Proving God Exists

[Anticontrame]

Hi. Another atheist here.

I just wanted to cut in to mention that there is selective pressure for altruism. One of the better understood aspects of this evolutionary pressure goes by the name “kin selection”. We’ve been able to reproduce the phenomenon using virtual robots with evolving genomes participating in a simulation of evolution ([original publication](http://stephane.magnenat.net/data/Evolutionar y%20Conditions%20for%20the%20Emergence%20of%2 0Communication%20in%20Robots%20-%20Dario%20Fl oreano,%20Sara%20Mitri,%20St%C3%A9phane%20Mag nenat,%20Laurent%20Keller%20-%20Current%20Bio logy%20-%202007.pdf)).

As for the first cause issue: We really don’t have sufficient understanding to come to any conclusions. We have evidence supporting the Big Bang, but all that suggests is that the universe expanded from a singularity in time and space. Speculation beyond that point is really just educated guesswork.

I come at the God question from the stance that there aren’t convincing reasons (arguments, evidence, “proof”) to believe, but I’d like to think that I’d be open to any that might come along.

I’m kind of curious, where does the Church say that the existence of God can be known with certainty? I don’t think I’m familiar with that idea. Thanks

 

[joeybaggz]

What you’re using is called the God of the Gaps argument.

I’ve always found atheists arguments amusing, but particularly the “God of the Gaps” argument. Evolution is full of just those gaps. Scientists admit that and so do most atheists I encountered. Yet we constantly hear atheists support the “logic”, or the practice, of simply pouring some theoretical scientific “putty” into the gaps and voila, truth, fact, scientific “evidence”. Therefore their position is fact, it’s just that they haven’t found the evidence.

As to science not having fully explored (and answered) everything, by your refutation of the existence of God because he cannot be proved, you contradict yourself when you assert that life may exist because everything hasn’t been explored, or proved. By your logic, life anywhere else in the cosmos cannot exist because there is no evidence for it. It is more of the intellectual disingeniuity (sp) of the atheist crowd. If you deny the existence of God, and wish to pass your opinion off on theists as fact, be consistent in your logic. By your logic, life exists nowhere else in the galaxy because there is no evidence of it. To hold any other position is intellectually dishonest.

You have entered a Catholic forum for, I guess, the express purpose of proving to us that our beliefs, and our faith, is foolish. At least be consistent in your arguments.

 

[Rainier22]

I’ve always found atheists arguments amusing, but particularly the “God of the Gaps” argument. Evolution is full of just those gaps. Scientists admit that and so do most atheists I encountered. Yet we constantly hear atheists support the “logic”, or the practice, of simply pouring some theoretical scientific “putty” into the gaps and voila, truth, fact, scientific “evidence”. Therefore their position is fact, it’s just that they haven’t found the evidence.

As to science not having fully explored (and answered) everything, by your refutation of the existence of God because he cannot be proved, you contradict yourself when you assert that life may exist because everything hasn’t been explored, or proved. By your logic, life anywhere else in the cosmos cannot exist because there is no evidence for it. It is more of the intellectual disingeniuity (sp) of the atheist crowd. If you deny the existence of God, and wish to pass your opinion off on theists as fact, be consistent in your logic. By your logic, life exists nowhere else in the galaxy because there is no evidence of it. To hold any other position is intellectually dishonest.

You have entered a Catholic forum for, I guess, the express purpose of proving to us that our beliefs, and our faith, is foolish. At least be consistent in your arguments.

You’re obviously confused. Imagine a long stretch of road, and you can see all the way down it - well - almost all the way down it. There is a small hill in it where you can’t see the road for a bit. That’s the theory of evolution. The road almost certainly is there, but you can’t be certain. All the evidence points to that conclusion. You can literally predict what they will find.

The God of the Gaps is placing God where ever you don’t know an answer. It used to be the weather. Not it’s the beginnings of the universe among other things. This has nothing to do with using testable, falsifiable, evidence based theory to fill gaps. It is completely different. Also, the hypothesis of God filling most of the gaps in the past was completely wrong.

