Wrong. In fact, God is the only possible answer

Physics can only ever in principle describe reality, it cannot tell you its nature.

Octavo, the physicist is misusing the word "nothing". Feser's notion of nothing is what everyone understands the word nothing to mean -- apart from physicists.

The question of why there exists something rather than nothing, of why there exists anything at all, could not *in principle* ever be answered by physics.

Hi Amos,

You are right to correct me that JPII is considered holy by all accounts. I'm fighting off a cold, and writing when I'm home from work. I should have used a better qualifier, such as many or most.

I think both of us can agree that we don't have full information on the medical data concerning the alleged Parkinson's cure. That said, I defer to the judgement of those who are able to properly evaluate it, just as I defer to the particle physicists for their field of study. I was unaware that Parkinson's is unable to be verified until an autopsy. I knew Alzheimer's was, but not PD. I however, do remember that there was concern and some delay in the Church's pronouncement that her recovery was miraculous, and was under the impression it was better known at the time the announcement was made. As an aside I'm always hopeful that the topic of miracles will be treated as its own topic at this or another website. I don't know enough about the topic, and I'm interested to hear what an expert on the matter has to say.

You are also correct that an exception was made for JPII. Whether it was justified or not is a good question.

My understanding is that for a miracle to be declared a disease must be clearly diagnosed, with the proper medical tests, and evidence, followed by a full, complete, and immediate recovery following prayer to a single person. My understanding is that the evidence for a reported miracle is evaluated by a variety of experts, some of whom are hopefully non-Catholics, and all of which are objective. While many are reported, it is my understanding that very few stand up the scrutiny required for the Church to sign off. I don't think someone can claim that they were diseases, and healed and have it declared a miracle, so anecdotes alone aren't sufficient. Once again I'd love to see a full article here devoted to the topic.

Given your reservations with the miracle discussed, and some of our back and forth I'd gather that your objection to miracles isn't limited to this case, but that most or all of them are due to a lack of current medical understanding, or outliers. This may be true, but I think that they could be considered evidence, though not proof. Once again we have to make a judgement call, and different people will disagree.

I like to think that I am open to a variety of possibilities, including divine intervention. You would be correct to question my scientific credentials if the process for a miracle to be declared by the church is just someone's story, but my understanding is that the process is very vigorous. My opinion on the matter is not set in stone, and I'm always open to changing my mind when presented with good reason to do so presents itself.

All said, I can't make judgement on particular miracles because I don't have full information, but currently the man who signs off on them (Pope Francis) is a trained chemist, who should be able to evaluate properly. Until demonstrated otherwise I would hesitantly trust his judgement.

«...but then as someone who appears to be able to make sense out of religion, and one religion in particular, I shall not be too worried about your opinion»

We all try to make sense out of our believes, could we do it any other way?

So, in your mind, in order to confirm about the existence of something, your criteria is to google it and see if something turns out to appear.

No, when the weight of evidence far outweighs the opinion of the one...the rational critical thinker in me gravitates to the obvious conclusion. It comes as no surprise though, you can't grasp the "nothing" that Krauss refers to in his book, so I guess you will fail to recognise the veracity of the term "theistic evolution"...mind you, reading the subject matter often helps.

Well it can make little sense,....

To you perhaps...but then as someone who appears to be able to make sense out of religion, and one religion in particular, I shall not be too worried about your opinion.

Unless you can point to sources that support your position, in which case I'm prepared to revise my stance.

Josh,

You have been absent, welcome back (I wish you a happy new year).

I was addressing the Darwinian account, which the one generally accepted, it may well be the case that there are a few others, it is not relevant.

If by “theistic evolution” you mean the philosophical conception of the Church regarding theory of evolution (the Darwinian), although its content is not doctrinal (and its acceptance is not required for Catholics) I guess this corresponds to the way the Church considers evolution. But it is not a scientific theory it a philosophical (and theological) interpretation of a scientific theory. But I already explained this to Ignorant Amos, please see the other comments.

Science doesn’t consider God, so it is out of the question that it may say something about God of consider any reference to God, in spite of the theological belief of the person that proposed the scientific theory (or if it is a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist, or whatever you might consider).

Vasco, there are many 'theories' of evolution. Lamarckian vs. Darwinian for example. Theistic evolution is a story in which God plays some role, usually either intervening to achieve some outcome or planning the whole thing from the beginning to effect said outcome. This is not scientific, but that is not because it involves God, it is because it has no evidence. 'Atheistic' evolution is just scientific evolution: God plays no role, nor do alien intelligences or magicians. Just the facts for which we have evidence and the interpretations supported by that evidence.

Now, theistic evolution, by construction, looks superficially similar to scientific evolution, but it is a very different view. On theistic evolution, the successes of the scientific view are either 1) false, as in the claim that God must intervene to supply a human soul to Adam and Eve or some such intermediate ancestor; or 2) an illusion, in that what was explained by chance and necessity has a 'real' explanation in some elaborate set-up. It's the difference between winning a card game because you understand the odds and winning because you cheated.

So, in your mind, in order to confirm about the existence of something, your criteria is to google it and see if something turns out to appear.

Well it can make little sense, but at least it is objective.

I was going to waste a lot of time giving an in depth reply to your post, but it is such a load of nonsense I thought twice and decided against it...mostly to preserve my own sanity.

Given the support for the concept defined as "theistic evolution", which incidentally is not a philosophical interpretation, but a theological construct, I'll still with consensus that there exists a concept called "theistic evolution" as defined by theists and non theists alike...except you of course, because you know better.

https://www.google.es/search?q=theistic+evolution+&rlz=1C1GTPM_enES524ES524&oq=theistic+evolution+&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i65j69i59l2j69i60.18696j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=122&espv=210&q=theistic+evolution+definition&revid=1929405555

How so many, including eminent Catholics, get it so wrong in light of you expertise on the matter, heaven only knows.

Thank-you all the same.