I've always been raised in the christian faith. And ever since I was little, up until a couple of years ago, I was made to go to church. The thing is, throughout all that time, and even so today, I am not sure about God.
I don't know if he is real.

I am not meaning to offend anybody here at all, so please, don't take it personally. I Just can't find myself to agree 100%

Although I live by what one would call "christian values" I see no proof in God. I believe he is a possibility.

As many times as I've been preached to, I'm still reluctant.

I'm not looking to be preached to either, so please, do not.

I am very happy for the people that can believe so strongly, And I admire them, but I can not bring myself to completely agree.

It just seems very Naïve to believe in something that one can not see, or touch.
I feel like sometimes people fool themselves into believing that God has sent them a message.

To me, God is a creation of man. I"m not sure if he is real, or if he really is a higher being.
When people say that they love God, it kind of makes me laugh in irony. Not to chastize.

Just because a child has an imaginary friend that they 'have a relationship" of sorts with, does not mean that this imaginary friend is real.
Maybe it's just a piece of themselves that they wish they could be, or the part they want stronger. Something that they wished they had, but do not. They are not sure how to gain it, so they create something that has it.

Thus why people would create a higher being.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm saying that people worship imaginary friends. Because essentially, that is what I'm saying. But not necessarily in that context. I can relate them, or draw a direct parallel, if you will.


I want to believe, but I am unable.

Input would be nice, but really, please, do not preach. Although I agree with christian values, I can not be converted into believing completely. I am NOT Atheist.

ohsohappy,
You are not alone.
There are many people with the same problem about belief in God.
In my case I have made God a major part of my life and as a result have had many blessings and my prayers answered in several different ways.
You asked not to be preaches to, fine.
But may I suggest that you think of the Christian values you follow as a blessing from God for those very values make life better and of greater value and happiness than other ways of living life.
The world is full of both hate and love, one the opposite of the other it is thought but in reality hate is the absence of love. I believe that God is love. He is the person who gave that to us so if I am loved and can love it is a blessing from God and to me a proof of His existence.
I also thing of it this way, Existence itself is a proof of God for without Him nothing would exist. He is the first cause of all that is.
Everything but God has a beginning,
The eternal God is who gave this universe it's beginning for it had to start from something and there is no proof of it's beginning other than that God God's creation.
That's the way I look at it.
I hope that is helpful for you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

The theoretical proofs for the existence of God fall into three categories. Firstly, the ontological type which tries to prove the existence of God from the idea of a necessary being. Secondly, are the cosmological type arguments which argue from the nature of the world in general to the necessity of God's existence. The First Cause argument being one of these. Thirdly,we can look at the teleological type of arguments which argue from the nature of specific things such as design and purpose. This of course suggests that such things require a creator.

If you are interested all of these arguments can be look up in greater detail . I hope this is of some help.

The theoretical proofs for the existence of God fall into three categories. Firstly, the ontological type which tries to prove the existence of God from the idea of a necessary being. Secondly, are the cosmological type arguments which argue from the nature of the world in general to the necessity of God's existence. The First Cause argument being one of these. Thirdly,we can look at the teleological type of of arguments which argue from the nature of specific things such as design and purpose. This of course suggests that such things require a creator.

If you are interested all of these arguments can be look up in greater detail . I hope this is of some help.

You cannot find got from an intellectual level, God is an experience, a real person who can and does make his presence known

I've always been raised in the christian faith. And ever since I was little, up until a couple of years ago, I was made to go to church. The thing is, throughout all that time, and even so today, I am not sure about God.
I dont' know if he is real.

I am not meaning to offend anybody here at all, so please, don't take it personally. I Just can't find myself to agree 100%

Although I live by what one would call "christian values" I see no proof in God. I believe he is a possibility.

As many times as I've been preached to, I'm still reluctant.

I'm not looking to be preached to either, so please, do not.

I am very happy for the people that can believe so strongly, And I admire them, but I can not bring myself to completely agree.

It just seems very Naive to believe in something that one can not see, or touch.
I feel like sometimes people fool themselves into believing that God has sent them a message.

To me, God is a creation of man. I"m not sure if he is real, or if he really is a higher being.
When people say that they love God, it kind of makes me laugh in irony. Not to chastize.

Just because a child has an imaginary friend that they 'have a relationship" of sorts with, does not mean that this imaginary friend is real.
Maybe it's just a piece of themselves that they wish they could be, or the part they want stronger. Something that they wished they had, but do not. They are not sure how to gain it, so they create something that has it.

Thus why people would create a higher being.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm saying that people worship imaginary friends. Because essentially, that is what I'm saying. But not necessarily in that context. I can relate them, or draw a direct parallel, if you will.


I want to believe, but I am unable.

Input would be nice, but really, please, do not preach. Although I agree with christian values, I can not be converted into believing completely. I am NOT Athiest.

You want to know God is real, so ask him to reveal himself to you. You will find he is no imaginary friend. I have seen many inexplicable things and I know it could only be God. If you want to tackle the question on a more intellectual level read Josh Mcdowell's evidence that demands a verdict or Lee Strobel's the case for Christ but God is not an intellectual concept he is not the existentialist manifestation of our being

God is a person?
A real person?
I hope not.
Because real people sin,and God is perfect.

To the op,seek God,read the bible,ask questions,look within.

If you need comfort you could try psalm 23,most people have heard it at some some,small steps and you will find your way.

Also romans 10.9 is a starting point.

God is a person?
a real person?
i hope not.
because real people sin,and God is perfect.

to the op,seek God,read the bible,ask questions,look within.

if you need comfort you could try psalm 23,most people have heard it at some some,small steps and you will find your way.

also romans 10.9 is a starting point.

I have already found my way, he who joins himself to God is one with him but our seeker isn't looking for a bible lesson. Yes God is a real person, not a flawed human person but a person none the less. It is very important to understand this and not think of him as a disembodied spirit. God couldn't leave us in ignorance so he had to form a relationship with us. The way he went about that is explained in the Bible, a written account of his dealings with mankind, but I'm sure our seeker knows this. The Bible cannot make sense to you until God opens your mind through the Holy Spirit to understanding so to find God simple prayer is a good starting point

I agree with you to a point paraclete,I did read the op's question,my advice was simple to go back to those passages to re connect with her past christians roots.

God did not come himself to save us,he sent his son,(God in human form)..

Its difficult to prove how you believe in God to another person.
I agree that simple prayer and opening your heart to God is sufficient enough..
God will do the rest.

Off thread!



God did not come himself to save us,he sent his son,(God in human form)..



John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.


John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

There are the three identities for good reason. They are not separate one from the other yet are conformed as ONE in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. From the beginning man was created in OUR image, and OUR likeness. = a father + a son + holy spirit (Genesis 1:26)

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


ONLY Satan would and will come proclaiming to be (man as God) to walk on earth

Yes,is that not what I said!

My post was directed at paraclete who said God was a real person..

I have struggle with this same question especially <sp. Check>when I see horrible things happening to GOOD people,instead of throwing around bible vs. lets face it if your questioning your belief in GOD how well are you even going to believe the bible?
I look at creations and beauty and find it real hard to believe it all happen by mistake or from evolution,if you have believed in GOD before and are questioning it now I would suggest a nice drive to a lake or mountain where you can watch nature and get back to your original mind frame

Input would be nice, but really, please, do not preach. Although I agree with christian values, I can not be converted into believing completely. I am NOT Athiest.

