Is Faith logical?

[Jelrak_TB]

My apology, but these old eyes do not spot anything relating directly to Original Sin which I do believe is what was being discussed.

The real concept of Original Sin is based on the logical relationship between Divinity (Creator) and humanity (creature). Thus, beginning comments should be directed to the relationship and to the persons themselves in regard to the actual Original Sin.

As a start, the relationship is between two persons who are not equal in status. The first problem/solution should address the fact that one is the Creator and the other is the creature. Because of the inequality, special requirements would be needed on the part of the creature in order to have a friendship relationship with his Creator.

Logically, one first has to know that God is transcendent Pure Spirit Creator and therefore is not restricted by His material/physical creation. The creature, that is Adam the first human is created as part of the material/physical world but, and this is important, His Creator has given him a nature which in itself is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. I am referring to the material anatomy and the rational spiritual soul.

So far so good?

Unfortunately, what was unclear before remains so.

With which premise do you disagree:

1. That God is able to see the future and is Omniscient?
2. That no fair test might exist?

 

[grannymh]

Unfortunately, what was unclear before remains so.
With which premise do you disagree:

1. That God is able to see the future and is Omniscient?
2. That no fair test might exist?

With which premise do you disagree: – From post 159

1) That God is able to see the future and is Omniscient?

God exists and since He is not limited by the material/physical world, He is omniscient among other attributes.

2) That no fair test might exist?

As far as a fair test, what exactly are you referring to – a test to meet human standards of fairness? Or some other standards?

Is Faith logical?

Faith becomes logical when one understands how Catholicism fits the puzzle pieces together. If you wish to speak about Original Sin, then you need to stipulate up front that God the Creator exists as a transcendent Pure Spirit and that Adam the created exists as the first human being. These facts are like the straight edges of the puzzle’s frame.

May you have a blessed Easter,
granny

 

[grannymh]

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.

Thank you for demonstrating the “logical approach” which is so fascinating.

When looking at your two basic questions, I am sensing a possible inconsistency regarding the nature of God in question 1. There seems to be an underlying desire of some, not all, people to make God human. In the long run, this is simply another attack on Divinity.

However, I wonder about the view of the “God” in question 1. since the comparisons of God to humans have increased. At times, it seems that God is being evaluated according to human perceptions based in the material/physical world. Yes, describing God with human terminology can be done beneficially–what I am referring to is when God does not live up to human standards which then makes it easy to dismiss His authority etcetera.

Personally, I believe it is logical to believe there is a God. And I see this thread as being successful in affirming that position.

May you have a blessed Easter,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[grannymh]

I2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

Yes, it is logical that Christianity is the true Faith. This is because Catholicism lifts us up beyond the limits of the material/physical world while at the same time ministering to the needs of the whole person, body and soul, living within the material/world.

The “logic” of Catholicism is its systematic and integrated nature. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=646754

In Catholicism, God is personally present to us throughout our life. At our conception, He creates our individual spiritual soul. God is personally present to us in Baptism, the first of the Seven Sacraments. God shares Himself with us in the Catholic Eucharist. Catholicism gives us the assurance that death has been conquered and that we have both opportunity *and *free choice to experience God, face to face, in eternal heaven.

May you experience the joy of Easter,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

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. (… Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers…)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

Axiom 5: It is possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments.

Axiom 6: It is possible that there are consciences and intelligences in our Cosmos which are invisible to our detection.

OK.
It is possible. If such beings were to reside on Earth, would not some consequence arise from their necessary proximity to mankind?

Not necessarily. If the objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist undetected, then there would not necessarily be serious social consequences. Could this be Axiom 7?

Yet, if objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist, although undetected, then it is possible there may be some sort of consequence from their proximity, detectable or undetectable. Could this be Axiom 8?

OK.
To clarify, would not some of their activities be the subject of observation and hold a capability of being measured?

However, if the objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 are occasionally detected or obviously revealed to humans in some way, these undetectable things may appear as curious events of our human past. Can we agree this would be Axiom 9?

Breezing through these latest three axioms! They just popped up quickly from your last contribution! Do you agree with all three, so that they are established assumptions? Or do you take issue with any?

I was going to go on a more rational route, but this seems more fun, and we’re in no rush, I hope.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

At the moment, I have time to address Section 4, part A.

"*A. If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?

• No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were
  to consider His actions evil. *"

Since the question was whether he might be able to choose to do evil, how is it consistent that he would not be able to do so given it would run contrary to his will? Is this not the same as stating that he could not do so because he would not wish to do so? For clarity, is God’s own will capable of thwarting God’s own will?

Alternately, how might it be conceived to be inconsistent of him to be able to do evil, but freely choose not to?

Substitute “evil” for “consistent.”

God is able to choose to be inconsistent. He chooses not to. I did not state He would not be able to because it is contrary to His will. The Almighty can do what He wants.

Is this not the same as stating that he could not do so because he would not wish to do so?

