The point is that if you would have used that rule of thumb here explicitly, you would have found that earlier.
The kind of evidence required to attest QM’s validity was not available, at the time. It has, since, become widely available.
What was once “extraordinary evidence” has become commonplace.
Such is not the case with religion…
You have the result given by classifier, that has whatever evidence that is available.
If you can’t work with that, how about the evidence available at the time of Galileo. Or just before him. After all, we could say that Galileo’s opponents rejected the extraordinary claim that Earth goes round the Sun, as extraordinary evidence was not available at the time. Are you ready to say that they were right and Galileo was wrong…?
They didn’t have the evidence that Galileo had.
They were not in a position to produce an accurate description of the Solar System.
That’s why atheists ask for evidence of the existence of God… if that is indeed the most accurate description of the “extra-Universe System”, then we want access to that evidence so we can, too, come to that conclusion.
I am not completely sure what exactly you meant by that “actual physical evidence”… There are things like Eucharistic miracle of Sienna (
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Siena.pdf) or blood of St. Januarius (you can even find videos of that on Youtube). That’s evidence and it is physical enough. But if you mean spectacular evidence available on demand whenever you want and wherever you want - no, there is not much of a reason to expect it. Then again, you do not see diffraction of a car every day to confirm QM…
Those two look cool.
Too bad that tampering is not impossible… so… “whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”.
You know how you keep hidden Hosts fresh? replenish the stock.
You know how you liquefy some blood enclosed in a glass jar? heat it up.
I’m sorry, I believe far more in mankind’s ability to deceive than in the existence of a God who shows himself through some anecdotal details.
However unlikely it may seem for clergymen to be deceitful, it still feels more likely than the alternative.
So, do you think it is not an indication that you need another method for such detection…?
A collective method?
Or the reliance on the say so of others who are also relying on the say so of yet others, who are also… in a near-endless loop of say-so’s.
How does that loop get broken?
You would expect that? Why? Does anything in Catholicism indicate that you would get such access? Or do you just want to have such access?
What sense does it make to rely solely on testimony from far ago?
How can we be sure that it is accurate?
Isn’t it better to have access to the source of the information, instead of written testimony of someone who claims to have witnessed that information?
But yeah… catholicism has shielded itself from such requirements burying the source in the past and convincing people that that’s how things must be.
“Believe it is as we tell you, or burn in hell”, huh?
OK, let’s try it. How many claimed miracles of other religions can you actually list right now, without “Google”? (Let’s skip “almost Catholicism” - in other words, other branches of Christianity and Judaism -, to make sure miracles from Bible are not listed several times.)
Mohamed flying up into the sky on the back of a horse (pegasus?) and cleaving the moon in half.
Upon returning from India, the Portuguese navigators and sailors, in the 1500’s were treated by the goddess of love to a relaxing couple of days on an enchanted island, full of nymphs. Says so right there in the book:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Lus%C3%ADadas (I cheated a bit and had to use google to find the link, but just the link)
Cupid shoots arrows into people causing them to fall in love (at first sight). You see it happening. I know I’ve felt it happen to me… must be true, huh?
“And the truth should be accessible to all” - really? Why?
Anyway, I was pointing out that truth of Catholicism does matter. Are you saying that you would prefer to reject Catholicism even if it’s true, unless it is true under “your” conditions?
If it is true, the conditions shouldn’t matter, now should they?
Do you think that statistics of traffic accidents also shows that Police doesn’t care about you? And that mention of such statistics is “fear-mongering” that should be avoided while discussing driving?
Are you saying you have statistics on the people that go to Hell?
Gimme, gimme, gimme!!
But seriously: you have said that truth of Catholicism doesn’t matter. Are you saying that possible consequences of being wrong are not relevant here? In that case, what is?
“Intellectual honesty” springs to mind…
Why would a creator entity, relegate people who just can’t bring themselves to believe the thing that other people believe, while attempting to be honest with themselves in their view that such belief is not at all obvious, nor backed by anything that can be attributed to beyond this Universe?
And yet, this “dependence” is not “fear-mongering”…?
err… it’s reality. It’s because of QM that fusion works and that we can think of harnessing that energy for future use.
