On the Objective Reality
of God

Objective Reality versus Subjective Empiricism, which holds that Reality is subject to Human Perception.

Vic Biorseth, OWM; Saturday, January 11, 2014
https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com

Believe it or not, when we talk about Absolute Truth and "Perceived" Truth, we are talking about God.  Even if we don't believe in God.  When we discuss Moral Absolutes and Moral Relativism, we are, again, talking about God.  Whenever we are talking or thinking about Reality, whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not, we are talking or thinking about God. 

Definition of Objective Truth:  That which is.  Reality.  Existence. 

Again, as we have said before, Objective Truth is absolutely independent of the human mind.  What we think about it, how we think about it, whether we think about it or not, it continues to exist, unchanged and unaffected, and it continues to be absolutely independent of whatever we may or may not think about it, or whatever we may try to do about it.  It remains unchanged. 

And, Subjective Truth, or Subjective Reality is that reality which we "perceive" to be "true" based on our opinions, psychology, education, emotions, experiences, influence of others and even our mood of the moment.  These days, Subjective Truth is more and more aligned with politics and political agendas than with studied perceptions.  When that happens, Subjective Truth morphs into purposeful lies with a goal of deception regarding actual reality, told for what is felt to be good cause.  More on that later. 

Until now, in this website we have spoken mostly about the Scientific Method in areas where it has not been applied, such as Darwin's theory describing the Origin of Species, Freud's silly theories describing the Subconscious Mind, and Marx's preposterous theories on Economics and Social Orders.  Obviously, by the time of the major acceptance of these three major "theories" science itself had gone way off the tracks.  We discussed that in the Scientism pages. 

Maybe it's time to back up and look at the bigger picture again.  Let's go back to before America, before the Reformation, before the Enlightenment, and before Modernism.  Let's go back even before Jesus Christ and the birth of His Church. 

Indicating that God is the only thing that simply IS.  Everything else including us, is a creature - that is, created.  Brought into being. 

Now, if you don't believe in God, that's fine; we have freedom of religion around here.  Don't even waste your time reading any farther; you're obviously in the wrong Website.  We have discussed, unto death, the existence of God question in Faith Versus Atheism, and in Truth versus Evil, and in Why believe in God?, and probably a bunch of other places.  I'm not going to repeat all those good arguments again here.  From here on, we will just assume that God is what He said He is: the center and font of all Objective Truth = Reality = what IS.  (John 14:6)

Keeping that in mind, and coming back to the present day, we need to remind ourselves of the smaller Truths that flow from the big one of God.  They have to do with His Will, which was revealed to us by His Son and His Son's chosen Apostles.  These are the Truths that give our lives purpose and direction.  As discussed in more detail in the Ethos page, the first few Commandments of God, given to Moses, pertained to man's relationship with God, or our Faith.  The rest of the Commandments of God, given to Moses, pertained to man's relationship with his fellow man, or our morality. 

Faith and Morals are the two areas of life on which the Church speaks Infallibly, out of the Divine Revelation of God, with the aid of the Holy Ghost. 

If God is an unchangeable objective reality, then so is His Revelation to man.  What He says about Himself and about us, and about our relationship, is objectively true.  It does not change.  It is the Law of God, and it is the Law of Nature, issued by the Divine Author of Nature. 

To hold that what is right or wrong for one person may not be right or wrong for another person is known as Moral Relativism, which is nothing less than an exercise in Variable Reality.  Denial of an objective truth is, at its root, either a rejection of God's Word or a denial of His existence. 

Morality is the same for everyone, everywhere on earth.  There are three major breaks in man's acceptance of Revealed Morality.

1. Everyone has not heard the Divine Revelation yet. 
   
2. From the beginning, there have been heretics and dissenters who disregarded the Divine Revelation. 
   
3. Since the Fracturing of Christianity we have seen growing numbers of new "religions", mostly based on the newly invented dogmas of Martin Luther (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.) with increasingly modified subjective and therefore variable moral codes. 
   

