The 'no proof' argument against God

[colmcille1]

I’m just taking a page from Colmcille’s book]

Sir,
I have a house full of books and you are welcome to borrow any (including Green’s ‘Runaway World’, btw!) at any time you wish! I must caution you though, these books are all dedicated to Truth. So you may be unaccustomed to their approach. I do keep a small stock of light reading (e.g. atheist novels) for pure escapist fun and these would no doubt prove more to your liking.
As I am a practising artist, I also am well-supplied with paper, canvas and every kind of drawing and painting tools. Religious art is a wonderful subject and enriches the soul no end.
I come from a nation that produced the greatest (well, I’m biased!) artists: the monk scribes. Even a cursory glance at the repros from the Book of Kells will astound you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Kells
God Bless, lost sheep,
Colmcille1.

 

[paul_c]

Again: atheism, being a lack of a belief in gods, cannot logically be said to lead to any actions, let alone atrocities, because action has its root in beliefs, not non-beliefs.

This is a little too simple. Your actions are influenced by your beliefs, true. But your statement doesnt’ comprehend that beliefs can motivate good actions as well as bad. Catholics believe that the main message of the faith is to love God and neighbor and the definition of love is to work for someone elses benefit without expecting anything in return. A devout Catholic is therefore charitable. However, by your lack of belief, you have no such motivation so you don’t work for the good of others. Now it is true that you might have other motivations that might lead you to be charitable but the point is a lack of belief effects your actions as readily as a belief does.

This is trivially easy to demonstrate when we note that almost all the atheists in the Western world today do not subscribe to an ideology that believes that religion should be destroyed – and thus, there are no atheists running around trying to destroy religion. “destroy” in the sense of literal political oppression of the kind found in regimes that operate under Stalin’s brand of ideology]

. Again. Not so fast. Athiest regimes have tried to destroy religion for ever. Look at the Soviet Republic and China. Many Catholic priests died in the Death Camps of the Third Reicht as well. And lets look at your own actions here. You have come on a Catholic forum to try to discredit religion and tear away belief from those here. How is that not an attempt to destroy religion. If you were really ambivalent about religion, you would not try to convince others they are wrong.

The thing that motivated Stalin to want to destroy religion was not the fact that he didn’t believe in god – because, again, that non-belief cannot logically lead to an action – but rather, the thing to motivated him to want to destroy religion was the fact that he subscribed to an ideology (i.e. Stalin’s brand of communism) that has as one of its tenets the idea that religion should be destroyed.

Did you really think about this before you wrote it?. First of all, why does the commuist ideology want to destroy religion? And second of all, Why did Stalin follow that particular part of communist ideology when he failed to folllow other parts of it?

You don’t want to address what I’m saying, and it’s obvious why you don’t – because it completely and totally knocks your assumptions about atheists to pieces.

I’m not so sure. Even your moniker gives you away. Its not enough for you to be a non-theist. You are portraying yourself as an ANTI- Theist. (i.e, against God).

 

[Prophesy]

Again: atheism, being a lack of a belief in gods, cannot logically be said to lead to any actions, let alone atrocities, because action has its root in beliefs, not non-beliefs.

This isn’t necessarily true. Belief v. Non-belief isn’t as simple as ‘an act of’ and ‘not an act of’. If a person subscribes to belief (in this case we’ll say Christianity because its easiest for the moment) they have to then have to answer questions based on the Christian presuppositions:

Is there an objective morality?
Do humans possess an equal dignity?
How ought I act to my neighbour?

While a Christian should be able to derive these answers from Scripture, a non-believer who is asked these questions must use another source to draw the answers. And the results can be similar, or very different (such as Nietzsche’s philosophy of the ubermann which is definitely harmful for society).

So it is not merely “non-belief is a lack of action therefore it cannot produce action”.

This is trivially easy to demonstrate when we note that almost all the atheists in the Western world today do not subscribe to an ideology that believes that religion should be destroyed – and thus, there are no atheists running around trying to destroy religion.

