Searching Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter SebastianTorres
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SebastianTorres

Guest
Hello all.
I “feel” there must be a God, I want so hard to believe, I find the catholic cosmology that my mother teached me as a child so beautifull, sublime and appealing, but my mind keeps saing me that every thing around me has a rational explanation and science’s cosmology makes everything logical without the necesity of supernatural beeings. I’ve read St. Tomas Aquina’s philosophical reasons but they don’t convince me. I need something more so I can finally say: “I knew it, it was not just self-suggested feelings, I know now that I’ve been m not lying to myself believing there’s a higher power!” but I can find this “something”.
You, how can you know you’re right in your beliefs? Why do you believe? Is your faith based in logical arguments (Aquinas’s ways, etc…) or “destiny” convinced you through other ways?

Thank you all and sorry for my bad english.
 
Last edited:
The “more” that you need, friend, is Faith.
So Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for your salvation is not enough?

Go to Adoration and listen to God.
 
SebastianTorres said:
every thing around me has a rational explanation and science’s cosmology makes everything logical without the necesity of supernatural beeings.
Click to expand...
It does? So… science tells us where the material / energy involved in the Big Bang comes from? What caused it to exist? 🤔 No, I don’t think so.

So, here’s the question: what would suffice as ‘proof’ for you? In other words, what sort of argument / proof / demonstration be the kind of thing you’re searching for?
 
That’s a hard question. I myself have been raised in a Christian home, so I guess with that being said, it’s all I really know. But I can tell you one thing. I know there’s a God because he has shown himself to me. He was the one who carried me through depression, and He is the one still carrying me through some tough times.
I don’t know, exactly, what proof you are wanting, and a lot of people see Faith differently. For one person, God is enough. For others, they still search for answers to their complicated questions.
What I would do, personally, even if I wasn’t a Christian, is pray. Ask God to reveal himself to you. Ask Him for clarity. You don’t have to have 100% faith in Him to try and talk to Him.

Let me tell you a story…
One of my friends, had a rough patch for many years in her life. She went to sunday school when she was young, but God wasn’t her foundation, and her parents were not strong Christians.
In her teen years, she found herself unhappy with her habits of partying, getting drunk every friday night, and her relationship with someone she knew was not good for her.

So one night, She just said “God, if you’re real, tell me”

Within minutes, she got a facebook message from her sunday school teacher that she hadn’t talked to in YEARS. She understood, she knew in her heart that it was a sign from God.
Now, she is stronger than she’s ever been with God. She is more confident, she is healthier, happier, and grateful that God showed himself to her that day. He continues to do so.

You can decide what you believe. Whether or not it is religion that helps people, or God Himself that helps us become better people. But I can tell you that God is the reason I practice Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control. (gal. 5:22-23)

I’ll be praying for you, and I hope you find peace, and answers to your questions!
Keep us updated if you have any more questions or would like to share your experiences! 🙂
 
I advise you pray “An Act of Faith”.

It is a common prayer.

Make that… pray multiple “An Act of Faith”’.
 
Last edited:
SebastianTorres said:
You, how can you know you’re right in your beliefs? Why do you believe? Is your faith based in logical arguments (Aquinas’s ways, etc…) or “destiny” convinced you through other ways?
Click to expand...
Those things add up. There are philosophical arguments. There is, let’s say, an observation of a pattern of temptations being easier to resist after confession and communion. There is the view of atheists arguing for atheism in this forum (and doing it suspiciously badly).

The important thing is not to expect the whole faith to be completely proved by a single short and simple argument.
SebastianTorres said:
I’ve read St. Tomas Aquina’s philosophical reasons but they don’t convince me. I need something more so I can finally say: “I knew it, it was not just self-suggested feelings, I know now that I’ve been m not lying to myself believing there’s a higher power!” but I can find this “something”.
Click to expand...
You wrote in Philosophy subforum, thus perhaps you should have a look at some lists discussing different arguments, for example, Kreeft’s (Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)) or Platinga’s (https://www.calvin.edu/academic/phi..._alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf).

But again, those are overviews. And only of arguments for existence of God. If necessary, there are arguments covering other points (see Feser’s Edward Feser: Pre-Christian apologetics for outline and pointers where to look for them).
SebastianTorres said:
but my mind keeps saing me that every thing around me has a rational explanation and science’s cosmology makes everything logical without the necesity of supernatural beeings
Click to expand...
It is true that everything has a rational explanation. But it is not true that materialistic cosmology explains everything. It has many difficulties: existence of Universe, existence of laws of nature as such, life, consciousness, universals…
 
So How about this YOU look into a mirror your see [literally God]

NOW READ Genesis 1:26-27 & then John 4:23-24 and ask yourself [or ME:thinking:]

Exactly HOW these can be reconciled?I think doing so along with humility and prayer, can address your concerns.

