Is Faith logical?

[Isaiah45_9]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

1. For what reason are we looking into the belief?
2. We must solve number one in order to go into number 2 since number 2 establishes that Christ is the son of the God in number 1.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

So if anything is “less good” it is evil? Vanilla Ice Cream would be Evil if you preferred Chocolate?

Chuck

Only insofar as it might relate existentially. If one were deathly allergic to Vanilla Ice Cream, providing the one with an extra large serving of same might be considered very evil to the one.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

To logically figure out “if there is a God He will want me to believe.”

What about starting with two assumptions. God exists as a spiritual being. We exist as an unification of both the material and spiritual. Then start working toward the question Does God want me to believe that He exists? Further questions. Why would it be possible for a human to believe in God? What is in it for me, if I believe God wants me to believe that He exists? Does belief lead to a relationship? What are the benefits and detriments of a relationship with God? Other questions would continue to pop up until it would be settled if Faith in God is logical or not.

Might not one also inquire:

1. If God exists as a spiritual being, how might he have created non-spiritual beings and yet claim them to be in his image?
2. If God exists, why might he be even slightly concerned over whether or not one might harbor a belief in him? Would not an eventual manifestation of his reality be certain? If certain, why might a temporal hesitancy on the part of his creation to profess any belief be of any consequence?
3. If acknowledging the reality of God is inevitable, what purpose might a decree of his reality serve while on Earth? Is it for the purpose of friendship? Loyalty? A test of wisdom?
4. If God does not wish for his existence to secretive, why might it remain difficult for some to ascertain?

Note: I am making this up on the spot.

P.S. NCIS and Columbo are two of my favorites. Perhaps that is why I habitually want to examine the evidence.

Ah, well how might it now be claimed other than that you have good taste? Any later disagreements will necessarily require that this be kept in mind…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I assume you are comparing a cat’s difficulty in being affectionate to a person if the latter’s physical presence is lacking, to a person’s difficulty believing in G-d without G-d’s revealing Himself directly to the person. But we do believe in G-d’s revelation, whether to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai or to His apostles in the case of Jesus. For a cat such affection may very well be impossible, while for a person, it may be difficult at times but quite conceivable, evidently.

The leap of faith is not based on a scripted or shared formula, and it may be stimulated in more than one way. While courage and commitment are sometimes a part of it and it can be guided by reason, I think it can also reveal itself in a childlike innocence that is not motivated by strength or certainty. And for others the leap is not a done deal, for faith is at times followed by doubt and absence.

OK.

However, how might one differentiate between a love of G-d and a love of a false image of same? If one were to harbor strong feelings towards an envisioned god of love and personal attention, how might one separate true, reciprocated feelings, from merely wishful thinking?

Considering mankind’s seeming ability to project sentimentality even upon inanimate objects, how is it possible to properly guard one’s heart against forming a similar affinity with a mere mental construct?

 

[grannymh]

1. For what reason are we looking into the belief?
2. We must solve number one in order to go into number 2 since number 2 establishes that Christ is the son of the God in number 1.

It is my understanding that we are looking for a logical process which leads us to the question – shall we have faith in God or not. If one chooses to have faith in God, then you are correct regarding number 2).

 

[grannymh]

Might not one also inquire:

1. If God exists as a spiritual being, how might he have created non-spiritual beings and yet claim them to be in his image?
2. If God exists, why might he be even slightly concerned over whether or not one might harbor a belief in him? Would not an eventual manifestation of his reality be certain? If certain, why might a temporal hesitancy on the part of his creation to profess any belief be of any consequence?
3. If acknowledging the reality of God is inevitable, what purpose might a decree of his reality serve while on Earth? Is it for the purpose of friendship? Loyalty? A test of wisdom?
4. If God does not wish for his existence to secretive, why might it remain difficult for some to ascertain?

Not only should one inquire, one can use these four points as logically flowing from the premise that God exists as a spiritual being. I will draw on Catholic doctrines regarding human nature. Each point needs indiviudal discussion which is more than I can handle at one time. In addition, there should be time for your comments.

