What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

[grannymh]

Hey guys, I’m really just new here and I’ll just give my two cents on this matter.

Before everything, some “disclaimers.” I’m not claiming to give “absolute proof” of God’s existence since I don’t think that’s possible. Also, I’m not arguing specifically on why the Christian God is the real God - I think that’s a subject altogether different in itself.

I guess what I’m offering is just food for thought that might lead to the conclusion of God’s existence. (And again, I’m sorry if this was given before. Like I said, I’m just new).

Okay so I think, in a nutshell, one thing that might count as proof to God’s existence is man’s own awareness of his finitude.In other words, we know that we are finite beings, that we have our limits. But the fact that we know that we have limits is only because we are already, unconsciously, aware of what “unlimited” is. The paradox however is that we could not have gotten this “idea” of the unlimited because, precisely, we *are *limited. This basically is what the Ontological argument like that of St. Anselm and Descartes is, but I’ll elaborate a little more.

Let me give an example. When somebody asks us if we know everything, obviously we would answer “no.” Right? But by affirming that we do not know everything, we are affirming at the same time that there is an “everything” to be known -and that we know that there is. In other words, we have this idea or concept of everything or of the totality. Furthermore, we are able to understand this idea of everything once it is explained to us. But that’s exactly the problem. How could we have gotten this idea of everything if we don’t actually know everything? And how could we have even understood the idea?

I’ll try to say it another way. On the one hand there are things that we know. On the other hand there are things that we don’t know. Now what do you get when you add these two together? Well…everything. Everything that could possibly be known, everything that could possibly be. Because, strictly speaking, you either know something or you don’t. It is true that there are things that we are unsure of. But, in a way, we already know them because we know that we are unsure of them. In other words, we are not completely ignorant of them -they are already part of our thoughts.

Thus the things that we know and the things we don’t know are two parts that form a whole. It’s like they’re two halves of a circle. Now think about it. Imagine that you saw half a circle but at the same time imagine that you have never seen a whole circle or anything like it in your life. So you literally have no idea what a whole circle is. If you literally have no idea what a whole circle is, do you think that when you see the half-circle you will know that it is in fact a half-circle? Of course not! Because you will only know that a half-circle is indeed a half-circle if you have an idea of the whole circle. So when you see the half-circle, you won’t think it’s part of a whole circle and consequently you won’t be aware of another half. Is it starting to make sense? The half-circle that you see is the things that you know. The other half, the half that is missing, is the things that you don’t know. Now you have never seen the whole circle because you don’t know everything. But if that is the case, how come you are aware that there is another half to the one you’re looking at? How come you are aware that there is a missing half if you have never seen the whole circle and therefore do not know that the one your looking at is a half-circle in the first place? In other words, how is it that you are aware of, and can understand, the fact that there are things you don’t know?

I hope I didn’t sound confusing but that’s pretty much it. The paradox of the human being is that it knows that it doesn’t know everything. But the only way that it knows this is if it already had in its mind a vague idea of “the everything” or the whole. But there is no natural explanation it seems as to how he could have gotten this, unless it was given to him by that which indeed knows everything. And this omniscient being is what probably would be God. This can be supported by the fact that it is this very awareness of human beings that they don’t know everything, that there is something more to be known, that ultimately leads them to God. As Aristotle says in his Metaphysics, all human beings naturally have the desire to know and the ultimate object of this knowing is God.

Anyway that’s just my two cents. Sorry for the long post. Thanks!

You put into words what I have observed about human nature. I am tempted, out of my own curiosity, to put this in outline form. I also think that this could follow a modified scientific approach.

In my humble opinion, there are only three ways or methods that the Google Generation can demonstrate (better word than proof) the existence of God.

1. analyzing one’s own nature. (subjective)
2. critiquing another person’s belief in God. (objective)
3. looking for the common denominator in both subjective and objective reasoning about God as a transcendent Pure Sprit without restriction.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[JesusBreathinMe]

Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?!

 

[harinanga101]

You put into words what I have observed about human nature. I am tempted, out of my own curiosity, to put this in outline form. I also think that this could follow a modified scientific approach.

In my humble opinion, there are only three ways or methods that the Google Generation can demonstrate (better word than proof) the existence of God.