“destroy” in the sense of literal political oppression of the kind found in regimes that operate under Stalin’s brand of ideology]

Firstly you are weaken the modality on the argument and make a presupposition about the thoughts of the majority of western atheists. Next you limit them to a Western context (in which the atheists are living in countries with significant influential Christian histories). In the Eastern world we do see atheistic countries which are quite hostile to belief and act through ‘literal political oppression’ such as China and N.Korea.

-Prophecy

 

[traillius]

As I have said in other threads, evidence abounds for the existence of a creator. That some atheists claim that ( their narrowly construed view of ) science is the only place one can expect valid evidence for the existence of X, whether X means God or anything else, is not binding on me. Philosophy, and many other fields provide proof and or evidence. If natural and applied sciences are the only place you are willing to look, that is not my problem, and it destroys the credibility of your argument.

 

[ddarko]

Ddarko, of course, thinks he’s being clever, but what he’s actually done is given me an excellent chance to discourse on the difference between fact claims and value claims.

Well, you must be thinking you are clever because you thought I haven’t ever heard what you are saying

There are two broad kinds of claims: facts and values. Fact claims are the ones that you can decide with evidence. For example, it’s a fact that objects fall on this planet at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. We can discover all kinds of evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, you can make fact claims out of your own observation of your emotional state (your claim “I feel happy” can be supported by your observation of your emotional state).

So when you say that being DUMB is bad, is that a FACT claim or a value claim? Because why would I believe any VALUE claim? How do you know that Value claim’s can be believed without EVIDENCE? How do you make the distinction as to what is a Value claim and what is not?

Different fact claims require different kinds of evidence. Claims about things outside of you, like, “There is a vast conspiracy against me,” of course, can’t be supported merely by an observation of your emotionally paranoid state. You’d need to obtain different kinds of evidence to support it. Similarly, the claim, “There is a disembodied intelligence who intervenes in nature” cannot be supported by an observation of the warm fuzzy feelings you get when you say your prayers.

Yes you keep re-iterating this need for evidence. How about you present some for a change that your claims are true?

Now, value claims, on the other hand, are not facts. It’s a fact that there is a bowl of spinach in front of me, but my claim that “Spinach tastes gross!” isn’t a fact. It’s a judgment I’m making about facts, and it is thus a value claim.

Yes and the fact that you think “spinach tastes gross” is irrelevant to me and is your subjective opinion. So you can’t enforce it on me.

Donnie’s error here is a category error: he thinks that someone who insists on supporting his fact claims with evidence is somehow running into some kind of contradiction when he makes value judgments. Donnie is wrong here, as usual.

First, whose Donnie? I am not Donnie Darko from the movie wise guy. You’ve never heard of people with the last name Darko? Sheesh.

Second, I am simply saying what you are saying is garbage unless its a fact claim. Keep it to yourself. If you are only making “value judgements” i.e. subjective opinion you have about my religion, I DONT CARE. It’s like you trying to convince all people to believe that “Spinach tastes gross”. To do such a thing is stupidity. That is what I was pointing out to you

I can’t produce evidence of my value judgment that the Mona Lisa is beautiful or that your favorite TV show is ridiculous tripe. Those are value judgments. I’m not making claims about the world that we can investigate: I’m declaring opinions about that world.

Similarly, a statement like, “People should use evidence-based inquiry when it comes to fact claims” is a value.

Precisely, so its your subjective opinion that “People should use evidence-based inquiry when it comes to fact claims”. Keep it to yourself. Don’t be an idiot and try to enforce it on me. On the other hand, if you believe that it applies to everyone independent of belief i.e. fact claim, then SHOW ME EVIDENCE.

 

[ddarko]

Where do values come from? Some of them come from reason and tradition (stuff that people have reasoned out in the past), and other values come from our natural programming and our internalization of society’s mores, and some probably come from other sources we don’t know of yet.

So?

Now, I can point out that evidence-based inquiry aids us in surviving, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of all people want to survive, but as donnie is nicely demonstrating in his impression of a ridiculous three year-old, you can play the “why?” game indefinitely: “Why do you value that? Why do you value that? Can’t you give me any evidence why you value that?? I want my mom!!!”

