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

[Mike_from_NJ]

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?

One more time I will reiterrate: You can’t love something you don’t believe exists.

There is saying that goes something like,
“An all-loving God would want me to know he exists
An all-knowing God would know what it would take for me to know he exists.
An all-powerful God would be able to show me he exists.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I physically see God nearly everyday at Mass.

AT, you don’t actually see God. You are seeing the accidents of the Eucharist. You believe that is God, because you believe Catholicism is true. Someone on the fence, someone who doesn’t already believe in transubstantiation will see the same thing you’re seeing but not say it is the same thing.

Would you agree that the becoming the body and blood of Christ, while it is someting you believe, would not be convincing to someone who does not believe?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

What then is the proper conclusion to take from Jesus saying the most important commandment is to love him if not to love him?

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

Sub is what’s known as a “prefix”. Prefixes are attached to the beginning of words to give them new meanings. If we take the word “cycle” which means circle or wheel, then add a prefix in front of it we can garner new and exciting words. For instance, the prefix “uni-” means one. Put it in front of cycle and we get unicycle, or “one wheel”. This is how we get the words bicycle and tricycle. The beauty of prefixes is that if the roots are understood then we can quickly generate words that while new easily convey a meaning to whomever reads it. If I say I went to the inventors’ fair in my octocycle I don’t have to spell out that it’s a vehicle with eight wheels.

And prefixes don’t always have to be numbers. If we add “pedi-” (meaning foot) to the word boat we get pediboat, which is boat powered by the feet. These same rules apply to compount words, which are two whole words that combine to make a single word. For example, motor and cycle combine to make motorcycle (a wheeled vehicle powered by a motor).

In short, a layman’s term doesn’t have to be an established term if its meaning can be derived based on the makeup of the term.

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 “??? ??? ??? — ??? ??? ??? ???” (“Rescuing of the ones who sink is the job for the ones who sink”)? Rule that out.

Look up the exploits of one Pastor David E. Taylor. He claimed to have numerous face-to-face meetings with Jesus, so many that in a deposition he couldn’t give an estimate. He made claims that attending certain of his services that Jesus, and there was disappointment by some when it didn’t happen. Believers are hungry to see God and to communicate back and forth with him, and yet we can never seem to be given the evidence to make an informed descision.

The biggest concern for believers is unanswered prayer, that one is speaking to God and God is not responding. Divine hiddenness is certainly not a concern only for non-believers. An appearance would surely help them not stray from the path God wants for us.

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

If it is part of the test then there should be an objective and definitive way to say there is one right faith. As I’ve said a few times now, no faith has stepped up. Christianity in particular has more than a few people say that such verification is impossible because a preconceived belief is required. No professor could get away with a similar test.

 

[Aloysium]

What then is the proper conclusion to take from Jesus saying the most important commandment is to love him if not to love him? . . . The biggest concern for believers is unanswered prayer, that one is speaking to God and God is not responding. Divine hiddenness is certainly not a concern only for non-believers. An appearance would surely help them not stray from the path God wants for us. If it is part of the test then there should be an objective and definitive way to say there is one right faith. As I’ve said a few times now, no faith has stepped up. Christianity in particular has more than a few people say that such verification is impossible because a preconceived belief is required. No professor could get away with a similar test.

Obviously you can only speak about your concerns, or of those closest to you.

My biggest concern is a full belly, when things are going well, even very well and falling into complacency. I like challenges, facing the unknown. I truly wish there were something to atheism that would shake up the foundations. Encounters with reality, good, great, bad, terrifying are the way in which we grow. Growing, paradoxically, tends to involve a letting go, the replacement of the transient and illusory by the eternal and true.

There is no hiddenness if you consider that we are something of an “object” to the Divine “Subject”. This all rests within an infinite eternal compassionate gaze. The relationship we have with our Source and everything that is, this that is our true nature, is fulfilled in the giving. We give our minds over to our parents’ directions, to our schools, to the various media in order to get by in life, but more importantly in hope of grasping the truth. That truth is revealed in various ways, through the sacred scripture found in various cultures, especially within the Catholic Church, and elaborated upon by countless different people. It is probably most often found in beauty and especially in love. Nothing is hidden if we pursue our relationship with the Ground of our being; if we ask, we will find.

