Reason and faith are two proofs that God exists

[Eucharisted]

Humans, from among animals, have reason. If man evolved in a godless world, he would not have reason. He would have capabilities and intelligence fitting a primate (walking, inventing fire, etc.), but reason is not something he should have. Some creationists might even use reason to disprove evolution, though they would be wrong to, for reason dose not mean man didn’t evolve. God could have - and He seems to have - given a creature reason, and that creature is man. Reason, apart from evolution, was given to man. It is proof that God exists, who created men and gave them reason that they might use it to love the Lord and one another.

Faith, which is not contrary to reason, but, like reason, comes from God and is meant to serve God, is a proof of unseen things. It is evidence of that which we cannot see. For there is no other explanation of faith. It cannot be a byproduct of evolution, since it dose not contribute to genetics. It cannot be an illogical flaw in man, since it benefits man and binds itself closely to man’s good. And it cannot be a product of the imagination, since there is a near universal acceptance of unseen things (ghosts, spirits, luck, etc.), rather than, as would be expected of an imaginary product, a near universal understanding that faith is just pretend, as is the case with imaginary things like invisible friends, Santa Clause, etc. Faith, than, is the proof of unseen things, ultimately the unseen God.

To give an illustration of what I mean: Let us say that there is great doubt in the world that a certain civilization, spoken of in several ancient writings, dose not exist. But than an archeologist happens upon a vase that bears the name of the civilization’s king and his stamp. This would be proof or evidence that the civilization did in fact exist. And that is similar to, though not the same as, how reason and faith are two proofs that God exists.

 

[wanstronian]

If man evolved in a godless world, he would not have reason.

Why not?

It is proof that God exists

How so?

Faith, which is not contrary to reason, but, like reason, comes from God and is meant to serve God…

Which one?

For there is no other explanation of faith

Are you sure?

It cannot be a byproduct of evolution, since it dose not contribute to genetics.

There are a few theories that explain how it DOES contribute to genetics

It cannot be an illogical flaw in man, since it benefits man and binds itself closely to man’s good.

Again I ask - how so?

And it cannot be a product of the imagination, since there is a near universal acceptance of unseen things (ghosts, spirits, luck, etc.)…

Er - how does this contest the idea that God is imaginary?

Faith, than, is the proof of unseen things, ultimately the unseen God.

I disagree - Faith is proof of nothing.

To give an illustration of what I mean: Let us say that there is great doubt in the world that a certain civilization, spoken of in several ancient writings, dose not exist. But than an archeologist happens upon a vase that bears the name of the civilization’s king and his stamp. This would be proof or evidence that the civilization did in fact exist. And that is similar to, though not the same as, how reason and faith are two proofs that God exists.

It’s an interesting illustration, but there is no comparison to be drawn until an archeologist (or other scientist), discovers a similar level of proof for the existence of good. Faith isn’t it.

If I have faith that there’s a three-headed womble named Marvin living in my toolshed, does that provide enough proof? If not, why not? What’s the difference, other than in my example, I’m the only one who’se misguided?

 

[AndyHolland]

St. Gregory of Nyssa said that the higher forms of life came proceded from the lower in an orderly process (e.g. Genetics). It turns out that microarray studies confirm that genetic expression changes rapidly in organism based on myraid (name removed by moderator)uts, so the genetic machinery (orderly process) that governs the ascent of man has embedded in it intelligence simple and compound.

Without a very advanced genetic machinery life would have stopped at a very simple and preferable form (from a survival standpoint) if it formed at all. The balance of forces (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) is central to scientific reality and understanding of mechanisms. If one wishes to reduce all living things to a study of mechanism, one cannot be ignorant of the reality that balancing forces, electrodynamics, mechanics, and information flow cannot be ignored in studying life.

Informational Entropy (See Maxwell’s demon), organizational entropy and energetic entropy - all forms of death are very real phenomena. The ancient Greeks understood this well, and posed intelligence simple and compound intrinsic and principle in the universe, logos (Word) and prime mover unmoved to account for existence of life. They recognized the Father Almighty, Word Incarnate, and the Holy and Life Giving Spirit.

Maybe this is why, when George Washington Carver first encountered God, he set out to carve a clock out of wood - his first biology lesson was entropy (William Paley’s watch).

