Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[Sophia]

It would be silly to suggest that you use courtroom procedure in an operating room, wouldn’t it? And yet, you want us to to take you seriously when you suggest that courtroom procedure is the appropriate procedure in a discussion of written data from antiquity.

Who cares about antiquity? And who talks about surgical procedures? That is probably the most ridiculous attempt to derail a discussion I have ever seen. Are you really THAT MUCH in the dark about the whole topic?

The discussion is about the proper procedure concerning claims about the supernatural, where this supernatural is in constant interaction with the physical reality. It is a generic discussion about the epistemological method pertaining this interaction. We do not “borrow” the procedure from the courtroom, the courts “borrow” the procedure from the examination of objective reality. And it “borrows” the best, most reliable method available which is the physical evaluation of physical evidence. We use the same method in every scientific evaluation of any claim pertaining the objective reality.

If that method is unavailable then further methods might be contemplated. But since God, the angels and demons are all assumed to be alive, and all are assumed to be in constant interaction with the physical reality, there is simply no reason to look any further. And that is what you don’t dare or care to take into consideration.

 

[Gorgias]

And who talks about surgical procedures? That is probably the most ridiculous attempt to derail a discussion I have ever seen.

Nah… just giving you an example of another context as irrelevant to the issue at hand as your suggestion is.

You want proof of “interface.” We can find it in the Scriptures. Of course, you refuse to accept the evidence proffered to you. Worse, you use an irrelevant standard – that of courtroom evidence – to attempt to buttress your position. A ridiculous attempt to derail a discussion? Pot, meet kettle…

 

[Sophia]

You want proof of “interface.” We can find it in the Scriptures.

That is the best you can offer? A bunch of unsubstantiated stories?

I use the official teaching of the catholic church, which says that God, the angels and demons are in constant interaction with the physical reality, and the official cadre of the exorcists, who (allegedly) can discover and influence these demons. These interactions are supposed to be measurable and repeatable, thus fulfilling the requirements of the scientific studies. But you avoid this conclusion like the devil abhors the incense and the holy water. And thus you don’t have the courage to have a discussion based upon these premises.

As for the significance of the courtroom, you still don’t understand it. But what can one expect from someone who believes that the Bible is some kind of authority (Sola Scriptura, anyone?), while discarding the official teaching of the church about the empirical investigation of the demons?

 

[Gorgias]

That is the best you can offer? A bunch of unsubstantiated stories?

Ahh, there we go! And it only took you 524 posts to get there!

And thus you don’t have the courage to have a discussion based upon these premises.

So… how do you propose we measure it? What do we measure? How do we infer ‘interface’ and not just a flippant “that doesn’t prove anything”?

See… we already know the game. That’s why we aren’t playing!

 

[Sophia]

Ahh, there we go! And it only took you 524 posts to get there!

And during all that time you could not provide even one itty-bitty, miniscule evidence.

So… how do you propose we measure it? What do we measure?

That is the job of the apologist. Just like I would not presume to dictate to the chemist, how to conduct his experiment, you have all the freedom to develop and conduct your experiments. Just make sure that they are objective, measurable and repeatable, and all will be hunky-dory.

But since you are unable to develop your experiments, I will help you (not the first time either). Measure the existence of the guardian angels and the demons. Let us know the ways and means, so WE can perform the measurements and don’t have to bother you every time. Let us know how to exorcise those demons. Let us know what “magic phrases” do we use to summon those demons, so we can experiment on them. (Don’t worry about us. We are willing to take the risk - after all the demons are unable to harm us, if we don’t let them.) For technical details turn to your friendly, local exorcist.

I provide you with the epistemological framework, all you have to do is fill in the details.

See… we already know the game. That’s why we aren’t playing!

To be more precise, you have no “game” to play. Only avoidance at all costs.

 

[Gorgias]

And during all that time you could not provide even one itty-bitty, miniscule evidence.

No. Pay attention, good sir: during all that time, I already knew what your reaction would be.

That is the job of the apologist.