1. If God exists as a spiritual being, how might he have created non-spiritual beings and yet claim them to be in his image?

Premise: God is a spiritual being.

This is a good place to start because with the beginning of human history, there is an innate sense of the supernatural. This capability to look beyond the natural environment shows itself in the myths handed down through the generations of the various cultures of humanity. Does this mean that the first three chapters of Genesis do not contain real events as some people claim? Of course Genesis is about real events. But for now, let us focus on the premise that God is a spiritual being.

For the purpose of the premise, the significance is that the first three chapters record not only the human recognition of the supernatural, but also the relationship between the natural and the supernatural. Obviously, the first human, biblically known as Adam, fully recognized that a spiritual being was his Creator. He could do this because not only did he have a material anatomy, he had a rational spiritual soul. His created being was in harmony, which enabled him to live in friendship with God.

Basically, God called Adam and consequently his descendents to share in His divine life which was spiritual. Thus, having a spiritual soul, Adam is in the image of God and thus could partake in God’s life. By definition, non-spiritual beings would not have the capability of sharing in a spiritual life. While non-spiritual creatures reflect the glory and love of God, they are not in the image of God in the same manner as Adam is.

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier

Catholicism holds that Adam and Eve are sole founders of the human species. This is also known as monogenism. God blessed Adam and Eve in this endeavor. (Genesis 1: 26 - 28) After the Fall, Adam and Eve’s family grew and descendents migrated. Still, the many generations carried in their hearts the truth of humanity’s beginning with a nature uniquely uniting both the material *and *spiritual worlds. Eventually some of the truth about the supernatural world became distorted due to the presence of sin. Yet, a group of descendents was able to retain the original truths of human creation.

The unity of creation due to two parents means that wherever humans wandered to, they would still have the capability to recognize the supernatural. This implies that the many ways early peoples recorded the supernatural or practiced the supernatural (shamans for example) had part of the truth. It was the Hebrew peoples who retained the truth of God passed down by Adam and Eve. This was possible because the promise of a Redeemer was kept forefront. The direct connection between Jesus Christ and Adam is foundational to Catholicism.

Premise: God is a spiritual being.

Checking back to the beginning of human history, we find that humans have the capability to recognize something other than their natural environment. We see this in early explanations of the world being the result of something supernatural, that is, spiritual. It is interesting to consider that people not only recognized the spiritual but also recognized it as being responsible for the world or the happenings in the world as evinced by the Roman and Greek gods. While these experiences of early peoples are not part of Catholic doctrine, they attest to the fact that the spiritual can be recognized by everyone.

Early human history also attests to the fact that within human nature there is the strong desire to seek out the spiritual as being one God. This desire is especially seen in the Hebrew traditions. Even with the pagan gods, there was the human desire for Zeus and Jupiter.

In my humble opinion, the first step in logically demonstrating the existence of God is to demonstrate that we humans can recognize God as a spiritual existence. This has been done by showing that humans have always had the capability to think beyond their natural environment to the existence of the supernatural.

The first three chapters of Genesis tell about the relationship between God and man.
It is this relationship which invites us to faith in God. Unfortunately, it is a bumpy relationship which is why the rest of the four points need to be addressed.

 

[meltzerboy]

OK.

However, how might one differentiate between a love of G-d and a love of a false image of same? If one were to harbor strong feelings towards an envisioned god of love and personal attention, how might one separate true, reciprocated feelings, from merely wishful thinking?

Considering mankind’s seeming ability to project sentimentality even upon inanimate objects, how is it possible to properly guard one’s heart against forming a similar affinity with a mere mental construct?

There are no certainties in life, even–perhaps especially–in human relationships. For the truly faithful, belief in G-d is not a matter of certainty achieved by deductive or inductive logic and reason; rather, it is based on internal emotion, motivation, and trust. One is not afraid of making choices or possibly being deceived by wishful thinking and sentimentality. In a sense, one surrenders to one’s inner perception and understanding of reality and truth.

