A challenge for all

[De_Maria]

Mr. Bee - u haven’t missed anything:thumbsup: It’s just that the religious types don’t have any external way of verifying the truth of their scriptures.

Yes we do. It is atheists who have no way of proving their beliefs.

Anyways,

I thought i’d repeat my post from another thread -

I don’t think u’ve missed anything here:thumbsup:

God does not exist because:

1. While science can show that there are patterns in the universe - fibonacci sequences in plants, laws of physics etc. none of this proves that this occurs as part of creation, nor that there is a creator.

But it is a strong indicator of such. It certaingly does not prove that there is no creator and since nothing can come of nothing, it is absolute proof that something had to exist from all eternity. Because if this universe ever went to nothing, nothing could come about afterwards. That is an absolute.

1. There are many holy books that claim to come from God, despite it being pretty obvious these originate from a specific time period dealing with specific issues within a specific community. If there’s a God, why would he concern himself with minor matters of a small group of Jews?

Why shouldn’t He?

Also - which of these books should we accept as God’s word?

The ones with the best evidence in support of its claims.

And why doesn’t God let the world know which of these books he actually wrote/inspired so we can end the confusion?

He did and does continually through the people He set in place to carry His message to you and to the entire world.

1. Prophecy is coming true is not proof of God.

No. But again, they are strong indicators of something supernatural.

Most holy books use circular reasoning - they make a prophecy and then interpret it later on to show that it came true.

But many of the prophecies of the Bible can be independently verified by history.

As with the case of the Nostradamus predictions, people usually pick an event and make it fit the prophecy or vice versa. This means than any prophecy can be made to seem as if they have come true many years down the line. Nostradamus predicted Hitler - I don’t think so.

We aren’t speaking of Nostradamus.

point 2 and 3 is relevant to this thread.

OK

Addendum to point 2 - there is a lack of external evidence (evidence not connected to the religion in question in any way) to prove the claims of miracles and God’s actions cited in the holy texts.

We have the Shroud of Turin and the Mantilla which prove the Resurrection.

We have the continuing Eucharistic miracles which have never been disproved by any scientific inquiry. And they have stood for centuries.

We have the scientific fact that the waters of the Red Sea parted for Napoleon the very same way they parted for Moses.

There are many, many, confirmations from history that the miracles of God are true. But the skeptics refuse to believe. The saying remains true: For the skeptic, no proof is ever enough.

I do not believe in God or claims of any holy book (they’re all the same to me).

Thats fine. It is your right to believe what you want.

To convert me, it is necessary for any theist to prove there is a God, not for me to prove to them there isn’t a God.

Necessary? No it isn’t. It is a favor which we offer. If you convert it is totally up to you. However, we reserve the right to respond to your comments lest they cause confusion with a reader who might think there is no answer to what you say. Because it is eminently true, true faith is superior to human reason. Because true faith is reliance on the Wisdom of God. Whereas human reason sometimes relies on the fallible thoughts of man.

After all, if I had sufficient proof that God exists, I wouldn’t be an atheist.

You do. You just won’t accept the proof. That is why you are an atheist.

It is obvious that nothing comes of nothing. Therefore this universe could not have sprung from emptiness.

This goes for claims that the Bible/Koran contains God’s revelation for mankind.

The Bible contains God’s revelation which is passed down by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ralphinal]

De Maria et al,

I was the one who opened this can of worms, so I will clarify. My OP was intended to start the conversation about the validity of the texts without circular reasoning. Is seems to me, and other posters, that the Muslim claim is Mohammid is prophet because of the Koran and the Koran is valid because Mohammid says it is. The Bible, although it makes claims that Scripture is inspired and such, does not really ever say “This is how it is.” It more or less says this is what occured and why, consider it and follow.

Now, imho, the best answer was given by AgnosTheist, who said that we should look at which faith makes the best people and communities. For all of Christianity’s failings, we win out on that standard.

No, there is not hard proof of Jesus, or of any of the things he did in the way we would like. Either you believe or you don’t. I will say, however, that if we lived the Gospels as Jesus taught them, there would be no questions about who had the better message.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria et al,

I was the one who opened this can of worms, so I will clarify. My OP was intended to start the conversation about the validity of the texts without circular reasoning.

