Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[Charlemagne_III]

The question is who is being subjective. I think it’s you actually. Let me explain why. There are 6 billion people on this planet, and many of them come from traditions with their own experience of God and attending traditions. There is no reason to believe that one is primary over the others or that “God is limited” (as you are fond of saying) to the particular experience that you and I have of God. If God is truly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, it is far more likely that he (or she) is expressed and fully accessible via each. The view that the Abrahamic experience of God is the only experience of God is simply the myopic view of some who follow the Abrahamic tradition.

So the Catholic Church is no more reliable as a source of objective truth than any other religion?

 

[TaurusRex]

Hello,

Why would God create the universe in the first place?

I know it’s a pretty basic question, but I’m feeling self-conscious about looking like a Pharisee (following all the teeny little details without noticing the big picture).

He got tired of the dark (matter?) I guess.

rex

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

So the Catholic Church is no more reliable as a source of objective truth than any other religion?

Correct. That I am Catholic is a matter of faith, culture, upbringing and personal experience. It is not based on established empirical fact.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

He got tired of the dark (matter?) I guess.

rex

Precisely!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I’ll check back in with you tomorrow Amandil. It’s sunny and 70 degrees here today, so I’m headed out to explore my kingdom.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Correct. That I am Catholic is a matter of faith, culture, upbringing and personal experience. It is not based on established empirical fact.

Do you believe that truth is only relative to how you were brought up?

Do you believe that objective truth can only be based on empirical facts?

Do you believe there are no empirical facts to support the existence of God?

Do you believe there are no empirical facts to support the truths of the Catholic religion?

Do you believe there is no objective (real) truth in Christ as opposed to Buddha?

Do you believe that Christ did not objectively Incarnate for our salvation?

Do you believe the Incarnation is a subjective illusion of Christians?

Are you a Fideist? That is, do you believe nothing in religion is demonstrably true, that everything must be taken on faith alone?

Each of these questions requires only a yes or no answer.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gary Sheldrake;11824938]I see you didn’t read Weaver’s Delayed Choice experiment. You said you had an appetition for science and objective observation. Weaver’s Delayed Choice experiment has been peer reviewed, vetted, published and replicated many times since. It is now mainstream physics. It answers your question.

Correction - that’s Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment.

Thanks
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Do you believe that truth is only relative to how you were brought up?

Do you believe that objective truth can only be based on empirical facts?

Do you believe there are no empirical facts to support the existence of God?

Do you believe there are no empirical facts to support the truths of the Catholic religion?

Do you believe there is no objective (real) truth in Christ as opposed to Buddha?

Do you believe that Christ did not objectively Incarnate for our salvation?

Do you believe the Incarnation is a subjective illusion of Christians?

Are you a Fideist? That is, do you believe nothing in religion is demonstrably true, that everything must be taken on faith alone?

Each of these questions requires only a yes or no answer.

Directing the course of discussion by use of carefully placed questions with only yes or no answers is not a very imaginative or novel practice and supposes that all aspects of a topic can be properly considered and represented by the linear and restricted train of thought of the inquisitor. It also is used to drive outcomes or conclusions that suit the objective of the inquisitor rather than getting at the truth. For instance, let me ask you these yes or no questions:

Do you believe that our religion is the only religion in the world? Yes or No.

Do you believe that people of other religions are necessarily unexposed or ignorant of what we believe? Yes or No

If they know what we believe and don’t believe it, are they just stupid? Yes or No.

If they know what we believe and don’t believe it, do they have a limited ability to reason? Yes or No.

Did God make people of other religions equal to you and me? Yes or No.

Did God see fit to give you and I the truth and let everyone else get misguided? Yes or No.

Did God show favor on you and withhold it from them? Yes or No.

Is God fair? Yes or No

Did you learn what you believe about God from God directly, or did you get it second hand from books, institutions and other people? Yes or No

Do you believe everything you read? Yes or No

Has God told you any of this Himself? Yes or No

Do Hindus worship God as a king while we worship him as an insurgent who was executed for crimes against the state? Yes or No?

Should we believe condemned convicts over kings and institutions? Yes or no?

