Saturday, April 21, 2012

The Atheist Crusader



As you may know, the devil goes around prowling like a lion looking for someone to devour.  Well, I do the same in the name of the Lion of Judah. :)  


I go around looking for Atheists, Pro Abortion advocates, LGBT advocates, and Anti Catholics to devour with charity and reason.


I recently came across a Tweeter who blogs on http://jesusmustbestopped.blogspot.com/.   After reading some of the posts on the blog, I decided to comment.  Below is the exchange that took place.  My words are in black and the Atheist's are in blue.    




Sacerdotus writes:


April 9, 2012.
Religion is not going anywhere at any time. It will still exist and grow unless Atheism provides empirical proof of its claims. Religion has passed the test of time and change. Faith has its demonstrable aspect that transcends the scientific method. Try convincing someone who has experienced God that God is not real. Good luck! http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com







April 18, 2012.
Your first sentence I will concede. But while it is true, as you say that Religion has stood the test of time, it is only because of religion's appealing nature, as well as the fact that their are a certain few who profit greatly from it. The bible was written by a bunch of old men 2000 years ago, and you're telling me that they could know what happened on Earth without any idea of the recent scientific developments of the last few years? 
Also, keep note of the fact that different cultures have different religions, unless a religion was imposed upon a people, just as a language might be. So when you say that religion has stood the test of change, that is not true when you get down to the specifics.Atheism meanwhile, is the lack of belief in anything. We use scientific evidence, but do not claim to have proof of anything, as we do not pretend to know everything as you do. How do we know their is no God you might ask? Well, the chances are one in a trillion. The existence of God is as likely as that of Santa Clause, no proof to back up either, but still, millions of people believe in them. The difference is, kids are willing to accept Santa Clause does not exist while their parents won't do the same thing for their own imaginary being.
And maybe not being able to convince someone who is religious that God is not real has more to do with their stubbornness than anything!







Sacerdotus writes:
April 18, 2012.
I wouldn't call religion necessarily appealing. There are religions out there that are either too demanding, too easy, too intellectual or just too strange.
People are religious because they see the fruits of it in their lives. No one wakes up, "oh gee, let me be a Christian today.." they experience something and that experience to them is proof that they are in the right place in life, so to speak.The Bible is God's Word that shows the Salvific plan from Adam to Christ in human language and experience. It is not meant to answer worldly things because what will scientific knowledge about the universe do to change people's morals?
However, there are some things there that give a hint of recently discovered scientific ideas (earth as a sphere, the universe expanding, evolution in Genesis etc), but again that is not the purpose of Scripture.
Yes each culture may have different religions, but if you take the ti
me to place them all alongside each other you will see they all have a lot of common ideas. Religion has indeed stood the test of time. Many major religious still adhere to their ideas and tenets. Only those that separate from them and do their own thing are the ones who add to those original tenets.
Atheism is not a lack of belief. The word comes from the Greek "a- Theos" which means "without god or gods" and is used in the negative in that it is a rejection of gods. The "a" means "without" for example:asexual or "without sex." This is also used in the word Agnostic which means "without knowledge" which is in turn translated as someone who doesn't think anything is knowable. So the word "Atheism" cannot mean lack of belief in anything. A word that would better fit your definition is "Apisteuo" which literally means, "lacking belief, without belief." So you're an Apisteo not an Atheist.
Scientific evidence is fine and dandy, but it is not objective. Years pass and ideas thought to have been fact are then rewritten. Science is only useful as far as our understanding of anything allows it. Religion doesn't pretend to know everything. We just use abstract thought to think outside the box of nature.
You say the chances are one in a trillion that there is no God, but how did you get these statistics? Santa Clause is different because we know of its origin in a Catholic saint. We know how secularism twisted the image of this saint.
"Proof" is subjective. You can give your wife a rose and to you that means you love her. However, I might say "no, that is not proof. You need to give her a diamond. That gift will show true love." Who is right? You or me? Which is the real proof that you love her your rose or a diamond?
If you want proof of God, you have to go to the source. You have to ask God to reveal Himself to you and He will. Spoiler alert: it can be in any way so you have to have a keen mind and heart. God doesn't take orders from man so He will do things on His terms while taking into account your limitations as a finite being.
You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's.
People who are really religious will not be convinced because they saw the fruits of their faith. It would be like someone telling you to divorce your wife who you love and adore. How can you? Who are they to tell you to dump her if you see her as the best thing in your life?







