Part IV : Explaining and refuting religions
(Part I - Part II - Part III)
Myths of Miracles
To develop a scientific viewpoint on miracles, we first need to
split them into 2 categories : the miracles that happened, and those
that didn't happen (and correctly sort the most famous examples into
Antiquity was full of mythologies, telling about creation stories,
of miracles and incarnated gods.
It is natural, as people like to tell each other about wonderful
stories, which seem much more important to them than ordinary ones.
And, in quite hard contexts (low education level, low technologies,
bad organization systems, bad transportation means, bad
communication means, no internet available), they had no decent
means to verify or refute the truth of stories that were told to
them. So, myths could easily propagate, not easily be contradicted,
and ifever at some time and place a myth was contradicted, people
there would just shut up about it while it would keep propagating in
They spread in many places all over the world. India is especially
full of old stories of incarnated gods.
Stories evolved, inspired each other, generating new versions and
mixtures of versions.
of life-death-rebirth deities and virgin
births were all over the place. The reign of Alexander the
Great more than 3 centuries BC spanned far to the East and generated
exchanges between religious traditions on large distances, thus
Consider the story which officially serves as the root of today's
most dominant religions: the Hebrew bible. It contains plenty of
accounts of miracles, claimed to have happened many times during the
history of the Jewish people. But these miracles suddenly stop
occurring near the end of the story (the same time when the Jews are
suddenly irreversibly becoming faithful to their God). Then, what
happens when miracles finally stop occuring ? Then comes the reign
of Josias. What happens during the reign of Josias ? You can read it
in 2 Cronicles 34, or in 2 Kings 22 and 23. This is the account of
the true creation of Judaism, and the circumstances how all these
stories were made up, collected, put together and arranged into a
seemingly consistent whole, out of inspirations from diverse older
Now in recent times, archeological research was finally conducted
without the forceful desire to prove the validity of the Biblical
story. This research, conducted by Israel Finkelstein and others,
happened to establish the evidence that the real story is very, very
different from what the Bible says; and how did the Bible itself
happen to be written. Namely, that there was no historical Exodus,
nor any historical Moses (whose birth legend borrows from the birth
story of Sargon of Akkad). The Egyptian empire was so large at the
"time of Moses" that it included the land of Canaan. Hebrews emerged
from a lower social class of Canaanites who managed to free
themselves from the domination they were under. The full story of
how things happened, as established by recent archeological
findings, can be read for example in the book The Bible Unearthed (a
good synthesis, whose main lines are now well-established, even if
other archeologists may disagree on some details).
How easy it is in such conditions to claim having had many fulfilled
prophecies, when both the act of prophecy and the claim of its
historical fulfillment are in fact invented long after they
The implications of this discovery cannot be underestimated, as more
than half of today's world population belong to religions heavily
founded on the Hebrew bible (that they include in their sacred texts
and crucially draw from it their claims of divine authority, or at
least had to do so at their initial development), which they hold as
historically rather accurate, at least concerning the reality of the
Exodus and Moses as a historical figure.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee for this to make any
significant difference to the popularity of these religions in the
near future, as
Many things can be said (and can be found in many Web sites) about
what's wrong with the Bible, either in terms of accuracy,
consistency or morality.
- before such evidence came up, many people already had the
intuition based on any sort of common sense, how implausible was
the historical accuracy of the Bible;
- even with this evidence, many people deeply involved in their
religious faith can keep it against all evidence for a very long
Let us just make a few remarks (among countless possible other
When the Church opposed heliocentrism (in the Galileo trial), one of
the arguments was the story in the Hebrew bible telling a miracle
where the sun went back its way in the sky so as to make one day
Not only the contents of the Gospels are probably all made up (there
is no independent confirmation for the Jesus story), but they
contain a completely distorted interpretation of the Hebrew Bible
that do not resist scrutiny, so that careful Jews have no problem to refute
claims of competing religion supposedly based on their Bible,
especially Christian missionaries claims that Jesus would be the expected
Christians of the first century believed that the end of the world
was near, so that not all of them would die before it happened.
