If God Doesn't "Prove Himself" to Preserve Free Will, What of "Apparitions"?

[Abba]

Free Will: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

I will take this. I don’t know if you notice how loaded it is and I am not sure how this will all end. I pray the Holy Spirit illumitates our thoughts and our hearts. Of course, there are others that are contributing and I hope will continue to do so. I doubt that I can tackle this on my own. There is great wisdom in what Tom expressed so clearly. But, in order to appreciate it there are people that need to take some preliminary steps, such as to put intellectual knowledge in it’s place and come to recognize that there is a different way of knowing. I don’t know if you already recognize this.

Now, let me inform you lynx, that you are discussing with someone that is not a philosophy or theology professor I studied a little philosophy, many moons ago and have forgotten just about all the details. I like to think that I incorporated what I learned and developed analytical skills. But, even those may be rusty. You are communicating with someone who was tending chickens not too long ago in the Cibao region of the Dominican Republic and will be writing with broken english. [Btw, I don’t make a good farmer, I could not kill the animals I tended. How could I kill them after feeding them everyday? It’s very different to buying packaged meat at the supermarket. I loved being woken up by a rooster. It was fun and refreshing.]

My intention here is, with the Grace of God, to illuminate a way of seeing reality so that you may be able to recognize the existence of God and how he loves you, lynx, dearly. I am not interested in winning an argument nor of bringing this discussion to a final debate of logical formulas. I think that intellectual knowledge is valuable and has it’s place but it is limited. I think that spiritual knowledge is superior and we can come to understand existence/reality better and a lot of those things that remain inexplicable with intellectual knowledge (epistemology etc…). Of course, I am not implying that we can completely figure it out nor come to understand God completely, but certainly reach a level of understanding superior to that which we can reach with mere intellectual knowledge and come to understand certain things that we cannot understand with mere intellectual knowledge. In doing this, it is not that intellectual knowledge is denied but from that elavated understanding you recognize it’s limitations and you continue to learn and grow with both intellectual and spiritual knowledge. They compliment each other. Of course, this is not all so simple, because, wether people know it or not or believe it or not, God does exists and he is the one that gives the Grace of Faith and reveals himself to whom ever he pleases. That is to say that, how much we come to know God depends on God. But, if we keep seeking him, no matter how far off we are, he will come to meet us and guide us. It just may not be the way we want. I think in this paragraph is expressed the principle point I would like to contribute in this discussion. I think this is the way to come to understand the answer to the question.

Keep in mind that there are children that understand all this already and do not know any logical formulas. Yesterdays reading was on the Ethiopian eunuch and notice how he converted and came to understand. True, there are no apostles participating in this thread and certainly being in the actual presence of an apostle I am sure can have an impact on a soul that is seeking God but, it was all very spiritual and did not rely exclusively on intellectual knowledge and deductions.

I feel that to understand an act is from God, then God must have entered your heart and mind so completely that you have no choice but to believe. For instance, if I were to see an amputee re-grow a leg I would not attribute God to the cause.

I think this depends on what ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ really mean. I kind of see faith as God calling and the soul responding.

My two cents worth…

 

[lynx]

I will take this. I don’t know if you notice how loaded it is and I am not sure how this will all end.

I think the more of my posts you read the more you will find how vague I am, on purpose

But, in order to appreciate it there are people that need to take some preliminary steps, such as to put intellectual knowledge in it’s place and come to recognize that there is a different way of knowing. I don’t know if you already recognize this.

I personally don’t think science and religion should ever cross paths because the sufficiency of proof is different for each. That is to say, one cannot discuss the chemical make up of God and come to concurrence.

Now, let me inform you lynx, that you are discussing with someone that is not a philosophy or theology professor I studied a little philosophy, many moons ago and have forgotten just about all the details. I like to think that I incorporated what I learned and developed analytical skills. But, even those may be rusty. You are communicating with someone who was tending chickens not too long ago in the Cibao region of the Dominican Republic and will be writing with broken english.

Fine fine, no worries

[Btw, I don’t make a good farmer, I could not kill the animals I tended. How could I kill them after feeding them everyday? It’s very different to buying packaged meat at the supermarket. I loved being woken up by a rooster. It was fun and refreshing.]

That was always the problem with my father, and now he can’t eat birds

My intention here is, with the Grace of God, to illuminate a way of seeing reality so that you may be able to recognize the existence of God and how he loves you, lynx, dearly … I think this is the way to come to understand the answer to the question. I think this depends on what ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ really mean. I kind of see faith as God calling and the soul responding.