But there is a fourth break, within the Church itself, which should worry us all more than the three above.  We have touched on it in Smoke of Satan, Lucifer and the CCHD, Communizer Dorothy Day, and the various pages linked under the Refuting Perverted Catholicism heading.  Pope Paul VI is credited with announcing that the Smoke of Satan had entered the Temple of God, as we showed in Corrupted Catholic Culture.  Now, from an email from one of you, we have become aware of the possible complicity of Paul VI in this "smoke".  The email linked to an interview with Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand regarding Paul VI and heresies he had been warned of.  The link is http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2013/01/interview-with-alice-von-hildebrand.html.   The meat of the interview follows:

The only point I take exception to is Dr. Hildebrand's assertion that Paul VI should have spoken "ex cathedra" in his Humanae Vitae condemnation of artificial contraception.  In my opinion, he didn't need to.  His encyclical, like the preceding Casti Connubii of Pius XI, was a definitive statement on a matter of faith and morals, by a Pope, consistent with unchanged Revelation and consistent Tradition of the Church, published to the whole world, declaring contraception to be gravely sinful.  As such, it was an infallible and irreformable statement under the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.  That's my reading of both Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. 

That point aside, this interview raises anew old, long forgotten questions in our minds about the true intentions of Paul VI, who was the author of the Novus Ordo Mass.  Why?  (See the Changes in Liturgy page.)  All that truly radical liturgical interruption; all those sudden, sudden changes; All those new altars springing up everywhere, overnight; even after all these years, even after having embraced the New Mass, even after participating for decades, we still don't understand the why of it.  We never heard any good explanation of why it all had to happen in the first place. 

Getting back to the Objective Reality versus Subjective Empiricism dichotomy:  We are all better prepared to work toward getting a derailed train back on the tracks after having spent some time examining the damage and properly preparing the significant engineering task that is before us.  We are surveying the damage all around us, and at the root of it all, stands Untruth.

This Website is produced by an ordinary Catholic layman for fellow ordinary Catholic laymen, and by an ordinary American citizen for fellow ordinary American citizens.  Anywhere else on earth, that might mean that we are pretty close to helpless in all of these matters.  But here in this land, and now, at least unless and until Obamunism succeeds in its Total Revolution, we remain the Sovereign Citizens of America here, and we have much to say about everything.  Whether the sitting government likes it or not. 

The really major lies - lies that derail culture - all spawned more lies, all leading, eventually, to the same place:  Nonsense.  The absolute loss of natural common sense.  The lack of common purpose and direction, the death of Ethos, and the advent of Cultural Insanity. 

History's major liars, who's long-lasting lies misled millions, are legion; we have spoken of a few of them in these pages.  Among them are, of course, Luther and Munzer, Voltaire, Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Alfred Kinsey, Karl Marx,  Richard Dawkins and Saul Alinsky. 

In the aftermath of the Reformation and the splitting of Christianity into denominations ruled by secular rulers, thanks to Martin Luther's doctrine of Cujus region, ejus rligio (Whoever’s reign, his religion).  That meant a radical combination of Church and State, in which kings and nobles were in absolute charge of religion in their domains.  Of course, what followed was religious persecution on a grand scale, all over Europe and the British Isles. 

It was the very reason America came to be.  Founded and Constituted as a "Christian" nation, under a "general" Christianity described by Benjamin Franklin as "our American religion", following the Judeo-Christian Morality common to Catholicism and all Denominations of Protestantism, I submit that the new nation of America presented the last best hope for Catholic Ecumenism among Christian denominations. 

Here, all were free to worship, and to evangelize, and to discuss, all they wanted to.  This was true freedom; freedom of as well as from religion.  If a man wanted to go to hell, he was perfectly free to do so; and if he wanted to try his best to convince others of the truth of his religion, he was perfectly free to do that.  True salvation is dependent upon a free will choice, after all.  No one can be dragged, kicking and screaming against his will, into heaven. 