As to faith, it is a grace which we can accept or reject. When we participate in God’s grace, it builds. One’s exposure to Catholic views on this forum may be an act as an incentive to re-examine one’s understanding about who we are and why we are here. Listening can lead us to the Truth, grow evermore Christ-like in loving relation with God.

 

[AugustTherese]

AT, you don’t actually see God. You are seeing the accidents of the Eucharist. You believe that is God, because you believe Catholicism is true. Someone on the fence, someone who doesn’t already believe in transubstantiation will see the same thing you’re seeing but not say it is the same thing.

“You believe that is God, because you believe Catholicism is true.”

That’s a non-sequitur statement.

You are seemingly attempting to dichotomize faith and reason and to pit one against the other, purporting to undermine what both faith and reason can receive and proclaim simultaneously.

If one were to lack reason and physically (at least subjectively) see a purple dinosaur instead of one with reason seeing the accidents of bread, that does not intrinsically demerit the authenticity that the accidents of bread is what should be seen and understood. Likewise, if one were to lack faith and only employ reason, that does not intrinsically demerit the authenticity of what God’s Word creates and declares in this Sacrament to be believed through the gift of faith.

"5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

1. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
2. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." - On Faith and Reason, First Vatican Council

Also, when the enfleshed Eternal Word declares, “This is My Body”, it is not the mere proclamation that achieves its end, but rather the change of substances and the proclamation that are concurrently being effected. “It must be quite clear that ‘deed’ and ‘being’ in the Mystery are not opposed to ‘word’, but are, rather, the ultimate consequence of that Word which is God’s,” - Rev Louis Bouyer.

Would you agree that the becoming the body and blood of Christ, while it is someting you believe, would not be convincing to someone who does not believe?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” - Saint Thomas Aquinas

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

“You believe that is God, because you believe Catholicism is true.”

That’s a non-sequitur statement.

You are seemingly attempting to dichotomize faith and reason and to pit one against the other, purporting to undermine what both faith and reason can receive and proclaim simultaneously.

I am not dividing the two. I’m being told in this very thread that logic won’t solve the question as to why one should believe that the Christian god exists (and not other gods). When I present logical flaws the response is to forego logic and embrace faith. If faith and reason work hand-in-hand then they should not be in conflict with each other.

If one were to lack reason and physically (at least subjectively) see a purple dinosaur instead of one with reason seeing the accidents of bread, that does not intrinsically demerit the authenticity that the accidents of bread is what should be seen and understood. Likewise, if one were to lack faith and only employ reason, that does not intrinsically demerit the authenticity of what God’s Word creates and declares in this Sacrament to be believed through the gift of faith.

I am certainly not attempting to disprove transubstantiation, mainly because it is a concept that is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. It’s a nebulous concept. What I can do is show that such ideas are plentiful and that from an objective standpoint they can’t be used as evidence of anything.

If someone who practices Wicca takes a chalice and blesses water and says it is no longer truly water but instead the spirit of the great god Manos, you would not be able to disprove this claim, but certainly you would not believe it.

Let’s take that purple dinosaur you mentioned. Let’s put him in the moon so no one can see him. I tell you that triplets are born because the purple dinosaur living in the moon chooses some mothers to gestates three children simultaneously. Again you could not disprove it, nor would you believe it.

I could go on and on. The bread and wine becoming the body and blood can not be disproved, but it can not be shown to be true with evidence we have.

"5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

Reason certainly trumps faith. News reports regarding deaths of people from those denominations which handle snakes is clear evidence of that.

1. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

I’ve already gone off on more than one tangent in this thread, so I’ll simply say I disagree.

1. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." - On Faith and Reason, First Vatican Council

I’ve covered most of this, but I do want to add “the science of divine things” is an oxymoron. Science is testable. It’s a systematic way of knowing things. What tests were used in determining that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood? By what method could one disprove such a notion?

