Searching for the Truth

[warpspeedpetey]

You think I pad my posts just to upset you? You’re really clutching at straws here!

not to uspet me, but to out talk me in the hope i will give up

By the way, I don’t believe you about my posts. I don’t know how much you know about computers,

i have worked for both compaq and gateway in the past. im no expert, but im familiar with them.

but my (name removed by moderator)ut is entered into a standard form, and rendered on your PC using a standard engine. For my text to show up as a mass of text in your browser, one (or some, or all) of three things would have to be true. Either my reponses would show up as a mass of text in everybody’s browser - in which case there’s something wrong with every browser on every computer I use; or everybody’s text would show up as a block on your browser; or CAF specifically reformats my posts for some reason, but just on your computer.

or some of the computers that you have used are WYSIWYG. i had similar problems with a linux box in 2000 or 2001.

not all your posts, just the majority of them show up that way. as you mentioned before, you use more than one computer.

As nobody else has ever complained about the format of my posts and as I haven’t seen you complain about anybody else’s posts, and knowing how these things work, I can only surmise that you are fabricating this for some reason.

yours are the only posts that have done that so far.

For a start, you wouldn’t be able to know which of my comments relate to which of yours - you wouldn’t be able to respond sensibly. And while the content of your comments isn’t sensible, the juxtaposition of your comments with mine is correct.

as we discussed before. i have to reconstruct your argument from a second window. you already know this.

Your claim just makes no sense I’m afraid. Ironically, if it’s true, it’s the most convincing explanation for supernatural intervention I’ve seen posted on this forum!

what would be the motivation to lie? i go dozens of posts with a number of atheists, you arent any different in that regard. i dont need to lie. i can clearly demonstrate your position entails a logical contradiction that invalidates it.

 

[wanstronian]

I used ‘rock begets rock’ as metaphor because that’s where you’re going to end up with either the Big Bang theory or a static state theory. The universe was either created or it created itself. What’s your theory?

Nobody knows for sure. The point is that there is no evidence for an omnimaxial Creator. So to posit one’s existence is not logical.

Which means what? That there are contradictory passages in the Bible speaks to different recollections of the same event. If the Bible were consistent, you’d have that as a complaint and it would be more valid than your current one. It was common in biblical times for writers to affix to their writing the name of others who were the teachers of what was written. Matthew wrote his Gospel, Mark wrote his, as did Luke. It’s probable that John wrote his. Paul wrote most of his letters. The Church is well aware of who wrote what and I have no problem with it.

Well somebody wrote them, that’s for sure. However, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars agree that vast tracts of the NT were written, and re-written, to assuage the political agenda of the day. In any case, the fact that it’s written down doesn’t make it fact.

As to the comparison with the cow jumping over the moon. you have simply made a declaration of what you believe. Your denial does not disprove the authenticity of Scripture

Of course it doesn’t - but it shows that writing something down doesn’t make it fact.

One what? As I said, The New Testament has a continuous and consistent line of commentary from the time it was written to today. You can’t say that about much of history that you accept without question

My comment was in response to your statement on miracles. You have listed a couple below - I shall answer in line.

In the mid-16th Century a woman said to be the Virgin Mary appeared to a Mexican peasant in the hills near Mexico CIty. Her image was affixed to his tilma, a cape of woven grass. The tilma should have disintegrated within 15-20 years. It has lasted for over 500 years. Ammonia was spilled on it that did significant damage. It is reported to have repaired itself. There have been many skeptics who have tried to prove it’s a fake, but have failed to do so.

This doesn’t mean it’s legitimate, of course. In fact, I’m struggling to find any citation which lists this as anything other than ‘an account.’ That hardly constitute irrefutable evidence!

The image bears structural similarities to the Shroud of Turin, which, I believe, is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

**You **believe…

The image, of a scourged and crucified man is a photographic negative on a cloth with a pattern consistent with Jesus’ time. If it’s a fake, someone in the 16th Century knew more about photography than we know today. First Century pollen has been identified in the fibers. There are First Century Roman coins on the eyes. The places on the cloth where there is supposed to be blood IS blood – Type AB. IOW, every element of the image is consistent with the biblical accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.

