You stated that your argument (in its full glory, as you emphasized), is that there must exist a unique necessary being that created everything.
I responded by stating that anyone can make an argument for anything. I used an absurd example to mirror the absurdity of believing in something that hasn’t been objectively proven to exist. My hypothetical assertion that I could flap my arms and fly into the sky relates to the claim that your God exists at all.
To get more specific, you claimed earlier that everything that has a beginning and could fail to exist must have a cause, i.e., the argument from contingency, and you believe God to be the ultimate necessary foundation. But, if a necessary, uncaused foundation can exist by itself, it’s entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that the foundational substance of the cosmos, like energy, quantum fields, etc., is that very foundation. If the cosmos itself can be the uncaused foundation, then a god is redundant, making that argument moot.
If you can prove the existence of God, who needs faith? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question to contrast with the claim that faith without proof involves delusion and gullibility. It’s not my position.
If it were true that faith always involves delusion and gullibility, as claimed by the original poster, then every person of faith who could not prove the existence of God would be delusional and gullible. One counter-example would disprove the claim (which was presented without proof). I could name lots of counter-examples, but need only one to disprove the claim, so I’ll name Mother Teresa. It would be possible to accuse her of being delusional, but an accusation isn’t proof. There is ample evidence that she had faith, was holy, and was not easily deceived and not deluded.
@actualevidence I just note for now that your latest post exemplifies both of the reactions I announced early on, immediately after presenting the argument in summary form.
This corresponds to the first part of your post:
And I characterized the second reaction as follows:
It’s certainly the case that not everyone needs to rigorously prove the existence of God as a prelude to have faith. Neither does everyone need the same rigor of argumentation to establish the credentials of Christian teaching. Often the holiness of the preacher is proof enough. It’s partly which moral failures on the part of clerics is so serious: they undermine their credibility, and complicate access to faith.
But some form or rational, prudential judgment is always involved in receiving the faith in adulthood, and those who grow up with it, as their intelligence awakens, also need to make a similar judgment.
Welcome. My Grandma on my Mom’s side was Catholic Christian and my Grandma on my Dad’s side was Baptist. Both loved Jesus.
Many atrocities have been don in the name of other things as well, and yet, I presume, you do not reject them outright because of it. Some have done horrific things for their love of money. Some have committed crimes of passion, in the name of love.
Money is real, but some currency is simply 1’s and 0’s. Dollar bill used to be backed by physical gold and silver, but now money is simply paper built on trust. And yet, some treat that paper as though it is something of value.
Love is real, but can you really see love? You can see examples of love. You can see actions (both good and bad) driven by love. But, can you really see love? Yet, most believe in love.
God is why human beings have value and God is love.
Unlike money, God does not have value, because we trust in Him. We have value, because God loved us first. Man created money. God created man.
Just as in the case of love, we cannot see God, but we can see God in His creation. And as you pointed out, man can do things in the name of God (good or bad).
But, Christians go a step further. We are Baptized into His love in a unique way and receive His grace (help, mercy, healing, love, salvation, sanctification, and glorification). We are invited to become participants in His love.
Why we are here? What is the purpose of life? I do not believe this is by chance nor by accident. I get that some atheists do believe just that. How would you answer these questions?
We believe God is a person (not an it). And we are not God. To think that we are greater than God or above God’s understanding is disordered. So, why do I believe that I cannot know more than God? For the simple fact that I am not God.
You are not the first to not believe in God. Scripture is full of example of individuals who were of no or little faith. Some, even disciples of Jesus. I think it is human nature to question with boldness. And it is not wrong to question. I am naturally skeptical of many things in life. But, God makes more sense than God’s non-existence.
When we Pray to God, it is okay to share with Him our many questions. It is okay to even tell God that we do not believe or that we struggle to believe. There is nothing wrong with honesty or being real with God.
Just like someone cannot irrefutably refute the existence of love, one cannot refute the existence of God. And to think that you can, is either ignorant or arrogant (and I’m not saying this to insult anyone personally, but as a matter of reality).
