B
buffalo
Guest
There are a few ways to resolve that -
- Introduction in some way
- Revelation
- Experiencing the life of a flatlander by experiencing it.
- Continuing to build the relationship
- Status
D
DysonSphere
Guest
In the same way as the novelette, if I were transported into a world where another dimension were able to be genuinely experienced, I would accept the existence of this other dimension (analogies exist for both God and string theory).
Otherwise, though it is possible that I would be ignoring the words of God, I do not see how this ignorance would be blame-worthy, considering that, thus far, there is nothing to measure or to predict that follows from such an hypothesis.
B
buffalo
Guest
But we can experience God right here right now. Believers know this well.
The point though is one has to be open to God as He makes Himself known and not as we want it to be. Same with your dimensional idea. If you are transported to another dimension that allows you to see 4D and you close our eyes you will not experience it. This is the essence of humility.
Faith is - opening one’s heart and mind to God.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi All,
Best,
Leela
Would the other Catholics here say that they have faith in Satan? Is faith merely belief in God? Even the demons and Satan himself believe that God exists and that Jesus is God. Do the demons and Satan then have faith?
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
Faith is - opening one’s heart and mind to God.
If you are not open to God then you do not have faith.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I find this concept acceptable. I’m open, as my signature states, to the possibility of God. I am simply uncertain as to how God can be experienced in any way that would be distinguished meaningfully from other natural phenomena.
One example I would consider is the statistical significance, or lack thereof, for the healing power of prayers an individual does not know he or she is receiving. This, even, could have a natural explanation (unknown forces produced by the mind that affect the person focused upon in a positive way).
L
Leela
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Have you ever read the Argument from Desire?
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I do not accept the first premise, based on a lack of evidence.
B
buffalo
Guest
They have made their choice permanently, so they can no longer be open.
** II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS **
**391 ** Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268
392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably *rejected *God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271
393 It is the *irrevocable *character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272
394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275
B
buffalo
Guest
There is no evidence for this?
- Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
Correct. I have three problems with this premise.
- How can it be demonstrated? (in other words, I don’t find it self-evident, and would like to see if it could rely on other premises)
- How do we accurately distinguish between natural desires and non-natural desires, or between innate desires and non-innate desires?
- How do we know the desire mentioned in Premise 2 is both natural and innate?
B
buffalo
Guest
I really thought it was covered in the link.
Question 1: How can you know the major premise—that every natural desire has a real object—is universally true, without first knowing that this natural desire also has a real object? But that is the conclusion. Thus you beg the question. You must know the Conclusion to be true before you can know the major premise.
Reply: This is really not an objection to the argument from desire only, but to every deductive argument whatsoever, every syllogism. It is the old saw of John Stuart Mill and the nominalists against the syllogism. It presupposes empiricism—that is, that the only way we can ever know anything is by sensing individual things and then generalizing, by induction. It excludes deduction because it excludes the knowledge of any universal truths (like our major premise). For nominalists do not believe in the existence of any universals…except one (that all universals are only names).
This is very easy to refute. We can and do come to a knowledge of universal truths, like “all humans are mortal,” not by sense experience alone (for we can never sense all humans) but through abstracting the common universal essence or nature of humanity from the few specimens we do experience by our senses. We know that all humans are mortal because humanity, as such, involves mortality, it is the nature of a human being to be mortal; mortality follows necessarily from its having an animal body. We can understand that. We have the power of understanding, or intellectual intuition, or insight, in addition to the mental powers of sensation and calculation, which are the only two the nominalist and empiricist give us. (We share sensation with animals and calculation with computers; where is the distinctively human way of knowing for the empiricist and nominalist?)
When there is no real connection between the nature of a proposition’s subject and the nature of the predicate, the only way we can know the truth of that proposition is by sense experience and induction. For instance, we can know that all the books on this shelf are red only by looking at each one and counting them. But when there is a real connection between the nature of the subject and the nature of the predicate, we can know the truth of that proposition by understanding and insight—for instance, “Whatever has color must have size,” or, “A Perfect Being would not be ignorant.”
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I accept some syllogisms, when I find the premises to be self-evident. I do not find Premise 1 to be self-evident, so I do not accept this “syllogism”.
