How is it possible to be agnostic?

[freesoulhope]

there is a difference between religion and God. You’re right that I would be foolish to “pick a fight with God” over my atheism. However, I’m perfectly willing to defend my position to the religious.

What position is that? If you accept that the militant-atheists position is philosophically redundant in light of God, your position cannot rationally be one that rejects the existents of God, otherwise you’re simply protecting an irrational position. If your attack is on religion, then it just means that you do not believe its your responsibility as human being to put your faith in the truthfulness of any particular " established religion"; this is a different position entirely, and it is a position that is held by many who believe that there is a God; it is a belief like any other religion, accept that those who believe it, do not feel they owe any moral worship to a creator; they just live their lives.

 

[LapsedAtheist]

What position is that? If you accept that the militant-atheists position is philosophically redundant in light of God, your position cannot rationally be one that rejects the existents of God, otherwise you’re simply protecting an irrational position.

Only if God exists, and it is a Christian-style active, judging God.

If your attack is on religion, then it just means that you do not believe its your responsibility as human being to put your faith in the truthfulness of any particular " established religion"; this is a different position entirely, and it is a position that is held by many who believe that there is a God; it is a belief like any other religion, accept that those who believe it, do not feel they owe any moral worship to a creator; they just live their lives.

And as I implied above, if someone claims I’m wrong to do so, I’ll defend my position.

I don’t have any sort of attack on religion.

 

[freesoulhope]

Personally, seeing how I go to Mass most Sundays, read the Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church regularly, and generally put quite a bit of thought, energy and effort into trying my best to fairly consider religion, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, I don’t think your characterization is accurate. Most other atheists I know put quite a bit of thought and reflection into their positions.

I rationalise.

At first glance, like I once was, you’re are searching for truth; whether people want the truth is a different matter, and is a matter of personal agenda; on this I cannot judge since I do not know your intentions.

The fact of the matter is this: If atheism cannot at least prove its self logically/philosophically (let alone through empirical science) then it cannot be a matter of intellectual, philosophical enlightenment that one chooses to be Atheist (as in, the none belief in any God); it can only be an emotional reaction to the world, or a kind of intelectual ignorance, whether purposeful or otherwise. One doesn’t have to know or want to know who God is to realise that, intellectually/philosophically, God is the only reasonable argument for the existents of reality; full stop. Science doesn’t get a say in it, because it is a tool to study nature, not super nature; it is a higher level of existents or cause of it.

Only an irrational, unreasonable, illogical universe has no God; are universe is rational, therefore, going by what is rational and reasonable (if one believes and lives by logic and reason), it’s logically impossible that a inteligent Cause/God of some kind, doesn’t exist.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

Only if God exists, and it is a Christian-style active, judging God.

Logicaly a God must exist; even if one cannot know the existents of God “emprically”, I know that commonsense demands it.

Im not sure what you mean by Christian stlye either; there are many ideas of who God is.

 

[Mirdath]

The fact of the matter is this: If atheism cannot at least prove its self logically/philosophically (let alone through empirical science) then it cannot be a matter of intellectual, philosophical enlightenment that one chooses to be Atheist (as in, the none belief in any God); it can only be an emotional reaction to the world, or a kind of intelectual ignorance, whether purposeful or otherwise.

Putting it exactly on the level of theism. Both require faith in or not-in the divine.

One doesn’t have to know or want to know who God is to realise that, intellectually/philosophically, God is the only reasonable argument for the existents of reality; full stop. Science doesn’t get a say in it, because it is a tool to study nature, not super nature; it is a higher level of existents or cause of it.

Problem is, we are unable to reach into that ‘super nature’ at all – unable even to know if there really is one. Science is no good, as you said, and philosophy no better.

Only an irrational, unreasonable, illogical universe has no God; are universe is rational, therefore, going by what is rational and reasonable (if one believes and lives by logic and reason), it’s logically impossible that a inteligent Cause/God of some kind, doesn’t exist.