There is not one question asked by ohsohappy "I am so unsure. I just need to express it."

Instinctively God has gifted us from birth. And it is the search for the greatest of love that can lead us to God. And I love God and all HIS promises.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 14:30A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.

There is not one question asked by ohsohappy "I am so unsure. I just need to express it."

Instinctively God has gifted us from birth. And it is the search for the greatest of love that can lead us to God. And I love God and all HIS promises.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 14:30A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.

I don't get how that will help

I dont get how that will help

Because fear of God is meant for evilness. It is not meant to scare off those that love HIM, but it is to protect those that love HIM and who He loves. In the same manner of a father the disciplines his children to be good. If you fear what would happen then you will stay clear of evilness. This is true when you mean what you say, and can be grounded as solid fact.

Walk outside everday and look around at the beauty of life. It's alive and good. It is what we desire. If you want more of the beauty in life that is found in the love of it, then you look to God who offers life and love. You certainly won't find it in evilness that can hurt others.

Thanks, all of you.
:)

THe thing is, is that I'm not a total NON believer. I've always felt like maybe something was there, but from the time I was born, I was never sure.
I can see both sides of the argument, on whether God exists or not.
It's very hard to believe 100&#37;.

One thing that has always driven me crazy are the people who say that one has to believe in God and practice their faith in only one specific way, or else they will go to hell.
I do not believe that GOd would just send people to hell because they don't practice all of the same religions.

THis has always turned me away from the religion aspect, not so much my belief. I think that God accepts everyone, no matter what the specifics of their beliefs are, as long as they have some faith and live as honest hard working people. And It's okay to stray from the path now and then, as long as one gets back on track and "repents". Is this not why Jesus was said to have dies for us in th first place?

I can't stand the closed mindedness of some of it. How people use it to discriminate and put themselves higher than others.
I'm not saying that everyone with religion does thie either, But the ones that do make sure they are heard.

I think religions in general, are different ways for different people to express their faith in God.

I don't have much time at the moment, but if you have questions about anything I just said, feel free to ask, and I'll answer to the best of my ability next opportunity I get.

[QUOTE=ohsohappy;1969712]Thanks, all of you.
:)


. I think that God accepts everyone, no matter what the specifics of their beliefs are, as long as they have some faith and live as honest hard working people. And It's okay to stray from the path now and then, as long as one gets back on track and "repents". Is this not why Jesus was said to have dies for us in th first place?


/QUOTE]

It sounds like you are dealing with a repentance issue and that is good,the original post you were at this place were you questioned if God exist.I would still recommend some nature time,with reflection to help you find what you are looking for.

Ohsohappy,
I had these same questions growing up and could not understand the transformation that would take place in a person's life when they became a Christian. Here are some things I learned along the way. None of this is to be taken as being preached to, but only what I wished that someone had told me. My questions were, Did a person just choose to follow Christ? Would it be hard to stop doing whatever "wrong" that I was doing? Would I feel anything when it happened.

Here were some insights from "not-knowing" God to "knowing" God.
1. Everyone that was or is ever born, is born in a lost state. (They have a need for God who created them.) Did you know that the person who makes something has total rights to the thing that he has made? Imagine the createe rejecting the creator! (which is what mankind has done.)
2. Christianity is faith based. There was a lot of "stuff" that I didn't understand. This means that you have to trust in God, who you can't see. You can't see the wind, but it is real!
3. Being born or raised in a Christian home does not make each family member a Christian. Each person must accept Christ personally.
4. God wants everyone to know Him. He will and can use anything to make us aware of Him. He will bring other Christians into our path, bring us face-to-face with death, cause us to think of life after death, cause us to think of Him and Heaven, bless us (only to name a few things). He does this because He is trying to get our attention. He wants a relationship with us.
5. We can't just get up one day and say, "I choose to be a Christian," like choosing which pair of shoes to wear. Then later say, "that didn't work out, I will choose something else. True Christianity is life changing.
6. How does it work? Only when the Holy Spirit of God has made me know that I am not living according to what He says, asking Jesus to forgive me and then asking Him to live in my life and change me. If we mean what we are asking, then Christ has really "saved" us. For me, I felt like the weight of the world had been removed from my shoulders. God also gave me "perfect peace" in my life.
7. What is the most obvious change? You now begin to look at "things" in a different light. You begin to see thing's as God sees them. This is because the Holy Spirit is revealing these things to you by "opening your eyes." Man does not have the capability of knowing these Truths on his own. It is a God - thing!
8. Can I really know God? The whole relationship journey of knowing and spending time with God is awesome. He personally knows me by name and still loves me even when I mess up. I spend time talking, praying, reading my Bible and listening in order to know Him even more. He speaks in a still small voice that is like no other. You know that it is Him because you KNOW Him.

I only share this because I doubted for many years because I could not figure it out. It was like a "treasure" reserved for "special" people. In truth, it is a Treasure that is for everyone that will accept it. But to accept it, you must accept the one that provided the Treasure.

It was always hard for me to grasp what Christians were talking about. But I realized that it was because I was not a Christian and only had head-knowledge. A very difficult time in my life caused me to search for something that could give me some kind of hope. At the end of my rope, I turned to God. It made all the difference in the life. My head knowledge changed to heart knowledge. I then became that "new" creature that God said I would become. My life has has never been the same. Rita

yes,is that not what i said!

my post was directed at paraclete who said God was a real person..

Not was, is. Jesus lives on in human form but God (father) is a person. He speaks to you if you will listen, the Holy Spirit is a person and so is Jesus

you cannot find got from an intellectual level, God is an experience, a real person who can and does make his presence known

God can't be a person if he's a God. That makes no sense.

A person could never do what Christians claim God does.

Not was, is. Jesus lives on in human form but God (father) is a person. he speaks to you if you will listen, the Holy Spirit is a person and so is Jesus

So you believe that God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are just ordinary people like us?

The theoretical proofs for the existence of God fall into three categories. Firstly, the ontological type which tries to prove the existence of God from the idea of a necessary being. Secondly, are the cosmological type arguments which argue from the nature of the world in general to the necessity of God's existence. The First Cause argument being one of these. Thirdly,we can look at the teleological type of of arguments which argue from the nature of specific things such as design and purpose. This of course suggests that such things require a creator.

If you are interested all of these arguments can be look up in greater detail . I hope this is of some help.


All these arguments for the existence of god get you, at best, to deism-- the belief in a first cause. But that's it. And that's not really proving very much. Saying that a god or gods might exist does nothing to get you to where most people want to go with this, and that is to theism, and in particular, their special brand of theism. They want a god that intervenes, that cares about them and tells them what to do. The arguments you referenced do nothing to advance theism specifically.

Not all of these arguments are first cause arguments. The ontological arguments tries to prove the existence of God from the definition of a supreme being. No knowledge about the physical world is necessary or employed in this type of argument. It is an apriori (prior to experience) demonstration.

First cause arguments (referred to by Cadillac 59) are of the cosmological type and these type of arguments promote theism. e.g. arguments from design. I think that these types of arguments hold the most promise. At the moment there doesn't appear to be enough observable evidence to say that God is the first cause. I believe the reason for this is because of what we observe and the way we observe things. I am also of the opinion that some time in the future this will change. By this I mean that tools for measuring physical phenomenon will promote a different way of observing nature, especially in relation to the very tiny( atoms, strings and other dimensions) I believe that in the future we will have a more tangible understanding of God. I have no evidence to back up my theory it is what I believe will happen.

