What is your favorite proof for God?

[Zatzat]

I mean, Christians like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. Those people are miracles and worked miracles. There’s lots of unknown Christians like that, feeding the hungry, comforting the ill, visiting the incarcerated, giving clothes to those without clothes and giving drink to the thirsty.

Those activities can be explained through natural means and miracles, they most certainly do not make. Nor does a person even need to believe in any God in order to do the things you’ve listed.

Take a look at the great work the secular charity ’ doctors without borders’ or 'red cross ’ does.

Good work, yes. Miracles, no.

 

[rvilbig]

Ryan,
It’s been a few decades since my last formal QM course, and I don’t understand much of what you’ve written. Christ said something about not casting thy pearls before swine, and this may have been an example of what he meant— good practical advice.

Christ also admonishes us to not bury our talents. And by the way, in Biblical taxonomy, you’re a lost sheep; not a pig. So keep reading the parables of the Old and New Testament; you’ll figure things out in a jiffy.

I’ll focus on your final remark, which is one you echo in other posts, “…the imaginative faculty of some Being, Whom all men understand to be God.”

Consider redirecting your focus upon physics details to the meanings implied in your final phrase. All men do not have a common understanding of the nature of God. Admittedly, the Christian-Muslim-Ba’h’ai religionists are aligned on the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and has always existed. But I’m not, which makes me a man who does not share this concept.
…]While your arguments favor the concept of an intelligent Being behind creation, they do not speak to the nature or the singularity of that Being. Get back to work.

An Anglican clergyman named Samuel Clarke actually argued that one Divine Attribute implies all the rest. Since Cardinal Newman appreciated this argument I’ll share my version of it here:

If God has an imagination → God has a mind.
If God has a mind → God has reason.
If God has reason → God has order.
If God has order → God has justice.
If God has justice → God has righteousness.
If God has righteousness → God has mercy.
If God has mercy → God has love.
If God has love → God includes three relations: A Lover, the Beloved, and Their Love.

Thus we have arrived at a Trinitarian understanding of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Newman advises the following in approaching an argument such as this: “To feel the true force of an argument like this, …] we must not hurry on and force a series of deductions, which, if they are to be realized, must distil like dew into our minds, and form themselves spontaneously there, by a calm contemplation and gradual understanding of their premises” (Grammar of Assent, page 314)

Greylorn, also realize that “proofs” for the existence of God are limited. Cardinal Newman compares it to the convergence of calculus: “We know that a regular polygon, inscribed in a circle, its sides being continually diminished, tends to become that circle, as its limit; but it vanishes before it has coincided with the circle, so that its tendency to be the circle, though ever nearer fulfillment, never in fact gets beyond a tendency. In like manner, the conclusion in a real or concrete question is foreseen and predicted rather than actually attained; foreseen in the number and direction of accumulated premises, which all converge to it, and as the result of their combination, approach it more nearly than any assignable difference, yet do not touch it logically (though only not touching it), on account of the nature of its subject matter, and the delicate and implicit character of at least part of the reasonings on which it depends” (ibid, page 320-21)

Anselm’s one, Aquinas’ five, Kant’s one, and the numerous modern ones from QM and evolution, all converge on the existence of God, but never will get you there in actuality. So, if you want to understand the Triune God, go to confession regularly and receive communion frequently, and you will participate in the Divine life of God in actuality, rather than merely speculating about it.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Zatzat]

So why do you call yourself “enquirer” and take the time and trouble to give us at CAF the joy of your presence?

An enquirer asks questions. I ask questions. I enjoy spirited debate with other than like minded people.

 

[donsnow]

Those activities can be explained through natural means and miracles, they most certainly do not make. Nor does a person even need to believe in any God in order to do the things you’ve listed.

Take a look at the great work the secular charity ’ doctors without borders’ or 'red cross ’ does.

Good work, yes. Miracles, no.

I’m talking about individual, no organizational, works of charity. In this evil world, it’s a miracle that people care like that.

 

[Zatzat]

I’m talking about individual, no organizational, works of charity. In this evil world, it’s a miracle that people care like that.

Individuals are what organizations are made of.

