T
thenobes
Guest
But not necessarily.
It’s just that not every I is explicitly dotted nor T crossed.
peace
steve
- Status
It’s just that not every I is explicitly dotted nor T crossed.
peace
steve
C
CeaselessMedik
Guest
And you think a touching story could not have happened serendipitously?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
*QUOTES from *CeaselessMedik
**
Yes, you, for example. You do not exist out of necessity; your coming into being was dependent on many factors. You do not exist of yourself; you received your existence from other things. You did not bring yourself into existence. We observe the Universe working like this. Everything participates in existence, but nothing explains itself. In other words, nothing is sufficient in explaining its reason for existing. Ultimately there has to be something that does not receive existence or is not dependent. It must be self-sufficient. It cannot just participate in existence; it must be existence itself.
I just read this today. It explains God as Being itself:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/01/i-dont-believe-god-exists.html
**
I’m not a physicist, so I will gladly admit to my ignorance in this area, if that’s what you mean. But the implication of the Big Bang is the creation of the Universe, as the evidence points to the Big Bang as the moment space-time came into existence. As I said in my original post, I have many reasons that unite together and support one another. Taking the understanding of the beginning of the Universe and pairing it with the argument from dependency, for example, greatly highlights what we mean when we say God is Being itself, the cause of everything participating in existence.
I recommend you read the following on the Big Bang:
magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F
**
For starters, I took the original post to be asking why I personally believed in God, not as offering “proof,” because as you well know, you cannot prove God’s existence in the same manner as you can other beings within the Universe. You cannot prove God’s existence in the physical scientific way any more than you can prove the existence of Beauty or Love. What you can do is synthesize available information and see what makes the most sense. I think that there are many reasons that, especially once they are taken together, point to the existence of God.
As for this reason I gave: I think it is significant that the God of philosophy–what makes sense from even logic, for example (e.g., there can only be one Infinite God)–matches squarely with the Christian concept of God. The Christian understanding of God is greatly benefitted from philosophy and has gained much from it, but Revelation itself affirms just as much of the Divine nature and attributes. (See newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm for more).
**
I explained the “proof” thing above. Note it is highly, highly* improbably that even life itself would form:
magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants
This causes the question CHANCE OR PURPOSE? to stick out even more profoundly–and even more so when we consider the fact that human life (not just life) exists.
I don’t understand your the “souls that existed before time” point.
**
The heliocentric model was, for one thing, a model of science and two, never dogma. And the Church has definitely never understood it to be part of the Deposit of Faith. It is readily admitted that the Church can err on things not a matter to the whole faith of the Church. Opinions of church leaders–even of the pope–can be wrong. Infallibility does not mean protection from every single flaw, nor does it mean the protection from sin. It does not mean proper protocol in judicial matters. The Church has never changed its teaching, despite was a single church leader here and there may do.
But the point remains. That those were the things you pointed out emphasizes the significance of the Church’s enduring continuity in its teachings. The Church taught the same about the Eucharist in the second century as it does now. The Church has bishops, priests, and deacons as it did then, too. When so many Christian communities are so young and yet changing in their teaching, I frankly think it’s cool that the Catholic Church, which is older than all of them, has never changed her doctrine.
Could it be that Matthew 16:18-19 is saying something true and prophetic?
[Continued…]
**
**
Yes, you, for example. You do not exist out of necessity; your coming into being was dependent on many factors. You do not exist of yourself; you received your existence from other things. You did not bring yourself into existence. We observe the Universe working like this. Everything participates in existence, but nothing explains itself. In other words, nothing is sufficient in explaining its reason for existing. Ultimately there has to be something that does not receive existence or is not dependent. It must be self-sufficient. It cannot just participate in existence; it must be existence itself.
I just read this today. It explains God as Being itself:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/01/i-dont-believe-god-exists.html
**
**
I’m not a physicist, so I will gladly admit to my ignorance in this area, if that’s what you mean. But the implication of the Big Bang is the creation of the Universe, as the evidence points to the Big Bang as the moment space-time came into existence. As I said in my original post, I have many reasons that unite together and support one another. Taking the understanding of the beginning of the Universe and pairing it with the argument from dependency, for example, greatly highlights what we mean when we say God is Being itself, the cause of everything participating in existence.
