Contradictory Religions Can’t All Be True

[Gab123]

Marian apparitions are always a call to prayer and penance for the conversion of sinners, being that when the world becomes lost in sin, freedoms and war break out and death and strife follow. As Mother of the Church. Mary has appeared throughout the centuries. At Fatima she she showed the children the reality of hell.

God doesn’t perform miracles to amaze people or to convince people he exists; for that He gave us an intellect; God has already placed His laws in your heart which draw you toward himself who is Goodness and Truth itself.

The only thing God wants from us is our sanctification; that is, the unmasking, uprooting and removing of everything from our heart that separates us from Him, who is the Source of Goodness, Truth and Love. And for this He left us the Sacraments which empower to do things we cannot do on our ow; sanctifying grace is available in overflowing measures through the sacraments of the Church.

As for evidence, a crucifix is a reminder of the horror of sin, and evidence of God’s love for us; the resurrection is a promise of eternal life that what awaits those who love and serve God in this life.

here is a brief talk on miracles by Archbishop Sheen:


And here is a video that may inspire you:

 

[rossum]

Again, the problem is the complex that’s creating the mental block. It’s like trying to convince someone that 3x3=9, but they keep arguing that it is not reasonable and go in circles trying to refute that 3x3=9.

You have picked a bad example. 3x3=9 only with the assumption that the calculation is in number base 10 or greater. For example, 3x3=21 in number base 4.

Mathematical statements are governed by the specific set of premises in play. Change the premises and the statements change. For example, Pythagoras’ Theorem is not true on a sphere or a saddle. It is only true on a Euclidian plane.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I read in other places that a box with light may weigh more than a box without light. So he is not the only person advocating this.

The “light inside a box” thought experiment does not indicate a mass of the photons any more than the mass of a proton indicate a mass of the gluons. Sure, it might turn out that photons have mass. But so far all experiments have indicated that the mass then has to be (I can’t rememeber the exact values) ridicuously small and below a known limit. As undestood today a elementary particle having mass undergoes change. This change is the cause of mass. And as far as I know, there is no indication that photons undergo any change in this manner.

There are so many arguments in favor of light having no mass of course, but you have chosen to give an ad hominem argument instead of responding to his comments directly.

Because if you actually check his blog he constantly avoids giving a proper foundation for his wild claims. That he converts the energy of the photon given in eV to a mass given in kg does not support his claim. The energy in eV can as easily be converted to a temperature as well by just dividing it by the Boltzmann constant. He does not use the universal language, math, when explaining his claims. Which is a clear indication that he does not understand that language himself. One simply does not support such huge claims with word salads alone.

Why should I spend any time responding to his claims seriously when he doesn’t even bother to present them seriously?

And you have not responded to the question of the Copenhagen interpretation according to which physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured,

The Copenhagen interpretation is not one agreed interpretation. The contributors could not agree on several parts of it. But it does not take a measurement to change the wave form of a system. It is an interaction that is necessary. Using the term measurement only gives food for the ideas that consciousness is somehow part of the equation.

 

[Gab123]

You have picked a bad example. 3x3=9 only with the assumption that

Again, the psychological complex.

“Well! What caused the Big Bang, hmmm?!?”
Dunno. What caused your deity?

Time and Matter came into being with the Big Bang, thus the cause of the universe is outside of time and matter itself. Being that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the universe has an Eternal Rational Source, a Being who Caused the rational universe into being.

God is not a creation. In order for something to have a beginning, it must exist in time. God is outside of time, hence no beginning; He is Eternal.

If by rational you mean it behaves according to the laws inherent to matter and energy, then there is a source. The Big Bang.

That’s like arguing that order, design and functionality is inherent in a bomb blast

The basis of my disbelief in any gods is nearly identical to the basis of my disbelief in, say, Thor. Or unicorns. Or Bigfoot.

Again the psychological complex. Zero evidence for Thor, unicorns, and Bigfoot; mountains of proof for God’s existence.