Actually the three year old is less ignorant and seems to demonstrate more intelligence than you in this case.

There is an endless list of “Why” whether you like it or not. Atheism takes the way out of this by saying, there is no “Why” because there is no “this is how it should be” i.e. no objective values. So if you are atheist, you trying to convince me that believing in religion is wrong is STUPID because its just your OPINION.

Our desire to survive (i.e. “survivng is good”) is a value naturally programmed into us by evolution. Humans have come up with methods of helping themselves survive, and the best method to do so is evidence-based inquiry.

Um, so why survive? Maybe its time we used our brains and realized that there is no objective reason to survive. You just seem to be going on a rant without really answering my questions.

The value that humans place on survival and the various tools that aid it are so ubiquitous that we can take it as a given in all conversations, thus making it something of a rather different species than the “subjective opinion” that our poor little darko is clumsily trying to pawn it off as.

Ha? So is “I must survive” a FACT claim? Whats the basis? Do you have evidence for it? If not, its a subjective reason, so keep it to yourself smart guy. Otherwise you are being logically inconsistent in trying to convince me to believe you.

Also some value being ubiquitous DOES NOT give any reason to consider it as OBJECTIVE. To say it does is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

I’m off – sleep well, my poor lost little Christian sheep. One day you will see the light of reason! [No, I’m not being a jerk – I’m just taking a page from Colmcille’s book]

How do you know reason is good? Is that a value claim? If so, it objectively doesn’t matter. comcille’s book can make the claim, but unfortunately you as an atheist CANNOT.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

This is a little too simple. Your actions are influenced by your beliefs, true. But your statement doesnt’ comprehend that beliefs can motivate good actions as well as bad.

Yes it does. I wrote above that actions have their roots in beliefs, not non-beliefs. I mean both “good” actions and “bad” ones as well.

Catholics believe that the main message of the faith is to love God and neighbor and the definition of love is to work for someone elses benefit without expecting anything in return. A devout Catholic is therefore charitable.

A Catholic belief can indeed compel one to engage in charity; it can also, as Colmcille has demonstrated, compel one to act in an arrogant and prideful manner.

I’m not saying that all Catholics are automatically any of these things, but these behaviors have their roots in beliefs, not non-beliefs.

However, by your lack of belief, you have no such motivation so you don’t work for the good of others. Now it is true that you might have other motivations that might lead you to be charitable but the point is a lack of belief effects your actions as readily as a belief does.

I don’t see how this contradicts my point at all.

We’re talking about actions here – and as you note, even non-believers have good reasons to help out others. But at the root of such an action is always a belief, whether a religious belief or a belief that helping out others builds a good society, which is something that we all want.

Belief is at the root of actions, not non-belief.

Athiest regimes have tried to destroy religion for ever. Look at the Soviet Republic and China. Many Catholic priests died in the Death Camps of the Third Reicht as well.

But, as I was trying to point out, the leaders of these regimes were motivated not by their non-belief in gods, but by their ideological beliefs that have as a tenet that religion should be wiped out.

And lets look at your own actions here. You have come on a Catholic forum to try to discredit religion and tear away belief from those here. How is that not an attempt to destroy religion.

I specifically said in my last post that I meant “destroy” in the sense of “political oppression.” I’m not politically oppressing anybody here, nor would I ever advocate that (because I don’t subscribe to a political ideology that wants to oppress the religious) – I’m discussing ideas on a public messageboard. If you really think that exercising my free speech is the equivalent of the atrocities you referred to above, then there really is no hope for your ability to construct a logical argument.

If you were really ambivalent about religion, you would not try to convince others they are wrong.

I’m not ambivalent about religion, nor did I ever claim to be. I have strong opinions about it. But one opinion that I do not hold is that religious people should be politically oppressed – I do not belong to a political ideology that wants to oppress the religious.

I don’t know how better to explain this. Atheists are people who don’t believe in gods. The only thing that they have in common is that they don’t believe in this one class of supernatural thing. But they believe in a wide variety of other things, including political ideologies.

