What is your favorite proof for God?

[kildare]

The romantic lovers follow His code of behaviour and selflessly donate their lives to raise the next generation in His name and the selfish choose to take the easy way out. Only by giving away your life do you really learn how to live. Just think about what motivated Mother Theresa. If only more people would believe in His Covenant for behaviour and trust in His Way.

Exactly and amazingly it is flies in the face of “rational” common sense. I think it is that apparently irrational or certainly non-linear thinking which has allowed european and later the larger western civilization to make those quantum leaps which advanced our species.

 

[antunesaa]

Do you really expect me to make major, life changing decisions based on something that some stranger claims to have seen?

To be honest, no. I think you would never make life changing decisions based on no one but yourself.

So if I told you that I had an invisible, immaterial unicorn in my garage, and said that I knew it existed because it had communicated with me, but, due to it being immaterial, it could not be amenable to the scientific protocol, and you simply had to take my word for it, would you believe me?

Probably not. If at least you claimed you had seen an angel, I would give second thoughts. But a unicorn, a thing no one ever claimed to have seen?!!!

I presume that you don’t really believe that Khomeini’s face appeared over Iran as a result of Allah’s divine intention, despite the millions of people in Iran who claim that that’s the case, do you?

Who am I to call millions of Iranians liars? I would try to interpret that claim but, in thesis, I would not dismiss it immediately. Since that happened in the eighties, I would expect at least a nice photograph of it. For the Fátima phenomenon, for instance, we have some pictures, albeit no films, even though it occurred almost a century ago.

All right, tell me which of the cures is your favorite, and I’ll do some research to see if I think that the evidence supports it.
V

The point here is precisely that knowledgeable people did that research for us.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

Considering all of the fraudulent healings that abound, I would need pretty solid evidence to believe stuff like this, hopefully you can understand why.

I agree that when people talk about “healings that abound” I always get suspicious — miracles should be extremely rare; otherwise they’re just regularities. But your observation that fraudulent healings abound actually does not imply that miraculous healings do not exist, just as the existence of fraudulent pieces of art does not disprove the existence of genuine pieces of art.

I never claimed to be without flaws myself, just that other people have them and that’s why I can’t trust them.

The beginning of your phrase is pure Catholic teaching; even your conclusion is not opposed to Catholic doctrine. The question that naturally arises is: where does that lack of trust in anyone (for your argument applies universally) lead you? Many people (including me) believe Jesus is the man to trust. You, on the contrary, need to look somewhere else. But where? I could only see darkness when I, for a while, began to think like you many years ago.

 

[Call_Me_V]

To be honest, no. I think you would never make life changing decisions based on no one but yourself.

Was that a jab at me? Fine, forget that I said me. Do you think that people in general should make life changing decisions based on something some stranger claims to have seen?

Probably not. If at least you claimed you had seen an angel, I would give second thoughts. But a unicorn, a thing no one ever claimed to have seen?!!!

Fine, how bout a ghost? There are thousands of eyewitnesses who swear to have seen ghosts. Would you believe me if I claimed to see a ghost?

Who am I to call millions of Iranians liars? I would try to interpret that claim but, in thesis, I would not dismiss it immediately. Since that happened in the eighties, I would expect at least a nice photograph of it. For the Fátima phenomenon, for instance, we have some pictures, albeit no films, even though it occurred almost a century ago.

Putting aside the naturalistic explanation for the Fatima miracle, which pictures do you consider to be the best? The ones I’ve seen are of a terrible quality, you can’t really see much of anything.

The point here is precisely that knowledgeable people did that research for us.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

All right, but I don’t want to have to go through all 70 of them. Tell me 1-3 of your favorite healings, and I’ll check out the reports.

I agree that when people talk about “healings that abound” I always get suspicious — miracles should be extremely rare; otherwise they’re just regularities. But your observation that fraudulent healings abound actually does not imply that miraculous healings do not exist, just as the existence of fraudulent pieces of art does not disprove the existence of genuine pieces of art.

Certainly not. But it does mean that we should be wary of fraudulent healings, just like an art collector would go to great lengths to verify the authenticity of a piece of art before buying it due to the widespread art forgeries. And he wouldn’t take the seller’s word for its authenticity, he would put together his own team and confirm its authenticity himself, not relying on the word of others.

