Faith and 'proof'

[MegaTherion]

I think it might be extremely odd! But when you say you would use contemporaries of Julius Caesar, are you referring to those such Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (c. AD 46 – 120) commonly known in English as Plutarch? Would you use this ancient historian as proof of the life, conquests and death of Julius Caesar, pointing out that he wrote of the emperor in his Parallel Lives?

No, I don’t just mean Roman historians.

I mean the fact that there are lots of contemporaries of Julius Caesar who wrote about him. Cicero’s letters, for example, talk about Caesar, Caesar’s political career, etc. and it matches what we know from other sources. There are all kinds of records from contemporary individuals who dealt with and knew Caesar.

You have to be careful with “historians” because “historians” in ancient times often did not rely upon evidence. There are histories of Roman generals, for example, that recount legends of supernatural events (like oracles) and record them as fact.

Now, we know that such supernatural things are just legends, mixed in with official “history” so as to lend an aura of mystery and authority to these generals.

In order to get a good picture of history, we have to rely on a lot of firsthand, contemporary sources that corroborate each other.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is getting very annoying now because we’re just going to keep saying the same things to each other.

The point about the gospels (which were anonymously written…John possibly not written until after 100 CE!) I should leave to another thread. But since you asked for a motvie, it’s rather simple – the early Christian community had an oral tradition. People wrote down this oral tradition.

keep insisting they were anonymous, but i need evidencf or an argument for that.

that said, how is oral tradition a motivation for the apostles to be martyrs?

you dont seem to understand that the church was literally witness to the ministry of Christ and to the apostles, that the current Pope is the latest in line of 2000 years worth of history.

we know, because we literally witnessed it.

here is the chain of evidence en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Refutation: First law of thermodynamics: Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It is possible that matter and energy always existed.

refutation.

the second law of thermodynamics: The second law of thermodynamics states that all matter and energy tends toward maximum entropy.

if matter were always existing, we would be at maximum entropy, in this universe astronomers call that ‘heat death’, and its not predicted for many more cosmological decades.

matter and energy therefore had a beginning.

physics is a double edged sword.

I’m not well-versed enough in cosmology to make many more statements about what was/is possible, but I doubt that you are as well.

why would you doubt that im not well versed in cosmology? ive given rational arguments to each of your assertions

For all of us, origins are a question mark with many possible explanations. It is certainly possible that an uncaused supernatural being caused the expansion of matter and energy through unknown means. It is certainly possible that uncaused matter and energy began to expand through unknown means.

What is the evidence that impels you to choose the former over the latter?

because there is no rational argument to believe in always existing matter.

but there are a lot of problems with the idea.

1. second law of thermodynamics
2. to change a static system, like some always existing quantum system, to a dynamic system requires a cause in itself.
3. observational evidence of the BB.
4. no major physical theories buy that
5. why should all the parts of the universe need a cause, but the universe as a whole does not?

do i need to go on?

reasons 1,2, and 3 rule out the idea. reasons 4 and 5 point out its not based in rational thought or evidence.

so not only is it impossible from the standpoint of physics, it still doesn’t avoid causation.

saying something is possible is inadequate without a rational reason to be so.

though i appreciate the try with thermodynamics, you just didn’t know the second law, at least it was a proper refutation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No, I don’t just mean Roman historians.

I mean the fact that there are lots of contemporaries of Julius Caesar who wrote about him. Cicero’s letters, for example, talk about Caesar, Caesar’s political career, etc. and it matches what we know from other sources. There are all kinds of records from contemporary individuals who dealt with and knew Caesar.

You have to be careful with “historians” because “historians” in ancient times often did not rely upon evidence. There are histories of Roman generals, for example, that recount legends of supernatural events (like oracles) and record them as fact.

Now, we know that such supernatural things are just legends, mixed in with official “history” so as to lend an aura of mystery and authority to these generals.

In order to get a good picture of history, we have to rely on a lot of firsthand, contemporary sources that corroborate each other.

