So JK has asked if Fesser’s God and the arguments he puts forward better represent the Catholic God. Yes, comes the reply. Followed by posts indicating that one aspect of Fesser’s God is based on fallacies. And at least one Catholic agrees. Which doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist, but that Fesser’s God doesn’t exist.
I don’t think anyone’s ‘God’ exists. I will expand on that below.
Even within the same denomination (Catholicism), there are very many views and opinions as to what Catholicism and God actually entails. And even when I point something out in the catechism to make a point, there are those who would bend over backwards to deny what I have written. Even when I quote it directly… So to make the point, I need to spend post after post pointing out the contradiction between the arguments others are using and what the church teaches.
It would be a strange world if we all thought exactly the same thing - particularly in reference to God.
I was always taught that in this world we can never know God in His entirety. That is not to say we cannot know anything of God, but we can only know so much. In fact, we can only know so much about anything. We can know a great deal - be experts in fact, but it will always be the case there is more we don’t know than we do. For this reason where we as individuals try to describe God our description will always be wanted in some way, and will always run contrary to someone else’s. It is for this reason I said no one’s ‘God’ in the sense of their image of God in fact exists.
The Catholic image of God and of course other Christian denominations base their image of God on the person of Jesus Christ. They do so as they belief Jesus was God Incarnate and through Jesus something of God can be known. Of course you have to believe He was God Incarnate to accept that.
I once heard a priest say it is virtually impossible to discuss the Trinity without falling into heresy. I find this absolutely impossible - one reason I don’t discuss it.
Thus, any discussion on the Trinity will give rise to contradictions and discord as we are trying to quantify something in the absence of any reliable means of quantifying it other than the person of Jesus Christ.
Concerning the catechism, you know need me to tell you the wide spectrum of diversity exists in terms of interpretations of Scripture - each group claiming their interpretation is ‘it.’ The Catechism has the same problem. This demonstrates the limitations of the written word in conveying ideas, beliefs, and many other things. This is why truly believing something irrespective of what it is demands more than being able to present excellent written arguments. To truly believe something one has to not just accept an argument is logical, reasonable, sound etc. one has to be
persuaded by it not just in one’s mind, but in oneself. To illustrate, a jury may conclude the evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty, but to convict they must also be able to live with their decision. Perhaps this is more poignant where the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof, yet they belief the defendant is guilty.
)