I’m sure Jesus wasn’t the only person crucified at the time. How do you know it’s his shroud? Does the bible mention his blood group? I suspect not, as ‘Type AB’ would have been meaningless at the time. What’s the significance of the blood group? And if it is his, what does it prove other than that he existed? It doesn’t prove his miracles, it doesn’t prove his holy lineage.

In the late 70s a team of NASA scientists went to Milan to examine the shroud. Three of them were atheists. When they were done and returned to the US, they all converted to Catholicism. An account appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine about 1976-78, which I read. That doesn’t prove anything for your purposes, but it’s fact.

That is odd. I don’t doubt your story, but why should a first century shroud necessarily be Jesus’s? As far as I’m aware, carbon testing of the shroud shows 13 century fibre, but there’s evidence that the samples were from a section of the shroud that was repaired later. There’s a method for reliably testing other sections of the shroud, but the CC seem reluctant to release it. Why would that be, if they’re so confident it is what they say it is?

 

[wanstronian]

The final appearance of Mary at Fatima, Portugal is well documented, including newspaper accounts written by atheists and communists from Lisbon who went there to ridicule the event and had to admit they saw a miracle. It’s on the internet somewhere. I’m sure you’ll find if you want to.

Yes, I’m aware of it. It’s a tricky one, because not everybody saw the same thing. Some people saw nothing. So it could be mass delusion, or it could be an atmospheric effect, or it could have been a miracle. But it’s far from conclusive, so can’t really be called evidence.

Well stupid me! Why don’t you just tell me about the multitude of issues I don’t understand. I’d like to know about them.

I did!

If you’re going to use that phrase, you better be prepared to explain ‘rock begets rock.’ ‘Birth’ implies creation. Show me whatcha got.

As I said, nobody knows for sure. There is a scientific hypothesis for the ‘Big Bang’ which is based on observed scientific phenomena. It’s too weak to be called a scientific theory, bit it explains, for example, the continuing expansion of the universe, which is unexplained and potentially even contradictory to, the Genesis account of creation. There is ZERO evidence for intelligent creation by a supernatural entity.Sure I do. It’s a religion adhered to by people who have faith there is no god. Agnosticism is a state of mind which is neutral about the subject.As I said, you do not understand what atheism is. You only understand the theist caricature of atheism, which is a straw man that was invented to give theists something to attack.

Sorry. I used that as a corollary to ‘evidence of God.’ I understand your point.

You have to do what you have to do, but my reasoning has passed a lot of tests too numerous to mention.

Well it didn’t pass my test!

I would never deny you your denial, but it appears your reasoning is little more than denial and has exactly nothing to do with knowledge acquisition.

You’re welcome to your opinion! However, until someone provides evidence of a sensible standard, then theists have no justification for assuming that atheists then won’t accept that evidence. I would say my denial is not just denial; it’s denial based on the irrefutable fact that the evidence in support of the God hypothesis is insufficiently robust. Simple as that.

 

[wanstronian]

allow me to demonstrate that your standard of ‘hard evidence’ is false.

**when empiricism claims that knowledge can only be had from the senses, i know it is a logical contradiction because that claim itself, is knowledge that cannot be had from the senses.

ergo, its false**

A common bleat from those who want their flawed logic to be taken as hard evidence.

will you debate the matter until its decided? or jump threads to protect your cherished belief?

How will it be decided when you claim that black is white? The only way you’ll accept that it is decided is if I agree with you. You have given no rational reasons for me to accept your assertions.

 

[wanstronian]

not to uspet me, but to out talk me in the hope i will give up

You really think I care that much? I’ve already won, my friend, you just refuse to see it!

i have worked for both compaq and gateway in the past. im no expert, but im familiar with them.

or some of the computers that you have used are WYSIWYG. i had similar problems with a linux box in 2000 or 2001.