 

[greylorn]

An Anglican clergyman named Samuel Clarke actually argued that one Divine Attribute implies all the rest. Since Cardinal Newman appreciated this argument I’ll share my version of it here:

If God has an imagination → God has a mind.
If God has a mind → God has reason.
If God has reason → God has order.
If God has order → God has justice.
If God has justice → God has righteousness.
If God has righteousness → God has mercy.
If God has mercy → God has love.
If God has love → God includes three relations: A Lover, the Beloved, and Their Love.

If God has an imagination, then God can think of something which He never before knew, just like humans. However, this implies that God did not know everything before that or any other imaginative (new) thought, which in turn implies that God cannot be both imaginative (capable of creative thought) and omniscient.

You’ll want to get to work reinterpreting your definition of imaginative, so as to circumvent this clear and simple logic.

 

[Andy_III]

If God has an imagination, then God can think of something which He never before knew, just like humans. However, this implies that God did not know everything before that or any other imaginative (new) thought, which in turn implies that God cannot be both imaginative (capable of creative thought) and omniscient.

You’ll want to get to work reinterpreting your definition of imaginative, so as to circumvent this clear and simple logic.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps something was lost in the distillation, or perhaps the difficulties were in the original text. In any case, it is difficult even to speak of God’s thoughts because we tend to think in temporal terms when describing thoughts. Terms like new thought, chain of thought, etc. all imply change - something which God does not and cannot do. It is not logically possible for God to be outside of time and to change.

 

[HelenaMT]

Yes, I agree. Perhaps something was lost in the distillation, or perhaps the difficulties were in the original text. In any case, it is difficult even to speak of God’s thoughts because we tend to think in temporal terms when describing thoughts. Terms like new thought, chain of thought, etc. all imply change - something which God does not and cannot do. It is not logically possible for God to be outside of time and to change.

How is it logically possible to think of thoughts in non-temporal terms? I know philosophers can say that causality is not necessarily temporal, but I find it nearly impossible to make sense of that concept. Isn’t time a measure of change ? And if there’s one state, and then another that is different, is that not a change?

Are you agreeing with Greylorn, though, that God cannot have an imagination or a new thought if He is outside time or omniscient ?

 

[ddarko]

How is it logically possible to think of thoughts in non-temporal terms? I know philosophers can say that causality is not necessarily temporal, but I find it nearly impossible to make sense of that concept. Isn’t time a measure of change ? And if there’s one state, and then another that is different, is that not a change?

Are you agreeing with Greylorn, though, that God cannot have an imagination or a new thought if He is outside time or omniscient ?

A thought is not causal. The idea of free will is that it is not determined by prior determinants. For an example, you can will to do any action, you can will change it self without any change. To say that a free will is a result of change would mean that God is not free and there is no free will.

Your view of time is a correct view of time but it does not apply to God before creation. At creation, Time begins. There is no time before the act of creation.

About God’s imagination, the problem is, imagination is something a finite being would need. If you know every thing possible that there is to know, you cannot ‘‘imagine’’ anything outside of it. Its a self contradicting statement to say ‘‘A being who knows everything can imagine something out side of what he knows’’. So God in a way does not need imagination. His knowledge is perfect.

The following link contains a nice philosophical discussion on the question of God outside of time as well.

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5839

God Bless

 

[HelenaMT]

A thought is not causal. The idea of free will is that it is not determined by prior determinants. For an example, you can will to do any action, you can will change it self without any change. To say that a free will is a result of change would mean that God is not free and there is no free will.

Is a thought not causal? Usually when I have a thought, it doesn’t stand alone, but leads directly to to another one.Thoughts are usually what causes a physical action to be performed. If you disagree, will you agree that a thought is an action? And a discrete action is something with a temporal effect, no?

Your view of time is a correct view of time but it does not apply to God before creation. At creation, Time begins. There is no time before the act of creation.

Craig says (in the article in your link) “So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation.”

And then: “…reflecting on agent causation leads me to think that in addition to that timeless intention there must also be an exercise of causal power on God’s part. That act is simultaneous with the moment of creation - **indeed, it just is the act of creating - and brings God into time. **”

If God has entered time (with Creation) , then how can He be said to be unchanged, and truly outside time? Is He partially within time, and partially out?