Also, when the enfleshed Eternal Word declares, “This is My Body”, it is not the mere proclamation that achieves its end, but rather the change of substances and the proclamation that are concurrently being effected. “It must be quite clear that ‘deed’ and ‘being’ in the Mystery are not opposed to ‘word’, but are, rather, the ultimate consequence of that Word which is God’s,” - Rev Louis Bouyer.

This is not clear to one who is not going in with that belief.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” - Saint Thomas Aquinas

I’ve always thought this phrase, which is quoted so often, to be a bit silly. Explanations with sound reasoning are possible – if they were true.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Obviously you can only speak about your concerns, or of those closest to you.

My biggest concern is a full belly, when things are going well, even very well and falling into complacency. I like challenges, facing the unknown. I truly wish there were something to atheism that would shake up the foundations. Encounters with reality, good, great, bad, terrifying are the way in which we grow. Growing, paradoxically, tends to involve a letting go, the replacement of the transient and illusory by the eternal and true.

I’m sure there are some who in desperate times calls out for something. Bargaining is part of the Kübler-Ross model for handling grief. That doesn’t point to it being true, but that in times of crisis people do all sorts of things (which can include dangerous or violent things)… There is the old (and very false) trope that there are no atheists in foxholes, but we can point to actual atheists who were in actual foxholes to show that many don’t call out to any god during a challenge.

And though there are some that do make such calls, that shouldn’t negate logic or allow for major internal inconsistencies that religion is steeped in.

There is no hiddenness if you consider that we are something of an “object” to the Divine “Subject”. This all rests within an infinite eternal compassionate gaze. The relationship we have with our Source and everything that is, this that is our true nature, is fulfilled in the giving. We give our minds over to our parents’ directions, to our schools, to the various media in order to get by in life, but more importantly in hope of grasping the truth. That truth is revealed in various ways, through the sacred scripture found in various cultures, especially within the Catholic Church, and elaborated upon by countless different people. It is probably most often found in beauty and especially in love. Nothing is hidden if we pursue our relationship with the Ground of our being; if we ask, we will find.

Believers in non-Christian religions, ghosts, other supernatural entities would say the same thing. Since presupposing false things can take us away from truth I try to avoid presupposing anything that may or may not be true.

As to faith, it is a grace which we can accept or reject. When we participate in God’s grace, it builds. One’s exposure to Catholic views on this forum may be an act as an incentive to re-examine one’s understanding about who we are and why we are here. Listening can lead us to the Truth, grow evermore Christ-like in loving relation with God.

I sometimes am told that my being on CAF is perhaps indicative of some unexposed truth, some deep longing for God within me. That is simply not the case. I come here to learn, to understand, to question. The more do so the more I (and this is just me) the farther I get from faith.

 

[Vonsalza]

I come here to learn, to understand, to question. The more do so the more I (and this is just me) the farther I get from faith.

I’m sorry that’s the case.

No one has materially proven the existence of a God - and probably never will. Similarly, no one has materially proven the non-existence of God either - and also probably never will. Ergo the adherents for each camp espouse faith in the belief of their view.

So on the basis of materialism alone, the null hypothesis of the classic agnostic prevails again. Drat.

 

[AugustTherese]

I am not dividing the two.

I did not profess you did. I stated that you were “seemingly attempting.”

I’m being told in this very thread that logic won’t solve the question as to why one should believe that the Christian god exists (and not other gods).

First, I cannot help what others say. Second, logic alone, i.e. empirical evidence alone, will not be able to fully grasp supernatural mysteries, hence the need for the gift of faith. However, logic does not supersede faith but supplements and complements it. If you want to solely use that which you can experience through the senses in order to understand and believe in divine truths, you can do so and hopefully come to the knowledge of God, but you will need faith to reach true fruition.

I do not merely believe in God because I illogically believe Catholicism to be true, such as your non-sequitur presumed. I believe in God because he Has revealed Himself to me in the Person of Jesus Christ and has given me His Spirit through the supernatural sacrament of Holy Baptism. But, I also believe that God exists for logical and empirical reasons, also. It is only logical that life begets life; life cannot come from non-life.

