Prediger Today

No, the distinction is not simply a rhetorical maneuver but a real distinction in the mode of knowing. One mode of knowing is based on experience and the other is abstract reasoning. Both modes conform to the image of God but one has its object in the created universe and the other conforms to the revelation of the unseen God. Both are intellectual in the sense that both operations result in an idea: One creates an idea or understanding of the universe and the other an idea or understanding of God. Both are guided in their intellectual operations by different principles, such as the principle of causation and contingency, while the other is guided by the principle of infinity and eternity, etc.. One truth results in the idea of the temporal nature of reality while the other glimpses the eternal nature of the Trinity. Theology is to mediate the truth of God only in the sense of providing guidelines and principles, but knowing God ultimately depends on God’s self revelation.

For Sheed the distinctions are real. He further insists that both modes of knowing are based on the principles of order and consistency, in that there is no internal contradictions. The notion of their reality is a matter of faith, as believing in God is a matter of faith.

It's your first axiom God exists

Well, yes: whoever wants to know God must believe that He is (or exists). But I am not trying to duplicate Aquinas' work. I am not trying to rewrite systematic theology. I am trying to keep our conversation on an everyday level...

Whoever wants to know geometry must accept the first axiom. Likewise, whoever seeks God must first believe He is. Inquiry begins not with complete understanding, but with trust that reality is intelligible and truth can be known. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.

OK

Likewise God exists Euclid’s second axiom says: “If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal.” A theological parallel might be: “God is knowable through His effects.” Creation, conscience, beauty, and reason together form a coherent witness to divine reality.

Metaphysics is based on the conviction that reality per se is intelligible and can be known. Modern hermeneutics denies that and insists on endless subjectivism even when some underlying principles are uncovered...

Third axiom: Euclid: “If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.” Theological parallel: Truth survives honest examination. Removing illusion, pride, or error does not destroy reality; it clarifies what remains eternally true. Fourth axiom: “Things which coincide with one another are equal.” Theological parallel: Truth corresponds with reality. When belief and reality truly meet, recognition becomes possible. Fifth axiom: “The whole is greater than the part.” Theological parallel: No individual perspective exhausts truth. God, reality, and humanity transcend private understanding; wisdom requires humility before the greater whole.

If metaphysics begins with the conviction that reality is intelligible, then theology proceeds similarly: God exists; God is knowable through His effects; truth survives honest subtraction; truth corresponds with reality; and the whole exceeds the part. Against endless subjectivism, these principles affirm that reality is neither chaos nor private invention, but an ordered whole genuinely accessible to reason, humility, and disciplined inquiry.

It goes further than that: reality reflects the perfection of its Creator.

If metaphysics begins with the conviction that reality is intelligible, theology goes further: reality reflects the perfection of its Creator. God exists; God is knowable through His effects; truth survives honest examination; truth corresponds with reality; and the whole exceeds the part. Against endless subjectivism, these principles affirm that reality is ordered, meaningful, and genuinely accessible to reason because creation itself bears the imprint of divine rationality.

Ok: the Gospels show the way of reconciliation with God... We may have the sight of angels but that itself does not bring us into a familiar relationship with the eternal living God

The Gospels therefore do more than disclose metaphysical truth; they reveal reconciliation. One may possess the sight of angels — intelligence, transcendence, even spiritual perception — and yet remain distant from the living God. Knowledge alone does not establish communion. The Gospel claim is that familiar relationship with God arises not merely from vision, but from reconciliation, humility, and participation in divine life itself.

Yes If I were you, I would run to the nearest priest and receive the sacrament of reconciliation Or ask Jesus into your heart

I understand the seriousness of what you’re saying, but moving straight to sacramental instruction doesn’t settle the question under discussion. We were speaking about whether reconciliation and knowledge of God require God’s existence as a grounding claim. Pointing me toward a priest already assumes that framework is true, which is exactly what is being examined. If the claim stands, it should be defensible on its own terms before any appeal to practice or authority.

I did not start with a priest and a sacrament but with a believer telling me about his conversation and how I can also invite Jesus into my heart. I did because I felt that I had nothing to lose. It changed my life... Perhaps you fear losing your identity and rationality and sanity. In God you'll find them in perfection

Assuming God exists

That is the definition of hesitation and suspended action. John Wayne: he who hesitates shall die...

Haste makes waste

Yes, in normal situations... I hope you do not abandon the issue and let it grow in you but in the end go deliberately one way or the other... Better to be cold or hot but not lukewarm...

Certainly if I get the urge to know God I promise to start by assuming he exists

(HN and HS did not join in agreement: HN wanted more than just an intellectual proof of God's existence, HS simply asked for acceptance of a personal witness and claim.)