Is the question of God's existence the most important question of your life?

[tonyrey]

Response to post 173,
You quoted Matthew 10:28. That passage talks about the destruction of the soul. If the soul is annihilated how can it continue to suffer?
I agree when you said that hell fire is the glory of God. However, I interpret it differently. The Buddhists use a metaphor. When a sinner dies they are confronted by demons that hammer on them. However, those demons eventually reveal that they are angels hammering at the ego. The ego is our enemy.
One that missed the mark (sin) and concentrates on and identifies with the ego will experience God’s glory as hell. However, one that has transcended the ego will experience God’s glory as heaven.
This reminds me of Sartre’s book "Nausea ". Enlightenment is experienced as hell (nausea ) because Roquentin has not transcended his ego. One can call his predicament "premature enlightenment. "

A superb analysis of our spiritual development.

 

[Love4All]

Response to post 173,
You quoted Matthew 10:28. That passage talks about the destruction of the soul. If the soul is annihilated how can it continue to suffer?

Not annihilated, destroyed. Not the same thing. If I destroy a house of cards, there are still cards in a disordered pile. If I annihilate the house of cards, I remove it from existence.

I agree when you said that hell fire is the glory of God. However, I interpret it differently. The Buddhists use a metaphor. When a sinner dies they are confronted by demons that hammer on them. However, those demons eventually reveal that they are angels hammering at the ego. The ego is our enemy.

In my view, it is attachment to ego, rather than ego itself, that is the enemy. Ego is just the sense of self, and every self has a sense of self.

One that missed the mark (sin) and concentrates on and identifies with the ego will experience God’s glory as hell. However, one that has transcended the ego will experience God’s glory as heaven.

This is part of the trouble of Buddhism. It presents an impossible task as the goal. No one can cease from being a self.

This reminds me of Sartre’s book "Nausea ". Enlightenment is experienced as hell (nausea ) because Roquentin has not transcended his ego. One can call his predicament "premature enlightenment. "

I have a very great affinity for Eastern philosophy. Nonetheless, it is flawed. Possibly, those who regard the Buddha’s teaching as utterly definitive dishonor him. It seems to me, he would not have wanted it that way.

But he did present as clear and complete a picture as was possible for him, without God. In this way, he gave a system that atheists could practice without contradicting their beliefs.

 

[aspirant]

Sir, I sadly have been an atheist myself for a great many years

Which gives you intimate knowledge of the heart of one, but only one, atheist.

aspirant:

An atheist may not believe that God exists, but it seems to me that an atheist is nevertheless capable of regretting and despising any wrongdoing he or she has committed and being willing to amend.

This is certainly no sufficient as a remedy for our sins! If it were, you would be negating the necessity of embracing the Christ who calls out for our friendship.

If any people are saved, they are saved by and in Jesus Christ; I have never said otherwise. The Church does not teach, however, that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation in Christ to be possible. According to the Church, even people who are entirely ignorant of the Gospel may be saved:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

aspirant:

Doing so might be a reception of and cooperation with God’s grace without the atheist’s explicit awareness/understanding that it is God’s grace with which s/he is cooperating. God knows whether this is possible, but I see no good reason to rule out the possibility.

You are throwing out a mere possibility?

As the Church does: “‘Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.’ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.” It does not say either “will be saved” or “will not be saved,” but “can be saved.”

I think you can tell us what you did or did not want. As stated earlier in this thread, what is applicable to you may not be applicable to all other [atheist].

As a former atheist, however, you do not have any authority whatsoever to declare, “all atheists believe. . .” about anything. You have only the experience of one atheist, yourself in the past. Other’s motives for their atheism are to you necessarily opaque, unless they reveal them to you. You have no authority to declare “what atheists believe.”

 

[rebeccanew]

The joy of seeing God’s existence is basically what St Francis was teaching us. So I do not need proof, just guidance.