OK

Is seems to me, and other posters, that the Muslim claim is Mohammid is prophet because of the Koran and the Koran is valid because Mohammid says it is

I agree.

. The Bible, although it makes claims that Scripture is inspired and such, does not really ever say “This is how it is.” It more or less says this is what occured and why, consider it and follow.

You’ve ignored the Church and Tradition, history and science.

Unlike Islam or any other religion, the Church is an institution which was installed by an individual who claimed He is God over 2000 years ago. This institution claims to teach the very same things Her Founder taught over 2000 years ago in Her Traditions. One of Her Traditions is oral. These oral Traditions have been documented in the teachings of her members for over 2000 years. She also has documents recording her official transcripts for over 1900 years not including the Scriptures which record not only the life of Her Founder but the first years of Her existence.

Secular history records the existence of this entity which would not exist without the existence of Her Founder. Her buildings and artifacts can be found throughout the world where Her members established communities. These can be confirmed for the same 2000 year history.

The 2000 years of Her existence is unique in the history of mankind.

That s just a beginning.

Now, imho, the best answer was given by AgnosTheist

Shucks!

, who said that we should look at which faith makes the best people and communities. For all of Christianity’s failings, we win out on that standard.

Although I agree with this standard. In which case we can also read the history of the Saints. Individuals which have been renowned for their wisdom, mercy, love, in one word, holiness, acquired by the adherence to the teachings of this institution which passed on to them as She does to us the Teachings of Her Founder.

No, there is not hard proof of Jesus,

There is proof. It just depends on whether it is accepted.

Proof my friend, is in the eye of the beholder. A clear example is the video of a man who was brutally beaten by police in California. Many people who saw that video said the man was not beaten brutally, but in self defense. Yet both sides were looking at the same video.

Facts are something else entirely. Facts can’t be denied whether we believe they are proof or not.

There are many facts related to the Scriptures which can’t be denied. No one can deny the Church exists. No one can deny the Church has documents which give evidence of her exstence for 2000 years. No one can deny that the Shroud of Turin contains the image of a man who was crucifed exactly as the man described in the Gospels.

But many can and do deny that this is proof of anything.

or of any of the things he did in the way we would like. Either you believe or you don’t.

Essentially, that is what the Gospels say. We are called by the Father:

.John 6 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.

I will say, however, that if we lived the Gospels as Jesus taught them, there would be no questions about who had the better message.

That is true.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Mr.Bee]

No, there is not hard proof of Jesus, or of any of the things he did in the way we would like. Either you believe or you don’t. I will say, however, that if we lived the Gospels as Jesus taught them, there would be no questions about who had the better message.

This sums it up well.

I have to admit that I was a little disturbed at my own outburst, and it resulted in a from an athiest. Made me think.

Jesus’s message is clear.

All the evidence presented falls short, even the miraculous artifacts that claim evidence cannot be proven, the skeptics have the upper hand. Searching for and proving evidence is futile.

I’m convinced that the internet is a terrible place for apologetics.

• For Entertainment Purposes Only.

 

[porkscratchings]

Yes we do. It is atheists who have no way of proving their beliefs.

Ahhh…but i’m not trying to convert the world as u r. Therefore it is u who must prove the truth of what u believe.

Science has more evidence backing it up than religion. Which is why my choice is clear.

But it is a strong indicator of such. It certaingly does not prove that there is no creator and since nothing can come of nothing, it is absolute proof that something had to exist from all eternity. Because if this universe ever went to nothing, nothing could come about afterwards. That is an absolute.

Indication is not proof.The Newtonian law that matter cannot connot be created nor destroyed does not prove ur argument, since it only refers to matter in space and time. Throw in a God, then u r in fact saying the opposite of ur statement quoted above.

Science does not prove whether there is a creator or not. Therefore to assume there is one and make millions of people part from their money for the sake of this assumption is abhorrant. i prefer to err on the side of caution - as the evidence so far does not indicate God or any creation, I prefer to wait for evidence to change my mind.

There is no evidence for an absolute. If, hypothetically, there is an absolute - how do u go about proving that the big a is ur God and not someone else’s?

