How Do I Know If There's A God?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Perhaps a higher purpose or state of being, perhaps GOD.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

This just popped into my mind. " GOD is proven by the grace of virtue."

[Lilllabettt]

I am always so convicted. I am a man of science. I am used to using my senses to discover things. God is beyond senses and it's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that something could exist and be completely inaccessible to the senses and mind that I use on a daily basis.

 

 

Yeah. Get that. It has fed my doubt in the past, the idea that God can't be real if it He can't be accessed by the senses. I am strongly, strongly opposed to assertions that reality is merely a by-product of perception. I believe there is a "truth" out there independent of perception, and our senses and intellect can reliably access that reality. 

 

But I have to admit that although reality isn't determined by perception, our grasp of it is mediated by perspective. Standing on the earth, the senses tell us our planet is flat. Once we get up into space and look down, our senses tell us the planet is round. The 2nd one is the truth. But a different, higher perspective is necessary to grasp it with our senses.

 

At one point I realized that if there was a God, he would be on another level. Maybe, in Christianity, He stooped down to us, that one time. But in general - another level. We don't have the perspective necessary to "see" God, no matter how amesome our senses or instruments get.  Basically, we're like bats. Bats have a complex sonar system that enables them to execute incredible maneuvers in pitch dark places. A bat would probably not think of itself as being blind. Probably it could pass its whole life never realizing it is blind. But it is blind. 

 

So basically after that I couldn't use the lack of sensible "evidence" as a reason not to believe in the existence of God. Because whether he was there or not, I knew my senses lacked the capacity to "pick up" his existence. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Fidei Defensor]

Yeah. Get that. It has fed my doubt in the past, the idea that God can't be real if it He can't be accessed by the senses. I am strongly, strongly opposed to assertions that reality is merely a by-product of perception. I believe there is a "truth" out there independent of perception, and our senses and intellect can reliably access that reality. 

 

But I have to admit that although reality isn't determined by perception, our grasp of it is mediated by perspective. Standing on the earth, the senses tell us our planet is flat. Once we get up into space and look down, our senses tell us the planet is round. The 2nd one is the truth. But a different, higher perspective is necessary to grasp it with our senses.

 

At one point I realized that if there was a God, he would be on another level. Maybe, in Christianity, He stooped down to us, that one time. But in general - another level. We don't have the perspective necessary to "see" God, no matter how amesome our senses or instruments get.  Basically, we're like bats. Bats have a complex sonar system that enables them to execute incredible maneuvers in pitch dark places. A bat would probably not think of itself as being blind. Probably it could pass its whole life never realizing it is blind. But it is blind. 

 

So basically after that I couldn't use the lack of sensible "evidence" as a reason not to believe in the existence of God. Because whether he was there or not, I knew my senses lacked the capacity to "pick up" his existence. 

I can accept that God is outside of the universe, outside of time. It's just really hard, you know? Being so ingrained that logic and reason are my tools of discovery, trying to reconcile that with a God who theoretically intervenes in the world.

[mortify ii]

Because of mental prayer, if you wait and listen, God talks back

[mortify ii]

I can accept that God is outside of the universe, outside of time. It's just really hard, you know? Being so ingrained that logic and reason are my tools of discovery, trying to reconcile that with a God who theoretically intervenes in the world.

 

Who told you God is outside of the universe? You have unwittingly adopted one of the chief errors of Descartes and Newton, who both proposed a purely transcendent God, but that is not what our holy religion teaches. As St Thomas explains, "Since God is the universal cause of all being, in whatever region being can be found there must be the divine presence." (Summa Contra Gentiles.) We are utterly immersed in the divine presence! The creation of this world was not merely a singular event in our primordial past, rather this very moment and all it contains is continually upheld and caused by God. Indeed, if God were to "step away" as the watchmaker the rationalists proposed, the universe would enter into immediate non existence. The watchmaker vs watch is a phony idea contrary to the mystery that God has revealed to us, we are stuck between the two poles of transcendence and immanence. If you want to possess faith first be enlightened by sound doctrine, otherwise you will be like those modernists who first proposed a transcendent god and then found that god unnecessary in their supposed self sufficient universe. The universe is not self sufficient, it is dependent intrinsically on God. 

 

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_68.htm

[maximillion]

What an interesting thread!

 

I am out of props otherwise I would prop lots of you.

 

TBH I have no idea if there is (a) God.

 

I believe there is a God, I believe in what is stated in the Creed. But that is a matter of faith, it is not a matter of knowing.