I don’t think that the argument begs the question. I think it’s a good valid argument (given a couple unwritten assumptions about the second proposition). I question its soundness.
For example, it’s hard for me to meaningfully differentiate this much from the syllogism: “All aliens have feathers. Hawks have feathers. So hawks are aliens.”
B
buffalo
Guest
What things could we desire that we could not experience?
L
Leela
Guest
I take it then that you do not think that Satan and the demons have faith even though they have 100% certainty that God exists and that Jesus is God. So faith must be something other than belief. Likewise, it would be a misuse of the term faith to talk about science or any other every day belief without 100% certainty as a faith.
D
DysonSphere
Guest
I will give an example from my field, and then a counter-example. I desire for there to be one single physical force that is the basis for all physical reality, a unified field theory. My desire for this theory is not a justification for its existence. It does seem to justify looking for such a theory.
The counter-example is that I don’t find the discovery of God’s existence, even if possible, all that interesting. I don’t, as far as I know, desire God. I’d like to live a very long time, but I’m not sure if I’d want to live forever. I certainly don’t want to have all my questions answered. I desire uncertainty.
B
buffalo
Guest
No - the demons do not assent, trust nor are open to God even though they know He exists.
Maybe this can help:
Faith
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you for that link. It describes FAITH!!! very well.
I would like to add that many people have FAITH!!!. Some Catholics have
:angel1::harp::bible1:FAITH!!!
:heaven::grouphug:Leela, if you can’t understand why I made the word “faith” larger, used all upper-case letters, bolded it, underlined it (and the following exclamation points), changed the color of the letters, and added religious symbols, I will explain. It is difficult to use the computer as a means of communication. You can’t see my body language or hear the inflections in my speech and I have the same problem in reference to yourself.
So I have to rely on other means to communicate my meaning. I think it is clear what I mean - those who have faith in God and the Catholic Church as the Church founded by Jesus, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, as the Bride of Christ, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, is faith in Truth. The Catholic Faith is the only true faith. It makes no difference if others don’t see this - Truth remains Truth. Truth is. Catholics are blessed to know this. We know our faith is a gift sent to us from God in love.
If I could have I would have used a cursive font and have had more angels and crosses and other symbols and beautiful music playing whenever you look at the huge “faith.” But I’m pretty much computer illiterate and have to do the best I can. What I have done with the word “faith” is to try to show you that faith in Truth is much larger, stronger, and very much more beautiful than “faith” in (how did you put it? oh, yes) as a “synonym for any old belief.” It is faith taken to the highest extreme. It is faith held steadfastly and proudly even when one is persecuted to the point of martyrdom simply for having it. It is faith that makes people so secure and so happy that they want to stand on a mountaintop and yell it out so that the whole world can hear.
Do I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow? Well no, not really. I have faith that it probably will rise, I guess, even though I probably won’t see it because it rains almost all the time here so it will be covered up by clouds. Yet I will be able to sense its presence if it does rise because there will be light, although that light could be coming from something else. Using the word “faith” here is really incorrect, which I believe is one of your points and I concur with you on that. Instead of “faith” I would use “hopeful expectation” or something like that. Do I have faith that the sun will rise every morning for the next billion millenia? No and any “faith” I have that the sun will probably rise tomorrow is lackadaisical faith, easy to dismiss, weak, and lazy.
Do I have faith in God and His Church? Absolutely, one hundred percent, until the day I rest in Him and for all time to infinity. Yes, yes, yes. There is nothing weak or lazy about that faith. It transcends all other faith I may have. It is part of me, part of my soul, part of my essence, part of my being. It is Truth. It is.
I have told you I cannot discuss personal revelation. If you knew what I knew and have felt what I have felt you would have no doubt at all. This is true faith in God and His Church, huge, written in cursive letters, glorifying and praising God, deep, always present, and with me for eternity.
And if you can’t understand what I have stated above you will not understand my faith unless you experience something similar to what I have experienced. I pray that you do.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Does this mean you are not going to respond to the points I made in posts #164 and #165, in response to your post, to which you have not yet responded?
- Status