Still now, based on the Revelation text, many Christians expect a
new coming of Jesus that would mark the end of this world (an
extremely miraculous change, for a 2000 years of reign of Jesus,
followed by a total destruction of the universe). But what can be
the sense of this "hope" and "good news" as the universe is billions
years old, life miserably crawled on Earth without any help from God
for millions of years, and just suddenly now is starting to open up
to much more interesting possibilities (in terms of decent living
conditions and meaningful progress towards knowledge, culture and so
The viewpoint of Jehovah's witnesses, in all its absurdity, still
carries the following genuine remark that other Christians seem to
ignore: in its beginning, Christianity was a quite materialistic
religion. Indeed as expressed in 1 Corinthians 15, the reason why it
was so important for the first Christians to believe in the
resurrection of Jesus, is to serve as a first case and promise for
the bodily resurrection of all people. And why did they need to
believe this ? It is because they could not find any hope for a life
after death as long as their body would remain in the grave ! They
claim that these bodies are sleeping and waiting to be miraculously
revived some time later. In other words, they could not make any
difference between the soul and the body.
But, if life was only about bodily life, then we would only be
machines (sorts of robots). Are we ? But if, on the other hand, the
deep nature of consciousness is immaterial, then the connection to
our body is temporary and with no fundamental value. A body is
nothing else than an assembly of atoms in some specific order.
Quantum theory even explicitly proves that particles cannot be
individually identified beyond their type: an exchange of 2
particles of the same type (2 electrons, or 2 atoms with the same
numbers of protons and neutrons) does not modify the state
of a physical system - and indeed, most of the atoms that make up
our bodies are continuously replaced many times during our life.
Thus if we could make an exact copy of a body by putting together
other atoms in the same order as in the first body, this would
somehow be another occurrence of the same body. Thus if ever the
first body was destroyed while the second was still "empty" of soul,
then the soul that was in the first body that is destroyed would
just need to move to the second body in order to continue life
normally. But then, if ever after death we still need to come back
to an earthly life, why take an old, dead and scrapped body and
expect some miracle to put back its atoms in some workable order ?
Reincarnation to a fresh new fetus would be such a more interesting
Thus, how silly is the Christian dogma of a bodily resurrection; and
also their dogmatic denial of all possibility of reincarnation. This
denial might have seemed like a defensible view in the context of
some past culture which had not given any serious thought about the
difference between mind and body, about a possibility of life out of
the body, or of reincarnation, and where NDE testimonies suggesting
reincarnation were not well-known either. But it is so pitiful to
see them endorse the heritage of this past dire lack of
understanding, in their way of regarding it as a divine revelation.
See also the difficulties
What about other miracles ? For anyone who knows physics, it is
clear that some miracles are totally unrealistic. Such a judgement
is not, as stupid religious fanatics would assume, merely based on
some arbitrary dogma that the "laws of physics" would have divine
status over God, and cannot be broken because we saw them unbroken
until now; to which they would reply that God is higher that our
ideas on the laws of physics. It's much more subtle than this.
Can God make 2+2 equal to 5 ? Can He draw a square with 2 edges and
3 vertices ? So, there are some ideas that are impossible because of
self-contradiction. People would naively assume that laws of physics
are all of a different type, that their violation would be
conceivable, and God could violate them in a miracle.
In fact, it depends on which laws. The known laws of physics are of
different types, and once we know them and try to figure out that
God would decide to break them, it clearly appears that some of them
would be harder to break than others.
In particular, we know from general relativity (describing
gravitation as an effect of the curvature of space-time) that the
conservation of mass (or energy, which is the same), is absolutely
unbreakable, as it comes as a theorem of geometry: once assumed that
the equation of general relativity (relation between mass and the
space-time curvature) is valid before and after a miracle, we can
get as a geometrical theorem (by trying to glue together the
space-time of before and after the miracle) that the conservation of
mass still necessarily holds during the miracle too.
But one of Jesus's miracles claims to contradict this: the
multiplication of fish and bread.