No. God can, but He chooses not to. He has a plan for the Cosmos.

For clarity, is God’s own will capable of thwarting God’s own will?

It’s more a question of whether or not God is capable of breaking His consistency.

Alternately, how might it be conceived to be inconsistent of him to be able to do evil, but freely choose not to?

Performing inconsistency is what we would consider evil, I do believe.

 

[grannymh]

I wish all of you the joy and peace of Easter.

With my love,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, “Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.”
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[Jelrak_TB]

With which premise do you disagree: – From post 159

1) That God is able to see the future and is Omniscient?

God exists and since He is not limited by the material/physical world, He is omniscient among other attributes.

OK

2) That no fair test might exist?

As far as a fair test, what exactly are you referring to – a test to meet human standards of fairness? Or some other standards?

If a test is not fair in accordance to human standards, how might its failure merit punishment?

Consider, what loving parent might test a child according to adult standards and then choose banishment in response to anticipated failure?

If perfect justice is not measured in terms understandable to the one being judged, how might it be deemed either perfect or just?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

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. (… Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers…)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

Axiom 5: It is possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments.

Axiom 6: It is possible that there are consciences and intelligences in our Cosmos which are invisible to our detection.

Not necessarily. If the objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist undetected, then there would not necessarily be serious social consequences. Could this be Axiom 7?

OK

Yet, if objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist, although undetected, then it is possible there may be some sort of consequence from their proximity, detectable or undetectable. Could this be Axiom 8?

There may be a consequence from proximity, but not social (as such would seemingly contradict Axiom 7), but it might remain detectable or undetectable? Is this Axiom necessary? It seemingly refines very little; however, if it provides an important step to something else, certainly proceed with it intact.

However, if the objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 are occasionally detected or obviously revealed to humans in some way, these undetectable things may appear as curious events of our human past. Can we agree this would be Axiom 9?

It is possible.

Breezing through these latest three axioms! They just popped up quickly from your last contribution! Do you agree with all three, so that they are established assumptions? Or do you take issue with any?

I was going to go on a more rational route, but this seems more fun, and we’re in no rush, I hope.

No rush. Carry on.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

At the moment, I have time to address Section 4, part A.

"*A. If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?

• No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were
  to consider His actions evil. *"

Substitute “evil” for “consistent.”

God is able to choose to be inconsistent. He chooses not to. I did not state He would not be able to because it is contrary to His will. The Almighty can do what He wants.

No. God can, but He chooses not to. He has a plan for the Cosmos.

It’s more a question of whether or not God is capable of breaking His consistency.

Performing inconsistency is what we would consider evil, I do believe.

Thank you for clarifying your position. This shall be accepted as your conclusion to Section 4A.

 

[grannymh]

Consider, what loving parent might test a child according to adult standards and then choose banishment in response to anticipated failure?

In regard to question in post 166 – “Consider, what loving parent might test a child according to adult standards and then choose banishment in response to anticipated failure?” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9165894&postcount=166

Please clarify. Thank you.

Is this “loving parent” a human?

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Yet, if objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist, although undetected, then it is possible there may be some sort of consequence from their proximity, detectable or undetectable. Could this be Axiom 8?

OK
There may be a consequence from proximity, but not social (as such would seemingly contradict Axiom 7), but it might remain detectable or undetectable? Is this Axiom necessary? It seemingly refines very little; however, if it provides an important step to something else, certainly proceed with it intact.

Axiom 8 would not be unnecessary. Axiom 8 would imply that the undetected objects or beings could leave tangible consequence in our world. Perhaps a burn mark. Perhaps a healing. Perhaps a crop circle . Perhaps the movement of an object. These small actions are measurable, yes. But overall, their frequency would be so small as to lead society to discount them as anything practical or important. Yet, there could be a consequence–perhaps a consequence that develops into a big conclusion over time. Perhaps even after a human generation or two (or three).

Perhaps we should re-define the Axioms. Maybe we should replace “undetected” with “virtually undetectable.” That might fit a little better.

If so, I guess we agree on the latter three axioms?

After this, I’ll go ahead and list one final Axiom, and then we can take a breather for a bit in the conversation, try to examine what we have, and see where we are.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In regard to question in post 166 – “Consider, what loving parent might test a child according to adult standards and then choose banishment in response to anticipated failure?” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9165894&postcount=166

Please clarify. Thank you.

Was it not your position that the standards used to allocate fairness for the test of mankind were not human? If not human, what alternate standards might have existed other than Godly? If Godly, would God’s standards not necessarily be higher than humankind’s? And yet what perfect justice would allow an entity of a higher order to impose its standards on an entity of a lower order? Would this not be akin to an adult imposing adult standards on a child?

Perhaps, more properly, would it not be similar to imposing human standards of etiquette on a chimpanzee? Would ejecting the beast from a banquet because of an abject failure to maintain decorum and then subsequently punishing it be considered perfectly just? What if the handler had perfect knowledge of how the beast would react?