 

[BrunoMaria]

God’s being is not only most important to every existing person; God’s being is essentially vital to all there is. Without the least relevance if God’s existence is believed or not.

To a blind cave-fish the sun is all the same essentially vital, even though he wouldn’t ever think there is a sun.
All will see Jesus the day they stride that door called “death”.
Blessed those who knew God is alive.

So: Sorry, but I find the question:

Is the question of God’s existence the most important question of your life?<
wrong, because God’s existence is the most important question of anyone’s life - even the least atheists or blasphemers.

When I once said this to a disbeliever, he asked me; “which God - there are many”.
Real silly and empty talk! But well - he too will see the one and only God, and then slap his forehead, for every born person is born out of the will of God and has this spark of God within him - if he doesn’t fight this inherent knowledge.

Yours
Bruno

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So: Sorry, but I find the question:

Is the question of God’s existence the most important question of your life?<
wrong, because God’s existence is the most important question of anyone’s life - even the least atheists or blasphemers.

I’ve never heard of a question being wrong. Invalid, yes.But never wrong. So that’s new to me.

I think you may be conflating the phrase “Is God’s Existence…” with the question that was asked “Is the question of God’s existence…”. Those are not quite the same thing. If some one doesn’t care to ponder about the existence (which can be the position of some one that believes there is a god or of some one that doesn’t hold the belief of one) then this question is not an important one regardless of whether or not some specific god-concept is actually true. Some one that has doubts about a god-concept but feel that their well being during life (or after life) hinges on it may find this to be an important question.

In other words, this thread is asking more about some one’s thoughts and feelings, not on whether or not God is actually there.

 

[wcknight]

IF not, what other question would be more important ???

IF God doesn’t exist, answers to any other question does not matter… what would be the point ???

After a hundred years or so, any and all, questions and answers would be totally irrelevant … to us anyway.

 

[polytropos]

IF not, what other question would be more important ???

IF God doesn’t exist, answers to any other question does not matter… what would be the point ???

Touche.

I go through periods where I am absorbed with this question (during which periods I could probably call it “the most important”) and then I go through other periods where it isn’t a concern of mine. Right now I am thinking about it very frequently, reading books on epistemology, etc. and trying to see if I could ever maintain belief in God. I tried to just be a Catholic a few months ago, since that seems to be what lapsed Catholics are supposed to do - just make a confession and start going to mass again. But part of what I wanted in Catholicism was a cohesive view of morality - so I don’t feel like I can really believe in God while I have so many unresolved fundamental philosophical differences with the Church.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Should it be? Why or why not?

Nope - not a question for me.

 

[BrunoMaria]

ThinkingSapien:

this thread is asking more about some one’s thoughts and feelings, not on whether or not God is actually there.

I’m afraid that’s wrong. Any thought as to: “whether or not God is actually there” and whether or not the question of God’s existence is important, inherits the option that there might be no God at all, which is proved by answers like:

polytropos:

I don’t feel like I can really believe in God while I have so many unresolved fundamental philosophical differences with the Church.

Now, let me ask what do private differences with the Church, have to do with believe or disbelieve in God? Nothing! Not in the least.

Just imagine the dark ages, when the Church really was wrong. A lot of Saints originate in this time. Had they doubted God because the Church was faulty at the time, believe had melted to near zero. On the contrary these Saints help us up to this day to trust in God - as Jesus foretold in Mt 16,18: the powers of hell shall never prevail against My Church.

Let’s remember that it’s Jesus own property His Church, and never to be in cahoots with the Church’s enemy - hell; but instead help to strengthen Jesus’ Church.
Today our Church is thanks not only to the three blessed Popes, John-Paul II - Benedict XVI. - Francis I. in the holiest and best state ever. One shouldn’t put own misled opinions above the 2000-years old reasoning of our Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit of God and His administrator the Pope. The fact that in dark history some popes (like the Borghias and others much earlier) where appointed but not chosen, doesn’t touch today’s Church Jesus Christ has founded on St. Peter. Mere criticism doesn’t help Jesus’ Church. We rather are called for cooperation in His Church, instead of dwelling on old mistakes the Church committed, and constantly reminding the Church and us about her ancient shortcomings. We hate to be reminded on our or our state’s historic failures too, which doesn’t help, but instead departs.

