We don't need definitive proof of God

[John10]

Agreed, however if you believe in Christ we must obey what He taught, or we are not really believing in Him.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

That’s incorrect. One of the central issues of the reformation was that Catholics believe in justification by faith and works.

 

[Pattylt]

Am I wrong then that first you believe which leads to works as a manifestation of belief. Isn’t works without faith dead?

Edit to add…not sure if manifestation is the correct word…perhaps desire ? Requirement?

 

[Economist]

It is very straight forward that stating “there are no absolute truths” is self-contradictory and there are tons of obstacles to overcome to think this is true.

There are propositions which are meaningless due to the lack of their referents. The expression: “this proposition is false” is one of them. There are “absolute” truths is another one.

The word: “truth” has two possible meanings. One is only only applicable in abstract, axiomatic systems, and it means that the proposition is the corollary of the axioms, using the allowable transformations. The other one is only applicable in open, inductive systems, and it means that the observation correctly describes the reality.

The expression: “there are no absolute true propositions” means that there are no propositions which evaluate to “true” under any and all circumstances. And this is obvious, since all the “circumstances” include mutually exclusive ones or even self-contradictory circumstances.

But I am willing to accommodate your view: “tell me a proposition which always evaluates to true, under any and all circumstances or any and all axioms”. I am willing to wait. (I will even help you: axiomatic systems, like mathematics do NOT qualify. The expression “one plus one makes two” is NOT an absolutely true proposition. It is contingent upon the axioms.)

Because it is fair and just that we are all held accountable by how we lived.

Nonsense. One cannot be held accountable for what does not and cannot KNOW.

You can circle the wagons around semantics all you want.

Semantics - meaning a precise definition for the suggested proposition IS everything.

 

[goout]

Correct. And tying one’s self into semantic knots only serves to confuse a person and avoid what are obvious conclusions.

“There is no absolute truth”. Is your assertion worthy of acceptance as true or should we disregard it with a hand wave and a giggle?
Is it partly true? Is it true for a limited time only?
Is it true only when you eat chocolate ice cream?

?
You are tying yourself into knots of confusion over something that is simply not worth your time of day.

 

[CelticWarlord]

Any evidence for God (or anything else) MUST start with a precise definition of what we are going to talk about

As with so many things, I wished later that I had included that phrase in my post. At 62 I often think of the right thing to say much later, usually after I’ve gone to bed at night. But I do agree 100%. This is a topic which I delve into rather frequently on this forum so my apologies if what I say seems repetitious to some of our readers. But your statement above is exactly what we need to clarify in any conversation about God which is to have any edifying application for either of us or for anyone else.

There is a very good story along this line concerning Anglican theologian and Oxford professor, N.T. Wright. He tells of a student who approached him prior to a class on comparative religion or some such study. The student said to him, “I may not be in the class much, sir, since I don’t believe in God”. Not the least taken aback, Wright asked the student to define just what sort of ideas made up this God he rejected. After hearing the explanation, probably akin to what most of us are taught growing up, Wright said, “Don’t worry about a thing, son, I don’t believe in that God either”.

So to my own case, and I’d prefer carrying on within this thread to starting a new one. But as I say, this is going to be nothing new to many who have read my thoughts previously. "I don’t believe in that God either", said Wright. And I would probably agree with 90% of the atheists I know and say the same thing. If we think of God as a super human-like being “somewhere up there”, then we are inviting trouble if we expect to have credibility in debate. If we expect evidence of this god within the physical realm we are not going to be able to find it. If this God is defined simply as a Supreme Being, or even a being at all, then I don’t believe in him either. Yet I remain a Christian, though my concept of God may be different.

Here is where I find common ground with the atheist. In pretty much all cases they and I believe the universe is powered by massive and seemingly limitless energy. This energy permeates every facet of the known universe from the hottest dwarf star to the tiniest blooming flower. Where we differ is that I choose to believe this energy is conscious, aware, and interested. By doing away with the common god concepts we find ground on which we can further discuss the mysteries of life.

Now, unlike my Catholic friends and family, I stop short of believing that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are either necessary or required for anyone. But really, it’s a blast.

