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.)

[Aloysium]

It is a very sad fact that we cannot change the past.
The rich man in the story of Lazarus poignantly addresses the outcome of our actions.
What offers hope is that we can change our future and we can do it now.

That God is with us in each and every moment can be known in our hearts.
Even the very limited light that empiricism casts on reality attests to this reality in the form of miracles.

That said, it would seem that in the relativistic world even observational and statistical data can be discounted and denied.
We see in these pages how facts can be distorted to fit nonsensical conclusions which can then be ridiculed.
An interesting parlour trick, a slight of hand openly visible to the audience, hidden only by the magician from himself.

Let’s go over this again:

The conclusion was a joke.

The data however is the data, and this one unique study revealed a correlation between “remote prayer” and improved outcome. Meaningful perhaps, or a statistical fluke.

Prayer is not a tool, some positive energy force, something one does to make one’s situation better. It does not cajole some powerful entity to do what you want.

How the empirically, scientifically derived statistical results make sense is that God initiates the contact. We could stew in our misery, curse this misfortune or that malevolent force, but He calls and we respond with prayer. We engage in a dialogue. In that study, should you choose to believe it, He demonstrates that He is with us, here and everywhere, and that He wants the best for us. We are destined to die, all of us. We cannot get our wish to live in this state forever. This has been prevented. We are meant for something far greater. As He acts here, He acts everywhere and in every time for our good. Within the context of this study, He makes some people healthier in the relative past as He, at a later date, witnesses their last moments on earth. He calls on people at a later date, to pray for strangers, as He in His eternal Now makes those sick persons better. He does all this, as a reminder, a happy Christmas present for those with faith.

To think that God can be of assistance in helping reduce health costs is nonsense. God is not a pawn of big business. You and Brad seem to be the only ones here making that claim and then ridiculing it. I don’t want to say what it sounds like when you say such things.

 

[skeptical_dan]

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

I would consider myself to be one of those people. I know a few other people personally that are probably like this.

 

[skeptical_dan]

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.

This is an interesting point, but isn’t the Christian God supposed to be all-loving? Maybe I am mistaken on that.

 

[skeptical_dan]

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.

What makes God any different from you, me, the infant, society, or government? Do you support divine command theory?

 

[skeptical_dan]

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.

This confuses knowledge of the claims of people and knowledge that these claims are actually true. God could reveal that these claims are true without any doubt, then ask every person to accept or deny him, and then judge everyone based on that, rather than throw people into hell because they had incorrect descriptive knowledge of the metaphysical world.

Also, even if those claims are true, that does not logically necessitate Catholic theology. Why should I accept the Catholic interpretation of those events rather than an Orthodox, Protestant, Arian, Adoptionist, Gnostic, etc interpretation? I even have heard of New Age people that accept Fatima as a legitimate revelation of some other God. And the fact that God apparently heals heretics that will probably go to hell (from a Catholic perspective- unless you interpret “outside the Church there is no salvation” in a completely meaningless way) is very confusing to an outsider. Why would he do that?

As a final note, I do think that there is probably a metaphysical/supernatural realm (I have had experiences myself). But it is unclear to me if I could ever know anything about this realm.

 

[Vonsalza]

…rather than throw people into hell because they had incorrect descriptive knowledge of the metaphysical world.

I agree, that God would be petty and mean. Good thing this doesn’t describe the Catholic God…

Why should I accept the Catholic interpretation of those events rather than an Orthodox, Protestant, Arian, Adoptionist, Gnostic, etc interpretation?

Their claims for continuity, historicity and legitimacy are better.

I even have heard of New Age people that accept Fatima as a legitimate revelation of some other God. And the fact that God apparently heals heretics that will probably go to hell (from a Catholic perspective- unless you interpret “outside the Church there is no salvation” in a completely meaningless way) is very confusing to an outsider. Why would he do that?

The Catholic teaching is a little closer to “we can’t be certain of the means for salvation outside the Church”.

