Expert: Marco - 7/20/2004

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Marco, If you could do this for me i would be eternally grateful. First off i am not a catholic or buddhist but rather a hopeful agnostic. but the buddhist provided some points of views that made sense to me and im not afraid that God does not exist but rather(being ever so selfish)i am afraid after this life their is nothing. Even that i can deal with but the key problem is if their is no God and nothing after this, then first off evil is acceptable, and secondly can i prove that doing good truly makes someone happy? I live only by the golden rule right now and would love to hear your respnse to this argument.Thank you, Barrett


Hi Joe,
    First off thank you so much for answering my questions. I was wondering what Buddhists say about the beginning of time? It seems pretty logical to say that the beginning of time can only exist with God being present. The first piece of matter ever created cant just pop out of nonexistance, according to the laws of cause and effect. But with God, one who can do anything, it makes sense then that He exists forever because of that ability. I just wanted to know the Buddhist view on it. Also, the buddhist way of life is awesome in regards to how they treat everything but without a God a buddhist could kill anything if it makes him happy because they is no reason for him not to.Is that right or no? One more thing it seems to me that buddhists deny the self so i would think someone whos life is painful would feel happier getting a fast acting disease and become nonexistant then to live because to live is to suffer and as a buddhists good and evil are concepts of man so doing that to yourself isnt good or bad. I really like the buddhist "religion" but im really convinced their is a God so i dont think its possible for me to take Buddhism up. Thanks for the help Joe,
Barrett
Answer -
Hi Barrett,
  You are starting off with a lot of assumptions not the least of which is your view of Buddhism which doesn't reflect the philosophy at all as I know it. Also, I don't understand why you think you might have to take Buddhism up; it is not a religion of conversion.
   Next you have to ask what time is, you just cannot assume some definition for it. You perceive time from your consciousness but is there time, in this sense, of and by itself?  Relativity happens with the big bang and with it the relativistic concept of time. Space and time arise together in this theory. Your idea of creation is very like the Jesuit idea of First Cause.  In their paradigm everything must have a first cause, all of nature, so God must be the first cause of everything, including time.  I had this argument with the head of St. Joseph's University theology department.  Given that everything must have a first cause and to use your words, “they can't just pop out of non-existence” then God, too, must have a first cause and can't just pop into being.  If you are like the Jesuits you will now make an exception for God in this equation and thus destroy your own logic. For some reason God gets a ‘Get out of Logic' free card while the rest of the Universe doesn't.  Why is God exempt from the laws of cause and effect? I can just as easily proclaim that Nature exists always, would you except that?  Why isn't that logical? If there is nothing else in the Universe what then defines God?  Why can't Nature/Universe exist forever, is it  because the Theists say so?  I hope your argument is stronger than this.
  There is a deeper problem here and that is the idea of non-existence as something that is independent from existence.  How can you have one without the other?  Aren't they mutually defining and creating?  In the Buddhist idea the universe is ever-creating/ever-destroying and not one without the other.   If God is the Supreme Being then he must be opposed to Supreme Non-Being and therefore can be negated.  There cannot be being without the antithesis of non-being so the concept of a God just being a being is problematic because he can then 'not be'.
  I have no idea where you get the idea that a Buddhist can ‘kill anything that makes them happy'.   Even at its most mundane level Buddhism is known for compassion to all sentient beings, not just human, and given the law of karma, cause and effect, a Buddhist believes they cannot escape their actions without consequence.  In this sense a Buddhist must be responsible to all things in life and be compassionate.  In the Judeo/Christian sense you can wreak havoc upon nature and have no consequences, and worse, you can murder and war and just say your sorry and be forgiven.  Where is there sense or justice here?  And as far as killing and making yourself happy it was the all-loving God of the Old Testament that killed the first born male babies of the Egyptians.  This is the act of a compassionate Deity to kill innocents?  Could this in any way be justified today?  There are absolutely none of these problems in Buddhism as it demands compassion to all.  Deeper than this is that Buddhism sees all Nature as one so what you do to any other you do to yourself.  If you see the world as yourself you will treat it with respect.  In Theism the idea is that you will be punished for doing bad and not because you love all, punishment is the motive you don't do it and not because you have some deeper respect for life.  So you might want to kill but you don't because you'll get caught but in the Buddhist sense you just don't want to kill, period.
  As far as a Buddhist escaping pain and ‘becoming non-existent', that too, does not reflect Buddhism at either the folk religion level or at its deepest.  How can one become non-existent?  Becoming is the act of being, to be coming, to bring forth, so you can't ‘become non-existent'.  At the folk end of it Buddhists believe that they will reincarnate and have a go at it again.  Anything left undone in this life must be accounted for in the next while at the deeper end, life and death are inseparable and it's contingent upon the individual to awaken beyond this dualism.  So, no matter what, you can't escape the consequence of your actions.
  Good and evil are concepts of humans and not part of nature but the estrangement from nature.  Where isn't the concept from man's mind?  If you read the Old Testament there are many admonishings of good and evil, like stoning your wife if she's not a virgin on her wedding day, you think some God came up with this?  If you read the Bible or the Koran without all of the influence and bias you've been taught but read them like historical testaments you will find chronicles of war, horror, pettiness and deceit dictated by a ‘loving' God.  Christians excuse it with God's covenant or some other contrivance but the fact is the ‘God' of the Bible was anything but compassionate or all-loving and I find that most people will spend forever making excuses for God rather than going beyond it all.   Another problem is that the incarnation of evil itself is Lucifer but God created Lucifer full knowing what he would become. This is handed off to free will as an excuse but if you create some killer animal, full knowing what it would do later, wouldn't you be liable?  If you let it lose in your garden with your children wouldn't you go to jail? God created Lucifer full knowing what he would do to his children.  My dad may or may not have been the best in the world but he was a whole lot better than that.  He protected his children and didn't allow snakes in our garden.  Buddhism does not have such myths to defend.  It's silly stuff when you get right down to it. I am just as hard on the myths of Eastern religion as I am with the West.  If you really want to come to some religious fulfillment you have to be brutally honest and critical so you get beyond all of the fluff. The concepts of good and evil are human based no matter where they exist and change over time.  Zen Buddhism seeks to break the bond of cause and effect and to see true reality and not some contrived philosophy or tradition.  It strives to go beyond man's concepts and to see the Universe on its own terms.
   
