In ‘The Three Body Problem’, we see a prominent scholar and professor being publicly beaten by the communist party for not denying God’s existence. He goes on to say that ‘Science hasn’t provided any definitive answer’. So I’m curious, <title>.
In ‘The Three Body Problem’, we see a prominent scholar and professor being publicly beaten by the communist party for not denying God’s existence. He goes on to say that ‘Science hasn’t provided any definitive answer’. So I’m curious, <title>.
There is a bunch of evidence for God
please elaborate.
multiple letters to and from roman officials about the resurrection 500+ witnesses empty tomb alive cardiac tissue growing on catholic hosts
People can be tricked is a simpler explanation. Magicians have entire shows where they trick the perceptions of hundreds to thousands every night. Letters and witnesses could just as easily be justified as aliens rather than god.
No idea what you mean about “alive cardiac tissue on catholic hosts”.
back then, they didnt have 4k resolution footage, so letters and archeological and literary sources are the some of the best proof we can get.
also, back then, ink, a writing station, a quill were expensive and it was extremely hard to forge writing
and alive human cardiac tissue was found growing on hosts in a catholic church
They’re proof that people believed a thing happened. Its not proof the thing happened. Im not saying the letters are forgery, simply they don’t suffice as proof. Why haven’t they showed up in 4k to make the non-believers shut up and save them from hell?
Ddg tells me that catholic hosts refers to communion wafers. Are you saying that there’s cardiac tissue in communion? What source do you have for that claim? Can I genome sequence or clone Jesus then?
they were eyewitness accounts
who gives eyewitness if they BELIEVE it has happened?
eyewitness can only be given if you have seen it happen with your very own eyes
I can say a magician pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat, doesn’t mean there’s actual magic. Belief in your perception is exactly how magic tricks work, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Besides the church a singular time has anyone confirmed the appearance of tissue and blood?
the multiple experts, and they have multiple photos.
eyewitnesses and letters and archeological proof is all we have of basically anything that was 2000+ years ago
Rofl
that was just a summary image
thank you for the response, but i think it needs a little punctuation.
I try to write in columns but lemmy doesnt include all the spaces
that kindof a weird way to write in a thread/forum based system.
What evidence? I do not believe in leprechauns, pixies, werewolves, jujus, angels, Tooth Faeries, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Brahma, Athena, Hera, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah, or the Trinity, demons, devils, or Satan. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, empirical, 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 and the burden of proof lies with believers. We can make a case for some unspecified “intelligent designer” or “prime mover” or begetter of “something rather than nothing”? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one - living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to “design” of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical “evidence” betrays ignorance of biblical scholarship. The burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, could 'his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book. As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First Cause, the physicists are closing in, with spell-binding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions - where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? Obviously, it cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor - its exact equivalent - reading tea leaves. In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, could not think of a better way to forgive “sin”. Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it “feels right”. The wife of a former UK prime minister may stand for the” feels right” brigade. She based her belief on “an understanding of something that her head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.” She aspired to become a judge! My’lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true. Why is religion immune to the critical standards we apply not just in our courts of law, but in every other sphere of life?