Faith and 'proof'

  • Thread starter Thread starter mvh18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mvh18

Guest
I am having a few issues regarding the need for ‘proof’ in our catholic faith. I have been asked several times by athiests, as I’m sure you have, how we can be so sure of our beliefs and what cold hard proof do we have. I’m curious as to how you approach this question-do you go down the track of complete faith without proof, building a personal relationship with God; or do you use the New Testament as proof as a creator as well as things like Near Death Experiences and Intelligent Design. I’m intrigued to hear your thoughts!
 
“Proof” for faith is an oxymoron. Faith is an entirely subjective, personal experience and commitment, and wholly different than the world of detached, objective reason and analysis.
 
“Proof” for faith is an oxymoron. Faith is an entirely subjective, personal experience and commitment, and wholly different than the world of detached, objective reason and analysis.
so do you think our religion should be 100% faith? A problem I have with this, is why were the people around the time of Jesus allowed proof? I know this is a wierd question and understand the need for Jesus to forgive our sins, however there would have been thousands of people who witnessed incredible miracles. Why is it that these people were allowed proof by God, yet we have to base our beliefs on faith alone?

Also, do you think it is ‘wrong’ for a Catholic to reason their beliefs purely on ‘proof’, such as Near Death Experiences and Intelligent Design?
 
Really, you need to check out this encyclical. It will shed some light on the things you are struggling with.
 
I am having a few issues regarding the need for ‘proof’ in our catholic faith. I have been asked several times by athiests, as I’m sure you have, how we can be so sure of our beliefs and what cold hard proof do we have. I’m curious as to how you approach this question-do you go down the track of complete faith without proof, building a personal relationship with God; or do you use the New Testament as proof as a creator as well as things like Near Death Experiences and Intelligent Design. I’m intrigued to hear your thoughts!
they want hard proof, give it to them, though to be honest someone claiming to be an atheist is generally not going to be accepting of any argument, rational or not. if they were thomistic proofs, specifically first cause would be sufficient, instead they try to find a reason the universe doest need a cause. in short rationalism only works for them when it supports what they think is an intellectual, or progressive opinion.

that said, hard proof is available, its found in the convergent prophecies of Christ, they were written over millenia, by different people, in differnt places times and languages. yet they were fulfilled in the person of Christ.

the argument against is the same as one would give a stage magician or fortune teller, that the prophecies are vague.

but they arent, they include details like lineage, place of birth, name, specific activities, etc.

when even a few of the several dozen are met the mathematical odds of Christ being anyone but the foretold messiah is nigh impossible, in the range of winning the lottery everyday for several centuries.

atheisms food is discovery channel rationalism. the application of serious rationalism is the cure
 
I am having a few issues regarding the need for ‘proof’ in our catholic faith. I have been asked several times by athiests, as I’m sure you have, how we can be so sure of our beliefs and what cold hard proof do we have. I’m curious as to how you approach this question-do you go down the track of complete faith without proof, building a personal relationship with God; or do you use the New Testament as proof as a creator as well as things like Near Death Experiences and Intelligent Design. I’m intrigued to hear your thoughts!
I usually say that the proof for God is like the proof in a courtroom, not like the proof in a science lab. We like to think that science is 100% accurate (it’s not, but scientists like to build themselves up). In law, though, it’s all preponderance of the evidence. We’re dealing with human history (Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are historical events, not just theological milestones), and so it’s going to have to be by the weight of the evidence by definition.

The evidence overwhelmingly supporting Theism, Christianity, and Catholicism, but some people find reasons to reject the evidence. But there are lots of court cases where the same thing happens. Remember, a jury of 12 let O.J. walk in the face of DNA evidence linking him to the scene. And a scientist would admit it’s technically possible … although too unlikely to even entertain seriously … for DNA identical to his to form from a random collection of particles at the crime scene. Even though no serious person would take that view, a person committed to being contrarian could find technical alternatives to what is an on-face clear suggestion of OJ’s guilt, God’s existence, etc.
 
That’s one approach, trying to line up some sort of proof or evidence, this, that, and what not.

That is the society we live in, it is focused on scientific rationalism and empirical proofs.

