T O P
AnkalaevWillBeTop5

Can’t listen now since I’m at work, but what is the 1 question?


BlackWingCrowMurders

"What WOULD prove God exists?"


Shabanana_XII

I came here thinking, "Press [X] to doubt," but that's actually kind of true. I don't think it'd work with some atheist philosophers, but for your average atheist, and especially for those on r/atheism, it's true.


LingLingToBe

Tip for your sanity and respect for other human beings: Don’t go on r/atheism


fisherman213

That’s because learned atheists realize the existence of God is not a matter of science, it’s on of philosophy and reason.


missamericanmaverick

Yeah, exactly. Fr. Nick, my friend who is a Dominican friar, talks a lot about the philosophy behind religion and atheism. And he said something once that stood out to me: "There is nothing that can convince someone who doesn't want to believe." And I think that's true. Jesus could appear in all his glory to an atheist, a la Paul of Damascus, and tell that atheist he exists. And then the atheist will say, "that was a weird trip" and go right back to being an atheist. For many of them, I've come to the conclusion that it's not that they don't have enough evidence to believe in God, but that being an atheist/skeptic is an ingrained part of their identity, so they rationalize every single supernatural instance as due to natural causes, no matter how much of a stretch their explanations are.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LingLingToBe

This is a Catholic sub, y’know. It’s not a debate sub.


gufoe

Exactly the answer I was expecting from a religious person. Since you were talking about my people, i felt like I could join. nevermind.


LingLingToBe

There’s a sub r/debateacatholic and plenty of other subs that are made for debate. r/Catholicism is made primarily for Catholics to discuss their faith.


atedja

This god of the gaps also exist in atheism. For gullible believers, those who have no concern with theology or philosophy, might attribute anything that they can't explain to God. But atheism if presented with a supernatural event will also try to explain it by saying "there has to be a scientific explanation". This is *their* god of the gap. They do not yet know how it happened, and how they could even reproduce it. But they insist that it was either a hallucination, or a natural event which they had no explanation *just yet*!


titoCA321

Why can't there be a scientific explanation for God? What is your definition of supernatural? Two thousand years ago thunder-strike and lightening were considered "supernatural?" We have rational "scientific" understanding of thunder-strikes and lightening today.


[deleted]

You are assuming that all that can be known is known right now, which is neither rational nor scientific, and defeats your own argument. There is evidence of intelligence in the encoding of DNA, molecular machines, and constants in physics. That might not be enough evidence, but it by no means rules out the existence of God.


titoCA321

My post was not meant to be taken as an assumption that our current state of knowledge represents the entirety of potential discover. My post was directed at asking the question about why a "supernatural" event today can't have a scientific explanation tomorrow?


[deleted]

Thanks, misunderstood


atedja

There is no scientific explanation for God, because that implies God is a subset of the observable science. My point isnt directed at God, or existence of God. It s the premature conclusion that supernatural event *has* to have a scientific explanation, even when they don't even know what it is yet. That is not that far different from someone who prematurely concluded that seemingly supernatural event they experienced *must have* come from God.


Magnus_IV

>"What WOULD prove God exists?" That's kind of true. I don't think the average atheist could answer that. I had a philosopher teacher say that if an angel appeared right in front of him, and said that God exists, he still wouldn't believe it, and would think that he was having a psychotic illusion. Maybe if God appeared to everyone on the planet, some atheists would still claim that it was an episode of mass hysteria, and that this case could be explained by natural means. Sometimes, I feel like some people just *don't want to believe, no matter what*.


Dr_Talon

Of course some don’t. Pharisees witnessed Jesus’ miracles and didn’t believe. Abraham said to the rich man in Hell that if his brothers wouldn’t listen to Old Testament Scripture, neither would they believe if someone rose from the dead.


Magnus_IV

A friend of mine just said about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It's a great example of this. Another example would be trying to prove to a population of blind people (in a world where no one can see, and thus is born blind) that colors exist. Obviously, the blind people would be the atheists, and the colors would be God.


ConversationDue4320

I have found they generally can answer these things, just not honestely or accurately.


