I just can't believe in god

[Aleii]

*I am not sure I agree with you.

Look at the outcome - the post drew some wonderful testimonies. I have to say that I was moved and it confirmed some very important things.

*

You don’t agree with me on what?

What I was saying was that Curtis’ initial post sounded like he had a severe 10 year crisis of faith of whether or not god existed at all. But, looking back on his previous posts showed a much different picture - he enthusiastically states that he is converting to Catholicism/doing RCIA, quoting the Bible, talking about prayer, etc.

3 days after his initial post he stated he was going to RCIA. It almost sounded like that was a brand new thing that suddenly happened in the last few days, and it sounded like other people were thinking the same, with the way some replies were worded. I was clarifying with him that this was not a severe 10 year crisis of faith in god that suddenly turned around in 3 days with RCIA coming out of it all. RCIA was in the works well before this thread started.

I did not want other people to (unintentionally) misunderstand as I had.

 

[Cinette]

You don’t agree with me on what?

What I was saying was that Curtis’ initial post sounded like he had a 10 year crisis of faith of whether or not god existed at all. But, looking back on his previous posts showed a much different picture - he enthusiastically states that he is converting to Catholicism/doing RCIA, quoting the Bible, talking about prayer, etc.

3 days after his initial post he stated he was going to RCIA. It almost sounded like that was a brand new thing that suddenly happened in the last few days, and it sounded like other people were thinking the same, with the way some replies were worded. I was clarifying with him that this was not a severe 10 year crisis of faith in god that suddenly turned around in the last 3 days with RCIA coming out of it all. RCIA was in the works well before this thread started.

I did not want other people to (unintentionally) misunderstand as I had.

Thank you for the clarification. You do mean God don’t you?

It is possible that he retroactively posed the question to see how people would respond.

On the other hand maybe he had a Demascus type conversion. It happens you know! He might have broken the record! Gosh I always hoped that I had a conversion like that!

Anyway, he did bring out some good responses and I am glad he began this thread.

Peace

 

[Aleii]

Thank you for the clarification. You do mean God don’t you?

No, I mean “a god”(vague/general concept), not “Catholic God”(specific concept). In Curtis’ original post he stated that he was doubting if any god existed, including the Catholic one.

It is possible that he retroactively posed the question to see how people would respond.

he replied to me about 2 pages back saying he had a period of doubt which was rectified with a You Tube conversation.

On the other hand maybe he had a Demascus type conversion. It happens you know! He might have broken the record! Gosh I always hoped that I had a conversion like that!

Anyway, he did bring out some good responses and I am glad he began this thread.

see his other replies. I am clarifying with him so that people are not misled into thinking that he suddenly had a complete conversion in 3 days, after a 10 year period of atheism/severe crisis of faith, which I initially thought he was saying. I want to prevent misunderstandings especially since I misunderstood and posted in reference to misunderstanding the OP, instead of to what really was going on with him. It is very easy to read the OP in the way that was not apparently intended.

 

[Cinette]

No, I mean “a god”(vague/general concept), not “Catholic God”(specific concept). In Curtis’ original post he stated that he was doubting if any god existed, including the Catholic one.

he replied to me about 2 pages back saying he had a period of doubt which was rectified with a You Tube conversation.

see his other replies. I am clarifying with him so that people are not misled into thinking that he suddenly had a complete conversion in 3 days, after a 10 year period of atheism/severe crisis of faith, which I initially thought he was saying. I want to prevent misunderstandings especially since I misunderstood and posted in reference to misunderstanding the OP, instead of to what really was going on with him. It is very easy to read the OP in the way that was not apparently intended.

You are right. We need to be cautious. Thank you.

 

[Roza]

Or gravity? I can’t see or touch gravity but I know it’s real. Or oxygen? I can’t see it but I need it to breathe. I know evil exists so logically good must exist too.

 

[jhblack]

How does one know what good and evil are? Where do the distinctions come from?