The nun that runs my RCIA would be happy to explain to you how an atheist or Muslim can still go to “Catholic heaven” via extraordinary grace.

As a final note, I do think that there is probably a metaphysical/supernatural realm (I have had experiences myself). But it is unclear to me if I could ever know anything about this realm.

Then your issue isn’t Catholicism, it’s simple theism in general.

The juxtaposer for “atheist” isn’t “Catholic”. It’s “theist”. You should probably decide that before you try to saddle up to any particular expression of theism.

As a last, I believe in objective good; thus I must believe in the metaphysical god.
If you don’t, you have no theistic obligation.

 

[skeptical_dan]

I agree, that God would be petty and mean. Good thing this doesn’t describe the Catholic God…

Their claims for continuity, historicity and legitimacy are better.

The Catholic teaching is a little closer to “we can’t be certain of the means for salvation outside the Church”.

The nun that runs my RCIA would be happy to explain to you how an atheist or Muslim can still go to “Catholic heaven” via extraordinary grace.

Then your issue isn’t Catholicism, it’s simple theism in general.

The juxtaposer for “atheist” isn’t “Catholic”. It’s “theist”. You should probably decide that before you try to saddle up to any particular expression of theism.

As a last, I believe in objective good; thus I must believe in the metaphysical god.
If you don’t, you have no theistic obligation.

1. I know someone who was Catholic and became Orthodox. He was well-educated about what he was doing. He had full knowledge, full intent, and he committed the grave sin of schism. And all of this is based on incorrect metaphysical beliefs. Or are you saying that “full knowledge” means that you have to know the Catholic God exists and still act contrary to him?
2. It doesn’t appear very clear-cut to me.
3. The Catholic dogma is this: “Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.” That used to be interpreted very literally, with maybe some room for explicit baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Now I know there is implicit baptism of desire. However, this still means that people who have the incorrect metaphysical beliefs are more likely to go to hell, because they miss out on the grace of the sacraments. If God gave them knowledge so that they would have the correct metaphysical beliefs, they could have a better chance of being saved.

4.Why do you think that a theistic God must exist for there to be an objective good?

 

[Mammoths]

No kidding.

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

What you call love is surprising.

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

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

None of that is a truth evaluation. It’s just a sneer. So, if we are in God’s image it implies we created him in ours since he is an unlikely speculative notion in the first place? That probably works on people who like to feel superior for being immune to the evidence.

 

[Mammoths]

This confuses knowledge of the claims of people and knowledge that these claims are actually true. God could reveal that these claims are true without any doubt, then ask every person to accept or deny him, and then judge everyone based on that, rather than throw people into hell because they had incorrect descriptive knowledge of the metaphysical world.

Also, even if those claims are true, that does not logically necessitate Catholic theology. Why should I accept the Catholic interpretation of those events rather than an Orthodox, Protestant, Arian, Adoptionist, Gnostic, etc interpretation? I even have heard of New Age people that accept Fatima as a legitimate revelation of some other God. And the fact that God apparently heals heretics that will probably go to hell (from a Catholic perspective- unless you interpret “outside the Church there is no salvation” in a completely meaningless way) is very confusing to an outsider. Why would he do that?

As a final note, I do think that there is probably a metaphysical/supernatural realm (I have had experiences myself). But it is unclear to me if I could ever know anything about this realm.

I didn’t know this thread was about the Catholic God necessarily. I thought it was just the broader case of theism. Sometimes people get detailed wondering if it’s possible to really know. The fact is that on some categories of living we habitually act as if we know. Than somehow when issues of cosmology come to play people like to act as though somehow the normal tendency to believe what seems to be true is irrational. The evidence for the resurrection is pretty good if you don’t first assume it’s impossible. I am sure you can look into it. The evidence for the existence of a creator is also pretty good, unless of course it’s an inexceptable conclusion to your sentiment. The necessary conditions for the existence of a universe composed entirely of dependent events is an independent initiator. There’s simply no way around that. There is much that is arguable after that, but the existence of an independent creator is logically unavoidable. The way to know the supernatural is by revelation. You can’t know much about it, but it would be silly to think the creator can be entirely known inductively. Hence, while I would be a rather arrogant sea anemone to know of myself that the creator is good, I might know if it was revealed.

