The obstacles which prevent faith

[njlisa]

@Trishie: How much greater is the God Who exists beyond the laws of the space time continuum? It’s mind-blowing but not faith-blowing.

 

[Wm777]

As a side note… in the Catechism and in Canon Law, “obstacles” to faith are referred to as “impediments”…

I would use the term “impediments” when asking this question, since it would allow you to search and cross-reference the literature for better answers…

 

[Techno2000]

Why all people have not faith or why not believing in Creator of universe? What are obstacles?

The World,The Flesh and The Devil

 

[mhmtas63]

I am a Catholic believer. But I do have niggling doubts. Here’s one. Why, in a universe so vast, are we humans so important that God would create us in His image?

I have an answer. Universe is not so vast. There are angels in every where in stars and on planets …

God created all those to show His arts, attributes. God wants eyes to appreciate His arts. People cannot do that job thoroughly. So there are angels to do that work. Even nobody look at arts to bless God but God self appreciation is enough.

Mankind is the most inclusive mirror to reflect attribute and arts of God. If we want to understand and know God properly we can look at and read human. That is not some thing physically. We were created in image of God is not physically because God do not look like anything.

 

[mhmtas63]

I’m confused. Jesus is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So how can Jesus be an image of the Father?

About Jesus Muslims have proper answers. But when we state our thoughts Christians regard those as insult though …

Jesus was image of Father because Jesus was a human(was not?) and a very inclusive mirror for God. If want know God so we can look at Jesus. Jesus was given great authority and performed many miracles. There were Jesus in eternal knowledge of God but that do not mean Jesus is co-eternal. We know the birthday of Jesus. Beyond that… I cannot say more.

 

[mhmtas63]

As a side note… in the Catechism and in Canon Law, “obstacles” to faith are referred to as “impediments”…

I would use the term “impediments” when asking this question, since it would allow you to search and cross-reference the literature for better answers…

Impediment! Yes. My English is poor.

 

[mhmtas63]

@Trishie: How much greater is the God Who exists beyond the laws of the space time continuum? It’s mind-blowing but not faith-blowing.

Yeah. Faith answer that. We cannot compare the matter to eternal. There is no degree and dimensions for eternal. An illustration. A mirror is material and ligt is energy and not(yet energy is to be some kind physical being!) As a matter mirror is so small but with light it can reflect a town from an enough distance. God is not material and beyond of time and matter. God surround all matter with power and wisdom and with all attributes. There is no such thing which can be very big or difficult!

 

[CRV]

There were Jesus in eternal knowledge of God but that do not mean Jesus is co-eternal.

Here is an article you might be interested in reading The Eternal Sonship of Christ

 

[SalamKhan]

No, there is an argument known as ‘Burhan al Siddiqin’, meaning ‘Proof of the Truthful’, developed by Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

Based on verse 3:18 of the Qur’an, these philosophers laid out an argument for a necessary extistent (intrinsically necessary), without the need for a middle term (see syllogisms).

 

[FredBloggs]

Just regarding this.

SalamKhan:

Instead, we are compelled to admit His existence 1) from His signs and 2) from Him bearing witness to His own existence .

There’s not much to go on there. I’d like to know the nature of the thought experiment, what you’ve proposed is (I think) that you’ve asked me to believe “his signs” (of which there are none that I’m aware) and the circular argument of “god exists because god said so.”

What’s your actual proposal? I’m up for an experiment, but I’d like to know the hypothesis, the method, the falsification criteria etc.

 

[FredBloggs]

History? We cannot reject our history. Thousands affirmed life of prophets from Adam.

Hmmm. I’m not aware of any reliable historical records for Adam’s existence, let alone his progeny. On the other hand, we have lots of empirical evidence that Adam never existed, so your evidence needs to be a little better than “thousands affirmed…” Which thousands? How can we trust their testimony? What did they write? Did they see it with their own eyes (difficult, if Adam was the first man).

I don’t think you can refer to the fantastical story-telling of uneducated goat-herders as “history.”