 

[jmvizanko]

You necessarily have to pick an arguement and go into why it is illogical, don’t you. A general statement like “I don’t think faith is logicial” doesn’t accomplish much does it?

Seems to me that would be the point of the thread.

I don’t think “I do not find…compelling” equates to “illogical.”

Well should I go into why I think the classic arguments for god’s existence are illogical in my opinion? It just seems like, even if that is the only way to respond to the thread, it is beyond the scope of size for a discussion in a particular thread.

Neither do I think dispartes beliefs makes “belief” of any kind illogical.

Perhaps not illogical, but it does show that one can easily have an honest faith in something that isn’t true, as most people do. And that’s one of my big problems with faith, it seems that it is something you cannot have without it being arbitrary. Arbitrarily something you inherited or arbitrarily arrived at through personal experiences and arguments.

 

[meltzerboy]

Regrettably, it appears the discussion of dinosaurs is a forbidden topic.

Alternately, is it more logical to conceive:

"Prior to nothing there was God. God was neither created nor began, but always was. The space/dimension in which God has always resided has equally always been. The universe did not always exist (for such might be considered illogical), but God created everything out of nothing (presumably using his very essence–which is non-physical–as the catalyst) in a manner in which it might appear to have been self-forming and self-replicating. He made certain to include laws in particle physics which might allow for vacuum fluctuations to create virtual particles in order to beguile physicists into considering that universes might self-create in this manner.

He created a trillion galaxies with a trillion suns in each. He created billions of planets, but preoccupied himself with one in specific. Upon this world his chief concern was to love the denizens within to such an extent that he enjoyed watching them cavort in ways he had specifically anticipated. He forbade them to do certain things, however, and placed such instructions in the hearts of desert nomads specific to one region of the globe. He then designed a dimension in which those who obeyed the teachings of these nomads might be set aside for an infinity of pleasure brought about by merely observing a vision of his splendor. He further created another dimension in which the beings who did not follow the dictates of the nomads might be tormented for an eternity by not being able to see his splendor ever again. He was truly sorrowful about them, but could not truly imagine any alternatives.

He then decided that his message was not being translated properly and so had himself born of a virgin (in order to mirror more ancient Egyptian mythological requirements) after decidedly severing his personality in a most peculiar fashion. He then strode about on Earth, recruited followers, gave them open-ended instructions subject to interpretation and then had himself viciously murdered by the beings he truly loved in order to save them from his own impending wrath. He then came back to Earth and loitered for conflicting periods of time before again departing. He then sent another split of his personality to enlighten the apostles in the guise of the Holy Spirit.

He then returned to Heaven, where he resides to this day, anticipating a time when he might return to provide some of his creatures a victory over others of his creatures. He will then reside on the tiny dot of Earth for the rest of time, or, alternately, create an entirely new Earth."

How might the above be more logical than any other alternate explanation?

For all other posters, kindly disregard the above narrative. It is not intended as an attack, nor is it meant to belittle. It purposefully appears in the same vein as Damian might construe the atheistic perspective in order to underline the degree to which caricature must certainly detract from a rational discussion.

Nicely put. While belief in G-d appears illogical, non-belief in G-d appears irrational; but faith in G-d is a matter of neither logic nor reason, and supersedes both, for faith includes mystery, surreality, and trust in the absence of certitude.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

I’m back.

Sorry my participation is a little sparse. I am primarily able to comment on the thread on weekends, though I’m trying to chime in during the week.

---

Okay, Axiom 1 was:

Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

And one response was:

Accepted, with the understanding that this refers to the current state of biology and not to its potential origins.

For such, one might consult:

tgdaily.com/space-features/59309-stars-create-complex-organic-molecules

larouchepac.com/node/20038

A question in return: is God Omniscient?

And we can agree on this simple truth. Good. Now, I have a second Axiom.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future.

Do we all agree on Axiom 2?

