I don’t think if there is any problem with language. God is omniscient.God’s “speech”. What if God does not speak the same language as you do? Or what if he is speaking the most common of languages, and you simply must go through a process to hear and see him?
Dilemma you provide doesn’t resolve the issue related to this thread even if I believe that God has created me.I posed to you earlier the dilemma of your own existence.
You do not exist by your own will. There was a time when you were not, now you have being.
You replied that your consciousness has always been.
I need to communicate with God the same way I do with you and others. Why there is problem here?You and I have seen and heard different things in this regard. Based on what you have seen and heard, you have a belief, not something you can prove. So, you choose to see, and hear, and believe something. By seeing, hearing, and making a choice to believe, you are engaging in communication. You are engaging in a relationship with that-which-you-cannot-explain (we would call that mystery God).
Please read previous comment.I believe my wife loves me. She communicates this to me in different ways. If I demand direct verbal evidence of her love constantly, I am “tempting” love, asking for proof of it on my own unilateral terms.
Isn’t the primary proof of her love the fact that she is “here”, simply “being”, with me. We are “being” together.
Certainly, there are times when she will reveal herself to me in a more direct way trough words or physical acts, but “being” together is the heart of it. This “being” together requires trust in the mystery of being, a 100% gift of each of us to the other. “Being” together is a mystery because it is not always direct human communication.
If I demand she directly satisfy my expectations for direct communication, the relationship can be distorted. Then I do not really see, or hear, or trust (believe). I am no longer communicating.
Right thing? What do you do? All I am asking is a mode of communication.Are you trying the right things?
Well, what Adam has to do with this? Each individual deserve a mode of communication with God unless otherwise is proven.Well, Adam didn’t do that-it’s not at all transparent that the rest of us would do so either.
The need for communication is the main point of this thread. Each individual deserves to receive it yet we observe quite contrary. People who even strongly believe in God don’t have a simple mode of communication with God.God is incredibly beautiful and superior. We don’t necessarily recognize that sublime perfection-its too bright for our eyes, its beyond our level of comprehension. We may not even want it, or may be jealous of it. Until we come to realize our need for it. We’re here simply to do just that.
Read the documents of the Catholic Church. These are inspired and guided by God (Holy Spirit). God’s word.Right thing? What do you do? All I am asking is a mode of communication.
Respectfully, you are not hearing or understanding what is being said to you. You just keep defending a position rather than listening. Good listening assumes you can hear, understand, restate your partners position, and respond to it, not merely respond with your own position.I don’t think if there is any problem with language. God is omniscient.
Dilemma you provide doesn’t resolve the issue related to this thread even if I believe that God has created me.
I need to communicate with God the same way I do with you and others. Why there is problem here?
Please read previous comment.
There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.
Doubt is an act of the will, not the intellect. God bless all.And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.
And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.
But for all we know, such a universe exists. Surely an omnipotent God could create universes other than this one if he so chose, including universes substantially better than our own. We cannot know for a fact whether God has created any universes other than this one - but I personally think he probably has, for a God who loves to create would likely create more universes instead of fewer.I see now what do you mean but a world in which each individual could communicate with God is a better place for living regardless if I had a chance to be born in this word or not.
Doubt can be voluntary or involuntary (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2088). By its very name, involuntary doubt is not an act of the will.Doubt is an act of the will, not the intellect
Who said believing in God has an eternal prize?Why we should be left in state of doubt? Believing in God has eternal prise, Heaven, and disbelieving has eternal punishment, hell, yet God doesn’t proclaim himself to each individual and leave them in state of doubt. To me this seems very ironic, what is called faith.
Your thought.
How do you know they’d really want to communicate with God anyway? What if God told them they must remain in obedience to Him, in order for communication with Him to remain intact? How do you imagine they might react to that?Well, what Adam has to do with this? Each individual deserve a mode of communication with God unless otherwise is proven.
The need for communication is the main point of this thread. Each individual deserves to receive it yet we observe quite contrary. People who even strongly believe in God don’t have a simple mode of communication with God.
Creating another universe is no the main issue of this thread.But for all we know, such a universe exists. Surely an omnipotent God could create universes other than this one if he so chose, including universes substantially better than our own. We cannot know for a fact whether God has created any universes other than this one - but I personally think he probably has, for a God who loves to create would likely create more universes instead of fewer.
You didn’t provide any argument that we could not exist in a more perfect world. You just claim that. Our parents could meet each other in a different situation in a more perfect world.So when we say “God should have created a more perfect world instead of this one”, what we are complaining about is not that God did not create a more perfect world than this one - for all we know, he has - but that God created this world. And given that we can only exist in this imperfect world (or worlds very similar to this world, with substantially the same degree of imperfection), when we complain that God created this world, we are complaining that God created ourselves - we are rejecting our own existence. To reject one’s own existence, to wish that one had never been born, is a rather extreme form of self-hatred. And, even if one wishes one was never been born - if one has had children, how can one love them and wish they had never been born? For in wishing one had never been born, one is wishing the same for them, for without the parent there can be no child.
Simon
Of course believing and acting based on your belief has an eternal prize.Who said believing in God has an eternal prize?
James, the Apostle, wrote, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.”