Another point: Evil is a privation of Good. Because good is the whole, and evil the piece that falls away, they are not co-reliant. Good exists without the need for evil to be understood as good.

 

[Exalt]

:dts:
The “Extraordinary Evidence” Fallacy

The crux of that article is this:

"This understanding of ‘extraordinary’ may be applied to both terms in the extraordinary evidence claim or only to the second. If applied to both, the extraordinary evidence claim would mean (1) ‘Overwhelming claims require overwhelming evidence.’ If applied only to the second term, it would mean (2) ‘Claims about things outside the ordinary require overwhelming evidence.’

“If the first sense is meant, then the claim is hopelessly subjective. What claims one finds overwhelming (or shocking or arresting) is a subjective matter that varies from person to person within a culture or between persons of different cultures. Similarly, sense (2) is also too subjective: What is out of the ordinary can be established through probability studies, but what is overwhelming cannot.”

I agree that overwhelming claims require overwhelming evidence - but I disagree with the idea that what is “overwhelming” evidence is terribly subjective. It’s not terribly subjective. In fact we’re merely asking for the verification that Christianity itself says is possible.

Your Bible says that faith can move mountains. Your faith demands the extraordinary. And so for me to believe that - I demand it as well. So far, people have brought to me:

1. Dubious accounts of miracles from decades and centuries past. (Nevermind that other religions have the same kind of accounts - should I believe in the theology of those religions as well?)
2. Arguments from “good and evil,” saying that if there’s a notion of good and evil, God must exist somehow! (Nevermind that there are perfectly natural explanations for the development of those notions)
3. “Just pray and God will show you the way!” (Nevermind that thousands of atheists, me included, have done just that - and haven’t heard so much as a peep.)

Yeah, that’s just not going to cut it for someone who isn’t predisposed to believe. You gotta make your case stronger. But you guys *know *that the case is pretty weak, that’s why you talk-up the whole “faith” thing.

 

[1holycatholic]

In fact ***we’re ***merely asking for the verification that Christianity itself says is possible.

Your Bible says that faith can move mountains. Your faith demands the extraordinary. And so for me to believe that - I demand it as well. So far, people have brought to me:

1. Dubious accounts of miracles from decades and centuries past. (Nevermind that other religions have the same kind of accounts - should I believe in the theology of those religions as well?)
2. Arguments from “good and evil,” saying that if there’s a notion of good and evil, God must exist somehow! (Nevermind that there are perfectly natural explanations for the development of those notions)
3. “Just pray and God will show you the way!” (Nevermind that thousands of atheists, me included, have done just that - and haven’t heard so much as a peep.)

Yeah, that’s just not going to cut it for someone who isn’t predisposed to believe. You gotta make your case stronger. But you guys *know *that the case is pretty weak, that’s why you talk-up the whole “faith” thing.

Who is we?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PB.HTM
…God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.
I, for one, am surprised that you present both Hume’s arguments and science, since Hume’s arguments from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, if true, would completely discredit the scientific method.

You might be interested in a course in Natural Theology. The case for God’s existence is very strong, the case against God’s existence is weak.

 

[anon5216]

To 1holycatholic, (and others for that matter),

Please don’t just revert to ‘talking points.’ While typically being reasonable starting points, they do not necessarily have anything to do with an intelligent response to a question or challenge.

‘Exalt’ challenged the group to address the biblical claim that “faith can move mountains.” You sidestepped that entirely. What are you afraid of? You could always make the “it’s a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally” argument. Then proceed to give contemporary examples where someone’s faith as moved a “figurative” mountain and support your assertion that those examples qualify as a demonstration of “faith moving mountains”.

