I don't believe that there is a God, but I would like to be convinced that I am wrong. (The inverse of minkymurph's thread.)

[Vonsalza]

I have no emotional attachment to my worldview. As far as I can judge, for believers their “connection” to God is very important, not a cold, emotionally unattached, pure intellectual belief.

This is by no means a universal descriptor of Christians. It’s more a superficial pantomime, really…

My connection to religion come from my personal decision that “good” must objectively exist.

If I concede to “good”, then I’ve conceded to the metaphysical.

If I’ve conceded to the metaphysical, then I’ve conceded to a necessary God.

I’m free to stop here, but as a westerner I’ve decided to reaffirm the Christianity of my culture as the most relevant portrayal of this God as it helps me best interface with my culture (morally, legally, so on).

As to which Christianity is “right”, I rode the fence between Catholicism and Orthodoxy for awhile, but ultimately chose in favor of the papists while reserving affection for Orthodoxy.

---

While I would love a more emotional attachment (as my communications with The Man Upstairs generally feels one-way), my belief does not require it.

If there is real “good”, then there is a real God.
I’m certain objective good does indeed exist.
As this is axiomatic, I cannot convince you to do the same; at least on the basis of hard logic alone.

 

[Mammoths]

In general, the wise decline if someone says, “just for sport prove to me your faith is founded on truth.” The question of God’s eternal power and deity is of deadly importance. Why parley with an apparent mocker. Let the dead bury their own. They don’t need our pearls. If someone really wonders out of a sincere hunger for truth, the Kalam cosmological argument is a solid component of a rational defense for God’s existence but it is a slog. There are no quick easy retorts that provide a complete case.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

He knows the consequences every action will have and which actions are best better than we do. So, he will “answer” prayers that help fulfill His plan.

I cannot imagine a “plan” which necessitates the suffering of infants or animals. Well, I can, but that “plan” is anything but kind, loving or benevolent.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Can’t say I could agree with this one. Where we don’t care what the answer is then yes, I take your point - but even if it is something flimsy we have a greater inclination to run with the opinions of someone who in our view is the more reliable - particularly if it’s in our interests to agree with them.

I think that we are almost 100% in synch. I don’t doubt that the testimony of someone who has established a bona-fide reliability will be more readily accepted. I only say that objectively speaking there is no difference between the testimony of someone whom you find reliable and someone who is a total stranger. Both are unsupported testimonials.

Example: if someone whom I would trust with my “life”, would come and tried to assert that a UFO landed in his back yard, I would discard that testimony, because the probability that he is just pulling my leg, or simply went insane is much higher than a few Little Green Men came across from somewhere in the Galaxy.

 

[Thom18]

Yes, a God could exist that isn’t omnibenevolent. But we are talking about the tri-omni Abrahamic God here. I’m not why Schellenberg felt the need to state the first premise in that way.

Explain why you think that an all loving God could exist that hasn’t made himself apparent to its creation.

I understand the way you were applying it, but the argument itself doesn’t explicitly state that we’re talking about the “Christian God”.

I don’t see why God being “all loving” is thought to be contradicted by the fact that He hasn’t revealed Himself explicitly (“I, the God of the Christians, am the true God. Worship me”) to His creation. While God is “all loving”, He is also all knowing and all powerful. God’s knowledge and love (and power) work together. As I said earlier, God knows better than us what the consequences of any action will be. If God thought it were wise to reveal Himself explicitly to the entire human race, then He would do so. The fact that He hasn’t should lead us to believe that that isn’t in God’s (or our) best interest to do so.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As I said earlier, God knows better than us what the consequences of any action will be. If God thought it were wise to reveal Himself explicitly to the entire human race, then He would do so. The fact that He hasn’t should lead us to believe that that isn’t in God’s (or our) best interest to do so.

This is the typical “cart in front of the horse” argument. It could be used for ANYTHING. The Holocaust must have been necessary for his “plan”, that that is why he allowed it. The famine in Africa is necessary for his plan, and that is why he allowed it. You could justify anything and everything with stating: “God allowed it, because it is best for his plan”.

