I understand the perceptions. However, if your mom is still alive, you can always speak to her to clarify the differences in perception. Gods? Not so much.
Is the Muslim god the same as the Christian god? How about the god of the Jews? All three religions claim that this is the same god, but only one says this god had a human son. Is that simply a matter of perception? Because that difference is pretty huge – salvation in one of the 3 religions depends on whether you believe this god had a son who died to save humanity from sin.
I’ve already covered this. It would depend on the evidence.
What if you had evidence that there was a god and he was indeed Allah and not the father of Jesus?
That endeavor will always involve a priori presuppositions, which I mentioned before, that none question. Laws of logic that govern thought, the notion of truth, the reliability of the mind and the senses, the existence of a freely governed “self”. No one can begin any intellectual exploration without first believing in such realities. In other words everyone starts with belief. So a simple question is if these things are real would it not stand to reason that they somehow transcend matter, energy and what we call natural law?
Regarding evidence (which is not a term I agree with in this question) for many that would come in the notion of good and evil. That in other words is also something that is real and also transcends matter, energy and so- called natural law.
It’s a good question, but even if you concede that “logic” is some sort of platonic metaphysical force or energy, it doesnt follow that “God” exists in the way described by western religion. I happen to be a property dualist and an atheist. Atheism doesn’t mean you’re a naturalist.
Do you believe in the reality of non-logic and irrationality? Do you believe in the reality of delusions? Do you believe a reality exists outside of your own brain?
I agree that there are basic presuppositions that cannot be logically proven to be true. So we presuppose then in order to start debate. Transcend? Not so sure about that. Just because we can’t logically prove something does not make that something transcendent. It just means we can’t logically prove something due to our limitations.
There is no such thing as good or evil except that which an individual deems as good or evil.
Not exactly sure what your point is? Regarding this notion of “proof” I would phrase it as such. The atheist can no more prove that God does not exist than the theist prove that God does exist. I don’t view either having any espistimological advantage.
I disagree. Why is there a disadvantage of believing in the existence of logic? You’ve only asserted this. I can write you a logical statement right now:
A is B
B is C
Therefore A is C
There you go. Logic exists. Tell me why it doesnt.
Exactly. I guess I can just make things up. You see there is a natural world, and the meta physical. But have you ever heard of the ultra-meta world? Its beyond the physical and metaphysical and is where the God of all Gods live. You cant prove me wrong.
Where do you think religion is interfering in your business? Frankly, I can’t think of a thing where it interferes with me as a citizen–and I am deeply involved in religion and church.
Many Christian’s have tried to stop gay marriage from being legal and to keep evolution out of public schools. Dont pretend Christians in this country havent made attempts to push their beliefs into law
You tell me, as it is your issue. You claimed God (and therefore principles?) was evil because He said we should put Him first. Now you are where I am–that it is very easy to do both because one leads into the other a great deal of the time. However, when push comes to shove (robbing a bank) then God (or principles if you like) come first. I am trying to show believers and non-believers are very much alike.
You’re being very vague. They are only alike in that, yes, non believers also have morals. So what? The only difference is that you assert some “God” being attached to it. That’s the difference.
This is not Catholic teaching, nor is it scriptural. Catholic teaching is that it closely follows and presents what Christ taught, did, and promised as The Way of Salvation. The Catholic Catechism teaches that this way is what Christ commanded his Apostles to proclaim, and in this the Church follows Christ. It is the only authority the Church has. It cannot promise salvation by way of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Paganism. Christ gave it no authority in this.
The Catholic Catechism also points out that God has an everlasting covenant with the Jews as well. While the Church is limited in the authority Christ gave it, God is not limited, and the Church recognizes this.
I forget which denomination insists that one has to be Christian to be “saved”, but it matters not, because their definition of “saved” (guarantee of a heavenly afterlife) doesn’t even begin to cover what Christ (and therefore the Catholic Church) teaches about salvation and redemption.
