What would you do if it were proven...?

[Eclogue]

Maybe I should present my definition of morality: an ultimate standard by which deeds may be judged as objectively right or wrong. I’m trying to argue that there can be no such thing without God. Yes, there are social/civil laws that evolved with culture, and which lots of people obey. If some of those people are truly atheists, they obey to keep themselves safe, rather than because the laws are objectively right.

I don’t think that there are any ultimate “shoulds” or “should nots,”

Good. Then we’re on the same page; without God there is no morality, according to my definition.

it may not matter then to us then (hence we’re dead), but it did matter during the time we were here,

This and the car analogy are not addressing my argument. I am not arguing about what matters to us. I happen to be one of us; I like being alive as much as the next guy. This is exactly why I set up the sugar argument; to prove that what matters to us does not matter to a Godless universe. Therefore, in a Godless universe, what matters to us has no impact on morality.

You are assuming there is an infinite big scheme.

“In the big scheme of things” was a poor choice of words on my part. I probably should have written, “From the perspective of the universe” but I thought that might be confusing. Anyway, I personally do not believe I have an infinite amount of time to accomplish things. I believe I have until I die to do everything I need to do; when I die I will be judged by those deeds and will take up permanent residence in the afterlife, hopefully somewhere nice and cool. But that’s just my personal belief, which is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[grannymh]

Ok, I’ll bite. What proof convinces you?

For me, a frightening doubt that God didn’t exist hit full force during a change of class in a Catholic High School. I had about 5 minutes to find the truth. “It’s now or never” kept racing through my head. So, in a typical teenage fashion, I stamped my foot, looked up at the sky, and said to God with all the authority I could muster. “God,” I said. “I want to know right now if You exist.”

Nothing happened. I could have continued to the class, but I wanted God’s answer. It was then, that I realized how much I wanted God to say that He existed. All I could remember was reading a book about five proofs for God. The author could have been Frank Sheed. I didn’t understand all that I read but I could never forget the author’s intensity and love that flowed through his writing. This author loved God so much that he expended a huge effort writing about His existence. Basing my belief in God on a book I really didn’t understand fully, with no appropriate evidence, adds up to nonsense in the highest degree. But it worked.

My soul knew that this author knew God. He so believed what he was writing that I believed too.

Apparently, “proving God” is still important. That being the case, I now realize that whether there are five or 500 proofs, there will never be the all-perfect proof for God’s existence.

Blessings,
granny

---

THE CATHOLIC EUCHARIST
****IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH, AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

 

[honestquestions]

Maybe I should present my definition of morality: an ultimate standard by which deeds may be judged as objectively right or wrong. I’m trying to argue that there can be no such thing without God. Yes, there are social/civil laws that evolved with culture, and which lots of people obey. If some of those people are truly atheists, they obey to keep themselves safe, rather than because the laws are objectively right.

I do not believe there is an ‘ultimate’ standard in the sense that you are presenting. We need to justify our standards (and we do) today. Sure there are some morals given in the bible (as well as other holy books) that we do end up living by today, such as do not murder and do not steal. But we don’t have these morals because they are in the bible; we have them because they make rational sense. If someone breaks into my home with a gun who is ready to kill my family, shall I listen to the bible and not kill him, or shall I listen to reasoned society who has come together and said in this instance it’s ok in order to protect my family from someone who has decided to give up their own rights instead. Should we get our ‘ultimate’ morality from the bible and stone our unruly children or sacrifice our child if we think God is telling us to do so (it has happened in America)? Why not? Is it because we can rationally evaluate what positive or negative effects these acts will have? Absolutely. In summary, the only ‘ultimate’ morals are created by us. You do realize the top countries with people who do not believe in any gods have the highest morality in terms of low crime, least teenage pregnancy, highest standards of living etc. How do you respond to this data? And have I made a reasonable case that we decide what the ‘ultimate’ moral code for us is? I’m not sure if you have a child, but if you do/did and God said that lately we humans have been very immoral, and that you need to sacrifice your child for him. Would you listen? (Very hypothetical I know, but it is God telling you this).

