The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Without talking any positions at all. Worried I’m gonna get “heat for this”.... here goes

Is it possible to prove god exists.

I could be atheist/agnostic, or I could be trying to convince someone, point is, can it be logically proven ?

Tar’s gonna love you for bringing the “Does God exist?” Question back into the thread.

You can’t test for proof God exists any observable possibility can be accounted for multiple hypothesis (some atheistical, some theistical). However, you can prove it by logical characteristics. Seeing as we know that an atheistical universe must stretch back effectively for eternity, without accounting for any quality of “eternity” within those systems. Basically that means seeing as there is not eternity in any object without admitting to the existence of aseity, the origin of everything becomes a catch 22, between the origin of laws, and those laws being a necessity to “allow” something, rather than nothing, to happen.

Is: confused


EDIT I just read the front page :facepalm


I will go now

[United Muscovite Nations]

Without talking any positions at all. Worried I’m gonna get “heat for this”.... here goes


Is it possible to prove god exists.






I could be atheist/agnostic, or I could be trying to convince someone, point is, can it be logically proven ?

I would say you can logically prove that there must be a god, or at least some pre-existent entity, but not that there is any particular God.

However, I would say that things like Eucharistic miracles, other well-documented miracles, and the faith of the original apostles is pretty convincing, just not falsifiable in a scientific sense (as Hume says, miracles, by their nature, are not repeatable, and as he says, that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that they can't be scientifically proven to have any given cause).

[Salus Maior]

>When apparently you have to explain to another supposed Catholic why depicting Our Mother as a naked nature goddess would be a bad thing.

You know, I've never managed to get into drinking alcohol, but the Church might get me to that point.

We Protestants don’t see Mary as our mother but we would see this as just disrespectful to the core.

At least someone does.

Scripturally speaking, Catholics often point to this verse in John 19 when it comes to the idea of Mary as the Mother of the Church.

26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Now, you might be saying that John is just saying that Jesus made Mary his mother rather than the mother of the church, but Catholics would point to the fact that John never names himself in his own Gospel, calling himself "the disciple Jesus loved". Catholics believe that this convention by St. John is to say that the reader should stand in for him, what Jesus says to John in the gospel, John wants to say it applies to you.

[Lower Nubia]

Tar’s gonna love you for bringing the “Does God exist?” Question back into the thread.

You can’t test for proof God exists any observable possibility can be accounted for multiple hypothesis (some atheistical, some theistical). However, you can prove it by logical characteristics. Seeing as we know that an atheistical universe must stretch back effectively for eternity, without accounting for any quality of “eternity” within those systems. Basically that means seeing as there is not eternity in any object without admitting to the existence of aseity, the origin of everything becomes a catch 22, between the origin of laws, and those laws being a necessity to “allow” something, rather than nothing, to happen.

Is: confused


EDIT I just read the front page :facepalm


I will go now

Nothing is defined as no possibility, or chance, of anything happening, ever. There is no time or space. This is the state (state is a dumb word, because in nothingness, there are no “states” of existence, even defining nothingness as a state, is false) of the pre-universe at some point if your an atheist.

This means to get from nothing -> something is impossible, because to move from one “state” where no thing can happen, to where something can happen. Must mean that there was a chance for something to happen in the nothing. So it is logically not nothing. So our image now is something -> something. Which requires explanation.

So let’s talk about the something, something is anything that has any chance of anything happening (not even an object per se). A something requires explanation, as a probability is a set of variables, variables are dependant on qualities. So how do you get from nothing to something? You can define the something as having the quality of aseity (being existence itself), which means it exists consistently within, of and by itself, eternally, without change. Which means there is no thing before it, as the something is defined as everything (not to be confused with every object).

This is how a theist answers the question of the before, but if you cannot apply the quality of aseity to something, then your ability to answer the dichotomy of nothing -> something becomes impossible.

