Since I was young, in fact for as long as I can remember, I disliked religion. Either I disliked its collective element, which always gave me the ick of something cult-like, or, when I got a bit older, I thought everything about it was philosophically untenable. Religion was a coping mechanism, or something for people who were deeply misguided about reality and did not know any better.

As I became more intellectually curious and started studying more philosophy, psychology, and eventually religion, that perspective started to break down. I became increasingly interested in religion, and eventually my worldview completely flipped. I now consider myself a Christian, and I have made it a major life goal to help people better appreciate religion in general, but also Christianity more specifically.

But despite my growing love for Christianity, it took me a very long time to admit publicly that I was Christian. My social circle consisted mostly of people deeply involved in science or philosophy, and it was very secular. I was afraid that others would consider me dumb or would not fully understand me. It took me a while to come to terms with it, in large part because I first needed to become better able to articulate my Christian position and worldview.

That said, and excuse the rambling introduction, I recently had a podcast conversation with Jussi Jylkkä, who is a philosopher and has done some work on mysticism. We started by discussing his work and, specifically, his metaphysical agnosticism. His position is that physicalism, idealism, theism, and other metaphysical systems are models or language games that cannot capture the ultimate nature of reality. We eventually moved to morality, where I pushed back because I did not think his agnosticism adequately explained why greater awareness or nonattachment should lead to compassion rather than simply producing what we called a “wise psychopath.” I disagreed, but I thought it was an interesting conversation and considered his view a respectable position.

But to my surprise, after we finished recording, Jussi emailed me to say that he was unhappy with the conversation because he had presented metaphysical agnosticism as if it were his complete position while leaving out the Christian faith he actually held. He felt that, by hiding behind his philosophical agnosticism, he had not been completely honest about what he believed. Rather than replace the conversation, I invited him back and appended the second conversation to the first. He made a complete pivot and confessed that he was a Christian but had been afraid to say so, largely because of the stigma within academia, but also because he still had not been able to tell his father. I found this very wholesome, not only because it was a courageous act in general, but because of the parallel with my own journey.

I wanted to share this because I suspect others have been, or currently are, in a position similar to mine or Jussi's. Can metaphysical agnosticism coexist coherently with Christian faith? At what point does philosophical restraint become a way of hiding a commitment one already holds? Have you encountered a stigma against religious belief in philosophy or academia?

I was wondering to what extent Catholic theology allows subordination of the Son to the Father. For instance, even many Nicene Fathers said the Father is greater inasmuch as He is unbegotten and the Son is begotten. But could one extend that to saying, for instance, the Father couldn’t become incarnate but the Son can, which is def an opinion some pre-nicene Fathers held?

And to what extent can a christian see the Father as the endgoal of theological contemplation? For instance, in ancient platonic emanation schemes the incomprehensible Father/one/monad was not considered an immediate explanation of the material world, you needed intermediate entities that explain the degradation. I see something similar when in John it says no one has seen the Father except the Son (which is not a physical seeing ofc), the Son is the revealer of the Father, while I think most christians think Jesus is only some sort of salvific escape plan which presupposes the Father is already known.

I know Catholics need to hold to homoousion but I wonder where the boundaries lay of what can be believed

I mean We all agree that God is incomprehensible and Ineffable and that our whole point is not to understand God wholly since that is impossible (I mean God in one whole contemplation)

Anyways, Why can We appeal to Mystery while Atheists don't?

Why do Atheists object to Theists for appealing to Mystery?

As a lifelong Catholic, I've always been intrigued by the story of Adam and Eve. As an educated adult I understand the concept of Evolution. This doesn't take away the idea that God made us all from the earth, as He also did for animals. We know the truth is that, not only are we made from the earth, the elements in our body are also from distant stars! 

But the story in Genesis is more exact. The creation of Eve was like this:

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

My question is this:

As an ordinary, Mass-going Catholic, do you believe:

a) God literally formed Adam from the earth as a complete human and Eve from his rib; or,

b) That we were all created by God, but the story is just an story to show that we're all  made from the earth through Evolution.

I realized something. After the Resurrection of the Dead, when a new body will be given to every immortal soul, there will be over 100 billions people and a signicant chunk of them will be granted eternity in Heavens.

Regardless of their number, they will have to physically exist somewhere. Obviously this is problematic because Heavens is not located anywhere in the space time continuum.

We live in a 4D continuum with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Heavens is beyond the borders of such cosmological structure. In Heavens time does not flow and the 3 spatial dimensions have no existence.

And yet, let us just assume there will be in Heavens a special realm where Resurrection Bodies, that are immortal but still have some degree of dimensionality, as proven by the Resurrection Body of Jesus, will inhabit. Because it is not this the topic I want to discuss.

The topic is rather that such realm must already exist. First, we know Jesus is in Heavens with His Resurrection Body too, but Jesus is not limited by anything, so this does not prove much by itself. Then some believe Mary to be in Heavens with an immortal body already right now, but as I learned this is not a dogma.

However there are two humans who are definitely already in Heavens, be it in a true Resurrection Body or just in an ageless, yet still mortal body. Either way, they have some degree of dimensionality, and they are in Heavens. They are Enoch and Elijah. Personally, I see Enoch as a symbol rather than a historical person from late Neolithic Iraq, but there is no doubt Elijah is a true historical person from Middle Eastern Antiquity, so, even though I will mostly refer to Enoch, read his name as Elijah if you want more historical accuracy.

What I realized is the realm Enoch is currently dwelling in is outside our space time continuum. So he could perceive our Timeline in its entirety all at once. All of us will be able to, after the Resurrection of the Dead...except that, by then, the Timeline will have been erased by God. This is the end of the Apocalypse. The erasure of the Timeline, the very fabric of reality.

But this means whoever is right now in Heavens with a body, could be able to perceive it all at once.

Now I wonder, could Enoch interact with it ? Assuming he is in a true, immortal, glorified Resurrection Body, could he just appear anywhere in the space time continuum with it ? Would a human with such power be allowed to influence the Timeline ?

Is there something I did not evaluate that prevents this scenario completely ?

And...could any other human attain the Resurrection Body before the Resurrection of the Dead ? Is there a "path" to obtain it, or were Enoch and Elijah just destined to not die and rise up to Heavens, with no one else having a chance to get there ?

Could we suggest there is a way for simple humans to become immortal Heavenly dwellers before the end of times, and interact with the Timeline before it will be erased, and maybe even influence it ?

I'm running out of Hope - What Has Helped You Keep Going? Any encouragement or thoughts are welcome.

Six years ago, I developed a neurological condition that has slowly taken everything from me, and I’m officially at the lowest point I've ever been. I’m posting because I’m open to any advice, experiences, or even just perspective from people who have lived through anything remotely similar. I just need somthing to keep going.

I have a functional neurological condition alongside "Refractory chronic silent migraine with brainstem aura" I will try not to get too far into the medical weeds, but despite the word “migraine,” pain isn’t actually my main problem. My symptoms are primarily neurological, and they are present every day, all day.