How would that affect just you? I’m using a combination of IE8 and Firefox 3.6 on XP, and Firefox 3.6 on W7, and occasionally the inbuilt browser on a Nokia N95. Nothing out of the ordinary there. This post is FF3.6 on XP. Probably one of the most common combinations out there.

not all your posts, just the majority of them show up that way. as you mentioned before, you use more than one computer.

Yet they don’t show up that way to me, on any of the combinations I use, nor has anybody else mentioned the problem.

yours are the only posts that have done that so far.

as we discussed before. i have to reconstruct your argument from a second window. you already know this.

Yes, but thinking about it, you would have to make lots of assumptions about which of your comments, mine refer to. It would be unworkable. For instance, is this paragraph in response to your “yours are the only posts that have done that so far” comment or your “as we have discussed before… you already know this” comment? If my posts come across as you claim, you would have no way to know this.

what would be the motivation to lie? i go dozens of posts with a number of atheists, you arent any different in that regard. i dont need to lie. i can clearly demonstrate your position entails a logical contradiction that invalidates it.

If your ‘logical contradiction’ is the one you posted previously about empiricism, then you have just invalidated all of science. So presumably you are not vaccinated, you don’t use satnav, you’re not using a computer to communicate here, you don’t own a car, you have never received any medical treatment… because none of those things can be proven to work, according to your rejection of empiricism!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have given no rational reasons for me to accept your assertions.

**when empiricism claims that knowledge can only be had from the senses, i know it is a logical contradiction because that claim itself, is knowledge that cannot be had from the senses. **

the bolded sentence above is my rational reason for the assertion that your standard of evidence is a logical contradiction. and therefore is false.

do you have a rational refutation, showing that this is not a logical contradiction?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You really think I care that much? I’ve already won, my friend, you just refuse to see it!How would that affect just you? I’m using a combination of IE8 and Firefox 3.6 on XP, and Firefox 3.6 on W7, and occasionally the inbuilt browser on a Nokia N95. Nothing out of the ordinary there. This post is FF3.6 on XP. Probably one of the most common combinations out there.Yet they don’t show up that way to me, on any of the combinations I use, nor has anybody else mentioned the problem.Yes, but thinking about it, you would have to make lots of assumptions about which of your comments, mine refer to. It would be unworkable. For instance, is this paragraph in response to your “yours are the only posts that have done that so far” comment or your “as we have discussed before… you already know this” comment? If my posts come across as you claim, you would have no way to know this.If your ‘logical contradiction’ is the one you posted previously about empiricism, then you have just invalidated all of science. So presumably you are not vaccinated, you don’t use satnav, you’re not using a computer to communicate here, you don’t own a car, you have never received any medical treatment… because none of those things can be proven to work, according to your rejection of empiricism!

this is how this shows up from the computer you are on.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Nobody knows for sure. The point is that there is no evidence for an omnimaxial Creator. So to posit one’s existence is not logical.

While it may not be evidence, the Big Bang theory is consistent with an omnimaxial creator. It makes far more sense than ‘rock begets rock.’

Let’s get this one out of the way. Belief in God requires faith. It it were demonstrable with hard evidence, everyone would believe in God. He gives us enough evidence to believe by faith.

Well somebody wrote them, that’s for sure. However, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars agree that vast tracts of the NT were written, and re-written, to assuage the political agenda of the day.

If I had to bet, I’d say that comes from The Jesus Seminar, a group of professional deniers with an agenda. Their theory is about 15 Centuries too late.

**You **believe…

Well, billions believe(d). You’re in the minority here. By billions.

I’m sure Jesus wasn’t the only person crucified at the time. How do you know it’s his shroud? Does the bible mention his blood group? I suspect not, as ‘Type AB’ would have been meaningless at the time. What’s the significance of the blood group?

