Reason and faith are two proofs that God exists

[redhen]

If there were incontrovertible evidence of God, then believing in him would be of no account. The only people who wouldn’t believe would be insane.

And what’s wrong with incontrovertible proof, it was supposedly good enough for the angelic beings?

God presents us an incomplete, fallen picture, and then asks us to affirm the goodness of the universe.

So the far superior angelic beings are given incontrovertible knowledge, on a platter, yet we inferior animal beasts are supposed to figure out this mystery by ourselves?

He provides us the ability to do this – he will provide you the ability, if you ask him. (Just on the off-chance that he exists).

I’ve asked many times, said novenas, cloistered myself in a Benedictine abbey, yet here I am, still agnostic.

It is a matter of deciding to believe, but it is not a matter of being unreasonable. The philosopher William James has some interesting things to say about this, by the way.

Sure, you can form logical arguments for the probability of God, but in the history of mankind no one has been able to prove the objective existence of God. That fact alone is very telling.

 

[fred_stoutland]

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

The reverse is the truth. God made up man and then created him, giving each of us a sense of God from as soon as we can think on such things. The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said as much in Romans 1:19-21. These three verses state that God has sovereignly planted evidence of His existence in the very nature of man.

When the apostle Paul uses the phrase “knew God” in verse 21 he is saying that people are conscious of God’s existence, power, and divine nature through general revelation. That so many reject His existence doesn’t change that fact, according to Scripture.

Read the entire passage of Romans 1:18-31 and Romans 2:15. it is a penetrating look at man against God - and the resultant outcome. It shows me, at least, that in all of us there is a sense of God, who created all things. Those of us who reject that inner sense are rebellious and therefore aleinated from God.

 

[wanstronian]

But it is not the true explanation. In fact, it is not the simple one either for the following reasons:

1. History shows there were many disciples who suffered terribly for the faith. Why would they carry on a lie that leads to their own demise?

They believed. That doesn’t make God real. These disciples died for nothing.

1. Bulls of Bashan - again, the Romans got their mercenaries from Bashan which is an interesting detail in the Psalm.

But inconclusive

1. You have the problem of Josephus, Africanus, and other ancient historians who back up the stories. Josephus was a Jew and a Roman.
2. You have the problem of certain Roman historians that were actually detractors of Christianity that acknowledged the reality of Jesus crucifixion

There is first hand reporting on Jesus Christ than any contemporary Ceasar!
.

I don’t find it so hard to believe that there was this guy called Jesus who preached religious dogma, and was ultimately crucified - in the same way that women have been tried and convicted of witchcraft throughout the middle ages. But I don’t believe that he was the Son of God. He may have proclaimed that he was, but that doesn’t make it true.

Why would a people insist on truth, tell lies, and suffer for the truth if it were a lie?

It may not have been their lie - they were fooled just like so many Christians are still fooled today. It may not even have been a lie at all - in the sense that it was ‘intended to deceive’ - there are alternatives to lies that are still not the truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And what’s wrong with incontrovertible proof, it was supposedly good enough for the angelic beings?

Citation?

I could certainly be wrong here, but I think that the claim that the angels have certain knowledge of God is not credible. According to my understanding, Catholics teach that at least one angel considered himself to be greater than God. As such, the angel *must *not have known that God existed – for, by definition, one cannot be greater than God.

I’ve asked many times, said novenas, cloistered myself in a Benedictine abbey, yet here I am, still agnostic.

Maybe it’s because you’re looking for knowledge *about *God, before you start a relationship *with *God. I don’t know. All I know is what the Lord has shown me. I certainly do doubt it at times, but doubt is not incompatible with faith. Maybe we’re all agnostics: we don’t know; we can choose to believe.

Sure, you can form logical arguments for the probability of God, but in the history of mankind no one has been able to prove the objective existence of God. That fact alone is very telling.

How so? All it tells me is that He does not wish to have His objective existence proven.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Couldn’t the same be said about atheists? The average person asks: Why is the universe? What is its cause? What came before it?

The atheist answer? No explanation is necessary.

Nice to see ya, Charlie. I guess the Beagle travels through time, too.

I have never heard any atheist say “No explanation is necessary”. We just dont want to make answers up.