I recommend you read the following on the Big Bang:
magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F
**
**
For starters, I took the original post to be asking why I personally believed in God, not as offering “proof,” because as you well know, you cannot prove God’s existence in the same manner as you can other beings within the Universe. You cannot prove God’s existence in the physical scientific way any more than you can prove the existence of Beauty or Love. What you can do is synthesize available information and see what makes the most sense. I think that there are many reasons that, especially once they are taken together, point to the existence of God.
As for this reason I gave: I think it is significant that the God of philosophy–what makes sense from even logic, for example (e.g., there can only be one Infinite God)–matches squarely with the Christian concept of God. The Christian understanding of God is greatly benefitted from philosophy and has gained much from it, but Revelation itself affirms just as much of the Divine nature and attributes. (See newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm for more).
**
**
I explained the “proof” thing above. Note it is highly, highly* improbably that even life itself would form:
magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants
This causes the question CHANCE OR PURPOSE? to stick out even more profoundly–and even more so when we consider the fact that human life (not just life) exists.
I don’t understand your the “souls that existed before time” point.
**
**
The heliocentric model was, for one thing, a model of science and two, never dogma. And the Church has definitely never understood it to be part of the Deposit of Faith. It is readily admitted that the Church can err on things not a matter to the whole faith of the Church. Opinions of church leaders–even of the pope–can be wrong. Infallibility does not mean protection from every single flaw, nor does it mean the protection from sin. It does not mean proper protocol in judicial matters. The Church has never changed its teaching, despite was a single church leader here and there may do.
But the point remains. That those were the things you pointed out emphasizes the significance of the Church’s enduring continuity in its teachings. The Church taught the same about the Eucharist in the second century as it does now. The Church has bishops, priests, and deacons as it did then, too. When so many Christian communities are so young and yet changing in their teaching, I frankly think it’s cool that the Catholic Church, which is older than all of them, has never changed her doctrine.
Could it be that Matthew 16:18-19 is saying something true and prophetic?
[Continued…]
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
[Continued…]
*QUOTES from *CeaselessMedik
**
I find these two to be categorically different. They may be similar in that they both believe in something. But for the saints: They have committed their entire lives to something much greater and produce great fruit. To me, at least, I think this shows God to be more than just some idea and Christianity more than just some philosophy. This needs to be connected to the following (the miracles of the saints).
**
Not necessarily. And I have to ask you to investigate such things for yourself to see the power they have. I recommend the story of Bernadette Soubirous. (I originally misspelled her name.) Her body is there to see! And the miraculous waters of Lourdes endure, with the 50-somethingth miracle recently being approved by the Vatican. No modern day miracle is approved by the Vatican without investigation.
But indeed, non-believers have become theists because of such phenomena. On a related note, many atheists and skeptics themselves saw the Miracle of the Sun.
Perhaps some do not believe because they have a prior rejection of miracles in general, or of a particular sort. A strict Protestant may reject the Miracle of the Sun or the Tilma of Guadalupe out of instinct, and without taking the time to investigate them, because the two incidents directly relate to Mary.
**
I think you miss a major piece of the story when you focus on the people who did not see it: The fact remains that the miracle took place among a presence of tens of thousands of people; the miracle was predicted; skeptics themselves reported the miracle; and the account is given in the newspaper “O Seculo.”
I recommend you read up on those links I posted.
*QUOTES from *CeaselessMedik
**
**
I find these two to be categorically different. They may be similar in that they both believe in something. But for the saints: They have committed their entire lives to something much greater and produce great fruit. To me, at least, I think this shows God to be more than just some idea and Christianity more than just some philosophy. This needs to be connected to the following (the miracles of the saints).
**
**
Not necessarily. And I have to ask you to investigate such things for yourself to see the power they have. I recommend the story of Bernadette Soubirous. (I originally misspelled her name.) Her body is there to see! And the miraculous waters of Lourdes endure, with the 50-somethingth miracle recently being approved by the Vatican. No modern day miracle is approved by the Vatican without investigation.