Why do people claim to be scientific when they deny the reality of ordered natural law processes governing nature? I have never understood how, on one hand people claim to be scientifically minded, and on the other deny the reality that the light of life shines in the darkness of death and death cannot comprehend it. To overcome entropy - one must have transcendent intelligence, simple and compound - God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[wanstronian]

Andy,

To be honest, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

But your final statement, “…the reality that the light of life shines in the darkness of death and death cannot comprehend it.” is abstract in the extreme and has no basis in scientific fact (where’s the empirical, repeatable, objective evidence for this statement?), so you’re standing on thin ice. For a start, ‘death’ is a state of being, not an intelligent entity, so of course it cannot comprehend anything. The same as the state of ‘hanging from a branch’ cannot comprehend anything.

 

[ZAKI]

Andy,

To be honest, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

But your final statement, “…the reality that the light of life shines in the darkness of death and death cannot comprehend it.” is abstract in the extreme and has no basis in scientific fact (where’s the empirical, repeatable, objective evidence for this statement?), so you’re standing on thin ice. For a start, ‘death’ is a state of being, not an intelligent entity, so of course it cannot comprehend anything. The same as the state of ‘hanging from a branch’ cannot comprehend anything.

Just a question.
If the human mind made up God, then how come we can not imagine God? Surely we will be able to imagine or put a image of something that our mind itself has created…

wasalam

 

[wanstronian]

Firstly, putting the word ‘God’ into Google Image Search reveals quite a few images of God. So some people have imagined God. Usually as a stern-looking guy with a big white beard.

Secondly, I see no reason why we can’t imagine the existence of something without being able to imagine its exact manifestation. For many years people believed that ether was some ephemeral substance that connected everything, but nobody could draw a picture of it. And ultimately it was disproved by science.

 

[ZAKI]

Firstly, putting the word ‘God’ into Google Image Search reveals quite a few images of God. So some people have imagined God. Usually as a stern-looking guy with a big white beard.

Secondly, I see no reason why we can’t imagine the existence of something without being able to imagine its exact manifestation. For many years people believed that ether was some ephemeral substance that connected everything, but nobody could draw a picture of it. And ultimately it was disproved by science.

Some people have done it. But this is not true. As a true believer of my faith, I can not imagine God because he is unimaginable.

wasalam

 

[wanstronian]

Your original question was: “If the human mind made up God, then how come we can not imagine God?” I demonstrated that people can. You may not be able to, but with respect, that has no bearing at all on his existence or otherwise. If a doctrine of Islam is that God is unimaginable, well that’s fine and dandy - but not relevant.

As a true believer of my faith, I can not imagine God because he is unimaginable.
wasalam

What you’re saying is, “My faith teaches that God is unimaginable. Therefore I can’t imagine him. Therefore he can’t be imaginary, he must be real.” I’m guessing you don’t need me to point out the fallacy of such a syllogism. Even if I’ve inferred the first sentence (I don’t know what Islam teaches), the remaining flow of logic is deeply flawed.

 

[ZAKI]

Your original question was: “If the human mind made up God, then how come we can not imagine God?” I demonstrated that people can. You may not be able to, but with respect, that has no bearing at all on his existence or otherwise. If a doctrine of Islam is that God is unimaginable, well that’s fine and dandy - but not relevant.

What you’re saying is, “My faith teaches that God is unimaginable. Therefore I can’t imagine him. Therefore he can’t be imaginary, he must be real.” I’m guessing you don’t need me to point out the fallacy of such a syllogism. Even if I’ve inferred the first sentence (I don’t know what Islam teaches), the remaining flow of logic is deeply flawed.

This flow of logic has nothing to do with islam It’s just an argument that I picked up ages ago from a priest who used it.

wasalam

 

[wanstronian]

I agree, it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam. It’s a fallacious chain of logic in any religion.

 

[ZAKI]

I agree, it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam. It’s a fallacious chain of logic in any religion.

True
So how many religions do you know about?

wasalam

 

[AndyHolland]

Andy,

To be honest, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

But your final statement, “…the reality that the light of life shines in the darkness of death and death cannot comprehend it.” is abstract in the extreme and has no basis in scientific fact (where’s the empirical, repeatable, objective evidence for this statement?), so you’re standing on thin ice. For a start, ‘death’ is a state of being, not an intelligent entity, so of course it cannot comprehend anything. The same as the state of ‘hanging from a branch’ cannot comprehend anything.