It would seem that “believing” is insufficient for the “eternal prize,” and no guarantee of it.
Look my friend, it would be very easy for God to communicate with us if he wish. If not my way, other way around.Your claim that “God doesn’t proclaim himself to each individual” assumes some kind of competency on your part to recognize what God’s “communication” with each individual would or SHOULD look like. You mean that God ought to “proclaim” himself to you in the way you would expect, therefore presuming that God is of the nature and kind that you would know to expect AND subject to your whims. But how would you know THAT would be God “proclaiming” himself to you and not simply YOU playing mental games with yourself?
I have been doing what I am supposed to do all my life. The question of God’s silence however has always bothered me. You are not offering anything solution by saying that my doubt takes a long way to resolve when I am left alone.I would recommend dropping the entire question, go about your day doing what you ought to do and trust (have faith in) God to do what he will do. That would go a long way to resolving your doubt, letting God be God and you doing your best to be you.
I know them personally.How do you know they’d really want to communicate with God anyway?
If he say so. I don’t expect that from a God who is love but anyhow God must open a simple mode of communication since otherwise I couldn’t possibly know what is needed to keep communication intact.What if God told them they must remain in obedience to Him, in order for communication with Him to remain intact?
React to what? To the fact that we have to obey God.How do you imagine they might react to that?
Yes, and you’ve answered that question, about your willingness to obey, a bit too easily or flippantly IMO. But you might’ve given your own true reaction away by saying you wouldn’t expect a God who is love to demand obedience. Would you really trust such a God? Would you recognize that God as God? Would you even care to communicate with Him for that matter?I know them personally.
If he say so. I don’t expect that from a God who is love but anyhow God must open a simple mode of communication since otherwise I couldn’t possibly know what is needed to keep communication intact.
React to what? To the fact that we have to obey God.
I thought I did, but let me say it a different way. No doubt, God could have created a slightly better world than this one, yet mostly the same, and we could still exist in such a world. There could be a person in such a world sufficiently similar to me that I would be justified in calling that person “me”. But I would argue that in a significantly better world than this one, you or I (or any one else) would not exist.You didn’t provide any argument that we could not exist in a more perfect world. You just claim that. Our parents could meet each other in a different situation in a more perfect world.
I don’t know how we get to discussion of obedience but nonetheless freedom is required for intellect growth. We anyhow need an active mode of communication in order to obey. Don’t we?Yes, and you’ve answered that question, about your willingness to obey, a bit too easily or flippantly IMO. But you might’ve given your own true reaction away by saying you wouldn’t expect a God who is love to demand obedience. Would you really trust such a God? Would you recognize that God as God? Would you even care to communicate with Him for that matter?
This was essentially the question posed to Adam BTW, and is the same question we all must struggle with. Should we be obligated to obey God? In the end it’s no different from the question, does God exist? And I’d submit, BTW, that all the ugliest sin that we witness and any that we might participate in to one degree or another is the result of disobedince of God, directly or indirectly.
I thought I did, but let me say it a different way. No doubt, God could have created a slightly better world than this one, yet mostly the same, and we could still exist in such a world. There could be a person in such a world sufficiently similar to me that I would be justified in calling that person “me”. But I would argue that in a significantly better world than this one, you or I (or any one else) would not exist.
The argument is simple:
*]If world history had been significantly different, then you or I would never have been born (nor would have our parents)
*]If this world had been significantly better than it in fact is, then world history would have been significantly different as a result
*]Hence, if this world had been significantly better than it in fact is, then you or I would never have been born (nor would have our parents)
Now, I believe this argument is valid (in the sense that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true). And I believe that (3) is an accurate statement of my position, which you doubt or reject, “that we could not exist in a more perfect world”. If you agree with me on those two observations, then if you wish to continue to doubt or reject my conclusion, you must doubt or reject one or both of my premises ((1) or (2)). I think, in my earlier posts, I have given ample arguments for both of these premises, but if you would share more detail of your reasons for doubting or rejecting them, we can discuss further.
Simon
There are three supernatural virtues - faith, hope and love - these are the means by which to come to know God and achieve the “heavenly prize.” Note that both faith and hope involve “God’s silence” since they essentially mean trusting in God not in ourselves. What you have been doing “all your life” and permitting yourself to do now is counterproductive since it essentially grounds the whole endeavor in yourself in that until your “knowledge” is satisfied and doubt resolved you cannot move on. You have made your progress dependent upon you rather than God - the determining factor being you rather than God by putting your faith in your ability to know rather than in God, himself.Of course believing and acting based on your belief has an eternal prize.
Look my friend, it would be very easy for God to communicate with us if he wish. If not my way, other way around.
I have been doing what I am supposed to do all my life. The question of God’s silence however has always bothered me. You are not offering anything solution by saying that my doubt takes a long way to resolve when I am left alone.
This is ironic. How we could know God when he is silent?There are three supernatural virtues - faith, hope and love - these are the means by which to come to know God and achieve the “heavenly prize.” Note that both faith and hope involve “God’s silence” since they essentially mean trusting in God not in ourselves.
How did you derive this?You problem is that you tighten history to our existence which is not a correct assumption. We could exist if even history was very different and we have different parents.