It is a choice to believe in God, whem we choose Him, He makes Himself known to us.

Maggie 3

Maggie 3
Yes, belief in God is our choice.
God has chosen all of us though salvation of His Son.
As far as I'm concerned both first cause and intelligent design are proofs of God.
Something brought the universe into existence and that something had to be of great power and wisdom.
The vast complexity of the universe and all that is in it is far far beyond the ability of chance even in trillions of years.
That is evident in just the complex design of the trillions of life forms on this planet.
Quantum physic and mechanics are proving all of that today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Maggie 3
Yes, belief in God is our choice.
God has chosen all of us though salvation of His Son.
As far as I'm concerned both first cause and intelligent design are proofs of God.
Something brought the universe into existence and that something had to be of great power and wisdom.
The vast complexity of the universe and all that is in it is far far beyond the ability of chance even in trillions of years.
That is evident in just the complex design of the trillions of life forms on this planet.
Quantum physic and mechanics are proving all of that today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But wait a minute Fred. All that, at best, gets you to deism, not theism let alone Christianity. And the first cause argument? You can't be serious! Come on. Who made god? Like Bertrand Russell said of the argument that it was like the Hindu who said the world rested on the back of an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Hindu said, 'Suppose we change the subject.' I mean, it's hilarious.

I mean, it's hilarious.

What's hilarious is you don't know your arse from your apex. Do you really think that those of us who believe in God do so without actually having something to base our belief on and I'm not talking about the Bible? When we say God reveals himself to us, we are serious. There is that inexplicable something, that event that takes place that is out of the ordinary, and even beyond that, the awesome presence of God. The universe reveals the greatness of God to us, such complexity, and even the creatures on this planet, just incredible, and it could not happen by chance. Open your eyes, open your spirit, open your mind

Bertrand Russell said of the argument that it was like the Hindu who said the world rested on the back of an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Hindu said, 'Suppose we change the subject.'

I thought he said that it was tortoises all the way down, or was that someone else? Anyway...
I want to address the problem of, 'First Cause' and 'Intelligent Design' As far as first cause is concerned we need to get over the problem that every event must have a cause, as far as anyone knows we only have the world of sense experience to base our knowledge on. In other words, we don't know that cause and effect applies to anything beyond the material world.

There are of course other problems which I won't outline at the moment. The more interesting aspect lies in the area of intelligent design.
As far as the idea of 'Intelligent Design' is concerned I think it tends to blunder in too quickly to fill in the gap between what we know now and what we might discover in the future. As I said in my earlier statement we will have better methods of observation and better tools for investigating nature in the future. Yes, there is a gap in scientific knowledge but it's all too easy to fill the gap with an,'intelligent designer'. Rather than doing the hard work in advancing scientific knowledge.

To put this another way, intelligent design answers all of our outstanding questions about nature by means of a 'Designer' Unfortunately the answers provided are unverifiable at best.

This brings me to my last point that I made in my earlier entry. I suggested that Kant was our best bet at the moment for a synthesis of science and religion. Kant is of the opinion that science has the job of investigating nature while religion should speculate about nature. Speculating or philosophizing about nature from a religious point of view is an important job and this can and has lead to the advancement in science. This is exactly what I see happening in this forum. However, we need to be careful not to claim that our knowledge is proven beyond doubt; it may well be in the future, but not at the moment. Not even scientific knowledge is beyond doubt.

What's hilarious is you don't know your arse from your apex. do you really think that those of us who believe in God do so without actually having something to base our belief on and I'm not talking about the Bible? When we say God reveals himself to us, we are serious. there is that inexplicable something, that event that takes place that is out of the ordinary, and even beyond that, the awesome presence of God. the universe reveals the greatness of God to us, such complexity, and even the creatures on this planet, just incredable, and it could not happen by chance. Open your eyes, open your spirit, open your mind

Ok, you base your belief in god on some warm fuzzy feeling in your heart. Is that it? Brilliant.
Or as you said perhaps it's that odd experience you cannot explain and reason, "The odds are against it, so it's got to be god [of course my version of god].. " I've heard that one before.

I get the feeling if we pursue this line of reasoning at some point you are going to say, "Suppose we change the subject." :)

Oh, and one other thing I have to leave you with. One of my favorite Bertrand Russell quotes addressing your comments about the amazing complexity of the world and how incredible the universe is:

"If you were granted omniscience, omnipotence and millions upon millions of years in which to perfect your world, do you think the best you could come up with would be the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan?"

That's hilarious too.

do you really think that those of us who believe in God do so without actually having something to base our belief on and I'm not talking about the Bible?


Speak for yourself. I believe in God but not the bible and there are many other people
Out there just like me.

Do you even know the beliefs of Deism, or are you just too afraid to look at what other
People believe?

The bible isn't the only thing that leads to belief. In fact, despite the bible I still believe
In God, but trust me, he's way too busy to concern himself with the little ant farm he built.

Speak for yourself. I believe in God but not the bible and there are many other people
out there just like me.

Do you even know the beliefs of Deism, or are you just too afraid to look at what other
people believe?

The bible isn't the only thing that leads to belief. In fact, despite the bible I still believe
in God, but trust me, he's way too busy to concern himself with the little ant farm he built.

I actually thought deism might make some sense and might be the way to go. Now that kind of works. In fact, the very best that theists come up with in their line of reasoning and argumentation only gets them to deism, which is not really what they are shooting for (and some of their arguments aren't bad). But deism is not really a religion, is it? It's just the notion of an impersonal god or force in the universe that did it all and doesn't intervene in human affairs (and as to the non-intervention part there seems to be a lot of evidence for that).

Is that your belief, deism?

Speak for yourself. I believe in God but not the bible and there are many other people
out there just like me.

Do you even know the beliefs of Deism, or are you just too afraid to look at what other
people believe?

The bible isn't the only thing that leads to belief. In fact, despite the bible I still believe
in God, but trust me, he's way too busy to concern himself with the little ant farm he built.

Do you have a problem with english comprehension? Didn't I say my beliefs weren't necessarily based on the Bible or were you responding to someoneelse and just happened to copy part of my reply

This Star Trek Episode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Mourns_for_Adonais&#37;3F has always made me wonder.

Was God an alien life form that landed on Earth with special "powers"? Did civilization worship him because civilization wasn't ready for contact with aliens?

So, he can exist?

The Catholic Church has things like "seated at the right hand of the Father". Is that supposed to make any sense?

When I hear that Jesus is born to a Virgin mother Mary, I think of this movie/book; Demon Seed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Seed)

Makes you wonder, right?

Everyone eventually questions the existence of god weither they aaddmit it or not, what your doing is normal. People have been questioning the existence of god for centuries. So just keep believing in what you believe in.

I actually thought deism might make some sense and might be the way to go. Now that kind of works. In fact, the very best that theists come up with in their line of reasoning and argumentation only gets them to deism, which is not really what they are shooting for (and some of their arguments aren't bad). But deism is not really a religion, is it? It's just the notion of an impersonal god or force in the universe that did it all and doesn't intervene in human affairs (and as to the non-intervention part there seems to be a lot of evidence for that).

Is that your belief, deism?

Yes, I am a Deist.

There is not Deist "religion" because Deists don't believe in organized religion.

