Easter: Message of Jesus?

At this point, the only hope of the scientific proof of the existence of God is ONLY predicated on the great question of what was before the "big bang". Because we cannot fathom or understand the scientific principles behind that event doesn't mean that God exists.

Evidence is not proof. In fact it is meaningless if it is not true. I can show you a photo of a cup in mid-air as evidence that gravity doesn't exist. I can show plenty of evidence through photos and extrapolate that the world is flat.

Evidence does not equal fact and a body of evidence (100s of pictures of cups floating in mid-air) does not make proof. Evidence is meaningless. Witness and testimony is not fact either. Not being able to explain something does not prove God's existence. You are balking on the entire scientific method if you believe otherwise.

There is no proof that God exists. Only faith. The life and times of Jesus Christ has not been historically verified outside of the massive influence of the early church. The miracles in the old testament have not been verified. You have a choice to believe, but it is only a belief. I am completely fine following Jesus and being a Christian based on faith alone, just as others follow a code of ethics, just as others follow the New England Patriots or the perfection that is President Trump.

I don't know why Catholics have to dwell on proof anyway, looking for signs and wonders. Can't one be a Catholic without being lied to?

Faith alone is enough. Living a life similar to what the good book says Jesus lived is a noble and good existence in countries where Christianity is still the dominant (and more important, ruling) religion.

I hate to say it, but I respect Bob's opinion.

Quote: FrGamble

Too many people have serious questions and concerns about the studies regarding reincarnation.

Why, they aren't studies on reincarnation,
what are you talking about. You know
nothing about this, as usual. The scientists
involved in the studies never say it's
reincarnation, in their conclusions they
never say what it is. They don't
know what it is, and unlike religious
zealots, they don't make things up so
it fits their religious views.

All they say is they have irrefutable evidence
gathered over many decades that some
children have detailed memories of being
a person who is now dead. Memories
that have been verified and memories they
could have no way of knowing from an
outside source.

That's it. They never say what causes it,
because they don't know. Outside the
science, where they're off the record, they
might speculate, but scientists do that
all the time about everything. All the science
has verified at this time is some kids claim
memories of a previous life and it's been
going on for thousands of years all over
the world. It's usually ignored by parents
as inane ramblings of a toddler and they
always forget it anyway after the age of
5 or so.

Quote: boymimbo

I don't know why Catholics have to dwell on proof anyway,

Insecurity, obviously. The Catholics are
all about getting converts because
converts mean more money for the
Church. It's always been that way.
Think how many converts they could
get if they could prove their nasty
god exists. It drives them nuts not
being able to prove it.

Quote: Evenbob

Why, they aren't studies on reincarnation,
what are you talking about. You know
nothing about this, as usual. The scientists
involved in the studies never say it's
reincarnation, in their conclusions they
never say what it is. They don't
know what it is, and unlike religious
zealots, they don't make things up so
it fits their religious views.

All they say is they have irrefutable evidence
gathered over many decades that some
children have detailed memories of being
a person who is now dead. Memories
that have been verified and memories they
could have no way of knowing from an
outside source.

That's it. They never say what causes it,
because they don't know. Outside the
science, where they're off the record, they
might speculate, but scientists do that
all the time about everything. All the science
has verified at this time is some kids claim
memories of a previous life and it's been
going on for thousands of years all over
the world. It's usually ignored by parents
as inane ramblings of a toddler and they
always forget it anyway after the age of
5 or so.

To be fair to Fr, most evidence suggests that the evidence has been planted by their parents. You can tell from the more famous websites that their integrity is seriously in question when they include quotes from actual scientists (like the Great Carl Sagan) that are completely out of context.

Nonetheless, reincarnation, to me, is as valid a belief system as Christianity. The reason that most people cling to Christianity is the unbearable thought of loss of consciousness and the end of existence that is known as death. Christianity promises a continuity, and a damned good and apparently eternal one if you believe Jesus Christ is your savior, and a great terrible one if you don't. Reincarnation, if true, would promise the continuation of a soul into another being. There are problems with the concept of heaven, and there are problems with the concept of Reincarnation (new lives, the waiting time, etc).

Mechanics of both are not understood, which is fine. Plenty of people with near-death experiences also report a great light, and there have been books published by perfectly reasonable people who believe that their near-death experiences prove (beyond a doubt to them) that God, or at least an afterlife, exists. There is no physical proof of either heaven or reincarnation, just anecdotes.

I am not going to renounce Hindus and Buddhists by stating emphatically that reincarnation does not exist while stating emphatically that heaven does.

Quote: boymimbo

To be fair to Fr, most evidence suggests that the evidence has been planted by their parents. .

Good god, we aren't talking about
the National Enquirer. The research
being done at the University of
Virginia since the 50's has been peer
reviewed and is lauded for it's
methods of weeding out the fakers.
This isn't some fly by night scheme,
try knowing what you're talking
about before pretending that you do.

