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

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I got confused. I meant now as in “the Virgin Mary enjoys the fullness of the Beatific Vision now.”

 

[Aulef]

Simply impossible

 

[Sophia]

Hearsay evidence is rarely accepted in small claims court, but even in a capital murder case direct, physical evidence is not required.

You confuse “hearsay evidence” and “circumstantial evidence”. They are not the same. In the case of O.J. the prosecution made some major mistakes. He should have been convicted. But the legal system does not care about “truth”, only about playing according to the rules of the game. Most of the time this adversarial system is pretty good at arriving a reasonable verdict, but definitely not all the time. Sometimes even the material evidence is manipulated. But one piece of properly obtained and well preserved material evidence (chain of custody) will trump a thousand of hearsay type of testimonials.

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

Excluding witnesses is not the same category as bringing a guilty verdict. The lawyer can exclude a witness for no reason during the peremptory challenges. But here we do not talk about court procedures, rather about objective evidence.

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.

Only in the eyes of those who already believe it. The important parts of the “miracles” which are supposed to substantiate the divinity of Jesus have no external justification. Whether there was some person whose name was Jesus, who might have been crucified is of no relevance. It is quite probably there was, after all the name “Jesus” was and is quite frequently used, and many people were crucified according to the barbaric customs of those times.

Of course all this is irrelevant. God is supposed to exist today, so there is no reason to dig into the dust of two thousand years to gather evidence.

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

I am sure many individual Catholics don’t. But the expression “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” says otherwise. Now in these “politically correct times” it may not be taken verbatim. But there was a time when the official opinion was that without an actual baptism the fetuses WILL land in hell. (And, no, they did not “choose it”.)

Continued below…

 

[Sophia]

Continued from above…

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.

And how would you “know” that? I already had a conversation about this subject and the other person accepted that a miracle of “rearranging the stars to exhibit the Lord’s Prayer in every language” would be sufficient to convince any rational skeptic. (People in a loony ward, or under an IQ of 60 or very clever infants are a different category.)

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.

All that proves that none of you are good apologists. And/or that both of you are wrong. God could, if he wanted to come clear up the waters. He does not, and that leads to an interesting, yet rational conclusion. The “silentium Dei” is the most convincing evidence that God does not care. According to the cartoon of Calvin and Hobbes, Hobbes says: “The most convincing evidence that there exists a superior intelligence in the Universe is that they never tried to contact us!”

If God would care about our “transgressions” he would give us a sign of his displeasure, here and now, (so we could learn and mend our ways) and would not wait until any warning would be too late.

Right. We just enjoy it more.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker; which said: “Christians are not perfect, they are just forgiven!”.

 

[ConstantLearner]

But one piece of properly obtained and well preserved material evidence (chain of custody) will trump a thousand of hearsay type of testimonials.

I don’t confuse anything.

Not really true, Sophia. Not always. It’s dependent on the credibility of the witnesses.

Ideally, a prosecutor would like to have both kinds of evidence because both types of evidence have their flaws. It is best to have both sorts of evidence so that their combined weight can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. There are arguments to be made for the superiority of each kind of evidence.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/you-where-prosecutor-what-type-evidence-would-you-381847

I didn’t read past the first paragraph of your post. Sorry.

 

[Sophia]

I didn’t read past the first paragraph of your post. Sorry.

…

 

[help1]

I guess I’d have no choice but to become a non-believer.

 

[ConstantLearner]

…

That’s a good post! Make your point and then stop.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I guess I’d have no choice but to become a non-believer.

And if it was a demon manipulating things? Because they can as I think you know.

 

[help1]

Interesting idea…I suppose that’s true! Hmm. How would we know whether or not that’s the case, though?

 

[ConstantLearner]

Interesting idea…I suppose that’s true! Hmm. How would we know whether or not that’s the case, though?

We don’t always. Things are not always what they seem to be. At least at first. That’s where faith comes into play. God will not have us do, say, believe anything contrary to love. Demons will always show their true character. Eventually.