Isn't it strange that we can't literally see God unless we die?

[MPat]

When it comes to Christianity I’m going to trust what it’s claimed Jesus said about the faith over anyone else.

So, I said you proved something that (at best) has nothing to do with your thesis, and you proclaim that you trust Jesus? (Yes, with some qualifications.) Things must be pretty bad, if you need to resort to such a red herring…

And yes vital can be described as a parent goal, that which is necessary to reach the ultimate goal.

OK, go, read, let’s say, aaai.org/Papers/FLAIRS/2007/Flairs07-084.pdf - and explain your position a bit more formally. (For example, normally a “subgoal” or “subtask” is what is to be achieved for the sake of “parent goal”, not vice versa.)

I guess you will also need to know what is multi-objective optimization (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-objective_optimization).

It’s completely logical to say that if the goal is to have people love and follow God, then it’s absolutely necessary that people first believe God exists. There’s no way around that.

You haven’t shown that one cannot love God “implicitly”, without knowing He exists.

And, still more importantly, let’s note the passive voice in your “it is absolutely necessary”. Let’s turn it to active voice: “people absolutely must [first believe God exists]”.

It is a goal or task for “people”, for you. It is not a task for God.

My additions were to correct a malformed analogy. As the first premise I said God wants us to believe in him. You responded by asking if it was weird that a professor would want his students to pass a test. By equating your God with a professor you are saying we know for absolute sure that we are all taking a class – the same class despite shouts from other professor. By equating a post-death judgment with a test you are saying that we are certainly being judge under a very specific set of criteria – despite the other professors and despite the massive disagreements people with the same professor say is on that test.

No, I am not saying anything like that.

Why don’t you just answer the question? I’ll repeat it:

Likewise, professors are said to want all students to pass the tests, but they do not say what are the correct answers during those tests. Do you think that’s strange too?

Just like having students passing the tests is not the only goal of professors, having humans believe God exists is not the only goal of God.

So? Yes or no? And, naturally, why? (I already wrote a hint.)

I’m asking you. You provided a link that was to answer my specific question as to the meaning of God’s back parts, so I hoped you could attest to its validity. The explanation in that link is, regrettably, as clear as mud.

Simplifying already simple explanation that you quoted, it said that God used some form, a bit like a player can use “player avatar” in a game. It is not His “real form” any more than “player avatar” is the player’s “real form”. I don’t know how that can be simplified still more. So, now, what does it have to do with the subject?

No, but one’s cautiousness toward something should be proportional to the vagueness of its supposed evidence.

As opposed to being proportional to the square of vagueness?

Let’s say you come up with a theory showing that blueberries cause cancer. I then apply the same methodology and find it can be used to show that tap water, sunflower seeds, a gentle kiss on a cold January night, and a host of other things also cause cancer. The methodology is shown to be flawed. That doesn’t mean that blueberries don’t cause cancer, but you can’t point to your methodology as proof.

You didn’t think this one through, did you?

Of course, you ignore that this scenario can also lead to a different conclusion: that all those things also cause cancer. In order to reach your conclusion you also have to prove that they do not.

Oh, and, coincidentally, how about a press release from some university, saying “Cancer-causing toxin turns up in sunflower seeds” (futurity.org/sunflower-seeds-toxin-1409132/)…?

Also, I think it would be entertaining to see how you’ll show that this “methodology” is analogous to an “excuse”…

The same goes for religion (including why God doesn’t appear to people) – it suggests but certainly never proves.

And, conveniently enough, this sentence does not prove what it suggests (not that other sentences do).

What I’m waiting for is something that shows one of my premises or conclusions is incorrect (e.g. Jesus said X was his goal, or Here’s how one can love something without believing in it.) and not just a wordier version of “Nope, you’re wrong.”

You do not get, because you do not ask.

Now that you sort-of did ask what other goals exist… God also wants all men to go to Heaven. And He is also just - thus having a goal to let people into Heaven at least somewhat justly.

I’m presenting rational arguments as to why the reasoning as to why divine hiddenness hasn’t been explained away.

I am not research-averse.

While I am quite open-minded it’s all moot, because even the most closed-minded person can be right. I would prefer please that we tackle the points I’ve made instead of an incorrect portrait of my character. Thank you.

How about this: you won’t show that you think highly of yourself (and, even more importantly, won’t base any arguments on that), and we won’t show that this your opinion is unjustified?

 

[M-Dent]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

I find Dark Matter much stranger.

 

[ericc]

There are a tremendous amount of assumptions and speculations in what you wrote. Jesus multiple times describes Hell as eternmal fire, something the Quran does as well. Maybe I should throw all my energy into following Islam?

Of course I assumed no knowledge of eternal fire. Our earthly concept of fire requires a fuel. In hell, the fires never go out. So it is most likely it is not the fire we know of. I do not know enough of Islam to make a solid comment. If you have, you may choose to follow Islam.

Torment is torture if one has the ability to pull someone from it and chooses not to.

Torment is suffering. If you step into a pit of eternal fire willingly, by your own freewill, it is not torture, but you will be tormented. If you choose not to stay with God, he will oblige you.

You’re assuming our climate is at is because of God and that the burning of Hell is some natural state that God keeps us from (despite a majority of the universe being incredibly cold).

Everything you see around you, God keeps it in existence. If there is no further need of nice weather or when the earth nears it end days, what makes you think these nice conditions will remain? Science tells us it will supernova eventually and hydrogen fuel will run out. Hot then cold.

You’re assuming that God doesn’t throw us into Hell post-death, that we just sort of wander there of our own accord.

I don’t know the mechanism how that works. Perhaps after judgement, there is a giant magnet that sucks souls to the right places. The bigger the merit/demerit, the better/worse the conditions. I’m not really curious about how that works, I am just trying to get to the correct side.

You mentioned several times about warnings from God. There was a TV show I used to watch called “Early Edition”. The premise was a good, honest guy would get tomorrow’s paper today and then work feverishly to prevent anything bad in the paper from happening (usually with heartwarming and/or amusing consequences). God doesn’t seem to be working feverishly (or even at all) to prevent people from going to Hell. The problem of divine hiddenness is a concern for many believers.

That might be a nice program to watch but I doubt that’s how things work though. That’s TV for you.

The difference being that if I appear before a judge I can be sure he has the authority to act. I can argue before him whether I am culpable of what I did. I can be sure he exists. You mentioned ignorance of the law not being an excuse, but I can go see the laws and be sure that they are THE true set of laws that I must follow. Similar to the professor not-really-analogy from earlier in your scenario there are hundreds of groups of people claiming to speak for hundreds of judges with different laws. I can’t know which to follow, and in fact following one set of laws would result in me breaking the laws of another judge. Even when talking to people claiming to represent a single judge they often can’t agree on how laws are to be interpreted or even if laws are no long active (e.g. Should we sell all of our possessions?) This is a cacophany of unsubstantiated claims each person would have to wade through.

Well, if you are not sure, you better do your homework. Possibly some excuses may get you off the hook for some mistakes. But the book of life has everything recorded, your state of mind, your conscience etc. If you knew something ought not to be done, but you did it anyway because you think you can claim some loop hole some where, all that will be laid bare. But the person to justify to is Jesus himself, not us. He is a smart one and not called Wisdom for nothing. ALL claims are substantiated. You might have forgotten some of them or even brushed them off saying so what? But none are forgotten by Him, all the details he knows intimately. Perhaps he got a secret recorder built into our DNAs , and witnessed by your guardian angel. Who knows? Father Pio, now a saint, has a knack of reminding those in the confessional booth , sins that they have missed, so that a thorough confession could be done. I wonder how he knows that.