As for aliens, you’re definitely not understanding. By my logic, just because we haven’t seen life on other planets means we it doesn’t exist? That’s just blatantly incorrect. We have evidence that life forms on planets. We have evidence that the stuff that makes life forms on planets. We have 13.8 billions years to work with when Earth only needed 4.55. There could theoretically be other civilizations out there. I don’t know whether or not if there are any, but evidence points that way.

You have absolutely zero evidence for God. Zero. You don’t have the tiniest little slice of an atom of evidence. If it was known that one god already exists, like we know one planet with life does, then it would make sense that another could also possibly exist - but of course that’s not correct either because you made your god into something beyond any shred of evidence. You’ve actually went far enough to insert “supernatural” into the definition of God. God isn’t composed of what every single other thing in the universe is composed of. What is God composed of? You’ve taken this so far out of the realm of science that it’s ridiculous. I know you’ve been taught to believe this, but you’re attempt to take my logic out of context is disgraceful. At least try to question it. Before you say it, I question atheism all the time. I would love for an all loving deity to exist, but there simply isn’t any reason to believe that it does.

I’m here to converse with intelligent theists. I’m not here to get my words taken out of context or to deal with people who lack the ability to question their beliefs. That is why if your next post isn’t much, much different, I will be ignoring it.

Ehud, where are these “heavy hitters?”

 

[VociMike]

Well… I hate to say this but you either aren’t getting the information I’m giving you, or you can’t get it - or… I don’t know. But for some reason you’re not behaving as though you understand what I’m saying. The fact that you are repeating the same assertions shows me that, and it makes me think that I have no further reason to discuss this with you.

OK, then don’t discuss this with me, if that’s your choice.

Saying “first explanation” may help some, but making up a term without defining what you’re saying is pretty confusing. I don’t even know what you mean by the first explanation. The first cause is terribly easy to dismiss. I’m going to go ahead and avoid the whole quantum mechanics of the situation for a moment to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say there was a first cause. This thing caused something. It just existed, and caused something. That’s all that needs to be. Where on Earth do you get the idea that the first cause is omnipotent? Where do you get that it loves you or wrote a book? And the book is completely true! I mean that’s just hilarious! Where do you get that it knows everything? Where do you get that it is infinite or even perfect?

You must be reading somebody else’s messages. I never made these claims. What I claimed (yes, here it comes again) is that you, of necessity, hold beliefs about the First Explanation (a.k.a. the Uncaused Cause) based entirely on faith, and that you don’t criticize that act of faith even while you are criticizing the theist’s act of faith. You are claiming without cause to be able to eliminate an entire category of answer. You are saying “I don’t know exactly what the First Explanation is, but I know it isn’t God”.

If you would just acknowledge that your world view rests ultimately on faith, then maybe we could explore what flows from that. If you would just acknowledge that science in no way supports or even speaks to your world view over the Catholic world view, then we’ve made progress.

And I’m glad you didn’t go the QM route, because then I’d just ask what explains QM. QM says nothing about the issue at hand, other than providing an intriguing absolute limit to our ability to look up the skirts of the universe.

Oh, and BTW, it is exactly not on Earth that Catholicism “gets” any of those things you asked about. Rather, it’s because “it” told us about “itself”.

 

[Anticontrame]

Hmm. I can’t speak for Rainier, but I don’t think that I have a faith when it comes to the origin of things. I just don’t know what happened, and if someone does bring up a really good hypothesis, I doubt I’ll be able to fully understand it. My atheism effects that ignorance only in that I’m not trying to explain it with God.

 

[VociMike]

Hmm. I can’t speak for Rainier, but I don’t think that I have a faith when it comes to the origin of things. I just don’t know what happened, and if someone does bring up a really good hypothesis, I doubt I’ll be able to fully understand it. My atheism effects that ignorance only in that I’m not trying to explain it with God.

This brings up an interesting point. If you truly accept that you don’t know the origin of things, and if one explanation (call it the “natural” explanation) has no eternal consequences (when you’re dead you’re dead), and the other explanation has infinite eternal consequences (heaven or hell), isn’t the rational response to go with the possibility that has infinite eternal consequences?