You also didn’t address the claim that the historical record shows faith in other religions has also produced miraculous events. And please don’t respond with the tired old “yes, if they did those miraculous things, but not in the name of Jesus, then it came from Satan” nonsense. While there are actual Satan or evil or devil worshippers who identify themselves as such, the vast majority are consciously applying their faith to their understanding of the true God just as you believe you are. And from their perspective, they could just as easily claim that Jesus worshippers are the ones sorrowfully mislead.

Regarding “…God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” That’s certainly a statement that many other spiritual paths would agree with. The thing is, intellectually believing that God exists or simply agreeing that some teaching by some authority you trust is the Truth does not qualify as “knowing God with certainty”. It’s just a vigorously held belief. By itself it means absolutely nothing.

So far, people have been really just sparring over the issue of “the case for some version or other of belief in God’s existence”. Again, essentially a belief proves absolutely nothing.

The atheism question also has more layers. (Look up the definition, etymology, etc. from multiple sources and read all of it - not just the usual simplistic sound bites). As the simple “belief that a God does not exist” perspective, it really is no different than the simple “belief that God does exist”. These are just two beliefs that do no more than influence a person’s behavior, and certainly not predictably whether that behavior will be positive to themselves and/or others - regardless of if the belief is for or against the existence of God.

From my standpoint, I “believe God exists” based on my personal application of reason and certain experiences of a spiritual nature. However, in some respects, I consider myself an atheist. My experiences, while certainly beyond my normal ordinary day to day life experiences of the five senses, are not definitive “certain knowledge of God”. Knowledge and belief are not synonymous, no matter how firm the conviction of faith and belief.

I do not “know God exists” because I do not definitively “know God”. Therefore, I can only honestly admit to being an atheist since I really have no definitive personal proof. However, my personal quest for the Truth has led me to “believe” that the pursuit of true “knowledge of God” is likely a valid one, because my personal quest for the Truth has given me reason to believe that God likely exists.

Finally, my personal experience and quest has given me a very strong conviction that adhering to a particular belief from one religion or another will get me not one iota closer to “knowing God”. They give hints and perhaps the inspiration to begin the quest. The trap is, almost everyone that gets into one or other of these beliefs goes no further, and just endlessly chases their tail in circles - (perhaps amusing God … or not).

 

[1holycatholic]

To 1holycatholic, (and others for that matter),

Please don’t just revert to ‘talking points.’ While typically being reasonable starting points, they do not necessarily have anything to do with an intelligent response to a question or challenge.

‘Exalt’ challenged the group to address the biblical claim that “faith can move mountains.” You sidestepped that entirely. What are you afraid of? You could always make the “it’s a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally” argument. Then proceed to give contemporary examples where someone’s faith as moved a “figurative” mountain and support your assertion that those examples qualify as a demonstration of “faith moving mountains”.

I don’t care to engage in an argument over what the Bible means with fundamentalists of any sort, atheist or Christian. Claims from the Bible about the existence of God are not relevant. Belief in the existence of God is a preamble to faith.

The existence of the cosmos is radically contingent.

You also didn’t address the claim that the historical record shows faith in other religions has also produced miraculous events. And please don’t respond with the tired old “yes, if they did those miraculous things, but not in the name of Jesus, then it came from Satan” nonsense. While there are actual Satan or evil or devil worshippers who identify themselves as such, the vast majority are consciously applying their faith to their understanding of the true God just as you believe you are. And from their perspective, they could just as easily claim that Jesus worshippers are the ones sorrowfully mislead.

Again, the existence of the cosmos is radically contingent.

Regarding “…God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” That’s certainly a statement that many other spiritual paths would agree with.

Human reason leads to similar beliefs about the existence of God. This explains why there are so many similar religions.

The thing is, intellectually believing that God exists or simply agreeing that some teaching by some authority you trust is the Truth does not qualify as “knowing God with certainty”. It’s just a vigorously held belief. By itself it means absolutely nothing.

Earlier you complained that I didn’t accept the Bible alone as a teaching authority, now you want me to? By itself it means absolutely nothing.