Good. Then we’re on the same page; without God there is no morality, according to my definition.

Sweden, The Netherlands, Japan, to name a few say otherwise. This is evidence. I propose you change your definition.

This is exactly why I set up the sugar argument; to prove that what matters to us does not matter to a Godless universe. Therefore, in a Godless universe, what matters to us has no impact on morality.

I agree that the universe probably doesn’t have feelings, but we do. In a Godless universe, what matters to us does have an impact on the evolution of morality as I pointed out earlier. I may think that I can kill someone simply because they make me angry, but if I did, the natural reaction for anyone who did enjoy the life of the one being killed would get angry because I infringed on their happiness. These like-minded people came together to make punishments for people like me, so that they may live in a peaceful society, and in turn that grew their own capabilities as well. Ex. I want to visit Australia. I can fly on an amazing man-made plane built on technology from the hard work of other people to get me there. Because I have produced and others have as well in exchange during our agreed peaceful morality, we all get more out of life. The win/win people want more, give more, and therefore get more.

Anyway, I personally do not believe I have an infinite amount of time to accomplish things. I believe I have until I die to do everything I need to do; when I die I will be judged by those deeds and will take up permanent residence in the afterlife, hopefully somewhere nice and cool.

In the supposed afterlife, wouldn’t you want to accomplish great things there, or instead just sit down? It seems that the afterlife is an infinite amount of time to do whatever fun/great thing you want. Why not just sit back today on Earth then and wait for the infinite afterlife? Probably because you value your finite time here.

 

[honestquestions]

Hi Granny,

I really respect your posting - It was an interesting personal story to read. Unfortunately for me however, I cannot come to agree with the same conclusion.

For me, a frightening doubt that God didn’t exist hit full force during a change of class in a Catholic High School. I had about 5 minutes to find the truth. “It’s now or never” kept racing through my head.

I hope this was driven by great curiosity, and not fear. I know not all, but some Catholics/Christians have wanted to find God quickly simply to avoid the fire-based hell eternity that they were threatened with unless they asked for forgiveness of their sins and believed in him. One extreme example was at a VBS where kids came close to a hot 450 degree oven and were asked if they wanted that for eternity?

“God,” I said. “I want to know right now if You exist.” Nothing happened. I could have continued to the class, but I wanted God’s answer. It was then, that I realized how much I wanted God to say that He existed.

Many people would prefer that Santa Claus existed or many other great thoughts, but self-wishing doesn’t make what we want to be true, true.

Basing my belief in God on a book I really didn’t understand fully, with no appropriate evidence, adds up to nonsense in the highest degree. But it worked.

It may make people feel good, but unfortunately it doesn’t have to do with the falsity of the claim. In this regard, it may be a fine thing to come together with people who want to believe and feel good together, but teaching it as fact with dire consequences to unbelievers does not seem very noble, not to mention basing other life decisions because of it. Although many people are rationale and evaluate someone’s claims without gullibility in every other aspect of life, there seems to be a special rule here. Unfortunately, this answer also doesn’t really answer why you think God also happens to be your God rather than Zeus, Thor, Apollo, etc.

Nevertheless, I suspect you are probably a very kind person, and I wish you well with best regards.

 

[Eclogue]

I do not believe there is an ‘ultimate’ standard in the sense that you are presenting.

That’s because you’re an atheist. This is exactly my point.

Should we get our ‘ultimate’ morality from the bible and stone our unruly children or sacrifice our child if we think God is telling us to do so (it has happened in America)?

The answer is no, we do get our notion of exactly what morality consists of through reason, but we must work from the premise that God exists and has a purpose for His creation. Otherwise our reason will not discern any ultimate morality, for the reasons I have already given.

You do realize the top countries with people who do not believe in any gods have the highest morality in terms of low crime, least teenage pregnancy, highest standards of living etc. How do you respond to this data?

