Catholicism

Thank you for this challenge. As with your other debates, I don't think the sarcasm and pretentiousness are appreciated, helpful, or productive on anyone's account. Nonetheless, let's proceed logically:I'm not sure it is a valid argument to cite an ambiguous, highly-questionable story that happened at an unknown time in an unknown place as evidence of your point, but we can set that aside for the sake of argument.Suppose this unknown priest, at an unknown time in an unknown place, "blessed" a sacrament in front of an unknown non-believer and left it in the tabernacle for a week. Further suppose that when this unknown priest, at an unknown time, in an unknown place opened the tabernacle, a small chunk of flesh was present. Even further, let's suppose that an unknown group of scientists somehow verified that this "flesh" was approximately 2,000+ years old.How and why does that prove that Catholicism exists? Why doesn't it prove that there is a flying spaghetti monster roaming the churches of South America looking for priests performing these blessings and replacing crackers with flesh it has preserved for two millenia? Why doesn't it prove that a Jewish God, or Muslim God, or Hindu God exists? Why doesn't it prove that, in the middle of the night, two kids ran into the church and replaced the cracker with a piece of flesh they found in a local mortuary or science lab?Even if this far-fetched story is true, I don't think it is remotely reasonable to believe with conviction that it is proof of the existence of a Christian/Catholic God that said that the ill should use prayer rather than doctors (James 5:14), women should not speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), runaway slaves should be returned to their owners (Philemon 1:12), people should gouge out their eyeballs should they feel lust (Matthew 5:29), people should not defend themselves if attacked (Matthew 5:39), people should not save money (Matthew 6:19), people should not to wear nice clothes (Matthew 6:28-29), and people must give away all of their possessions (Luke 14:33).Let's not get caught up in relative absurdity of these biblical passages and the inherent contradiction shown by believers who adhere to certain words of the New Testament and not others. Rather, let's just focus on the fact that a cracker turning into 2,000-year-old flesh in no way is demonstrative of an exclusively Christian God (if any at all).You say that "when scientists found a barrel of wine from the wedding at Cana, it(s) chemical composition perfectly resembled (that of) water." I would be very curious to see a scholarly article or journal entry about these scientists. To my knowledge, there has never been a scientific discovery or analysis of any such wine. Even if said analysis had been done, to my knowledge there is no such thing as wine that has a chemical composition perfectly resembling that of water. If two substances have the same chemical composition, they are the same substance. There is no scientific equivocation on this point. Again, I am excited to see any proof of this type of scientific finding or analysis having been done, but if this substance perfectly resembled water, how does anyone know it wasn't just water, and not wine? Was it in a jug labeled, "wine"? If so, is it not possible this jug was mislabeled, accidentally or deliberately? Even IF all of this was corroborated, I go back to my first point. How does the finding that "Jesus" transformed You ask, "Any more things you want proven/ explained?" I answer, no more things...just the two things you threw out as supposed "proof" that are in fact unsubstantiated and baseless and, even if proven true, still fall victim to the issue at large - why/how in the world do these far-fetched, anecdotal accounts of "miracles" go on to "prove" the entire doctrine of Catholicism?