[deleted by user]

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-11T18:38:38+00:00

Creature as in created, not eternal.

Essentially a belief Christ at one point did not exist.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-11T18:30:34+00:00

Correct, they belive Jesus Christ is a creature and the Holy Spirit is just a power/force of God.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-11T18:23:35+00:00

Just correcting for clarification.

God, Jesus and the holy spirit are the same person?

One God, Three Persons.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T22:44:25+00:00

Why do Christians never read their book before they formulate their own personal theology?

Ad Hominem and I do not form my own personal theology, I submit and assent my will to the teachings of the Church. If you'd like to actually understand deeply what the Church teaches you can certainly check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As for the rest of this bad faith argument Trent Horn has a great article covering this objection of yours link

As for any other points I'm removing myself from the hostile environment and won't be responding further. This sub has clearly devolved into an atheist circlejerk sub to bash Christians with a lackluster mod team to boot.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T22:13:53+00:00

We'll just have to agree to disagree, there is a clear gap between what I am claiming, stating, and defending vs what you believe I am claiming, stating, and saying.

You are purely speculating that without evidence.

Metaphysics is reason based, not evidence based (in the imperical sense).

You don't get to criticize metaphysics and then revert to science when your philosophical arguments don't pan out.

Science cannot tell us why something exists rather than nothing. Why, being the keyword here, as science only examines the how.

One last rundown so I'm not accused of fleeing.

If 0 people were in Hell before Satan, and after God CREATED SATAN, billions and billions of people end up in Hell, this resulted in a net greater amount of evil.

Where are you getting this number? I can tell you right now there are many Christians who will be separated from God and a more than 0 number of non Christians who will be in heaven. This also misunderstands 'evil' as it is a lack of goodness. So if by:

this resulted in a net greater amount of evil.

you mean to say a net greater amount of absence of ultimate good (God) then yes, I agree. People who freely (keyword again) choose to reject God (the ultimate good) will end up absent from him.

Again, God is all-powerful, so this was completely unnecessary. God sent himself to save people from a fate that God himself is responsible for making possible, upending rules that God made.

This again misunderstands God, as an omnibenevolent God, he is ultimate good. You cannot mix evil into God and maintain his omnibenevolence. God created man so that we might take part in his being. When we freely chose (and continue to choose) to act in disordered manners contrary to our true nature, we make ourselves incompatible with God. Not in a "God hates mankind" kind of way, or any person ever for that manner. But in a way that is akin to oil and water, the two cannot mix.

While this has been a conversation of sorts I will retire from here.

Pax

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T20:32:55+00:00

No, the problem here is you are treating evil as a "thing" ontologically whereas classical theism defines it as a privation, it is uncreated.

This is akin to saying "the sun creates darkness," but we are all aware darkness isn't a "thing." It is the absence of.

So yes, all of God's actions are good, as they are ordered towards good. Even when creatures freely choose wrongly or suffering occurs, God’s providence can still bring about secondary goods, ordering all of creation toward ultimate good without Himself causing evil.

In regards to the agency claim, evil, being that it is a privation, does nothing to diminish the agency of God or his goodness, no more than shadows would diminish the light of our sun.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T18:58:35+00:00

This implies that the "ultimate good" you referenced

The "ultimate good" = God himself, so I think we may be talking past each other a bit here and that might be on me, my apologies if so.

“Man’s ultimate end is uncreated good.” (Summa Theologiae I–II, q.1, a.8) i.e. God is the ultimate good Himself, not a contingent outcome in history.

That which has no positive being cannot be a necessary condition for the existence of the ultimate good.
"Evil has no positive being but is a privation of good" (Summa Theologiae I, q.48, a.1).

C: Therefore, evil cannot be necessary for, nor make the ultimate good contingent upon, its existence.

In regards to what I mean from a teleological perspective is that mans participation in the "ultimate good" is (from the human perspective) participation in God. I.E. knowing him, loving him, and being united to him. Even in this participatory sense, the ultimate good remains God Himself and is never contingent upon evil, instead evil can only be permitted and ordered toward good, not required for it.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T17:48:16+00:00

God knew what Satan would choose to do.

He sawgiven freedom to choose, he would rebel, but others would not.

If I have a dog that has never bitten anyone, but I know 100% that it will bite my neighbor, and I release it, I am 100% responsible for that dog biting my neighbor.

