"Does God exist?" Only someone, already in God, can know!

[Dave Ellis]

Also, with all the amazing discoveries about the universe, I am surprised that more scientists don't beieve in God.

They'd believe in God if there was evidence that tied their discoveries to a God... that evidence does not exist however.

I don't have a problem with your being an atheist, but I do take issue with your apparent belief that your particular mindset--your way of approaching the mystery of existence--is THE valid one, and therefore the religious approach is "meaningless."

Do you consider any mindset that you believe to be build on superstition and falsehoods to be valid? Of course not.

BTW, That "deepity" was primarily my paraphrase of some of the thought of Karl Rahner, who was the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century.

And he was still wrong.

 

[steve_bakr]

They'd believe in God if there was evidence that tied their discoveries to a God... that evidence does not exist however.

Do you consider any mindset that you believe to be build on superstition and falsehoods to be valid? Of course not.

And he was still wrong.

I realize that you feel obliged to disbelieve what I say, but I think Rahner is right. Our conscious awareness in our daily life is that of relatedness to, and experience of, God. Amen

BTW, my wife wants to get out of the house, so I will check back later.

 

[Davian]

Noo, I was responding to the new information you gave me about the letter. I didn't know about it when I made the claim. Jeez.

OK, I concede that "0" doesn't exist yet. I would settle for the value of--wait a minute, it would have to be "God." The original point, though, that I was trying to make was that our consciousness is, indeed, miraculous.

Rahner would say that it is in our conscious awareness of daily life that we experience God, whether we realize that or not.

Rahner would maintain that your every experience is a relatedness to God, even if you are an atheist.

Can you cite someone whose paycheque was not based on saying stuff like that?

 

[steve_bakr]

Can you cite someone whose paycheque was not based on saying stuff like that?

If Karl Rahner's work was about money, he wouldn't have chosen theology. Real theology doesn't sell well. Also, he wouldn't have written in a manner that got himself censored in the fifties. Your response is not appropriately made.

 

[madaz]

and atheists, in a sense, are believers without knowing they believe.

Riiiiight, so using the logic above, it would stand to reason that theists, in a sense, are non-believers without knowing they are non believers.

 

[steve_bakr]

Riiiiight, so using the logic above, it would stand to reason that theists, in a sense, are non-believers without knowing they are non believers.

No, it doesn't work that way because, according to Rahner, there is a certain dynamism in each of us that moves in the direction of the Infinite, not away from it.

Our entire being is also related to God by our very existence such that our conscious experience is actually an experience of God, whether we realize it or not. Our experience tends towards the Infinite, but it is also rooted in the categorical experience of our daily lives.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You may think I'm "mistaken" because you are not aware that you are experiencing God. Or, you could just say you have a different point of view.

Or we may think you're mistaken because you're actually mistaken.

At any rate, Rahner asserts that we have a relatedness to God whether we are conscious of it or not. That is why our everyday experience is of God, and atheists, in a sense, are believers without knowing they believe.

And what is the evidence behind his assertion? And how can you believe something without knowing it? The concept seems absurd

 

[Dave Ellis]

The time before the universe existed was also before math, so the formulas don't exist yet. The probability is set to "0" until a probability can actually exist. Science doesn't exist yet, either. You can't measure the measureless.

Actually, we don't know what existed before the big bang, or even if the concept of "before" the big bang makes any sense at all.

It appears that Einstein was a man of paradox, so to speak. He also said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," that he believed in a God, but not a personal God, and that he regretted not reading more about mystical--ie., religious--experience.

Einstein did not believe in a God... he was quite adamant about that, and clarified in his own words that his "god doesn't play dice" line was metaphor. He also never expressed any regret he wasn't "mystical", whatever that means.

 

[steve_bakr]

Or we may think you're mistaken because you're actually mistaken.

And what is the evidence behind his assertion? And how can you believe something without knowing it? The concept seems absurd

Some of these explanations require an openness of the heart. The three theological virtues are faith, hope, and love. Faith leads to knowledge (knowing by faith).

We are not always unaware that we are experiencing God, however. There can be catalysts, such as the Sacraments, or the loss of health, or surpassing joy, which make us more aware of the Infinite.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I have no quarrel with science,sometimes it oversteps its boundaries and makes assumptions that science can't assume, such as the absence of God.

