R
rookieonedge
Guest
Reason is useful to a point in attempting to find God or prove His existence. But what it comes down to is the fact (or belief, if you will) that faith is a gift.
- Status
W
wasmit
Guest
This is an incredibly biased article, which takes Dawkins and Flew’s words and twists them beyond recognition to suit the site’s agenda. There are many obvious lies, weasel words, and appeals to emotion. Any intelligent and informed person could not take this trashy article seriously.
W
wilbur006
Guest
Reply to WASMIT
There are several excellent books that use biblical evidence, but more important, the external historical evidence supports scripture and proves the important dogmas of the Catholic faith----such an the issue of infallibility of the Pope, an existing organization with Headship, and most important the actual Body of Christ given to us to consume. Like I say, History proves that this was taught by Jesus and believed well before the gospels were actually written. I have taken the time to write a discourse on the apologetics to prove this, but it is too lengthly to e-mail, since it results in 45 pages from my word processor. However, I would gladly mail you a copy of this Discourse for your analysis, and if you still had questions afterwards, I could deal with your specific questions on this site or by personal email.
In addition to my Discourse, I have recently found a good similar discourse with far more scriptural analysis than I used which is very valuable for an intellectual understanding on this subject. However, I have used sufficient biblical evidence for an intellectual analysis of the proof.
Now, when I make reference to Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, I don’t think you realize how comprehensive it is. It is translated into English and is contained, from my memory, in 6 very large volumes. I lent it to my son several years ago. I do have a very small version that is contained in one volume that was used in my University class, which is quite excellent, but covers only a very small portion of the entire Summa Theologica since it was designed as an introduction to Aquinas’s Summa. For normal scholarly discourse, this book would cover his arguments and answers to the objections of his arguments in sufficient content for our type of discussion. Books like this can probably be obtained through the web, but the one must be careful that it is not just a book on the history of Aquinas, but one that has his condensed Summa arguments.
You should be commended for seeking the truth, but wanting intellectual proofs.
There are several excellent books that use biblical evidence, but more important, the external historical evidence supports scripture and proves the important dogmas of the Catholic faith----such an the issue of infallibility of the Pope, an existing organization with Headship, and most important the actual Body of Christ given to us to consume. Like I say, History proves that this was taught by Jesus and believed well before the gospels were actually written. I have taken the time to write a discourse on the apologetics to prove this, but it is too lengthly to e-mail, since it results in 45 pages from my word processor. However, I would gladly mail you a copy of this Discourse for your analysis, and if you still had questions afterwards, I could deal with your specific questions on this site or by personal email.
In addition to my Discourse, I have recently found a good similar discourse with far more scriptural analysis than I used which is very valuable for an intellectual understanding on this subject. However, I have used sufficient biblical evidence for an intellectual analysis of the proof.
Now, when I make reference to Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, I don’t think you realize how comprehensive it is. It is translated into English and is contained, from my memory, in 6 very large volumes. I lent it to my son several years ago. I do have a very small version that is contained in one volume that was used in my University class, which is quite excellent, but covers only a very small portion of the entire Summa Theologica since it was designed as an introduction to Aquinas’s Summa. For normal scholarly discourse, this book would cover his arguments and answers to the objections of his arguments in sufficient content for our type of discussion. Books like this can probably be obtained through the web, but the one must be careful that it is not just a book on the history of Aquinas, but one that has his condensed Summa arguments.
You should be commended for seeking the truth, but wanting intellectual proofs.
R
rookieonedge
Guest
If the universe were God, then who created it? It wouldn’t make sense to say God, and there we go with a regression of gods. God may have created not only our universe but dozens of others. Maybe Heaven is populated with quite an assortment of souls. Maybe our own history (universally speaking) is only one of many. Could UFOs be a manifestation of other worlds at least in our own home universe?
God COULD reuse the ENERGY from the MASS of our universe to refashion it (“New Jerusalem?”). I wonder what kind of choices his other children from His creative powers might have made regarding original sin.
Now there’s something to contemplate.
R
rookieonedge
Guest
I’m more into Intelligent Design than Young Earth Creationism. You were responding to a quote, not mine. Besides, God could have performed His great feat in a split second of time if He had wanted to, and what we see is only how we perceive it. The senses can deceive us mightily.Young Earth Creationism - LOL !
With the bolded, you are either mistaken or lying.
W
wasmit
Guest
if he is omniscient, he knows all his future actions and decisions, and therefore cannot change his mind. therefore he is not omnipotent.
Further, my quote above was in response to your point about free will. If the christian god created all humans, and with omniscience at the time of creation he knew all actions and decisions of all the humans he created, he was making every decision for every person. Therefore free will does not exist, because the christian god created all humans with every decision already made on their behalf.
W
wasmit
Guest
W
wilbur006
Guest
Reply to ANON5216
Thank you for your reply, but I would like to explain a little more on my way of thinking.
