Is there Hard Evidence?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What we believe is not hearsay

All the texts in the Bible are based on hearsay. All the miracles performed by Jesus are hearsay. Of course I have no problem with accepting that hearsay is sufficient for some people. There are many things that I accept and they are only based upon hearsay evidence. But there is one important difference. If a decision I make is a life-and-death kind of decision, then I demand a much higher level of evidence than the words of some people (no matter how nice and kind those people might be).

Where does this faith come from? (I’m obviously using “this faith” in a supernatural context)

Faith is a gift from God. If one by chance doesn’t have it, they should ask God for it.

When I was young, I did have it. Then I grew up, and lost it. I even used the famous prayer of atheists: “Please God, help my disbelief”. Nothing happened - so far. I even added: “If it be thy will”. Looks like it is not God’s will. And if it is not God’s will, it won’t happen. Oh well.

I don’t validate all the hearsay you say you believe.

I validate your point that faith can be lost. It doesn’t have to stay lost.

As Peter taught. we need to add to our faith in ever increasing amounts. As in these 7 attributes that we are to add, and don’t put them on the shelf , they must be ever increasing… or as Peter says, one will fall.

2 Pet 1:
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

I would just say, if this is new information, give it a try.

 

[De_Maria]

The soul is the life of your body. A body without a soul, is a body that is not alive.

This kind of approach has been discarded by biology a long time ago. Is there a device that you point to some object, which will show either “immortal soul”, “animating principle” or “no soul at all”? I am not aware of such a device.

It’s the same device you point to when you want to prove your invisible life. So, if you discard one, you discard the other.

Let’s look at a dead body. Why is it dead? It’s got the same flesh and bones that you point to in yourself. You say you’re alive because of your body. But it is obvious that a body doesn’t animate itself. You call the animating principle, “life”. We call it the “soul.”

 

[Bon_Croix]

Is the fact that the Catholic Church has outlasted any nation as a continuing organization not some evidence?

Is the fact that there is an ancient Church today built on top of the Holy Sephulchure where Jesus was buried and resurrected not evidence?

How about the Burial Shroud?

How about the fragments of the True Cross (Vera Cruz) that exist in some Catholic Churches located in the United States?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Why would an actual manifestation of an “angel” or a “demon” take away our free will? And what evidence in the natural world would point to their existence?

De_Maria:

Many people believe Mary manifested herself at Lourdes and Fatima. Doctors have verified miracles at Lourdes.

Is all that “hard proof”? Of course not, since a lot of Catholics (including me) don’t believe it, and the Church does not require you to believe it. It can be explained away–delusions, mass hypnosis, etc.

And I agree with you about Aquinas. What seemed “waterproof” in the 13th c. is not so waterproof in the 21st.

Hard evidence would be something you couldn’t explain away, something that every logical person would have to acknowledge as the truth. No one on earth, to my knowledge, denies that 1 + 1 = 2.

But again, “hard evidence” that no one could deny negates free will. And there is no reason to insist on hard evidence!

 

[Bon_Croix]

It is written very early in Acts of the Apostles. “Your young men will have visions and your old men will dream dreams”.

Peter had visions in the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[MPat]

No perhaps. A physical evidence cannot ne denied.

Of course it can. To cite Hamlet, “'Tis as easy as lying”. Rather literally, for lying is sufficient for the task.

In fact, it is even easier: it is sufficient to avoid looking at the evidence.

By the way, presenting actual, hard evidence is NOT limited to a hit on the head - even though a hit on the head does qualify as “hard” evidence .

And, interestingly enough, you give no other example.

The lack of understanding exhibited by some people is not how we measure the validity of proofs.

How many points did you miss in such a short sentence!

No, it has little to do with lack of understanding. And you did define “hard evidence” by its ability to persuade you, thus you do “measure the validity of proofs” by your own lack of understanding.

And yet, I started the whole thread in which I asked for evidence for some of your claims. That hardly qualifies as “lack of interest”.