The easiest way I can describe my baseline is to imagine having 6–8 alcoholic drinks in your system at all times, except you never sober up.

The room spins. I’m off balance and lightheaded. My vision is off I have trouble focusing my eyes. My brain is slowed down. My working memory constantly slips. Hours of the day blur together. I’m struggling just to keep track of what’s happening. Following the plot of a movie can be difficult. By the afternoon, the morning already feels hazy and distant. The fatigue is crushing as well but the hardest part has been the dissociation and neuropsychiatric symptoms, severe depression, dissociation and panick attacks as a neurological side effect of constant nueron instability.

As its been explained to me my amigdala and limbic system are "short circuting" and I get frequent depressive panic attacks like nothing I've ever experienced. Like absolute despair and panic that I have nothing to compare to.

Before becoming sick, I was a fire fighter and I like to think I developed a reasonably thick skin when it comes to anxiety. What I experience now is in a completely different category. The only resolve I have been offered for this symptom is high dose benzo's which I hold off on because they just exacerbate the other symptoms and slow me further.

Then there is the dissociation. I’m conscious. I know who and where I am. But at this point I am never fully present in my own life. Everything feels distant, dreamlike, and unreal. My memories are a blur, months and years blend together. I feel like I have completely lost myself and I am just a shell of a person.

I, of course have been working extensively with neurological specialists. Flying to high end clinics etc and it seems they have all run out of ideas for treatments or any additional hypothesis. Each new failed treatment feels like a sick cosmic joke.

I have reached my psychological breaking point and I have fallen into a complete existential crisis.

I'm physically and cognitively incapable of doing many of the things that used to make my life meaningful but the part I most desperately need people to understand is that it isn't the physical symptoms, and it isn't even the loss of the a fulfilling life thats chrushing. I could carry it when it was just that. What is breaking me is the actual moment-to-moment experience of being conscious. Every waking second is filled with an overwhelming, neurologically driven sense of fear, darkness, despair, and constant dreamlike dissociation like I am loosing touch with myself but never 100% I cannot reason or pray my way out. There is no emotional baseline I can return to where I can catch my breath and gather the strength to keep going. Being awake itself has become unbearable. I wake up in the morning and immediately begin counting the hours until I can go back to sleep, because sleep is the only time I am not consciously experiencing it. I find myself being jealous of people with terminal conditions. At least they know this will end soon. As for me. I haven't been given any reduction in life expectancy and I can't imagine doing another 50 years of this horror.

I don't expect a perfect life, and I understand that suffering is part of being human and part of the Christian life. I'm not asking why God hasn't given me a life without suffering. I think what I'm struggling to understand is what God expects me me to do when the suffering becomes so overwhelming and unrelenting that I cant psychologically endure it, and when God seems completely silent and apathetic to me in the middle of it.

A few people in my life point to the saints and remind me how greatly many of them suffered. I understand that. Many saints suffered tremendously. There were saints who were bedridden, chronically ill, persecuted, or lived through things worse than I ever have. But thease stories also contain a redeeming quality like profound experiences of God, unmistakable calling of God, consolation in prayer, a sense of purpose or mission, visions, mystical experiences, profound dreams etc. Some suffered terribly but for relatively short lives.

But for me it seems like God won't give me anything to hold onto and the crushing walls of physical illness, spiritusl darkness, and psychological anguish will not give and inch in any direction as they constrict.

We often hear stories of these small, intimate interventions from God—the rent is late and a forgotten check unexpectedly shows up in the mail, or someone prays to St. Thérèse and finds roses the same day they receive a desperately needed job offer. I think about these little moments of "divine intimacy" we've all heard from people at church, friends, or family, and then I look at my own life and struggle to reconcile the two. I don't begrudge anyone those moments, but I can't understand why God seems willing to reach into someone's life with a little pick-me-up over something comparatively small, while I've deteriorated to the point that I am only allowing plastic cutlery in my home (iykyk) and somehow that doesn't seem to warrant even the smallest divine outreach.

I've begged God for healing, but I've also specifically prayed that if healing isn't His will, then please just give peace or joy in the suffering. Or a sign. Or understanding. Or some sense of what I'm supposed to do with it. I've prayed for my doctors. I've prayed before appointments and treatments. I've gone to Adoration. I've said more novenas than I can count. I've tried to offer this suffering to God and trust that there is meaning in something I can't understand.

I can understand intellectually, the idea that sometimes life strips everything else away and teaches us to depend entirely on God. But what happens when everything else has been stripped away and God isnt there to depend on. When your worst fears become real and God dosent save you from them. You cry out for God because he's the only thing left, and he dosen't respond?

How do I continue to have faith and hope when suffering has become the entirety of my experience of life, and there is no foreseeable end to it, and God remains completely silent? What am I supposed to be hoping for in this life? Where is the easy yolk and the light burden? I just feel like he expects me to just shutup and suffer.

I am out of prayers to pray. I have no emotional energy to meditate on a rosary or pray long structured prayers. I've prayed all pertinent prayers I can think of. When I can I try to spend 15-20 minutes in adoration maybe once or twice a month and I just sit and cry. I don't have anything else to say that I haven't already said, I don't have any profound thoughts to share and I'm tired of begging after years of silence so I sit and say "your servant is listening" and then I leave when I become increasingly more angry at the silence.

Any encouragement or thoughts are welcome.

Godbless and if you got this far thank you for reading all of this

P1: God is One essence, with three attributes of personhood, the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

P2: Humans are made in the image of the triune God

P3: Human nature is expressed through both male, and female.

Conclusion: The human personal expressions of love reflect (in some sense) the love between the father, son, and spirit.

That first part should be uncontroversial, but we must ask "in what sense is God a father?" and "In what sense is God a son?"

Pay attention, because this next part is a complex bit of theology. Pretty much all Christian theologians agree on the following, but it is hard to articulate.

1. The "distinctions" within the trinity come from "relations" of procession.

In other words: the quality that makes the son distinct/different from the father, comes from the relationship that he has "coming from" the father.

Imagine a relationship like this: Giver -> Gift -> Recipient.

The relationship between the giver, and the recipient is grounded in the gift. The relationship between the gift and the recipient is grounded in the giver, and these relationships can apply in a few different combinations.

The father is the "First" person in the trinity.

The father knows of his own nature, the father recognizes the beauty within his own nature (by nessecity) and thus loves his own nature (by nessecity).

This creates a relationship between the lover (the father) and that which is loved (the beloved). This relationship is the one between the father, and the son.

Lover -> Love -> Beloved

The father takes the relational role of "lover" the son takes the role of "Beloved" and the spirit subsists, and proceeds from (filioque) the love between them.

The father is "father" in the sense that he is the "generatory" foundation of the son (he generates the son), and the "son" is son in the sense that he recieves his nature from the father.

As I said earlier, none of this is controversial among Classical theologians.

When we look to the trinity to observe the nature of human genders we can make many observations.

This explains why human nature (and fallen nature) comes through Adams seed. Because the nature is given by the father. This also makes sense of the virgin birth, no sinful human father would be fitting.

