Proof that Catholicism is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter MW 590
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
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
Define "traditional values". It is a "traditional value" in India to burn a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. Cannibalism of both enemy and ancestor is a Maori "traditional value". Just because your ancestors did it does not mean it is good to do.
 
Oh God, are you still going as well?





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.



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.
No No nO NO NO N O N O NO NO

I'm saying the logic in the two worlds is different, the rules of the video game world only allow for certain things it is the physical laws that limit the capability. It's not a direct analogy. Even if it were though the programmers logic is not all encapsulating and it is possible to act against the desires of a programmer speed running and glitches in general are built off of this.

The rationalwiki is brainlet tier, I am defining God as one who is not bound by laws because hes all powerful. Rational Wiki is trying to put the cart before the horse and assume that I have a conceptualization of God and that he doesn't have the power I ascribed to Him. But its wrong God by my definition is omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. If he isnt he isn't god.

His conception of morality isnt the same as what you or I would think again he is capable of observing all 10 dimensions simultaneously. The argument from evil is brainlet tier. Human beings can't comprehend the actions of God, they can't even conceptualize the 5th dimension, why would you ever think you could understand the motives of God? I do not assume him to be malevolent or benevolent. I realize I do not know nor can I ever think in the same paradigm as God as he is all knowing.

Kami is god in japanese, when used together with other syllables it becomes gami such as shinigami. When said alone it means God. Typically the honorific sama will go after it, e.g. Kami-sama tasuketeeeeeeee
 
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.
This is entirely irrelevant, and the reason you keep coming back to it is because you simply cannot answer the question of what evidence there is that the “first cause” must be the Christian God. If you can’t answer that without resorting to word games, then as far as I’m concerned, you forfeit the argument.
 
This is entirely irrelevant, and the reason you keep coming back to it is because you simply cannot answer the question of what evidence there is that the “first cause” must be the Christian God. If you can’t answer that without resorting to word games, then as far as I’m concerned, you forfeit the argument.
I already addressed this, the argument is step one on the path to the catholic God. try re reading the thread.
 
Out of curiosity, what made you decide to get the book? Do you have Catholic background?
upload_2019-2-5_0-50-16.png


Something like that. I've gotten better since.
 
I already addressed this, the argument is step one on the path to the catholic God. try re reading the thread.
No, your argument was:
- There must be a first cause.
- I call that cause “God.”
- ???
- It’s definitely the God from the Bible and could not possibly be anything else.
 
C.S. Lewis has some very thought-provoking quotes on Christianity and religion if anyone is interested! My apologies and I mean no harm, as I'm just passing through this thread; good luck to you all!
 
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.

It's difficult to understand because rooted in a baseless assumption that comes out of nowhere. The leap to it referring to one specific institution that formed from political events that are clearly documented and entirely political doesn't help.
 
No No nO NO NO N O N O NO NO

I'm saying the logic in the two worlds is different, the rules of the video game world only allow for certain things it is the physical laws that limit the capability. It's not a direct analogy. Even if it were though the programmers logic is not all encapsulating and it is possible to act against the desires of a programmer speed running and glitches in general are built off of this.

But your God decides everything, what is possible and what isn't. Any capacity to break the rules or to not.

The rationalwiki is brainlet tier, I am defining God as one who is not bound by laws because hes all powerful.

Which God is this then? Because the Trinitarian Christian God is (allegedly) all good, he's bound by his own nature to be incapable of evil.

This however does invoke Epicurian riddle, which might be worth you looking into as an introduction to the problem of evil as to why an all good deity cannot be all powerful.
Rational Wiki is trying to put the cart before the horse and assume that I have a conceptualization of God and that he doesn't have the power I ascribed to Him. But its wrong God by my definition is omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. If he isnt he isn't god.

So your God is all powerful and all seeing, but not all good?

It's more consistent. It doesn't explain why an evil deity would make the world but at least we're getting somewhere.

His conception of morality isnt the same as what you or I would think again he is capable of observing all 10 dimensions simultaneously.

