Well, why?

[Luke_K]

So is this it? This thread has revealed that the sum total of all the empirical evidence for believing in your god is a ghost story that your Church explicitly says that the faithful are not required to believe in?

No one has any actual evidence?

I promise you, if you only believe in the possibility that the Creator makes himself known to those who seek him, and you seek him out, that you will come to understand what St. Paul meant when he wrote that “faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”

I promise you if you only try, and then persist in praying the rosary, that the reality of a truth beyond senses will be made aware to you in a more satisfying way than what the world can offer. You will come to understand what the Christian means when he says, “Whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss because of Christ. More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him…” (Philippians 3:7-8)

This is the hypothesis I offer to you. Test it:
ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/rosary/how_to.htm

 

[R_Daneel]

I promise you, if you only believe in the possibility that the Creator makes himself known to those who seek him, and you seek him out, that you will come to understand what St. Paul meant when he wrote that “faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.” I promise you if you only try, and then persist in praying the rosary, that the reality of a truth beyond senses will be made aware to you in a more satisfying way than what the world can offer.

Yes, it is always the fault of atheists, who are not trying to seek God “honestly”, who close their “heart” to God. They do not want to find God on his terms, they insist that God meets them on their terms. They are not willing to be trusty like children, they want some “foolish proofs”. Oh, those poor, misguided, closed minded atheists. If only they would wait long enough, and would let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts…

 

[Luke_K]

Yes, it is always the fault of atheists, who are not trying to seek God “honestly”, who close their “heart” to God. They do not want to find God on his terms, they insist that God meets them on their terms. They are not willing to be trusty like children, they want some “foolish proofs”. Oh, those poor, misguided, closed minded atheists. If only they would wait long enough, and would let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts…

A scientist must perform the experiment correctly in order for the results to be conclusive, don’t you agree? Even in the physical sciences, human error can render a test inaccurate.

I don’t judge your culpability for your disbelief. Too often we Christians, through our actions or lack thereof, give the atheists their reason for not believing in the man we try to emulate. You are in my prayers.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So is this it? This thread has revealed that the sum total of all the empirical evidence for believing in your god is a ghost story that your Church explicitly says that the faithful are not required to believe in?

No one has any actual evidence?

2 things:

1. As has been stated several times, the only reason we’re not required to believe in it is because the Bible has primacy. That does’t mean we should not believe in it. As we’ve been trying to point out, it would be illogical not to believe in the Fatima apparitions and the Miracle of the Sun.
2. I never asked for empirical evidence though. I asked why we should believe in God even though there isn’t any empirical evidence. The people who came talking about the Fatima apparitions disputed my first premise.

 

[Luke_K]

1. As has been stated several times, the only reason we’re not required to believe in it is because the Bible has primacy.

Just to clear the air here on Catholic teachings, we don’t believe in the “primacy” of the Bible. We’re not sola scriptura protestants. Here’s Michelle Arnold’s explanation from AAA: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12203

Basically, Catholics are only obliged to believe in public revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle. It’s based on the belief that Jesus gave his apostles all the divinely revealed truth necessary- the fullness of the Christian faith.

 

[AntiTheist]

And if I haven’t ruled out every natural explanation, why not suggest one?

You really don’t get it. The person making the claim has to provide evidence that supports the claim.

You can’t just say, “Well, it couldn’t have been X or Y…so how else could it have happened than Z?”

There is a name for what you’re doing: it’s called an argument from ignorance (and also an argument from incredulity)…please look it up, for your own edification, if nothing else.

Aside from that, you haven’t demonstrated – at all – that there is no possible natural explanation for the event.

For Fatima, context is important. The miracle was foretold months in advance by the Virgin Mary and, clearly, something supernatural happened. You’re being obstinate by ignoring this context and the evidence that we have.

It occurs to me that, perhaps, you’re trying to make an argument involving the prediction: a prediction was made; something was seen on the day the miracle was predicted; therefore the prediction was accurate; therefore, god exists.