Its a paraphrase from the Gospel of St. John.

Death swallowed a man, Jesus Christ, and encountered God face to face. Death is overthrown, and there is not one left in the grave. That is objective reality taught by the Gospels.

The objective scientific evidence is all around you. For example, just pick up the Gospel of St. Mark, Chapter 8, and study for a few hours “Visual Agnosia” and that Gospel - you will realize that the God man, Jesus Christ, truly healed a man born blind - that the Gospels speak the truth.

‘Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you’ says the Lord. If you weren’t seeking, you wouldn’t be here.

Your loved, God loves you we love you, we in the Holy Catholic Church love you, and love is a living eternal reality - it is the light of life that shines in the darkness, and the darkness which is of death cannot comprehend it.

Men prefer the darkness to the light because their deeds are dark - and because of this preference, we sinners imagine a vain thing to break the bonds that bind us to our Lord and to His Christ. So we have wonderful Priests to whom we confess our sins.

The evidence is like the Sun in the sky - massive - in fact it is so overwhelming we take it for granted and dimiss it - acting worse than the brute beasts. For example:

Psalms:19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

 

[aball1035]

Can somebody explain to me what the Saints have said about this topic? About how they go hand in hand?

 

[geometer]

Faith and Reason

This is one of the best things that I have read. The author may be a saint…

 

[Eucharisted]

I made a topic about this a while ago
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=351875

 

[wanstronian]

True
So how many religions do you know about?

wasalam

None, to any depth*. However, the argument as stated necessitates some form of religion as it refers to a belief in God. No matter what God you worship, if that’s your argument for his existence then you’re leaning against an open door.

*That’s one of the reasons I joined this forum - I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in any God but I’m interested in any evidence that might legitimately challenge my atheism. So far I’ve seen nothing even remotely convincing, but I’ve only been subscribed a short time.

 

[wanstronian]

The objective scientific evidence is all around you. For example, just pick up the Gospel of St. Mark, Chapter 8, and study for a few hours “Visual Agnosia” and that Gospel - you will realize that the God man, Jesus Christ, truly healed a man born blind - that the Gospels speak the truth.

Whoa there! Did you just say the the bible is objective scientific evidence?? On what basis? Is “Wuthering Heights” a true record of events? The only difference is (a) we know the author of WH, and (b) it doesn’t include any impossible events. “Scientific evidence” indeed :tsktsk:

‘Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you’ says the Lord. If you weren’t seeking, you wouldn’t be here.

Says who? The bible again, I suppose.

Your loved, God loves you we love you, we in the Holy Catholic Church love you, and love is a living eternal reality - it is the light of life that shines in the darkness, and the darkness which is of death cannot comprehend it.

Well that’s very nice of you all, but again, there’s no evidence that Love is dependent on God’s existence.

Men prefer the darkness to the light because their deeds are dark

Speak for yourself

• and because of this preference, we sinners imagine a vain thing to break the bonds that bind us to our Lord and to His Christ. So we have wonderful Priests to whom we confess our sins.

The evidence is like the Sun in the sky - massive - in fact it is so overwhelming we take it for granted and dimiss it - acting worse than the brute beasts. For example:

Psalms:19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

You’ve quoted the bible quite a lot in defence of your position. I asked for “empirical, repeatable, objective evidence” which you have failed utterly to provide. Worse still, you don’t even seem to realise your failure!

 

[AndyHolland]

I can only describe my own process of going from Agnostic to Christian in college. I was going to disprove God and go out and have a hell of a good time, and much to my chagrin, the more I tried to disprove the more I proved…

This is what got me, when I worked at it and spent the time and effort:

Jesus said, “My God, My God why hast thou foresaken me?” on the cross pointing out Psalm 22. How do you account for the fact that the Psalm describes the crucifixion in detail though it was written 700 years before the crucifixion?

If someone says to me 700 years from now a certain event would happen, and it does with precision, I accept that as a rather powerful scientific proof.

Now you could argue the crucifixion was written in to fit the Psalm. How then do you account for the fact that Psalm 22 mentions bulls of Bashan surrounding the Lord? Bashan was at the headwaters of the Jordon, and it is a well known fact the Romans got their mercenaries from Bashan (known as tall spearmen).