April 21:


<<First of all, religion is most certainly appealing to the human mind. It is our nature to want to know things that cannot be explained and the belief in God is a great example of that. >>






Sacerdotus writes: 

Yes, but religion is not needed to attempt to find explanations for everything.  This is why Philosophy exists.  It is not a religion, yet it seeks to find truth.  Not everyone finds religion appealing.  Only those who are willing to conform to its demands. 


<<You're right, religion is just too easy. There are so many questions that we want answered, which really should be looked at one by one, but instead, are all explained by the existence of a super natural being. It was an explanation that, until 300 years ago, stood its ground, but with the recent developments of the scientific age, have been put into question and rightfully so. >>



Sacerdotus writes: 


You assume that people decided to invent this super being as a cause of existence, that is not so.  We all are born with common sense.. well most of us.  Common sense would tell us that an object living or non-living has a maker.  Hence children always ask, "where do babies come from?" 

Things don't appear out of nowhere just for the heck of it.  There is always a cause before the effect.   This is where God comes in.  The cause of a universe has to be a living being who is sentient, intelligent, self aware etc.  The universe cannot create itself. 

Even Hawkings was reprimanded by other physicists for claiming the universe could have created itself.  This universe is built on laws.  Laws don't appear out of nowhere.  They need a lawgiver.  This universe is extremely mathematical.  Mathematics is something only a rational intelligent mind can develop and put into practice.  An unconscious agent cannot develop nor use mathematics. 

In other words, this universe is far too complex to be random.  Now of course science won't say God did it because that is not the role of science.  Science's role is to study the natural world and how it works, not where it comes from.  It is like a forensics team that picks up clues to a crime scene, studies them and comes to conclusions.  Those conclusions then are looked at by the prosecutor, defense, jury and judge. 



<<Regarding morals, science won't just write our values out for us. But as an atheist, I can tell you that I am at no shortage of values. For example, I know what is right and what is wrong, without needing to be threatened by the prospect of going to hell. The point is, you do not need to have faith in something to be a good person.
You are right that many of todays prominent religions are similar in nature, and that all of those religions have survived for relatively long amounts of time. But that can be connected to the point I made earlier: religion is an easy way to answer our most pressing questions, and to fulfill the human curiosity.
I'll pass over you trying to define atheism because that's just not a conversation worth having. I do not believe in God, that's atheism. Not believe = the absence of belief. I would think that to be obvious.
Finally the part I've been eager to get to. You seem to be saying that science being rewritten through every new discovery takes away its legitimacy. Are you implying that stubbornly keeping the same theories/beliefs for thousands and thousands of year makes religion more legitimate? Does it not bother you that a man living 2000 years ago believed the exact same things that you do now?
OF COURSE religion pretends to know everything. It claims to know how the world began, the values I should hold, that a super-being is watching over us at all times etc. >>




Sacerdotus writes: 




I used to be an atheist so I know very well where you stand.  The very fact that you know right from wrong can be used to prove an intelligent being instilled this into evolving man for self-preservation.  Let's say God did not create us and everything happened randomly.  How did this universe, this planet, evolution - each unconscious agents-  know that human beings needed a conscience? 

Other non-human animals do all kinds of violent things to each other without even thinking twice as human beings do.  Would it not make sense to instill a conscience in every species in order to preserve life and order on the planet?   Evolutionists hardly touch on this matter and I can understand why.  It is hard.. very hard to find evidence of the "conscience" evolving in human beings.   

One does not have to be religious to be a moral person; however, Atheism can often open up a person to ideas that devalue human beings such as Communism, Socialism, Utilitarianism, and so on.  It is very hard to find an Atheist who feels all human life deserves a chance to live, including the unborn, elderly and the sick.  Many Atheists despite knowing Biology and Embryology, advocate abortion and infanticide.  Nations with Atheist leaders do not have a good human rights track record. 

Religion will always exist in societies no matter what.  Yes it may provide some answers to curiosities, but to believers they see something more. 

I mentioned the definition of Atheism for a reason.  Many Atheists are confused about what the word actually means.  Atheism is a rejection of God/gods.  That is what the word literally means.  It has nothing to do with absence of belief, or unbelief. 

No, my saying that science is often rewritten does not mean that science is not valid.  What I meant was that it is not absolute.  We cannot rely on it as a means to an end.  The difference between science and religious ideas that are old is that latter deal with morals not the physical world per se. 