Which is to say, if you truly don’t know if God exists, then how could you possibly live as though he did not? How could that be the rational choice?

 

[Rainier22]

You must be reading somebody else’s messages. I never made these claims. What I claimed (yes, here it comes again) is that you, of necessity, hold beliefs about the First Explanation (a.k.a. the Uncaused Cause) based entirely on faith, and that you don’t criticize that act of faith even while you are criticizing the theist’s act of faith. You are claiming without cause to be able to eliminate an entire category of answer. You are saying “I don’t know exactly what the First Explanation is, but I know it isn’t God”.

If you aren’t saying that the first cause was God, then I’m confused of the relevance here unless you just want to talk about it.

You really, really, really need to understand that there is no faith here. By faith I mean believing with lack of or in spite of evidence. If you believe otherwise, then please tell me where I’m giving faith.

What I’m telling you is that I don’t know whether or not there even was a first cause much less what it was. I’m telling you that saying it was a conscious entity with all the attributes of God is a huge stretch considering nothing like that has ever been observed. You might as well say that it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t any of those. I can say that inserting God into the first cause is equal to inserting anything you can possible imagine. Believing the first cause was a mysterious Pepsi bottle with magical powers has just as much credibility. Does that better explain it?

If you would just acknowledge that your world view rests ultimately on faith, then maybe we could explore what flows from that. If you would just acknowledge that science in no way supports or even speaks to your world view over the Catholic world view, then we’ve made progress.

Once again you’re saying my viewpoint rests on faith. Where are you getting this? If I don’t believe I can tell you an answer based on some sort of reasoning, then I’m going to say I don’t know. You are the one who has faith since you are saying that you do know. What I do know is that there are logical problems with the hypothesis of the Christian creator. The idea of an omni-God creating the universe simply does not make any sense considering what the universe is actually like - colliding galaxies and all.

And I’m glad you didn’t go the QM route, because then I’d just ask what explains QM. QM says nothing about the issue at hand, other than providing an intriguing absolute limit to our ability to look up the skirts of the universe.

You just mentioned the universe and looking up skirts in the same sentence. That is mind bogglingly awesome. Good job.

I had to look at that for a while because we had an old forum member named QuestionMark that we called QM.

I did mention quantum mechanics, but I’m not anywhere near versed enough in it to support my argument adequately. I know that when I ask people who do, they tell me that something can most definitely come from nothing at the quantum scale.

What explains quantum mechanics? I’m going to put my money on the people at the labs.

Oh, and BTW, it is exactly not on Earth that Catholicism “gets” any of those things you asked about. Rather, it’s because “it” told us about “itself”.

I think you’re referring to your emotions being brought to you by natural selection rather than something supernatural… But, I really have no idea what you’re saying…

 

[Anticontrame]

This brings up an interesting point. If you truly accept that you don’t know the origin of things, and if one explanation (call it the “natural” explanation) has no eternal consequences (when you’re dead you’re dead), and the other explanation has infinite eternal consequences (heaven or hell), isn’t the rational response to go with the possibility that has infinite eternal consequences?

Which is to say, if you truly don’t know if God exists, then how could you possibly live as though he did not? How could that be the rational choice?

There are a bunch of things that you and I treat as nonexistent without knowledge of their nonexistence. We don’t know that the boogie man doesn’t exist, but we don’t live as if he does: checking under beds and in closets. (I’m not trying to say that the existence of God and the boogie man are equiprobable, or that belief in the boogie man is as reasonable as belief in God. It’s just an example.) I try to set certain standards of evidence/argument for the ideas I accept, and the claim for God’s existance hasn’t met them, in my eyes. I’m not saying that I know no gods exist. I am acting as if they don’t until I find a reason not to.

I don’t think that belief is something you can turn on and off based on bet hedging in any case.

 

[Rainier22]

There are a bunch of things that you and I treat as nonexistent without knowledge of their nonexistence. We don’t know that the boogie man doesn’t exist, but we don’t live as if he does: checking under beds and in closets. (I’m not trying to say that the existence of God and the boogie man are equiprobable, or that belief in the boogie man is as reasonable as belief in God. It’s just an example.) I try to set certain standards of evidence/argument for the ideas I accept, and the claim for God’s existance hasn’t met them, in my eyes. I’m not saying that I know no gods exist. I am acting as if they don’t until I find a reason not to.

