God's Existence

[Semalsia]

[quote name='philothea' post='1928878' date='Jul 23 2009, 01:26 AM']Why do you say that religious people [i]only[/i] talk about feelings? Most religions of the organized, modern type (as opposed to natural/pantheistic/"pagan" religions) were founded by specific individuals, presenting specific doctrines, evidence, and reasoning.

Now you could say that the founder was a lying or crazy or fabricated, or that the evidence and subsequent development of the religion were wrong (or have gone wrong), but Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were not outgrowths of a bunch of us getting together and searching our feelings. These religions are very specific and independent. We have a whole topic going about the parts of Catholicism we have trouble with!

In fact, Christianity in particular is weird, counterintuitive, and very much contrary to the way most ordinary people would like reality to be. Not the kind of thing that people would just make up if they were inclined to do so.[/quote]

From my experience the thing religious people mostly bring up is their faith. And they emphasize it over evidence and reasoning. In fact, it's often said that you should have faith first and worry about evidence later (or that you can't have evidence without faith). To me that sounds very much like "if it feels right, believe it". Not really helping if you want to know the truth.

Now I don't know why the Christian (or any) beliefs and doctrines are the way they are. And no, I don't think some one guy just made them up deliberately in a afternoon to gain from others. And I know many people believe in it even though it hurts them very much to do so.


[quote name='philothea' post='1928878' date='Jul 23 2009, 01:26 AM']Back to evidence. You can only say that you, at this very moment, have seen no evidence which proves to you that God exists. I can't guess how hard you have or haven't looked, or what you've tried. May I ask what evidence would convince you to entertain the idea that God [i]might[/i] be real?[/quote]

Earlier I said that all events could be explained by a potential natural phenomenon, so I suppose the evidence that would make me entertain more the idea that God might be real would have to be an event that could not be explained by natural phenomena. I've never heard of anything that could be like that.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Semalsia

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1929799' date='Jul 23 2009, 05:09 PM']Brinkley?[/quote]

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 07:58 PM']How is love any different from lust or hunger, and what does it have to do with the existence of gods?[/quote]
Love, in terms of its being an emotion, is not any different from the other emotions listed. However, while hunger and lust are spontaneous reactions to an environmental stimulus, love is a choice. Therein lies the essence of God. Love, which Catholics would say that God is, is the choice to do the best for another person, even to the injury or sacrifice of oneself. That is a non-natural response. There is no environmental stimulus which would cause a person to neglect their own wants or needs for someone else.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929685' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:12 PM']Evidence is not proof.[/quote]

Evidence can say many things. You must also consider the weight of circumstance and context when evaluating evidence.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929685' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:12 PM']I agree that psychological dispositions influence how an individual views evidence, however that is not the same as making the criteria for proof contingent on an individuals disposition.[/quote]

Hassan is right. A person's personal perspective does not affect the validity (or lack thereof) of an evidential argument. This actually reinforces the idea that there are such things as absolute truths...just because something is "right" for an individual does not make it true simply based on that person's disposition.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if someone were to say God's existence is "next to proven" or something to that effect-- i wouldn't argue with that, maybe a few qualification, like any good prudent person, but that's it.

[philothea]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1929968' date='Jul 23 2009, 08:27 PM']Earlier I said that all events could be explained by a potential natural phenomenon, so I suppose the evidence that would make me entertain more the idea that God might be real would have to be an event that could not be explained by natural phenomena. I've never heard of anything that could be like that.[/quote]
Cool, thanks.

Would you have to see such an event yourself, or would a certain quality and/or number of witnesses be sufficient?

One interesting thing just occurred to me. Nowadays I think witnessing the unexplainable is the most common way that hardened non-believers can be swayed. But the gospels say that Jesus worked all kinds of miracles, and that for the most part, they didn't convince people.

I wonder if it's because our society nowadays is so much more involved with science?

[mortify]

My question is why does God hide himself?