Ok. I interpret your position then as that as people, we have a link with God who speaks to us metaphorically, and we have a choice to believe or not believe. My only issue with this is that for one to look past the metaphorical and see God I believe one’s decision making skills must be directly influenced by God. Lets assume that a farmer is preparing to decapitate one of his chickens, but at the last moment he feels a sense of guilt and voice inside his head commands him to stop. So he does. Does this farmer now think the action was a result of God? What if a child saw rain for the first time in their life. Should they attribute that action to God? I feel that for an act of God to be recognized as such, God must completely and wholly enter your thinking patterns, thus negating free will.

 

[Abba]

I personally don’t think science and religion should ever cross paths because the sufficiency of proof is different for each. That is to say, one cannot discuss the chemical make up of God and come to concurrence .

This is a bit much to chew on right now. Let’s leave it in the back burner for now. Please note the new word you introduced to the discussion is refused. Religion. That is one heavy word with a lot of implications and baggage. I am not talking about ‘religion’ (Buddhism, Islam, etc… and sects which would fall under this too, etc., etc.) I am talking about the soul and as regards faith or a vehicle for salvation - the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are speaking of that one and no other.

Ok. I interpret your position then as that as people, we have a link with God who speaks to us metaphorically, and we have a choice to believe or not believe.

No. It’s not metaphorically. It’s with your spirit that is, your soul.

My only issue with this is that for one to look past the metaphorical and see God I believe one’s decision making skills must be directly influenced by God. Lets assume that a farmer is preparing to decapitate one of his chickens, but at the last moment he feels a sense of guilt and voice inside his head commands him to stop. So he does. Does this farmer now think the action was a result of God?

This would be his conscious.

What if a child saw rain for the first time in their life. Should they attribute that action to God?

No. It’s a natural phenomenon.

But, if the rain happens because a priest called the faithful of the town to make a pilgrimage of sacrifice to walk to a river which is miles away and pray as they walk the seven miles (young, old and children), with the priest leading the procession carrying a crucifix and the petition to God is that it rains by the time they reach the river, because the region had been suffering drout and the people had began to get sick, etc… and it rains as they see the river - and spiritually people are moved and understand that God heard their prayers - so that it was not just a coincidence - then I think the little girl can attribute the rain to God.

I feel that for an act of God to be recognized as such, God must completely and wholly enter your thinking patterns, thus negating free will.

It does not have to do with our ‘thinking pattern’ .

Let’s take Peter. Peter witnessed many miracles. What did Peter do when Jesus was arrested? He denied him, not only once nor twice but three times. Although Peter witnessed miracles, he was still free to sin or not to sin. His ‘thinking pattern’ was not re-programmed by the miracle. God respects our human dignity very much. He still had his ‘free will’.

The way I see it is that God calls us and if we tune into that calling which presents itself (but I am not limiting myself to this definition completely) in our soul as perhaps a spiritual inspiration to investigate for example rather God exist, or a desire to come closer to the heart of the Church, or to go to Confession etc… as the soul gets closer and closer it also begins to be aware of its own presence and existence in the body.

Spiritually immature persons lack awareness of their own soul but, as they mature they become aware/conscious of their soul. I think that it is through the soul that a person comes to know God even though a person may witness an apparition the relationship is establish spiritually. An apparition is an x some place in a line depicting the spiritual journey of a soul. The journey continues and the person is free to act and think as they wish. Of course, a soul that witnesses an apparition has received a great blessing, unworthy of the soul, God does not necessary bless with miracles and apparitions people that are pious but also people that are trying their best to come to know and serve God but because of their ignorance (e.g. Paul) are going the wrong way. So, God sometimes when he sees fit, may bless a soul to kicks him off his horse and puts him in the right track which he would have never realized on his own due to the incorrect direction that was being taken, yet was doing his/her best to serve the Lord within his/her own ignorance (Paul). But, once in the right track the person is free to continue their own spiritual journey which includes dominating their passions and as Paul said dying to self and living for Christ. This is easier said then done.

People say that: I knocked but he did not openned. But, God is God. He is not the ‘God’ that some people create for themselves. He is who he is. He guides the soul to what is best for the eternal salvation of the soul and in his time not ours (to use a figure of speech because God is not in time ). So, people knock but they want the door openned when they want the door openned and how and not willing to die to self and maybe just as a game of ‘proof’. We need to knock with sincererity and be persistent etc., etc., etc.

Consider this also; A person that is tempted which we can contrast with a person that has received the Grace to see Jesus or witness a miracle, etc… has not lost his/her freedom. Although the scale has been made heavier on the side of their desire to do evil they have not lost their free will. The side of the scale to do Good, you can say, has been made heavier by an apparition but the person is still free to do good or evil.