I don’t think that belief is something you can turn on and off based on bet hedging in any case.

That’s an impressively short and concise yet informative rebuttal of Pascal’s Wager. I’m jealous. I would have had 3 pages by now mentioning different gods and religions or whether god is good or bad… I can never just say it short like that.

 

[joeybaggz]

I hope to encounter some great new ideas on that here.

I’m not confusted. But I do admire your certainty, I’m sure you find certainty superior to hope. But more about that later.

First, The CC has no problem with scientific evolution. Neither do I. In fact, the church recoginzes that the theory has great merit. It just, however, is still a theory, not a fact. In the end, we will, with great probability, find it to be the tool God used to create the cosmos. Though I love that idea that one can “literally” predict what one will find. Sure hope there are no surprises in store for you.

Your statement that there is nothing wrong with using testable, falsifiable, evidence based on theory to fill gaps is interesting. Theory, a conjecture (don’t have time to find it in Websters), used as proof and accepted as fact. Sounds like a contradiction in terms.

“As for aliens, you’re not understanding” - your words. And I most certainly did not take your “logic” out of context. The context of your “logic”, I merely observed, that you state that science demands evidence, and then you make assertions as to existence of aliens based on no provable, falsifiable evidence at all (unless of course theory is evidence and therefore fact). Aliens, sentient, self directed beings capable of rational thought and action based not on instinct. At present, there is no demonstrable ‘proof’ that aliens exist. No solid proof, just a “theory”. Of course, in your world, the possible existence of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen automatically means that in a few millenia, they’ll be doing open heart surgery on Saturn.

We have no evidence for God. Ummm, we never said we did, at least in scientific terms. It may come as a shock to you but we do admit that God can’t be put in a test tube or on a slide under a microscope. I’d explain why we believe in a God that doesn’t permit Himself to be made accountable, but a good friend of mine said never to cast pearls before swine.

"I’m here to converse with intelligent theists. Really? Your posts all but drip with scorn for anyone who, in your sanctimonius mind, is intellectually retarded enought to believe in what a theist believes. Don’t you mean, condescendingly talk down at? Big difference between that and “converse”.

I mentioned that I admire your certainty. My wish for you is that you live for 120 years or more which, given todays scientific advances, should well be possible in a couple of decades. We catholics believe in a Savior who admonished us to become like little children. He was referring to faith in a provident and loving God, but that’s not operable for you. If my hope for you comes true, however, you will become like a little child. Somewhere in your future your body will begin to break down. Your mind will go, you’ll sit in a diaper in your own mess, with a blissful smile of pure ignorance on your face as your mental facilities rot. Your limbs will jerk spasmodically and you’ll spend a lot of time staring into space and drooling. Others will feed “the vegetable” and after a decade or more, you will drift away into a cold, dead, putrid, blackness of nothingness, safe in the knowledge (at least while your mental facilities function) that you will not share in the foolish delusions of those of us who believe in a life beyond this, given to us by an infinite Creator, in a world that endless screams that death is nothing but a prelude to new life and that life renews itself constantly, as the Creator designed it.

This forum doesn’t permit personal attacks and I am beginning to drift in that direction, but it is your “Ehud, where are the heavy hitters” remark that clinches it. That remark and the condescension of your posts indicate a child with an arrogant and haughty attitude. You see, it may surprise you, but we’ve heard all this before. I’m not sure if I am disagreeing with you or disagreeing with Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, merely plagarized by a kid in Missouri with a computer, a superiority complex, and too much time on his hands? But there is one thing you might want to understand. You aren’t the first, and unfortunately probably not the last, smug, self-satified and self-congratulatory atheist who has appeared on this forum. If you haven’t noticed, only a couple of people have botherd to respond to you. Most of the population of this forum have ignored you. And your diligent efforts at mocking theists, disguised as an intellectual endeavor, will not ‘convert’ anyone. Sorry for the bad news. My suggestion for you and your buddy Ehud, score a couple fifths of Chris Hitchen’s favorite hooch, and get together and tell each other just how wonderful you are.