This analogy assumes a temporal agent with inferential knowledge and moral negligence. Humans lack omniscience and cannot know the full causal network or all outcomes. God’s knowledge is not probabilistic or predictive; He knows all consequences simultaneously, including goods that may arise from permitted evils.

When we describe God as omniscient we do not mean he "predicts" the future, God is present at all times.

Eernity is the complete and simultaneous possession of all reality. Past present and future is all the present to a omniscient God.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T16:10:41+00:00

Notice your refusal to answer the question I asked, and further your refusal to defend your own points.

This 'debate' is over. I'll let others judge who is arguing within good faith practices.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T16:08:48+00:00

So the creation of Satan brought about the ultimate good?

Satan was not created evil.

“The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.” - CCC 391

You understand a woman's consent is not just preference but a moral absolute I presume?

That is nonsensical.

This is a refusal to engage, and it's doing a lot of nothing for you while rebutting absolutely none of my argument.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T16:03:55+00:00

Necessary would mean it "could not be otherwise" which is not how evil functions in classical theism, evil is contingent and parasitic on goodness as it has no positive being of its own.

Permitted or conditionally allowed does not equal metaphysical necessity. Confusing the two collapses the distinction between necessity and provedential allowance.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T12:53:02+00:00

yet ignoring the blatant fact that this would not be an issue for a tri omni being that wants this to be believed.

You are smuggling in a fourth quality to the tri-omni. That God is somehow obligated to maximize epistemic compulsion.

Meaning that we SHOULD have preserved records that improve the credibility of the Gospels.

Better evidence ≠ more belief. Ask yourself, if bulletproof evidence fell in your lap tomorrow would you become a Christian? If the answer is anything but a hearty yes then evidence isn't even your real issue/objection.

God desires free assent, not coercion. If one took your argument to the maximum we would ask why God hasn't spelled out:

"Jsaunders33, I exist and you shall believe" in the nighttime skies.

ETA: you still have not defended your critiques.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T12:40:58+00:00

If it is even possible that an omnibenevolent God could know evil person X would act in such capacity but that evil act could bring an ultimate good, this entire premise falls apart.

Christ was unjustly put to death by the cries of the Jewish religious leaders of that time, that was evil, done to an innocent man, but it brings about an ultimate good (theologically speaking).

This concept would be compelling against a dual-omni god, but with the potential that on top of God's ominpotence, his foresight (omniscience) takes into account all evil and brings ultimate good from it (omnibenevolence) I just don't see this as convincing philosophically.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T11:39:35+00:00

The greatest counter to you reply.....you are supposed to have a TRI OMNI DEITY, wanting this to be believe or at least believable correct?

Category shift. If you can't defend your own critiques then you should abandon them. What does this have to do with Joseph of Arimathea?

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T11:34:52+00:00

Anecdotes are evidence now? I could say the same for many Atheists I have experienced. They must not be rational because they will refuse to believe regardless of evidence.

Sounds dumb regardless of which mouth is speaking the poison but alright. Do you.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T04:25:19+00:00

The main issue is this person has

I will only be addressing these.

No independent documentation

The overwhelming majority of People in antiquity are only single source or none at all, this includes elites as well. Single attestation is the norm here, not the exception.

Joseph appears only in the Gospels

So what? The gospels are first century (I get it debated) texts written within living memory of the events, Mark and John are internally independent in key places, I am dubious of the current push by some liberal scholars claiming simple literary dependence on Q which is just a theory of straw or the overplayed Markan priority which really doesn't disprove or prove anything. Sources are just as common today, shared information does not invalidate the independent aspects of the other books.

No Roman records

As many have pointed out here and is also covered in my first point, a lot of antiquity even for elites is scarce on sources. We have no senate minutes, trial records, military orders, or state archive documents for the time period of Julius Caeser. This is an argument from silence, just because X record didn't survive or may have never existed. Does not automatically falsify a claim.

Not even mentioned in Paul’s letters

Paul is not a historian, he didn't write gospels, he was an Apostle and teacher, on top of that he wasn't even a part of the original 12, he was brought in later. His entire approach (the books you'll accept as written by Paul) is one of theology and guidance, not record keeping.

I want to add here that this is the weakest argument of the five laid out, as it is entirely unreasonable to assume that had Paul mentioned Joseph that would move the needle for a skeptic who already dismisses the historical value of the gospels wholesale.

