Exactly what do you consider to be the definition (in the category of faith which is what your questions address) of the word ‘proof’, “exist” “true” and “religion” and from where and why do you consider those definitions of yours to be themselves complete and true?
Proof: any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; “if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it”
Exist: have an existence, be extant; “Is there a God?”
True: consistent with fact or reality; not false; “the story is true”; “it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true”- B. Russell; “the true meaning of the statement”
Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; “he lost his faith but not his morality”
All those definitions are from wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. I consider them to be true because they are from a respectable source, although I do not consider them to be necessarily complete.
Remember, I said in the context of faith. Does the study of faith (you can look up the definition of ‘faith’ in your wordnetweb’) utilize a different definition of any of those words? Let’s see.
Faith:religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) “he lost his faith but not his morality”
supernatural power or powers.
Does anything which addresses the supernatural then possess the ability to be ‘proven?’
Actually, since you are a guest on a Catholic forum where the Catholics who are going to address you believe in One God, it would be polite when using the term to speak of the Catholic God to capitalize both God and Catholic. Because to us it is a name.
YOU, being non-Catholic, could put quotes around it “God”. That would be polite.
Before I can answer I have to know what constitutes “proof” in your mind.
You specifically asked did we have proof that the Judeo-Christian God exists. You were obviously referring to our God and it’s respectful to capitalize the name. Unless of course you’re just trying to flame the forum. :shrug:
I think we have a problem, Ultimate Potato, with your wordwebnet when it comes to discussion of matters of faith.
According to your preferred definition source, the word supernatural (which we have verified with that same preferred definition source refers to religious belief) means this:
*]S: (adj) supernatural (not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material) “supernatural forces and occurrences and beings”
Therefore, how can we supply the kind of ‘proof’ that you define when God, by definition, does not exist in nature nor is subject to explanation according to natural laws, not physical or material?’
That’s why I have asked, and continue to ask, whether you understand that ‘proof’ as you insist on defining it is not necessarily a complete definition of ‘proof’ as related to the study of faith. . .
Unless you and I (that is to say, believers in God) can come up with a mutually acceptable definition of ‘proof’ which addresses that which is supernatural and therefore incapable of ‘proof’ according to physical or material law, we’re just speaking past each other.
I would prefer you telling me the arguments instead of linking me to a book for which I would have to buy to understand the arguments it makes, please. Also, there’s evidence that Jesus never existed, as well.
Morality, and the resurrection of Jesus and authenticity of the Gospels. And Marian Apparitions, faith healing at Lourdes and through prayer, and Near Death Experiences.
Please explain to me how morality is proof that a god, or God, exists. Weren’t the Gospels written decades after Jesus lived (if he actually did live)? I do not know what Marian Apparitions are. There is no evidence that prayer heals. Please explain how near death experiences prove that a god, or God, exists.
Marian Apparitions, Jesus’ Resurrection and Messiahship, and the fact if the latter is true, this Church (and Orthodoxy but I’m not going there) is truly the continuation of Christ’s Church.
Please explain your arguments more.
Like I said, I’m not so sure about the rules, so I don’t plan on getting too involved, but I’ll reply to some of your statements and such.
I understand – they seem iffy to me.
I do capitalize the word God when I am using it as a name – I didn’t use it as a name during my first post.
Again, ‘knowledge’ means what? Can you know if anything which is not materially or physically capable of ‘proof’ according to the definition you gave to us for ‘existance’ actually exists? If something is specifically outside the parameters of a given proof, does that mean it can’t exist? Can you be certain it does not? If so, how are you certain?
Furthermore, if person A (say Ultimate Potato) did not believe in a God (let’s not even say the Judeo-Christian God, let us say any god whatsoever if by ‘god’ we understand as a being ‘outside’ of physical or material proof) because person A does not believe in the capacity for any being to exist outside of physical or material proof, then all that we could bring forward to give as reasons (and St. Thomas Aquinas gave some good scientific ones, heck even the pagan philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had an understanding of the word ‘proof’ when it came to supernatural, that is, religious sources which would accept them) would not satisfy.
If the ONLY way a person could ‘believe’ is by material evidence, and the subject in question is ‘immaterial’ or 'supernatural, then there is no ‘way’ such a person could accept any ‘reason’ given by us as ‘proof’. . .because the reasons would not deal with the ‘provable’ physical or material universe.