S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I’ve been out of school for 20 years dude. I don’t take tests anymore, and I am not a bit concerned about whatever criteria you have developed for me to follow. Have a nice day.
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
Actually, it’s:
“if there were a God and no free will there wouldn’t be any foxholes.”
4
4_marks
Guest
I believe quite the opposite. The fact that there is unceasing struggle and disappointment and uneasiness and suffering in this life are signs of encouragement to me that indeed, God exists.
4
4_marks
Guest
W
wolpertinger
Guest
4 marks:
I am aware of this approach. Even though I reject it, thank you for your answer.
W
wcknight
Guest
I didn’t have a near death experience, but I could have very easily been dead as that was my original intent. I can’t even tell you how I failed, as it is still a mystery to me how I survived. MAYBE this is a whole new reality created just for me ?
I needed to prove to myself, that God really does exists and there really is something after this life. It sort of became an obsession, the not knowing was very bothersome. The idea of nothingness can be very disturbing, as you and many others may be experiencing now.
Maybe I was searching for an NDE, or miracle revelation, or some sign that the stuff I had read about was not just a bunch of peoples delusions as some doctors and ministers would have us believe.
What I discovered was that even the thought that one had died and gone to hell was an even more disturbing thought. An eternity of isolation from God, even if not in eternal torment was extremely unsettling. What I got from my experience was the fierce determination that IF there is a God and IF there is an eternity after life, I want to be damn sure I’m on the right side of it.
BUT what was more amazing was that after I returned to my faith, I saw even more evidence of God’s existence is the everyday aspects of my life. They were very subtle, but it just seemed that God was trying to show me, I did not need miraculous things to happen to prove that He was around.
Most were on a very personal level, accomplishements that would mean nothing to anyone else, were fantastic for me. All could be explained away as entirely possible, maybe coinidental, maybe inevitable, and not much out of the ordinary. Maybe I was just looking at things from a different perspective or maybe I was just more relaxed and more confident.
I would love to be 100% sure that everything I believed in was as I think it is. Now, I think I can live with the uncertainty. Before I couldn’t, I’m not sure what made the difference.
All doubt will be removed when I really do cross that threshold to whatever follows, before I was scared to death that maybe nothing was left, and I was scared to death that if there was something I would not be on the right side to enjoy it. Now I know IF there really is anything afterwards, I have no fear of what it may be.
A lot of born-agains claim this certainty, but unless they have died and come back, even they are as much in doubt as the rest of us. They can claim they know it all but I ain’t buying it. ONLY one has died and come back (yes I know there are thousands of NDEs), but one ONE knows all the secrets of the universe.
Everyone is searching for the Truth, and only you can decide for yourself what that Truth is for you. IF life is better for you as a believer, certainly it is far better to live not being depressed. BTW serious depression needs to be professionaly treated, I know, been there - done that.
Unfortunately there are no mathematical formulas or scientific method to prove that God exists. The greatest minds have not even come close to solving that problem and my guess is that they never will.
The one idea that brought my daughter back to believing that there at least must be a God, is the notion that "are we not being a bit too naive and too arrogant in thinking that in this whole huge universe, that we humans, are the highest life form and top level of existence. IF we are the height of creation, creation is in pretty sad shape
(This may be a good argument for extra-terrestials, which I have had real life evidence of - just seen something unexplainable -not been abducted …yet
I like to think of God as being tremendously amused by us all saying that He doesn’t exists. It must be like our little kids when they hide in the open and cover their eyes and say “your don’t see me”. It’s terribly cute, and maybe we just need to look at things a different way.
regards Wes
“Blessed are those who not seen, and yet believe”
I just kind of wish I had been one of those who HAD seen ! It must have been glorious !
W
wolpertinger
Guest
In reply to the opening post, there is nothing incredible about stating a lack of knowledge or declaring a question as principally unanswerable. In this particular scenario, the reverse should be questioned. Unless one’s epistemological position does not require absolute truth as a condition of knowledge, it is difficult at best to defend a knowledge claim of god’s existence.
Further, atheism as understood by atheists is entirely compatible with agnosticism as understood by agnostics. In that respect, the opening post is unclear.