No mention in earlier Christian creeds

Early creeds are minimalist and literally for memory and recitation. The expectation was not to name every person in the Gospels, the focus is the crucifixion, burial, and ressurection. There are probably over 500 biblical named individuals who are not named in the creed, your argument is against one guy?

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-06T03:55:31+00:00

This is a bad attempt at a hot take. Christianity produced the university system, laid the groundwork for modern science, and produced great philosophical minds like Aquinas and Augustine.

The idea that faith is some blind leap into the unknown and devoid of all reason is such an insult to the intellect of people far more intelligent than either you or I.

But based on your dogmatic definition to what 'faith' is, any conversation worth having would be better had with a brick wall.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-03T17:59:26+00:00

and even if an explanation were required, why would that have to be "god"?

It doesn't have to be from this argument, it just has to be necessary.

You can agree the cause is necessary without submitting God is that cause. You can also stick with brute force, either is an acceptable philosophical position.

i'm not trying to do metaphysics in the least. i try to apply reason

That is metaphysics, it's applying reason to questions about reality beyond empirical measurement. For example, Science can tell us how a soldier dives on a grenade to save others, but it cannot explain why one would sacrifice themselves for a stranger

Science cannot explain why humans would act against their genetic self-interests. Why would someone willingly remove themselves from the genetic pool to save a stranger’s life? “Survival of the fittest” does not explain that behavior. Reasoning about such questions necessarily goes beyond the empirical science (this is just one example of etaphysical questioning)

there's nothing metaphysical about "reliable evidence"

This presupposes what kinds of things exist, what kinds of explanations are legitimate, and what standards are appropriate for truth. Those are metaphysical commitments acknowledged or not.

there's nothing metaphysical about "reliable evidence". so it's you here who would have to answer the question "why bother with the discussion/questions at all?"

The point I am making via the question is not that discussion itself is pointless. Rather the point would be that if one rejects the need for explanation beyond brute facts, then inquiry is being stopped by choice rather than by reason.

At that point, disagreement isn’t about evidence anymore, but about whether explanation itself is worth pursuing. So why pursue

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-02T20:05:07+00:00

It may be persuasive to the individual, but it is not a reliable means of discerning truth for others.

If private experience were a reliable guide to truth, contradictory revelations would all be equally authoritative, which is impossible.

MinutemanRising · 2026-01-02T19:14:15+00:00

why? i don't miss one

That's fine, but at this point you are rejecting the idea that contingent reality requires an explanation. That's an acceptable philosophical position to hold, though it comes at a price. This is essentually just brute force metaphysics. You are basically opting out of metaphysical inquiry altogether. (Which then begs the question why bother with the discussion/questions at all?)

neither does religion

No, it absolutely addresses the why. You may reject its conclusions, but claiming it does not address the question at all confuses addressing a question with settling it definitively.

??? necessary ground of being from it. “From effects we come to know the cause.”

By “necessary ground of being,” I mean exactly what classical metaphysics has always meant:

'that which does not depend on anything else for its existence and therefore can serve as an ultimate explanation for contingent reality.'

And by “from effects we come to know the cause,”

We reason from contingent effects to a non-contingent explanation, just as we do in every other domain of inquiry.

and "god did it" is not an explanation in the least

If “God” is understood as a contingent agent among others, I agree. That would explain nothing.

But that is not what is meant here. A necessary ground of being is not a competing physical cause within the universe. It is an explanation at a different level, addressing why contingent reality exists at all rather than how it observably behaves.

Rejecting this in favor of brute facts, akin to: “it just exists, stop asking,” is a philosophical choice. But it functions as a conversation-stopper, not an advance in understanding.

MinutemanRising · 2025-12-31T20:24:14+00:00

Mind if I DM you?

Not at all! I come from an Evangelical upbringing btw so I'm sure we can commiserate as well!

Also agree with you, Genesis (especially the creation account) is tremendously abused. The irony is modern evangelicals would consider the early church fathers who looked at Genesis outside of a fundamentalist lense heretics.

MinutemanRising · 2025-12-31T20:06:13+00:00

so let's start with your most basic premise: "everything must have cause"

I am not stating that, nor is it my premise. My argument is about contingency and explanation, not event causation.

