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

[Dave Ellis]

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

Which has a stunning historical record of getting things right....

If the Catholic Church is the only place this guy has got his information from, I can't say I can take his words all that seriously. However, if he can provide actual evidence to back up what he says, I'm all ears.

 

[Dave Ellis]

OK. Did he believe in an impersonal God?

Based on his quotes from early life (circa 1920s) he was a pantheist (look up Spinoza's God for an example).

By the time he reached later life (1950s) he had even dropped those views, and labelled himself as Agnostic.

 

[steve_bakr]

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

Sure, I would suggest that you pay closer attention to your daily experience and to your awareness of it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sure, I would suggest that you pay closer attention to your daily experience and to your awareness of it.

If my daily experience involved you meeting the claims you are making on this forum, that would help things along in accepting your claims.

 

[steve_bakr]

Which has a stunning historical record of getting things right....

If the Catholic Church is the only place this guy has got his information from, I can't say I can take his words all that seriously. However, if he can provide actual evidence to back up what he says, I'm all ears.

The evidence would be in his writings, which can be a bit involved and challenging.

 

[Skavau]

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

That, stunningly you might think means nothing. You might be the most strident theist on earth. Your conviction on this topic may make most Christians hang their heads in shame. This small victory though means nothing to us. You can claim to know that God exists but such confidence moves our atheism not at all.

In a discussion, or debate when you make a positive claim you are the one expected to back it up with evidence. If you don't, you cannot expect anyone you're conversing with to take you seriously or believe you in any way.

 

[Davian]

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.

It was completely appropriate. You are citing someone that was unable to provide evidence to validate their beliefs, and that made a living promoting those beliefs. His opinion is obviously biased, and is dismissed as such.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The evidence would be in his writings, which can be a bit involved and challenging.

His writings are not evidence in and of themselves. His writings may refer to evidence, but that's all anybody writing on any topic can do.

In short, his writings are the claim... the evidence is what backs up his claims with.

So what is the evidence?

 

[steve_bakr]

If my daily experience involved you meeting the claims you are making on this forum, that would help things along in accepting your claims.

I would say that--if one is unaware of the presence of the Infinite--the beginning is a TACIT understanding that the Infinite is always present in whatever one is experiencing. In other words, it begins with an acceptance, a faith.

When one continues with that work, a sense of meaning in one's life develops. One sees a purpose where it did not seem to exist before.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I would say that--if one is unaware of the presence of the Infinite--the beginning is a TACIT understanding that the Infinite is always present in whatever one is experiencing. In other words, it begins with an acceptance, a faith.

When one continues with that work, a sense of meaning in one's life develops. One sees a purpose where it did not seem to exist before.

I have plenty of meaning to my life, and purpose.... It is however self-defined, and I see no reason to think I need some cosmic sky-daddy to give me one.

And why would I have faith in something I see no evidence for? What justification do I have for taking that position?

 

[Davian]

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

Handwaving nonsense. Do you deny the existence of those giant invisible immaterial marshmallows?

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.

A god that, in every objective measure to date, is indistinguishable from nothing? And it just happens to be your god?

Why should I not be skeptical?

 

[steve_bakr]

That, stunningly you might think means nothing. You might be the most strident theist on earth. Your conviction on this topic may make most Christians hang their heads in shame. This small victory though means nothing to us. You can claim to know that God exists but such confidence moves our atheism not at all.

In a discussion, or debate when you make a positive claim you are the one expected to back it up with evidence. If you don't, you cannot expect anyone you're conversing with to take you seriously or believe you in any way.

This may seem contrary to logic, but sometimes the proof comes after the acceptance of the fact--the constant tacit awareness that one is experiencing, in his conscious awareness, the Infinite. The practice of this tacit awareness will bring out the proof itself.

 

[Skavau]

This may seem contrary to logic, but sometimes the proof comes after the acceptance of the fact--the constant tacit awareness that one is experiencing, in his conscious awareness, the Infinite. The practice of this tacit awareness will bring out the proof itself.

I cannot accept anything let alone consider it factual until I am convinced of the evidence for it. In your explanation here you're not only being contrary to logic but you're showing no understanding of how belief even works, how it is motivated. No-one chooses their beliefs. No-one can just decide to accept a proposition. I cannot believe in "the Infinite" until convinced. I cannot accept it as factual until convinced.

So as it stands I cannot be interested and your argument comes across as if conducted by a really bad salesman.

 

[steve_bakr]

I have plenty of meaning to my life, and purpose.... It is however self-defined, and I see no reason to think I need some cosmic sky-daddy to give me one.

And why would I have faith in something I see no evidence for? What justification do I have for taking that position?

I'm not meaning to challenge your personal meaning. I am saying that--with the acceptance and practice: the tacit awareness that your very consciosness is experiencing God, your meaning would encompaass a much larger scope, and deepen personally.

 

[Davian]

This may seem contrary to logic, but sometimes the proof comes after the acceptance of the fact--the constant tacit awareness that one is experiencing, in his conscious awareness, the Infinite. The practice of this tacit awareness will bring out the proof itself.

So you will see that it is true after you accept that it is true.

The power of circular reasoning.

No 'facts' involved here.

 

[steve_bakr]

Handwaving nonsense. Do you deny the existence of those giant invisible immaterial marshmallows?

A god that, in every objective measure to date, is indistinguishable from nothing? And it just happens to be your god?

Why should I not be skeptical?

How does one measure that which is beyond measure? The instruments of science cannot do that.

 

[steve_bakr]

So you will see that it is true after you accept that it is true.

The power of circular reasoning.

No 'facts' involved here.

That's the leap of faith one takes, the belief that the Infinite is present in our very conscious awareness and daily experience.

I learned it was possible by reading about the life of Brother Lawrence (Practice of the Presense of God) But learning of Rahner's work opened my eyes to it, perhaps because I needed a more intellectual view.

Understand, however, that our experience of the Inifinite is still limited and not what is called, the Beautific Vision. But some get very close to it.

 

[steve_bakr]

I cannot accept anything let alone consider it factual until I am convinced of the evidence for it. In your explanation here you're not only being contrary to logic but you're showing no understanding of how belief even works, how it is motivated. No-one chooses their beliefs. No-one can just decide to accept a proposition. I cannot believe in "the Infinite" until convinced. I cannot accept it as factual until convinced.

So as it stands I cannot be interested and your argument comes across as if conducted by a really bad salesman.

I'm not a salseman, I'll agree to that. But perhaps you could just be open to the possibility that you are experiencing the Infinite by way of your conscious awareness in your daily life. Consider carrying a tacit awareness of that everywhere you go. Perhaps you may then find your own understanding of what the Infinite is.

 

[Davian]

How does one measure that which is beyond measure? The instruments of science cannot do that.

Actually, science can look into why people believe in religions.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have anything to show that you have anything more than religion?

 

[Davian]

So you will see that it is true after you accept that it is true.

The power of circular reasoning.

No 'facts' involved here.

That's the leap of faith one takes, the belief that the Infinite is present in our very conscious awareness and daily experience.

I learned it was possible by reading about the life of Brother Lawrence (Practice of the Presense of God) But learning of Rahner's work opened my eyes to it, perhaps because I needed a more intellectual view.

Understand, however, that our experience of the Inifinite is still limited and not what is called, the Beautific Vision. But some get very close to it.

Is it only in religion where circular reasoning is acceptable?