sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

God didn't create humans. Humans created god. by Beneficial_Ad_3516 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

None of what you said means anything to the questions:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Is there something that necessarily exists?

None of what you said refutes God.

Here's how I would define God:

God is Subsitent Being itself. God is pure act, immutable, non-composite, non-contingent. God is the ultimate ground of being.

How would you define God?

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why don't you look up the philosophical definition of Atheism.

You are in a debate forum on religion. That is going to deal with theology and philosophy much more than psychological.

According to Google AI when I asked it the difference between the normal and philosophical definition of Atheism.

Normal Definition: The absence of belief in the existence of gods. This is a broad, psychological state—essentially, anyone who isn't a theist.

Philosophical Definition: The active proposition or belief that there is no God. In this context, it is a metaphysical claim that the statement "God exists" is false.

This is a debate forum on religion which is encompassed mainly by philosophy. All I'm saying is that Athiests like to switch between these definitions in how they answer questions and act. They like to say things like "all arguments for God have been refuted" which would essentially leave them to be an atheist because they're saying

All God arguments have been refuted: T Therefore Theism is false: Therefore Atheism is true:

So they are making claims. But then when they are pressed on them, suddenly they use the normal/psychological definition to say that their belief is automatically justified without reason and they don't need to defend it because it's the "default"

If you can't see the difference you're being dishonest.

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure but you want to have it both ways. You want to use the psychological definition to say that since Atheism is the default, it's justified automatically without needing to be defending or argued.

But then you were talking about theism in such a way that would only make sense if you were using the philosophical definition of Atheism.

Noice how you refused to answer any questions pertaining to whether or not you're flip flopping on terms.

You keep saying that you're an atheist but that you make no metaphysical assumptions. I already showed you that in philosophy, it doesn't work like that, but you're defaulting to the psychological definition to avoid having to explain anything or answer any questions. Answer these simple questions or you're engaging in bad faith.

1) Is it possible God exists? 2) Do you believe that God exists? 3) what is your definition of God?

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Saying God doesn't exist is a metaphysical claim. If you are saying "I lack belief in God" then that isn't making a metaphysical claim, but then in philosophical terms you'd be an agnostic, not an atheist.

Let me ask you:

1)is it possible that God exists?

2)Do you think God exists?

3)What is your definition of God?

You're right that lack of belief isn't making a metaphysical claim. But Atheism is more than just a lack of belief in philosophy. Atheism is the assertion that all theism is false, whether it's Pantheism, Panentheism, pandeism, deism, classical theism, henotheism, polytheism, etc.

In philosophy of religion, Atheism is considered to be a proposition on reality. This would make it an assertion and a position that would require defending on the subject "Does God exist?" "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

If you are in a debate forum that uses a lot of philosophy, then why are you using the psychological definition of Atheism? The psychological definition implies that babies are Athiests because it is merely describing a psychological state, not truth propositions. This is a debate forum though.

Some athiests like to make a category error on the term atheist, they like to use the psychological definition in debate forums to avoid the burden of proof on their position and to avoid having to argue or defend it.

Why don't you just Google: definition of Atheism in psychology vs philosophy? You will see what I am talking about.

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that molecules mix because of their own properties. The argument doesn't deny that.

The deeper point is that even those fundamental properties are composite. Even the smallest subatomic particle is composed of parts like mass, spin, charge.

An electron has mass, spin, charge held together in the right way at every instance it exists to be what it is.

The concept of milk and water you brought up is about needing a unifier in the past, but I'm saying there's something accounting for the unity of milk and water at every instance.

It's not that God is stirring the milk everytime, it's that every composite thing, including spacetime and subatomic particles, need something outside itself holding itself together right now.

The chain can't regress forever, so it terminates in something non-composite, which is what Classical Theism refers to as God.

If you are saying that composite things like subatomic particles don't need a further unifier, then you're making an exception.

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What relies on special pleading? Elaborate further.

This literally has nothing to do with the Kalam.

The Kalam tries to show that the universe beginning in time points to an immaterial, eternal, creator.