Basically Deism is going back to our roots, believing that yes, there is a "God" but not one that interferes with our lives or rules over his "creation".

I believe that God did create the world but science had a big hand in it as well. Where God left off, science took over, the rest is history.

I'm comfortable with my beliefs, I didn't choose blindly, I did a lot of research and years of study before I came to this conclusion.

I don't have a problem with others beliefs, be they Christians, Atheists, Jews, whatever, I just don't like someone trying to convert my beliefs because they think they're right. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know 100% that my beliefs are true, but then, no one else can make that claim either. :)

Yes, I am a Deist.

There is not Deist "religion" because Deists don't believe in organized religion.

Basically Deism is going back to our roots, believing that yes, there is a "God" but not one that interferes with our lives or rules over his "creation".

I believe that God did create the world but science had a big hand in it as well. Where God left off, science took over, the rest is history.

I'm comfortable with my beliefs, I didn't choose blindly, I did a lot of research and years of study before I came to this conclusion.

I don't have a problem with others beliefs, be they Christians, Atheists, Jews, whatever, I just don't like someone trying to convert my beliefs because they think they're right. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know 100&#37; that my beliefs are true, but then, no one else can make that claim either. :)

I like your comments and in fact they seem to mirror what I've been thinking lately myself.

I come from a Lutheran background (the liberal branch of Lutheranism at that) and even being gay it seemed to work for me since Lutherans have what they call a "reconciling in Christ" ministry which actively seeks to bring gays and lesbians who feel betrayed by their faith back into the fold. So it's far easier being gay and Lutheran than say being gay and Catholic. But it's not perfect of course.

I agree with you too about those seeking converts. I'm unconcerned with what other people believe as long as they do not seek to use their preachments to encroach upon my freedoms and as long as they keep me out of it.

I like your comments and in fact they seem to mirror what I've been thinking lately myself.

I come from a Lutheran background (the liberal branch of Lutheranism at that) and even being gay it seemed to work for me since Lutherans have what they call a "reconciling in Christ" ministry which actively seeks to bring gays and lesbians who feel betrayed by their faith back into the fold. So it's far easier being gay and Lutheran than say being gay and Catholic. But it's not perfect of course.

I agree with you too about those seeking converts. I'm unconcerned with what other people believe as long as they do not seek to use their preachments to encroach upon my freedoms and as long as they keep me out of it.

I was raised Lutheran as well but went to a Catholic school for 10 years.

My parents were pretty relaxed Lutherans, church for Easter and Christmas and every once and a while when my mom felt like it.

My father was raised Catholic but the Catholic church wouldn't marry my parents unless my mother converted. The Lutheran church didn't mind if my mom married a Catholic, so they married there instead.

Not many people know about Deism, they just reference it when talking about the founding fathers, which contrary to some beliefs were mainly Deists.

I actually didn't know about it until Cred (an old member of AMHD, now banned) told me that my beliefs were exactly the same as a Deists. I did some research and found out that yes, I am a Deist. And here I thought I was unique all these years. ;)

It seems to me that the Op wants objective evidence to prove the existence of God? That’s a tough order. I got news, nobody can do it. How do you pick up a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being and place him in your hands? You don’t believe in pixies, which we all know can’t be measured because they don’t exist. So, by extension, you surmise God doesn’t exist; after all, He can’t be measured, found, scaled, touched, or understood? But, how are you going to measure God? Are you going to measure Him to see if He meets your satisfaction?

St. Augustine says it can't be done; “But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be spoken of as limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is bestowed upon all things, so that they may in any measure exist. Nor again ought God to be called measured, as if He received measure from any one. But if we say that He is the highest measure, by chance we say something; if indeed in speaking of the highest measure we mean the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a measure is good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified, without praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak of no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with praise as when it is said: "And of His kingdom there shall be no limit." Luke 1:33 For it might also be said, "There shall be no measure," so that measure might be used in the sense of limit; for He who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at all.”

It seems to me that a good allegory addressing the Op is that of 'The Watch'. A contemplative Watch is convinced there is no Watchmaker. How does he know? Well, he asked to hear the Maker's ‘tic’; he wanted to hear how fine the Maker's works are. He got no response. He asked the Maker to see the time to measure how accurate the good maker is. He got no response. The Watch didn't have the wherewithal to know that the Maker didn't give him ears with which to hear the Maker’s tic, only hands. Likewise, the Maker didn’t build a face with eyes with which the Watch could see the Maker’s time, only a wildly sweeping hand. Thus, the Watch concluded that he made himself, and he was good. Of course the Watchmaker could only laugh, he knew that the Watch only needed to look at the superiority of his interior workings.

Even still, there is a way to come to know God, through our experiences, some objective, and others subjective. St. Thomas does illustrate a postpriori knowledge of God that can add to our understating of the cosmos. It’s actually simple;



1) Every body in motion was moved by a force from an unmovable being. By extending this we argue that universe was placed in motion by God. Can you provide an alternative?

2) Likewise, everything that can be conceived has an efficient cause. There is a finite order of efficient causes. God is that being for whom there is no efficient cause; which we call the first efficient cause.

3) ) At some point in time there was nothing in existence; as all things come into existence over time. Without a creator who existed in the beginning this becomes absurd. Therefore, we can conclude that the existence of God is of itself its own necessity and not proceeding from another things necessity

4) The measured perfections of existence in the universe can only be understood in comparison with a real and absolute being as a standard, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.

5) The perfect order of our existence in nature is evidence of creation by a designer who directs all natural things to their end, of whom we call God.


Notwithstanding your ideology, in all things, what God makes are good. No doubt, you’ve enjoyed them for a number of years. And how do you repay the debt – by denying Him because you don’t hear a tic? Some would look at this as a philosophy of “what-makes-me-happy-is-good”, i.e. Hedonism. Is this what makes you OhsoHappy?


So what's the moral of the story? The evidence is in the works.

JoeT

Notwithstanding your ideology, in all things, what God makes are good. No doubt, you’ve enjoyed them for a number of years. And how do you repay the debt – by denying Him because you don’t hear a tic? Some would look at this as a philosophy of “what-makes-me-happy-is-good”, i.e. Hedonism. Is this what makes you OhsoHappy?


So what's the moral of the story? The evidence is in the works.

JoeT


See the thing is, is that I don't believe that everything that makes me happy is good. I don't believe that lot of things that normally makes anyone happy is good, and in contrast, not everything that makes me unhappy is necessarily bad, but can be looked at as something that makes me stronger. I'm not Hedonistic, just doubtful. Don't confuse the two.


Hedonism:
1) Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
2) Philosophy The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
3) Psychology The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

This is not how I live my life.

It is the soul of man that cries out for understanding, and belief. Belief is the
Foundation to build your life upon. Call out to our Creator and Ask Him to
Reveal Himself to you. Be not afraid of life, with belief, it is the great force of our
Mind. We are deaf and blind without belief and live in darkness. But when we believe,
Love shall reveal the secret places of God in our hearts and fill us with light so we can see. Once you have learned to love, you have learned to live life to the fullest.
God is Love and without it there is darkness, nothing. Love brings us together.

May the Lord Bless you with His Love and Understanding.

Maggie 3

This is what I believe.

I hear you. I'm in the same situation.

