Hey Zig Forums, convince me to believe in God please. I went through the cycle you see often times on Zig Forums...

Finally, on rationality, and arguments for the existence of God, is the intelligibility of the universe. Nature is known as God's second book. The fine tuning, the design, the rigid order and predictableness ('uniformity') in nature. You may have understood the concept of 'rationality' as that pertaining to the framework of the scientific method, anything deducted outside of which is 'not rational.' If this is the case, please look into why you're mistaken about this conception of rationality also and realise your error. In summary, though, the scientific method, as I'm sure you're aware, is about making hypotheses from the observabale natural world that, ideally, we can verify through repreated testing to observe results and affirm a conclusive theory. Because it is limited to observable phenomona, the scientific method is limited to making statements about the observable (natural) world. Therefore the scientific method cannot make conclusive statements or theories about pheonomona that lie outside the observable natural world i.e. the supernatural including God. As we've already seen in pic in we can be perfectly rational using philosophical and purely logical methods which do not invoke the scientific method. People who believe that the scientific method is the only legitimate way of obtaining truth about the word subscribe to a philosophy (often unknowingly) called scientism. Because God is transcendant (as well as immiment) the scientific method by default cannot and should not be looking for God himself as an entity in the natural world. Having said this, to theists who are already aware of the existence of God, the beauty, complexity and vastness of the natural world spell G-O-D was here as crystal clear as winnie the pooh day. Hence again a) is why nature has been described by some as God's second book and b) again simply from the observation of our universe and experience of our existience, God's own existence is literally screaming out at us all. Another thing to note is that in terms of the philosophy of science, it is generally accepted that the scientific method cannot make definitive claims about what is true. Many people do not understand this and operate on the 'scientismist's' assumption that the scientific method is actually the only way to validly invoke a truth claim. Nevertheless, contrary to what the scientismist says, the best is can actually do is 'we haven't falsified this theory…yet. ' So again just another bit of food for thought if you were coming from this relating your concern for 'throwing rationality out the window if coming to Christ' or however you phrased it..the rationality of the scientific method is not all encompassing…AND YET..if it weren't for God's order in creation, his design, his infusing of uniformity into our natural world..we wouldn't even be able to develop the scientific method!! (And exist as we do also, lol but besides the point). Our reason is God-given, and there is none apart from him.

My how I've babbled, and haven't even mentioned the other two tiers yet. Essentially though, look into the arguments for God's existence. There are a number of philosophical ones (as per Aquinas above, Ontological is another one) and scientific ones (teleological and kalaam cosmological). Then there's the moral argument which was crucial in my coming to all this and the conclusions of the argument made acknowledging his existence an absolute necessity as a means to avoid inevitable insanity/life-long dispair/suicide. But it may not be such a biggie for you.

The other two tier bits should be a bit shorter and incoming shortly..

If you attempt understanding the thing you quotes, instead of trying to shoehorn as many big smart worDS into the pretentious monstrosity you have written, you will see that I do not complain about OP not listening or engaging. I complain about his ignorance and the buzzwords he throws around.

You asked in another post 2 questions - 'gimme proofs for God' (consider this awnswered - see posts above) and then 'once you gimme proofs for God tell me how it's the God of Christianity.' This is where we get to this.

The next thing, then, after being convinced of theism, is the reliability of the New Testament as a historical account, including the Gospels. Written by eyewitnesses, or people who knew and were writing down accounts for eyewitnesses relatively (for ancient history) soon after they happened (indeed relative to sources for other bits of ancient history the Gospel's being written down between 30-50 years after the fact is actually incomparable to other historical sources which are normally from a much longer timeframe after the event their describing). Then you have the book of Acts and the epistles. 1 Corinthians 15 I think it is has what has been recognised as an early Christian creed with the essentials of the faith, estimated to have been developed and affirmed within the first few months to few years of Christ's death. Christ claimed he was and was crucified for claiming to be God, something no other prophet dared do. He and fulfulled numerous prophecies of the OT which you can read up about. We have more copies of ancient manuscripts for NT than for any other ancient text and they all align with each other pretty much perfectly and, where they don't it is in the minutest of details as to render the differences completely insignificant resulting in unchanged and firmly affirmed doctrine.

Coming round to understanding the reliability of the NT is the second tier of the approach. The third is that, now you have that in the bag, you need to be convinced of Jesus being ressurected.

Pretty much all scholars, secular or otherwise, affirm that at the very least, the following as comprising the minimal historical facts: that Jesus was a real historical person, had a bunch of followers, was crucified, his tomb was found empty three days later, and his followers claimed to see him and/or had experiences of interacting with him following his crucifxion in his new glorified body. Note they don't say he was actually ressurected, only that his followers claimed to see him or were convinced they saw him alive after his death.

Cool, so now we got those basics down, we just have to eliminate the possiblities of why the tomb was found empty, given it is by concensus considered historical fact. *Goes and does research* Hmm, would seem that any of the alternative theories to explain the tomb being empty that don't involve him being ressurected by God are, in light of my new found belief in an immiment God who would be perfectly capable of performing a miracle like raising someone from the dead, surprisingly thin. Therefore he was ressurected as the Son of God in a glorified body by the father in the process defeating death and making good on his promise for eternal life. See also the evidence for the shroud, which according to all indications is simply miraculous.

Cool, welcome to Christianity.