I also must disagree with your anti-intellectual bent.

So far, people have been really just sparring over the issue of “the case for some version or other of belief in God’s existence”. Again, essentially a belief proves absolutely nothing.

How do propose that the topic be discussed given your admitted hostility to intellectual (rational) beliefs?

The atheism question also has more layers. (Look up the definition, etymology, etc. from multiple sources and read all of it - not just the usual simplistic sound bites). As the simple “belief that a God does not exist” perspective, it really is no different than the simple “belief that God does exist”. These are just two beliefs that do no more than influence a person’s behavior, and certainly not predictably whether that behavior will be positive to themselves and/or others - regardless of if the belief is for or against the existence of God.

From my standpoint, I “believe God exists” based on my personal application of reason and certain experiences of a spiritual nature. However, in some respects, I consider myself an atheist. My experiences, while certainly beyond my normal ordinary day to day life experiences of the five senses, are not definitive “certain knowledge of God”. Knowledge and belief are not synonymous, no matter how firm the conviction of faith and belief.

I do not “know God exists” because I do not definitively “know God”. Therefore, I can only honestly admit to being an atheist since I really have no definitive personal proof. However, my personal quest for the Truth has led me to “believe” that the pursuit of true “knowledge of God” is likely a valid one, because my personal quest for the Truth has given me reason to believe that God likely exists.

Finally, my personal experience and quest has given me a very strong conviction that adhering to a particular belief from one religion or another will get me not one iota closer to “knowing God”. They give hints and perhaps the inspiration to begin the quest. The trap is, almost everyone that gets into one or other of these beliefs goes no further, and just endlessly chases their tail in circles - (perhaps amusing God … or not).

What’s your point?

 

[vince70]

“We can never obey any one as we ought unless we trust him, and we cannot trust him unless we place reliance on his word. This reliance on what God says to us is thus the beginning of obedience to his commands; it is the acceptance of what He tells us to receive as true, not because we ourselves see it to be true, but because He vouches for its truth. Our intellect must first submit before our will consents to follow. Thus faith is the keystone of obedience, and our obedience will be in proportion to our faith.” – Catholic Truth.

“By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority?”

This question was put to Jesus by the Jewish elders etc. By this question, they were acknowledging that Jesus did perform supernatural signs. But even so, they didn’t believe him. Others came to believe in him because of these signs who may have not been religious. Ultimately though, Jesus did say “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

 

[jhblack]

I agree that overwhelming claims require overwhelming evidence - but I disagree with the idea that what is “overwhelming” evidence is terribly subjective. It’s not terribly subjective. In fact we’re merely asking for the verification that Christianity itself says is possible.

In the simplest way, believers have made a claim: God exists. If one decides to not adhere to this claim and remove themselves from those who make it, then there’s a neutral point I suppose. However, when a non-believer (or those in disagreement with the claim) initiate the debate against the claim, the burden is on those who bring the debate to the table. Christians believe, and we don’t need physical, irrefutable evidence to believe. If one doesn’t believe and is satisfied with that, then that is of course their choice. However, when one does not believe, but feels it is necessary to come to a believer to refute their claim, the non-believer must support his/her dissent, otherwise it is pointless. So, to attempt to drive it home, the claim of God’s existence is not dependent upon our proving it to you (we are taught to witness to non-believers and believers alike, of course). However, the non-believer’s counter-claim or dissent of this claim is dependent upon sufficient evidence. And all that evidence is there for is to justify the non-believer’s dissent to him or herself. (Sorry if I was a bit repetitious lol)

Your Bible says that faith can move mountains. Your faith demands the extraordinary. And so for me to believe that - I demand it as well.

So, non-faith demands what? Nothing? Stagnancy? Anarchy? Moreover, I am unwilling to respond to this more in depth because of the obvious distaste you have for the idea itself, and more importantly, because in your pride you have picked something that you merely do not like and have attacked it. If you want to use Scriptures as a basis for your arguement, then prove to me you are more learned in, at least, the basic understand of Scripture.