What do you think about anything I have said here? And if you can answer those questions I had above, I think that would be helpful to our conversation as well : )
I don’t reject the belief in God because of atrocities that were committed in its name. I simply used history as a way to illustrate that it’s possible that it wouldn’t be in someone’s best interest to have faith in something so dubious and use it as an excuse to justify doing terrible things. The difference between slaughtering people in the name of God and killing someone in a moment of unbridled passion (while both unfortunately sickening) is that there are no mysteries regarding the motivation of the latter crime. You can prove a person has a spouse. You can prove their spouse was unfaithful. You can prove that was the reason for a conflict. You can determine an appropriate response and punishment to said conflict. Although anyone can say that they have a God, no one has proven that any God exists, which muddles subsequent responses to horrid things done in the name of such a dubious idea.
You cannot reasonably conclude that God is the reason why humans have value. You also cannot reasonably conclude that God is love. First of all, that must come after being able to verify that God exists at all. As is the crux of these arguments, you’re assuming God exists without proving it, and then going one further to claim that your unproven belief is the reason for anything. It doesn’t make logical sense. Human value is an intrinsic thing. You don’t need God to determine why people shouldn’t be killed or enslaved. Also, if God somehow exists, is love and gives us value, then the existence and frequency of human suffering logically contradicts that care.
There are cultures all over the world that do not follow Catholic or Christian doctrine. They could believe that their love comes from other gods. In addition, there are people who choose not to believe in God at all, and they still demonstrate the capacity for love, sympathy, generosity, and selflessness. It’s possible for a human being to be loving without a foundational belief in your god, which means it’s not reasonable to conclude that God is the reason why humans have love.
If you cannot see God, then how can you see God in what its supposedly created? What framework would you have to identify that what you see is God if you don’t know what God is at all? Your feelings? Things that fallible men have created and claim to be representations of God? Your statement is merely an assertion, not a logical and factual conclusion.
As I’ve pointed out before, there are many people around the world who don’t believe in your God, yet are entirely capable of help, mercy, healing, love, and personal transformations/redemptions. Sanctification and glorification aren’t concretely human concepts as they are more supernatural ideas. It’s not reasonable to assume that the former virtues are God’s alone to distribute to humanity since anyone can demonstrate them independently of belief.
Questioning our place in reality is an understandable thing to do. Sometimes I do it too. But it’s not necessary to attribute our place here on earth to any entity outside of our understanding of the universe, and it’s entirely possible our existence here is by chance. I’m not saying that’s a fact, but if it were, would that be frightening to you? Why do you need to create a supernatural explanation for existence at all when natural means are capable?
To claim that God is a person goes back to the burden of proof you’ve failed to provide. How can you objectively prove that God exists at all? Only after proving existence can you accurately identify its makeup. Until then, you’re just supposing.
You’re using a dubious collection of scriptures to support an argument that hasn’t been proven in the first place. It doesn’t make logical sense to use rules from the Bible, which is unsubstantiated, to support the dubious claim that God exists in objective reality. It also doesn’t make reasonable sense to have faith in something supernatural when it’s not necessary. In addition, when you pray to God, how do you know that God is listening? That would require proof that God in fact exists, which you haven’t done. Until that’s done, people who pray are just talking to themselves.
Thanks, by the way, for being willing to discourse with me. I know I’ve gone back and forth with @TheBrokenEar a good bit already. It’s hard to not offend or not come across as antagonistic given the topic of this conversation, but I want to emphasize that I’m only here in good faith. I’m not your enemy, I don’t wish that Catholicism was banished or anything similar, and I’m not saying that your God doesn’t exist. I can’t reliably prove that. I’m just asking if any of you can provide objective, verifiable proof since you do believe God exists. And if you can’t, just tell me why you continue to believe.
Yes, I can. And I have provided a brief summary of what I take to be the best evidence.
As a possible way of moving the conversation forward, would you be able to articulate what this means for you, and why what I have provided doesn’t even plausibly meet that criterion?