When I present logical flaws the response is to forego logic and embrace faith. If faith and reason work hand-in-hand then they should not be in conflict with each other.

I agree, one should not forego logic to embrace faith, hence my first comment and the Vatican I quotes.

I am certainly not attempting to disprove transubstantiation, mainly because it is a concept that is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. It’s a nebulous concept. What I can do is show that such ideas are plentiful and that from an objective standpoint they can’t be used as evidence of anything.

Saying it’s a nebulous concept is an unsubstantiated claim. If the concept of a substance changing into another substance with the initial accidents remaining is “nebulous”, well again, you are apparently claiming that something can only exist, or be proven, by the senses interpreted by your brain. Accidents of a substance does not make the substance what it is. For example, if a pin cushion is only a pin cushion because of what you sense from the characteristics that make it a pin cushion, then those same characteristics could be used in the same order for another substance that is not a pin cushion, therefore it is not the substance of the pin cushion that makes it a pin cushion, but only the accidents that you can experience through the senses connected to your brain.

Divine mysteries and supernatural realities cannot be solely experienced and/or realized by mere empirical evidence or that which is sensed by the human body, but rather, need to be revealed and given to us through faith. Not to digress, but there have been substantiated miracles where the Host has bled human blood containing human DNA.

If someone who practices Wicca takes a chalice and blesses water and says it is no longer truly water but instead the spirit of the great god Manos, you would not be able to disprove this claim, but certainly you would not believe it.

Let’s take that purple dinosaur you mentioned. Let’s put him in the moon so no one can see him. I tell you that triplets are born because the purple dinosaur living in the moon chooses some mothers to gestates three children simultaneously. Again you could not disprove it, nor would you believe it.

I could go on and on. The bread and wine becoming the body and blood can not be disproved, but it can not be shown to be true with evidence we have.

This is begging the question. Being unable to disprove something does not mean it inherently exists, and therefore, trumps the reality of the existence of God or the miracle of transubstantiation. It is silly logic to beg the question of transubstantiation simply because I cannot “disprove” with empirical evidence that that “water” is in fact “the spirit of the great god, Manos”. Again, you are seemingly pitting logic against faith while begging the question.

Reason certainly trumps faith. News reports regarding deaths of people from those denominations which handle snakes is clear evidence of that.

This is a post hoc statement. Just because a few irrational individuals decided to imprudently put God to the test via poisonous snakes, does not invalidate those to whom God has given the virtues of true faith coupled with true reason.

I’ve covered most of this, but I do want to add “the science of divine things” is an oxymoron. Science is testable. It’s a systematic way of knowing things. What tests were used in determining that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood? By what method could one disprove such a notion?

Test for me the origin of the universe. Sure science is testable, but so are supernatural realities. Miracles in the Catholic Church and their authenticity have been tested unceasingly. In fact, the Church uses science to determine if the alleged miracle is in fact an individually or collectively misunderstood phenomenon, or a legitimate miracle that science cannot explain. Do you know how many apparitions within the Church have been disproved using science? What one acclaims to be a miraculous apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a Church scientist uses observable and testable methods to report that it was merely an oxidation stain that caused an optical illusion.

I’ve always thought this phrase, which is quoted so often, to be a bit silly. Explanations with sound reasoning are possible – if they were true.

Just because one lacks faith, does not mean something is not true.

 

[MPat]

What then is the proper conclusion to take from Jesus saying the most important commandment is to love him if not to love him?

If that’s the only premise you have (and you haven’t introduced any other), you can get no interesting conclusion. At best, you can restate the premise or “deduce” a tautology.

If you want anything else, provide a second premise.

Sub is what’s known as a “prefix”. Prefixes are attached to the beginning of words to give them new meanings. If we take the word “cycle” which means circle or wheel, then add a prefix in front of it we can garner new and exciting words. For instance, the prefix “uni-” means one. Put it in front of cycle and we get unicycle, or “one wheel”. This is how we get the words bicycle and tricycle. The beauty of prefixes is that if the roots are understood then we can quickly generate words that while new easily convey a meaning to whomever reads it. If I say I went to the inventors’ fair in my octocycle I don’t have to spell out that it’s a vehicle with eight wheels.