Some atheists are liberals, and some are conservatives, and some are liberatrians, but just about all of them in this country are believers in the principles of free speech, democracy, and not oppressing anybody. Some atheists, earlier in the 20th century, subscribed to oppressive political ideologies.

You’re making a serious logical mistake when you attempt to conflate very, very different people because they share in common a lack of a belief.

First of all, why does the commuist ideology want to destroy religion?

Because it has as one of its principles that religion is a tool of oppression of the proletariat and that the proletariat should be liberated and that the best way to do this is to oppress the religious.

I don’t agree with those beliefs at all, and I don’t personally know any atheists who do. And if and when I meet an atheist who believes in those tenets, I’ll criticize him.

Why did Stalin follow that particular part of communist ideology when he failed to folllow other parts of it?

Because he believed most strongly that religion was the cause of the oppression of the proletariat and that the best way to free them was to oppress religion.

This is a dumb belief that non-Soviet, non-communist atheists do not hold.

You are portraying yourself as an ANTI- Theist. (i.e, against God).

An atheist is someone who correctly observes that there is insufficient evidence to claim that gods exist.

Some atheists are disappointed about this – they wish there were a god, but they cannot find reason to believe. An anti-theist is the opposite: anti-theists are glad that there is no evidence for the existence of any god.

 

[AntiTheist]

This isn’t necessarily true. Belief v. Non-belief isn’t as simple as ‘an act of’ and ‘not an act of’. If a person subscribes to belief (in this case we’ll say Christianity because its easiest for the moment) they have to then have to answer questions based on the Christian presuppositions:

Is there an objective morality?
Do humans possess an equal dignity?
How ought I act to my neighbour?

While a Christian should be able to derive these answers from Scripture, a non-believer who is asked these questions must use another source to draw the answers. And the results can be similar, or very different (such as Nietzsche’s philosophy of the ubermann which is definitely harmful for society).

As you yourself admit, answers to these questions are drawn from a wide variety of sources – they become beliefs that serve as the basis of action.

An atheist who subscribes to liberal, democratic principles might be motivated to help someone because he believes that helping others builds a strong community, which is something he wants.

An atheist in communist China who engages in oppressing people might do so because he subscribes to the ideology of his leader, who teaches that religious groups need to be oppressed to free the proletariat.

A Christian who believes god wants him to do good things might help someone because he believes he is dutifully following the orders of the lord and spreading his will on earth.

A Christian who believes god is speaking to her and telling her to drown her children because they have demons in them – a real news story, by the way – might kill her children because she believes she is dutifully following the orders of the lord and spreading his will on earth.

In each of these situations, we see a person taking action, and in each case, the action is based on a belief, not a non-belief.

I’m not sure how much better a job I can do explaining it.

 

[AntiTheist]

Um, so why survive? Maybe its time we used our brains and realized that there is no objective reason to survive.

There’s not an “objective reason to survive.” Survival is an instinct in all living creatures: instincts are – by definition – not rational, and thus we cannot produce “reasons” for them.

Almost all people want to survive, so we take it as a given in our conversations. If you don’t want to survive, then it’s been nice knowing you.

 

[ddarko]

There’s not an “objective reason to survive.” Survival is an instinct in all living creatures: instincts are – by definition – not rational, and thus we cannot produce “reasons” for them.

Almost all people want to survive, so we take it as a given in our conversations. If you don’t want to survive, then it’s been nice knowing you.

Wow, ok please stop being an idiot.

My point was that if there is no OBJECTIVE reason to back that we must survive, then its a subjective one. So I can choose to end your survival as much as I can choose to end mine. There is no evidence for you to produce that its WRONG.

Now the fact that majority believes it, or that its ingrained by nature DOES NOT make it “how it should be”. Then I can make the same argument that religion is so ingrained in to humans that atheist are being “not what they should be”. So in either case, you are loosing this argument.

I also made more points to which you only give me this reply? Address the rest of my questions PLEASE. Stop making naturalistic fallacies while you are at it.