About God’s imagination, the problem is, imagination is something a finite being would need. If you know every thing possible that there is to know, you cannot ‘‘imagine’’ anything outside of it. Its a self contradicting statement to say ‘‘A being who knows everything can imagine something out side of what he knows’’. So God in a way does not need imagination. His knowledge is perfect.

Yes, that is true. I have an enormous problem with the concept of God as an infinite, timeless being when observation seems to make this unrealistic. In the Old Testament, God seems to do things that are emotional, vengeful, and temporal. As far as the New Testament, Jesus was obviously a temporal being while He lived, and if He is part of the Father, doesn’t that make the concept of God-outside-time even more problematic?

Even if you put the Bible aside, it is difficult to imagine how He could have created something that wasn’t without having a thought He had not had before.

Craig also says: “There exists a perfect, changeless state of mutual of knowledge, will, and love between the persons of the Trinity without the creation. (The wonder of creation is that God would bother to create a world of creatures and invite them to freely enter the joy of that fellowship as adopted children!)”

So God existed alone, and then didn’t. My mind simply cannot make sense of how this is NOT change.

The following link contains a nice philosophical discussion on the question of God outside of time as well.

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5839

God Bless

More from Craig, " … Now some activities don’t require change and time. For example, knowing something doesn’t require change or time. God can know all truths in that timeless state without any change. Similarly, one can have unchanging intentions."

Intentions and knowing both imply thought (well, knowing at least implies memory storage of some sort). Unless I find a way to understand how intentions, knowledge, creativity, and things like love and mercy can occur in the absence of thought or emotion, thinking of God in this way makes no sense to me. I do appreciate your efforts at explanation, though.

 

[donsnow]

Individuals are what organizations are made of.

Well, yes, of course. Still, again, I’m talking about the individuals who don’t go to church or who don’t work for a charitable organizations. There’s lots of those. And, anyway, each act of charity, whether by an organization of individuals or by a lone individual, sure are miraculous when compared to the worldly mindset.

 

[ddarko]

Is a thought not causal? Usually when I have a thought, it doesn’t stand alone, but leads directly to to another one.Thoughts are usually what causes a physical action to be performed. If you disagree, will you agree that a thought is an action? And a discrete action is something with a temporal effect, no?

Um no. If thought is causal, then there wont be free will. There can be thoughts that ARE causal I guess. But the idea is that they don’t have to be. But the discussion I think is more about the '‘will’ here. For what you ‘‘will’’ to be free, it has to be non-causal.

Craig says (in the article in your link) “So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation.”

And then: “…reflecting on agent causation leads me to think that in addition to that timeless intention there must also be an exercise of causal power on God’s part. That act is simultaneous with the moment of creation - **indeed, it just is the act of creating - and brings God into time. **”

If God has entered time (with Creation) , then how can He be said to be unchanged, and truly outside time? Is He partially within time, and partially out?

I think he means that God can now be perceived in time because we have a notion of time. Like it is possible for God to do X at time t1 as we perceive it and Y at time t2 (again as we perceive it) since there is now a notion of time (after creation). I do not think it means God is governed by time now.

Yes, that is true. I have an enormous problem with the concept of God as an infinite, timeless being when observation seems to make this unrealistic. In the Old Testament, God seems to do things that are emotional, vengeful, and temporal.

Actually, that is a common mistake made by many. The old testament is a narrative of how God was experienced by people. For them, it would seem like God is changing and being vengeful etc. But it is again the way God was perceived. Not what God actually is. Like we know by revelation of Christ that God is JUST and hell is given to man because of his free choice i.e. absence of God. For someone in the old testament, hell could have seemed like punishment. So when interpreting scripture, one needs to keep that in mind.

As far as the New Testament, Jesus was obviously a temporal being while He lived, and if He is part of the Father, doesn’t that make the concept of God-outside-time even more problematic?