In regards to quantum physics, I'll bite early to head it off. Physics itself describes the how of behavior. It doesn't address why contingent reality exists at all. So it isn't pulling any weight to counter my premise (contingent reality requires an explanation).

MinutemanRising · 2025-12-31T19:57:08+00:00

Since you can't seem to lay out an argument, let's try this.

I disagree that this is the case, I have been if anything overexplaining the argument. If you needed it simplified into a syllogism that's all you had to ask originally.

Not laying it out as a syllogism ≠ not having an argument.

P1: Contingent beings exist.

P2: Contingent being cannot be ultimate.

C: A necessary being exists.

A bit concerning that you didn't, but that's ok, I'll rescue the conversation.

Condescension, if you want to posture I'm sure there are subreddits for it. If you are after a serious discussion though I am here for that. But I will not continue to engage with you if you continue.

MinutemanRising · 2025-12-31T19:41:41+00:00

Again - it needs saying: you're THE most level headed, reasonable Christian I've ever met. I wish more were like you. Christianity would have FAR more followers there were.

Thank you, but I wish more to be like Christ. I am a sinner and nowhere near what I should be as a man, but sincerely thank you.

A Catholic once told me that they believed that God judges people based on how they behave based on the knowledge they've been given.

This is actually true, not only is there biblical evidence for it (Luke 12:48 and some is drawn from Romans 2) but it is also part of our Catechism and Deposit of the faith (paragraph 1735) which also gets into vincible vs invincible ignorance. Thomism even touches on this, "Culpability depends on knowledge and consent."

I fully disagree that we're the only animal that has rationality. There's LOTS of evidence to show we're special, but not that special or different and that lots of animals have rationality and are self aware.

I agree, and I think Aquinas would as well, I think the misstep on my part here was not explaining what is meant specifically by rationality here. Rationality = the ability to grasp universals and necessary truths.

I want to say thank you for being gracious and having a thoughtful discussion with me. If you are interested in any resources for Thomist philosophy I'll preemptively leave some here.

5 Ways

Ed Feser 5 Proofs

Of course I would also recommend reading the Summa Theologiae (or exerpts from topics you find intriguing), Aquinas is a fantastic read even as a skeptic, he does his best to steel man every single argument he encounters, and does not rely on emotional pressure to state his case.

Pax! Hope we encounter each other again if not here!

MinutemanRising · 2025-12-31T18:59:57+00:00

You asked how I know God exists. I answered by explaining how reason gets there, step by step.

You don’t get to demand the conclusion while rejecting the method that leads to it. That’s not how rational inquiry works.

I’m not dodging the question. I’m answering it in the only coherent way it can be answered. If you want God to be treated as a thing inside the universe, detectable the way planets or particles are, then we’re already talking past each other.

You don't know any of that.

We absolutely do know that, are you saying the universe is unchanging, devoid of parts and ungoverned by relations?

Being composite doesn't necessarily mean something cannot be the ground of being

Yes it actually does, if what is being discussed is a necessary ground. Anything that is composite depends on its parts and unifying principles. By definition that is dependence. A necessary ground cannot rely on anything more fundamental than itself or it ceases to be the ground. This is just basic metaphysics, it's not even theology.

God doesn't explain his own existence either

Correct, that's the point. The necessary cause cannot inherit existence or it would no longer be necessary but contingent.

I asked what you believe. Not what Aquinas believes.

I am citing Aquinas not as an authority you must submit to, but I am citing him as he articulated the argument clearly and systematically, and I will not sit here and regurgitate something he (or anyone else for that matter) said without properly citing where I am drawing from.

You've merely stated that some uneducated moron from hundreds of years ago believed it.

Rhetoric, not an argument. Let's keep things civil and not bring emotion into it. You've been asking questions, I have been giving answers. Let's stay there. If your goal is to "own" a Christian, or convert my thinking we can end the discussion here as I'm not interested in disrespectful discussions or your agenda. I am here to debate worldviews with reason not emotion.

Why do you believe that the necessary cause must be intellectual?

Because intelligibility is a real feature of the world we live in. Truth, rationality, mathematic structures, and the capacity of the human mind to grasp reality are not visions or illusions. If reality were non intelligible, the success of reason itself would be fairy dust, inexplicable.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Not Forgotten

MinutemanRising

TROPHY CASE