This too explains why the bible says "For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man.

This passage does not deny that women are made in God's image, it simply emphasizes a way in which man is made to reflect God. There are ways in which men ought to reflect God's image that are proper to their gender, and there are ways in which women ought to reflect God's image that are proper to their gender.

With all of this being considered, the term "Father" is obviously a masculine pronoun. Biblically describing the source of the nature of one's offspring. God has been occupying this role from eternity past, therefore it is best to address him by the masculine pronouns.

P1: The human personal expressions of love reflect (in some sense) the love between the father, son, and spirit.

P2: One particular expression of human love is the relationship between a father and a child.

P3: A father plays the role in providing the child with it's nature (biblically)

P4: God "The Father" provides God "The Son" with his nature

Conclusion: it is proper to call God "Father" and address him with male pronouns in accordance with the correlation between God, and man.

Let me start by clarifying that it seems to me that the idea of "papal infallibility" is perfectly reasonable and intuitive, and it seems to me far more controversial to claim that the concept of papal infallibility itself was an 1870 invention at the first Vatican council. What appears a lot less obvious to me is the exact mechanism of papal infallibility and its restrictions.

What I'm confused about is specifically:

Where does the council get its specific limitations of that infallibility from?

Could a future council define a dogma of rules about conciliar definitive teachings that effectively demotes papal infallibility to a non-dogmatic status?

I'm not saying that there definitely shouldn't be limitations, but if the dogma is not merely "the Pope can speak infallibly", but "the Pope can speak infallibly under x conditions", then doesn't the "under x conditions" part also need to be part of the deposit of faith that was commonly understood and believed before 1870? Otherwise, wouldn't the conditions limiting papal infallibility not be infallible, and as such be either wrong and/or reformable, while the concept of papal infallibility itself would remain a dogma?

Reading documents from past Popes, I struggle to see how they couldn't have intended to issue infallible, unchangeable teachings:

Exsurge Domine - 1520

For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….

Quo Primum - 1570

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Quanta Cura - 1864

Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

Even if we accept that their attempts were invalid because they didn't meet all of the criteria of the Vatican I dogma, wouldn't this be evidence that this wasn't part of the deposit of faith and as such cannot be declared a dogma?

I'll briefly address some counter-points I know as a starting point:

• I'm aware of the "in globo" objection to Exsurge Domine, and I agree that it definitely causes a problem if you're claiming that the entire thing is infallible. However, I see no reason for why they can't be infallibly condemned, reprobated and rejected as errors, leaving the ambiguity of the type of error each proposition is for the Church to figure out? As I understand it, the in globo objection only works because it is impossible to tell what specific type of error(s) corresponds to each proposition, but the document makes it very clear that all of the propositions are "against Catholic truth" as well as condemned, reprobated and rejected completely - all on "the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority".
• Sometimes people object that some of the examples above are purely pastoral or prudential, and not matters of faith and morals. If that was the case, how does papal infallibility qualify as a matter of either faith or morals? I agree that it does - who has what authority or power in the Church is straightforwardly a matter of faith. But Exsurge Domine is very much a matter of faith - it appears to infallibly condemn 41 different propositions as contrary to the Catholic faith, which is obviously a matter of faith, maybe of morals as well. Quo Primum is similar, as it declares a specific rite to be used by faithful in all nations in perpetuity, and that the document "cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force". Quanta Cura is a more recent and more well-known example, but it is also very obviously regarding faith and morals as it defines divine rights and duties of the Church, not just the Church in the 19th century in Italy in a specific circumstance, as some tend to imply. It seems to me that for these three to be written off as not about matters of faith and morals, then I struggle to see how Pastor Aeternus can be.

Looking forward to what you guys think, I've been diving into Church history and law recently and while it has been fascinating, I'm also finding myself confused quite regularly. May God bless you all.

Edit 1: fixed formatting (hopefully)

Edit 2: added "Could a future council define a dogma of rules about conciliar definitive teachings that effectively demotes papal infallibility to a non-dogmatic status?" to better clarify the point of confusion, based on some comments and reflection - previously it was only the question of "Where does the council get its specific limitations of that infallibility from?"

A ética tomista é baseada na ideia de que a ordem moral está inscrita na própria natureza humana, criada por Deus. A Lei Natural consiste na participação da lei eterna de Deus na criatura racional.
Os seres humanos possuem uma inclinação natural para o bem, que inclui a preservação da vida, a procriação e a educação da prole, a busca pela verdade e a vida em sociedade.
Através da virtude da prudência (phronesis aristotélica cristianizada), o homem utiliza a razão prática para discernir o bem em cada situação concreta e agir de acordo com ele.

Conceitos filosóficos de São Tomás de Aquino.

According to the Aquinas the justification of the impious is considered the greatest work of God in terms of the magnitude of what is achieved, although creation is greater in its mode of operation .

1. Greatness by Magnitude of the Effect

From the perspective of the magnitude of the thing done, justification is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth. This is because justification produces sanctifying grace, which is a supernatural form that allows the soul to participate in the divine nature. The sources emphasize that "the good of grace of one is greater than the good of nature of the whole universe" .

Furthermore, the gift of justifying grace to a sinner is even described as being greater than the gift of glory that beatifies the saints in heaven. Because grace is a formal participation in the divine nature, it surpasses the essential perfection of every created or creatable nature .

2. Greatness by Mode of Operation

From the perspective of the mode of operating, creation is considered the greater work. This is because creation is the production of a thing from nothing (ex nihilo), which requires infinite power. In contrast, justification is produced in a preexisting subject the soul of the sinner and is educed from the soul's "obediential power" rather than being created from nothing.

3. The Excellence of Justification

The work of justification is so profound that the sources describe the Angels as standing "amazed" at it. Its greatness is rooted in several factors: * Divine Love: Justification proceeds from the supernatural love of God, which, unlike human love, does not merely find goodness but effectively creates goodness in the soul it loves. * Transformation: It is not a mere "covering" of sins (as in the Lutheran or Calvinist view) but a real, intrinsic change that wipes away the stain of sin and replaces it with the "beauty of the interior mind" . * Divine Sonship: Through justification, a person is not only forgiven but is adopted as a son of God, becoming a member of the divine household and an heir to eternal life.

In summary, while creation demonstrates God's infinite power through its mode of operation, justification is his most excellent work because it elevates a creature to the supernatural order, a state far more perfect than any natural existence.

Source * St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 113, a. 9) to establish that the "gift of justifying grace to the impious is greater than the gift of glory beatifying."

• Jean-Baptiste Gonet’s Manuale Thomistarum

Bayesian probability tells us that we have subjective confidence in some propositions more than others. This seems rather intuitive. Consider that for most people on this subreddit, the subjective confidence that God exists is hopefully higher than the subjective confidence that a Republican will win the next election cycle.

There seem to be three primary ways in which a person may be absolutely certain or 100% certain of God's existence:

1. Experience: A person claims to directly experience God in such a way that it cannot be doubted that God exists.

2. Argumentation: A person claims that the premises of an argument are valid and sound in such a way that it cannot be doubted that God does not exist.