Further, atheism as understood by atheists is entirely compatible with agnosticism as understood by agnostics. In that respect, the opening post is unclear.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
double post deleted…
4
4_marks
Guest
You are very welcome. Keep seeking. You just may find what you are searching for. Be aware that many of the questions which you ask may not be answered to your satisfaction if you insist solely upon taking an empirical and rationalistic approach. Questions of faith generally transcend those which seek scientific and clear-cut conclusions. Even so, such questions are legitimate to raise for they are intrinsically ontological and they emanate within the deepest longings of the human heart.
R
reen12
Guest
It occured to me that faith is a gift of God’s
grace. While it’s lovely to have an intellect to
wrestle with the epistemoligical and
ontological questions involved, still, faith is a
gift.
One thing I’m sure of. If I were sure there was
no God, I wouldn’t be engaging those who
do in intellectual gymnastics. If I were an
atheist, the positon of “deists” of whatever
stripe would strike me as so ridiculous that
engaging deists in debate would constitute
for me a form of trivial pursuit.
It would have all the dignity for me of serious
engagement over the non-existence of
Caspar, the Friendly Ghost.
My own assessment is that the real issue
comes down to the position taken 350 plus
years ago by members of the Enlightment.
If I can’t see it, smell it, weigh it, touch it,
measure it, hear it…then, “it” doesn’t exist.
So for 350 years many have enjoyed the
discomfiture of deists at not being able to
produce empirical “evidence,” and some believers
have writhed and twitched and become
defensive or insulting, trying to defend, what,
to an empirisict, is, ultimately, indefensible.
If I don’t believe God exists, the whole question
is risible.
If I do believe, it is a relationship with a Person.
All I’m required to do, from that position, is to
testify, witness, declare. I am not obliged to
provide empirical proof. Mine is an obligation
to declare. God provides the gift of faith,
not me.
While I’m not big on “shaking the dust” from my
sandals, I must admit that occassionally my
foot twitches a bit.
reen12
grace. While it’s lovely to have an intellect to
wrestle with the epistemoligical and
ontological questions involved, still, faith is a
gift.
One thing I’m sure of. If I were sure there was
no God, I wouldn’t be engaging those who
do in intellectual gymnastics. If I were an
atheist, the positon of “deists” of whatever
stripe would strike me as so ridiculous that
engaging deists in debate would constitute
for me a form of trivial pursuit.
It would have all the dignity for me of serious
engagement over the non-existence of
Caspar, the Friendly Ghost.
My own assessment is that the real issue
comes down to the position taken 350 plus
years ago by members of the Enlightment.
If I can’t see it, smell it, weigh it, touch it,
measure it, hear it…then, “it” doesn’t exist.
So for 350 years many have enjoyed the
discomfiture of deists at not being able to
produce empirical “evidence,” and some believers
have writhed and twitched and become
defensive or insulting, trying to defend, what,
to an empirisict, is, ultimately, indefensible.
If I don’t believe God exists, the whole question
is risible.
If I do believe, it is a relationship with a Person.
All I’m required to do, from that position, is to
testify, witness, declare. I am not obliged to
provide empirical proof. Mine is an obligation
to declare. God provides the gift of faith,
not me.
While I’m not big on “shaking the dust” from my
sandals, I must admit that occassionally my
foot twitches a bit.
reen12
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
It seems to me that the basset hound is humorous only in relation to us; it is not inherently humorous. In the same way, the diversity of life is lavish only in relation to conscious beings.
Consciousness itself is a puzzle. (But then, so is matter.) Why should subjective experience exist? I can’t fathom it. It does seem to be the most important thing in the universe, from a conscious perspective.
I’d LIKE to think it was the foundation of everything; that instead of being the result of non-conscious things, a consciousness created non-conscious things. But that is contrary to my experience of consciousness. How can there be a mind without something to be conscious of? What would it think ABOUT? God might have begun complete with a set of mental objects included, but if that were the case, those basic objects of his thoughts would be prior to him, if not chronologically, at least “ontologically”. (I know God is said to exist outside of time, but what we call consciousness is an activity, and so can only take place within time.)If the origin or originator of the universe were not conscious, I wouldn’t say that it was God; I think I was describing an atheistic universe.
Michael
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
4 marks:
I can’t see why we should assume that the originator of the universe or any part of us is immaterial. (Do we really have much of a grasp of what that would mean anyway?)
