Split from Open Mic- Struggling With The Catholic Faith

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312925489' post='2285057']
AMDG - your response, while appreciated, is a little off the point. I am trying to understand stevil's point of view regarding faith.
[/quote]

Ah perhaps I should have responded instead to one of his several comments about how there can be no proof of, is no proof for, or way of knowing that a God exists.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312834398' post='2283436']

If I understand you correctly, faith must be tested in order to be earned. How would you test it? How could some hypothetical god "earn" your faith? This has nothing to do with emotion or religious affiliation.
[/quote]
I don't know the answer to this one.

With regards to alien life forms, I am pretty darn sure that they are out there somewhere, given how vast our universe is and the possibility that there are many, many more universes throughout space. But I don't have faith in alien life forms, I just feel that it is likely they exist, I don't know for sure, I certainly wouldn't live my life according to a book telling me that these aliens exist and how they would like me to live my life.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312848045' post='2283574']
The only way that "faith" (which may have been used equivocally up to this point) can be "earned" by a God (if such a thing could be said) would be to examine the material world and see if there is an influence from Him... [/quote]
What you have described here is a god of the gaps.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312973940' post='2285457']
What you have described here is a god of the gaps.
[/quote]

I highly disagree. What I have done above is philosophy. A God of the gaps would be what Polkinghorn and others use in their writings in which they simply impute God's action into unexplainable parts of quantum physics in which we can describe but not explain events or given the sufficient conditions that caused an event. I explain how one must understand reality in order to make sense both of substances and of change and that involves a notion of some kind of being above the material plane that can influence matter. I did not say that God is simply the guarantor or bridge in unnexplainable parts of a scientific theory and His divine will is manifest in these parts of the world: i.e. the definition of a God of the gaps.

Instead I provided a framework in which one can makes sense of change and substances; I shall explain further and go more in depth with my summary. For something to change something must remain the same, i.e. there must be continuity, if one says this thing changed, that is primary matter. There must be something that changes, the form or substance of thing: that which makes it what it is. Primary matter is not to be understood as matter as we normally think of it in science. Matter technically does not exist. It exists in the same way an inch exists. One only has an inch "of something." In the same way, one only find matter of a kind. The matter we find is always a substance, a kind of something: "x" grams of lead, "x" moles of hydrogen or "x" moles of electrons, etc. Matter is real, but it does not seem to be the only thing that makes a substance and so I use the term primary matter above to distinguish from the popular understanding of matter. These two principles, without which nothing can really be (as explained in a previous post) are the way one must look at the world to understand reality. Thus a question is raised. If matter is indeed eternal and need not be generated some Creator, as most atheists are wont to say, what then is one to do with this "formal" aspect of reality that makes and individuating principle a thing? How is one to say that this principle is introduced into the matter? Surely a non-material principle cannot be the result of a material reaction in that something cannot be created that is not first at least some way in the initial conditions? One must account for this formal principle in the natural world that allows for change. One would be forced to respond that such things are principles and not proper "things" in and of themselves. Rather one only gets a "thing" in the proper sense when these principles are united. Such a thing is called an essence or the "way in which something is." In that when we know something we know both its materiality and formal principles as the way it is or the way it exists.

However, this essence is not complete in itself. One grasps many essences: that of a unicorn, or batman, or President Obama. However, just because one grasps an essence does not mean it exists. A material principle and formal principle are understood to be part of all three of the essences that I listed above, but clearly existence is not part of an essence in that only one of the three has existence. As such, existence can be seen to be not part of an essence but rather actual beings are made up of essences and [i]esse [/i](or existence or what is often called "the act of existence). (I can go more into why existence is not part of an essence if you'd like). The act of existence must be combined with a limiting "way of existing" that makes something what it is. In other words, for a finite substance to actually exist, it must have both an essence and existence: existence and a particular way of existing that makes a thing what it is. One the must ask questions concerning [i]esse[/i] or existence that make finite material substances truly exist (that is assuming one wants to admit that substances are real)?

What is it that provides existence since existence is a part of reality but not a necessary to part of materiality is? Such a thing would have to be existence in some way to give it in that one can only give what one is. So what is a thing that IS EXISTENCE? Such a thing that IS existence is the very definition we have of God. This is not a God of the gaps where I say that He is that guarantor that things don't just pop in and out of reality randomly. Instead what I have laid out is how reality reveals its dependence on what we commonly understand God to be, complete actuality and complete existence. I hope I have made my distinction clear. If not I will try to answer any questions.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312973835' post='2285456']
I don't know the answer to this one.