I think it’s vital to at least be somewhat familiar with other faiths if for no other reason that it will help you in sharing the message of your faith with others.

I can share what I know about my faith. There are lots yet to learn. Whatever I learn about other faiths could be superficial and I may mistakenly shared erroneous information. It is best to leave that to the proper persons, and not to an unbeliever of that faith.

There is no procrastination on my part. My position is what it is based on what I’ve studied. That may change the more I learn, though so far I have learned much here on CAF it has only strengthened my position.

As long you believe that you have done what should be done, you shouldn’t have any misgivings. But you should review your objections for bias, if any.

 

[ericc]

It’s not just bits and pieces of stuff. In my opinion it’s structurally unsound riddled with moral issues and contradictory claims. If it were a house I would say demolish it instead of trying to repair it.

That is your opinion. And it is an outsider who doesn’t live there saying to tear down the house without knowing the faith. Would you tear down your house because someone commented it looks ugly, shaky foundations, bad plumbing, bad manager, bad color schemes and that someone actually doesn’t know much about the house except from what he has read elsewhere?

“None of the above” is a valid choice.

Absolutely. And every choice has its results and consequences.

I think it’s important to learn about other faiths, just as it is good to learn about differing political and economic systems. One of the clearest ways to define and explain one type of something is to compare and contrast other types of the same category. It’s helpful to say confidently that Christianity differs from other religions due to A, B, C but are similar to them in D, E, F.

It is good to know some thing about other religions and increase our sensitivities as well as to why they may look at things a certain way. But I won’t want to criticise them for that little I know. But I can question them why their faith is such and such. Perhaps the answers do make sense for them.

That’s why I brought up my rule when talking about a particular religion. If you say Christianity is true because there are a great deal of fervent
believers that doesn’t prove anything since other religions can say the same. If you say Christianity is true because it has a holy book, so do other religions. If you say Christianity has miraculous events, other religions also make such claims.

I agree truth is not determine by headcount nor wonderful publications. But it does reflect on the credibility of whatever you are sharing. Long term survival typically does indicate the permanency of that item.

As far as what Jesus did, I would not consider that a sacrifice. There is no loss involved. There was a recent thread on this very subject in the last month if memory serves.

If you suffer pain for some purpose and later on, was made well again, was that for fun if not a sacrifice? That’s a strange way to look at things. If you know you are going to be tortured, humiliated etc but know that you can be made well again, would you say that wasn’t a sacrifice? Would you do it because you suffer no permanent “loss”. How about the journey itself? For God to become mere mortal is like asking royalty to become a peasant commoner mutiplied by a zillion times intensity. If I I have to suffer like what Jesus have to go through, I think it is dishonest to say that no sacrifice has been made. Perhaps you can illuminate me as to why you think it wasn’t a sacrifice. I can be persuaded.

But getting back to the main theme, increasing our knowledge is a good thing in general, and sometimes it can make us more sure of what we believe and other times it makes us question what we believe.

It always is a good thing to know more. But it is better to have a purpose other than gathering knowledge. If the objective is truth, that is a noble aim.

So would you say you had put up a defense against Islam? .

We are asked to spread and defend our faith. But we are not asked to attack other faiths.

That’s not only obvious, it’s also confirmation bias. You would be polling those who have chosen to both convert and remain with Catholicism. If you polled people who moved away from Catholicism the results would be different. .

Well, you can polled those who have moved away from Catholicism and find out whether did Catholicism made them a worse person? I can understand if they don’t accept some of the doctrines or dogmas, but if they say Catholicism teaches them to be a worse person than before, that would be news to me. Then we shall need details.

As I said the choice has already been made, and that’s “none of the above” (although in reality it’s not a choice whether to believe something or not). Sometimes none of the provided options is correct. As I said before I could be wrong, but that doesn’t mean none of the above isn’t a legitimate position.

A non-decision is also a decision. We just have to live with our choices. None-of-the-above can conceivably be true only if the other choices are proven false. Have you proven the other options false? Have you proven Catholicism false? Or just unpalatable?

Regarding whether it’s best to research from the inside or outside, it sounds like you mean whether one should believe beforehand or not. The answer is certainly to not believe beforehand. When a person is so desperate to make everything fit, to skew research to reach a desired end then it’s not truly research. It’s an echo chamber where evidence against a position is discarded even if it’s possibly true.

If one never allows the Holy Spirit to enter, on what grounds could one say that the Christian religion is false? I don’t see how an outsider can determine that. That’s akin to judging a book by its cover. You can’t force yourself to believe. You can only believe if you let the Holy Spirit in. A shut door will keep the Holy Spirit out. How good is the quality of your research by checking the works of other people and not by experiencing what it is personally? If one is not willing to invest in research by going onsite, there is only so much one can know by remote monitoring. You may see the external actions but that’s all you are going to see. You won’t comprehend.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That’s the challenge that Christianity presents-that’s all I’m saying.

And that comes after looking into many different religions BTW, FWIW. And one can be judged by the criteria I described regardless of their religion-or lack of it.

My challenge means that there are consequences, demanded by *justice, *to our actions, just like in “real life”. And that threat shouldn’t even need to exist-and poses no problem for anyone who simply behaves with basic moral rectitude. Anyway, it’s *all *who we are.

But again the actions that are being judged aren’t just goodness, but a following of practice. For example, not attending is a mortal sin. One must first believe in God not to commit that sin, yet he won’t appear to make sure people can be sure that it is a sin. Plus what is good in one faith may not be so in another.

We do have that need-and in His mercy God happens to supply the missing knowledge.

There are things that were once ascribed to God that have been given a natural explanation. I don’t know of any thing that can be described vice versa.

IMO the more one knows God, the more one will agree with the Catholic faith. But, like I said, knowledge varies greatly, both inside and outside the Church. And either way God inherently transcends all human concepts; any real knowledge possessed by us is strictly knowledge received.

We are going to have to strongly disagree on this one. In my opinion the more I study God the more I see the man behind the curtain and less the great and powerful Oz. And to bring it back to the topic at hand, if knowledge possessed is knowledge received, then wouldn’t it be best to receive that knowledge which is necessary to make informed decisions? An appearance by God would be received knowledge that would be immensely useful.

Um…yes!!! And that’s why faith is considered to be the first step. But to the extent that one at least believes in the ultimate goodness of life and proceeds as if there’s meaning to it, and that we’re obligated to a basic moral standard of not harming others, they’re already exhibiting a level of faith and humility. To take it a step further along those lines would mean to recognize more specifically that a rational mind, superior to ourselves, is necessarily essential to it all, and that love is foundational to the universe.

Presuppositionalism, which is what faith is, is the worst way to objectively know something. To search only for that which suggests a desired position and to toss aside that which goes against a desired position is not a search for truth but a search for comfort.

I would also say that there is no need for a superior mind to establish the universe.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So, I said you proved something that (at best) has nothing to do with your thesis, and you proclaim that you trust Jesus? (Yes, with some qualifications.) Things must be pretty bad, if you need to resort to such a red herring…

On the topic of Jesus it’s reasonable (for both believers and non-believers) to trust him on matters of Christianity. I don’t trust him to be accurate on other matters. I have doubts whether what it’s claimed he said and did in the Bible were actually said and done. But since Christianity is based on those very claims it’s best to go to the horse’s mouth as to what God wants and teaches. I’m not a socialist, but I know that if I want an understanding of early socialism it’s best to trust the writings of Karl Marx.