There has been science out there claiming non-white people are not humans.  Science created the atomic bomb, is the cause of the pollution we see today with its technological ideas and so on.  I am assuming this man of 2000 yrs ago you referred to is Jesus and to that I say, how can ideas such as "love your neighbor as yourself, feed the hungry, clothed the naked, visit the sick etc" be something bad for humanity? 

Religion when practiced faithfully without human weaknesses, ambition and polemics is a force for good not evil.  Where has science or anyone else done work similar to that of Mother Theresa?  Where has science or anyone else fought for rights such as Dr. King, a Baptist minister? 

Religion does not pretend to know everything about the universe.  It does not need to because its end is God not the physical world.  During times of distress, sickness and death, science or any other academic field mean nothing to a person suffering.   Religion is there as a comfort. 

 


<<Okay fine, if my Santa Clause argument wasn't good enough for you I'll give you another example. Does the Boraflora mean anything to you? Well, I could claim him to be my God. How about the pasta monster, or Mr. Meatballs, or Palamania? I could come up with a trillion of those (hence the statistic).
Now, your right that proof was perhaps not the best word to use. But your paragraph about finding the proof of God at its source disgusts me. How do you claim to know all of these things about God if you indeed believe that religion does not claim to know everything? Also, the fact that I have to bow to him and do everything on his terms makes me a bit of slave doesn't it? >>




Sacerdotus writes: 




People call God by any name, it does not take away from God.  A father in a family; one can call daddy, papa, old man, etc.  Every society has called God by names their experience and linguistic limitations allow them to.  However, calling God "pasta monster,"  "Mr. Meatballs,"  or "Palamania" would not make sense because you are defining God by using a created thing not a qualitative attribute.  How can the creator be a created thing?  This is why God gave Moses the name when asked, "I Am who Am" which basically means, He is the absolute.  

Proving something does not mean one knows everything.  I can prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4, that does not mean I know every mathematical concept in the universe.  Having proof of God does not mean one knows everything about God.  It means that one has ideas that show the belief in the existence of God is valid. 

Bowing to God and doing things on His terms does not equate to being a slave.  In America all registered voters must serve on juror's duty.  This is mandatory.  Does that make American citizens slaves?  No, of course not.  When one has authority over you, it is expected that you have deference and show duty to that authority.   



<<By saying that God is imaginary, I mean that the chances of him existing are not even worth considering. Again, if tomorrow I saw Jesus on T.V, I would say, "crap, I was wrong." But that won't happen. Your whole rant about needing to know all these things about the universe to know whether God is imaginary could be used by me to challenge the existence of God. For example, I could say:
"You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's."
This would give me the exact same affect. An argument that could be used on both sides of dispute is not a credible one.>>




Sacerdotus writes: 




Why are chances of God existing not considerable to you?  

By saying God is imaginary, that is making a claim that you saw everything there is to see in the universe and therefore concluded that there is no God.  I doubt Jesus would use TV to show Himself, but He is expected to come again through faith. 

Well the contrast is this:  Quantum Physics.   I am a science student, particularly in physics.  In Quantum physics anything is possible.  I do know about matter, space, time and dimensions.  We can start a whole knew blog on this topic.  It was actually physics that lead me to God, so to speak. 

Do you know that all matter, all space, all energy is being held together by a force that we still don't know about?   This force or particle is believed to be the Higgs Boson or "God particle."  Moreover, subatomic particles called quarks and gluons disappear and appear out of nowhere.  Where did they go?  Where did they come from?   It contradicts materialism/physicalism. 

It is obvious there is more out there than this universe that we can perceive with our senses.  The more we learn about subatomic particles, the more we see many things thought to be impossible are probably possible such as time travel, passing through walls, invisibility, bilocation etc.      



<<Finally, your example of a wife is interesting but again, I don't think it proves anything. As a child, I could have loved Santa Clause (sorry to use this example again but its a good one) and wanted him to exist more than anything. But when my parents told me to dump him, I did even though I liked him so much. Loving God does not prove his existence.>>

Sacerdotus writes: 




Well Santa Claus did exist as St. Nicholas.  So children shouldn't get so depressed when they find out the exaggerated version of him is just for fun.  The point I was trying to make with the rose vs diamond question is that proof is subjective.  Instead of asking everyone for proof of God, ask God.   Let your mind and heart do the research on their own just like your mind and heart knows how to show love to a wife or loved one in its own way.    





