Indeed, I regard Nature as a much more reliable source of information than Papal encylicals, the * Catechism of the Catholic Church* and the Bible.
Encyclicals, the Catechism and the Bible are all great in their own context, and they all provide very well the information they are supposed to provide. However, none of these sources are supposed to provide scientific information (some people may disagree with me on this, and they are free to). Therefore,
Nature is a much more reliable source of information on science, in my opinion. Now,
Nature is not supposed to provide information on the existence of God. Therefore one would have no reason to go to this book to search for empirical reasons for the existence of God. Actually, there is a lot of evidence from science for the existence of God, as argued by Keith Ward in
God, Chance and Necessity, for example. But these arguments arise from Design Arguments, and are not the subject considered in the purely scientific papers published in
Nature. What I am trying to say is that if you want empirical evidence for the existence of God, then
Nature is the wrong place to look.
So where should you look? The Bible, first and foremost. Try the gospel of Matthew, for starters. Look at how many prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Research the field of Biblical Typology. See how Mary is prefigured in the Old Testament by the Ark of the Covenant. Similarly, see how Jesus is prefigured in the Old Testament not only by prophecy, but also by types. For example, Moses, David, Jonah, and Isaac are all types in some way of Jesus and the life of Jesus. Have a look at
this page for a very in-depth look at several of the Old Testament stories in which the mysteries of the Rosary are prefigured. All of these things constitute empirical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and the existence of God.
Then there’s the Cosmological Argument that I have mentioned before. I invited you to a debate about this, but you haven’t yet accepted or even acknowledged this invitation. There is also the Moral Argument made famous by C S Lewis in
Mere Christianity: If you agree that the gospels are an accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus, then:
C S Lewis:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg—or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.
Personally, as an empiricist, I do not see any reason to regard the Real Presense as reality. It is as real as the existence of Pokémon like Pikachu.
There is indeed empirical evidence that supports the existence of the Real Presence, but you (validly I must add) do not accept this evidence as being genuine evidence. However, if you accept the Bible as being the inspired word of God, and if you accept the writings of the early church fathers as being an accurate portrayal of the faith of the earliest Christians, which is consistent throughout the centuries, then there is indeed a great deal of empirical evidence for the Real Presence. For you, we would have to start by showing that the Bible really is the inspired word of God, before you admit that there is genuine evidence for the Real Presence.
God Bless you NotWorthy and thank you for your kind words. You are indeed correct and I should have focused on the Positives and NOT on the negatives.