 

[Vonsalza]

1. I know someone who was Catholic and became Orthodox… …are you saying that “full knowledge” means that you have to know the Catholic God exists and still act contrary to him?

In a nutshell, yup. You must know the truth, know that it is the truth and still act in a contrarian manner.

Turns out auto-damnation isn’t quite as easy as you remember it being…

1. It doesn’t appear very clear-cut to me.

I don’t think it’s meant to. As it pertains to any particular soul, “above my pay-grade” is the common Catholic reply.

1. The Catholic dogma is this: “Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”

Man is truly bound by the sacraments. I’ll agree fully with that. It’s why we like it when non-Catholics become catholic.

But never interpret that to mean “God is bound by the sacraments”. He is not.

4.Why do you think that a theistic God must exist for there to be an objective good?

It’s a fundamental tenet of philosophy. As all effects require cause, metaphysical effects also require a metaphysical cause.

The god that drives this doesn’t have to be the Catholic God. It doesn’t have to be any sort of anthropomorphic deity. It just has to be the prime-mover for the metaphysical.

 

[Mammoths]

What makes God any different from you, me, the infant, society, or government? Do you support divine command theory?

Cosmological he is different because he exists independently of the created universe. The infant, society, government all came into being down stream causally from God. God is causally downstream from nothing. What makes a man different than the model airplane he built himself? I don’t know if that has to do with command theory or what that is. It is however that what begins depends ultimately on what does not. Creatures are generally regarded as subordinate to their creator. A car is under the command of a person. Since the creator is independent and agent and creator he then possesses the attributes of sovereignty with respect to creation. This matches the conclusion from the “argument from morality.” Corroborating arguments from different assumptions validate the conclusion.

The argument from morality I presented earlier is simply meant to show that if true good and evil exist independent of selfish preference, an authority higher than man must be the moral lawgiver. The alternative is that conscience is meaningless.

 

[skeptical_dan]

In a nutshell, yup. You must know the truth, know that it is the truth and still act in a contrarian manner.

Turns out auto-damnation isn’t quite as easy as you remember it being…

I don’t think it’s meant to. As it pertains to any particular soul, “above my pay-grade” is the common Catholic reply.

Man is truly bound by the sacraments. I’ll agree fully with that. It’s why we like it when non-Catholics become catholic.

But never interpret that to mean “God is bound by the sacraments”. He is not.

It’s a fundamental tenet of philosophy. As all effects require cause, metaphysical effects also require a metaphysical cause.

The god that drives this doesn’t have to be the Catholic God. It doesn’t have to be any sort of anthropomorphic deity. It just has to be the prime-mover for the metaphysical.

1. So does that mean that no non-Catholic can sin mortally? They don’t know that the Catholic God exists after all. Or is there a natural law that they have to follow? Even then, does that natural law apply to beliefs about the descriptive knowledge of the metaphysical world? If they can be saved by simply following the natural law, what is the point of Jesus’s death? And couldn’t anyone just claim that they don’t have “full knowledge,” even a Catholic? It’s not like anyone actually knows with 100% certainty.
2. Ok, I guess that’s fair. Though not every Catholic will say that.
3. I think there is merit to what you say here, but it still seems to me that some people are losing out on a better chance to be saved.
4. Ah, I understand now. I probably agree with you on that.

Also, sorry that I am quoting is such a rubbish way. I don’t know how to do it better.