The beginning of your phrase is pure Catholic teaching; even your conclusion is not opposed to Catholic doctrine. The question that naturally arises is: where does that lack of trust in anyone (for your argument applies universally) lead you? Many people (including me) believe Jesus is the man to trust. You, on the contrary, need to look somewhere else. But where? I could only see darkness when I, for a while, began to think like you many years ago.

I trust a few people. But only people who have demonstrated that they are worthy of my trust. Keep in mind that it also has to do with the nature of the claim. There is nothing unlikely about Caesar crossing the Rubicon, so my burden of proof for the claim the Caesar crossed the Rubicon is much lower than the burden of proof for the claim “Jesus had magic powers”, which is highly unlikely.

I have to ask one more time. You claimed that you know the Fatima miracles occurred because your mother met one of the people who witnessed it. Would you believe that Sai Baba flew through the air if your mother had met a witness who claimed to have seen it happen?

V

 

[Andy_III]

That is a snide and smarmy comment of the sort I’d expect from someone who voted for our president. I do not post anything which I do not believe to be true,

It was not intended as a snide or smarmy comment, but if there was any disrespect I am truly sorry. And no, I did not vote for the current president.

The First Law of Thermodynamics does not come with your qualifiers.

It states unequivocally that energy is not created,

I agree it has not equivocations beyond those of any scientific law. But doesn’t every scientific law have equivocations? If tomorrow a paper is published that documents how to clearly and simply create (or destroy) energy, and then it is subsequently verified by other respectable scientists, what would become of the law? I would hope it would be modified to take the new data into account. Either that or the previously respectable scientists would be branded as crackpots and dismissed. Maybe both would happen. Science can be a tricky business.

Andy III;6588816:

greylorn;6588355:

Does it help to remember that the folks who invented that idea, and who approved it as a religious truth, also thought that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Given those limitations, their beliefs were doomed to be wrong.

Now who’s quoting dogma? Please do not present atheist dogma as evidence, and I will continue refraining from doing the same with Church dogma.
I have no respect for the mind of anyone incapable of distinguishing religious dogma from good physics.

I was referring to your statement that some folks invented the idea. I don’t believe physics is involved in determining the truth of that statement. Saying that Christianity was invented instead of taught does not sound like good physics to me. It sounds like atheist dogma. Hence my comment.

BTW, I forgive you for insulting me. I’m willing to keep pointing out the errors in your posts if you keep pointing out the errors in mine.

 

[Andy_III]

Andy III;6588819:

Fair enough, do you have an explanation for the origin of self-replicating structures (cells or otherwise)?

Yes, I do.

Care to give it? I’d like to hear your explanation. If this is your way of saying “it’s in my book”, then PM me the details and I’ll purchase a copy.

 

[donsnow]

Shouldn’t some of the posts here be on the thread, “Some of my favorite rebuttals to proofs for God?”

And, some posts here really need to be on a physics thread.

I’ve written before, and I’ll write it again here, Science prevents itself from any germain comment about about God or religion, because it restricts itself to the material. Therefore, the immaterial would be beyond Science’s sphere of discussion. Why keep bringing science into a discussion of God? It just doesn’t fit.

 

[greylorn]

Shouldn’t some of the posts here be on the thread, “Some of my favorite rebuttals to proofs for God?”

And, some posts here really need to be on a physics thread.

I’ve written before, and I’ll write it again here, Science prevents itself from any germain comment about about God or religion, because it restricts itself to the material. Therefore, the immaterial would be beyond Science’s sphere of discussion. Why keep bringing science into a discussion of God? It just doesn’t fit.

You present the narrow-minded view certain to keep religious beliefs at the dark age level forever. Atheism is the world’s fastest growing religion, and attitudes such as yours explain why. Kindly consider this alternative perspective:

One who studies art can learn some things about an artist by studying his works. A writer can be best understood by his personal writings. Every bridge, skyscraper, or mud hut ever built discloses some insights into the nature and purpose of the designer. So it is with all works of conscious intelligence.

There is only one bible which is absolutely certain to be written by the Creator of our universe. That bible is the physical universe. Every atom and cell, every mysterious force and energy form, tells something about the intelligence who brought these marvels into being.

Men have relied overlong upon the writings of men, declared by other men to be inspired by God. The original writings were written in archaic languages. English-speaking people like yourself can read this material only because experts in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages have translated it for you.

Scientists are the translators of the only Bible certain to have been written by the Creator. They and their theories deserve the very serious attention of anyone who honestly seeks to “know” his God.

 

[greylorn]

Care to give it? I’d like to hear your explanation. If this is your way of saying “it’s in my book”, then PM me the details and I’ll purchase a copy.