I’ve gotta run but will have more time tomorrow if you wish to converse more. I look forward to it. Best to you.

 

[Economist]

After hearing the explanation, probably akin to what most of us are taught growing up, Wright said, “Don’t worry about a thing, son, I don’t believe in that God either”.

If we think of God as a super human-like being “somewhere up there”, then we are inviting trouble if we expect to have credibility in debate.

Sounds good. But that means to discard the “biblical God”, the anthropomorphic picture of God. But if you discard it, what remains?

Here is where I find common ground with the atheist. In pretty much all cases they and I believe the universe is powered by massive and seemingly limitless energy.

Maybe there are some atheists, who believe this, or something like that. But I am not one of them.

The so-called God of the philosophers is a very different “thingy”. The basic picture is this, approximately. We are all aware of the physical universe, the STEM: “space, time, energy, matter”. To our best, current knowledge, these are not individual categories. In the old, Newtonian world-view there is the “empty space” (like a huge room) and there is some “glob” of matter, drifting along some “time”. This world-view has been proven to be incorrect. There is no matter and energy independent of the space-time continuum. There is also STEM.

For the materialist this is IT. There is nothing outside the universe, it is meaningless to talk about “before” the universe, or some causative agent outside the universe. Whether this “picture” is correct, or not, we cannot know. But it is sufficient to accept it as basic metaphysics.

For the believers this is insufficient. They prefer a different view. Some unknown and unknowable “being” using “unimaginable means” used his “inexplicable power” to create the physical universe. Of curse this does not explain anything. If they would stop at this point, they would present a deistic power. But they wish to go further, and whatever they present is not just beyond imagination, but much worse than that.

There are some new-age type of people who imagine some matter-less energy, like telekinesis, ESP, and stuff like that. Every experiment which attempted to prove this has been discarded as sheer nonsense.

I will stop here, and wait your reply.

 

[John10]

“tell me a proposition which always evaluates to true, under any and all circumstances or any and all axioms”

Torturing babies for fun, for example. Do you believe there is ever a case where that is ok ?

Nonsense. One cannot be held accountable for what does not and cannot KNOW.

Have you ever experienced regret ?

 

[STT]

…there are no propositions which evaluate to “true” under any and all circumstances.

That is not correct. I can give you one example. We are interacting minds through physical. Mind is the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause. Physical is the stuff that mind experience and cause.

 

[Neithan]

There is nothing outside the universe, it is meaningless to talk about “before” the universe, or some causative agent outside the universe.

These are not aims of the cosmological argument, at least not how Aquinas demonstrates it. There is no “before” and “outside” — God is not located in time or space. STEM is metaphysically contingent and the explanation for existence cannot be metaphysically contingent. The cosmological argument is not a complete explanation of how nature exists, but it is better than “it just is.” If you remember, we discussed this already and even avoided use of the word “God” to simply something that is the cause of STEM — at some point there must be a non-contingent metaphysical ground. Otherwise, our metaphysics is arbitrary.

 

[Neithan]

Because belief and action are integrated. If I believe the rules of soccer allow me to pick up the ball and throw it into the opponents’ net, I’m not going to play properly. If I believe the correct rules, I will play correctly, but perhaps not very well. If I have the correct rules, and the greatest coach who ever lived, I’m going to play even better. Good actions follow good beliefs.

 

[Economist]

Torturing babies for fun, for example. Do you believe there is ever a case where that is ok ?

How do you know that its torture? You have no grounds to make such generic propositions. A real life example would be giving a life saving injection - which seems to be “torture”. Any and all your assumed propositions will get “shipwrecked” on the lack of omniscience.

Have you ever experienced regret ?

What does have to do anything with lack of knowledge and being held responsible for something that you do not know and cannot know???

That is not correct. I can give you one example. We are interacting minds through physical. Mind is the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause. Physical is the stuff that mind experience and cause.

You say: “WE ARE”. But WE are not everything there is. Insects have no mind, they only have reflexes to external stimuli. Again, using “general” propositions will be incorrect, due to our lack of omniscience.

STEM is metaphysically contingent and the explanation for existence cannot be metaphysically contingent.