Bon nuit,

Abba

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Kind of a vague title, but I wanted to get the gist of things concisely.

At any rate, I’ve often read that God doesn’t prove himself because doing so would violate free will. For example: one might ask why God does not, say, rearrange the stars in order to have a conversation with someone in a sort of celestial instant-messaging. The answer, as far as I know, is that He cannot do that if He is to preserve free will.

But where do apparitions (pardon me if that’s not the correct term) like the Blessed Lady of Fatima fit into this? The Catholic Church “recognizes” this event, in which a few children were apparently visited by a real-life angel. Isn’t that rather similar to God “proving” himself? I imagine that most atheists would be forced to think long and harder if an angel came down and talked to them.

Furthermore, why would God make Himself known to certain people and not others? It is easy to believe if one has actually experienced a miracle. This means that certain people have a much easier time of believing than others: they have proof.

This bothers me.

I’m in a similar position myself. I’ve mentioned ad infinitum on this forum in divers places that on the night my father died, he appeared in my room. He started with an apology, we argued and conversed, he made a few predictions some of which have happened already, and then he disappeared with one terrifying scream. I doubt if even a torture victim would scream so terribly at the mere appearance of the torturer.

At the time I was an atheist. I also put up with a great deal of cruelty from him. But then there are plenty of other people who have had cruel fathers, and they do not get to see such an event. In fact, my father himself said, at that time, “It wasn’t easy for me either, you know, and I never had a chance to see anything like this”.

I know of a Baptist pastor who had his life saved twice when he was young - once he was held rooted to the spot when his next step would have been on a Death Adder, and the other when he was urged by an unseen voice to “run”. As he ran the concrete tower he’d been leaning against collapsed behind him. He’d have been killed if he’d stayed there.

So why us? I don’t know. There is one principle at work in Fatima - “I thank you Father that you have revealed this to little children”. He didn’t send Mary to Lloyd George or Kaiser Wilhelm or Woodrow Wilson, who were the big shots of the time - Mary came to three, nearly illiterate children in a backwoods village in Portugal, and the village was named, by a chain of events, after Mohammed’s daughter, Fatima.

Why? I don’t know. I was at my wife’s church recently (she’s Baptist) and the pastor quoted a bishop responding to the queston, “Does God have favourites?”

He thought about it and replied, “No, He doesn’t have favourites, but He does have intimates”.

THe answer to your question is “We don’t know”.

 

[Abba]

Hello Lynx,

One quick question.

What is your purpose in seeking to know the existence of God? Is it so that you can prove it with the scientific method and leave bigger footprints than Einstein in history and win the Noble Prize? Or, is it that you, Lynx, want to know yourself if there really is a God and if this God is the one and only God, Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen?

Lynx, let’s suppose that God does exist and that he is Love but, that in his wisdom he reveals himself in such a way that his existence remains a scientific mystery. Are you willing to put the scientific system aside to find God and come to know him? Or will you insist that if God cannot be proven with system X than he does not exist? How can you be sure that system X is superior to God?

Sometimes, when I am in a discussion about God I think of an ant trying to figure out human existence and human nature. Maybe the ant insists to itself and the other ants that humans live in a huge mound and they impose there antness to the humans. There are a groups of ants that insists that if it cannot be proven that humans live in mounds than they do not exists. Similarly, we have recognized a system with limitations but a pretty good one that helps us to understand and explain the universe and we conclude that if God cannot fit in our system than he does not exist. Maybe, he who created the universe is above that system and has already revealed himself to humanity, but his way, not the way of a nuclear physicist.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I once purchased a DVD with an American evangelist on it, using the universe as his talking point. He had the usual American Television Evangelist ability to breath through his ears, and his constant barrage annoyed me at times.

However at one stage he showed a photograph taken by Voyager as it journeyed out of the solar system. It was direct to take a series of photographs. In one of them there were what looked like sunbeams, and silhouetted in one of them was this tiny pea.

It was earth, taken from around Jupiter or somewhere.

I remember thinking that on that tiny pea had taken place all the wars, all the tragedies, triumphs and stories of human history. And of course the Resurrection.

Meanwhile filling the rest of space and beyond is God. The universe itself is the pronouncement of His Word.

So here we are, invisible specks on an almost invisible planet, trying to work out how He thinks. I can tell you from a purely personal viewpoint, in regard to certain frustrations in my life, in which I am sure God had a hand, I’d like to know sometimes.

But I don’t think we’ve got much hope of working that out.