Even if our opinion makes us think something is wrong with todays Church; this has nothing to do with God’s being, which here indeed is questioned - since any question about God’s existence includes questioning the existence of God.

Yours
Bruno

 

[polytropos]

Now, let me ask what do private differences with the Church, have to do with believe or disbelieve in God? Nothing! Not in the least.

Just imagine the dark ages, when the Church really was wrong. A lot of Saints originate in this time. Had they doubted God because the Church was faulty at the time, believe had melted to near zero. On the contrary these Saints help us up to this day to trust in God - as Jesus foretold in Mt 16,18: the powers of hell shall never prevail against My Church.

Let’s remember that it’s Jesus own property His Church, and never to be in cahoots with the Church’s enemy - hell; but instead help to strengthen Jesus’ Church.
Today our Church is thanks not only to the three blessed Popes, John-Paul II - Benedict XVI. - Francis I. in the holiest and best state ever. One shouldn’t put own misled opinions above the 2000-years old reasoning of our Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit of God and His administrator the Pope. The fact that in dark history some popes (like the Borghias and others much earlier) where appointed but not chosen, doesn’t touch today’s Church Jesus Christ has founded on St. Peter. Mere criticism doesn’t help Jesus’ Church. We rather are called for cooperation in His Church, instead of dwelling on old mistakes the Church committed, and constantly reminding the Church and us about her ancient shortcomings. We hate to be reminded on our or our state’s historic failures too, which doesn’t help, but instead departs.

Even if our opinion makes us think something is wrong with todays Church; this has nothing to do with God’s being, which here indeed is questioned - since any question about God’s existence includes questioning the existence of God.

I probably should have said “Catholicism” rather than “Church” because the issues I have are not with things the Church has done (or even moral positions that it takes) but basic philosophical differences that undermine my ability to sustain belief in God. I have had a Catholic education and I accept that Catholic morality follows logically from belief in God. I also acknowledge that history absurdly misrepresents “abuses” in the Catholic Church throughout history.

My issue is really on a philosophical level. I tried to just start practicing the Catholic Faith. But my mind habitually looks for a way to write everything off in terms of science. It’s like an impulse that I’ve developed from going through Catholic school as an atheist. I am obsessed with having a logically cohesive worldview and I’m upset because I know I don’t have one. To some extent I would hope that Catholicism would offer that, but I still don’t apprehend the Catholic view on, say, epistemology - so how can I believe in God?

 

[Love4All]

I probably should have said “Catholicism” rather than “Church” because the issues I have are not with things the Church has done (or even moral positions that it takes) but basic philosophical differences that undermine my ability to sustain belief in God. I have had a Catholic education and I accept that Catholic morality follows logically from belief in God. I also acknowledge that history absurdly misrepresents “abuses” in the Catholic Church throughout history.

My issue is really on a philosophical level. I tried to just start practicing the Catholic Faith. But my mind habitually looks for a way to write everything off in terms of science. It’s like an impulse that I’ve developed from going through Catholic school as an atheist. I am obsessed with having a logically cohesive worldview and I’m upset because I know I don’t have one. To some extent I would hope that Catholicism would offer that, but I still don’t apprehend the Catholic view on, say, epistemology - so how can I believe in God?

What is your view on epistemology?

 

[polytropos]

What is your view on epistemology?

I honestly don’t know. It was something that I hadn’t thought much about before in the respect that I had a standard view that “truth is knowable through science.”