1. analyzing one’s own nature. (subjective)
2. critiquing another person’s belief in God. (objective)
3. looking for the common denominator in both subjective and objective reasoning about God as a transcendent Pure Sprit without restriction.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

Thank you for your comment. Yes, “demonstrate” is actually the right word. It just totally slipped my mind. I think that the ways you stated on how this generation can demonstrate God’s existence actually applies to other times as well. Number three particularly reminds me of the Socratic method, which I think is always useful. Anyway, you summed it up quite nicely.

 

[RCCB]

Excellent question, my friend! Here is the ‘key’ and reasoning for this ‘key’ that I have come to understand the Fullness of Truth (Roman Catholic Faith) regarding Jesus Christ’s Church. I hope you will consider it, and let me know if you come to the same understandings.

I have to admit that no longer being a roman catholic, I have not come to the same thoughts. Which is why I left the Roman church many years ago and without regret. Having been an activist for much of my life, and aware that there are grave problems confronting humanity and civilization well outside the potential of political action. My conception of ‘key’ is whatever offers a practical, working solution. And the Roman catholic church, nor any part of the wider tradition calling itself Christian, have any solutions with the authority of God, able to effect progressive change. And are now mired in secular politics because of that failure. Because I refuse accept theology as a valid human intellectual endeavor, I don’t even think true Christianity has even started yet?

One cannot honestly look at ‘civilization’ and see the reflected image of it’s creator, only the destruction and wanton despoiling at the hands of a fallen humanity.

What I’m looking for, expecting, is a much more radical, even revolutionary Christ. And a God who is prepared to demonstrate his omniscience and omnipotence as a catalyst for progress, able to propel humanity to a future it can only dream about but never realize. The key to Tikkun olam, to repair this broken world! In that I will believe.

 

[jochoa]

I have to admit that no longer being a roman catholic, I have not come to the same thoughts. Which is why I left the Roman church many years ago and without regret. Having been an activist for much of my life, and aware that there are grave problems confronting humanity and civilization well outside the potential of political action. My conception of ‘key’ is whatever offers a practical, working solution. And the Roman catholic church, nor any part of the wider tradition calling itself Christian, have any solutions with the authority of God, able to effect progressive change. And are now mired in secular politics because of that failure. Because I refuse accept theology as a valid human intellectual endeavor, I don’t even think true Christianity has even started yet?

You have some very interesting thoughts my friend! Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts!
Regarding the ‘key’
Where do you find the solution I am sharing to be unpractical?
Would you please clarify your statement: “The Roman Catholic Church has any solutions with the authority of God, able to effect progressive change.” Are you stating you believe the Roman Catholic Church has the authority of God or the lack thereof? Are you stating you believe the Roman Catholic Church has no solutions given the authority of God? Are you stating you believe the Roman Catholic has neither solution nor the authority of God?

I do find your statement regarding True Christianity hasn’t even started yet. However, if you believe theology is not a valid human intellectual endeavor, how will we ever come to understand God, His purpose for creation, and His promises?

One cannot honestly look at ‘civilization’ and see the reflected image of it’s creator, only the destruction and wanton despoiling at the hands of a fallen humanity.

Do you believe you are a perfectly reflected image of God?

What I’m looking for, expecting, is a much more radical, even revolutionary Christ. And a God who is prepared to demonstrate his omniscience and omnipotence as a catalyst for progress, able to propel humanity to a future it can only dream about but never realize. The key to Tikkun olam, to repair this broken world! In that I will believe.

Do you believe God changes? If so, do you believe God changes from Perfectly Loving to something else?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[Nicko]

@ harinanga101:

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-written post. No, it is not too long considering the volumes that have been written on both sides of this debate.

That said, my position is the precise opposite of yours. Namely, I do not think that we derive our conception of our own limits from some abstract conception of the unlimited. Rather, we experience our own limits and can hypothesise an entity without limits.

Take the mere concept of infinity. Descartes would have us believe that he has a clear and distinct idea of the infinite, but I just don’t buy it. Most people are incapable of conceptualising numbers above ten. Try it. You’ll find that you tend to use “tricks” like imagining spots on a die or pips on a playing card as a kind of shorthand.

The same goes for the rest of God’s supposed attributes. They are all composed by observing a limitation that we have direct experience of and positing that God has no such limitation. Omnipotence is simply observing that even the most powerful human being - whatever definition of power one chooses - has limits upon his or her power, then positing that God has no such limits. Omniscience is simply observing that even the most perceptive and knowledgeable human being has limits upon his or her perception and knowledge, then positing that God has no such limits.

