Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Peter_Plato]

In response, I will simply point out that this possibility-based argument is a sort of abdication of knowledge about good and evil. By relying on possibility, we are implicitly saying that we don’t actually have a working description of God’s goodness. It is just as meaningful as saying that God is by definition “oogey.”

What is interesting here is that it is possible that God’s “Goodness” appears to us as “oogey,” just as our “goodness” might appear to a plant or animal as “oogey” before, during or after the time we are picking or killing it to eat or spraying Roundup or a pesticide on it to clear a walkway or garden of weeds or pests.

Again, it would seem “special pleading” to insist that our sense of “oogeyness” applies by default to reality, when there are clear indications that human subjectivity (“oogey” sense) isn’t the basis upon which reality is grounded.

An interesting treatment on this is found here:

thomism.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/taking-gods-moral-perfection-seriously/

Again, the point is that we cannot extrapolate from the behaviour of lions or hyenas anything about how humans ought to behave and neither can we do so with regard to logically moving from what is “good” for human beings to how God is morally obligated to act.

The beginning has to be the nature of reality, of Existence itself; from there we can move to what are the “ends” for which humans exist (along with all else) and a moral code that obtains from those ends. Otherwise, we have no way of parsing out the “good” for plants, animals, humans or God in a way that is grounded on anything but subjectivity or “from the point of view of.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

JapaneseKappa you said:

“In response, I will simply point out that this possibility-based argument is a sort of abdication of knowledge about good and evil. By relying on possibility, we are implicitly saying that we don’t actually have a working description of God’s goodness.”

The working definition of God’s goodness is to be found in Scriptures and the religious experience. Natural theology, as opposed to revealed theology, can unveil just so much and then it hits a stone wall. This is why I don’t get too much into the various philosophical proofs for the existence of God anymore. I’ll entertain them as thought puzzles, but not as ultimately convincing evidence either to me or to the atheist.

The real proof of God’s existence and all that we can know about God is to be found in both Revelation and our experience of God. I believe with Pascal that the direct and intimate experience of God is far more important than any philosophical thoughts we may have about God. Thomas Aquinas finally concluded as much when near the end of his life he stopped working on his great Summa Theologica and said that what he had written about God was as straw compared to what he had experienced of God.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So, here it is: God says “Thou shalt not kill.” People still die. God doesn’t exist then. When people die, God is defying His own law because no matter how they die, God killed them, whether by weather, disease, murder, accident, etc…ummmmmmmmmmmm…this is seriously silly but that is basically what you keep claiming. Our God, Jesus Christ, isn’t good enough for you because in the history of mankind horrors seem to happen and keep happening and if God really was God, He wouldn’t permit all this. Earth would become Eden again. No, you say earth SHOULD be Eden again and then you’ll accept God is really God. I hate to disappoint you JapaneseKappa, but that is never going to happen.

Why not? In fact, I’m pretty sure Catholicism says that it will happen again, that’s what’s meant by the “I look for the resurrection of the dead” bit in the creeds. God obviously intended for the earth to be like Eden (e.g. deathless,) because that’s how he originally made it. He is also capable of creating humans without original sin (e.g. Mary.) It therefore seems perfectly reasonable for me to ask why God didn’t just erase an entire human generation’s original sin and send them back to Eden. It is certainly possible that there may be some extenuating circumstance that prevents God from doing so, but its yet another thing to have faith in. In other words, in the absence of any actual evidence, we not only have to take God’s existence on faith, but on top of that we have to have faith that a certain set of properties describe God.

I also need to say your level of scholarship is impressive. You’re a smart gal. But all that smarts won’t get you to Heaven. Bottom line, self-love could give you a desire to give yourself a break instead of sending yourself to Hell. You are smart enough to know it exists, or you wouldn’t have spent so much time and energy forming arguments against our God and our religion. If it isn’t real, why bother taking years to study all the arguments against it? You’d simply dismiss it as nonsense and find other things to study and work on and better yourself with. But you’ve spent all those years and all that energy. So how is that? Or more importantly, WHY is that? It is obvious to me and to others. I’d say it is irrational to attempt to prove the God doesn’t exist.