I have sort of developed a very mathematical way of thinking in the respect that I demand premises for any worldview. Everything in mathematics is deduced from premises that are by nature arbitrary and unprovable - after a while I got it in my head that my worldview should function likewise. So I’ve sort of found that I cannot come up with any premises for my secular worldview because I can’t have a reason for coming up with them… and I think that gave me the sense that then, because there could be no rational premises, I could not come up with a sensible worldview from nothing. (A lot of this was subconscious. It is really just recently that I’m starting to understand these patterns in my thinking.)

So I am still working on figuring out what I believe. I intend to read a lot of philosophy and see what I actually agree with. I am reading a book now that uses Aristotelian philosophy and argues that we can only begin to know through the senses. I think I can accept that idea, although other jumps he makes to the intellect and the soul, I am not so sure about.

Of course, I am not actually reading Aristotle. I imagine someday I will have to do that to settle my thoughts.

 

[BrunoMaria]

I am still working on figuring out what I believe

What if you die suddenly today or tomorrow and then of course see Jesus Christ face to face? Will you tell Him: “I could not yet decide if you where right”
Are you in the state to tell Jesus was wrong?

I intend to read a lot of philosophy and see what I actually agree with.

What YOU agree to?! Is your perception the one and only truth? A lot of philosophy is wrong and just rubbish. Take the philosophies of atheists like Voltaire, J.P. Satre, Kant, Nietzsche or of the agnostic Thomas Henry Huxley.

If one thinks “all I don’t understand of God’s word might not be true, so I believe only as much as I am able to comprehend”. Such presumptuous way is placing oneself above God and above 2.5 Billion Christians and 2000 years of Christian teaching.
Don’t fall for relativism, which in a mathematic manner matches all there is with each other. Your beloved Mathematics is another present of God’s creation to make things on earth work. But all there is here and in the Universe, is created by God inclusive the physical equation how it’s bound to work. But all this will vanish, and we all will see it vanish, when God’s Kingdom is established once and for all.
God’s plan proceeds all the same without all these atheist philosophers and their proponents. He who doesn’t believe that, will have to experience it after his death from another angle than from heaven.
I wonder why they never ask themselves: But what about me if it’s true after all???
For yes, no Christian can ever prove God’s existence, because God doesn’t want this. If God’s existance could be proved - all would believe; nobody would ever sin, we wouldn’t need a world for probation, we could be in heaven in the first place.
But we have to go through this probation EARTH to get into God’s eternal kingdom through God’s grace.
But all the same; no atheists can ever prove his claimed God’s inexistence.
So - just wait and see

Yours
Bruno

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…] It was something that I hadn’t thought much about before in the respect that I had a standard view that “truth is knowable through science.”

It may be a topic for another thread, but scientific knowledge is considered “provisional.” I.E. it may be treated as true but there is the possibility that the scientific model used to explain something is not aligned with how things actually work.

So I’ve sort of found that I cannot come up with any premises for my secular worldview because I can’t have a reason for coming up with them…

Welcome to the human condition! We get by the best that we can with imperfect knowledge and an imperfect understanding of the world around us!

So I am still working on figuring out what I believe. I intend to read a lot of philosophy and see what I actually agree with. I am reading a book now that uses Aristotelian philosophy and argues that we can only begin to know through the senses.

It does seem that there’s a sizable portion of knowledge that seems to be dependent on our perceptions being correct at least some of the time (they are not correct all of the time).

Of course, I am not actually reading Aristotle. I imagine someday I will have to do that to settle my thoughts.

Check out “Audible.com.” (an Amazon company). You may find some of his writings in audio form. If you haven’t the time to read them you may have enough time to listen while engaged in other activities (such as driving).

 

[polytropos]

What if you die suddenly today or tomorrow and then of course see Jesus Christ face to face? Will you tell Him: “I could not yet decide if you where right”
Are you in the state to tell Jesus was wrong?

What YOU agree to?! Is your perception the one and only truth? A lot of philosophy is wrong and just rubbish. Take the philosophies of atheists like Voltaire, J.P. Satre, Kant, Nietzsche or of the agnostic Thomas Henry Huxley.