Yikes. Seriously, buddy? That’s your argument? Ok. I’m about to go to sleep, so I’ll let inocente put on his AntiTheist cap and respond to this claim as I would – in fact, I’d invite others to rationally dissect that argument and demonstrate why it does not lead to that conclusion.

Go on, gold stars for the best answer.

the historical evidence we have for Fatima could easily stack up against any other recorded event in history, hardly a “ghost story.”

Yes, the evidence that something happened is pretty convincing – but there is no evidence that whatever happened was supernatural.

The evidence very clearly reveals that the sun did not move at all – people thought that the sun was moving. That’s an interesting mistake in perception. We could have a conversation about potential causes of that mistake, but your fundamental dishonesty here is in trying to ignore the fact that all of those people were mistaken about what they saw, which is something that we know.

The miracle happened, period.

Oh, well when you put it that way, how could someone fail to find it convincing?

We are not obliged to believe in it, but it has been verified by the Church as being true, and they are much more skeptical than you are when it comes to these things.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha. You can’t make this stuff up!

These are clearly dishonest language and tactics you are using.

Only the guy who relies on arguments from ignorance and on equivocation on the meaning of “something happened” could possible summon up enough unintentional irony to make a comment like this.

I can discuss hundreds of well-documented cases, but if you are always going to call into question such basic evidence, why bother?

Translation: “why don’t you just swallow the tripe I spit out wholesale? Why do you have to subject everything to rational inquiry and ideas that make my head hurt, like “sufficient evidence”?”

Marc Anthony:

I asked why we should believe in God even though there isn’t any empirical evidence. The people who came talking about the Fatima apparitions disputed my first premise.

facepalm I’ll try one more time: even if you had sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Fatima was a supernatural event, it wouldn’t be sufficient to demonstrate the cause of the supernatural event. Again, what if it were the work of wandering Rakshasa or other malignant spirits from all kinds of mythologies?

Seriously, now. Let me ask Protestants a question: do you think that this Catholic miracle is empirical evidence for believing in your god?

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m afraid that my basic point may get lost in some of these rather long posts, so I’ll distill it for you all:

We know, from astronomical evidence, that the sun did not dance around that day. The thousands of people who apparently saw the sun dance were, therefore, experiencing a mistake in perception.

Now perhaps this mistake in perception was due to a mass-vision sent to all of them by your god. Perhaps a vision was given to them by some wandering spirits or something. Perhaps a UFO visited the spot at exactly that moment. Perhaps there are dozens of other supernatural or extraordinary things that could potentially have happened.

Perhaps it was, as some have suggested, the effects of staring at the sun for too long (there are, apparently, other “sun miracles” on record). Perhaps, as others have suggested, it was a peculiar illusion produced by the sun’s position that many people greatly expanded in their imaginations after the fact. Perhaps there are dozens of other natural things that could potentially have happened.

I honestly have no idea which option is correct, and there’s no good reason to think that any of the supernatural explanations is true, and even if you could completely disprove every natural option you can think of, it wouldn’t make any supernatural option any more likely to be true.

 

[Kaninchen]

The thousands of people who apparently saw the sun dance

Allegedly.

 

[inocente]

Seriously, now. Let me ask Protestants a question: do you think that this Catholic miracle is empirical evidence for believing in your god?

No one commented on the video I posted in #277. Rauf argues that each one of us contains a sliver of divinity. When we look in a mirror, we see that little bit of divinity peering back at us through the scars of time. As a Sikh song has it “Looking in the mirror, I see you sweet God”.

Paul understood:
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. – 1 Cor 13:8-12 NIV
We’re built that way, we evolved that way, whatever. We feel empathy and compassion that are not part of the world-outside-our-heads®. Surely that’s obvious without the need for supplementary evidence. It doesn’t matter if science can explain how it came about and how it works. It’s irrelevant if it flies in the face of reason™ at times. We are not computers, we are not gods, we‘re human, nothing less and nothing more. Either you get it or you don’t (AT - see the sentence before the one I highlighted ).