If you want to study how a single lie gives birth to other lies, and how each of those lies gives birth to multiple other lies, and on, and on, you need look no further than the original lie, and the long progression of lies it spawned, pertaining to the non-sinfulness, and then the goodness, and then the acceptability, and then the utility and usefulness, and then the need, and then even the legal right, and then even the moral requirement, to practice mortal sin of artificial contraception. 

Historically speaking, this notion is brand new.  It didn't even exist until 1930; before then, no one would even think of such an obviously unnatural and immoral thing.  You can go to the Contraception page to read the condemnations of it by such historic personages as:

1. Martin Luther
2. John Calvin
3. John Wesley
4. Theodore Roosevelt, our first American President who was a Marxist of the Progressive persuasion
5. Sigmund Freud, who actually defined sexual perversion as any pursuit of sexual gratification that in any way unnaturally restricted or precluded the possibility of procreation
6. Mahatma Gandhi

Contraception was universally condemned, everywhere, by everyone, of every faith.  No exceptions.  Now, only Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy hold the line against it.  And, as we have seen elsewhere in this Website, we have thundering herds of American Catholic Bishops who either support artificial contraception, or who just stand around with their thumbs up their butts while open political champions of contraception are on public parade right in front of their noses, even at their own Communion rails. 

Note the common thread that runs through the "root lies" as well as all the sub-lies that spring up out of them.  Promoters of each lie will profess that opponents of the lie are trying to impose their will on them, while, in actual fact, the liars are seeking to impose their lie on all of society, even against the will of society.  They falsely claim to champion "freedom" even as they work to restrict it.  And as the lies advance, we all become less free. 

Contraception itself, for instance, is not among the limited and enumerated areas open for legislation, adjudication and enforcement of federal law, under the Constitution.  That makes it a local subject, to be handled in accordance with local community standards.  Constitutionally, artificial contraception is none of the business of the American federal government. 

But that's not good enough for the liars. 

They want their lie of the moment to become federal law, affecting everyone, to either be legislated by a corrupted Congress, created through executive action by a corrupted Executive, or adjudicated into a legal precedent by corrupted judges or justices. 

So it is with lie after lie after lie.  If it isn't among the limited and enumerated powers of the government listed in the American Constitution, it isn't even supposed to be addressed by the American government; yet we see all the sub-lies that sprang from the Contraception lie being pushed in legislation, enforcement and litigation, always, always at the federal level.  Always in opposition to some local or state existing standard of behavior.  Always to impose the will of a minority on an unwilling majority.  Always in the name of "freedom".  Always in the name of "civil rights". 

Examples:  Abortion.  The "civil right" of someone to choose to abort someone.   The "civil right" of someone to be an open sexual pervert.  The "civil right" of someone to marry a same sex partner.  If you don't think these abominations, and more, all sprang forth from general social acceptance of artificial contraception, then you have not been paying attention. 

The whole so-called sexual revolution and the Free Love movement were born of social acceptance followed by social promotion of artificial contraception. 

Contraception was supposed to cut down on unwanted pregnancies;  instead, it increased them.  Radically.   So many new unwanted pregnancies came to be that abortion simply became another contraceptive method.  Every single thing proponents of the lie predicted turned out to be false.  Illicit sex became rampant, because of contraception's false promise of eliminating consequences.  It increased consequences.  It increased what it promised to reduce, always, including especially venereal diseases.

Just a few of the things contraception promised to reduce, but that contraception increased, include:

1. Unwanted pregnancies
2. Single parent "familiies"
3. Abused women
4. Abused children
5. Abortion
6. Fatherless children
   
7. Broken marriages
8. Marriages
9. Venereal disease infection
10. Numbers of new venereal diseases

The numbers of all of these things went up, not down. 

Contraception was held to reduce, among other things, the number of abortions.   But abortions went up, not down.  It was a lie. 

Abortion was supposed to reduce the number of bastard children; but since abortion has been un-Constitutionally legalized, the numbers of bastard children have radically increased, rather than going down. 