So then, would you would use Plutarch, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy and other historians to support the existence of Julius Caesar and events of his life only insofar as what they wrote agrees with Cicero and others who knew the emperor?

Or would you agree with the skeptic if she argued that the writings of these historians, and the autobiographies of Julius Caesar himself, are suspect and not to be trusted?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

In other words, do you think it would be reasonable for her to insist that only contemporaries of Julius Caesar may be accepted as reliable witnesses to the events of his life? or would you see this as an unreasonable or unnecessary restriction?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Unless matter and energy always existed (as the first law of thermodynamics states that they cannot be created or destroyed). In that case, something physical (currently unknown to us) could be the cause of the expansion of said matter and energy.

as in the last post, always existing matter is flat out denied as a possibility by the second law of thermodynamics.

I asked for evidence (physical data) that would make me choose god over some other possibility.

You don’t have any.

once again, always existing matter has many problems, but can be entirely ruled out as a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

that leaves only a non-physical cause as the possible first cause.

there arent 2 options, there is only one.

if you want physical evidence, then i suppose you dont believe in atomic structure either as there is no physical evidence, it is a logical deduction from the observable universe

do you have a rational reason to accept logical evidence of something you can see in one case, but not in another?

i dont think so.

The first cause does not have to be non-physical because it is possible that some part of the matter/energy that always existed caused the Big Bang.

already refuted. second law, doesn’t avoid causality, etc.

its plainly not possible. if it were than you should be able to find some reputable physicist, with a reational argument. and they wouldn’t base it on the first law in view of the second

so thanks for the refutation, but its a violation of the laws of physics.

thats hard to get around.

Also, I realize that your only response is going to be continuing to bleet “But everything needs a cause! You are claiming the universe does not need a cause!” And I’m going to keep saying, “Matter and energy in some form may have always existed.”

you keep mispredicting what i will say. please stop, its becoming embarassing

why would you keep saying it after you have been made aware that it is not possible? and no science agrees with it?

i refer you once again to the second law.

i assume you want to be taken seriously, maybe you dont. but i will be sure to repeat that refutation any place i see that claim made

If you can assert, without evidence, that there’s a transcendent spirit that doesn’t have to play by the rules

thats the point, whatever non-physical first cause there was, cannot be held to the same rules that physical things are.
how can the non-physical be subject to gravity, magnetism, force, mass, the weak and strong nuclear forces, or the temporal mechanics indigenous to this universe?

if you dont have a good rational reason why, it would seem that being non-physical is a very good reason the first cause, wouldn’t need to ‘play by the rules’

unless you have a rational argument to explain why both the physical and non-physical should obey the same laws, i assume they shouldn’t based on the above

I can assert, without evidence, that whatever came before the Big Bang doesn’t have to play by the rules.

really? do you have a rational argument like the one i just gave for the non-physical?

if so please state it.

i dont need or want statements, you did good trying a first law refutation.

now. do you still insist that it is possible that matter always existed or do you yeild in the face of the second law?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In other words, do you think it would be reasonable for her to insist that only contemporaries of Julius Caesar may be accepted as reliable witnesses to the events of his life? or would you see this as an unreasonable or unnecessary restriction?

check out the writings of the earliest church fathers, like iraneus, polcarp, and clement. they and were some contemporaries of the apostles.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

check out the writings of the earliest church fathers, like iraneus, polcarp, and clement. they and were some contemporaries of the apostles.

Yes warp, but i believe mega is placing an even more stringent requirement on historical reliability. In order for an ancient document to be considered historically accurate, he appears to be saying, it must be written by (what i used to call when i worked as a journalist) primary sources. Only contemporaries of the subject of the document should be trusted.

In the case of Julius Caesar, only those eyewitnesses of him should be considered reliable. In the case of Jesus Christ, only those who knew him should be thought of as trustworthy. All others are to be disregarded as unreliable. Hence, Polycarp, Iraneus and others who knew the apostles, but not Christ, should not be considered when gathering evidence regarding Him. At least, i think that is what he is saying. I’m interested in hearing more.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes warp, but i believe mega is placing an even more stringent requirement on historical reliability. In order for an ancient document to be considered historically accurate, he appears to be saying, it must be written by (what i used to call when i worked as a journalist) primary sources. Only contemporaries of the subject of the document should be trusted.