If one thinks “all I don’t understand of God’s word might not be true, so I believe only as much as I am able to comprehend”. Such presumptuous way is placing oneself above God and above 2.5 Billion Christians and 2000 years of Christian teaching.
Don’t fall for relativism, which in a mathematic manner matches all there is with each other. Your beloved Mathematics is another present of God’s creation to make things on earth work. But all there is here and in the Universe, is created by God inclusive the physical equation how it’s bound to work. But all this will vanish, and we all will see it vanish, when God’s Kingdom is established once and for all.
God’s plan proceeds all the same without all these atheist philosophers and their proponents. He who doesn’t believe that, will have to experience it after his death from another angle than from heaven.
I wonder why they never ask themselves: But what about me if it’s true after all???
For yes, no Christian can ever prove God’s existence, because God doesn’t want this. If God’s existance could be proved - all would believe; nobody would ever sin, we wouldn’t need a world for probation, we could be in heaven in the first place.
But we have to go through this probation EARTH to get into God’s eternal kingdom through God’s grace.
But all the same; no atheists can ever prove his claimed God’s inexistence.
So - just wait and see

With all due respect I am not really the type of atheist you are assuming I am. I have been reading things now and I am realizing that there were fundamental flaws in the way I viewed the world. I am in the process of reconsidering the alternatives. I am not really a relativist. I know there must be absolute truth, but “belief” requires agreement with that truth. I could agree with another truth and be wrong, and that would be that. You are a Catholic and can claim to have the truth. I am a nonbeliever.

You are right to note that a lot of philosophy is rubbish. I have very little appreciation for modernist philosophers; I think that modernist philosophy is largely made up of arguments that disguise logical fallacies with rhetoric and eloquence in order to prove a desired point. My intent is to read classicists and medievalists as well.

At the beginning of Lent I made a confession and started going to mass. For about 2 weeks I was able to pray, I guess. The problem was that the way I thought about knowledge then basically required me to frame “belief” in God as an unfounded assumption, which made it very hard to maintain. I understand practice has to be a part of it, but I’ve built up a mental framework that resists belief and writes any benefit I get from prayer as “confirmation bias.” I am deeply, deeply Skeptical (capital S intended).

I am aware that my affinity for mathematics is just a result of my ability to work within a system. I am pretty logical. The problem is that my reductionist worldview tore everything down and there was no “system” left to work with. So I am trying to pick up the pieces and start again. It would be tragic if I died before resolving my (dis)belief, so hopefully God will not let that happen.

 

[polytropos]

It may be a topic for another thread, but scientific knowledge is considered “provisional.” I.E. it may be treated as true but there is the possibility that the scientific model used to explain something is not aligned with how things actually work.

Welcome to the human condition! We get by the best that we can with imperfect knowledge and an imperfect understanding of the world around us!

It does seem that there’s a sizable portion of knowledge that seems to be dependent on our perceptions being correct at least some of the time (they are not correct all of the time).

Indeed, scientific knowledge is provisional. As for perceptions, there are times when they are limited and there are times when they are appreciably certain. I can strain the senses by way of, say, visual illusion, but then I can still manipulate my perspective of observation enough to apprehend reality. Or so it would seem. Is this an example of perception failing, or is it just a case where we should acknowledge that not all knowledge is obtainable through the most direct form of observation? If I look at any object, is it a failure of my sight that I don’t see individual atoms? Or if I “look” at an object in the dark, is it a failure of my sight that I don’t see the object at all?

Check out “Audible.com.” (an Amazon company). You may find some of his writings in audio form. If you haven’t the time to read them you may have enough time to listen while engaged in other activities (such as driving).

I am a college student so I am seldom involved in activities where I could listen to audiobooks, but thanks, I will try these out if I get the chance.