[dairygirl4u2c]

my guess is that he wants us to live free will to its fullest-- ie, to live it to its fullest requires doing it out of faith.
there's plenty to go on to base faith too, it's a very peculiar thing. the edge between faith and none, in this life.

if you ask why he wants us to do it that way, it goes along similar to why there's suffereing that we're to learn from etc (much more arguments in there, but)--- it's how 'love' is, its nature. if you ask why again-- eventually you have to accept it, that's just the way it is.
kinda like a square can't be a triangle. why? that's just the way it is.
that's my take, anyway.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, it's an inherent thing-- free will, in knowing God and/or suffereing are both are maximized through faith.

but also it's practical-- if you are told to do something, or God tells you to, or you know of him such that you would etc-- it's not you acting out of your free will, as much. sure you do it freely, but there's an element of coercion knowing what you do. etc

Edited July 26, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

good argument worth addressing

[quote]QUOTE (KnightofChrist @ Aug 1 2009, 07:23 AM) *
But it is true. If there is intelligence, order, reason in the effect, there must be intelligence, order, reason in the cause. Your stance violates the principle of causality.


it's true that the result, must be inherently related to the cause. if we see bomb explode, the explosion has the same particles and essence etc as the cause. its' intricately tied to it. but, it can't be said that they are the ame thing- in the sense of chemical changes etc.
just like it can't be said there must be an intelligent, conscious cause.

or, if there's elements of that stuff, just looked at more like rearranging blocks, it's just that, elements of it. it's not a 'being' of intelligent and/or consciousness etc.
and even if 'being' isn't what we're seeking--- it'd be like saying we are God and/or this existance, cause it consists of intelligence and consciousness.
yeah- basically a more sophiticcated way of saying 'existence = God', not much of an argument
ya have to argue some intelligence andor consciousness caused existence-- not that it's part of it per se[/quote]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1928716' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:44 PM']Is that a bad thing?[/quote]

Of course, I think it is. If we believe the physical reality is the only reality, philosophically we will tend towards nihilism. I believe that the existence of life and emotion attests to an unseen reality beyond what is tangible. How do inanimate or lifeless objects become animated or alive? Why do humans and even animals sense, express, and share emotional experiences? Isn't emotion and relationship what makes great stories so captivating and timeless?

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1928716' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:44 PM']I suppose someone could be right by pure chance, but it seems to me very unlikely because the amount of potential religions is so vast. It would be like trying to guess the color of an object that you will never see. It's not likely that you'll get it right and even if you do, no one can tell if you got it right or not. So even if one of the current religions has got it right, there's no way we can know which if any.[/quote]

On the point, if in fact there is a spiritual reality, then eventually (after death) the truth of exactly what that spiritual reality is will be revealed to us. And I would argue that there are many clues in creation and human history that can point us in the right direction.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1928716' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:44 PM']All feelings are different from each other of course, but they are all still only feelings. How does the fact that love inspires people necessitate that it has divine origin?[/quote]

The universal desire to love points to something unseen that makes us human. If we are nothing more than flesh without a soul, the desire to love is completely nonsensical. What should I care about another living body of flesh? What makes your life more worthwhile than that of a small insect?

In response to your question, if they are "only" feelings, why is it that children are more concerned about the love within their family than anything else? People who love and are loved can overcome any material obstacle, but those who cannot find love often ruin their lives trying to obtain it. You see that in just about every story.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1928716' date='Jul 22 2009, 09:44 PM']Where does love come from? The core of human nature is equally filled with envy, hatred and mistrust as it is with love. I'd expect love to come from the very same place as those do.[/quote]

However, envy, hatred, and mistrust are opposed to love. In our conscience, we know that whatever hurt or pain causes a person to become envious or distrustful can be healed through love. We see it happen in so many stories and human experiences. The phrase "love conquers all" is heard so frequently that we discount it as a trite phrase, but I consider it a great truth; it is concisely the Truth.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929685' date='Jul 23 2009, 05:12 PM']Evidence is not proof.