 

[FredBloggs]

I propose that you are ignoring the active influence of enlightenment ideology to suppress your natural capacity to ‘wonder’. The most basic human curiousity is really about who made me and why did they make me. The esteem of the intellect that came with the ‘age of reason’ had the effect of dismissing answers that came through contemplation that couldn’t be verified by science or academic methodology.

That rejection is most evident in the events of post enlightenment attacks on mysticism of any sort.

Not at all. I wonder about a lot of things. In fact I’d be so bold to say that I wonder about things more then your average theist, because they stop at “god did it.” I want to know what actually happened.

“Who made me and why” is begging the question. You’ve inserted your conclusion into your question. Why did there have to be a “who?” We have evidence that it wasn’t a “who,” but a natural process. “Why?” There is no why. Why must there be a “why?”

“How did I come to exist?” is valid. “Who is responsible?” is not.

I don’t dismiss “answers through contemplation,” but those answers are subjective to the person contemplating. They are not universally applicable. They are not fact, but opinion.

To be rational in thought is not an “attack on mysticism,” or anything else for that matter. It is simply the proper approach if we want to actually learn the objective truth.

 

[SalamKhan]

what you’ve proposed is (I think) that you’ve asked me to believe “his signs”

The signs I’m referring to are related to the ‘laws of nature’, that everything is directed by divine guidance. But the thought experiment is related to:

the circular argument of “god exists because god said so.”

This is far from what I mean, you may have missed this post of mine:

No, there is an argument known as ‘Burhan al Siddiqin’, meaning ‘Proof of the Truthful’, developed by Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

Based on verse 3:18 of the Qur’an, these philosophers laid out an argument for a necessary extistent (intrinsically necessary), without the need for a middle term (see syllogisms).

Here is what I propose thus far, with regards to existence:

[Necessary] intrinsically necessary- exists by itself

[Possible] extrinsically necessary- aqcuires its existence from something else

[Possible] contingent- is neutral to existence & non existence

[Possible] extrinsically impossible- lacks a cause to acquire its existence

[Impossible] intrinsically impossible- something that cannot occur per se

For the sake of the thought experiment, would you be willing to accept these definitions, or are there any questions first?

 

[niceatheist]

I wouldn’t say I’m not interested. It’s just that adopting a particular faith (Catholicism, some brand of Protestantism or Islam) means first being convinced that some sort of Prime Mover is required, and then demonstrating why your own faith’s formulation of God is the correct identifier for said Prime Mover. I’d say moving from atheism to some sort of theistic view (including deism and pantheism) is a big step, but identifying that Prime Mover with any of the versions of Yahweh laid out in the Talmud, New Testament or Qu’ran (after all, while they do claim to all be talking about the same God, they have profoundly different views on His nature) is just as big a step. Quite of a few Enlightenment figures accepted the need from Aristotle’s Unmoving Mover, but decided that Judeao-Christian tradition was improbable.

 

[Emeraldlady]

“Who made me and why” is begging the question. You’ve inserted your conclusion into your question. Why did there have to be a “who?” We have evidence that it wasn’t a “who,” but a natural process. “Why?” There is no why. Why must there be a “why?”

“How did I come to exist?” is valid. “Who is responsible?” is not.

The evidence that human beings value their genesis and desire to identify as part of a linage is too overwhelming to ignore. For example that fact of the ‘family’ and a unique sharing of surname to that end can be traced back as far as history and anthropology can go. It’s a deeply rooted need that isn’t naturally present in any other form of life to the extent that human beings value it. We want to know who created us and who our father of fathers is.

I don’t dismiss “answers through contemplation,” but those answers are subjective to the person contemplating. They are not universally applicable. They are not fact, but opinion.

The answers through contemplation are strong and cohesive enough among people to have sustained belief in gods or God pretty universally until modern times. Atheism didn’t exist as a significant option for at least the prior 10s of 1000s of years . It wasn’t just one person that came up with gods. Like the blind monks describing different parts of an elephant, there was enough universality in the act of contemplating to form a sound basis for the existence of higher, involved powers who are ‘contactable’ for our needs.