The conscious is only obviously “less than” the unconscious from *our *perspective. We shouldn’t assume that there is some objective ordinal ranking of things. I would grant that conscious systems are complex, but why do you think that they need to come from a more complex system or even an equally complex one? There is more to an oak than there is to an acorn, after all. As David Hume suggested, we in fact regularly observe the more complex growing from the less complex in nature, so why not assume that that modal describes the universe as a whole, rather than the design modal which we see far fewer examples of?
I can’t see why we should assume that the originator of the universe or any part of us is immaterial. (Do we really have much of a grasp of what that would mean anyway?)
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
It is better not to be depressed, but I want a happiness built upon honesty. At this point, I can’t have such happiness as a theist.…
Everyone is searching for the Truth, and only you can decide for yourself what that Truth is for you. IF life is better for you as a believer, certainly it is far better to live not being depressed. BTW serious depression needs to be professionaly treated, I know, been there - done that.
…
The one idea that brought my daughter back to believing that there at least must be a God, is the notion that "are we not being a bit too naive and too arrogant in thinking that in this whole huge universe, that we humans, are the highest life form and top level of existence. IF we are the height of creation, creation is in pretty sad shape
I’m able to function Wcknight, and to distract myself. I’m sure I have no right to complain when there are seriously depressed people who can’t do either of those things. Mostly I just wanted to make the point that not all of us unbelievers are happy with our lot. We aren’t all running away from a ‘restrictive’ lifestyle, nor are we willfully denying the obvious.
I don’t know that talk of arrogance should come into play at all here, but one might argue that it is arrogant for us to assume that the universe was created for and by conscious beings. It is beyond humbling to contemplate a universe completely indifferent to us.
A
amarischuk
Guest
I am sure that Anthony Kenny would disagree and I think it grossly presumptuous to state that agnostics necessarily suffer from intellectual laziness.
It has been my experience that most of the people truly wrestling with these metaphysical problems are liberal Catholics, agnostics and atheists. It is the fundamentalist in the pews who is the truly ignorant.
4
4_marks
Guest
David Hume’s philosophical constructs are by-products of the Cartesian Error. The philosophical breach with classical logic that took place has led us down a path that leads eventually to the nihilism of Satre. May I suggest that you examine carefully the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anselm, and their Greek and Roman philosophical predecessors before buying into philosphical idealogy that is rooted primarily in stringent rationalism and leaves little room for the metaphysical dimensions of reality.
4
4_marks
Guest
Obtain a copy of “The God Of Faith And Reason” by Father
Robert Sokolowski, carefully read through and reflect upon it.
Many among us have been trained to segregate and dichotomize faith and reason into two distinct philosophical categories. As products of a materialistic post-modern Western culture that entrusts itself to science and technological advance, we have been deeply schooled in the constructs of men such as Locke, Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Dewey, Russell, and even, to a certain degree, Marx and Nietsche. Consequently, some are in danger of falling headlong into a world view composed principally of, and undergirded by, secular humanism, agnosticism, and nihilism.
Robert Sokolowski, carefully read through and reflect upon it.
Many among us have been trained to segregate and dichotomize faith and reason into two distinct philosophical categories. As products of a materialistic post-modern Western culture that entrusts itself to science and technological advance, we have been deeply schooled in the constructs of men such as Locke, Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Dewey, Russell, and even, to a certain degree, Marx and Nietsche. Consequently, some are in danger of falling headlong into a world view composed principally of, and undergirded by, secular humanism, agnosticism, and nihilism.
R
reen12
Guest
Dear MichaelLewis,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
As to the dog only being humorous from our
evaluation of same, i.e. not “intrinsically” humorous,
that argument reminds me of the ol’ canard of “If a tree falls
in the forest and no one hears it…” It is a pseudo,
language created construct, the end result of a
life lived in radical “subjectivity.”
By that ordo, there is no beauty, or no way of
assessing same, because what is beautiful for
me [subjectivity] may not be beautiful for you, or,
it’s beauty lies in it’s mere existence…which
may be a construct that works for you?
May I recommed Tom Wolf’s The Painted Word.
And, if not Tom Wolf, how about just looking
around in the universe, maybe smelling some
lilacs and perhaps petting a basset hound.
Radical subjectivity, for me, is the finest recipe
I know of for radical loneliness.