Why shouldn’t He?

A question with a question is evasion of answering the question. I conclude u haven’t go any answer to this q at all.

The ones with the best evidence in support of its claims.-

That would Sun Tsu’s Art of War and Peter Atkin’s Physical Chemistry, then. The validity of the first book stood the test of time for over 2519 years, and the 2nd no chemistry student could do without.

He did and does continually through the people He set in place to carry His message to you and to the entire world.

The problem with that is - that’s what they all say.

No. But again, they are strong indicators of something supernatural.

That argument can be used with ALL prophecy, not just Christian prophecy. As before, indication is not proof.

cont.,.

 

[porkscratchings]

But many of the prophecies of the Bible can be independently verified by history.

We aren’t speaking of Nostradamus.

But Nostradamus is a good example of how events can be made to ‘fit’ ancient prophecy. Which says a lot about so-called independent verification. The 3rd secret of Fatima required a lot of interpretational gynmastics to make it fit the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.

We have the Shroud of Turin and the Mantilla which prove the Resurrection.

I can’t speak for the Mantilla but I have seen the results of the scientific study on the shroud. The evidence states that the shroud can’t be dated to the time of Christ, more like the 14-15th century AD. There is argument that the experts just tested a recent repair to the shroud and dated it wrong. So the evidence for the shroud is inconclusive. Even if the shroud can be dated to Jesus’ time, the next hurdle is to prove that the person on the shroud is Jesus and not some other unfortunate executed by the Romans in the same way.

There are many, many, confirmations from history that the miracles of God are true. But the skeptics refuse to believe. The saying remains true: For the skeptic, no proof is ever enough…

…You do. You just won’t accept the proof. That is why you are an atheist.

.

Consider this: a man comes to me claiming to have a machine that would massage my brains and turn me into a genius. The cost is $30 million. Right know i’d be skeptical, and would want a lot of proof that this machine works without killing me before i’d part with that much money.

If a religion is true, my life and my choice would be changed forever - just like getting the fictional machine above. But like considering the above fantastic equipment - I’d need a lot of evidence before i’d part with my money. With religion I will not only be parting with my money but my life and the lives of the family i will have in the future. So I am well within my right to be demanding in what I require before I get involved.

It makes sense to check all claims against evidence before parting with money or life. Supposition and hearsay is not evidence. When I say evidence I mean exactly that - evidence that leaves no one (of whatever religion or background) in any doubt of what occured. Just all human agree there is a sun in the sky and gravity makes things fall.

I am an atheist because there is no alternative that best sums up all the knowledge there is out there.

As before, to convert me, it is necessary for any theist to prove there is a God, not for me to prove to them there isn’t a God.

That is my sole condition. If anyone cannot meet this, then I remain atheist.

 

[De_Maria]

But Nostradamus is a good example of how events can be made to ‘fit’ ancient prophecy.

Thats true. And I’m sure many have used the Bible the same way. But not the Catholic Church.

Not true. There is such a thing as valid independent objective verification or invalidation of any phenomenon.

The 3rd secret of Fatima required a lot of interpretational gynmastics to make it fit the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.

Correct. I still don’t understand anything about that subject matter.

I can’t speak for the Mantilla but I have seen the results of the scientific study on the shroud. The evidence states that the shroud can’t be dated to the time of Christ, more like the 14-15th century AD.

That evidence was proven false. The process used was proven to be ineffective in dating “ancient fabrics” and had falsely dated the age of mummy wrappings known to be from the age before Christ as medieval items.

There is argument that the experts just tested a recent repair to the shroud and dated it wrong. So the evidence for the shroud is inconclusive.

Correct. As I mentioned above.

Even if the shroud can be dated to Jesus’ time, the next hurdle is to prove that the person on the shroud is Jesus and not some other unfortunate executed by the Romans in the same way.

That is true. But then you’d have to explain why that poor unfortunate’s image was unexplainably “photographed” on the shroud.

Consider this: a man comes to me claiming to have a machine that would massage my brains and turn me into a genius. The cost is $30 million. Right know i’d be skeptical, and would want a lot of proof that this machine works without killing me before i’d part with that much money.

