What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

[tonyrey]

			*No! The teaching of Christ shines by its own light..*

		 		 	 	 Ooh, I don’t know about this. I am a cradle Catholic myself and I can remember a number of times on Easter morning when the priest would say that if the Resurrection had never occurred then Jesus would be regarded as a nice philosopher but nothing more.

The priest didn’t have much insight into the originality, beauty and universal significance of His teaching…

 

[gentle_atheist]

The priest didn’t have much insight into the originality, beauty and universal significance of His teaching…

It’s not that. It’s that without the Resurrection Jesus would be more like Ghandi than like God.

GA:

And you took that to mean: Jesus was never Resurrected?"

God bless,
jd

Obviously, I took that as evidence** for **the Resurrection. But given the crucial role of this event – that without the Resurrection Christianity is a fraud – I am disturbed as to why there isn’t more widespread and permanent proof that it occurred. It is, after all, the single, most important event in human history.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am disturbed as to why there isn’t more widespread and permanent proof that it occurred.

Since you weren’t there at the time, you would have no way of knowing what evidence is valid and what evidence is not, and since you can’t tell them apart you have no basis for the claim that there “isn’t more widespread and permanent proof that it occurred” because you have no idea how much valid evidence there is. So whats the point of being “disturbed” about the amount of things you can’t tell apart?

 

[gentle_atheist]

Since you weren’t there at the time, you would have no way of knowing what evidence is valid and what evidence is not, and since you can’t tell them apart you have no basis for the claim that there “isn’t more widespread and permanent proof that it occurred” because you have no idea how much valid evidence there is. So whats the point of being “disturbed” about the amount of things you can’t tell apart?

I don’t quite understand what you are saying. But it seems to me that all we have to go on is hearsay that is almost 2000 years old. And even that is not corroborated by the secular literature of the time.

It would be nice if on Easter morning a full moon would appear in the sky with the words “Jesus is risen” written on it. But if God is too reserved for something so flashy I have another suggestion. After Jesus rose from the dead why did He ascend into heaven? The Ascension destroyed all proof of the Resurrection.

“Jesus has risen from the dead? That’s wonderful! Let’s go see Him!”
“We can’t.”
“Why not?”
“He ascended into heaven.”
“Hmmmm…”

In His resurrected body Jesus could be here on earth to this very day spreading the good news of His offer of salvation to all who believe in Him. ** If Jesus loved us enough to suffer and die on the Cross for our sins, then why didn’t He love us enough to stick around and tell us about it? ** Why did He zip up to heaven after only 40 days?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

You stated “I am disturbed as to why there isn’t more widespread and permanent proof”

I am pointing out that you have no reason to be disturbed.

1. Since you were not a witness to the Resurrection, you have no way to know if any evidence is actually valid.
2. Since you have no way to tell if something is evidence or not, then you have no way to know if there is any lack of evidence.
3. Since you can neither differentiate between valid and invalid evidence, nor know how much evidence there is, you have no reason to be disturbed.

Opinions concerning what G-d should or should not do are meaningless. They provide no information about the validity of the Resurrection.

 

[gentle_atheist]

You stated “I am disturbed as to why there isn’t more widespread and permanent proof”

I am pointing out that you have no reason to be disturbed.

1. Since you were not a witness to the Resurrection, you have no way to know if any evidence is actually valid.
2. Since you have no way to tell if something is evidence or not, then you have no way to know if there is any lack of evidence.
3. Since you can neither differentiate between valid and invalid evidence, nor know how much evidence there is, you have no reason to be disturbed.

Opinions concerning what G-d should or should not do are meaningless. They provide no information about the validity of the Resurrection.

Thank you! I feel so much…better!

 

[Blacksword]

I don’t quite understand what you are saying. But it seems to me that all we have to go on is hearsay that is almost 2000 years old. And even that is not corroborated by the secular literature of the time.