(Concerning your particular question of, if God is Omniscient. I say yes. But I do not want to start a bunch of loose ends with the dialogue, if possible. But I suppose it’s worth an answer here.)

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Not only should one inquire, one can use these four points as logically flowing from the premise that God exists as a spiritual being. I will draw on Catholic doctrines regarding human nature. Each point needs indiviudal discussion which is more than I can handle at one time. In addition, there should be time for your comments.

1. If God exists as a spiritual being, how might he have created non-spiritual beings and yet claim them to be in his image?

Premise: God is a spiritual being.

This is a good place to start because with the beginning of human history, there is an innate sense of the supernatural. This capability to look beyond the natural environment shows itself in the myths handed down through the generations of the various cultures of humanity. Does this mean that the first three chapters of Genesis do not contain real events as some people claim? Of course Genesis is about real events.

Real events as in actual, or as in allegorical?

But for now, let us focus on the premise that God is a spiritual being.

For the purpose of the premise, the significance is that the first three chapters record not only the human recognition of the supernatural, but also the relationship between the natural and the supernatural. Obviously, the first human, biblically known as Adam, fully recognized that a spiritual being was his Creator. He could do this because not only did he have a material anatomy, he had a rational spiritual soul. His created being was in harmony, which enabled him to live in friendship with God.

Basically, God called Adam and consequently his descendents to share in His divine life which was spiritual. Thus, having a spiritual soul, Adam is in the image of God and thus could partake in God’s life. By definition, non-spiritual beings would not have the capability of sharing in a spiritual life. While non-spiritual creatures reflect the glory and love of God, they are not in the image of God in the same manner as Adam is.

OK

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier

If one were to peer closely enough, might one be blessed enough to see God’s reflection in the eyes of a plague-carrying flea?

Catholicism holds that Adam and Eve are sole founders of the human species. This is also known as monogenism. God blessed Adam and Eve in this endeavor. (Genesis 1: 26 - 28) After the Fall, Adam and Eve’s family grew and descendents migrated. Still, the many generations carried in their hearts the truth of humanity’s beginning with a nature uniquely uniting both the material *and *spiritual worlds. Eventually some of the truth about the supernatural world became distorted due to the presence of sin. Yet, a group of descendents was able to retain the original truths of human creation.

Might not the apparent absence of God during much of this time have also played a role in this distortion?

The unity of creation due to two parents means that wherever humans wandered to, they would still have the capability to recognize the supernatural. This implies that the many ways early peoples recorded the supernatural or practiced the supernatural (shamans for example) had part of the truth. It was the Hebrew peoples who retained the truth of God passed down by Adam and Eve. This was possible because the promise of a Redeemer was kept forefront. The direct connection between Jesus Christ and Adam is foundational to Catholicism.

Premise: God is a spiritual being.

Checking back to the beginning of human history, we find that humans have the capability to recognize something other than their natural environment. We see this in early explanations of the world being the result of something supernatural, that is, spiritual. It is interesting to consider that people not only recognized the spiritual but also recognized it as being responsible for the world or the happenings in the world as evinced by the Roman and Greek gods. While these experiences of early peoples are not part of Catholic doctrine, they attest to the fact that the spiritual can be recognized by everyone.

If a child were to “recognize” the existence of a monster lurking unseen in the shadows of his/her room, would this be a proof that such an ethereal being must exist?

Early human history also attests to the fact that within human nature there is the strong desire to seek out the spiritual as being one God. This desire is especially seen in the Hebrew traditions. Even with the pagan gods, there was the human desire for Zeus and Jupiter.

In my humble opinion, the first step in logically demonstrating the existence of God is to demonstrate that we humans can recognize God as a spiritual existence. This has been done by showing that humans have always had the capability to think beyond their natural environment to the existence of the supernatural.

The first three chapters of Genesis tell about the relationship between God and man.
It is this relationship which invites us to faith in God. Unfortunately, it is a bumpy relationship which is why the rest of the four points need to be addressed.