Naive people may imagine that if we have a little mass of food, then
some miracle may expand this mass to let it feed more people, and
leave more rests than the starting mass. In fact, this is absolutely
impossible, as what it says requires to break the mass conservation,
which we know can't be broken even by God. If we really want to
force a possibility to get the claimed result, the best hypothesis
would be to take some dark matter, which flows around invisibly, and
transform it into ordinary matter. But, from the viewpoint of the
laws of physics, this would be a very violent operation, much more
violent than the explosion of a nuclear bomb. First, the little
piece of food "used" at the start would be of absolutely no help,
either as a model or a generator, for supplementary atoms to appear
and form more food.
Second, for such a violent miracle, it is very surprising to not
have observed any strong side effect.
Third, if really God had such a power, then it would be so pitiful
to waste it just for fulfilling such a little need that could have
been satisfied by much easier means (such as attracting a flock of
birds and making them fall already roasted on the ground). There
would have been so much more wonderful things to do with just a very
tiny fraction of this power, such as creating thousands of living
species much more wonderfully designed than those currently living
on Earth (including some that would wonderfully replace humans), by
writing down their DNA from scratch - if only God had enough proper
imagination to know which are the desirable DNA codes.
Some Christians may react to this by saying: in these miracles,
God's goal was to give a spiritual message, so as to be understood
by the people of that time, disregarding any troubles with the laws
of physics that are nothing to Him, in ways that those people would
not have understood.
Well... to make a comparison, it's just like saying: the reason why
Jesus went through a wall here rather than use the open door just a
few steps aside to reach that place, is that people were not aware
of the fact there was a wall here and an open door there, so that
they would not have understood why he would go that way; his way
through the wall was useful for the spiritual message he wanted to
But another problem is that the story and teachings of Jesus are not
even original, as they have many things in common with those of Buddha
as well as other
myths of that time - starting with the very idea that a divine
person may come as a human incarnation, which was commonplace in
Christ in comparative mythology.
The Gospel writers claims of prophecy of the Jesus life in the
Hebrew Bible are wrong (and refuted by jews). For example, the
Hebrew Bible never announced any virgin birth: the word in Isaiah
meant "young lady", which was misinterpreted, falsely translated to
"virgin" in the Greek version of the Bible which Christians took as
their reference. Anyway, even possible similarities between the
story of Jesus and the Hebrew bible cannot prove anything, as
nothing can prevent the details of Jesus life to have been invented
just for resembling excepts of Hebrew scriptures interpreted as
Problem: if God did such miracles with His unique Son sent on Earth,
why would so many details of the story have remained enclosed in the
fruits of human imagination, as had been expressed by previous myths
? Is this the expression of a unique revelation and the trace of
wonderful miracles by God above all human thought, as Christians
want to depict things ?
Christians usually see as irrelevant the observation of similarities
between Jesus (and Christianity) and the other myths and religions
of that time, because:
1) There is no strict identity between stories. Yes but no myth is
strictly identical to another myth either, yet many myths are
vaguely inspired from other myths, so that this is not really a
2) In their view, Jesus came to give us revelations from God and
thus had no reason to have taken his inspiration from these other
myths; such similarities would be a mere coincidence. Admittedly,
there is no direct proof that the Gospels and other Christian
traditions were not created from scratch, in the same way as there
is no direct proof that the Earth and the Universe were not created
from scratch by God 6,000 year ago with all these numerous fossils
and images of faraway stars and galaxies (so far that their light
cannot have been emitted by physical objects less than 6,000 years
ago), just made to mislead us into believing in a much older
However, these miracles were supposedly made by God for serving as a
sign of the divinity of Jesus, rather than for being a source of
ridicule and discredit.
Admittedly, the effect is different depending on the educational
level of the listener. To the uneducated, claims of miracles can be
received as a sign of divine authority no matter other
But for educated people who had the chance to know about such
similarities, this is a source of discredit, for the following
Between two worldviews (whether the Jesus story is of a genuine
incarnation of the Son of God or a myth), the argumentative power of
an observation is defined by ratio of probabilities for the observed
fact inside each worldview. In the Christian worldview, such a
similarity between the Jesus life and other myths is a possibility
but a very unlikely coincidence, (probability close to zero). But in
a non-Christian view (Jesus myth hypothesis), such similarities are
very much expected (probability close to 1). Thus the precise
details of life, teachings and miracles of Jesus seem to be designed
by God for the discredit of His own message.
All this seems very consistent with the Jesus teachings telling that
intelligence and education have no value in the eyes of God, and
even that God prefers people who choose to give up all use of
intelligence in their approach to God. Thus, both sides may finally
feel reinforced by these observations....
But let us hear the following explanation given in a TV debate in
May 25, 2006, by Frederic Lenoir, philosopher and sociologist of
religions (famous French writer, on a personal spiritual path mixing
aspects of Catholicism, protestantism, orthodoxy, Buddhism and
philosophy), to defend the authenticity of the Gospels against
alternative stories, as the Da Vinci Code story was having its fame
at that time:
"We must delve into the mindset
of antiquity for which the interests of historical truth was not
the same as ours, and we have many texts of the Ancients where
what matters is to get the message no matter (we do not care) if
it's exactly what was said by the character who is credited with
this message. For example, St John's Gospel is very clearly a
Gospel that wants to convey a theological message, ... who was
Jesus and show he is the incarnate Word, with no necessary care
for the accuracy of all his words, and that's why we know most
of the Gospels were not actually written by their alleged
authors. A gospel was attributed to that character because he
was a close disciple of Jesus, but basically it was written by
Christian groups, communities who wanted to convey a message ...
and despite all this, the 4 canonical Gospels are still likely
to be those closest to historical reality ...
[Unlike the writer of Iliad and Odyssey] the claim of the
writers of the Gospels is to say: here is what Jesus said, here
is what he did, even if they take some liberties with history.
And then you realize that there is a mixture in the Gospels, of
claims and historical events that have most probably occurred,
although it is unclear exactly how (otherwise Christianity would
have had none of the success it had if there had not been a man
named Jesus who overturned a number of disciples at one point),
but at the same time we can see, which historians of religions
can spot very well, there are a number of entirely mythical
events, for example, when the Gospel of Matthew says that during
Jesus death there was a large solar eclipse (...)
It is a myth found in all religions during a major event, the
birth or death of a founder of religion, we are always told that
there is a solar eclipse, but (based on ephemeris) we know that
there was no solar eclipse at the death of Jesus in Palestine
(...) there was a large solar eclipse in November, but we know
he died at Easter, this is one of the only things we are sure
of, so we know there never was a solar eclipse in Easter, so we
know it's a legendary event that was written to show that Jesus
was an exceptional character, and like all great exceptional
characters the whole Cosmos paid tribute to him when he died."
But when I tried a little before to argue with a devout Catholic
about the historicity of the Gospels, he pointed me to a big article
- while it does all its best to provide the strongest possible
favorable feeling to the historical truth of the Gospels, the
best way it found to do so was to develop justifications for
God's dire inability (or unwillingness?) to manage the
circumstances of His son's unique and so crucial visit on the
Earth so as to ensure any decent dose of credible confirmations
to the reality of those miracles, which precisely are so
extraordinary that they explode all the limits of decent
credibility (while the only official purpose of these miracles
was precisely to provide credibility to Jesus'claim to be the
Son of God)....
- Of its very few instances of claimed independent
confirmations, is the one (from a Christian apologist's
quotation of disappeared documents) of the Sun's eclipse at the
time of Jesus'death during full moon.
Speaking in tongues ?
studies have been made on the speaking in tongues, concluding
that "this turns out to be only a facade
of language", with no well-defined meaning : "One individual's ecstatic speech was tape recorded and
played back separately to many individuals who sincerely and
devoutly believed that they had received the gift of
interpreting tongues. Their interpretations were quite
Possibly real miracles : a moral assessment
Diverse miracles have been reported by diverse people at diverse
times, in ways that seem credible (somehow).