You said:
“The available historical evidence has only been used to prove that there were texts written around the time claimed - some of which were used in compiling the Bible.”
Reply: The historical in-house Church records reveal that a functioning organized Church existed for about 50 or so years before the last gospel was written, and this Church acknowledged all of the important dogmas that the written gospels eventually contained. The Church functioned with Headship, with infallible authority in teaching the faith, and with structure; all before the gospels were finally compiled with the 27 canonical books of the New Testament in exact number as we have today by St. Anthanasius in 367. We must not forget, the Church was formed at the time of Jesus by Jesus, and functioned as such with inflaible authority at that time-----years before any of the four gospels were even thought of being written.
Please note, that Jesus never once requested his apostles to write down anything that He taught; and St John tells us that all t he books in the world could not contain everything that He taught. Jesus came to found a Church.
You said:
“There has never been proof that the copies are true to the originals (we have no originals). There has never been proof that the alleged quotes of Jesus were actually his words (this is not even possible to prove). It is also not possible to prove that the Holy Spirit insured accuracy in all or any of these selected writings.”
You said:
“Given that, I still believe it is possible to achieve spiritual results within Catholicism.”
“It is, however, not the only way, and not necessarily even the best way for many people.”
“It would remain a valid spiritual path without the unsupportable claims of inerrancy/infallibility/exclusiveness/etc.”
“It would actually become a much better path without those things.”
My reply is that we are called by Jesus to become members of His Body, Members of His Church, and to Eat of His Body to have everlasting life. We must do this so we are truly temples for the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. (all this is in scriptures)
This calling to be a christian is more than merely living a virtuous life, to have charity for all (helpful, kind,etc etc etc ), but to belong to His Body which is ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. If one is to belong to His Church he must understand all of the faith and dogma of that Church, and to be the “light” of that Church. We, as Catholics must believe in the infallibility of the Pope in matters of our faith and morals, since the Holy Spirit is with The Church. We must understand that Christ Jesus is physically in every Catholic Church building that has the Consecrated Host at that location. IF A PERSON DOESN’T BELIEVE THESE FAITH DOGMAS IT IS QUESTIONABLE IF THEY CAN BE CALLED “CHRISTIANS”.
I have to add, from your comments is sound much like an Evangelical, Congregational, or Fundamentalist belief.
I do appreciate your comments and certainly would like to discuss this with you more if you think I am wrong.
Your friend In Christ
Thank you for your reply, but I would like to explain a little more on my way of thinking.
You said:
“The available historical evidence has only been used to prove that there were texts written around the time claimed - some of which were used in compiling the Bible.”
Reply: The historical in-house Church records reveal that a functioning organized Church existed for about 50 or so years before the last gospel was written, and this Church acknowledged all of the important dogmas that the written gospels eventually contained. The Church functioned with Headship, with infallible authority in teaching the faith, and with structure; all before the gospels were finally compiled with the 27 canonical books of the New Testament in exact number as we have today by St. Anthanasius in 367. We must not forget, the Church was formed at the time of Jesus by Jesus, and functioned as such with inflaible authority at that time-----years before any of the four gospels were even thought of being written.
Please note, that Jesus never once requested his apostles to write down anything that He taught; and St John tells us that all t he books in the world could not contain everything that He taught. Jesus came to found a Church.
You said:
“There has never been proof that the copies are true to the originals (we have no originals). There has never been proof that the alleged quotes of Jesus were actually his words (this is not even possible to prove). It is also not possible to prove that the Holy Spirit insured accuracy in all or any of these selected writings.”
You said:
“Given that, I still believe it is possible to achieve spiritual results within Catholicism.”
“It is, however, not the only way, and not necessarily even the best way for many people.”
“It would remain a valid spiritual path without the unsupportable claims of inerrancy/infallibility/exclusiveness/etc.”
“It would actually become a much better path without those things.”
My reply is that we are called by Jesus to become members of His Body, Members of His Church, and to Eat of His Body to have everlasting life. We must do this so we are truly temples for the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. (all this is in scriptures)
This calling to be a christian is more than merely living a virtuous life, to have charity for all (helpful, kind,etc etc etc ), but to belong to His Body which is ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. If one is to belong to His Church he must understand all of the faith and dogma of that Church, and to be the “light” of that Church. We, as Catholics must believe in the infallibility of the Pope in matters of our faith and morals, since the Holy Spirit is with The Church. We must understand that Christ Jesus is physically in every Catholic Church building that has the Consecrated Host at that location. IF A PERSON DOESN’T BELIEVE THESE FAITH DOGMAS IT IS QUESTIONABLE IF THEY CAN BE CALLED “CHRISTIANS”.
I have to add, from your comments is sound much like an Evangelical, Congregational, or Fundamentalist belief.
I do appreciate your comments and certainly would like to discuss this with you more if you think I am wrong.
Your friend In Christ
A
anon5216
Guest
Your comments in the beginning of your above post all assume the inerrancy of christian scripture and infallibility of the Church as a starting point.