[deleted]

It is both unscientific and irrational to simply declare God does not exist as atheists do, simply because all that can be known is not yet known. It *is* rational and scientific (and a good deal more honest) to be agnostic and admit that indeed there may be a God, but they are as yet unconvinced by science and philosophy.


Falandorn

Even if God appeared in the sky worldwide, the press would say it was an illusion and the internet would cry out, 'Project Blue Beam!'.


theskepticalcatholic

I'm not an atheist, but to answer the question, if God came down in front of me right now, and all my friends and family were present, and proved his might, this would be proof for me, beyond faith.


LittleLegoBlock

And then the rest of the atheist community would claim you and your family have mass hysteria. That is the argument against the Resurrection right?


theskepticalcatholic

Presumably there would be selfies with hovering Jesus and the whole works. Maybe it would need to be displayed on the giant TV at times square, etc. Then God would always need to be on demand for the scientists to test his power with their scientific instruments. Point is, God revealing his divine power worldwide I believe would convince all but the unreasonably skeptical and those with mental deficiencies that don't allow them to integrate reality (such as schizophrenics).


tommies_aquinas

That's a fun thought experiment - I'm not sure I'd much enjoy living in a world like that! It does open the door to question, though, whether some wouldn't conclude these worldwide manifestations of might, on call, were some kind of materialist alien force trying to manipulate human civilization by pretending to speak as God.


missamericanmaverick

That is probably exactly what they would say.


WaifuFinder420

To play d\*vil's advocate, people could say that the selfie with Jesus is just a very well-done photo-editing. People have gotten so good at video/photo-editing that it is really hard to see what is real and what is not. [An example of such.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABy_1sL-R3s) ​ Why would God have to be used by scientists? He isn't a science plaything. He is literally the creator of the universe. ​ God also did reveal his divine power 2000 years ago (although only in the Middle East) and people still didn't believe.


theskepticalcatholic

The original statement is "one question atheists can't answer" and the question Horn asks is "what WOULD prove God exists?" I'm saying I'm not an atheist, but it's disingenuous to conflate someone's reasonable skepticism about Christianity with an incorrigible malcontent. The idea isn't that God is a science plaything, the idea would be that you can reasonably witness, observe, and test the divine power of God. And for the wide majority of humanity, this would be enough to answer the question of 'what WOULD prove God exists?' For most, if the heavens opened up and a man floated down and was able to manipulate the properties of the universe, and subjected himself to all manner of legal, medical, and scientific scrutiny, this would convince most. There would likely be a few for which no answer would ever convince them, but this is not the reasonable skeptical secularist/agnostic out there.


LittleLegoBlock

I do wonder if in the End people will repent when they witness this for themselves. It will be such a desolate time to be living on Earth, followed by a glorious time if you repent. I do wonder though…


WaifuFinder420

Okay, I see. My bad my friend. I guess I wasn't the most charitable in my reply.


JMisGeography

What if I told you that is the exact world we are living in *puts on Morpheus sunglasses*


Monktoken

Shopped. 100% photoshop.


titoCA321

God is already talking to the schizophrenics. I see some of these street preachers in public and Doom-slayers on YouTube making videos and talking how God and Angels visiting them.


LouieMumford

I am not an atheist, but I have been one in my journey. And the argument against the resurrection would be that it occurred 2000 years ago and there are no easily verifiable primary documents to support it. Again, I am a believer but I don’t believe in easy belief.


LittleLegoBlock

There are many people that have debated that argument, though it seems many adhere to the position that the Apostles and the rest of the witnesses were affected by “mass hysteria”. Of course, not every atheist believes that, but many do


atedja

That's exactly what Trent was saying. Even if God to show Himself right in front of you and everyone, they would just claim it's hallucination. After all, that's what atheists are saying about the apostles who witnessed Jesus' resurrection.


hairyotter

I’m assuming that’s because you already believe to a good degree. A lot of atheists would argue that such an experience would be indistinguishable from contact with an alien or top secret technology and does nothing to prove an omniscient, all powerful God outside of time and space.


theskepticalcatholic

As stated above, God revealing himself in various ways would convince all but the extremely unreasonably skeptical, and those who are incapable of distinguishing reality from delusion. I do understand the point, which is that many atheists place an impossible burden of proof on proving the existence of God. In philosophy circles they call these people 'incorrigible'. What I think this doesn't address however is that the vast majority of agnostics are reasonable doubting thomases. The fact that an extremely small minority of incorrigible atheists would refuse reason doesn't diminish the reasonable request for proof of divine existence.


