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?

I said "it is", which means yes. I don't set to confuse. But mind you, we're not talking natural sciences where theories are reduced to short formulas and concise sentences. However, I understand what you mean.

HellVictorinho:

I've found you,Mr Inches.
And,guess what?
I've created a topic titled ' Timing of Existence' to burst your bubbles.
The Big Bang was just one of the events afterall.
And this event was possible because the events that caused the cosmic systems to be suspended upon the plane of Existence,which is undimensional, were also capable of causing their states to change dramatically.

Describe the first ever "event" and what constituted it.

joseph1013:


1. Where are the results? Please show us your results.

2. In other words, you have tested the Abrahamic religions and found them to the true, and therefore conclude that the others are false (without looking into them). Is that correct?

1. In what form do you want the results? The result is the readily available (a.k.a already-made) answers to just about every one of the ever burgeoning questions man could have. If that's what you're asking, then I can point you to where and how to search for information/answers.

2. I thought I've answered that.

9inches:
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.

CAPSLOCKED:


WHEN IS THIS GRACE COMING UPON US THE BILLIONS OF NON-CHRISTIANS WORLD WIDE?

DON'T TELL US TO READ THE BIBLE OR LISTEN TO THE THINGS YOU PREACH. IF THERE'S AN OMNI-THIS AND OMNI-THAT (S)HE SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF GETTING TO EVERY ONE OF US. THERE WON'T BE CONFLICTING CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AND RELIGIONS. THERE WON'T BE NEED FOR YOU TO TRY TO SWEET-TALK US INTO "BELIEVING" IN THIS OMNI-SOMEBODY. THERE WON'T BE NEED FOR SOME OF YOUR PASTORS TO GO EXTRA MILES TO TRY "TRICK" US INTO "BELIEVING", FOR IF THIS OMNI-THING WAS REAL AND EXISTING, WE ALL WILL "KNOW".

I feel you. All these you highlighted were caused man, God. Man misused his freedom (still does) to misinterpret and yet claim he is speaking God's word in totality. He is not a God of confusion; his words, if well taught, do not confusion. It's people that confuse themselves.

HellVictorinho:

Forget about the church.
I have explained the big bang event in my reply to
your statement on the unknown.

The Big Bang Church, I wanna attend.

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?

Well, just like truth and morality, I don't have to like it. Who loves too much rules and responsibilities?
By the way, I'm a catholic. I only said I became agnostic at some point. I grew up catholic though. But at some point, it wasn't making "reasonable sense" to me, especially while I was in college studying science and engineering. I reverted back to catholicism after serious consideration of a lot of other beliefs/faith. I now realized it was out of naivety that I left in the first place; I didn't put effort to learn about faith as I did learning sciences. I'm glad though, that I finally did. Better late than never.
The same thing that happened to me is currently happening to millions of Christians worldwide, especially this cuddly postmodernist-freedom-loving generation that loathes the idea of individual responsibility and absolute truths.

Why am I catholic?
I believe that Jesus Christ really lived, died and resurrected, and that we must obey everything that he taught. As a result of that, we have to believe the church that he established to continue his message to the world.
So today we believe and we obey the catholic church because the church is Christ extended into this world.

If you're already a christian and your question is why I'm catholic and not a protestant... you know, like the "Jesus and nothing else" or "Jesus is against religion" type of christians, then I'd answer a little deeper. If I'm allowed to rephrase such question, it would be "are you saying Jesus isn't enough".

The answer to that would be that it's Jesus himself that tells you that you also need the church because he established the church. In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus says he gives the perennial command, anytime until he comes again, that if your brother offends you, you should go and tell him his fault and try to settle. If he won't listen to you, Jesus says, you should take one or two others with you. Notice that Jesus doesn't say anything like "hey, I'm enough. If someone disagrees with you, just ask me again and I'll tell you again......" He says you go to your brother.

You just don't say "oh Jesus settled everything". No. He says if they disagree you, you should take one or two with you for witness sake and try to settle. If they still don't agree, Jesus says you should tell it to the church! Now, according to Jesus (who has the final say in the matters of the church, which he also claimed is his own body), if they still refuse to listen even to the church, then treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector, for "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This does not imply that Jesus isn't enough; we know Jesus is more than enough but it's Jesus who empowers the church to deal with these things (for reasons that could be argued later). But the idea of "Jesus only is enough" (in this context) which means "I don't need anybody else or the church" is unbiblical.