You are not using my definition of morality. You are using morality to mean the act of living in a moral way. In this sense I agree with you that atheists can live just as morally as anyone else. All I’m saying is that their beliefs as atheists have nothing to do with their choice to follow the theistic absolute morality (i.e. my definition).

Sweden, The Netherlands, Japan, to name a few say otherwise. This is evidence. I propose you change your definition.

If you’re implying that Sweden, Netherlands, and Japan are full of good people, I agree with you. This is perfectly consistent with my definition. You aren’t using my definition.

 

[The_Absurdist]

I had to laugh at some of the answers on here. A lot of people afriad to admit that if something were proved to their satisfaction, the only rational position to take is to believe it.

I am an atheist, and if it were proved to me (to my satisfaction) that God existed, I would pretty well have to believe. Consequently, no proof of that nature has ever been given to me or anyone for that matter (proof to my satisfaction, that is).

 

[AntiTheist]

Maybe I should present my definition of morality: an ultimate standard by which deeds may be judged as objectively right or wrong.

Yes, I understand. I have a minor quibble over the word “objective” that I’m willing to overlook [briefly, “objective” means – in one context, anyway – “existing independently of a mind.” If your idea of “morality” comes from the mind of a god, then it is dependent upon a mind and thus subjective. We both hold morality to be subjective – you just think that the subjective morality handed down from what you perceive to be a “big boss” is one that should be obeyed by everyone]

But I’ll accept your definition for the sake of argument.

I’m trying to argue that there can be no such thing without God.

Ok. There are a number of quibbles that I can raise here, but I’ll grant this. Sure, if you define morality as “ultimate rules that come from the mind of god,” then yes, of course that can’t exist without a god. By definition.

Yes, there are social/civil laws that evolved with culture, and which lots of people obey. If some of those people are truly atheists, they obey to keep themselves safe, rather than because the laws are objectively right.

Well, now here you’re wrong. Atheists – as well as theists – don’t generally obey laws “to keep themselves safe.” They obey laws in most circumstances because they have no desire to do any of the prohibited actions to begin with and because they generally have a strong distaste for the prohibited actions.

Take, for example, the laws against kidnapping and murder. Have you ever been walking down the street when you suddenly had the urge to go on a rampage of killing and murdering? No? Well, it just so happens that the vast majority of the population – whether atheist or not – will report not having the desire to kidnap or murder on a regular basis. Further, they will mostly report a strong distaste for killing and kidnapping in the society in which they live. That’s the real reason that most people obey laws.

Furthermore, I contend that people tend to act out of their values, not out of rational cost/benefit analyses. When I do kind things for my family, I’m not calculating the “benefit” I’m going to get out of it. I’m motivated by love. When I help someone who falls down on the street, I’m just reacting out of natural empathy. It’s values that drive actions, and this is true whether or not someone is religious.

Good. Then we’re on the same page; without God there is no morality, according to my definition.

Sure thing, but that’s not saying much. You’re just restating your definition.

This is exactly why I set up the sugar argument; to prove that what matters to us does not matter to a Godless universe.

If you’re arguing from definition, then you don’t need to “prove” anything. Within the world of the argument you’re constructing, you’re already right before you begin.

And I already conceded the fact that morality – as you’re defining it – doesn’t exist.

But what do exist are actions and decisions to which we attach the label “moral acts” or “moral decisions.” I contend that these acts and decisions can be explained entirely in terms of values and do not require the postulation of any “ultimate rules” to explain them.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn - I’m not a physicist and I’m not trying to pass off as one, but isn’t this problem refuted by the idea of the laws of thermodynamics, if not all or most of the laws of physics, only starting with time? Now, that begs the question of whether or not time started. But it is obvious that time had to have a starting point as otherwise we would not be here because of entropy.

So, if the first law of thermodynamics isn’t eternal, does that not mean God could create energy at least before time started or at the moment it did?

I would be totally unsurprised to find some flaw or omitted point in my thinking, but I felt like putting this out there with no dogmatic intentions.