 

We are more used to using logos in our everyday lives, and get confused when aspects of mythos are involved. These are two different ways we can know things, by logic and by intimation - or faith. There is a notion that these two ways of knowing are separated, and are often presented to us as being in conflict with each other. In fact they are not.

Some people are Catholic by conviction and would say so openly. For them God is a logical conclusion.

Others, a bit like me don't have such conviction, or not so strongly. We base things much more on faith. In fact both ways are pretty much inseparable when people start talking about God, they often change from one set of arguments to another and mix them up together.

 

If you want proof that God exists then I think you might be on to a sticky wicket.

Various philosophers have attempted to prove God's existence.

So far, for me personally, those proofs remain contentious. But then, I seem not to need them.

[reyb]

No one can prove the existence of God except Jesus Christ himself because, He is the reason of God. Other than that, the idea about God and his everything are just plain and simple belief rather than proof.

 

Seek him and when you find him then you will realize faith is not the reason why we believe in God. It is the other way around. Christ is the reason why we are very sure of what we believe.

 

I need to remind you again that I am not referring to Catholic’s (and non-Catholic Christian) version of Jesus Christ because, there is no historical Jesus at all. And if you think you do not need to see the real Jesus Christ to have ‘genuine peace with God’ then, I want you to think James 2:19.

 

How do I know that there is God?  I am a witness of Jesus Christ thus, I am very sure that there is God.

Edited March 21, 2014 by reyb

[Guest]

Rey B you are the Joseph Smith of our time...But even greater !

[reyb]

Rey B you are the Joseph Smith of our time...But even greater !

I am fully aware of my ‘self-serving’ confession and its implication, and since you likened me to Joseph Smith and not to Apostle Paul, it is a clear sign that you are trying to demean my testimony. 

 

I want you to know that Joseph Smith was (also) referring to your historical Jesus, and I previously confessed that Joseph Smith is not a true prophet of God. How do I know that he was a false prophet? Because he is referring to your historical Jesus Christ that never existed in this world.  

 

Let me clarify my statement. Since God is not a promoter of confusion, it is only logical to induce the impossibility of anyone, if he is still under the power of the lying Spirit, to preach about the genuine Jesus Christ. Thus, they are called ‘false teachers’ because they are preaching a different Jesus than that of true teachers, and these two Jesuses are not one and the same because, while the Spirit of Christ is pointing to the real Jesus, the Spirit of this world is teaching another since the real One is still hidden from him.

 

This is different from the traditional way of presenting false and genuine teachers since both of them are obviously preaching the same Jesus Christ. But, one is false and the other is genuine, and their differences are not in Spirit as I presented above, but (differences) on faith, belief, teachings, dogma, ritual, doctrine....etc..etc.  

 

So, how come false teachers has the ‘knowledge’ of telling who this genuine Jesus Christ if only the Spirit of Christ or Holy Spirit can reveal Him? Are you saying false teachers (too) are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If that is the case. How come they become false?  

 

Is True God a God of confusion? Or can anyone show it to us, or I may say, to me in words of Apostle Paul how these things become possible?

 

Seek the real Jesus Christ.

 

Let me go back a little to Joseph Smith. Testimonies are written by true witnesses but who wrote the book of Mormon?

Edited March 23, 2014 by reyb

[southern california guy]

I am fully aware of my ‘self-serving’ confession and its implication, and since you likened me to Joseph Smith and not to Apostle Paul, it is a clear sign that you are trying to demean my testimony. 

 

I want you to know that Joseph Smith was (also) referring to your historical Jesus, and I previously confessed that Joseph Smith is not a true prophet of God. How do I know that he was a false prophet? Because he is referring to your historical Jesus Christ that never existed in this world.  

 

Let me clarify my statement. Since God is not a promoter of confusion, it is only logical to induce the impossibility of anyone, if he is still under the power of the lying Spirit, to preach about the genuine Jesus Christ. Thus, they are called ‘false teachers’ because they are preaching a different Jesus than that of true teachers, and these two Jesuses are not one and the same because, while the Spirit of Christ is pointing to the real Jesus, the Spirit of this world is teaching another since the real One is still hidden from him.

 

This is different from the traditional way of presenting false and genuine teachers since both of them are obviously preaching the same Jesus Christ. But, one is false and the other is genuine, and their differences are not in Spirit as I presented above, but (differences) on faith, belief, teachings, dogma, ritual, doctrine....etc..etc.  

 

So, how come false teachers has the ‘knowledge’ of telling who this genuine Jesus Christ if only the Spirit of Christ or Holy Spirit can reveal Him? Are you saying false teachers (too) are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If that is the case. How come they become false?  