 

[Thom18]

This is the typical “cart in front of the horse” argument. It could be used for ANYTHING. The Holocaust must have been necessary for his “plan”, that that is why he allowed it. The famine in Africa is necessary for his plan, and that is why he allowed it. You could justify anything and everything with stating: “God allowed it, because it is best for his plan”.

I cannot imagine a “plan” which necessitates the suffering of infants or animals.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Mammoths]

I cannot imagine a “plan” which necessitates the suffering of infants or animals. Well, I can, but that “plan” is anything but kind, loving or benevolent.

The scale of moral perception of a man is herein apparent. If only you could conceive of an object more deserving than an infant or an animal! But that would require acknowledging the creature is subordinate in value to the creator.

 

[skeptical_dan]

I understand the way you were applying it, but the argument itself doesn’t explicitly state that we’re talking about the “Christian God”.

I don’t see why God being “all loving” is thought to be contradicted by the fact that He hasn’t revealed Himself explicitly (“I, the God of the Christians, am the true God. Worship me”) to His creation. While God is “all loving”, He is also all knowing and all powerful. God’s knowledge and love (and power) work together. As I said earlier, God knows better than us what the consequences of any action will be. If God thought it were wise to reveal Himself explicitly to the entire human race, then He would do so. The fact that He hasn’t should lead us to believe that that isn’t in God’s (or our) best interest to do so.

I think there might be some merit to what you are saying here. I don’t think that it is logically impossible for God to be all-loving and for many people to be non-resistantly unaware of his existence. Likewise, I don’t think it is logically impossible for an all-loving God and suffering to exist. Nevertheless, the fact that many people are non-resistantly unaware that God exists seems to inductively indicate a low probability that this God exists. Yes, it is possible that God has his reasons, but it seems to me that it is more likely that this God doesn’t exist in the first place. The same goes for the problem of evil in my opinion.

 

[Mammoths]

This is the typical “cart in front of the horse” argument. It could be used for ANYTHING. The Holocaust must have been necessary for his “plan”, that that is why he allowed it. The famine in Africa is necessary for his plan, and that is why he allowed it. You could justify anything and everything with stating: “God allowed it, because it is best for his plan”.

God allowed it for love. Is that surprising? The specifics of the cases you mention are morally daunting. However the underlying principle is quite elementary. Taking as an axiom that God is loving as wishes his creatures to experience love and to love him in return, it is then necessary in order for love to be genuine that God allow people freedom to be unloving. Forced love is rape. One of the concepts in Christian theology that gets lost in all the talk of greater purposes is that God also experiences the brokenheartedness of the spurned lover. One of the logically necessary properties of the Christian God is a limitation of ability based on character. The divine nature finds nothing difficult but finds some things impossible. The rock so big he can’t lift it is in fact you–a created agent he cannot force to reciprocate his love without violating the love itself.

 

[Thom18]

I think there might be some merit to what you are saying here. I don’t think that it is logically impossible for God to be all-loving and for many people to be non-resistantly unaware of his existence. Likewise, I don’t think it is logically impossible for an all-loving God and suffering to exist. Nevertheless, the fact that many people are non-resistantly unaware that God exists seems to inductively indicate a low probability that this God exists. Yes, it is possible that God has his reasons, but it seems to me that it is more likely that this God doesn’t exist in the first place. The same goes for the problem of evil in my opinion.

Who exactly do you think is non-resistantly unaware that God exists?

 

[Mammoths]

I think there might be some merit to what you are saying here. I don’t think that it is logically impossible for God to be all-loving and for many people to be non-resistantly unaware of his existence. Likewise, I don’t think it is logically impossible for an all-loving God and suffering to exist. Nevertheless, the fact that many people are non-resistantly unaware that God exists seems to inductively indicate a low probability that this God exists. Yes, it is possible that God has his reasons, but it seems to me that it is more likely that this God doesn’t exist in the first place. The same goes for the problem of evil in my opinion.

It may be the term ‘all-loving’ is misused. We know of many cases in the Bible where God specifically hates. Omnibenevolent doesn’t mean that God loves Esau. It means God only does good. As has been said before, it’s a bit rich for a being with the relative intellect of a sea anemone to find fault with God.