 

[skeptical_dan]

I didn’t know this thread was about the Catholic God necessarily. I thought it was just the broader case of theism. Sometimes people get detailed wondering if it’s possible to really know. The fact is that on some categories of living we habitually act as if we know. Than somehow when issues of cosmology come to play people like to act as though somehow the normal tendency to believe what seems to be true is irrational. The evidence for the resurrection is pretty good if you don’t first assume it’s impossible. I am sure you can look into it. The evidence for the existence of a creator is also pretty good, unless of course it’s an inexceptable conclusion to your sentiment. The necessary conditions for the existence of a universe composed entirely of dependent events is an independent initiator. There’s simply no way around that. There is much that is arguable after that, but the existence of an independent creator is logically unavoidable. The way to know the supernatural is by revelation. You can’t know much about it, but it would be silly to think the creator can be entirely known inductively. Hence, while I would be a rather arrogant sea anemone to know of myself that the creator is good, I might know if it was revealed.

Ok, I’ll admit that I’m discussing different things here with theism in general and the Catholic God. I think that there very well might be a creator, but I’m skeptical that this creator is like the God of classical theism.

As for the resurrection, I think it could plausibly have happened. However, I don’t know what makes that more likely than the “cognitive dissonance theory.”

infidels.org/kiosk/article/the-cognitive-dissonance-theory-of-christian-origins-a-cordial-reply-to-dr-william-craig-835.html

celsus.blog/2014/04/20/review-of-doubting-jesus-resurrection-what-happened-in-the-black-box/

 

[skeptical_dan]

Cosmological he is different because he exists independently of the created universe. The infant, society, government all came into being down stream causally from God. God is causally downstream from nothing. What makes a man different than the model airplane he built himself? I don’t know if that has to do with command theory or what that is. It is however that what begins depends ultimately on what does not. Creatures are generally regarded as subordinate to their creator. A car is under the command of a person. Since the creator is independent and agent and creator he then possesses the attributes of sovereignty with respect to creation. This matches the conclusion from the “argument from morality.” Corroborating arguments from different assumptions validate the conclusion.

The argument from morality I presented earlier is simply meant to show that if true good and evil exist independent of selfish preference, an authority higher than man must be the moral lawgiver. The alternative is that conscience is meaningless.

What do you think of the Euthyphro dilemma? I was under the impression that you were taking the second horn.

 

[laylow]

First, suffering is necessary for various reasons. We suffer when we are ill and that alerts us and the people around us that there is a problem, for example.

Second, God has done something about suffering: He has sent us. Do you see someone who is suffering? What do you do about it? How many people turn their eyes away from the homeless man on the side of the road? How many people say they didn’t want to get involved in this or that situation?

Sometimes, however, we do not do our jobs. My child might suffer from teething but rather than comfort her and give her medicine, I may turn away. A nation’s leader may hear his people are starving but refuse to change the policies which are keeping them in that situation.

What used to happen to the ill and dying in Calcutta? What changed? A Catholic nun, because of her love for God, began to care for these least of those. Rather than let them die on the streets while others turned their heads away, she picked them up in her arms and carried them to shelter. God sent her, and she obeyed.

Some people die by suicide because their suffering becomes too great. Plenty of these people put their trust in God, but just couldn’t deal with it any longer. Then on top of that, their survivors have to hear all of the backlash from people saying they are in Hell, which is ridiculous. I’m not arguing against God. I am a total believer. I just do not believe he micro-manages the world and he will judge by the hand dealt. (A whole nother subject I know)

 

[Bradski]

I agree, that God would be petty and mean. Good thing this doesn’t describe the Catholic God…

I’m glad you appreciate that there are more than one.

 

[minkymurph]

1. Well the Christian God is supposed to love each and every person.

It cannot be stated whether or not God loves each and ever person unless we know or attempt to define what constitutes loving each and every person. Once we define what constitutes loving someone, we can seek to determine whether or not God meets the criteria.

Defining what constitutes loving each and every person in my view is no easy task. It is much easier to define what is not loving, and definitions will always be open to dispute. Even if God met the criteria, this does not prove He exists. It means He has met the criteria.