  I hope his helped you in some way.
         Joe

Joe,
Believe me Joe i appreciate this and im glad you could answer my questions. One problem. The idea of nature being forever can be see AS God himself. The idea of an all powerful being is that he can do whatever. Therefor he can be and not be, he can have a form and not a form, he can give free will and predetermine the same person. We only use 10% of our brains, maybe if we figured out how to use all of it we could comprehend this but for now theirs no way. By the way your right i am assumming alot so correct me please if i make a mistake. ABout a buddhists "killing whatever" i ddint mean it to say anything bad but merely as an example, buddhists believe in following no teaching, correct? If thats so then the 4 noble truths, etc. dont apply, i can steal, lie, if it makes me happy. Without God their seems to be no nessicity to do anything let alone live. Karma, how does that work? I dont remeber anything from past lives, even if it is subconscious, people who are depressed could find that as a way to make them happy, to not exist anymore. About nonexistance and reincarnation and karma. It seems to me you believe this from blinf faith, just as i belive in a good God blindly. People say you cant belive in God because it cant be proven that he exists. Whats strange is, how come those people tell someone who is blind that the sun exists. The blind man relies on others to tell him the truth. But things such as God and no God cannot be revealed by anyone but God Himself. You can say well i believe what is more logical, and explain it but our senses are imperfect if their were two people on earth millions of years ago they would say the sun is a disk in the sky, not bigger then the earth for sure. It turns out the sun is HUGE, and when they relied only on their senses they turned out to be wrong. Im not saying your wrong im merely saying somethings cannot be 100% accurate. Im not Christian but let me defend them because no matter what, Jesus was a great man.....or God? hahahah maybe, but you speak of Christianity and all its faults but what it seems is that you if you want to be brutally honest then what if their is a God, it is possible, and he contradicts Himself in the bible just to make us argue about Him, the reality would be (in that scenarion) that those contradictions don't matter. The main question is, is their a God or no God? If theirs God then anything is possible because of his complexing infinite power. If their is no God, their also is anything possible because who knows maybe nature itself has a heaven in store for us. If that is the case i would go ahead and say the infinite ever chaning nature is God, God doesnt have to be a being. Could you not say that as a buddhist?, that the infinite time and ever changing reality is God Him/it/herself? Any thing God does in the bible(i believe God is one and the same in all religions,even buddhism,strangely enough follows the exact path Christianity and Hinduism do) is not ours to judge, if it is true that those are acts of God.You know God works in mysterious ways. Thank you Joe, Barrett
Answer -
  You stated, “The main question is, is their a God or no God?” you should have said that in your first letter because this is not a question about Zen and I would have declined the answer for it's unanswerable.  The Zen approach to this question is ‘who wants to know if there's a God'?  This is the crux of it in Zen.  If you want to discuss any ideas of God after this please write someone who is dedicated to this issue.
 About 20 years ago I was at a seminar conducted by the theologian John Hicks.  After he presented his idea of God and what he thought God to be people started to ask questions and to point out problems with his thought.  Every time someone would comment he would pause and say, ‘ well, God's that too'.  His definition was no definition at all but this ever- changing idea to meet challenges.  You are doing the same thing.  God is a ‘he', eternal nature, maker of good and evil and being and non-being at the same time but what is the precedent in theological thought for this?  Is this just something to design as you go along?  Are you throwing out the entire Judeo/Christian tradition when you do this to suit your argument?  It becomes a very circular game that goes on forever when you do this.  Your God also likes to have contradictions to get people arguing.  When a human does that we have names for them.  If God is nature then why do you need to call him God, why isn't there just nature?  I don't care about defending or defeating an idea of God, that's for you to do, not me.  It's very problematic and you have not presented any compelling argument just a nebulous swirl of ideas.  If you need to believe in a God, that's fine.  
 As far as believing anything you want that has it's own baggage.    A problem with faith/believing is that while one who believes one thing expects others to respect his faith but rarely do they give this respect to others faiths.  If what I believe is right simply because I believe it to be right then how can I criticize another's faith?  That would give them the ground to criticize my faith.  It's a circular argument, I know, but it is the problem that faith based religions do have.  Just because we believe it doesn't make it a reality.  Many children believe in Santa Claus but that does not make him real.  You can believe anything you want but it's just a contrivance of the limited human mind.
   Why is it you need God to be good?  You can't be good for its own merit?  There isn't goodness in your heart that seeks to be harmonious and kind?  Why do you need a God for this?  If God created everything he created evil too so you need a God for that too.  He must be both good and evil.  Stealing and lying only make you feel good if you are a psychopath and not in touch with your true self or harmonious with nature.  If they make you happy then you intrinsically have a problem.
  I still don't know where you are getting your ideas of Buddhism but I suggest you study it somewhere because they are way off line.  Buddhists follow teachings to reach their own awakening.  The teachings are a stepping-stone and not the end all.