Pieman,

I wish that I could explain my feelings upon getting a question like this-- straight up and honest. I hope that a simple thank you works.

And then, of course, there is the matter of an answer. We may have to work on this through a few more posts, and I’m happy to do so if you are willing to stick with it.

The Three Laws are profoundly philosophical. They could not exist in physics unless they were really good laws, because you are not the only Christian to see their implications for classical theology.

There are no more thoroughly challenged and tested principles of physics than these three. They are hard won ideas, and were discovered by off-the-shelf investigators rather than by formally educated physicists. You are one of many thinkers to ask your questions, and I hope that you will not be the last, because in my opinion, the more profound and powerful an idea, the more it must be tested and challenged…

Therein lies the difference between honest science (Darwinism excluded) and religion-- science tests its own dogma.

The counter to your argument is this: There are many laws of physics, and they have a kind of hierarchy, just like a church or a corporation. Thermodynamic Laws are at the top. Energy-form laws such as the kinetic energy equation, Einstein’s mass-energy relationship, etc. are on the next tier. For physicists and engineers these simple formulas expand into the third tier of laws— detailed descriptions about how to make things actually work— like how to calculate the optimal size of the valves in your car or the diameter of a rocket motor’s exhaust.

All the secondary and tertiary laws of physics involving the dynamic exchanges of energy from one form to another involve the time parameter. Every one. (Well, at least I don’t know of any exceptions. Some might exist, but I find it hard to imagine a formula for a time-dependent phenomenon which excludes time as a formal parameter.)

However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the topmost tier of physical principles, do not include time.

Your arguments are time-dependent, and therefore do not apply.

Nonetheless, there is a solution which includes these ideas in a consistently logical package:

• We live in a created universe.
• The laws of thermodynamics apply to all aspects of creation, including the creator.

In the process of dealing with your question you must consider a principle which might contradict your current understanding, which is, time as we perceive it, is a completely artificial construct. It did not exist before God became conscious. He created it, exactly like computer designers create time (basic clock speed) within their machines.

Therefore He is not bound by time or the physical geometries He devised which are time dependent, at least not in the sense we imagine.

I hope that this helps. Thank you for your question. It invoked thought, for whatever that might be worth. I am willing to clarify.

 

[grannymh]

Many people would prefer that Santa Claus existed or many other great thoughts, but self-wishing doesn’t make what we want to be true, true.

Since the beginning of time, people have devised gods to meet their needs. Eventually, I am going to use that argument in another area.

When one studies human nature per se, one does find universal needs, one of which is for a supreme, transcendent Being Who will answer the question–what is the goal of human life. The amazing thing is that there is actually one God Who does answer that question and Who founded a visible organization on earth. This organization is the one which transmits God’s answers and in addition provides the means for humans to attain their true goal of life.

It is no coincidence that the Catholic Church brings God into reach of humanity so that our ultimate needs can be met. All of us have been created in the image of God which means that we are called to share in God’s life through knowledge and love (intellect and will).

Sometimes, in regard to the purpose of human lives, self-wishing can be intuitive or instinctive knowledge of the “real thing”.

To be continued.

Thank you for your kind regards.
granny

 

[honestquestions]

When one studies human nature per se, one does find universal needs, one of which is for a supreme, transcendent Being Who will answer the question–what is the goal of human life.

Human nature does ask how and why we are here, but I don’t immediately make the logical fallacy and assume it has to be a transcendent being to answer the question. Many other difficult questions answered didn’t necessarily come from a ‘who’ but rather general evidence no matter what form it came in.

 

[greylorn]

…
Wow. Do all those ordinary people bother you? Those who don’t meet your standards of comedic appreciation. Those people who don’t meet your intellectual standards, just shouldn’t exist? You are just a super good person. Really.

