I still cannot understand you!

[Spock]

At least many of you. Those, who say that God’s existence is forever a matter of faith - those I can understand. Faith is considered to be of a higher value than reason, evidence and proof. “Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

So, kindly abandon that kind of “argument”. Stick to your faith, and don’t try to bring reason into the conversation. It does not work.

 

[Matthias123]

At least many of you. Those, who say that God’s existence is forever a matter of faith - those I can understand. Faith is considered to be of a higher value than reason, evidence and proof. “Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

So, kindly abandon that kind of “argument”. Stick to your faith, and don’t try to bring reason into the conversation. It does not work.

What are you talking about? People have faith that “god exists” because they either don’t have the ability, or time to go through the reasoning. A practical example is that I am not astute in advanced mathematics so I would never be able to confirm Hawking equations on black holes, but I still believe he is correct. I can’t know this for sure, my reason tells me that it he is a trust worthy source so I hold it on faith.

It seems to me that you don’t like the idea that the majority of theists are not hill billy fundamentalists

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Spock,

Spock:

“Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Jesus’ message to Thomas was that he should have believed on the basis of his fellow disciples’ testimony, and on the fact that Jesus had already told him of the resurrection. This isn’t the same as blind faith.

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

Here’s how I understand what you’re saying:

1. Faith is distinct from reason.
2. Arguments for God’s existence appeal to reason.
3. Therefore, arguments for God’s existence should be abandoned.

(3) doesn’t follow from the premises. However (via the principle of charity), I think you mean to say that one must have “faith” in order to believe in God.

You’ve touched upon the relation between faith and reason, which is something that many of us Catholics (but certainly many others, as well) acknowledge to be two sides of the same coin. Reason can be used to demonstrate that God exists; but only faith can bring one to believe in God.

In large part, it all depends on how you define “faith”. If your working definition is “belief in something you know ain’t true”, or some kind of assent that is either at odds with or separated from reason, then I think you’re attacking a straw man. The Bible tells us exactly what faith is (Hebrews 11:1): “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

 

[Spock]

What are you talking about? People have faith that “god exists” because they either don’t have the ability, or time to go through the reasoning. A practical example is that I am not astute in advanced mathematics so I would never be able to confirm Hawking equations on black holes, but I still believe he is correct. I can’t know this for sure, my reason tells me that it he is a trust worthy source so I hold it on faith.

It seems to me that you don’t like the idea that the majority of theists are not hill billy fundamentalists

There are many Catholics (here on this board, too) who base their belief in God’s existence purely on faith. Are they also “dumb” hillbillies? I have yet to see an instance where any of those purported “proofs” are convincing for atheists. Are those atheists as “dumb” as those hillbillies? Or are we just intentionally blind and stubborn to accept your “superior” logic?

And, of course faith is not necessary any more. This is the corollary of what you say - the ones who still rely on faith are the intellectually deprived or lazy ones, who do not take the time and effort to use their reason. Who needs faith, when there is conclusive, irrefutable, ironclad, logical proof?

Is that what you really wanted to say? I hope not.

 

[Spock]

Jesus’ message to Thomas was that he should have believed on the basis of his fellow disciples’ testimony, and on the fact that Jesus had already told him of the resurrection. This isn’t the same as blind faith.

How do ***you ***define blind faith? As far as I am concerned, to accept something solely on testimonial evidence is blind faith - expecially if the story to be believed seems to be “impossible” - because it is contrary to reason.

Here’s how I understand what you’re saying:

1. Faith is distinct from reason.
2. Arguments for God’s existence appeal to reason.
3. Therefore, arguments for God’s existence should be abandoned.

Yes, because if they would be successful, it would render faith (in God’s existence) unnecessary.

(3) doesn’t follow from the premises. However (via the principle of charity), I think you mean to say that one must have “faith” in order to believe in God.

That is what many Catholics and other Christians say. And I happen to acknowledge that they are correct.

You’ve touched upon the relation between faith and reason, which is something that many of us Catholics (but certainly many others, as well) acknowledge to be two sides of the same coin.

I don’t agree. Reason and faith (acceptance of something that cannot be rationally demonstrated - per your definition based upon Hebrews 11:1) are water and oil - they do not mix. As long as reason can demonstrate something - faith is unnecessary. If something needs faith, it cannot be rationally demonstrated - therefore it is not rational.

Reason can be used to demonstrate that God exists; but only faith can bring one to believe in God.

If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated, there would be no need to **believe **- we would know!

In large part, it all depends on how you define “faith”. If your working definition is “belief in something you know ain’t true”, or some kind of assent that is either at odds with or separated from reason, then I think you’re attacking a straw man. The Bible tells us exactly what faith is (Hebrews 11:1): “Now faith is being **sure **of what we **hope for **and certain of what we do not see.”

But I accept the definition in the Bible. How can that be reconciled with reason? How can one be sure of something one “hopes for”? How can one be certain of what one cannot see? (And please, none of that nonsense about atoms cannot be “seen”.) The word “see” implies any kind of empirical verification - not just the lack of visual information.