Thank you for this detailed response.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There are no certainties in life, even–perhaps especially–in human relationships. For the truly faithful, belief in G-d is not a matter of certainty achieved by deductive or inductive logic and reason; rather, it is based on internal emotion, motivation, and trust. One is not afraid of making choices or possibly being deceived by wishful thinking and sentimentality. In a sense, one surrenders to one’s inner perception and understanding of reality and truth.

Fair enough.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I’m back.

Sorry my participation is a little sparse. I am primarily able to comment on the thread on weekends, though I’m trying to chime in during the week.

---

Okay, Axiom 1 was:

Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

And one response was:

And we can agree on this simple truth. Good. Now, I have a second Axiom.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future.

Do we all agree on Axiom 2?

No.

So long as life is supportable, there may be a continued production of same, but it need not necessarily lead to any particular increase overall. Consider, an increase in human biomass may arrive at a corresponding decrease in plant or animal biomass. Alternately, an increase in any animal biomass might be cause for disease or starvation to reduce the numbers back to a more sustainable level.

Any temporary increases overall might be met with corresponding decreases overall in the future.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

(Concerning your particular question of, if God is Omniscient. I say yes. But I do not want to start a bunch of loose ends with the dialogue, if possible. But I suppose it’s worth an answer here.)

Might it not require the tying of many loose ends to properly braid a rope?

1. If God is Omniscient, does he foresee the future?

 

[clmowry]

Well should I go into why I think the classic arguments for god’s existence are illogical in my opinion? It just seems like, even if that is the only way to respond to the thread, it is beyond the scope of size for a discussion in a particular thread.

If you think that you could somehow therby prove faith illogical. Then yes.

Perhaps not illogical, but it does show that one can easily have an honest faith in something that isn’t true, as most people do.

Sure, happens all the time. Turns out the sun isn’t the center of the universe. That didn’t make beliving so based on the data available at the time illogical.

And that’s one of my big problems with faith, it seems that it is something you cannot have without it being arbitrary. Arbitrarily something you inherited or arbitrarily arrived at through personal experiences and arguments.

There is nothing whatsoever Arbitray about my faith.

What couclusion did you arrive at on any subject that did not develop via your personal experiences and arguments?

I presume by this discription that your atheism is an arbitray choice.

Chuck

 

[grannymh]

In response to granny’s post 84 which stated “Of course Genesis is about real events.”

Real events as in actual, or as in allegorical?

Actual events related in some form of figurative language which goes more to the point of Divine Revelation.

For example. For decades, there have been Catholics who ignore Original Sin. Some refer to allegory in the first three chapters as representing some truth. A general example would be – the eating of the fruit represents the human population’s rise to consciousness of good and bad. Say what?

Genesis 1: 26 - 28 does not sound like an allegory of something else. It is a flat out blessing for an event which resulted in the human race, including you and me.

A logical approach to Catholicism would be to first understand the doctrines which have a source in the first three chapters and then go to the figurative language being used. Logical approach as in using common sense to research the truth.

Because my own faith was shaken in regard to Adam and Eve, I pay particular attention to the first three chapters of Genesis and to paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition including some of the footnotes.

Would faith be a form of trust? An interesting sentence in the Catechism is “Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.” CCC 397 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/397.htm

Would it be logical to trust in God as a spiritual being even when it appears that He is not present?

My apology. Due to commitments I will get back to the middle of your excellent and necessary questions. The last question could be part of a long demonstration for the spiritual existence of God. So I am sure you will have more to say about it.

If a child were to “recognize” the existence of a monster lurking unseen in the shadows of his/her room, would this be a proof that such an ethereal being must exist?

“must exist?” No. Objective existence is independent of someone else being in the same room.

In this case, “recognition” is more reflective of the child’s own developing cognitive powers. Obviously, the child wonders about invisible monsters. The child is questioning the shadows and memory could bring back cartoons with surprise appearances of a character. It also may indicate that the child is open to something she or he cannot see. This childlike openness to the invisible may be why Jesus commented that we should be like little children.