  Karma is cause and effect. The term originally comes from Jainism and meant “ reaction to action”.  What that meant was that our minds stir up or react to outside stimulus and that it is a false view of the world.  The idea was to keep the mind still and to see things without creating thoughts, to see things directly. Karma has since come to mean causation in regards to reincarnation but that is not a very good understanding of it.  What karma really means is simply cause and effect.  If you hang out with thugs you will eventually end up in trouble, if you eat the wrong foods you will eventually get sick.  It tries to explain the causal relationship between things whether it be pure physics or mental states; there is still a cause and effect.   Most of us follow the same thought patterns over and over, do things the same way but expect different results.  We ignore our karma by doing so.  If you have been raised in an exceptionally disruptive household you will have learned to do things and to reason in a faulty manner.  It is the cause and effect of one's upbringing.  What one needs to do is to recognize their karma, what ever that be, and break through it, to free oneself from the confines of their own egotistical view of reality and to see a more complete reality.  So you do good in Buddhism to avoid the bad effects of doing bad.  This is for its own merit and not because you believe God is watching you.
   Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity are far from being the same and believing the same thing.  I have no idea what you have read or studied to believe this but its wrong.  I've heard these kinds of statements before but they are indefensible at their core.  Go to a Christian convention and tell them this and see their reaction or go to a Jewish one and tell them history doesn't matter and see what response you get.  Here is your quote “(i believe God is one and the same in all religions,even buddhism,strangely enough follows the exact path Christianity and Hinduism do)”.  Where can Buddhism follow the exact path of Christianity when there is no belief in Christ in Buddhism?  This is an indefensible statement.
 Christianity is fundamentally based on several dogmas.  Some of them are: the divinity of Christ, the death and resurrection of Christ, Christ as savior to humanity, God as father and separate from man his creation, man is fallen from God and that's his sin, faith in God is essential and redemption is only through the Christ and or the Father.  Now Buddhism: it is atheistic, the problem is man's ignorance, man and nature are equal, redemption/enlightenment can only come through one's own effort, Buddha is the same as any other man and life and death ultimately are non-dual.  I cannot see how people can integrate these two systems. One is a religion based in faith in a Supreme Being and the other is an attempt to have an existential and thoroughgoing experience whereby one's essential foundation of self is overturned and awakened to a new way of ‘seeing'.  There are many appealing aspects to Buddhism that many Christians try to incorporate but you cannot grasp the marrow of Zen while hanging onto a belief system that is based on the duality of man and God.
    Barrett I think the bottom line here is that you want to defend theism and find God.  This is fine but do that and don't mask it in other arguments.  You can call God whatever you like if it pleases you and defend the idea anyway you like.  My job here is to explain Zen and not God.  If you want to argue the existence of God write to an atheist.  Why do you need to do this?  What fire or doubt burns within you that you need to engage in this discussion?  If you fully believed in, or knew there was a God, you would not need to engage in this type of behavior.  What is the root of your agitation over this that you need to discuss this with me?  These are rhetorical questions so don't answer them to me, you will, however, eventually need to answer them to yourself to have peace of mind.
      Take care,
         Joe
Joe,
hahah thanks again for the response, and you are right this is a circular argument. But i also think we are completely misunderstanding each other. --First off the biggest idea that i didn't seem to get across to you was the idea of the underlying relationship between alot of major religions. I meant not the definition of God, but their main ideas. Is it not true that all three teach the Golden Rule,one which covers almost everything in regards to how we live, Love thy neighbor as thyself?
-Secondly, my statements about God aren't trying to defend him, it probaly seems like that,but rather im saying that if God exists then we can't explain him or understand him. You said "why can't it just be nature then" i would respond, it could! Your point on "who wants to know if theirs a God" was excellent.Is that like the question of trying to explian a color to a blind person? Its true their is color, but to the blind man it simply can't be understood so its no use trying to understand it.
-What else, you are right about the religions critizing other faiths, no one should be criticizing anyones beliefs.
-I didn't mean to put out the message that i dont want to do good, i absolutely do and not for fear of God, im just saying that sometimes i really believe doing something bad will make me happy. Who honestly doesnt think that way sometime in their life? Im only 16 though so im ignorant to what makes me truly happy and what doesn't. An example: I know someone who is going to France to do volunteer work and i know that they would be happier sitting at home, skateboarding all day, so why should he go?
-Last point, i cant grasp how buddhism explains how we reincarnate, if we dont remember any past lives. If we only exist for 70 years and thats it, i mean our feelings, our conscience, our personality, essentially ourselves, some who suffers to the max could feel that dying is better then living.
-Joe i made 5 points and straight up, they are 1)The golden rule exists in 3 religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity 2)im not defending God but rather saying its possible that God exists, but if he does he is so unconcievable that we cant even explain him and never will. 3)Criticizing others for anything is wrong because we all seek what we think will bring us true happiness 4)I want to do good, i dont want evil to bring about happiness, for no reason other than the fact that i dont want it to. If it does, which i truly don't think it does, then ill have to live with that but until i find out then im going to follow the golden rule. 5)Buddhist idea of reincarnation, is it ME who is going into another life?
Joe i really dont want you to keepp answering these question so i wont respond again, please correct me on every mistake i have made and i thank you so much for your time. I think the big thing was i didnt grasp the fact that you belive their is a possibility that their is a God.Im sorry if i offended you about anything or misinterpreted you. Again i await you response eagerly and i tell you this is it, no more after this :) hahah, Barrett
Answer -
Dear Barrett,

