Oh right, thanks for reminding me. There’s a hypothesis that that the Big Bang was caused by gravity, the universe evolved naturally from physical laws.
Imagine I gave you a handful of different books, all of them titled ‘The Law’. Inside each was a bunch of legal edicts regarding what is legal and illegal. The books contradicted each other, in some places they contracted themselves. Each book had followers who insisted that particular book was the correct one, the rest were forgeries, lies, incomplete, and so on. Even within the followers of each book some told you many of the laws no longer apply, while others say all the laws are still in effect.
I tell you at most one of the books represents the actual law, though it’s possible none of them do.
I also tell you if you break any law you’re going to jail for life.
Have I been fair to you?
If you’re claiming that’s been asserted, then you’re lying.
Physical Law states that something cannot come from nothing!
Is that you, Joe Isuzu?
Who is that?
What if something has always existed?
I was referring to a group in general, not you, as you did not start this thread. I remain befuddled as to any other possible motive. Saying you want people to know your beliefs only pushes the enigma back one level as to why you want people here, whom you do not know, to know what some stranger believes. But then, I am of an older generation than most here. I do not always understand the younger generations.
The problem is, however, that ya’ll are mistaken:
Isn’t there knowledge that was later disproven? Was it not ‘knowledge’ at the time it was ‘known’ and believed?
NO! God did not write a book of laws and leave it for us to argue over. He left a Church, Led by his Vicar who holds the keys.
Proving that something does not exist is nonseinscal. Conversely, something proved 200% when 100% is completeness indicates an apparently disordered ideological zeal. The mindset of a “true denier.”
Jesus Christ gave us a Church that is here to guide us. As another poster said. The Bible does not contradict itself (as far as I know). I do not know what the rest of your analogy has to do with the Catholic faith
No. And, to be honest, that’s not what Catholics believe that God says, either.
There are some Christians who think that this is how God acts… but you’re not going to hold us accountable to their mistaken belief, are you?
It’s a red herring, designed to show that God is unfair. If it matched Catholic teaching, that’d be one thing. Since it doesn’t, it’s kinda an epic fail as something to be used against Catholics…
ahh. Ya, I agree
You cannot prove anything to a philosopher 100%, let alone 200%. They aren’t even 100%–which is to say intellectually, emotionally, existentially and every sense that could be described by any adverb from any language–certain that they themselves exist. You can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but you cannot prove beyond any capacity that humans have to doubt. Humans are too stubborn about their doubting for that.
So, if you cannot prove a positive to a philosopher to a 100% degree of certainty that he himself exists, how do you propose that the non-existence of a transcendent being who is by definition beyond testing could ever be proven 200%? We’re not talking about disproving the existence of unicorns, after all. We’re talking about disproving the existence of a supernatural being.
I’d say that is about what the thinking would be surrounding proof that God does not exist.
Now, what if you are actually asking is what would happen to the Church and to the faithful if God withdrew absolutely all sense of God’s existence from all of the unbelievers and the faithful alike? I’d predict that a great many would fall away, but some would not, since it has been promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. The Church would endure.
You really don’t understand what Aquinas did, do you?
Hint: Nothing at all like what you imagine…
No, that is just fallacy wrongfully defined as knowledge.
po18guy, I know you’ve been around these forums quite a while. Have you ever seen such a robust presentation of “atheism?” Words alone can’t express…
If physical can’t be eternal, then how are we supposed to live in all eternity in our glorified bodies?