Thank you for this detailed response.

You are welcome.

 

[jmvizanko]

If you think that you could somehow therby prove faith illogical. Then yes.

Both the cosmological and teleological arguments fail because they do not answer the objection of what caused god. The usual reply is god is outside of time, to which the reply is not time-dependent; why does a god just exist anyway? And how is that any more easy to accept than a universe that just existed forever or popped into existence without reason? Either way, we have a universe that is just here, or a god that is just here, with a universe it created. I don’t see a reason to think either is more easy to accept.

The ontological argument fails because it would follow that the perfect version of anything must exist, ie the perfect unicorn.

The arguments from morality, beauty etc. fail because there is no logical reason to need a god for any of these things to exist. The Mandelbrot set even proves that beauty exists independent of a god, as god cannot make a square circle or a Mandelbrot set that isn’t a Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set is a purely true logical construct that is what it is no matter what god or being comprehends or views it.

The anthropic and fine-tuning arguments fail because they are inherently a lack of imagination of what completely different forms of life could be like in universes completely unlike our own, or even in vastly different parts of our own. Usually you see a claim like that you need atoms. And I don’t understand this “atomic” chauvinism. Who is to say that in a universe with building blocks that are 10^200 times bigger you couldn’t have sentient configurations of life, even if they had no resemblance to anything we know?

These are just my responses to some of the main classical arguments for god’s existence. (I suppose we could get into any of them more, but if you want to, I think it should be a different thread) To me, the failure of these arguments leaves me with no reason to believe there is a god. And if there are no reasons to believe in a god, then believing in a god is unreasonable.

Plus there are also the arguments against a god’s existence, like the problem of evil, the problem of hell, and the problem of unbelief. And I do find those 3 at least somewhat if not very convincing against the existence of certain god’s, especially the god of Christianity and the god of Islam, religions where what you believe matters to god.

And in the end if there is no good reason to believe there is a god, but there are good reasons to believe there isn’t, or at least to doubt enough to be uncertain (which I am regarding a general formulation of a deity), then it is logical to not have faith.

Why is faith logical?

There is nothing whatsoever Arbitray about my faith.

What couclusion did you arrive at on any subject that did not develop via your personal experiences and arguments?

I presume by this discription that your atheism is an arbitray choice.

I would say my atheism is arbitrary in that I did not choose it, the arguments for it are more convincing to me, and ad nauseum, you cannot choose what you think is true. Of course, atheism is not holding something to be true that is unprovable like faith is, at least in its implicit form. Regardless of whether I had any say in choosing it, what makes admitting you don’t know less logical than placing your faith in one of the many possible explanations that have no proof? And I do not mean this in a nasty way, but until you can explain to me why your faith is not arbitrary, and that if you were born and raised in Pakistan that it is necessarily true that you would end up a Christian, I will consider it arbitrary.

Lets take the example of an alien that comes from a distant part of the universe. If they come from a race and world that has no religion, and they land here, what reason would they have for adopting any of our religions over any of the others? There are highly intelligent Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc., some of which have made it their life’s quest and research to understand and defend their religion. And despite all the sophistication that the advanced scholar of any of these religions has, all of them are wrong except for one. How can there be so much specific reason to believe in a religion found, in every religion, if only one of them actually contains the truth?

In short, if there is no good reason to place your faith in any specific religion over any other, then if you do it is both illogical and arbitrary to do so. And (not everybody, but I think probably most) people’s faith is just arbitrarily what they were raised to put their faith in.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Still on Axiom 2.

No.

So long as life is supportable, there may be a continued production of same, but it need not necessarily lead to any particular increase overall. Consider, an increase in human biomass may arrive at a corresponding decrease in plant or animal biomass. Alternately, an increase in any animal biomass might be cause for disease or starvation to reduce the numbers back to a more sustainable level.

Any temporary increases overall might be met with corresponding decreases overall in the future.

