A
AnAtheist
Guest
I was thinking of the Goddess and the Horned One.
Now when I think of it, the Catharian God is more compassionate than Jehova. Does that one have a name?
How would you go about proving God's existence to an atheist or agnostic?
- Status
Now when I think of it, the Catharian God is more compassionate than Jehova. Does that one have a name?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
SamCA
There are a variety of reasons to believe that there may be multiple worlds…
There are a variety of reasons to believe there may be a God, but without proof positive an atheist will never believe it. So why, without proof positive, should an atheist believe there may be multiple worlds?
There are a variety of reasons to believe that there may be multiple worlds…
There are a variety of reasons to believe there may be a God, but without proof positive an atheist will never believe it. So why, without proof positive, should an atheist believe there may be multiple worlds?
S
SamCA
Guest
Weak atheist or agnostic, depending on who’s doing the defining. I don’t state affirmatively that there is no God, but I’m very skeptical about it.
My position might be summed up as, “It’s impossible to know for certain… but I really doubt it.”
And for what it’s worth, I don’t consider the Norse ‘revelation’ more likely than the Christian one. I just think that on a narrative level, the Norse gods strike me as probably the most readily self-sacrificing. Loads of gods throughout the history of human religion are willing to die in some form of symbolic sacrifice for their people, but generally they’re reborn or ressurected again afterward.
The Norse gods are willing to really die, and stay dead, for their people.
(And I’ve strayed really far off topic. Sorry, everyone.)
S
SamCA
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
That said, there are still testable, repeatable experiments that may be done to test the premises on which the multiple universe theory is based. If you have a board with some slits in it, a very sensitive light detector, and a very dim light, you too can observe the way that light forms interference patterns even when there’s no other light for it to be interfering with.
This isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence of the many worlds interpretation, but it’s certainly conclusive evidence that something really weird is going on, and multiple universes are one of the explanations that fit the data.
They shouldn’t. They should continue seeking evidence until such a time as a more firm position may be taken.
That said, there are still testable, repeatable experiments that may be done to test the premises on which the multiple universe theory is based. If you have a board with some slits in it, a very sensitive light detector, and a very dim light, you too can observe the way that light forms interference patterns even when there’s no other light for it to be interfering with.
This isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence of the many worlds interpretation, but it’s certainly conclusive evidence that something really weird is going on, and multiple universes are one of the explanations that fit the data.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I’d venture to say that if they can really die then they’re not really gods…
but that’s just my two cents on a topic I’ve paid no attention to.
I have to run off now until much later tonight. I haven’t found the documents yet I’ve been looking for, but I thought I’d give you this which I did come across. It seems pretty solid to me:
I didn’t post it all up because it’s from EWTN so it’s obviously biased. I did want to put up the above quote because it makes the point that the WHO conducted an investigation of this and came to the same conclusions, which to me is pretty hard evidence.
but that’s just my two cents on a topic I’ve paid no attention to.
I have to run off now until much later tonight. I haven’t found the documents yet I’ve been looking for, but I thought I’d give you this which I did come across. It seems pretty solid to me:
From a larger article at ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZLANCIAN.HTM
I didn’t post it all up because it’s from EWTN so it’s obviously biased. I did want to put up the above quote because it makes the point that the WHO conducted an investigation of this and came to the same conclusions, which to me is pretty hard evidence.
J
john_doran
Guest
no, no - i mean why should anyone believe your assumption that “In an infinite multiverse, anything that could possibly happen, no matter how unlikely, is bound to happen somewhere”?
A
AnAtheist
Guest
I am still sceptical, and I tell you why. One of the first things you learn when becoming a scientist is to cite correctly. They don’t do it. They just claim, WHO confirmed the findings. Where is the citation?
A quick googling of “Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori” produces only hits to Linoli’s report, not to the publication itself. Does this paper even exist? Has anyone seen a copy of it yet?
This is an example of correct scientific citation: T.B. Bateman, Elastic Moduli of Single-Crystal Zinc Oxide, J. Appl. Phys. 33, 3309 (1962).
And not: Bateman published it 1962 in Journal of Applied Physics. His findings where confirmed by other famous scientists.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
True enough. But when one makes a scientific claim, he should better back it up with serious science.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
Do you have telepathic powers, or how do you know what I know?
When I compare Allah, Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl to Jehova, I’d prefer Jehova.
When I compare the Catharian God, the Goddess and The Horned One, Baldur (thanks SamCA), Japanese Kami, or the Tao to Jehova, Jehova looses badly.
I am not so sure about Illuvatar, the Hindu bazillion of gods, Odin. The latter might not be more compassionate, but He is juster, fairer and more honorable than Jehova.