I’m sorry to bring up another pop culture reference, but I think it’s quite apt here. In the movie “Back to School” the protagonist is a grown man who decides to go to college. In order to write his paper on the works of Kurt Vonnegut he hires Kurt Vonnegut himself to write it for him. His English professor later fails him, accuses him of not being the one wro wrote the paper, and says, “Whoever did write this doesn’t know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!” That’s what this feels like. I quote Jesus from a book your church says is true, and you’re telling me it’s not true.

OK, go, read, let’s say, aaai.org/Papers/FLAIRS/2007/Flairs07-084.pdf - and explain your position a bit more formally. (For example, normally a “subgoal” or “subtask” is what is to be achieved for the sake of “parent goal”, not vice versa.) I guess you will also need to know what is multi-objective optimization (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-objective_optimization).

I was using layman’s terms, but just so there is no misunderstanding based on what Jesus said the most important commandment is to love him. We’ll call that B. For several billion people they won’t follow that commandment because they don’t believe that a divine Jesus exists (i.e. if there was a person named Jesus that his stories were based on, a great many don’t believe he was the Messiah or the Christ). The most surefire way to rememdy that would be to make it known with great clarity that Jesus exists and is God. We’ll call that A. Pointing to the number of his followers or to holy book doesn’t increase the number of people who believe in him since competing faiths can do the same thing.

B is the most important thing.
A is essential for B to occur.
Only from A do we get to B.

You haven’t shown that one cannot love God “implicitly”, without knowing He exists.

You would have to first show that people have a subconscious draw and love toward your god without consciously knowing him. I suspect it will be akin to a “Just look around” argument, and not one with evidence.

And, still more importantly, let’s note the passive voice in your “it is absolutely
necessary”. Let’s turn it to active voice: “people absolutely must [first believe God exists]”.
It is a goal or task for “people”, for you. It is not a task for God.

I would certainly agree with putting that in the active voice. Since we’re breaking down sentences grammatically, let’s break down this one:

Bob loves God.

Bob is the subject. Loves is the verb. God is the object. Now what is love? For thousands of years the greatest and most passionate minds have tried to answer that question, so surely I can do so in a brief forum post Obviously I can’t do that, but to love something entails many things. Let’s list some of those things.

To say that Bob loves God is to say Bob puts God above everything (or nearly everything) else.
To say that Bob loves God is to say Bob wants God to be happy.
To say that Bob loves God is to say Bob does not wish God to be angry or sad.
To say that Bob loves God is to say Bob wants to enter into or maintain a relationship with God.
To say that Bob loves God is to say Bob desires that God would love him back.
To say that Bob loves God is to say Bob trusts God.

There are so many attributes to loving someone that I could go on and on, but I don’t think that’s necessary. So let’s look over the attributes of loving I’ve given so far. Can any of those things apply if Bob does not think God exists? Clearly the answer is no. Then we have to ask, is there an attribute of loving someone that you can give that doesn’t require the object of the sentence to exist?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No, I am not saying anything like that.

Why don’t you just answer the question? I’ll repeat it:

So? Yes or no? And, naturally, why? (I already wrote a hint.)

No, I don’t think it’s strange that a professor doesn’t tell his students the answer to the test; but again it’s not analogous.

The professor tells his students points of facts to know. If it’s a math or science professor he might give ways to accomplish certain needed tasks. If it’s a history professor he might ways to interpret facts and how to apply them to current events. In short, he’s not teaching things that are simply to be regurgitated but things to be understood, broken down, and practiced. He gives his students the tools needed to, if the student has done what he or she was expected, should be able to pass the final exam.

So far so good. If we don’t ponder the matter too hard it does appear that the professor scenario is analogous to the God scenario. But when we dig deeper we see problems.

When a student takes a test he or she has been given the proper instruction on how to pass that test.
If we compare that with religion, we know a great many people have not gotten instruction.

When a student takes a test all of the students will be the told the range of material that will be covered on the test.
If we compare that with religion, some students have been given one set of instruction (Catholics), other students have been given very similar instruction with a few key differences (Protestantism), still others have been instruction that seems similar for the first half but much different for the second (Judaism), and we have others that got instruction that bears no resemblence to that of the first group (all the other non-Abrahamic faiths). That’s why I fixed your analogy to include not one but many different professors.

When a student takes a class he or she knows a test is coming.
If we take the class to mean life and or actions in it we don’t know if there is a “test” (judgment from a deity after death). We never see the professors, just people who claim to have taken a class of one of the professors and threaten us with a test down the road.

And yet all of this would be cleared up if the professor would just show up and tell us not the answers to the test but what is on the syllabus, how best to study, and what not to study (i.e. incorrect faiths).

These tests are so important yet the professor won’t get out of the teachers’ lounge to help out his students.

Simplifying already simple explanation that you quoted, it said that God used some form, a bit like a player can use “player avatar” in a game. It is not His “real form” any more than “player avatar” is the player’s “real form”. I don’t know how that can be simplified still more. So, now, what does it have to do with the subject?

God has used avatars before. He spoke to Adam as the burning bush. Depending on what you think happened in Exodus 23 (a question I’m still hoping you’ll answer as to what you think Moses saw) that might count. The important part is not even the form chosen, but the idea that the person being spoken to would believe it was God and that God was in direct communication with people.

But God doesn’t speak to people or appear to them (in any form) nowadays, especially with all of the recording equipment abound. The OP’s initial statement still holds as to the strangeness of this situation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As opposed to being proportional to the square of vagueness?

If you want to square it, go right ahead. Basically the more vague the supposed evidence is the more cautious one should be as to whether to believe it or not.

You didn’t think this one through, did you?

Of course, you ignore that this scenario can also lead to a different conclusion: that all those things also cause cancer. In order to reach your conclusion you also have to prove that they do not.

Oh, and, coincidentally, how about a press release from some university, saying “Cancer-causing toxin turns up in sunflower seeds” (futurity.org/sunflower-seeds-toxin-1409132/)…?

Also, I think it would be entertaining to see how you’ll show that this “methodology” is
analogous to an “excuse”…

I’m going to explain my analogy in a foolproof manner to prevent it from being misconstrued again.

I listed several items and a method which claimed that each of those items caused cancer. I’m going to link each of those items with a supernatural quandry.

Blueberries : Why the Christian god doesn’t appear to people
Tap water : Why the ghost of my grandmother didn’t appear at the seance
Sunflower seeds : Why we can’t see the gold plates Joseph Smith used
A gentle kiss on a cold January : Why the Hindu gods don’t appear to people

We will also link the proposed cancer-causing verification with an explanation for the failures regarding the supernatural quandries

Cancer-cause checking method (CCCM) : The entity willed it so

Now we say that the CCCM shows blueberries cause cancer. We also note that it can be applied to practically anything and everything with the same result. Unless absolutely everything causes cancer the methodology is flawed.

Folks here say God doesn’t appear to people because it’s his will not to do so. This same explanation, which is both unprovable and unfalsifiable can be applied to any of the supernatural quandries. We can’t use this explanation to differentiate between those quandries which are true but mysterious, and those that are using an excuse to cover for a false supernatural event.

Unless all of those quandries reflect real supernatural events the explanation has no value.

To further demonstrate that I can make up a detiy (Big McLargehuge) and then use that explanation to explain why no one sees him. You wouldn’t want to use an explanation that gives equal weight to something that is not true.

Now just because the CCCM can’t be used to show what is or isn’t cancer-causing doesn’t mean that one or more of those items don’t cause cancer. I am discrediting the methodology not the potential danger from the listed items.