God Bless

 

[colmcille1]

You have, sir, unfortunately now reached that sad stage of a debate (by no means inevitable when there are sound arguments employed) where I can only respond to personal remarks. I deleted the rest of your post here as it is utter garbage.
I invited you to read a book and for you to suggest one that I may read. I took your silence as a NO. You did not have the common courtesy to even say no and then to proffer a reason. And yet you say I “act in an arrogant and prideful manner”! The kettle calling the pot black comes to mind. Is your silence on my request indicative of nervousness on your part? If so, what are you afraid of? Could it be that my fortright manner of debating has sent you retreating into a part of your psyche normally reserved for theists? (You know, those people who get the fuzzy feelings to which you are so fond of referring?) And that said retreat has made you utter words like “arrogant” and “prideful”, words which, for you, are uncomfortably close to sounding like the utterings of a religious person?
I’m going to have a wild guess here. I’d say you are in your twenties. (I don’t bother looking at peoples profiles so it is truly a guess.) If you are, you have more than enough time to ditch this atheist lark and join us while there is still fire in the belly. I’d hate to see you in 20 years time rehash the same old broken record of the same old broken atheism. Leave it, lad, there’s a big beautiful God-given world out there and you have, like us all, a special place in it.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[paul_c]

Yes it does. I wrote above that actions have their roots in beliefs, not non-beliefs. I mean both “good” actions and “bad” ones as well.

You believe that there is no God and that clearly affects your actions. The way you practice Anti-theism, it is a belief, every much as Catholicism is a belief for me.

A Catholic belief can indeed compel one to engage in charity; it can also, as Colmcille has demonstrated, compel one to act in an arrogant and prideful manner.

The Catholic faith does not compel anyone to be arrogant or prideful - just the opposite.

I’m not saying that all Catholics are automatically any of these things, but these behaviors have their roots in beliefs, not non-beliefs.

non-beliefs are areas where you have no opinion. That does not apply to you and Theism. You clearly have an opinion- you believe their is no God.

We’re talking about actions here – and as you note, even non-believers have good reasons to help out others. But at the root of such an action is always a belief, whether a religious belief or a belief that helping out others builds a good society, which is something that we all want.

Whether you accept it or not, you have a God given conscience which tells you right from wrong. You may ignore it but God continues to speak to you.

But, as I was trying to point out, the leaders of these regimes were motivated not by their non-belief in gods, but by their ideological beliefs that have as a tenet that religion should be wiped out.

you are right that not believing in God doesn’t necessarily make you homicial. But you are wrong to say their is no correlation between their athiesm and their desire to wipe out religion.

I specifically said in my last post that I meant “destroy” in the sense of “political oppression.” I’m not politically oppressing anybody here, nor would I ever advocate that (because I don’t subscribe to a political ideology that wants to oppress the religious) – I’m discussing ideas on a public messageboard. If you really think that exercising my free speech is the equivalent of the atrocities you referred to above, then there really is no hope for your ability to construct a logical argument.

You know, destroying someone’s faith is more damaging than destroying their bodies…

I’m not ambivalent about religion, nor did I ever claim to be. I have strong opinions about it. But one opinion that I do not hold is that religious people should be politically oppressed – I do not belong to a political ideology that wants to oppress the religious.

You don’t want to oppress the religious, perhaps, but you want to stop religion. How far would you really go if you had the power. Your hatred of it is palpable.

I don’t know how better to explain this. Atheists are people who don’t believe in gods. The only thing that they have in common is that they don’t believe in this one class of supernatural thing. But they believe in a wide variety of other things, including political ideologies.

Some atheists are liberals, and some are conservatives, and some are liberatrians, but just about all of them in this country are believers in the principles of free speech, democracy, and not oppressing anybody. Some atheists, earlier in the 20th century, subscribed to oppressive political ideologies.

You’re making a serious logical mistake when you attempt to conflate very, very different people because they share in common a lack of a belief.

Athiests are the same as Catholics from that perspective.

Because it has as one of its principles that religion is a tool of oppression of the proletariat and that the proletariat should be liberated and that the best way to do this is to oppress the religious.

Because communist never understood what Catholicism really is…just as you don’t.