Fair enough. But I don’t think, I am up to Chesterton, I have read enough quotes from him to believe, I won’t stand a whole book of his talking. But perhaps it’s worth a try, when I have nothing else to read…
I doubt, you know every other god, people have come up with, so how do you know for sure? (Sorry, I have heard a similar argument from theists so often, I couldn’t resist.)
Do you have telepathic powers, or how do you know what I know?
When I compare Allah, Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl to Jehova, I’d prefer Jehova.
When I compare the Catharian God, the Goddess and The Horned One, Baldur (thanks SamCA), Japanese Kami, or the Tao to Jehova, Jehova looses badly.
I am not so sure about Illuvatar, the Hindu bazillion of gods, Odin. The latter might not be more compassionate, but He is juster, fairer and more honorable than Jehova.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
“Whem some members of an organisation are willing to kill unbelievers by the scores, other members of the same organisation, having a similar view of things, are bold enough to fake some samples.”
Is that more to your liking?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
SamCA
This isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence of the many worlds interpretation, but it’s certainly conclusive evidence that something really weird is going on, and multiple universes are one of the explanations that fit the data.
This is pure theory and no more provable than that Santa Claus might inhabit Planet X a trillion miles away.
Yet I daresay you give it a possibility?
So why shouldn’t the atheist give God a possibility? For that matter, why shouldn’t science give God a possibility, and why should creationism be taught in biology classrooms along with evolution?
This isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence of the many worlds interpretation, but it’s certainly conclusive evidence that something really weird is going on, and multiple universes are one of the explanations that fit the data.
This is pure theory and no more provable than that Santa Claus might inhabit Planet X a trillion miles away.
Yet I daresay you give it a possibility?
So why shouldn’t the atheist give God a possibility? For that matter, why shouldn’t science give God a possibility, and why should creationism be taught in biology classrooms along with evolution?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
AnAtheist
But when one makes a scientific claim, he should better back it up with serious science.
Agree 100%.
So how can multiverses be taken seriously?
But when one makes a scientific claim, he should better back it up with serious science.
Agree 100%.
So how can multiverses be taken seriously?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
AnAtheist
When I compare Allah, Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl to Jehova, I’d prefer Jehova.
When I compare the Catharian God, the Goddess and The Horned One, Baldur (thanks SamCA), Japanese Kami, or the Tao to Jehova, Jehova looses badly.
I am not so sure about Illuvatar, the Hindu bazillion of gods, Odin. The latter might not be more compassionate, but He is juster, fairer and more honorable than Jehova.
Which god do you prefer to Jesus? And why?
When I compare Allah, Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl to Jehova, I’d prefer Jehova.
When I compare the Catharian God, the Goddess and The Horned One, Baldur (thanks SamCA), Japanese Kami, or the Tao to Jehova, Jehova looses badly.
I am not so sure about Illuvatar, the Hindu bazillion of gods, Odin. The latter might not be more compassionate, but He is juster, fairer and more honorable than Jehova.
Which god do you prefer to Jesus? And why?
E
Everstruggling
Guest
Hey Chris,
I knew you’d be away, so I took the time to think about my answers. I wasn’t bailing on the disscusion.
Chris W:
Would I have the depth of faith, this sense of trust and awe, if He had answered my request? This might not make sense to you now, but I don’t think so. If I tell my 4 year old that he will not fall through our new trampoline (as an example), I know he trusts me if he gets on. But if I have to get on first and show him it will hold his weight, and then he gets on, can that really be called faith on his part?
If God lifted the roof as you request, would you then have faith in Him? How much faith does it take to believe what you can see, feel, touch, etc?
Okay, but why is faith so important? And also, yes, I think it would still be hard to have faith even if God were to lift the roof off my house. Pharoh had the sea turn red, and didn’t believe. Jesus called Peter out from the boat, and even then it wasn’t enough for Peter to make it to Jesus’ side.
Husbands and wives live their whole lives with each other, and still can have doubts about the other. Satre once pointed out that even in the face of absolute proof that there is a god, each individual has to decide if they will worship him or fight against him.
I’m not asking for proof every step of the way, just a “good faith” gesture to get me started.
I knew you’d be away, so I took the time to think about my answers. I wasn’t bailing on the disscusion.
Chris W:
I hope honesty isn’t as shocking as all that. :bigyikes:
My parents have been there.
Would I have the depth of faith, this sense of trust and awe, if He had answered my request? This might not make sense to you now, but I don’t think so. If I tell my 4 year old that he will not fall through our new trampoline (as an example), I know he trusts me if he gets on. But if I have to get on first and show him it will hold his weight, and then he gets on, can that really be called faith on his part?
If God lifted the roof as you request, would you then have faith in Him? How much faith does it take to believe what you can see, feel, touch, etc?