C. S. Lewis:

When a young man who has been going to church in a routine way honestly realises that he does not believe in Christianity and stops going—provided he does it for honesty’s sake and not just to annoy his parents—the spirit of Christ is probably nearer to him then than it ever was before.

 

[Aloysium]

Why not? In fact, I’m pretty sure Catholicism says that it will happen again, that’s what’s meant by the “I look for the resurrection of the dead” bit in the creeds. God obviously intended for the earth to be like Eden (e.g. deathless,) because that’s how he originally made it. He is also capable of creating humans without original sin (e.g. Mary.) It therefore seems perfectly reasonable for me to ask why God didn’t just erase an entire human generation’s original sin and send them back to Eden. It is certainly possible that there may be some extenuating circumstance that prevents God from doing so, but its yet another thing to have faith in. In other words, in the absence of any actual evidence, we not only have to take God’s existence on faith, but on top of that we have to have faith that a certain set of properties describe God.C. S. Lewis:

Creating human beings with all the graces did not work.
In this world of suffering, it is clear that we are creatures, and where doing our own will get us.
Where better to learn about ourselves, about love and learning to better know, trust and love Him; obviously a better place than in Eden in this regard.
Given that we are eternal beings, these years of suffering, do they matter that much? They do get your attention.
It’s just an observation.

 

[madera]

Creating human beings with all the graces did not work.
In this world of suffering, it is clear that we are creatures, and where doing our own will get us.
Where better to learn about ourselves, about love and learning to better know, trust and love Him; obviously a better place than in Eden in this regard.
Given that we are eternal beings, these years of suffering, do they matter that much? They do get your attention.
It’s just an observation.

Suffering is what gets Gods attention.
it Is better to learn the worst of ourselves than to learn about
love…

we will never.understand or understand Gods

 

[madera]

I am using a tablet , please excuse the typos I am having trouble editing
my message stands.
on this thing.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What is interesting here is that it is possible that God’s “Goodness” appears to us as “oogey,” just as our “goodness” might appear to a plant or animal as “oogey” before, during or after the time we are picking or killing it to eat or spraying Roundup or a pesticide on it to clear a walkway or garden of weeds or pests.

Again, it would seem “special pleading” to insist that our sense of “oogeyness” applies by default to reality, when there are clear indications that human subjectivity (“oogey” sense) isn’t the basis upon which reality is grounded.

An interesting treatment on this is found here:

thomism.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/taking-gods-moral-perfection-seriously/

Again, the point is that we cannot extrapolate from the behaviour of lions or hyenas anything about how humans ought to behave and neither can we do so with regard to logically moving from what is “good” for human beings to how God is morally obligated to act.

The beginning has to be the nature of reality, of Existence itself; from there we can move to what are the “ends” for which humans exist (along with all else) and a moral code that obtains from those ends. Otherwise, we have no way of parsing out the “good” for plants, animals, humans or God in a way that is grounded on anything but subjectivity or “from the point of view of.”

You missed the point of my argument. I was simply saying that using the word “goodness” has a lot of baggage associated with it. People can and do think that labeling something as “good” is meaningful. However, if we claim that divine “goodness” isn’t something we really understand, then I am saying it is irresponsible to call it goodness, and would be better just to call it “oogeyness.” That way we avoid precisely the problem that the writer in your blog was addressing: we shouldn’t apply our own conceptions of right and wrong to God. God’s “goodness” is not our goodness, so we should use a different word.

It’s fine (as you did previously) to try to reason about how God might view the situation:

If pain or suffering are mechanisms by which harm is signaled, then merely causing someone to suffer pain or anguish, in and of themselves, is not necessarily evil unless the indicators were accompanied by actual ontological privation (harm.)

But this doesn’t actually solve the problem that we don’t know what goodness is. There is no such thing as an “ontological-privation-ometer” so we can’t figure out if at any point God is acting according to that rule or not.

 

[Aloysium]

I am using a tablet , please excuse the typos I am having trouble editing
my message stands.
on this thing.

I don’t have that excuse; my post is filled with errors.