No – that’s the job of the judge. You like courtroom analogies? Well, here’s one for you. We’re the attorneys for one side. You’re going to analyze our arguments, so you’re the judge. So, go ahead… tell us what types of evidence you’ll admit, how you’ll judge them, and what you’ll base your answers on.

Measure the existence of the guardian angels and the demons.

Nope. That’s not our project. Our project is the measurement of the interface, not the non-physical entities. Keep up now, Soph…

Let us know the ways and means, so WE can perform the measurements and don’t have to bother you every time.

Dude – they’re physical measurements of physical things. You can’t handle that task?

Let us know how to exorcise those demons.

You don’t. Priests do.

Let us know what “magic phrases” do we use to summon those demons, so we can experiment on them.

We don’t summon them. They’re here. We exorcise them.

And hey… if you think you’re able to experiment on them, good luck with that. We really want no part with them.

 

[Curious11]

Wrong, obviously

 

[ConstantLearner]

You totally misunderstood my point.

I don’t think I did, based on your other posts.

 

[Sophia]

I don’t think I did, based on your other posts.

Well, you are wrong. I said the exact opposite of what you “understood”. Capital crimes are extremely important, and no hearsay evidence is accepted. God’s existence would be even MORE important, so the evidence should be even more stringent. And there is nothing more convincing than a well researched, documented, properly maintained chain of some physical evidence. The kind of “he said”, or “it was written” and anything like that is NOT acceptable. Only hard, physical evidence.

You guys (or gals) have this serious misconception. You believe that whatever you find sufficiently satisfying (as evidence) will automatically be equally satisfying for a skeptic. Just think about this for a second: someone who subscribes to a religion different from yours, and presents his best evidence - which is in dire contradiction compared to what you believe. Will you accept it? Of course not. After all your basic principle is that other religions might have some slivers of “truth” in them, but only Catholicism has the full “truth” at its disposal.

Using a pointed language, you say: “you are ALL wrong (in some respect), only WE are totally right.” And then you are surprised when we say: “Bah, humbug!”.

As a cute joke said: "Someone dies and gets up to heaven. He sees all sorts of people, of different religions, even atheists, pagans etc… all mingling around. And he sees a huge wall separating a large area from the rest. He asks the angel showing him around: “What is that wall over there?” The angel replies: “that is where the Catholics are. They believe that only they can get to heaven, and we don’t want to disappoint them.”

 

[Sophia]

We don’t summon them. They’re here. We exorcise them.

So you have some physical method to measure the presence of the demons, then another physical method to exorcise them, and then another physical method to find their absence. Lots of physical activities pertaining the “supernatural”. And you don’t want to share the methods. Why are you so selfish?

And hey… if you think you’re able to experiment on them, good luck with that. We really want no part with them.

Don’t worry, you don’t have to risk yourself. (What a wuss… ) Giving the information about invoking the demons cannot hurt you. You should remember that the demons can only hurt you, if you allow them. But I would be willing to place a bet, that you have no method to invoke a demon, it is just a pipe-dream.

 

[Gorgias]

So you have some physical method to measure the presence of the demons, then another physical method to exorcise them, and then another physical method to find their absence. Lots of physical activities pertaining the “supernatural”. And you don’t want to share the methods. Why are you so selfish?

They’re documented, in a number of books. If you were motivated, you could reach out to the authors, I suppose. Getting priests to talk about deliverance ministry is often a bit more difficult. As you might imagine, priests generally don’t want to publicly identify themselves as diocesan exorcists (if for no other reason, then definitely because they want people to go through the established diocesan procedures rather than coming directly to them).

Giving the information about invoking the demons cannot hurt you.

We don’t invoke demons.

You should remember that the demons can only hurt you, if you allow them.

That’s why invoking them is such a bad idea…

But I would be willing to place a bet, that you have no method to invoke a demon, it is just a pipe-dream.

