Skeptic Questions

[mosher]

Pure reason cannot prove the existence of God.

If you mean the Kantian a priori then yes. However, if you don’t assume a Kantian notion of reason then no.

 

[kbachler]

?

Even Aristotle reasoned God. I think what you maybe mean is the Trinity as earlier stated. But either way thank you all to have responded. I am making a point to pray more and draw myself closer to God in hopes of not just relying on question after question.

Aristotle reasoned God, but the approach has holes.

 

[Della]

Aristotle reasoned God, but the approach has holes.

Yes, it can only get one just so far. After that it’s a matter of accepting revelation and making a “leap” of faith. Of course, we aren’t talking about believing in a concept here, but a person. Concepts can be airy things that we think we can ignore, although this is fuzzy thinking. But a person is a reality that cannot be ignored or argued away. I can no more say I disbelieve in President Obama than I can I disbelieve in Julius Ceasar, just because I have never met the first and can never meet the latter. We have to rely on the witness of those who have gone before us or who we trust, or have firsthand experience of a person to know he is real.

 

[kbachler]

If you mean the Kantian a priori then yes. However, if you don’t assume a Kantian notion of reason then no.

Assuming Kant’s approach, it can’t be proven a priori or a posteriori. The approach I typically mean is more modern than Kant, and is based n Polyani’s approach of tacit knowledge.

Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, on its face, the concept that somehow God, whose knowledge, power, information, morality, etc. each infinitely exceed the comparable information in our universe, can be proved only by using knowledge within the universe - well that just comes across as absurd.

Deductive logic (which is required for a proof) simply reveals information that is already implicit tothe premises being used. Since God’s information would necessarily exceed the universe’s information, it’s darned dfficult to imagine that a deductive argument based on information in the unverse could ever prove (reveal) God.

 

[mosher]

Assuming Kant’s approach, it can’t be proven a priori or a posteriori. The approach I typically mean is more modern than Kant, and is based n Polyani’s approach of tacit knowledge.

Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, on its face, the concept that somehow God, whose knowledge, power, information, morality, etc. each infinitely exceed the comparable information in our universe, can be proved only by using knowledge within the universe - well that just comes across as absurd.

Deductive logic (which is required for a proof) simply reveals information that is already implicit tothe premises being used. Since God’s information would necessarily exceed the universe’s information, it’s darned dfficult to imagine that a deductive argument based on information in the unverse could ever prove (reveal) God.

Thank you. That helps clarify what you mean. My previous statement should not be taken to refer to proving God so much as it was about Kant’s way of defining reason.

Re: “Deductive logic …”

This can be done only if one has a more robust notion of causality than the moderns had. Once we begin to speak about efficient, formal, and exemplary causality then we can move toward deductive proofs for the existence of God. However, if the notion of causality is impoverished then I would share your conundrum.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well I want to say thank you for those who have responded, I will be sure to do some reading as my faith is important to me.

Good! In this vein, I strongly recommend reading “The Case for Christ,” by Lee Strobel. He sets out a great deal of evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, using science, historical documentation, the prophetic evidence in the Old Testament, the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, and more.

You’ve got to read his book.

It’s also valuable to study the lives of some of the saints, particularly modern day miracle-workers, for the evidence concerning their miracles is recent and very well documented.

The Curé D’Ars or St. Padre Pio would be good places to start, here.

Read Joan Cruz’s books on miracles and on the incorruptibles. The evidence she assembles in these is wonderful.

Even many ordinary Catholics have experienced miracles or supernatural visitations.

Extraordinary miracles, such as the divine removal of accidents from a consecrated Host, so that it truly appears as the Body and Blood of Christ, is a wonderful and powerful sign of the truth of the Catholic faith.

I recommend reading through some of the articles on these sites:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

The experiences of stigmatists are another powerful evidence of the truth of the Catholic faith. If you study the lives of the saints, you’ll know that these people are definitely truthful, sane, and not inflicting injuries on themselves. Yet they receive stigmata, and frequently doctors have verified medically that they did not injure themselves, but rather the stigmata appeared and disappeared from their bodies without human intervention.