With regards to alien life forms, I am pretty darn sure that they are out there somewhere, given how vast our universe is and the possibility that there are many, many more universes throughout space. But I don't have faith in alien life forms, I just feel that it is likely they exist, I don't know for sure, I certainly wouldn't live my life according to a book telling me that these aliens exist and how they would like me to live my life.
[/quote]

Do you think that faith in a god and believing in alien life forms are similar concepts? 

Based on your earlier statements, I would have guessed that you draw distinctions between the two.


Please correct me if any part of this summary is inaccurate.


When I said that my faith is a gift from God, you replied that you don't believe faith can be gifted. You seem to be open to the idea that a god could exist, but claim that atheism is your default position. On the subject of faith, you said that a person earns yours slowly over time by fulfilling responsibilities.
So, in order for a person to earn your faith, you have to first give them something - a task or responsibility.

Is that correct?

If so, is that also how you would come to have faith in a god?

[Deb]

Wow. A whole lot of words for what should be simple concepts. First: If a person believes in God and wishes to live their life following the teachings of Jesus Christ, he is not going to turn that off when he leaves his house in the morning or comes out of his church any more than he would be married and then leave his wedding ring at home and pretend to be single. A person with faith to the core of their being cannot be separated from that. Every thought, every decision ,every action should be in communion with their beliefs. If that person wishes to be a member of the Catholic Church, which is totally voluntary, they need to live in the manner of the teachings of the church, in their work, their marriage, their singlehood, their voting. If they cannot do that do that, they should go somewhere else and call themselves something else. Every Catholic has the duty to know the doctrines of their faith, the gospel and need to bring them to the world.
Second: abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty are all issues that result in the murder of human beings. If one believes in the dignity of human beings, that all are created equal and that murder is wrong, then all should be in agreement. Putting down your grandma because YOU can't handle watching her suffering, isn't doing anything other than taking pain out of your sight. Pain and suffering have great value. They temper us and purify us. When you kill the aged or handicapped, you have removed a source of light for others. It is when we serve those who are ill and dying with love and compassion, that we grow inside into better human beings. If we can't suffer their pain, we deprive them of their gift of shaping us and our gift of giving them love, for the last time in their life. Overdosing a member of your family is not acceptable. It is not Human. It is not Natural. Just as gay marriage is not natural, nor are homosexual acts. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whose parts were meant to go where and why. As for abortion, it is outright murder. Can't soft sell murder. You can call it a fetus, but it is a baby. You can say it is a womans choice but that gift of life is not hers, she is only carrying it. We cannot own others, in or out of the womb. It is not a natural thing for a mother to kill her own child. It is a sick and warped lie that has been forced upon these last two generations to make them think it was just another choice. It is damaging. The mothers soul knows she has murdered her baby. She can force it down, she can drink it or drug all she wants, she will never, ever erase knowing she murdered her child. She will be damned unless she can find a way to repent, heal, do penace, receive absolution.
When a person dies and stands before the Lord. THere isn't going to be any wooing period from the Lord. Your heart will be open and every sin of your life will be before you and it is you who will be judged, not God. Your choice will be made, either beiieve, accept and worship, or burn. The magnitude alone of what your soul will have to experience standing before the most Holy God, in your slime and sin and ego and disbeleif would kill you right then if you weren't already dead. God will know if you are repentent. He knows everything about you now.

The really, really cool thing is that God loves each one of us so very much, with unconditional love, that he keeps calling us, non stop, every moment of our lives. We make the choice to hear him or shut him out. Faith is a gift, but one that is available for every human being. No one will ever be converted intellectually and if they are, it will never last. It must be of the heart and the soul and the surrender. That is why so many who are evil keep going along, spreading their hate, seem to lead these great lives. God is giving them time. That is why we dont' kill people for their crimes, so that they have time to find God before they die. We must look at every human being as a child of God and want them to know God and Love God and be with God.

I have tasted heaven and I have tasted hell. I wouldn't wish hell on the worst human in all of history. I can tell you that God is real. If you knew me all my life I would have to say it is totally obvious that he showed himself to me. THen again, maybe not. For those who know, no evidence is needed, for those who do not believe, no evidence is ever enough. I have seen Jesus Christ. I have seen The Blessed Mary. I have seen Saints. I have seen hundreds of souls crying in purgatory, one at a time. I have heard the voice of God, I have felt his touch, I have been united with his soul. I don't just believe in God. I know it. When God reveals himself to a person, a veil is lifted. The illusion that is this world is so crisp and clear and sad and the reality is God. He is the only true reality. Once he gifts you with faith and places his Spirit within you, there is no question of what is right and what is wrong. It is known instantly because you are now seeing as God sees. I cry all the time for having to see what God sees. I pray all day long for this world and all the souls who are lost and who are working for the enemy (yes, him too, I have seen) I pray that just once, every person on earth, will feel the touch of Jesus within their heart, feel his hands upon theirs, his kiss upon their soul. Peace would reign instantly if all men experienced the love that only Jesus Christ can bring. He is my lover. My life. My God. My King. May he bring his gifts to you. In Jesus name I pray.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1313026492' post='2285593']
Do you think that faith in a god and believing in alien life forms are similar concepts? 