My mum's orthodox, my dad's protestant and as a child, I attended both churches (generally one a week). As a young child, when I was more naïve (naive GENERALLY, not for believing in god, before you all flame me) I believed in god. But when I got into double figures of age, I started to doubt it and now, I'm 100% atheist.

And like you, I generally believe in Christian values. I even attend church on occasion (an empty church gives you unbelievable solace). Yet I cannot believe in any form of god, and have the same beliefs as you, that god is a creation of mankind, not the other way round. Without man, there is no god.


As with advice on what to do... it's tricky. You can stay agnostic, it's perfectly acceptable. But looking at your post, I doubt you'll be able to be monotheist. You're more likely to find atheism easier (Yes I know this seems biased, but this is the logical answer from the original info). You can live as an atheist but with Christian values- Christian values all come from the bible, and the bible is merely a book. Heck you could take all your values from the Qur'an and still be opposed to the idea of God (I think). I've met people who are both pagan and Christian... which kind of oppose each other, but hey, you get the idea.

All in all, you need to think of what you're comfortable being with. And you don't need to classify yourself as anything if you don't want to. It's a personal choice.


Maggie 3-


It is the soul of man that cries out for understanding, and belief. Belief is the
foundation to build your life upon. Call out to our Creator and Ask Him to
reveal Himself to you. Be not afraid of life, with belief, it is the great force of our
mind. We are deaf and blind without belief and live in darkness. But when we believe,
love shall reveal the secret places of God in our hearts and fill us with light so we can see. Once you have learned to love, you have learned to live life to the fullest.
God is Love and without it there is darkness, nothing. Love brings us together.

May the Lord Bless you with His Love and Understanding.

Maggie 3

This is what I believe.


-This is not what ohsohappy needs. Just read this quote




As many times as I've been preached to, I'm still reluctant.

I'm not looking to be preached to either, so please, do not.

I am very happy for the people that can believe so strongly, And I admire them, but I can not bring myself to completely agree.




Does it look like she needs more preaching?
Sorry but you should keep in mind the respect and trust you are getting to produce an unbiased (yes hypocritical, but not as much as this) answer. Not try and persuade her to go towards the side she is most uncertain of. This is NOT the answer, and as much as praying may help a Christian, it is a different matter for someone who is unsure about god. This is pre-school logic.

Sorry for the bias :)

Good luck

I am not sure about God.
I dont' know if he is real.

Understood...



I am not meaning to offend anybody here at all, so please, don't take it personally. I Just can't find myself to agree 100&#37;

No offence taken




Although I live by what one would call "christian values" I see no proof in God. I believe he is a possibility.

You mean to love your neighbor, and believe in being a good person not wanting to hurt people.

If you indeed believe God is possible, why not seek answers from him? Call upon HIM




As many times as I've been preached to, I'm still reluctant.

I'm not looking to be preached to either, so please, do not.

Nope won't preach, that happens in church with sermons



I am very happy for the people that can believe so strongly, And I admire them, but I can not bring myself to completely agree.

Why do you wish to express this here on a thread?



It just seems very Naive to believe in something that one can not see, or touch.
I feel like sometimes people fool themselves into believing that God has sent them a message.

I allow people their feeling, they have intuitive behaviors, and instinctively know fear and love.



To me, God is a creation of man. I"m not sure if he is real, or if he really is a higher being.

Have you tried to call HIM or talk with HIM?



When people say that they love God, it kind of makes me laugh in irony. Not to chastize.

Just because a child has an imaginary friend that they 'have a relationship" of sorts with, does not mean that this imaginary friend is real.
Maybe it's just a piece of themselves that they wish they could be, or the part they want stronger. Something that they wished they had, but do not. They are not sure how to gain it, so they create something that has it.

In some ways I think it might be similar. Somone to talk things over with, and find a safe and loving feeling in their heart about having such a wonderful friend. But of course we know they are assured in their love by their belief



Thus why people would create a higher being.

I trust it is just to know who created them, who put the pebble in the path they walked that morning. Can we count on man to do it all? I don't think so..



I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm saying that people worship imaginary friends. Because essentially, that is what I'm saying. But not necessarily in that context. I can relate them, or draw a direct parallel, if you will.

Understood, and again no offence taken



I want to believe, but I am unable.

I trust that if you want to, then in time you will. But I won't say why I know that, because it's not the time.



Input would be nice, but really, please, do not preach. Although I agree with christian values, I can not be converted into believing completely. I am NOT Athiest.

What we want, we usually go after.

Have you tried to call HIM or talk with HIM?

Sndbay, I respect your beliefs but really, have you talked to God?

Why would "God" take time to talk to mere mortals?

Sndbay, I respect your beliefs but really, have you talked to God?

Why would "God" take time to talk to mere mortals?

The answer is yes. I posted one of the most recent on thread "Prophetic message about the US" #81

Acts 2:17-18 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

The answer is yes. I posted one of the most recent on thread "Prophetic message about the US" #81

Acts 2:17-18 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

You're preaching the bible.

Read the OP, that's not what she wants.

Answer me this. Why would God talk to humans, he's God!

Answer me this. Why would God talk to humans, he's God!

Answer why Our Father in Heaven spoke through His begotten Son.

Scripture says as I posted God's servants will have the Spirit poured out on them, and they shall prophesy. Most know this as the latter rain that comes before the harvest. We are in the last days, and soon all will have their answers.

Now this is off thread, but out of respect for you, I answered your question.

~in Christ

See the thing is, is that I don't believe that everything that makes me happy is good. I don't believe that lot of things that normally makes anyone happy is good, and in contrast, not everything that makes me unhappy is necessarily bad, but can be looked at as something that makes me stronger. I'm not Hedonistic, just doubtful. Don't confuse the two.

I apologize if my comment was understood as offensive. It was intended as a call for introspection, no offense was intended.

The response seems to indicate that it's 'strengthening' when unhappy events (of the non-bad type) occur. To what end is this strengthening aimed? Does it make one a better person or does it just form a callus? But, wouldn't being 'better' be subjective without a living God? By what rule do we judge without a God?

JoeT

I apologize if my comment was understood as offensive. It was intended as a call for introspection, no offense was intended.

The response seems to indicate that it’s 'strengthening' when unhappy events (of the non-bad type) occur. To what end is this strengthening aimed? Does it make one a better person or does it just form a callus? But, wouldn’t being ‘better’ be subjective without a living God? By what rule do we judge without a God?

JoeT

I don't believe that humans need God in order to feel that the actions they take are right and wrong. Some people would say that it's kind of like the golden rule "don't do to others what you would not want done to yourself" It's common sense to most people. (Although I've noticed more and more that although it's common sense, quite a few people choose not to live by it for their own selfish reasons, and choose not to consider others.) That does not necessarily mean that people need to incorporate God in to whatever sort of values they would want to live by.

And as far as unhappy events making one stronger, I mean that if people people open up, they can learn from those unhappy events, and use what they've learned to shape their own ways of life.

I don't believe that humans need God in order to feel that the actions they take are right and wrong. Some people would say that it's kind of like the golden rule "don't do to others what you would not want done to yourself" It's common sense to most people. (Although I've noticed more and more that although it's common sense, quite a few people choose not to live by it for their own selfish reasons, and choose not to consider others.)