Eventually, anything that is without aseity will decay into nothing, just as protons decay into nothingness across trillions of years. So returning to our pre-universe, where time, space, dimension is non-existent: our nothing, the chance of anything happening is 0. If we say, to combat this, that the universe is eternal (either in the Yo-Yo hypothesis - Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang etc.. or as the universe is now) then we are being unscientific, as the Yo-Yo, and an eternal universe defies thermodynamics, because if protons decay into nothing across trillions of years, as does gravity, and the boundaries of our universe. As our universe (in this example) is eternal, this process would of happened an eternity ago. Likewise for each new expression of the universe from the Yo-Yo would have less and less energy available and eventually starve, Which it clearly has not, as we are here.

A lot of philosophical work (not scientific) has been done on concepts such as quantum vacuums, virtual particles (Lawrence straus’ Book), M-theory, and other spectacular ideas for the origin of our universe, they all become less and less relevant the more they “explain”. The reason is actually very obvious, they are all dependant on physics to define the origin of our universe, initially that sounds fine, but physics is a description of a something, dependant on variables and qualities of something. Yet we are dealing with nothing, where there are no variables, or qualities, or probabilities, of anything, each of these ideas traps itself by being dependant on a something to produce our universe, so the explanation for the universe in these ideas is never nothing -> something but something (laws of physics) -> something. Which doesn’t answer the question we’re dealing with I.e nothing -> something. Each of those ideas works from the present backwards something -> nothing, expanding the something we have as far back as possible, so the origin becomes too distant to be of concern, why? Because working from nothing -> something never works.

In the summa theologica this is the problem of the mover, each object moves (the something) but only is a something that moves, because of the thing prior to it moving it. This is the issue. As each component of the atheistical universe makes up the whole which has aseity, each origin becomes dependant on the prior to function, I.e an infinite regress.

It may be countered that the laws of physics (or anything relevant to this discussion) has the quality of aseity, thus it exists as a necessity. The issue, is that when the laws of physics were defined (long ago) they were never given this quality, because it was never scientifically or logically evident, not without first assuming an atheistical origin to the universe would this quality need to be added, thus question begging.

It could further be countered that God having the quality of aseity is special pleading, however, God having the quality of aseity was defined long before these discussions on philosophy of origin with God calling himself the “I am” to Moses, defining, before philosophically known or necessary, the quality of aseity in God.

[Diopolis]

Your bible might use a different word specifically, but it’s always been understood that ἀρσενοκοῖται means ”one who commits homosexual acts. Modern commentary suggesting otherwise is revisionism by pro lgbt sects. ἀρσενοκοῖται is a gerund. In English, its most literal translation is “man bedder” i.e a man who has sex with other men.

It was men who layed with young boys.

That was the culture in ancient Greece.

I’ll note two relevant facts here.
The first is that heterosexual relationships at the time were usually an adult man and a teenage girl about the same age as the boys commonly listed after in Greece. These were not condemned by Paul, which we’d expect if the rule was ‘don’t touch the jailbait’.
The second is that the word means man bedder, not boy fucker- the latter of which the Greeks had a perfectly good word for which survives in English as the term pederast.

[New Thrinia]

It was men who layed with young boys.

That was the culture in ancient Greece.

I’ll note two relevant facts here.
The first is that heterosexual relationships at the time were usually an adult man and a teenage girl about the same age as the boys commonly listed after in Greece. These were not condemned by Paul, which we’d expect if the rule was ‘don’t touch the jailbait’.
The second is that the word means man bedder, not boy fucker- the latter of which the Greeks had a perfectly good word for which survives in English as the term pederast.

Not in my RCC aproved bible, it says ''knapenschenders'', but not that it matters.

I might as well talk to a wall.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do you have to be Christian to be in this thread?

[Nakena]

Do you have to be Christian to be in this thread?

Nuuu. You can post freely here.