I think that faith cannot come only from logic, because to have faith in God means to trust and love God.
I think however that logics and science prove the existence of our soul and the existence of  God and that there are many rational arguments which strongly supports the christian faith.
I am a physicist and I will explain  how science and logic prove that the our psychical life is intrinsically transcendent with respect to material reality, which implies the existence of the soul (or spirit) as a supernatural component of man.
I think in fact that the more direct way to find the certainty of the existence of God is to try to understand our psychical life, that is our capacity to feel emotions, sensations, thoughts, self-awareness, etc.
We know that our brain is made only of particles such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagneic fields; every biological process is due only to chemical reactions, and in their turn, every chemical reaction is due only to the electromagnetic interaction among valence electrons.
Every materialistic attempt to explain our psychical life implies that what thinks, loves, suffers, desires ets. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields.

The point is that objects can feel nothing at all ; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc.   
Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom.
There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed. In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.

The claim that the electric impulses in our brain are or generate sensations and thoughts, is in contradiction with the laws of physics that consider equivalent all electric impulses, inside or outside our brain. In fact, an electric impulse is formed only by some electrons moving in a certain direction; according to the laws of physics, electrons are all equal and indistinguishable, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with one of the fundamental principle of physics, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, that establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

Besides, the laws of physics establish that electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields; so the materialistic hypothesis that the electric impulses in the brain generate sensations, emotions and thoughts is in striking contradiction with the laws of physics. The electromagnetic waves generated by the electric impulses in our brain are absolutely equivalent to the ones generated by any other electric impulses; such waves go out of our brain and travel in the external space at the velocity of light, as every electromagnetic wave.
From a physical point of view our brain is only an object, and therefore it can have no psychical life; our psychical life represents a violation of the laws of physics. Every phenomenon which represents a violation of the laws of physics is considered a supernatural phenomenon ; therefore our psychical life is a supernatural phenomenon.
Materialists think that the electromagnetic field is the origin of our consciousness, feelings, emotions, etc., but they cannot explain why the same fields do not make our electric objects have similar consciousness, feelings, etc. ; their position is in striking contradiction with our scientific knowledges which prove that there is no difference between the electric fields inside our brain and the ones outside our brain.
If one supposes that the electric impulses in our brain were the origin of consciousness and emotions, the only possible logical consequence would be that every electric object has a psychical life and FEELS emotions, feelings, etc.

The properties of every molecule  (including DNA molecules)  and every biological process can be obtained directly from the laws of physics.
On the contrary consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. cannot be obtained from the laws of physics; this is a further proof of the transcendent nature of  consciousness with respect to the material reality.
Our psychical life is intrinsically  transcendent with respect to the material reality, because it cannot be originated by objects (such as electrons or electromagnetic fields) ; our psychical life is then intrinsically supernatural.

Since our psychical life cannot be originated by objects such as electrons and electromagnetic fields, it means that our psyche (or mind, or spirit, or whatever you prefer) and our brain are two different interacting entities, and not the same entity. The psyche is the  non-physical component of man.
Where did our psyche come from?  How did our psychical life begin? Science proves that our psyche cannot have a physical or biological origin, which proves that  the only answer is God.
In fact,  I know that I exist,  that I have not always existed and that I have not come into existence by myself;
these certainties are very evident by themselves and need not be proved.
I can then define God as the Creator of my psyche, He Who has made me exist as a psychical being, He Who has give origin to my psychical life.
In other words, my reasoning can be summarized as follows:
I FEEL my existence, therefore I exist as a psychical being (that is as a spirit).
I exist, therefore God exists and He is the Creator of my own existence.

The certainty of the existence of God is as evident as the certainty that I exist.
I think that the existence of God is very evident by itself; the reason why atheists do not believe in God's existence is that they are so much terrorized by the idea of Hell that  they deny every evidence.
It is not God Who hides from man but it is man who often hides from God.
This is explained also in the Bible; in fact, after committing sin Adam and Eve try to hide from God.
I think that the truth is what can prove to be true by itself and is stronger than any doubt.
The existence of God  is for me evident by itself and stronger than any doubt.
I think that to have faith means that a certainty exists inside us and that this certainty is not
deduced by anything else, because it is evident by itself and is intrinsically stronger than any doubt.
Faith is then the absolute certainty, in contrapposition to the relative certainties which can be obtained through an ordinary logical proof.
In fact, every logical proof requires at least an hypotesis, and therefore our conclusions depend on our hypothesis.
We cannot prove our hypotesis without another hypotesis. And so on.
It follows that logic cannot be used to find an absolute truth, but it can give us only relative certainties (relative with respect to our hypotesis).
If you seek an absolute truth you cannot rely only on logic ;
the fact that objects such as electrons, electromagnetic fields, computers, etc. cannot have a psychical life, that is they cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger, etc. is an absolute truth ; this fact does not need to be proved because it is intrinsically obvious and evident by itself.
The only possible materialist explanation of consciousness and emotions implies that objects such as electrons and electromagnetic fields have emotions, feelings, awareness, etc. This is in striking contradiction with logic (objects can feel nohing at all) and with our scientific knowledges, which prove that there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields inside and outside our brain. Materialism is only a modern kind of idolatry: in fact the idolatrous thinks that the object (idol) under certain circumstances has a psychical life, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material; this is exactly what the materialist thinks, because he thinks that the object (brain) has a psychical life under certain circumstances, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material (electrons, electromanetic fields, etc.)

The fact that drugs can alter consciousness and mental capacities simply proves that an interaction between brain and psyche exists. By no means this can be considered a proof that the brain is the origin of consciousness and emotions. If you have a problem in your eyes, your visual capacities would be altered, but this does not prove that it is your eye which has the visual sensation; this simply proves that your eye is involved in the process of generation of the visual sensation. In the same way the studies on drug effects only prove  an interaction between psycheand brain exist. The existence of this interaction is obvious; in fact, without this interaction, our psychewould be completely isolated from the external reality. The chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness etc; it is the our psyche who “translate” these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc. Since the psyche is a supernatural entity, also the interaction brain-psyche has a supernatural nature, and it cannot be explained by science.
Observe that the same mental alterations produced by drugs can be obtained through hypnosis; in the process of hypnosis there is no physical interation between the hypnotist and the brain of the hypnotized, which proves that the process of hypnosis has not a physical origin, but a psychical origin. The fact the the same alterations of consciousness can be obtained through hypnosis is a further proof that brain and psycheare not the same entity, but two different interacting entities.

It must be stressed that the physical stimulus and the sensation we feel are two completely different phenomena. For example, the vibrations of the molecules of the air is not the sensation "sound" we feel; the molecules of the air hear nothing, and it would be absurd to say that the molecules of the air are a auditory sensation. The sensation "sound" exist only in the psychical reality, and not in the physical reality; the auditory sensation is generated only by the psyche and is the psychical elaboration of a physical stimulus. In the same way, the chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness; they are only physical stimuli. It is the our psyche who elaborates and translates these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc.