Alternatively, I would respectfully suggest that you take the time to educate yourself more broadly in philosophy, metaphysics and scientific methodology.
To learn the basics of metaphysics in the Thomist school, here are a few suggestions:
Fr. Stephen Brock, The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas: A Sketch
Edward Feser, Introduction to Scholastic Metaphysics
Michael Gorman, A Contemporary Introduction to Thomistic Metaphysics
But let me know if you are ever looking for other suggestions.
What value do human beings have in your opinion? And why does your answer matter if there is no God?
You didn’t answer my question. I’m not trying to trick you. Do you believe love exists? Can you see love?
You have not answered my question. Why do we exist? Or is there no reason? And if there is no reason, then I go back to, Why do we have value if there is no reason that we exist?
But, it does.
Why does it matter if people kill or enslave if we are meaningless?
The “problem of suffering” is not a new argument. Atheists often wrestle with this.
In which, I respond, if there is no God, why does it matter? Who cares if there is suffering? Nothing matters, if there is no God.
If we are talking about man-inflicted suffering, I would ask you this. If God did not gift man with free-will, would you view that as loving? If God made us robots, would you view this as loving? Or would that also be unloving in your view? What could God do to convince you that He is love?
And there are Catholics who do not follow Catholic Christian doctrine.
What is love? You have not answered that question for me yet. You have not rationally given evidence that love even exists.
You have not rationally given evidence that these things exist. And if they do exist, why do they matter? You have already concluded that they do not matter, because of God. So, why do you conclude that they do matter? Or do they not matter?
We believe that God created us in His image. What does this mean? If God is love, then it means that we were created to love. If God is is the reason, it means that we were created to reason. If God is creator, it means we were made to create.
If you were designed with this purpose in mind, your foundational belief does not change this reality.
Do you believe everything came from nothing? And you rationally conclude this? This makes sense to you?
If you knew me, I am not big on feelings. I come from German heritage I joke. I do have feelings, but my Faith is not based on feelings. I believe feeling often lead individuals astray.
It has been said that all other religions is man searching for God, but Christianity is God searching for man. Jesus came to earth and I believe He is Who He claimed to be. And He had disciples who died for this claim.
Frightening? No. But, I would have more questions.
From what? From nothing? How does something accidentally come into existence from nothing?
If we are nothing, but matter, why do we matter? Would not rąpe just be matter bumping into matter? What’s wrong with that? Why does that matter?
I’m listening. Why does anything matter? And why does that matter?
If we were made in God’s image (as I do believe), it would make logical sense that God is therefore a person.
I asked you the same about love. And you have yet to objectively prove that love exists.
You do not need Scripture to come to the rational conclusion that God exists. I think you have proven this by pointing out that there are many who believe in God, even thought they do not adhere to Sacred Scripture.
Is your beef with the Bible or with God? Or both/neither?
The simple answer, because Jesus said so. But, let’s say, for the sake of argument, God does not exist and Jesus is not Who He said He claimed to be; I would say that Prayer is meaningless. As is everything else. Nothing would matter, because I would believe that we came from nothing.
Your second sentence here is flawed logic. You are making that claim that Pray is only talking to oneself “until God is proven to exist”? I believe in objective truth. Either Prayer is communication with God or it isn’t. If God exists (and I believe He does), and it cannot be proven to your satisfaction, this does not therefore meant that Prayer is not communication with God, because truth is not subjective.
When someone Prays, distinct networks (in prefrontal cortex) light up in the brain, involving regions tied to social connection, while quieting the parietal lobe (the area that creates your sense of self).
This does not prove anything, but I do find it interesting that those who do not believe in Prayer tend to put themselves above God.
No worries. I think these types of conversations are important.
That is interesting. I often wonder why Atheists seek out believers to convince them that God does not exist. I know that Atheists hat when individuals call their belief a religion, but there are similarities (especially in what has been coined as New Atheism).
