LordReed:


Are you stupid or are you just spoiling for a fight?

I wrote this as a clarification:



If you don't understand what I wrote you could have asked for a clarification instead of acting a fool.

9inches:
No, it matters because none of the arguments (approaches) is bereft of pure objective reasoning. You also haven't explained where and how you think the intuition came into play.

9inches:
And I upended your clarification:
There's a difference between what you think someone else's argument is and what it actually is. Giving the dog a bad name just to kill it much?

Cathechism of the Catholic Church says: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: 'By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.'"

If you like, continue reducing my argument to "intuition."

joseph1013:


I means that I live my life in a way that if I see a truth that contradicts what I have held, I can change my belief, regardless of how hard it may be.

Do you have something against that?

joseph1013:


I means that I live my life in a way that if I see a truth that contradicts what I have held, I can change my belief, regardless of how hard it may be.

Do you have something against that?

LordReed:


Your arguments are logically fallacious. I boiled them down to their premises and conclusions to show why they are logically fallacious and what type of fallacy they are.

9inches:
You actually failed trying to do what you claimed. Perhaps you'll do that now, by at least starting with my actual argument than inferring and attacking a straw man.

9inches:
Which means there's a chance you have flawed belief....but you're always open to consider other ideas/beliefs. Am I right?

LordReed:


Why do you think being aggressive is the best way to go about this discussion? If you wanted me to expatiate why not say so instead assuming an aggressive stance? I am not under any obligation to fulfill your demands, I do so because I choose to be engaged in this discussion so do not presume to give me orders.

9inches:
Interesting. So, how do you determine truth?

joseph1013:

Definitely. In fact, it's what my questions have been about.

You think you can change my mind about Christianity?

9inches:
Lol, I have no idea. You have to put in the work to seek for the truth, only the truth, the absolute truth that when you know it and appreciate it, you will change your siggy to "I will die for this TRUTH."

I probably was in your shoes - once a believer, acquired some college degrees, started questioning but wasn't getting answers that made sense to me; considered atheism, made some sense for a while...... long story short, became agnostic!

But here's what I can guarantee you: you won't find the COMPLETE truth elsewhere (bragging toh bahd! ). I can only point you the way and stay available for questions; the rest of the journey is on you.

raphieMontella:
ahh...this Joseph guy still de

Bros, too many things to do at once for a mortal before we death comes calling, but we still dey here kampe.

9inches:
Aggressive ke? You started with hostility.

If you are willing to have an honest discussion bereft of misrepresentations, I'm here.

9inches:
Lol, I have no idea. You have to put in the work to seek for the truth, only the truth, the absolute truth that when you know it and appreciate it, you will change your siggy to "I will die for this TRUTH."

I probably was in your shoes - once a believer, acquired some college degrees, started questioning but wasn't getting answers that made sense to me; considered atheism, made some sense for a while...... long story short, became agnostic!

But here's what I can guarantee you: you won't find the COMPLETE truth elsewhere (bragging toh bahd! ). I can only point you the way and stay available for questions; the rest of the journey is on you.

LordReed:


You are agnostic and believe there is a "god". What I'd like to know is why you seem to like the Catholic faith, something in it resonate with you?

joseph1013:

Great question.

Truth, by definition, is a proposition that agrees with the facts. This agreement is comparatively easy to test in matters that science deals with. There is a scientific method that has been proven to be the most reliable method of truth verification in human history. In fact, it's the reason you can ask me this question right here and now.

In other matters that science has not been able to provide an answer to, I withhold calling my opinion the truth since I have no reliable way of knowing.

How do you determine your own truth?

joseph1013:


Interesting journey.

Then let me ask you, what informed your going back to religion?