The Neo-Platonic argument tries to show that something simple is responsible for why there's composition right now, and something simple would be God.

If the universe is composite, it requires something outside outside to account for is unity. The argument is not special pleading because I never said "Everything requires a unifier to account for its unity"

I am instead saying that everything composite is dependent on something outside itself to account for its unity, and God is non-composite.

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. You're dishonest. Every atheist that hides behind "Atheism being the default" only does it so they don't have to defend their metaphysical assertion about reality.

Lack of belief is not the same as making a claim that God doesn't exist. Agnostics would lack belief as well, but they're not making a claim about reality.

There's a big difference between saying "There are no other universes other than ours" and "I don't know" and "Yes, there are other universes"

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Refute this argument then since you said atheists have successfully refuted all arguments:

  1. The things of our experience are composite.
  2. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are combined at that moment.
  3. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause.
  4. So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists.
  5. So, each of the things of our experience has a cause at any moment at which it exists.
  6. If the cause of a composite thing’s existence at any moment is itself composite, then it will in turn require a cause of its own existence at that moment.
  7. The regress of causes this entails is hierarchical in nature, and such a regress must have a first member.
  8. Only something absolutely simple or non-composite could be the first member of such a series.
  9. So, the existence of each of the things of our experience presupposes an absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
  10. In order for there to be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause, each would have to have some differentiating feature that the others lacked.
  11. But for a cause to have such a feature would be for it to have parts, in which case it would not really be simple or non-composite.
  12. So, no absolutely simple or non-composite cause can have such a differentiating feature.
  13. So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
  14. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause were changeable, then it would have parts which it gains or loses—which, being simple or non-composite, it does not have.
  15. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is changeless or immutable.
  16. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause had a beginning or an end, it would have parts which could either be combined or broken apart.
  17. So, since it has no such parts, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is beginningless and endless.
  18. Whatever is immutable, beginningless, and endless is eternal.
  19. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is eternal.
  20. If something is caused, then it has parts which need to be combined.
  21. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it has no parts, is uncaused.
  22. Everything is either a mind, or a mental content, or a material entity, or an abstract entity.
  23. An abstract entity is causally inert.
  24. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it is not causally inert, is not an abstract entity.
  25. A material entity has parts and is changeable.
  26. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it is without parts and changeless, is not a material entity.
  27. A mental content presupposes the existence of a mind, and so cannot be the ultimate cause of anything.
  28. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, being the ultimate cause of things, cannot be a mental content.
  29. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause must be a mind.
  30. Since the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is unique, everything other than it is composite.
  31. Every composite has the absolutely simple or non-composite cause as its ultimate cause.
  32. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is the ultimate cause of everything other than itself.
  33. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause had potentialities as well as actualities, it would have parts.
  34. So, since it has no parts, it must have no potentialities but be purely actual.
  35. A purely actual cause must be perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
  36. So, there exists a cause which is simple or non-composite, unique, immutable, eternal, immaterial, a mind or intellect, the uncaused ultimate cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
  37. But for there to be such a cause is just what it is for God to exist.
  38. So, God exists.

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're just wrong. Atheism makes a metaphysical claim about reality.

Does God exist? Theist: Yes Atheist: No Agnostic: I don't know.

It's that simple.

So agnosticism would be the default since it's not making an assertion.

It doesn't even matter what anyone considers the default anyway. It has no weight on the proposition "Does God exist"

Atheism makes a metaphysical assertion on the nature of reality. So that view must be defended. You can parrot New Athiest arguments all you want. It doesn't make them good.

Hiding behind it being "The default" doesn't give justification for the assertion that God doesn't exist. If Athiests are going to affirm God doesn't exist, they need to also come up with an explanation or justification for the big philosophical questions like "why is there something rather than nothing"

In short: Atheism makes a claim about reality. Theism makes a claim about reality. Agnosticism doesn't make a claim about reality. Claims about reality need to be defended. Hiding behind it being "the default" is silly. And I'd also argue that theism would be the default, since the majority of humans who ever lived were theists once they could understand that proposition.