There are many thousands of documented eyewitness accounts of miracles surrounding the saints, recorded in the canonization documents of the saints.

You can believe in something even if it’s not completely knowable. What we believe in the apostles creed is only a grain of what else there must be in regards to God and an external realm to the material universe we currently live in. Some people just start off before the creed. A good example is aristotle who reasoned a God but did not know Him. I sometimes believe I’m in the same boat while at other times I could not imagine God being so vague about Himself after His revelation in Jesus.

God allows us all to know Him intimately. He calls us all to holiness and the very depths of union with Him.

After death, each faithful Catholic will see the Beatific Vision. They will gaze directly into God’s depths and essence.

Through the means of intellectual visions or contemplation, God allows living Catholics on Earth to gaze into His Life and Essence, as well. Though only a minority of Catholics experience such graces, this is largely because most are so little interested in truly doing what it takes to draw closer to God. Few are interested in really seeking Him, and few are willing to change their lives in serious ways to become more virtuous.

Those who are willing to make such changes, even if they never experience contemplation or see visions, will nonetheless come into a much closer relationship with God in this life, which will dramatically bless them.

There will always be vastly more to God than any of us can know, but God has called us all to know Him intimately and throughout our lives.

Read the lives and writings of the saints and you will certainly know Him better. The more you prayerfully (praying for deeper union with God) read the Bible and attend to the Mass (and personalize it!), the more also you will know of His ways and His will. For He interacts with people. And He seeks deep union with everyone.

We all should be praying for deeper union with God and for deep love of Him and our neighbor. We should also ask Him for grace so that we will be willing to change our lives for His sake, wherever He wants us to. We need to ask Him to become everything to us.

rben20:

What I find interesting is my world view point is at times very radical when compared to lets say an eastern religion. It comes down to, well which one is right? Can we REALLY know or all we all guessing?

Let me put it this way. There is a TON of evidence available for you to study, if you want to know whether or not Catholicism is true!

I’ve listed some resources for you on this page.

Here’s another good article for you. The apparitions of Mary at Zeitoun were public and witnessed by vast crowds of people.

zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm

Read about some of the other well documented Marian apparitions as well, such as Lourdes and Fatima.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Nothing wrong with questions. Nothing wrong with asking about the things you are asking.

I hope you get them, and when you do please let me know what you think.

GOD BLESS YOU, STRAWBERRYJAM! May God greatly bless you and all your loved ones! May He pour out His love upon you all and shower you with graces and every heavenly help and support, filling you in your walk in life with joy and peace.

My post directly above this one is for you as well.

I am so happy for you, because God knows and loves you so, so well, and has died to give you Heaven!

 

[kbachler]

Thank you. That helps clarify what you mean. My previous statement should not be taken to refer to proving God so much as it was about Kant’s way of defining reason.

Re: “Deductive logic …”

This can be done only if one has a more robust notion of causality than the moderns had. Once we begin to speak about efficient, formal, and exemplary causality then we can move toward deductive proofs for the existence of God. However, if the notion of causality is impoverished then I would share your conundrum.

But that and that there is no requirement for God as an initial cause. There are already mathematical models within M-Theory (string theory) that show its entirely possible for a universe to arise from a singularity with no cause whatsover. No one knows if these models are correct - but they don’t need to be. They eliminate the necessity of a prime mover. (That isn’t to say there isn’t a prime mover - its just possible to show that one is not logically required.)

Any initial cause argument basically always makes the leap that something/someone had to set the universe in motion because that is what we are used to seeing within the universe. But there is no reason for that assumption for the universe as a whole.

 

[mosher]

But that and that there is no requirement for God as an initial cause. There are already mathematical models within M-Theory (string theory) that show its entirely possible for a universe to arise from a singularity with no cause whatsover. No one knows if these models are correct - but they don’t need to be. They eliminate the necessity of a prime mover. (That isn’t to say there isn’t a prime mover - its just possible to show that one is not logically required.)

Any initial cause argument basically always makes the leap that something/someone had to set the universe in motion because that is what we are used to seeing within the universe. But there is no reason for that assumption for the universe as a whole.

