New scientific obstacles to the faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
As Catholics, what are we to make of some of following things trying to disprove our faith?:

I don’t have links for these, but I’ve seen these stories on different threads

- Physicists found some evidence that would suggest the universe existed for eternity and was never created.

**- Religious experiences (like visions and stuff) are just a “god” part of the brain, or seizure-like symptoms, or some other irregular brain activity.
**

I’m sure you all heard these as well. What are the rebuttals for these?
 
Ben_Sinner said:
As Catholics, what are we to make of some of following things trying to disprove our faith?:

I don’t have links for these, but I’ve seen these stories on different threads

- Physicists found some evidence that would suggest the universe existed for eternity and was never created.

**- Religious experiences (like visions and stuff) are just a “god” part of the brain, or seizure-like symptoms, or some other irregular brain activity.
**

I’m sure you all heard these as well. What are the rebuttals for these?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that Catholics are required to believe in private visions.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
As Catholics, what are we to make of some of following things trying to disprove our faith?:

I don’t have links for these, but I’ve seen these stories on different threads

- Physicists found some evidence that would suggest the universe existed for eternity and was never created.

**- Religious experiences (like visions and stuff) are just a “god” part of the brain, or seizure-like symptoms, or some other irregular brain activity.
**

I’m sure you all heard these as well. What are the rebuttals for these?
Click to expand...
From my amateur understanding of physics, and the articles that I’ve read on it, the new theories still don’t discount the current theory of a “big bang”. It’s that that universe, in some form, existed before a big bang, rather than the result of it. This isn’t necessarily biblical, again, from my amateur understanding of theology. The “nothing” that existed before Creation could have easily been the universe before the Big Bang.

I’m pretty sure the Catholic church also understands the second part. It’s why it’s hesitant to give its official stamp to various people who claim to see Christ. the Virgin Mary, or the saints. It also doesn’t entirely disprove it either; its an answer to what religious experiences could be.
 
Okay. The universe has existed forever AND WAS NEVER CREATED???

What will they think of next???

Okay. So where did it orginally come from??

Any scientist will tell you that something can’t be created from nothing. We use the word “created” wrongly. Only God can create. So scientists have a big problem and are struggling to come up with an answer THEY can accept.

The other thing regarding a “god” spot in the brain. Sounds great. How do you explain people who are supposedly dead hearing what was being said in the room they were in?
Near death experiences and all that. It’s very difficult to explain this away unless you believe in the afterlife.

Scientists are trying to become God so they’re doing their best to explain everything, but, guess what, they can’t! And some of their logic makes no sense. Many secular scientists are even starting to discard the theory of evolution because it can’t be proven and is actually disproven. Nice how kids in school are taught this as a fact and not as a theory.

You might like reading books by Fr. Spitzer, a priest, and physicist.

Gob bless you
 
I believe before 19/20th century physics the RCC held the opinion of the Heavens being eternal.

I think it was just postulated that Universe always existed.

It was a priest who championed the big bang theory that stated that the Universe had a beginning.

The New atheists hold that religion, or the belief in God makes people more violent, and they point to history (and the Bible itself) as evidence for that.

I believe that crude ceremonial items were found in Neanderthal burial areas. That would mean (if I have my facts straight) that this God part of the brain was present in less evolved hominids.

If that true that would bring up this question:

If the belief in God makes people more violent, that the tendency to believe in superordinate beings is destructive to human civilization, why would it become more prevalent in a supposedly “more evolved” species like Homo sapiens?

The ability to develop technology which, by the way is due to conflict from a history lecture I’ve heard, seems such a small payoff for this heightened consciousness.

It’s almost a de-facto argument for original sin.

That’s just my opinion.

You can check with the apologists here.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
As Catholics, what are we to make of some of following things trying to disprove our faith?:

- Physicists found some evidence that would suggest the universe existed for eternity and was never created.

**- Religious experiences (like visions and stuff) are just a “god” part of the brain, or seizure-like symptoms, or some other irregular brain activity.
**

What are the rebuttals for these?
Click to expand...
The 2nd theory might actually provide proof for God’s existence.

You see, if the brain, or a part of it, is designed to believe that God exists, then God must exist.