This is true. But a lot of people use god to help them decide what actions are right or wrong. You need to decide yourself whether you want to do this or not. It's all up to you, and I don't think anybody on this thread will really help with this.

cadillac59,
You may think it is hilarious, but I do not.
I'm very serious about first cause and the other things I said
The difference is that I understand it from a deist point of view.
Everything has a beginning except God. God is infinite and eternal or He is not God.
God is existence. Without God the is no existence.
By the way deism is a religion of the belief in and some worship of a god or supreme being.
Some deist groups have their own meeting places.
I'm a believer in Intelligent Design for it makes very good sense to me if believed in as I do.
The mathematical possibility of the universe and life is just one chance in several trillion years and we live in a universe of just several billion years old.
I mentioned quantum mechanics and physics.
I have read books by people in those fields who were once atheist but no longer are.
One of them has become an Anglican Priest while still a quantum physicist.
Yes I believe in science and even evolution which is still going on even in us human beings.
Modern genetics and the code have shown that to be true.
I just read several articles on that in an issue of Discover Magazine.
The more I read and study the more my belief strengthens.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

By the way deism is a religion of the belief in and some worship of a god or supreme being.
Some deist groups have their own meeting places.

I've never ever seen or been to such a meeting place Fred and I'm a Deist.

I'd be interested to learn where these meeting places are.

"I'm very serious about first cause and the other things I said
The difference is that I understand it from a deist point of view.
Everything has a beginning except God."

There are many problems with first cause arguments. At the moment the best we can say is that they are a hypothesis ( yet to be proven true or false).

In the philosophy part of this website, under the sub-heading,' Science and Religion' I have contributed an argument in defence of metaphysics (this includes first cause arguments).

Tut,
I know of no problem with first cause simply because everything has a first cause except God.
There are other causes such as second and third or more but there is only one cause that is first for everything.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ha that's one thing that I could never make sense of. How can God NOT have a beginning? Is there really a beginning? And absolute, defined, cut and dry, simple as pie beginning? Where does THAT beginning come from? How does it come from nothing?
It makes absolutely NO sense to me.
I'ts like numbers, there's no beginning or end, but HOW is that possible? I don't get it?
Pi has a definite beginning, and no definite end, that I can make sense of, but absolurely NO beginning? It hurts my head.

[QUOTE=arcura;1990985]Tut,
I know of no problem with first cause simply because everything has a first cause except God.
There are other causes such as second and third or more but there is only one cause that is first for everything.

Fred, I wish it did but everything we experience doesn't have a first cause. Everything would be a lot simpler if there was a first cause for everything.

It is impossible to say with certainty that any observable sequence of events which we witness has a first cause. Causes and effects require no beginning since they can be conceived indefinitely, forward or backwards. For example, we cannot say for certain that it was the falling branch which broke his arm, after all the wind caused the branch to fall. But wasn't it the low pressure system which caused the wind to blow in the first place and so on indefinitely.

We have no means to employ our reason to confidently say that we have arrived at the end of our quest for cause and effect.In other words, we cannot tell when a series of cause and effects has been started or completed.( Ohsohappy makes reference to first terms in mathematics. This is a different 'kettle of fish' and needs to be treated separately).

As Hume says, cause and effect is merely an act of the mind as it structures experience. Out mind forces us to see events in an orderly fashion in preference to seeing things in a haphazard way.

Things become even more tenuous when we try to extend out knowledge of cause and effect beyond the material world. As Kant says, when we try to reason beyond our categories of understanding we run into all sorts of problems. It is extremely difficult to summarize 'categories of understanding' in a few sentences. It is even more difficult to summarize it in the context of the topic at hand. But here goes.

The physical world provides us with the boundaries for our facility of reason. It is an illusion to think that we can reason beyond the limits set by the categories. The difficulty which prevents us from developing any FIRST CAUSE METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT is that there is no way to determine if our mental apparatus is applicable to anything beyond the world of experience.

Keep up the good work Fred

Regards

Dave

Tut,
I know of no problem with first cause simply because everything has a first cause except God.
There are other causes such as second and third or more but there is only one cause that is first for everything.

Fred, I wish it did but everything we experience doesn't have a first cause. Everything would be a lot simpler if there was a cause to know that there exist some cause; e.g. by observation we know that the attraction of bodies, called gravity, is directly related to mass. Yet, we don't know what physical not know how this force works in nature.

It is impossible to say with certainty that any observable sequence of events which we witness has a first cause. Causes and effects require no beginning since they can be conceived indefinitely, forward or backwards. For example, we cannot say for certain that it was the falling branch which broke his arm, after all the wind caused the branch to fall. But wasn't it the low pressure system which caused the wind to blow in the first place and so on indefinitely.

This confuses the ability to 'know the measure of' with causality that determines the ultimate agent of that cause. The physicist doesn't need to the know the objective state of an event to know that it exists, e.g. the phenomenon of gravity exist and is defined as attraction of two buddies proportional to their mass, but the physical or scientific reason for this attraction is yet unknown. What the principle of 'first cause' asks is whether there is adequate reason for an event that exists outside itself. Both the philosopher and the physicist observing any phenomena will observe certain effects that cannot exist without a cause external of itself. These questions can be asked of each event whose cause is subsequently investigated in a like manner until the 'first cause' is determined. This phenomenon can be asked of all causes existing in the cosmos, whether natural or spiritual; each has a finite number of iterations that resolve to the first cause which is Theism. The final conclusion as to the universe as a whole will result to a single entity, whose existence is not caused, whose intelligent will is the First Cause, i.e. God. (see St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q44,1)

St. Aquinas also explains the existence of God as the source of all Change:

Manifested motion
Efficient cause
Possibility and necessity
Perfection of order
Intelligence of the design
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q2,3)


As Hume says, cause and effect is merely an act of the mind as it structures experience. Out mind forces us to see events in an orderly fashion in preference to seeing things in a haphazard way.

Things become even more tenuous when we try to extend out knowledge of cause and effect beyond the material world. As Kant says, when we try to reason beyond our categories of understanding we run into all sorts of problems. It is extremely difficult to summarize 'categories of understanding' in a few sentences. It is even more difficult to summarize it in the context of the topic at hand. But here goes.

The physical world provides us with the boundaries for our facility of reason. It is an illusion to think that we can reason beyond the limits set by the categories. The difficulty which prevents us from developing any FIRST CAUSE METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT is that there is no way to determine if our mental apparatus is applicable to anything beyond the world of experience.

Keep up the good work Fred
Regards
Dave


Hume is a naturalist, that all must be proven through an ideal view of nature. Hume postulates that God is 'all' of reality. From this is presumed that "ALL" cannot have components; within ALL, all must be homogeneous and good. But, since the universe contains the malevolent then it cannot be homogenous which leads to the conclusion that it cannot be all good. Hume, basically comes down on the side of uncertainty of First Cause, it's not that there isn't a first cause only that science cannot know that God is that first cause. Hume definitely fits the schools of naturalism, materialism and idealism which at best are agnostic.