So far, people have brought to me:

1. Dubious accounts of miracles from decades and centuries past. (Nevermind that other religions have the same kind of accounts - should I believe in the theology of those religions as well?)

Each and every religion have pieces, small or big, of the truth. Regardless, asking which religion you should follow is irrelevant. You gotta crawl before you can walk. In other words, before you need validation of Christianity over other religions, you need to believe in God, or at the very least, spirituality.

1. Arguments from “good and evil,” saying that if there’s a notion of good and evil, God must exist somehow! (Nevermind that there are perfectly natural explanations for the development of those notions)

The logical explanation of goodness being proof of the existence of a higher being is entirely natural. We all have a curiosity towards origin. Explaining origin is very human, thus natural. However, what do you mean when you say “natural”? And what are these explanations? (This topic can go pretty in-depth, I’m sure. You may want to start a different thread)

1. “Just pray and God will show you the way!” (Nevermind that thousands of atheists, me included, have done just that - and haven’t heard so much as a peep.)

This is understandable. How can you, an atheist, be expected to understand prayer when you don’t believe in God? However, prayer is a good way, for those who are unsure but in their hearts want to believe, to find answers. Answers to prayer don’t have to be bolts of lightning smacking you in the face. It could simply be a specific line of lyrics from a song on the radio coming to your attention immediately after a prayer. Subtelty. At any rate, you rightly object to this statement, but at the same time you sound angry that you haven’t gotten a booming voice from the sky telling you “I am He, and I exist.” How can you expect to make progress in anything, if you make the first step backwards instead of forwards? In other words, if you start something with the notion that it’ll fail, then you’ve defeated yourself. Hope, my friend. Hope.

Yeah, that’s just not going to cut it for someone who isn’t predisposed to believe. You gotta make your case stronger. But you guys *know *that the case is pretty weak, that’s why you talk-up the whole “faith” thing.

We are all predisposed to believe. Again, every single human being has a curiosity towards origin. That’s the predisposition. The spiritual “magnet” if you will. If such a curiosity is not meant to help you find God (or spirituality in general) then what is the purpose of such a universal curiosity? (searching for an opinion here). And don’t be so arrogant to put words and thoughts into a believer’s mouth and head. It is your undoing. By saying “you guys know that the case is pretty weak,” what you are in fact saying is “I want to believe your case is weak to justify myself.” Speaking for myself and hopefully others, I find the case to be quite strong, and compelling to the point of bewilderment towards those who do not believe.

Again, you are in my prayers, and I thank you for the chance to discuss.

 

[anon5216]

I don’t care to engage in an argument over what the Bible means with fundamentalists of any sort, atheist or Christian. Claims from the Bible about the existence of God are not relevant. Belief in the existence of God is a preamble to faith.

The existence of the cosmos is radically contingent.

Back to your talking points, I see. I was referring to ‘Exalt’s’ comment on faith, not on the existence of God. It’s clear that you do not have an adequate response available to you.

Again, the existence of the cosmos is radically contingent.

Again, a talking point entirely unrelated to the original statement.

Human reason leads to similar beliefs about the existence of God. This explains why there are so many similar religions.

And, your point being???

Earlier you complained that I didn’t accept the Bible alone as a teaching authority, now you want me to? By itself it means absolutely nothing.

I also must disagree with your anti-intellectual bent.

Nothing in my original post was a complaint that you did or didn’t “accept the Bible alone as a teaching authority.” And what makes you conclude I have an anti-intellectual bent? Disagreeing with your viewpoint hardly counts as being anti-intellectual. You have this tendency to “write between the lines” and then respond to what you have “written”. Does reading Adler make you an intellectual?

How do propose that the topic be discussed given your admitted hostility to intellectual (rational) beliefs?

