Proof that Catholicism is true

[Bleachedanoos]

Irrelevant. Did you understand my previous post, yes or no?

Yes yes

You'd think the ultimate life form and the creator of all things could afford a better PR team.

I dont claim to act on behalf of the lord, and besides its not in your puny mortal brain to fathom the paradigms by which the almighty thinks. Concepts like good and evil are too simplistic, its literally 10 dimensional chess.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Catholicism is an insanely amazing supplement for your life so you can live a responsible life as a decent human being. Sadly in the current moment, I'm not converting since the Vatican is riddled with faggots (especially the Pope) and I'm scared of going to Catholic Hell if convert at this very moment. Someone needs to shoot up the place or something to kill all the faggot priests and re-institute people and powers more adequate for the Church. When that happens, convert and raise your children Catholic with Christ and Love in your heart and they'll grow healthy.

WE HAVE A HAT TRICK PEOPLE
Please, do name what "powers" would be more adequate.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

Yes yes

Good. So what is missing here is evidence that the thing that started the universe off can only have been the God of the Bible. Simply not knowing what caused it does not automatically mean that it ipso facto was God.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

Good. So what is missing here is evidence that the thing that started the universe off can only have been the God of the Bible. Simply not knowing what caused it does not automatically mean that it ipso facto was God.

No, again, atheists don't believe in the first cause, because they would need to believe in something supernatural, in other words something that is not bound to the laws of the physical universe. I doubt most atheists understand the problem of causality and are only edgy fedora children who have never really looked into anything.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

What are the odds Ijime is Jacob?

No, again, atheists don't believe in the first cause, because they would need to believe in something supernatural, in other words something that is not bound to the laws of the physical universe. I doubt most atheists understand the problem of causality and are only edgy fedora children who have never really looked into anything.

I can't believe I'm linking to these fuckers but I can't be arsed to type it out myself

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

TL;DR: Long answered, dead horse, yawn, move on.

 

[Ijime]

WE HAVE A HAT TRICK PEOPLE
Please, do name what "powers" would be more adequate.

Most things are more adequate at the moment I'm writing things. You could excommunicate and lynch half of the Vatican and replace them with homeless and junkies and the Catholic Church would become more respected and holier. The whole institution has become a pinata and an easy target to mock and that's the fault of the latest administrations. They had been letting loose too much lately, they have to become a solid and stable whale-thick wall of their values and impose respect for the whole Church. I don't want to go to Hell

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Most things are more adequate at the moment I'm writing things. You could excommunicate and lynch half of the Vatican and replace them with homeless and junkies and the Catholic Church would become more respected and holier. The whole institution has become a pinata and an easy target to mock and that's the fault of the latest administrations. They had been letting loose too much lately, they have to become a solid and stable whale-thick wall of their values and impose respect for the whole Church. I don't want to go to Hell

This is a non-answer. How should they impose respect for the whole church when the world as a whole has become secular?

 

[Bleachedanoos]

What are the odds Ijime is Jacob?



I can't believe I'm linking to these fuckers but I can't be arsed to type it out myself

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

TL;DR: Long answered, dead horse, yawn, move on.

isnt this destiny's website? wew lad really earning your name

first one i already addressed and knocked it out of the park, the idea of an uncaused cause is not illogical.

second one is garbage its a thought experiment that doesnt make it pass go

multiple causes: ok then they are all god

radio active decay; this guy doesn't understand what an effect is, to compare literal nothingness to an arrangement of matter that already exists and then to judge this effect as uncaused is beyond stupid. -1 for atheists

virtual particles; this is something hawking recently came up with the idea that the a blackhole periodically emits what is called a firewall, spitting back up particles. Again we are dealing with the existence of forms of matter this isn't nothing, to equate this to nothing is just incorrect once again.

"For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother." Literally brainlet tier, this is called the devils proof not the fallacy of composition, the lack of proof that the devil exists is not proof the devil does not exist. You cant say something can be uncaused simply because it has yet to be proven that everything has a cause. Further its confounding what an actual effect is, the mere existence of matter is an effect, in order to prove this theory right you would need to be able to get a hold of nothing and create something from it. But it's just literally impossible because nothing is not a conceivable idea or property. It is the absence of ANYTHING.

Equivocation: brainlet tier

anything else gay guy?

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

isnt this destiny's website? wew lad really earning your name

Yeah, can't all be as famous as you with the fanclub following you.

first one i already addressed and knocked it out of the park, the idea of an uncaused cause is not illogical.

It really is.

Maybe a visual aid will help. The idea being, there's no reason not to have an infinite regress.

Why stop at God? Why wouldn't God have a God who in turn has a God?

second one is garbage its a thought experiment that doesnt make it pass go

Science doesn't have the answer, therefore suck Jesus' cock.