It was the same with everything.  Unwed motherhood.  Child abuse.  Woman abuse.  Disease.  All of these unwanted consequences of illicit sex that the liars promised would be eliminated, were accelerated. 

The only thing that increased under all these false promises was the causative activity of the unwanted consequences, which was and is, illicit sex outside of marriage, and perverted sex within marriage.  That radically increased, right along with it's natural consequences. 

No one seems smart enough to see it.  You can't fool mother nature. 

But that ain't all, not be a long shot.  Mostly under the impetus of the false, Marxist-dominated strain of thought that, simultaneously, almost deifies material science and attacks religious faith, all sorts of other lies regarding nature are all aimed at growing government itself and growing government power, to properly deal with major problems that do not even exist. 

This is how error, influenced by evil, can morph into purposeful lie, and grow into a major national and international hoax, and can even becomes a massive global murderous fraud, resulting in unwarranted death of innocent human beings.  All to grow government power and increase citizen subservience and dependence on government. 

Every error can commandeered as a lie; every lie can be magnified. 

We have the government created an government sponsored Global Warming Hoax, which has been grown and blown into a gigantic, global, international criminal fraud.  The American government has even recruited news media TV and radio Weather Announcers into the act, to continuously propagandize and advance the lie of it.  The ends justify the means.  We have the Ozone-Hole fraud, the Acid Rain fraud, the fear of Nuclear Melt-Down fraud, and others in the Eco-Nazi Movement program. 

If you think this is all, just work your way through the Scientism pages. 

Which brings us, finally, to the SLIMC¹ , which, true to it's overwhelmingly Marxist slant, seldom met a government-growing lie it could not support, promote and magnify.   Again, for them, the ends justify the means.

As most of you know, I detest the mainstream news media, and I avoid it at all costs.  I avoid network news, and I avoid cable news, with the occasional exception of FOX news.  And I have taken issue with the FOX network in these Webpages, notably with Neil Cavuto and with Bill O'Reilly.  There is considerably more than a detectable thread of moral relativism running through FOX.  And FOX is the best of them all.  And the fact that FOX is the best should tell you that we are in very serious trouble, as a nation. 

Take a look at the video at http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-01-09  for how FOX News has "come out" in favor of sodomy, and now promotes sodomy throughout our culture.  Then watch the video at http://www.churchmilitant.tv/dispatches/foxcomesout/ for the details of how Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly now publicly champion and defend such things as homosexual marriage, abortion, and, in Bill's case, whatever the hell floats your boat. 

This is moral relativism on steroids.  Again, its not enough that the sinner be tolerated; we, the majority, must recognize the good of the sin, and stop calling it sin or condemning it in any way.  They don't even see that it is they who are intolerant of us, and they who are publicly arguing against us, and for the sins.  Against nature, and for perversion.  Against right, and for wrong. 

God help us. 

Again, FOX is as close as you can come to conservative news; for the worst, see the Mainstream Media pages.  I don't know about you, but I will never forget how such so-called "conservative" luminaries as Anne Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, Neal Boortz and others, whether independent or working with FOX, publicly opposed Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and other Tea Party candidates in favor of pro-Marxism, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, pro-atheism - in other words, pro-Democrat opponents.  

For me, all that's left is conservative talk radio, and Glenn Beck's TV network.  I have been taken to task in these pages for supporting Beck, a Mormon, over Hannity, a Catholic.  Perhaps, if you've watched the videos above, now you know why.  Hannity is nothing but another Lip Service Catholic, barely better in his Catholic act than Nancy Pelosi.  Beck may be a Mormon, but at least he believes what he professes, with great passion.  Sincerely wrong, yes, but truly sincere, and holding fast to his principles, and a more honest and objective seeker of truth than Hannity. 

The most "Catholic" of them all may be the non-Catholic Rush Limbaugh.  I don't even know what his faith is, but you can be pretty sure it is some variety of Christian.  I never heard him claim a religious affiliation.  I know he has had multiple marriages, and I know he publicly promotes his friend Elton John, but neither does he claim to be a practicing Catholic, or anything else, to my knowledge.   Rush may be the most thoroughly decent hugely successful popular host of any talk show, or any show, radio or TV.  Here I use the term decent as it has been understood throughout the long history of Western Civilization. 

