Why is God proveable only through thought processes?

[Struggling1]

To be honest both. If God exists then it changes everything and if I’m wrong I stop existing and all life is pointless.

 

[Kei]

I see.
I hope you can see this is coming from a place of fear.
Tell Jesus all this. Even if you don’t believe in Him, He is everywhere.

And, even if you don’t believe in God, surely you believe that there are people and saints? Ask St Thomas to intercede for you.

But, mentally pray to God and tell Him everything. God bless

 

[Struggling1]

I will thank you.

 

[Wingz]

You have said that you are looking for a shooting star but you do not have to look into the stars to find God that God exists. You said that maybe God does not think you are worth the time or effort but did he not take the time to become man and bare the cross for you as well as me? If God took the time to bare the cross, to suffer and to die then hasn’t he shown that to him your life is worth dyeing for. You don’t have to look to the stars to know if God is there. You don’t have to wait to see the nails in Jesus’ hands or feet. Look at your hands look at your feet and see that they are the works of the worlds greatest creator. For the Lord made man from the dust of the Earth. And you need not to look into the stars to see that God is in each and every one of us. You are the work of his hands and he calls you by name. Look at the birds that fly or the trees that dance in the wind. Even scientists can not yet explain how life has come to be. But God does know and at least He believes that it is worth dyeing for.

 

[Thom18]

What I was leading into is that sometimes, a particular field can’t tell us what we want to know about something- it can help us understand them, but it can’t give us everything.

For example, morality. Morality is something that, in itself, is purely philosophical (we can’t see, hear or feel morality), but we use science- a broad field that deals with what we can see, hear, feel and otherwise perceive- to help us better understand what’s moral or immoral. This is an example of how a field that deals purely with what we can perceive can influence a field that deals solely with the intellect.

 

[Struggling1]

That’s very interesting I hadn’t considered that.

 

[Struggling1]

I will do my best to look at it that way!

 

[IWantGod]

You won’t be. If you honestly cannot logically comprehend or cannot see any good reason to trust in the idea that God exists and has a plan for your existence then you will not be punished for those reasons so long as you have an honest heart.

However you seem to be under the impression that Science is the only proper way to real knowledge about reality, and this is where you are in error. A lot of people are blinded by this idea. It’s called scientism, and it is not science, but is itself a philosophical worldview based on the qeustion of what we can know epistemologically speaking.

Science is good for understanding the particularities of physical beings.

Philosophy, in particular metaphysics, deals with the general question of ultimate causes and being as being, such as what does it mean for a thing to exist, or why is there something rather than nothing at all. These are questions that cannot be answered directly with the scientific method and are properly belonging to the method employed by philosophers…

 

[Struggling1]

100% that’s the cover in front of my eyes. It’s hard to admit there are things that transcend the physical reality when it is all we know.

 

[MPat]

I’m so filled with despair I don’t even know.

I’m sorry also I’ve been in a bit of an anxiety attack for 3 weeks and it doesn’t seem to want to calm down.

If you already have psychological problems, don’t do what makes them worse.

Instead, go and talk to a priest, make a confession. Tell him about all that. It will be easier for him, seeing you in person. Perhaps he’ll refer you to a psychologist.

I’m afraid that on death this will all turn out to be wishful thinking and my entire existence will end.

You know, in that case being an atheist is still not much of an improvement.

Which, by the way, is the point of Pascal’s Wager: you don’t risk much by being a Catholic. You would risk a lot by being an atheist.

I mean we have the Bible and witness of many martyrs but people that are Islamic or satanist even have martyrs.

The argument is not merely about martyrdoms. It is about martyrdoms of apostles. Look:

1. Apostles chose death rather than denying Resurrection. (premise)
2. People do not choose death rather than the denial of something they consider to be false. (premise)
3. If Resurrection was false, apostles would have known that it was false. (premise)
4. Apostles did not think Resurrection did not happen. (from 1 and 2)
5. Resurrection did happen. (from 3 and 4)

And Muslims have nothing close to such a proof. They will happily agree that Muhammad was not martyred.

But we can observe the effects of gravity we know nothing else accounts for the gravitational constant. We can determine the speed at which gravity pulls things. We can touch the flower and smell it to assure what our eyes are seeing is legitimate. I can’t do that with God.

You can go to confession, receive Eucharist, and notice that afterwards resisting temptation becomes easier for a while.

 

[MPat]

Brittany:

God can’t be proven by physical means (such as physical sciences) because God is not physical. That’s really all there is to it.

False. Jesus (God) was physically in the world and still has a physical body.

So do all the inhabitants of Andromeda Galaxy - if there are any.

But we can do no research on them.

Science can’t research what it cannot access.

No. You cannot will yourself to believe that Mohammed is a prophet of God, can you?

No, we cannot start to want something at random. Not even when you order us to do so.

But, of course, people who do want to believe Islam do end up believing Islam.

Brittany:

I disagree with KevinK. I believe faith is a will problem. If you don’t believe, it’s not because the evidence is not convincing enough. It’s because you refuse to accept the evidence as enough.

This makes no sense. A person could make the same argument about anything: You don’t believe in Allah not because the evidence is not convincing enough, but because you refuse to accept the evidence as enough. This is of course the whole point.

That would be a good answer if that was presented as an argument for Catholic faith. But it is not. (Although atheists often to see arguments for Catholic faith etc. where they do not exist.)

If is a response to your implicit claim that people reject Catholic faith because of evidence, and no other possibilities exist. It states a contrary thesis, to be argued for later.

But, in fact, an argument for that thesis is not necessary, for you do not really support your thesis either. (No, repeating your thesis in different words doesn’t count.)