I would suggest taking a look at what they mean by the word ‘cause’ and it will end up being very different than what is classically understood by the term. Remember that the term itself began a slow degradation beginning in the high middle ages. There are many ideas as to why this is but my money is that people began to misunderstand what the term ‘substance’ means. A simple test is to determine how they see time relating to causality. If causality is always temporal then they are not talking about efficient causality. If they are not talking about efficient causality they haven’t even addressed the issue of the ‘unmoved mover’.

 

[kbachler]

I would suggest taking a look at what they mean by the word ‘cause’ and it will end up being very different than what is classically understood by the term. Remember that the term itself began a slow degradation beginning in the high middle ages. There are many ideas as to why this is but my money is that people began to misunderstand what the term ‘substance’ means. A simple test is to determine how they see time relating to causality. If causality is always temporal then they are not talking about efficient causality. If they are not talking about efficient causality they haven’t even addressed the issue of the ‘unmoved mover’.

I understand that. The problem with the concept of efficient cause is that it assumes the conclusion; it commits petitio principii. There doesn’t need to be an initial mover - that’s the point. M-Theory address the unmoved mover by pointing out that it can be shown mathematically that a universe can arise spontaneously from nothing. That doesn’t mean it did, it just means it’s possible. Whether one then wants to say that there is no efficient cause, or that the efficient cause is the universe itself is something I haven’t given much thought to…

 

[Pieman333272]

I understand that. The problem with the concept of efficient cause is that it assumes the conclusion; it commits petitio principii. There doesn’t need to be an initial mover - that’s the point. M-Theory address the unmoved mover by pointing out that it can be shown mathematically that a universe can arise spontaneously from nothing. That doesn’t mean it did, it just means it’s possible. Whether one then wants to say that there is no efficient cause, or that the efficient cause is the universe itself is something I haven’t given much thought to…

M-Theory has some serious criticisms out there and not just by the theist community either. It has no evidence whatsoever, and it actually can’t explain something coming from nothing!

 

[mosher]

I understand that. The problem with the concept of efficient cause is that it assumes the conclusion; it commits petitio principii. There doesn’t need to be an initial mover - that’s the point. M-Theory address the unmoved mover by pointing out that it can be shown mathematically that a universe can arise spontaneously from nothing. That doesn’t mean it did, it just means it’s possible. Whether one then wants to say that there is no efficient cause, or that the efficient cause is the universe itself is something I haven’t given much thought to…

I think you may be looking at what efficient causality is backwards, i.e., in a modern sense of the term cause. Efficient causality does not begin with a given: ‘that there is an efficient cause’ but rather it begins with the observable fact of motion. If something is in motion, then it has an efficient cause. This is the essence of the principle “all that is moving is being moved by another.” There is no temporal assumption of succession. Existence itself is a type of motion and must, therefore, have an efficient cause. In a sense, you can say that Efficient causality does not assume the conclusion, rather, it is the conclusion.

M-Theory and others like it do not begin to address the question of the so-called ‘unmoved mover’ simply because their notion of an ‘unmoved mover’ is temporal or at least successive. They cannot pierce, with empirical methodology, into a realm of existence that does not have a time variable. Even when it is tried they still characterize things in terms of prior to t=0. However, this is a mischaracterization of the position. Even very good non-Athiest contemporary philosophers like Swineburne can’t seem to wrap their minds around classical notions of causality. It is too immaterial for them to work with when empirical assumptions are made.

I guess my point is that empirical methodology cannot, by its very nature, prove or disprove efficient causality because it cannot prove or disprove ‘being’.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think you may be looking at what efficient causality is backwards, i.e., in a modern sense of the term cause. Efficient causality does not begin with a given: ‘that there is an efficient cause’ but rather it begins with the observable fact of motion. If something is in motion, then it has an efficient cause. This is the essence of the principle “all that is moving is being moved by another.” There is no temporal assumption of succession. Existence itself is a type of motion and must, therefore, have an efficient cause. In a sense, you can say that Efficient causality does not assume the conclusion, rather, it is the conclusion.