Logic can have nothing to do with a nature that transcends it. Logic exists in the real; the supernatural is beyond it.

 

[freesoulhope]

Putting it exactly on the level of theism. Both require faith in or not-in the divine.

Problem is, we are unable to reach into that ‘super nature’ at all – unable even to know if there really is one. Science is no good, as you said, and philosophy no better.

To say that Philosophy is no better, is just making a statement; please explain what leads you to believe it.

Theism, does need a level of faith especailly when excepting a revelation of religion; however atheism proves unreasonable when trying to apuire a reasonable cause for the complexity and rationality of lifes order; where as theism is a logical explanation and is the only logical explanation avalible.

It takes a level of honesty to understand this.

 

[freesoulhope]

Logic can have nothing to do with a nature that transcends it. Logic exists in the real; the supernatural is beyond it.

Acording to what, do you believe this to be the case? If nature is the product of a super nature, then logic will lead you back to it; and the elements of nature will be suggestive of it, since rationality and reason are products the super natural, if such a thing exists.

 

[freesoulhope]

The impossibility of atheism is identical to that of theism: .

This is just a blank statement with nothing to back it up. Simply saying something is true or not true, is not good enough; and if your going to say that the existents of God is imposible well… Please show me why you think atheism is identical to that of theism; give me a reasonable answer that backs up your statement.

‘super nature’ by definition is defiant of logic.

Again, this is just another blank statement. You haven’t shown me the rationality behind your statement; please show me the thought process’s that have lead you to this conclusion.

This thread is about agnosticism. Thanks.

Agnosticism is a product of unbelief due to lack of evidence. Lack of evidence, is the same argument presented by militant atheist; one can still have a reasonable belief in something with out the “scientific evidence”; you simply choose not to, possibly, because the object of belief is God, and God opens up the question of religion, which to some people, is an un-popular prospect. Agnosticism, because of its philosophical basis, raises other important qeustions.

Points one and two are simply just as true for theism as they are for atheism, and the rest of them fly in the face of that.

Again, this is just another unreasonable blank statement; please express to me the thought process’s that have lead you to this conclusion.

LapsedAtheist already did in the post mentioning the Miller-Urey experiment.

The experiment says nothing about the existents or non existents of God; it says that are reality is constructed in such away so that certain reactions are activated under certain conditions; such as the activation of life. This doesn’t tell me “why” such a thing should occur; it only tells me how it occurred, and the conditions that ignited its occurrence; God can be seen as somebody who has set things up so that such things can occur. The experiment doesn’t prove or disprove Gods existents; and has nothing to say about cause of are reality, such as the materials that played a part in our coming to being and why they should function as they do.

But philosophically, the Miller-Urey experiments is not a good basis for a materialist arguement, since it can only suggest at best, that God does not interfare step by step, but rather allows reality to unravel through a natural process over long periods of time. Where reality came form?..well its unreasonable (and i will explained why in the next post) that we are a product of an ertenal nothing.

This thread is not about atheism.

I agree, but to understand agnosticism, the concept of theism and atheism logically come in to the discussion.

 

[freesoulhope]

If God is the source of all things, then he is the source of all rationality, he is the source of the rational mind. I cannot know everything about God through philosophical reasoning, but I can know that God is the most reasonable explanation to my existents and therefore have a reasonable faith; and one way I can know that God exists, is to except that atheism is founded on a concept that is logically impossible. Indirect evidence is just as Good as direct. You have hopes for the future; why? What’s the point if we cannot know if it will exist tomorrow? The present is tangible, but until we experience what will happen next, the future is not.

Materialist Theories

The only way that materialist concepts of reality can be true, is by an infinite regression in to the past. This is illogical because we know that for something to be in motion there has to be a cause; it is more rational to think that there is an ultimate cause that needs no other cause, then to think that there is an infinite regression of causes that have no ultimate reason to be in motion, or in effect. It’s like a pink elephant in all its complexity and potent potential, popping in to existents from absolutely nothing with out a cause.