In the same way, just because the explanation that a supernatural entity can’t be seen doesn’t show that the entity is either true or not doesn’t mean those entities aren’t real. I am discrediting the explanation not the possibility of real supernatural entities.

You do not get, because you do not ask.

Now that you sort-of did ask what other goals exist… God also wants all men to go to Heaven.

And He is also just - thus having a goal to let people into Heaven at least somewhat justly.

That’s not an explanation. Those are two assertions which don’t answer the questions that I’ve brought up.

God can:

1. Want all men to go to Heaven.
2. Be just

While I say at the same time God can:
3) Provide the needed evidence so that people know for certain what is asked of them.

What I’m asking for you anybody here to do is show why 3 can’t be true while 1 and 2 are. I would go so far as to say that by providing that needed evidence that God would be more just than hiding himself so that we can give him as much credence as the many other proposed deities.

How about this: you won’t show that you think highly of yourself (and, even more importantly, won’t base any arguments on that), and we won’t show that this your opinion is unjustified?

It would be a start if my thoughts on the matter were tackled head-on systematically and with reasons and explanations.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Of course I assumed no knowledge of eternal fire. Our earthly concept of fire requires a fuel. In hell, the fires never go out. So it is most likely it is not the fire we know of. I do not know enough of Islam to make a solid comment. If you have, you may choose to follow Islam.

And if I do choose to follow Islam it’s said I’ll be in big trouble because I was baptized a Catholic and confirmed a Catholic (the latter almost 30 years ago). I am not invincibly ignorant. If God wanted me and other ex-Catholics to avoid Hell it would be easy for him to appear and let us know the truth instead of relying on unsubstantive claims which differ little from the claims of other faiths.

Torment is suffering. If you step into a pit of eternal fire willingly, by your own freewill, it is not torture, but you will be tormented. If you choose not to stay with God, he will oblige you.

One can’t choose not to say with God if one doesn’t believe that God exists. You can’t choose to not devote your life to Big McLargehuge if you aren’t aware of Big McLargehuge or can be sure Big McLargehuge exists.

Everything you see around you, God keeps it in existence. If there is no further need of nice weather or when the earth nears it end days, what makes you think these nice conditions will remain? Science tells us it will supernova eventually and hydrogen fuel will run out. Hot then cold.

Was God unable to create a universe that was self-sustaining?

I don’t know the mechanism how that works. Perhaps after judgement, there is a giant magnet that sucks souls to the right places. The bigger the merit/demerit, the better/worse the conditions. I’m not really curious about how that works, I am just trying to get to the correct side.

I’ll be curious enough for the both of us. The argument by some is that some people choose Hell, but that simply isn’t true if God has to put those souls into Hell. You’ve asked me to study the matter more, and later in your post you ask to me to do my homework. I do study, in part because I am curious and wish to understand. Curiousity should be fostered, especially when it comes to matters important to us, and even more so when it puts into question that which we think we know.

That might be a nice program to watch but I doubt that’s how things work though. That’s TV for you.

The only point of bringing it up was to compare an average non-omnipotent man works hard to protect people versus an omnipotent god who can’t present himself to allow people to make informed decisions.

Well, if you are not sure, you better do your homework. Possibly some excuses may get you off the hook for some mistakes. But the book of life has everything recorded, your state of mind, your conscience etc. If you knew something ought not to be done, but you did it anyway because you think you can claim some loop hole some where, all that will be laid bare. But the person to justify to is Jesus himself, not us. He is a smart one and not called Wisdom for nothing. ALL claims are substantiated. You might have forgotten some of them or even brushed them off saying so what? But none are forgotten by Him, all the details he knows intimately. Perhaps he got a secret recorder built into our DNAs , and witnessed by your guardian angel. Who knows? Father Pio, now a saint, has a knack of reminding those in the confessional booth , sins that they have missed, so that a thorough confession could be done. I wonder how he knows that.

Can any of that be substantiated? I know that’s what the Church teaches, but before I can take threats that there is a god who knows all and sees all I need to know that it’s true. Also important I need to know why I should follow your faith as opposed to the other faiths which also have one or more deities that know all and see all.

I can share what I know about my faith. There are lots yet to learn. Whatever I learn about other faiths could be superficial and I may mistakenly shared erroneous information. It is best to leave that to the proper persons, and not to an unbeliever of that faith.

Still it doesn’t hurt to learn some of the basic tenets and have a cursory understanding of how other faiths work.

As long you believe that you have done what should be done, you shouldn’t have any misgivings. But you should review your objections for bias, if any.

As should everyone.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That is your opinion. And it is an outsider who doesn’t live there saying to tear down the house without knowing the faith. Would you tear down your house because someone commented it looks ugly, shaky foundations, bad plumbing, bad manager, bad color schemes and that someone actually doesn’t know much about the house except from what he has read elsewhere?

First, I’m not a total outside. I was raised Catholic and my family is Catholic so I have understanding of how it functions. Second, my opinion (and let me stress that it is only an opinion) is based on faults I see: internal and external inconsistencies, moral implications, etc. I research these faults and try to get answers to explain them, but more often than not I find the explanations unsatisfacotry.

Absolutely. And every choice has its results and consequences.

Agreed. Not following the Five Pillars of Islam could lead one to be sent to the undending fire. Since atheists are told to take the threats of the Christian god seriously because of the threat of Hell, all non-Muslims should do the same based on the threats from Allah.

It is good to know some thing about other religions and increase our sensitivities as well as to why they may look at things a certain way. But I won’t want to criticise them for that ittle I know. But I can question them why their faith is such and such. Perhaps the answers do make sense for them.

I agree.

I agree truth is not determine by headcount nor wonderful publications. But it does reflect on the credibility of whatever you are sharing. Long term survival typically does indicate the permanency of that item.

Hinduism has lasted 4,000 years. The ancient Greek religion lasted around 1,000 years. I wouldn’t disagree if you said longetivity might increase the likelihood of a religion’s chances of being accurate, but it surely does not indicate permanence.

If you suffer pain for some purpose and later on, was made well again, was that for fun if not a sacrifice? That’s a strange way to look at things. If you know you are going to be tortured, humiliated etc but know that you can be made well again, would you say that wasn’t a sacrifice? Would you do it because you suffer no permanent “loss”. How about the journey itself?

For God to become mere mortal is like asking royalty to become a peasant commoner mutiplied by a zillion times intensity. If I I have to suffer like what Jesus have to go through, I think it is dishonest to say that no sacrifice has been made. Perhaps you can illuminate me as to why you think it wasn’t a sacrifice. I can be persuaded.

Merriam-Webster gives a few definitions for sacrifice:

1. an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially
2. something offered in sacrifice
   3a. destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
   3b. something given up or lost •the sacrifices made by parents
3. loss •goods sold at a sacrifice

All of these seem to indicate a permanent loss as opposed to a temporary one. Jesus gave up his human body, yet he is omnipotent. If Jesus wanted to come back as a human or even a hundred humans he could do so. His loss was temporary. Some apologists will say Jesus made the greatest sacrifice of all, but I would say a soldier dying for his country made a far greater sacrifice in giving up all he had while starting out with far less.

It always is a good thing to know more. But it is better to have a purpose other than gathering knowledge. If the objective is truth, that is a noble aim.

Knowledge is the building block to wisdom. The more knowledge we hape the more we can decipher what is and is not true. Avoiding knowledge is to avoid truth.

We are asked to spread and defend our faith. But we are not asked to attack other faiths.