If a religion is true, my life and my choice would be changed forever - just like getting the fictional machine above. But like considering the above fantastic equipment - I’d need a lot of evidence before i’d part with my money.

Our faith is free. Freely we received, freely we give.

Matthew 10 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.

cont’d

[/QUOTE]

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

With religion I will not only be parting with my money

That is optional. We also give by giving of time.

but my life

Your life? How will you part with your life?

Do you mean your lifestyle would have to change? That might be true. Depending on whether you are now living a moral life or not. Of course, going to Mass and that on Holy Days of Obligation, but that isn’t much if you really desire to change.

and the lives of the family i will have in the future. So I am well within my right to be demanding in what I require before I get involved.

I don’t know what you mean by that. But if you mean you need to make sure it is true, by all means, examine and test whatever you need to examine and test. Do your best to be fair.

It makes sense to check all claims against evidence before parting with money or life. Supposition and hearsay is not evidence. When I say evidence I mean exactly that - evidence that leaves no one (of whatever religion or background) in any doubt of what occured. Just all human agree there is a sun in the sky and gravity makes things fall.

In other words, you won’t believe what you don’t see or feel. But that leaves a lot out doesn’t it? Did you see or feel Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington? I’m sure you’ve seen images of people who are allegedly Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington, but you have to have faith that whomever taught you about them was passing on the truth. And that is fairly recent history. We can go further back to things you hadn’t seen or felt that even your teachers hadn’t seen or felt. And you have to have faith the message was passed on faithfully.

So, if you only believe what you’ve seen and felt, that rules out a great deal of information.

I am an atheist because there is no alternative that best sums up all the knowledge there is out there.

I’m no longer an atheist because I believe that it is the most illogical belief system in existence.

As before, to convert me, it is necessary for any theist to prove there is a God,

The thing is, it isn’t necessary to us. We’ll be happy just going along the way we are. If you feel it is necessary, then ask and we’ll explain our reasons for hope.

not for me to prove to them there isn’t a God.

Thats impossible for you to do. But the thing is, if you want to claim that God doesn’t exist, then you do need to prove it.

That is my sole condition. If anyone cannot meet this, then I remain atheist.

No problem. But look around, we aren’t Catholics on an atheist forum. You are the atheist on the Catholic forum. So, either you came here to learn about Catholicism or to try to convince us that God doesn’t exist. Which is it?

By the way, Happy New Year!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[porkscratchings]

That is true. But then you’d have to explain why that poor unfortunate’s image was unexplainably “photographed” on the shroud.

Just because we don’t understand something, doesn’t mean we have to either conclude the image on the shroud is Jesus or provide proof that it is not. I don’t understand how the ancients built stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, as they used precise mathematical calculations that were only recently understood by us. Does that mean I have to prove the method used by the ancient Britons or Egyptians or accept their religion?

cont’d

That is optional. We also give by giving of time.

Your life? How will you part with your life?

Do you mean your lifestyle would have to change? That might be true. Depending on whether you are now living a moral life or not. Of course, going to Mass and that on Holy Days of Obligation, but that isn’t much if you really desire to change.

yes, my lifestyle would have to change, so would my relationships with everyone I know. So this would be ‘parting with my life’ because I would be submitting all my choice to another authority, namely not me, my family or my friends who would normally help me run my life. Since I trust myself, my family and my friends, the standard of proof has got to be high before I am willing to switch allegience.

In other words, you won’t believe what you don’t see or feel. But that leaves a lot out doesn’t it? Did you see or feel Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington? I’m sure you’ve seen images of people who are allegedly Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington, but you have to have faith that whomever taught you about them was passing on the truth. And that is fairly recent history. We can go further back to things you hadn’t seen or felt that even your teachers hadn’t seen or felt. And you have to have faith the message was passed on faithfully.

But all of these is far easier to verify than a religion that’s 2,000 yrs old with all those associated with the founder having deceased, and the lack of historical records from impartial sources.

But I don’t have to have faith that the person who taught me is passing on the truth. i can check numerous sources to find out for myself. Or I accept the information without being concerned whether it is true or false. I can’t do that with religion - I would be expected to believe the whole lot is true. Also if things are reformed in the religion, then i’m supposed to accept these w/o question.