Can we just clarify which denomination you follow? Because several denominations condemn multi dimensional/universe theories as heretical.

The argument from evil is brainlet tier. Human beings can't comprehend the actions of God, they can't even conceptualize the 5th dimension, why would you ever think you could understand the motives of God? I do not assume him to be malevolent or benevolent. I realize I do not know nor can I ever think in the same paradigm as God as he is all knowing.

So you're cool with baby rape and genocide. That's cute. Whatever happened to the ends not justifying the means?

You might enjoy reading into Divine Command theory in this regard, though it's certainly not Catholic.

Kami is god in japanese, when used together with other syllables it becomes gami such as shinigami. When said alone it means God. Typically the honorific sama will go after it, e.g. Kami-sama tasuketeeeeeeee

Uh huh, it's popularly translated as God. But Kami are mortal and can be destroyed. I'm assuming your deity, or any proposed creator of the universe isn't killable like a Kami.

So no actually, Kami would be a poor replacement to describe an omnipotent God.
 
No, your argument was:
- There must be a first cause.
- I call that cause “God.”
- ???
- It’s definitely the God from the Bible and could not possibly be anything else.
Yikes. Please learn how to read

>no cause is uncaused
>there must be something outside the bounds of causality that caused the entire existence of the universe
>that thing is therefore God

>teleological argument
>it is possible to use theoretical physics to predict never seen before phenomena because the laws of the universe are stackable in that they are able to be applied on a macro scale to larger concepts
>numbers like phi and pi can be found within all objects in the universe no matter the scale
>the unique combination of carbon atoms that would produce a living breathing human capable of abstraction is so succinct
>the universe is intelligently designed
>the architect is therefore God

>the old testament has over 100 revelations that came to pass with the advent of Christ
>the catechism is most likely the most correct interpretation of God
>the christian god is the real god
 
>the old testament has over 100 revelations that came to pass with the advent of Christ
>the catechism is most likely the most correct interpretation of God
>the christian god is the real god
for this to be objectively true there would have to be objective fact that Jesus was the son of God, which there isn't (the Bible isn't proof that other parts of the Bible are true). I'm sure there was a Jew named Jesus who did a lot of preaching back in the day, and he might have even claimed to be the son of God, but there's no verifiable proof that he was
 
But your God decides everything, what is possible and what isn't. Any capacity to break the rules or to not.



Which God is this then? Because the Trinitarian Christian God is (allegedly) all good, he's bound by his own nature to be incapable of evil.

This however does invoke Epicurian riddle, which might be worth you looking into as an introduction to the problem of evil as to why an all good deity cannot be all powerful.


So your God is all powerful and all seeing, but not all good?

It's more consistent. It doesn't explain why an evil deity would make the world but at least we're getting somewhere.



Can we just clarify which denomination you follow? Because several denominations condemn multi dimensional/universe theories as heretical.



So you're cool with baby rape and genocide. That's cute. Whatever happened to the ends not justifying the means?

You might enjoy reading into Divine Command theory in this regard, though it's certainly not Catholic.



Uh huh, it's popularly translated as God. But Kami are mortal and can be destroyed. I'm assuming your deity, or any proposed creator of the universe isn't killable like a Kami.

So no actually, Kami would be a poor replacement to describe an omnipotent God.
I don't have all the answers I don't know everything, the denomination I follow is irrelevant because I'm not a perfect depiction of that domination. What I personally and most strongly believe in is God as the first cause, which I touched on earlier in this thread. Then through several other arguments and logical leaps and a bit of FAITH we get to the Christian God.

My interpretation of the will of God would be most closest to a deist, God created the world set up the rules to the board game, offered salvation with his Son and then just leaves it be. The Epicurean problem of evil is irrelevant as God has decided to let his children do as they want in the aquarium he created. Think about it like this, I can beat you up, at any time I'm incredibly strong and a good fighter, but I don't, I just don't beat you up. But I can. Does that suddenly make me weaker than you? Is because I chose to not do something to prove your action I'm suddenly not all powerful? No.