Are we supposed to pretend that it would be unimaginable for your question to have been somewhat insincere?

If you can mistrust witness of apostles and other saints, why can’t we mistrust witness of you - a random stranger?

Or is witness testimony suddenly “hard evidence”?

Not to mention that all other evidence seems to contradict your claim - it looks like you have yet to show actual curiosity. For no, the “game” of “Give me evidence and I’ll dismiss it.” does not count as curiosity.

 

[Scowler]

But again, “hard evidence” that no one could deny negates free will. And there is no reason to insist on hard evidence!

I don’t understand. How could knowledge - supported by real, hard evidence - deny free will? Before I choose a doctor, I insist on investigating all the available evidence on all the possible physicians I can choose from. Of course I choose the one whose credentials are the most convincing. The evidence I collect make my chose better, but it does not limit my “free choice” one bit. Actually it increases my freedom. More knowledge = more freedom.

 

[Scowler]

Of course it can. To cite Hamlet, “'Tis as easy as lying”. Rather literally, for lying is sufficient for the task.

In fact, it is even easier: it is sufficient to avoid looking at the evidence.

You have a strange approach. You talk about “liars” (dishonest people) or “idiots” (who cannot understand basic mathematics). I happen to talk about honest, knowledgeable people, who desire to gather real information. Maybe it comes as a surprise to you, but just because someone is not a believer, they can be intellectually honest and knowledgeable, who sincerely seek information.

Are we supposed to pretend that it would be unimaginable for your question to have been somewhat insincere?

I thought that the default approach is to take others at face value; until you have “hard evidence” that they are scoundrels, liars or idiots… If that is not your way to conduct a conversation, I don’t think it would be fruitful for me to take you seriously. Good bye.

 

[ANewBeginning]

In a CSI kind of way? No.

Some people are looking for the Truth of it all. Others are curiosity seekers, and yet still others have a prejudice against Christianity and they are looking for reasons NOT to believe.

I would say, first discern which of the above you are. After that, Come and See. Christianity is not a set of abstract ideas, it is a way of life centered on Christ. Attend services, talk with all sorts of people (you are doing this a little bit online, but online interaction is limiting, and you’re better off meeting folks in real life). Read just the Four Gospels (putting aside the Epistles for now).

A real investigation is work, but very fruitful, depending.

 

[MPat]

I thought that the default approach is to take others at face value; until you have “hard evidence” that they are scoundrels, liars or idiots…

Oh, really? Then we can offer you a sea of writings: Bible, Fathers of the Church, numerous saints, philosophers like Aristotle (whom you dismissed with such a silly excuse). Feel free to show how you take them “at face value” or show “hard evidence” that they are untrustworthy.

For that’s the point: you should treat others in the way you want to be treated.

If you want to be treated as trustworthy by default, treat others as trustworthy by default.

And if you dismiss others as untrustworthy so easily, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that your own trustworthiness hasn’t been established yet. Please note that it is much more gentle than the way you treat others, so you are in no position to complain. For that matter, I’m OK with you thinking that my trustworthiness hasn’t been established either.

 

[anon50218184]

Could you clarify what you mean by “hard evidence”?

Very true. I did not want to posit any special limitations. As for “hard” evidence, it is something that cannot be dismissed at will, because it is well substantiated.

Do you mean compelling?

Do you find this compelling?

The stunning Eucharistic miracle of Sokolka

Laboratory analyses confirm that the structure of the cardiac muscle fibers and the structure of the bread are intertwined in a way impossible to reproduce by human means.

aleteia.org

If not, what specific aspects of this miraculous event are not compelling?

 

[Techno2000]

Could you clarify what you mean by “hard evidence”?

Scowler:

Very true. I did not want to posit any special limitations. As for “hard” evidence, it is something that cannot be dismissed at will, because it is well substantiated.

Do you mean compelling?

Do you find this compelling?