In the case of Julius Caesar, only those eyewitnesses of him should be considered reliable. In the case of Jesus Christ, only those who knew him should be thought of as trustworthy. All others are to be disregarded as unreliable. Hence, Polycarp, Iraneus and others who knew the apostles, but not Christ, should not be considered when gathering evidence regarding Him. At least, i think that is what he is saying. I’m interested in hearing more.

yup

i just listed those as mega seems to think that later ministries and martyrdom of the Apostles were merely the result of oral traditions with no actual witnesses.

 

[Sister_G]

OK with all the history stuff…isn’t there some documentation regarding Jesus in some of the ancient Roman writings? As a novice theologian I have not investigated the writings of the early civilizations to know…maybe someone could check this out?

Also, what about the historicity of the Bible? There are some accurate statements corroberated by other ancient sources…at least that’s what I learned in school in Rome!

 

[tdgesq]

the second law of thermodynamics: The second law of thermodynamics states that all matter and energy tends toward maximum entropy.

if matter were always existing, we would be at maximum entropy, in this universe astronomers call that ‘heat death’, and its not predicted for many more cosmological decades.

matter and energy therefore had a beginning.

This is a devastating rejoinder to MegaTherion’s claim. I doubt you will hear from him after this since he will find himself on the horns of a dilemma. You know what I am talking about. Thank you for silencing the mouth of the atheist.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK with all the history stuff…isn’t there some documentation regarding Jesus in some of the ancient Roman writings? As a novice theologian I have not investigated the writings of the early civilizations to know…maybe someone could check this out?

Also, what about the historicity of the Bible? There are some accurate statements corroborated by other ancient sources…at least that’s what I learned in school in Rome!

Yes, Sister, there are many external (non-Biblical) sources that provide good evidence for the Catholic faith. These witnesses are both Christian and non-Christian. Here are just a few of the non-Christian testimonies:

Lucian of Samosata (a second-century AD Greek writer):

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.

Mara Bar-Serapion (a Syrian writing a letter to his son between the 1st and 3rd century AD):

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samon gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their king [Jesus Christ]? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in dispersion.

The Jewish Talmud (compiled between AD 70 and 200):

On the eve of Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged [or crucified] on the eve of the Passover!

Pliny the Younger (a Roman administrator who wrote about the Christians to the Emperor Trajan around AD 112):

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. After which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

The Emperor Trajan (writing to Pliny the Younger his guidelines for punishing the Christians):

No search should be made for these people. But when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished, with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion.

 

[Sair]

If you had proof, there would be no need for faith. If you had proof, you would know that God exists, so there would be no call for you to believe it. We’re not asked to believe that the sun will rise, or that we will bleed if we are cut. We know these things, so we don’t have to believe.

Of course, it’s quite convenient for the Church that there is no incontestible proof of the existence or otherwise of God. Considering that the church has made a virtue of faith in things that can’t be proved, and has set up so many internal doctrines that derail questioning of Christian ‘truths’ (the false conscience is my favourite) if any actual knowledge of God came to light, then many of the Church’s teachings would fall by the wayside.

 

[Dameedna]

This is a devastating rejoinder to MegaTherion’s claim. I doubt you will hear from him after this since he will find himself on the horns of a dilemma. You know what I am talking about. Thank you for silencing the mouth of the atheist.

No, it just show’s ignorance of the laws.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you had proof, there would be no need for faith. If you had proof, you would know that God exists, so there would be no call for you to believe it. We’re not asked to believe that the sun will rise, or that we will bleed if we are cut. We know these things, so we don’t have to believe.