Dr_Talon

I don’t think they are an extremely small minority - the incorrigible - they seem to be the majority that I encounter on Reddit, or maybe be they simply don’t understand the arguments that I make.


theskepticalcatholic

In my opinion what Horn is conflating is the realistic need for evidence that many secularists desire, and the impossible burden of proof of a few reddit atheists. If I made the claim that the moon is made of green cheese and someone said 'prove it', that wouldn't be an unreasonable request.


OracleOutlook

How would you tell the difference between that visitation being from God and not a sufficiently advanced alien? I think the question depends heavily on how a person defines "God."


NewAccountOldUser678

Atheist here. I used to think that if god spoke to me I would believe in him/her/it, but a few years ago I came to the conclusion that I would be more likely to start question my own sanity or suspect that it is something else masquerading as my idea of god. Similarly, if I saw someone doing miracles they may also be something like a powerful wizard, a djinni or anything else magical/miraculous and just using religion to gain a following. I think at this point something like mindwashing is needed before I start believing in any deity.


Brilliant_Ad_9228

You may be surprised. When it happened to me it was Seemingly out of no where and many pieces of information in my brain started connecting and then suddenly something inside me just clicked and I was convinced that God does exist


NewAccountOldUser678

That sounds like the "mindwash" part I described. Like if someone were to open up a file in my brain and change a 0 to a 1.


Brilliant_Ad_9228

Like when a detective realizes who the killer is or a doctor realizes what's wrong with his patient. You wouldn't say they were brainwashed into changing thier beleifs. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.


NewAccountOldUser678

It is just that I can't really conceive something that will change my mind.


Brilliant_Ad_9228

Would you like for their to be a god or would that not be pleasing to you?


NewAccountOldUser678

I dont know. I think the idea of the universalism god (not quite sure that is the correct term) sounds quite nice, but other depictions not so much. Generally the idea of hell and the whole eternal suffering (for anyone) thing is not appealing to me. But once I start to think about a "good" god, then I start to consider the suffering in the world. I know there are different explanations of this and I have had discussions about it before, but I can't really like the idea of there being an infinitely powerful bystander. Then I prefer that there is no meaning to the suffering and that it is just something that happens.


[deleted]

I've never in my entire life found any "classical" rational/philosophical argument for God convincing. As a Christian the mere existence of a god doesn't matter to me at all. And the idea that we could "prove" God with our human mind I consider to be presumptuous.


MaxWestEsq

It's a doctrine (*sententia fidei proxima*) that we can know God exists with our rational human mind and natural reasoning, without faith. Not everyone can, but his existence is knowable in principle.


[deleted]

The actual phrasing is "*naturali humanae rationis lumine et rebus creatis certo cognosci posse*" which isn't accurately translated by "knowing that God exists", as the verb "cognoscere" is much more dynamic in its meaning. Secondly, "knowledge" is commonly defined as justified true belief, ie. if we translate "God …, may be certainly *known* by the natural light of human reason, by means of created thing" we're talking about a belief which is justified and true. Every proof is a justification but not every justification is a proof. And thirdly, knowing things, justifying things and proving things are three separate different issues, and I was talking about "proving", not about "knowing" or "justifying".


MaxWestEsq

So you mean like a mathematical proof? Right, there isn't one for anything that isn't defined in an axiomatic system. There is no strict proof in demonstrating that anything really exists. I don't think Trent means anything like that, though.


russiabot1776

Well, we can take Thomas Aquinas’ arguments and represent them in symbolic logic https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliMayd.htm


[deleted]

Dei Filius is a Vatican I document (1870) and – like you – isn't talking about what I am talking about.


Cult_of_Civilization

He was referring to Trent *Horn*, I believe, not the council.


MaxWestEsq

Yeah, sorry for the confusion, that's funny.


jasonmccarley

In my mind I thought that it's the human reasoning that demonstrates or evidences the truth of God's existence through the means of philosophical argument. Thats what legitimizes the true belief. Isn't that demonstration via the argument a proof if it is sound? I get it if you don't find any of the arguments to be convincing, but are you saying that it's not actually church teaching that it is possible to demonstrate God's existence through philosophical argument? I'm asking out of ignorance because I haven't read the teaching.


