How do thiests reconcile the contradictions for God's existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That seems to answer the question. I haven’t gotten all the way through it but it looks good.

I read the other responses too but I got confused. I’m not a good philosopher :o

So now I have another question. How are ‘contradictory’* revelations reconciled?

For example, how is Islam reconciled with Christianity and Judaism? Or if another faith has revelations (maybe Hinduism; I’m not a eastern religious scholar) how are those reconciled with everything else?

*contradictory is in quotes because God cannot contradict Himself. But atheists claim He does. So I put it in quotes.
 
Better-educated people than either of us have for millennia attempted to prove the existence of God using a wide variety of methods, and none of them have succeeded in attracting a consensus agreement among their educated peers. Currently, only a minority of philosophers in academia appear to be theists.
In terms of Christian faith, once you’ve had what might be called a “spiritual experience”, you know that God exists. It’s no longer just a case of academic reasoning. In Christmas 1983, I was at a thing called “beach mission” run by a basically protestant outfit called Scripture Union. I was a new Christian, not having a wonderful time in several areas of my life, and feeling quite negative about the whole thing. I was also wondering if it wasn’t just a psychological prop.

We had a Bible Study every afternon around 3pm. While listening to the group leader as he talked, and half drifting off in the summer heat under a marquis, he said the words, “… man after my own heart …”. Precisely as he said this, I was hit with what my later Catholic psychiatrist called a “double whammy” (he called it that because he had experienced it himself, in a different context), something like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot. I got such a shock I nearly fell off the seat. I looked around to see what everyone else was making of it, and they weren’t taking the slightest bit of notice.

The reason of course was the message of encouragement was meant for me only. When I mentioned it to my pastor later, his reply was “God knew you needed encouragement. You’d been through a rought time”. Mind you, the infinite God knew where to find me, my frame of mind, and how to do it, without giving Himself away to another single human soul.

And I’m just a speck in the cosmos. This was particular brought home to me when I saw a photograph taken by Voyager, as it journeyed out of the solar system. In what looked like sunbeams, there was this tiny pea, hovering in space. That was earth, and on that insignificant pea had taken all the wars, all the triumphs, all the tragedies, all the human story in history. Yet even in that infinite solitude, God knew where to find one human being and give a message.

I had two more double whammies, both time in the Presbyterian Church I attended, both times highlighting specific words spoken by the pastor, and both times completely unexpected. Once again He knew exactly where to find me, and how to deliver two messages, without a single other person knowing about it.

When you’ve had those sorts of experiences, you know from experience that God exists.

In fact, the real miracle is that He hides Himself so well. He’s all through us, around us, reading our thoughts, hearing our words, watching our actions. In Christ’s words, “On the day of judgment, a man will account for every useless word.” He forgets nothing.

Hence the need for faith, since He hides himself so well.

However for the purely academic minded theorist who wants logical proof God exists, but doesn’t want to know God (silly, because the main business of life is to get used to the fact that God knows us before its too late), I still think the proof is going to hinge on zero somehow.
 
When you’ve had those sorts of experiences, you know from experience that God exists.
The thing is, even if I accept your description of your experiences as completely accurate, that’s still not good reason to believe God exists. You claim that in summer heat, on the edge between consciousness and sleep, you felt waves of “breath”-like sensations going through your body at approximately the moment your group leader uttered a vaguely religious phrase.

How is that evidence for the existence of God?
 
I may have been drifting off or a bit dozy, but the sensation was quite deliberate and imposed on me from an external, hidden source. I soon snapped out of my reverie I can tell you.

The second and third times I was wide awake, in church, sitting on a fairly hard pew. Both times it was used to emphasise what the preacher was saying. I remember practically nothing of the rest of the context of his sermons, but the two reference were in relation to St. Paul and CS Lewis.

Therefore, coming from an atheist background for some time, and as a relatively new Christian, I had in short order references to David (“man after my own heart”), St. Paul (“little man of great wisdom and insight”), and CS Lewis ('an intellectual ministry that went around the world"). Those are the words emphasised, as I heard them.

Bit odd that I should get 3 specific messages, very clearly imposed on me by something external to me (and I know my own mind well enough to know when something is coming from outside or my own thoughts, just as I would know the difference between feeling “cold” when I’ve had a bad fright or a bout of the flu in summer, and feeling “cold” because the weather is genuinely cold), all in a very specific Christian or Biblical context.