Did you do anything to ease Jesus’ suffering on the cross? Yes or No

Did you steal the money from the poor box because you needed it? Yes or No

It’s not a very fair line of questioning is it?

By the way, I do worship the sweaty condemned convict, just like you.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Directing the course of discussion by use of carefully placed questions with only yes or no answers is not a very imaginative or novel practice and supposes that all aspects of a topic can be properly considered and represented by the linear and restricted train of thought of the inquisitor. It also is used to drive outcomes or conclusions that suit the objective of the inquisitor rather than getting at the truth. For instance, let me ask you these yes or no questions:

Do you believe that our religion is the only religion in the world? Yes or No.

Do you believe that people of other religions are necessarily unexposed or ignorant of what we believe? Yes or No

If they know what we believe and don’t believe it, are they just stupid? Yes or No.

If they know what we believe and don’t believe it, do they have a limited ability to reason? Yes or No.

Did God make people of other religions equal to you and me? Yes or No.

Did God see fit to give you and I the truth and let everyone else get misguided? Yes or No.

Did God show favor on you and withhold it from them? Yes or No.

Is God fair? Yes or No

Did you learn what you believe about God from God directly, or did you get it second hand from books, institutions and other people? Yes or No

Do you believe everything you read? Yes or No

Has God told you any of this Himself? Yes or No

Do Hindus worship God as a king while we worship him as an insurgent who was executed for crimes against the state? Yes or No?

Should we believe condemned convicts over kings and institutions? Yes or no?

Did you do anything to ease Jesus’ suffering on the cross? Yes or No

Did you steal the money from the poor box because you needed it? Yes or No

It’s not a very fair line of questioning is it?

By the way, I do worship the sweaty condemned convict, just like you.

Thanks,
Gary

Your approach is juvenile, so I will leave you alone.

 

[meltzerboy]

So the Catholic Church is no more reliable as a source of objective truth than any other religion?

To most practicing Catholics, the Church is infinitely more reliable as a source of objective truth than any other religion; but probably not so to most non-Catholics who practice other religions and to most atheists.

 

[Amandil]

To most practicing Catholics, the Church is infinitely more reliable as a source of objective truth than any other religion; but probably not so to most non-Catholics who practice other religions and to most atheists.

To me that only says something about non-Catholics who practice other religions and atheists.

But when a Catholic calls the Catholic Church’s teachings, which are the teachings of God, “myopic” there is obviously something very wrong.

 

[Amandil]

Good morning Amandil: Again, I am having trouble following the logic in your train of thought. You haven’t given any hard facts that prove any other belief system wrong. Instead you have offered that any truths these other faiths my have are derived from natural laws placed upon the heart by God. The problems that statement as I see it are:

1. It supposes that God is a fact rather than a belief. You haven’t established God as a fact by any other means than repeatedly using the word objective. Customarily, the use of that word is followed with some objective facts. Otherwise you should stop using the word.
2. If the truths held by these religions are placed there from natural laws that are placed by God, then they must in fact be true, because they are supported by natural law and the hand of God.
3. The heart is an organ. Did you mean embedded into our consciousness by God?

You haven’t negated my definition of “objective” previously given. You’re imposition of your definition of “objective” is designed a priori to support your subjectivism.

Your problem is that your are imposing your subjective opinion as “objective” fact, thus it is self-contradictory.

I believe in Jesus Christ as do you. The difference is that I am being forthcoming about the subjectivity of my beliefs, and I am allowing that in God’s immenseness and unlimited nature, He is present in all things, and thereby accessible in any religion through His unlimited capability to establish relationships with all beings based on the cultural and personal experiences of each, (which He created) and their capacity to reach for Him. If He is not, then He is simply the demigod of the Jewish people. I would rather like to think of God as being greater than that.

Not only does this violate what Christ Himself said, “Nobody can come to the Father but by me”, but it negates the need to “proclaim the Gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

It denies the fact and the effects of the New Covenant in Christ altogether.

You really haven’t established that anything I have said is self-contradictory.

I’m sure in your fantasy world to you that may be true.

Objectively speaking, that’s another story.

As are all living things.

Living things are only “true” in a certain relation to the Source where they derive their existence.

Of course, since you consider yourself to be god, you claim the right apart from God to be an absolute subject in and of yourself apart from God.