I have no hostility to intellectual (rational) thought. You are presuming your thought process and resulting beliefs are intellectual and rational while those of someone who disagrees with you are not. Perhaps you presume too much?

What’s your point?

What’s the confusion? My point was clearly articulated in the prior post. Sounds like you’ve reached a point in your belief system where you refuse the possibility of there being anything further to reach. If chasing your tail gives you joy and contentment and it doesn’t harm anyone else, have at it.

 

[cranster]

Exalt,
You mentioned that you find miracles that are decades old dubious as “evidence” that God exists. Take for example Our Lady of Zeitoun, which happened from 68 to 71 or 72. I know of no technology at the time that could have produced a holographic 3 dimensional image in midair of a being bathed in light hovering over a Church. Those incidents were witnessed by as many as 250,000 people at a time and was observed by everyone present… Christians, atheists, moslems, Jews, protestants and just about every one in between.

The apparition was often accompanied either by a single dove made of light or multiple doves that formed a Cross hovering over her head. There were many documented healings as well as many conversions to Christianity because of the events.

I think it’s a matter of perspective how one views something like that. For me it is astounding and extraordinary evidence, and to my complete bewilderment for others it’s dubious. Is it dubious because you weren’t there to witness it yourself, or maybe you believe that 250,000 people had a mass halucination? Which in itself would be next to impossible.

You said you have prayed and absolutely nothing happened. Out of curiousity when you prayed to what you believe to be a mythical or fictional character did you issue an ultimatum with a sceptical closed heart and mind… Give me absolute proof and I will believe! or did you ask with an open heart and mind “Lord if you’re there please show me?” Only you know the answer to that.

I myself have had extaordinarily beautiful experiences when recieving the Eucharist. I also was approched when I was 17 in my bedroom by a man with a beard and long robe that asked me one question, “Will you let me love you” After I said yes, my entire being was flooded with light, peace, joy, happiness, euphoria, and I felt like I was floating in an incredibly peaceful and beautiful blue space. I also had a sense that I belonged with this person more than any other person that exists. Was it a shizophrenic moment… perhaps, or was it a genuine spiritual encounter with Jesus Christ? To me it was absolutely the latter.
That was the only time in my life that I’ ve had an experience like that as far as hearing a voice. I’ve never found anything that could artificially produce that experience. It was a singular event in my life. For me it was the extraordinary evidence I needed and no one can disuade me from that. An obstinant closed heart and mind won’t get you far when you approach God, but an open heart and mind will not go unanswered.

 

[1holycatholic]

Back to your talking points, I see. I was referring to ‘Exalt’s’ comment on faith, not on the existence of God. It’s clear that you do not have an adequate response available to you.

Have you even read this thread? Exalt was promoting scientism and denying the validity of proofs for the existence of God. Exalt also promotes the pseudoskepticism from Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, even though Hume’s theory is easily refuted (see Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately.)

Nothing in my original post was a complaint that you did or didn’t “accept the Bible alone as a teaching authority.” And what makes you conclude I have an anti-intellectual bent?

The thing is, intellectually believing that God exists or simply agreeing that some teaching by some authority you trust is the Truth does not qualify as “knowing God with certainty”. It’s just a vigorously held belief. By itself it means absolutely nothing.

I see you are beating Hume’s tired drum as well.

‘Exalt’ challenged the group to address the biblical claim that “faith can move mountains.”

After pointing out the scientism and pseudoskepticism in Exalt’s posts there was an attempt (by Exalt) to attempted to change the subject to something not relevant, as you are doing.

 

[jhblack]

Instead of attacking each other, we should probably try and focus on being charitable towards the atheists in this thread.