And I’ve only had the three specific instances of them. God doesn’t say much.

I’ve mentioned my Catholic psychiatrist. This little story comes from him. He was sitting in his office one day, in the medical specialist part of Brisbane, when a voice just said out of the blue in his office, “Go to Maclean”. There was no context given, no reason, no explanation, nothing. Maclean is a town in northern NSW in Australia, about two or so hours from Brisbane.

So he just noted it. Now he gets involved in “family healing masses” as he believes that actions of ancestors can have a spiritual, hereditary effect on families. He can cite a number of cases where when a certain mass has been held on behalf of a deceased relative, a long standing personal problem has been resolved.

A couple of months after the “voice” he was in Lismore (also in Northern NSW) involved with one of the family healing masses on behalf of the local priest. Afterwards an aboriginal woman came up to him and said, “I don’t want to be a nuisance, or make a pest of myself, but I seem to be getting told you ought to go to Maclean”.

Now if somebody came up to you like that, and made that sort of statement, you’d need some sort of good reason to act on it, especially since you have had a long day, and have at least a two hour drive to get home. But he’d already been warned very specifically by the unseen voice in the office two months before.

He ended up on some island in a river there that had once been used as a sort of lock-up for aboriginals in the early days of European settlement, when jails were in short supply and transport was slow. It seemed there was some sort of unfinished spiritual business to be dealt with.

God exists all right. When He wants to, He can be very specific with His instructions. But He also doesn’t say much. In the psychiatrist’s case, it amounted to just three words. “Go to Maclean”. And it was another couple of months before he found out the reason.
 
I may have been drifting off or a bit dozy, but the sensation was quite deliberate and imposed on me from an external, hidden source.
I see no reason to draw this conclusion. What about the “breath”-like waves of sensation lead you to believe that they were imposed deliberately by an outside agent? I do not see anything in your story to justify that inference.
Bit odd that I should get 3 specific messages, very clearly imposed on me by something external to me (and I know my own mind well enough to know when something is coming from outside or my own thoughts
You have stated that the words came from your group leader in one case and your pastor in another. What about that is so unusual?
I’ve mentioned my Catholic psychiatrist. This little story comes from him.
Well, that’s a nice story, but I confess I cannot bring myself to believe it, due to its fantastic elements.
 
Better-educated people than either of us have for millennia attempted to prove the existence of God using a wide variety of methods, and none of them have succeeded in attracting a consensus agreement among their educated peers.
@MindOverMatter2, which you twisted to "So the argument from majority vote is one of the main reasons for denying theism?"

Do i really have to explain to you why you are WAY off in you comparison???
 
Modern day atheism hinges on the epistemological method of naturalism. Atheists see no evidence for God because they see no empirical or scientific evidence for such a being. The problem is that such an epistemological method is in fact epistemology, and it therefore necessarily transcends the particular application of the method, such as science. The only way science can work as an epistemological method is if the scientist admits that a non-scientific rationalization can be used to establish the reliability of science as a method in the first place. Such a position necessarily destroys the viewpoint that all truth is empirical and based on science.

Atheists are not scientific first. They are first philosophically naturalists and empiricists, and only secondarily scientific. The “lack of evidence for God” is in fact a lack of empirical evidence for God. Naturally, such a view is only a problem if all evidence must be empirical, which is not a given or necessary position.

The debate between atheists and theists is sometimes painted as being between rational science and irrational faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real debate is between those who are philosophically metaphysical in outlook, and those who are philosophically empiricist in outlook. It’s a debate between philosophies on philosophic grounds.

Modern day naturalism is merely the current manifestation of several philosophic trends, generally beginning with the nominalism of William of Ockham. It won’t be around forever, as any study of the history of philosophy will demonstrate. I would recommend reading Etienne Gilson, particularly The Unity of Philosophic Experience, if you want to get a broad picture of naturalism’s position in the history of philosophy.
 
The dispute is not over our ability to choose, but rather our ability to choose freely. Here’s how I look at it: My decision-making is either caused or uncaused. If it is caused, then it is determined by that cause, and so the action that follows from my decision will also be determined, etc. If it is uncaused, then it is, by definition, random. So my will is either determined by previous causes or it is a result of randomness.