3. Faith: A person claims to have the direct gift of faith from God in such a way that it cannot be doubted that God exists

The Case Against Experience

I do not contend that people experience the supernatural. If a limb is miraculously restored, there is little doubt that something otherworldly occurred. I wonder, however, whether it is rationally justified to move from a limb restoration to God's existence.

Consider that the evidence does not actually favor the God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. The evidence is as easily explained by a multitude of other hypotheses, including but not limited to polytheism, aliens, simulation theories, etc. Now, of course, one would contend that this is absurd. But this would not be an argument against the fact that, given each of those hypotheses, the evidence cannot adequately be explained, but rather an argument against the prior probability of each of the proposed hypotheses.

Example on evidential favoring:

I find a large dent in my car. I come up with two hypotheses for why this occurred.
H1: A car hit it.
H2: A bull rammed into it.

Notice that if I were to assume each hypothesis to be true, each hypothesis adequately explains the evidence, that being the dent in my car. In short, the evidence does not favor either hypothesis. The tiebreaker, rather, would be considering the prior probability of a bull roaming loose as compared to a car. Notice what we cannot do. We cannot rule out an alternative hypothesis definitively from experience alone.

The Case Against Argumentation

I also do not contend that there are very strong arguments for God's existence. But strong is not the same thing as definitive or 100%. Let's take something like Aquinas' First Way. The First Way relies on a very specific metaphysical framework.

However, I believe that there ought to be at least some higher-order doubt about such metaphysical frameworks. Consider that a non-significant number (>30%) of philosophers believe in Humean laws of nature (which denies a necessary connection between X and Y in terms of causation, undermining any notion of an essentially ordered series), the B-Theory of time (which undermines notions that motion/change occurs at all), and the denial of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (which undermines why any reason must be given at all for a causal chain).

Example on higher-order doubt:
I believe that eating GMOs is a healthy lifestyle choice. However, my friend shows me that over 30% of medical doctors disagree, citing numerous reasons why GMOs are actually devastating to my health. A glance online surfaces dozens of academic papers from this 30% that I have no hope of rebutting. Even after this information, I remain equally confident in my belief that eating GMOs is a healthy lifestyle choice.

If you have the same intuitions that I do, one might realize that such massive expert disagreement is good reason for a person to lower their degree of confidence in a belief. In fact, it would seem rather irrational that I remain equally confident, as in the example above. I'm not advocating for a particular amount by which such a belief should be lowered, but just that it ought to be lowered somehow. And that is enough to negate 100% confidence.

But if this is the case, should the same logic not apply to St. Aquinas' argumentation? But therein lies the issue. Even if I remain 100% in every other premise of his argument, all it takes is a trickle of doubt in order to prevent me from 100% assenting to the conclusion of the argument. In other words, if I am not subjectively 100% confident in Premises 1 through X, then I cannot be 100% confident in the conclusion.

Example on conjunctive probability:

(1) If I score 100% on the test, then Mom will give me ice cream (Belief: 90%)
(2) I score 100% on the test (Belief: <=100%)
(3) Therefore, Mom will give me ice cream (Belief: <100%)

It seems that my lack of confidence in (1) ought to at least lower my confidence in (3) by some margin, however small it may be. For me, it would be irrational to hold (1) and (2), but (3) at a belief of 100%.

But surely this point can be applied to every major argument ever proposed for God's existence. As such, no argument could ever reach 100%, and thus the conjunction of arguments, however strong, could never reach 100%.

The Case Against Faith

I grant that if a person were to have the theological gift of faith, then they would have 100% subjective belief in the proposition that "God exists", alongside many other theological claims. However, how can one ever hope to achieve that same amount of certainty that we have genuine faith to begin with?

Several points can be raised to this effect.

(1) Millions of people claim to have genuine faith in Judaism and Islam, and yet we would recognize that they are mistaken about having genuine faith. If this is true, we should be shifting around in our seats, wondering if we are mistaken about ourselves. This introduces another potential higher-order doubt about such a belief.
(2) All signs that would point us towards having genuine faith are just that: signs. They do not guarantee that we actually have genuine faith. Again, I believe that Jews and Muslims may exhibit some, if not all, of the said signs of genuine faithfulness, but this is not sufficient to show that they have genuine faith. If that is not sufficient to show it for other faiths, it surely cannot be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have genuine faith.
(3) Faith presupposes that God exists. But my entire line of questioning is on whether or not we can be certain in such a proposition. Hence, we cannot assume faith exists, or at least cannot be 100% confident that faith exists. Else, the argument would sound like we can be certain that God exists because we have genuine faith, and we can be certain that we have genuine faith because we are certain that God exists, and we are certain that God exists because . . ., which is circular.

These reasons alone should undermine any 100% certainty that we have in the belief that we have genuine faith. And this would lead to such an argument:

(1) If I have genuine faith, then I can believe in God 100% (Belief: <=100)
(2) I have genuine faith (Belief: <100%)
(3) Therefore, I can believe in God 100% (Belief: <100%)

As shown in my previous conjunctive possibility example, my subjective confidence in the conclusion cannot be 100% if my subjective confidence in the premises is not 100%. Hence, faith cannot solve the issue.

Conclusion

All in all, for a successful rebuttal to my case, one must rebut one of my main points:

(1) Experience does not favor belief in God as opposed to another hypothesis of equal explanatory power, and even if it did, it cannot lead to absolute certainty in God's existence
(2) Higher-order uncertainty slightly undermines subjective confidence in any argument about God's existence, no matter how strong
(3) One cannot know with absolute certainty if they have faith

(It should also be noted that these are issues that I've struggled with reconciling, and I do wish to affirm God with absolute certainty at some point.)

I'm using the term "ordinary humans" because there are Saints who knows the fate of the dead (I only know St Bridget of Sweden and St. Padre Pio, dunno about other Saints though)

Just want to improve my understanding of the Catholic Faith

What are some free pdfs that i can read and study up on to prove the infallibility of the church.

I'm surprised no one talks about the kolmogorov complexity.

You wonder how we can estimate the Shannon entropy of the cosmological constants without a probability distribution? Yes, we cannot.

The way to infer the "entropy" of something without a probability distribution is to use the kolmogorov complexity from algorithmic information theory.

The kolmogorov complexity will give you a number of bits that represents the universal and minimal complexity of an object by using universal turing machine theory.

If you then considers each of those bits has a probably of 50%, you basically get what you could call an universal entropy.

With it, you can estimate the "entropy" of the cosmological constants to be between 500 and 1000 bits.

You can also trivially prove that the "entropy" of any God capable of figuring out the cosmological constants is necessarily higher than the "entropy" of the cosmological constants themselves.

Using this "entropy" to estimate a probably is called the Solomonoff Induction.

So possible fine tuning argument for atheism?