Okay, but why is faith so important? And also, yes, I think it would still be hard to have faith even if God were to lift the roof off my house. Pharoh had the sea turn red, and didn’t believe. Jesus called Peter out from the boat, and even then it wasn’t enough for Peter to make it to Jesus’ side.
Husbands and wives live their whole lives with each other, and still can have doubts about the other. Satre once pointed out that even in the face of absolute proof that there is a god, each individual has to decide if they will worship him or fight against him.
I’m not asking for proof every step of the way, just a “good faith” gesture to get me started.
I
Ignatius
Guest
They have to start with being open to the possibility.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
This is not a scientist quoting it. This is basically a news article. It’s written like a newspaper, not a scientific journal. Are you really going to claim that the work is invalid simply because folks who write about it in some article didn’t cite it correctly?
I’m sure you’ve seen articles like that all the time. Does Barbara’s Law not exist because the writer failed to cite it correctly, and called it “Barbara’s Law” instead of “HS#5772-34”? Of course not. The article I provided was simply trying to point out what happened, not provide a full scientific analysis of it. When you open up the paper tomorrow and read about some study that shows that undercooked cheeze-whiz causes cancer, are you going to discount the whole thing simply because the artice says, “A study shows” or “A study conducted by the University of Nevada has shown,” instead of naming the study and providing a full citation?
Additionally, I would point out that just because a document is not availible online it hardly means it doesn’t exist! I recently spent a long time looking for the Church document “The Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults” online. All I could find were references to it, but never the full document. Then low and behold, when I went to church that week they had a copy! I’ve also looked for plenty of other things online, including some scientific studies and whatnot (for class), and was at times unable to find them. Not everything under the sun is online.
I’m sorry, but the fact is that we have provided relatively specific details about an event, and referenced scientific work, including that specific work, and also including the affirmation of the WHO. You have been able to provide nothing other than your personal disbelief. I am going to say again that I think you are blindly following your beliefs and ignoring the science we are presenting to you. If you had some legitimate response, I could say that you are grounded in your belief. However, given that we have cited a number of sources (including the WHO) which have backed up our point and all you can provide is you own disbelief, I have to assume that you are blindly following your beliefs.
There are people who believe that we never landed on the moon despite all the evidence you can provide to them to disprove their theory. (Interestingly enough, their tactic is usually to say that they think the evidence is faked too!) That doesn’t make it true. In other words, just because a person chooses to ignore the evidence or to write it off, it doesn’t make it untrue.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
No and true. But, as I said, it is very suspicious, that all you can find online about it is some layman talk claiming there is a scientific study. That leaves me sceptical and not shouting “Halleluja!”
Fine, where can this affirmation be found? Is there a WHO publication, online or otherwise?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/tableofcontents.html
If you click on the various links under “Voice of Science,” you ought to get more than enough scientific info on it.
As for the actual report, you’re not going to find it online. It was in a yearly scientific journal of more than 7 volumes at more than 600 pages each. You are going to have to order if from wherever one orders scientific journals from. I have no idea how one does that. Ask a college professor. You’ll find the reference to this and to the 1981 testing at: negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/conclusion.html#RTFToC38
If you want a better citation, here:
LINOLI O. - Ricerche istologiche, Immunologiche e Biochimiche sulla Carne e sul Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano (VIII secolo) - Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica 1971, 7, 661-674.
If you click on the various links under “Voice of Science,” you ought to get more than enough scientific info on it.
As for the actual report, you’re not going to find it online. It was in a yearly scientific journal of more than 7 volumes at more than 600 pages each. You are going to have to order if from wherever one orders scientific journals from. I have no idea how one does that. Ask a college professor. You’ll find the reference to this and to the 1981 testing at: negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/conclusion.html#RTFToC38
If you want a better citation, here:
LINOLI O. - Ricerche istologiche, Immunologiche e Biochimiche sulla Carne e sul Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano (VIII secolo) - Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica 1971, 7, 661-674.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Now that’s something, though the reference to the WHO publication is still missing. I think I’ll have some fun and check it out at a university’s library, if possible.
In the meantime, have fun with this extraordinary miracle of a tree bowing in prayer towards Mecca:
themodernreligion.com/miracle_ruku_allahu.htm
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I think you’re being sarcastic or joking around. I hope so, because that doesn’t even come close to the qualifications for what a miracle would be. I can go online and find pictures of vegetables that look like sex organs. I suppose someone could say that it is sort of “fertility god miracle.” The point is that it can be explained naturally: the tree happened to grow so that it looked that way. One of the things the Church requires before something is called a miracle is that it must not be able to be explained by any natural phenomenom (like a piece of bread turning into a piece of heart muscle).
- Status