God is not all good in the concept of mortal's good, and I don't pretend to know the intentions of God. But he passed down a set of rules on how to live to achieve salvation with him. In the eyes of God who is eternal our life spans on this Earth are essentially meaningless because 80/oo is 0. In that sense the question of good and evil isn't applicable.

Kami could refer to shinto gods which were killable but when a japanese christian is praying they also say Kami and there is a large denomination of them there.
 
View attachment 657274

Something like that. I've gotten better since.
Some of the best people I know are Catholics and I think it's as arrogant to assert that religion is useless horseshit or actively evil as it is to be a zealot. Religion can give many people peace of mind and lead them to be better people; no view should be judged by the worst examples of its kind.
 
Some of the best people I know are Catholics and I think it's as arrogant to assert that religion is useless horseshit or actively evil as it is to be a zealot. Religion can give many people peace of mind and lead them to be better people; no view should be judged by the worst examples of its kind.

This would be a good conversation, and I'd be delighted to continue it on another thread or in DM's rather than de-rail this thread further. :)

I don't have all the answers I don't know everything, the denomination I follow is irrelevant because I'm not a perfect depiction of that domination. What I personally and most strongly believe in is God as the first cause, which I touched on earlier in this thread. Then through several other arguments and logical leaps and a bit of FAITH we get to the Christian God.

But your denomination helps us understand what you think the Christian God is. And the first cause has been long addressed elsewhere.

It's taught in freshman applied theology for historical interest, not practical use.

My interpretation of the will of God would be most closest to a deist, God created the world set up the rules to the board game, offered salvation with his Son and then just leaves it be. The Epicurean problem of evil is irrelevant as God has decided to let his children do as they want in the aquarium he created. Think about it like this, I can beat you up, at any time I'm incredibly strong and a good fighter, but I don't, I just don't beat you up. But I can. Does that suddenly make me weaker than you? Is because I chose to not do something to prove your action I'm suddenly not all powerful? No.

But your god is going to roast us all if we don't do exactly what he wants.

This is why knowing your denomination helps, because a Christian can't be a deitst. The Christian God is a pro active force in the world.

God is not all good in the concept of mortal's good, and I don't pretend to know the intentions of God. But he passed down a set of rules on how to live to achieve salvation with him. In the eyes of God who is eternal our life spans on this Earth are essentially meaningless because 80/oo is 0. In that sense the question of good and evil isn't applicable.

What you're essentially saying is that might makes right, it's good because God says so even if it doesn't make any sense.

What is the point of giving us senses if they're useless for leading us to the "correct" answer that we're going to be punished for not finding?

Kami could refer to shinto gods which were killable but when a japanese christian is praying they also say Kami and there is a large denomination of them there.

Only 1% of Japans population describes itself as Christian, and just over half (509,000) of these are Catholics.

They're essentialy irrelevant in Japan, most of them living in Nagasaki.

A large proportion of Japanese Christians are middle class bilinguals, and will often switch in and out of English during Liturgy and prayer as very often (especially the Catholics due to a shortage of native preists) they're usually being ministered by non-japanese with a weak grasp of the language. But also purposefully to avoid nuances like that in the language since Kami is really very, very basic and not quite hitting the mark. Japanese really just doesn't have the vocabulary to even describe an Abrahamic deity, let alone enter into a discussion about Western Theology.

In any case, I still wouldn't use Kami because there and in the west, it conjures to mind the Shinto powers like Amaterasu rather than an all powerful creator. Powerful as Amaterasu was said to be, she was neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

....For fucks sake, she was tricked by a mirror.
 
Last edited:
I don't have all the answers I don't know everything, the denomination I follow is irrelevant because I'm not a perfect depiction of that domination. What I personally and most strongly believe in is God as the first cause, which I touched on earlier in this thread. Then through several other arguments and logical leaps and a bit of FAITH we get to the Christian God.