Now I would like to give some considerations about the reliability of our scientific knowledges. First of all I would like to explain the difference between a phenomenological theory and a first-principletheory. A phenomenological theory is only an approximated and simplified version of a first-principletheory, that represents the exact explanation of natural phenomena. Biology and neurology are examples of phenomenological theories, while physics is the only first-principle theory, from which all the other natural sciences derive. Of course, since first principle calculations are very lengthy and arduous, we need also simplified theories in order to treat more easily systems formed by many atoms.
The laws of physics have a general validity, but in their application to specific systems, it is possible to use simpler rules, specific for that kind of system; these rules are neither extraneous, nor independent from the laws of physics, but they are a direct consequence of the law of physics. A result of these phenomenological theories cannot be accepted if it results to be in contradiction with the laws of physics, which are the only true principleat the origin of the phenomenological theory. Only the laws of physics represent the first-principle explanation of the material reality, both inorganic and organic matter. Obviously, an approximated theory (such as biology and neurology) cannot be used to deny the exact theory from which the approximated theory derives.

All natural sciences are then subordinate to physics. We can also point out that all natural sciences (biology, neurology, etc.) use in their studies and in their microscopic analysis only instruments that have been designed uniquely on the basis of the laws of physics. The data studied and analysed by these natural sciences have sense only because the laws of physics assure the correct working of their instruments. If the laws of physics are questioned, all other natural sciences would immediately fall down to pieces, because all the microscopic data used by these sciences to support their theories, would lose any meaning. Therefore , no natural sciences can elaborate theories in contradiction with the laws of physics. This would mean to make all data to lose sense, data on which the phenomenological theories have been built; it is an obvious logical contradiction. The laws of physics are then the foundations of all natural sciences.

The laws generating all chemical, biological, neurological processes are now perfectly known. Never before in history, science has been able to explain the principleby which all biological processes are originated. This represents a true turn in history. All that physics will discover in the future will have nothing to do with the biological processes in our organism, or any other organism. Even if there are still some things not perfectly known in astrophysics, these astrophysical process do not affect biological processes, which are due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics. There is then no reason to question the validity of the laws of physics in the explanation of biological or neurological processes.

The laws of physics consists of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics ; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.

Today we are able to do first-principle calculations for molecular systems formed by many atoms; this means that we can calculate the solutions of the equations of quantum physics also for macroscopic systems. The point is that we already know what KIND of information we can get from a first-principle calculation for every possible molecular system. In fact from the solution of the Schroedinger equation for a molecular system we know that we can obtain informations such as charge distributions or energy spectra. By no means we can obtain consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. These are not possible outputs of a first-principle calculation. Even if we had a supercomputer with the capacity to find the wave function for our brain, we could find from the wave function only properties such as charge density or energy spectra. We could not find consciousness from the wave function calculated with the super computer. In fact we already know what KIND of properties can be obtained from every possible wave function. We are already able to do first-principle calculations for many different molecular systems, but the kind of properties we can find from their wave functions does not depend on which molecular system we have studied, because they are general outputs of every first-principle calculation, and it is independent from the kind of atoms or the number of atoms of the system. If the psyche did not exist as a non-physical component of man, according to our scientific knowledges we should be only a sort of biological robots, without any consciousness and without feeling anything, which actions and reactions were due only to chemical reactions . All the neurological studies prove only the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain, but they reveal nothing about the nature of the psyche.

At this point, it is important to observe that it is possible to simulate with a computer every feature of the behavior of animals, including their capacity to learn and their apparent capacity to recognize their image in a mirror. An adequate software can allow the computer to record input data, analyze them and give specific outputs; all these operations occur automatically, with no consciousness. For example a computer, connected to a camera, can analyse the external images; this occur automatically through some mathematical algorithms, and the computer has no visual sensations. This proves that the fact that a can can distinguish a bone from a stick, does not imply that the dog has a visual sensation.

Therefore it is not possible to exclude from a scientific and rational point of view, that the life of animals is only a purely biological/chemical process without any kind of consciousness (neither sensations or emotions). In other words, science cannot exclude the possibility that the animal is only a biological robot, feeling nothing at all, which actions and reactions are uniquely determined by a chemical software implanted in its brain. It is also possible to explain those behaviors of animals, that are usually considered as an indication of emotions. For example, the dogs that because of genetic mutations presented some affectionate behaviors, had a greater probability to be adopted by man, and consequently, to survive. It was sufficient that the animal presented those behaviors also towards only a member of the family (even not the one who gave it food) to be accepted by the family. It would be only a case of natural selection, even if unawares induced by man, that has programmed the behavior and the reactions of the dog. Since we have no way to observe directly the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, and the hypothesis of existence of consciousness in animals is not necessary to explain the observable phenomena in animals, we can conclude that there is no experimental or scientific evidence of the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, neither sensations or emotions.
The idea that animals have sensations and emotions is then only an arbitrary hypothesis, without any scientific or rational foundations..


Let me then briefly discuss the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is based on the recovery of fossils, therefore this theory can at the most conclude that our biological organism is the result of the evolution of a previous biological organism.
The point is that what really distinguishes us from animals is our psychical life, which has no biological origin, but a supernatural origin ; our biological organism is certainly not much different from the one of other animals.
Since it is not possible to find fossils of psyche, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the way we have become conscious and intelligent persons.
Even if our organism  derived from a previous animal organism, only the divine intervention could have given this organism the human mind.
So God could have created the whole universe through the laws of physics and our organism could be the result of an evolutional process ; however our organism would have been only another animal organism if God would have not given us our psyche, changing a pure animal organism into a human person.

In conclusion, today we know the laws which generate all chemical, biological and neurological processes; in fact, the laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the description of molecular systems, and in particular of biological systems. Science proves that electrons are all identical and indistinguishable. The laws of quantum mechanics are universal and determine every chemical reaction and every molecular process, both in organic and inorganic systems. The electromagnetic fields are determined by the same universal equations , both in our brain and in any other inorganic system.

The laws of physics allow to explain, a least in principle, all physical, chemical, biological, neurological and cerebral processes. However, in the laws of physics there is no explanations and no justifications of the existence of consciousness, neither of the most common sensation. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, which proves that consciousness is due to a supernatural component, the psyche or soul, that is a non-physical entity, transcendent to the laws of physics and to the material reality.

