Jean-Claude Juncker Quotes

The proofs of the existence of God are to such an extent fallen into discredit that they pass for something antiquated, belonging to days gone by.

Philosophy is an attempt by man to find cause and effect. Religion has the same goal.

Conservatives and liberals understand the Christian faith as a set of ideas because, so understood, Christianity seems to be a set of beliefs assessable to anyone upon reflection.

Many a long dispute among divines [theologians] may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so.

Back when the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology were one great intellectual hodgepodge, proving the existence of God was a relatively commonplace exercise. To the modern mind, however, science and religion talk past each other.

Once upon a time, science, philosophy, and theology were disciplines largely undifferentiated from one another, and proving the existence of God was a fairly commonplace intellectual exercise. But as the scientific method became increasingly refined, particularly through the nineteenth century, science and religion grew apart.

The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist.

If it were proven that there is no God there would be no religion. ...But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion.

Science's tools will never prove or disprove God's existence.

My dear, did you just try to prove the existence of God with your cleavage?

Does God exist? Well, I would say, 'not yet'.

There is nothing in religion but fiction.

We cannot start with God and deduce the universe from his existence; we must start with the world as we know it, and deduce God from the world.

God's existence needs to be established independently before he can be brought into account for causation; it cannot be assumed at the start.

Where did God come from? If we decide this is an unanswerable question why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question.

When I was at Notre Dame studying under Joe Evans, Frank O'Malley, and others, there was a very lively debate about the distinction between natural law and revealed truth. Most of the philosophers of church and state expected that what was going to be advocated as the law of the land would be related to natural law. If you attempted to draw lines about certain general moral truths that were derivative of logic and reason, they would prove to be widely shared, and therefore suitable to be enacted into law on both the civic and religious sides.

I make this chief distinction between religion and superstition, that the latter is founded on ignorance, the former on knowledge.

God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers- at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!

What is the meaning of human life, or, for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know the answer to this question means to be religious. You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question? I answer: The man who regards his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life.

The Christian Religion as I understand it is the best.

Religious doctrines … are all illusions, they do not admit of proof, and no one can be compelled to consider them as true or to believe in them.

The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain.

Science and religion have to go hand in hand with the mystery, because there's a certain point beyond which you say, "There are no answers."

Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.