There have been a few what the Church calls ‘Eucharistic Miracles’ in which a consecrated host in the hands of a skeptic priest started dripping blood. AB blood.

Jesus wasn’t the only person crucified but there are no other accounts of a crucified man who had a crown of thorns on his head. The shroud shows the impressions of the thorns in the hair on the back of his head the blood coming from his hairline. Also, the shroud has miraculous properties. Further, a crucified Joe Shmoe would have been tossed in a hole.

And if it is his, what does it prove other than that he existed? It doesn’t prove his miracles, it doesn’t prove his holy lineage.That is odd. I don’t doubt your story, but why should a first century shroud necessarily be Jesus’s? As far as I’m aware, carbon testing of the shroud shows 13 century fibre, but there’s evidence that the samples were from a section of the shroud that was repaired later. There’s a method for reliably testing other sections of the shroud, but the CC seem reluctant to release it. Why would that be, if they’re so confident it is what they say it is?

The shroud was kept in a drawer in a convent in France that burned in the mid-ages sometime. Parts of it were scorched and repaired. They tested the scorched part. There is another test underway.

The Church makes no claims about the shroud either pro or con.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If your ‘logical contradiction’ is the one you posted previously about empiricism, then you have just invalidated all of science.

the scientific method is not the same thing as empiricism.

i only invalidated the empirical claim that knowledge can only be gained from the senses, and by extension that it can serve as a standard. of course this has been known for a long time. im nowhere near the first to point this out.

in light of that logical contradiction. maybe now we can have more fruitful discussions about the issues surrounding our beliefs, without the artificial restriction of the claim that any non-empirical evidence is conjecture, simply because it isnt empirical.

 

[johncbrainerd]

What all these searchers need to do is to use a certain method to discover the origin of their disbelief. The age-old method might be call “back think.” Back think is the process of reasoning from effect to cause, where every thought is the effect of some causal thought. If we say to ourselves, “I think this is true, but it is in conflict with this,” we have identified the twin poles of an issue, or unreconciled, intellectual conflict, or apparent disparity.

Then, beginning with each pole, we reason to its cause within our experience. That is, What caused me to think that way? Since every thought has a cause, just as every outside event has a cause, we think and we feel back into our experience to find why we thought or think or feel that way now. If we do that with both poles, eventually the two poles will converge. We will find that some third cause separated what was originally a unity into two, divergent ideas or thoughts, that is, into a conflict, or apparent disparity, what was before no conflict but a single item, a single reason, a single idea.

Once we have discovered that single thought or event or idea, the sense of conflict, of apparent disparity, is no longer disparate. It has, simply, disappeared, and we arrive at a resolution of our sense of disunity, of conflict and, perhaps, of despair.

Seeking a unity in apparent disparity is what we all do when we think in other areas about issues about which we are routinely familiar, such as, whether to go to the store for groceries now or waiting until tomorrow, and the like. We resolved these by simply saying to ourself, “Okay, if I go now, I’ll have tomorrow free for other things, but if I go tomorrow, I’ll have today for other things.” And so we weigh the two “things” we might do with today and tomorrow and decide which one works better today or tomorrow.

It’s really very simple, but we think, perhaps, that it’s got to be more profound and complicated than this and so get perplexed about “religious issues.” It’s not more profound and complicated. It’s the same thing, and we can all do it, given permission, ability, and courage enough to move our relation to God forward another step. And that’s all He wants, to move toward Him, but we have to identify which direction He is. And that is this back think process.