IOW, you are a “god” who “knows good and evil”; a god apart from God.

Therefore, when you don’t see Him in me, you don’t know Him. When you don’t feed the hungry, you don’t feed Him. When you don’t clothe the naked, you don’t clothe Him. Get a grip - we are one in the same.

“Get a grip”? There’s a huge difference between the reflection and the image which casts the reflection. You’re fudging that distinction and making yourself an absolute.

The difference between your Catholic Faith and mine is that you are worshiping Jesus as a man who lived two thousand years ago. I am worshiping Him in every face I see, and am therefore not failing to know Him.

Another self-contradictory statement, because you are stating this as an objective fact.

These are the only means by which He is known, not in books, dogmas and far off machinations of the mind. He is right here, right now, and accessible for you to love and interact with. I am not seeking the certitude or facts, or the primacy of one religion over another. I am seeking love, happiness and peace, all of which are available to be through direct experience and not available in books, dogma and theology.

Self-contradictory false dichotomy. As well as heretical.

The truth is manifest in your own life, as is Jesus. I have never challenged anything the Apostles have said. What I have said is that my own life and my own encounters are my primary basis of faith. If you prefer someone else’s, I have not suggested that you do otherwise.

Wow, You just got done saying that your experience is “objectively” the “only way in which He is known”, “not in books, dogmas and far off machinations of the mind.”

You are in fact directly contradicting and challenging the Apostles have said.

Isn’t being saved an experience for the one being saved?

Yes it is. But it requires an objective Person, independent of us, to “experience” it, and not just merely a “consciousness” or a narcissistic fantasy.

 

[TaurusRex]

Reading this thread in part it seems to me that a question of belief in our Catholic God, faith in His teachings through His Son Jesus Christ and in the teachings of the Catholic Church have come into question;
However, with also references to the OT which imho aren’t necessarily all valid Catholic teachings which basically came to me through our Catholic Catechism.

Here was my post in another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11822214

Re: Loving God vs. Vengeful God?

Our Catholic teachings usually cover transgressions with the belief that God gave us free will and as sane, God loving people we are basically able to walk a path abiding both man’s and God’s laws;

However, pertaining to starting wars because God said so, imho the level of rationality of some folks leaves a question as to their level of sanity.

As can be seen I’ve mentioned “free will” and somewhere in our Catholic teachings I also learned that if we truly believe that something isn’t a sin, then unless it’s considered a mortal sin like murder or something that only an insane person would believe isn’t a sin,
then it’s not a sin for you;

So folks, I’m stating now that I don’t believe much of the mumbo jumbo in the Old Testament and I certainly don’t believe that the Hebrews by whom it was written are the Chosen people of God unless that’s supposed to mean that God chose to have Jesus Christ His Son of Mary born among them;

And so, I don’t believe that the Hebrews have a right to rationalize their murderous acts then or now with the idea that God told them to do it;
And I don’t believe that it’s a sin for me to not believe it.

rex

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Your approach is juvenile, so I will leave you alone.

Good afternoon Charlemagne: It was actually your approach, and I simply handed it back to you. Therefore, it’s rather odd, I think, that you would object.I find it hard to imagine that you are unable to speak with me without resorting to name calling though. I am quite disappointed actually. I also imagine that you have the capacity to carry on a conversation with me without using leading questions in regards to what I believe, questions that fail to anticipate the answers that are broader in scope than the level of imagination you are applying to them. If you can remain civil and on point, I would be happy to speak with you. But please don’t throw lowbrow tricks at me and get upset when I call you on it. I would like to keep the demeanor of this forum at the highest of levels, and I know you would like that too.

Thank you
Gary

 

[JamesCaruso]

To me that only says something about non-Catholics who practice other religions and atheists.

But when a Catholic calls the Catholic Church’s teachings, which are the teachings of God, “myopic” there is obviously something very wrong.