And prefixes don’t always have to be numbers. If we add “pedi-” (meaning foot) to the word boat we get pediboat, which is boat powered by the feet. These same rules apply to compount words, which are two whole words that combine to make a single word. For example, motor and cycle combine to make motorcycle (a wheeled vehicle powered by a motor).

In short, a layman’s term doesn’t have to be an established term if its meaning can be derived based on the makeup of the term.

You know, saying you are happy to find out what “subgoal” means (and how they are used in automated planning) would have been shorter.

Look up the exploits of one Pastor David E. Taylor. He claimed to have numerous face-to-face meetings with Jesus, so many that in a deposition he couldn’t give an estimate. He made claims that attending certain of his services that Jesus, and there was disappointment by some when it didn’t happen.

You have to prove that seeing such visions is necessary, not that it would be “cool” to see them.

Divine hiddenness is certainly not a concern only for non-believers. An appearance would surely help them not stray from the path God wants for us.

And again, you have to prove that seeing such visions is necessary, not that it would be “cool” to see them.

If it is part of the test then there should be an objective and definitive way to say there is one right faith. As I’ve said a few times now, no faith has stepped up. Christianity in particular has more than a few people say that such verification is impossible because a preconceived belief is required. No professor could get away with a similar test.

Believers are hungry to see God and to communicate back and forth with him, and yet we can never seem to be given the evidence to make an informed descision.

Oh, but we happen to believe that evidence is sufficient. And the cases when it really is not sufficient for reaching Catholicism itself are covered by invincible ignorance - and thus not problematic.

Also, there are two things that should be noted about “insufficient evidence”.

First, you didn’t make a case that evidence will be insufficient unless God shows Himself.

Second, how do you “know” that evidence is insufficient?

I get an impression that there is a circle here. You claim that you do not believe in God, because evidence is insufficient. And it looks like you have little choice but to claim that you “know” that evidence is insufficient, because otherwise you would believe in God.

And yet, there are numerous alternative explanations that would have to be ruled out. After all, one can fail to use the evidence to full extent for many reasons ranging from innocent like just not being good at investigating something, to less innocent like being too lazy to make an effort.

So, have you tried to rule them out? Or can you think of some other way?

The biggest concern for believers is unanswered prayer, that one is speaking to God and God is not responding.

So, no actual evidence for that? Not even insufficient evidence?

One would expect words like “biggest” to be supported in at least some way…

Not to mention that you end up arguing against your thesis again: if working prayers would make a difference, there would be no need for God to show Himself.

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.)

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to say what source claims so?

For that matter, it is well known that Hirohito (who, as Emperor of Japan, was (at least, arguably) considered to be a god by Shintoists until the end of WW2) was definitely seen by multiple people. And…? Are you going to become a Shintoist now? Or is seeing not enough either?

 

[ericc]

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.)

You need to be clear I am not arguing the merits or demerits of other religions. I don’t know why you feel you need to do that other than to say there are many other religions. Yes, by all means talk to them. If you think there is a Zeus or not, I don’t really care. But it is a historical fact that Jesus is a real person who was crucified by the Romans. Bringing Zeus in does not lessen that fact. All I see what you are doing is to just clouding the issue by bringing other religions in again and again. Is it just to prove there are other religions out there? We know there are. So what is the point that you are trying to make? That there are many religions out there, and therefore no God? That is terrible logic.

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.

Jesus already shown us that God exist. You just want more and more knowledge which is infinite, and kicking the can further down the road so that you can excuse yourself.

There is no choice in the matter, no freewill.

So you are not here on your own freewill? All this stuff you wrote, you didn’t write of your own freewill? Who or what is compelling you to be here? If you have been coerced, you should get out of here as soon as possible.

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.

Yes of course. Reasons abound. But since we live in this world where information is ever changing and limited, we should still make decisions based upon whatever is available. Don’t you agree? Since you have decided to stay atheist after doing your homework, so be it.

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.