An atheist is someone who correctly observes that there is insufficient evidence to claim that gods exist.

Some atheists are disappointed about this – they wish there were a god, but they cannot find reason to believe. An anti-theist is the opposite: anti-theists are glad that there is no evidence for the existence of any god.

The Anti-theist view is irrational - you hate something that you don’t believe exists. The athiest view can at least be understood.

 

[JohnDamian]

But you are wrong to say their is no correlation between their athiesm and their desire to wipe out religion.

Not all atheists want to wipe out religion.

Just like not all Catholics want to “wipe out” other faiths; we want to bring people to what we see to be the truth. Likewise it is fully understandable that our Atheist brothers and sisters may want to do this; and act as informed by their conscience.

To accuse them of wanting to “wipe out” religion is emotive claptrap that is akin to claiming all Catholics want to “wipe out” other religions. Whilst both theists and atheists in general would tend to advocate their view of the world; it does not mean that their evangalisation is hostile - for our’s certainly is not (and should not be).

Theists would generally want to see more theists; atheists would generally want to see more atheists. This does not mean we want to “wipe eachother out”; it means we sincerely care for the individuals in the other group and want to bring them into what we believe to be true. Whilst we (and I) believe that atheism is an incorrect view of the world; it would be cruel and untrue to state that they are aggressively hostile to religion. Even those who are aggressively hostile to religion are identical to those hostile to atheism, any individual who engages in genocide or harms another is a villain; atheist or religious - and neither of these positions encourages (or should encourage) this behaviour.

 

[paul_c]

Not all atheists want to wipe out religion.

Just like not all Catholics want to “wipe out” other faiths; we want to bring people to what we see to be the truth. Likewise it is fully understandable that our Atheist brothers and sisters may want to do this; and act as informed by their conscience.

To accuse them of wanting to “wipe out” religion is emotive claptrap that is akin to claiming all Catholics want to “wipe out” other religions. Whilst both theists and atheists in general would tend to advocate their view of the world; it does not mean that their evangalisation is hostile - for our’s certainly is not (and should not be).

Theists would generally want to see more theists; atheists would generally want to see more atheists. This does not mean we want to “wipe eachother out”; it means we sincerely care for the individuals in the other group and want to bring them into what we believe to be true. Whilst we (and I) believe that atheism is an incorrect view of the world; it would be cruel and untrue to state that they are aggressively hostile to religion. Even those who are aggressively hostile to religion are identical to those hostile to atheism, any individual who engages in genocide or harms another is a villain; atheist or religious - and neither of these positions encourages (or should encourage) this behaviour.

time out. we weren’t talking about your general run of the mill Athiests, we were talking about the leaders of murderous Athiestic regimes: I wasn’t saying that all Athiests were homicidal as you see from the original post below which you truncated. I merely was pointing out that these despots desire to wipe out religion was in some way correlated to their athiesm. Clearly if they were believers, they wouldn’t be motivated to wipe out religion. Right?
Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiTheist
But, as I was trying to point out, the leaders of these regimes were motivated not by their non-belief in gods, but by their ideological beliefs that have as a tenet that religion should be wiped out.

originally posted by Paul C
you are right that not believing in God doesn’t necessarily make you homicial. But you are wrong to say their is no correlation between their athiesm and their desire to wipe out religion.

 

[Prophesy]

As you yourself admit, answers to these questions are drawn from a wide variety of sources – they become beliefs that serve as the basis of action.

An atheist who subscribes to liberal, democratic principles might be motivated to help someone because he believes that helping others builds a strong community, which is something he wants.

An atheist in communist China who engages in oppressing people might do so because he subscribes to the ideology of his leader, who teaches that religious groups need to be oppressed to free the proletariat.

A Christian who believes god wants him to do good things might help someone because he believes he is dutifully following the orders of the lord and spreading his will on earth.

A Christian who believes god is speaking to her and telling her to drown her children because they have demons in them – a real news story, by the way – might kill her children because she believes she is dutifully following the orders of the lord and spreading his will on earth.