I do not think the evidence question is necessarily the most important question that needs to be answered, i.e the evidence and proofs.

But that line of argument seems to impress people because people like facts.

I think that scientific approach can play a role to some degree, but it is also a comes down to a question of Faith.

Christ said to Thomas, blessed are those who do not see, yet believe.

That probably won’t make a dent with scientific rationalists, and philosophers like David Hume.

As sister Faustina wrote, Jesus, I trust in you.

A person needs to trust God, to trust Jesus that He is who He said He is.

Christ said he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Twelve Apostles trusted Christ.

An atheist would probably say the Apostles were just fanatics.

I think our knowledge here on earth is limited. As people of the earth, we really don’t know it all.

Our knowledge is quite finite and limited as human beings.

I think, personally speaking, it would be pretentious to say that God doesn’t exist, or that I don’t have direct evidence that God exists based on my personal knowledge of the Universe, and therefore I am going to live a life where God plays no role in my life.

Through belief comes Truth.

Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the Word of the Lord. Those are Absolute Truths. Whether we believe it or not.

We believe Jesus is Lord and the Bible is God’s Word, and through our belief, we come to know these Truths.

That isn’t supposed to be a syllogism or even close to one. What I wrote I guess doesn’t pass rational logical scrutiny, but our human lives don’t work entirely on principles of pure rational logic, but I guess there are people who believe that our lives work entirely on principles of pure rational logic.
 
All people seek Happiness in principle,
It requires no proof,
Because it is a self-evident objective truth.

If God is Happiness,
God as our natural end requires no proof,
Because it is a self-evident objective truth.
 
The Church calls the various reasons given to support belief “motives of credibility”. But she recognizes that they’re not enough on their own to produce faith in the truths she proposes-faith is a gift, given only by God- but it is a gift we can reject.

And God apparently deems it just for man to believe in Him without the benefit of seeing. We hear about Him from without- but recognize, find, and obey Him within-rejecting conformity with the world and embracing conformity with the standard He’s created inside. He helps us to do this and considers it unjust for us to reject it.

As rebellion or rejection of Gods’ authority is a condition of OS, those who’ve not accepted this gift of faith can’t identify with it and prefer not to, which means that the experience of faith is something that remains foreign-and not credible to them. Proof for* us *is faith itself and proof eludes those who refuse to believe. God blesses even the smallest inclination of assent of our wills to faith in Him.
 
I usually say that the proof for God is like the proof in a courtroom, not like the proof in a science lab. We like to think that science is 100% accurate (it’s not, but scientists like to build themselves up). In law, though, it’s all preponderance of the evidence. We’re dealing with human history (Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are historical events, not just theological milestones), and so it’s going to have to be by the weight of the evidence by definition.

The evidence overwhelmingly supporting Theism, Christianity, and Catholicism, but some people find reasons to reject the evidence. But there are lots of court cases where the same thing happens. Remember, a jury of 12 let O.J. walk in the face of DNA evidence linking him to the scene. And a scientist would admit it’s technically possible … although too unlikely to even entertain seriously … for DNA identical to his to form from a random collection of particles at the crime scene. Even though no serious person would take that view, a person committed to being contrarian could find technical alternatives to what is an on-face clear suggestion of OJ’s guilt, God’s existence, etc.
That’s a great analogy there. What evidence were you referring to if I may ask?
 
That’s one approach, trying to line up some sort of proof or evidence, this, that, and what not.

That is the society we live in, it is focused on scientific rationalism and empirical proofs.

I do not think the evidence question is necessarily the most important question that needs to be answered, i.e the evidence and proofs.

But that line of argument seems to impress people because people like facts.

I think that scientific approach can play a role to some degree, but it is also a comes down to a question of Faith.

Christ said to Thomas, blessed are those who do not see, yet believe.

That probably won’t make a dent with scientific rationalists, and philosophers like David Hume.

As sister Faustina wrote, Jesus, I trust in you.

A person needs to trust God, to trust Jesus that He is who He said He is.

Christ said he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Twelve Apostles trusted Christ.

An atheist would probably say the Apostles were just fanatics.

I think our knowledge here on earth is limited. As people of the earth, we really don’t know it all.