What about people who think your sense of humor is lame, or think your ability to reason is a bit weak? Unless you literally think you are at the top of the heap of humanity, it would seem a bit hypocritical to cast aspersions on the “ordinary” folks.
…

Alas, I failed to anticipate the possibility of a nit, picking. Let me explain my sense of what ordinary means, to me.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. In the course of my life I’ve worked for and with people 40 ticks smarter, and 40 ticks stupider than me in addition to nearly same-as.
Those at the 40+ end are regarded as very serious geniuses, and the lower 40 are pretty much thought of as dumb. Yet, I’ve found that ordinariness predominates both categories and every possibility in between.

I’ve worked with people who could solve fifty partial differential equations in the time it would take me to find my textbook explaining how to solve one, but whom I regarded as dreadfully ordinary— they could solve old problems, but could not devise equations to examine new possibilities. On the other hand, I’ve worked with people who were proud of their high school diploma, but were not ordinary— they may not have been great parroters of conventional information, but they knew how to think for themselves.

Ordinariness is the human norm. 97% of us are ordinary. I am ordinary. My issues with my Catholic beliefs came from asking myself why an entity capable of creating this magnificent universe, minds like Planck and Einstein, artists like Beethoven, would have created an ordinary dpihsit like me.

“Ordinary” describes people who simply regurgitate the beliefs they’ve been taught. It implies lack of imagination, not lack of a measurable IQ. I do not regard “ordinary” in the context of bad, wrong, or evil. Most people equate ordinary with good, because most people associate with their own kind, and most ordinary people perceive themselves as “good.”

It is okay to be ordinary, and ordinary to be okay. When I go grocery shopping I want to find shelves stocked by ordinary people who put things where the store plan says to put them. I want my cart to be checked out by people who follow the rules. Back when I stocked grocery store shelves and checked out customer carts, I made it a point to be an ordinary stock boy.

To this day, I am almost entirely ordinary, but not as much as my neighbors would like. When I go out in the boonies to cut firewood, I follow the ordinary rules of chainsaw operation. To invent different rules would be extra-ordinary, and downright stupid.

I probably should have used the term dreadfully ordinary in the post which seems to have annoyed you. It applies to ordinary people pretending to be someone special. For example, it applies to those who post belief-programmed replies to ideas and statements which they’ve not bothered to read to understanding, often because a second reading would not make any difference. The “dreadfully ordinary” imagine themselves to be non-ordinary, always right, and interesting to the few non-ordinary people. The proof of their ordinariness lies in their favored companions.

One way to recognize the dreadfully ordinary is by their propensity to reply to ideas beyond their immediate comprehension (which is usually not very far beyond) with insults.

 

[honestquestions]

That’s because you’re an atheist. This is exactly my point.

But I listed a paragraph of evidence of why I think there is no ‘ultimate’ standard. Is the evidence faulty/not sufficient?

The answer is no, we do get our notion of exactly what morality consists of through reason, but we must work from the premise that God exists and has a purpose for His creation. Otherwise our reason will not discern any ultimate morality, for the reasons I have already given.

1. The top godless nations do not work from your premise that god exists and has a purpose for his creation.
2. The top godless nations are moral, even by your standards for which you say is only possible if god has ultimate morality.
   Is it a coincidence?

In this sense I agree with you that atheists can live just as morally as anyone else. All I’m saying is that their beliefs as atheists have nothing to do with their choice to follow the theistic absolute morality (i.e. my definition).

What atheist beliefs are you talking about?

If you have absolute morality, that means you do what it says without questioning it…
You didn’t answer my question about if God told you to sacrifice your child…

 

[greylorn]

I had to laugh at some of the answers on here. A lot of people afriad to admit that if something were proved to their satisfaction, the only rational position to take is to believe it.

I am an atheist, and if it were proved to me (to my satisfaction) that God existed, I would pretty well have to believe. Consequently, no proof of that nature has ever been given to me or anyone for that matter (proof to my satisfaction, that is).

This offers good insight into the reasons for irrational belief. Thank you!

Everyone’s standard of proof is to their personal satisfaction. Thus, they negate the possibility of a logical proof, which would be a more objective standard.