 

[johncbrainerd]

What all disbelieving searchers need to do is to use a certain method to discover the origin of their disbelief. The age-old method might be call “back think.” Back think is the process of reasoning from effect to cause, where every thought is the effect of some causal thought. If we say to ourselves, “I think this is true, but it is in conflict with this,” we have identified the twin poles of an issue, or un-reconciled, intellectual conflict, or apparent disparity.
Then, beginning with each pole, we reason to its cause within our experience. That is, What caused me to think that way? Since every thought has a cause, just as every outside event has a cause, we think and we feel back into our experience to find why we thought or think or feel that way now. If we do that with both poles, eventually the two poles will converge. We will find that some third cause separated what was originally a unity into two, divergent ideas or thoughts, that is, into a conflict, or apparent disparity, what was before no conflict but a single item, a single reason, a single idea.
Once we have discovered that single thought or event or idea, the sense of conflict, of apparent disparity, is no longer disparate. It has, simply, disappeared, and we arrive at a resolution of our sense of disunity, of conflict and, perhaps, of despair. Seeking a unity in apparent disparity is what we all do when we think in other areas about issues about which we are routinely familiar, such as, whether to go to the store for groceries now or waiting until tomorrow, and the like. We resolved these by simply saying to our self, “Okay, if I go now, I’ll have tomorrow free for other things, but if I go tomorrow, I’ll have today for other things.” And so we weigh the two “things” we might do with today and tomorrow and decide which one works better today or tomorrow.
It’s really very simple, but we think, perhaps, that it’s got to be more profound and complicated than this and so get perplexed about “religious issues.” It’s not more profound and complicated. It’s the same thing, and we can all do it, given permission, ability, and courage enough to move our relation to God forward another step. And that’s all He wants, to move toward Him, but we have to identify which direction He is. And that is this back think process.

 

[benedictus2]

Greetings to you, Catholics and others.

I have been on a spiritual journey as of late, and I have learned much.

I was an atheist just a year ago or so. Today, I’m a Deist with no particular beliefs about God.

Recently, however, I have found myself considering the claims of the Catholic Church. I believe if there is any truth to the claims of Jesus, then his truth is best represented in the Catholic Church.

Right now, I seem to have hit a roadblock. I don’t know whether I’m a Christian or a Deist. I just can’t get any further.

I ask, are there any others out there who have/had the same problem? Do you have any experiences with “spiritual writer’s block”?

I apologize for any mistakes in my post as I am not a native English-speaker.

Someone mentioned St Augustine. i suggest also a modern day St Augustine.

See if you can get the DVD “No Turning Back” the conversion story of Fr Donald Calloway. Truly inspiring. Lighthouse Catholic Media sells them and so does St Joseph’s Communications.

I would also suggest visiting this site wordonfire.org/
Fr Barron is awesome. He has a lot of clips in youtube.

 

[wanstronian]

this is how this shows up from the computer you are on.

Well, it’s how it shows up on your computer. It doesn’t seem to show up like that on anybody else’s. As I stated, I type my comments into a standard web entry field, and it is rendered on your browser using a standard form.

So it looks like it’s just you. Which means that either CAF specifically render my posts to you like that (but not anybody else’s) or you’re just making it up.

In any event, I’m not padding my posts for any reason. Your implication that I do so to try and make you give up just exposes you as the sort of person who thinks that whoever lasts longest in an argument, has won the argument! It’s laugable.

 

[wanstronian]

the scientific method is not the same thing as empiricism.

No, but scientific achievement is built upon empirical evidence. If you refute the validity of empirical evidence, then you effectively claim that science is invalid.

i only invalidated the empirical claim that knowledge can only be gained from the senses, and by extension that it can serve as a standard. of course this has been known for a long time. im nowhere near the first to point this out.

in light of that logical contradiction. maybe now we can have more fruitful discussions about the issues surrounding our beliefs, without the artificial restriction of the claim that any non-empirical evidence is conjecture, simply because it isnt empirical.

Maybe we can - as soon as you demonstrate how non-empirical evidence can categorically be taken to be the truth!

 

[Betterave]

wan & warp,

What do you mean? What is ‘empirical evidence’ and what is ‘non-empirical evidence’? Are these terms with clear meanings that you use consistently in accordance with those clear meanings?

 

[johncbrainerd]

No, but scientific achievement is built upon empirical evidence. If you refute the validity of empirical evidence, then you effectively claim that science is invalid.Maybe we can - as soon as you demonstrate how non-empirical evidence can categorically be taken to be the truth!