 

[Roza]

1. Jesus made such an affect on the world, the way time was recorded changed. Obviously during BC times they didn’t say ‘BC’ but you get my point.
2. The accounts in the Bible, those were real people, not just some story created by 1 author who was bored… many writers went into that book. How many people gave up their lives in the name of JESUS? If Jesus was just a fictitious fairytale, would so many people have died for their faith?
   (written word inspired by God)
3. The accounts of people who were healed or who’s lives were completely change by Jesus. They all had mass hysteria OR is it possible that Jesus, GOD is REAL?

that’s just a start of thoughts to ponder

Not to mention, how many people here have their OWN accounts, maybe prayers answer or other accounts that can be nothing BUT the power of God in their lives? Again, I still remember the day when I still couldn’t see out of my right eye except a nice big blob of blood and I was pushed PUSHED out of the way of a speeding car by a hand I couldn’t see… it was on my breast bone and shoved me back 2, 3 steps then one back up the curb and there’s the car that could have hit me. Now I understand it very well could have been my guardian angel. I’ll never forget that and I was still a new age dabbler back then. I kept seeking God but in all the wrong places. Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened.

 

[Roza]

1. Where is Jesus buried? No proof of His body has ever been found yet so many accounts of His resurrection and then His assention.
2. Why were early Christians persecuted so much? Perhaps because the truth of Jesus Christ wasn’t something the powers that be wanted as common knowledge, to be believed.
3. Study the Catacombs of Rome.

I have a book, not Catholic, but it was called A Case for Easter. I have to find it. There’s also the Josh McDowell movie, also not Catholic but he did a great film regarding Jesus.

I admit I have catching up to do. I have some great Bible software but most is not Catholic yet it’s still great software, showing what plowing was like in the 1st century, what living quarters were like, what homes were like, etc. I’m sure there’s excellent Catholic resources out there too.

1. Watch EWTN for Bible study

Allow me to reword the title of this thread, I myself can’t possibly NOT believe in God. There’s too much evidence out there proving Jesus was real (IS REAL) and too many accounts of lives changed and lives that continue to be changed because of Jesus in their lives and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. I can’t be convinced He isn’t real.

 

[Methodi]

Instead of attacking each other, we should probably try and focus on being charitable towards the atheists in this thread.

Amen, some of these atheists may some day become great saints.

 

[anon5216]

Have you even read this thread? Exalt was promoting scientism and denying the validity of proofs for the existence of God. Exalt also promotes the pseudoskepticism from Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, even though Hume’s theory is easily refuted (see Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately.)

I see you are beating Hume’s tired drum as well.

Neither Whately nor Hume are on my list of “must read and study”; I’m not beating anyone else’s tired drum; hint, hint.

You quoted me: << The thing is, intellectually believing that God exists or simply agreeing that some teaching by some authority you trust is the Truth does not qualify as “knowing God with certainty”. It’s just a vigorously held belief. By itself it means absolutely nothing. >> as proof that I have an anti-intellectual bent.
“roll your eyes” if you like, but stating that an intellectual conclusion of God’s existence is not proof of God’s existence is hardly being anti-intellectual. Perhaps the phrase “proves absolutely nothing” would have been more clear to you. A theory, no matter how intellectually elegantly expressed can never be a proof of itself.

After pointing out the scientism and pseudoskepticism in Exalt’s posts there was an attempt (by Exalt) to attempted to change the subject to something not relevant, as you are doing.

If you want to insist that discussing faith is irrelevant to discussing God’s existence, well, OK - go ahead and insist that belongs properly to another thread. From my perspective, the only “proofs” espoused here are matters of faith.

I find this particular exchange with someone coming across as a pseudo-intellectual who is endlessly chasing their tail, to be unproductive. Have the last word if you like, I’m bored with you 1holycatholic.

To the other posters, I am not attacking 1holycatholic’s person. I simply don’t buy into their arguments and conclusions and find it very objectionable that they keep insisting on trying to discredit me personally via making claims about who’s ideas I supposedly espouse and rehash. I may be mistaken, but to me, their posts have the distinctive tone of someone who needs to be “right” all the time without necessarily being interested in Truth itself.