The answer would be we don’t yet know. It ok to say we don’t know, its an honest answer and its better than filling in the blanks with a non answer, i.e. God did it.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If there were incontrovertible evidence of God, then believing in him would be of no account. The only people who wouldn’t believe would be insane.

But worshiping it would be. I’m not going to worship something i don’t believe exists. If i did know it exists i could then decide if it was worthy of my worship. In the case of the god of the bible i have to say that would be no. However if it did exist it would be only fair it offered some proper evidence of its existence.

 

[redhen]

Citation?

I could certainly be wrong here, but I think that the claim that the angels have certain knowledge of God is not credible. According to my understanding, Catholics teach that at least one angel considered himself to be greater than God. As such, the angel *must *not have known that God existed – for, by definition, one cannot be greater than God.

“With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they “**always behold **the face of my Father who is in heaven” they are the “mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word”.189”

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM

Thanks for mentioning the angelic Fall. This shows that even when a being “always beholds the face of the Father”, it still has a choice whether to obey or not. So apparently, living in the full presence of the living God would not remove free will.

Maybe it’s because you’re looking for knowledge *about *God, before you start a relationship *with *God. I don’t know. All I know is what the Lord has shown me. I certainly do doubt it at times, but doubt is not incompatible with faith. Maybe we’re all agnostics: we don’t know; we can choose to believe.

Agreed, we all choose what to believe.

How so? All it tells me is that He does not wish to have His objective existence proven.

So you believe that God purposefully tries to hide from us? Sorry, I cannot believe in a sneaky God.

 

[twb1621]

But worshiping it would be. I’m not going to worship something i don’t believe exists. If i did know it exists i could then decide if it was worthy of my worship. In the case of the god of the bible i have to say that would be no. However if it did exist it would be only fair it offered some proper evidence of its existence.

“It”… He did offer proper evidence of His existence 2000 years ago to people, many like yourself who couldn’t accept anything other than what their limited senses could explain. He is not about to go through it again for those who have denied Him because they personally did not witness His crucifixion, death and resurrection. It is certainly understandable and I have no doubt there are still those today who would crucify Him again out of the same ignorance, which doesn’t say much for our progressive education.
Scholars in theology, archeology, History, ancient languages, ancient cultures and so on have served to verify religious claims or attempt to uncover proof against Christianity yet century after century uncovers more verification of the places, times and people recorded in the Bible and has not in 2000 years shown support for fraud. Now, considering He did offer poof and forgiveness as well as salvation to everyone who accepts Him even after the horrendous passion and death He suffered at our hands, I am sure based on my past and since my conversion it would be wise for those who can not grasp it to look very, very deeply into the subject. It is not God who must learn the truth and come to you, but you who must choose to seek and learn the truth in order to then reconcile and enter into a relationship with God before He does give you the proof you demand. Learning can be as rewarding as selective ignorance can be lethal. You just happen to be in a place where many can guide you to the information you should be seeking if you choose to learn the truth…. And they actually care. Isn’t that a coincidence?
Sincerely, may God grant you the grace of discernment and the strength to overcome your self-invoked limitations.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they “**always behold **the face of my Father who is in heaven” they are the “mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word”.189”

You haven’t proven that an angel knows God perfectly beyond doubt, and you haven’t responded to my claim about Satan’s fall. A being who knows God exists, and knows who God is, could not be deceived – nor deceive himself – that he is greater than God.

But that’s just my reasoning. Consider the words of Aquinas in the Summa:

Since an angel’s intellect and essence are infinitely remote from God, it follows that he cannot comprehend Him; nor can he see God’s essence through his own nature. Yet it does not follow on that account that he can have no knowledge of Him at all: because, as God is infinitely remote from the angel, so the knowledge which God has of Himself is infinitely above the knowledge which an angel has of Him.

newadvent.org/summa/1056.htm

If this is said to contradict the Catechism, it may be remembered that the Catechism does not make the claim to be perfectly inspired (neither does Aquinas, of course).

So you believe that God purposefully tries to hide from us? Sorry, I cannot believe in a sneaky God.

How faithful would a husband who can never leave the presence of his wife be? The question is meaningless, because his faithfulness is hardly freely chosen. Faithfulness can only be fully proven when freedom exists. God wants us to be faithful without certainty, because certainty compromises freedom.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have never heard any atheist say “No explanation is necessary”. We just dont want to make answers up.