Science is a product of rational reasoning; its theories are not base wholly on physical evidence alone; the strength of a theory such as the “theory evolution” is base on concepts such occam’s razor, the best and most rational answer in reflection of the empirical evidence. To except the theory of evolution, you must not only except the physical evidence alone (since this only tells as so much, and one can make up many interpretation), You must also “believe” (have faith) and assume that we live in a rational world with rational cause’s, there for the most logical answer must be the truth or the most reasonable truth. Infinite regression is not a rational cause, neither is it a just explanation for why we are talking through the internet.

Atheism is purely an emotion reaction to religion; this is why you are aware of such a concept.

 

[Mirdath]

To say that Philosophy is no better, is just making a statement; please explain what leads you to believe it.

Philosophy is limited by the human mind; the human mind has not been shown to possess a supernatural component, much like everything else in the natural world; therefore, philosophy as a mental science is constrained in the same way as external natural sciences.

Theism, does need a level of faith especailly when excepting a revelation of religion; however atheism proves unreasonable when trying to apuire a reasonable cause for the complexity and rationality of lifes order; where as theism is a logical explanation and is the only logical explanation avalible.

Not so. Both are simply faiths, and there may well be plenty of logical explanations we haven’t found yet.

Acording to what, do you believe this to be the case? If nature is the product of a super nature, then logic will lead you back to it; and the elements of nature will be suggestive of it, since rationality and reason are products the super natural, if such a thing exists.

Logic is a tool that explains the workings of the real, no more, no less. Metaphysics is what you’re talking about, and there’s absolutely no verification for any branch of it. It doesn’t help either that there are millions of disagreeing metaphysical viewpoints.

Please show me why you think atheism is identical to that of theism; give me a reasonable answer that backs up your statement.

Both are faiths, in or not-in God. There is no empirical or rational verification for either that holds up to scrutiny. The human condition does not lend itself well to the creation of epicycles like God or no-God.

If God is the source of all things, then he is the source of all rationality, he is the source of the rational mind. I cannot know everything about God through philosophical reasoning, but I can know that God is the most reasonable explanation to my existents and therefore have a reasonable faith; and one way I can know that God exists, is to except that atheism is founded on a concept that is logically impossible. Indirect evidence is just as Good as direct. You have hopes for the future; why? What’s the point if we cannot know if it will exist tomorrow? The present is tangible, but until we experience what will happen next, the future is not.

If.

---

Oh, and it’s trip report time. I’ve been praying once a day for the past four (I think) days, about 5-10 seconds at a go. It has about the same effect meditation does. I don’t feel any closer or more sure of God/gods.

 

[Bennie_P]

Problem is, we are unable to reach into that ‘super nature’ at all – unable even to know if there really is one. Science is no good, as you said, and philosophy no better.
Logic can have nothing to do with a nature that transcends it. Logic exists in the real; the supernatural is beyond it.

Just becuse you haven’t be able to reach into or been reached by the supernatural you cannot speak for me…

Of course I might be nuts…or at least a fool.

Trying to find or understand the supernatural by pure logic, reason and intellect is really a waste of time, until you are touched by it and accept it in faith.

Conversion comes only by the Grace of God. I only share what I know or experience not in order to convert, for there is nothing I can do to convience anybody what I believe is true. But here and there God speaks throw my life and experience to others who resond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. when that happens that is really beautify, until you experience it, as non-believer you will not accept it. It doesn’t hurt my feelings as much anymore when people reject what I accept as truth. but I do care for and love those that don’t understand.

Reality is beyond just what we can touch, see, and/or what we can measure.