How’s that for a great new idea?

 

[VociMike]

There are a bunch of things that you and I treat as nonexistent without knowledge of their nonexistence. We don’t know that the boogie man doesn’t exist, but we don’t live as if he does: checking under beds and in closets. (I’m not trying to say that the existence of God and the boogie man are equiprobable, or that belief in the boogie man is as reasonable as belief in God. It’s just an example.)

And not a very good one, really. For one thing, people are happy to admit that they make up stories of the boogie man. For another, there are no infinite eternal consequences to the existence of the boogie man.

I try to set certain standards of evidence/argument for the ideas I accept, and the claim for God’s existance hasn’t met them, in my eyes. I’m not saying that I know no gods exist. I am acting as if they don’t until I find a reason not to.

So what higher standards of evidence/argument exist that explain the existence of everything in some non-God manner? Call it the First Singularity or whatever you want. It is that thing from which every law of nature, every bit of mass and energy, and every aspect of the human condition derives. What evidence do you have for the existence of the First Singularity that is stronger than the evidence for God?

I don’t think that belief is something you can turn on and off based on bet hedging in any case.

If you think of infinite, eternal consequences as a bet then I don’t think you’ve fully absorbed the concept. Some people might think playing (actual) Russian Roulette for $1000 is a reasonable bet, but most would agree that it is not rational.

 

[Anticontrame]

And not a very good one, really. For one thing, people are happy to admit that they make up stories of the boogie man. For another, there are no infinite eternal consequences to the existence of the boogie man.

You’re right. It’s not a great comparison, but I think the principle stands.

So what higher standards of evidence/argument exist that explain the existence of everything in some non-God manner? Call it the First Singularity or whatever you want. It is that thing from which every law of nature, every bit of mass and energy, and every aspect of the human condition derives. What evidence do you have for the existence of the First Singularity that is stronger than the evidence for God?

I don’t have a clue, really. I’ve read a bit about it, but I don’t honestly understand talk of physics breaking down when all the properties of the universe are smaller than Planck units. The brane, multiverse, or unstable nothingness ideas don’t seem to be more than conjecture at this time, but that we don’t know yet isn’t a reason to conclude that God must have done it. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know” when there’s no way of knowing.

If you think of infinite, eternal consequences as a bet then I don’t think you’ve fully absorbed the concept. Some people might think playing (actual) Russian Roulette for $1000 is a reasonable bet, but most would agree that it is not rational.

But that makes the assumption that if there is a god, he/she/it would reward or punish you based on your belief in he/she/it, and that a proclamation of belief based solely on your hedging against the threat would pass muster. I don’t really see why either condition might be, and even if I do accept the argument, how would I decide which type of god to believe in? Is an atheist that much worse off than a deist? Is an atheist worse off than a theist who ends up believing in the wrong god?

I’m not sure if I should be posting here anymore. Ehud (who is Catholic, I think) asked us if we would defend our positions on this thread, but I don’t want to offend anyone.

 

[Rainier22]

entire post

Well, that’s some pretty good stuff right there. I’ll post that in the “When Christians attack” box. The hypocrisy of this is really, really great. I understand you’re the liberal church, but at what point were Catholics allowed to outright attack people like this?

Instead of completely derailing the thread with this ridiculous, insulting, weak, and utterly disgusting excuse for language, perhaps you could start sharing those arguments.

I’m going to try one more time to explain this to you, and I really don’t know why after you just sprayed us verbal diarrhea.

A planet harboring life exists, therefore planets harboring life can exist. That is reason to believe other planets harboring life can exist. Whether or not they do - I don’t know.

Nothing omnipotent has ever been observed. The same goes for all the other “omni” characteristics. Nothing that even comes close to 1% of what God supposedly is has ever been observed. Theism says that not only does that 1% exist, but the whole 9 yards is floating out there somewhere. Oh, and you won’t see it either because it can’t be observed.