I agree that psychological dispositions influence how an individual views evidence, however that is not the same as making the criteria for proof contingent on an individuals disposition.[/quote]

That's why St. Thomas Aquinas concluded that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. Science can point us to God, but as the study of the physical universe, science is the wrong tool for proving God's existence. He exists beyond all of creation, so we need to look beyond and within to find God.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929692' date='Jul 23 2009, 05:22 PM']The Miricle of Wine
by Meer Taqi Meer

Last night she emerged, a little drunk
It was as if the sun was out

My life I'd gladly give the wineglass
That drowned your modesty and brought you out


So I'd say it can [/quote]

If a guy finally getting to fornicate with a woman he thinks is hot is your idea of inspiration, I think you've seen too many teen movies. Where is the courage, the selfless action, the giving, the sacrifice? Or shall we hold up gangsters as role models because getting what you can in life is the purpose of living?

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1938190' date='Aug 1 2009, 06:35 PM']If a guy finally getting to fornicate with a woman he thinks is hot is your idea of inspiration, I think you've seen too many teen movies. Where is the courage, the selfless action, the giving, the sacrifice? Or shall we hold up gangsters as role models because getting what you can in life is the purpose of living?[/quote]


You asked me where lust has inspired anyone. If you don't think sexual captivation, longing, being sexually enticed by the beauty of a woman cannot inspire great art then you should read more poetry.

Achilles was courageous, there is some great poetry inspired by his lust for violence and battle.

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1938186' date='Aug 1 2009, 06:31 PM']That's why St. Thomas Aquinas concluded that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. Science can point us to God, but as the study of the physical universe, science is the wrong tool for proving God's existence. He exists beyond all of creation, so we need to look beyond and within to find God.[/quote]



I'd agree. Although science can have damaging results for purported revelation.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1938182' date='Aug 1 2009, 10:28 PM']The universal desire to love points to something unseen that makes us human. If we are nothing more than flesh without a soul, the desire to love is completely nonsensical. What should I care about another living body of flesh? What makes your life more worthwhile than that of a small insect?[/quote]

And if the soul was made of flesh? I have never loved a body of flesh, but I have loved the persons inside the flesh.

All the moments of joy make my life worthwhile to me. But perhaps it is so that I'm not inherenty worth more than a small insect in the greater scheme of things and I'm only worth something to those people who love me. I think it makes love even more important.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='01 August 2009 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1249165915' post='1938186']
That's why St. Thomas Aquinas concluded that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. Science can point us to God, but as the study of the physical universe, science is the wrong tool for proving God's existence. He exists beyond all of creation, so we need to look beyond and within to find God.
[/quote]

in philosyp classes and generally, they say the CC teaches his existence can be proven. and im pretty sure they base this on aquinas. not sure if they insist it's a matter of 'scientific proof', or what, but. or, as even the catholic church encylcopedia says, just a matter of 'converging and convencing arguments' for God. basically, a totalityh of the situation, of the arguments, thing. if this is the case as premise, id accept the argument as proven, too.

Edited July 9, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[tinytherese]

I think we have to keep in mind that scientific proof and philosophical proof are two different types of proofs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a good questio you should ask, is whether the for and against, "God" people, agree that there's an 'uncaused cause'.
i dont think most antiGod's in this arugment, would say there's no uncaused caused. and, on the other hand, i know many a catholic who contents themself with saying 'all we're saying is there's an uncaused cause'. i dont think that's enough to call it "God", so i take the 'nay' position on the God issue per definitive proof. it's just playing word games.
but, if they agree on that much, there's really not much that is being disagreed upon, really.

sure most would say 'you can't prove deductively that the big bang, or other things, is an uncaused cause, so it's not proven'. but, most would say effectively speaking that 'uncaused cause' is provable.

[Hilde]

um what?

Are you saying atheists believe there is an uncased cause that is not god?

In many religions the attributes of a god is that he is creative and doesn't follow the natural rules. So something uncaused that causes something would have similar attributes to that of many religions. Some believe that he created something and stepped away, and some say he still watchesus and intervenes.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Hilde

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='21 July 2009 - 03:51 AM' timestamp='1248105063' post='1925595']
Good luck with that. Let us know when you find out where love comes from.
[/quote]

And self awareness, not to mention a myriad of other things that cannot be explained by science. It has been said that there is as much chance of a hurricane going through a rubbish dump and a 747 coming out the other side as there is of what exists on earth by chance. If it's all about adaptation and survival then we should be mindless ants working for the good of the hive.