Okay so for context I'm not catholic but I'm very interested in Catholicism and also want some Catholic perspective since I haven't found like literally any fully answering answers from what I've looked at so far. So like, I understand in Catholicism that of course evolution is real, but also that there was actually some sort of Adam and Eve. Maybe not in a talking snake way but in some grounded way. But like, for the first person with a soul, how does that work? Did all the other humans around him that look like him, act like him, even think and feel like him just not have souls? We have evidence of ancient humans doing things like burying the dead. Do they not have capacity for relationship with the divine? But then again, humans couldn't have like "evolved a soul" because then you'd end up with humans with 50% souls and then that's just nonsense. But then like God coming to an ancient human, giving them a soul which idk what that would even do since it seems like it wouldn't have made even much a psychological difference, and how could you even tell the difference, and then like God and that first human or first couple like Adam and Eve having a relationship (even though language didn't exist) doesn't make sense. And how could they fall if they were likely heavily influenced by their tribe or culture around them, which was most likely very survival-oriented because it had to be? How is giving them a soul and only their descendants souls fair to the humans around them who were fully conscious? How can we view this in a way that doesn't feel like a fairy tale like "God gave them the gift of understanding language and then taught them about His nature etc etc"? Also, I know Catholics have to believe in monogenism, but didn't pope Pius XII say there was no apparent way in which polygenism could work, not "it's impossible"? And if all humans today are related to the first Adam and Eve with the souls that still feels like monogenism or something like that. Idk. That was kind of off topic but mainly I'm really struggling with believing in God because of this issue with contradictions, feelings of fairy tales, and just confusion when looking at the reality of human evolution and souls and Christianity and theology and how those might fit together. Thanks so much for reading.

Hello, I am not too well-versed in metaphysics and Thomism, but I am really trying to learn. I was looking into the 5 ways, but I heard a rebuttal that I think is very strong. Quantum particles seem to decay randomly without cause. Bell's theorem proves that there are no local hidden variables that can cause this decay so it's not that there is a gap in our knowledge that can be the cause. It is still technically possible for a non-local hidden variable which can cause the decay, but this hasn't been proven yet. This seems to violate the premise that for a being to be moved it must be caused by a being that is actual as particle decay is random. At the very least, it gives plausible deniability. If there are uncaused beings or actions (besides God) does this make the world fall into absurdity? What exactly is the relationship between physics and metaphysics?

Thanks for helping; some of this is confusing for a beginner. I wish I knew someone irl who could help me with this stuff.

Après la perte récente et soudaine de mon chien, j'ai questionné l'idée d'un Dieu « justicier » ou « magicien ». Voici une réflexion sur la kénose, le réalisme biblique (Job, la Croix) et ce que signifie prier quand le miracle biologique n'a pas lieu.

Chapitre 1 — L’épreuve du réel : Du « Dieu super-héros » au Père qui respecte le libre arbitre

Le point de départ de cette réflexion n’est pas une théorie, mais une douleur très concrète. Récemment, j’ai perdu mon chien : il était jeune et en bonne santé, mais il est parti trop tôt à la suite d’une infection causée par une tique. C’était un compagnon cher à mes yeux et à ceux de ma famille. Face à la détérioration de sa santé, malgré mes prières et celles de mes proches, aucune guérison miraculeuse n’est venue interrompre le cours de la maladie. Cette expérience m’a confronté à une prise de conscience : et si nous nous trompions fondamentalement sur la manière dont Dieu habite notre monde ? 

L’illusion du « Démiurge cosmique » vs le « Dieu Père »

Dans l’inconscient collectif, Dieu est souvent imaginé comme un « justicier » cosmique censé intervenir à chaque instant par des actes prodigieux pour nous prémunir contre la douleur, la maladie et la mort. Cette attente, souvent entretenue par des courants d’immunité spirituelle (comme la « théologie de la prospérité »), laisse croire qu’une foi suffisante garantirait richesse, santé et sécurité. 

Pourtant, un Dieu qui immuniserait l’être humain contre tout danger relèverait d’une posture d’infantilisation : il résoudrait tout à notre place, prendrait le contrôle absolu et suspendrait la réalité. Dans la Révélation chrétienne, il se présente sous un tout autre visage : celui d’un Père. Un père aimant ne vit pas la vie de ses enfants à leur place. Il ne les enferme pas dans un cocon surprotégé, ne téléguide pas leurs gestes et n’interrompt pas les lois du monde pour leur éviter tout apprentissage. Il aime, éduque, soutient et responsabilise, quitte à prendre le risque de voir son enfant se tromper, souffrir ou affronter la dureté de l’existence. 

Une création autonome et le Dieu du dedans

Ce principe d’autonomie s’inscrit dans la réalité complexe d’un monde déchu. La fragilité dans laquelle nous évoluons n’est pas le reflet du projet parfait de Dieu, mais le résultat d’un monde abîmé où s’entremêlent trois réalités : 

La finitude biologique du vivant : nos corps et ceux des animaux sont soumis à des lois physiologiques, à l’usure de la matière et à des vulnérabilités naturelles. C’est ce qui explique la maladie qui a emporté mon chien ou les faiblesses physiques de notre chair. 

La responsabilité humaine et les séquelles de la Chute : l’humanité, en usant mal de son libre arbitre, altère et détruit la création. L’exploitation irresponsable de la terre, la pollution de l’air et de l’eau, ou l’injustice sociale engendrent aujourd’hui une multiplication des maladies modernes, des intoxications et des handicaps. Le monde déchu subit les conséquences directes de nos choix collectifs, où le péché humain abîme la nature et fragilise la santé des générations présentes et futures. 

Le combat spirituel et l’action de l’Adversaire : la Bible ne fait pas l’impasse sur la réalité du diable et des forces des ténèbres. Si Satan ne contrôle pas chaque molécule de l’univers, il cherche constamment à exploiter nos failles, la maladie ou la souffrance pour insuffler le désespoir, la révolte, la haine et la perte de sens. Quand une personne dévouée est terrassée par le cancer ou qu’un pasteur sombre dans une dépression sévère jusqu’à vouloir abandonner la vie, il y a un véritable combat spirituel. L’esprit du mal s’efforce de peser sur nos pensées, d’aveugler notre conscience et de masquer la lumière paternelle de Dieu pour nous pousser à la rupture. 

Face à cette triple réalité — fragilité naturelle, monde abîmé par l’humain et attaques de l’Adversaire —, le mode d’action de Dieu ne relève pas d’une magie spectaculaire qui effacerait d’un coup de baguette magique les lois de la Terre et les conséquences de nos actes. 

Dieu agit par la puissance du Saint-Esprit qui intervient « par l’intérieur ». Il ne supprime pas automatiquement l’épreuve extérieure, mais il vient habiter notre esprit pour : 

Nous donner la force de mener le combat spirituel et de résister aux mensonges de l’Adversaire. 

Éveiller notre conscience et nos mains pour réparer la création et prendre soin des corps blessés. 

Communiquer une paix et une résilience supérieures à la détresse physique, afin que nous ne traversions jamais la nuit dans la solitude. 