The answer would be we don’t yet know. It ok to say we don’t know, its an honest answer and its better than filling in the blanks with a non answer, i.e. God did it.

Any scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is inadequate, because it is bound in space/time. But where did space/time come from?

The answer must exist outside time, and it must be infinite. It may not be the Christian God, but it must have the power to set the universe in motion. This is not a made-up answer.

So far, we have at least deism. The particular character of God cannot be derived from these considerations, so we need to take out more equipment in the ol’ epistemological backpack.

 

[redhen]

“It”… He did offer proper evidence of His existence 2000 years ago to people,

The resurrection was a singular event in another part of the world, thousands of years ago. What evidence is there for a supreme deity that exists in the modern world?

many like yourself who couldn’t accept anything other than what their limited senses could explain.

No, it’s not a coincidence. I came to this forum 3 years ago because I wanted to see what reasons Catholics have for believing everything in the CCC. My conclusion so far is that these people believe because they want to believe.

Sincerely, may God grant you the grace of discernment and the strength to overcome your self-invoked limitations.

Thank you for kind thoughts, but I have no self-invoked limitations or unreasonable biases in this manner. I am quite open and desirous to examine any evidence for God.

 

[redhen]

You haven’t proven that an angel knows God perfectly beyond doubt, and you haven’t responded to my claim about Satan’s fall. A being who knows God exists, and knows who God is, could not be deceived – nor deceive himself – that he is greater than God.

So you’re claiming that the angels had an imperfect knowledge of the existence of God because some of them rebelled? This does not logically follow.

If this is said to contradict the Catechism, it may be remembered that the Catechism does not make the claim to be perfectly inspired (neither does Aquinas, of course).

I thought that the CCC is a summary of the official doctrine of the Church?

How faithful would a husband who can never leave the presence of his wife be? The question is meaningless, because his faithfulness is hardly freely chosen. Faithfulness can only be fully proven when freedom exists. God wants us to be faithful without certainty, because certainty compromises freedom.

We’re back to the angels again. Their **certain belief **in the existence of God did not hinder their freedom to rebel. I think it would be only fair to extend the same degree of evidence to us lesser creatures. The more I attend to this problem, the more it seems to me that the utmost importance faith plays in Christianity is exactly because of the lack of evidence for it. I can hear the atheists on this forum cheering right now. But their certain faith in the non-existence of God is equally mysterious.

 

[twb1621]

The resurrection was a singular event in another part of the world, thousands of years ago. What evidence is there for a supreme deity that exists in the modern world?

The life of Christ is many events. Do you believe in the existence of the Roman Empire because there are Roman ruins? Or because of the History provided that the ruins verify?

There were many who didn’t believe. More to it, this new Jewish cult found it’s most fertile ground in distant regions, far removed from the traditional Jewish homeland.

Where did you come up with that one? Where is Jerusalem?

This is the problem with a religion based on a singular event. In order to fair to all, He would have to be continuously crucified and resurrected in every generation, in all places on the planet.

You only see the crucifixion? There is more than one page in the Gospel.

If this skepticism is understandable, as you say, then a greater proof is necessary.

Be cautious of what door you open until you know what you are releasing…

These sciences do not claim to make truth statements about the supernatural. It is not their area of study.

These sciences verify the authenticity and history recorded in the Bible.The supernatural is much harder to support than discredit, yet it has never been credibly discredited. Give your support so I may see your resources and refute them for you.

There are many intelligent, gifted people who have made it their life work to study these matters. Yet they have found the evidence lacking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

I can offer you 50 times the number of resources to research for 10 of yours with no support at all. You don’t get it. You base denial on lack of evidence rather than learn for yourself based on all the evidence to its support.

How am I supposed to learn the truth before I have the proof? In what other area of human knowledge is this the required procedure?

Now I will let you think about that question for a while and maybe you will realize what you just asked.

No, it’s not a coincidence. I came to this forum 3 years ago because I wanted to see what reasons Catholics have for believing everything in the CCC. My conclusion so far is that these people believe because they want to believe.

Good, very good. I am not going to tell you to believe because I or someone else says you should. I spent many years away because I didn’t believe and I did not just choose to accept the teachings all of a sudden. If a person is serious about wanting to learn what the truth is, they will find it.