My point here won't be to claim or argue for any factual
categorization of the reports listed below, as genuinely
supernatural, or misinterpretations of natural phenomena, or pure
Instead, my point will be to check the moral value (or other value)
of the "spiritual teachings" that these miracles seem to support; to
observe that this value is close to zero, and therefore to dismiss
these miracles as deserving no care, and anyway no admiration, even
if they were real; thus rejecting as pointless the very question
whether these miracles are real or not.
The Fatima miracle
Among the few email conversations I happened to have with Christians
in reply to my web pages criticizing Christianity, one of the
debaters has put forward the Fatima miracles. His messages (summer
2010) contained a incredible number of misspellings (in French, as
he is not native French), only one which will be reproduced in the
below English translation (a bit shortened because it was quite
long) (his messages in blue, mine in black):
Hello I read a little your site. No doubt you are
intelligent with a great logic, considering your math abilities,
but (there is a but) your intelligence leaves me unsatisfied,
someone intelligent should understand something: for all thing
there exists, matter and energy, there must be a beginning, and
for a creation to happen there needs a creator that created
everything. So yes we may think there is one or more divine
entities or a creator god, one thing is sure we are not a fruit
of chance, existence is not a chance. You see it suffices to be
logical, no need to write pages and pages to make an analysis.
If god exists, which
religion should we believe this is a good question lol
As for me I advise you to
wonder about the catholic religion and all its mysteries that
science could never prove, people with stigmata, yes yes it
really exists and nowadays some exist (I advise you to wonder
about padre pio)
Statuses of the Lady
crying, you bet scientists looked for the trick without finding
it, then the appearances of our Lady, especially of Fatima in
Portugal, with this famous miracle on October 13, 1917 in front
of over 70,000 people that all witness the same thing, pictures
and articles exist of this event.
And miraculous healings in
Lourdes exist, there were 65 acknowledged, without mentioning
those that did not ask to be acknowledged. Just a big faith is
needed to have a miracle.
I know well there is much
injustice, but don't forget the devil exists, exorcist priests
really exist, they don't work for nothing, evil that is man who
created it with the help of the devil, not god, god loves us and
lets us free to do what we like, he just asks us to believe and
in the other life there will
be a justice for all, as our life on earth is a mere trial to be
worthy of entering god's kingdom heaven hell, but to enter
heaven one must be cleaned of all sins, this is why there is
purgatory to get clean of our crap, so some spend there minutes
and others centuries
God is not happy of us, this
is sure someday he will make us feel his anger, also if we
notice well the percentage of natural disasters increases from
year to year and for this there is a text called Revelation by
John, we are at the door of this event
it suffices to study the
Lady's appearances of Fatima, Garabandal, Akita, to understand
that until 1 or 2 3 4 5 years we are at the dawn of a great
this is pure and hard
logic, if there is one above, he will say stop sometime for
our crap abortion war prostitution homoxexuality, and moreover
nobody believes anything anymore, and everybody fucks with
everybody we do all the opposite of what he wants
First you contradict yourself, considering me both intelligent
and stupid. Where is your pure and hard logic there ?
You think I did not consider those
things ? seriously ?
Thus what do you claim to bring me ?
Do you really think you know better than me what is "pure and hard
logic" and which things are so ?
See texts I wrote about Christian logic [not translated yet] and
Thanks for no more bothering me with ridiculous claims to teach me
how to think with such childish lessons.
Pure and hard logic is
simply what we manage to understand, and when we can't anymore,
then it becomes mystery
I am intelligent, surely
less than you in some fields but I had mark 19 in math on my
scientific Bachelor degree
Is the universe definite or
indefinite ? we know that the big bang theory is no more a
theory it is the explanation of the creation of the universe, we
know with present technology that the universe is expanding so
it is getting bigger so it is definite.
Is the time that passes
definite or indefinite ? with big bang theory we know there was
a beginning at t=0 and the end of this time scale is our present
so yes the time scale is definite it started at the creation and
ends at the present time.
I invite you to reply one
Is existence an accident ?