When Christians deconstruct (a popular term these days), they tend to evangelize their unbelief as though it is their new religion. They share their testimony. They go to conventions to fellowship with other unbelievers. They try to convince others to join their “religion” of unbelief.
I appreciate your honesty. You sound like an agnostic and not an atheist, though you seem to find the tenets of atheism convincing. Is that fair to say?
If that is what drives your being here (and I say if, because many atheists/agnostics try to show how intelligent they are). And that often stems from a sense of self, pride, and arrogance.
Why do I continue to believe? I believe Jesus is Who He said He is and that the Apostles were chosen by Him to bring to a world, who rejected God, an encounter with God, who is Love.
I do not believe that we came from nothing. For if we came from nothing, then nothing matters. Love then would be little more than a bunch of meaningless neurons, electrical & chemical activity within matter. And for what? Nothing.
But, God is actual. God is a person. And God is Love. God simply is.
And you and I are more than matter. You and I matter. Not because we desire to feel special, but because we are humbly, and uniquely, loved.
Your questions are intelligent. You were raised with exposure to two religions, and did not develop a feeling of affinity for either of them. I was raised by parents who were 100% atheist, but I have a very strong feeling of connection with religion. This feeling of connection began at the age of 25 and now I’m 82, and the feeling of “affinity” continues to increase.
Regarding your lack of affinity, in spite of the exposure you encountered, this is understandable. Most people who belong to one faith or another, are simply “members” who have no living realization of the scriptures that they endeavor to follow. And they are satisfied with that. This kind of following is called, “blind faith”. It’s more of less useless, simply because no change is taking place in their lives. They are simply “members” of one church or another. It is part of the identity, their sense of self. Also, it creates a sense of “community”. Maybe some them get to sell insurance policies to other members. But on the whole, most people have very little realization.
As you have pointed out, horrible things have been done in the name of religion. And these horrible things are going on today, in various parts of the world. I saw one news clip in which Hegseth was telling the U.S. soldiers that fighting against the people of Iran was a Christian crusade. Similarly, the Isrealis are doing genocide against the Palesinians in the Gaza Strip, in the name of Zionism. In this way, politicians are taking advantage of people’s sentiments for accomplishing their political and economic goals. This has always been the case.
When people behave in this way, it is a symptom of their lack of realization. Because the symptom of one who really knows God, is that he can’t hurt even an ant, what to speak of another human being.
In the 1800’s the philosophers of the west came up with the philosophy of “impericism” which states that the truth, or reality of all that be, is to be ascertained through the utilization of our senses. In chemistry, for example, hydrogen and oxygen can be combined to make water. And this hypothesis can be tested in the laboratory. If we can make the experiment, according to recognized procedures, we can see that this theory is valid.
However, spiritual realization, or verification doesn’t work in that way. We can’t prove that God exists, simply because God cannot be proved through the presentation of empirical evidence.
In matters of religion, there is also an experiment, but the burden of proof is on the person who is looking into the matter. Those who have realization (which is very rare) have approached God in a heartfelt manner, that has invoked in God a desire to reveal Himself to the seeker. That’s what Jesus meant when he said, “Knock and the door shall be opened to you.” In other words, it’s all a question of our personal desire. No one is going to prove the exisitence of God to us. And no one can. Because it doesn’t work that way.
What God wants of us costs us nothing. All God wants is our love. There are so many rules, ethics, morals, etc. But all of that is more about being a human being, and preparing the heart to have the capacity to love. A self-centered person, and a person who is proccupied with material gain and loss…they are too busy …they can’t be loving, in the present moment. They are living the past (lamentation, anger, revenge), or living in the future (preoccupied with goals).