Meanwhile, all of the Marxocrat Party, all of the Republicrat Party, all of the news media, including even FOX news, just about all popular "Conservative" commentators, have all given in to the greatest falsehood of all, that:

Thus have they politically and socially aligned themselves with the enemy of Christianity, and thus have they chosen to align themselves with evil, to advance the cause against the majority of the American citizenry.  They actually, actively oppose the Tea Party and all real Conservatives, and, at the root, Christianity itself. 

So be it. 

O'Reilly in particular, probably just a more outspoken representative of all the rest, has clearly abandoned the long established ethos of America, and adopted the ethos of BMDFP¹⁰ and the whole Marxocrat Party.

It is high time for us ordinary folk to do what it takes to move us to a No Party America.  We are the overwhelming majority.  We - the American people - need to start Fixing it All.  Through action.  Faith Alone is just not enough.  It is time to take it to the enemy, and get this over with. 

Suit up. 

If you find the way to please God, you will live forever. 

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; "Hover" the mouse over it just to see the simple interpretation.)

SLIMC¹ Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT² Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG³ Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild-Assed Guess
TTRSTF⁴ Them There Real Scientifical-Type Fellers
TTRSPTF⁵ Them There Real Smart Perfesser-Type Fellers
TTRSJTF⁶ Them There Real Smart Journalistical-Type Fellers
SNRTACBT⁷ Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB⁸ Surely Today No Serious Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN⁹ We Don't Know
BMDFP¹⁰ Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs and ...
HBAACOTE¹¹ Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU¹² Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF¹³ Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML¹⁴ Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML¹⁵ Islamic Ends-Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV¹⁶ Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG¹⁷ Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM¹⁸ The Reason Man's In This Mess
IYI¹⁹ Intellectual Yet Idiotic
TTRSCBTF²⁰ Them There Real Smart Catholic Bishop Type Fellers
IACMPVND²¹ Illegal-Alien-Criminal Marxocrat-Party-Voting Nation-Destroyers
PEJTML²² Palestinian Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
PSYOP²³ "Psychological Operation" Mind Trick
CDC²⁴ Covid Developmentally Challenged
LGBTQ+ Every Letter Represents A Serious Psychotic sexual Identity Disorder
HEJTML²⁶ Hedonist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
SEJTML²⁷ Scientistic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar

Reference Material

[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]

Culture=Religion+Politics;  Who Are We?  Vic Biorseth

The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA;  Vic Biorseth

Live Interviews

Return to the BLOG page

Return to the HOME PAGE

Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter

---

Date:  Mon Jan 13 17:43:06 2014
From:  Catholicchild
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

Thanks so much for printing (or reprinting) the Les Femmes article/interview with Alice Von Hildebrand!  Each time I clicked on the link, I received some sort of weird message (i.e., this item has been removed).  Thanks and God bless you, Vic and your bride!

---

Date:  Wed Jan 15 13:49:22 2014
From:  Fr. Roderic
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

Vic,

You refer to "the mortal sin of contraception" but the Bible nowhere mentions mortal sin.  You imply that the mortal sinner will go to hell, but the Bible nowhere condemns anyone to hell.  Are you not taking a lot onto yourself, and making yourself everyone else's judge? 

---

Date:  Wed Jan 15 17:44:23 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment: 

Fr. Roderic:

If your title is truly Father, you should know a lot better than to spout such falsehoods in public.  What seminary from hell did you attend?

Regarding mortal sin, consider this:

In the Bible, Jesus Christ, the Lord thy God, told you how we are all to be judged on the final day in Matthew 25, dividing us into sheep and goats, with the final lines:

Our Lord had some strong words for Judas Iscariot, the patron saint of all traitors and the icon of the art of deception and treachery.  I think it's a safe bet that Judas is in hell. 