For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong;1Co 1:26 - 27

I love being a Fool,
I truly think being an angnostic is a state in one’s life were one is just scared what others might think if they step out into world of the unknown. I can’t beive in God? What would people think? PAX

 

[freesoulhope]

Philosophy is limited by the human mind; the human mind has not been shown to possess a supernatural component, much like everything else in the natural world; therefore, philosophy as a mental science is constrained in the same way as external natural sciences…

Please explain why philosophy is not a reasonable tool for understanding reality?

Not so. .

Why not so? You are just making a statement; you should give an honest explanation for you philosophical position; that’s if you are an honest philosopher.

And there may well be plenty of logical explanations we haven’t found yet.

That depends on whether you value rationality and believe that the most logical answer is necessarily the most reasonable conclusion that one can arrive at when looking for truth. Believing that a rationally comprehensible world (where atoms, when under the right conditions, arrange themselves into complex pattens through the inheritance of DNA, eventually giving rise to self consciousness) Is a product of an eternal nothing (knowing that an infinite regression is “logically” impossible) is not a rational conclusion; if atheism is proven wrong according to “logic” and fly’s in the face of it, there can be only one other explanation. You either believe in a God, or you close your eyes to God.

Science is based on pure logic; the empirical evidence, such as a fossil, would mean nothing with out mans human reason and philosophy to determine its origin. I’m simply recognizing the universe’s limits and boundaries (things of which science can measure) and in recognizing these fundamental facts and advocating logic as means of understanding truth, I arrive at the most likely truth, and that is God. I fail to see your difficulty in understanding how logical and necessary God is to your existents.

Earlier you said God is just as irrational as atheism; but you can’t make an unsupported statement like this and expect people to just take your word for it or respect your philosophical position.

Since you are the one that said it, you must know why it is irrational; you shouldn’t have any difficulty then, explaining why.

Logic is a tool that explains the workings of the real, “no more, no less”. .

How do you know that there is no more or no less to logic?

Metaphysics is what you’re talking about, and there’s absolutely no verification for any branch of it. It doesn’t help either that there are millions of disagreeing metaphysical viewpoints…

Metaphysics?
I’m merely saying that Logic, based on the empirical facts gathered through science, leads me to conclude that God is the most rational answer to reality. I believe that I have shown why this is the case; if you think I haven’t, then explain properly why you think this, and apply logic to it.

Both are faiths, in or not-in God. There is no empirical or rational verification for either that holds up to scrutiny. .

I agree that I can get no direct evidence of God through viewing a fossil or studying anything else in nature; because by studying nature, scientist gather information about nature; in true science, the question of God is irrelevant to this process; they are not looking for God, they are trying to understand nature.

You say, basically, that through the exercise of rational thinking, we cannot know that God is the likeliest truth, as if to say that God is an irrational probability for are existents. Being somebody who was once atheist, I know that this is just text book proper gander, since it does not reflect reality.

Since I have explained why I believe that God is a rational explanation for reality, maybe you can be so kind as to explain why it is not rational or why you think it is as rational as atheism.

The human condition does not lend itself well to the creation of epicycles like God or no-God…

You haven’t explained why you think this; it seems to me, you are just hoping that I would be foolish enough to except it.

 

[freesoulhope]

If.

---

Oh, and it’s trip report time. I’ve been praying once a day for the past four (I think) days, about 5-10 seconds at a go. It has about the same effect meditation does. I don’t feel any closer or surer of God/gods.

It is good that you pray and I respect you for it. Please continue with an honest heart and God will give you the gift of faith. It cannot harm you to pray.

But you speak of it as if you are just testing God; that’s all good and well, but do you want a personal relationship with him? If God is real, and is personal, and does respect your freewill, then why or how can God be close to you if you don’t really want him? Merely knowing God exists, in and by it self, means nothing as far as having a personal relationship with him is concerned; one must want God before seeking knowledge of his existents; otherwise, what is the point of “knowing”, if “knoledge” and the act of knowing, comes to absolutly nothing?