While you may not wish to attack other faiths by point out why your faith is correct you are naturally pointing out faults in other faiths. This is one of the reasons why blasphemy laws are so wrong. Stating something is true is to state that which is different from it is false.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well, you can polled those who have moved away from Catholicism and find out whether did Catholicism made them a worse person? I can understand if they don’t accept some of the doctrines or dogmas, but if they say Catholicism teaches them to be a worse person than before, that would be news to me. Then we shall need details.

What you initially said was “I haven’t encounter any convert who claims Catholicism is bad for them spiritually nor mentally compared to their pre- conversion state.” It’s different to go from bad spritually or mentally to being a worse person. One of the main reasons why people change religions (including going to or from Catholicism) is to better themselves spiritually and mentally. This doesn’t seem like it needs evidence, but here’s a story of a woman who was raised very Catholic but found herself in a better place with her spiritual life and mental state after leaving. This is not to defend her position of leaving the Church, but just to back up that some people do leave the Church or convert to the Church for those reasons mentioned.

A non-decision is also a decision. We just have to live with our choices. None-of-the-above can conceivably be true only if the other choices are proven false. Have you proven the other options false? Have you proven Catholicism false? Or just unpalatable?

That’s simply not accurate. None-of-the-above can conceivably be true until it is shown one of the options is true. If all of our choices are either false or only possibly true then none-of-the-above is still perfectly acceptable.

Let’s say a relative gives you a wrapped gift. You asked for one thing and your relative mentioned possibly getting you another thing. Our choices are the first thing, the second thing, and none-of-the-above. Until you unwrap the present it’s reasonable for me to guess none-of-the-above. I don’t have to rule out the two things for my answer to be possible. Only when all of the other possibilities are ruled out is my answer demonstrably true. Do you see the big difference?

If one never allows the Holy Spirit to enter, on what grounds could one say that the Christian religion is false? I don’t see how an outsider can determine that. That’s akin to judging a book by its cover. You can’t force yourself to believe. You can only believe if you let the Holy Spirit in. A shut door will keep the Holy Spirit out. How good is the quality of your research by checking the works of other people and not by experiencing what it is personally? If one is not willing to invest in research by going onsite, there is only so much one can know by remote monitoring. You may see the external actions but that’s all you are going to see. You won’t comprehend.

I don’t need to own a bank to have an opinion on federal interest rates. I don’t need to join a gang to determine if they are doing wrong things. I don’t need to first believe homeopathy works before figuring out that it can’t work. We as people make assessments and determinations based on available information and sometimes when we are not fully immersed in that which we are assessing.

Using the Holy Spirit (or his absence) as an explanation for why some people see isses with Chrisitianity is a cheat. For non-believers it’s the promise of a supernatural answer to questions about logic and morality that should have straightforward answers, but don’t. For believers it’s a method to waylay concerns as to why non-believers have assessed the faith and found it so very wanting.

Similar to what I noted from early on in the thread, to use the Holy Spirit as the reason why questions from non-believers don’t get answers is very similar to what mediums say when a seance fails. For the former the person hasn’t let the Holy Spirit in. For the latter the person didn’t belive hard enough that the ritual would succeed.

 

[ericc]

And if I do choose to follow Islam it’s said I’ll be in big trouble because I was baptized a Catholic and confirmed a Catholic (the latter almost 30 years ago). I am not invincibly ignorant. If God wanted me and other ex-Catholics to avoid Hell it would be easy for him to appear and let us know the truth instead of relying on unsubstantive claims which differ little from the claims of other faiths.

Since you are not invincibly ignorant then obviously can’t rely on that as a defense. God wanted you to choose between heaven or hell. He appeared 2000 yrs ago. So stop alleging this is an invisible God. Yes, it would be easy to force you to believe he exist by merely appearing and knock your head with a stick, but that would deprive you of your freewill to reject him since you would have no longer cause nor excuse to reject any longer. Even if he were to do that, one can still reject Him so appearances alone may not work for some people. It is like habits. Even after demonstrating the good that will arise by giving up bad habits, people still continue them. So knowing the truth isn’t enough if one is hell bent on disregarding it.

One can’t choose not to s(t)ay with God if one doesn’t believe that God exists. You can’t choose to not devote your life to Big McLargehuge if you aren’t aware of Big McLargehuge or can be sure Big McLargehuge exists.

You have been educated that God exists, and as you have indicated no longer invincibly ignorant. All you can claim that you choose not to accept what you have been taught as true. (And I suppose you have done that exercise to verify that it is NOT true?). That is the beauty of freewill. Choose with the knowledge that choices come with consequences. At least you can’t claim that you are not aware of the consequences. I must do my duty to remind you for those who have known God and apostatized, the consequences are more severe.

If one doesn’t believe that God exist, then God has no responsibility to provide for those who didn’t believe in him. So what is there to complain? Surely you don’t believe things that don’t exist to act in some desirable manner towards you , right? As I said earlier, God will oblige non-believers by being out of their lives.

Was God unable to create a universe that was self-sustaining?

Create a new post if you need to explore this.

I’ll be curious enough for the both of us. The argument by some is that some people choose Hell, but that simply isn’t true if God has to put those souls into Hell. You’ve asked me to study the matter more, and later in your post you ask to me to do my homework. I do study, in part because I am curious and wish to understand. Curiousity should be fostered, especially when it comes to matters important to us, and even more so when it puts into question that which we think we know.

If you know the laws of the land and that breaking them comes with certain consequences, and you still do it, you can’t fault the jailer for putting you in prison so that you are not a menace to society and obtain justice for the victims. In secular society, rules and regulations are enforced to segregate bad elements and to impose justice. Not very different in the divine scenario. So which part are you not happy with? The jail? The sentence? The conditions in the jail? Wrong conviction? God certainly won’t be wrong about convicting anyone nor disproportionate penalties. He sees fit how he design his hell, you see fit whether you want to go there or not by behaving appropriately. If there is God, you would expect Him to police his creation don’t you? If there is no God, you have nothing to fear.

The only point of bringing it up was to compare an average non-omnipotent man works hard to protect people versus an omnipotent god who can’t present himself to allow people to make informed decisions.

TV programs are irrelevant. Really. They are not real and their aim is to make money by giving whatever audiences ask for.

Can any of that be substantiated? I know that’s what the Church teaches, but before I can take threats that there is a god who knows all and sees all I need to know that it’s true. Also important I need to know why I should follow your faith as opposed to the other faiths which also have one or more deities that know all and see all.

You can exercise your freewill to establish what is true or not. You can substantiate your belief that God isn’t real, God isn’t omnipotent whatever. And that would have been easier for you since you will be working with your own materials. There were no threats, just stating the nature of God who knows everything. If you don’t believe there is a God, why bother with all this since threats couldn’t possibly come from a non-existent being. God doesn’t need to substantiate anything , especially non-believers. For some believers, he might let them take a peek.

 

[ericc]

First, I’m not a total outside. I was raised Catholic and my family is Catholic so I have understanding of how it functions. Second, my opinion (and let me stress that it is only an opinion) is based on faults I see: internal and external inconsistencies, moral implications, etc. I research these faults and try to get answers to explain them, but more often than not I find the explanations unsatisfacotry.

Unsatisfactory in what sense? Who did you approach to get the answers? Did you get from a competent source? How do you know your conclusions is not simply a dissonance between your expectations and what is true? How do you know your position is true and the explanations untrue? You claim some understanding of Catholicism, which suggest perhaps less than in-depth knowledge. Without in-depth knowledge, could you be misunderstanding certain issues?