So, if you only believe what you’ve seen and felt, that rules out a great deal of information.

Accepted. But regarding what I little know, i am free to reject or modify as and when new information comes up. For example: I accept science is the only way of explaining the universe. Science changes when new research amends or renders old ideas obsolete. Can u do this with religion or do u have to accept as truth no matter how much advances are made in our knowledge of the world.

I’m no longer an atheist because I believe that it is the most illogical belief system in existence.

Yes, we can change our minds when we find out something new/different to what we knew before. We as humans grow and mature, we may change our minds about many, many things. Religion does not allow this change or respect it. People are labelled as ‘godless’ ‘satanic’ ‘anti-christ’ for making the same choices that u have done -ie. change their mind about what they believe.

Thats impossible for you to do. But the thing is, if you want to claim that God doesn’t exist, then you do need to prove it.

I already believe God doesn’t exist - I don’t need to prove it to myself. Scientific research is currently insufficient to prove the existence of God. And frankly, i can’t believe in a story of a deity written long ago - much less regard it as fact, when the only evidence for it is hearsay. I’m going with the science. Should science advance enough to prove God, then I might be up for religion. The hurdle will be - which of all the thousands of religion represents God

No problem. But look around, we aren’t Catholics on an atheist forum. You are the atheist on the Catholic forum. So, either you came here to learn about Catholicism or to try to convince us that God doesn’t exist. Which is it?

Neither. I came to hang out and to correct the prejudices against people like me, as well as other groups deemed the ‘enemies of catholism’.

By the way, Happy New Year!

Hope u have a good 'un, too.

 

[De_Maria]

Just because we don’t understand something, doesn’t mean we have to either conclude the image on the shroud is Jesus or provide proof that it is not.

That is true. But if corroborative evidence exists that a man of that time period, living in the same area, claimed He is God and if there exists substantiating documents describing this persons life and teachings and the mode of death which correspond closely to the image on the Shroud, then reasonable people make reasonable connections.

I don’t understand how the ancients built stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, as they used precise mathematical calculations that were only recently understood by us. Does that mean I have to prove the method used by the ancient Britons or Egyptians or accept their religion?

No. Especially for me since there exists no real evidence that anything miraculous took place. Gigantic buildings and structures of ancient origins exist throughout the world which modern man thought ancient man was incapable of producing. But we have found plans and designs which explain some of them, like the underground water wheels of Rome. And they have perfectly mechanical explanations.

yes, my lifestyle would have to change, so would my relationships with everyone I know. So this would be ‘parting with my life’ because I would be submitting all my choice to another authority, namely not me, my family or my friends who would normally help me run my life. Since I trust myself, my family and my friends, the standard of proof has got to be high before I am willing to switch allegience.

If there is no proof for what you now believe, why do you set a standard of absolute proof for what we believe?

But all of these is far easier to verify than a religion that’s 2,000 yrs old with all those associated with the founder having deceased, and the lack of historical records from impartial sources.

So where does your belief end? Do you believe in anything or anyone that existed before the year 1900? 1800? 1700? 100? 100bc? 200bc? etc etc

But I don’t have to have faith that the person who taught me is passing on the truth. i can check numerous sources to find out for myself.

Not really. For instance, do you believe in the existence of Plato? How many contemporaries wrote about him?

Do you believe in Alexander the Great? How many contemporaries wrote about him?

Sure, there are many historical sources today, but they all trace their knowledge to those few sources.

Or I accept the information without being concerned whether it is true or false.

If that works for you. I generally prefer to know whether something is true or false.

I can’t do that with religion - I would be expected to believe the whole lot is true. Also if things are reformed in the religion, then i’m supposed to accept these w/o question.

No. Religion is not coerced.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Accepted. But regarding what I little know, i am free to reject or modify as and when new information comes up. For example: I accept science is the only way of explaining the universe. Science changes when new research amends or renders old ideas obsolete. Can u do this with religion or do u have to accept as truth no matter how much advances are made in our knowledge of the world.

I don’t need to do that with the Catholic faith. It has passed all my tests.

But I did it with every other religion I checked out. Islam, Protestantism, Hinduism, Chinese philosophies, paganism.