Not really. Since God can enter temporal state if he wishes to. Christ is God becoming man. I am sure this can be theologically explained more but its also an area where many tend to stray in to many heresies. So I will have to refrain from analysis here due to my lack of a theological background For me, God becoming man is one of the biggest mysteries. I don’t think the ‘how’ will be answered unless God reveals it but I think the ‘‘why’’ matters even more. And I think the ‘‘why’’ is he loved us completely to make such a sacrifice

Even if you put the Bible aside, it is difficult to imagine how He could have created something that wasn’t without having a thought He had not had before.

Well the point Craig makes is that God was with the intention to create human beings. It was not something that just occurred to him. Since there was no time before the creation, it does not make much sense to say God could have created the universe sooner etc.

Craig also says: “There exists a perfect, changeless state of mutual of knowledge, will, and love between the persons of the Trinity without the creation. (The wonder of creation is that God would bother to create a world of creatures and invite them to freely enter the joy of that fellowship as adopted children!)”

So God existed alone, and then didn’t. My mind simply cannot make sense of how this is NOT change.

No God did not exist alone. He was complete and perfect together in the union of the trinity from eternity. That is in fact one of the core things a catholic recites in the Nicene Creed. Jesus did not come to exist when he did in Bethlehem. He was eternally begotten. What Craig is trying to highlight here is that God did not create man to complete him or to help his perfection. He was already perfect. He wasn’t lonely or anything.

Is a thought not causal? Usually when I have a thought, it doesn’t stand alone, but leads directly to to another one.Thoughts are usually what causes a physical action to be performed. If you disagree, will you agree that a thought is an action? And a discrete action is something with a temporal effect, no?

Um no. If thought is causal, then there wont be free will. There can be thoughts that ARE causal I guess. But the idea is that they don’t have to be. But the discussion I think is more about the '‘will’ here. For what you ‘‘will’’ to be free, it has to be non-causal.

(Continued to next post … )

 

[ddarko]

Craig says (in the article in your link) “So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation.”

And then: “…reflecting on agent causation leads me to think that in addition to that timeless intention there must also be an exercise of causal power on God’s part. That act is simultaneous with the moment of creation - **indeed, it just is the act of creating - and brings God into time. **”

If God has entered time (with Creation) , then how can He be said to be unchanged, and truly outside time? Is He partially within time, and partially out?

I think he means that God can now be perceived in time because we have a notion of time. Like it is possible for God to do X at time t1 as we perceive it and Y at time t2 (again as we perceive it) since there is now a notion of time (after creation). It do not think it necessarily means God is governed by time now.

Yes, that is true. I have an enormous problem with the concept of God as an infinite, timeless being when observation seems to make this unrealistic. In the Old Testament, God seems to do things that are emotional, vengeful, and temporal.

Actually, that is a common mistake made by many. The old testament is a narrative of how God was experienced by people. For them, it would seem like God is changing and being vengeful etc. But it is again the way God was perceived. Now what God actually is. Like we know punishment by revelation of Christ that God is JUST and hell is given to man because of his free choice i.e. absence of God. For someone in the old testament, this could have seemed like punishment. So when interpreting scripture, one needs to keep that in mind.

As far as the New Testament, Jesus was obviously a temporal being while He lived, and if He is part of the Father, doesn’t that make the concept of God-outside-time even more problematic?

Not really. Since God can enter temporal state if he wishes to. Christ is God becoming man. I am sure this can be theologically explained more but its also an area where many tend to stray in to many heresies. So I will have to refrain from analysis here due to my lack of a theological background

Even if you put the Bible aside, it is difficult to imagine how He could have created something that wasn’t without having a thought He had not had before.

Well the point Craig makes is that God was with the intention to create human beings. It was not something that just occurred to him. Since there was no time before the creation, it does not make much sense to say God could have created the universe sooner etc.

Craig also says: “There exists a perfect, changeless state of mutual of knowledge, will, and love between the persons of the Trinity without the creation. (The wonder of creation is that God would bother to create a world of creatures and invite them to freely enter the joy of that fellowship as adopted children!)”

So God existed alone, and then didn’t. My mind simply cannot make sense of how this is NOT change.