 

[James_S_Saint]

As long as reason can demonstrate something - faith is unnecessary. If something needs faith, it cannot be rationally demonstrated - therefore it is not rational.

Again, you draw conclusion that does not follow (non-sequitor).

In all you have said and apparently believe, you seem to be missing the entire concept of “rational”. It is not merely logic.

 

[Eucharisted]

At least many of you. Those, who say that God’s existence is forever a matter of faith - those I can understand. Faith is considered to be of a higher value than reason, evidence and proof. “Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

So, kindly abandon that kind of “argument”. Stick to your faith, and don’t try to bring reason into the conversation. It does not work.

You need to study a bit more.

I recommend you start with philosophy. Try Plato’s writings.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

At least many of you. Those, who say that God’s existence is forever a matter of faith - those I can understand. Faith is considered to be of a higher value than reason, evidence and proof. “Happy are those the have not seen, yet believe” - says the Bible (approximately).

Now, those who assert that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated - usually by some appeal to logic - those I cannot understand. If God’s existence could be rationally demonstrated - there would be no reason for faith. Therefore all the purported “proofs” are insufficient - and necessarily so.

So, kindly abandon that kind of “argument”. Stick to your faith, and don’t try to bring reason into the conversation. It does not work.

I agree, to a point, with what you’re saying. But you’ve made this assertion before, and you often include a logical leap. No one can come to God through reason alone. But a process that is not led by reason is not therefore irrational. You *might *be able to call it arational, but I think that is even a stretch.

God cannot be proven, because no one is a disinterested observer: no one can rationally evaluate the proof. This is, as you say, quite intentional: we come to Him by faith.

Reason is not by any means opposed to God, however; and that is all I myself have claimed.

 

[Eucharisted]

And stay away from relativism. Picture related.

 

[Eucharisted]

Here is what the Church teaches on coming to know God (from the Catechism):

II. Ways of Coming to Know God

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. the soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that 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."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

 

[Secret_Square]

No one can know everything by personal experience or by reasoning it out for themselves, so EVERYONE has to have “faith” to a certain degree.

Faith simply means believing something to be true because it comes from a source you consider credible.

Even on a secular level there are a lot of things we have “faith” in. You have faith that people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln existed and in their accomplishments, since you obviously were not there to see them in person. We go on their own recorded words and writings and those of the people who did know them personally. You have faith that places like London or Paris or Moscow exist, if you have not visited these cities yourself – your faith is based on the accounts of people who live there and visit there now and in the past. You have faith that your doctor knows what he’s talking about when he diagnoses you with a certain condition.

Well, religious faith works in a similar fashion. None of us ever met Jesus during his time on earth, but we have faith in what the Bible and sacred tradition says about him. Faith is not contrary to reason but simply relies on the reason and observation of others who have seen or experienced what we have not experienced for ourselves.

 

[liquidpele]

No one can know everything by personal experience or by reasoning it out for themselves, so EVERYONE has to have “faith” to a certain degree.

Faith simply means believing something to be true because it comes from a source you consider credible.

Even on a secular level there are a lot of things we have “faith” in. You have faith that people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln existed and in their accomplishments, since you obviously were not there to see them in person. We go on their own recorded words and writings and those of the people who did know them personally. You have faith that places like London or Paris or Moscow exist, if you have not visited these cities yourself – your faith is based on the accounts of people who live there and visit there now and in the past. You have faith that your doctor knows what he’s talking about when he diagnoses you with a certain condition.

Well, religious faith works in a similar fashion. None of us ever met Jesus during his time on earth, but we have faith in what the Bible and sacred tradition says about him. Faith is not contrary to reason but simply relies on the reason and observation of others who have seen or experienced what we have not experienced for ourselves.

Of course. However, having faith that your car will start tomorrow so you can get to work is a lot different than having faith in a God that wants you to spend sundays worshiping it and giving money to a church or condemning people for being gay. The greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof required. I think an all powerful all seeing father figure that’s somehow more real than all the others that men have believed in throughout history requires a more than assurances by other people. And that’s not even looking at a lot of the hypocrisy or anti-progress associated with religion… if religion made all it’s followers more moral and they were seen as truly better off I’d be interested. If religious leaders made great progress and developed cures for diseases or other things to help humanity, I would be interested. And don’t even try to say they do, even if a person is religious and makes a breakthrough, they didn’t do it because of their religion - they didn’t pray for it or study the bible hard enough to suddenly realize how to do thing X.

 

[fhansen]

It’s absurd to say that reason alone can prove the existence of God, at least a God who possesses attributes described by Christianity-a God worth bothering with placing faith in. OTOH, it’s reasonable, if unprovable, to believe that a creator is necessary as a first cause, etc.

 

[liquidpele]

It’s absurd to say that reason alone can prove the existence of God, at least a God who possesses attributes described by Christianity-a God worth bothering with placing faith in. OTOH, it’s reasonable, if unprovable, to believe that a creator is necessary as a first cause, etc.