Look at this picture for a while. Either you get it or you don’t.
Steve McCurry – Afghan Girl

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Just to clear the air here on Catholic teachings, we don’t believe in the “primacy” of the Bible. We’re not sola scriptura protestants. Here’s Michelle Arnold’s explanation from AAA: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12203

Basically, Catholics are only obliged to believe in public revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle. It’s based on the belief that Jesus gave his apostles all the divinely revealed truth necessary- the fullness of the Christian faith.

Sorry, you’re quite right. Both Sacred Tradition AND the Bible have primacy as properly interpreted by the Church.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

AntiTheist said:

“facepalm I’ll try one more time: even if you had sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Fatima was a supernatural event, it wouldn’t be sufficient to demonstrate the cause of the supernatural event.”

Let’s play the odds though; considering that the event was investigated by the Vatican, who are experts in this field, and was promised by shepherd children who saw visions of the Virgin Mary after praying the rosary, don’t you think it LIKELY that, IF (big if) we accept the Fatima apparitions as real, it’s PROBABLE that they were Catholic apparitions?

That’s a case of playing the odds IMO.

Of course, I see what you’re saying. You dispute the idea that it’s a supernatural event at all.

 

[AntiTheist]

don’t you think it LIKELY that, IF (big if) we accept the Fatima apparitions as real, it’s PROBABLE that they were Catholic apparitions?

No. There are any number of explanations for children claiming to have seen something. If, in fact, the “dancing sun” was a real supernatural event, then there’s no reason that, for example, the aliens who buzzed the crowd couldn’t have beamed down messages cloaked in the form of the local mythology; or there’s no reason that the Rakshasas who created the illusion as a gag couldn’t have impersonated the characters from a different mythology; etc, etc.

But yes, I dispute that it was supernatural. You claimed earlier in this thread that it would be illogical not to believe in the sun dance. But that depends on what you mean.

1. If you mean that it would be illogical not to believe that a lot of people claimed to see something, then you’re right. We have sufficient evidence to say that there were people who saw something (incidentally, I’ve heard that – the claims of some biased individuals notwithstanding – the accounts differ from person to person, and in some cases there are accounts of people not having seen anything there).
2. If you mean that it would be illogical not to believe that the sun actually moved from its position, you would be wrong because we have very compelling evidence that the sun didn’t actually move – including observations of the sun that day from observatories and other places in the world, in addition to a complete lack of the vast astronomical data that we would have if the sun ever did do something so cataclysmic.

The evidence is so compelling that the sun remained in place that it would be in fact illogical to believe that it actually moved.

There was, apparently, a large-scale mistake in perception in the crowd that day. The cause of that mistake is open to debate.

1. If you mean that it would be illogical not to believe that the source of the large-scale mistake in perception was supernatural, then you would also be wrong. There is insufficient evidence to claim that it was supernatural – and even if there were sufficient evidence, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to get to the claim that you want to defend: that the Christian god exists.

Now, as far as the prediction of the event coming through – I’m disappointed that no one attempted it, by the way – predictions don’t count in a number of cases:

1. In cases where the outcome might be influenced by the prediction having been made. If you predict that something’s going to happen in the sky, and a crowd of people start staring at the sky and experiencing something that kind of seems like it could be an effect of the sun leaving after-images on the retina, then it can’t really count.
2. In cases where the outcome leaves absolutely no evidence whatsoever behind. If someone predicts that something is going to happen in the sky, and we know from evidence that nothing in fact did happen in the sky, then it can’t really count.
3. Even if we grant that a prediction was accurate, that can’t tell us anything about how the prediction was made. It might have been chance or self-fulfilling prophecy. It might have been a supernatural event caused by some other supernatural creature than your god, etc.

The whole thing is fraught with problems, and it doesn’t even make sense internally, either. If this god was going to finally demonstrate himself to the world – giving up on his emphasis on faith, apparently – he decides to create a large-scale mistake in perception as his great evidence that he exists?