It would be nice if on Easter morning a full moon would appear in the sky with the words “Jesus is risen” written on it. But if God is too reserved for something so flashy I have another suggestion. After Jesus rose from the dead why did He ascend into heaven? The Ascension destroyed all proof of the Resurrection.

“Jesus has risen from the dead? That’s wonderful! Let’s go see Him!”
“We can’t.”
“Why not?”
“He ascended into heaven.”
“Hmmmm…”

In His resurrected body Jesus could be here on earth to this very day spreading the good news of His offer of salvation to all who believe in Him. ** If Jesus loved us enough to suffer and die on the Cross for our sins, then why didn’t He love us enough to stick around and tell us about it? ** Why did He zip up to heaven after only 40 days?

Doubtless you’ve heard all this before, but the letters of St. Paul, as well as the Gospels, and many of the later extra-biblical sources, do indicate that in the early to mid first century there were several hundred people who saw Jesus risen. Your objection seems to not be to the amount of evidence, but rather the character of the witnesses, and to the unfortunate fact that they are all dead now. But it is interesting that no one at that time denied that Jesus’ body was missing, and interesting that Christianity spread like a firestorm despite a decidedly unappealing advertising campaign it would have made (deny yourself everything, be received by the communities you go to like a lunatic with your outrageous claims, be disowned by your family, and be butchered in a gladiatorial arena, where do I sign up?!). Remember that the claims of a man rising from the dead would have seemed even more ridiculous to the surrounding Greek and Roman cultures than it did to the Jews, or to us today really.

As to the original argument, yes it obviously is a silly one, but it does highlight at least a point worth remembering: in the end ALL of our experiences are subjective and personal. My claims of back pain, though pain is a universal pretty much accepted by all, are still my own experience. At its heart even the most bedrock claims of science about the physical universe are not absolutely known, though there may be good reason to accept them despite the inductive nature of empiricism. All our experiences, whether truth claims about the external world, or claims about our inner state, are subjective and personal in nature. If Hume did damage to religious faith, he did just as much damage to empiricism as well surely in showing that the scientific method can be reduced to little more than crystal ball gazing. The only thing we can appear to deductively know, know, KNOW, is mathematics. All else is guesswork.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If Hume did damage to religious faith, he did just as much damage to empiricism as well surely in showing that the scientific method can be reduced to little more than crystal ball gazing. The only thing we can appear to deductively know, know, KNOW, is mathematics. All else is guesswork.

Empiricism has always been a losing proposition because any attempt to use it as a standard of proof runs afoul of its self refuting nature.

We don’t even know the validity of mathematics in any absolute sense, because all axioms may be doubted*. An excellent book on the subject of mathematical foundations is “The Mathematical Experience” by Davis and Hersh.

• I personally don’t believe that one can doubt Cogito Ergo Sum in any nontrivial way, but there are those who do.

 

[steveb1]

I don’t understand the OP’s question. It’s as if he wants “proof” of God/spirit to fall under the same rubrics as proof for material entities. This cannot be, for the simple reason that God is not a material object in the stream of material objects. Since God is not an object “out there”, and is not detectable by the physical senses that detect matter and material processes, what in the world would the OP accept as “proof”?

The anatomical senses are not the only senses. Consciousness itself, at its essential core, is an empty, silent “Witness” whose “senses” are geared toward the non-material and the spiritual. The spiritual things known by the Witness have no physical correlates. Nor are they meant to. This does not make the Witness and its experience unreal or fantastic. It only means that, in the words of Meister Eckhart, “God is seen in the soul”.

If the OP wants the only kind of “proof” for God that really matters and really satisfies, he must be willing to be the Witness of spiritual things. He *really * wants spiritual knowledge (I would guess) of God and the soul, not gross material-empirical proof. If that is the case, he may be encouraged to know that the means of knowledge-acquisition is remarkably similar for both the material and the spiritual quest. It consists of a mere three steps:

1. The injunction. “If you want to know X, then do Y.” If you want to know God/the spirit, be the Witness. Contemplate, pray, meditate, perform selfless acts. Keep your mind, soul, and spiritual senses open.
2. Perform the injunction. Do the experiment. Take notes.
3. Share your conclusions with others who have adequately done steps 1. and 2.