[deleted]

Dei Filius isn't that specific. Looking into the [English translation](https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html), the relevant passage is found in the Chapter II *On Revelation* and says: >The same holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; 'for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,' but that it pleased his wisdom and bounty to reveal himself, and the eternal decrees of his will, to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as the Apostle says, 'God, having spoken on divers occasions, and many ways, in times past, to the Fathers by the Prophets; last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son. Note, that this is basically one sentence, which ends with "hath spoken to us by his Son**.**" Same in the original Latin version. The statement neither says "by human reason *alone"* nor "by a philosophical argument", it just says that *God* "*may be certainly known* by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things". Secondly, with regards of *proof* of God's existence, Dei Filius says: >Nevertheless, in order that the *obedience of our faith might be in harmony with reason, God willed that to the interior help of the Holy Spirit there should be joined exterior proofs of his revelation; to wit, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies*, which, as they manifestly display the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, *are most certain proofs of his divine revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all men.* … There are two different instances where Dei Filius talks about proof for Christianity, and Dei Filius mentions the fruits of the Ecumenical Councils and the miracles of Jesus described in the Gospels. At least in Dei Filius is no mentioning of philosophical arguments as "exterior proofs" of God's revelation or God's existence.


jasonmccarley

I see. The way I read the first part is that 'created things' is the physical universe itself, and it's existence is reason to believe. And in the second passage the point that I take away is that divine facts, which are the deposit of faith; as well as the miracles and prophecies of Jesus are proofs of Gods revelation to mankind. I think I agree with your interpretation of Dei Filius. And I don't think a faith should be built on rational thought alone. I do find many philosophical arguments for God's existence to be convincing though, and I don't believe it is presumptuous to believe that God has gifted us with capacity to prove the divine. After all our minds are created things as well. And the aim of most apologetic arguments for God's existence is to confirm the that which is already evident by the existence of the physical world around us as Dei Filius teaches. I think its good to explore the attributes of God, and philosophical argument is just another tool that helps us do that.


[deleted]

>The way I read the first part is that 'created things' is the physical universe itself, and it's existence is reason to believe. No, DF says "*by* the natural light of human reason, *by* *means* of created things" (e rebus creatis), Natural Theology doesn't simply argue "things exist, therefore God" or "humans are reasonable beings, therefore God". >divine facts, which are the deposit of faith Again, No. "Divine facts" (facta divina) means *facts*, ie. God's actions in history, not "the body of revealed truth in the Scriptures and tradition" (a common definition of deposit of faith). >I do find many philosophical arguments for God's existence to be convincing though, and I don't believe it is presumptuous to believe that God has gifted us with capacity to prove the divine. In order to prove something, you've got to have an exact and comprehensive *definition* of this something that you want to prove. If you want to prove that there is a hamburger on the plate you need to define, what qualifies to be a hamburger in order to not confuse it with a cheeseburger. The problem here is, that you must give/have an exact and comprehensive definition of God, in order to prove God and not to confuse God with Loki. And there tradition and scripture clearly warn humans that God cannot be fully understood and the idea of "defining God" is hybris. From this I am convinced that it is presumptuous to try to prove God or God's existence.


jasonmccarley

Okay... I'm just trying to understand the teaching. It might be helpful if you put your interpretation in layman's terms for me, but I will take another crack at it based on what I think you are saying. If created things are not the physical universe, then I am reading the teaching as God may be known by using reason, and the means or method are the created things which could be referring to philosophical arguments and/or rational thought? I agree that terms should be defined so that arguments are coherent, but I don't think an exact and comprehensive definition is needed when it comes to proving God. Its clear to anyone with common sense which God that Catholic philosophers are referring to when they set out to prove His existence. It seems like quite a bold statement to say that Aquinas was demonstrating hubris when he wrote the five ways. It seems that parties just need to agree that they are both referring to the same thing and that the existence of that thing logically follows the true premises set out in the argument. If exact and comprehensive definitions were needed to prove the existence of something we could never be sure what anyone was really saying about anything, that doesn't seem to me to be how language works. I'm not an expert though, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you were saying.