 

[niceatheist]

A Rationalist might counter that the belief in gods was based on superstition. Even the Greeks (like Xenophanes) were beginning to view the Olympian Gods as more an attempt by the forebears to explain natural forces, and such beings did not in fact exist as such. They were coming close to a kind of “monism”, although still with pagan overtones (and it was these monists who probably paved the way for the Christianization of the Greek-speaking world in the First and Second centuries). But those monists might more closely resemble deists and pantheists, and weren’t theists in the sense that someone of a pagan or Judeo-Christian tradition would have recognized.

There were also functional atheists like many ancient Buddhists and Taoists (though perhaps deism or pantheism might be closer to their view).

 

[fide]

There are two radically different kinds of faith:

1. natural faith is believing that there must be a God - an uncreated being who created all that is (except Himself: the uncreated Being has “being” in his nature. All other things that exist do not have “being” in their natures - if they did, they would be uncreated and eternal beings also.
   The use of reason can discover many attributes of the uncreated Being - this is the science of metaphysics.

Today, reason itself is being contradicted, with literal insanity. Even highly “educated” people group together and support one another in truly insane abnormal and dysfunctional beliefs. They imagine cleverly devised virtual realities, and suppose them to be “their reality” - as if “their reality” somehow can trump actual reality. Atheism is such a contradiction. Reason itself demonstrates proof of God, but today’s minds are not impressed.

1. Secondly. and more important, is supernatural faith. This kind of faith is what St. Paul writes of, saying:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—
Eph 2:9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

This supernatural faith is “supernatural” precisely because it is literally “the gift of God”. It is not the “work,” not the “doing” of man in his human nature. It is not the result of his reason or logic or argument or debate or reading or his senses (what he can see or touch or feel, taste or smell). Supernatural faith is GOD revealing GOD to the man in his soul.

(1) is believing that …; (2) is believing God.

 

[FredBloggs]

The signs I’m referring to are related to the ‘laws of nature’, that everything is directed by divine guidance.

I think you’re already running into trouble here. There is zero evidence that the “laws of nature” are directed by divine guidance. If, for the purposes of your experiment, you want me to set that aside, then it make the whole experiment invalid.

FredBloggs:

the circular argument of “god exists because god said so.”

This is far from what I mean, you may have missed this post of mine:

SalamKhan:

No, there is an argument known as ‘Burhan al Siddiqin’, meaning ‘Proof of the Truthful’, developed by Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

Based on verse 3:18 of the Qur’an, these philosophers laid out an argument for a necessary extistent (intrinsically necessary), without the need for a middle term (see syllogisms).

Ok, so this sounds like a cover version of Aquinas, whose arguments are flawed.

Here is what I propose thus far, with regards to existence:

[Necessary] intrinsically necessary- exists by itself

[Possible] extrinsically necessary- aqcuires its existence from something else

[Possible] contingent- is neutral to existence & non existence

[Possible] extrinsically impossible- lacks a cause to acquire its existence

[Impossible] intrinsically impossible- something that cannot occur per se

For the sake of the thought experiment, would you be willing to accept these definitions, or are there any questions first?

I’m happy to accept those definitions, but you still haven’t explained what your experiment consists of; what it’s intended to show; what would make it false etc.

 

[SalamKhan]

Ok, so this sounds like a cover version of Aquinas, whose arguments are flawed.

Aquinas based his argument on Maimonides, who in turn based his on Avicenna.

I’m happy to accept those definitions, but you still haven’t explained what your experiment consists of; what it’s intended to show; what would make it false etc.

We we’re looking for, is whether there is such a being that is intrinsically necessary. You will decide what makes it false. Now, do you agree that we can leave out whatever is intrinsically & extrinsically impossible, because they do not exist?

 

[mhmtas63]

This supernatural faith is “ super natural” precisely because it is literally “the gift of God”. It is not the “work,” not the “doing” of man in his human nature. It is not the result of his reason or logic or argument or debate or reading or his senses (what he can see or touch or feel, taste or smell). Supernatural faith is GOD revealing GOD to the man in his soul.

Yes. Faith is the gift and revelation of God. Faith cannot be taken just with mind or senses. That gift is conclusion of pure soul and heart and purpose. Our work is to set and orient our mind and senses toward light of God.