(the existence of our world in 4 dimensions, space with 3
dimensions and time with 1 dimension)
Answer me by yes or no with
only about 10 lines
But I don't take you for
stupid, but I did not like what you tell about religion, you are
Religion is a hope for
some, and for others a lie, I have my convictions, this is why I
ask you to answer whether existence is an accident yes or no
As for me I cannot prove
you this, I lost my mother and at that very time I made a dream
while I did not expect her death. For me there is indeed
something that cannot be explained, but I'm sure, there does
exist something beyond, thus science has limits, and can never
explain everything. I'd be happy to confront my ideas with you,
so is existence an accident ?
Truth cannot be chosen, it
forces itself, and when one refuses to believe it one becomes
unbeliever even if one is intelligent.
I am not the one mocking religion. It is religion that is somehow
ridiculous. Why should I be guilty to have found the truth on the
troubles of something (should I recall you) I previously joined ?
If religion is ridiculous, is it my fault ?
If I mock religion (or Christians), then I mock myself, as I was
Christian before. Thus things are more subtle.
What is your goal ? To force your truth to me ? Can you revise
your positions ? I am not mocking. I just care for the truth. Thus
I must develop explanations that religions are false. Do you call
this mocking ? Can you consider that you may be wrong and that
religions may indeed be wrong ? or is it an impossibility of the
I can't consider to be wrong either. But it is a matter of truth,
not of moral value of mocking or not mocking.
Sorry but if we start with this question just for finally reaching
the truth of Catholicism, we can't get through in less than 10,000
messages, and I have no time. Anyway the question "is existence an
accident" is very fuzzy and undefined. We can't seriously specify
the question in less than a few pages, not to mention the try to
answer. But it does not matter, such a "question" and similar ones
are but a game of sophisms by which, from confusion to confusion,
you manage to convince yourself of the truth of your religion, and
to not understand how it is possible to think otherwise. It's not
serious. You should first learn to really think, but I cannot help
you. I have enough troubles
If you insist to talk and you think you know the subject of
religion better than I, then I accept to talk.
But, let's be logical : I'll be the one asking questions, and
you'll have to answer. Are you ready ?
I only defend the catholic
religion, which is a religion of love hope and peace even if in
the past this religion was ill represented by its leaders.
so of course I'm ready to
answer your questions but I can't promise to answer at once. If
you are not in hurry you can ask questions and I'll be happy to
answer them as accurately as possible.
So here are some questions.
As I understand you, you believe in the existence of hell:
Is the existence of hell the fruit of an accident, or of a
If hell is the fruit of a creation, who is its creator ? for which
Are there people who will be in hell eternally ? for which sins ?
Or if it is by choice, is it a true choice ? Can one really choose
hell ? If hell is eternal (or if hell or purgatory is very long),
would not this question of the origin of hell, be worth
consideration independently of our life, which is comparably
If God exists, which religion should trisomics believe ?
Which religion did God want humans 10,000 ago to believe ? If the
answer "none" was then acceptable for the will of God, why is it
no more so now ? Is it by chance ? Logically, if all men are
similar, the fact that I am myself and you are yourself, that
prehistorical humans were prehistorical, that Muslims are Muslims
and atheists are atheists, is that all a fruit of chance ?
If the abortion of trisomics is a murder, why are they still so
much different from other men that God does not require them to
have a Catholic faith ?
What about animals (apes, dolphins...), does God require them to
have faith ? Why should one make a fundamental difference for this
between humans and animals ? As you accept the big bang, do you
accept evolution, where humans progressively evolve from the same
ancestors as animals ? Don't animals also have a soul and a life
after death ? then why would not they also need to have faith ?
Imagine someone born in a Muslim country, nobody preached him the
gospel, but only the Koran. He thinks: it is not by chance that I
am taught the Kuran. And modern science was written in the Koran
(yes, I heard some Muslims claim this with no doubt that Kuran is
proved by science). This should not be an accident either.