My interpretation of the will of God would be most closest to a deist, God created the world set up the rules to the board game, offered salvation with his Son and then just leaves it be. The Epicurean problem of evil is irrelevant as God has decided to let his children do as they want in the aquarium he created. Think about it like this, I can beat you up, at any time I'm incredibly strong and a good fighter, but I don't, I just don't beat you up. But I can. Does that suddenly make me weaker than you? Is because I chose to not do something to prove your action I'm suddenly not all powerful? No.

God is not all good in the concept of mortal's good, and I don't pretend to know the intentions of God. But he passed down a set of rules on how to live to achieve salvation with him. In the eyes of God who is eternal our life spans on this Earth are essentially meaningless because 80/oo is 0. In that sense the question of good and evil isn't applicable.

Kami could refer to shinto gods which were killable but when a japanese christian is praying they also say Kami and there is a large denomination of them there.
As @Fagatron pointed out, you've turned God into a sadistic tyrant who creates rules that neither align with the world as we know it nor any kind of logic that has not been twisted into impossible shapes. At least Judaism and Islam have some logical system to their beliefs, even if their axioms are odd.
 
Instead of coming here flapping your arms like an autistic, be a positive representation of your faith. You are being an embarrassment. You are the equivalent of the idiot Lokean Tumblr godspouses who all think the Norse God Loki is their husband. Or that stupid cringey cunt Galina Krasskova (another cringey polytheist and godspouse). Be based and cool like these Catholics that make the Marxists looks lame in comparison in this situation.

PS- I can be paternalistic too so I will make an offering praying that your noble Pagan ancestors forgive you for your disrespect of them by practicing a fake imperialist religion. A religion without animism in it is not real because it has no connection to a land and physical reality. That's why we should seek to preserve indigenous people's knowledge of all lands and waters.
 
>there must be something outside the bounds of causality that caused the entire existence of the universe
>that thing is therefore God
Your point here, as far as I can tell, is that God must exist because nothing can exist without being created. Except God is immune to the need for a prior cause himself because he doesn’t follow the laws which dictate that he must exist. You follow a line of logic until that line of logic becomes problematic, whereupon you abandon it.
>teleological argument
>it is possible to use theoretical physics to predict never seen before phenomena because the laws of the universe are stackable in that they are able to be applied on a macro scale to larger concepts
>numbers like phi and pi can be found within all objects in the universe no matter the scale
>the unique combination of carbon atoms that would produce a living breathing human capable of abstraction is so succinct
>the universe is intelligently designed
>the architect is therefore God
This is so ass-backwards I don’t even know where to begin. All this proves is that there are consistent laws governing the entire universe.
>the old testament has over 100 revelations that came to pass with the advent of Christ
>the catechism is most likely the most correct interpretation of God
>the christian god is the real god
Any historical documentation? Anything not couched in vague metaphor? It’s going to take more than “a thing was predicted in one book of the Bible and then another book of the Bible said it happened!” On that basis, we can prove Harry Potter is real.
 
Last edited:
With no disrespect intended Jacob in this instance, you don't really seem to know much about Church history and the development of the Papal Office. It might be worth going through from Part 1 explaining how it began and what it turned into.

If you're looking only just to dip in, the sections on language (Humans can't make infalliable decrees because of the limitation of language), examples of where Popes have contradicted each other might be more to the point (e.g: Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, Sixtus V and Gregory XVI all contradicting each other over when a fetus gets a soul and declaring each others bulls invalid). Books III and IV contain the bulk of this, but II does highlight some less pressing examples too. Trent vs Vatican II is quite interesting, because Vatican II does openly contradict Trent, but Vatican II has been commanded by the Bishops to be held as truth just as Trent was, regardless of which invocations to the Holy Spirit were used at the council or not.

It's a shame the archive doesn't have the more recent edition (I say recent, it was printed back in 1994) becaue Kung did write two more chapters about more recent developments and examples.

Edit: If it matches my print edition, pg.56-64 might be worth reading for you seeing as you seem to not acknowledge the authority of Vatican II.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom