Faith and Reason Problem

[fakename]

I was thinking that if God is always right, and we know this for certain, then something can be proved by using “God said so” as the ultimate evidence. But that would mean that you could demonstrate even the indemonstrable like the Trinity by saying that “God said so, proves it”.

Any help here?

 

[inocente]

You could get them to ask God to repeat it out loud so we can all hear it.

They’ll then accuse you of being a skeptic, but you can always point out that it’s a bit difficult to blindly agree with everyone who claims to know the mind of God when they often disagree about what He said.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You could get them to ask God to repeat it out loud so we can all hear it.

They’ll then accuse you of being a skeptic, but you can always point out that it’s a bit difficult to blindly agree with everyone who claims to know the mind of God when they often disagree about what He said.

Hahaha yes!

No, I don’t think you can prove anything by saying God said it. Subject whatever you think God said to reality, test it, if it proves true, excellent.

 

[fhansen]

I was thinking that if God is always right, and we know this for certain, then something can be proved by using “God said so” as the ultimate evidence. But that would mean that you could demonstrate even the indemonstrable like the Trinity by saying that “God said so, proves it”.

Any help here?

And this is why we can’t condition our faith on having to prove it to someone else first. Faith is either a gift-a gift which empowers us to believe in proposed truth-claims which we would otherwise be incapable of believing in-or it’s worth nothing at all. Either God has revealed something of Himself to humankind-and ultimately to us as individuals-or we remain pretty much lost as to the nature of and reason for our existence in this world.

 

[GratefulFred]

What God has said to mankind is one thing. How we understand it is another. And what we accept of that is still another.

God has not told us everything. But He did send His Son, Jesus Christ, who told us enough. Besides opening the path to eternal salavation by dieing on the Cross, Christ established His Church and gave His Church the power to discern the TRUE meaning of the Bible.

Christ often taught using parables. Yet even His chosen Apostles did not always understand. So for THEM, Christ explained it more fully. Christ also said He would send the Holy Spirit to remind them of all Christ had taught.

Christ gave His Apostles the power to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood so that we could have Christ within us. Christ also gave His Apostles the power to give sins when He came to them that first time after He rose from the Dead and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Who’s sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven. Who’s sins you shall retain are retained.” Enpowered by Christ and the Holy Spirit, Christ sent the Apostles out to teach us telling them that not all will accept their teaching.

I love God and I want to do His Will as best I can. I am very glad for the teaching of His Church so I have more confidence that my understanding is indeed how God wants me to understand Him. And respond rightly to His Commandments.

To try an ‘prove’ something is correct by saying “God said it” is not going to convince those who lack understanding. It is more effective to using the stepping stone Christ gave us, His Church and its teachings. With those teachings, we understand so much better what God said and come to undertand that God is indeed correct. Always.

With solid teaching, what little then we still do not understand, we can accept by Faith because so much of what God said is proved by reason.

 

[buffalo]

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[Little_One0307]

Divine Revelation trumps.

succintly said

 

[fakename]

If God is always right, and we know that, then we can deduce that anything he says is right. So in answer to the question “why is x, y?” we can just say “God said so” and since everything God says is true, then that must be true -and it would be logical.

Now that’s bad but so far I don’t see how any of the answers can obviate this problem.

I think that there are two ways to go: 1) the “God says so” is too much of a logical fallacy of authority or 2) it is too circular and proves something is so because “someone who is always correct said that it is”. That seems to beg the question since it doesn’t really prove why something has any particular quality it only proves that because a person who is all knowing said it did, then it does -and since “did” and “does” are pretty much the same word, it makes this explanation circular. And further it only shows that it has a quality not why.

Do you think that’s true?

 

[fhansen]

If God is always right, and we know that, then we can deduce that anything he says is right. So in answer to the question “why is x, y?” we can just say “God said so” and since everything God says is true, then that must be true -and it would be logical.

Now that’s bad but so far I don’t see how any of the answers can obviate this problem.