April 22


<<My Response:

While I agree that religion is not needed to find an explanation for everything, it certainly does a good job of doing so.

Not everyone finds religion appealing, but most certainly do. That is why, as you were saying earlier, religion is so widespread around the world.

What exactly do you mean by conforming "to its demands?">>




Sacerdotus writes:  


Question:  If religion does a good job of explaining things, then what exactly is the problem?  If the explanations given do not harm anyone, then what's the anti-religious fuss about?   



Religion is widespread for the same reason I mentioned in the beginning.  People experience things when approaching God through Faith.  To them it is as real as a gathering with friends or family.  There is something people sense within that lets them know something beyond the physical realm is going on.   


By "conforming to its demands" I mean basically following the rules of the religion: fasting, praying at certain times a day, charity work, moral conduct, etc.  There are some who find these to be too extreme to balance alongside their daily routines and therefore makes religion unappealing to them.  




<<<My Response:

Here is a question that might just spoil the whole God theory. If everything needs a maker, who made God? Did He make himself, because everything you just said implied that He also would have needed a maker. So is their another super-being who made God? But who made this super-being? You can go on and on with that and still not come to a justifiable conclusion.

I absolutely hate how you say the universe is "random."
We know how parts of nature were built, the processes that they went through and whatnot. We also know that

these occurrences were not "random" as you claim them to be. For example, let us take the theory of plate tectonics. A recently developed theory, it states that Earths plates were all once connected to form a supercontinent called Pangea. Without going into the details, I can tell you that we know how t

he plates move, how earthquakes occur, how volcanic eruptions occur etc. These occurrences are not "random." They happen for a reason, a reason that science explains. Now, I'm not saying that we have absolute proof of everything that is going on in this world. Science

has never accepted the word proof. But we do have very good reasons to believe that such occurrences did happen.>>




Sacerdotus writes:


It doesn't spoil a thing.  The attribute of being the first cause is what makes God uniquely God.  Yes, everything CREATED needs a CREATOR; however, when the word CREATOR is applied to God one must take into account His place in relation to the Universe.  



Since God is the creator of this universe, He is outside of its laws, its energies, matter, space and time.  We who are part of this universe are bound by its laws, its energies, matter, spaces and time and have a necessity to label particular points in time - in space by using particular words such as "north, south" or "past, present, first, last."  


That being said, God cannot have a creator because there is no succession of time in Him.   He is always eternally present.  We have a beginning (conception) and an end (death), God is not bound by that.  Think of it this way, if you were never conceived and can never die, how can you have a beginning and an end?   


This is why when Moses asked God for His name and God simply replied, "I Am."  God was always there.  He has no beginning and no end.  To us the concept is hard to comprehend because we are bound by time.  Our minds can only rationalize things based on its spatial and temporal limitations.  It is like a computer attempting to compute an emotion.  It cannot because an emotion is outside of its programming.  We are in a sense "programmed" into a "simulation" with rules about space and time that we call the universe, to borrow from David Chalmers.


Moreover, lets say you build a house, are you literally part of the house since you built it or are you outside of the spatial realm of the house?  

Many scientists and professors in physics use the word random to avoid alluding to Teleology or Intelligent design.  This is why I use it.  Some physicists believe there were many "big bangs" that eventually resulted in the universe we exist in today.  Many "big bangs" randomly took place and were either too violent causing too much acceleration or deceleration for matter/space/time to expand in such a way for a universe to form; or was not violent enough to cause the chain reaction for the universe to form. 

I understand what you mean by plate tectonics, but before plate tectonics other events took place that allowed plate tectonics to even exist.  The Earth in its infancy could have cooled too fast causing the core to become completely solid.  Had this had happened, the core would not spin and no magnetic field/atmosphere would form which would render Earth a wasteland like the other planets in the solar system.          





<<<My Response:

You know how wolves stay in packs, well that's what humans did to0. Ancient humans did fight people who were not part of their packs so as to protect themselves. Such packs (or divisions of groups) still can be found in the forms of countries, ethnic backgrounds, and religions. If you think a dog doesn't have a conscience, then you're mistaken. True we are more advanced than any other species, but that unity took a long time to build up.

Let me point out to you that commun

is

m and socialism are much more idealistic systems that are meant to help the poor. Such types of systems are what Jesus would probably advocate, so it is ironic that they are tied to atheism.