I have no idea what Calvinism teaches. I didn’t say God works for the elect. I said if you do not want to acknowledge God, God will oblige. God died for everyone. Yes he did. He wishes everyone to be saved . But he won’t force you to be saved by Him.

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.

Ok. No one has ever proven how he could get the universe to exist in the first place either.

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.

The 10 commandments would be a good start. No we don’t need people to agree, this is divine. God rules. It is not a democracy. We don’t have people clapping on each other 's back saying what a wonderful job they have done to craft out some human rules for their own consumption.

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.

So what are they teaching? That there is God or no God? If you accept all these religions do teach the concept of God, that is a good base to start with. But after knowing that these religions
do teach God exists, your knowledge that you have gained lead you to think God don’t exist, how so? That would have been a dishonest conclusion isn’t it?

 

[ericc]

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). .

If God doesn’t exist, you got nothing to fear. If he does, you better make sure you are on the favorable side of him. This is His universe and there are His rules.

In my neck of the woods there are several retirement villages, 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.

10 commandments are pretty clear. To make it simpler, 2 rules: Love God, Love your neighbor. If you love somebody, you wouldn’t want to hurt or displease him/her. You would want to find out what your loved ones like/dislike don’t you?

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

That’s good. I need a dictionary from time to time, this is not my first language. I hope it is legible.

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.

ok.

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.

You presuppose that God didn’t appear. He did, at various times to various people. There were recorded and passed down. Miracles happened from time to time. Supernatural events from time to time. Throughout the ages. Just because one is not there, is it sufficient reason for you to say that is not true? We study history because we trust the testimonies of others to credibly hand it down. The Word of God, even if it contained humanly unbelievable, embarrassing stuff, it is duly recorded. If it were my work, I’d record only the proper “spin” to make it palatable to the audience. But we are asked not to remove even an iota from it.

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.

I went though that stage. CAF was a good starting place for re-caliberation. I was a lapsed catholic for 20 years. I dabbled in things I ought not to among other things. I was attracted to OBEs and even attempted practice, spiritual healing of the wrong type, life style was immoral. God gave a good kicked in my butt to get out of that pit. One day, I just started going to Church again. Sat at the back and just pondered away. Confession started the healing process and the Eucharist. The problem with self reading is that there is no one to give a direct response to specific scenarios. Signing up for seminars on specific topics is one method to gain access to speakers on topics you are interested in. Typically, you have Q&A sessions, after the seminar back stage discussions, and some even do email responses. On youtube, I liked Peter Kreeft, Ravi Zacharias and William Craig to help me think clearly on the issues. Give them a look with an open mind, not an atheist mind. Read/listen for the rebuttals on both sides. Do not presuppose the scientific method as the only valid method as that is self-refuting.

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.

I know of only one that say he is a God of Love. Love us too much I’d say. There was a poll on what is the greatest miracle and I answered that it is a miracle that God loves us despite us being so nasty to him. Any other gods will have taken it out on us long ago.

As far as “dead” relgions, they were very much alive and were for 1,000 years or more. The lessons of dead religions are just as important as active ones.

What would those lessons be? The only reason to believe Christianity is that the promises of Jesus are credible. If they are not, it would have died early. What did those dead religions promised to their worshipers?

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

Now that is a stubborn streak there. You know he came, suffered and died. You can’t say that as long as your final position remained the same no sacrifices were made. That is a bad argument and you know it. The effort one put into any endeavor is a sacrifice if one is not obliged to. Effort includes material and immaterial. The mental process that one went through to solved a problem can be called a sacrifice if one is not obliged to fix the problem. I hope you are not going to argue I still have my brain after all that effort and therefore I suffer no loss. Jesus spent 30 years as a lowly carpenter, a nobody when he could live as God and King. You probably won’t spent 3 years for an ungrateful people.

 

[ericc]

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.

You just demonstrated that countries can make decisions supporting the state religion. So what point are you trying to make? Does it prove the religion wrong? Or the country rulers deem it politically convenient to have that. Some rulers are more enlightened than others.

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.

Interesting tibbit.

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.

You see, there would be individuals that glorify their religion and others that blackened it. But that is not how one measure the truth of any religion. You measure by what it teaches.

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.)