I’d rather be agnostic

Having faith in Gods love and wanting a relationship with God, is just as important, if not more, as believing in Gods mere existents. If you truly want a relationship with God then I pray that God gives you the faith and conviction you need in order to be close to him, in Jesus name I pray.

Science certainly cannot tell us if God is listening to are prayers or if God loves us; but I believe that he is listening; we believe in the revelations of Jesus Christ and the apostles, and that Jesus rose from the dead and performed miracles; miracles have been reported around the world that cannot be explained away logically by scientific evaluation; we have faith that God is listening and that he does love us. The fact that we are personal beings and that we are interactive, and that we need Love to be happy, and become unhappy through are own selfishness, leads me to believe that if there is a God, it is quite possible that God is a personal being like we are and that we need him to be happy, since what he demands of us, can only lead to order and happiness if we follow correctly; yet, I only have faith in respect of these matters.

Getting close, spiritually, to God, depends on your agenda; do you really want God? To enter the “spirit”(a personal relationship with God), you must have faith that God is real and is a personal being that wants a relationship with you. There are many rational arguments for the existents of God that can help you, such as writings from Peter kreeft, or st Thomas Aquinas, as for matters of faith, there is the bible; read especially the New testament; there are writings from saints and believers, that you could also read.

But as for praying; the wisest thing you could pray for is the faith and the wisdom to know God; and one must follow the law of love, this is how one can truly know God. In the mean time, God does not get angry if you ask him questions; he wants you to ask; I have also asked many complex and seemingly faith shattering questions, of which I have found answers to, but this took a persistents in faith and a constant willingness to be in a rational relationship with God in the first place.

Peace and God bless and good luck on your journey.

 

[Bennie_P]

Oh, and it’s trip report time. I’ve been praying once a day for the past four (I think) days, about 5-10 seconds at a go. It has about the same effect meditation does. I don’t feel any closer or more sure of God/gods.

God answers in His time, not our time…Just write this all down in your journal…He’ll answer …

 

[Mirdath]

Please explain why philosophy is not a reasonable tool for understanding reality?

First off, what you’re talking about isn’t philosophy but metaphysics. Philosophy does have its own problems in that there is no way to establish a universal truth through it – there can always be disagreement. It’s helpful for understanding some aspects of reality, and for describing some others; but reality as a whole? Not going to happen.

Why not so? You are just making a statement; you should give an honest explanation for you philosophical position; that’s if you are an honest philosopher.

Try reading the sentence directly after that.

I fail to see your difficulty in understanding how logical and necessary God is to your existents.

Because as far as I can see God is extraneous? There is no evidence of direct involvement of the divine, nor is there apparently likely to be.

Earlier you said God is just as irrational as atheism; but you can’t make an unsupported statement like this and expect people to just take your word for it or respect your philosophical position.

Since you are the one that said it, you must know why it is irrational; you shouldn’t have any difficulty then, explaining why.

In spite of having already defined my terms in the first place, I have explained it several more times. Apparently those words are as invisible to you as God is to me.

How do you know that there is no more or no less to logic?

Uh, I’m educated? That is what logic is. If you know more, please, the world’s waiting – and you’ll probably get tenure!

Metaphysics?
I’m merely saying that Logic, based on the empirical facts gathered through science, leads me to conclude that God is the most rational answer to reality. I believe that I have shown why this is the case; if you think I haven’t, then explain properly why you think this, and apply logic to it.

No, you are talking about metaphysics, and distinctly not logic. Logic does not allow for faith; metaphysics requires it. I can talk metaphysics too, but it’s about useless for this discussion.

Since I have explained why I believe that God is a rational explanation for reality, maybe you can be so kind as to explain why it is not rational or why you think it is as rational as atheism.

Again, I have done so many times, up to and including the first post of this thread. Belief in is just as rational as belief not in – ie, it isn’t.

You haven’t explained why you think this; it seems to me, you are just hoping that I would be foolish enough to except it.