Our knowledge is quite finite and limited as human beings.

I think, personally speaking, it would be pretentious to say that God doesn’t exist, or that I don’t have direct evidence that God exists based on my personal knowledge of the Universe, and therefore I am going to live a life where God plays no role in my life.

Through belief comes Truth.

Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the Word of the Lord. Those are Absolute Truths. Whether we believe it or not.

We believe Jesus is Lord and the Bible is God’s Word, and through our belief, we come to know these Truths.

That isn’t supposed to be a syllogism or even close to one. What I wrote I guess doesn’t pass rational logical scrutiny, but our human lives don’t work entirely on principles of pure rational logic, but I guess there are people who believe that our lives work entirely on principles of pure rational logic.
I would love to be able to commit to God by faith alone, but in the last few years this has become a struggle for me. Being an engineering student, where analytical thought and logic are essential, I’ve found myself trying to apply a similar thought process to religion. I suppose if they ever take the NT to the big screen I’d be a more than able Thomas. 😊
 
I’ve also noticed a question, silly as it may be, that went unanswered. Why do think God gave people around the life of Jesus empirical evidence of a creator? I’m so envious of those people who got to witness such incredible miracles!

Also on the subject of proof, more of a personal thought than a question, but it’s my belief that God’s created the universe in such a way that there is a deliberate lack of proof for a creator. I doesn’t make sense to me that Jesus would teach about faith and belief, only for God to leave a corner of the universe unexlainable, other than that by religion. Does anyone think along similar lines?
 
I would love to be able to commit to God by faith alone, but in the last few years this has become a struggle for me. Being an engineering student, where analytical thought and logic are essential, I’ve found myself trying to apply a similar thought process to religion. I suppose if they ever take the NT to the big screen I’d be a more than able Thomas. 😊
im an educated rational, materialist, and i find that logic, and evidence lead inexorably to a created universe.

the logic, the science, and the observable evidence combined with a sceptical analysis of the whole body data, lead me to G-d

thats not a view that is commonly expressed in labs and classrooms. in fact few in those positions have expressed any form of faith to me without knowing me well, as though their standing in that community might be damaged by such public expressions, and sadly, in many cases it would.

yet that is a microcosm, a tiny world, ivory towers, where in the culture is determined by a the select few that control tenure.

and those are usually people far to the left, who have no desire to be held to a religious standard of behavior.

unfortunately, from that position they can leverage great influence on young people and therefore on society.

you may feel pressured to conform to a non rational standard of intellectualism. i understand, i was too. yet you are not required to, in fact, the only standard that you are required to meet is that of G-d.

you can either cooperate with His purposes, and act as the good servant, to He that made you to fulfill those purposes, or you can accept the irrational view that something somehow came from nothing. thereby freeing you to act in any manner that satisfies your personal desires.

for me the logic expression of being created, is to ask what for? i can only relate it to being a tool, or device to accomplish something. for what of G-ds purposes?

do any of us create somethething for no reason? do i make a tool for the tools benefit, or for mine? obviously its for my benefit. how can we say that G-d is any different?
 
The Church calls the various reasons given to support belief “motives of credibility”. But she recognizes that they’re not enough on their own to produce faith in the truths she proposes-faith is a gift, given only by God- but it is a gift we can reject.
Well that’s very convienient for a church and belief system.

Let’s try this.

The reason you don’t support Islam, even though it can be shown to be consistant and rational is…because you reject Gods gift of faith.

It is the lack of the acceptance of God that causes a christian to not accept the gift of Islam. It is after all, THE truth. Truth, can only ever be…TRUTH. TRUTH…is TRUTH.

Therefore , logically there must be A truth. God chose to reveal it to Mohammed. It has remained the truth for 1500 years, which show’s us how truth can never be destroyed. And as God revealed…Islam is the absolute spiritual truth.

You reject truth because you reject God.

You are apprently too filled with pride by your own choice, to accept God glorious truth. God warned me of this, through revelation. That people would not believe me because they were filled with the devils temptation. He warned me of those that did not believe. You are my proof of this, and of God’s immense love for me because I chose to reject this evil. I chose God.