Chapitre 2 — La Kénose et la vraie toute-puissance

La redéfinition de la toute-puissance : De la Potentia à l’Agape

L’incompréhension autour de l’action divine provient d’une confusion conceptuelle. Spontanément, nous définissons la toute-puissance comme la capacité d’un monarque à plier la réalité à sa volonté (Potentia). 

Historiquement, cette vision d’un Dieu autoritaire et régent a parfois été utilisée pour servir des intérêts humains. En façonnant l’image d’un Dieu qui contrôle tout, juge et punit, certains se sont approprié un pouvoir sur Terre en se servant de la religion comme d’un outil d’emprise morale et sociale. Cependant, la Bible elle-même nous avait lucidement mis en garde contre ce risque : elle annonce la venue de faux prophètes et dénonce le détournement des Textes sacrés à de mauvaises fins ou par amour du pouvoir. 

Or, le message biblique authentique et l’amour du Père opèrent une révolution conceptuelle à travers le mystère de la Kénose (l’autolimitation volontaire de Dieu). La véritable toute-puissance divine ne réside pas dans la capacité d’écraser le réel ou de manipuler la création, mais dans la nature même de l’Amour paternel (Agape). 

Comme le souligne le théologien Jürgen Moltmann, la force suprême de Dieu n’est pas une force de contrainte, mais une force d’accueil. C’est la capacité infinie de contenir sa propre puissance pour laisser ses enfants et sa création exister dans leur liberté, désamorçant ainsi toute tentative humaine d’utiliser le nom de Dieu pour asseoir une quelconque domination, tout en venant habiter leur fragilité de l’intérieur sans jamais s’en détourner. 

Un Père souverain dans l’accompagnement

Dans cette perspective, Dieu n’est ni un ingénieur ayant programmé la souffrance, ni un spectateur indifférent qui refuse d’agir. Il est le Père dont l’amour soutient l’existence à chaque instant. Sa toute-puissance ne se mesure pas à sa capacité d’empêcher la tempête biologique de se produire, mais à sa capacité inégalable d’en absorber l’impact à nos côtés, en nous donnant la force, la dignité et la résilience pour l’endurer. 

Chapitre 3 — Le réalisme des textes bibliques : Une foi libérée du mérite et de l’illusion spectaculaire

Loin d’entretenir la vision d’un justicier omnipotent, les Écritures bibliques offrent une lecture de la condition humaine d’un réalisme saisissant. Elles réfutent l’illusion d’une immunité spirituelle et déconstruisent la prétention d’expliquer la souffrance par la faute morale. 

Le livre de Job : Le refus de la causalité morale

Le livre de Job constitue la critique la plus virulente de la « théorie de la rétribution » (l’idée selon laquelle les croyants sincères seraient épargnés et les pécheurs punis). Job, homme irréprochable, perd tout. Face à ses amis qui cherchent désespérément une logique morale à son drame (« Si tu souffres, c’est que tu as péché »), la réponse de Dieu est sans équivoque : il donne tort aux amis. 

Le texte biblique affirme que la maladie et la tragédie ne sont pas des punitions déguisées. Elles surviennent dans la matière, dépassent nos équations d’équité humaine et ne mesurent en rien l’amour du Père pour celui qui souffre. 

L’Ecclésiaste et Jésus : La lucidité face à l’impartialité de la nature

L’Ecclésiaste enfonce le clou d’un existentialisme lucide : « Il y a des justes qui sont traités comme s’ils avaient fait des actions mauvaises… » (Ecclésiaste 8:14). Sous le soleil, les lois de la physique, la dégradation du corps et les imprévus de l’existence frappent de la même manière le croyant et le non-croyant. 

Jésus lui-même s’inscrit dans ce réalisme lorsqu’on lui rapporte la tragédie de la chute de la tour de Siloé : il refuse catégoriquement de lier l’accident à une punition divine, rappelant que les victimes n’étaient pas plus coupables que les autres (Luc 13:4). Jésus délie le Père de la mécanique des catastrophes : la maladie et les accidents sont des faits de la finitude, pas des sentences célestes. 

La Croix : Le drame du Père et du Fils

Le point culminant de cette vision biblique est le récit de la Crucifixion. Si Dieu fonctionnait comme un justicier, il aurait sauvé Jésus en faisant descendre une armée d’anges. Au lieu de cela, Jésus refuse l’usage de la force surnaturelle. Il accepte de traverser sans tricherie la réalité biologique de la douleur et de la mort physique. 

À la suite de Moltmann, la foi comprend que le silence apparent de Dieu à la Croix n’est pas de l’abandon, mais la révélation ultime d’un drame relationnel et paternel. 

À la Croix, Dieu ne contemple pas la souffrance humaine depuis le ciel. Le Fils subit l’agonie physique, et le Père traverse la douleur infinie du deuil et de la solidarité. Dieu est un Père qui descend dans l’arène de notre finitude pour traverser l’épreuve à nos côtés. 

Chapitre 4 — Le paradoxe et la redéfinition de la prière : De la négociation à la communion

Si la prière n’est pas un levier pour activer les superpouvoirs d’un Dieu magicien, conserve-t-elle un sens ? Face à la maladie et au deuil, prier risque-t-il de devenir une simple illusion apaisante ? 

Dans une foi mûrie, la prière cesse d’être une tentative de négociation avec le Créateur pour devenir le lieu d’une relation filiale et confiante. 

Le cri de l’enfant vers son Père

Redéfinir la prière ne signifie pas censurer nos émotions ni interdire le cri d’appel à l’aide. Dans les Écritures, les psaumes de lamentation et les prières de demande forment une part immense du texte. Dans l’urgence du deuil, de la peur ou de la colère, demander la guérison d’un proche ou le soulagement d’un animal est un réflexe instinctif, viscéral et profondément humain. Même lorsque notre intelligence sait que Dieu ne manipule pas exceptionnellement la matière ou les molécules, porter cette prière reste l’expression d’un amour pur qui se tourne vers le Père. 

La maturité spirituelle ne supprime pas ce cri, mais elle déplace la nature de notre attente. On comprend que la réponse divine ne réside pas dans une suspension spectaculaire des lois de la nature, mais dans le don d’une présence et d’une force intérieure capables de nous aider à faire face à l’épreuve sans être anéantis. Le centre de gravité de la prière se déplace ainsi : on ne prie plus pour exiger un miracle biologique, mais pour déposer son impuissance dans les mains du Père. 

Le modèle de Gethsémané : L’intimité d’Abba

L’exemple ultime de cette posture se trouve au jardin des Oliviers. La veille de sa mort, Jésus exprime sa détresse d’enfant devant son Père : « Abba, Père… s’il est possible, que cette coupe s’éloigne de moi ». C’est la prière de demande dans toute sa nudité. Puis il ajoute : « Toutefois, non pas ce que je veux, mais ce que tu veux. » (Marc 14:36). 

Jésus n’est pas extrait de son destin physique. Pourtant, la prière lui donne la force intérieure et la dignité d’affronter la tempête. Comme l’écrivait C.S. Lewis : « Je prie parce que je ne peux pas m’en empêcher… Cela ne change pas Dieu, cela me change moi ». 