You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of children when they do this. “I can lift your house!” “Show me!” “No! I’m not going to show you.” And then the kid says “That’s because you can’t do it.”

We won’t make this assumption that the kid is right unless it’s a preacher with a Bible it seems. We won’t do it for Zeus. We won’t do it for magical unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We will only do it to someone convincing enough.

 

[Super_Grover]

Rainier,

I personally don’t care whether you are trying to bait silly, religious people, or whether you are genuinely looking for intelligent debate. If you didn’t care whether or not there is a God, you probably wouldn’t be here. So, even if you label yourself an atheist (and assuming you’re wrong), you might be a lot better off spiritually than those who don’t bother to search for the Truth.

I have nothing to offer in terms of “reasoning” to a belief in God. This might be of little interest to you because it involves “supernatural” assistance in believing in God, but I’ll give it to you anyway.

I was raised Catholic, which does not necessarily mean anything, because my Catholic elementary schooling taught me little more than to think of Jesus as a sort of hippie who loved us no matter what. Then my Catholic university caused me to lose my Faith (assuming I ever really had it) more than anything. As an adult, I had quietly reached a point pretty much where you are, but I never formally left the Church. For every argument from reason in support of God, I found at least one against. Determinism, the recognition of the evolutionary argument for individual altruism, the survival of groups that display these tendencies, and even the notion that this funky little belief in higher powers could be selected for because it helps to impose external rules of conduct that would help groups survive, all these ideas held me. Then, even if I were to try to hold in my mind the Christian concept of God, I came up against all the theological problems of a just and loving God that would allow so many people to die in what seemed such senseless ways, the suffering of children, all of that. I found it easier, in many ways, to not believe in God, or at least be agnostic with a belief that there probably was not an intelligent creator. I would have rather been convinced in a belief in God, but I did not want to be an idiot believing in God without good reason.

Then I had an experience that came out of nowhere. I won’t be able to fully describe it or give it justice. Nothing dramatic happened externally like a car accident or something. It simply started as the vaguest suggestion that I might be shown a truth. Almost like a half-formed thought in the back of my mind. I had probably had it before and rejected it. This time, for whatever reason, I did not. I let the thought develop, or “left myself open to the truth” or whatever you want to call it. Gently, gradually, over the period of a couple days, what I call a “deep knowing” took hold in me. I just “knew” of the truth of Jesus and the Church. It was an actual intellectual knowing. I could read religious writings and just “know” when they were sound, and when they were not. When something seemed not right, I would look it up and, sure enough, my sense was always correct. I was also instilled with powerful virtue for a time. I could see the face of Christ in everyone, and I’m not naturally the most charitable person. I was repulsed by things that the Church teaches to be sin. It was sort of a “high”, but that is a cheap way to explain something so profound. I let it go and in the space of a few weeks, it was like it had rewired my brain. There is much, much more that I could tell you, but you’re already probably thinking, “this guy’s a weirdo.”

At the time of this experience, it was wonderful, and also very confusing because I had no one to talk to about it and found no good references for this experience. If you want to know what a rationalist I was, I was actually looking for a physical cause, such as researching whether this could be temporal lobe seizures (known to cause thought processes that the subject finds “religious”) or something – it wasn’t. I’ve since learned that this is not an uncommon experience. I recognize now that it was the Holy Spirit in me, and that I was given what is called the “gift of faith”, a gift that I did not deserve. This is how people like you can come to believe, by receiving a gift that you do not deserve. These are not experiences that are amenable to confirmation by scientific method, but anecdotally they are reported with consistency, as you might find of many experiences in our Church. I went from unbeliever to a man whose faith was so strong that had an angel manifested itself in my living room, it would not have increased my faith one iota. Those “experiences” fade eventually, leaving you the hard work of trying to live a good life through prayer, without such extraordinary fortification. That’s where I am now, just working out my own salvation with fear and trembling like everybody else.

I always valued my intelligence and never wanted to be “snookered” and so my intellectual pride kept me from the Truth and built up many sophisticated, false ideas that made me feel rather clever. I regret that, but I can only look to the future.