Based on your earlier statements, I would have guessed that you draw distinctions between the two.

[/quote]

At least aliens could possibly adhere to the way we know the universe works. They could be made of matter, and could be carbon based and require water, and heat. They could be in someways similar to life on our planet, which is one of billions of billions in our universe.

The Christian god on the other hand is posited to be not made of matter or energy, I am confused as to whether this god is supposed to be made of something else or nothing at all. I guess it can't be made out of matter or energy as there is a claim that the Christian god created all the matter and energy in our universe. I very much struggle with this requirement. Why would the god have to have the burdon of creating the matter and energy of this universe? Without such extreme claims it would make it more likely that a god potentially could exist, although I am certainly unclear as to what the definition of a god is. If it is not made of energy or matter then how can we know of it when we have never detected or measured anything that is not made of either matter or energy.

But, getting back to faith. This is a simple word, but without context it can mean different things. Are we saying have faith the a god exists? or that the Christian god exists? or that the god is good, or that the god is accurately represented by the bible, or that the god can be relied upon to perform tasks when delegated, or that the god's morals as depicted in the bible and interpreted by a particular church are worth becoming an embodiment of with regards to living a satisfying life?

How do we decide the difference between blind faith and making well informed decisions?


[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1313026492' post='2285593']
Please correct me if any part of this summary is inaccurate.


When I said that my faith is a gift from God, you replied that you don't believe faith can be gifted. You seem to be open to the idea that a god could exist, but claim that atheism is your default position. On the subject of faith, you said that a person earns yours slowly over time by fulfilling responsibilities.
So, in order for a person to earn your faith, you have to first give them something - a task or responsibility.

Is that correct?

If so, is that also how you would come to have faith in a god?
[/quote]
A god could exist, but I am not clear on what the definition of god is, what it is made of, how it came to be, how it came to have knowledge before anything existed, why it would want or need to create existence given it is already perfect and complete and has no requirements. How humans can know that this god actually exists given it is undetectible and is non interactive. How can humans know anything about such a god? Can this knowledge be verified?

[stevil]

[quote name='Deb' timestamp='1313033682' post='2285738']
First: If a person believes in God and wishes to live their life following the teachings of Jesus Christ, he is not going to turn that off when he leaves his house in the morning or comes out of his church any more than he would be married and then leave his wedding ring at home and pretend to be single. A person with faith to the core of their being cannot be separated from that. Every thought, every decision ,every action should be in communion with their beliefs. [/quote]
I agree with this, but this is about how an individual chooses to live their own life. Why do they then feel the need to legislate this onto everyone else?
Let people make their own choices and let your god judge them as is your god's burdon come judgement day.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1313023791' post='2285546']

I highly disagree. ..[/quote]
I'm sorry Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, I know you put a lot of effort into typing this up, but i feel our level of understanding is poles apart from each other. I can't even begin to start asking questions with regards to what you said.
i still feel it is god of the gaps because it is asking questions about what we don't know rather than highlighting what we do. Scientists, Cosmologists and Mathemeticians have done a great job working out what they have, but the universe is still filled of much mystery. Most of the mass and energy in the universe is simply defined as dark matter or dark energy because they have a long way to go with regards to understanding it. If we are to come to conclusions based on the assumption that we know everything material and yet things happen that we can't explain thus there must be a non material explaination then you are giving scientists too much credit, they have barely touched the surface of the material existence within our own universe.

[Papist]

The more the Scientists, Cosmologists, Mathematicians, etc. dig the more the realize the more they don't know.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1313058713' post='2285851']
But, getting back to faith. This is a simple word, but without context it can mean different things. Are we saying have faith the a god exists? or that the Christian god exists? or that the god is good, or that the god is accurately represented by the bible, or that the god can be relied upon to perform tasks when delegated, or that the god's morals as depicted in the bible and interpreted by a particular church are worth becoming an embodiment of with regards to living a satisfying life?
How do we decide the difference between blind faith and making well informed decisions?