Is this “loving parent” a human?

If God claims to be a loving father, but the term means something other than what is understood in human terms, why might this specific term have been chosen?

To clarify, if this very descriptive word for his relationship is not actually to describe his relationship proper, for what purpose might this word have been chosen?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Axiom 8 would not be unnecessary. Axiom 8 would imply that the undetected objects or beings could leave tangible consequence in our world. Perhaps a burn mark. Perhaps a healing. Perhaps a crop circle . Perhaps the movement of an object. These small actions are measurable, yes. But overall, their frequency would be so small as to lead society to discount them as anything practical or important. Yet, there could be a consequence–perhaps a consequence that develops into a big conclusion over time. Perhaps even after a human generation or two (or three).

Perhaps we should re-define the Axioms. Maybe we should replace “undetected” with “virtually undetectable.” That might fit a little better.

If so, I guess we agree on the latter three axioms?

After this, I’ll go ahead and list one final Axiom, and then we can take a breather for a bit in the conversation, try to examine what we have, and see where we are.

OK

 

[grannymh]

Was it not your position that the standards used to allocate fairness for the test of mankind were not human? If not human, what alternate standards might have existed other than Godly? If Godly, would God’s standards not necessarily be higher than humankind’s? And yet what perfect justice would allow an entity of a higher order to impose its standards on an entity of a lower order? Would this not be akin to an adult imposing adult standards on a child?

Perhaps, more properly, would it not be similar to imposing human standards of etiquette on a chimpanzee? Would ejecting the beast from a banquet because of an abject failure to maintain decorum and then subsequently punishing it be considered perfectly just? What if the handler had perfect knowledge of how the beast would react?

If God claims to be a loving father, but the term means something other than what is understood in human terms, why might this specific term have been chosen?

To clarify, if this very descriptive word for his relationship is not actually to describe his relationship proper, for what purpose might this word have been chosen?

In my opinion, the questions above do not answer the very simple question I asked at the bottom of post 169 which referred to your post 166. I even underlined it to indicate that it was an important, isolated, simple question. A simple yes or no would suffice because of the way you worded post 166.

Here is my post 169
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9168446&postcount=169

***"In regard to question in post 166 – “Consider, what loving parent might test a child according to adult standards and then choose banishment in response to anticipated failure?” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=166

Please clarify. Thank you.

Is this “loving parent” a human? "***

As I read your post 166 – you did ask me to consider a loving parent – It does make a logical difference if your “loving parent” is a human or not.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In my opinion, the questions above do not answer the very simple question I asked at the bottom of post 169 which referred to your post 166. I even underlined it to indicate that it was an important, isolated, simple question. A simple yes or no would suffice because of the way you worded post 166.

Here is my post 169
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9168446&postcount=169

***"In regard to question in post 166 – “Consider, what loving parent might test a child according to adult standards and then choose banishment in response to anticipated failure?” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=166

Please clarify. Thank you.

Is this “loving parent” a human? "***

As I read your post 166 – you did ask me to consider a loving parent – It does make a logical difference if your “loving parent” is a human or not.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. To clarify:

If a deity, purported to be omniscient, might design and create an entity known as a loving parent, how unlikely might it be that he/it would be able to play the role perfectly if he/it should so choose? Is one to disbelieve such a god when he/it claims to be a loving father simply because he/it is not an actual human father?

If one is able to draw such a distinction, is it then possible for human fathers to behave in this role more perfectly than God?

 

[grannymh]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. To clarify:

If a deity, purported to be omniscient, might design and create an entity known as a loving parent, how unlikely might it be that he/it would be able to play the role perfectly if he/it should so choose? Is one to disbelieve such a god when he/it claims to be a loving father simply because he/it is not an actual human father?

If one is able to draw such a distinction, is it then possible for human fathers to behave in this role more perfectly than God?

Since it is apparently impossible to identify the “loving parent” (refer to posts 166 & 169) as a human or something else, I give up for the time being. Perhaps, there will be another time that distracting questions are not used to answer simple questions. I look forward to that time.

On the other hand, maybe there is no one who really cares about the differences between God the Creator and you and me as the created. Maybe no one really cares about the logical differences which can be seen as the evidence for faith in God. It is so much easier to think in terms of a material/physical world and somewhat innocent questions.

 

[qwfeghy]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[ChesterBeach]

On the other hand, maybe there is no one who really cares about the differences between God the Creator and you and me as the created. Maybe no one really cares about the logical differences which can be seen as the evidence for faith in God. It is so much easier to think in terms of a material/physical world and somewhat innocent questions.

Rather I think it’s kind of a fools errand to inject logic into an allegorical story ( the Fall). At the heart of Christianity is the mystery of the Trinity. We cal it a mystery because it can’t be known by logic.

 

[ChesterBeach]

To preempt the discussion that the Trinity is indeed logical - the Church states it is beyond human knowledge (logic) - It is an “ineffable mystery.”

234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”.56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin”.57

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82