VegetableCarry3

what do you propose cognisci means here?


[deleted]

In Latin, cognoscere is translated with "to know" (by studying) only if cognoscere is in the Perfect Tense. "*Cognosci*" here is Infinitive *Present* Passive, so it represents meanings like "to become acquainted with, acquire knowledge of, ascertain, learn, perceive, understand, doing research on", which in most cases is meant to be an *ongoing process*, ie. something dynamic.


VegetableCarry3

So something like with natural reason God can come to be known with certainty? Or God can certainly come to be known?


tommies_aquinas

The claim that man cannot know the existence of God through the use of human reason alone was anathematized at [Vatican 1.](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm) That we can determine that God exists purely through reason was taught definitively.


[deleted]

That's a common misinterpretation of DF 2 (cfr. my comment below), and it's a blatant misreading of my comment, as you are talking about "knowing" and I didn't talk about "knowing" in my comment. Read more carefully.


tommies_aquinas

I'm glad you assent to the Church's teaching that we can know that God exists through the use of natural reason alone.


[deleted]

I'm glad you assent to the notion that you didn't actually understand my comment before yelling out "Anathema! Anathema!".


tommies_aquinas

By the way, how did you personally come to the knowledge that God exists using human reason alone?


[deleted]

I never did and I never tried. I find Rahner's existential approach with regards to human transcendence quite fascinating (but which isn't an argument for God's existence in a strict sense), but I don't think I am justified to claim to *know that God exists* because of that. As I said, the mere notion of a God's existence is of no interest to me. I am explicitly a Christian, not some sort of a philosophical deist/theist.


tommies_aquinas

Is it fair to say that you do not know whether God exists or not?


[deleted]

To me, existential or intuitive knowledge with regards to the divine, is more important than propositional knowledge. I wouldn't claim to know "propositionally" that God exist, like Thomas' exclamation ‘My Lord and my God!’ (John 20:28) didn't came from "using human reason alone" (and certainly not by using human *senses* alone). To understand *Dei Filius* more in depth (and not as some merely optimistic affirmation of the power of human reasoning) one must bear in mind that the Catholic Church has a strong tradition of negative theology (cfr. Lateran 1215 on analogy), by which one might easily state that "God does exist" and "God does not exist" at the same time, to be aware or make a caveat of the fallacy of human thinking.


tommies_aquinas

Suppose you came to believe that atheism is most likely true. Could you remain a Christian?


Minimum-Self-2003

I've been meaning to read Rahner, someone recommended him to me awhile back. What book would you recommend? And, I agree (if I read your statements correctly) with the your perspective. I'm sure it may well be possible to reason oneself to believe in God, but belief is not the same as faith. As you said, we aren't deists, which is about as far, in my experience, as "pure reason" can ever get anyone. Christianity is about the lived experience of the love of God, not trying to wrangle philosophically until someone admits we're right. My grandfather is a retired Calvinist minister, and (God bless him, I love him even though he's frustrating) he spends soooo much time in every religious discussion I've ever had with him trying to philosophically prove every single view except his own as inferior that I sometimes wonder how I wound up a Christian at all (it was that off-putting). All that philosophical wrangling and "calling out" those who aren't of the faith is unhelpful in the extreme, and does little or nothing to bring them to faith. Sorry if I rambled a bit, I was agreeing with you.


[deleted]

>I've been meaning to read Rahner, someone recommended him to me awhile back. What book would you recommend? Reading Rahner is quite challenging, but he actually wrote about almost all kinds of theological topics, so I would recommend to start reading his short papers (published in journals etc.) on various topics you might interested in. I would recommend reading "Foundations of Christian Faith" only after knowing Rahner better. And thank You for Your (virtual) introduction to Your grandfather and letting me participate in Your experiences, God bless.


Cult_of_Civilization

"The mere existence of a god" is a very funny phrase. Mere! Aristotle says that philosophy begins in wonder. I suppose if there is no wonder, it would make sense that you wouldn't find the motivation to do the philosophy. But please don't call those who *do* presumptuous.