Man is largely powerless.
Man creates a deity that has absolute power.
Appeals to this deity might change outcomes that man cannot control.
Man feels less powerless.

Through sheer reason man can calculate the distance of the earth from the sun, and know the exact time of a sunrise 10,000 years from now based on the rational comprehensible nature of the universe. Intellectual proofs for God’s existence is based on reason. Atheism has no intellectual arguments for God’s non-existence. It is a psychological complex rooted in emotion, intellectual laziness, and a darkened intellect.

Seek God; be open to HIM; be conscious of the psychological complex that has gotten in the way of finding Him. God is the Source of Goodness, Truth and Love. Pray from your heart in quiet moments. Prayer is a dialogue with God. Seek God and you will find Him.

 

[Hume]

Again, the psychological complex.

Number bases are subject to psychology?

Being that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the universe has an Eternal Rational Source, a Being who Caused the rational universe into being.

No, it’s proof that it’s not chaotic - it can be measured. That’s it.

That’s like arguing that order, design and functionality is inherent in a bomb blast

A bomb blast isn’t a random event. When such a thing occurs, there are those who study the science of them to determine the whos and whats of the event because they’re measurable.

Again the psychological complex. Zero evidence for Thor, unicorns, and Bigfoot; mountains of proof for God’s existence.

Interesting. I’ve never seen any. At least Thor has the lightening.

Atheism has no intellectual arguments for God’s non-existence.

Atheism doesn’t assert that gods do not exist. It simply asserts that the existence of any is unproven.

Seek God; be open to HIM

Goodness, which one?

 

[rossum]

Again, the psychological complex.

Mathematics is not psychology.

The parable of truth goes something like this…

When truth was born, it was visited by a magical fairy and blessed with three qualities: the ability to be absolute, the ability to be objective, and the ability to refer to the external world. The condition for this blessing was that truth could only exhibit a maximum of two of those qualities simultaneously. Therefore it could be absolute and objective, but not refer to the external world (mathematical truth). It could be objective and refer to the external world, but not absolute (scientific truth). Finally, it could be absolute and refer to the external world, but not objective (aesthetic truth).

 

[Gab123]

Number bases are subject to psychology?

Again, the problem is the psychological complex of atheism that creates the mental block. It’s like trying to convince someone that 3x3=9, but purposely going off on tangents to argue against the obvious.

No, it’s proof that it’s not chaotic - it can be measured. That’s it.

That is not am argument. That’s like saying a dictionary is not chaotic and it can be read. You fail to explain why it is not chaotic and why it can be read.

A bomb blast isn’t a random event. When such a thing occurs, there are those who study the science of them to determine the whos and whats of the event because they’re measurable.

This statement does not make sense and much less address the point. How does a bomb blast create order, purpose and functionality?

Interesting. I’ve never seen any. At least Thor has the lightening.

Again, plenty of intellectual equations that prove the necessity of a Rational Source behind the rational universe. Logic forces you to conclude that the source behind this line of text you are reading now has a rational source, even though you don’t see or know the source, logic forces you to believe the source arranging these symbols into a comprehensible logical language you can understand has a rational source. Logic necessitates reason in order to decipher logic. Harmony of logic is impossible without a rational source. Harmony and logic permeates the cosmos.

The universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics. The problem is that atheism is an intellectual virus that creates a psychological complex leading to a self imposed mental block, resulting in the darkening of the intellect. Just like locking oneself in a room, closing the curtains and shutting off the lights will make perfectly functioning eyes useless. The remedy is to open up the windows and let the light shine in and then you will begin to see all the colors you are missing.

Atheism doesn’t assert that gods do not exist. It simply asserts that the existence of any is unproven.

While there are many intellectual equations that prove the existence of an Eternal Rational Being, atheism has not a single intellectual argument for God’s non-existence. Instead the only response is “no”. Therefore the complex inhibits any possible intellectual ascent.