For biblical contexts:
a) The "church" as mentioned in this scenario refers not to the entire church of Jesus, as in Matthew 16:18, but to the local congregation.

b) "Treat him as you would a pagan (Gentile) or a tax collector": Just as the observant Jew avoided the company of Gentiles and tax collectors, so must the congregation of Christian disciples separate itself from the arrogantly sinful member who refuses to repent even when convicted of his sin by the whole church. Such a person is to be set outside the fellowship of the community. The harsh language about Gentile and tax collector probably reflects a stage of the Matthean church when it was principally composed of Jewish Christians. That time had long since passed, but the principle of exclusion for such a sinner remained. Paul makes a similar demand for excommunication in 1 Cor 5:1-13.

budaatum:

Yes, I think you are right. Something had to exist to go bang. And it must have been big for the bang to be big.

Exactly! We're in the same boat here.

joseph1013:


A quick example, is murder objectively evil?

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:


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

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.

raphieMontella:

his usage of the house builder comparison to God is actually illogical..

advocating an above 3d Transcendent being and in the same vein stating the above 3d being can interact with the 3d creation without having some 3d features...which is impossible...
because if it didn't possess some 3d capabilities.. it is impossible to act on a 3d "plane" and 2...it's acts on its 3d Creation cannot be felt by the 3d creation/ cannot be "visible" in the 3d dimension

think about it...

2d objects etc have 1d features in addition to whatever...
think about it

I'm sure you've heard christians (and non christians) made the argument of "God became man". If the claim is true, then you sure can count that as one of the characteristics of God. A SEPARATE DISCUSSION though.

HellVictorinho:

You don't know him/her/it.

Yeah, because you know me. You sound ridiculous, dude. You're making a fool out of your 'humble' self.

HellVictorinho:

Stupid question.

Am I getting on your nerves? Why are you this triggered? You're killing yourself man.

HellVictorinho:

You are still proud of your 'Crazy God'

Yea man, you just can't help it. You too would be more than proud of him if get to know him. You could stop your childish tantrum when you do.

finalboss:
you need help theist

You're right, I do. Everyone does.

budaatum:


You need to try to understand this in the proper context. Hawkins was not that stupid!

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one might as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang," he wrote.

This does not explicitly mean there was nothing. What it means is there is no evidence of anything so there is no point wasting the time and energy thinking excessively about it.

My point is he is not saying there is “nothing” in a certain sense of there being nothing at all but rather there being nothing in the way of observable space-time so nothing in the sense of the modern physical understanding of the world.

"Nothing was around before the big, big bang," Hawking told deGrasse Tyson.

This was said in response to the question “what space was like before the universe began.” and obviously if there is no space-time there is no space so nothing is the response.

I do not think it should be read as certain. It’s a conversation between very smart people about what they think. Not what is categorically true.

Quora

I understand that. That's the same theory Krauss was trying to establish in the video LordReed posted on this or another thread yesterday. But the whole point here is, if it's not nothing 'nothing', then it's actually 'something'. And nobody would think they sound silly [re]defining 'nothing'. according to the world we know (and they are scientists, obviously), the big band happened out of forces colliding or something of that kind... Do you think I'm right?

budaatum:
I cited buda, as in budaatum, and not Buddha! Do not mistake me for what I am not.

Oh, pardon moi!

Yes, I agree that "if something came into existence at a certain point in time, that is, if it had a beginning, then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be". So God too must have a cause!

"Outside of time"? When was that exactly?

God has no beginning, and so, have no end. 'Beginning' and 'end' = points in time.

"Outside of time"? Let's just say it hasn't been revealed yet; same goes for 'nothingness' before the universe. Essentially, the big question is "What is God like"?

But you yourself said, "if something came into existence at a certain point in time, that is, if it had a beginning, then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be" !

A thing that exists, came into existence because it was created. Now your making me think God was not created so God does not exist! Which is it please?