Occam’s Razor – eliminate variables that don’t have any place. Faith is one such variable; there is no compelling reason that it must be part of the set.

It cannot harm you to pray.

Considering I’m working without knowledge of the attributes of the divine, it might well I’m not assuming a benevolent deity here – Lovecraft is just as likely to have been right as the Torah from my point of view. But I’ll chance it.

So far, I’d have to say that yes, it isn’t harmful – but then, neither is meditation or even concentrating on goodwill. And they all seem to have an equal effect on me; but only the first presumes deity.

But you speak of it as if you are just testing God; that’s all good and well, but do you want a personal relationship with him? If God is real, and is personal, and does respect your freewill, then why or how can God be close to you if you don’t really want him? Merely knowing God exists, in and by it self, means nothing as far as having a personal relationship with him is concerned; one must want God before seeking knowledge of his existents; otherwise, what is the point of “knowing”, if “knoledge” and the act of knowing, comes to absolutly nothing?

I figure if God exists and wants me to have faith he can take care of it. I’ve just been asking if there’s anyone listening, thanking him/her/it/them for stuff in general (my life’s been pretty good recently) and asking a couple favors if they’re so inclined.

Praying for faith makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[freesoulhope]

First off, what you’re talking about isn’t philosophy but metaphysics.

Explain why you think this is to be the case, rather then make accusations.
Mirdath;2130293:

Philosophy does have its own problems in that there is no way to establish a universal truth through it…

Explain why you think this, and why you believe that you’re any better off through the use of science? Natural science’s is a presumption of rationality and the minds ability to understand a truth about reality. You have to believe that truth can be found through rational thinking, since the basis of science is partly to do with: applying rational thoughts to re-occurring patterns we see in the world and drawing conclusions about the function of are reality; we based these conclusion on certain “Philosophical” rules that we use in order to determine what is more likely to be the “truth”, not what is the truth; and we settle for the most rational truth; rather then become agnostic to the question. Maybe there is something people find offensive about the existents of God that I don’t quite understand.

What is more logical? I believe we can know certain truths with out verifying them empirically.

Science is also the height of opinion, as is any idea we impose on reality.

Since we know that rational thought can lead to a truth and has lead to intellectual disciplines such as science, I think I can safely say that if I make a logical statement about the existents of God, it is more “likely” to be the true then not; that with other experiences and the testimonies of others, I can have a reasonable faith, because it is reasonable that God exists; it is unreasonable that he does not.

Though metaphysics may come up in my arguments, it does automatically follow that my idea’s are not logically based, and since you believe them to be otherwise, it is up to you to prove them otherwise; maybe you just like the idea of my arguments being false rather then proving them false?

Try reading the sentence directly after that…

Your point is?

Because as far as I can see

God is extraneous? There is no evidence of direct involvement of the divine, nor is there apparently likely to be…

Direct involvement or not, it is “illogical” that reality exists with out the existents of God; I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

In spite of having already defined my terms in the first place, I have explained it several more times. Apparently those words are as invisible to you as God is to me.!

I’m sorry, where is it that you defined your terms? Or maybe you think that unsupported statements are a matter of definition?

Your arguments amount to: “There is no consistent, rational, philosophical evidence that supports the existents of God”; and then after saying it, you do not back up your statements.

Have you ever read or listened to Peter kreeft?

Uh, I’m educated? That is what logic is. If you know more, please, the world’s waiting – and you’ll probably get tenure!.

What does this have to do with the questions I pose you? Explain why God is not a rational explanation for the existents of the universe. If you think that atheists have just as Good and rational arguments about where the universe came from, id like to hear them.

 

[freesoulhope]

No, you are talking about metaphysics, and distinctly not logic. Logic does not allow for faith; metaphysics requires it. I can talk metaphysics too, but it’s about useless for this discussion…

You keep saying this, and you keep failing to explain why you think that my argument for the existents of God does not follow distinct logic.