This is an exercise in hawking a book the hard way. PM is coming your way, and I’m a few months shy of publication.

The explanation you request only makes sense in the context of a complete theory, and CAF is not the place for that. Perhaps, post-publication, moderators may accept a discussion of the theory here, if only because it originated with a slight adjustment to Catholicism (e.g. a heresy).

I appreciate your curiosity. Thanks!

 

[greylorn]

So, the success of atheism in the past 100 years, going from less than 1% of the population to 15% of the population, is evidence that atheism is true?

Seriously, people believe things for all kinds of reasons. The success of atheism has nothing to do with atheism being true or not true, and the same applies to other beliefs.

I do. Eyewitnesses are not as trustworthy as one would think, I know that from my own experiences. I have had two, yes two, good friends of mine be falsely accused of rape. The reason I know that it was falsely is because both “victims” later admitted that they had made it up. So eyewitness testimony is only somewhat credible to me, even when assessing the truth of ordinary, mundane things like crimes. When I’m trying to determine the truth of something absurd, like “Jesus had magic powers”, eyewitness testimony becomes even less reliable. Do you really expect me to make major, life changing decisions based on something that some stranger claims to have seen?

So if I told you that I had an invisible, immaterial unicorn in my garage, and said that I knew it existed because it had communicated with me, but, due to it being immaterial, it could not be amenable to the scientific protocol, and you simply had to take my word for it, would you believe me? I’m presuming not.

There are plenty of naturalistic accounts of how the “miracle” could have occurred naturalistically, though I still think that that’s irrelevant, since I presume that you don’t really believe that Khomeini’s face appeared over Iran as a result of Allah’s divine intention, despite the millions of people in Iran who claim that that’s the case, do you?

Also, I don’t think that you answered my question. If your mother had met someone who claimed to see Sai Baba fly through the air, would she have believed them?

All right, tell me which of the cures is your favorite, and I’ll do some research to see if I think that the evidence supports it. However, you do have to keep in mind that these “healings” are easily faked. Many of the Protestant televangelists pull weird stunts like this all the time, and it later turns out that the victim that was supposedly healed was in the employ of the televangelist, or something along those lines. Considering all of the fraudulent healings that abound, I would need pretty solid evidence to believe stuff like this, hopefully you can understand why.

I never claimed to be without flaws myself, just that other people have them and that’s why I can’t trust them. Like I said, two good friends of mine almost went to prison for a long time because two scheming little girls falsely accused them. I’ve seen enough of human nature not to trust it.

V

 

[greylorn]

It was not intended as a snide or smarmy comment, but if there was any disrespect I am truly sorry. And no, I did not vote for the current president.

Accepted. Thank you.

I agree it has not equivocations beyond those of any scientific law. But doesn’t every scientific law have equivocations? If tomorrow a paper is published that documents how to clearly and simply create (or destroy) energy, and then it is subsequently verified by other respectable scientists, what would become of the law? I would hope it would be modified to take the new data into account. Either that or the previously respectable scientists would be branded as crackpots and dismissed. Maybe both would happen. Science can be a tricky business.

Interesting points. Upon considering some physics laws in light of your question, looking for equivocations, I found none— at first. Then a curious insight appeared, which may be useful, but will more likely prove of no value. Since your question invoked it, it seems worth sharing.

Most laws of physics include time as a parameter. Since Einstein’s work showing the relativistic nature of time, many of the laws which included “time” have been revised, put into relativistic form. (Since this is a new thought, I’ve no idea how many.) Einstein himself started the process with General Relativity. I suspect that all physical laws which are expressed in terms of differential equations must be adjusted accordingly, including Maxwell’s electrodynamics (which has already been tweaked to include quantum effects).

So I’m guessing, wondering, whatever— that your question is applicable to the way things actually work. What’s especially interesting is that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are all independent of time. I don’t know what to make of this yet, but I like the insight.

You propose good questions.

Incidentally, physics has earned much of its respect by continually questioning its current theories— grudgingly, of course. Every now and then someone comes up with a new free-energy machine. Not all of these are taken seriously enough for a scientific analysis, but the interesting ones are. If physics did not do this, forest maintenance/fire prevention people would be out in the woods measuring the phlogiston content of trees at the onset of every fire season.

Nonetheless, I can make a case that physics has mistakenly adopted concepts which border upon the religious. Like other such beliefs, these are difficult to change.