9inches:
It realized truth is objective and that we live our daily lives knowing, albeit unconsciously, that somethings are absolutely evil, and that we can also recognize some things are absolutely good. So, due to some personal research, I got to understand these terms: postmodernism, moral relativism, naturalism, deism, etc. I paid attention to both popular and unpopular atheists, christians, scientists... But here's the most fascinating/revealing part of it all for me, watching religious people of different faiths who became atheists and also atheists who became religious. Let's just say, I've heard loads and loads of argument. Not just heard but paid attention to them.

ochibuogwu5:
UNTIL THE GRACE OF JESUS CHRIST COMES UPON YOU, YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD EVEN IF YOU HAVE STUDIED THE WHOLE BIBLE VERSIONS IN THE WORLD.

9inches:


You can use the following three tests to ascertain what the truth really is:

1. Correspondence theory
2. Coherence theory
3. Explanatory power

Correspondence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe, or what you've placed your trust in, does it correspond to reality? Does it have factual evidence to back it up." For instance, if I were to say to you "last night Manchester United won the football game", that statement is true if and only if Manchester United actually won the football game. That is the Correspondence theory - what I believe must correspond to factual evidence.

Coherence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe or what you've placed your trust in, does it cohere - is there a high degree of internal consistency?" Let's say, you and I we're talking and you say "hey, I just found out you had a new baby boy, is that right?" And I say to you with much enthusiasm "yes, we do and we are so pleased." Then another friend comes in and says "congrats man, I just heard that you have a son" And I say no no no, who told you that?" Now, you're going to look at me and be like "hold on, which is it?" As you already know, both can't be true because there's a contradiction there - there isn't coherence.

Explanatory power simply asks the question "does what I believe or what I've placed my trust in help me make sense of my observations of the world and also my longings and the desires that I have?" The observations that I have of the world - that the world is not the way it ought to be; there are many things wrong with the world. And then, my longing for significance - to matter; my observation that deep down I know I'm capable of doing great things but at the same time I'm deeply flawed. The question then becomes, "what faith, system of belief or worldview best explains these observations and these longings?

The original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors.

9inches:
It realized truth is objective and that we live our daily lives knowing, albeit unconsciously, that somethings are absolutely evil, and that we can also recognize some things are absolutely good. So, due to some personal research, I got to understand these terms: postmodernism, moral relativism, naturalism, deism, etc. I paid attention to both popular and unpopular atheists, christians, scientists... But here's the most fascinating/revealing part of it all for me, watching religious people of different faiths who became atheists and also atheists who became religious. Let's just say, I've heard loads and loads of argument. Not just heard but paid attention to them.

joseph1013:


What makes you think the Christian faith passes the three tests? Do you have knowledge of the other world religions?

9inches:

1. It has been subjected to more than those tests over the centuries. And the results are there to be seen. Infact, it's even christians that ask most of the hard-hitting and difficult questions.
I won't conclude without saying, "why not be the scholar and test it out yourself?"

I don't know your level of understanding and appreciation of the idea of God. Generally, I think for people without faith at all it's better not to plunge them into the religion and the bible right off the bat. Proper route to lasting knowledge is to start from the fundamentals and master the basics so you don't get shaken up when the more complicated information starts arriving.

2. Yes, I can say that I have knowledge of the other world religions. Belief systems can be grouped and understood in a nutshell. For example, if the Abrahamic religion is false, Judaism, christianity and Islam will fall in one fell swoop and your search for the truth focuses on the other religions. But if the Abrahamic religion is true, then your search narrows down to only the Abrahamic religions.

joseph1013:


A quick example, is murder objectively evil?

9inches:
it is.
Cathechism [2269] says: The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

9inches:
it is.
Cathechism [2269] says: The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

joseph1013:


Let's make this discussion as direct and obfuscation-free as possible. Many words when a few words would do can render points hidden and trying to untangle them could provide a waste of time.

It's a simple question. Murder, is it objectively evil? This question demands only a Yes or No.

Your response seem to be that it is objectively evil. Correct?

HellVictorinho:

Murder is a crime-fact.
"Good"/"Evil" are just words.

joseph1013:


Do you also believe that morality is objective?

HellVictorinho:

Morality is not fixed.