Why not produce an earthquake, and give the kids the exact coordinates and the exact magnitude it will have? That would sure as heck be impressive.

Why not have the children describe intricately how distant stars will suddenly reverse their trajectory in ways that gravity can’t account for – knowledge that we would never expect these children to have? And then have the stars actually do it so that we can measure it?

If this god is really serious about demonstrating his existence, then he really passed up some golden opportunities in favor of something that for all the world looks like a mistake in perception. If he really does exist, then I don’t want to worship a being that would make such poor tactical decisions.

 

[AntiTheist]

No one commented on the video I posted in #277.

I don’t watch videos. If you summarize the points you find compelling, I will respond to your summary.

Rauf argues that each one of us contains a sliver of divinity. When we look in a mirror, we see that little bit of divinity peering back at us through the scars of time. As a Sikh song has it “Looking in the mirror, I see you sweet God”.

And is this just a poetic way of saying that “every person is unique and special,” or is he actually claiming to have evidence that a disembodied intelligence exists? If the latter, I’d love to hear his evidence.

We feel empathy and compassion that are not part of the world-outside-our-heads®. Surely that’s obvious without the need for supplementary evidence.

Of course it’s obvious. Of what relevance is it to the claim that a disembodied intelligence exists? You’re not making any sense here, man.

It’s irrelevant if it flies in the face of reason™ at times.

Of course our feelings fly in the face of reason some time. Like all animals, we are not completely rational creatures. We are driven by instincts and feelings that do not arise from the reason. Again, of what relevance is this to the topic of the thread?

We are not computers, we are not gods, we‘re human, nothing less and nothing more.

I completely agree. Once again – and I hope I’m not sounding like a broken record here – I have never been advocating that we only act in “rational” ways or that we need empirical evidence for every last claim we accept.

I have been advocating, since the beginning of this thread, that claims must be supported with sufficient evidence. Claims pertaining to the world outside of your mind must be supported with evidence from outside of your mind. All the touchy-feely warm and fuzzy feelings inside of you can’t support claims about the world outside of your mind.

If all you mean by “god exists” is “people are special and I like the warm and happy feelings I get,” then I have no problem with that. But if you are actually asserting that an entity exists outside of your head, then let’s see the evidence for it.

Either you get it or you don’t

Surely, you realize that “either you get it or you don’t” isn’t a valid argument (and yes, I will call you shirley).

 

[inocente]

We are driven by instincts and feelings that do not arise from the reason. Again, of what relevance is this to the topic of the thread?

I didn’t expect you to understand, my fine feathered friend. I was posting in the context of your “Seriously, now. Let me ask Protestants a question” on the basis of Marc’s commandment “I never asked for empirical evidence though. I asked why we should believe in God even though there isn’t any empirical evidence”.

There are many things in our heads that are not amenable to dictionary definitions. Philosophers may wish otherwise but there you go. If we can’t even define what we’re measuring then attempting to locate evidence outside our heads is a non-starter. I can talk about the whys-and-wherefores with others who share my understanding, but cannot express it in words. For example, if someone has never felt love then it’s unlikely you or I could furnish them with the concept in an online debate.

This whole business will, I think, become clearer as neuroscience progresses and takes over from physics as the prevailing model. There will then be empirical evidence that we are not just a bunch of specks and were human all along. In the mean time, either you see it or you don’t.

I used to be an atheist but grew out of it. God is real, babe, get with the program.

(and yes, I will call you shirley).

Please use my given name of Inocenta Concepción Sofía Encarnación Inmaculada de la Ezcordia, or as my friends call me, Julio.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Why not produce an earthquake, and give the kids the exact coordinates and the exact magnitude it will have? That would sure as heck be impressive.

Because this would only be evidence of an unknown system of earthquake prediction. And since it would presumably not operate in repeated trials, the system would be debunked as a mere one-time curiosity.

Why not have the children describe intricately how distant stars will suddenly reverse their trajectory in ways that gravity can’t account for – knowledge that we would never expect these children to have? And then have the stars actually do it so that we can measure it?