I think that there are two ways to go: 1) the “God says so” is too much of a logical fallacy of authority or 2) it is too circular and proves something is so because “someone who is always correct said that it is”. That seems to beg the question since it doesn’t really prove why something has any particular quality it only proves that because a person who is all knowing said it did, then it does -and since “did” and “does” are pretty much the same word, it makes this explanation circular. And further it only shows that it has a quality not why.

Do you think that’s true?

There’s another player in this, however, and that player is ourselves. A lost sheep recognizes his masters voice-there’s familiarity with it-once it’s heard again. So it’s not simply a matter of saying “God said so”-it’s a matter of recognizing the voice of the God who reportedly said so-there’re lots of “gods” out there.

 

[JP2Admirer]

This argument would work for a believer in scripture. A non-believer however, no way.

You would simply have to prove a few minor things:

1. There is a God.
2. What God is…at least as much as we can conceptualize Him.
3. That He is always right (which would result from what we can know naturally about Him).
   and finally:
4. What you mean by “right?”

Aquinas wrote about 8 million words on the topic, so I would take it it’s as easy as that

 

[fakename]

The main problem is not one of persuasion.

The main problem is that my argument, that you can prove things from God’s word, would be able to prove things that are only known in faith -that is by revelation.

So far I haven’t seen how any of the solutions in this thread can deal with this.

 

[joemccarron]

I was thinking that if God is always right, and we know this for certain, then something can be proved by using “God said so” as the ultimate evidence. But that would mean that you could demonstrate even the indemonstrable like the Trinity by saying that “God said so, proves it”.

Any help here?

The trinity may not be the best example because it is dealing with who God is.

But otherwise yes if you P1) Know God is always right in what he says and P2) Know God said X then yes C1)that should be proof of X.’

Much of the apologetics between people who believe the bible is inspired runs along these lines.

I’m really not sure of the problem.

Now if someone doesn’t believe in God then this won’t work because they will not believe either premise.

 

[fhansen]

The trinity may not be the best example because it is dealing with who God is.

But otherwise yes if you P1) Know God is always right in what he says and P2) Know God said X then yes C1)that should be proof of X.’

Much of the apologetics between people who believe the bible is inspired runs along these lines.

I’m really not sure of the problem.

Now if someone doesn’t believe in God then this won’t work because they will not believe either premise.

I think one problem is that scripture alone can’t be used as the source for knowing Gods will, i.e. even people who believe in God disagree on the meaning of scripture verses.

 

[joemccarron]

I think one problem is that scripture alone can’t be used as the source for knowing Gods will, i.e. even people who believe in God disagree on the meaning of scripture verses.

Sometimes people disagree on relevant interpretations but sometimes they agree. When they agree pointing out the scripture can be proof of God’s will.

 

[fhansen]

Sometimes people disagree on relevant interpretations but sometimes they agree. When they agree pointing out the scripture can be proof of God’s will.

Well, I’d have a hard time with that-arriving at Christian truths would be reduced to popular vote then, wouldn’t it?

 

[ddarko]

I was thinking that if God is always right, and we know this for certain, then something can be proved by using “God said so” as the ultimate evidence. But that would mean that you could demonstrate even the indemonstrable like the Trinity by saying that “God said so, proves it”.

Any help here?

Hi there,

So there are truths one knows by reason and truths one knows by revelation.

Truths such as God exists can be known by reason. So how Christian faith works is sort of like the following

1. God exists → Reason
2. Christ existed, died and rose from the dead. Therefore he is who he said he was i.e. Son of God → History and Reason
3. Tradition → Teachings by the son of man, interpreted and spread forth by the Apostles/Disciples
4. Scripture → Written part of Tradition
5. Church → Instituted by Jesus (known through Reason and using Scripture and Tradition as merely historical texts describing the early church)
6. All truths declared by the church → Since we believe in the church

So when we approach truths like the Trinity, we accept it by faith as revelation as the Church tells us. We have no reason to question the Church. One can see how the church arrived at the conclusion. One can think of ways to understand how the Trinity could be. But one does not have to prove the Trinity to believe in the Trinity.

Since a Catholic has accepted Scripture, Tradition and Church as authority, it would be UNREASONABLE to doubt any of the truths declared by the Church infallibly.

God Bless

 

[fakename]

Hi there,

So there are truths one knows by reason and truths one knows by revelation.