God BLESS YOU,
Parick
 
Both–it’s reasonable to believe there’s a First Cause (in other words a creator god) , but the belief in a personal God Who is a Trinity and Who seeks to be in relationship with us, takes a leap of faith.
It’s not an irrational belief, but not necessarily evident through science alone…
:pray:t2: For you on your faith journey!!!
 
The point is that I’m doubting even this, I’m not finding the reason why a God should sacrifice himself. Agree, the “more” that I need is faith, a. Thank you for your advice.
 
Thank for your words Duckling, I’ll keep your advices in mind
 
Hello Gorgias, well the kind of proof I’ll need is something determinant, not arguments but some kind of sign. But looking some events latelly I start to feel that I got many signs just I’ve been ignoring them.
Thanks for your answer
 
SebastianTorres said:
Hello all.
I “feel” there must be a God, I want so hard to believe, I find the catholic cosmology that my mother teached me as a child so beautifull, sublime and appealing, but my mind keeps saing me that every thing around me has a rational explanation and science’s cosmology makes everything logical without the necesity of supernatural beeings. I’ve read St. Tomas Aquina’s philosophical reasons but they don’t convince me. I need something more so I can finally say: “I knew it, it was not just self-suggested feelings, I know now that I’ve been m not lying to myself believing there’s a higher power!” but I can find this “something”.
You, how can you know you’re right in your beliefs? Why do you believe? Is your faith based in logical arguments (Aquinas’s ways, etc…) or “destiny” convinced you through other ways?

Thank you all and sorry for my bad english.
Click to expand...
Everything around you does, indeed, have a rational explanation, but why would you think that “science’s cosmology makes everything logical without the necessity of supernatural beings.”? Science has nothing to say about the origins of things-space, time, matter-much less about existence itself.
 
Last edited:
Faith cannot be explained by mathematical formulas. Faith is so extensive that does not fit into a materail box but faith is a light and that light shine in heart(spiritual).

Universe is consist of God’s laws so everything could be explained through logic otherwise creator could not be omniscient, omnipotent etc. God act through laws and wisdom so there is a miraculous order in universe.

Ther order and laws in effect in universe cannot be conceive without God. For instance there is no wisdom and consciousness in atoms, forces and laws. But every action occur through wisdom and decision. Molecules just like DNA and RNA are consist of mindless and unconscious atoms as oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen etc and non of those have life. The energy of son has no mind, life and senses. But alives merely could come into being through mind and will power.

Human is the most clever creature of nature and also have mind, life, soul, senses… But nature has non of those attributes of humanbeing. Then what/who is source of these attributes? Natural laws? No. Which natural law has life and soul? Which force has mind? Non. Then there must be another resource. The fact is that everything is result of manifestation of God’s attributes.

There is great art, beauty in universe. So which law and force have aesthetic concept? Non.

What is law? Do laws have entity? No. For instance Gravity has no subsistence as material. Just we observe an effect of something! and we term it as “gravity”. But there is no gravity as material body. What we call gravity is force fo God which bocme manifest as a law.

So there no a “creative natural science” without force and attributes of God. How much we can learn science so we can learn God much. Because science is consequence of God’s attributes through becoming manifest.
 
Start from the existence of God. In Islamic theology, we say that there are three judgements: legal judgements, empirical judgements, and intellectual judgements.

Science is related to empirical judgments, whilst the question of whether God exists is related to intellectual judgements.

Read the following carefully, and multiple times if need be.

There are three types of intellectual judgements:

Necessary- the non-existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind.

Impossible- the existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind.

Possible- the existence and non-existence of which can both be equally conceived of in the mind.

We can observe that things which come into being had the possibility of not coming into being, and we can conceive that things which have not come into being had the possibility of coming into being. This is called contingency. We can observe this of all things which exist in this cosmos, thus the question must be posed- Did the totality of contingent things come into being without an external cause, a cause other than itself?

Prior to coming into being, the contingent thing was merely a possibility which was non-existent, and being non-existent, it could not have bought itself into being, therefore an internal cause is impossible. Prior to coming into being, the possibility of the existence and non-existence of the contingency are equal and therefore neither would be preponderant over the other without an external cause. Imagine a balance with two scales in which the existence of the contingency is weighed on one side, and the non-existence of the contingency on the other, both would be equal, and nothing would come into being, unless something external were to place pressure on the existence of the contingency for it to outweigh the non-existence of the contingency. Therefore, an external cause is necessary to bring something contingent into being.