None of that can be proven - it has to be assumed true by faith.
An organization simply can’t use materials it, itself, created to ‘prove’ its assertions.
Regarding my background, I was raised Catholic, but didn’t believe the mythology and left.
I never went to protestantism, but found my path amongst the various spiritual traditions of India.
From that outsider perspective, there is no knowledge of what Jesus said and did - only knowledge of what others said Jesus said and did. The Church has built up far too much unprovable theology and doctrine based on second hand alleged quotes.
This has lead to a severely dysfunctional emphasis on form and words usurping the place of spiritual substance of experience.
S
steve_b
Guest
everything is caused. It just doesn’t happen from nothing. A first rule of science is, something at rest will remain at rest indefinitely until moved by something. If you don’t know what caused the big bang then you are believing in something you can’t prove. THAT’S faith NOT science.
was:
That’s false also. If the main subject of a hypothesis can’t be proven then you are forcing a belief about something based on faith NOT scientific fact. Something can’t come from nothing. You MUST have a cause that is provable or you have a belief based on faith NOT science.
S
steve_b
Guest
College professors won’t give wiki the time of day.
S
steve_b
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
He is both knowing and making, all in the same Eternity. God does not exist in time. He is not part of the Creation - He is the Creator. Time is one of the things that He created. He is not bound by it, though.
Not at all. God can know what I am thinking, without also thinking what I am thinking.
And again, no, because we are not God. The thoughts in our minds are our own thoughts; they are not God’s thoughts. We remain free to make our decisions, even though God already knows what they will be. Same as when you watch a movie, you can replay the movie over and over again until you know the dialogue by heart, but from the point of view of the characters in the movie, for them, it is always the first time, no matter how many times over you play the movie - and it is always their own free choice to say the things that they say - even though when you replay it over again, they still say the same thing again and again, every single time.
R
rookieonedge
Guest
That God can be both omniscient and omnipotent is answered thoroughly and, in my opinion, definatively by jmcrae in post #293. The analogy of characters on tv acting out the same parts without the interference of the viewer regardless of how many times the movie is played explains how God views us as we make choices without interfering, yet, knowing all along what choices we will make.
Maybe starting out with the existence of God is a difficult premise for some to accept. In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis starts out with the Moral Law which he defines as The Law of Nature in the first chapter. He argues that such a law is built into human beings. It’s not just a point of cordiality or an instinct; it’s an interior understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Of course, one would have to accept the idea of absolutes to believe and even understand this concept. Lewis gives an example of a man having to determine between two choices, for example, whether to save a child who is drowning or fall back on the instinct of self-preservation. The man knows “in his heart” what is the right thing to do. (An example of a woman choosing whether or not to have an abortion is a similar moral decision). The question is are you a relativist or an absolutist regarding Natural Law?
W
wasmit
Guest
if he is omniscient, he knows all of his actions and decisions, and therefore cannot change his mind. therefore he is not omnipotent.
Of course we are not god and he does not think what we think.
This point does not refute my argument -
If the christian god created all humans, and with omniscience at the time of creation he knew all actions and decisions of all the humans he created, he was making every decision for every person. Therefore free will does not exist, because the christian god created all humans with every decision already made on their behalf.
To clarify this argument, the decisons were made at the time of creation, not at the time of the decision.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He does not experience time. He simply acts - he isn’t reflecting, or thinking, or predicting, or planning, or considering, or pondering - he just does stuff - He reaches into this moment and does this, and then into that moment, and does that, like a painter dabbing paint on a canvas, until the whole thing is finished, and then when He comes to the end of creating it (where from His point of view, time has ended, the Judgment has already taken place, and all has been fulfilled), that’s when we begin to experience existence, and proceed through time sequentially, and have some things as “past” and other things as “future.”
With God, the “time of Creation” and the “time of decision” both happened simultaneously, when He was creating them. God is already at the end of it. We are still in the middle of it.
W
wasmit
Guest
I don’t really know what you mean by relativist, absolutist, or natural law. There are many different definitions that different people use, and I can’t know what you mean unless you explain further.
I don’t agree with absolutism defined here, as context must be considered when making a moral decision.
Quickly looking at this page on relativism just made me more confused about what you are asking.
W
wasmit
Guest
W
wasmit
Guest
Flew used the fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
If the burden of proof is not on the claimant, then the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, because She cannot be disproven! (how can she be both invisible and pink, though?)
This has already happened! In the Good Old Days™, flashes of light and noise from the sky was thought to be god’s anger, but it is actually lightning. Similarly the beauty of our surroundings have been shown to occur without supernatural intervention.
This alalogy assumes it’s own outcome! How tripe.
lol, do you seriously believe this ****, Mr. Rookieonedge? Perhaps you are trolling.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No, He didn’t “create the decision.” He created us, and He imbued us with free will, and when He created us, He observed us making all of the decisions of our lives, quite freely. He did not make any of those decisions for us.
- Status