 

[kestrel36]

I would like to see something concrete myself. I used to believe but I fell into doubt a while back. Now Im trying to refind some faith but it is very difficult for me. Personally I cant understand how someone could witness some of the things mentioned above and not believe. If I were led through the desert by fire or saw a truly dead man brought back I would be knocking on the door of the nearest seminary the next day . It is hard for me to understand why God would show some irrefutable proof (thus ensuring true belief) while letting others go through life struggling with belief.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I would like to see something concrete myself. I used to believe but I fell into doubt a while back. Now Im trying to refind some faith but it is very difficult for me. Personally I cant understand how someone could witness some of the things mentioned above and not believe. If I were led through the desert by fire or saw a truly dead man brought back I would be knocking on the door of the nearest seminary the next day . It is hard for me to understand why God would show some irrefutable proof (thus ensuring true belief) while letting others go through life struggling with belief.

Sorry, but I can’t help you there. I can only tell you what I’ve experienced, and others likewise.

At Fatima for example there were 70,000 witnesses to the miracles, although it is my understanding that only the 3 children saw Mary herself.

The Orthodox apparition at Zietoun in Egypt was supposed to have been seen by over a million people.

I have a photograph in a book by Catholic Journalist Michael Brown on Marian warnings of a French nuclear explosion in 1969 where an image of Christ crucified appeared in the flames of the mushroom cloud, with His Mother up to the left, also depicted in the flames. Either it was an extremely unlikely image to form by chance, or God was giving us a message.

But then I’ve also had the advantage of personal experiences. God is there. And I can assure you the devil is too. One of the disadvantages of having direct spiritual experiences from God is that the devil is not far behind. God had no sooner declared Christ to be His Son, than the devil tempted him in the desert. The Holy Spirit blew through Vatican II and it didn’t take long for the devil to try to stop it, either by hindering reform, or by liberalising it to the other extreme.

If you do get a direct spiritual experience from God, rest assured you won’t have to wait long for a demonic counterfeit to follow.

 

[Abba]

I want to quote John 20 here just to put it out there:

John 20
The Empty Tomb
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15"Woman," he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).

17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ "

18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Abba]

---

Hello kestrel36,

I think a central problem people have with understanding why certain people have been given the blessing to witness miracles and apparition and have spiritual experiences is in part the individuals’ (mis- )conception of God. I think some need to bring that obstacle down in order to proceed with their understanding. Who or what is God?

We need to try to understand who God is, not who we want him to be or who we think he should be etc but who He is. As some people say; we need to let God be God. Once we begin to understand who he really is then we also begin to understand and recognize that he loves us and that he is LOVE and WISDOM and TRUTH and the WAY. We need to humbly ask like Saint Paul: Lord who are you so that I may serve you? You would be surprised at some people’s conception of God. The Quakers think that he is a huge ball of fire that will someday call everything back to himself and incinirate everything. Amazing! People have a lot of conceptions of what God would be and at that if he really exist. But, the truth of the matter is that God has already revealed himself to humanity and he loves each and everyone of us very much, much more than we ourselves can love. Our human heart would explode within us if we felt such love for another human being.

God is a personal God and he wants to have a personal relationship with each and everyone of us. Remember, he created us in his image. God considers his creation good and he loves us. Supposing I am correct with what I just typed in the last sentence, would God just create the universe and take off to galavant and do something else and forget about us? No. He likes and loves his creation and he is very present. He did not take off. We are not alone.

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Why are those who have not seen blessed?

Well, the way I would explain this is like, well, imagine that God has put us on this earth to for reasons we do not completely understands give us the opportunity to show him that we love him. To accomplish our mission we need to find him. So we are dropped off here on earth, sort of speak, and we are distracted by the world, the world system, materialism, personal ambition, recognition, pleasure, etc…and in order to find him we need to follow a certain lead that goes contrary to the world. The more distracted and taken captive by the world we get the further away we get to the path that will lead us to him. What and where is this path - the path is within us. The path has many preliminary stages depending on the individuals but finally it is recognized or reaches the stage of what we call ‘faith’.

To cut it short, this is why ‘blessed are those who believe yet have not seen.’ It is a blessing to Love God even though we have not seen him. I thank God for allowing me to know him through faith. I will share here that I have been blessed, an unworthy sinner that I am, with beautiful experiences. One was at Lourdes and in that particular one, I humbly thanked Our Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart and with all my soul for allowing me to come to know him through faith alone - first. It is a blessing. It’s like you are given a challenge and you persist and it turns out to be an opportunity to demonstrate to God how much you love him and how much you are willing to sacrifice to serve him and to find him. You are grateful to have been given the opportunity.