So the first prerequisite for one who wants to make the experiment, to know if God exists, is to have a loving heart. And if he/she can apply that same feeling of unconditional love towards God, such a person will experience a sense of reciprocation. This is the assertion. But if one wants proof, they have to make the test. And one who makes that test and has that experience… nothing can talk them out of it. While they are still growing in that way, like myself, they may be distracted sometimes, they may be forgetful…but they have a sense of home base, something to come back to, something that is always there, as if waiting for them. And it’s free. And it’s sweeter than anything one can gain or earn materially. That’s why the historical descriptions of what we call “the saints” describe such people as inconceivably detached from the so-called pleasures of the world. Because their sense of fulfillment in internal, spiritual.
There was a philosopher in Denmark called Kierkeguard (sp?). He wrote about what is known today as “a leap of faith”. This means that if we haven’t had a sense of loving reciprocation with God, but approach God with all of thier heart and soul, as if we have already had that experience…God will respond by revealing Himself to us, by degree. That is the experiement that every seeker has to make for himself. Otherwise, for such a person, “maybe it’s true; maybe it’s not; maybe this; maybe that…”, but never a living conclusion.
One point of consideration is that God has already made the first move. In every religion, there are messengers who come to us with experience of God in their heart. And because they are so joyful, so filled with conviction, so loving towards others, so happy regardless of apparent good or bad fortune…their very presence invokes faith in the hearts of others. But we can’t live on their faith alone. If w reeally want to know, we have to make the test, make the experiment on our own. Otherwise we cannot be counted as a true investigator into the mature of truth.
Bottom line is, “It’s not about arguments.” It’s very simple. “Seek and you shall find; knock and the door will be opened to you…”, You don’t have to be of great intellectual caliber. In one sense, we just have to be like innocent children…and have the capacity to open our heart. But no one can prove anything to you. Perhaps some of this will be helpful.
That’s the price. Only one who acts on that belief, will come to see. If we choose not to believe; God will not object…He’ll support you in that way. And if we choose to believe, God encourages us, blesses us with revelation. The ball is always in our court.
Definitions and assertions are not the same as evidence. I’m asking you to provide proof that can demonstrate God exists using the rules we’ve learned using our objective understanding of reality. That’s a reasonable way to establish what’s real; not assertions, examples, or events that can support theological claims using faith, speculation, and dubious evidence. You can make conclusions that satisfy your ideas enough to establish beliefs, but that doesn’t make your beliefs true.
For example, you cling to Aquinas’ proofs to support God’s existence. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s important to note that they were originally opined for monks who already believed in God, which already makes them a dubious way to assert God exists. There’s a massive conflict of interest there.
But even if, for the sake of conversation, they weren’t, I’ll go over them at length to provide lines of logic that reasonably deny the idea that they could be used as definitive evidence. Please bear with me.
While it’s true that the observation and logic of the first proof (the Argument from Motion) are sound (wood burns only when an influx of energy from an outside agent creates heat, water freezes when the temperature around it causes its molecules to slow, and a ball can’t roll itself), to state that a chain of movers for anything that exists cannot go back forever can’t be proven with certainty. It can be asserted, but not guaranteed. For example, in the case of our universe, while it’s true that our region of space time could be argued to have a source, that source doesn’t have to be God (it can be, but not must), and the greater cosmos itself could very well have always existed without a cause somehow. Modern quantum field theory has demonstrated that a vacuum is never completely static and fields of energy can fluctuate naturally without an outside mover. We don’t have enough evidence, either from science or any theological claim, to support the idea that a first mover is necessary at all, which makes this proof defunct as a model to guarantee the existence of God.
The observation of the second proof (the Argument from Efficient Cause) makes sense, i.e., a picture is drawn by a person. The logic also makes sense, i.e., I can’t be the cause of myself. That would require something that isn’t currently possible given our understanding of reality. However, it’s theoretically possible for a chain of causes to go back to infinity. In a negative number line, the causes go backwards into infinity, or at least into a version of time that we can’t understand. Therefore, there doesn’t have to be a first cause to the nature of existence. There can be, but we can’t reliably prove that there has to be. It’s unknown. This relates to the first proof in the sense that even if you were to grant (or even somehow discover) that the cosmos has a first mover, you would still have to demonstrate that it was God, and until that demonstration was met, it could be concluded via speculation to be anything.