[Salus Maior]

I’ll note two relevant facts here.
The first is that heterosexual relationships at the time were usually an adult man and a teenage girl about the same age as the boys commonly listed after in Greece. These were not condemned by Paul, which we’d expect if the rule was ‘don’t touch the jailbait’.
The second is that the word means man bedder, not boy fucker- the latter of which the Greeks had a perfectly good word for which survives in English as the term pederast.

Not in my RCC aproved bible, it says ''knapenschenders'', but not that it matters.

I might as well talk to a wall.

That's not the original wording though, that's a translation.

[New Thrinia]

Not in my RCC aproved bible, it says ''knapenschenders'', but not that it matters.

I might as well talk to a wall.

That's not the original wording though, that's a translation.

Sorry but I am sceptical.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Without talking any positions at all. Worried I’m gonna get “heat for this”.... here goes

Is it possible to prove god exists.

I could be atheist/agnostic, or I could be trying to convince someone, point is, can it be logically proven ?

Tar’s gonna love you for bringing the “Does God exist?” Question back into the thread.

You can’t test for proof God exists, as any observable possibility can be accounted for by multiple hypothesis (some atheistical, some theistical). However, you can prove it by logical characteristics. Seeing as we know that an atheistical universe must stretch back effectively for eternity, without accounting for any quality of “eternity” within those systems. Basically that means seeing as there is not eternity in any object without admitting to the existence of aseity, the origin of everything becomes a catch 22, between the origin of laws, and those laws being a necessity to “allow” something, rather than nothing, to happen.

Jumping in to point out that the Christian explanation of things doesn't make any more sense, it just kicks the can down the road. If you believe that God created everything, then either God has existed for all eternity, or he just came into existence with no creator.
If your point is that God is necessary because the universe needs a creator, then you must explain why God does not.

To be clear, I'm not saying that God's existence is impossible or that you shouldn't believe in God. I'm just saying that bringing God into this particular equation doesn't solve it as well as you want it to.

[Ghost in the Shell]

That's not the original wording though, that's a translation.

Sorry but I am sceptical.

I believe "in denial" is more accurate. We've explained why you're wrong. Native Greek speakers knew it was a condemnation of homosexuality. Why do you value all other Church teaching if you think it has been wrong for its lifespan on this? Church teaching is INFALLIBLE.

If your point is that God is necessary because the universe needs a creator, then you must explain why God does not.

To be clear, I'm not saying that God's existence is impossible or that you shouldn't believe in God. I'm just saying that bringing God into this particular equation doesn't solve it as well as you want it to.

God is of a separate nature and isn't bound by the same principles the natural world is.

[New Thrinia]

Sorry but I am sceptical.

I believe "in denial" is more accurate. We've explained why you're wrong. Native Greek speakers knew it was a condemnation of homosexuality. Why do you value all other Church teaching if you think it has been wrong for its lifespan on this? Church teaching is INFALLIBLE.

Only Dogmas are infallible, traditions can change, like the teaching on capital punishment, which was changed by Pope Francis.

[Salus Maior]

I believe "in denial" is more accurate. We've explained why you're wrong. Native Greek speakers knew it was a condemnation of homosexuality. Why do you value all other Church teaching if you think it has been wrong for its lifespan on this? Church teaching is INFALLIBLE.

Only Dogmas are infallible, traditions can change, like the teaching on capital punishment, which was changed by Pope Francis.

The teaching on sex and marriage is dogmatic.

[New Thrinia]

Only Dogmas are infallible, traditions can change, like the teaching on capital punishment, which was changed by Pope Francis.

The teaching on sex and marriage is dogmatic.

Not it is not, its a tradition, I checked over and over for 10 years.

[Saranidia]

The teaching on sex and marriage is dogmatic.

Not it is not, its a tradition, I checked over and over for 10 years.

True but isn’t the Bible(which Christians believe is the word of God) the source of most of those rules.

[Salus Maior]

The teaching on sex and marriage is dogmatic.

Not it is not, its a tradition, I checked over and over for 10 years.