Where are the mistakes here ? As there are miracles in many
religions (link above), why consider this as a proof for
Catholicism and not of other religions or divisions of
Christianity (such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals that witness
so many miracles) ?
If there was the Galileo trial and the death penalty for Giordano
Bruno by the Church, is it a fruit of chance ?
If the strongest opposition to the scientific discoveries on the
origins of the world are the Christian churches, including the
Catholic Church before 1961, and the main motivation to the
opponents of evolution (or: to the big bang theory, and the
resulting age of the universe) still nowadays (quite powerful in
the USA), is Christian faith and the Bible, by people who
sincerely claim to know Jesus personally, is it a matter of
Is it an accident if Muslims are Muslims, if Buddhists are
Buddhists and if atheists are atheists, or is it the fruit of a
higher will, and which one ?
If it is the fruit of everyone's human will : can men have the
deliberate will to lead themselves to mistake, even while they are
deeply sincerely and devoutly searching for God ? Is God unable to
reveal the truth to anyone seeks it sincerely ? or do people who
follow other religions, not sincerely seek the truth ?
How can one religion be more true than another ? Is God
describable by stories, icons or rituals, so that some may be more
similar to God than others ?
If faith is a means for the service of the end that is to have a
miracle, then would miracles be an end in themselves ? For a
handicapped person, I understand a miracle of healing be an aim
(among other possibilities), but for healthy people, why should
they be bothered to oblige themselves to give themselves a means
(faith) to seek an end (a miracle) that not only anyway (according
to catholic statistics themselves) hardly bring anything (except,
some very bloody stigmata all life long, is that your dream ?) but
is as likely to happen as a gain at lotto ?
Otherwise, why did you write "we just need to have a great faith
to have a miracle" ? Did this remark occur to your mind by
You wrote about the big bang, that the end of time is now. Science
does definitely not say this, but rather that the universe will
keep existing without limits (progressively degrading along
billions of years). Where do you get that from ? from the bible
just like young-earth creationists who deny the big bang ?
If the purpose of miracles is to generate faith, and if the
purpose of faith is to generate miracles, then what is the purpose
of both ?
Was the existence of Neanderthals or Erectus a fruit of chance ?
Did their life (that had no descent) have a sense ? Did it have as
much or less sense than ours, and why ? Is it by chance ?
What religion did God want them to believe ?
Is the existence of mosquitoes an accident, or did God create
them, for what purpose ?
Good evening, I hope you
are doing well. I read your messages, let me time for thinking
please, no problem I'll answer
Were Neanderthals sinners ? Did the Son of God sacrifice for them
Was the Original Sin a historical event ? Is it a new specificity
of humans as compared with the animals they descend from ? In
other words, are humans worse in this sense than animals, or
similar, or better ?
Is there life and civilizations elsewhere in the universe ? Are
they without sin, or did the Son of God also die for them ? Did He
sacrifice only once on only one planet, or on several ? If on only
one, was it chosen by chance ?
If the Son of God was sacrificed on only one planet but not ours
(and that here the Gospel story was a mere fruit of a human error
and accident), would the foundations of theology be affected (less
true) and our relation with God (notice of any difference) ?
To complete the previous question on miracles:
Stigmata and the crying Lady, that is funny but what is it for ?
"science could not prove" miracles: I don't get the sense of this
remark, what was the point ?
And if prophets could not announce scientific and technological
About the Fatima miracle, I just read Wikipedia, that mentions the
UFO hypothesis, that seems an interesting clue for it, what do you
How can a religion that brings its followers to stigmatize
homosexuals, by putting homosexuality in the same list of the
worst evils of mankind as (I quote your first message) "abortion
war prostitution", while:
- sexual orientation is not chosen (but fixed by nature), and
- homosexuality is one of the very few non-tragical limits to the
main plague that destroys the Earth (overpopulation),
come without shame or hesitation, to describe itself as "a
religion of love hope and peace" (not mentioning its "humility")
and then be surprised (find it wrong) that people go away from its
After what criteria shall we be judged :
1) Our faith in God (religious orientation, prayers...)
2) The purity of our intentions (heart...)