But, every soul is different and God knows what the needs of a soul’s are and what is good for the eternal salvation of a soul. This is why when we pray we should always say that may his Will be done. He knows best and he loves us.

Peace,

Abba

 

[lynx]

No. It’s not metaphorically. It’s with your spirit that is, your soul.

If God is literally speaking to my soul am I not forced to listen?

This would be his conscious.

Is that to say it cannot be God?

But, if the rain happens because a priest called the faithful of the town to make a pilgrimage of sacrifice to walk to a river which is miles away and pray as they walk the seven miles (young, old and children), with the priest leading the procession carrying a crucifix and the petition to God is that it rains by the time they reach the river, because the region had been suffering drout and the people had began to get sick, etc… and it rains as they see the river - and spiritually people are moved and understand that God heard their prayers - so that it was not just a coincidence - then I think the little girl can attribute the rain to God.

So if you pray to God and he answers the prayer literally does this not force you to believe?

It does not have to do with our ‘thinking pattern’ .

Let’s take Peter. Peter witnessed many miracles. What did Peter do when Jesus was arrested? He denied him, not only once nor twice but three times.

By deny, do you mean he mentally disregarded the miracles, forgot about them completely, or lied?

Hello Lynx,

One quick question.

What is your purpose in seeking to know the existence of God?

In general, truth. One must be able to use all tools at their disposal in interpreting and living in the world to advance themselves and their beliefs. One cannot know of good without evil, much like one cannot deny God without knowing God.

Is it so that you can prove it with the scientific method

I personally don’t think that’s possible. But that’s just me. . .

and leave bigger footprints than Einstein in history and win the Noble Prize?

Interesting thing about Einstein, he was big on God. He denied a fluid universe because he thought it went against God’s plan. He actually focused his theorems around the existence of God and disregarded any proofs (mathematical) to the contrary.

Or, is it that you, Lynx, want to know yourself if there really is a God and if this God is the one and only God, Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen?

While I have had this question, it is old for me. The only way I can believe is if God enters my mind and body so wholly as to force me to believe it was He who did it.

Lynx, let’s suppose that God does exist and that he is Love but, that in his wisdom he reveals himself in such a way that his existence remains a scientific mystery. Are you willing to put the scientific system aside to find God and come to know him? Or will you insist that if God cannot be proven with system X than he does not exist? How can you be sure that system X is superior to God?

Science can’t prove everything, and if God were to exist He would be outside of scientific method. My issue would be when to attribute an action to God. I guess if my soul knows then God has succeeded in entering my body and mind.

 

[Abba]

At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
Matthew 11:25

Hello lynx, :tiphat:

You’re a tough cookie.

I’ll have to come back and respond to your comments. :juggle: Bob Crowley what do you say? I’m spending time with my children right now. But, I just want to quickly note that Einstein, as far as I know, was not ‘big on God.’

Interesting thing about Einstein, he was big on God. He denied a fluid universe because he thought it went against God’s plan. He actually focused his theorems around the existence of God and disregarded any proofs (mathematical) to the contrary.

I like the expression "Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle’ lol. I don’t know where I picked that one up, but, every so often it comes to my mind. Well, that is what I would be if I could only find the book in my library that I am thinking about now. My library is in part in Europe, the basement, my office/bedroom and in a storage facility. I hope someday to buy a house and have a study/prayer room and gather all my books together once again. The book is a compilation of essays by ‘philosophers’ (the title was very liberally used); entitled, if I remember correctly, something like: Philosophers Speak about God. In that book, published while Einstein was still alive, there is an essay about God written by him. Actually, he wrote the essay as a crown to the compilation. I felt really sad for Einstein when I read that essay in where he argues that God does not exist. I thought, truly in his wisdom our lord has hidden true wisdom from the wise and intelligent. People can bang their heads all they want but, it is God that gives wisdom. :banghead:

I shall return…

May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and may Our Blessed Mother Mary protect you and guide you to her son,

Abba

---

The LORD’S Glory and Man’s Dignity.

For the choir director; on the Gittith. A Psalm of David.

1 O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens!
2 From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
4 What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?
5 Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!
6 You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
9 O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth!

 

[lynx]

This is the knowledge I learned about Einstein godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html I think the Einstein’s Error section says it best,

Einstein’s failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe.

 

[Abba]

:compcoff:

Hello lynx,

:juggle:

Well, I am just going to jump in. After a little prayer, of course. :byzsoc:

Science can’t prove everything, and if God were to exist He would be outside of scientific method.