Why? What caused the creator?

 

[Matthias123]

There are many Catholics (here on this board, too) who base their belief in God’s existence purely on faith. Are they also “dumb” hillbillies? I have yet to see an instance where any of those purported “proofs” are convincing for atheists. Are those atheists as “dumb” as those hillbillies? Or are we just intentionally blind and stubborn to accept your “superior” logic?

And, of course faith is not necessary any more. This is the corollary of what you say - the ones who still rely on faith are the intellectually deprived or lazy ones, who do not take the time and effort to use their reason. Who needs faith, when there is conclusive, irrefutable, ironclad, logical proof?

Is that what you really wanted to say? I hope not.

There are many Catholics (here on this board, too) who base their belief in God’s existence purely on faith. Are they also “dumb” hillbillies?

Did you even read what I said?

I have yet to see an instance where any of those purported “proofs” are convincing for atheists.

I agree

Are those atheists as “dumb” as those hillbillies?

uhhh no…where did you get that idea?

Or are we just intentionally blind and stubborn to accept your “superior” logic?

You are very stubborn folk, I will give you that. I find that most of you have a lack of understanding of the metaphysics.

And, of course faith is not necessary any more. This is the corollary of what you say - the ones who still rely on faith are the intellectually deprived or lazy ones, who do not take the time and effort to use their reason. Who needs faith, when there is conclusive, irrefutable, ironclad, logical proof?

You are the only one who is saying this – this is not what I said.

 

[fhansen]

Why? What caused the creator?

It’s more reasonable to believe that something always existed rather than that something came from nothing but the observable universe appears to have required and indeed appears to have had a beginning, therefore necessitating a cause. If the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused it would also need to be designed, as laws (order) determining its behavior from the moment it ceased being a singularity would’ve already had to be in place, and a plan without a planner is less probable than a plan appearing spontaneously, especially one as complex as would’ve been necessitated by the big bang and all that followed. Everything we can observe is awesomely complex, inestimably more so than the most complex systems we can create. In general terms a “superiority” is missing in all this and while it may be a moot point for now as far as science is concerned since we can’t prove its existence by scientific method, it’s unreasonable to reject the idea as an untenable one.

If we’re to be consistent in the use of the very reason that has obviously caused us to be able to understand laws of physics and create complex systems ourselves that would be impossible without the ability to reason, then we should be able to use that same reason to deduce that reason should also be behind-and prior to-all that we observe. We simply ask, where-and what-is it?

 

[liquidpele]

It’s more reasonable to believe that something always existed rather than that something came from nothing but the observable universe appears to have required and indeed appears to have had a beginning, therefore necessitating a cause. If the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused it would also need to be designed, as laws (order) determining its behavior from the moment it ceased being a singularity would’ve already had to be in place, and a plan without a planner is less probable than a plan appearing spontaneously, especially one as complex as would’ve been necessitated by the big bang and all that followed. Everything we can observe is awesomely complex, inestimably more so than the most complex systems we can create. In general terms a “superiority” is missing in all this and while it may be a moot point for now as far as science is concerned since we can’t prove its existence by scientific method, it’s unreasonable to reject the idea as an untenable one.

Why would it have to be designed? Dust mites eat my skin that flakes off, but I don’t grow it for that reason. Why do you think something without a planner is more probable? Don’t you see what you’re basing such probability/assumptions on? We’re back at faith. The same can be said of your other comments in that paragraph.

 

[fhansen]

Why would it have to be designed? Dust mites eat my skin that flakes off, but I don’t grow it for that reason. Why do you think something without a planner is more probable? Don’t you see what you’re basing such probability/assumptions on? We’re back at faith. The same can be said of your other comments in that paragraph.

I edited my last post before I saw this.

 

[Spock]

You need to study a bit more.

I am thrilled to see such charitable and condescending remarks.

I recommend you start with philosophy. Try Plato’s writings.

Your recommendation came a few decades late. I have studied philosophy in college.

Instead of these irrelevant remarks, kindly show me why would faith be needed if we had positive, logical, irrefutable logical arguments which showed (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that God exists. That would be a meaningful contribution to the thread. Go for it.

 

[Spock]

I agree, to a point, with what you’re saying. But you’ve made this assertion before, and you often include a logical leap. No one can come to God through reason alone. But a process that is not led by reason is not therefore irrational. You *might *be able to call it arational, but I think that is even a stretch.

God cannot be proven, because no one is a disinterested observer: no one can rationally evaluate the proof. This is, as you say, quite intentional: we come to Him by faith.

Reason is not by any means opposed to God, however; and that is all I myself have claimed.

I am always glad when you make your contribution. As usual, your point merits consideration. I use the word faith in the way as expressed in Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” How is that being rational?

If I would say that I have faith in winning the jackpot tomorrow - that is “I would be sure of what I hope for, and I would certain of what I cannot see” - and I would be acting on this faith - would that be rational? Spending the money ahead of time? I am trying very hard to conform to the Catholic definition of faith, so I cannot be accused of creating a strawman argument.