Read up on it. You’ll find the types of things that people do, that cause demons to oppress and possess them…

 

[ConstantLearner]

Well, you are wrong. I said the exact opposite of what you “understood”. Capital crimes are extremely important, and no hearsay evidence is accepted. God’s existence would be even MORE important, so the evidence should be even more stringent. And there is nothing more convincing than a well researched, documented, properly maintained chain of some physical evidence . The kind of “he said”, or “it was written” and anything like that is NOT acceptable. Only hard, physical evidence.

Well, I am right as my links show. Hearsay evidence is rarely accepted in small claims court, but even in a capital murder case direct, physical evidence is not required. If it were, then Drew Peterson should not be in prison, and it was proper to acquit both OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. In fact, they shouldn’t have even been brought to trial according to your logic.

Writings can be extremely important in all court cases, and, when someone cannot testify, hearsay evidence is often permissible and, like the Drew Peterson case, can result in a guilty plea. Direct, physical evidence is, more often than not, unavailable, so a case is built on circumstantial evidence, and in limited circumstances, even on hearsay, though there are strict rules governing its use.

The headline of the linked article reads: “Drew Peterson trial begins next week and will hinge on circumstantial evidence” and I think we all know the State would not charge him if it were prohibited from prosecuting.

Loading…

www.chicagotribune.com

Hearsay is also good evidence for impeachment of witnesses, no matter how serious the crime:

A party may impeach a witness by introducing those of his prior statements that are inconsistent with his current testimony at trial. In a minority of jurisdictions that follow FRE 801, the prior inconsistent statement may be used not only to impeach but also as substantive evidence.

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

The entire New Testament could be said to be hearsay since Christ left behind no known writings, yet though not direct, in most cases, it is excellent evidence. Though God is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, or anything else, the “he saids” of the Bible are good testimony to the life of Our Lord and quite credible. But often, they are hearsay.

Perhaps you could link to a very credible article that states that hearsay evidence is never allowed in serious matters?

 

[ConstantLearner]

As a cute joke said: "Someone dies and gets up to heaven. He sees all sorts of people, of different religions, even atheists, pagans etc… all mingling around. And he sees a huge wall separating a large area from the rest. He asks the angel showing him around: “What is that wall over there?” The angel replies: “that is where the Catholics are. They believe that only they can get to heaven, and we don’t want to disappoint them.”

I hope you know Catholics do not believe only they can go to heaven.

 

[ConstantLearner]

You guys (or gals) have this serious misconception. You believe that whatever you find sufficiently satisfying (as evidence) will automatically be equally satisfying for a skeptic. Just think about this for a second: someone who subscribes to a religion different from yours, and presents his best evidence - which is in dire contradiction compared to what you believe. Will you accept it? Of course not. After all your basic principle is that other religions might have some slivers of “truth” in them, but only Catholicism has the full “truth” at its disposal.

You need to educate yourself a bit more if you’re going to debate Catholicism.

I have been a Roman Catholic all my life, and I know some people would not be convinced of God’s existence if God, Himself came to earth and did what the atheist/agnostic/other religion person asked. The atheistic/agnostic/religious beliefs of some are set in stone.

I was a theology major at a Catholic college. Those who taught me often said, “Even today, we don’t know all God requires of us as set down in the Bible.” That’s one of the reasons our theologians study it constantly.

I don’t believe many non-Catholics who are fervent members of another religion are going to accept Catholicism any more than I would accept the tenets of the Baptists. I don’t even try to talk to atheists about religion. I just figure they will know with certainty one day.

 

[Gorgias]

I hope you know Catholics do not believe only they can go to heaven.

Right. We just enjoy it more.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Right. We just enjoy it more.

To the max!

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Actually only the Blessed Virgin Mary is able to enjoy the fullness of the Beatific Vision.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Actually only the Blessed Virgin Mary is able to enjoy the fullness of the Beatific Vision.

What about 1 Cor. 13:12?

If you’re talking about now, I agree. But Mary did not always possess the Beatific Vision as Christ did, or she would not have grown in grace and merit.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I was talking about now.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I was talking about now.

Yes, I agree. Of course we can’t. Not now.