I was asked what type of proof I will accept and IO am not trying to dodge the question, but I am just not sure.
I see that some of you have appealed to personal feelings and movements/incidents in your own life. I asked how that is different than the LDS that say they believe the Book Of Mormon.
I see that some of you have appealed to Thomas Aquinas and Anselm. Yet on other threads I lurk on the Catholics are called pagan.
When I look at the Christian idea of the Trinity I have to wonder how that is different than the story of Zeus, Apollo and his twin sister Artemis.
On the other hand if as Aristotle claimed the Universe has always existed there would be no need for god.< P>This coincides with some scientists that have claimed that the universe is expanding and will begin to contract when it reaches it's elastic limit. At that time it will contract to a singularity and the cycle will begin again.
I see so many contradictions in the religious, philosophical and scientific "proofs" that I know I will need to study this closely.
I want to assure you that I am not like some of the atheists who will engage in endless debate only to pull out the trump card of "God doesn't exist." I classify myself as an agnostic at this point I am unwilling to say that god either exists or does not exist. And to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart as to the proof I will accept I will know it when I see it.
Or Peter with the "tale" he denied GOD three times..
Seeing GOD might not be the proof some want or need..
1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
I say; What you love... AND... despise is who you are..
Bonus:https://www.dropbox.com/s/7typspsreskn7w3/YourLove.avi?dl=0
Scientific evidence has ruled that option out.
Einstein's calculations in his general theory of relativity indicated a beginning to the universe, a concept he rejected. To avoid that, he added what was called a cosmological constant, which he later rescinded.
Hubble's red shift observations were instrumental in that as they were the proof needed to show that the universe had a beginning.
Some scientists have gone on to posit alternate universes, multiverses, alternate dimensions, but without solid evidence for them.
They seem to be little more than Einstein's cosmological constant, basically an effort to prove that there is no need for a designer, or god, or God.
And to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart as to the proof I will accept I will know it when I see it.
You will. And I would lay money on the fact that it's not going to be a *feeling* or *burning in your bosom* or some other vague, unsubstantial *feeling*.
I know to many people there is not much difference between *feeling* and *experience* and sometimes, the lines can be blurred, but when you have an experiential encounter with God, you WILL know it and likely it won't be the warm fuzzies.
Nor was I trying to imply that you personally had. I was just trying to make a general point that a person like Richard Dawkins might approve of. (I don't know whether you are a fan of his....)
Why is it that the most strident denigrators of Christianity seem to be among the most ignorant with respect to knowledge of the subject matter they attack?
You noted that "on other threads I lurk on the Catholics are called pagan." Yes indeed. It is distressing. But then, a Roman Catholic might retort: "The Reformed Church has too much fallen under the influence of post-Enlightenment modes of thought."
By "pagan," the Reformed Church declares its animosity to "Greek thought" — that is, to classical philosophy of the Platonic–Aristotelian type. But then I find that many first-rate theologians of the Reformed Church hold St. Augustine in the highest honor and respect. Who was a full-blown Platonist. [Arguably, the theology of St. Paul was nourished from this source as well.] But the great saint and doctor of the Church Aquinas — who helped convey the great legacy of Aristotle to the West — and Anselm (who can be said as entirely operating on Platonic noetic and ontological grounds) can be roundly despised as venturing into territory outside of "sola scriptura," and thus must be distrusted and reviled for that very reason.
Go Figure. Call it a "family quarrel" and get over it. Since you are presumably a member of a family, you are likely already perfectly well aware of how painful family quarrels can be....
Personally, I like the way St. Justin Martyr handled this problem. He was a Christian philosopher of the second century A.D., a relentless seeker of Truth — an exemplar of fides quaerens intellectum, of faith seeking understanding, faith seeking its reason. He had been to study with the Stoics; he'd gone to the Lyceum (Aristotle's school); I gather he even hanged out with the Epicureans for a time. Nothing satisfied. Until he found Plato.
The upshot of this encounter: Justin found and declared that the Incarnation of Christ was not only the complete fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, but it was also a complete fulfillment of classical philosophy.
The details of this immense insight are beyond the scope of the present writing. Though I'd love to explore them further with anybody who cares about the eternal fides quaerens intellectum....
Oh, before I sign off for now, just a quick note on the difference between Zeus and company and the divine Trinity. Zeus and his family were all intracosmic gods. That is to say, they were all "creatures" of a "creator," just like man; but unlike man, they were immortal.
The divine Trinity, on the other hand, is wholly uncreated, sui-generis, self-subsistent, undivided pure Being, that is on the one hand wholly transcendent — meaning, utterly Beyond the Cosmos (Plato's key insight) — yet at the same time wholly immanent in the lawful working out of the worlds of nature and human existence. The sheer, absolute "Beyondness" of Plato's god renders him totally unintelligible, indescribable, in human understanding and language.
But Justin Martyr's key, liberating insight was that, with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, Plato's god of the Beyond is brought into the realm of immanence, thus of human understanding. He is the bridge between the heavenly (infinite) and earthly (finite) realms, in both of which human souls necessarily participate, "from Alpha to Omega."
I'll hold off on a discussion of modern scientific cosmologies, almost all of which nowadays are trying to obviate the necessity of an Origin of the universe. But only because I've run on so long already. (I'm deeply interested in this topic. Maybe we can revisit it later.)
Anyhoot, in closing, as far as your "spiritual development" is concerned, taking advice from Justice Potter Stewart "as to the proof I will accept" does not strike me as out of line. Regarding his requirement of an acceptable criterion of judgment, he said "I will know it when I see it."
Skepticism is a good attitude to have these days, given that so many faux-religions have sprung up in recent times. Including "scientistic" ones.
If you seek truth, then I'd say you're on the right path. If you have an open mind, and above all, an open heart, Truth — that is to say, God — will find you.
And when He does, may you know the fullness of His Grace and Light.
All you have to do is say (in your heart): God help me.
Just some thoughts FWTW. Be well, my friend. And thank you so much for writing.
Good question!
One that I have is: Just who thought up...
... the story of Zeus, Apollo and his twin sister Artemis.