Goodness, which one?

This is like trying to discuss algebra and advanced calculus to someone who refuses to believe in numbers and ruges against counting. But to those who are willing to open the blinds of the darkened room and let the light in, the answer is one based on logic, history and supernatural evidence.

 

[Gab123]

Mathematics is not psychology.

Exactly, neither is logic. Logic necessitates reason. Logic permeates the cosmos.

 

[rossum]

Logic permeates the cosmos.

In science the CMBR permeates the cosmos, not logic.

There are different logics: two valued, three valued, four valued … Which one permeates, or do they all?

 

[Gab123]

That is not an answer. Realize the cosmos is made up of systems governed by laws; from the macroscopic to the microscopic, purpose and functionality permeates the universe. From galactic systems, to solar systems, planetary systems, ecological systems; even you yourself and everything about you is made up of purposeful functional systems governed by logical laws; Skeletal System, Nervous System, Muscular System, Cardiovascular, Reproductive, Digestive, etc. All of these systems have purposeful functionality; all are comprehensible systems based on logic and governed by logical laws that are deducible through logic.

Thus from the ears on your head, to the teeth in your mouth, to your stomach, to the small hole in your rear end, all have logical Function, Purpose and Design.

To say there is no evidence of a Rational Source is chucklable, intellectually dishonest, and the result of a psychological complex Known as atheism. On the one hand atheists present themselves as uber-objective about science, yet when it comes to defending their atheism they become feeble minded, refuse to follow the logic, and are unable to be honest with themselves; this is because, unlike science, the existence of God affects them personally, hence the complex.

Now then; discussing theology with an atheist is like discussing algebra with someone who refuses to believe in numbers or counting, as they resort to refuting every logical step with an illogical tangent.

But if the day comes when such individuals overcome the self-imposed complex, one can make progress toward reaching the purpose of existence. The economy of the human soul exists within a spiritual system governed by spiritual laws. The purpose of human existence is to seek God, thus everyone is naturally drawn to harmony and beauty, goodness and truth, being that God is Love, Truth, and Beauty itself, and the only being that can bring completeness, joy, peace and eternal happiness to human beings. Evil is the misuse of something that has a purpose. Thus sin is the misuse of the intellect and the will. Dig deep enough and behind every rebellion against God is attachment to sin, which in turn darkens the human mind and leads to moral and intellectual complexes.

 

[Hume]

That is not am argument. That’s like saying a dictionary is not chaotic and it can be read. You fail to explain why it is not chaotic and why it can be read.

The reason the universe appears non-chaotic is because of the four fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear force. Your preferred deity didn’t make the list.

This statement does not make sense and much less address the point. How does a bomb blast create order, purpose and functionality?

If it’s big enough, the heavier dust from it concentrates into things like our planet.

Again, plenty of intellectual equations that prove the necessity of a Rational Source behind the rational universe.

Literally not one that doesn’t invoke special pleading or begging the question. Literally not one.

While there are many intellectual equations that prove the existence of an Eternal Rational Being, atheism has not a single intellectual argument for God’s non-existence. Instead the only response is “no”. Therefore the complex inhibits any possible intellectual ascent.

All atheism asserts is “If it’s not proven, I’m not going to pretend it is”.

That’s it.

This is like trying to discuss algebra and advanced calculus to someone who refuses to believe in numbers and ruges against counting.

It’s the classic disagreement on semantics. If the underlying premises are unsound then so are the resultant arguments. As you can’t prove there’s a god, you can’t prove his name is Yahweh. Or Horus.

There are different logics: two valued, three valued, four valued … Which one permeates, or do they all?

He/She doesn’t know.

 

[rossum]

That is not an answer.

It was question, not an answer. For the universe I prefer a three valued logic: true, false, and unknown/uncertain. There is much in the universe that is unknown or uncertain.

All of these systems have purposeful functionality; all are comprehensible systems based on logic and governed by logical laws that are deducible through logic.

I disagree. There are systems that are governed by chemical laws, not logical laws.

To say there is no evidence of a Rational Source is chucklable, intellectually dishonest, and the result of a psychological complex Known as atheism .

There are many more gods in my scriptures than in yours. Numerically you are closer to atheism than I am. You need to be more careful here; if you throw a stone straight up into the air, whose fault is it when that stone hits you on the head?

Thus sin is the misuse of the intellect and the will.

Sin is not present in Buddhism. There are wise actions and unwise actions. The absence of sin also means that there is no forgiveness of sin either. You need to be very careful of your actions because you cannot avoid the consequences of those actions. There are no Get Out of Hell Free cards in Buddhism: you do the crime, you do the time.

 

[rossum]

Bonjour à tous,
…

Given that this is an English language site, here is the English translation, courtesy of bing:

Hi all

I have a rational and usual explanation for this, for much of the history of Islam, theories circulate, all monotheistic religions belong to the same Semitic tradition, and Islam has come to renovate this tradition. It was a revolution in its time against this tradition, revolutionized, reproduced in the name of a return to the Abrahamic tradition. In a sense, everything in the Old Testament and the New Testament is not wrong! It’s not all bad! But many things are hidden and these things must be revealed and taught to the Christians of the world in the hope that they can learn and repent in case of evil. All the authors of the Gospels and Acts expressed Paul’s ideas that Jesus was divine and that obedience to the Law was replaced by faith in Jesus. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian and only wanted to live and preach among the Jews.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is reflected in Islam, but renewed and updated.

And remember that monotheism is one and the same strain; it is in the details that religions differ from each other.

We remember that as our Prophet did everything, from the advent of Islam, to rally under his banner the followers of the other Abrahamic revelations, the source of the Islamic message being the same as theirs, our religion wanting to return to the true tradition of Abraham. His outstretched hand was rejected and he was fought as heresy, but he imposed himself, against all, thanks above all to his humanist vision and principles magnifying the condition of Man as an eminently free and reasonable creature of God.

The purpose of Islam is therefore much less to glorify any conservatism than to induce one to free oneself from it and to live one’s religion more peacefully by accepting the other, our fellow, and no longer by rejecting it, as is the case today, while we are immersed in the same tradition and interpretation of our faith so that it retains its inimitable character, that of a religion always revolutionary , and his sublime aims!

This is why, more than ever, there is a great need for demythification. A new interpretation is necessary and urgent, as well as a critical and historical revision of the Hebrew and Christian texts. The Judaism that exists today is the branch of ancient Judaism that refused to recognize in Jesus Christ, the Messiah whom the Jews had rather imagined as a warlord.
Having failed to spread throughout the world, Judaism fell back on itself: from monotheism, it is today the one to which it is most difficult to convert and integrate the community, as the concern for the preservation of religious identity and tradition seems to require admitting only individuals providing sufficient guarantees of a profound conversion.

Thus Islam remains in a better position compared to other religions, because it presents continuity in Renewal.

With my friendships

I suspect that a number of the posters here will disagree with you.

 

[Niblo]

Never!

 

[AlNg]

Thus from the ears on your head, to the teeth in your mouth, to your stomach, to the small hole in your rear end, all have logical Function, Purpose and Design.

What about wisdom teeth? In some people, their jaws are too small and the wisdom teeth crowd out the other teeth and come in crooked and oftentimes are pulled out.

atheism has not a single intellectual argument for God’s non-existence.

I have heard of two arguments:

1. The law of parsimony. Atheists claim that everything can be explained naturally without invoking a supernatural cause.
2. The question of evil. If God exists, He is all powerful, all merciful and all knowing. And yet there is a lot of suffering by children who through no fault of their own contract terrible and painful diseases from natural causes. Would an all loving God permit evil especially when it involves young children?

 

[Niblo]

What about wisdom teeth

Impacted wisdom teeth do have a purpose: To provide dentists with a source of income