(continued)

 

[Super_Grover]

(continued)

No human being alone will give you the answers to allow your finite mind to accept the Infinite. Only the Infinite will be able to do that. So, if I may be so bold as to recommend something to you. Put aside your intellectual pride, if you can, find a quiet place, and devote just one hour to prayer. Better yet, find a church that is having Eucharistic adoration so that you can pray in front of the Host that we crazy Catholics believe to be the Real Presence of Christ. Ask God (throw in an “if you are there” if you must) to send the Holy Spirit with the gift of faith. Sure, it may seem like a meaningless gesture if you are an atheist. But then again, what could it hurt? Obviously, you’ve devoted many hours of your life to reading intelligent books on this topic, what’s one hour? My guess is that you can’t do it, and that is not a put down. I know because if someone had challenged me to the same, I would have blown it off. The reason is that prayer to this Christian God would have offended another god, my false god of intellectual pride. Christianity is all about “humbling” yourself, and this is one those weird things where, to your human mind, you are putting the cart before the horse. To understand, you must first humble yourself and come to believe, but if you don’t believe, you can’t understand. So, to believe, you need to receive that faith as a gift; a “gift” because it is not something that you can generate on your own.

And if you think people are not responding well to you, well Catholics are only human too. When you take a man whom we believe to be fully divine, who came down and was scourged, and humiliated, and put to death by crucifixion for our sins, and you compare that man to a flying spaghetti monster, well, I understand the point that you are trying to make, but it still pisses people off.

If you ever do come around, and I pray that you will, you will not find it to be mind-deadened conformity. To the contrary, I am so challenged intellectually now, and it is a blast. And I can understand and appreciate things that I would have been incapable of before. The intellectual challenges available to one inside the Church are much greater and more rewarding than those outside of it. Good luck.

 

[Awake]

Ziggamafu, I’ve struggled with that exact same question. You’d think that if human reason alone could guarantee us of knowing the existence of God, then it would be obvious to everybody. Yet there are many people, myself included, who search and search but can never quite come across the answer.

 

[Sarpedon]

It’s really, really, really, really simple. There is no such thing as good or evil. Why do you even believe there is such a thing?

I can’t speak for him, but I’ll give my answer- I’m not an sociopath. I can intuitively see that certain actions are wrong (like murder), and that others are good. Have you thought about the consequences of your position?

It’s completely subjective to culture and species. Catholics with the exact same convictions as you have different ideas on morality. There is simply no objective morality out there.

All this proves is that people don’t always agree on what is moral, not that morality is subjective. Do you believe that the YECs render the evolution question subjective (thus, having no true definate answer)?

Take one step out of civilization, and try to find morality. Animals don’t follow it. The weather doesn’t follow it. Geology doesn’t follow it. Galaxies eat each other!

Only rational creatures with free will and a soul can practice morality.

Think about it. If you try to kill someone, then you will be putting your life at risk.

Not necessarily- animals kill each other all the time and survive.

By protecting the young (people just love babies), you offer them better protection.

Yes, and further the human species- as God wants. Maybe God used evolution to set this desire into us, to fulfill His will.

I don’t even believe in consciousness like you do. I believe that consciousness is the expression of development of DNA in response to stimuli in the environment.

OK. I disagree.

[QUOTEp
Even cells have morality if you search for it, but it turns out that the good in morality comes down to what helps you and your genes survive.
[/QUOTE]

I see no supporting arguments for this.

So, I can use evil to argue against this God hypothesis because this hypothesis declares that it exists. It relies on it.

Evil doesn’t exist. It is the lack of good, just like cold is the absence of heat.

The simple idea of it just being a part of human survival instinct completely destroys any idea that good needs to come from anything else much less an omniscient, omni-benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, and perfect in every way deity that is of course invisible and beyond natural.

Absolutely not. Even if you could prove that morality does not need God as an explanation for its existence, this does not prove that God does not exist. Proving the possibility of something does not prove that it actually is. Even if morality could exist apart from God, it does not follow that it actually does exist apart from God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

So here’s the deal. The Church teaches dogmatically that the existence of God may be known with certainty by the light of human reason alone. Ironically, as a Catholic, I have to take this dogma on faith because I have never seen an argument for God that is incapable of logical refutation.