The only way to escape this conclusion is to posit some sort of middle ground between “caused” and “uncaused,” but I don’t see any such middle ground.

Do you choose or do you not choose ? In any case you use a reply to the OP & then say it doesn`t answer your requirements . The sort of fuzzy logic presented makes it difficult , if not impossible to identify the argument . Is your decision making not your own ? Thus it is the result of your free will . How can it not be the product of your free will ?
[SIGN]Pax et bonum[/SIGN]
 
I see no reason to draw this conclusion. What about the “breath”-like waves of sensation lead you to believe that they were imposed deliberately by an outside agent? I do not see anything in your story to justify that inference.

You have stated that the words came from your group leader in one case and your pastor in another. What about that is so unusual?

Well, that’s a nice story, but I confess I cannot bring myself to believe it, due to its fantastic elements.
Fantastic to you maybe. I don’t have an ounce of trouble believing him, due to my own “fantastic” experiences. And I know what I’ve experienced.

Rest assured, you’ll have your own “fantastic” experience one day, on the day you die. I had the peculiar experience of my own father turning up in my room the night he died. He’d been very cruel, so he started with an apology, we argued and conversed, and then he disappeared with one terrifying scream. That was 31 years ago, and I still remember the scream and some of the things he said. One specific prediction was “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is discourage you even more!”

I met the pastor about 4 years later, and about 8 or 9 years after than he said to me in his office,“I owe you an apology. You needed encouragement, but all I’ve done is to discourage you even more.” Almost word for word what my father said.

I was an atheist at the time by the way.

If my own experience is anything to go by, God will probably get hold of you in one of two ways - either you will be genuinely searching for Him and He’ll respond in some unmistakeable fashion, or He’ll make, or let you make, your life so frustrating you’ll get to the point where you think there’s got to be something more than this.

I hope for your sake it’s the first.

At this point I don’t think there’s much more we can say to each other.
 
What do you mean by evidence? Just as long as you understand that lack of “scientific evidence” is not a rational basis for saying that there is no evidence for Gods existence…

I’m not sure what you mean. The idea of “evidence” exists in no other field but science. There is no such thing as non-scientific evidence, just as there is no such thing as a non-geometrical shape.
…since we rationally accept the existence of other things without scientific evidence.
Actually, it was the other way around: When I was a believer, I would desperately cling to my belief even though I had no evidence for my belief.
 
I’m not sure what you mean. The idea of “evidence” exists in no other field but science. There is no such thing as non-scientific evidence, just as there is no such thing as a non-geometrical shape.

.
Court cases hinge on evidence.

Judge: Is that correct.
Accused: Yes Judge, that is correct.
Judge: [To court] You have heard the evidence from the accused’s’ own lips.
Accused: But, have you weighed my evidence, Judge?
Judge: I have weighed your evidence and have found you guilty.
Accused: Ok, then, Judge.
 
Fantastic to you maybe. I don’t have an ounce of trouble believing him, due to my own “fantastic” experiences. And I know what I’ve experienced.
Are you holding something back about those experiences? Because from what you’ve told me, they’re not fantastic at all. Only your interpretations of those experiences are fantastic.
 
For example, how is a thiest supposed to respond to the contradiction that states: can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?
You are suppose to remind the person what a contradiction is and that in truth they cannot exist. If contradictions cannot exist or are not suppose to exist then they can not be used as means to argue or prove anything. God cannot contradict Himself and these contradictions they present are not valid arguments against Gods omnipotent nature.
Or, if God knows everything we don’t have free will.
It is by Gods Ordaining Will that all things exist (except sin) and by His Permitting Will that things are allowed to exist. This means whatever happens to you comes from God or is permitted by God. It should aslo be understood that God always knows the condition of our hearts! If all things are Willed by God and God always knows the condition of our heart then God knows what we will do with our free will. This knowledge however in no way impeeds our free will.
 
Coolduude
How are ‘contradictory’* revelations reconciled?
There are no other “revelations”. No other religious founder claimed to be God – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His resurrection. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion there own beliefs and morals.

The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from:
order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence. You will find these proofs in Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001. The objections of Kant are answered.
Also see: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
 
The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from:
order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence.
Really? I’m all ears, i would love to see how any of these prove god. Lets start with order and law in nature.
 