Yes, but I’m trying to stick to the basics. Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers, we can assume that, if life continues to be supportable, biological organisms will continue to produce. Right?

Might it not require the tying of many loose ends to properly braid a rope?

1. If God is Omniscient, does he foresee the future?

Yes, God forsees the future.

 

[grannymh]

If one were to peer closely enough, might one be blessed enough to see God’s reflection in the eyes of a plague-carrying flea?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether we are amazed at the grandeur of the solar system or the intricacies of an insect’s eye, having human eyes, we only see part of God’s reflection.

Now, you may ask what about the plague carried by the flea. What does the plague reflect? The plague reflects death which is normative for human anatomies. Our intellective soul then asks "Where, O death, is your sting?’’ While the tiny plague-carrying flea reflects the reality of death, it also brings to mind the power of God to transform us from our troubled earthly existence to eternal peace in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

If we allow our mind the liberty of seeking God when we are faced with a reflection of death in the eyes of a plague-carrying flea; then we will see the reflection of God’s supreme power – “Death is swallowed up in victory.” (source:1 Corinthians 15: 50-58)

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In response to granny’s post 84 which stated “Of course Genesis is about real events.”

Actual events related in some form of figurative language which goes more to the point of Divine Revelation.

For example. For decades, there have been Catholics who ignore Original Sin. Some refer to allegory in the first three chapters as representing some truth. A general example would be – the eating of the fruit represents the human population’s rise to consciousness of good and bad. Say what?

Genesis 1: 26 - 28 does not sound like an allegory of something else. It is a flat out blessing for an event which resulted in the human race, including you and me.

A logical approach to Catholicism would be to first understand the doctrines which have a source in the first three chapters and then go to the figurative language being used. Logical approach as in using common sense to research the truth.

Because my own faith was shaken in regard to Adam and Eve, I pay particular attention to the first three chapters of Genesis and to paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition including some of the footnotes.

Consider the question of God’s apparent relationship with man. If God placed into the garden two individuals who had not yet eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how might it be said that these two might have been culpable of any wrongdoing? How might they have known what they were about to do was evil until the deed itself was accomplished?

Further, in such a naive state, how might Adam and Eve have been capable of outwitting God’s most enlightened creation whose intelligence was second only to God’s own? Would not God have successfully predicted the outcome of his innocent creation versus the calculating shrewdness of a being capable of successfully convincing and corrupting a full third of the angels?

If it might be said with certainty that God knew, or should have known, the outcome, would not the Fall of mankind necessarily have been purposeful on the part of God? If purposeful, how might mankind be given over to bear the blame? To be punished?

How might one fully trust an entity who seemingly shares only a part of its essence with mankind and who appears willing to allow his simple creation to believe itself blameworthy for a fall that need not have occurred and over which it might have had only very limited control?

Would faith be a form of trust? An interesting sentence in the Catechism is “Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.” CCC 397 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/397.htm

Might it not be equally stated: “God, allowing a super-genius devil to tempt an innocent mankind abused the trust that mankind had placed in assuming the garden was safe?”

Would it be logical to trust in God as a spiritual being even when it appears that He is not present?

My apology. Due to commitments I will get back to the middle of your excellent and necessary questions. The last question could be part of a long demonstration for the spiritual existence of God. So I am sure you will have more to say about it.

OK.

“must exist?” No. Objective existence is independent of someone else being in the same room.

In this case, “recognition” is more reflective of the child’s own developing cognitive powers. Obviously, the child wonders about invisible monsters. The child is questioning the shadows and memory could bring back cartoons with surprise appearances of a character. It also may indicate that the child is open to something she or he cannot see. This childlike openness to the invisible may be why Jesus commented that we should be like little children.

How is a child’s imagining of a local monster dismissible as fanciful, but an adult’s imagining of a creator acceptable as proof of same? Might it not be equally suggested that such imagining (on the part of an adult) may merely be the developing cognitive powers of an adult psychology? Perhaps one who might have always known a parent figure, and who might require a replacement should the earthly version become deceased?