There is no credible science out there that says that white people "are not humans." Yes, the atomic bomb was created thanks to science, but are you really trying to suggest that science is a bad thing?

Quotes like loving your neighbor as you love your self are great, but what about the parts in the bible where we are taught to kill our children if God tell us to, or that homosexuality is a sin, or that orders Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again. Much of the discrimination in todays society has been created by religion.>>>




Sacerdotus writes:


Human beings living in packs does not show proof of an evolving conscience.  See today, children learn morals from whoever they associate with, BUT, those morals were already there.   There is no evidence that dogs or any other non-human animals have a conscience.  Non-human animals do not feel guilty, they do not develop social moral codes.  

They react based on instinct and learned behaviors from adapting to certain scenarios.  For example, If I tell a dog to attack an old lady, the dog will do it without hesitating because it learned the sounds of my words and associated them to violence.  If I ask a human the same, even if the human is a relative or friend of mine, that human will ask "why?" and will most likely refuse to do it. 

I doubt Jesus would advocate for communism or socialism.  He was strictly spiritual.  If He were interested in politics, He would have been the great warrior savior the Jews were expecting Him to be. 

The science is not credible NOW, but nonetheless at one point it was used to justify ideas that lead to prejudice and racism.  I'm not suggesting science is a bad thing.  What I am saying is that science cannot become the be all end all of human experience.  It should be a beacon for knowledge about the natural world and for advancement that will alleviate the problems of societies, not to bring evil and destruction.

The Church never instructs the people to take the Bible literally.  The Bible has to be read in context taking into account the time, place and the audience when it was written.  The Biblical ideas of justice, sex, etc which we today find strange must be understood in light of the people back then and their culture and circumstance.  

For example, George Washington owned slaves.  Are we to conclude that he hated black people and was a racist?  Or are we to conclude that at the time the people saw slavery as a means to prosper by using people who they understood to not be full persons.  
Discrimination is caused by people, not religion.  People distort Biblical stories to fit their agendas.  Science, and any other field of academia is not immune to this abuse.   




<<<<My Response:

Well then, if I told you that I thought God was the equivalen

t of Satan. Someone who took life away from humans and was evil, what would you say? You couldn't disprove that could you?

A creator has to be created, because nothing can come out of nowhere right? I also think your jury example is misguided. If you were told that you had to go to jury duty for 2-5 hours every week, it would then be a different story.

And I will certainly not be submissive to any authority who probably doesn't even exist.>>>>



Sacerdotus writes:


I would say that if God is the creator of life, then He has every right to take that life back.  If you make a painting, don't you have a right to do whatever you want with it?  Our lives are not our own.  If they were, then we would dictate when we are conceived, how we age and when we die.  God doesn't "kill" or "murder" anyone.  He simply calls that life back to Him. 

I already addressed the creator part.   My jury example is not misguided.  It shows that when one is under an authority, one must show defence and duty towards it or face the consequences of disobedience.  This is not slavery.  It is merely the "status quo." 
Well whether you like it or not, you already submitted to that authority.  That authority can call you back from this Earth at any moment.        









<<<<<My Response:

God could exist, I'm not claiming to know for sure. It's just that the chances of him existing are incredibly low. Again, I disagree that I would have to know everything to think that God doesn't exist. In fact, if anyone did, it would have to be you since you're the one claiming that he exists in the first place.

I do know much about Quantum physics, and what you say sounds interesting, but then again, God is an easy way out of the mystery.>>>>>



Sacerdotus writes:


If you study physics, or any science in general you will see that the chances of a creator are incredibly high.  The problem is that this Creator is not tangible or tactile.  We cannot measure Him in a lab or put Him in a cat scan or some device.  However, when one finds a life in this Creator and sees the fruits, then the need to "sense" Him becomes irrelevant because you begin to sense Him in a different manner that what you are used to with everyone else. 

You would have to know everything in order to know for a fact there is no God.  There is no other way around the issue.  Remember, if you knew everything then you become God because God is all knowing.  So if you are all knowing, then there is no God because you've reached that attribute which was thought to be unreachable by mortals. 
Quantum physics is very interesting.  The computer you're typing this blog on, or phone exists thanks to physics.  Recently, physicists were able to make something become "invisible" and also "transported" a particle from one point in space (not outer space) to another.  This is all due to what we are learning about the particles that make up this universe.  So the more we learn the more we see that anything is literally possible.  