That sounds legit.

multiple causes: ok then they are all god

Why God? Why not Galactos or Jubileus? Hell, why not Ymir?

radio active decay; this guy doesn't understand what an effect is, to compare literal nothingness to an arrangement of matter that already exists and then to judge this effect as uncaused is beyond stupid. -1 for atheists

virtual particles; this is something hawking recently came up with the idea that the a blackhole periodically emits what is called a firewall, spitting back up particles. Again we are dealing with the existence of forms of matter this isn't nothing, to equate this to nothing is just incorrect once again.

"For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother." Literally brainlet tier, this is called the devils proof not the fallacy of composition, the lack of proof that the devil exists is not proof the devil does not exist. You cant say something can be uncaused simply because it has yet to be proven that everything has a cause. Further its confounding what an actual effect is, the mere existence of matter is an effect, in order to prove this theory right you would need to be able to get a hold of nothing and create something from it. But it's just literally impossible because nothing is not a conceivable idea or property. It is the absence of ANYTHING.

Equivocation: brainlet tier

Okay, so you don't like these ideas. If we're really going to use Aqunas' causes, shall we pick one to focus upon?

Just bear in mind most Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, also consider the causes to be faulty arguments and only basic entry tier preaching material.

anything else gay guy?

Yo mom fat an ur dad ghey.

Seeing as this is the level we're working with.

 

[Ijime]

How should they impose respect for the whole church when the world as a whole has become secular?

The whole world is becoming more secular because households and schools are becoming more careless and no longer care about traditional values. Religion is a double-edge sword that will either help teaching and instructing youths of said values when used properly or cut the wielder and fuck their entire foundation and respect.
The Church has to be more careful and consistent with what they say and what they teach and hold traditional values with an extreme grip instead of tripping every 5 years because of some stupid controversies. Or even better the should practice what they preach. How? The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there

You sound as if you've put a great deal of thought into this sexual fantasy of yours, would you please tell us more?

 

[MW 590]

Lefebre died a heretic and is near enough an apostate. He was condemned by John Paul and John.

It remains at best a near occasion of sin to this day for a Catholic to attend an SSPX Mass, and to let other Catholics know would be a sin. You are a heretic Jacob.



You claimed the mistakes were good and part of Sixtus' infalliability. Being able to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with you, as Sixtus did with the college regarding his translation does not mean it is correct.



Again, you affirm you are a heretic for denying the decree of both the Catholic Church and the Bishops.



See Ursury, and any of the others already mentioned in this thread how things "To be held for now and for all time" are basically held until it becomes inconvenient for Catholic leaders.



No it doesn't. It is permissible to attend the "Valid, but Illicit" Masses of the SSPX if there are no alternatives available. They are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Francis has thrown them a bone in the form of granting them "faculties" to hear confessions, but it is not possible for a SSPX cleric to perform a wedding, extreme unction or the like.

To attend an SSPX Mass is to risk the sin of scandal.




For the same reason there are no marriages in the Catholic heaven, the role has become defunct and obsolete.




I know a hell of a lot more about the Catholic faith than you will ever know , as demonstrated by your incopetence in this thread alone. I think Catholicism is horseshit. Probably worth less, because at least manure can be used in agriculture.



Bullshit. Hans Kung wrote a book that slamdunked Papal Infalliability so hard it's still a mortal sin for Catholics to even mention it outside of academia or condemnation when asked and it's banned in every Catholic state in Europe.

Now despite being banned, Hans Kung is still a Catholic priest in good standing and still teaches Theology. Would you like to know why?

To defrock a cleric, you have to prove they are a heretic and they're telling lies.

More than four decades later, nobody has ever been able to do it. The Vatican has tried, many times, and still can't debunk him.

But of course, you won't read it. It doesn't come with pictures or the ability to shriek about Jews. https://www.amazon.com/Infallible-Hans-Kung/dp/0002153432

I'm bored . At least Catholics who actually believe, know and follow their own rules are able to respond fairly. I feel like I'm kicking a blind man at this point.

Ok, since I try to have all the facts in the debates, I will do research on that book and the debunking attempts. But keep in mind that it the reason why he was not defrocked and excommunicated for heresy could be that the Vatican which has been taken over by Freemasons and Communists since Vatican II, like his work because it is part of their agenda to lead the church astray.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

@Fagatron
No.

Ok think about it like this you are playing crash bandicoot and you want to pick up and throw one of the apples, but you can't you can only walk into it and collect it, or spin it out, because thats the mechanics of the game. So you close down the game, now in IRL you walk to your kitchen grab an apple and smash it on the floor. Different rules apply to different physical states, in the realm where God exists he isn't bound by any laws of our physical universe in the same way that Crash Bandicoot cant actually do anything else other than what the developers programmed him to do. This God's god is something that you already hear covering acquinas its not a real argument if you arent a brainlet.

That's pretty dumb, who cares what He is called, we are referring to the concept not the actual name. That's like saying why not call him Kami or Dieu.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

The whole world is becoming more secular because households and schools are becoming more careless and no longer care about traditional values. Religion is a double-edge sword that will either help teaching and instructing youths of said values when used properly or cut the wielder and fuck their entire foundation and respect.
The Church has to be more careful and consistent with what they say and what they teach and hold traditional values with an extreme grip instead of tripping every 5 years because of some stupid controversies. Or even better the should practice what they preach. How? The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there

Why are traditional values automatically better in your mind? Not saying they never are, but traditional doesn’t automatically equal good or right.

