behaviors are against some “natural order”? And three: why would God care? If two people express their love toward each other in an unorthodox way, that does not diminish the love they feel for each other. And God is supposed to cherish love over and above everything else.

He doesn’t demand “blind faith” (and I assume “blind faith” means total belief and no knowledge). The theological virtue of faith is a combination of knowledge and belief. When one has faith, he actually has knowledge of God, but a small fraction of it … and the rest is mere belief. So, I don’t think He demands blind faith.

I am using blind faith according to Hebrews 11:1. (Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.) And “to be sure of what you hope for” - is wishful thinking and to be “certain” of what you don’t see (based upon some authority) is gullibility.

 

[liquidpele]

Hi Liquidpele,

No, there isn’t any ‘evidence’ that I can think of that would result in my believing that there is no God.

Interesting. I’ve have to ask now, why do you think that is a reasonable position? It seems to me that someone that can’t even *imagine *evidence existing that could change their mind is stubborn to the point of being unreasonable. Would you also not change your mind about a political issue or medical issue even if new evidence was discovered that was airtight and refuted your position?

 

[matahari]

Either way, the comment illustrates one thing that is painfully obvious. That there is no ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ type evidence for God. There are phenomena that some people may choose to see as a sign of God’s existence, and there’s a book that some people may choose to take at face value, but there’s nothing approaching conclusive.

.

---

If you want conclusive you may have to wait till the conclusion
At which point it will be too late to change your mind

---

On the broader question of doubt many very holy people have experienced ’ the dark night of the soul ’
And have come through this trial to a higher level of faith:getholy:

 

[NowAgnostic]

Firstly we do not have enough genetic evidence to come to conclusions about bottlenecks 200,000 years ago at this time. Secondly polygenism has not been the scientific consensus since the 1950s. Thirdly, we are not bound by doctrine to hold the biblical flood as literal at all. What has not been proven false is in the realm of faith.

Sorry to say, either you are completely misinformed, or you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest. This I found quite a bit of among the Church’s supporters when I was struggling with a decision to stay in the Church or leave unfortunately.

Yes there is more than enough genetic evidence to come to conclusions about bottlenecks as severe as 2 or 8. There is way too much genetic diversity. You are using “polygenism” in the sense of multiple races evolving separately - yes, THAT has not been the consensus, but that has nothing to do with a genetic bottleneck of 2, which is the sense here, and thus you are using the term equivocally. The scientific consensus is that the founder population of homo sapiens sapiens is on the order of thousands. The same kind of nonsense is trumpeted by those who talk about “Mitochondrial Eve” or “Y-chromosome Adam” as thought that were some kind of support for a founder population of 2.

It’s true there’s no de fide definition about how to hold the flood, BUT there is also (quoting Vatican I again)

In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Now the fathers believed in a literal flood. And, they were not expressing their “opinion” on a matter of science, contrary to apologist spin.

You surprise me – in your other threads you seemed so reasonable. How could science provide evidence for a soul when it operates under methodological naturalism? The idea that science can disprove the spiritual is not science it is scientism.

Science can provide evidence for or against the spiritual insofar as the spiritual makes empirical claims open to testing. If a human soul existed, we might expect that some of the functions of the soul would not correlate with anything physical, even higher-order cognitive tasks such as moral judgment, reasoning, and so on. That’s not what we find.

First of all, I would disagree with this. Secondly, I must point out the indeterminism in qauntum mechanics. I believe certain aspects of determinism are false.

As do I, that is yet another piece of evidence against the Church, since God is held to be First Cause of all that is.

Your final comment sounds like it came from the mouth of one of the “New Atheists”, it is a theological error commited by a person without a proper understanding of theological truths. I will leave with one for someone else to argue against as I am short on time.

Uh huh. I understand theology quite well, thank you very much, having studied it extensively before making the decision to leave. Saying “you just don’t understand” is another cheap apologist tactic.

You still have the following conundrum:

1. God “desires” to save all.
2. God has the power to save all.
3. All are not saved.

The Thomists’ answer? That’s a “mystery” we can’t understand. The same can be said for the Molinists, the Syncretists, or whatever school you want to subscribe to. No doubt you wish to deny 2), but if you deny that God can bring about an individual’s cooperation with grace so that he infallibly, though freely, cooperates with it - that there is such a thing as efficacious grace, IOW - then you have departed from the Church’s teaching. Sure it’s easy if you pick and choose what you want. But that’s precisely what the Church denies you have the freedom to do.

Richard Carrier! You actually bought that guy’s fantasies? It was most likely an illegal briefly established custom that was employed to appease the Jews, and prevent a rebellion.

That’s a just-so story. Where’s the evidence for it?

The Romans were kings of compromise – and secondly in the Craig Carrier debate William Lane Craig pointed out that there was an instance in Egypt that prisoners were released.

So what? That’s hardly evidence in favor of it being a custom in Palestine.

We know – you need to read some Joseph Ratzingers work.

He solves the difficulty, I’m sure.

You don’t understand, I would advise reading up on the philosophy of justice and jurisprudence.

**Whose **philosophy of justice and jurisprudence? There are as many of those as religions.

Because she knew she was in error? You are going to have to back up that accusation of error.

Not exactly sure what you are referring to here, but if it’s the part about miracles here goes. It can be philosophically proven that we can not know for absolutely certain that a miracle has occurred. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are only known by induction, which cannot give absolute certainty. If bodies resurrected all the time, we would not assume miracles were happening all the time, we would assume resurrection was a natural phenomenon. And, we don’t know all the laws of nature, not even now. To be absolutely certain we would need to know laws of nature a priori and completely. We don’t. Moreover, even if the laws of nature are violated it doesn’t prove that it is god who is doing it, since every finite effect admits of a finite cause.

Now note that what I have written above in itself provides abundant evidence to reject Catholicism. In a de fide document is something clearly incorrect, which can be shown to be so philosophically.

You don’t understand there difference between the theological weight of teachings. There is a difference between “Of the faith” and a theological certain teaching. Mother Church has never erred on a de fide teaching.

Oh yes I do understand quite well, and was prepared for this, which I stated that everything I mentioned was relevant to de fide teachings.

In my opinion you abandoned your faith instead of being militant and researching the difficulties you had. I will pray for you.

This is not your opinion. The Church demands you think this way. It just can’t be that there was any meat to my objections… because it just can’t. Vatican I tells you that there cannot possibly be any justification for me, and you must believe it as it is de fide. You would never admit anyone like me ever had done enough research.