Objections against God

  Faith is above reason but never contrary to reason. There are many things in the natural order that are beyond our ability to understand but for that reason we do not pridefully reject their existence. Faith is true and therefore any arguments against Faith can be refuted. Science is good but also nothing more than a glorified game of trial and error. The Letter to the Hebrews defines faith as "the evidence of things hope for, the substance of things unseen" Theists count faith as a type of evidence. Atheists use the word "evidence" incorrectly as well. They use it to mean "anything that can be directly observed by the senses." But that is not what evidence is. Evidence is always evidence OF something. The word evidence implies that the object of apprehension lends itself as a premise to draw a further inference or conclusion...i.e. induction. For personal experience of God, stop sinning (as defined in the bible). Do...

No.   Energy is matter and changes from one state to another. God is immaterial and unchanging. If God is outside of time, then God is eternal. Whatever is eternal is unchanging. Again, time is the measure of motion but outside of time there is no motion. God, therefore, is unchanging and cannot be energy.   If God is not affected by matter, than God cannot be affected by energy, since energy is matter. When studying the nature of God, the first thing to realize is that God is beyond any created thing. In this life, we can never know "what" God is. Christians have the revelation of Jesus, of course, but that aside, we can only come closer to knowing  what God is by knowing what God IS NOT. Most of the attributes of God are negations...for example...eternal, means NOT in time...immaterial means NOT made of matter. If we want to say something about God's nature, we have to say how UNLIKE He is from created things. Anything said about God is only an analogy. Even ...

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth. (a) The words of the original text, rendered "earth" in our version, signify "land" as well as "earth"; in fact, "land" appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Genesis 4, 5 and 10; why not adhere to this meaning also in Genesis 6:9, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters "filled all on the face of the land", "all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land", "all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died", "all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered"? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noah lived, but not t...

First of all, God did not send Jesus only to save the world. That was the primary reason but not the only one. The reason God made the world was to make the invisible things of God visible. God wanted to manifest all His attributes. When God became man (Jesus), He manifested His goodness, wisdom, justice, and power. He manifested His goodness because he showed that his own creation (man) was not despised by Him, since he deigned to become man Himself. He manifested His justice by defeating the devil using the very creature that the devil tempted with the fruit in the garden. The devil led man into sin, so it was fitting and just that the devil be defeated by man. But how can man, who is below the devil defeat the devil without God's help? Thus God became man. He manifested His wisdom by finding a way to remove man's debt. Man sinned against God. The gravity of a sin is measured by who the sin is against. For example, striking a random stranger is less serious than striking th...

No, it isn't. When an atheist makes a simple assertion, it is best to simply make the opposite assertion. If they say "yes, it is." Reply, "no it isn't" and perhaps send them a religious image to go along with it. It is common for atheists and even believers to make simply bare assertions, but in logic, this is known as an "assertion fallacy." This is also a good opportunity to explain what the word "religion" actually means, since many misuse it. One approach is from the Etymology of the word: as Isidore says (Etym. x), "according to Cicero, a man is said to be religious from 'religio,' because he often ponders over, and, as it were, reads again [relegit], the things which pertain to the worship of God," so that religion would seem to take its name from reading over those things which belong to Divine worship because we ought frequently to ponder over such things in our hearts, according to Proverbs 3:6, "In all t...

God does exist. We only need to observe a single movable object in order to prove God's existence as First Cause. This is known as the Unmoved Mover argument. Many atheists will admit the conclusion that there is a First Cause but will not admit tha t anything can be known about the First Cause. But much can be known about the First Cause based on deduction. For example, the First Cause is proven to be eternal, all-powerful, immaterial, etc. The only difficulty in proving this is on the behalf of the student who wishes to have each proposition proved. There are many proofs that come after the proof for the First Cause and these proofs show what we can know about the First Cause using natural reason alone. This, however, is a serious time investment. Memorizing the proof of each attribute is akin to memorizing mathematical proofs. The better method is to research any attribute that seems doubtful or contradictory. AN ANALOGY: There is a rigorous mathematical proof that 2 and 2 do, i...

 I sympathize with your attempts to find a proof for God's existence and concede that you are not like most atheists. Certainly, a lot of time must have been spent researching and it can become frustrating to seek dead ends. So why are the sources I recommend different from Einstein and Godel? Einstein and Godel were, no doubt geniuses in their respective fields. Einstein within physics and Godel within math, but to expect them to deliver a proof of God's existence from within those fields is akin to expecting Mozart to prove God's existence through music. The branch of science that deals with causes is metaphysics. This is not the metaphysics of Kant (which is really epistemology in disguise) but the study of being qua being. This science is the most certain of all sciences as is evident from observing the order of the sciences from least certain to most certain: Biology<Chemistry<Physics<Math<Metaphysics As we can see from this order of science, if math is ...

The existence of God is provable. Showing that God's existence is provable is distinct from showing that God actually exists. Also, we must always keep the following principle in mind: Proof is not made invalid simply because you may not immediately understand it.  To understand the logical validity of the most basic proof takes an afternoon of study with the intent to understand it. AN ANALOGY: In geometry, Pythagorean's theorem is provable, but even the most gifted teacher cannot prove it to a toddler. This is not due to a fault in the teacher but due to the toddler's lack of mathematical knowledge. Likewise, to understand the proof of God's existence requires sufficient time and patience to study.  Ask yourself:  How much time am I willing to spend on this? This is why faith is necessary for some. To believe in God's existence and live a good life, strict infallible knowledge is not required. PROOF: Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all? Is there...