Help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthias123

Guest
I need some help. I am enrolled in a course at school that deals a great deal with world religions. This course teaches about most religions and cultures. (Even includes a tour of Sikh temple or even possibly a Mosque.) Now during this course we all talk openly about or religions. It is a diverse group ranging from Catholics such as myself to Muslims, Atheists, agnostics ect. Now the teacher asks questions about why I believe what I do. It really becomes hard because I am trying very hard to represent the Lord and the Church in the best way possible. (I want to convey the truth of the Church without offending people.) A typical question would be like this:

Why do you believe God exists?

This is an extremely complicated topic to explain off the top of my head. I also feel guilty because I feel like I am representing the faith, and I am totally incompetent to do so.

Now the thing I like about this course is it makes me think. The more difficult questions they ask me, the more I find answers, and the deeper I grow in the faith.

For the question I states above, I really don’t think words will be sufficient to describe why I believe God exists. The best answer I can think of is I went seeking the Lord, and I found him. I now know the Lord (in my own limited mortal way) and there is no doubt in my mind that the Lord exists and he loves me. But that won’t make sense to anyone because they want proof.

I really feel the pressure because there are several people in the class that are looking for a religion. I feel that if I mess up, they will never consider becoming Catholics.

Are there any books or other resources that you have read that could help me?

(Sorry if this is the wrong section.)
 
First, there is no empirical proof in the way that I suspect they mean. There is no empirical or other kind of proof to the contrary either.

My advice will be subjective, since it is based on my exerience, but I have found that there is much general concordance among Christians, Church teaching, Popes, and Jesus.

Faith in God is the substance of things hoped for, and the substance of the Faith is the real proof. This form of proof will seem unacceptable to atheists, and many agnostics, because they will not see or understand its efficacy before they have Faith. An example of the substance would be the sacraments, prayer, and any communion or meeting with Christ. These are very real encounters, and they are every bit as true as encounters with loved ones. I apologize if this is not helping or making sense. If you use some of this, please tell your class that you got it from someone who was a very strong materialist atheist for many years. I had a coversion experience in which I was given the grace of Faith, and have experienced much of the substance I am referring to, including the conversion experience.

Also, take a look at the Pope’s latest encyclical Saved in Hope (Spe Salvi).

God Bless

Jon
 
Catholic Philosopher Peter Kreeft summarizes some of the proofs for God’s existence on his website:

peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm

Kreeft takes the lead from St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous five proofs for the existence of God.

You might also try perusing this thread on proving God’s existence:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=211540

There are lots of different articulations answering the question as well as useful links.

Jon W is right, I think, in that you will not find empircal proofs for God’s existence. But, that doesn’t mean there isn’t proof. Many people today mistakenly equate proof with scientific proof. There are other types of proof other than scientific proof.

It sounds like an interesting class. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself, though. The most important thing is to pray and ask God to work through you. Of course, you need to study and look for answers to the questions raised (as it seems you are doing). More than winning arguments, it’s important to be a witness. Just the fact that you live what you believe often speaks volumes, even when people have shut themselves off to listening to whatever argumentation you offer. At least, that’s been my experience. Of course, you still want to present the Catholic faith as accurately and convincingly as you can, but it’s important to keep in mind that it is ultimately God who does the heavy lifting.
 
*Handbook of Christian Apologetics *by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli is very good. Chapter 2 includes 20 arguments for the existence of God.

Other topics include the divinity of Christ, life after death, and salvation. There is also a section on Christianity and other religions.

Hope this helps!
 
Great advice from both posters, I think! Yes, take a look at the proofs that Joe cited. But, be very careful. If you present those proofs to someone particularly competent in philosophy of religion, they will dismantle them. A book that I very strongly recommend on the topic of proofs for God is Alvin Plantinga’s God and Other Minds. Take a close look at that, and subsequent improvements by Plantinga himself in his other books. On top of that, if you’re going this route, pay attention to those who disagree with Plantinga. Analytic philosophy is a hugely rich resource for all philosophical problems, including the existence of God. Let me know if you decice to go this route and would like further help.

God Bless

Jon
 
Why do you believe God exists? On purely logical grounds, because there must be an ultimate source of everything. You believe this ultimate source is God.

If you want to go the theological route: You believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).
 
Well I would say that I do not technically believe God exists, because it is a contradiction in terms to say that the essence of existence, whose nature is to exist, does not exist–that is, does not partake of its own nature. No faith is required when it’s been logically demonstrated.

I also had an argument for this here.
 
Hastrman said:
Well I would say that I do not technically believe God exists, because it is a contradiction in terms to say that the essence of existence, whose nature is to exist, does not exist–that is, does not partake of its own nature. No faith is required when it’s been logically demonstrated.

I also had an argument for this here.
Click to expand...
Hastrman, faith is still needed to believe God anyway. My logic merely states that His existence can, somewhat, be logically deduced. It, in no way, says what this God’s nature is, why He created the universe, and so on. You still need faith for this. =)
 
Author_Jerry said:
Hastrman, faith is still needed to believe God anyway. My logic merely states that His existence can, somewhat, be logically deduced. It, in no way, says what this God’s nature is, why He created the universe, and so on. You still need faith for this. =)
Click to expand...
Yes–and you definitely need it to say that a particular Church and its Book are telling the truth about, say, Jesus of Nazareth. But the question was, “why do you believe God exists.”