Your continuity in this line of thinking, leads me to assume that you have not read one word that I have said nor considered what I am saying; you also lead me to believe that the only reason you think that God is illogical, is because you have been conditioned to think so; not because you have proven God to be illogical or as probable as the atheist point of view.

Merely saying that God is illogical and not backing up your statements, is not a good sign that one can conduct a rational arguement.

Occam’s razor – eliminate variables that don’t have any place. Faith is one such variable; .

Faith? How does it follow from this, that God is not a logical explanation for the existents of the universe? The universe does not explain it own existents; Logic demand that it needs something other then it self to define it and produce it. If atheism is philosophically redundant, then what other explanation is there other then God? There are no other choices that “logically” exist.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

No, you are talking about metaphysics, and distinctly not logic. Logic does not allow for faith; metaphysics requires it. I can talk metaphysics too, but it’s about useless for this discussion.
Occam’s Razor – eliminate variables that don’t have any place. Faith is one such variable; there is no compelling reason that it must be part of the set.

john doran;2127359]scientists have faith that their senses are not deceiving them with regard to the experimental apparatus they are observing, and that their memory is not deceiving them with regard to (1) the reason they are observing that apparatus, (2) that they actually set up the experiment, and (3) that the apparatus is good one for the kind of tests they want to run. So no, science and faith is not at odds.

 

[Marcsman99]

Incorrect: I make no such leap because I find myself incapable of believing either way. I do not disbelieve in God; rather I posit that that question is entirely unanswerable.

I’ve seen a great many proofs of theism; none of them was in any way flawless or convincing. Same with opposing proofs (and there are just as many).

Sure, it may not seem so great once you’ve made it – but that doesn’t make it any shorter a leap. I assure you, it’s pretty huge.

**Christianity in particular requires one accept a great many things on faith: the simultaneous humanity and divinity of the Christ, the benevolence of God, transubstantiation (where applicable), the existence of an afterlife and judgment – for a few examples. None of those concepts is logically provable, and some are outright paradoxes. How can one **believe such things are true except by letting go of logic and taking them on faith? It’s impossible. Making that leap is essential to religious belief: Kierkegaard was right.

Incidentaly Sarte one of the most consistant modern atheist called his belief postulatory that is he offerd no proofs of atheism because ther are none. Even the problem of pain is not a disprove of God only that God is kind.

Intrestingly scientist tell us that light behaves like a particle and a wave this is a paradox does this therefor mean that light does not exist?

Since a Catholic believes most of those things on the athority of The Church all this person need do to hold those ideas logicaly is believe that The Church is what she claims on logical grounds.

Since it is a matter of history that Jesus of nazareth claimed to be devine and was killed for it (Jews back the Christian up that far.) It is also a historical fact that after his death those clossest to him claimed that he rose from the dead and they suffered and died for this belief. What logical reson do you have for doubting the testemony these men wrote in blood. If you don’t doubt them abd you don’t have any philosophical biase against miracles and you think that God is resonable i.e he wouldn’t raise a man from the dead just for kicks. Then you believe that Christ is both Go and man and just because you can not reconsile the two does not mean that the both are not true unless your a rationalist and think that everything is clearly preceptiable by human reson. Which you obviously don’t being an agnostic and all.

I would be intrested how you parse your ignorance on the existance of God with the first class evidence of miracles in all ages and the evidence of the supernatural in the seance room.

 

[Marcsman99]

Praying for faith makes absolutely no sense to me.

Absolutely people need to distinguish between the two ways in which faith is used. Faith in the one sence is the assent of the intelect to a reasonable case. Faith in the second sence is the ability for the intelect to hold post against emotional responces against that which you believe in the first sence. Now since Miradath does not believe in God or The Church in the first sence telling him to pray for faith is ridiculous and anti-intelectual two things which this Church is not. You could however offer to pray for him.