The psyche cannot then be identified with the brain, which is only a physical object, formed by electrons, protons and neutrons, which processes are determined uniquely by the laws of quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, consciousness and our psychical life cannot have a biological origin. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical, biological and neurological process; the psychical reality, which transcends the laws of physics.

At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the material reality.
We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent to the physical reality. This represents a scientific confirmation of the existence of a transcendent God, the Creator of our soul.

My reasoning “I exists, therefore God exists” simply proves that atheism as well agnosticism are  false,  illogical and in striking contraddiction with our scientific knowledges.
Once you reach the certainty that God exists, you must try to understand Who God is and why God made us exist.
The fact that God is the Creator of our mind, implies a very close relation between God and us and it is a further evidence of how much God deeply knows us and loves us.
The fact that God is the Creator of our mind allows us to understand through logics some attributes of God.
God is infinitely superior to us and more powerful than us because He has the power to create us, while we do not have the power to create anything and we need be created by Him in order to exist. This proves that an immense abyss of superiority separates God from us.
Since God is the Creator of our intelligence,  our consciousness, our capacity to love, to have a will, to rejoice, to have a psychical life,   He must be infinitely more intelligent than us and He must have a will and a capacity to love and to have a psychical life infinitely superior to ours.  
Since God is the Creator of our (psychical) person, He must be Person.
Since He is the Creator of us , He existed before us, and He exists independently from us.
Since God is the Creator of our mind, He has the power to create counscious existence, therefore God owns in Himself conscious existence ; so God is He who exists consciously in Himself.
The biblical name of God is YHWH, which means “I am who I am”. ; the meaning of “I am” is conscious existence, because only a person who exists and is conscious of his own existence can say “I am”.
I believe that  God is love, and that creation  is an act of love.  
I firmly believe that God made me exists because he loves me and He wants me to share the full happiness of His eternal life.
The certainty that God loves me is based on Jesus' word and on His sufferings and death;
I know that there is nothing more than this that  God could do in order to prove to me that He loves me.
Since God loves us,  He certainly manifested Himself to men.
The Bible is the most ancient monotheistic book, and is then from the logical point of view the only possible candidate ; A loving God would never have abandoned humanity during the first part of history.
Besides and most importantly, no religion in the world contains an immense act of love as the one of the christian faith: God makes Himself a man, and accepts an atrocious suffering and death in order to save us. For a person who believes that God is love, the christian faith is the only possible logical answer.
Human life is based on two complemetary aspects: logic and love, that is the capacity of reasoning and the capacity to have feelings.
Logic cannot give by itself a meaning to human life; logic cannot fill our life with happiness as only love does.
The catholic faith is the perfect synthesis of love and logic.

There are also rational arguments from history which supports the christian faith.
Jesus did several powerful miracles to prove that He was the Son of God.
He gave also the power to the apostoles to do powerful miracles.
Even if we cannot see these miracles I think that it is possible to prove through logics
that these miracles really happened.
First of all, Jesus was killed by the pharisees because many jews believed that He was the Messiah.
The Jews believed in powerfull miracles, and they expected that the Messiah
would have been greater than Moses and all the prophets, who did very powerful
miracles.
If Jesus had not given powerful miracolous signs, nobody would have believed in Him,
and the pharisees would not need kill Him.
The hypotesis that Jesus could have been  a phylosopher is in strong contradiction with the jewish culture;
jews believed that wisdom can come only from God.
No jew would have become a follower of a phylosopher; no phylosopher has ever existed among the jews, but only prophets; in particular, the jews were waiting for the Messiah.

Christianity spread very rapidly among many different peoples, languages, cultures and religions,
in spite of terrible persecutions against christians.
This fact is unique in the history.
In 64 dC (that is about thirty years after Jesus' death) the roman imperator Nero
ordered the first great persecution of christians because he saw in Christianity a menace for the roman empire.
Many other great persecutions of christians were ordered by the roman imperators until 311 dC.
All these persecutions are very well proved by non-christian sources.
In 112 dC, Plinium (a non-christian roman) in a letter to the imperator Traianus frm Bithinia wrote that “all temples have been abandoned and are desert, and the christians are the only responsible of this situation.”
In the same letter he wrote that he tortured some cristians.
I would add that the new christians were asked to leave their pagan and libertine behavior,
to observe very rigid moral and sexual behavior and to be ready to give their life for Christ;
if the apostoles never did miracles, nobody would have accepted this new religion.
In the christian religion, the promise of the eternal life is bound to very rigid moral requests.
In the first century, there were many religions who promised the life after death,
without such rigid requests; certainly the promise of eternal life is not sufficient to explain the success of the christian religion.

More recently, some supernatural facts occured at Fatima.
On the 13-10-1917 more than 70000 people saw the sun dance in the sky, change color, and then fall down and coming up to its normal place; these facts lasted for about ten minutes and were saw not only from the 70000 people at Fatima, but also from people living in the villages around Fatima.
Among those people there were also many atheist journalists from some anticlerical journals,
who were there in order to discredit the religious  “superstitions” of catholicism, since the child Lucia said that on that day God would have given a great sign for everybody.
In fact, since 1910, the portuguese government had started a very hard battle against the Catholic Church: many religious orders were expelled and their property confiscated, new legislation banned the teaching of religion in schools and universities and annulled many religious holidays. Persecution of Catholics in the early years of the republic attracted international attention and brought the new political system into conflict with foreign diplomats, humanitarian organizations, and journalists.

Those journalists have written very detailed accounts of the facts occurred at Fatima ,
which were reported on all newspapers in the world, including the New York Times.  
Among the journalists present at Fatima on October 17, there was  the (atheist) director Avelino de Almeida of the government (and very antireligious) newspaper "O Seculo”. The article, published with the title "Terrifying Event! How The Sun Danced In The Sky Of Fatima"  can be found on the site

www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm

In his article, the journalist describes a crowd of biblical dimensions, spread in the fields of Fatima. At a certain point, this immense crowd begins to cry "Miracle! Miracle!" looking at the sun. The journalists describes then an amazed crowd, who cry and pray.
I have tried to anlalyse these data to see whether it was possible to find a plausible explanation, excluding a divine intervention, but  I have found none. The miracle of Fatima is the most extraordinary and well recorded miracle in all history. This miracle has occurred in the Catholic Church, since the three children were catholics (Lucia, the only one of the three children still alive is a catholic nun).
The fact that so many people saw these phenomena cannot be explained
without the hypotesis of a supernatural being, because neither science nor
logic would allow something like that to happen.
Besides these facts occured exactly in the day and the place indicated several monthes before by the child Lucia. Neither science nor logics can explain the capacity to foresee the future.