Then there are those who lead others into sin, like most of our Bishops, with particular emphasis on those who lead children into sin:

God is to be feared more than mere men, because His punishment is eternal: 

And then there were our Lord's stong words for the Pharisees (the Republicrats of their day) who opposed the Sadducees (the Marxocrats of their day) in their feigned piety covering their utter hypocrisy:

Even among the righteous, hell reaches out, through the world, to grab us:

And even angels were cast into hell:

So don't stand there in public with your bare face hanging out and soften the message of ultimate judgment. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Wed Jan 15 22:58:11 2014
From:  Sandra
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

If I am reading you correctly, you are charging Megyn Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Anne Coulter and others with opposing God or not believing in God.  Is that what you really mean to convey? 

---

Date:  Thu Jan 16 06:20:11 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Sandra:

Yes. 

To oppose the objective reality of the Word of God is, at its root, to oppose the objective reality of God Himself.  They have socially, politically and religiously aligned themselves with the opponents of God, and set themselves against God. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Thu Jan 16 06:45:09 2014
From:  Sandra
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

Based on what?  When did they do that? 

---

Date:  Thu Jan 16 06:48:45 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Sandra:

Attacking or opposing someone who defends chastity and condemns homosexuality is directly opposing the will of God, as seen in His Revelation to man, protected down through the ages by His Church. 

Opposing any political candidate who is openly Christian, because she or he is openly Christian, or because they condemn such things as abortion, in favor of any opposing political candidate who is either anti-Christian, or, lukewarm enough in their faith to not even bring it up, is, again, directly opposing the revealed will of God, which is available to all who have any interest in learning what it is. 

Knowingly or otherwise, these people are supporting the goals of Lucifer.  They are opposing God. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Thu Jan 16 20:07:57 2014
From:  John
Email:   jbubs55@comcast.net
Location:  Wyoming, PA
Comment: 

Brother Vic,

Is it unreasonable to believe that a Pope would have doubt about the very existence of God? I think not. The Pope is mere man, and all men doubt. But doubt is possible only because God is not objective and therefore cannot be understood as objective reality. God can be understood only by inference, which is defined as the knowledge about what is unknown based on things that are known. And what is known is reality itself, and the reality of reason itself (by which we are able to use inference), and of course the reality of the historical Savior. Thomas Aquinas and his 5 Arguments who you cited cited in "Faith Versus Atheism" on 8/22/10, are inferential reasoning. But in addition to Aquinas, I think about the equally brilliant Pascal, who (like all men) also wrestled with the question of God's existence. In Penses he wrote:

“Let us examine this point, and let us say: ‘Either God is or he is not.’ But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.

Do not then condemn as wrong those who have made a choice… ‘No, but I will condemn them for not having made this particular choice, but any choice, for although one calls heads and the other one are equally at fault, the fact is that they are both at fault: the right thing is not to wager at all.’

Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. What will you choose then? Let us see: since a choice must be made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two things to lose: the true and the good: and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness.”

And here is Pascal's Wager:

A. God exists (Christianity is true)
1. If I believe it and it turns out to be objectively true then I gain eternal happiness and lose nothing. 
2. If I do not believe it and it turns out to be objectively true then I lose everything (including happiness and pleasure).

B. God does not exist (Christianity is not true) 1. If I believe this and it is objectively true then I gain nothing and lose nothing.
2. If I do not believe this and it is objectively true then I gain nothing and lose nothing.

In other words, Pascal says that if Christianity is true then those who don’t believe have everything to lose. If Christianity is not true then in the end nothing is lost to the believer or unbeliever. But it is the unbeliever who has infinitely more to lose if he is wrong.

Semper Fidelis.

---

Date:  Fri Jan 17 05:32:48 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

John:

I think you are confusing "knowing" with "understanding". 

But God is indeed objective, and is the root source of all objective truth, and all that is.  It doesn't matter whether we understand God or not; He remains what He is.  In point of fact, He cannot be understood, in any human sense; but that does not mean that He cannot be Known. 