BTW— crackpot scientists who have tenured positions cannot be dismissed. Those who write profitable grant applications will never be dismissed.

I was referring to your statement that some folks invented the idea. I don’t believe physics is involved in determining the truth of that statement. Saying that Christianity was invented instead of taught does not sound like good physics to me. It sounds like atheist dogma. Hence my comment.

We seem to have a communication problem. Unlike most of these, this one seems worth our trying to resolve it.

Let’s get it clear from the outset that I am not an atheist. I know atheist dogma, and find it as wanting, by way of a valid description for the marvels of this universe, as Christian dogma. If you think I’ve spouted any of either, please call me on it.

Physics has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinions about the origin of religious truth. I was drawing an analogy, and obviously doing a poor job of it. Let me try again:

What we know for certain about the Bible, Koran, Book of the Dead, Book of Mormon, etc. is that every word in these books was penned by some human being. We also know that some of those humans attributed their words to a higher power, but we do not have the higher power’s personal assurance of this. Except, of course, that with time, another group of human beings came along and declared the writings of their predecessors to be the genuine teachings of God. That is what we actually know.

The universe itself is another issue entirely. If it has been (is being) created, then every aspect of it must be attributed to its Creator, or its Creators. The universe is, therefore, a Bible which, if there is a God, is certain to be His work.

Of course, some interpretation is always required. Most Christians do not read ancient Hebrew, so translators are helpful. Regarding the universe, most people have not mastered differential and integral calculus, and other mathematical forms, and are therefore dependent upon those who have done so to interpret the universe for them.

Interpretation, and misinterpretation will be with us no matter what brand of hogwash we rinse with. What is a philosophy course, but the interpretation by perfessers of ideas which were originally designed to stand for themselves? What is a Bible Study course about? Do you imagine that all such courses teach the identical interpretation of every passage?

BTW, I forgive you for insulting me. I’m willing to keep pointing out the errors in your posts if you keep pointing out the errors in mine.

Deal! Since I’ve already learned something from you, you can’t be all bad. If future disagreements are even half as productive as this, I forgive you in advance for your next 1000 ornery and insulting posts.

 

[antunesaa]

I have to ask one more time. You claimed that you know the Fatima miracles occurred because your mother met one of the people who witnessed it. Would you believe that Sai Baba flew through the air if your mother had met a witness who claimed to have seen it happen?

V

First, my mother does not believe in the Fátima apparitions because of that person. She only met the then old man in the sixties. In Portugal there are numerous other people with relatives who were there, so, other than being previously a fierce disbeliever, there’s really nothing extraordinary with this particular man.

As for your question, it depends. If that person showed signs that the teachings of Sai Baba changed his/her life in a profound way (which is just about the hardest thing that one can do — really change life), and the testimony were corroborated by other people with equally deeply changed lives, I would believe in their testimony. This is not the same as adhering to Sai Baba’s teachings, which I would probably not.

As a side note, this is why I don’t believe in the Medjugorge apparitions. I mean: some of the people directly involved got married and then divorced; some became unfriendly; some profited from the flow of faithful people; most have comfortable, totally bourgeois lives; etc. If there was an apparition of the Virgin Mary, they didn’t take it seriously, as most of them led secular, trivial lives. Nothing changed in their hearts. Unlike in Fátima — where the little shepherds were essentially turned upside down — there are no spiritual lessons from Medjugorge. I can be wrong, of course. I don’t have any rational explanation for Medjugorge, though — and frankly I don’t care about it either.

 

[antunesaa]

… if only because it originated with a slight adjustment to Catholicism (e.g. a heresy)

Who knows if it’s really an heresy? If your theory is true and Catholicism is true, they should be compatible.

 

[donsnow]

You present the narrow-minded view certain to keep religious beliefs at the dark age level forever. Atheism is the world’s fastest growing religion, and attitudes such as yours explain why. Kindly consider this alternative perspective:

One who studies art can learn some things about an artist by studying his works. A writer can be best understood by his personal writings. Every bridge, skyscraper, or mud hut ever built discloses some insights into the nature and purpose of the designer. So it is with all works of conscious intelligence.

There is only one bible which is absolutely certain to be written by the Creator of our universe. That bible is the physical universe. Every atom and cell, every mysterious force and energy form, tells something about the intelligence who brought these marvels into being.

Men have relied overlong upon the writings of men, declared by other men to be inspired by God. The original writings were written in archaic languages. English-speaking people like yourself can read this material only because experts in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages have translated it for you.