The “evidence” the OP seeks will or will not be confirmed by doing the spiritual experiment. If he is unwilling to accept the injunction and perform the experiment, he will be hopelessly lost in mind games that fallaciously seek to find God-as-an-object “out there”.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not that. It’s that without the Resurrection Jesus would be more like Ghandi than like God.

Mahatma acknowledged his debt to Jesus!

Obviously, I took that as evidence** for **the Resurrection. But given the crucial role of this event – that without the Resurrection Christianity is a fraud – I am disturbed as to why there isn’t more widespread and permanent proof that it occurred. It is, after all, the single, most important event in human history.

As St Augustine remarked, without the Resurrection the success of Christianity would have been a greater miracle! You take it for granted because it has occurred but the claim that a man has risen from the dead is enough to deter intelligent people. St Paul was mocked for that very reason when he preached to the Greeks. All of the attempts to explain away the empty tomb are flawed. Moreover the beauty, originality and wisdom of Christ’s teaching require explanation…

 

[hansgeorg]

I don’t quite understand what you are saying. But it seems to me that all we have to go on is hearsay that is almost 2000 years old. And even that is not corroborated by the secular literature of the time.

What do you mean by Hearsay? And what do you mean by Secular Literature?

It would be nice if on Easter morning a full moon would appear in the sky with the words “Jesus is risen” written on it. But if God is too reserved for something so flashy I have another suggestion. After Jesus rose from the dead why did He ascend into heaven? The Ascension destroyed all proof of the Resurrection.

“Jesus has risen from the dead? That’s wonderful! Let’s go see Him!”
“We can’t.”
“Why not?”
“He ascended into heaven.”
“Hmmmm…”

In His resurrected body Jesus could be here on earth to this very day spreading the good news of His offer of salvation to all who believe in Him. ** If Jesus loved us enough to suffer and die on the Cross for our sins, then why didn’t He love us enough to stick around and tell us about it? ** Why did He zip up to heaven after only 40 days?

1. And Caesar getting back to Rome destroyed evidence he conquered Gaul too, right?
2. Caesar conquering Gaul means he left evidence beyond his own writings in the people who were with him in Gaul. Jesus sticking around for forty days means he left evidence (he did not write, except once in the sand, and of course when learning to write) in the people who were with him during those forty days. The time Caesar spent in Gaul was enough for him to know that Gaul was conquered, the time Jesus spent with quite a f’ew of his own disciples on occasions, but mostly the eleven, as in twelve minus Judas the traitor was enough for them to know he was risen. They include Sts Peter, John and Matthew who all wrote.
3. The people who were around Caesar in Roman and Gaulish society knew whether Caesar should be contradicted or not and did not contradict him, the people in the first Christian Church knew that these Apostles had seen God alive, partly for being witnesses themselves, partly from the miracles worked, and of course from knowing these men to be no liars.
4. The witness of the people around as not contradicting is available in other writings by people who came into the stories later: Cassius Dion had never been to Gaul during the conquest, St Luke and St Paul had not seen the 40 days between Resurrection and Ascension, but about Luke and Paul we know directly they had spoken to people who had, since they said so.

ONE MORE THING: we are Catholics here and we firmly believe he DID love us enough to stick around, to this present day, in the Eucharist. And yes, there have been Eucharistic miracles to prove it is not ordinary bread just, but living human blood and heart muscle.

 

[John21652]

I can prove that my back pain exists because, if you look at the x-rays, you can see my bones pinching the nerves. Ouch.

But anyway, I think we should be extra kind to Atheists here. The worst thing to do is just give them more “ammo” against Christians by being rude to them.

Does this mean atheists have pinched nerves?

 

[vz71]

No. You don’t comprehend the objection.