 

Is True God a God of confusion? Or can anyone show it to us, or I may say, to me in words of Apostle Paul how these things become possible?

 

Seek the real Jesus Christ.

 

Let me go back a little to Joseph Smith. Testimonies are written by true witnesses but who wrote the book of Mormon?

 

I believe it was Solomon Spalding who wrote the book ("Manuscript, Found") that Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery reworked into the "Book of Mormon". Solomon Spalding Wikipedia

 

But I am confused by what your are saying.  You are saying that Jesus Christ never really existed?  At least not as a real person?  I've heard the arguments that there are elements of Egyptian mythology in the new testament.  In some ways the story of Jesus -- the death and resurrection -- is similar to the stories of Osiris and his son Horus.   And the stories about the life of Jesus -- and his teaching -- are similar to the Roman god Mithras.  Of course little is known about Mithras other than the early Christians alleged that the story of the Roman god Mithras was a ripoff of Christianity.

[Ice_nine]

But I am confused by what your are saying. 

 You're not the only one.

 

There are certain posters who I have resigned from trying to understand.

[reyb]

I believe it was Solomon Spalding who wrote the book ("Manuscript, Found") that Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery reworked into the "Book of Mormon". Solomon Spalding Wikipedia

 

But I am confused by what your are saying.  You are saying that Jesus Christ never really existed?  At least not as a real person?  I've heard the arguments that there are elements of Egyptian mythology in the new testament.  In some ways the story of Jesus -- the death and resurrection -- is similar to the stories of Osiris and his son Horus.   And the stories about the life of Jesus -- and his teaching -- are similar to the Roman god Mithras.  Of course little is known about Mithras other than the early Christians alleged that the story of the Roman god Mithras was a ripoff of Christianity.

 

 

 You're not the only one.

 

There are certain posters who I have resigned from trying to understand.

Okay. Let me try to clarify it.

 

First, I know you accepted the ‘historical’ existence of Jesus Christ, and believed in its truthfulness because you are a believer of God and of the Holy Bible as genuine testimonies of true witnesses like Apostle Paul.

 

This is how, Ignatius and other early Christians presented them to us, to you and me, and to the entire humanity for more than 2000 years now, and many are still doing it even without proper inquiry, just like what I did before. But you must remember, Ignatius’ suppose-to-be-proof of Jesus’ ‘bodily’ existence was not founded on facts or evidences or reality but by faith too since he himself did not claimed seeing 'his Jesus' personally.

 

To make it short, Ignatius’ offering to you is his ‘belief’ that Apostle Paul and other God’s true witnesses are referring to this historical Jesus as the true Christ of God. So, what is wrong with that? It is definitely wrong because, Ignatius’ Jesus Christ cannot be true and genuine since ‘God alone can reveal his Son’. Do you really think, it is possible for a man, who is not even a true witness of Christ, can present or 'reveal' to you the real One? Can you show me how?

 

Again, What I am saying is this. No one has the power to reveal to anyone the Only Christ of God because He is the mystery of God and therefore, only God can reveal his Christ. 

 

Now, who is the real One if this historical Jesus is a hoax? That is for you to find out because I myself cannot do it for you. 

Edited March 24, 2014 by reyb

[Guest]

why you over there lookin at me while my girl standing here...

Edited March 24, 2014 by Guest

[Era Might]

Look at God (any God) and he will always reflect the people who created him. Even with, for example, the Hebrew God, he emerged out of a familiar pattern of religious purification from ritual, etc. (the so-called "axial age") and an emphasis on religion of the heart, etc. I think "God" is more or less just our way of navigating human questions. A man finds a "vocation" as a priest, for example, and that becomes his way of being in the world. Was he really called by a "God"? I don't think so, but there is something in his personality that makes him suited to stand in as a representative, to serve, etc. Other people relate to their god in other ways (as a benevolent father, as a bountiful provider, as an understanding friend). One of the things that makes Catholicism so flexible is that it lets people adapt themselves to their conception of the Catholic God, within limits...hence the historical syncretism of Latin American Catholicism, the Americanism of American Catholics, etc.

 

I think, if there is a God, the idea that he is completely transcendent is the only possibility, but in that case, it kind of makes life a big joke...we have all this life to live, hopping from one idea to another, grasping at straws, waiting for a final judgment. One of the beautiful things about the story of Christ is that he doesn't stand transcendent, but makes God very real, though Christianity also has other difficulties (Christ made God real in terms of serving others, but also pointed Christians radically away from earthly concerns, which was a problem for society and slowed down a lot of the progress that pagans had made intellectually, until society eventually just threw off Christianity and created modernity).