No God did not exist alone. He was complete and perfect together in the union of the trinity from eternity. That is in fact one of the core things a catholic recites in the Nicene Creed. Jesus did not come to exist when he did in Bethlehem. He was eternally begotten. What Craig is trying to highlight here is that God did not create man to complete him or to help his perfection. He was already perfect. He wasn’t lonely or anything.

Is a thought not causal? Usually when I have a thought, it doesn’t stand alone, but leads directly to to another one.Thoughts are usually what causes a physical action to be performed. If you disagree, will you agree that a thought is an action? And a discrete action is something with a temporal effect, no?

Um no. If thought is causal, then there wont be free will. There can be thoughts that ARE causal I guess. But the idea is that they don’t have to be. But the discussion I think is more about the '‘will’ here. For what you ‘‘will’’ to be free, it has to be non-causal.

Craig says (in the article in your link) “So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation.”

And then: “…reflecting on agent causation leads me to think that in addition to that timeless intention there must also be an exercise of causal power on God’s part. That act is simultaneous with the moment of creation - **indeed, it just is the act of creating - and brings God into time. **”

If God has entered time (with Creation) , then how can He be said to be unchanged, and truly outside time? Is He partially within time, and partially out?

I think he means that God can now be perceived in time because we have a notion of time. Like it is possible for God to do X at time t1 as we perceive it and Y at time t2 (again as we perceive it) since there is now a notion of time (after creation). It do not think it necessarily means God is governed by time now.

(Continued to next post …)

 

[ddarko]

(Continued from previous post … )

Yes, that is true. I have an enormous problem with the concept of God as an infinite, timeless being when observation seems to make this unrealistic. In the Old Testament, God seems to do things that are emotional, vengeful, and temporal.

Actually, that is a common mistake made by many. The old testament is a narrative of how God was experienced by people. For them, it would seem like God is changing and being vengeful etc. But it is again the way God was perceived. Now what God actually is. Like we know punishment by revelation of Christ that God is JUST and hell is given to man because of his free choice i.e. absence of God. For someone in the old testament, this could have seemed like punishment. So when interpreting scripture, one needs to keep that in mind.

As far as the New Testament, Jesus was obviously a temporal being while He lived, and if He is part of the Father, doesn’t that make the concept of God-outside-time even more problematic?

Not really. Since God can enter temporal state if he wishes to. Christ is God becoming man. I am sure this can be theologically explained more but its also an area where many tend to stray in to many heresies. So I will have to refrain from analysis here due to my lack of a theological background

Even if you put the Bible aside, it is difficult to imagine how He could have created something that wasn’t without having a thought He had not had before.

Well the point Craig makes is that God was with the intention to create human beings. It was not something that just occurred to him. Since there was no time before the creation, it does not make much sense to say God could have created the universe sooner etc.

Craig also says: “There exists a perfect, changeless state of mutual of knowledge, will, and love between the persons of the Trinity without the creation. (The wonder of creation is that God would bother to create a world of creatures and invite them to freely enter the joy of that fellowship as adopted children!)”

So God existed alone, and then didn’t. My mind simply cannot make sense of how this is NOT change.

No God did not exist alone. He was complete and perfect together in the union of the trinity from eternity. That is in fact one of the core things a catholic recites in the Nicene Creed. Jesus did not come to exist when he did in Bethlehem. He was eternally begotten. What Craig is trying to highlight here is that God did not create man to complete him or to help his perfection. He was already perfect. He wasn’t lonely or anything.

More from Craig, " … Now some activities don’t require change and time. For example, knowing something doesn’t require change or time. God can know all truths in that timeless state without any change. Similarly, one can have unchanging intentions."

Intentions and knowing both imply thought (well, knowing at least implies memory storage of some sort). Unless I find a way to understand how intentions, knowledge, creativity, and things like love and mercy can occur in the absence of thought or emotion, thinking of God in this way makes no sense to me. I do appreciate your efforts at explanation, though.

Um, the thing is, you are trying to find an analogy from finite beings (humans) to that of a God. For God, intentions do not change. They are already present. Memory storage might be required for a computer or a brain (which are physical entities) but not necessarily for a spiritual being. And I am not sure why you think God cannot love if he is not changing. If he is unchanging, it just means that God loves you unchangingly. He does not have anything to discover about you to think about it and increase or decrease his love. He already knows you completely and loves you to the fullest. I would assume you would have bigger issues if God was loving you conditionally and in way that is bound to change.