Thank you for kind thoughts, but I have no self-invoked limitations or unreasonable biases in this manner. I am quite open and desirous to examine any evidence for God.

Awesome.
Then I should take you seriously and not as someone who is just here to try to nudermine Catholicism. Tell me, what knnowledge or education have you had if any with Christianity ?

 

[redhen]

twb1621:

The life of Christ is many events. Do you believe in the existence of the Roman Empire because there are Roman ruins? Or because of the History provided that the ruins verify?

The life of Christ, interesting though it may be, is secondary to his death and resurrection. Which was a onetime event. I believe in the existence of the ancient Roman empire because I have seen it’s remains. I have seen Hadrian’s wall, the amphitheatre in Xanten, Germany. I have marched upon Roman roads.

Where did you come up with that one? Where is Jerusalem?

Sure there were churches in Jerusalem and Antioch, but my point is that the largest number of converts to this Jewish cult were pagans, not Jews.

You only see the crucifixion? There is more than one page in the Gospel.

Isn’t that the only thing Paul said he preached, Christ crucified?

Be cautious of what door you open until you know what you are releasing…

I’m not quite sure what this means.

These sciences verify the authenticity and history recorded in the Bible.The supernatural is much harder to support than discredit, yet it has never been credibly discredited. Give your support so I may see your resources and refute them for you.

There is authenticity and history in many non-Christian sacred texts. It doesn’t mean their truth statements are valid though.

I can offer you 50 times the number of resources to research for 10 of yours with no support at all. You don’t get it. You base denial on lack of evidence rather than learn for yourself based on all the evidence to its support.

So I should earn advanced degrees in history, archeology, Near East studies, philosophy, theology, comparative religion, textual criticism in OT and NT in Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin? I’m sorry, I don’t have that many years left to live.

redhen:

How am I supposed to learn the truth before I have the proof? In what other area of human knowledge is this the required procedure?

Now I will let you think about that question for a while and maybe you will realize what you just asked.

Your original statement was “you who must choose to seek and learn the truth in order to then reconcile and enter into a relationship with God** before He does give you the proof **you demand.” I’ll grant the concept of God as a hypothesis, but in order to come to a conclusion requires proof, one way or the other.

Good, very good. I am not going to tell you to believe because I or someone else says you should. I spent many years away because I didn’t believe and I did not just choose to accept the teachings all of a sudden. If a person is serious about wanting to learn what the truth is, they will find it.

That sounds too convenient. You’re saying that all those who do not believe in Christianity are not serious truth seekers. May I ask, if you did not “choose to accept the teachings all of a sudden”, what was it that made you believe?

Awesome. Then I should take you seriously and not as someone who is just here to try to undermine Catholicism. Tell me, what knowledge or education have you had if any with Christianity ?

I had no religious upbringing. At one point in my life I was searching for answers to the big cosmic questions. I decided that all the books that I had read were* just so much straw,*, so I decided to immerse myself in one denomination. I chose the RCC because of it’s long, unbroken history. Also, at the time, eastern temples were almost non-existent where I lived, and I had no exposure to their truth statements.

I went through a very quick RCIA and was baptized according to the Roman rite. My present circumstances (unemployment) have forced me back to college. For me this is a source of income. I will be getting a living allowance, so it’s better than nothing.

I chose a Catholic university, because I’ve had experience with the rabid Marxist/Feminist professors that fill modern, western academia.

I talked to the chaplain there a week ago. He said that on occasion they have had older, agnostic students. He said they left with more questions than answers. According to your previous statement, these students must not have been serious enough.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