The observation for the third proof (the Argument from Contingency) starts as strongly as the two before it. It’s true that there are things in nature that exist and also cannot exist. For example, I was brought into existence, but I will also die one day. The logic also makes sense. If everything in reality were contingent, then at some point, it’s possible for even the cosmos to have ceased to exist, which means it’s possible for there to have been absolutely nothing. However, the problem that Aquinas offers is not altogether true. We can’t prove that a state of absolute nothing actually occurred, and our science can demonstrate that it’s possible for things to come into existence without a cause, as I’ve pointed out when analyzing the prior proofs. To state that something that does not exist (such as a cosmos) can only begin to exist by something already existing is not a fact. Scientists have proven that atoms can emerge from a vacuum without a first mover, so we can only reasonably conclude that even if the cosmos ceased to exist altogether at some time in the past, it’s entirely possible that a new one, our cosmos, manifested without a cause. Being contingent depends on a thing being able to cease to exist, not how it came to be, so all things that we can observe and understand are in fact contingent, but something being contingent is in no way related to why anything at all must be necessary. Therefore, God isn’t necessary, which means this proof isn’t a reliable way to determine the existence of God either.
Like the others before it, the observation for the Argument from Degree starts strongly enough. In general, living beings do rank things as having more or less quality using moral and physical considerations. For example, I am generally considered a better person in society than a serial killer because I have not committed his crimes. A male bear (which I just learned is called a boar) might choose to mate with one specific female bear over another (which I also just learned are called sows) because he determines her coat to be healthier. The logic, however, falls short. Living beings don’t need maximum standards to make comparisons between things. We only need standards that conform to what we can observe and learn from our realities. For example, I can say that one diamond is more brilliant than another, but I don’t need to know what the maximum brilliance of a diamond is to do that. I simply made an observation with the evidence I was presented and came to a reasonable conclusion. Knowing an absolute metric was not necessary. Likewise, I don’t need to know what constitutes a morally perfect being in order to determine that it’s better to not force death upon living things that don’t want it. If a living being has demonstrated that it will do everything in its power to escape sources of pain and cling to life, than it’s not morally right for me to arbitrarily take their life away. Again, knowing an absolute metric isn’t necessary at all. This makes God entirely unnecessary, which makes this proof also an unreliable way to conclude the existence of God.
Lastly, the observation for the Argument from Design starts off shaky. Stating that all things that lack intelligence act for an end implies that they have some capacity for purpose, which isn’t true. If something lacks intelligence, it can be stated to have a purpose (humans can arbitrarily imbue purpose onto anything), but that purpose isn’t something it’s possible to consciously realize. And there are some natural bodies that don’t always act for an end or in the same way. For example, a comet has no predetermined end result, consequence, or destination and can also be diverted off its present course. As a result, since there are things that exist that do not have strict ends or act towards any, it’s not reasonable to conclude that they were designed, or designed to be guided at all. You could argue that it’s possible for an entity to have designed them to simply exist without an end, but, as I’ve argued while analyzing Aquinas’ prior proofs, that’s dependent on an omniscient and omnipotent entity existing at all, and that’s not reasonable to conclude if not a single proof can be used as an unequivocal reason to justify it.
Without getting into any religious discussion, which I’m more than willing to get into, I would suggest taking a look at the documentary
“The story of Everything.”
You will see that there is absolutely NO chance that we are here through any kind of evolution and that we must have a master planner that created all of this sphere that we call our universe.
You can find that on Amazon prime video. It cost a few bucks, but it as well worth it.
…wondering why You ignored My comment about The scientist Sstephen Meyer In his book Signature in the cell Outlining a definitive proof That a higher intelligence exists behind The cell of a human being He basically proved the existence of God through using the scientific method. I also had a unanswered follow-up question If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist Which you haven’t done so far Why do you believe he doesn’t. By proof I would like to stick to The scientific method.