Though I understand it is hard to make sense of an infinite being you must also know that a finite God would not satisfy most of the characteristics of a Christian God and even a philosophical God .

God Bless

 

[HelenaMT]

Um, the thing is, you are trying to find an analogy from finite beings (humans) to that of a God. For God, intentions do not change. They are already present. Memory storage might be required for a computer or a brain (which are physical entities) but not necessarily for a spiritual being. And I am not sure why you think God cannot love if he is not changing. If he is unchanging, it just means that God loves you unchangingly. He does not have anything to discover about you to think about it and increase or decrease his love. He already knows you completely and loves you to the fullest. I would assume you would have bigger issues if God was loving you conditionally and in way that is bound to change.

Though I understand it is hard to make sense of an infinite being you must also know that a finite God would not satisfy most of the characteristics of a Christian God and even a philosophical God .

God Bless

I think I’m going to bail on this. I understand the arguments, but I think the fundamental problem is my brain cannot accept things that cannot make sense to me in real world terms. I don’t even believe in a spiritual realm or the supernatural, as far as them being completely beyond any physical detection. Unless I run into something that changes my mind about that fundamental thing, I doubt I will be able to come to your level of belief. But I thank you for the time you took to clarify your ideas.

As far as God loving unconditionally, though, I don’t know how you can say that. If that were the case, there would be no hell.

… If thought is causal, then there wont be free will. There can be thoughts that ARE causal I guess. But the idea is that they don’t have to be. But the discussion I think is more about the '‘will’ here. For what you ‘‘will’’ to be free, it has to be non-causal.

Hmmm… this reminds me of that other thread, about whether a created being can have free will. So only something uncaused qualifies as free? With this definition, humans don’t really have free will, because every decision we make is caused, whether by biology or logic. Do you think we ever make uncaused decisions?

 

[Andy_III]

How is it logically possible to think of thoughts in non-temporal terms? I know philosophers can say that causality is not necessarily temporal, but I find it nearly impossible to make sense of that concept. Isn’t time a measure of change ? And if there’s one state, and then another that is different, is that not a change?

Are you agreeing with Greylorn, though, that God cannot have an imagination or a new thought if He is outside time or omniscient ?

Yes, because it is logical. You’ll also notice that there is nothing in the faith which tells us otherwise. God has a will (permitting and ordaining) and God has knowledge, but we are not required to believe that God has an imagination. If we were, I’d need some serious explanation. You could say God has all His thoughts at the same time. Having to focus on a single thought is a limitation we should not try to impose on God.

 

[Andy_III]

More from Craig, " … Now some activities don’t require change and time. For example, knowing something doesn’t require change or time. God can know all truths in that timeless state without any change. Similarly, one can have unchanging intentions."

Intentions and knowing both imply thought (well, knowing at least implies memory storage of some sort). Unless I find a way to understand how intentions, knowledge, creativity, and things like love and mercy can occur in the absence of thought or emotion, thinking of God in this way makes no sense to me. I do appreciate your efforts at explanation, though.

First, I wanted to make clear that love is not an emotion. Love is the choice to sacrifice for another out of a desire for the good of the beloved. The “in love” feeling that people experience has a name, too. It is called limerance, and is a mild form of obsession, usually lasting about 18 to 24 months. God does not feel limerance towards you, He loves you!

I think I’m going to bail on this. I understand the arguments, but I think the fundamental problem is my brain cannot accept things that cannot make sense to me in real world terms. I don’t even believe in a spiritual realm or the supernatural, as far as them being completely beyond any physical detection. Unless I run into something that changes my mind about that fundamental thing, I doubt I will be able to come to your level of belief. But I thank you for the time you took to clarify your ideas.

As far as God loving unconditionally, though, I don’t know how you can say that. If that were the case, there would be no hell.

Maybe this will help to think about it in real world terms. Imagine a painter and his canvas. Now imagine that on the canvas, going from left to right is all of time (think of a timeline). And each line from top to bottom is a complete copy of the universe at one instant in time. The painter can see the entire work at a glance. The painter can place paint on the canvas in any spot without becoming part of the canvas. The analogy is far from perfect, but it might help.