:yup:

---

Well, let me start by noting that the reason I brought up Einstein was merely to ask if your interest in seeking God was merely to leave big footprints in history and/or win the Noble Prize. I just used Einstein and could have used Plato or Christopher Columbus, whomever. I did read the link you gave and well, I don’t know who that author is and he does not cite Einstein and people I am sure have written a lot of things about Einstein and have speculated a lot. All I am going on is an essay I once read where he notes himself, to set the record straight, that he does not believe in the existence of a God. He may have retracted this at a later time, I don’t know. I am not a scientist nor an Einstein fanatic. But, until I have evidence not speculations that Einstein did come to recognize God’s existence - I’ll stick with what he himself wrote on that essay. But, let’s not waste our time with Einstein. He has passed away and may he rest in peace. We are alive now and it is more important for us to spend our time finding God and establishing a personal relationship with him in our own life time. If I ever find that essay, I’ll come back to this thread and post a resume of it. Btw, I am a female.

---

My issue would be when to attribute an action to God. I guess if my soul knows then God has succeeded in entering my body and mind.

Well, here we encounter a fork or two on the road. You have to choose the road you think is best. There is one called ‘Tabula Rasa’ ( or what Aristotle called ‘unsuscribe tablet’)that is the notion that humans are born with no knowledge and all knowledge is empirical. That is that we build on our knowledge by our experience in this life. Here is a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Then, Immanuel Kant argued that although we build on our knowledge through experience it is not on a blank tablet. Now, mind you, I haven’t read Kant in probably thirty years, ehum. I am into Catholic writers now. Right now, I can’t put down Saint Francis de Sales. What a Saint! What a Saint!!! A great gift to the Church from God! Back to Kant, he presented the idea that humans have a built in system, if you will, so the tablet is not blank but rather it is such that it is built to function in a certain way anyway. This idea, of course, is very christian. Jer 31:33
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. "

In other words, we are human beings and that already means that we do certain things in a certain way because of our human nature and because we were made in the image of God. A healthy human being has a conscience. The ultimate self-actualization, if you will, is for a human being to have a personal relationship with God or/and to be at peace with God.

Something like this. Hey, have you ever read scripture? Paul’s letter to the Romans would be something that you may find interesting. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans&version=NIV

Peace,

Abba

P.s. I have not even touched on what I would like to say about your quote above. It’s just that I have to go cook dinner now. Besides, I would not have enough space on this post.

 

[lynx]

:compcoff:

Hello lynx,

Hiya Sorry for the late reply. My work has had me busy the last couple of days, as has my house issues.

Well, here we encounter a fork or two on the road. You have to choose the road you think is best. There is one called ‘Tabula Rasa’ ( or what Aristotle called ‘unsuscribe tablet’)that is the notion that humans are born with no knowledge and all knowledge is empirical. That is that we build on our knowledge by our experience in this life. Here is a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

While I would argue that most knowledge is gained through personal experience, one cannot deny that instinct, genetic memory, also plays a role in our lives.

Then, Immanuel Kant argued that although we build on our knowledge through experience it is not on a blank tablet. Now, mind you, I haven’t read Kant in probably thirty years, ehum. I am into Catholic writers now. Right now, I can’t put down Saint Francis de Sales. What a Saint! What a Saint!!! A great gift to the Church from God! Back to Kant, he presented the idea that humans have a built in system, if you will, so the tablet is not blank but rather it is such that it is built to function in a certain way anyway. This idea, of course, is very christian. Jer 31:33
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. "

In other words, we are human beings and that already means that we do certain things in a certain way because of our human nature and because we were made in the image of God. A healthy human being has a conscience. The ultimate self-actualization, if you will, is for a human being to have a personal relationship with God or/and to be at peace with God.

It is an interesting idea. I have my doubts however due to some of the examples that have been recorded in history listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/ From all accounts, until these children were reunited with people, their traits (physical and behavioral) were very much like the animal they were with. How does Kant’s idea reconcile with this?

Something like this. Hey, have you ever read scripture? Paul’s letter to the Romans would be something that you may find interesting. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans&version=NIV

Consider it read

 

[Abba]

:coffeeread:

It is an interesting idea. I have my doubts however due to some of the examples that have been recorded in history listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/ From all accounts, until these children were reunited with people, their traits (physical and behavioral) were very much like the animal they were with. How does Kant’s idea reconcile with this?