As an example, look at John 6, beginning at verse 30, for how Jesus described Himself as Eucharist.  Disciples murmured, and He didn't back down; he kept strengthening the message, and ordering them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.  This was very upsetting to the listeners, because they could not understand this; how could they?  But He persisted, even tying it to salvation itself, saying if you do not do this, you do not have eternal life. 

And many left Him, because they couldn't understand, and in their human, worldly pride, they needed to understand.  Then He issued the stinging challenge to the Apostles:  Will you, too, leave me? 

And Simon Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Note that Peter didn't say that he understood; he didn't understand.  He couldn't.  But he knew Who was speaking. 

It could be that in this life the creature can never hope to understand its creator, but that does not mean the creator does not exist. 

The questions raised about Paul VI involve his possible infection with the ideology of Communism or his being controlled by Communist ideologues.  It would seem that such a thing would only be possible, unless he were under some form of duress, if he had abandoned belief in Moral Absolutes, which would entail abandonment of Asolute Truth, which would mean abandonment of belief in God Himself. 

Re the famous Pascal's Wager, the most important lesson in that involves the related risk analysis part of it.  When you wager on something, you consider the odds.  In business, or in war, you had better also consider the possibility of catastrophic risk.  If the risk involves only profit, or expense, or the loss of a battle for a strategic advantage, you might take that risk.  But if the risk is absolutely catastrophic, then, no matter what the odds are, you should hesitate; if you are prudent, you will not take that risk. 

If you bet that God does not exist and He does not exist, you win, but you win nothing in particular. 

If you bet that God does exist and He does not exist, you lose, but you lose nothing in particular. 

If you bet that God exists and He does exist, then you win, and what you win is everlasting life in Heaven. 

If you bet that God does not exist and He does exist, then you lose, and you damn yourself to everlasting Hell. 

Which would be catastrophic. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Fri Jan 17 07:52:13 2014
From:  Diane
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

That just doesn't make sense.  How can you "know" something you cannot see, feel or touch, without making inferences about it based on something real that you know?

---

Date:  Fri Jan 17 08:45:02 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Diane:

You can know it by natural faith; the simple faith of a little child.  It is beyond the ability of the purely worldly, or the aloof, wise and learned who see themselves as the masters of all knowledge, or as potential masters of the world. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Sun Jan 19 08:56:46 2014
From:  John
Email:   jbubs55@comcast.net
Location:  Wyoming
Comment: 

Hi Vic,

You are correct in that I had interchanged "knowledge" and "understanding". I did not proof read and edit before I mailed. Please allow me to replace all references to "understand" with "know".

Now, as Diane has indicated no one can know anything that one "cannot see, feel or touch, without making inferences about it based on something real that you know" by which she implies is via the senses. I believe Diane is correct, so I must stand by my argument.

Your response to her that one "can know it by natural faith; the simple faith of a little child" sounds very close to fideism, which is faith without knowledge. Fideism is not a bad thing, per se, but the problem is that in this world it cannot stand on its own. This is because fideism can be applied equally to Atheism or Buddhism, etc., etc.  And as Paul tells us Christianity stands apart as having historical evidence, specifically evidence of Christ's resurrection, without which Christianity collapses.

However, the very idea of God (without Jesus) can be argued and "proved" by using  "pure reason". This was accomplished through the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. All these men (from what I understand) used inferential reasoning. An excellent and thoroughly entertaining book explaining this is "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser. Dr. Feser is a Professor of Philosophy and was (briefly) an atheist, but has since turned back to Catholicism. I consider his book a "must read".  

---

Date:  Sun Jan 19 13:21:38 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

John:

My response to Diane assumed she had followed all that had gone before, which is to say, that she was familiar with the arguments put forth in Faith Vs. Atheism and was at least aware of the Revelation of God to man, through the Scripture and Tradition passed on to us by the Church that received it.  If she were totally ignorant of the Revelation of God it is doubtful that she would be commenting in these pages as frequently as she is. 