Remember that hell is not punishment - it is simply a place where a created being can be without God. Each created immortal being is given a choice - be with God or be without God. Without a choice, we can have no free will. God desires all of us to be with Him, and He has done everything short of removing our free will to help us do just that. If we had no free will, we could not love God.

 

[ddarko]

As far as God loving unconditionally, though, I don’t know how you can say that. If that were the case, there would be no hell.

I think Andy addressed this point as well. I would like to add just one more thing to that.

People in hell are also loved by God. Hell is just the absence or place where people are so against God’s nature that his love it self becomes a torment. An example I would give is in sexual morality. God in his love has revealed the true nature of sexual actions. BUT, for someone who has lead a sexually immoral life, living ones life according to those morals are torment. I am sure you have heard the phrase ‘‘why does God have to make it such a torture’’ etc. The truth is that there is no torture. The person has fallen so far away from the way he/she should be that it feels like torture.

Our actions of this world are either aligned with God’s nature or not. The more immoral actions we do, the more we deny him and corrupt our true nature. Hell is simply the result of this state we chose. If you are interested in a much thorough discussion on this subject, there is one in Peter Kreeft’s book ‘‘Catholic apologetics’’.

Hmmm… this reminds me of that other thread, about whether a created being can have free will. So only something uncaused qualifies as free? With this definition, humans don’t really have free will, because every decision we make is caused, whether by biology or logic. Do you think we ever make uncaused decisions?

Yes. I think all or some decisions can be uncaused. I think logic and biology only give situations to make choices in. But the choices themselves are not causal. For an example, biologically you could feel hungry (a causally occurring situation). The logical thing would be to eat. BUT, you still have the choice to either eat or not eat.

This is also why the church encourages fasting like activities. It helps you to be FREE. Most people would tend to act on their biological impulses. Thus, they choose to be SLAVES to the world. But someone who has mastered self-control, is indeed a FREE being.

---

Just to add something to what you mentioned at the beginning of your post. You seem to mention that you can’t believe in something that is supernatural and spiritual (or completely beyond physical detection). But that is a very false position to hold. Catholics cannot believe that everything is material based. If you deny a spiritual realm, you either end up in a pantheistic realm (where problem of evil would end up destroying the concept of God) or in a purely material God (which is even more problematic). Do you believe Jesus resurrected which would be a supernatural event?

Something that you should know is all truths are not knowable by ‘‘physical detection’’ alone. In the modern day, with people getting obsessed with science, many tend to think of it as the ultimate truth decider but that is logically impossible. Even the idea that ‘‘every truth should be physically detectable’’ is self contradictory since the statement it self cannot be verified the same way. Then there are metaphysical truths, and logical truths that do not even pass these test. Even science cannot be proven using the scientific method. Whether one likes to put them under the term supernatural or not, a rational person would have to admit that there are truths outside of verifiability.

---

God Bless

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think Andy addressed this point as well. I would like to add just one more thing to that.

People in hell are also loved by God. Hell is just the absence or place where people are so against God’s nature that his love it self becomes a torment. An example I would give is in sexual morality. God in his love has revealed the true nature of sexual actions. BUT, for someone who has lead a sexually immoral life, living ones life according to those morals are torment. I am sure you have heard the phrase ‘‘why does God have to make it such a torture’’ etc. The truth is that there is no torture. The person has fallen so far away from the way he/she should be that it feels like torture.

Our actions of this world are either aligned with God’s nature or not. The more immoral actions we do, the more we deny him and corrupt our true nature. Hell is simply the result of this state we chose. If you are interested in a much thorough discussion on this subject, there is one in Peter Kreeft’s book ‘‘Catholic apologetics’’.

Thank you. This is precisely what i have been trying to get across.

 

[Pascalis_RCL]

I heard a priest say that the very fact that we have the urge to achieve great and yet greater things demonstrates the creative power that God the Father has put in each and everyone of us.

This is nothing less that the creative power of God as narrated in Genesis when He first made the world and man.