“in ways that gravity can’t account for” sounds awfully like an argument from ignorance.

If this god is really serious about demonstrating his existence, then he really passed up some golden opportunities in favor of something that for all the world looks like a mistake in perception. If he really does exist, then I don’t want to worship a being that would make such poor tactical decisions.

If he really does exist, he’s the only game in town. Your call.

 

[AntiTheist]

There are many things in our heads that are not amenable to dictionary definitions.

Maybe, but I will definitely agree that there are things in our heads that cannot be dectectable through empirical evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads. Your predictable example about love is clear: I can’t produce empirical evidence that I’m in love, but I don’t have to because that’s a claim about my mind, and all the evidence I need for the claim is an obsevation of my own emotional state.

Now, if you want to claim that god is just an internal feeling, then I totally agree with you. But if you want to claim that god is an entity that exists outside of you, internal feelings are not sufficient evidence.

Surely, you understand that.

There will then be empirical evidence that we are not just a bunch of specks and were human all along.

What the heck? This is clearly a false dichotomy. We are both human beings and inconsequential specks in a universe too vast to imagine.

I used to be an atheist but grew out of it. God is real, babe, get with the program.

Very convincing argument there, buddy.

 

[AntiTheist]

Because this would only be evidence of an unknown system of earthquake prediction. And since it would presumably not operate in repeated trials, the system would be debunked as a mere one-time curiosity.

Well, if someone could do it repeatedly – or, indeed, if Catholic peasants around the world started doing it with regularity – then it would absolutely tell us that an unknown system of earthquake prediction exists, a system apparently only available to Catholics (and poor Catholics, at that).

Then we could begin an investigation into exactly why only Catholics have access to this system of prediction. As I said about other empirical tests, it wouldn’t automatically demonstrate that your god exists, but it would tell us that something is special about this one particular religion, and it would be one heck of a first step toward demonstrating that something unknown to human science is operating behind this particular religion.

“in ways that gravity can’t account for” sounds awfully like an argument from ignorance.

It might sound like that, but it’s not. Gravity has very well-defined properties from our observation of it. If all of a sudden a cluster of stars started acting in ways that violate what we would expect to see based on gravity – when all the other stars around them are acting exactly as we would expect – that would be a complete and total violation of natural laws.

Now, let’s say that some Catholic peasants tell us – in advance – the exact coordinates of these strangely-behaving stars and the exact time when they will begin acting strangely. Let’s say that Catholic peasants around the world start making these predictions and they all come true. Let’s say that four or five peasants – in entirely different locations – receive these exact same predictions all at once.

This would all be extremely strong evidence that Catholics really do have access to a special form of prediction. Now why is this? We’d have to look into it, and I have to tell you, in a case like that, the claims of the religion would start to look more and more compelling.

And obviously, doing the above should be trivially easy for your god. So why doesn’t he do that? According to people on this thread, this god is in the business of doing miracles for crowds of people to give them evidence – does he really prefer to make a crowd of people make a mistake about seeing the sun move that seems like it could just be the sun leaving after-images on the retina? He prefers that to handing out super-specific scientific predictions to peasants, which would be mind-blowingly impressive?

If he really does exist, he’s the only game in town.

Unless of course, the Hindu pantheon exists. Or the Greek. Or the Roman. Or the Norse. Or…

 

[inocente]

Very convincing argument there, buddy.

Thank you, and the top of the morning to yourself.

Peoples’ view of the world changes through history. We like to think that ours is better than all previous ages, but even if true, another outlook will come along.

Currently we tend to see the world through the lens of modern physics. Neuroscience is relatively new but developing fast, and in x years will take over because it is about us and much more interesting. At that point all the folk (religious or not) who currently argue “first cause”, “quantum consciousness”, etc. will be seen as fuddy-duddies debating angels on a pinhead. Our great grand kids will use completely different arguments, relating to the world-inside-our-heads®.

I’m just ahead of the pack. And obviously correct. It’s also way too hot here to write any more.