“Given these considerations regarding the causes of evil, and the limits of human understanding, what is the most reasonable hypothesis concerning the first cause of the universe? Philo dismisses the suggestion that the first cause is either perfectly good or perfectly malevolent on the ground that “mixed phenomena” can never prove either of the unmixed principles as the first cause. This leaves only two other possibilities. Either the first cause has both goodness and malice or it has neither. Philo argues that the steady and orderly nature of the world suggests that no such (Manichean) “combat” between good and evil is going on. So the most plausible hypothesis is that “the original source of all things” is just as indifferent about “good above ill” as it is about heat above cold (D, 113-4). Nature is blind and uncaring regarding such matters and there is no basis for the supposition that the world has been created with human or animal happiness or comfort in mind. Any supposition of this kind is nothing better than an anthropomorphic prejudice (EU, 11.27/146; cp. D, 100).” Hume on Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/)

"Hume is a naturalist, that all must be proven through an ideal view of nature. Hume postulates that God is ‘all’ of reality. From this is presumed that "ALL" cannot have components; within ALL, all must be homogeneous and good. But, since the universe contains the malevolent then it cannot be homogenous which leads to the conclusion that it cannot be all good. Hume, basically comes down on the side of uncertainty of First Cause, it’s not that there isn’t a first cause only that science cannot know that God is that first cause. Hume definitely fits the schools of naturalism, materialism and idealism which at best are agnostic".

Hi Joe and thanks for the reply. If it is OK with you I will deal with some of the last points you made first. No particular reason for this.

I cannot see how Hume is in any way an IDEALIST. He is definitely not a metaphysical idealist and there may be some confusion over epistemological idealism here. He is a skeptic but no in the same sense as Berkeley who is a skeptic and an idealist. Hume is not saying that objects of experience exist only in the mind. He is definitely an empiricist in regard to physical objects.

In your quotes from the 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' I don't agree with your interpretation of Hume. Yes, your are right, Hume is not denying the possibility of a first cause. His conclusion is there may be a first cause or causes in the universe that bear some remote analogy to human intelligence, but this is as far as he is prepared to go.

Hume has always held his position in relation to our inability to establish anything about the characteristics of this first cause, if it exists. Therefore, we cannot establish any meaningful hypothesis how this cause might be related to us. For example, the problem of good and evil in the world.

Hi Joe and thanks for the reply. If it is OK with you I will deal with some of the last points you made first. No particular reason for this.

I cannot see how Hume is in any way an IDEALIST. He is definitely not a metaphysical idealist and there may be some confusion over epistemological idealism here. He is a skeptic but no in the same sense as Berkeley who is a skeptic and an idealist. Hume is not saying that objects of experience exist only in the mind. He is definitely an empiricist in regard to physical objects.

I have no problem with how you want to label Hume. The OP questions the existence of God, not what label we apply to Hume.


In your quotes from the 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' I don't agree with your interpretation of Hume. Yes, you are right; Hume is not denying the possibility of a first cause. His conclusion is there may be a first cause or causes in the universe that bear some remote analogy to human intelligence, but this is as far as he is prepared to go.

Hume has always held his position in relation to our inability to establish anything about the characteristics of this first cause, if it exists. Therefore, we cannot establish any meaningful hypothesis how this cause might be related to us. For example, the problem of good and evil in the world.

From what little I know of Hume, it seems he was particularly challenged by things beyond his sensual perception. It seems to me that such perception is sterile, and whatever conclusion he drew were a cynic's postulates. Hume's approach on morals seemed consistent if not supportive of Utilitarianism. I've always taken Utilitarianism as a sort of 'justification' for 'if-it-feels-good,-collectively-it-can-be-made-a-moral-virtue'. One important obstacle, he was unable to overcome was how to reconcile the pursuit of happiness with the moral virtue of charity.

Furthermore, Hume's philosophies are part and parcel of modern liberalism. In part they were combined with the philosophies of Locke, Rousseau, Lessing and Kant. It's a designer virus attacking right reasoning since its introduction by an errant monk in 1520. This liberalism holds, as a right, emancipation from Divine Authority and sovereignty in all sectors of life to control and judge all matters. Fundamentally it requires God to conform his will to that of man's; because according to liberalism, true authority resides in the interior of the individual, to which the God's exterior creation must bow. The philosophy proposes: "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part, denying God and His supernatural creation this autonomous intellectual freedom from moral and social order is in conflict with the Church.


“If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God. It has been censured in the condemnations of Rationalism and Naturalism. The most solemn condemnation of Naturalism and Rationalism was contained in the Constitution "De Fide" of the Vatican Council (1870); the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical "Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions. The older and principally political form of false Liberal Catholicism had been condemned by the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos", of 15 August, 1832 and by many briefs of Pius IX (see S&#233;gur, "Hommage aux Catholiques Lib&#233;raux", Paris, 1875). The definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican council was virtually a condemnation of Liberalism. Besides this many recent decisions concern the principal errors of Liberalism. Of great importance in this respect are the allocutions and encyclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. (Cf., Recueil des allocutions consistorales encycliques . . . cit&#233;es dans le Syllabus", Paris, 1865) and the encyclicals of Leo XIII of 20 January, 1888, "On Human Liberty"; of 21 April, 1878, "On the Evils of Modern Society"; of 28 December, 1878, "On the Sects of the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists"; of 4 August, 1879, "On Christian Philosophy"; of 10 February, 1880, "On Matrimony"; of 29 July, 1881, "On the Origin of Civil Power"; of 20 April, 1884, "On Freemasonry"; of 1 November, 1885, "On the Christian State"; of 25 December, 1888, "On the Christian Life"; of 10 January, 1890, "On the Chief Duties of a Christian Citizen"; of 15 May, 1891, "On the Social Question"; of 20 January, 1894, "On the Importance of Unity in Faith and Union with the Church for the Preservation of the Moral Foundations of the State"; of 19 March, 1902, "On the Persecution of the Church all over the World". Full information about the relation of the Church towards Liberalism in the different countries may be gathered from the transactions and decisions of the various provincial councils. These can be found in the "Collectio Lacensis" under the headings of the index: Fides, Ecclesia, Educatio, Francomuratores.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Liberalism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm)

JoeT

TUT317, Dave,
Please list for me those things which you think have no first cause.
And I must agree with Joe on this at this time.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe T,

I think you have come up with an excellent political analysis of Hume and others of his tradition. I agree in principle with your assessment.

What may be of interest is Kant's attempt to prove the existence of God through a formulation of what he terms, 'The Categorical Imperative'. Kant wants to prove the existence of God through morality. This is a totally different approach to what has gone before. The reason for the change in direction could be political. However, it was Kant that said it was Hume,'who woke me from my dogmatic slumbers'. Kant largely agrees(but not completely) with Hume's theory of causation. It is the acceptance of Hume's ideas on causation which puts Kant in a difficult position. He wants to go beyond empiricism and prove that there is a least something beyond what we can experience.

I think Kant attempts to, 'sum things up' with a statement which goes something along the lines of...
Such things as, God, freedom and immortality continually impinge on the human mind as a result of our attempts to categorize our empirical knowledge. Reason naturally seeks something beyond the limits of empirical knowledge which can, 'make sense' of the diversity of facts which we encounter in the physical world.

In relation to Fred's question about which things don't have a first cause. I think this is more a philosophical question rather than a religious question. I will put forward a question/answer in the philosophical section of this website and it will probably be something along the lines of 'The problem of Causation'

Best wishes from TUT

I think this is more a philosophical question rather than a religious question.

Wise Tut:

It seems foreign to me that religion can be separated from philosophy. God doesn't ask us to do away with reason; in fact the truth is quite the opposite. How can a rational analysis of any truth whether moral, philosophical, or metaphysical be undertaken without religion; especial given that Truth=God? St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.“ (St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, Prima Q, 15 a5) From which we can conclude there is an absolute and infallible truth in all things created. Why would one practice a faith that doesn't contain truth, that doesn't contain all of truth (insofar as it is knowable), and doesn't contain an infallible truth? What would be the point – a good philosophical argument? It's God's Truth that E=MC^2, just as it is God's Truth that the planets revolve around the sun in an elliptical orbit, and God's Truth exists as the First Cause of all His Creation.