Truths such as God exists can be known by reason. So how Christian faith works is sort of like the following

1. God exists → Reason
2. Christ existed, died and rose from the dead. Therefore he is who he said he was i.e. Son of God → History and Reason
3. Tradition → Teachings by the son of man, interpreted and spread forth by the Apostles/Disciples
4. Scripture → Written part of Tradition
5. Church → Instituted by Jesus (known through Reason and using Scripture and Tradition as merely historical texts describing the early church)
6. All truths declared by the church → Since we believe in the church

So when we approach truths like the Trinity, we accept it by faith as revelation as the Church tells us. We have no reason to question the Church. One can see how the church arrived at the conclusion. One can think of ways to understand how the Trinity could be. But one does not have to prove the Trinity to believe in the Trinity.

Since a Catholic has accepted Scripture, Tradition and Church as authority, it would be UNREASONABLE to doubt any of the truths declared by the Church infallibly.

God Bless

The problem still remains -as others have said, If God reveals it, then the revelation is proof for the thing being so. But God revealed the Trinity so to say “the Trinity exists” would be true. But if all this is true, then it has been proved that the Trinity exists. But it is impossible to prove that the Trinity exists, it is only possible to believe that the Trinity exists.

Perhaps faith is salvaged in this though, if the Trinity’s existence has not been proven per se -from the essence of God? Or perhaps it is salvaged by saying that this proof is circular -it assumes that the conclusion is correct in the premises because the premise is that “Someone who is always correct said it”? Or again perhaps the proof is a fallacy of authority and it doesn’t demonstrate the conclusion because it rests on some extrinsic authority to est. a conclusion and doesn’t answer the question -doesn’t prove the subject per se?

 

[joemccarron]

Well, I’d have a hard time with that-arriving at Christian truths would be reduced to popular vote then, wouldn’t it?

No. I’m not sure why you would think that.

You should understand that “proof” is a subjective thing. When anyone says “prove it” you should ask prove it to whom? A jury, a judge, the person asking, other scholars in the field? Because how you go about “proving it” will often vary depending on who you are proving it to.

I can give someone a sound argument but if they don’t believe the premises (despite the fact that they are true) it will prove nothing to them. So you want to find proofs that involve using arguments whose premises the provee already believes.

 

[ddarko]

The problem still remains -as others have said, If God reveals it, then the revelation is proof for the thing being so. But God revealed the Trinity so to say “the Trinity exists” would be true. But if all this is true, then it has been proved that the Trinity exists. But it is impossible to prove that the Trinity exists, it is only possible to believe that the Trinity exists.

I am not sure what you are asking?

There is no proof that the Trinity is true. But we are reasonable in believing the Trinity is true since it is by revelation.

The only logical validation has to happen in deciding whether to believe in whose doing the revealing/interpreting i.e. the Church. That is a logical matter.

God Bless

 

[joemccarron]

The main problem is not one of persuasion.

The main problem is that my argument, that you can prove things from God’s word, would be able to prove things that are only known in faith -that is by revelation.

So far I haven’t seen how any of the solutions in this thread can deal with this.

Perhaps the problem is you are reading Aquinas as if he was God speaking.

Faith is simply belief and trust in something. We can of course have reasons to have faith/belief in something.

I believe in the Trinity because of what Jesus did/said and because of what is written in the bible and what the Church has said.

Why is that wrong?

If you are trying to say that faith must be believed for no reason or must be blind faith or something like that I would disagree. Likely Paul and certainly John would too. John’s purpose in writing his Gospel was to give us reasons to believe in / have faith in Jesus. That is what he explicitly stated.

In acts Luke states that Paul’s MO was to try to convince people in the synagogues by way of argument that they should believe in Jesus. Acts 17:1-4

“When they took the road through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they reached Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Following his usual custom, Paul joined them, and for three sabbaths he entered into discussions with them from the scriptures, expounding and demonstrating that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that “This is the Messiah, Jesus, whom I proclaim to you.” Some of them were convinced and joined Paul and Silas; so, too, a great number of Greeks who were worshipers, and not a few of the prominent women.”