 

[Mammoths]

the existence of evil in the world is evidence that a moral God exists. If no such God exists the objection against the suffering of animals and infants has no basis. What evil is the suffering of an infant except to itself unless there is a greater authority that can ascribe moral value to the treatment of the infant. If the authority is the infant, what do I care? If it is you, what makes you better than me? If it is society, what makes the society of life respecting people better than that of cannibles. If it is government, why is Abraham Lincoln’s presidency better than Hitler’s. Ultimately we are not stupid for thinking that conscience is a gift from the creator that tells us something about our own value and the value of our fellow creature. If however you really think you are morally equal to a rock, I will be taking your wallet–from your lifeless corpse if that is most convenient to me.

 

[Mammoths]

Who exactly do you think is non-resistantly unaware that God exists?

I met a man in china who said as a child he had premonitions and supernatural experiences. He told his teacher about it and parents and was told it was just hallucinations or some malfunction of the mind when I told him what I know about the existence of God, the creator, and about the death and resurrection of Jesus and he debated against it at first, but after a while he said, that he realized the childhood experiences were God’s way of preparing his mind to learn about Him. This kind of experience is common among Christians. It seems like, in light of all we know about nature and it’s dependency on an agent cause, you’d have to be resistant not to eventually come round. We are probably all resistant at some point but God is patient.

 

[Mammoths]

I understand the way you were applying it, but the argument itself doesn’t explicitly state that we’re talking about the “Christian God”.

I don’t see why God being “all loving” is thought to be contradicted by the fact that He hasn’t revealed Himself explicitly (“I, the God of the Christians, am the true God. Worship me”) to His creation. While God is “all loving”, He is also all knowing and all powerful. God’s knowledge and love (and power) work together. As I said earlier, God knows better than us what the consequences of any action will be. If God thought it were wise to reveal Himself explicitly to the entire human race, then He would do so. The fact that He hasn’t should lead us to believe that that isn’t in God’s (or our) best interest to do so.

What about the virgin birth, the public life of ministry, the public trial before both civil and religious courts, the public execution, the resurrection as witnessed by more than 400 people. The signature and fingerprint of creation aside, the incarnation of God seems a pretty glaring revelation. It is the nature of man to doubt their own eyes with regard to the supernatural. If we were awash in miracles and revelations of God, how would we know the difference from nature? Most Christians I know have a few experiences that don’t seem to follow the normal pattern of science. For example, my uncle had an inoperable cancer tumor in his spine. The elders at his baptist church laid hands on him according to the pattern given in the epistle of James and he went into immediate remission. The Catholic Church requires a thorough investigation of post death miracles before beatification or canonization. The number of canonizations in recent years with all the modern tools and knowledge of science seems to suggest that God is continually proving his existence and care for humanity. And yet, some will say that the miraculous events are just a product of our own psychic energy.

The Bible says, “by faith we understand.” What you believe will affect how you interpret the evidence. I believe in God the almighty creator of heaven and earth. So where an atheist finds the Christian claim of the incarnation to be obsurd, I find a story about something God could easily do. There is no strength of intellectual proof capable of overthrowing the will of man. On any subject men generally withhold assent because the don’t see it as reasonable, they don’t find it attractive, or they don’t want it to be true. If you don’t want it to be true, there’s no helping you.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It may be the term ‘all-loving’ is misused.

No kidding.

As has been said before, it’s a bit rich for a being with the relative intellect of a sea anemone to find fault with God.

It is even richer for a being with the relative intellect of a sea anemone to find God to be “good”.

God allowed it for love. Is that surprising?

What you call love is surprising.

The specifics of the cases you mention are morally daunting. However the underlying principle is quite elementary. Taking as an axiom that God is loving as wishes his creatures to experience love and to love him in return, it is then necessary in order for love to be genuine that God allow people freedom to be unloving.

“Unloving” is a very wide term. So wide that it is meaningless.

One of the concepts in Christian theology that gets lost in all the talk of greater purposes is that God also experiences the brokenheartedness of the spurned lover.