If the source of the external cause is merely possible, then it is included among the totality of contingent things, and is not the source of the external cause, therefore the source of the external cause must be intrinsically necessary…

TO BE CONTINUED…
 
Last edited:
…CONTINUED

It therefore follows that the necessary existent is:

Without beginning and without end- for that which is intrinsically necessary, cannot be non-existent, otherwise it would merely be possible.

Self-subsistent and unlike contingent things- what can be observed of contingent things, such as being conditioned/influenced by something external, substance (that is, being a locus for accidents), accident (that is, being in need of a locus in which to subsist), matter, form, body, limbs, composition of parts, being confined to space, movement, etc. can never be attributed (literally) to the necessary existent.

One- there can be no multiplicity whatsoever in the essence of the necessary existent, nor can other entities possess the same attributes; this shall soon be further expounded upon (In Sha Allah).

Living- this is the attribute of cognisance, which is linked to all qualitative attributes such as knowledge, power, and will; without which the necessary existent could not act.

Knowing- this is linked to all things necessary, impossible and possible, seen and unseen, existent and non-existent, in general and in detail; without which the necessary existent could not bring anything into being.

Powerful and willing- these are linked only to all things possible, for bringing the necessary into existence would be accomplishing what has already been accomplished, for something intrinsically necessary cannot be non-existent, otherwise it would be possible, likewise removing the impossible from existence would be accomplishing what has already been accomplished, for something intrinsically impossible cannot be existent, otherwise it would be possible; without these attributes the necessary existent could not bring anything into being.

Finally, it is impossible for there to be multiple entities which are intrinsically necessary, for one entity would limit the other(s) and vice versa. Two (or more) entities sharing necessary existence would each require something to distinguish them.

This cannot be in matter, form, body, limbs, composition of parts, etc. for these are contingent traits which can never be attributed to the necessary existent.

This cannot be in knowledge, because it would necessitate that one entity know of something unknown to the other(s), and vice versa.

This cannot be in will, because if one entity were to will something, the other(s) would be compelled to agree, if not, then this entity would be compelled to agree with the will of the other(s), and all of this vice versa.

This cannot be in power, because if one entity could bring something contingent into being without the need of the other(s), then the other(s) are not necessary existents but possible, and therefore included among the totality of contingent things, for if one entity is in need of the other(s), then this entity is incapable, and all of this vice versa.
 
Last edited:
SebastianTorres said:
Hello Gorgias, well the kind of proof I’ll need is something determinant, not arguments but some kind of sign. But looking some events latelly I start to feel that I got many signs just I’ve been ignoring them.
Thanks for your answer
Click to expand...
What kind of ‘sign’ would suffice, then? (And, why would God be obligated to provide you with such a sign? Moreover, if the incarnation of his son wasn’t sufficient enough a sign, how could God do one better than that?)
 
Belief is not a choice you make. It’s the resulting value of the equation from the problem you are trying to solve. You are presented with data and by applying your current understanding of reality, you come to a tentative conclusion about that question. Your “tentative conclusion” is your current understanding, aka belief about that idea/experience/event/etc. Example: 1+2 = 3. 1,2 are the data and experience of the event or idea you are trying to understand. The “+” and “=” is your applied logic of your understand of reality to that data/experience. The 3 is your conclusion about that event/idea after you apply your current understanding of reality. Now try this, 1+2 = 4. Choose to believe that 4 is the best understanding about that event based on what you currently understand about reality. You can not. It’s not possible. You can lie to everyone else and claim you believe it is 4, but you can not lie to yourself. But for some people 1+2+magic = 4 is good enough for them, but others need more explanation at the “magic” part of the equation before they can believe 4 is the result of that logical argument/event/etc.
Everyone has their own reasons for why they believe they are justified in believing what they do about the supernatural, but why should that be justified for anyone else other than them? Just because that line of argumentation worked for them does not mean it will work for others. You have to find what you can live with about the idea of the supernatural. For me, it’s just cultural tribal traditions with no actual magic behind the ceremony. You can be culturally religious and still not actually believe in people walking on water or that morality comes from the divine. We all have this need for emotional release when we can not do anything about the actual situation. Such as kissing a photo of a loved one, hitting the ground out of frustration, lighting candles, sending positive thoughts, etc. They don’t actually do anything other than releave our heighten emotional state to assist in the resolvement of those emotions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top