Scientists are the translators of the only Bible certain to have been written by the Creator. They and their theories deserve the very serious attention of anyone who honestly seeks to “know” his God.

If I may point out, that before the term scientist came into being, that poetical, philosophical and religious people have been presenting different facets of this actual Bible that you present. So, please don’t let your scientists kick the arts, philosophy and religion out of the baliwick that they’ve held down until scientists saw the light.

 

[greylorn]

Who knows if it’s really an heresy? If your theory is true and Catholicism is true, they should be compatible.

I know.

Although I originally developed the theory to deal with a few contradictions between physics and the Church (following up on Galileo’s failed attempts), now does not seem to be the time for physical/theological togetherness.

Since my theory requires a Creator and predicts the possibility of the post-death survival of consciousness, yes, there are areas of compatibility. But that, to me, is not so important.

When young, I actually believed my home made theory to be true. As time and adverse arguments sunk in, I was required to correct major components of the theory. A history of tweaks and corrections has left me with a simpler goal than the personal discovery of objective truth.

My current goal is to address the conflict between science and belief among intelligent, well educated individuals, especially within the hard sciences. With luck, my theories will be interesting enough, to a few, that they might provoke a new and extended conversation about both religious and scientific beliefs from a perspective which has never before been considered.

 

[greylorn]

If I may point out, that before the term scientist came into being, that poetical, philosophical and religious people have been presenting different facets of this actual Bible that you present. So, please don’t let your scientists kick the arts, philosophy and religion out of the baliwick that they’ve held down until scientists saw the light.

Well said, thank you!

I assure you that I will never do that.

And, I wonder if you are not confusing my personal ideas with those of scientists, one of which I am not. I’ve only read the books and done some science. No Ph.d. I don’t own any scientists. None of those with whom I’ve had the privilege of working share my notion of interpreting the physical universe in the context of God’s personally inscribed Bible, because they didn’t believe or give a hoot about God.

Personally, I would love to have artistists, philosophers, religionists, plumbers, mechanics, professional armpit-hair removers, and anyone with a curious mind join the potentially magnificent project of interpreting the universe as a Bible.

The only requirements are intellectual honesty, curiosity, and a willingness to accept the consequences of unanticipated discoveries. Care to join the discourse?

 

[I_Fortuna]

Scripture in Romans 1 states that “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

www.scriptureprevails.com

Good grief !! Why do you have to make it so complicated. My proof of God are the blessings that He manifests for me every day, His Grace, His Love, His Son, His Compassion, His Mercy, and His Forgiveness and much more!!!

 

[antunesaa]

My current goal is to address the conflict between science and belief among intelligent, well educated individuals, especially within the hard sciences. With luck, my theories will be interesting enough, to a few, that they might provoke a new and extended conversation about both religious and scientific beliefs from a perspective which has never before been considered.

That would be a great achievement. There is an effort initiated, I think, 400 hundred years ago — the Pontifical Academy of Sciences — which tries to do a related thing. Recently one of the meetings brought together physicists and other scientists (religious and not religious) to discuss things like creation and evolution. There’s even a book on that. If you’re not aware of that, you might want to check here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html#acta

 

[antunesaa]

If I may point out, that before the term scientist came into being, that poetical, philosophical and religious people have been presenting different facets of this actual Bible that you present. So, please don’t let your scientists kick the arts, philosophy and religion out of the baliwick that they’ve held down until scientists saw the light.

When physicists finally accepted that the Universe had a beginning (although this is not accepted by some), one said (with creative additions by myself): “we thought that we really had arrived at the unexplored summit of a mountain only to find some religious people, philosophers, and artists, who had been there for centuries, chatting quietly”.

 

[Andy_III]

When physicists finally accepted that the Universe had a beginning (although this is not accepted by some), one said (with creative additions by myself): “we thought that we really had arrived at the unexplored summit of a mountain only to find some religious people, philosophers, and artists, who had been there for centuries, chatting quietly”.

Yes, I think this happens a lot actually. You can get actionable truth either by trusting or by hard work (like science). Neither way is guaranteed, since you have to choose who/what to trust and you have to choose what basis to start from.

 

[avflf]

It was bound to come up - the 5th Law of Thermodynamics: “An open system containing a large mixture of similar automatons, placed in contact with a non-equilibriated environment, has a finite probability of supporting the spontaneous generation and growth of self constructing machines of unlimited complexity.”

canadaconnects.ca/quantumphysics/10078/