Existence of God

File: Olavo2.jpg (13KB, 240x199px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 240x199px

>>131441213
If God is a person, that is, an individuality of universal scope, but still a person. A person who says the word I. In fact, He is the only one who uses this term "I" with full right. Because in God everything is personalized, there is nothing in Him that is not Him. Now, we have many elements that are not us. Our heredity, we do not know it, we do not know what elements are there. The influences from outside that have been permeating and we cannot remember where they came from. All this is not you. We are 'I' by delegation, by loan, that is, over time we are going to personalize ourselves. We are taking the strange elements that are in us and we are working and personalizing them.
When God says: I Am who I Am, what He is saying is that in Him everything is "I", there is no strange element, there is no external element. In Him everything is personalized. "In God, the whole body is a face." We recognize people by the face. If you see someone by the tip of their finger, you will not know who he is. That means that in our body only some parts are personalized, especially the face, the eyes. The eyes are the most expressive part of a person. You can change your nose for example, and you will still recognize the person. In our body, only a very small part is personalized. The others are not. They are impersonal parts that we carry. In God there is no such thing. There is no such otherness within Him. And so He defines Himself as I.
We take some time to perceive our identity, and any mental illness makes you lose it. When you lose memory, you also lose your identity. All this in us is uncertain, while in God it is certain, permanent and unchangeable.

File: Olavo3.jpg (26KB, 382x235px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 382x235px

>>131441319
When speaking of the debate of the existence or nonexistence of God, such as the debate of William Lang Craig, the arguments are brilliant and in general he humiliates the adversaries. But to humiliate the adversary is one thing, to prove your thesis is another. The existence of God can’t be proved by arguments at the level of absolute certainty. It can at the reasonableness level. You might even go so far as to say that: If you do not believe in God, you are an idiot. You can get to that, but this is not an absolute logical certainty. Why can’t you come to absolute certainty? You could only come to that certainty if God were an universal abstract.
As God is a concrete individuality, which even manifests Himself in time, in the form of a human presence, then you can only know Him by experience, like any other person. And so you will see that the arguments for or against the existence of God are the same in a long time. People just become a bit more stylish, a bit more sophisticated but do not change. While the number of experiences of God in the world is unlimited. The life of all Saints, Saint John of the Cross, Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, Saint Francis of Assisi, among many others who knew God by presence, by the direct action of God. Direct and personalized way that God addresses and talks to a person, or introduces changes in that person's life. See that they are intentional modifications. When you make these intentional modifications, you are seeing His presence. Exactly how you see the action of a human being. What characterizes the action of a human being upon you?

File: Olavo4.jpg (36KB, 462x464px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 462x464px

>>131441442
The intentionality of the action. For example, a bump into you: a car can bump you, a bike too, even a bear. But to push you purposefully so that you fall, only a human being. The intentionality indicates that behind the action there is a consciousness, that is owner of itself, that freely, without your influence, decides to do this or that. With awareness of the effects you want to trigger.
The divine action occurs in the same way, they are not accidental modifications, which can be explained by impersonal, external factors. A miracle is not something strange that happened. It is a sequence of actions and events that clearly mark an intentionality and therefore make sense and establish a dialogue, a link.
Do not confuse this with the heretical idea that we only know God by an inner experience or a feeling. Divine action is an objective, external action. An action on the physical world. When I say that only the experiential knowledge of God is worth, it is not experience in the psychological, subjective sense. It is experience in the objective sense. For example, if you take all the healings that God operated at Padre Pio's request. It was not an impression that God spoke to him, it was a real event in the physical world.

Jesus was a Jew.

NAMED

File: Olavo5.jpg (34KB, 339x361px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 339x361px

>>131441527
There is the possibility of knowing God, but this possibility only has cognitive validity for the one who has experienced it, it is not transmissible. But it turns out that all the important truths in the world are like this. Truths that are fully transmissible are either totally logical or are partial scientific truths, obtained by a cut of reality and a series of verification procedures, which are highly deficient, fallible and imposed on a collectivity until someone disavows them. For example, today it is known that it’s almost impossible to replicate an experiment, there is always some kind of interference and the second experience is never the same as the first. The peak that any science attains is just probability, reasonableness.
However, the knowledge gained from direct experience is undeniable, because it is the experience of a presence, the presence is a here and now. The here and now represent a fact. The fact is something that happened and cannot “unhappen", even if you forget it.
When I say that this type of experience provides this absolute certainty, I am speaking from the point of view of the objective validity of that certainty, not of subjective belief, because the individual can forget about his experience and can also deny it. You can lie to yourself and say you did not see what you saw. So subjectively there is no such certainty. That is to say, it really happened, it did not go astray, although it may have disappeared from his memory.

>>131441631
If you want to prove that God exists, or does not exist, you have to admit the existence of a domain called existence, that transcends Him and in which He is or is not, and this is crazy. That is, is God within existence or outside it? In both cases He would have to be less than existence, would have to be something that exists within a field called existence. But we define God as an infinite being that transcends the entire field of the existing then it makes no sense. God cannot exist in the sense that things exist, He can exist in another sense.
Moreover, could you put yourself outside and above existence to judge what is inside or outside it? You can’t. Therefore, there is only one way for you to know God. It is to recognize that you are within Him. And that happens when He wants to. That is, the presence of God is a comprehensive thing, that engulfs you in some way. Swallows and transforms you. This is the only way you can know God. It is the deification of which the Catholic Church speaks. The process of knowing God is you letting Him transform you into Him. The apostle said: "It is no longer I who is here, it is Jesus who is in me".
Does this mean that you ceased to exist? No. You only exist, you only have an "I" because God has given you into that individuality and this possibility of having a self. So when you become in Him, you do not cease to exist, you come to exist more intensely. It is now that you become an "I", that you truly personalized yourself.

File: Olavo 6.jpg (25KB, 348x274px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 348x274px

>>131441750
It is not the idea of fusion, the "I" that disappears and is swallowed up in an abstract universality, as it is more or less in Hindi metaphysics. "I am no longer I, now I am the Brahma". This is understood as a suppression of individual existence. But in fact the individual existence is expressed because it is the expression of the will of God. The divine will that has personalized you. It doesn’t make sense to personalize yourself to later absorb you again. It is not a fusion, it is an absorption, an overcoming in the German sense of the word Aufnahme. Something that is covered and surpassed at the same time and as it is overcome intensifies.

This is the true way to know God. The evidence and the arguments are all at the level of reasonableness.

>>131441213
Which god?
There are 4000+ invented crutches
Choose one faith.

Considering everything known about the universe, it is more likely an intelligence created it, than chance, but that is only what I would say.

If a powerful intelligence existed, the universe appears to be conceptually like something it would create.

Who is this right extremist redneck?

File: Olavo8.jpg (94KB, 689x883px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 689x883px

>>131442907
Olavo de Carvalho, bitch

>>131443147
Pau no cu dos ursos

>>131441213
Olavo is cool

Atheists are dumbing down western thought to death.

>>131441213
>St. Aquinas argument
Why do dumb niggers always jump from logical evidence of "A GOD" to all that bullshit in the christian bible being fact. Aquinias' "Proofs" are all observations on physical phenomenon, not proofs of jesus christ demanding devotion on earth for eternal reward/punishment in the afterlife. Dumb nigger.