Visual Agnosia is well known and certainly repeatable. It was unknown till the 20th century associated with blindness from birth so how do you account for it in the Bible?

Look up the lives of George Washington Carver or James Clerc Maxwell for example. Very scientific and very Christian. Isaac Newton prayed 40 hours a week.

Being a Christian doesn’t mean one turns off one’s brain. If you want real scientific evidence its all around you.

 

[AndyHolland]

PS: We need to be dispassionate about data and facts when analyzing these things. One has to be open to the probability one is wrong in science when the data lead another direction. Analyzing the Bible with dispassion, or reading about the Saints and their lives; or Saint Bernadette of Lourdes for example - one realizes ‘the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.’

One also needs to pray - even if one doesn’t believe. When I didn’t believe I read where Jesus said knock and the door would be opened, so I prayed for that so that God would help my very real unbelief. You must ‘knock’ and a different set of doors will be open to you if you really want to know the truth - Jesus Christ is Lord - and that means we have allot of repenting to do.

 

[wanstronian]

I can only describe my own process of going from Agnostic to Christian in college. I was going to disprove God and go out and have a hell of a good time, and much to my chagrin, the more I tried to disprove the more I proved…

This is what got me, when I worked at it and spent the time and effort:

Jesus said, “My God, My God why hast thou foresaken me?” on the cross pointing out Psalm 22. How do you account for the fact that the Psalm describes the crucifixion in detail though it was written 700 years before the crucifixion?

Well, the only thing that marks it out as a crucifixion rather than any other type of abandonment is the reference to “they have pierced my hands and my feet”. Given also that crucifixion had been around for at least 600 years before Jesus was born, this is not particularly compelling evidence. Also there is no proof that the Psalm related to the crucifixion of Jesus as opposed to anybody else. Nor is there any proof that it was a prediction at all.

If someone says to me 700 years from now a certain event would happen, and it does with precision, I accept that as a rather powerful scientific proof.

Yes, depending on the level of precision (it would have to be far more than Psalm 22, which states neither victim, place nor date); and also depending on whether that someone also make a further 299 predictions, none of which comes true. You can’t ignore coincidence.

Now you could argue the crucifixion was written in to fit the Psalm. How then do you account for the fact that Psalm 22 mentions bulls of Bashan surrounding the Lord? Bashan was at the headwaters of the Jordon, and it is a well known fact the Romans got their mercenaries from Bashan (known as tall spearmen).

I’ll have to take your word for it that this is a ‘well known fact’ - I can’t find any evidence of it other than on pro-religious websites, so this is a bit self-serving. But even if it were true, it’s hardly compelling.

Visual Agnosia is well known and certainly repeatable. It was unknown till the 20th century associated with blindness from birth so how do you account for it in the Bible?

Sorry, are you saying that this condition did not exist in biblical times? Or simply that to the outsider, it was indistinguishable from blindness? How is that relevant?

Look up the lives of George Washington Carver or James Clerc Maxwell for example. Very scientific and very Christian. Isaac Newton prayed 40 hours a week.

The existence of people who are both scientists and christians is not scientific evidence of God’s existence!!

Being a Christian doesn’t mean one turns off one’s brain. If you want real scientific evidence its all around you.

None of the examples you’ve quoted here could possibly be labelled as ‘scientific evidence.’

PS: We need to be dispassionate about data and facts when analyzing these things. One has to be open to the probability one is wrong in science when the data lead another direction. Analyzing the Bible with dispassion, or reading about the Saints and their lives; or Saint Bernadette of Lourdes for example - one realizes ‘the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.’

One could possible ‘realise’ this in the context of the bible, which has no provenance in respect of factual occurrences.

One also needs to pray - even if one doesn’t believe.

To whom? Who do I pray to if I don’t believe? Why would I pray to God and not the Tooth Fairy?

When I didn’t believe I read where Jesus said knock and the door would be opened, so I prayed for that so that God would help my very real unbelief. You must ‘knock’ and a different set of doors will be open to you if you really want to know the truth - Jesus Christ is Lord - and that means we have allot of repenting to do.

What do we need to repent about? What have we done wrong?