Hinduism has lasted 4,000 years. The ancient Greek religion lasted around 1,000 years. I wouldn’t disagree if you said longetivity might increase the likelihood of a religion’s chances of being accurate, but it surely does not indicate permanence.

From wikipedia Hinduism “has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s) nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist”. Perhaps calling it a way of life is more apt than a religion because the belief systems are too fluid to defy any classifications. And it is caste based. So you don’t have the freedom to opt out of the caste you are born into and your roles are fixed. Greek gods are dead, Egyptian gods are dead, so not much point to talk about dead religions.

Merriam-Webster gives a few definitions for sacrifice:

1. an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially
2. something offered in sacrifice
   3a. destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
   3b. something given up or lost •the sacrifices made by parents
3. loss •goods sold at a sacrifice

All of these seem to indicate a permanent loss as opposed to a temporary one. Jesus gave up his human body, yet he is omnipotent. If Jesus wanted to come back as a human or even a hundred humans he could do so. His loss was temporary. Some apologists will say Jesus made the greatest sacrifice of all, but I would say a soldier dying for his country made a far greater sacrifice in giving up all he had while starting out with far less.

And you miss out pain and suffering and a God giving up his status to be a suffering servant. Intentionally? You only focus on material loss, immaterial loss are not important to you? People sue each other for loss of reputation, loss of time, mental anguish, pain suffered and many others all the time and that is not in your dictionary? For the sacrifice that Jesus went through, you used a dictionary to defend your case that Jesus didn’t sacrifice anything? That’s lowest low. He still have holes in his body do you know?

Knowledge is the building block to wisdom. The more knowledge we hape the more we can decipher what is and is not true. Avoiding knowledge is to avoid truth.

Nobody’s avoiding knowledge. You need a good teacher too. Self learning has its pitfalls with no proper guidance. And knowledge doesn’t come free too. And lots of time. Wait, loss of time is not a sacrifice in your book. So the amount of time we spent studying is no sacrifice because we could actually put those hours to alternative use?

While you may not wish to attack other faiths by point out why your faith is correct you are naturally pointing out faults in other faiths. This is one of the reasons why blasphemy laws are so wrong. Stating something is true is to state that which is different from it is false.

Disagree. One might explain one’s faith, but that doesn’t mean you make a convert out of them. It explains why one believes in A and not B. It doesn’t lead to a a conclusion that therefore your religion is false. Christianity explains why we think Jesus is divine, Muslims don’t agree. And that’s that. There is nothing there that prove other religions wrong. In fact there are quite a number of commonalities even among religions. Except for majority Muslim nations, not many other countries have blasphemy laws enshrined in their constitutions.

 

[ericc]

What you initially said was “I haven’t encounter any convert who claims Catholicism is bad for them spiritually nor mentally compared to their pre- conversion state.” It’s different to go from bad spritually or mentally to being a worse person. One of the main reasons why people change religions (including going to or from Catholicism) is to better themselves spiritually and mentally. This doesn’t seem like it needs evidence, but here’s a story of a woman who was raised very Catholic but found herself in a better place with her spiritual life and mental state after leaving. This is not to defend her position of leaving the Church, but just to back up that some people do leave the Church or convert to the Church for those reasons mentioned.

My point is that Catholicism does not teach one to be a worse person. Not that some person can not find meaning elsewhere. And its true, some RC churches may be rather impersonal, there may be not very charitable persons around etc. But that is expected because we are a hospital for sinners. We get all kinds and immoral folks. You name it we got it. We have people who leave because our doctrines are rigid and they can’t cope with certain things such as divorce for example. And we have people who leave for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps another church offer better and lively service. Better sermons or a more dynamic pastor. RC services are solemn and for youngsters may seem dull and unexciting. None of these proves Catholicism false.

That’s simply not accurate. None-of-the-above can conceivably be true until it is shown one of the options is true. If all of our choices are either false or only possibly true then none-of-the-above is still perfectly acceptable.

Let’s say a relative gives you a wrapped gift. You asked for one thing and your relative mentioned possibly getting you another thing. Our choices are the first thing, the second thing, and none-of-the-above. Until you unwrap the present it’s reasonable for me to guess none-of-the-above. I don’t have to rule out the two things for my answer to be possible. Only when all of the other possibilities are ruled out is my answer demonstrably true. Do you see the big difference?

I thought that’s what I said, but appears I either confused you or confused myself. Let me do that again. If ANY one of the above is true, then none-of -the-above would be wrong. So assume Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are the options claiming to be the true religion.

1. Christianity is true
2. Islam is true
3. Buddhism is true
   4 Hinduism is true
4. None of the above

For you to say none-of the -above , it means you have vetted them and proven that none of them are true. That’s why it is called none-of-the-above. At least that’s what I am trying to point out. So have you proven that all of them are not true and that’s why you chose a none-of the-above?

Using the Holy Spirit (or his absence) as an explanation for why some people see isses with Chrisitianity is a cheat. For non-believers it’s the promise of a supernatural answer to questions about logic and morality that should have straightforward answers, but don’t. For believers it’s a method to waylay concerns as to why non-believers have assessed the faith and found it so very wanting.

Similar to what I noted from early on in the thread, to use the Holy Spirit as the reason why questions from non-believers don’t get answers is very similar to what mediums say when a seance fails. For the former the person hasn’t let the Holy Spirit in. For the latter the person didn’t belive hard enough that the ritual would succeed.

I don’t see how you get to the conclusion that using the HS is a cheat. Religion is not a scientific experiment. If you are unable to accept that believers honestly believe they have the HS in them, you don’t go around calling them cheats if you are unable to prove that they are cheating. Believers think A but you think B, and that therefore they are cheats. That’s terrible logic. Even if non-believers are unable to detect the HS, it doesn’t mean what you are incapable of detecting renders believers as cheats. That is a dangerous position to take. Intolerance of people who have a different sets of belief from you and branding them cheats. That’s a Dawkins approach and sad to see you sink that low.

When you were baptized, the HS came into you. Whether you can feel/detect it or not is not important. That is our belief. To call that a cheat, you must prove that the HS did NOT come. If you are not able to and you have nothing good to say, it is best to say nothing. Not all things are detectable and can be real. My thoughts are real, my feelings are real, my beliefs are real.

Catholicism does not promise non-believers " a supernatural answer to questions about logic and morality that should have straightforward answers". Who came up with that anyway? Catholicism offers you salvation of your soul if one stays true. She conducts no history, scientific nor logic courses. The answer involves a supernatural being and that’s all. She does not offer you all the solutions of the world. Her answer is rather straightforward summarized in these words: Love God, Love neighbor. The rest are details. That is the religion. Have you proven it false? Or have you proven yours true?

 

[AugustTherese]

I physically see God nearly everyday at Mass.

 

[Tyrel]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

This may already have been said. I will say it again. God is not a body. It follows logically that it is logically impossible to literally see God. The sense in which Catholics mean to say that we ‘see’ God is analogous (in a similar way as when I say I ‘see’ your point, I’m predicating by analogy). It amounts to something like an apprehension of God’s presence, which comes in varying degrees. We typically call it the beatific vision.

 

[MPat]

On the topic of Jesus it’s reasonable (for both believers and non-believers) to trust him on matters of Christianity. I don’t trust him to be accurate on other matters. I have doubts whether what it’s claimed he said and did in the Bible were actually said and done. But since Christianity is based on those very claims it’s best to go to the horse’s mouth as to what God wants and teaches. I’m not a socialist, but I know that if I want an understanding of early socialism it’s best to trust the writings of Karl Marx.

I quote Jesus from a book your church says is true, and you’re telling me it’s not true.