M-Theory and others like it do not begin to address the question of the so-called ‘unmoved mover’ simply because their notion of an ‘unmoved mover’ is temporal or at least successive. They cannot pierce, with empirical methodology, into a realm of existence that does not have a time variable. Even when it is tried they still characterize things in terms of prior to t=0. However, this is a mischaracterization of the position. Even very good non-Athiest contemporary philosophers like Swineburne can’t seem to wrap their minds around classical notions of causality. It is too immaterial for them to work with when empirical assumptions are made.

I guess my point is that empirical methodology cannot, by its very nature, prove or disprove efficient causality because it cannot prove or disprove ‘being’.

Let’s not forget where the burden of proof lies.

 

[ServantJohn]

Hello Catholics,

My faith is best described as a tossing and turning of ideas. I have come to a point where I believe that there is a definitely a God but I question whether He is truly knowable. If God is knowable, how is it that we know it is through His Son, Jesus Christ? How do we know it’s not through the world (Pantheism) or through another monotheistic lens (Judaism or Islam)? If God is not knowable, then I would have to consider myself to be agnostic or a deist, but I haven’t reached that point yet nor do I know if I will. How do we jump from there being a God to it being the Holy Trinity? Is it all based on faith? If it is I don’t see why some Catholics get so upset with others when those people feel like it’s sincerely jumping into the abyss based on faith. Not to be confused with those who want to deny God in order to do as they please.

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father; and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Shew us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? (John 14:6-11 DRB)

Faith starts as a little seed that must be watered and nurtured to grow. We do this by obeying His word. Obedience takes faith and when God shows Himself to be faithful, the faith that we have then grows. At times, faith seems very difficult, but it does get better as long as we stay humble and broken before Him. If you have never done so, go to Him and give your entire existence to Him. Give Him everything you have been, everything you are, and everything you ever hope to be. Then persevere.

 

[mosher]

Let’s not forget where the burden of proof lies.

Yes, on the empiricists. They have never disproven what was demonstrated to be the case either with respect to the nature of causality nor with the existence of a prime mover.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, on the empiricists. They have never disproven what was demonstrated to be the case either with respect to the nature of causality nor with the existence of a prime mover.

You don’t understand the burden of proof then.

Who is making the claim, what is the claim, and what evidence is provided for it?

Simple.

 

[mosher]

You don’t understand the burden of proof then.

Who is making the claim, what is the claim, and what evidence is provided for it?

Simple.

I do understand the burden of proof. I am just taking into consideration the history of the issue. The burden is always on the challenger when something is established as “being the case.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

I do understand the burden of proof. I am just taking into consideration the history of the issue. The burden is always on the challenger when something is established as “being the case.”

No. You are wrong.

You do not understand the burden of proof.

The burden of proof remains with the one making the claim.

Never upon the one questioning it.

Extraordinary claims…

Require what?

Sorry, I am not as cogent tonight as I have been celebrating St Pat’s… sorry

 

[fhansen]

Hello Catholics,

My faith is best described as a tossing and turning of ideas. I have come to a point where I believe that there is a definitely a God but I question whether He is truly knowable. If God is knowable, how is it that we know it is through His Son, Jesus Christ? How do we know it’s not through the world (Pantheism) or through another monotheistic lens (Judaism or Islam)? If God is not knowable, then I would have to consider myself to be agnostic or a deist, but I haven’t reached that point yet nor do I know if I will. How do we jump from there being a God to it being the Holy Trinity? Is it all based on faith? If it is I don’t see why some Catholics get so upset with others when those people feel like it’s sincerely jumping into the abyss based on faith. Not to be confused with those who want to deny God in order to do as they please.

There’s more to it than faith, although without the gift of faith there’s no way to believe in Catholic teachings-at least not most of them. Jesus showed to me the image of God that was already impressed somewhere within me. He’s somehow familiar, somehow the real thing, a thing I missed within myself-and a thing the world at times seems bent on keeping me from embracing.

 

[Evrlsting_Gospl]

For skeptics, and lovers of study materials:

A vast resource of Biblical information, use it, share it, freely you have received, freely give:
Pearl Trees Of Life:
www.pearltrees.com/awhn