The theory of evolution involves creatures developing advantageous traits in order to survive. If religion was especially harmful to Mankind, our brains would have evolved out of it a long time ago.

The fact that religion remains prevalent around the world shows that religion may be useful to human development, and that is indeed the case. Look at what happens when religious values are taken out of society: A variety of practices harmful to human persons, such as restrained behaviors including drunkenness and revenge, are fostered.
 
frangiuliano115 said:
The other thing regarding a “god” spot in the brain. Sounds great. How do you explain people who are supposedly dead hearing what was being said in the room they were in?
Near death experiences and all that. It’s very difficult to explain this away unless you believe in the afterlife.
Click to expand...
Hearing is the last thing to go when you die. It isn’t like you hear forever.
 
The other thing regarding a “god” spot in the brain. Sounds great. How do you explain people who are supposedly dead hearing what was being said in the room they were in?
Near death experiences and all that. It’s very difficult to explain this away unless you believe in the afterlife
Click to expand...
The key word is ‘supposedly.’

Arguably, someone who resumes moving and breathing was never in fact dead.

While NDEs sound great, they are potentially explainable as the wanderings of a breath-deprived mind “fighting hard for life.”

ICXC NIKA
 
frangiuliano115 said:
Okay. The universe has existed forever AND WAS NEVER CREATED???

What will they think of next???

Okay. So where did it orginally come from??

Any scientist will tell you that something can’t be created from nothing. We use the word “created” wrongly. Only God can create. So scientists have a big problem and are struggling to come up with an answer THEY can accept.

The other thing regarding a “god” spot in the brain. Sounds great. How do you explain people who are supposedly dead hearing what was being said in the room they were in?
Near death experiences and all that. It’s very difficult to explain this away unless you believe in the afterlife.

Scientists are trying to become God so they’re doing their best to explain everything, but, guess what, they can’t! And some of their logic makes no sense. Many secular scientists are even starting to discard the theory of evolution because it can’t be proven and is actually disproven. Nice how kids in school are taught this as a fact and not as a theory.

You might like reading books by Fr. Spitzer, a priest, and physicist.

Gob bless you
Click to expand...
Supposedly dead is not dead. Near death is not death. NDE’s are not true. The Church teaches that the soul only leaves the body after death so if the soul has left the body it is all over. Reuscitation means the person was not dead.
 
thistle said:
Supposedly dead is not dead. Near death is not death. NDE’s are not true. The Church teaches that the soul only leaves the body after death so if the soul has left the body it is all over. Reuscitation means the person was not dead.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying, but some of the NDEs, Ive seen, read details about, some of these people were DEAD for close to 45 minutes, dead as in no heartbeat, no pulse, no brain activity, people being ‘brought back’ from these levels…its either telling us all this medical equipment is not that accurate in determining life signals, or its an act of God, he has brought back many people from the dead in the past, why would he not do this in our times?

If all these NDEs were nothing more than dreams, how can so many people describe the same thing, this is the stumbling block I cant get over when it comes to NDEs
 
mikekle said:
I see what you are saying, but some of the NDEs, Ive seen, read details about, some of these people were DEAD for close to 45 minutes, dead as in no heartbeat, no pulse, no brain activity, people being ‘brought back’ from these levels…its either telling us all this medical equipment is not that accurate in determining life signals, or its an act of God, he has brought back many people from the dead in the past, why would he not do this in our times?

If all these NDEs were nothing more than dreams, how can so many people describe the same thing, this is the stumbling block I cant get over when it comes to NDEs
Click to expand...
The experiences aren’t all that close, though.

Some NDErs experience a “new body.” Some don’t.

Some go through a “tunnel.” Some don’t.

Some see deceased friends or loved-ones; some don’t.

Some see a “higher being,” some don’t.

Some see a great light, others only darkness.

These divergences suggest that the experience **may **just be the result of a breathless head fighting the darkness.

I for one won’t put faith in the NDE unless and until that possibility is rigorously disproven.

ICXC NIKA.
 
frangiuliano115 said:
Okay. The universe has existed forever AND WAS NEVER CREATED???

What will they think of next???