I have the truth. I know this, through the gift of faith that I chose to accept.

hmmmmm…sound familiar?
 
Well that’s very convienient for a church and belief system.

Let’s try this.

The reason you don’t support Islam, even though it can be shown to be consistant and rational is…because you reject Gods gift of faith.

It is the lack of the acceptance of God that causes a christian to not accept the gift of Islam. It is after all, THE truth. Truth, can only ever be…TRUTH. TRUTH…is TRUTH.

Therefore , logically there must be A truth. God chose to reveal it to Mohammed. It has remained the truth for 1500 years, which show’s us how truth can never be destroyed. And as God revealed…Islam is the absolute spiritual truth.

You reject truth because you reject God.

You are apprently too filled with pride by your own choice, to accept God glorious truth. God warned me of this, through revelation. That people would not believe me because they were filled with the devils temptation. He warned me of those that did not believe. You are my proof of this, and of God’s immense love for me because I chose to reject this evil. I chose God.

I have the truth. I know this, through the gift of faith that I chose to accept.

hmmmmm…sound familiar?
you really need to examine theology prior to making statements concerning it.

we reject islam because it is not part of Judaic prophecy.
 
I’ve also noticed a question, silly as it may be, that went unanswered. Why do think God gave people around the life of Jesus empirical evidence of a creator? I’m so envious of those people who got to witness such incredible miracles!

Also on the subject of proof, more of a personal thought than a question, but it’s my belief that God’s created the universe in such a way that there is a deliberate lack of proof for a creator. I doesn’t make sense to me that Jesus would teach about faith and belief, only for God to leave a corner of the universe unexlainable, other than that by religion. Does anyone think along similar lines?
Let’s go back in time…

Say, you are a fisherman and a man comes over to your boat and says, “Follow me!”… would you? And, if so, why?

Now, after three years of not only tagging-along with this man, seeing His miracles, hearing His preaching, listening to His Parables (and getting them defined by Him); then Him giving you the ability to do miracles too; having sat at His table and ate with Him; and after His Passion, the 10 saw Him in the upstairs room, Thomas needed more ‘proof’… and Christ accommodated him.

After all this… would you still need more proof to have Faith, or would your Faith then be fulfilled?
 
Well that’s very convienient for a church and belief system.

Let’s try this.

The reason you don’t support Islam, even though it can be shown to be consistant and rational is…because you reject Gods gift of faith.

It is the lack of the acceptance of God that causes a christian to not accept the gift of Islam. It is after all, THE truth. Truth, can only ever be…TRUTH. TRUTH…is TRUTH.

Therefore , logically there must be A truth. God chose to reveal it to Mohammed. It has remained the truth for 1500 years, which show’s us how truth can never be destroyed. And as God revealed…Islam is the absolute spiritual truth.

You reject truth because you reject God.

You are apprently too filled with pride by your own choice, to accept God glorious truth. God warned me of this, through revelation. That people would not believe me because they were filled with the devils temptation. He warned me of those that did not believe. You are my proof of this, and of God’s immense love for me because I chose to reject this evil. I chose God.

I have the truth. I know this, through the gift of faith that I chose to accept.

hmmmmm…sound familiar?
No, what sounds familiar is a voice crying out in the wilderness and a lost soul responding to it-which takes humility not pride-and knowing a love and acceptance he’s known nowhere else in this world -with its values run mainly on pure ego and selfishness. He looked hard at other faiths, without condemning them, but continued until he found the one that actually found him-and he wasn’t really expecting any of them to do anything like that. And that means to be capable of filling him with a faith and love so profound that he couldn’t deny it. You can hate or deny my experiences if you wish-but you weren’t there as I recall. I’ve never hated other religions-I’ll still read a sutra or two now and then to seek truth or wisdom there-but why would anyone turn their back on the source and object of their love once they’ve found it?
 
you really need to examine theology prior to making statements concerning it.

we reject islam because it is not part of Judaic prophecy.
I don’t care WHY you reject Islam.

They have the truth, as they have claimed. Ignore it…at your own peril. lol!!
 
but why would anyone turn their back on the source and object of their love once they’ve found it?
They didn’t reject it. That is why they are Islamic.

I thought that would have been obvious 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top