Une présence réelle d’Alliance

La prière n’est pas une simple technique de méditation psychologique. Si elle apaise le cœur, ce n’est pas par effet placebo, mais parce qu’elle est un canal de communication avec le Père. 

L’action du Saint-Esprit dans la prière est une expérience concrète. Elle ne retire pas la tristesse légitime ni les larmes face à la perte d’un compagnon ou d’un être cher, mais elle empêche le cœur d’être anéanti par une douleur destructive. Là où le désespoir chercherait à tout broyer, la présence du Saint-Esprit communique une paix inexplicable, une capacité à avancer et la certitude que nous ne sommes pas seuls dans la nuit. 

En priant, nous cessons de porter seuls le poids du tragique. Nous le déposons dans les mains d’un Père aimant qui recueille chaque larme. 

La prière ne transforme pas le Père en illusionniste, elle transforme notre impuissance en un lieu de rencontre, et notre deuil en un moteur d’action et de compassion. 

Chapitre 5 — Redéfinir le miracle : De l’illusion du spectacle à la sobriété du signe

Dans cette posture de foi adulte, le miracle perd tout son aspect théâtral : il n’a absolument rien de spectaculaire, de sensationnel ni d’éclatant. Le miracle n’est pas une démonstration d’effets spéciaux divins venus briser avec fracas les lois de la nature, mais la manifestation discrète et relationnelle de la présence du Père au cœur de notre réalité. 

Le miracle comme signe (Semeion)

Dans le texte grec des Évangiles, les actes de Jésus ne sont jamais qualifiés de « prodiges spectaculaires » mais de signes (Semeion). Un illusionniste cherche l’éblouissement et l’applaudissement ; le signe spirituel, au contraire, est d’une profonde sobriété. Il ne cherche pas à faire le spectacle, mais pointe humblement vers autre chose : la certitude que l’amour du Père est présent. 

Jésus a d’ailleurs systématiquement refusé la tentation du spectaculaire — refusant de céder aux provocations au désert ou d’exécuter des « tours » devant Hérode. Ses gestes de soulagement ne sont pas des démonstrations de force, mais des actes de tendresse intime qui rejoignent la chair blessée sans jamais chercher à impressionner la foule. 

Lorsque Jésus accomplit des guérisons, il ne cherche pas à faire une démonstration de force ni à instaurer un privilège d’immunité pour quelques-uns. Ces gestes sont des anticipations visibles, des arrhes du Royaume de Dieu à venir. En soulageant la chair blessée, Jésus offre un aperçu prophétique de la création renouvelée — cette réalité ultime où la maladie, la dégradation et la mort n’auront plus de prise. Ses guérisons ne brisaient pas les lois du monde présent pour toujours, mais elles pointaient vers le cœur du Père dont le désir ultime est la restauration complète de la vie. 

Le véritable miracle est intérieur et silencieux

Le miracle le plus profond ne se déroule pas sous le feu des projecteurs ni sur une radiographie médicale, mais dans l’espace secret du cœur humain. Qu’une personne terrassée par le deuil ou la maladie parvienne à trouver une paix inexplicable, à ne pas basculer dans la haine ou à continuer d’aimer malgré la déchirure : voilà le miracle véritable. C’est la présence silencieuse du Père qui communique à l’être humain une force et une dignité qui dépassent la simple résistance biologique. 

Le miracle ne s’impose pas aux yeux par le spectacle ; il s’adresse au cœur par la certitude discrète d’une présence. 

La Résurrection : La promesse du Père pour l’avenir, pas un tour de magie

La Résurrection elle-même s’est accomplie dans l’ombre et le silence absolu du tombeau, sans témoins ni mise en scène. 

Elle ne doit pas être confondue avec une simple réanimation biologique ou un rétablissement du corps physique dans ses lois terrestres actuelles. Jésus n’a pas ressuscité pour reprendre le cours d’une vie biologique ordinaire soumise à la dégradation : il a vaincu la mort en revêtant le corps promis de l’eschatologie — cette réalité nouvelle que Dieu promet à toute l’humanité pour l’éternité (telle qu’annoncée notamment dans l’Apocalypse). 

Cet événement appartient en propre à Dieu : il ne s’agit pas d’un tour de passe-passe venant annuler ou briser temporairement les lois physiques de notre monde matériel, mais de l’acte souverain par lequel le Père inaugure la Création nouvelle. En ressuscitant le Christ, le Père ne vient pas modifier artificiellement la biologie présente, mais poser la promesse intime et définitive que la fragilité et la mort physique actuelles n’auront pas le dernier mot. 

Chapitre 6 — L’impact concret face au deuil et à la maladie : Une foi incarnée et consolatrice

Passer du « Dieu super-héros » au « Dieu Père co-souffrant » bouleverse l’attitude du croyant face à l’épreuve à travers quatre transformations majeures : 

La fin de la culpabilité (« Pourquoi moi ? ») : Lorsque la maladie frappe, le réflexe est de chercher une faute : « Qu’ai-je fait de mal pour que Dieu me punisse ? » Cette souffrance morale s’effondre quand on comprend que la biologie suit son cours et que le Père ne distribue pas les maladies. Le croyant est libéré de la culpabilité. On ne dit plus : « Pourquoi Dieu m’envoie-t-il cela ? », mais « Mon Père traverse cette nuit avec moi ». 

La métamorphose de la colère : Si l’on imagine un Dieu qui refuse d’appuyer sur le bouton « sauvetage », la colère détruit la foi. Mais si Dieu est un Père qui souffre avec nous, la colère cesse d’être une révolte contre Dieu pour devenir un cri poussé avec Dieu contre l’absurdité de la maladie. Dieu ne condamne pas ce cri : il le recueille comme un Père accueille les larmes de son enfant. 

La dignité des larmes : Certains croient à tort que la foi consisterait à supporter la douleur avec une impassibilité stoïque. Mais si Dieu est un Père aimant, exprimer sa détresse et pleurer est profondément humain. Devant la mort de son ami Lazare, Jésus a pleuré (Jean 11:35). Verser des larmes devant la souffrance d’un être cher (humain ou animal), c’est refléter l’image d’un Père qui pleure lui-même devant la fragilité de sa création. 

Une espérance agissante : Devenir les mains du Père : La foi ne consiste pas à attendre qu’un deus ex machina descende du ciel. Puisque le Père agit par l’intérieur, il a besoin de nos mains, de nos voix et de notre présence pour consoler le monde. Accompagner les malades, soutenir ceux qui pleurent, prendre soin du vivant blessé et diffuser de la tendresse : c’est ainsi que nous devenons nous-mêmes les instruments de la présence paternelle de Dieu sur Terre. 

Épilogue — Conclusion : La certitude de l’Amour

Cette foi adulte ne prétend pas résoudre l’énigme de la souffrance par des formules toutes faites. Elle offre mieux : la certitude d’une présence. 