"Interestingly, and contrary to most religious notions of reincarnation, there was zero evidence of karma. On the whole, it appeared to be a fairly mechanical soul-rebirthing process, not a moralistic one. What those mechanisms involve, exactly, is anyone’s guess—even Stevenson’s. But he didn’t see grandiose theorizing as part of his job. His job, rather, was simply to gather all the anomalous data, investigate them carefully, and rule out, using every possible method available to him, the rational explanations. And to many, he was successful at doing just that. Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.” Stevenson himself was convinced that, once the precise mechanisms underlying his observations were known, it would bring about “a conceptual revolution that will make the Copernican revolution seem trivial in comparison.” It’s hard to argue with that, assuming it ever does happen."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

Quote: boymimbo

At this point, the only hope of the scientific proof of the existence of God is ONLY predicated on the great question of what was before the "big bang".

There is no hope for a scientific proof of the existence of God, nor should there be. Science cannot pronounce on metaphysical or spiritual realities. It can provide evidence that would lead to a reasonable decision to believe in God, like the Big Bang, the fine tuning of the universe, etc.

Quote:

Evidence is not proof. In fact it is meaningless if it is not true. I can show you a photo of a cup in mid-air as evidence that gravity doesn't exist. I can show plenty of evidence through photos and extrapolate that the world is flat.

I agree that evidence is NOT proof. I have been saying this over and over. Proof is only found in mathematics. It would also be helpful to look at evidence perhaps like weights. You can have a million photos of cups in mid-air and it won't come close to weighing as much as the evidence behind the theory of gravity. This is because you are comparing photos to actually experience and the whole weight of scientific knowledge. Even having actual cups that float in mid-air would not outweigh the evidence for the theory of gravity.

Quote:

Evidence is meaningless.

Real evidence is essential to anything we believe. Going against real evidence or believing without any evidence like blind faith is something crazy people do.

Quote:

Witness and testimony is not fact either. Not being able to explain something does not prove God's existence.

Do you think I don't know this? Witness and testimony are not proof, they are evidence. Have I not been clear that I believe not only because of personal experience, witness of others, and testimony. There are many other pieces of evidence that taken together lead me to believe. I don't have proof, nor does anyone else and I don't need it. Again, none of us live our lives based on proof. We all live our lives based on faith based on evidence.

The fact that Evenbob continues to think I need proof to believe in God is ridiculous. The fact that I think Evenbob needs at least some evidence to not believe there is a God is only reasonable. He seems to believe there is absolutely no God without evidence, which is blind faith and not a good thing.

Quote:

There is no proof that God exists. Only faith.

Faith supported by evidence, yes.

Quote:

I don't know why Catholics have to dwell on proof anyway, looking for signs and wonders.

I hope this is the last time I have to say this, but I do not need proof and don't look for it. Signs and wonders reinforce what I believe as evidence that it is true, but they do not alone prove it.

Quote:

Faith alone is enough.

I agree.

Quote: FrGamble

Witness and testimony are not proof, they are evidence.

Evidence that a lot of people can have
the same screw loose? Like I said, the
Church had evidence up the ying yang
that witches needed to be burned at
the stake. I don't think the word 'evidence'
means what you want it to mean.

Testimonial evidence is the worst kind of
evidence. It's anecdotal, it's a poor form of
evidence. Testimonial evidence cannot be
reproduced or independently verified,
so the accounts are essentially worthless.

"If testimonial evidence is to be believed, God wants different people to believe different, and often mutually exclusive, things. The sheer inconsistency of testimony for supposed divine intervention throughout the world should be suitable counter-evidence to the claim of gods existence."

Hey, you know what we don't need to go into wether witnesses or testimony are strong or weak forms of evidence. I'm just content you recognize it as evidence for God's existence. It may be weak to you and you can write off 99% of humanity as having a screw lose and even try to confuse the issue as if we were talking about a certain conception of God rather than simply God's existence, I don't care because Bob acknowledged evidence for God. We are making progress!

Quote: FrGamble

I'm just content you recognize it as evidence for God's existence.

It holds just as much weight as evidence
as the testimony of those who've been
abducted by aliens holds for the existence
of extraterrestrial beings on Earth. Or
that Clement Moore's 'Night Before Xmas'
poem is evidence for the existence of Santa.

That's about as seriously as I take a Xtions
testimony about the existence of god. You
really need to research just how bad
testimonial evidence is, it's so anecdotal
that it's almost worthless as evidence of
anything other than people are good at
making up stories.

Let's not lose our positive momentum by making ridiculous comparisons or discrediting one of the most important and common forms of evidence. Remember too we are not just talking about Christian witness we are talking about all who testify to God's existence. By the way, why is it that you hate on Christians so much?