And this came up a couple of times but I don't think it was emphasised enough - we use the fact that the apostles died violent deaths for dying what they believed in which add's to Christianity's credibility. You say, 'sure but there are martyrs for lots of types of beliefs, just because people die for it doesn't make it true.' But the difference between the apostles and all other martyrs is that they were dying for something, a person, the risen Christ, they claimed to have seen with their own eyes and spoke to and touched and interacted with. Other martyrs were just dying for what someone or something else had told them, (like the fact that Christ is risen, which is admirable but not extraordinary) and not for experiencing the thing themselves. This adds great weight to the claims of the NT in the Christian's mind.

But seriously m8, there's more. Something that you're clearly not aligned with yet is your relationship to God. Your preference for this strenth and claiming it's not in Christianity. Seriously, God is all powerful, you do not get greater strength than his. As well as all those other things in that pic God is by definition morally perfect, holy, set apart, compared to you and me who are puny minded and fallible. You need to understand that although created for good and by nature are good, due to the fall we have inclination to sin and regularly of our own devices transgress God's law. You speak about disdaining the crackwhore and honouring the productive member of society - thing is - you've no idea of the circumstances, the opportunities, the contraints, the weaknesses and strentgths of judgement or indeed altruistic or corruptive habits and the rightous or sinful decisions either of them may have taken to get where they are. You have NO idea, and so are in no position to say. Only God knows all that, and knows their intensions and their hearts, so only he is fit to judge in the end. We can call out sin when we see it fair and square, and indeed admonish the sinner with a view to seeking to help (love) them, but we cannot pass ultimate judgement. You need to understand this and understand and get over your pride and humble yourself and acknowledge that you're not all knowing. That you've sinned, and are not perfect and therefore need to repent and in need of forgiveness in order to be reconciled to God through Christ. We're all capable of great evil, don't under estimate yourself and judge others too harshly. We're capable of great things with God and terrible things without. Another thing to mention which haven't seen in this thread yet but thought I would is the Christian concept of love, agape, charity, which is not an emotion but an act of the will, willing the good of the other, and revolves around sacrifice of yourself for said other. Another thing to look into. Finally, as other anons already indicated turn the other cheek is not what it first appears so there's that to look into too (some author walter or waltman or something had a book called 'the third way' there's a PDF extract out there about the passage and this).

Final note, is do all this while praying and reading your bible and doing research. Faith, which can mean trust, and is 'the evidence of things not seen,' is a gift from God. Petition him for it, even if it feels silly at first. Excercise your will to believe in him like a muscle and ask for it. Speak to him with whatevers on your mind, as a friend, as a father, as the creator and sustainer of your very existence, even if you're frustrated, but do try to give thanks also and pray for others as well as yourself, as I'm sure you have much you can thank him for as we all do. Pray pray pray. Start with the Lord's prayer and contemplate what you're saying and why. See >>653598 for some resources to start reading with and getting more infos.

Attached: 5c63787258e7d90f9883e0d669c68b9fcd3774aa9ba440f697e73ef491e80a1a.gif (300x187, 622.28K)

Except you're wrong. This board DOES have an outreach element to it. It is specifically stated in the rules of the board:

"4. Non-Christians are welcome to post here, and are encouraged to ask questions in good faith. But they cannot proselytize non-Christian beliefs or post antagonistic or otherwise scandalous material.

If you are a non-Christian, you are more than welcome to create a thread asking questions specific to you…"

That is exactly what this user has done. He has created a thread for himself, and has been participating in discussion regarding his specific situation/challenges with believing.

As far as inter-denom bickering, I saw a little at the beginning of the thread, but other than that it seems fine. It's not like it has derailed the thread or caused a lot of anger.

sorry if my writing isn't coherent m8, I'm no expert, I just wanted to try to post something informative and constructive to counter the pointlessly negative posts by certain anons potentially scaring away an inquring potential convert :^)
indeed if you'd attempted to read my post instead of getting uppity for no reason, you will see that I did not say your response was complaining about OP not listening or engaging, I said responses like yours are normally provoked by people who don't listen or engage and made it clear that I could see he wasn't one of them.And clearly I had read your posts and tried to respond with them in mind and constructively expand on them (which your quoting of his buzz words of RATIONALITY LOGIC ENLIGHTENMENT CURRENT YEAR which was effectively a pointless piss take straw man full of assumptions) by my dedicating a massive admittedly rambling post trying to help the man see how he should see and use the idea of rationality in light of theistic and Christian thought! Jheeze bud if you haven't got anything positve to say why bother being such a grumps! LIGHTEN UP

I stand corrected.

OP here. I'll get around to responding to everyone eventually. I've been super busy with my move.

I went to church on Sunday. The closest Catholic church to me is awesome. People actually were wearing sports coats and I don't think I saw a single t-shirt. I've only ever been near laid back Catholic churches. The building itself is impressive. It is very Gothic looking. I really enjoyed the mass I went to. Honestly, I'm looking forward to going back next Sunday more than anything else. I went to the coffee and donuts and chatted with some older folks. I'm kinda socially awkward and I can usually hold a conversation better with old people than your average young person. I also got a Bible today, pick related.

Gotta go back to work now. Trying to catch up.

Attached: Screenshot_20180618-173442.png (1080x1920, 1.88M)

OP here. I just skimmed the post your referencing. I actually enjoy the way it was written. The post was pleasant to read. When I have more time I will sit down and respond to all of these. Everyone else in the thread has been helpful except for you. My goal really is to believe in God. I just have to figure out how to do that.

Ayyyy, I had actually been meaning to get that one myself before picking up this leatherbound beauty. Good choice. Glad to see you have a particularly good parish, many of us here aren't so blessed as to have strong catholic communities irl.
Also, just to check, PLEASE TELL ME YOU DID NOT TAKE COMMUNION BEFORE CONFESSION.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (480x640, 439.13K)