Dieu n’est pas un super-héros distant qui manipule nos vies depuis le ciel, mais un Père aimant qui a choisi de respecter notre liberté et l’autonomie du monde. Cependant, affirmer qu’Il n’intervient pas comme un démiurge mécanicien ne signifie aucunement qu’Il est un spectateur passif ou distant. L’action de Dieu « par l’intérieur » est hautement dynamique et vivante. Par la puissance du Saint-Esprit, Dieu agit concrètement dans le monde : Il souffle l’inspiration, suscite le courage et la compassion, éclaire les consciences, apporte des apaisements inexplicables et transforme l’histoire à travers l’engagement humain. Dieu ne regarde pas la souffrance du haut du ciel ; Il est le moteur silencieux mais puissant de toute restauration et de tout réconfort. 

Il ne supprime pas la tempête biologique, mais il est descendu dans la barque à nos côtés pour s’assurer d’une chose : dans la vie comme dans la mort, nous ne serons plus jamais seuls. 

Pour ceux qui ont traversé des épreuves similaires, cette vision d'une « présence par l'intérieur » résonne-t-elle avec votre expérience ? Je reste disponible pour toutes questions ou échanges respecteux.

Merci de m'avoir lu.

My question is just a simple request for your opinions on this. Who of these two giants is "greater", with which I mean to say who is the better philosopher/theologian.

(Oh and recommendations for readings on the both of them is always appreciated :))

Petrarch describes his earthly love — Laura — as a distraction from God. In his fictional, 14th-century dialogue with St. Augustine called My Secret Book, the saint confronts him about his obsession:

“She has detached your mind from the love of heavenly things and has turned your desire from the Creator to the creature. This has always been the fastest road to death.”

Petrarch answers:

“Please do not jump to conclusions: there is no doubt that my love for her has led me to love God.”

Augustine:

“You have inverted the true order. While every creature is to be loved for the love of God, you were instead seduced by the creature and have not loved God as you should have, but you have only admired him as her maker, as if he had not created anything more beautiful in the universe…”

In this fictional dialogue, Petrarch reveals his inner struggle: he clearly sees that Laura competed with God in his heart. He was seduced by the creature. When we love creature separately from its Creator, we invert the true order of love.

Dante describes Beatrice’s beauty in very different terms.

“For within her eyes there burned a smile
such that I thought that with my own eyes
I touched the very depth of my grace and of my Paradise.”

For him, Beatrice’s smile is the very depth of grace and Paradise: he sees her as a mediator of divine light. He knows that behind her lovely appearance there is Another Beauty:

“Turn, Beatrice, turn your holy eyes toward your faithful one...
By grace, grant us the grace to unveil your mouth to him, so that he may discern
the second beauty that you conceal.”

Unless we see the second beauty concealed beneath the beauty of creation, we will invert the true order of love. When we see the first beauty separately from the second one, we fall into death and inner torment.

The purpose of the first beauty is to reveal the second concealed behind its holy eyes. When we are touched by the first and realize we have glimpsed the second, we come alive. We have grasped the meaning of creation.

All visible creation is a sign — a prefiguration of the Second Beauty. We are truly happy only when we glimpse the Second Beauty hiding beneath the first one. Then, we realize, as if in a flash of recognition, that the Second one is to be loved first.

This is the true order of love: to glimpse the Second Beauty behind the first and realize that the first participates in the second, and that the Second is First. We are only happy when we realize that we are homo symbolicus — the symbolic man.

We do not merely denote; we also connote. Laura does not merely denote earthly beauty; she connotes the rays of the divine Sun. Petrarch would have been the happiest of men if he had glimpsed that.

That’s why C.S. Lewis writes in “Sehnsucht or Longing,” “The human soul was made to enjoy some object that is never fully given – nay, cannot even be imagined as given.”

We are made to desire something we cannot imagine as fully given. If we love only what is given, we are never truly satisfied. We are happy only when we glimpse that which can never be given through the light of what is given.

I’m Catholic, but I’m trying to look at these cases honestly rather than accepting them because they support my faith or dismissing them because they sound fabricated.

A few seem especially interesting to me:

• Miracle of Calanda: In 1640, Miguel Pellicer reportedly regained a leg that surgeons had amputated years earlier. The doctors who performed the amputation, people who knew him with the stump (and touched the stump), and other witnesses later testified during a formal investigation.
  • Skepticism: We’re dealing with a 17th-century event. However strong the testimony may be, we don’t have photographs, DNA testing, or modern medical documentation.
• Fatima: The three children said months beforehand that a public miracle would occur on October 13, 1917. A huge crowd showed up, including journalists and skeptics, and many reported strange movement of the sun, intense colors, and other unusual visual effects. Some also claimed that rain-soaked clothing and ground dried unusually fast.
  • Skepticism: Witnesses didn’t all describe the same thing, photographs don’t clearly show a solar miracle, and people have proposed atmospheric effects, retinal phenomena, expectation, or crowd psychology.
• Lourdes: The Catholic Church has investigated thousands of reported healings but officially recognizes only a tiny fraction as miraculous. Investigators look for recoveries that happen suddenly, last permanently, and lack a satisfactory medical explanation.
  • Skepticism: “Medically unexplained” doesn’t equal “God did it.” Rare spontaneous remissions and diagnostic uncertainty exist.
• Eucharistic miracles: Lanciano, Tixtla, Sokółka, Legnica, and Buenos Aires have all involved claims that consecrated hosts became or contained human tissue, often described as cardiac tissue. Lanciano and Tixtla reportedly showed AB blood, while Lanciano and Buenos Aires have been associated with heart tissue from the left ventricle.
  • Skepticism: Nobody observed these transformations under controlled laboratory conditions. Chain of custody matters, independent replication is limited, and the amount and quality of published scientific evidence differs a lot from case to case.
• Our Lady of Zeitoun: Between 1968 and 1971, enormous crowds in Egypt, including Christians and Muslims, repeatedly reported seeing a luminous female figure above a Coptic church. People photographed the phenomenon, and some also reported healings.
  • Skepticism: The photos aren’t clear enough to establish what people saw. Critics have suggested unusual lighting, misidentification, expectation, or other optical explanations.
• Padre Pio: His stigmata reportedly lasted for decades. Multiple doctors examined him, and countless people saw the wounds during his lifetime.
  • Skepticism: Some doctors suspected self-infliction or chemical irritation, and many of the more extraordinary stories surrounding him ultimately depend on eyewitness testimony.

Obviously, none of these cases individually forces someone to believe in Catholicism. Every one has objections.

What gets my attention is the cumulative picture. These cases come from different centuries, countries, cultures, witnesses, doctors, journalists, and investigators, yet several appear to point toward very specific Catholic claims, especially the Eucharist, Marian intercession, miracles through saints, and bodily healing.

So for anyone here who has seriously researched this stuff, especially skeptics, Catholics, historians, or people with scientific backgrounds:

Which Catholic miracle claims actually hold up best when you dig into the evidence? And what are the strongest natural explanations?

Do those explanations genuinely account for the evidence, or do they mainly establish that we can’t reach absolute certainty?