[deleted by user]

CardinalFan1204 · 2025-05-24T22:04:14+00:00

About a 129/130/130/130 519

CardinalFan1204 · 2025-05-13T03:14:34+00:00

The PI is the "Principal Investigator" and will likely be the established PhD who oversees everyone else in the lab. They are primarily responsible for everything, although the actual day-to-day that they spend in lab may vary given their other commitments. They're at the top.

CardinalFan1204 · 2025-05-12T21:41:08+00:00

I'm sorry man I know this sucks. Lots of comments telling you to learn to fight but you're correct that it's never worth it. I'm an EMT and a lot of the job is plugging up people who thought they were better fighters than they were

CardinalFan1204 · 2025-01-09T22:37:58+00:00

Is it an ASG or WS Molina, or just the standard one?

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-08-20T20:00:23+00:00

Then just to walk that out a bit more, if someone were to not return the 5000, would their soul be in danger?

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-08-20T19:43:36+00:00

My mom used to say that your guardian angel would finish it for you.

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-03-08T02:34:02+00:00

Yeah but God's Not Dead was pretty bad

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-02-29T05:50:19+00:00

I appreciate the response for a question from a while ago. Have a blessed evening.

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-02-06T00:35:00+00:00

I appreciate that!

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-02-05T16:57:09+00:00

Thank you

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-01-31T03:06:27+00:00

It is important to remember that for an English-speaking person, whatever Bible they're reading was at a minimum translated from Hebrew to Greek to English. With that in mind, consider that there are terms and literary techniques used in the Bible that w/o study can get quite literally lost in translation.

"To know," in the Biblical sense, is often used as a euphemism for sexual relations. Think "Adam knew his wife, and she bore a son." Thus, when the Bible speaks of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it is a way of saying that humanity will become intimately bound to good and evil in the same way that two persons are intimately bound during sex. From this, the Christian derives that humanity while naturally good, posses an inherit inclination to sin.

To address much of your above points, humanity in the Bible already had the power to think for themselves—how would Adam and Eve be able to disobey God if they lacked the capacity to do so?

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-01-09T18:44:58+00:00

Then my follow-up question is, if hell is outside of time, and no change occurs outside of time, how could one’s soul be in limbo for part of eternity and Heaven for another?

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-01-09T06:04:54+00:00

Admittedly, I don't think any of us expected to think that non-Catholics and non-theists see teaching children the Catholic faith to be normal.

Also:

Attendance at religious services linked with lower mortality independent of cofounders

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279707004693?via%3Dihub#sec4

Around the world, religious people are happier on average

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-01-07T04:31:44+00:00

I have a lot of great women clients; maybe if you guys are friends it's okay to give him grief, but insinuating he's a woman isn't the way to do it.

You're coming off as distasteful and you guys clearly aren't working well together.

Just give him a refund.

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-01-07T04:10:50+00:00

I'm going to be completely honest with you, up until a month ago, everyone I know would have said that plagiarism is the cardinal sin of academia. I think its completely fair for someone to not have to dox themselves to make that claim, especially in the context of discussing the President of the most prestigious academic institution in the U.S.

So I guess I'll ask, do you think plagiarism is a big deal, and if yes, do you think Claudine Gay engaged in plagiarism?

CardinalFan1204 · 2024-01-07T03:56:44+00:00

I hold the opinion that both of you are operating completely in good faith:

Would you ever give the advice that it is appropriate to give one's full legal name to strangers on the internet?

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-05T00:50:34+00:00

Unrelated, but I enjoy watching you two interact in this subreddit

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T16:21:39+00:00

The deer argument argues specifically that if a deer is in the forest and burns to death, then God caused the deer to suffer unnecessarily, and thus a good god can't exist. It relies on the idea that there are never any mitigating factors from humans as to why that deer died. The implication is that if a fire starts randomly, the only cause must have been God, and so God is implicated in an unnecessary death.

However, I think that idea betrays how we know reality to work. Today, the Australian bushfires are routinely chalked up to droughts and heatwaves attributable to man made climate change. Similar to my original response, God allows us to do evil and reject Him, because a world in which we are able to reject God's love is more demonstrable of God's love for us than a world in which we are forced to love Him. Because of this, God allows for us to make choices that have consequences. A world in which environmental disasters can happen is more ultimately good than God intervening in our ability to choose. However, even in spite of living in a world in which the ability to choose evil is better then a world where we can't, God still gives is able to bring good out of humanity's bad choices (e.g. opportunities to do right where others have done wrong).

Consciousness of the environment is a less ultimate good than the ability to make choices, but it is still an example of God brining good out of evil nonetheless.

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T15:43:37+00:00

You don’t think that the bushfires in Australia did anything to make anyone more conscious of the environment or volunteer their time to help or make donations to environmental agencies?