So, sorry, I don’t find your argument here to be convincing.

 

[harinanga101]

@ harinanga101:

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-written post. No, it is not too long considering the volumes that have been written on both sides of this debate.

That said, my position is the precise opposite of yours. Namely, I do not think that we derive our conception of our own limits from some abstract conception of the unlimited. Rather, we experience our own limits and can hypothesise an entity without limits.

Take the mere concept of infinity. Descartes would have us believe that he has a clear and distinct idea of the infinite, but I just don’t buy it. Most people are incapable of conceptualising numbers above ten. Try it. You’ll find that you tend to use “tricks” like imagining spots on a die or pips on a playing card as a kind of shorthand.

The same goes for the rest of God’s supposed attributes. They are all composed by observing a limitation that we have direct experience of and positing that God has no such limitation. Omnipotence is simply observing that even the most powerful human being - whatever definition of power one chooses - has limits upon his or her power, then positing that God has no such limits. Omniscience is simply observing that even the most perceptive and knowledgeable human being has limits upon his or her perception and knowledge, then positing that God has no such limits.

So, sorry, I don’t find your argument here to be convincing.

Hi Nicko,

Thanks for your comments and appreciation. It’s okay if you don’t find what I said convincing. You see, what I posted was simply a (crude) summary of what I’ve read from philosophers who discussed this topic. And I couldn’t believe it either the first time I read about it, haha. And my objection was basically the same as yours. Namely, why couldn’t the relationship be reversed? Isn’t it possible that it is precisely by being aware of our limitations that we conceive of the infinite? Why should it be the unlimited that is prior?

Well one explanation is that the unlimited already contains the limited. While the limited does not contain the unlimited. So the unlimited, by negating itself, can attain the limited, because in a way, the unlimited already has it. Others correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this also explains how God created the universe. He “negated” his own infinity so as to allow the existence of finite beings. He could do this because He already contained the finite “within His infinity” so to speak. But it doesn’t work the other way. The finite doesn’t contain the infinite so the finite cannot attain the infinite by negating itself. Thus the limited being cannot attain “unlimitidness” by negation. It cannot do this actually, but neither could it do this mentally. I know this seems difficult to understand because precisely, we human beings seem to be the exception to this rule. For some mysterious reason or another, we human beings, despite being finite and despite being placed in a finite universe, can nevertheless grasp the idea of infinity.

I hope I made myself clear. It’s not the case, as you imply, that we initially realize our limitidness and thus by negating it, attain the idea of the unlimited. Rather, the very fact that we realize our limitedness already implies that we have an underlying sense of the unlimited, whether we are conscious of it or not. The very fact that we now the limited as limited, entails that we already have a subconscious (not sure if this is the right word) idea of the unlimited.

I’ll give an example that might clarify things. Imagine that everything in the universe was colored orange. So no other color existed except orange and nothing can be done to produce any other color. So in a world were everything is orange, we wouldn’t know what wasn’t orange. But the thing is that, neither would we know what orange was. We wouldn’t notice orange *as * orange because everything is orange.The only way we might notice orange is that if there was another color opposed to it, say blue. So if we saw something blue, we would realize that not everything is orange and we would start making distinctions (“That is blue, this is orange”). In a similar manner, everything in this universe is limited/finite. But if that was the case, then we wouldn’t know what finite/limited was. We wouldn’t “notice” it, because everything was “it.” But we do notice it. We do realize that we are finite, and that everything else is. And that’s the problem. Where is the “thing” that is supposed to be in opposition to limitedness, that would make us aware of limitidness? Well it’s definitely not in the outside world. Or if it was, then we don’t know it yet, but then there’s the paradox again of knowing something we don’t.

Finally, something must be said of this “idea” of the infinite/unlimited. It is not an idea or concept in the sense that we conjure it or purposely make it appear in our minds. It is not something that we initially “think of,” rather it is more of something that structures the way we think. Saint Anselm alludes to this when he defines God as that to which nothing greater can be conceived. He didn’t say that God was the greatest thing that can be conceived. And this is probably because God is not something that can be conceived in the normal sense that we actively create something in our minds. The idea of God,or the unlimited, is not like the fictional idea of a unicorn that we can derive out of limited/particular concepts because no matter how many limited/particular concepts we have, it doesn’t add up to the unlimited. Rather, the idea of the unlimited is the ever-existing background or horizon in our minds that allows us the very possibility of conceptualizing limited/particular things.

