So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

Aw, this is one of nicest responses I've ever received. Thank you! 'You've very much uplifted my spirits. :)

"Co-creator" - that is wonderful way to describe us. :) We are made in the image of the Creator and so we too have a participation in the goodness He has surrounded us by. What we believe in, is who we are, and it makes a difference in the world. It does matter. So we each have a profound responsibility- to love, to rejoice, to be thankful, and to be a light. . Thank God for His Blessings. :)

It is no easier to confirm that any individual received a revelation from God than it is to verify any number of other claims, even true ones

I asked how it could be done, not how easy or hard it is to do. I've done plenty of difficult things in my life.

How would you verify my claim that I ate a chicken sandwich for lunch last Monday?

Maybe I couldn't. It would depend among other things on whether, at the time you ate it, you wanted to be able to prove you had or wanted to arrange things so that nobody could prove it.

but we certainly can convince ourselves of the validity of such claims in general.

Yes, indeed: we can convince ourselves. But do you think it's a good idea to believe or not believe just on the basis of how easily we can convince ourselves of what is true?

1) Through reason . . . 2) Through observation . . . 3) Through testimony . . . . I would say that the validity of the revelation can be seen in all three ways. As for method 1), that's what all the arguments for or against God on websites like this are about.

Not really. An argument for God's existence has nothing to do with whether he has revealed anything to some particular person. If anyone does say "We know God exists because he has revealed himself," they're just begging the question.

As for 2), we can observe instances of miraculous divine interaction.

You believe a divine intervention happened because someone said it happened. We're back to the credibility of believers' testimony.

As for 3) We examine the integrity of the witnesses. (Or "You can tell a tree by its fruit.") That is, if we look at the lives of sincere believers (ie, the saints and martyrs), we will see how great the power of faith has been in their lives and in the lives of those around them.

I've seen what faith can do. My question was not about the power of faith. I'm asking why, when someone says they had a revelation from God, I should take their word for it.

We also gain confidence in the testimony of the church regarding revelation when we see how faithful it has been to its belief over 2000 years.

That may give you confidence. Not me. The persistence of a belief tells me nothing about the probability that it's true.

Sorry about the long delay. I've been swamped.

Anyone who would choose eternal torment is obviously not competent to make choices on their own behalf.

Which is why, I think, that the problem of suffering exists. We make our eternal choice not all at once, but through a long series of small affirmations. The experience of struggling and suffering is the way we hone our choice, accepting it not in one big yes or no that we may not be competent to understand, but in a whole slew of them, each with repercussions that force us to consider that rightness or wrongness of our choice. If we were "competent" to make such a choice we would be like the angels and demons: instantly and permanently deciding.

My kids want a dog. No matter how many times I describe the work and responsibility involved they say "yes, yes! We'll do it all!" But they cannot fully understand what they are saying "yes" to without experiencing it. If I were to let them house sit for neighbor's pets, or perhaps take on a foster pet for a time, then experience will help them to later make a full and heartfelt "yes".

I don't see why there can be no free will if what is right and good is so obvious that any moral agent would always choose it. Who in their right minds would not choose infinite goodness and eternal happiness?

Satan, and many others. And there was nothing wrong with his mind. The problem was his pride.

Again, if we compare ourselves to the angels, who saw so clearly and finally the result of their choice that no change of decision on their part is possible, perhaps we will begin to see our limited knowledge as a gift: a long series of "second chances" to repent of a bad choice.

That is, if we could see everything clearly, without doubt, without confusion, it is not at all necessary that we would all choose to serve God, though we all be "in our right minds". For some of our minds will be set on serving none but ourselves.

Well, that implies existence is a gift to the nonexistent. But the nonexistent don't exist, so how can they be given the gift of existence?

It is a gift given in advance of its reception, such as the college fund a parent starts for a child that has not been conceived yet.

And is it better to exist in torment for all eternity?

In the minds of the damned it is. That is why we attribute to Satan the phrase "I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven." We do not think it is "better", of course, but we cannot make that choice for anyone else.

The only way choosing eternal separation from God makes the least bit of sense is if those who choose it are content with it and are not punished. But according to Catholic doctrine, hell involves punishments in addition to the alleged suffering from being separated from God.

Why do you use the word "alleged"?

The way it makes sense is that the punishment is exactly what the damned most desire: it is precisely the absence from God's presence. Yes, such a choice would entail very real suffering: physical (with the resurrection of the damned), mental, and spiritual. But all of it flows from the separation from God, and all of it is freely chosen and desired (at least more than the opposite is desired) by the damned soul..