The point I was trying to make was not that we are to learn the worst about ourselves, but being in this world does permit us perhaps even better, to come to know God and to enter into a filial relationship with Him.
In Eden, full of grace, we chose ourselves over Him. We did not return the love He showed us.
Here we come to know courage and love. It can hurt to give of ourselves, to give to our enemies. Here we truly know what it means to be loving persons.
Is it any doubt that we are not omnipotent, that doing what we choose, unless it is in accordance with God’s will, that it will end very badly?

I was commenting to the poster who asserted that God got it wrong, or could have done it better. I’m saying that I see nothing wrong with how things are.

I’m at work, the boss, but still under pressure. That’s the best I can do for now.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Creating human beings with all the graces did not work.
In this world of suffering, it is clear that we are creatures, and where doing our own will get us.
Where better to learn about ourselves, about love and learning to better know, trust and love Him; obviously a better place than in Eden in this regard.
Given that we are eternal beings, these years of suffering, do they matter that much? They do get your attention.
It’s just an observation.

In this best of all possible worlds, everything is for the best.

Be careful with that sort of logic because in that direction lies the conclusion “it is possible to improve the world in some respects by disobeying God.”

 

[Aloysium]

In this best of all possible worlds, everything is for the best.

Is that what you understood? I did not mean that at all. Although, with God, everything is for the best - He makes it so.
As to your comment about disobeying God, if you reread my statement, it should be clear that I said the exact opposite.

 

[Tomdstone]

Although, with God, everything is for the best - He makes it so.

I don’t think that wars are for the best, since innocent people will suffer. The earth is a creation of God, but things are not always for the best here.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think that wars are for the best, since innocent people will suffer. The earth is a creation of God, but things are not always for the best here.

Noted. From my perspective: creation remains good.
BTW: re suffering, from poster cfauster on another thread, I picked up:
news.va/en/news/pope-francis-honors-victims-of-holocaust-at-yad-va
and where did I say “things are for the best here.” Isn’t it Kappa who said that?
God makes everything good.
You guys that don’t believe in God are never going to get it straight.

 

[Tomdstone]

Noted. From my perspective: creation remains good.
BTW: re suffering, from poster cfauster on another thread, I picked up:
news.va/en/news/pope-francis-honors-victims-of-holocaust-at-yad-va
and where did I say “things are for the best here.” Isn’t it Kappa who said that?
God makes everything good.
You guys that don’t believe in God are never going to get it straight.

I thought you said that with God, everything is for the best - He makes it so.

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

Why not? In fact, I’m pretty sure Catholicism says that it will happen again, that’s what’s meant by the “I look for the resurrection of the dead” bit in the creeds. God obviously intended for the earth to be like Eden (e.g. deathless,) because that’s how he originally made it. He is also capable of creating humans without original sin (e.g. Mary.) It therefore seems perfectly reasonable for me to ask why God didn’t just erase an entire human generation’s original sin and send them back to Eden. It is certainly possible that there may be some extenuating circumstance that prevents God from doing so, but its yet another thing to have faith in. In other words, in the absence of any actual evidence, we not only have to take God’s existence on faith, but on top of that we have to have faith that a certain set of properties describe God.C. S. Lewis:

Catholicism doesn’t say that there will be a new Eden on earth that will be deathless. The Resurrection of the Body will be for those destined to Heaven and then the souls of persons in Hell will also receive theirs and their sufferings will increase accordingly. Purgatory will get cleared as well. And then the earth will pass away. So no new Eden, I’m afraid. I hope you weren’t looking forward to spending a thousand years reign on earth with Christ the returning hero of those who fall for the Rapture Trap. Sorry for the very rudimentary outline of the Resurrection of the Body, but Hey, my diner is ready and I’m hungry. Thanks for replying to my post.

Glenda

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Catholicism doesn’t say that there will be a new Eden on earth that will be deathless. The Resurrection of the Body will be for those destined to Heaven and then the souls of persons in Hell will also receive theirs and their sufferings will increase accordingly. Purgatory will get cleared as well. And then the earth will pass away. So no new Eden, I’m afraid. I hope you weren’t looking forward to spending a thousand years reign on earth with Christ the returning hero of those who fall for the Rapture Trap. Sorry for the very rudimentary outline of the Resurrection of the Body, but Hey, my diner is ready and I’m hungry. Thanks for replying to my post.

newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies… the wicked “shall seek death, and shall not find it, shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them”

 

[Aloysium]

I thought you said that with God, everything is for the best - He makes it so.