I can’t imagine belonging to any other organization where I would agree with every single thing it teaches without exception. If that isn’t a sign of the one true Church, I don’t know what is. Either the Church has it totally right in the truth department, or it’s got the best tasting Kool-Aid in town! http://www.pic4ever.com/images/oregonian_winesmiley.gif

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Because he can…

 

[TaurusRex]

PS:
My sin is being arrogant enough to post my last post where young Catholics may see it;
So please forgive me;
And Moderator please remove my post #153 if you think it’s inappropriate here;
However, that is a disadvantage in these forums, that is, not feeling free to speak one’s mind.

rex

 

[Amandil]

I’ll check back in with you tomorrow Amandil. It’s sunny and 70 degrees here today, so I’m headed out to explore my kingdom.

Are you objectively saying that the “kingdom” which you are claiming is “my kingdom” is your kingdom absolutely?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Good afternoon Charlemagne: It was actually your approach, and I simply handed it back to you. Therefore, it’s rather odd, I think, that you would object.I find it hard to imagine that you are unable to speak with me without resorting to name calling though. I am quite disappointed actually. I also imagine that you have the capacity to carry on a conversation with me without using leading questions in regards to what I believe, questions that fail to anticipate the answers that are broader in scope than the level of imagination you are applying to them. If you can remain civil and on point, I would be happy to speak with you. But please don’t throw lowbrow tricks at me and get upset when I call you on it. I would like to keep the demeanor of this forum at the highest of levels, and I know you would like that too.

Thank you
Gary

As I said, I’m leaving you alone. Have a great day!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil: You haven’t negated my definition of “objective” previously given.

Actually, the word objective already has a definition. The definition of the word is as follows: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral.

If you love Christ, then your are emotionally entangled with him, and emotional entanglement with a belief makes you ineligible to be entirely objective. Your belief in Christ is not unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, dispassionate, or detached. And your proclivity for clinging to dogma makes you anything but neutral, uninvolved, dispassionate, or detached. You are in fact heavily invested in a set of beliefs. Therefore, you may want to consider losing your penchant for the word.

You’re imposition of your definition of “objective” is designed a priori to support your subjectivism.

I do not have my own definition of words that already have a definition.

Your problem is that your are imposing your subjective opinion as “objective” fact, thus it is self-contradictory.

I think that you will find the phrase “my opinion” “I would offer the idea…” scattered throughout my posts on this subject. That is far from positing what I believe as objective truth. I have also stated that much of what I believe is subjective. The first person to bring the word objective into this thread was you. Go to the start of our discussion and perform a “control f” on your keyboard, and type in the word objective and your computer will take you to the first use of the word. You will find that it was you. You will also find that any time I have used the word, it was simply in response to your use of the word, which is a veritable unending loop.

Not only does this violate what Christ Himself said, “Nobody can come to the Father but by me”, but it negates the need to “proclaim the Gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

We already covered that.

Objectively speaking, that’s another story.

There you go with that word again. Let me share something with you. Every time you use the word objective, I envision you wearing a lab coat, holding a pair of very serious looking Joe Kennedy glasses in one hand, and a document in the other while saying something like “critical analysis of all available data points, as well as a review of the laws of physics and practical observation of the cosmos, we are inextricably brought to believe in things such as walking on water, raising people from the dead, resurrections and multifarious instances of magic.” The difference between your approach and mine is that I admit that by beliefs are salted with subjectivity.

Living things are only “true” in a certain relation to the Source where they derive their existence.

The source is manifest in all living things.

Of course, since you consider yourself to be god, you claim the right apart from God to be an absolute subject in and of yourself apart from God.

All things are bound each to each. A drop of water is not separate from the wave in which it rides. A wave is not separate from the ocean. They are one thing expressed as many.

IOW, you are a “god” who “knows good and evil”; a god apart from God.

I have never claimed to be apart from God. I have never claimed to be “a god.” The overriding message of the Christian faith (once you remove all the chatter) is to become one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father. It points to an existential reality that already exists. You don’t actually become something other than what you already are. You simply come to a realization of what you are. Therefore, it is not beyond the reach of the imagination that the Second Coming may well be the point at which you resurrect the Christ within you rather than some sort of global or ubiquitous event.

Yes it is. But it requires an objective Person, independent of us, to “experience” it, and not just merely a “consciousness” or a narcissistic fantasy.

How is an objective person independent of consciousness? Isn’t objective thought an epiphenomenon of consciousness?