Hello lynx,

Well, I cannot put together in my mind the train of thinking of Kant and apply it to your opposition. It is as I said, he is inside there covered up with cobwebs. One thing I remember though with pleasure is that it has been said that the ladies of Königsberg used to set their clocks by when Immanuel Kant would pass by their homes. He was very punctual. In my youth I used to think that routines interefered with my FREEDOM, lol, but, I have come to understand that they actually free us. This is something that I am appreciating even more by reading Saint Francis de Sales. Common sense should tell us that the body welcomes and prefers and functions better with routines and it is just good for our health ; physical, emotional and mental, and it permits us to be more productive.

I can tell you, however, what* I* think about it. I am indignant! I say; shame on the societies that neglected and abandoned families that needed support. Shame on them! Mother Teresa when visiting the United States once said something to the effect that we can measure the civilization of a society by the status given to and how that society protects mother and child and that a society that supports obortion is highly uncivilized. Well, I would add to that that a society that abandons families that obviously need help and social support is highly uncivilized. How aristocratic can a person consider themselves when a block down the road there is someone that is completely neglected by society and is left alone with handicaps to live or die? I can put on a gold dress with beautiful designs and decorate my neck, ankles and wrists with precious stones and consider my self superior as I walk by that house. But, that is plasticity that melts under the sun. Would I not be still a human being? If I do not recognize human dignity how can I really think so grand of myself?

Now, this case that you present seems at first glance more extraordinary than it really is. Language is learned. If I raise my baby in France and speak french etc… my child will speak fluent French. If I raise my baby in Italy, Spain, China, Russia etc… the same will happen - the child will grow up speaking the corresponding language. If I deprive the same child of communication with human beings - what language will the child speak? French? Spanish? Chineese?

I don’t know if you are familiar with Jean Piaget, but, I think that he is a great contributor to our understanding of human development. I personally think that he should be awarded a Nobel Prize - posthumously.



Now, Jean Piaget proposed that there are different stages of human development including that of cognition. Here is a Wiki Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget If we consider that these children were not allowed to properly develop then I do not see any problem. For being human beings as they are they are social animals. Not too long ago I saw some videos on Youtube I think it was, about how elephants in India or I don’t know where, were have serious social problems, because the males when young were being separated and did not learn what they were suppose to and then when the male hormones increased during puberty they were violent in an unelephant way etc… Would those young elephant be considered less elephants? Of course not, human beings simply interfered with their natural social development and hinder the knowledge that is obtained with that. Coulc a feral child had developed natural social stuff? Of course. But, there was intereference with some important cognitive stages some of which may close like a window after some time (but, this does not necessarily mean that the windows cannot be reopenned). The bottom line is that I would say that there was interference with the natural social and cognitive development of a feral child but, this does not make that child less human nor does this prove in anyway that a human being has some fundamental and intrinsic mechanism that are basic to his/her nature.

Is a fetus less human? Is a mentally handicap person less human? Is a physically handicap person less human? Is a person whose natural development has been interefered with less human? Do these situations indicate that there are not some basic mechanism, abilities, ect… that are human? Just because there are situations where humans do not necessarily demonstrate or enjoy what a healthy human being has does not negate that human being have them by nature.

Something like this…what sayest thou?

P.s. It’s kind of like an intereference with Maslow’s theory of human needs for proper development. Or, consider that Socrates decided to die because he was not going to violate the social structure. There is something to the view that in part that individuals are products of their societies…

Another, minor little thing, aside from the English, , you have to decipher my points sometimes…but, they are in there… at times not necessarily presented linearly but as a great piece of colorful patchwork. :blushing:

 

[Abba]

Oh, excuse me. There I was getting to my bottom line and I was typing so fast I did not write the negative ( NOT) in a very important sentence. Allow me to make the correction, please. I also see the other little things that need editing but I can let those go as they do not interefere really as this one obviously does.

I don’t know if you are familiar with Jean Piaget, but, I think that he is a great contributor to our understanding of human development. I personally think that he should be awarded a Nobel Prize - posthumously.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Jean_Piaget.jpg/175px-Jean_Piaget.jpg

Now, Jean Piaget proposed that there are different stages of human development in various areas including stages in cognitive development (also in intellectual, social, etc…). Here is a Wiki Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget If we consider that these children were not allowed to properly develop then I do not see any problem. For being human beings as they are they are social animals. Not too long ago I saw some videos on Youtube I think it was, about how elephants in India or I don’t know where, were have serious social problems, because the males when young were being separated and did not learn what they were suppose to and then when the male hormones increased during puberty they were violent in an unelephant way etc… Would those young elephant be considered less elephants? Of course not, human beings simply interfered with their natural social development and hinder the knowledge that is obtained with that. Coulc a feral child had developed natural social stuff? Of course. But, there was intereference with some important cognitive stages some of which may close like a window after some time (but, this does not necessarily mean that the windows cannot be reopenned). The bottom line is that I would say that there was interference with the natural social and cognitive development of a feral child but, this does not make that child less human nor does this prove in anyway that human beings DO NOT have some fundamental and intrinsic mechanism that are basic to their nature.