I look forward to the possibility of a response to
this post, because in my estimation, you are
very, very good at presenting your position.
Best wishes,
reen12
PS It’s been 35 years since I engaged regularly
in discussions on “subjectivity”, so I’m enjoying
same.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
As to the dog only being humorous from our
evaluation of same, i.e. not “intrinsically” humorous,
that argument reminds me of the ol’ canard of “If a tree falls
in the forest and no one hears it…” It is a pseudo,
language created construct, the end result of a
life lived in radical “subjectivity.”
By that ordo, there is no beauty, or no way of
assessing same, because what is beautiful for
me [subjectivity] may not be beautiful for you, or,
it’s beauty lies in it’s mere existence…which
may be a construct that works for you?
May I recommed Tom Wolf’s The Painted Word.
And, if not Tom Wolf, how about just looking
around in the universe, maybe smelling some
lilacs and perhaps petting a basset hound.
Radical subjectivity, for me, is the finest recipe
I know of for radical loneliness.
I look forward to the possibility of a response to
this post, because in my estimation, you are
very, very good at presenting your position.
Best wishes,
reen12
PS It’s been 35 years since I engaged regularly
in discussions on “subjectivity”, so I’m enjoying
same.
R
reen12
Guest
One more thought: Whether Eastern or
Western in our philosophy, I think it is possible
to agree on the following:
a creator exists or,
a creator does not exist
Ultimately, it matters not a wit whether I personally
agree or disagree with the proposition. A creator
is either a reality [exists] or a dandy piece of
wishful thinking [does not exist].
In a whimsical moment I’m apt to think of a
variation of Pascal’s Wager: i.e.,
If a creator exists, there’s a very solid chance
that we’ll know so after death…not a certainty,
mind you, but a solid chance.
If not, the game’s up, the discussion’s over and
no one gets to say “I told you so!” because
we’re talking extinction.
Just a thought.
reen12
Western in our philosophy, I think it is possible
to agree on the following:
a creator exists or,
a creator does not exist
Ultimately, it matters not a wit whether I personally
agree or disagree with the proposition. A creator
is either a reality [exists] or a dandy piece of
wishful thinking [does not exist].
In a whimsical moment I’m apt to think of a
variation of Pascal’s Wager: i.e.,
If a creator exists, there’s a very solid chance
that we’ll know so after death…not a certainty,
mind you, but a solid chance.
If not, the game’s up, the discussion’s over and
no one gets to say “I told you so!” because
we’re talking extinction.
Just a thought.
reen12
C
cheddarsox
Guest
I think life makes long time agnostics. If you live enough and wonder enough and question why enough…it can tend to lead to agnosticism, because what takes place is beyond the scope of most mortal minds to comprehend.
I could use a psycological whitewash and say “God” is responsible for all I do not understand, and then pretend I have clue as to what “God” is. Or I could admit, I don’t get it in step one.
I don’t get it. Hence…agnosticism. Mine happens to currently take the form of pantheism. I believe the divine in that which makes it all happen, and is present in all the universe. Sort of the physical laws which govern everything. I believe that, but I don’t understand it…agnosticism. Somethings going on, but the reality is, I don’t know what’s going on.
Life took me to this place. It has been a wild ride.
cheddar
I could use a psycological whitewash and say “God” is responsible for all I do not understand, and then pretend I have clue as to what “God” is. Or I could admit, I don’t get it in step one.
I don’t get it. Hence…agnosticism. Mine happens to currently take the form of pantheism. I believe the divine in that which makes it all happen, and is present in all the universe. Sort of the physical laws which govern everything. I believe that, but I don’t understand it…agnosticism. Somethings going on, but the reality is, I don’t know what’s going on.
Life took me to this place. It has been a wild ride.
cheddar
M
MichaelLewis
Guest
4 marks:
It doesn’t really matter who made the point first, does it? I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that my response to your argument for theism was sound because David Hume had made it. I just think it is a good response. If it isn’t, please tell me why; how would a Thomist reply? (“Cartesian Error”—would that be his mind-body dualism?)
Michael
4 mark,
It doesn’t really matter who made the point first, does it? I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that my response to your argument for theism was sound because David Hume had made it. I just think it is a good response. If it isn’t, please tell me why; how would a Thomist reply? (“Cartesian Error”—would that be his mind-body dualism?
)Michael
- Status