Oh, poor, anthropomorphic God. Remind me to feel sorry for him on my day off.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What about the virgin birth, the public life of ministry, the public trial before both civil and religious courts, the public execution, the resurrection as witnessed by more than 400 people. The signature and fingerprint of creation aside, the incarnation of God seems a pretty glaring revelation. It is the nature of man to doubt their own eyes with regard to the supernatural. If we were awash in miracles and revelations of God, how would we know the difference from nature? Most Christians I know have a few experiences that don’t seem to follow the normal pattern of science. For example, my uncle had an inoperable cancer tumor in his spine. The elders at his baptist church laid hands on him according to the pattern given in the epistle of James and he went into immediate remission. The Catholic Church requires a thorough investigation of post death miracles before beatification or canonization. The number of canonizations in recent years with all the modern tools and knowledge of science seems to suggest that God is continually proving his existence and care for humanity. And yet, some will say that the miraculous events are just a product of our own psychic energy.

The Bible says, “by faith we understand.” What you believe will affect how you interpret the evidence. I believe in God the almighty creator of heaven and earth. So where an atheist finds the Christian claim of the incarnation to be obsurd, I find a story about something God could easily do. There is no strength of intellectual proof capable of overthrowing the will of man. On any subject men generally withhold assent because the don’t see it as reasonable, they don’t find it attractive, or they don’t want it to be true. If you don’t want it to be true, there’s no helping you.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Unloving” is a very wide term. So wide that it is meaningless.

I got a good laugh out of this one…

The term “unloving” is no more meaningful or meaningless than the term “loving”

If Mammoth’s retort is invalid on the basis of vagueness, then so too must be your initial complaint about a supposedly “loving” God amid a world of suffering.

“Loving” is a very wide term. So wide that it is meaningless.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Prayer experiments in a controlled setting with a statistically significant sample size? Cite or I call B.S. . .

You may wish to review a study that I addressed here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14124300&postcount=399

What follows are some of my subsequent comments. If anyone is interested, I’ve additionally included my end of the discussion in the following 2 posts:

. . . in the British Medical Journal in 2001 and entitled Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial, authored by Leonard Leibovici. It did involve praying for patients who had been hospitalized ten years earlier. The findings were that mortality was reduced in the intervention group (people who were prayed for ten years later) and length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (those who were not prayed for). I am not convinced of the author’s conclusion that remote, retroactive intercessory prayer can improve outcomes in patients with a bloodstream infection. It did in this particular situation that was likely inspired, but I believe that as a general statement, the study does speak to the reality of our relationship with God, who is outside time and does respond to our needs in a manner that is for the good.

The facts are what they are. One cannot translate four dimensional events into one. Miracles involve reality that is beyond what is captured by our current limited laws which describe and explain nature. I would suggest using the study as a direction sign to something amazing. Personally speaking, it by no means affects my faith other than being an example of how God would act in this world from his position outside of time. It is a sort of miracle, and like other phenomena in that category, I doubt that it can be replicated. That is why the OP is so much nonsense to me. All this is all about interpretation, understanding, the connection between the two linked mysteries of self and other. Where one sees miracles, another will see merely the noise that randomly arises within any system.

God from outside time creates all time. Within His eternal vision, all is now. We exist within a finite now that witnesses our transformation through time. Each of our moments is a part of the one eternal moment within God’s vision of His creation. God created the universe in a step-wise fashion and maintains it, all being ever now to Him.

He created the natural structure in which we meet one another and to which we connect intellectually through the understanding of physical laws. While that which governs and shapes this world is fixed in itself, it is mutable as part of the greater structure of creation which exists through an act of God’s will here now and everywhere. Every effect, every little change from what might otherwise be expected, impacts on everything else since it is all connected, one universal act of creation by God. It is all one miracle but we identify the anomalies as being the result of His intervention. Because it is all now to God, some miracles have their cause eons earlier, emerging through the processes that constitute the passage of time. One of these might be the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in the constellation of Leo happening two years or so BCE. Wise men of the time would have interpreted this as portending the birth of a great king. The cause is in eternity and manifested at the beginning of stars and galaxies in our universe in order to appear at the appropriate time.

This is all too absurd for some people to believe; it is impossible for them to detect and interpret miracles as such. As self-other, we are connected to the world and its Creator through thought/understanding/knowing/love which is not only passive screen but, beyond the ego’s control, participates in the formation of what is out there. This is far too long and to vague for my liking, but it’s the nature of the beast.