“It”… He did offer proper evidence of His existence 2000 years ago to people, many like yourself who couldn’t accept anything other than what their limited senses could explain. He is not about to go through it again for those who have denied Him because they personally did not witness His crucifixion, death and resurrection. It is certainly understandable and I have no doubt there are still those today who would crucify Him again out of the same ignorance, which doesn’t say much for our progressive education.
Scholars in theology, archeology, History, ancient languages, ancient cultures and so on have served to verify religious claims or attempt to uncover proof against Christianity yet century after century uncovers more verification of the places, times and people recorded in the Bible and has not in 2000 years shown support for fraud. Now, considering He did offer poof and forgiveness as well as salvation to everyone who accepts Him even after the horrendous passion and death He suffered at our hands, I am sure based on my past and since my conversion it would be wise for those who can not grasp it to look very, very deeply into the subject. It is not God who must learn the truth and come to you, but you who must choose to seek and learn the truth in order to then reconcile and enter into a relationship with God before He does give you the proof you demand. Learning can be as rewarding as selective ignorance can be lethal. You just happen to be in a place where many can guide you to the information you should be seeking if you choose to learn the truth…. And they actually care. Isn’t that a coincidence?
Sincerely, may God grant you the grace of discernment and the strength to overcome your self-invoked limitations.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Any scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is inadequate, because it is bound in space/time. But where did space/time come from?

The answer must exist outside time, and it must be infinite. It may not be the Christian God, but it must have the power to set the universe in motion. This is not a made-up answer.

So far, we have at least deism. The particular character of God cannot be derived from these considerations, so we need to take out more equipment in the ol’ epistemological backpack.

You just made that up, and it shows. Show me some evidence for you whacky claims.

 

[harvard1970]

The resurrection was a singular event in another part of the world, thousands of years ago.

This indeed the “crux” of it.

There was no literal resurrection. The New Testament is not factual in this regard

I first became unconvinced of its literal truth through the books of John Shelby Spong.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You just made that up, and it shows. Show me some evidence for you whacky claims.

I have just stated, albeit in simple form, one of the leading arguments for the existence of God, respected (although not always agreed with) throughout the history of science and philosophy. You say I just made it up. I am puzzled, to say the least.

Tell me I’m wrong, by all means, and tell me why. But don’t pretend that flippancy is intelligent thought, and don’t insult the thoughtful members of this forum (notably twb1621) with your lack of respect for the human person.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Any scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is inadequate, because it is bound in space/time.

The answer must exist outside time, and it must be infinite. It may not be the Christian God, but it must have the power to set the universe in motion. This is not a made-up answer.

So far, we have at least deism.

Any scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is inadequate, because it is bound in space/time.

Nonsense, your just not up to date with your sceince.

The answer must exist outside time, and it must be infinite.

Why and why?

For all we know (i don’t hold this belief) it could be a cycling universe. I’m guessing by infinite you mean ever lasting? You can have infinity in a closed set. For example there is and infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2. You can also have infinity at one end of a set. (,] or ,). I still dont see why it MUST be infinite? Infinite the way your describing it implies linked to time. For all we know there is no time outside our universe which makes infinty (the way you seem to be describing it) nonsensical outside our universe.

Also how on earth do you go from that to THIS…

**So far, we have at least deism. **

Even if i granted you those assumptions, all you have is a cause that is outside space and time and is infinite. You don’t have a supreme supernatural being. Your conclusion does not match your assumptions, your assumptions are incorrect, and it is all based on zero evidence. In short you have nothing but a wild unfounded claim.

Your claim stands rejected.

 

[harvard1970]

Any scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is inadequate, because it is bound in space/time.

Nonsense, your just not up to date with your sceince.

The answer must exist outside time, and it must be infinite.

Why and why?

For all we know (i don’t hold this belief) it could be a cycling universe. I’m guessing by infinite you mean ever lasting? You can have infinity in a closed set. For example there is and infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2. You can also have infinity at one end of a set. (,] or ,). I still dont see why it MUST be infinite? Infinite the way your describing it implies linked to time. For all we know there is no time outside our universe which makes infinty (the way you seem to be describing it) nonsensical outside our universe.

Also how on earth do you go from that to THIS…

**So far, we have at least deism. **

Even if i granted you those assumptions, all you have is a cause that is outside space and time and is infinite. You don’t have a supreme supernatural being. Your conclusion does not match your assumptions, your assumptions are incorrect, and it is all based on zero evidence. In short you have nothing but a wild unfounded claim.

Your claim stands rejected.

I have to agree. Just because WE don’t know how to create a universe, doesn’t mean that it requires omnipotent omniscient infinite powers – and it certainly doesn’t mean that there is somebody running heaven and hell and monitoring the thoughts of everyone. A thousand years ago people attributed things they did not understand to supernatural causes (like God) but that boundary is gradually receding.