So that’s it. I hope I didn’t ramble on for too long. Thanks again for your feedback, these discussions always interests me.

 

[po18guy]

In answer to the OP, a lot of people are dying to find out.

 

[grannymh]

@ harinanga101:

That said, my position is the precise opposite of yours. Namely, I do not think that we derive our conception of our own limits from some abstract conception of the unlimited. Rather, we experience our own limits and can hypothesise an entity without limits.

Please. Why can a person hypothesise?

 

[grannymh]

Rather, the idea of the unlimited is the ever-existing background or horizon in our minds that allows us the very possibility of conceptualizing limited/particular things.

I just posed this question to Nicko. Why can a person hypothesise?
I would like to ask you the same question. Please. Why can a person hypothesise?
Plus, is conceptualizing related to hypothesise?

 

[Nicko]

Please. Why can a person hypothesise?

Our brains have disproportionately large frontal lobes.

 

[Nicko]

In answer to the OP, a lot of people are dying to find out.

:clapping:

 

[harinanga101]

I just posed this question to Nicko. Why can a person hypothesise?
I would like to ask you the same question. Please. Why can a person hypothesise?
Plus, is conceptualizing related to hypothesise?

Hmm. I think hypothesis-making is connected to our power of induction, meaning, we can conclude general statements from particular instances. So if I see that the sun rises every morning, I can conclude from such particular instances that there is a general rule of “The sun rises every morning.” So from that we can make hypotheses. But I guess what you’re really asking is how come we can actually do the induction in the first place? I’m not so sure if my answer is correct, so others please correct me if I’m wrong , but I think it has to do with my previous post. You see, no matter how many repeating instances we observe of a certain thing we can never conclude a general statement out of it from a strictly logical point of view. This is because a general statement is assumed to happen every time (or even most of the time). But we precisely can’t make such conclusions from a finite set of experiences. So, for example, no matter how many times I see the sun rise each morning, strictly speaking, I can never with certainty conclude that it will rise every time. This is because, for me to have such a sure conclusion, I should have an amount of experience which encompasses all possibilities -which is probably infinite. So how do we make the leap then from the finite instances of our experience to the apparently infinity-encompassing conclusions of our general statements? I’m not exactly sure, but again, maybe it’s because we already have this idea of infinity/limitless in our minds.

Still not so sure though, maybe others can add (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[system]

Soon we will have absolute proof. I urge everyone to look up thewarningsecondcoming.com God, Jesus and Mary are speaking through Maria Divine Mercy, the end times profit. These are very important Divine Messages.

 

[RCCB]

You have some very interesting thoughts my friend! Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts!

1. Would you please clarify your statement: “The Roman Catholic Church has any solutions with the authority of God, able to effect progressive change.” Are you stating you believe the Roman Catholic Church has the authority of God or the lack thereof?
2. I do find your statement regarding True Christianity hasn’t even started yet. However, if you believe theology is not a valid human intellectual endeavor, how will we ever come to understand God, His purpose for creation, and His promises?
3. Do you believe you are a perfectly reflected image of God?
4. Do you believe God changes? If so, do you believe God changes from Perfectly Loving to something else?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Lets start with 3) I answer an emphatic NO. Human nature does not contain either the moral or spiritual potential to reflect that perfect image. That completeness of our being and human condition is what was lost by the fall and yet to be recovered by any religious conception, teaching or theology.

1. Only when God provides the means of ‘return’ to a greater moral conception, one of His own creation, not of human intellectual origin, can one describe God as Loving. Those ‘means’ existing tradition have not provided because they do no have them!
2. “How will we ever come to understand God” I find it wholly implausible, against reason itself, that the same God who could say: ‘let there be Light’ forgot to include: and two thousand years of disagreement, darkness, division, schism, and blood in the name of peace and justice. What God would fail to provide his true servants with the means to realize his Will? Can you honestly say that the ‘world’ has realized His purpose and promises? No I don’t think so. So we therefore know His means to those ends are not theological.

My theory is that whatever Jesus came to reveal and teach two thousand years ago was lost early on by human disobedience. God then stood back from humanity, waiting for the time when a counterfeit ‘faith’ would discredit itself and reason had reached it’s limits and ability to offer progress. Not far off where humanity stands at the moment. And when there is no where else to turn, the event called a ‘second coming’ will take place, offering for the last time, the means of ‘return’. And to differentiate itself from all theology, history will have its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith.