The revelation is given as a take-it-or-leave-it offering.  Once all the reasoning is done and all the evidences examined, and once the remaining possibilities are weighed against each other, a decision must be made.  That decision is easiest for a child, more difficult for an adult raised not in faith, and near impossible for the proud. 

The elite and effete modern intelligentsia, like many of the Pharisees in our Lord's day, are far too full of themselves and far too convinced of their own correctness and everyone else's  inferiority to accept anything other-worldly or non-empirical.  Only the open-minded and the truly honest can make the right choice. 

Maybe that's what He meant when He said many are called but few are chosen. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Mon Jan 20 10:37:50 2014
From:  John
Email:   jbubs55@comcast.net
Location:  Wyoming, Pa
Comment: 

Vic,

Agreed! And Dr. Fesner's book calls out by name the "elite and effete modern intelligentsia...(who)...are far too full of themselves and far too convinced of their own correctness and everyone else's  inferiority to accept anything other-worldly or non-empirical."  His conclusion is not "only the open-minded and the truly honest can make the right choice", but he shows convincingly that if one compares the reasoning of many (if not most) of the modern atheists to the reasoning of the classic philosophers, particularly Aristotle and Aquinas, one will discover that the modern view ultimately makes reason and morality impossible, while "the religious view enshrined in classical philosophical theism cannot fail to commend itself to every rational and morally decent human being who understands it...".

---

Date:  Mon Jan 20 19:05:27 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

John:

The problem is that they don't really reason; they just regurgitate what they have officially learned, and what they think they "know".  Many, many public school educated generations now have never learned critical thinking.  Same thing with many generations of Ivy League university graduates.  All they "know" is what their Leftist professors pumped them full of. 

I'm going into all that in more detail in a new webpage I'm working on, dealing with the Marxist Class Warfare Lies of "Social Justice" theology and secular philosophy.  It involves, quite literally, the institutionalization of envy, done in the name of "fairness".  It has infected clerics as well as politicians, and so, through Marxist-dominated education, it has soaked and is soaking into the whole of our American culture.  What it is slowly strangling is morality.  It is a cancer on our national ethos. 

I hope to finish it tonight if I don't get too tired, or tomorrow AM if I have time before I go to work. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:   Thu Aug 21 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from 
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages.  . 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Tue Oct 18 23:50:25 2016
From:  ExSedevacantist
Email:   
Location:  
Comment: 

I'm sorry but I think we should not think we are more Catholic than the pope. God is in control of the Church, it cannot teach error (indefectable) and the See of Rome in particular cannot lose the faith (infallible). These are official teachings of the Church rather than spooky private revelations.

In fact I would say that the more conservative or more progressive Catholics have a false method of knowing Church teaching. To them the Church is not the pillar of truth but the ideas in their heads. Kind of no different from Martin Luther. So if the magisterium teaches something they disagree with the magisterium is wrong, not them. What then is the purpose of a magisterium? Christ promised that Peter is a rock rather than a false prophet.. I believe God rather than myself.

---

Date:  Wed Oct 19 2016
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment: 

ExSedevacantist:

This webpage and this whole website nowhere questions the Catholicity of any Pope, nor did it or does it anywhere challenge the Church's absolute magisterial authority to teach on faith, morals, original doctrine and theology from the protected Deposit of Faith. 

Subjects such as Marxism, and supporting or opposing Marxism ("more conservative or more progressive" as you put it) are maters of politics, not doctrine.  These are maters not found in the Revelation, and not subject to being infallibly taught by anyone. 

When a Pope, or a Council in union with a Pope, teaches on faith and morals, the teaching is protected by infallibility.  when a Pope, or a Council in union with a Pope, teaches on politics, that teaching is not protected by infallibility.  

Jesus nowhere called for any revolution against Rome, or any purely worldly and purely political New World Order to displace all other forms of civil government, whether by violence or by slow cultural infection. 

Nor did He authorize His Apostles to do any such thing. 

Regards,

Vic

---

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Name / Pseudo-Name:*

E-mail Address:

City / State / Country:

Comment:*

Please enter the word that you see below.

Copyrighted Material