Okay. So where did it orginally come from??
Click to expand...
Some people say the universe always existed and was never created, while others posit a God who always just was with no beginning. 🤷
 
SonOfMan said:
Some people say the universe always existed and was never created, while others posit a God who always just was with no beginning. 🤷
Click to expand...
When this subject comes up in discussion, unbelievers will always ask you who made God. you tell them that God always existed, He was not created by anyone. (there was no Cause in bringing about His existance).

So, ultimately, this is the deal:

You believe the universe came about on its own from the beginning of time out of absolutely nothing OR
You believe God created everything.

One of my catechism kids (about 11 and already questioning what we believe) once declared to me that the answer to my question, What caused the big bang? was easy.
GASES! To which I asked, And where did the gases come from? No reply.

We’re going to have to choose and I choose that God created everything.

Regarding the near death experiences, I’d only like to say that I know someone to whom this happened. She saw herself in the bed; she saw darkness (a tunnel?) and at the end a bright light. She felt pulled back.

I don’t like to concentrate too much on this stuff; it’s enough for me that Jesus came back from the dead!

God bless you
 
One thing that I personally think needs to happen these days, is for people to stop believing everything science has to say. We seem to use science as our modern god.
Science is as fallible as anything else. Calling something science these days is the same as naming it as TRUE. But science is based on human though processes, and can be fooled, is subject to political and cultural bias, and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

I wouldn’t want to rely on science to tell me everything about the world I live in, or myself.

Just think, within my own lifetime science has changed its beliefs. Something we take for granted today, something fundamental to the way we understand our world like plate tectonics. 60 years ago, if you were a scientist supporting this theory, you were laughed at, or throw out of conferences. Today, if you don’t believe in it, you are dismissed. I couldn’t really understand my world without it now. That’s a big change. And it happens all the time.

Another thing, science may or may not be true, (or might only be true today) but either way it only good at one thing. Describing what is in front of it.
Science can never goes so far as to say why.
Because it doesn’t know why. Only what is.
Something I’ve recently come across and am still trying to understand: you might have a better time of it. I’m no academic.
Might be apropos to your pondering. Turns things on its head, I think:

Biocentrics.

Humans are very clever, but still, ever reaching for what is true.
 
Deltadeliquent said:
One thing that I personally think needs to happen these days, is for people to stop believing everything science has to say. We seem to use science as our modern god.
Science is as fallible as anything else. Calling something science these days is the same as naming it as TRUE. But science is based on human though processes, and can be fooled, is subject to political and cultural bias, and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

I wouldn’t want to rely on science to tell me everything about the world I live in, or myself.

Just think, within my own lifetime science has changed its beliefs. Something we take for granted today, something fundamental to the way we understand our world like plate tectonics. 60 years ago, if you were a scientist supporting this theory, you were laughed at, or throw out of conferences. Today, if you don’t believe in it, you are dismissed. I couldn’t really understand my world without it now. That’s a big change. And it happens all the time.

Another thing, science may or may not be true, (or might only be true today) but either way it only good at one thing. Describing what is in front of it.
Science can never goes so far as to say why.
Because it doesn’t know why. Only what is.
Something I’ve recently come across and am still trying to understand: you might have a better time of it. I’m no academic.
Might be apropos to your pondering. Turns things on its head, I think:

Biocentrics.

Humans are very clever, but still, ever reaching for what is true.
Click to expand...
AMEN!

Looked up plate tectonics. Kind of knew about that.
Biocentrics: If the tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make a noise?
or the dead cat in the box. All very interesting but way beyond what I could grasp. Maybe that’s why I love God - He makes things easy for me! All I have to know is that he created everything with order and it all works together. The watch demands a watchmaker…If you can understand how the watch works, that’s great.

God bless you
 
The eternity of the universe does nothing to undermine God’s existence; it would still require a Cause to hold it in being right now. Aquinas thought that the universe was temporally limited, but didn’t think it could be proved outside of revealed truth. I think there’s good arguments to be made against the possibility of an infinite regress, which is what you get with an infinite past.

As far as the “God-spot” in the brain goes, consider the following thought experiment. A man is brought in, strapped down, and his brain is hooked up to machines that make him feel a loving feeling. Later, he goes home to his wife and kids, and experiences a loving feeling.