He will do what is best for us.
He will do so for me, for you and for the real victims in any holocaust.

Had we been angels, following our choice in Eden, we would have chosen this world in which to exist in eternity.
That was the decision.
Now, this world would not be as you see it today.
Without the incarnation of the Word this would have become an eternal “Gaza” of hate, struggles for power and domination, and pain.
That is the world without Love, who is God.

We have a second chance with this life to enter into the loving, obedient, right relationship with God that He wants for us, and that is the fulfillment of all desire.
Our Creator, through the sacrifice and resurrection of His Son, has made this possible.
What we could not achieve in Eden, we now have within our reach right here.

 

[madera]

I don’t have that excuse; my post is filled with errors.

The point I was trying to make was not that we are to learn the worst about ourselves, but being in this world does permit us perhaps even better, to come to know God and to enter into a filial relationship with Him.
In Eden, full of grace, we chose ourselves over Him. We did not return the love He showed us.
Here we come to know courage and love. It can hurt to give of ourselves, to give to our enemies. Here we truly know what it means to be loving persons.
Is it any doubt that we are not omnipotent, that doing what we choose,

unless it is in accordance with God’s will, that it will end very badly?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::://::::::::/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Thd way to have a loving relationship is to admit to. HIm our rotten resentments, anger and hypocracy.
It is then that He renews our minds.
All you have is history.

I was commenting to the poster who asserted that God got it wrong, or could have done it better. I’m saying that I see nothing wrong with how things are.

I’m at work, the boss, but still under pressure. That’s the best I can do for now.

 

[Aloysium]

madera:
Whoa! You’ve got to get a better tablet.
Let me give you a for trying tho’.
Yes it’s all in our relationship with Him, individually as participants in His Church.

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

Your quotation from New Advent is describing a type of despair the wicked will feel. It is used to make a point, not necessarily a literal description. One of such a Day, the Day of the Lord, is actually impossible to make. All that has been revealed regarding that Day is vague and when the Apostles asked Jesus for more, He Himself said even He didn’t know. It remains a Mystery, yet all will see it, the living, the dead, those in Purgatory, those in Hell, the whole of creation in fact. That is why it is often referred to the Great and Terrible Day and the General Resurrection of the Body is only a part of that Day.

So, to boil it down to an edible size for most tastes, it is too big a thing for most minds to get. But the difference between you and I JapaneseKappa is that I accept that fact and you simply cannot. This is your own self-imposed exclusion from the Mysteries of Faith. To see with the eyes of Faith is to see all that is needed by the soul and makes one content in all matters. It makes for peace within oneself. It can only be attained in this way. All else is simply the absence of conflict.

Glenda

P.S. This peace of soul is the reason behind why I say it is irrational not to believe in God.

 

[miguel]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

Catholicism doesn’t say that there will be a new Eden on earth that will be deathless. The Resurrection of the Body will be for those destined to Heaven and then the souls of persons in Hell will also receive theirs and their sufferings will increase accordingly. Purgatory will get cleared as well. And then the earth will pass away. So no new Eden, I’m afraid. I hope you weren’t looking forward to spending a thousand years reign on earth with Christ the returning hero of those who fall for the Rapture Trap. Sorry for the very rudimentary outline of the Resurrection of the Body, but Hey, my diner is ready and I’m hungry. Thanks for replying to my post.

Glenda

Glenda, this is a crucial part of Catholic teaching that you are missing. It is explained very clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s discussion of the resurrection of the body. The Catechism quotes Jesus Christ on this point. From John 5:29, “Do not be astonished at this for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice, and come out-those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.” The Catechism also clearly explains the hope for a new heaven and a new earth in its discussion of the Creed where it says “I believe in life everlasting.” (In fact it discusses and explains every part of the Creed.) There are many scriptures that point to this and one of the beautiful things about the Catechism are the footnotes to the scriptures. The first thought that came to mind when you said the earth is passing away is when Jesus, in his sermon on the mount, said “the meek will inherit the earth” from Mathew 5:5. God Bless. Here’s a link to the Catechism…
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM