R
ribozyme
Guest
Nope, there are many creationists who believe in a young-Earth, but that does not make young-Earth creationism correct.
- Status
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I never said that Catholics are stupid or indoctrinated. Their beliefs however do go against basic logic. I also contend that there is not sufficient evidence to justify their beliefs.
As you are going along the proof line, Saints Pius X, Claire and John Vianney to name just 3 - their bodies are perfectly incorrupt. They died in 1914, around 1300 and around 1600 respectively. They smell of roses. Lenin has to be re-enbalmed every year and stinks to the lowest pit of hell!
I don’t really know that much about this, but a quick Google search did turn up some information. However, I will look into this further:
skepdic.com/incorrupt.html
adam.com.au/bstett/PaIncorruptibility.htm
R
ribozyme
Guest
I wonder if most of the people here question this stuff? Not doing this shows your lack of skepticism towards profound claims.
S
seremina
Guest
I’ll have the evidence you asked for, soon. I just wanted to pop in and explain the Trinity.
Imagine a flower that has 2 petals. The flower is God, the one petal is Jesus, the other petal is the Holy Spirit. Yet… look at all three. They’re the same flower! That’s how you have 3 in 1.
I understand what you’re going through on trying to understand the Trinity. When we say something is a mystery, it is not a copout. Its the truth and the legal definition of what some concepts are in the Catholic faith. Mary’s Assumption is a mystery, for example. In Catholicism, a mystery doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be believed.
You have to also remember that faith is not science. You can’t prove religion nor faith. To believe is plenty. God isn’t asking us to be sure of anything. He’s asking us to trust Him. We are to be like children, and to always walk through this world with our hand in His. St. Therese taught this a lot.
Imagine a flower that has 2 petals. The flower is God, the one petal is Jesus, the other petal is the Holy Spirit. Yet… look at all three. They’re the same flower! That’s how you have 3 in 1.
I understand what you’re going through on trying to understand the Trinity. When we say something is a mystery, it is not a copout. Its the truth and the legal definition of what some concepts are in the Catholic faith. Mary’s Assumption is a mystery, for example. In Catholicism, a mystery doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be believed.
You have to also remember that faith is not science. You can’t prove religion nor faith. To believe is plenty. God isn’t asking us to be sure of anything. He’s asking us to trust Him. We are to be like children, and to always walk through this world with our hand in His. St. Therese taught this a lot.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
It is not possible to prove personal experiences of another person to your own satisfaction.
The only proof, probably, is to ask for help finding sufficient proof. Why not seek out a ‘personal experience’ of your own as a proof instead of picking over the dry remains of someone elses.
Its a challenge - you don’t have to accept.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Again, how do you know that these personal experiences present the truth? Many people with different experiences have personal experiences that are in conflict. How do we know which personal experiences are true. If you say that each of these experiences is true to the individual having it, aren’t you endorsing relativism? If you are going to say only certain experiences are true, how do you determine which ones are true?
V
Valke2
Guest
If the dead smell like roses, then they smell like embalming fluid.
Where in scripture does it say that if one’s body doesn’t decay properly it is a sign of that individual’s holiness? How was that connection ever made?
King Charles I’s head was remarkably preserved after 150 years. WHat does that mean?
Where in scripture does it say that if one’s body doesn’t decay properly it is a sign of that individual’s holiness? How was that connection ever made?
King Charles I’s head was remarkably preserved after 150 years. WHat does that mean?
A
AnthonyM2
Guest
I don’t think they used embalming fluid on these Incorruptibles, especially the older ones. It appears to be sign of something beyond the natural explanation. It may not absolute proof, which we might never have in this life, but it’s a kind of “circumstantial evidence” at least. It’s one piece of many, that when put together, one can either say, “Okay, I accept and believe” or not, depending on the individual openess to faith I suppose.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
This is how you determine which ones are true…
Basically, Ammonius, you don’t Know anything.
You don’t *know *which ‘personal experiences’ are real. How could you. We don’t even know what ‘real’ is.
You can however decide to believe that reality is ‘real’, but you have no reason to believe it is.
Once you have decided to believe it is ‘real’ then you must discover what it is, and what it is - is its origin. And what is its origin? - well you don’t know - there are many theories. But since you have started on the assumption that it is ‘real’ then its origin must be ‘real’ to *you *also.
The origin of everything then, which also is real itself, is called The Truth.
And we don’t get to decide what the Truth is. We don’t choose it.
We look for it and trust and hope that we will recognize it when we find it.
Which was why I said - go out and have a look for yourself for Truth.
If you’re wondering if the Catholic way leads to the Truth, and how you can be sure that it does, is rather too cautious an attitude to take for men who are free-falling through space on a round ball of rock. Be heroic! get out there and test the truth of Catholicism yourself, instead of asking someone else to do it for you.
Theres loads of examples of the routes other people have taken on their quest for Truth, e.g.'s in books on the lives of the Saints.
Finally if Catholicism is in fact found by you to be true, then by its very own nature you cannot be left in any doubt about it.
Bon Voyage!
V
VociMike
Guest
I think that it is beneficial to put such a question on an even playing field, so to speak. Something like:
What is the most plausible explanation for everything? For the existence of the universe, and the laws which govern it. For the existence of life. And for the existence of the human race in all of its depth and complexity and contrariness.
You ask about proofs of God. I would offer the above list. But if you would reject this list as proof of God, then I ask you, what is your alternative and compelling explanation for absolutely everything?
M
Maranatha
Guest
Judaism is limited to a particular tribe. Nevertheless, it is a very successful religion.
In a court of law, the truth is determined beyond a reasonable doubt but vote.
M
Maranatha
Guest
There are many but most people are not creationists. By counting what people believe we don’t prove truth but we measure reasonableness based on available evidence.
J
JimO
Guest
And I spent a lot of time describing why your limitation of “evidence” to physical or scientific evidence is flawed. Have you no comment?
V
VociMike
Guest
This leads to the natural question, what are your beliefs as to the cause of and the explanation for everything, and how do your beliefs meet these tests of logic and evidence? It is not enough to tell us we are wrong. You must also tell us what is right.
L
Lrning
Guest
Molecules that make up air can be shown to exist now. Do you agree that air existed before man even knew about molecules? Every person that has ever lived experienced air, whether they knew it or not. The scientific “knowing” doesn’t change the truth.
It seems like scientific discoveries are made almost every day. And yet, here you are questioning the “proof” for God, as if everything has already been discovered that will ever be discovered. IMO, one day ALL of us will have definitive proof of God’s existence. It will come the day we die.
God knew belief would be difficult for some:
John 20:
29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
R
Resurrexit
Guest
The Trinity can also be explained using the analogy of H20 - water. There is one substance, H20, that can be Ice, Water and Vapour. All three are completely seperate, but yet completely the same. All three are entirely H20. 3 states, but 1 substance.
Would you say that was some kind of contradiction? Of course not.
Are you enquiring out of genuine interest, or are you just ‘religion bashing?’
Would you say that was some kind of contradiction? Of course not.
Are you enquiring out of genuine interest, or are you just ‘religion bashing?’
V
Valke2
Guest
My sincere belief is that on some level each of us know that there is something which is greater than ourselves and greater than anything can or will ever understand. That the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. And if we were somehow able to bring all the parts of the universe together in understand everything there is to know about each part, there would still be something greater. That all of creation stands for something greater than itself.
About 2 billion people acknowledge this through the structure of Christanity.
I acknowledge it through the structure of Judaism.
An atheist acknowledges it through whatever structure he or she uses when dwelling in the ineffable mystery of life.
I often hear people go on about how there is only one truth or how there is only one true religion. Personally, when I acknowledge tjhat God is One, I am acknowledging that I don’t believe anything can exist outside of God. ANd I find it highly unlikely that any one religion or any one set of beliefs can be “the one and only” way to purse a relationship with a Divine Presense that is greater than infinity and exists within and without space and time.
About 2 billion people acknowledge this through the structure of Christanity.
I acknowledge it through the structure of Judaism.
An atheist acknowledges it through whatever structure he or she uses when dwelling in the ineffable mystery of life.
I often hear people go on about how there is only one truth or how there is only one true religion. Personally, when I acknowledge tjhat God is One, I am acknowledging that I don’t believe anything can exist outside of God. ANd I find it highly unlikely that any one religion or any one set of beliefs can be “the one and only” way to purse a relationship with a Divine Presense that is greater than infinity and exists within and without space and time.
J
JimO
Guest
But there is absolute truth, whether we can grasp it or not. Either there is a Creator or there is not. Either the eternal human soul/spirit exists or it does not. If a personal God exists, He either has an interest in us and is involved in human history or He does and is not. If so, He has either established a moral code or He has not. And, such a moral code would transcend human frailty and be given to us to follow.
The religions of the world might agree on much, but there are certain “truths” held by them that are mutually exclusive such that somebody is wrong. Many Christians and others believe that the poor sap who has it wrong is destined to eternal separation from God. Catholics believe that someone who is truly ignorant of the full truth is not accountable for it and is not judged by God the same way as one who understands and rejects the truth. I’m sure other faiths believe this as well. The Catholic Church also teaches that there is one truth (or path to God) and that this truth can be understood. It teaches that many of the world religions have discovered part of that truth, or taken the first steps onto that path, if you will. It’s not so much that other religions are wrong, but they do not have the full truth - some have moved further along the path than others. However, some undoubtedly have veared off the path of truth entirely. For my part, as a Christian, Jesus told us to spread the Gospel (the Good News) to all the nations. And it is Good News - we can have a personal relationship with God and be with Him for eternity. As Christians, we believe that we are called to reach people with this Good News, not to oppress them or tell them they are wrong, but to offer hope to the hopeless - show people where the path to God is and how to walk it.
The problem is that people want to believe that no matter what we do, we all “commune with God or the gods” and we all “go to heaven” in the end. That would be awesome, but it might be wrong. The “many paths to God” idea would be great, but it might be wrong. All evidence in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in the Muslim world suggests that it is wrong. Often, the people who hold to this idea don’t like what their faith teaches and want to be able to go their own way without any eternal consequence. That’s a big gamble.
Look, frankly it’s no skin off my nose if someone doesn’t want to believe what I believe. I’m at a point in my life where I am secure in my faith and don’t need others to agree with me. If I’m wrong and we all go to heaven - great! If there is no afterlife, fine, I’m at peace with life and my choices. I don’t feel deprived of anything. But, if I’m right, then I am doing others a great disservice not telling them the Good News.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ammonius
It seems that once you bring in critical analysis the only reasonable position is that we do not know if there is God and that we do not have evidence to justify the belief in the actual existence of God (much less a specific God).
On the other hand: by our intellects alone we do not know there is not a God, and we do not know whether if there is a God, God wants us to approach Him not merely with our intellects and senses, but with our whole being, which includes imagination, emotions, will, etc.
This is atheism’s failure of nerve … that it wants God to conform to evidence that is strictly intellectual … atheism hasn’t the courage to approach God and embrace God by every means possible.
Atheism is best represented in metaphor as a **flight **from Truth, rather than an embrace of it.
It seems that once you bring in critical analysis the only reasonable position is that we do not know if there is God and that we do not have evidence to justify the belief in the actual existence of God (much less a specific God).
On the other hand: by our intellects alone we do not know there is not a God, and we do not know whether if there is a God, God wants us to approach Him not merely with our intellects and senses, but with our whole being, which includes imagination, emotions, will, etc.
This is atheism’s failure of nerve … that it wants God to conform to evidence that is strictly intellectual … atheism hasn’t the courage to approach God and embrace God by every means possible.
Atheism is best represented in metaphor as a **flight **from Truth, rather than an embrace of it.
- Status