Marriage is a sacrament, the nature of a sacrament is dogmatic. And the dogmatic nature of Christian sexual teaching is evident in scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

[New Thrinia]

Not it is not, its a tradition, I checked over and over for 10 years.

True but isn’t the Bible(which Christians believe is the word of God) the source of most of those rules.

So?, it also says women should not talk or teach in church, yet they do.

[Saranidia]

True but isn’t the Bible(which Christians believe is the word of God) the source of most of those rules.

So?, it also says women should not talk or teach in church, yet they do.

I don’t get that.
So your saying the Bible is inspired by God but not the direct word of God?

[New Thrinia]

Not it is not, its a tradition, I checked over and over for 10 years.

Marriage is a sacrament, the nature of a sacrament is dogmatic. And the dogmatic nature of Christian sexual teaching is evident in scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Marriage is a sacrament, not a sex permit, and the sexual teaching is, like i said, a tradition.

Believe or or not.

I have made my point.

[New Thrinia]

So?, it also says women should not talk or teach in church, yet they do.

I don’t get that.
So your saying the Bible is inspired by God but not the direct word of God?

Something like that.

[Salus Maior]

Marriage is a sacrament, the nature of a sacrament is dogmatic. And the dogmatic nature of Christian sexual teaching is evident in scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Marriage is a sacrament, not a sex permit, and the sexual teaching is, like i said, a tradition.

Believe or or not.

I have made my point.

Your point is blatantly and demonstrably wrong.

Marriage exists for the rightful ordering of sexual passions for the purpose of what sex was created for; the creation of the family. Between 1 man and 1 woman, in a permanent and procreative union. This is dogmatic and the nature of its place as a sacrament. Christ Himself, and His Apostles, and His Church have stated this. You can't get more authoritative than that.

Sacred Tradition is binding to us as Catholics, so calling it tradition is not a handwave that it's not important. I know you Germans are lax Catholics, but you should know that much.

[Ghost in the Shell]

I believe "in denial" is more accurate. We've explained why you're wrong. Native Greek speakers knew it was a condemnation of homosexuality. Why do you value all other Church teaching if you think it has been wrong for its lifespan on this? Church teaching is INFALLIBLE.

Only Dogmas are infallible, traditions can change, like the teaching on capital punishment, which was changed by Pope Francis.

There is evolution and then there is totally changing doctrine. Church teaching has never been "capital punishment is good" it was "capital punishment is good in xyz conditions" Worldly conditions have changed and now there is no good reason.

Marriage is a sacrament, the nature of a sacrament is dogmatic. And the dogmatic nature of Christian sexual teaching is evident in scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Marriage is a sacrament, not a sex permit, and the sexual teaching is, like i said, a tradition.
Believe or or not.
I have made my point.

Sex is only okay within marriage, so homosexual acts can never be permitted. They're wrong even if your dumb claim you know more about the Greek language than native Greek speakers (the Church Fathers) is true.

[CivitasDei]

*Those Who believe in predestination wave at you*

While I believe Lutherans and Anglicans etc. are Christians, just misguided, there are many Protestant denominations I struggle to consider to be Christian. Among them, Calvinism.

It’s okay, we struggle to do the same for you.

[Auristania]

Sex is only okay within marriage, so homosexual acts can never be permitted. They're wrong even if your dumb claim you know more about the Greek language than native Greek speakers (the Church Fathers) is true.

Excellent. Please provide some quotes from the Fathers, to resolve this issue.

One faction translates arsenoktos as man-fucker: the other faction translates it as boy-fucker. What do the Fathers say? NB Thou shalt not be an arsenoktos provides no information.

However, you can prove it by logical characteristics. Seeing as we know that an atheistical universe must stretch back effectively for eternity,

Who knows that? Richard Dawkins, the Archbishop of Canterbury for Atheists decrees Trust the Physicists and Physicists of all religions and none estimate the age of the Universe at 13.8 billion years.