I comprehend quite well.
You have not considered that God is experienced internally.

God is not simply another part of creation with physical attributes to be pointed at and described (well, Jesus is…but that gets into an area apart from God’s relationship to creation).

 

[mdrummer5]

mdrummer5: Absolutely correct. I have very much enjoyed your posts. I like your no-nonsense style.

Hey, just trying to show that not all believers are mindless drones who can’t handle the idea that they might actually be wrong. I know that I could be… but I have faith that I’m not

You have not considered that God is experienced internally.

God is not simply another part of creation with physical attributes to be pointed at and described (well, Jesus is…but that gets into an area apart from God’s relationship to creation).

This is exactly the point. You can show someone pain by wrenching their back, punching their nose, hitting them with a hammer or whatever… you can’t do that with God. You can’t point at something and say “SEE! GOD DOES EXIST!” like you could with pain after shooting someone in the foot.

The comparison is illogical and stupid. That’s not a dig on you. Albert Einstein couldn’t make this point sound intelligent… because it’s not.

 

[vz71]

This is exactly the point. You can show someone pain by wrenching their back, punching their nose, hitting them with a hammer or whatever… you can’t do that with God.

I beg to differ.
You can show someone experiencing pain, but you cannot experience their pain.
Pain, like love, is not something that can be pointed at and described physically.
It is an internal experience.

And the same can be said for God.

I see the comparison working well.
It demonstrates well that there are many real things that cannot stand the scrutiny that many atheists place upon God.

You can’t point at something and say “SEE! GOD DOES EXIST!” like you could with pain after shooting someone in the foot.

Of course not.
God is not manifest in shooting yourself in the foot.
To prove God undeniably as you do with pain in the example, the person must die.

 

[vz71]

It’s still not the same thing. I will concede that yes the pain would be different but there’s no denying it would be there.

Let’s not consider it as a counter-argument in fact, take it out of the current context and consider, say… a sledgehammer to the kneecap (horribly violent but for reason) if JoeBob hit you in the knee with a sledgehammer as hard as he could and Steve said “prove to me that hurts” you’d look at him like he’s retarded wouldn’t you?

You are asking the wrong question.
The title of the thread is ‘your back pain’ not pain in general.

The question is not “prove to me that hurts” it should be “Can you prove you are in pain?”
And the answer to that is no.
You can point to a wide variety of tests to indicate pain.
But you cannot prove the experience.

And the same can be said for God.
Can you prove someone has experienced God? No.
But just as we can demonstrate the reactions and show tests to indicate pain should be there…we can show God through the life of those that follow him.

 

[mdrummer5]

You can show someone experiencing pain, but you cannot experience their pain.

This is true… I know if someone is in pain for whatever reason that I can not feel the exact same pain. But it is NOT a valid counter-argument for “prove to me that God exists”.

Answering this very common Athiest argument with such a counterargument (whether it is valid or not) is a lame attempt to avoid this truth… we can NOT prove that God is real. We simply have faith that he does. Most believers can’t bring themselves to say it for fear that it might cause them to doubt their faith.

So realistically it’s a matter of stupid pride (a sin, no?). When an Athiest asks you to prove God exists asking them to prove something else is NOT an answer… the answer is simply “I can’t.” But those that want to contest it simply can’t accept the fact that they may be wrong.

Edit: I would also like to add that this line of thinking is not helping to evangelize non-believers… in fact I’d say it’s only going to make them stronger in their lack of faith. Which is the other problem, you want to argue about God? Don’t argue stupid points like this, tell them you can’t prove He exists but you have faith that He does and then explain WHY you have that faith. Otherwise you’re simply being prideful and counterproductive.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t understand the OP’s question. It’s as if he wants “proof” of God/spirit to fall under the same rubrics as proof for material entities. This cannot be, for the simple reason that God is not a material object in the stream of material objects. Since God is not an object “out there”, and is not detectable by the physical senses that detect matter and material processes, what in the world would the OP accept as “proof”?