So, no, you don’t have to stick to any religion. Of course, it is said that you are forbidden to convert from Islam on pain of death.

Yes, we can change our minds when we find out something new/different to what we knew before. We as humans grow and mature, we may change our minds about many, many things. Religion does not allow this change or respect it. People are labelled as ‘godless’ ‘satanic’ ‘anti-christ’ for making the same choices that u have done -ie. change their mind about what they believe.

Get a grip. Atheists label Christians as mindless sheep and other worse things all the time. You are just trying to demonize religion in general because your arguments have failed.

I already believe God doesn’t exist - I don’t need to prove it to myself.

But you accuse us of trying to force religion on you. As I said, look around. We aren’t on an atheist forum discussing this matter.

Scientific research is currently insufficient to prove the existence of God.

Never will be because it isn’t true.

And frankly, i can’t believe in a story of a deity written long ago - much less regard it as fact, when the only evidence for it is hearsay. I’m going with the science.

Which you just admitted doesn’t exist.

Should science advance enough to prove God, then I might be up for religion. The hurdle will be - which of all the thousands of religion represents God

Actually, Science already has proven the existence of God to me.

Neither. I came to hang out and to correct the prejudices against people like me, as well as other groups deemed the ‘enemies of catholism’.

Cool.

Hope u have a good 'un, too.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[planten]

De Maria et al,

I was the one who opened this can of worms, so I will clarify. My OP was intended to start the conversation about the validity of the texts without circular reasoning. Is seems to me, and other posters, that the Muslim claim is Mohammid is prophet because of the Koran and the Koran is valid because Mohammid says it is. The Bible, although it makes claims that Scripture is inspired and such, does not really ever say “This is how it is.” It more or less says this is what occured and why, consider it and follow.

Now, imho, the best answer was given by AgnosTheist, who said that we should look at which faith makes the best people and communities. For all of Christianity’s failings, we win out on that standard.

No, there is not hard proof of Jesus, or of any of the things he did in the way we would like. Either you believe or you don’t. I will say, however, that if we lived the Gospels as Jesus taught them, there would be no questions about who had the better message.

**Sorry, you have not studied the Quran and not learnt the early Islamic history. So you are happy with what you have. Every good thing of Bible OT and NT is found in the Quran and you will not find any (even a single) bad word about Jesus or Mary in the Quran. That should be sufficient to satisfy you that there are other good things in the world.

Please do not look at what the Muslims are doing, or saying today. That is not real Islam. It is a long time 1400 years now. The progress of the Muslims is stopped. That is all due to misunderstanding and misdeeds.**

 

[De_Maria]

**Sorry, you have not studied the Quran and not learnt the early Islamic history. So you are happy with what you have. Every good thing of Bible OT and NT is found in the Quran and you will not find any (even a single) bad word about Jesus or Mary in the Quran. That should be sufficient to satisfy you that there are other good things in the world.

Please do not look at what the Muslims are doing, or saying today. That is not real Islam. It is a long time 1400 years now. The progress of the Muslims is stopped. That is all due to misunderstanding and misdeeds.**

As I said before. True Islam died with Mohamed. There is no Magisterium in Islam. Muslims interpret the Quran anyway they want.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ralphinal]

**Sorry, you have not studied the Quran and not learnt the early Islamic history. So you are happy with what you have. Every good thing of Bible OT and NT is found in the Quran and you will not find any (even a single) bad word about Jesus or Mary in the Quran. That should be sufficient to satisfy you that there are other good things in the world.

Please do not look at what the Muslims are doing, or saying today. That is not real Islam. It is a long time 1400 years now. The progress of the Muslims is stopped. That is all due to misunderstanding and misdeeds.**

True, I have not studied the Koran in depth, and I know little about early Islam. What I do know about the early years leads me to think that it is not much different than today.

Every good thing in the Bible is not in the Koran. Jesus is not God and does not bring a message of salvation for everyone. There are goodf messages in almost all faiths. Even athiests can show signs of God to those who know them.

If True Islam is being subdued, why don;t the 80% (or whatever it is) that wants peaceful Islam stop the bad ones? I;ve asked it before. Clean house…