 

[MW 590]

@Fagatron Now I have a dilemma. I am having trouble trying to find a refutation of Kung's book. For the debate, I would have to know about the contents of the book, but buying the book would be a mortal sin because it helps the heretic make money off his work of heresy. You seem confident that the book completely disproves papal infallibility, so have you read the book? If so, then can you give me a summary of the important points so that I can try to refute them? If you haven't read the book, then you are just assuming that it does, probably due to your biases against the church for saying that fucking with your fellow faggots is a mortal sin.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

@Fagatron Now I have a dilemma. I am having trouble trying to find a refutation of Kung's book. For the debate, I would have to know about the contents of the book, but buying the book would be a mortal sin because it helps the heretic make money off his work of heresy. You seem confident that the book completely disproves papal infallibility, so have you read the book? If so, then can you give me a summary of the important points so that I can try to refute them? If you haven't read the book, then you are just assuming that it does, probably due to your biases against the church for saying that fucking with your fellow faggots is a mortal sin.

I own two copies of the book in different languages (I wanted to check it once for differences in content). It's a full damning rebuttal. It is a bit sad however you instantly want to read a rebuttal, rather than actually weigh an argument for its merits yourself. It does say a lot about how you approach a discussion with the "I must win" mentality rather than a desire to understand or develop one way or the other.

If you buy a copy of the book second hand (so that the money does not go to Fr Kung) for the purposes of defending the faith and do not make it known that you have aquired a copy (public knowledge being "the sin of scandal"), that would be permissible and is how most religious Theolgians (there are Atheist Theology, Ecclesiastics and Divinity PhD's out there) aquire works of rival denominationsfor study (it's also a very nice moneyspinner for non-fanatical students to sell their books on!). That would only be a sin if you are a member of an order that still maintains an index of banned books which you're probably not.

I can pick out a few highlights tomorrow, but it's more a full history of infalliability, how and why it developed and why ultimatley it lead to Vatican II, which really couldn't have come about without it.

 

[PorcupineTree]

If you haven't read the book, then you are just assuming that it does, probably due to your biases against the church for saying that fucking with your fellow faggots is a mortal sin.

The passive aggressiveness of this thread is reaching comedic heights.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Oh God, are you still going as well?

@Fagatron
No.

Ok think about it like this you are playing crash bandicoot and you want to pick up and throw one of the apples, but you can't you can only walk into it and collect it, or spin it out, because thats the mechanics of the game. So you close down the game, now in IRL you walk to your kitchen grab an apple and smash it on the floor. Different rules apply to different physical states, in the realm where God exists he isn't bound by any laws of our physical universe in the same way that Crash Bandicoot cant actually do anything else other than what the developers programmed him to do. This God's god is something that you already hear covering acquinas its not a real argument if you arent a brainlet.

So you're sayin humans can only do what God programmed us to do?

So God programmed men to rape babies? Good to know, that would explain why nonconsenual prepubescent Sodomy appears to be the eighth sacrament.

This is what that Rationalwiki author described a "special pleading", you're claiming God isn't bound by laws, when really he could just as feasibly be bound by laws himself. If God is all good as is claimed, he is bound by a force that prevents him from doing evil . You cannot have your cake, and eat it too. Pick one.

That's pretty dumb, who cares what He is called, we are referring to the concept not the actual name. That's like saying why not call him Kami or Dieu.

The Kami arern't Gods, so no I wouldn't use that name. All the arguments used to support the first cause, if we accepted them as valid (which I do not) could just as easily (if not more easily) be used to justify the existance of Cuthulu.

 

[MW 590]

I own two copies of the book in different languages (I wanted to check it once for differences in content). It's a full damning rebuttal. It is a bit sad however you instantly want to read a rebuttal, rather than actually weigh an argument for its merits yourself. It does say a lot about how you approach a discussion with the "I must win" mentality rather than a desire to understand or develop one way or the other.

If you buy a copy of the book second hand (so that the money does not go to Fr Kung) for the purposes of defending the faith and do not make it known that you have aquired a copy (public knowledge being "the sin of scandal"), that would be permissible and is how most religious Theolgians (there are Atheist Theology, Ecclesiastics and Divinity PhD's out there) aquire works of rival denominationsfor study (it's also a very nice moneyspinner for non-fanatical students to sell their books on!). That would only be a sin if you are a member of an order that still maintains an index of banned books which you're probably not.

I can pick out a few highlights tomorrow, but it's more a full history of infalliability, how and why it developed and why ultimatley it lead to Vatican II, which really couldn't have come about without it.

Out of curiosity, what made you decide to get the book? Do you have Catholic background?

 

[Carlos Thin]