Failure to meet the criteria would not negate existence - particularly where what constitutes being loving is disputed. It may potentially negate being loving in the sense God is not how Christianity portrays Him, but this in itself does not negate the existence of God. Thus, the statement if no perfectly loving God exists then God does not exist cannot stand.

Just because people have heard the claim that God exists doesn’t mean that they have knowledge that God exists.

I would agree it doesn’t, but it is not impossible to acquire a knowledge something - anything - that exists never having heard any claims it does.

The question then is, is it possible for each and every human to have a knowledge God exists independent of claims God exists? From the dawn of time humankind has demonstrated a desire to connect with something greater than ourselves we came to call ‘God.’ Should no one no one ever have heard anything about God, sooner or later someone, somewhere, will consider it there is a God. So for me, each and every human does possess ’ a knowledge of the existence God’ in terms of an awareness of something greater than ourselves that may potentially be God.

,

 

[skeptical_dan]

It cannot be stated whether or not God loves each and ever person unless we know or attempt to define what constitutes loving each and every person. Once we define what constitutes loving someone, we can seek to determine whether or not God meets the criteria.

Defining what constitutes loving each and every person in my view is no easy task. It is much easier to define what is not loving, and definitions will always be open to dispute. Even if God met the criteria, this does not prove He exists. It means He has met the criteria.

Failure to meet the criteria would not negate existence - particularly where what constitutes being loving is disputed. It may potentially negate being loving in the sense God is not how Christianity portrays Him, but this in itself does not negate the existence of God. Thus, the statement if no perfectly loving God exists then God does not exist cannot stand.

I would agree it doesn’t, but it is not impossible to acquire a knowledge something - anything - that exists never having heard any claims it does.

The question then is, is it possible for each and every human to have a knowledge God exists independent of claims God exists? From the dawn of time humankind has demonstrated a desire to connect with something greater than ourselves we came to call ‘God.’ Should no one no one ever have heard anything about God, sooner or later someone, somewhere, will consider it there is a God. So for me, each and every human does possess ’ a knowledge of the existence God’ in terms of an awareness of something greater than ourselves that may potentially be God.

You have a good point in that it could be difficult to define what all-loving is exactly. Also, I am not talking about other conceptions about God here. I don’t care about a prime mover, or some vague pantheistic god, etc. (even though I might kind of believe in something like that). I am talking about the tri-omni personal God.

This vague “something greater than ourselves” is not someone you can have a relationship with necessarily. The point of the argument is that if the tri-omni personal God existed, then he would offer knowledge of himself to every person and give them an opportunity to have a relationship with him.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m glad you appreciate that there are more than one.

???

In perspective, there may be as many as there are people. How I perceived my dad is certainly different from how my siblings perceived him.

I just had one dad, however.

 

[minkymurph]

You have a good point in that it could be difficult to define what all-loving is exactly. Also, I am not talking about other conceptions about God here. I don’t care about a prime mover, or some vague pantheistic god, etc. (even though I might kind of believe in something like that). I am talking about the tri-omni personal God.

This vague “something greater than ourselves” is not someone you can have a relationship with necessarily. The point of the argument is that if the tri-omni personal God existed, then he would offer knowledge of himself to every person and give them an opportunity to have a relationship with him.

OK -

As Catholics we would say God did offer knowledge of Himself and give them an opportunity to have a relationship with them. He offered knowledge of Himself to Israel through the Law and the prophets, but ultimately through the person of Jesus Christ. The Revelation of God through Christ enabled humankind to know God in a human sense they could relate to. Thus, the point of argument presents little difficulty to Catholics, but granted it all hinges on Christ actually being God Incarnate. To one who does not believe that, God perhaps is little more than a vague concept. Prior to Christ I would say God was pretty vague - personal opinion.

I also have a theory that a lot things written in the OT about God were inspired and preserved to demonstrate no one really knew what God was like until He revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. Divine Law was revealed but not God as a ‘person.’