“Theists have God on their side. Atheists have logic. I know who I’d rather trust.” Actually God loves us both, equally and unconditionally, so great is His willingness to forgive our foibles and shortsightedness.

 

[Syntax]

No, but scientific achievement is built upon empirical evidence. If you refute the validity of empirical evidence, then you effectively claim that science is invalid.Maybe we can - as soon as you demonstrate how non-empirical evidence can categorically be taken to be the truth!

You confuse terms again:

(1) Empirical evidence is not “valid” or “invalid.” Only deductive arguments are “valid” or “invalid.”
(2) Empirical evidence is not something that is ever “refuted.” Only propositions and arguments can be refuted. “To refute” means “to logically disprove the truth of.” However, the support empirical evidence is thought to provide for believing a hypothesis can be *defeated *by counter-evidence that undermines the very same hypothesis, or it can defeated by the truth of another hypothesis that entails the denial of the hypothesis this evidence is thought to support.
(3) Empirical evidence is never “true” or “false.” It either exists or doesn’t. Only hypotheses, propositions, and theories can be true or false.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In any event, I’m not padding my posts for any reason. Your implication that I do so to try and make you give up just exposes you as the sort of person who thinks that whoever lasts longest in an argument, has won the argument! It’s laugable.

i think its laughable as well, so if thats not your tactic, and you now know how your posts show up on my screen, when you post from wherever that occurs. the problem is easily solved. dont post long ones to me from that computer. then it wouldnt be an issue.

 

[wanstronian]

i think its laughable as well, so if thats not your tactic, and you now know how your posts show up on my screen, when you post from wherever that occurs. the problem is easily solved. dont post long ones to me from that computer. then it wouldnt be an issue.

You still don’t get it - whatever the problem is, it’s not my computer(s). If it were, everyone else would see the same effect, and nobody else has mentioned it. As I said, I post from more than one computer using more than one browser, depending on circumstance. So all things considered, it’s extremely unlikely that the problem is at my end. I certainly don’t have the funds or inclincation to buy a new computer in a futile attempt to fix your problem! (However, if you want to wire me the money, I’ll consider it…!)

I suggest you contact CAF directly to ask their advice.

To everyone else on this thread to whom I haven’t replied - I haven’t jumped ship, just extremely busy at the moment. WSP’s post is a quick and easy one to respond to, that’s all.

See you soon…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, but scientific achievement is built upon empirical evidence. If you refute the validity of empirical evidence, then you effectively claim that science is invalid. Maybe we can - as soon as you demonstrate how non-empirical evidence can categorically be taken to be the truth!

see, this isnt long and its easy to reply too. i only have to split 2 phrases.

No, but scientific achievement is built upon empirical evidence. If you refute the validity of empirical evidence, then you effectively claim that science is invalid.

syntax made the salient points just above this post.

but id like to add that im not trying to deny or refute the utility of empirical evidence when used in the various inductive techniques of the scientific method. im refuting your insistence that it should be the standard of evidence in all things.

also let me point out that "scientific achievement’ is constantly shown to be wrong, and then superseded by more observations, its a good tool kit for exploring physical reality, but thats all it is. it doesnt provide truth, proof, validity, or even conclusive evidence of anything. if it did, then it wouldnt have such a long list here, of mistakes that needed correction. there is no evidence at all, that the theories that we currently have wont be superseded by the observations from just one firing of a particle accelerator.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories#Superseded_theories

Maybe we can - as soon as you demonstrate how non-empirical evidence can categorically be taken to be the truth!

easily done. we call it …mathematics. in so far as “truth” can be acheived the deductive method, needs no empirical evidence. its funny to me that the closest thing we have to a certainty of truth, has no empirical component at all. but people who think of themselves as “scientifically minded” ignore this inconvenient truth.

logic is the golden standard of Truth, in so far as the axiomatic laws of logical inference are true. not empiricism.