<<<<<<My Response:

My Santa Claus example is a metaphorical one and your answering it as a literal argument. I do not care if he existed as St. Nicholas. It has nothing to do with my point. The point is, kids are willing to let go what they are told, while adults aren't.

Finally, your sentence on asking God is ridiculous. What do you expect to happen? Am I supposed to hear a voice answering right now? My heart and my mind do not need someone to lean on, to hope for favors from, or to spend time with. I am perfectly happy the way I am, an atheist.

Also, if God really could be anything, or the "unknown" as I like to call it. I would believe in such a God. But that is not what he really represents to most people, and you know it.

Quick Question: If God created everything, then why did he create evil?>>>>>>>



Sacerdotus writes:




The point I'm trying to make is that Santa Claus does have an explanation.  Almost every fairytale or folklore has an explanation/origin of some sort.  The difference between these stories and God is that adults and of course children actually experience Him. 

How is it ridiculous?  How else do we communicate with God but through prayer?   This is the ordinary means a religious person uses so it is logical for someone seeking proof to try this method just like it would be logical for a person curious about bacteria to use a microscope and a sample of bacteria. 

People describe God differently and this is because we are limited to our experiences, emotions, words and knowledge. 

God didn't create evil.  Evil exists when good does not.  It is the absence of good.  Just like cold doesn't exist.  It is the absence of heat. 

13 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. I don't know when that'll be, probably by next weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm having a hard time telling which are your latest comments. Could you put them together so I can respond?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tried to paste it all on your comment box but blogger didn't let me. However, here my words are in BLACK and yours are in BLUE.

      Delete
  5. "The difference between these stories and God is that adults and of course children actually experience Him"

    It's quite trivial to create "god experiences" in humans with just a bit of chemical trickery, simple physics and/or psychological programming. So-called god helmet is just one such way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

    Basically what I'm trying to say is that it's incredibly simple to cheat people's senses and first-hand experience without being able to somehow measure it externally is by far the least trustworthy source of any information when it comes to scientifically anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a few problems with your suggestion. 1) Not everyone has this helmet, so what is doing the "trickery?" 2) Our chemicals do not manipulate nature or bend the laws of nature.
      3) Neurologists can distinguish between a person who is delusional and who is not.

      Delete
    2. Helmet was just an example. There are other ways to create similar illusions without the helmet as well, many of what don't even require any sort of physical contact. One quite nice example of psychological programming is shown in this video together with exact mechanics of how and why it worked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLzT4CeBT6I


      Our chemicals don't bend laws of nature but we can easily mis-translate the sensory inputs we get or to see patterns where there exists none.


      Neurologists can distinguish but can the person itself do it?

      Delete
    3. I am not disputing that the mind can play tricks or can be deluded; however, you did not address the manipulation of physical laws. You can wear any helmet that stimulates the brain, but this will not give you the ability to suspend the laws of nature or heal others.

      Delete
    4. He did adress the "bending of physical laws" in that our brain thinks thes elaws were broken but in reality they were not but only our imagination playing tricks.
      And noone was healed by anyone through faith.
      Ether it was a fluke (meaning someone lied and said they were healed despite never being ill) or it was of short time and only again a trickery of the brain.

      Delete
    5. What the brain perceives is not the "bending of physical laws." Our thoughts, our imagination, our cognitive processes do not have any effect on the laws of physics.

      Delete
    6. True they have no effect on the real physical laws, they have an effect on the perceived effects of physical laws though.
      Therefore it can happen that we think we saw something not existant (like the sun doing motions regularily impossible and calling it a wonder).

      Delete
    7. Yes, you are correct. They have an effect on the perceived effects of physical laws; however, when it pertains to sun doing motions, note that many witness the same thing. The scenario is different in this case because perception is unique to the individual.

      Delete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (459) God (310) Atheism (242) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (209) Bible (176) Pope Francis (165) Atheist (146) LGBT (130) Science (119) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (85) Rosa Rubicondior (76) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (65) President Obama (56) Prayer (55) Physics (40) Vatican (39) Christian (38) Philosophy (38) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Christmas (31) Psychology (31) Women (29) Biology (28) Politics (28) Liturgy (26) Baseball (25) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Donald Trump (15) Health (14) Death (13) Astrophysics (12) Christ (12) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Poverty (10) Illegal Immigrants (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Apologetics (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)