In each of these situations, we see a person taking action, and in each case, the action is based on a belief, not a non-belief.

I’m not sure how much better a job I can do explaining it.

And if we have an atheist regime who believes that those who believe in a higher power are poisoning the gene pool, we have an atheistic non-belief propagating a belief.

Atheism isn’t the lack of belief. If you are in an office and you see an unlabelled door that hasn’t been opened, and I say that the door leads to a maintenance room, and you say that there is a wall behind the door. We are both asserting beliefs about what is behind the door. The only person who can say that they are making an act of non-belief is Todd from accounting who says that he just doesn’t know what is behind the door (agnosticism).

-Prophecy

 

[saywhat]

I am being completely sincere in my queries here. I am not here to prove anything, I am honestly weeding through the information out there. I grew up protestant, converted to catholicism, went to a private catholic college and studied philosophy. I am now so unconvinced by the existence of god. I am not closing doors, I just need to know the truth. When the subject that has been broached here about the no-proof for the existence of god, it was mentioned that it doesn’t matter if you can see the effects of god, much like the wind or gravity, etc. I get that. What I can’t wrap my head around are the “effects”, i want to know effects that cannot be also attributed to human nature, natural instances, etc. What are these effects, I am extremely logical, please only serious responses to this question. I am not asking for answers like “i have experienced god, or felt god, or you need to pray” i grew up with that, that would be redundant to my experiences and superfluous information for my question.
Thank you

 

[davidv]

I am being completely sincere in my queries here. I am not here to prove anything, I am honestly weeding through the information out there. I grew up protestant, converted to catholicism, went to a private catholic college and studied philosophy. I am now so unconvinced by the existence of god. I am not closing doors, I just need to know the truth. When the subject that has been broached here about the no-proof for the existence of god, it was mentioned that it doesn’t matter if you can see the effects of god, much like the wind or gravity, etc. I get that. What I can’t wrap my head around are the “effects”, i want to know effects that cannot be also attributed to human nature, natural instances, etc. What are these effects, I am extremely logical, please only serious responses to this question. I am not asking for answers like “i have experienced god, or felt god, or you need to pray” i grew up with that, that would be redundant to my experiences and superfluous information for my question.
Thank you

What truths, that led to your conversion to Catholism, have you found to be false?

Also if you think logic will get you out of the conundrum you have described, I think you are fooling yourself.

 

[saywhat]

You are probably right. My main question are the effects, what are the effects that people describe as signs of god that can’t also be attributed to humans.
I was brought up christian and the catholic faith brought a greater degree of intellect than the evangelical sect could give. It sought to explain itself as a faith using philosophy and history in a way that the other faiths could not.
One of the reasons I have such a difficult time with the question of god is human evolution. I cannot reconcile millions of years of evolution to then suddenly the OT god making himself known after all of that time and then once again as Christ in the NT. It doesn’t make sense. Why would he remain hidden all of that time and then suddenly pop on the scene? I don’t get it.

 

[davidv]

You are probably right. My main question are the effects, what are the effects that people describe as signs of god that can’t also be attributed to humans.
I was brought up christian and the catholic faith brought a greater degree of intellect than the evangelical sect could give. It sought to explain itself as a faith using philosophy and history in a way that the other faiths could not.
One of the reasons I have such a difficult time with the question of god is human evolution. I cannot reconcile millions of years of evolution to then suddenly the OT god making himself known after all of that time and then once again as Christ in the NT. It doesn’t make sense. Why would he remain hidden all of that time and then suddenly pop on the scene? I don’t get it.

Adam and Eve had an intimate friendship relationship with God in the garden, so I don’t understand the “hidden” comment?

Every recent (within a 100 yrs) beatification of a Saint is accompanied by the “effects” you have asked about. Have you evaluated them?

 

[saywhat]

Well even the Catholic Church doesn’t necessarily teach that Adam and eve is a literal story but figurative. If you go based on the timeline of the bible the stories are only several thousand years old, human evolution is several million years old. Where was god before the events of the old testament? That’s what I dont understand. I will do as you suggest and look at the miracles of the saints.