Hello Earth, I’m still here but my wife is really having lots of problems and it is taking up all of my time now. I try and read everything but may not respond now. I’m still here, but need to get over this rough spot in the road. Follower of Saint Therese. Glynn
I’m sorry to hear about your wife. I’m in the middle of a move right now so I understand in the sense of being taken up by pressing matters. I don’t know what’s going on with her, and I won’t pry, but send me a message if you need someone to vent to for a few.
That’s ok. Take your time. I know your busy and I know you probably didn’t have a lot of time to talk, which is fine. Please try to remember to private message me if you can. The only reason why I say to private message me is because, I don’t like taking up space in forums, especially if we’re not answering the topic in the forum right? So please, please, please private message me. I appreciate you getting back with me Glynn and I’m so glad that you are open enough to what it is I have to reveal to you, but we need to be mindful that if we’re going to post in the forums that we should probably follow the topic of the forum. I know you’re in your 70’s, and sometimes you’ll make mistakes, we all do. But just try to remember to private message me ok? Cause if you private message me, I’ll still receive your message, you don’t have to post in the forums for me to receive your messages. If you private message me I’ll get an alert on this website.
I hope you don’t take what I say as me being rude. I would rather we talk in private than talk openly in the public. If you want to talk openly in the public we can, but that would mean we’d have to be careful about what it is we talk about. If you talk to me in a private message, we can talk more openly about stuff there.
Just something to keep in mind. Thanks Glynn, hope all is well with you and your wife.
I get the message and will try and conform with the forum. Tried to message you and thought it was going through as a message to you. I met Sisternightengale here on the forum who is working to become a nun. She lives in London, and she now has half of London praying for us. I will have a Pet Scan on the 14th of August, doctor suspects I may have lung cancer from my work at Kaiser Al. Lots of asbestos there and guess respirators was not enough. I need Saint Therese and could use some prayers. Glynn.
Why are there Wildebeests and Lions? There is a balance in nature, but no fulfilment. Who knows that - Humans do. Of all Creation the only creature that can be fulfilled is a Human being. Once we begin to scratch the surface we find there is no end to the project, except when we reach nothing. However it is very much easier for us to realize the if we look into the future there is also nothing. There is no fulfilment in the entire universe, except through Humanity. So why does all this exist? Creation and Love is synonymous and there are only two beings that have such power Man and God or to put it precisely God and Man - for God is Love and love creates. Jesus told us to “See” and to"listen." Help yourself to as much of nature as you want, for it is a gift of love - for You.
This is something I notice whenever I watch internet debates on this topic. Both sides present their arguments, but neither is able to actually definitively “prove” their end and convince the other. The Christian will usually end up saying something like “I love God, He helped me out so much (my life was a wreck). I’m glad that He’s real,” while the atheist says something like “I hate God, I tried praying and He didn’t answer me. I would hate it if He were real.”
If someone is intent on believing in God, no atrocities committed by the faithful are going to change his mind. If someone is intent on rejecting God, no convoluted philosophical argumentation is going to bring him about.
@actualevidence, to answer your question, although I cannot prove that God exists in the same way I can prove 1+1=2, I choose to believe because I find the arguments for God’s existence significantly more convincing. Saying that someone shouldn’t believe because he can’t know for sure is like saying someone shouldn’t leave his house because he doesn’t know for sure he won’t get hit by a car.
So try to reverse this statement a bit - if someone wanted to believe in God, is there any irrefutable evidence that makes belief impossible? There isn’t. Therefore, if someone does not believe in God, it is because he does not want to believe. And so yes, that is wrong.
There is a passage written by Msgr. Guardini that stuck with me, here’s the paraphrase: "There are so many wonderful benefits you’ll get from praying every day and truly living out your faith! Now, an atheist might critique us and say - ‘that’s all auto-suggestion; it’s just the placebo effect.’ To them, all we can say is - ‘give it a try and see for yourself.’"
I joke. I do have feelings, but my Faith is not based on feelings. I believe feeling often lead individuals astray.