Of course, it’s quite convenient for the Church that there is no incontestible proof of the existence or otherwise of God. Considering that the church has made a virtue of faith in things that can’t be proved, and has set up so many internal doctrines that derail questioning of Christian ‘truths’ (the false conscience is my favourite) if any actual knowledge of God came to light, then many of the Church’s teachings would fall by the wayside.

I take it then, Sair, that you disagree with this definition of faith?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4814463&postcount=295

I for one would be interested in what you might add to this conversation:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=304004&page=22

 

[Sair]

I take it then, Sair, that you disagree with this definition of faith?

I would be inclined to argue that this is a definition of conviction, rather than faith. Faith implies a lack of knowledge, otherwise there would be little room for belief, as such. If you know something, or if you are convinced of something, I would not consider that you merely had faith in it.

 

[davidv]

I would be inclined to argue that this is a definition of conviction, rather than faith. Faith implies a lack of knowledge, otherwise there would be little room for belief, as such. If you know something, or if you are convinced of something, I would not consider that you merely had faith in it.

Regarding bolded part above.

Then you are not using a definition of faith as it is used in Catholic teaching.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is a devastating rejoinder to MegaTherion’s claim. I doubt you will hear from him after this since he will find himself on the horns of a dilemma. You know what I am talking about. Thank you for silencing the mouth of the atheist.

i hope it sows the seeds of doubt in atheism, that will eventually grow into a tree of faith.

i was an atheist 20 years ago, yet G-d loved me and brought me home. when i told Him no, He knew i needed Him and He did not leave me. it took years to get here but i am happier now than any other point in my life. Praise the Most Holy Name of Jesus, Blessed be Him!

i hope others find the Love that i have.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Lucian of Samosata (a second-century AD Greek writer):

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.

when i read this my heart leapt within me. He is talking about the martyrs. those tortured to death by the likes of nero, and others.

No one better describes that frustration than the Roman lawyer Tertullian, converted in Carthage, who turned the sharpness of his wit to defend the Christians and taunt their adversaries. The pagans, he says, have their own heroes, men willing to die for their country. But if a Christian is willing to suffer for God, he is called a fool! “But go to it, my good magistrates! The populace will count you a great deal better if you sacrifice the Christians to them. Torture us, rack us, condemn us, crush us; your cruelty only proves our innocence. That is why God suffers us to suffer all this. But nothing whatever is accomplished by your cruelties, each more exquisite than the last. It is the bait that wins men for our school. We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed . . That very obstinacy with which you taunt us is your teacher. For who beholds it and is not stirred to inquire what lies indeed within it? Who, on inquiry, does not join us, and joining us, does not wish to suffer, that he may purchase for himself the whole grace of God.” (Tertullian, Apology 50, 12-15). bible.ca/g-endure-persecution.htm

The Jewish Talmud (compiled between AD 70 and 200):

On the eve of Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged [or crucified] on the eve of the Passover!

mega, why would the Jews talk about such a thing? if christ were only a common criminal, and the apostles or their followers made up the story, then why would the Jews be talking about it at the same time?

Pliny the Younger (a Roman administrator who wrote about the Christians to the Emperor Trajan around AD 112):

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. After which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

dameena, where is the moral fault here? what part of this sincereity to live morally can the atheists find fault with?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would be inclined to argue that this is a definition of conviction, rather than faith. Faith implies a lack of knowledge, otherwise there would be little room for belief, as such. If you know something, or if you are convinced of something, I would not consider that you merely had faith in it.

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554

try that out.

ive never felt faith meant that i belive in something because of a lack of knowledge. ive always taken it to mean i believe in G-ds love for me, adn goodwill. not that G-d exists rather that the sacrifice was for me.

we have 5000 years of judaic/christain tradition, until recently it wasnt really a question of existence, it was a question of purpose.

of course thats just my opinion on the matter.

 

[fhansen]

Regarding bolded part above.

Then you are not using a definition of faith as it is used in Catholic teaching.

I think what Sair’s getting at is that the reason we need faith to be given us is because we lack direct knowledge-we’ll have no need for faith-the ability to believe in things unseen-once we see “face to face”.