The Eucharistic miracle of Sokolka: The host is tissue from heart of a dying man

If not, what specific aspects of this miraculous event are not compelling?

Cool, if they could get DNA and match this to the shroud atheists would drop dead.

 

[anon50218184]

Cool, if they could get DNA and match this to the shroud atheists would drop dead.

Not a big fan of CM, but there is evidence that the DNA from different Eucharistic Miracles match:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-jesus-christ

 

[Scowler]

Do you mean compelling?

Do you find this compelling?

Looks like we might get somewhere. I am hopeful.

Do you suggest that the physical transubstantiation of a piece of bread into the flesh and blood of Jesus to be a compelling evidence? Sounds like a good idea to me. Good physical stuff, ready to be investigated in a lab! Before we go any further, is this the compelling evidence you suggest? Just to be sure that we are on the same “page”, so to speak. And please clarify: does the bread change into the flesh and the wine change into the blood? Or does the bread ONLY change into the flesh - no blood involved? As they say: “the devil is it the details” - well sometimes they say that “God is the details”.

 

[anon50218184]

I hope I’m not being rude, but I think it wound be helpful if you were more precise with your language. This discussion is already foggy because of the use of vague terns such as “hard evidence”.

Do you suggest that the physical transubstantiation of a piece of bread into the flesh and blood of Jesus to be a compelling evidence?

If I may paraphrase your question as I read it

Do I suggest that transubstantiation is compelling evidence?

To which I reply:
Evidence of what, exactly?

As an aside, let me observe that you were the first to speak of transubstantiation. And almost as if it were a matter of fact.

I suggest that the Eucharistic miracle I presented, along with all the other Eucharistic miracles throughout history deemed worthy of belief by the Church, and their corresponding scientific blind studies by unbiased scientists, to be a body of compelling evidence that the Eucharist is the the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the person of Jesus Christ.

To put it succinctly I suggest that genuine Eucharistic miracles (genuine meaning approved as worthy of belief by the Church and accompanied by rigurous scientific study) are compelling evidence of transubstantiation.

I’m not sure transubstantiation is evidence of anything else. At least in this conversation it is what we’re trying to prove.

As to whether the wine becomes blood and the bread becomes body, I don’t think it necessary to discuss at the moment because it is a great mystery that we could spend an eternity (literally) investigating. But to satisfy your query it is my understanding that Jesus Christ is present fully in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity regardless of the species in question.

I’d also like to suggest that we could discuss other types of miracles as well, but that for the sake of clarity in our discussion we stick to Eucharistic miracles for now.

Did you get a chance to read the article I posted?

Did you find it compelling? Why? Or why not?

What is lacking in that particular article that if present would compel you to believe in transubstantiation?

 

[Ordinary]

Do you want God himself to touch your very soul?
Faith without God’s love is a dead faith. Sounds like you have a dead faith if you are asking these questions. I’m not interested in arguing with you.

Want to experience God’s love or not? Then go away and stop trying to troll us with your bad intentions.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am so sorry for your loss , scowler.

Dear Lord , please helpmscowler with the gift of faith. Please help his /her friend’s spouse.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We can see them, we just need the right equipment. They hold things together. Nothing is truly solid. Your chair feels solid because the atomic bonds holding it together are very strong.

It’s different to faith. We can’t put that in a fancy machine and see it.

 

[De_Maria]

We can see them, we just need the right equipment. …

Your just transferring your faith to a machine.

For the purposes of this article, I draw the line at visible frequency passive optics: lenses and mirrors. If a microscope is converting light to electrical signals, or collecting data for longer than the human eye can, or the signal is being amplified digitally, or light is not being used at all, we are no longer seeing the object we are looking at, we are seeing what a computer screen is showing us.

Reference Can We See an Atom?

It’s different to faith. We can’t put that in a fancy machine and see it.

Faith is trust. In one, you’re trusting a machine. In the other, you’re trusting God.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

De Maria i don’t think you understand what I am saying…

What are you unclear about?