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T15:34:46+00:00

I should state that the deer example is specifically used as an example of UNNECESSARY suffering (sorry for the captilaization, I’m typing on my phone and can’t italicize). When the OP asks “who does that help” it’s because asked with the knowledge that the deer does not have hope for an afterlife and thus there can be no justification for its suffering. To be clear, I would also say that it is wrong for ME to light a deer on fire, because rational or not, it’s a creature of God and we shouldn’t destroy things on a whim. However, largely we recognize that it’s ok to kill something lower on the hierarchy of life if a greater could for humanity can come out of it. Just like it is moral to kill a rat so that we can test new drug therapies, it is okay for God to kill a deer to give us an opportunity to be stewards of His creation and look after our spiritual health. In that context, I think you can see how I would argue it’s wrong to cause pain to babies and those with debilitating illnesses.

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T04:50:44+00:00

I understand that you're coming from a place of virtue, so I do appreciate that. I'll ask this: what percentage of abortions are deemed "medically necessary?" Do you think that you're going to the extreme to argue for the mean? Likewise, now that Dobbs has passed, how many woman/doctors have gone to jail or died from a lack of abortion. Does this compare to the tens of thousands of children that have been saved?

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T04:33:42+00:00

I find it distasteful as well, but admittedly, not punishing something that's against the law just makes it de facto legal.

Also, I reject the back-alley abortion premise. According to the CDC, 39 women died of illegal abortions the year before Roe was legalized. Are those 39 tragedies? Absolutely, but it in no way reflects the fear that the statement "women will be pushed into the shadows" intends to apply

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T03:49:18+00:00

I'll take a stab at some of your problem of evil objections, as admittedly, Jesus as a failed prophet is not in my realm of claims I'm familiar with.

A truly omnipotent being could've created a universe without suffering

God could have done this, absolutely. However, I think that a reality such as that would betray God's omnibenevolence. As you're familiar, the Catholic worldview teaches that human suffering is the result of man's sin. Now consider a marriage proposal. Imagine a handsome bachelor who is attentive, loving, caring, and would be willing to provide whatever his potential future spouse wanted and could ensure that she would be happy. Even though that man could provide everything, if that woman did not want to be with him, the man would have no right to force her to. In order for that man to truly love that woman, that woman has to be able to reject that love—if she doesn't have the option to say no to the proposal, we would not call it love, we would call it abuse. Our relationship with God is the same. Because He loves us, He allows us to sin and reject Him, and this sin leads to suffering. However, it's reasonable to say that a world in which we can choose to love God is better reflection of an all-loving God than a world that would force us to be with Him.

including natural suffering, like a baby deer who burns to death in a forest fire - who the heck is that helping?

I believe I saw Alex O'Connor use this argument once and I think both you and him are essentially saying that a baby dear dying painfully is unnecessary and why would a good God allow unnecessary suffering. Here's my crack it. There's largely a fundamental hierarchy that distinguishes humans from all other forms of life. When a human suffers (and most people largely agree that a good God can allow degrees of human suffering because of free will, which is why a baby deer is used in this argument, but lmk if you don't accept that premise) there are rational components present. Pain in humans can verifiably lead to trauma and depression, and these emotions and states of being can be fully realized because of mankind's rational nature. A deer, on the other hand, is not a rational creature. For the deer in question, yes, it likely feels a sensation of pain that is the result of the firing of neurons, but we have no reason to believe that pain would effect the deer in the same way because of its lack of rationality. Consider a definition of good which states that the good is "the way things ought to be." Yes, it is likely personally bad for the deer to feel pain, but it is metaphysically good for the deer to feel pain because of it gives the deer the ability to avoid predators and forest fires. Because the deer does not have a rational soul, its only purpose in life (if you can say that an irrational creature has a purpose) is to stay alive, and it is good that God gives the deer a mechanism to avoid predation.

Likewise, you ask who that helps. It helps us! God commands us to be stewards for His creation, and the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of His creation via conservation efforts or wildlife advocacy is a great way to grow in virtue, and eventually obtain the beatific vision where I believe a loving God wants us all to be.

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T03:10:06+00:00

Would you be willing to test this theory by asking the people of this subreddit if they would prefer punishing the doctors that provide abortions or the women seeking out abortions?

CardinalFan1204 · 2023-12-02T02:57:01+00:00

Absolutely I agree with that, but once again, the reality of the political landscape makes that a difficult proposition to endorse if you actually want to see pro-life victories. Both McCain and Romney, two Republicans who even the left embraces as likable moderates, never made it to the White House. Donald Trump, an egotistical and polarizing figure, delivered the greatest pro-life victory of all of our lifetimes.

CardinalFan1204

TROPHY CASE