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.

Err no. My statement was that Catholicism doesn’t teach you to be a worse person than before you became a Catholic. I am not comparing what could happen after they have left. I am purely focusing on what Catholicism teaches. It teaches no untruths, it teaches no immorality.

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.

Is Atheism included in the None-of the -above?

 

[ericc]

One more time I will reiterrate: You can’t love something you don’t believe exists.

There is saying that goes something like,
“An all-loving God would want me to know he exists
An all-knowing God would know what it would take for me to know he exists.
An all-powerful God would be able to show me he exists.”

You can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Hence you shouldn’t go around calling believers cheats.

As a confirmed Catholic, you have been privileged to know of God. Some others have not been fortunate.

A Loving God demonstrated how much loves us by dying for us
A Knowing God made his presence on Earth so that we may know of Him.
An Omniscient God already showed the world he exists.

Jesus Christ left his mark “X” here. He was there, he is still there and will be there forever. You need to pray for your unbelief. It is not “no evidence”. It is the self that denies seeing the evidence.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “there are no atheists in foxholes” . . . major internal inconsistencies that religion is steeped in . . . I try to avoid presupposing anything that may or may not be true. . . some deep longing for God within me. That is simply not the case. I come here to learn, to understand, to question. The more do so the more I (and this is just me) the farther I get from faith.

Encounters with death tend to make one focus on life - like a fish on dry land recognizing that it has lived its life surrounded by water. They can be overwhelming and end in the disorganization of a post-traumatic stress disorder, which may take more than a lifetime allows to overcome. The mystery of life, one’s very existence recognized, depending on the circumstances is accompanied at the extremes by wonder and despair. This is all truly AMAZING!! At the same time, our suffering goes to our very core. The desperate hope of suicide is merely a running from the inescapable reality that it is who we are (in Adam). Christians know this, Buddhists for sure, all religions actually, each proposing their cure, some more efficacious than others.

The inconsistency is not within the doctrine but in the cognitive grid that deciphers it. It is not possible to understand God outside a relationship with Him.

A presupposition necessarily involves what one doesn’t know. In science the more we know, the more we realize that we don’t know. Theories, as solid as they are presented in text books and in the dogma of the classroom, are practicalities, there for us to get by.

You are saying is that the more you question and understand, the farther you get from faith. This is confusing to me since understanding in my world is synonymous with faith. I would think that you should be growing in some kind of faith. However, I could be wrong since most of what you say appears to be merely a negation of ideas you’ve come across.

I find that questions, good questions that is, without internal assumptions, answer themselves. Ask and you will receive, when it is a matter of getting to the core of what we want to know.

So, there are a number of possible scenarios here. If one is interested in destroying a social construct such as a cultural attitude or norm, a moral system, a vision of how things are, ultimately a particular relationship with the world, clearly the more one does so, the more estranged one will be from those tenets.

Alternatively, in the process of seeking the truth, taking one’s understandings to their edge, one may find them collapsing, with a new vision emerging from the chaos. You don’t come across as sharing personal doubts so much as an outsider contradicting what you believe to be happening within the inner world of others.

Hold love and truth to be foremost in your life and you will not go wrong. If the path you are travelling takes you elsewhere, may God’s light shine on you to show you the Way.

 

[Sky_River]

It’s precisely because of sin that we can’t. Sin results in the disunion between God and man. In Heaven amd after the resurrection, the saved have been made fully just and are without sin.

Anyway, I’m not sure your statement is entirely correct, anyway. It is possible to get a glimpse. Many monastics strive for such an intimate experience with God through long times spent in contemplative prayer and by carefully mastering their fleshly appetites, working for theosis, and there are saints and monastics who have reported it.

Would you tell a Buddhist it’s weird they can’t get to Nirvana without careful, years of meditation and preparation?

What about the enemy talking to God in heaven with Job? Is it because we are sinful or because we are mortal we cant see God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

By seeing God, what do you mean? Seeing him with our eyes?

That indicates a materialist conception of God.

Do you mean seeing him otherwise in the spirit?

That only happens when we experience the love of God and have earned the right to be in His presence.