The growth in atheism is generally a result of our poor educational standards, in the west. Students are taught to think empirically. They are never taught that empiricism is a self refuting standard of proof and therefore meaningless. They are not told that it has been dead as a philosophy of science for decades. They confuse the idea of the empirical method, the technique of scientific examination with the self refuting doctrine of empiricism Therefore they equate non-physical with non-existence. Clearly not a rational position.

 

[vz71]

This is true… I know if someone is in pain for whatever reason that I can not feel the exact same pain. But it is NOT a valid counter-argument for “prove to me that God exists”.

Please indicate where someone has indicated this to be a proper response.
I must have missed it.
Of course, it is not.
It only proves that there is plenty of reality that cannot be held to the scrutiny many atheists wish to place upon God.

… we can NOT prove that God is real. We simply have faith that he does. Most believers can’t bring themselves to say it for fear that it might cause them to doubt their faith.

To which I can only look at creation, ask where it came from, and wait for the fumbling around.

So realistically it’s a matter of stupid pride (a sin, no?). When an Athiest asks you to prove God exists asking them to prove something else is NOT an answer… the answer is simply “I can’t.” But those that want to contest it simply can’t accept the fact that they may be wrong.

Yet you were so certain a few posts ago that you could prove pain.
What changed your mind?

Edit: I would also like to add that this line of thinking is not helping to evangelize non-believers… in fact I’d say it’s only going to make them stronger in their lack of faith. Which is the other problem, you want to argue about God? Don’t argue stupid points like this, tell them you can’t prove He exists but you have faith that He does and then explain WHY you have that faith. Otherwise you’re simply being prideful and counterproductive.

Well said.
And to those that do not have the understanding and insight to argue well the existence of God, that is great advice.
But it is untrue that the point is stupid.
It is simply misunderstood.
The reality is that the point works and works well.
We all know the reality of pain. No one can deny its existence.
But no one can actually show the pain they experience.
No one can point at it and say “There it is, pain.”
Yet knowing how real pain is, people will argue that God is not.
And these same people have more evidence for God at their disposal then they have for the pain someone else feels.

 

[mdrummer5]

Please indicate where someone has indicated this to be a proper response.
I must have missed it.
Of course, it is not.
It only proves that there is plenty of reality that cannot be held to the scrutiny many atheists wish to place upon God.

If that’s not the point of the thread then I missed it.

Yet you were so certain a few posts ago that you could prove pain.
What changed your mind?

Nothing. Pain in and of itself CAN be proven, individual pain can not. That was the point one of our Athiest members was pointing out when they said if you take the word “your” out of it, it becomes and entirely different argument.

Well said.
And to those that do not have the understanding and insight to argue well the existence of God, that is great advice.
But it is untrue that the point is stupid.
It is simply misunderstood.
The reality is that the point works and works well.
We all know the reality of pain. No one can deny its existence.
But no one can actually show the pain they experience.
No one can point at it and say “There it is, pain.”
Yet knowing how real pain is, people will argue that God is not.
And these same people have more evidence for God at their disposal then they have for the pain someone else feels.

You’re entitled to your opinion of course but to anyone thinking logically in terms of debate, points and counterpoints it’s irrelevant.

Pain is intangible and that’s the reason people use it to compare it to proof of God, so it’s not that I don’t understand the argument it’s just that it has no place. The inability to prove individual pain is NOT providing evidence that God exists which is precisely what an Athiest is asking for when pointing this out. Let’s play the conversation out.

Athiest “Prove to me that God exists”
Believer “Prove to me that your individual pain exists”
Athiest “I can’t”
Believer “AHA!!!”
Athiest “That doesn’t prove God exists”
Believer “It doesn’t prove that he doesn’t!”

That’s not the point. Athiests don’t say God doesn’t exist. Athiests typically believe that there isn’t sufficient evidence of His existence which is why they don’t believe and from a completely scientific view point, they’re right. That again is why it’s called faith and not fact.