Common sense, bro. If you only keep going back to creation or evolution, it's a bottomless hole. Even scientists/philosophers acknowledge something existed before every other thing. The mistake is that they again say that the 'something' is 'nothing', yet they try to project "a lot of stuff" into the 'nothing' (talk about Lawrence Krauss). The world didn't come out of nothing, it came out of something, and the 'origin' of the world wasn't created/evolved else it will exist in the world and become part of it, which would make the answers that we seek more likable to be obtained through science or otherwise here this world. If you create a camera, you are not constrained by it but you can go inside of it and out at will. Same goes if you build a house, you are not constrained by it but you can move in and out at will.

The transistor in a TV set does not know when or how explicitly it was made, but it could understand it's purpose and meaning by observing how everything including other transistors, resistors, capacitors, transformers, diodes, switches, etc within its circuit (the world that it sees and lives in) behaves. The transistor could then, with information available to it, infer but with certainty that it exists or was made for a purpose, and that its existence is meaninful. At this point of this transistor's life, it has successfully made a step into the mind of the its original maker that lives, of course, outside of the circuit.
The possibility of this transistor to actually have any concrete PROOF of anything outside its circuit rests on its maker and could only happen either when the maker opens up the TV set or the transistor is detached physically from the circuit (dead). That's why in Christianity we use the word "departed" for the dead, for we believe, they have gone on to the great beyond to meet the Creator and get to see the proof that we who are still confined within this worldly realities are yet to see.

joseph1013:


Interesting journey.

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

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.

HellVictorinho:

You can't because it doesn't exist.

Wrong. You can't prove a lot of things. You don't need to much education to know this, come on!

HellVictorinho:

I can call it anything I wish since it is undefined.

Or because you are confused and don't know him? Be sincere.

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?

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.

HellVictorinho:

How can you prove that he is okay?

I can't prove it.

HellVictorinho:

You are a creationist,period.

I just got bursted! Ouch!

HellVictorinho:

Now you call it a 'he'.
Does it have a penis.

You also have been calling him a "he". What about that?

joseph1013:

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

You think you can change my mind about Christianity?

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.

frank317:


Sorry to burst ur bubble, u are yet to explain anything.

My bubble is burst, aaaaarrrrrggghhh!!!!!! Help!!

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.

Aggressive ke? You started with hostility.

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

HellVictorinho:

He didn't create anything!!!!!!

Hehehehe... why are you yelling? What did I trigger you with?

If he didn't, who did?

HellVictorinho:

Is your genderless God okay?

He is more than okay. Are you okay?

frank317:


I simply understand God as the creator of this universe. My problem with it is that it is not human, infact it is far far far above human (this is according to theists).
Yet it make demands like a mere human would demand from his FELLOW human.

Can u explain to me why a God who creates humans would demand worship and respect from ordinary humans who are not even capable of understand it?

Its like he is comparing himself and competing with humans just like my dad would... Shouldn't God be doing such with his fellow Gods? At least they would understand him better and the competition would be justified.

Very sincere and important question I must say. Guess what, I asked this same question not too long ago while I was rediscovering myself.

Tell me if your questions were addressed in this conversation. You can ask more questions. I can also transcribe all of it if you want.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7PMvfMslHk

HellVictorinho:

She allegedly masterminded the Crime against Humanity which is Religion.
She allegedly masterminded genetic misdeamenors/hormonal misfortunes/natural disasters/problematic human behavior.
But I won't hold her responsible.
You are not convicted until proven guilty.

I feel you man. There shouldn't have been religion so that man can do as he wills and goes scot-free.

Hmm... I wonder if you could actually live your life like that. Mind telling what that looks like?

There's already-made answer on "why he created evil and/or suffering". I'm sure that's the basis of this your tantrum.

HellVictorinho:

He is insane.

HellVictorinho:

She allegedly masterminded the Crime against Humanity which is Religion.
She allegedly masterminded genetic misdeamenors/hormonal misfortunes/natural disasters/problematic human behavior.
But I won't hold her responsible.
You are not convicted until proven guilty.

Still on the sanity talk, are you okay, dude? Do Gender dysphoria much?!

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.

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.