I can't remember which saint it was (St. Margaret Mary, perhaps), but she once during a vision asked the Lord for permission to bring a soul out of hell, because she was convinced that if the soul could only see heaven he or she would certainly choose to stay there. God gave his assent, and the saint went to retrieve a soul. As she came closer and closer to heaven with her new charge the damned soul writhed in agony and cursed her repeatedly, demanding to be sent back. It was as if the proximity to God caused the soul even greater suffering than the torments of hell, just as the eyes of a person who for decades shut themselves up in the dark will suffer pain when the person is led into the light.

We should not think of hell as mere punishment for stepping out of line, but as a reluctant permission for a soul to have what it most desires, even though that desire is to suffer an infinite loss.

No one has ever answered (to my satisfaction) how a finite being could merit infinite punishment.

Here's how Fr. Mitch Pacwa explains it (at least I think I heard this from him):

Let's say one person punches another in the face (in anger, not defense). That is clearly wrong. But the severity of the offense depends on the party offended.

If the person struck was a friend the crime is bad enough.
If it was the person's employer the injustice (and penalty) is even greater.
If it was a police officer, the injustice is greater still.
It if was the president, even more so.
If it was the pope, yet still more.
If it was God...?

Because God is infinite, an offense against him takes on an infinite character, even though the offender be finite.

If you cut up my credit card you have wronged me. If you do the same to Bill Gates you have wronged him much more greatly. And if you were to destroy something of infinite value, such as your own eternity with God, then that offense is indeed infinite.

It is no easier to confirm that any individual received a revelation from God than it is to verify any number of other claims, even true ones (How would you verify my claim that I ate a chicken sandwich for lunch last Monday?) but we certainly can convince ourselves of the validity of such claims in general.

Now, we generally confirm any claim in one of three ways:

1) Through reason (as we would do to verify a claim such as "The sum of all prime numbers up to 11 is less than 30")

2) Through observation (e.g. experiments to confirm that "ice melts at 32 degrees F")

3) Through testimony ("Six reliable witnesses saw the defendant rob a bank")

We tend to hold the first two in higher regard, because of the limitations of verification inherent in the last, but all methods have limits. For example, if I want to study supernovas I have to wait around for one to happen... I can't make one happen on demand.

Now, to finally get to your question, I would say that the validity of the revelation can be seen in all three ways.

As for method 1), that's what all the arguments for or against God on websites like this are about. Clearly not all will agree, but an individual can weigh the arguments.

As for 2), we can observe instances of miraculous divine interaction. This is more of in the "supernova" ballpark than that of melting ice, because we can't force a miracle. But over time there are plenty, just as there are plenty of supernovas. (e.g. the miracle of the sun at Fatima, or, more recently, the well-studied Eucharistic miracles in Argentina and Tixtla)

As for 3) We examine the integrity of the witnesses. (Or "You can tell a tree by its fruit.") That is, if we look at the lives of sincere believers (ie, the saints and martyrs), we will see how great the power of faith has been in their lives and in the lives of those around them. And, frankly, I think an encounter with a truly saintly person can do more to convince than all logic and miraculous claims combined. Their obvious peace and joy is something wholly attractive.

We also gain confidence in the testimony of the church regarding revelation when we see how faithful it has been to its belief over 2000 years. Certainly that has been no shortage of sinners in the church, but the doctrinal teachings and worship of the church is just as it was at the time of the early church Fathers. The very fact that the church has remained fundamentally unchanged in spite of 2000 years worth of sinners is itself a powerful argument for divine guidance.

Alexandra,
Thank you so much for the kind words. And that quote from the venerable Bishop Sheen is so perfectly apt. We really are "co-creators" of ourselves in a sense, aren't we? Deciding who to be and even what to believe. And as you point out so well, what we believe matters, and it matters greatly.

Keep doing honor to your name ("Defender of mankind")! ;)

Nailed it right on the head! I couldn't wait for Dr Augros' response and when I read it, I had the same reaction as you!

We're talking about the cause of a reflection. Without light, there is nothing to be reflected, and light does not cause itself to be reflected.

Hi Robert,
You stated that much more eloquently than I could hope to. :) It reminded me of Bishop Sheen's "If you do not live what you believe, you will end up believing what you live"- in that we are freely defining who we are.

So then, I find David's thought-experiment oddly reassuring. We will be true to ourselves irrespective of circumstance. Undefined beliefs can cause varied results. "They are like chaff driven in the wind." But if we affirm and nurture goodness as who we are, through the grace of God, we will be so.

Edit:Grammer