Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:Can everyone see what Hugh just did. He changed his answer without admitting that he changed his answer and wrote a long post in the process.

No, I didn't.

When I first asked him about the swelling in that area he said no he doesn't see it. Now he says he sees it and replies" nope I can't see it.

How dishonest! Try Googling "swollen eye boxer" and find out what a swollen eye actually looks like. The eye itself becomes almost invisible under the swelling. This is not the case with the Pantocrator. The eyes themselves are delineated by thick black lines above and thick pale lines below. Marking these on an image of the Pantocrator, and then superimposing a reversed image on top, shows that both eyes are exactly the same size. The Pantocrator's left eye does have a curiously raised eyebrow, and an apparent swelling beneath it, but it does not look like the effect of any injury to me. It is not at all discoloured. If I had to put a diagnosis on it I would suggest a cyst or a congenital irregularity.

On Monday may 23rd Hugh stated this in response to the pantocrator. "Back to the Shroud, and no, the Pantocrator image does not show injuries nor look like a boxer to me." Well Hugh like I said before your the only one I've seen so far that doesn't believe this.

I cannot speak for your circle of acquaintances; to me the Pantocrator does not look like a battered boxer, and it does not look like the Shroud.

I got the answer I was looking for.

Well, that's all right then.

Wow Hugh since I'm a boxing fan and have even boxed myself I know what a swollen eyes boxer lols like . Obviously the face on the pantocrator doesn't look like the pizza face of many boxers that got really bruised but the differences here are noticeable enough .

I can sign up on any forum of people that haven't heard of either the shroud or the pantocrator and ask them the same question and we both know the answer I will get Hugh .

Anyways let's focus on what we share instead which is our love for the lord .
I am now convinced that you are a fellow Catholic so I prefer to focus on what we do agree with .

Fair enough.

Fair enough, but I STILL think he works secretly for Richard Dawkins. Just sayin.

Christians are way more interested in "Dawkins" than anyone else is.

DRDS wrote:Fair enough, but I STILL think he works secretly for Richard Dawkins. Just sayin.

Interesting. I don't work for Richard Dawkins, secretly or otherwise. I wonder why you think I might, and what difference it would make. Do my comments make you think I want to persuade you to become an atheist? If so, go back a few comments and re-read what I have said. Do you think my comments might persuade you to become an atheist, even though I've explained in detail that I'm not? Are you, in fact, not very secure in your faith, and have a horrible suspicion Richard Dawkins might be right? Have you a nagging feeling that cold hard Reason might turn out to be more powerful than warm comforting Faith, and that there is no God after all?

Dear me. Let me try to rescue you. The fact is that the Richard Dawkins Foundation is not very bothered about whether there is a God or not. The "What We Do" page of his website is really about what he sees as religion's lack of 'critical thinking', which, he feels, has led to unkindness towards minorities and the USA's weak response to the problem of global warming, among others. Whether his conclusions are correct or not, he is to be applauded for his unwitting endorsement of St Augustine of Hippo's plea for rationality in about 400AD:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Augustine knew very well that light comes from the Sun, and was embarrassed by fellow Christians who took the Genesis creation story of light pre-dating the sun as scientific truth. His interpretation was different from a modern view, but he knew very well that if incontrovertible Reason contradicted Scripture, then it was Scripture that must be reinterpreted, not Reason.

As far as I can tell, the only thing I have in common with Dawkins is in my relentless pursuit of reason, and to be fair, that's quite a lot. He thinks little of opinion derived solely from a literal interpretation of a 16th century English translation of a 250BC Greek translation of a two-and-a-half-thousand year old Hebrew collection of even older oral traditions, and so do I. However, Dawkins, I think, believes that when we know a bit more it will become very obvious that there is no God, while I believe exactly the opposite. What's more, I think he will, perhaps already has, come round to my point of view. From his various conversations with clerical giants such as Rowan Williams and Richard Harries, I think he has rethought some of the naivete of his earlier religious polemic. I think that Reason will not triumph over God, it will turn out to be God - or at least one of his attributes.