JoeT

Tut,
I agree with Joe.
And I asked for things that have no first cause here, not somewhere else.
I have never visited the philosophy section and I don't intend to do so now.
If you can't answer the request here I'll assume that you can't answer it anywhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tut,
I agree with Joe.
And I asked for things that have no first cause here, not somewhere else.
I have never visited the philosophy section and I don't intend to do so now.
If you can't answer the request here I'll assume that you can't answer it anywhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hi Fred,
As you wish, no problem. I will attempt to answer your question here.
When I start talking about causation and first cause I am talking about cause in the physical world, not the spiritual. I will argue against first cause in this world. This does not necessarily mean that the world didn't have a first cause in the religious sense. I will draw on the arguments of Hume and some noted physicists. It is worth keeping in mind that physics is not interested in first cause because once a scientist brings in a first cause explanation then he is no longer doing science, he is doing metaphysics. This I am sure of this. No doubt a scientist will pick up my errors when I begin talking about physics.

The foremost criticism of first cause is that it is impossible to say that we have discovered the first cause of any physical process. If I throw a rock through a window and the glass shatters, then was it the rock that shattered the glass or was it the person who threw the rock? You can develop an argument for both claims. But wait, it was my friends who forced me to throw the rock, they were the cause of my actions. The point is that we can conceive indefinitely, backwards or forwards any sequence of events.

This is not my main argument against first cause. I want to draw on Hume's denial of cause arguments. If Hume is correct then cause and effect are a well founded illusion. It must follow then that first cause is also an illusion.

When it comes to causation Hume says that it is a determination of the mind to compare ideas. Ideas are created from impressions gained through experiencing the world. For example If I kick a soccer ball into an apple tree I might observe apples falling from the tree. Impressions are created in the mind from these observations and are stored as ideas for later comparisons.

As far as most people are concerned when we see someone kick a ball into an apple tree and see apples fall we would concluded the ball caused the apples to fall. Furthermore, reason would dictate that the ball was the first cause. Unfortunately reason can let us down badly.

Hume would say that if we examined our impressions of a soccer ball and the apple tree we would not find any part or feature of the impression that was the necessity of the apple falling. The necessary connection that our mind produces between the soccer ball and the apple tree is the result of our psychological disposition, it is not in the events themselves. The connection between cause and effect is a psychological one it is not a physical one. Hume say that the only link between cause and effect is custom or habit.

If we were to examine the concept of gravity then we know that it is not a thing. If I throw an apple into the air and it falls to the ground I rightly conclude that it was the force of gravity which made the apple fall. No one actually sees gravity. We can't put gravity in a test tube and examine it, no more than we can see the cause of any observable feature. It is only because the two impressions have been witnessed over and over again that we have an expectations that when we see one we will see the other.

Firstly, we cannot prove that the events are necessarily connected. Secondly, we cannot know that these events will hold true in the future. The next time I throw an apple into the air it could just hang there for 10 or fifteen minutes before it falls. I can be extremely close to 100% sure that it won't and that it will fall back to earth almost immediately. The interesting point is that we can never be 100% sure that it will obey the laws of physics. It something is conceivable then it has a probability factor.

Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they doesn't apply to modern science. However, the opposite is the case. What Hume claims is true of the macro world, quantum physics now says is true of the micro world.

In classical physics we talk about casual chains. This is because classical physics deals with localized reality in space time. Quantum mechanics does away with localized realities in favor of non-localized instant interaction between particles. In essence this means there is instant communication between particles which requires faster than light travel. If this is true than the concept of cause and effect is an illusion or at best meaningless.
Einstein could not accept this and claimed that quantum theory was incomplete. However, 'Bell's Inequality suggests Einstein was wrong.

I apologize for the poor way I have typed up this response. My internet keeps dropping out so I tried to finish it as quickly as possible... TUT

Ohsohappy, My belief, that is to ME, proof of GOD is the world around us. Every atom in our universe. From the morning sun, to newborn's first breath. All these things just didn't HAPPEN.

Proof of satan is the doubt that you have. He likes doubt, hate, atheists...

We all have to find what works for us.

Sometimes we have to have FAITH .

I wish you strength, love, and understanding.

I would like to make the point that I am not an atheist, I am a Christian and therefore believe in God.
I attempted to answer a question some time ago and now it seems I am in a never ending debate. Everything that I have written on this website has in no way been an attempt to disprove the existence of God, in fact the OPPOSITE is the case... TUT

Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they doesn't apply to modern science.

You got that right! Not only silly, but a classic example of relativisim - the non-speed of light type.

JoeT

TUT317,
Tanks for your effort.
But...
None of that shows the lack of a first cause.
Everything has a start somewhere or some when.
The window started being one when it was built.
The rock started being one when the material in it solidified into a rock.
The builder of the window started being a person when he/she was conceived, etc, etc.
It all goes back to when the first atoms become atoms and the part of the atoms cam into being from the universes first cause now called the big bang.
The big bang also has a first cause.
If physics does not want to recognize that it is physic's problem not mine or anyone else's.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was deliberately misquoted by JoeT in an earlier entry. The misquote was, "Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they don't apply to modern science" end quote. The quote in full was "Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they don't apply to modern science. However, the opposite is the case"

Evidence for this from comes from Professor David Norton ".....and twentieth-century physics and philosophy of mind have returned the notion of causality to the central place in epistemology and philosophy of science that Hume accorded it".

If JoeT is suggesting that Hume is a relativist then this is incorrect. Hume distinguishes between matters of fact and matters which involve value judgments. Yes, value judgments for Hume are associated with sentiments and feelings, but he clearly says these types of judgments are universal. Therefore, Hume cannot be a relativist.

Guys, this is going way off topic

If you want to continue discussing this then please start a new thread. This thread is about the OP and her question.

Thank you.

Altenweg,
Point well made.
Fred

Point taken... Tut

How strange that I should happen upon your letter, I was looking for a CD labelling program called Expressit 5 and your letter came up 'I am so unsure. I just need to express it.' I think The Lord would say 'He who does my work by acting righteously serves me better than he who sings my praises and acts not righteously'. I won't preach to you as I'm no saint myself, Jesus was a nice guy who had some great ideas, while there are people like you who live by those ideas Jesus lives through your works. You can kill a man but you can never truly kill his ideas. Belief in God is not what makes a good man, doing the right thing is more important, then (if there is a God) he'll believe in you.

How strange that I should happen upon your letter, I was looking for a CD labelling program called Expressit 5 and your letter came up 'I am so unsure. I just need to express it.' I think The Lord would say 'He who does my work by acting righteously serves me better than he who sings my praises and acts not righteously'. I won't preach to you as I'm no saint myself, Jesus was a nice guy who had some great ideas, while there are people like you who live by those ideas Jesus lives through your works. You can kill a man but you can never truly kill his ideas. Belief in God is not what makes a good man, doing the right thing is more important, then (if there is a God) he'll believe in you.

Please note the dates on these posts. This one is 368 days old. Welcome and enjoy the site.

Please note the dates on these posts. This one is 368 days old. Welcome and enjoy the site.

Feel free to close the thread.