The honest, objective thinker would FIRST set his standards for proof and test them in an empirical manner. Long after determining his standards, he would evaluate various theories according to those standards.

Were this actually done, all theories about the beginnings of things, purpose, etc. would fall into immediate disrepute, because all are illogical. To a totally logical thinker, it would be obvious that disbelief in God is as absurd as belief, or that belief in God is logically identical to belief in a “big bang” and Darwinism.

But in real life, people accept ideas according to their emotional needs, which are typically determined by societal agreement. Afterward they learn enough quasi-logic to apply it to their emotional decisions, mostly to impress their friends.

 

[John21652]

Human nature does ask how and why we are here, but I don’t immediately make the logical fallacy and assume it has to be a transcendent being to answer the question. Many other difficult questions answered didn’t necessarily come from a ‘who’ but rather general evidence no matter what form it came in.

Oh.

At last!

Someone who can set all the religious people of all generations straight.

First up though, please explain how an ‘assumption’ is a logical fallacy.

 

[Tsuwano]

Hi,

I’m new here on CAF but thought I’d post a question which interests me.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

Thanks for taking the time.

Not sure. All I can say is that I still look for fairies under toadstools and I still leave cookies and milk for Santa on Christmas Eve.

 

[John21652]

Not sure. All I can say is that I still look for fairies under toadstools and I still leave cookies and milk for Santa on Christmas Eve.

I bet Santa takes the cookies and milk. Right?

But fairies under toadstools? I bet you’ve never seen one under a toadstool.
You see, you’re looking in the wrong places.

 

[Tsuwano]

I bet Santa takes the cookies and milk. Right?

But fairies under toadstools? I bet you’ve never seen one under a toadstool.
You see, you’re looking in the wrong places.

Sure does, and I . . . he has the pounds to prove it. I tried looking for fairies under my sofa but all I found there were dust bunnies. Are they related to fairies?

 

[Eclogue]

But I listed a paragraph of evidence of why I think there is no ‘ultimate’ standard. Is the evidence faulty/not sufficient?

Oh I see; I misunderstood you the first time . Are you saying that because God issued laws clearly contrary to morality (i.e. child-stoning, etc) then the ultimate morality based on a biblical God can’t exist? If so this is a pretty darn good point. I’m sure some apologists have talked about it somwhere, but I couldn’t tell you why off the top of my head; could any Catholics help me out here?

1. The top godless nations do not work from your premise that god exists and has a purpose for his creation.
2. The top godless nations are moral, even by your standards for which you say is only possible if god has ultimate morality.
   Is it a coincidence?

In a way. In the sense that their laws and practices coincide with the laws and practices of God’s morality, yes. I personally believe that God imprinted the “natural law” in the consciences of everyone, so it’s no surprise that atheists act as good on average as anybody else.

What atheist beliefs are you talking about?

How about the belief that there is no absolute morality?

If you have absolute morality, that means you do what it says without questioning it…
You didn’t answer my question about if God told you to sacrifice your child…

I actually don’t have any kids (I’m only 18), but I get what you’re saying. If, hypothetically, I had a child, and hypothetically I received a message undeniably from God (that is, if there was no possibility that I was hallucinating or hypnotized or being tricked by some “evil genius”), and that message made it perfectly clear that I had to kill my child, I would know beyond a doubt that God, who is Love, would not send such a command unless it were morally necessary. I don’t know whether I would do it, though. It’s hard to think through because such a thing would never happen; it’s like asking hypothetical questions about gravity pulling sideways. But under such circumstances it would be moral to obey God.

 

[samiam1611]

Human nature does ask how and why we are here, but I don’t immediately make the logical fallacy and assume it has to be a transcendent being to answer the question. Many other difficult questions answered didn’t necessarily come from a ‘who’ but rather general evidence no matter what form it came in.