So my advice is not to worry, DRDS. Read my comments and judge them on what they say, not on what you think my motives might be. Study the Pantocrator of St Catherine's monastery. Does he look beaten up to you? Does your understanding of the theology of iconography suggest that a beaten-up Pantocrator is not a contradiction in terms? Do you think the Pantocrator looks like the man on the Shroud more than any other man? If you do, then disagree with me; it's a matter or personal opinion and I do not deny you yours. Do you deny me mine?

I won't bother with the silliness of your posts about the shroud, it is obvious you have decided what to believe already.

As for this:

Fine. So what was the exact nature of the resurrection? An explosion, an implosion, a dematerialisation, a simple revivification? Did the shroud collapse through a vacuum, or hover horizontally above the body? Was it affected by vapours, light, heat, neutrons or what other form of radiation? Who exactly moved the stone? And where on earth (or heaven) did Jesus get his new clothes from? If any of these are important, then what, exactly, happened? And if you don't know? How does that affect your view of Christianity?

Let me put it this way, simply and concise:

IF there was a natural explanation for the resurrection then it was not a divine event.
If it was a natural even then the foundation of Christianity is false.

EVERYTHING hinges on the resurrection, on Jesus being ALIVE and on GOD doing the resurrecting.

It really is just the simple.

Hence the nature of the resurrection ( that God did it and it was NOT a natural occurring event) is, to say the least, VITAL.

PaulSacramento wrote:I won't bother with the silliness of your posts about the shroud, it is obvious you have decided what to believe already.

Aw, Paul, don't give up so easily. My belief in the non-authenticity of the Shroud is, as I have said, finely balanced. If I have said anything at all that you construe as 'silliness', please point it out.

As for this:

PaulSacramento wrote:

HughFarey wrote:Fine. So what was the exact nature of the resurrection? An explosion, an implosion, a dematerialisation, a simple revivification? [etc.]

[...] EVERYTHING hinges on the resurrection, on Jesus being ALIVE and on GOD doing the resurrecting. It really is just [that] simple.

Forgive me, but you seem to have changed your mind. My point, with which you vehemently disagreed, was that the exact nature of the Resurrection itself was unimportant; only the fact of the Resurrection. Now it seems that you agree with me. Is that so?

Now this:

IF there was a natural explanation for the resurrection then it was not a divine event.

That's a fundamental statement with which I completely disagree. My whole point is that the divine works in natural ways. Natural events are divine events. It really is that simple!

That's a fundamental statement with which I completely disagree. My whole point is that the divine works in natural ways. Natural events are divine events. It really is that simple!

I know your point Hugh, I simply disagree.
It the resurrection was "within nature" it would be a natural event ( even if only a one time thing) and NOT be a divine event.
Which means that Christ's resurrection was not an act of divine intervention but SIMPLY a "freak occurrence in nature".
If that is the case then Christianity, which is based on the resurrection of jesus being an act of divine intervention, would not be what it is.
That God raised Christ is what makes His claim to be the ONLY WAY a valid claim.
It was His resurrection that reconciles the world unto Him.

One thing is clear, while Hugh has previously asserted his beliefs to be in tune with that of Catholicism - clearly, that is not the case. He doesn't appear to believe what even the CC teaches about Jesus.

hughfarey wrote:

DRDS wrote:Fair enough, but I STILL think he works secretly for Richard Dawkins. Just sayin.

Interesting. I don't work for Richard Dawkins, secretly or otherwise. I wonder why you think I might, and what difference it would make. Do my comments make you think I want to persuade you to become an atheist? If so, go back a few comments and re-read what I have said. Do you think my comments might persuade you to become an atheist, even though I've explained in detail that I'm not? Are you, in fact, not very secure in your faith, and have a horrible suspicion Richard Dawkins might be right? Have you a nagging feeling that cold hard Reason might turn out to be more powerful than warm comforting Faith, and that there is no God after all?

Dear me. Let me try to rescue you. The fact is that the Richard Dawkins Foundation is not very bothered about whether there is a God or not. The "What We Do" page of his website is really about what he sees as religion's lack of 'critical thinking', which, he feels, has led to unkindness towards minorities and the USA's weak response to the problem of global warming, among others. Whether his conclusions are correct or not, he is to be applauded for his unwitting endorsement of St Augustine of Hippo's plea for rationality in about 400AD:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Augustine knew very well that light comes from the Sun, and was embarrassed by fellow Christians who took the Genesis creation story of light pre-dating the sun as scientific truth. His interpretation was different from a modern view, but he knew very well that if incontrovertible Reason contradicted Scripture, then it was Scripture that must be reinterpreted, not Reason.