The ability to artificially induce a feeling or sensation says nothing about whether or not a proper object for that sensation exists; indeed, as Faxero said, the existence of a counterfeit points to an original.
 
Wishes in the Love of our God. Dear Lord help us.

Following are just my quick thoughts… Please submit everything to God.

- Physicists found some evidence that would suggest the universe existed for eternity and was never created.

Faith is believing in the unseen. This would not alter the faith that we have. This has nothing to do with the faith.
Also the life of the evidence anyone finds, is subject to change, and is the life of the brains.

Remember the whole mathematics, proofs and evidence and all are defined by our brain in the first place. But that brain dies miserably one day. If the brain does not pass it on to another, all the fact dies with that brain.

Also what does the word “universe” mean here, according to the physicists? The meaning of universe itself keeps evolving as we all know it. Does Bible use the term universe? If not, why do we care about these folks anyways? If yes, do both the meanings are the same? Or do we rely on these facts for our love relationship with God?

Science is similar a physical feeling that we can have of God. Sometimes, God favors us to feel certain things. If at all Science can do anything, it shall aid us in the Spiritual journey but can never be an obstacle. It does not work that way.

Even for our material life, we do not learn everything, but we choose certain things so that we move on with our purpose and objective…other things that we have not chosen are unnecessary and unrelated for our objective or purpose.

So in a way, whatever aids our spiritual journey is all we need, everything else is not necessary.

- Religious experiences (like visions and stuff) are just a “god” part of the brain, or seizure-like symptoms, or some other irregular brain activity.

They are trying to read/see the material/physical effect of these experiences just in the brain. Whatever they are saying is true, but it does not alter the spiritual facts. Our physical things may show some effects due to the spiritual things.

Brain does not live by itself and cannot act on its own. Brain might have some identifiable patterns, symptoms or indications as a result of one’s activity, experiences, feeling etc. But those patterns does not say anything independently about the cause of and the experiences themselves.

If moon says, it gets its light from the sun. Then let us say some scientists go look at the particles that absorb and emit the light in the night, then they would say that whatever moon is talking about its light is just in the “radiant” part of its surface. Yes, this is also true in one perception. But it does not alter the fact that the source of the moon light is the sun.

Similarly, I touch you. You feel/experience my touch. Now one could say, it is all on the sensory nerves of the skin. Well, it is true. Because if one removes the sensory nerves or become numb in some part of the skin, then you would not feel or experience my touch. But still the fact that I touched stays.

Let us say, you were so loving your spouse and say you had so much experiences that you remember in your brain about your relationship with your spouse. You have been cherishing these moments. Let us say you had an unfortunate accident and your brain got severely damaged. So you end up not remembering anything. Now what? Does it mean to say, all your love and experiences are worthless and was just in (and due to) the part of the brain that stored it.

Then who is God for people who do not have developed brains!

Good wishes friend. Pray for one another.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
As Catholics, what are we to make of some of following things trying to disprove our faith?:

I don’t have links for these, but I’ve seen these stories on different threads

- Physicists found some evidence that would suggest the universe existed for eternity and was never created.

**- Religious experiences (like visions and stuff) are just a “god” part of the brain, or seizure-like symptoms, or some other irregular brain activity.
**

I’m sure you all heard these as well. What are the rebuttals for these?
Click to expand...
First point: There is no evidence so far that there was something before the big bang. However, we (I have a master of science in physics) don’t know enough about the big bang itself to rule out that anything was or was not before the big bang. It is a scientific mystery. There have been many hypothesis how there could have been something before the universe, but so far non of them has ever been successfully tested to be true(most of them cannot be tested at all). This means this hypothesis are pure speculations.

So all that scientists say that there are possible alternative explanations.

In fact, before the big bang theory, it was scientific consensus that the universe is static, unchanging and eternal. Then the consensus was the big bang theory. Who knows what will come next? And then after this? Maybe science will switch between eternal and had a beginning every 100 years? Who knows.

The second is old and partly true. Buddhism is completely based brain effects that have been interpreted in the context of Hinduism. Also a lot of visions are obvious not from God. Also it doesn’t matter because the sings of Jesus have not been visions, but real stuff sober people could observe. So good that even the Jews didn’t deny the existence of his miracles, as you can see in the Talmud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top