Yes!!! It seems to be that for millenia, all around the world, many many many humans ask how and why and why we’re here but what I do not understand (bc it is not that way for me) is why, lacking a concrete explanation, people come up with supernatural explanations for things they cannot explain. I personally feel that although science or whatever does not answer all our questions, it is not necessary to have an answer! Not necessary to me I mean.

Going back a few pages, I was asked this question:

Why do you think that G-d is the same thing as fairies, unicorns, vampires and so forth?

If I may quote Wikipedia, “God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.” This is indeed how I assume most people think of (“define” if you will) God. Of course there is wide variation, but I feel like the supernatural aspect is found throughout most if not all religions. To answer your question, I do not believe in the supernatural. At all.
I did believe in Santa Claus for a bit, but I remember thinking how implausible that was, so my sister and I used to set traps to try and catch our parents doing the things they said Santa Claus did. So I guess I was a skeptic even back then.

Much of this thread has been on the topic of morality. It’s my understanding that many people get their sense of morality - what’s right and what’s wrong - from their religion. Some have questioned how us non-religious people developed our morals, especially if/since we don’t believe in an afterlife. (like what’s the point of being good if life itself is pointless?)
I feel like most human beings have a moral compass innately present. (Certainly numerous exceptions exist.) Of course, we are not born with the knowledge of right or wrong, but I feel that the our sense of morality develops as we grow up, regardless of whether religion is involved. This is where the innate part comes in: [my perception] is that most of human kind has a kind of emotional intelligence that at the very least, gives us a concept of right and wrong. The specifics of whether a given situation is right or wrong can be obtained from following our hearts, based on what our parents teach us and what we have learned from experiences or observations. This information can also be found in the bible and other religious texts, but I feel like these are redundant because as Eclogue said, “I personally believe that God imprinted the “natural law” in the consciences of everyone, so it’s no surprise that atheists act as good on average as anybody else.” (Except I don’t think God imprinted it. But the end result is the same.)
In fact, I looked up the definition of the word innate to ensure that was really the word I wanted to use in my statement about a moral compass being innately present. And what do you know, one of the definitions was “originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience: an innate knowledge of good and evil.” Wow! The definition of innate uses morality as an example!
I don’t know if I made my point but there are my thoughts for the moment.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For me, a frightening doubt that God didn’t exist hit full force during a change of class in a Catholic High School. I had about 5 minutes to find the truth. “It’s now or never” kept racing through my head. So, in a typical teenage fashion, I stamped my foot, looked up at the sky, and said to God with all the authority I could muster. “God,” I said. “I want to know right now if You exist.”

Nothing happened. I could have continued to the class, but I wanted God’s answer. It was then, that I realized how much I wanted God to say that He existed. All I could remember was reading a book about five proofs for God. The author could have been Frank Sheed. I didn’t understand all that I read but I could never forget the author’s intensity and love that flowed through his writing. This author loved God so much that he expended a huge effort writing about His existence. Basing my belief in God on a book I really didn’t understand fully, with no appropriate evidence, adds up to nonsense in the highest degree. But it worked.

My soul knew that this author knew God. He so believed what he was writing that I believed too.

Apparently, “proving God” is still important. That being the case, I now realize that whether there are five or 500 proofs, there will never be the all-perfect proof for God’s existence.

Blessings,
granny

---

THE CATHOLIC EUCHARIST
****IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH, AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

You have found the perfect proof! The one that works for you, Love. That is more meaningful to me than any purely rational proof could ever be. Love is a mysterious thing to me. I am not super bright, but I am intensely rational, emotions and feelings are not objects I understand on an intellectual level. But Love? Love is the rising sun, peeking over the distant horizon. Between it and I are dark, vast plains of nihilistic despair. The certain knowledge, that there really is no certain knowledge. Evil winds whip about me, clutching at my coat, my clothes. The voices of the lost call me to their graves. But Love? Love shines on me like the kiss of the morning sun, It clutches at my soul, it quickens my step. I look down and realize that there is no difference between gravestones and stepping stones. There is no despair without Hope. Love conquers all.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)