Originally Posted by Abu
The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from:
order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence.
Really? I’m all ears, i would love to see how any of these prove god. Lets start with order and law in nature.
Oh… ok, I will, if you like.

order and law:

The god [origin] of order is obviously random chaos.

The god [origin] of law is obviously disorder.

How am I doing?
 
So, if God created everything, does that mean that he created this “realm of reason” that appears to restrict his ability to exercise his own powers? I’m sorry, but any way you look at it, it seems that you’re saying that reason is above God. If so, then God can hardly be said to be infinitely powerful. If anything, reason would be more powerful than him!

The dispute is not over our ability to choose, but rather our ability to choose freely. Here’s how I look at it: My decision-making is either caused or uncaused. If it is caused, then it is determined by that cause, and so the action that follows from my decision will also be determined, etc. If it is uncaused, then it is, by definition, random. So my will is either determined by previous causes or it is a result of randomness.

The only way to escape this conclusion is to posit some sort of middle ground between “caused” and “uncaused,” but I don’t see any such middle ground.
So I think I understand what you are saying. " God makes us choose, by giving us free will. The wrong choice has eternal and infinitely painful consequences. If the consequences force the “right” choice, then there is no valid willful choice. So therefore either God is non omnipotent, or God is not omnibenificent. Straw Man. He is omnipotent in the sense of being able to do anything he wills. And as the concept of damnation illustrates his benificense is only willed to be omnipotent to the point that it doesn’t override our free will. God has the ability to override our free will, even in the cause of being benificent. He simply chooses not to.
This argument doesn’t disprove the existence of God, but is merely a confusion between what he "can " do and what he “wills” to do. Extrapolating that since you can’t or won’t differentiate this, God cannot exist because of the resulting apparant " contradiction " is a logical fallacy, because its a false dichotomy.
 
The entity, “a rock so big He can’t lift it,” implies that there is a threshold of magnitude whereby God is unable to lift things. If we specify in advance that no such threshold exists, then the entity in question is ill-defined. In other words, the phrase “a rock so big He can’t lift it” is just incoherent nonsense. So too is any question which includes that phrase.

You might as well ask, “Can God toad the wet sprocket?” It’s just meaningless blather.

In my experience, the most of the popular arguments against the existence of God are either indefensible or else aimed at the wrong target, e.g. a particular theological doctrine, as opposed to God’s existence or nonexistence. The free will argument is an example of the latter. Now, I would go so far as to deny the very coherence of libertarian free will as a concept at all, much less one which is compatible with divine sovereignty. But this isn’t an argument against the existence of God. It’s just an argument for compatibilism, which may possibly be extended into a moral objection to God’s alleged behavior. And that moral objection doesn’t challenge God’s existence at all. Indeed, it too has at least one possible answer.

In my judgment, the problem with theism is not that it can be proved false. On the contrary, many forms of theism seem perfectly consistent, internally. Rather, my biggest issue with theism is that it is not demonstrably true. That is, it lacks sufficient supporting evidence or other rational warrant. As long as that remains to be the case, I am quite satisfied to deny theism.
You seem to be standing in a contradiction. You make demonstrable truth into a scientific principle, if you claim it needs " supporting evidence or rational warrant. " By everyone’s admission, science itself doesn’t address the question of whether a Creator Exists. So using the lack of scientific proof for a question that science doesn’t address to answer the question in a negative, or say we can’t answer the question is fallacious. Can medical terminology be used to address an issue of macroeconomics, for instance. No. The same applies in the issue you brought up.
 
You seem to be standing in a contradiction. You make demonstrable truth into a scientific principle, if you claim it needs " supporting evidence or rational warrant. " By everyone’s admission, science itself doesn’t address the question of whether a Creator Exists. So using the lack of scientific proof for a question that science doesn’t address to answer the question in a negative, or say we can’t answer the question is fallacious. Can medical terminology be used to address an issue of macroeconomics, for instance. No. The same applies in the issue you brought up.
Hmm. It sounds like you misunderstood my post. I didn’t say anything about science or the scientific method.
 
Oh… ok, I will, if you like.

order and law:

The god [origin] of order is obviously random chaos.

The god [origin] of law is obviously disorder.

How am I doing?
Not very well. What does any of this have to do with a proof for a god? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top