P.s. what do you think of chapter two of the Letter to the Romans?

 

[StrawberryJam]

:coffeeread:

Hello lynx,

Well, I cannot put together in my mind the train of thinking of Kant and apply it to your opposition. It is as I said, he is inside there covered up with cobwebs. One thing I remember though with pleasure is that it has been said that the ladies of Königsberg used to set their clocks by when Immanuel Kant would pass by their homes. He was very punctual. In my youth I used to think that routines interefered with my FREEDOM, lol, but, I have come to understand that they actually free us. This is something that I am appreciating even more by reading Saint Francis de Sales. Common sense should tell us that the body welcomes and prefers and functions better with routines and it is just good for our health ; physical, emotional and mental, and it permits us to be more productive.

I can tell you, however, what* I* think about it. I am indignant! I say; shame on the societies that neglected and abandoned families that needed support. Shame on them! Mother Teresa when visiting the United States once said something to the effect that we can measure the civilization of a society by the status given to and how that society protects mother and child and that a society that supports obortion is highly uncivilized. Well, I would add to that that a society that abandons families that obviously need help and social support is highly uncivilized. How aristocratic can a person consider themselves when a block down the road there is someone that is completely neglected by society and is left alone with handicaps to live or die? I can put on a gold dress with beautiful designs and decorate my neck, ankles and wrists with precious stones and consider my self superior as I walk by that house. But, that is plasticity that melts under the sun. Would I not be still a human being? If I do not recognize human dignity how can I really think so grand of myself?

Now, this case that you present seems at first glance more extraordinary than it really is. Language is learned. If I raise my baby in France and speak french etc… my child will speak fluent French. If I raise my baby in Italy, Spain, China, Russia etc… the same will happen - the child will grow up speaking the corresponding language. If I deprive the same child of communication with human beings - what language will the child speak? French? Spanish? Chineese?

I don’t know if you are familiar with Jean Piaget, but, I think that he is a great contributor to our understanding of human development. I personally think that he should be awarded a Nobel Prize - posthumously.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Jean_Piaget.jpg/175px-Jean_Piaget.jpg

Now, Jean Piaget proposed that there are different stages of human development including that of cognition. Here is a Wiki Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget If we consider that these children were not allowed to properly develop then I do not see any problem. For being human beings as they are they are social animals. Not too long ago I saw some videos on Youtube I think it was, about how elephants in India or I don’t know where, were have serious social problems, because the males when young were being separated and did not learn what they were suppose to and then when the male hormones increased during puberty they were violent in an unelephant way etc… Would those young elephant be considered less elephants? Of course not, human beings simply interfered with their natural social development and hinder the knowledge that is obtained with that. Coulc a feral child had developed natural social stuff? Of course. But, there was intereference with some important cognitive stages some of which may close like a window after some time (but, this does not necessarily mean that the windows cannot be reopenned). The bottom line is that I would say that there was interference with the natural social and cognitive development of a feral child but, this does not make that child less human nor does this prove in anyway that a human being has some fundamental and intrinsic mechanism that are basic to his/her nature.

Is a fetus less human? Is a mentally handicap person less human? Is a physically handicap person less human? Is a person whose natural development has been interefered with less human? Do these situations indicate that there are not some basic mechanism, abilities, ect… that are human? Just because there are situations where humans do not necessarily demonstrate or enjoy what a healthy human being has does not negate that human being have them by nature.

Something like this…what sayest thou?

P.s. It’s kind of like an intereference with Maslow’s theory of human needs for proper development. Or, consider that Socrates decided to die because he was not going to violate the social structure.** There is something to the view that in part that individuals are products of their societies…**Another, minor little thing, aside from the English, , you have to decipher my points sometimes…but, they are in there… at times not necessarily presented linearly but as a great piece of colorful patchwork. :blushing:

I’m not sure you would be willing to apply the theory you present here to us, if it were blush a priest we were discussing?

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Re: If God Doesn’t “Prove Himself” to Preserve Free Will, What of “Apparitions”?

Ever met an Atheist who was troubled by apparitions? Me neither.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Ever met an Atheist who was troubled by apparitions? Me neither.

Since Catholics are not required to believe in any apparitions, approved or not- there would be little reason to be troubled. The ones that do, do so at their own risk/reward ratio.