1. On authority. The very fact that three different, competing mono-theisms still exist, not to mention the non theistic traditions, shows that whatever authority exists is purely of human cultural origin, rooted at a time, distant past, when such ‘spiritual’ institutions held secular powers and could and did impose their will by force and tyranny.

One of the contemporary mysteries science continues to be confounded by is consciousness. They will never crack it. That understanding has been saved for that ‘second coming’ for when God decides to reveal his will, it will speak directly to the human soul, of which consciousness is an emanation.

‘As in the beginning’, this will be religion without any of the conventional embellished trappings of tradition. An individual, spiritual/virtue/ethic conception, independent of all cultural perception, contained within a single moral command and single moral Law that finds it’s expression of obedience within a new ‘Genesis’ of marriage. It requires no institutional framework or hierarchy, churches or priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, dogma or doctrine, no ones permission and stripped of all theological myth,*‘worship’ requires only conviction, the self discipline and faith necessary to accomplish a new, single, moral, imperative and fidelity to the new Divinely created reality.

 

[David_Castlen]

This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, and id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real Catholics, how can you be sure sure that God is real/Catholicism is The Truth? How do you know that its not a alien like the woman says. Here is her answer:

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."

There is absolute proof there is a Power that controls all and made all; but there is not absolute proof that Jesus Christ is God; albeit, He is. Thank God… I will try to follow up

 

[grannymh]

Our brains have disproportionately large frontal lobes.

Yes, our large frontal lobes are part of our biological anatomy. We need to figure out how this body part works when there is curiosity about the existence of God.

When do disproportionately large frontal lobes hypothesize? How do large human frontal lobes know when to go into action? Do large frontal lobes stimulate themselves into action such as hypothesizing?

 

[grannymh]

Hmm. I think hypothesis-making is connected to our power of induction, meaning, we can conclude general statements from particular instances. So if I see that the sun rises every morning, I can conclude from such particular instances that there is a general rule of “The sun rises every morning.” So from that we can make hypotheses. But I guess what you’re really asking is how come we can actually do the induction in the first place? I’m not so sure if my answer is correct, so others please correct me if I’m wrong , but I think it has to do with my previous post. You see, no matter how many repeating instances we observe of a certain thing we can never conclude a general statement out of it from a strictly logical point of view. This is because a general statement is assumed to happen every time (or even most of the time). But we precisely can’t make such conclusions from a finite set of experiences. So, for example, no matter how many times I see the sun rise each morning, strictly speaking, I can never with certainty conclude that it will rise every time. This is because, for me to have such a sure conclusion, I should have an amount of experience which encompasses all possibilities -which is probably infinite. **So how do we make the leap then from the finite instances of our experience to the apparently infinity-encompassing conclusions of our general statements? **I’m not exactly sure, but again, maybe it’s because we already have this idea of infinity/limitless in our minds.

Still not so sure though, maybe others can add (name removed by moderator)ut.

emphasis mine.

While many posters understand the premise of the induction method because they are aware of the scientific method, I am so glad to find someone who understands the induction method as a whole.

In order to answer the question in bold – So how do we make the leap then from the finite instances of our experience to the apparently infinity-encompassing conclusions of our general statements? – we need to re-examine the nitty-gritty of materials and methods offered as evidence. Going by the question in bold, our “experience” is the evidence. What (materials) have we experienced and how (method) have we experienced them?

In my humble opinion, many of the answers to what and how can be picked out of previous posts. In order to do this, we may have to temporarily change our usual perspectives.

 

[LovePatience]

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Hasn’t this already happened at Fatima?

Mary told three children about the sun dancing and when it would happen. It happened and was documented by nonbelievers as well as newspapers.

 

[grannymh]

1. “How will we ever come to understand God” I find it wholly implausible, against reason itself, that the same God who could say: ‘let there be Light’ forgot to include: and two thousand years of disagreement, darkness, division, schism, and blood in the name of peace and justice. What God would fail to provide his true servants with the means to realize his Will? Can you honestly say that the ‘world’ has realized His purpose and promises? No I don’t think so. So we therefore know His means to those ends are not theological.

As someone once said. It is the Catholic Church that has the guts to define and declare the fullness of Divine Revelation personified in Jesus Christ as True God and True Man. This is done according the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.