 

[Aloysium]

Wow! Simply wow!

Actually this response, along with others, demonstrates what happens with miracles. They are understood by the faithful to whom they speak. Otherwise, if seen at all, they are denied and misinterpreted.

We here see a failure to understand how the unexpected results of a particular experiment fit together. Within the context of God who exists outside time, knowing and loving us, speaking to us and influencing the course of history, it all makes sense. When the only interpretive model is a one dimensional atheistic view of material interaction, it cannot be comprehended. Any such evidence is discounted because it makes no sense. Again, how many times need it be stated, retrocausality, which is how some quantum events are explained, is a very poor and inadequate way to explain the results of the experiment. But that distortion has been offered as an understanding of the result. It masks the truth. But it is shared, and as we see here above, ridiculed. This in the tradition of Richard Dawkins. Empirically, the study appears to reveal a truth in the context of one’s relationship with God.

So, Pumpkin, you are out of luck. Miracles are everywhere. If you don’t see, you don’t see. Either one has a relationship with God or one doesn’t. As we see here, even empirical findings will be denied because of the incapacity to integrate them within a mindset that excludes God.

Oh well

I was going to stop responding to this nonsense. How many times need it be said that the study did not attempt to prove we can change the past. That was the joke. The very real fact is that prayers at a future date were correlated with better health for randomly selected persons in the past. This is empirical evidence that there is more going on than the clockwork reality that is believed to exist by yourself and other atheists. You keep repeating a conclusion that no one believes. What is true are the findings, the empirical evidence, which everyone agrees including the skeptics who later commented in a subsequent article; the Statistics are a valid finding. Again, the conclusion was a joke. The fact that the study appears in the festive edition with “Rudolf”, to me displays God’s sense of humour; He is in on the joke. Again, for some inexplicable reason you seem to want to argue a point that was a joke, that people agree was a joke, and actually no one but yourself and Bradski, seems to take seriously. God does not change was he has already created in time. What He does do is bring everything, all times, all places into existence. And, He is with us in each and every moment as Father, through the grace of Holy Spirit and one with us in Christ. It is consistent with my understanding that God might inspire the researchers to conduct the study and be responsible for the correlation. The joke is that He knows our needs and wants, we need not worry. He knows what is good for us, and that is to be loving persons. To live a month, a year, a decade longer and not to have progressed along that path is to render all that time meaningless. The entire reason we are here is to find Him. It is important to talk with Him and to do His will. Those who believe that God is some sort of powerful being to be placated, a magical force, a best buddy who will get you a Mercedes Benz, to rival your friends with Porches, and to those who come here to make the point that He is not, well, the joke is on You. An encounter with God can bring us to our knees, make us hide our faces in shame; it can also come with uproarious laughter. It is all good.

From what I understand there has been no public revelation since the death of the last apostle. Private revelation continues within our relationship with God. Some have been recognized by the Church as being significant in their time to help us grow in faith, hope and love. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Church is able to discern what is an authentic call of Christ.

Conversion, I would see as a personal realization or revelation that connects us to God. Grace leads us through such experiences to grow in love and also understanding, guided by the Church.

I can’t imagine how one’s faith is going to hinge on the data obtained in a simple empirical study, in which one did not participate. However, in the context of one’s relationship with God, through such events, one can get an idea of how He works. In daily life, one may find some reminder of one’s spouse, for example, and it brings to mind that relationship, who they are, their traits and character. The object may be totally unrelated but it evokes feelings and memories of that person.The study discussed above was conducted in the same manner as other empirical experiments and the statistical results are valid, although the conclusion was tongue in cheek. I don’t think it could be replicated. It may be a miracle, in other words. Or, a weird statistical fluke as atheists would have it. The order behind the findings could very well be God, as He participates in our lives, listening to us when we pray. A number of people have noted within their experience, that when we do pray, it is He who calls us to share ourselves with Him.

We see what we expect to see, and God does not do miracles to impress us. This combination means that the OP is going to be out of luck.

Creation is all one huge miracle, all time and space, and everything in it. Small individual miracles, it seems, are meant to awaken us from a sleep that sees only the mundane, and also to show us how to adopt what has been revealed in Jesus Christ, to the challenges that arise in our particular time and situation.