A brief and incomplete description of the supernatural facts occurred at Fatima can be found also in some contemporary encyclopedias, for example the Britannica (also available on internet at www.britannica.com)
gives at the voice Fatima :

village and sanctuary, Vila Nova de Ourém municipality, Santarém district, central Portugal; it is located on the tableland of Cova da Iria, 18 miles (29 km) southeast of Leiria. Fátima was named for a 12th-century Moorish princess and since 1917 has been one of the greatest Marian shrines in the world, visited by thousands of pilgrims annually. On May 13, 1917, and in each subsequent month until October of that year, three young peasant children, Lucia dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto, reportedly saw a lady who identified herself as the Lady of the Rosary. On October 13, a crowd (generally estimated at about 70,000) gathered at Fátima witnessed a “miraculous solar phenomenon” immediately after the lady had appeared to the children.


The fundamental role of miracles in the history of Christianity cannot be doubted.
The miracles done by Jesus proved that He was the Messiah, and the miracles done by the apostoles proved that they were really sent by Christ.

Miracles still happen within the catholic church.
In the following site the 66 official miracles occured at Lourdes are described.
The miracolous nature of these healings have been scientifically proved

http://www.catholic-forum.com/catholicteacher/lourdescontents.html


Other interesting sites

http://www.fatima.org/miracle1.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

http://www.sancta.org/eyes.html

I have given above several rational arguments which explain why the certainty of the existence of God is for me as strong as the certainty that I exist.

I give you here some consideration about the church.

Who has the authority to interpret correctly the Bible and to teach correctly Jesus' teachings?

Only a person who knows and understands what Jesus taught can teach what Jesus taught.
So, who are the persons who really know Jesus' teachings?
Many think they are teaching what Jesus taught, but they teach different doctrines, therefore it is evident that they are teaching only their opinions, because Jesus cannot contradicts Himself.

Jesus gave the commandment to teach the Gospel ONLY to His disciples and He NEVER gave this commandment to the crowds; this clearly proves that not all can teach the Gospel, but only those who have been taught and sent (directly or indirectly) by Jesus.

How did the Church's mission  pass to each generation?
The Bible explains this to us.

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them, and said, It is not right that we should neglect the word of God to serve tables.
6:3 Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
6:6 These they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

The apostolic mission is passed to other people directly from the apostoles.

Acts 14:19 And certain Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, who, having persuaded the people, stoned Paul, and dragged him out of the city, supposing he was dead.
14:20 Yet, as the disciples stood around him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had made disciples of many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
14:22 Strengthening the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God.
14:23 And when they had appointed elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they committed them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

Again it is Paul (who in his turn received the apostolic mission with the laying of hands, see Acts 9:15-19) who appoints the elders.

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.

Paul writes clearly that the presbyterate is received with the imposition of hands.

The prespityters in their turn, appointed other people:

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Christ founded His Church 2000 years ago; He ordered the apostoles to teach His Word, and they appointed other people, who in their turn appointed other people, etc.  so that the apostolic mission has lasted until our days.
This is the catholic Church, which receives its apostolic mission form Christ and teach the true teachings of Christ, as they were given to the apostoles.
There is an historical connection between the present catholic church and the church founded by Christ 2000 years ago, while there is no historical connection between the many protestant denominations and the church of Christ.
In fact Christ never appeared to Luther or Calvin, etc.; Christ never authorized Luther to found a new church and to teach his opinions as if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
All the apostoles did many powerful miracles which proved that they were really sent by Christ, but Luther did no miracle in order to prove that his interpretations were really inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The protestant churches teaches many sinful doctrines, for example that divorce and remarriage are permissible, that abortion is permissible (some denominations), etc.

Mt 16:18 And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tm 3:15)

These two verses are sufficient to prove that the Church of Christ teaches infallibly the truth.
Christ founded His church 2000 years ago and He assured us that the gates of Hell  shall not prevail against His Church. The Bible assures us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
If the protestant churches were the church of Christ (which one among thousends of different denominations?), it would mean that Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hell would have not prevail against His church and that the Bible is wrong when it says that the Church is the pillar of the truth.
In fact, before 1500 dC there were only the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.
Since both the catholic church and the orthodox church teach  doctrines such as prayer for the dead, prayers to saints, etc. if protestants were right, this would imply that the church founded by Jesus 2000 years ago had been defeated by Satan for about 1500 years.
Christ spent more than three years with His disciples and taught them; How is it possible that Jesus' teachings were forgotten and replaced with sinful teachings for about 1500 years?
All the people who lived during those centuries would have been induced to sin by the church founded by Christ; it is absurd that a loving Father would have allowed this to happen, and this would have certainly meant that the gates of Hell had prevaled against the church of Christ, in contradiction with His own words.
Christ cannot contradict Himself; if Christ has taught through His Church certain doctrines for 1500 years, these doctrines cannot be considered sinful.

Besides, only to Peter Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven; this proves that Jesus gave Peter a special role in the Church ; this is sufficent to prove Peter's supremacy. Consider that the very first act done by Jesus after founding His Church, is to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; there is then a fundamental relation between these keys and the Church. After Peter's death in Rome, who has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven? I think that the most logical answer is: Peter's successor in Rome, the Pope.
The special role of Peter still exist in the Church of Christ, and it is the role of Peter's successor, the Pope. This special role allow christians to identify with certainty the only true Church of Christ. There is in fact an historical continuity between Peter and the present Pope, the apostolic succession.