What basis would they use to assume God exists? Without empirical evidence, it would be impossible to consider the idea of God as scientifically valid.

There have been arguments to prove the existence of God--ie., St Thomas Aquinas--but my experience is that God is self-evident.

And that can be rejected as nobody has the same opinion as to what God actually is. If something is self-evident, you will have a clear definition and understanding of what that thing is. That is not true in regards to God.

I feel no durden to prove God. That you don't KNOW that God exists is your present condition. Or,should I say, that you are not aware of your daily experience of God. BTW, God is without boundaries and cannot be measured or contained in science.

You read Deepak Chopra?

Am I the only Christian in the room?

If you don't feel the need to meet your burden of proof, that's perfectly ok. However, having failed to meet your burden of proof, why on earth would you expect us to accept your claims?

You can throw out all the assertions you want to, however if you can't back them up, we have to reason to believe what you say.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Rahner would maintain that your every experience is a relatedness to God, even if you are an atheist.

And he's wrong.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I realize that you feel obliged to disbelieve what I say, but I think Rahner is right. Our conscious awareness in our daily life is that of relatedness to, and experience of, God. Amen

I don't feel obliged to disbelieve what you say... if you can provide any reason why I should accept your claims, then I will happily do so.

However, what you are saying is a simple assertion. There is no reason or evidence to think that there's anything to it.

 

[steve_bakr]

Actually, we don't know what existed before the big bang, or even if the concept of "before" the big bang makes any sense at all.

Einstein did not believe in a God... he was quite adamant about that, and clarified in his own words that his "god doesn't play dice" line was metaphor. He also never expressed any regret he wasn't "mystical", whatever that means.

If you say so about Einstein. I saw the quote, but it isn't necessary to any point of the conversation. The quote was on the cover of a book written by him, explaning the basics of his Theory of Relativity.

A mystical experience is a direct experience of the Infinite. See, "The Varieties of Religious Experience," by William James.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, it doesn't work that way because, according to Rahner, there is a certain dynamism in each of us that moves in the direction of the Infinite, not away from it.

Our entire being is also related to God by our very existence such that our conscious experience is actually an experience of God, whether we realize it or not. Our experience tends towards the Infinite, but it is also rooted in the categorical experience of our daily lives.

And where does this Rahner fellow get his information from?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Some of these explanations require an openness of the heart. The three theological virtues are faith, hope, and love. Faith leads to knowledge (knowing by faith).

Faith may lead to knowledge.... but it does not lead to factual knowledge. You can believe anything you want to on faith, that doesn't make it true.

We are not always unaware that we are experiencing God, however. There can be catalysts, such as the Sacraments, or the loss of health, or surpassing joy, which make us more aware of the Infinite.

And how do you tie those to God?

 

[steve_bakr]

What basis would they use to assume God exists? Without empirical evidence, it would be impossible to consider the idea of God as scientifically valid.

And that can be rejected as nobody has the same opinion as to what God actually is. If something is self-evident, you will have a clear definition and understanding of what that thing is. That is not true in regards to God.

If you don't feel the need to meet your burden of proof, that's perfectly ok. However, having failed to meet your burden of proof, why on earth would you expect us to accept your claims?

You can throw out all the assertions you want to, however if you can't back them up, we have to reason to believe what you say.

I don't have a burden of proof because I KNOW that God exists. It goes beyond having a "belief" in God.

But I would say about the existence of God that, in view of my experience of the created world, I would maintain that it is impossible that there is not a God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you say so about Einstein. I saw the quote, but it isn't necessary to any point of the conversation. The quote was on the cover of a book written by him, explaning the basics of his Theory of Relativity.

A mystical experience is a direct experience of the Infinite. See, "The Varieties of Religious Experience," by William James.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein (March 24, 1954)

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't have a burden of proof because I KNOW that God exists. It goes beyond having a "belief" in God.

But I would say about the existence of God that, in view of my experience of the created world, I would maintain that it is impossible that there is not a God.

Well, if you know it's true, then it should be easy to meet your burden of proof.

 

[steve_bakr]

And where does this Rahner fellow get his information from?

Well, he was trained in philosophy and theology in the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_bakr]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein (March 24, 1954)

OK. Did he believe in an impersonal God?