Do I? Why don’t you quote where I said so?

For no, I didn’t say you were wrong to quote Bible. I said you were rushing from the words you quoted to a conclusion. And that you pretended that the objection was to quoting Bible - using a red herring.

Although in some other cases you would do well to look at what people who actually studied the texts say. Yes, even for Marx. For all you know, politruks have seen things you would miss. And doubly so when you argue with them about their doctrine.

I was using layman’s terms

Do you really want to claim that “subgoal” is a “layman’s term”?

For several billion people they won’t follow that commandment because they don’t believe that a divine Jesus exists (i.e. if there was a person named Jesus that his stories were based on, a great many don’t believe he was the Messiah or the Christ).

Do you know what is meant by “loving God”? It is not so certain that it is completely impossible without explicitly accepting divinity of Jesus.

And next, no, atheists make up only a tiny minority of world’s population. Everyone else gets pretty close to believing in God. Muslims and Jews believe in the same God that we do (bringing the total to more than 1/2). Even Hinduism seem to have a monotheistic aspect. That gives us about 2/3 of world’s population (and I guess I could go further, if I had to), not even getting to invincible ignorance.

That’s one of the problems with “divine hiddenness”: God sure seems to be found often for for someone who is “hidden”…

As for the rest - you haven’t proved that their disbelief is not their problem. So, citing Ilf and Petrov, how about “Дело помощи утопающим — дело рук самих утопающих” (“Rescuing of the ones who sink is the job for the ones who sink”)? Rule that out.

And yet all of this would be cleared up if the professor would just show up and tell us not the answers to the test but what is on the syllabus, how best to study, and what not to study (i.e. incorrect faiths).

He gives his students the tools needed to, if the student has done what he or she was expected, should be able to pass the final exam.

Are you sure that finding the right faith is not part of the test?

God has used avatars before. He spoke to Adam as the burning bush.

Moses, not Adam.

Depending on what you think happened in Exodus 23 (a question I’m still hoping you’ll answer as to what you think Moses saw) that might count.

You were given an answer.

Basically the more vague the supposed evidence is the more cautious one should be as to whether to believe it or not.

So, since you have given no evidence at all for this claim, you want me to assign absolutely no certainty to it?

I’m going to explain my analogy in a foolproof manner to prevent it from being misconstrued again.

Oh, it was understood well enough: you want to pretend that an “excuse” is a “methodology”, that if an “excuse” has been used in several cases, you can dismiss it, and that if you dismiss it once, you can dismiss all cases of it.

Your analogy did show the absurdity of all that in a very entertaining way.

That’s not an explanation.

Sure. You didn’t ask for one. You only (sort-of) asked for other goals.

God can:

1. Want all men to go to Heaven.
2. Be just

While I say at the same time God can:
3) Provide the needed evidence so that people know for certain what is asked of them.

What I’m asking for you anybody here to do is show why 3 can’t be true while 1 and 2 are. I would go so far as to say that by providing that needed evidence that God would be more just than hiding himself so that we can give him as much credence as the many other proposed deities.

Can He? Sure. Perhaps He can even get you to believe. But why should He?

And there is one more point: each of us (including you) have done enough to get a “failing grade”. He gave us one more “puzzle” for “extra credit” (to find which religion is true). He can give the answer to it, but then you won’t get that “extra credit”. Are you sure you won’t need it?

It would be a start if my thoughts on the matter were tackled head-on systematically and with reasons and explanations.

Why?

If you give an argument, it is sufficient to show how it fails or to ask for clarification.

If you want an explanation, ask a question. In fact, while you claimed that asking questions shows you’re open-minded, in this series of seven posts by you (perhaps that is a bit too long?) I have counted just 7 question marks…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Since you are not invincibly ignorant then obviously can’t rely on that as a defense. God wanted you to choose between heaven or hell. He appeared 2000 yrs ago. So stop alleging this is an invisible God.

Zeus appeared to many people thousands of years ago. So stop alleging this is an invisible God. (Feel free to repace Zeus with Allah, Hercules, Vishnu, or any other god past or present.)

Yes, it would be easy to force you to believe he exist by merely appearing and knock your head with a stick, but that would deprive you of your freewill to reject him since you would have no longer cause nor excuse to reject any longer. Even if he were to do that, one can still reject Him so appearances alone may not work for some people. It is like habits. Even after demonstrating the good that will arise by giving up bad habits, people still continue them. So knowing the truth isn’t enough if one is hell bent on disregarding it.

I respond to your one of your comments below that one of the reasons I am here is because I love language (despite being a fairly predestrian writer). And when I see language misused I need to speak out. So let me lay this right on the table in bold to properly stress this:

Knowing a god exists does not inhibit freewill. In fact, having more knowledge so that what we do goes from guesses to informed choices increases freewill.

A rat in a maze staring down three empty corridors is not using freewill when picking one by chance. A person in front of three labelled corridors (thus having information with which to decide) is using freewill.

You have been educated that God exists, and as you have indicated no longer invincibly ignorant. All you can claim that you choose not to accept what you have been taught as true. (And I suppose you have done that exercise to verify that it is NOT true?). That is the beauty of freewill. Choose with the knowledge that choices come with consequences. At least you can’t claim that you are not aware of the consequences. I must do my duty to remind you for those who have known God and apostatized, the consequences are more severe.

There is no choice in the matter, no freewill. I believe it to be true or not based on the evidence provided. No one can will themselves to believe something, If the evidence were better I’d be more apt to believe.

If one doesn’t believe that God exist, then God has no responsibility to provide for those who didn’t believe in him. So what is there to complain? Surely you don’t believe things that don’t exist to act in some desirable manner towards you , right? As I said earlier, God will oblige non-believers by being out of their lives.

That is decidedly untrue. What you’re saying is Calvinism, that God only works for the elect and not for everybody. The Church teaches that God died for everybody including the non-beleiver and that he wants everyone to love him including the non-believer. That’s his goal but his actions seem to run counter to that Biblically-stated goal.

Create a new post if you need to explore this.

No thanks, I don’t need to explore it. It’s just that usually when people make the unsubstantiated claim that God sustains the universe it’s meant as proof (such as it isn’t) that a godless universe could not exist.

If you know the laws of the land and that breaking them comes with certain consequences, and you still do it, you can’t fault the jailer for putting you in prison so that you are not a menace to society and obtain justice for the victims. In secular society, rules and regulations are enforced to segregate bad elements and to impose justice. Not very different in the divine scenario.

It’s actually quite different. If I live in a land or go to another land I can be assured of certain of certain rules of which I am to abide. In the devine scenario I can’t get people to agree on which rules I must follow.

One person says I should attend church every Sunday and not wear a conodom.
A second person says I should attend temple every Saturday and not start or extinguish a fire on those days.
A third person says I should pray facing Mecca five times a day and consider the testimony of a woman half that of a man.
And there are hundreds of persons telling me all sorts of different things. Each person claims to know more than the others, but none of them can muster any evidence proving that to be true.

That’s the difference. The two scenarios are not the same.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So which part are you not happy with? The jail? The sentence? The conditions in the jail? Wrong conviction? God certainly won’t be wrong about convicting anyone nor disproportionate penalties. He sees fit how he design his hell, you see fit whether you want to go there or not by behaving appropriately. If there is God, you would expect Him to police his creation don’t you? If there is no God, you have nothing to fear.

I do not fear your god or any others, but I do have a problem with the attemped logic given (as I noted in my very first post and every post since in this thread). Continuing to compare the real life and divine scenarios, since people are not objectively shown which set of rules to follow they can’t objectively know which acts will lead to punishments or even that a jail exists.