On what grounds do you assert this? Metaphysics is simply speculation, nothing more. If it coincides with real physics, it is propagated to physics.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Love according to the Economist:

[On Definition of love]

• The correct definition would be: “to ACT on behalf of another.”

As opposed to willing the good of the other for the other.

[On Evidence of love]

• Without physical manifestation the expression: “I love you” is just an empty phrase.
• If I do not ACT on that will, it is meaningless
• We only have one kind of “I/O” device, the physical organs we can use to accept external information.

Notice how it all begins and ends with the ACT. I/O receptors either stimulated or not. The physical manifestation.

[On An example of love]

Actual “giving” food to the hungry. And the reason is irrelevant.

Notice how not even the motivation or will is important, just the ACT.

[On his New Definition of love after probing question exposed his hollow assertions]

Love is a mental state.

Wooah… Goodbye physical manifestations. You had claimed everything else was meaningless including the reason/motivation for the act which would be the mental state. Once again, you move goal posts when the incoherence of your statements are exposed. But sadly, your new arguments don’t get any more rigorous.

[ More contradictory statements]

First of all, I only speak of evidence , and not “ proof ”.

But when i said “My point is, something as real to us as love, does not meet the bar for proof in science any more than God does. But I believe it is real.”
You reponded with:

It certainly does. [meet the bar for proof]

First of all, much like Lelinator, I see no reason to continue the discussion with you since you have avoided the substance of every question posed to you about your assertions.

Secondly, I attempted to unravel this word salad disguised as wisdom. It has been challenging, but I have done it, I am sorry that it doesn’t amount to much.

Furthermore, I apologize to all the other readers who are now dumber for having read it.

 

[John10]

How do you know that its torture? You have no grounds to make such generic propositions.

Are you suggesting we cannot define what torture is ? Based on what ?

What does have to do anything with lack of knowledge and being held responsible for something that you do not know and cannot know???

If you have felt regret, there is no lack of knowledge, you are fully aware of your actions. So you can know, and indeed you must know to feel it.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Am I wrong then that first you believe which leads to works as a manifestation of belief. Isn’t works without faith dead?
Edit to add…not sure if manifestation is the correct word…perhaps desire ? Requirement?

They cooperate. It doesn’t matter the order or amount in which they increase. Both are necessary for justification. So how you live is very important to Catholics.

Jas 2:26 • ‘For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.’

 

[Economist]

First of all, much like Lelinator, I see no reason to continue the discussion with you since you have avoided the substance of every question posed to you about your assertions.

That is great news to me. Have fun in your life. It is true that I did not write an essay about “love”, but since “love” is not the topic of this thread, there was no reason to do it.

As a matter of fact the word “love” covers so many things, that it is meaningless without strictly p(name removed by moderator)ointing the exact circumstances. But under no circumstances can it be accepted as “willing” something.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Faith without evidence is blind faith. Sorry, that is not acceptable for non-christians. You can accept it, but that is your business.

We see through the eyes of faith, through a compact that we have entered with the Divine. If one has not entered such a compact, then it is he who is blind, not us.

God illuminates us from the inside that we may see and perceive the Divine; see The Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila.

 

[Economist]

We see through the eyes of faith, through a compact that we have entered with the Divine. If one has not entered such a compact, then it is he who is blind, not us.

God illuminates us from the inside that we may see and perceive the Divine; see The Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila.

If that is how you see it, I will not argue. But in the real world, to accept something without actual evidence is called blind faith. For all of us, who USED to be believers, but never experienced such illumination the only reality is what we experience. If you call THAT blindness, that is your business.

Not that this has anything to do with the sufficient evidence for God.

Best wishes.

 

[STT]

You say: “WE ARE”. But WE are not everything there is. Insects have no mind, they only have reflexes to external stimuli. Again, using “general” propositions will be incorrect, due to our lack of omniscience.

Do insect experience? Do they interact with reality?

 

[Economist]

Do insect experience? Do they interact with reality?

What is the point of your questions? What does it have to do with the need for God’s existence? The basic question is: “what is God?” If we meet someone on the street, and they assert that they are “God”, how can you find out if that “someone”, or “something” is really God, of just an impostor?