[deleted]

I am very much in favour and supportive of wonder and questioning. But what strikes me in the common debates is that with an almost Pelagian-like claim di assertion is led to be able to "prove" God's existence. And with "Pelagian-like" I create an analogy between the error that man can save himself on his own and the error that man can put himself completely into the picture about God on his own. I am quite interested eg. in analytical theology and transcendental theology/philosophy, but I am not convinced of the purely philosophical approaches to the question of God so far. Eg. the quinque viae were never meant to convince atheists of God's existence, but today a lot of people try to use them as such (and fail – in my opinion – miserably).


Cult_of_Civilization

That's an oversimplification of Aquinas. He believed his arguments for God's existence were demonstrations, i.e., productive of scientific knowledge. And he gives the same arguments in his Summa Contra Gentiles, which had a different audience and purpose that was more apologetic. Your interpretations of Vatican I and Aquinas are tendentious and niche. I'm not trying to convince you that you should change your mind, but I do think anyone else reading this exchange needs to know that yes, Aquinas and the fathers of the Vatican council really do say that philosophy can prove God's existence. That plain reading of the texts is accurate and widely accepted.


[deleted]

You should bear in mind that the "Gentiles" were the Jews and the Muslims and the SG was written as a handbook for Christian missionaries who lived among them. The notion that Aquinas quinque viae are not proofs or philsophical arguments in our modern sense is a common notion in European historical studies of medieval philosophy and in theology. I am aware of the fact that US-American philosophical theology has taken a different path (leaning more to a new neo-scholastic aproach), but Thomas isn't equal to neo-scholasticism.


Cult_of_Civilization

> You should bear in mind that the "Gentiles" were the Jews and the Muslims and the SG was written as a handbook for Christian missionaries who lived among them. I know. That context, for those who understand it, reinforces my point. You imply perhaps that because they were theists they must have agreed that God's existence was demonstrable, which is far from the truth. The reality was much more nuanced than that, and Aquinas' arguments deal with that complexity. On the other point, it seems like it's just impossible for you to discuss a topic for more than a few posts before breaking out the boilerplate European-vs-American stuff. No thanks.


[deleted]

Philosophy and theology are genuinely culturally shaped (or human thinking in general is). Eg. there is a clear distinction between the paths US-American and Continental European music theories took in the 20th century (you can actually tell, on which side of the Atlantic you've been taught musical theory). That's neither good nor bad, just different.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

From my perspective, intuition and experiential knowledge are existential and far more powerful drivers for human beings than purely propositional knowledge. The wisdom that Jesus Christ taught is also not a philosophical wisdom, but an existential wisdom that arises from the encounter with God. Moreover, many people confuse the term "rational" with "intellectual" or "theoretical," while practical judgment is also rational.


Eiskalt_die_Nacht

*What would prove God exists?* Prove? Nothing, since a proof is a demonstration of knowledge. But knowledge is infallible belief and neither side of the debate has that, this isn't something open to us. If I were an atheist, I'd say that it's the demonstration that no ontology has as much explanatory power as theism. However note that if it's legitimate to say about certain evils that we don't know why they occur, but they must be justified, a parallel argument by the naturalist about eventually naturalistic explained phenomena is permitted as well. By the way the prove for the non-existence, not of God but of a particular conception of him, is if someone can show that a certain conception can be made better, hence rendering the original conception imperfect and thus *not* God


LouieMumford

The ontological argument (from Anselm down the line) is rife with issues. The critiques of which are numerous. I should clarify, I am not an atheist.


LouieMumford

I mean… some atheists… and he says that.


Sergeant_Butter

There are plenty of things God could do to prove His existence. Permanently etching "the Catholics are correct" into the sun would be pretty incontrovertible evidence. So I don't think God wants there to be incontrovertible scientific proof of His existence. The universe is a way for us to *know* God, but I don't think it's meant to be the way in which we *discover* Him.


titoCA321

How would writings on a star contribute evidence towards God's existence. If we threw enough resources at it we humans can also write graffiti on the sun. And given such a message what would Catholics be correct about? Everything, anything, one thing, maybe nothing? What if some species from a neighboring galaxy etched two sides of the sun, one would say "the Catholics are correct" and they other side would say "about Old Testament" ?