And the answer is, “Because to deny it is illogical–the supreme act of being exists by its (or rather His) very Nature.” And that’s not really a matter of belief.
 
Hastrman said:
Yes–and you definitely need it to say that a particular Church and its Book are telling the truth about, say, Jesus of Nazareth. But the question was, “why do you believe God exists.”

And the answer is, “Because to deny it is illogical–the supreme act of being exists by its (or rather His) very Nature.” And that’s not really a matter of belief.
Click to expand...
Many assumptions are still made when trying to come to this logical conclusion, though. How do you know these assumptions are correct? You have faith that they’re correct; thus, you believe this logic to be true. Or am I just trying to work myself out of my own words? 😃

OK, so I take back my the word “purely.” 👍
 
Author_Jerry said:
Many assumptions are still made when trying to come to this logical conclusion, though. How do you know these assumptions are correct? You have faith that they’re correct; thus, you believe this logic to be true. Or am I just trying to work myself out of my own words? 😃
Click to expand...
No, I know what you mean. Post-modernism, for instance, is, in a nutshell, a lack of faith in reason, or in anything else, and that’s why everything boils down to power.
 
Be careful guys. Your version of the ontological proof will not hold water in philosophical circles. I say this lovingly, as a bit of Catholic charity.

God Bless

Jon
 
JonW said:
Be careful guys. Your version of the ontological proof will not hold water in philosophical circles. I say this lovingly, as a bit of Catholic charity.

God Bless

Jon
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Obviously you didn’t read it, or you don’t actually know what the Ontological argument entails.

It’s not related to the Ontological argument at all, other than it involves existence–it only has one concept in common with Descartes’s silly Ontological argument, and nothing at all with Anselm; as for Plantinga’s I am not sure I understand it (as I learned logic in normal language, not symbolically), but it looks like far more question begging than I feel up for at this hour.

Mine is actually known as the argument from contingency. It’s based on Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to think about God”, but fleshed out a bit with more complex metaphysics.

Mortimer Adler, I think, counts as Philosophical Circles. The Pope…Philosophical circles. Maritain and the Neo-Scholastics, the phenomenologists…it holds water with most of them.

Oh, but most of them haven’t published in a long time, because many of them are dead. Yes, but that doesn’t affect the value of their ideas. It won’t hold water with modern philosophy departments, but since I am not their student, I don’t care.

Anyone who is even influenced by Aristotelianism (which includes many quantum physicists, Potency and Act being very important for explaining Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy) will agree that contingency is a very difficult argument to get around.

Anyone, also, whose philosophy is of the Indic tradition, say, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains, will also recognize the value of my approach.

Plantinga is no great shakes in my book. His epistemology comes very close to saying you simply must accept God’s existence a priori, and its criterion for judging “proper basicness” is asininely broad. No, sorry.

I say this irritatedly, with all the Catholic charity I can muster.
 
Matthias123 said:
I need some help. I am enrolled in a course at school that deals a great deal with world religions. This course teaches about most religions and cultures. (Even includes a tour of Sikh temple or even possibly a Mosque.) Now during this course we all talk openly about or religions. It is a diverse group ranging from Catholics such as myself to Muslims, Atheists, agnostics ect. Now the teacher asks questions about why I believe what I do. It really becomes hard because I am trying very hard to represent the Lord and the Church in the best way possible. (I want to convey the truth of the Church without offending people.) A typical question would be like this:

Why do you believe God exists?

This is an extremely complicated topic to explain off the top of my head. I also feel guilty because I feel like I am representing the faith, and I am totally incompetent to do so.

Now the thing I like about this course is it makes me think. The more difficult questions they ask me, the more I find answers, and the deeper I grow in the faith.

For the question I states above, I really don’t think words will be sufficient to describe why I believe God exists. The best answer I can think of is I went seeking the Lord, and I found him. I now know the Lord (in my own limited mortal way) and there is no doubt in my mind that the Lord exists and he loves me. But that won’t make sense to anyone because they want proof.

I really feel the pressure because there are several people in the class that are looking for a religion. I feel that if I mess up, they will never consider becoming Catholics.

Are there any books or other resources that you have read that could help me?

(Sorry if this is the wrong section.)
Click to expand...
Matthias, anything of Prof. Scott Hahn will be a great resource to you. His book “A Father Who Keeps His promises” is good. His work on covenants, on Acts of the Apostles. He has a wealth of fantastic Catholic material.
But if I may make a suggestion to you (I say humbley) dont be bullied into needing to respond. Be at peace with your faith and listen and learn to the best of your ability. But again dont be bullied. Your faith is the greatest there is.
God Bless
Grace Angel
 
Hi Hastrman,

Thank you for your help. It’s clear that you and I differ quite a bit on philosophy. I apologize if I came across as excessively doctrinaire or about your business.

God Bless

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top