But indeed, non-believers have become theists because of such phenomena. On a related note, many atheists and skeptics themselves saw the Miracle of the Sun.
Perhaps some do not believe because they have a prior rejection of miracles in general, or of a particular sort. A strict Protestant may reject the Miracle of the Sun or the Tilma of Guadalupe out of instinct, and without taking the time to investigate them, because the two incidents directly relate to Mary.
**
**
I think you miss a major piece of the story when you focus on the people who did not see it: The fact remains that the miracle took place among a presence of tens of thousands of people; the miracle was predicted; skeptics themselves reported the miracle; and the account is given in the newspaper “O Seculo.”
I recommend you read up on those links I posted.
B
Boy_Wonder
Guest
I kind of doubt it. I’ve heard dozens more like it. After a while you tend to rule out all other explanations.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
<<EDIT: I was thinking by *heliocentric ***CeaselessMedik **meant geocentric. Just read my reply as if (s)he had posted that; the point (s)he was trying to get across would be the same either way. 
K
kpschaffert
Guest
Because God is Love.
C
CeaselessMedik
Guest
Catholic1seeks: you pointed out accurately this thread is no longer about reasons for belief but the veracity of apologetic claims. We can keep going if you want, but either way, would you please link me to skeptics’ accounts of miracles and subsequent conversion?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
No, I never said this thread isn’t about reasons for belief. That’s exactly what I proposed. You kept on using the word proof, and I stated you cannot prove God in a scientific manner.
As for skeptics’ accounts, here is a good overview of the Miracle of the Sun; the article includes skeptics’ accounts and mentions conversions of people at the event. It is a good overview.
S
St_Redemption
Guest
By necessity the very nature of one’s faith must be subjective.
P
POJIUJH
Guest
Exactly the same. When the Holy Spirit shows you that He is closer to you than even you are to yourself, anything else is denial.
To claim this as “subjective” is exactly that, a claim. I would recommend anyone who thinks that way to put the ball in God’s court and honestly and humbly pray to be shown the way, even if at present you cannot understand it, but to be ready to leave everything when it comes.
The logically necessary existence of God also goes a long way.
R
raikou
Guest
Whenever I wake up in the morning and realize that I could think, that I could makes sense of things, that I could reason, that I could do things with a purpose, that I live in the world where science is grasped by the human mind and its principles applied and verified in technology… I view it as a palpable evidence of a personal God.
It is beyond reason - beyond any sensibility - that a universe purely governed by random and unintelligent forces would suddenly bring forth the rationality of the human mind. It escapes reason to conceive that at first, reason did not exist, then suddenly reason existed only because man suddenly existed, and that if all humans died reason would go back to non-existence.
It is more reasonable and obvious that reason exists outside of man and before everything else began; that the universe was made through reason; and that whoever started the whole universe (including man) is really a who - an intelligent Person, the Reason of all reasons, who also endowed man the ability to grasp reason.
The alternative is to claim that reason is a mere man-made illusion, which is crazy.
It is beyond reason - beyond any sensibility - that a universe purely governed by random and unintelligent forces would suddenly bring forth the rationality of the human mind. It escapes reason to conceive that at first, reason did not exist, then suddenly reason existed only because man suddenly existed, and that if all humans died reason would go back to non-existence.
It is more reasonable and obvious that reason exists outside of man and before everything else began; that the universe was made through reason; and that whoever started the whole universe (including man) is really a who - an intelligent Person, the Reason of all reasons, who also endowed man the ability to grasp reason.
The alternative is to claim that reason is a mere man-made illusion, which is crazy.
C
CeaselessMedik
Guest
Just letting you know I’m still here. 
Looking into the Fatima thing. Interesting. Can you recommend skeptic eyewitness accounts made within days of the event (preferably by a self-proclaimed skeptic/atheist written on the same day)?
Looking into the Fatima thing. Interesting. Can you recommend skeptic eyewitness accounts made within days of the event (preferably by a self-proclaimed skeptic/atheist written on the same day)?
R
Razanir
Guest
- A theistic world view makes more sense than an atheistic one. (Punny!)
- I’ve had my prayers answered before.
- Status