The Church says this (plucked from your statement above):
“The Church teaches dogmatically that the existence of God may be known with certainty by the light of human reason alone.”

The certain existence of God may be KNOWN by reason, but the certain existence of God can not be DEDUCED (actively reasoned from evidence from natural law) without a “hint” from direct revelation via gift from God or instruction from one given that gift from God.

You can deduce SOMETHING that is without certainty God-like from natural law, but only by being “informed”, in one way or another, usually by a brother human being who himself was informed likewise, of what is to believed about God, which we then find confirmed and expanded by holding that belief in faith over time, can we reason (backwards if you will) that God certainly does exist.

That people choose to NEED to have reasons before they will believe, which is precisely backwards, instead of faithfully believing until that belief is confirmed, is due to a basic misunderstanding of how to “do science” (the scientific method).

First we observe a phenomenon which repeats, then we form a hypothesis as to why it repeats (we BELIEVE we know why), then we test our hypothesis (while FAITHFULLY holding to our BELIEF we see if our belief proves true), and if our hypothesis proves true we have confirmation that it IS true (our FAITH is confirmed giving us REASONS for our BELIEF).

So, FIRST we BELIEVE without tested reasons for doing so, THEN we find those REASONS by being FAITHFUL to our beliefs through trial.

First comes revelation (observation), then comes belief, then comes faith, then come reasons [nouns], which give us “items” to use in our process of reasoning [verb].

Reasoning comes after reasons which come after faith which come after belief which come after revelation.

Without the observation of revelation, the “chain” does not start.

Without faithful belief in that observation, no proof in the truth of that observation will be presented (by God), and one is left with only a “wish” to believe if the belief is attractive, or a lack of evidence to believe if the belief is dubiously valued.

God offers no “super-proofs” of His existence because that violates the goal of the “LESSON” of the task He gives us by this situation arising!

A “super-proof” violates our free will, while the goal of the lesson is to see that the **correct use **of our free will is a path to Him, and to all knowledge that is not His mystery, and that the initial KEY to this path is acceptance of revelation, and our humilty in putting trusting this path (His gift to us inbuilt in us) before our WANT to be assured a “reward” before following His path.

 

[Rainier22]

Rainier…

Super Grover, that is utterly fascinating. I would absolutely love to talk about this experience of yours and how all this works for you. That is just really, really interesting really. I probably won’t be on much if at all this weekend, but I’ll definitely try to get back to you so that we can talk about this if you don’t mind. I’m not going to blow off your idea on prayer even if it does sound boring because it obviously affected you. Perhaps at another time you can give further detail in what happened.

Thanks a ton. That was really - really frickin’ interesting.

 

[Anticontrame]

Thanks for explaining the position, CatsAndDogs. I was wearing out my Google finger trying to figure out what was meant by certain knowledge.

That people choose to NEED to have reasons before they will believe, which is precisely backwards, instead of faithfully believing until that belief is confirmed, is due to a basic misunderstanding of how to “do science” (the scientific method).

First we observe a phenomenon which repeats, then we form a hypothesis as to why it repeats (we BELIEVE we know why), then we test our hypothesis (while FAITHFULLY holding to our BELIEF we see if our belief proves true), and if our hypothesis proves true we have confirmation that it IS true (our FAITH is confirmed giving us REASONS for our BELIEF)

I don’t really agree with you here. I accept the need for faith, but I don’t think that has anything to do with science. A huge reason for adherence to the scientific method is its ability to distance beliefs from testing. That’s why double blind, repeatable experiments with control groups and objectively measurable criteria for the success or failure of a hypothesis are necessary.

Once you devise a hypothesis, the next step is to determine what predictions would and wouldn’t be true if your hypothesis is true, and then to construct tests that can objectively measure those predictions. Then you do the best you can to collect data that might support and weaken the hypothesis, and start all over again with new, objectively measurable predictions. You don’t need to have faith in the hypothesis for this to work, you just need good methodology.