As far as I can tell, the only thing I have in common with Dawkins is in my relentless pursuit of reason, and to be fair, that's quite a lot. He thinks little of opinion derived solely from a literal interpretation of a 16th century English translation of a 250BC Greek translation of a two-and-a-half-thousand year old Hebrew collection of even older oral traditions, and so do I. However, Dawkins, I think, believes that when we know a bit more it will become very obvious that there is no God, while I believe exactly the opposite. What's more, I think he will, perhaps already has, come round to my point of view. From his various conversations with clerical giants such as Rowan Williams and Richard Harries, I think he has rethought some of the naivete of his earlier religious polemic. I think that Reason will not triumph over God, it will turn out to be God - or at least one of his attributes.

So my advice is not to worry, DRDS. Read my comments and judge them on what they say, not on what you think my motives might be. Study the Pantocrator of St Catherine's monastery. Does he look beaten up to you? Does your understanding of the theology of iconography suggest that a beaten-up Pantocrator is not a contradiction in terms? Do you think the Pantocrator looks like the man on the Shroud more than any other man? If you do, then disagree with me; it's a matter or personal opinion and I do not deny you yours. Do you deny me mine?

yeah yeah yeah whatever huge fairy!

PaulSacramento wrote:I know your point Hugh, I simply disagree.
If the resurrection was "within nature" it would be a natural event ( even if only a one time thing) and NOT be a divine event.
Which means that Christ's resurrection was not an act of divine intervention but SIMPLY a "freak occurrence in nature".
If that is the case then Christianity, which is based on the resurrection of jesus being an act of divine intervention, would not be what it is. That God raised Christ is what makes His claim to be the ONLY WAY a valid claim. It was His resurrection that reconciles the world unto Him.

I'm not sure from this that you do understand my point, which is that I do not separate the 'natural' from the 'divine'. To do so implies that God lets the Universe run on happily by itself, popping in now and then for a bit of intervention. I don't think that's how he works. To me, the Resurrection was a unique event, but not a "freak occurrence", any more than the blooming of a flower or the eruption of a volcano is a freak occurrence. So I disagree that the Resurrection was a natural event not a divine event; I think it was a natural event and a divine event. Christianity is quite capable of assimilating that.

And what happened to "the reality is that the EXACT nature of the resurrection IS important"? Have you changed your mind? If not, what, do you think, is the exact nature of the Resurrection?

Philip wrote:One thing is clear, while Hugh has previously asserted his beliefs to be in tune with that of Catholicism - clearly, that is not the case. He doesn't appear to believe what even the CC teaches about Jesus.

You reckon? Please explain how you think the Catholic Church's teaching about Jesus is incompatible with my statements, and I'll be delighted to explain.

DRDS wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever huge fairy!

Give up, huh? I notice that your 'Creation Position' is "undecided". Well, fair enough, deciding the question requires some fairly complex arguments from theology, philosophy and science, and you may not have the time, inclination or ability to get to grips with them. I wish you well.

The EXACT nature is that it was a DIVINE intervention/event.
To call it a natural and divine event is fine because God is the sustainer of all so, by default, all that He does is natural BUT that is a cop-out IMO because what you are doing is redefining nature and equating God with nature.
Which is naturalism or pantheism.
If the resurrection was a natural event and not an event outside the nature of humanity, then what does that mean for CHristianity?

You may say it changes nothing since you seem to be of the view that anything that God does is natural and that there is no such thing as supernatural BUT the reality it means that Jesus has no special claim to being the way since it was His resurrection AS A supernatural event that allows the claim to be made.

It is no better than the "swoon" BS we hear at times.

Just an FYI:

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Supernatural | Define Supernatural at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural
Supernatural definition, of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Supernatural | Definition of Supernatural by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature :


Which defines the nature of the resurrection to a "T"

How is Christ's resurrection not supernatural?