In my neck of the woods there are several retirement villages, neighborhoods with ordinary houses and streets but that require you to be of a certain age to move in. They also have nuisance laws scricter than most surround neighborhoods to keep the areas quiet and peaceful (e.g. when it’s too early to mow your lawn, too late to have an outdoor barbecue, when cars can park in the street). My dad lives in one, and so I know what is and is not appropriate and what punishments may come for not following the rules. Your specific flavor of the Christian god is one of many that claim to lay down the laws and the punishments. Making it clear which to follow so I don’t have to guess between the various options is as basic as can be.

You can exercise your freewill to establish what is true or not. You can substantiate your belief that God isn’t real, God isn’t omnipotent whatever. And that would have been easier for you since you will be working with your own materials. There were no threats, just stating the nature of God who knows everything. If you don’t believe there is a God, why bother with all this since threats couldn’t possibly come from a non-existent being. God doesn’t need to substantiate anything , especially non-believers. For some believers, he might let them take a peek.

One of the reasons I persist in this matter is because, as I mentioned above, I love language. I want to see used correctly.

Another reason why I bother with this is what I’ve been saying all along: It is good to increase our knowledge of how others think and believe. I don’t want to be one of those people that is so confident in my belief that I don’t feel the need to learn more outside what I already believe.

But let’s say I wasn’t an atheist, that I had only just now begun to study various faiths. Would I be impressed with the explanations as to why your God doesn’t appear to people? Without a belief already in place – a presupposition of its truth prior to evidence – I would say not.

Unsatisfactory in what sense? Who did you approach to get the answers? Did you get from a competent source? How do you know your conclusions is not simply a dissonance between your expectations and what is true? How do you know your position is true and the explanations untrue? You claim some understanding of Catholicism, which suggest perhaps less than in-depth knowledge. Without in-depth knowledge, could you be misunderstanding certain issues?

As far as my sources, I listen to Catholic radio on some commutes from work. I read articles and books by Catholic apologists (e.g. strangenotions.com). I am a frequent visitor to these here Catholic Answers Forums to try and get a better understanding of the faith. How do I know my position is true? With religion you can never say with certainty. There always seems to be room for a retreat position when one position is discredited. All I can do is apply the same logic we all use in our daily lives to discuss these matters. At times the responses I get can be categorized as non-answers, yet sometimes those non-answers say more than answers, if you know what I mean.

From wikipedia Hinduism “has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s) nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist”. Perhaps calling it a way of life is more apt than a religion because the belief systems are too fluid to defy any classifications. And it is caste based. So you don’t have the freedom to opt out of the caste you are born into and your roles are fixed. Greek gods are dead, Egyptian gods are dead, so not much point to talk about dead religions.

There are variations in Hinduism, just as there are variations in Christianity, Islam, and many other religions. All it takes is one of them to be right, and perhaps the write one is a 4,000 year old variant of Hinduism. Neither one of us can disprove it.

As far as “dead” relgions, they were very much alive and were for 1,000 years or more. I’m sure when they were the predominent religions they derided other religions that faded away, as they assumed theirs would last forever. Who knows what the state of religion will be in another 2,000 years? The lessons of dead religions are just as important as active ones.

And you miss out pain and suffering and a God giving up his status to be a suffering servant. Intentionally? You only focus on material loss, immaterial loss are not important to you? People sue each other for loss of reputation, loss of time, mental anguish, pain suffered and many others all the time and that is not in your dictionary? For the sacrifice that Jesus went through, you used a dictionary to defend your case that Jesus didn’t sacrifice anything? That’s lowest low. He still have holes in his body do you know?

He didn’t give up any status. He’s still God, still at the right hand of the father.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Nobody’s avoiding knowledge. You need a good teacher too. Self learning has its pitfalls with no proper guidance. And knowledge doesn’t come free too. And lots of time. Wait, loss of time is not a sacrifice in your book. So the amount of time we spent studying is no sacrifice because we could actually put those hours to alternative use?

Disagree. One might explain one’s faith, but that doesn’t mean you make a convert out of them. It explains why one believes in A and not B. It doesn’t lead to a a conclusion that therefore your religion is false. Christianity explains why we think Jesus is divine, Muslims don’t agree. And that’s that. There is nothing there that prove other religions wrong. In fact there are quite a number of commonalities even among religions. Except for majority Muslim nations, not many other countries have blasphemy laws enshrined in their constitutions.

Currently, yes, the majority of countries that still have blasphemy laws are majority Muslim. But that wasn’t always the case. Many nations made it illegal to make statements regarding the state-approved church. Blasphemy laws were wrong then just as they are wrong now.

Off the top of my head we do have two nations that are not majority Muslim. Just this past week there were rumblings about Ireland possibly charging comedian and all-around brilliant guy Stephen Fry of blasphemy.

In a case I’m quite familiar with, majority Hindu India pressed charges against Sanal Edamuruku. This was after he demonstrated that water dripping from the feet of a statue in a Catholic church was not a miracle, but a water coming in from the washroom using capillary action. The Archbishop of Mumbai promised to make every effort to alleviate the charges provided that Sanal “apologize” for his actions (despite keeping people from drinking toilet water that trickled down a statue). Sanal fled his homeland of India and has resided in Europe for the past several years.

My point is that Catholicism does not teach one to be a worse person.

Right, but do you acknowledge that you changed it from being in a better spiritual or mental state after leaving Catholicism ** and being a worse person in Catholicism?

** (This is a thing some people claim happened after leaving Catholicism, just as some say they’ve improved their spiritual and mental state after joining Catholicism.)

Not that some person can not find meaning elsewhere. And its true, some RC churches may be rather impersonal, there may be not very charitable persons around etc. But that is expected because we are a hospital for sinners. We get all kinds and immoral folks. You name it we got it. We have people who leave because our doctrines are rigid and they can’t cope with certain things such as divorce for example. And we have people who leave for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps another church offer better and lively service. Better sermons or a more dynamic pastor. RC services are solemn and for youngsters may seem dull and unexciting. None of these proves Catholicism false.

I in no way was attempting to show that Catholicism is false. This was all to show the error in putting value to your statement, “I haven’t encounter any convert who claims Catholicism is bad for them spiritually nor mentally compared to their pre- conversion state.” since you’re only considering those who have not left the faith. So let’s move back to the topic at hand.

I thought that’s what I said, but appears I either confused you or confused myself.
Let me do that again. If ANY one of the above is true, then none-of -the-above would be wrong. So assume Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are the options claiming to be the true religion.

1. Christianity is true
2. Islam is true
3. Buddhism is true
   4 Hinduism is true
4. None of the above

For you to say none-of the -above , it means you have vetted them and proven that none of them are true. That’s why it is called none-of-the-above. At least that’s what I am trying to point out. So have you proven that all of them are not true and that’s why you chose a none-of the-above?

What you said was I couldn’t even consider a none-of-the-above option until I had ruled out all other options. I explained that none-of-the-above is a completely valid possibility until one of the other options had been demonstrated to be true. It’s the difference between saying none-of-the-above is possibly true and none-of-the-above is certainly true.

I am saying that none of the other faiths has proven to be true, although it’s possible that any one of them could be true. Because of that I believe it is reasonable to say it is possible none-of-the-above is correct, and that a reasonable person can look at the options and choose any of them – including none-of-the above.

Now if I were to say that none-of-the-above was proven true, then I would have to show the other options to be false. Luckily I never said that, and so I don’t have to disprove the other options.