A god could exist, but I am not clear on what the definition of god is, what it is made of, how it came to be, how it came to have knowledge before anything existed, why it would want or need to create existence given it is already perfect and complete and has no requirements. How humans can know that this god actually exists given it is undetectible and is non interactive. How can humans know anything about such a god? Can this knowledge be verified?[/quote]

My question for you about faith is whether a god exists. You seem to be focusing on objective (quantitative) measurements. What about subjective (qualitative) measurements? Do you need to completely understand everything about god before you believe?

I agree that an undetectable and non-interactive god would be impossible to verify. What if this god is interactive? A very simple and inadequate analogy would be the wind. You can't see it, you can only see or feel its effects.


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1313068833' post='2285869']The more the Scientists, Cosmologists, Mathematicians, etc. dig the more the realize the more they don't know.[/quote]

Word. And half of the stuff that we think we understand will be proved wrong in twenty years.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1313059402' post='2285853']
I'm sorry Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, I know you put a lot of effort into typing this up, but i feel our level of understanding is poles apart from each other. I can't even begin to start asking questions with regards to what you said.
i still feel it is god of the gaps because it is asking questions about what we don't know rather than highlighting what we do. Scientists, Cosmologists and Mathemeticians have done a great job working out what they have, but the universe is still filled of much mystery. Most of the mass and energy in the universe is simply defined as dark matter or dark energy because they have a long way to go with regards to understanding it. If we are to come to conclusions based on the assumption that we know everything material and yet things happen that we can't explain thus there must be a non material explaination then you are giving scientists too much credit, they have barely touched the surface of the material existence within our own universe.
[/quote]

I apologize for being so wordy and not speaking so clearly. I guess we will necessarily disagree because I hold that there is true knowledge in philosophy and not just in the science while you seem to be more wary of such a position. You say that you feel I speak of a God of the gaps because I ask of what we do not know. This was not my method at all. Rather, I take a very scientific method of philosophical inquiry I proceed from effects and what they reveal about their causes. The same method is done for theories in evolutionary biology and quantum mechanics. Once one has a theory of the causes then one can test it against the natural world. I do the same, investigate materiality and see that "that which makes something what it is" does not necessarily include existence. In other words, the existence of a thing does not seem to come from matter but rather both are needed for something to be real. One must investigate where "being-as-such" comes from. It needs a cause that IS BEING without limitation that can give being. (This line of study is no different than seeing a statue and deducing that someone gave the marble form and structure or seeing another human being and deducing that two parents gave the current human their materiality and form). This line of reasoning need not know everything material to make it's claim and does not say that "we know everything materialand so we can conclude that what we don't know is clearly God," which would clearly be a God of the gaps as you assert; rather, it is the claim that there is a logical and real distinction between existence and essence--that which makes us what we are i.e. matter and form--but that both are needed to have real substances.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1313068833' post='2285869']
The more the Scientists, Cosmologists, Mathematicians, etc. dig the more the realize the more they don't know.
[/quote]


This is true, and they know it, and are hardly despairing at the thought.

Better to dig, than assume that you dont need to.

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1313068833' post='2285869']
The more the Scientists, Cosmologists, Mathematicians, etc. dig the more the realize the more they don't know.
[/quote]
Yes, this is want happens often when humans come up with theories and then objectively test them. We often find we were wrong and need to modify or throw away the theory. It would really be quite incredible to think of the possibilities that we would come to if we didn't bother to test. You could easliy spend a couple of thousand of years going off on completely the wrong tangent.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1313086979' post='2285999']
Once one has a theory of the causes then one can test it against the natural world. [/quote]
But the problem is that you can only test the material stuff. You can't test the immaterial although I think you feel you derive immaterial nature via the gaps you find in your understanding of the material. So your derived conclusions could quite easily be because you don't fully understand the nature of the material, it is extremely complex stuff.

Take for example the Kalim's Cosmological Argument, full of assumptions and a complete lack of understanding with regards to how matter and energy come to be and how they come to form an expanding universe. Somewhat similar to the original Cosmological Argument that you alluded to with your philisophical post about a prime mover.

I am actually interested in how philisophically speaking you could derive that an all powerfull, all knowing, perfect, complete god could come to the conclusion that it desired or required creation of existence?
If one has desire then one is incomplete, less that perfect. If one is requried then one isn't all powerfull. Given that this god knows everything already then what is to be learnt by carrying out such an activity. It could easily be compared to a human watching the same movie over and over again for the rest of its long life. There would be no surprises, no revelations, no interesting bits, nothing to learn, no satisfaction, no humor, it would just be, well, pointless....

Somewhat like reading my posts LOL