 

[tonyrey]

With all due respect I am not really the type of atheist you are assuming I am. I have been reading things now and I am realizing that there were fundamental flaws in the way I viewed the world. I am in the process of reconsidering the alternatives. I am not really a relativist. I know there must be absolute truth, but “belief” requires agreement with that truth. I could agree with another truth and be wrong, and that would be that. You are a Catholic and can claim to have the truth. I am a nonbeliever.

You are right to note that a lot of philosophy is rubbish. I have very little appreciation for modernist philosophers; I think that modernist philosophy is largely made up of arguments that disguise logical fallacies with rhetoric and eloquence in order to prove a desired point. My intent is to read classicists and medievalists as well.

At the beginning of Lent I made a confession and started going to mass. For about 2 weeks I was able to pray, I guess. The problem was that the way I thought about knowledge then basically required me to frame “belief” in God as an unfounded assumption, which made it very hard to maintain. I understand practice has to be a part of it, but I’ve built up a mental framework that resists belief and writes any benefit I get from prayer as “confirmation bias.” I am deeply, deeply Skeptical (capital S intended).

I am aware that my affinity for mathematics is just a result of my ability to work within a system. I am pretty logical. The problem is that my reductionist worldview tore everything down and there was no “system” left to work with. So I am trying to pick up the pieces and start again. It would be tragic if I died before resolving my (dis)belief, so hopefully God will not let that happen.

Your affinity should compel you to examine the defects of materialism…

What happens to the reductionist when he has torn everything down? Is he - and his intellect - also destroyed? It makes me wonder how his capacity for destruction can be trustworthy?

 

[tonyrey]

… But my mind habitually looks for a way to write everything off in terms of science.

You should ask yourself what science is based on…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Indeed, scientific knowledge is provisional. As for perceptions, there are times when they are limited and there are times when they are appreciably certain.

Quite so. Though on the other end of the spectrum there are individuals that have auditory and/or optical hallucinations or other perceptual distortions. I only bring up this example because for those having these experiences may also have feelings of certainty for their perception (which can be induced from drugs, sensory deprivation, or seems to naturally occur in some individuals). Also note that perception has more of a mental component than just senses since it is partially a function of one’s interpretation of their senses (or can occur without sensory stimulation at all). A group of people capable of sensing the same phenomenon might not all interpret it the same for various reasons. In some cases our perceptions are painted with our experiences and memories; past experiences can influence current experiences.

But whether distorted or not it does seem that people do behave as though their perceptions are correct at least some of the time.

I can strain the senses by way of, say, visual illusion, but then I can still manipulate my perspective of observation enough to apprehend reality. Or so it would seem. Is this an example of perception failing, or is it just a case where we should acknowledge that not all knowledge is obtainable through the most direct form of observation?

Not all knowledge is available through direct observation. The presence of some things are gathered through indirect observation (ex: to stick with physical examples our senses don’t help us detect high EMF fields or radiations, though there are devices that react to these things and respond in a way that is detectable by our senses). There may be things to that never enter into human knowledge.

If I look at any object, is it a failure of my sight that I don’t see individual atoms? Or if I “look” at an object in the dark, is it a failure of my sight that I don’t see the object at all?

I wouldn’t call it a failure, but not a capability. (off topic note: atom’s don’t have an individual “look”. Though we often model them as having ones since it is easier for us to understand visual models). Sensors whether biological or of some other type (artificial, or types) tend to have a range over which they are able to work. Your eyes operate within limited wavelengths for a limited range of intensities of light while being totally blind to other frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. If you could get them to operate in ultra-long wavelengths then you might see the items in the dark that are glowing as they release thermal energy (Assuming they are above ambient temperature).

I am a college student so I am seldom involved in activities where I could listen to audiobooks, but thanks, I will try these out if I get the chance.

You are welcome. It may have limited utility while you are in college. But it’s possible that some time after college you may need/want a book that is available here. Perhaps it will have utility and suitability for you one day.