Protestants usually think that their interpretations are inspired by the Holy Spirit ; but they are divided in  thousends of different denominations and they have different interpretations.
Since the Holy Spirit cannot contradicts Himself, it is evident that their interpretations are only fallible human opinions.
In fact, when Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, He was speaking directly to the apostoles only, and NOT to the crowds. John 16 :12-13"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Jesus NEVER made this promise to the crowds, but ONLY to the Apostoles when they were TOGETHER WITH PETER. Therefore you cannot  generalize this promise to every christian; this verse can be applied ONLY to the bishops (the apostoles' successors) when they are together with the Pope (Peter's successor).
I believe that God loves us; it follows that God has not abandoned us to our fallible human interpretations and opinions.
Through the prophets, God prepared the Jews (even if only some of them) to receive Christ; Christ remained with His disciples for about three years and half and taught them all the necessary moral and spirital knowledges for our salvation, so that in their turn they could teach others, who in their turn could teach others, etc.
In this way the teachings of Christ has spread throughout the world and the centuries through His Church, the catholic Church.
A loving Father would never abandon His children to their human and fallible opinions.
A loving Father would certainly give His children a “guide” so that they could receive His holy and good teachings.
This “guide” is the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago.


Usually protestants say that the catholic church has been corrupted :
If this were true, it would mean that Jesus was a lier, because He said that the gates of Hell would have not prevailed agaisnt His church.
The truth is that corrupted men have been present within the church since the very beginning (Judas was one of the apostoles), but the church was never corrupted because its teachings were always good.
Judas was sent by Jesus to teach the Gospel, to heal the sick, to cast demons (see Mt 10 :1-8)
The fact that there were men within the church who commited grave sins, does not mean that the church is corrupted.
Every man is responsible of h

Answer
Dear Barrett,

first of all, let me explain one of the fundamental reason (or maybe the most fondamental reason) why I believe in Christ. I think, in fact, that through christianity, an absolutely new concept of divine love has come into history: the concept of a God who loves us so much that He makes Himself man and accepts an atrocious suffering and death in order to save us from our sinful and unhappy existence and lead us to the true and eternal happiness.

Why was it necessary that Jesus suffered so much to save us from our sins? Couldn't He simply save us without being crucified?

I believe that each of us needed know that God was willing to accept such a terrible suffering for us, in order to really trust God. Every man needed that proof of love, and God, who knew this, has accepted to give him what man consciously or unconsciously asked to Him. Jesus had to suffer and die that way to convince us about God's goodness and God's love towards us. It is man's obstinate distrust against God that has forced God to give man that proof of love, the proof he needed to trust God. By His death on the cross, Jesus destroys our distrust and our doubts, and He gives us the strength to believe in Him and trust Him. This means that each of us is personally responsible of Jesus ' sufferings and death. This distrust, this lack of faith in God is just the essence of the original sin. Christ's Passion has reconciled us to God because it has uprooted from our heart, our distrust and doubts about God; it has satisfied our (conscious or unconscious) desire and need of a proof of love, so that it has given us the strength to trust God and feel loved by Him. I can summarize my thoughts as follows: Salvation implies a deep change of ourselves. God has the power to change us but He wants to do that with our consent. Man cannot really accept to be changed by God and he cannot be in comunion with God as long as even a shadow of doubt and distrust remains in his heart ( it must be stressed that such a distrust may exist even without the man is aware of it, at the unconscious level). God had to destroy every shadow of doubt and distrust in our heart and He has chosen to give us the greatest proof of love that may exist: Christ's Passion.


You ask: " whos to say that anyone teaches exactly what Jesus taught?"

This is an important question.The fact that there are many different protestant denominations, professing different doctrines and interpretations of the Bible, proves that the Bible is not unequivocally understandable by everybody. This is an objective result. Every protestant usually claims that his interpretations are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore they are true, but he has no objective element to support such a claim; he simply assumes that his opinions are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradicts Himself, and therefore these contrasting interpretations can certainly neither be all true, nor all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The concept of divine love implies that, after Jesus' ascent to heaven, God cannot have abandoned us to our uncertain interpretations; God must be present in every time to go on teaching us the Truth and the moral law. This is the reason why Jesus has founded His Church; He gave us a visible guide to lead us to the Truth, so that we were not misled by our wrong interpretations and opinions. The existence of many different protestant denominations, interpreting the Bible in different ways, objectively proves that the Bible is not a sufficient guide for man. On the other man, if Jesus had wanted to found the christian faith on a book, He would have written it Himself; but Jesus never wrote anything. The New Testament has been written some decades after Christ, and the first christian communities had no New Testament, but they founded their faith only on the oral teachings of the Church. Among the several christian confessions, catholicism is the only one that has an historical continuity with Christ, through the apostolic succession that connects the present Pope to Peter. Peter is in fact the only apostole whom Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 16:17), which proves that Jesus gave Peter a special role in His Church; it must be stressed that this delivery of the keys is the first act done by Jesus soon after He founded His Church, which proves the existence of a fundamental relation between these keys and the Church. Observe that no historical continuity exists between Christ and the protestant denominations or other christian confessions; Christ never appeared to Luther or Calvin, etc. All these confessions rose more than 1500 years after Christ.

Now let me comment the verses you have quoted.

Lk 18:19
A young man call Jesus "Good Teacher" and Jesus then ask him: "why do you call me good, no one is good but God alone." If the young man had believed in the divine nature of Christ, he would have replied: "You are God and so you are good". But that mand didn't believed that Jesus is God. In other words, the reason why Jesus asked that question to the young man was to test his faith.

The other verse is (Mr. 3:28) "Those who sin against me shall be forgiven but those who sin against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven"

Jesus did many powerful miracles to prove that He was the Messiah; neverthless many jews refused to believe in Him, refused to believe that the His miracles were done with the power of the Holy Spirit and accused Him to derive the power to do miracles from satan. This is the unforgivable sin. This sin is unforgivable because if a person who has seen Jesus to do a powerful miracle, refuse to believe in Him, there is nothing that can convince him to believe in Jesus.

I hope this may help you,

Yours in Christ,

Marco