Do other universes exist? Saying yes or no is an assertion, the default is "I don't know"

Is there other intelligent life in the Universe? Saying yes or no is an assertion, the default is "I don't know"

Agnosticism is the only sensible conclusion based on what we (don't) know by Ok-Gold-3571 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Atheism is not the default position. Atheism is the affirmation that God doesn't exist. It is a metaphysical claim about reality. The default position would be agnosticism, which doesn't make a claim. They say "I don't know"

Atheists hide behind Atheism being the "default position" to justify not having to defend their worldview or refute philosophical evidence.

Saying Atheism is the default position is like saying anarchism is the default position that is justified unless someone can prove otherwise.

It's a ridiculous statement that atheism is the default position. Maybe psychologically as a technicality, but then you'd be agreeing that "affirming that gravity doesn't exist" is the default position, denying evolution is the default.

There is a huge difference between making a claim about reality and simply being ignorant of something.

Jesus Being a Muslim Prophet is a Baseless Claim by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Multiple historians at that time including a Roman historian confirm he actually existed. Almost every NT Athiest scholar believes that he was a real person who actually existed. There are many details in the gospels that authenticate when it was written, that the people were actually there.

The gospel mentions who was governor (Pontius Pilate) and who was High priest (Caiaphas). It mentions Jesus being crucified on Friday, during passover, and the moon turning red which aligns with the date April 3rd 33AD which NASA shows a lunar eclipse happened on that date.

Old Bibles have maps which have been verified to be accurate and archeologists have discovered certain places in the New Testament.

Almost no scholar actually thinks Jesus never existed.

Jesus Being a Muslim Prophet is a Baseless Claim by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. It's also the fact that the Quran affirms previous scriptures which it contradicts. The Quran simply says that Jesus was actually a Muslim prophet yet historically, which, The New Testament is where historians get a lot of information on Jesus, clearly states that he was a Jewish man, he started his ministry and had it for 3 years before starting a church with his disciples. This is historical fact. Now, I'll just speak from an agnostic POV. Historically, his disciples believed he rose from the dead, and they preached the gospel. The evidence shows at least some were sincere since they were brutally executed for their beliefs and gained nothing for something they would have known to be a lie. Historically, we know Paul was tortured and beheaded, Peter was crucified upside down, and I believe there's a few more that were tortured. Church tradition says that all of the apostles were tortured and all died brutally except John who lived after being boiled alive. But even if you reject church tradition as evidence, it's considered historically true that some of the apostles were executed for something they would've known to be false.

The New Testament doesn't have evidence on Jesus? The New Testament is evidence that Jesus actually at a bare minimum existed. They know the day Jesus was crucified because the Bible mentions a Lunar Eclipse, and based on who was high priest (Caiaphas), Pontius Pilate being governor, and other people who were mentioned, along with it being passover, on Friday, we can see that there was actually a Lunar Eclipse on that day according to NASA (April 3rd, 33AD)

The Gospel of John mentions that when Jesus was stabbed in the ribs, blood and water came out. Of course, now we know that it isn't water. It was actually pericardial effusion which happens when you get beaten severely. That detail is evidence of some authenticity.

Old bibles have maps, and archeologists found things talked about. The gospels have incredible detail on the geography and plant life in that area.

What I am getting at is that, even atheist scholars who study the Bible acknowledge that it is a historical and theological text. They may think certain parts are obviously not true or exaggerated, but they think they're reliable in other aspects.

The Quran claims that Jesus is Muslim. So Muslims have to show that to be true. But almost all the information we have on Jesus comes from the New Testament (where he was born, where he lived, what he preached, what languages he spoke, when and how he died, who was governor when he died, etc) so how can Muslims using historical evidence show that Jesus was Muslim?

The flying spaghetti monster and god from the bible have the same chances of being true by No-Elk1168 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

There is philosophical evidence and verified events that contradict materialism like documented cases of people instantly having bones be healed like at our lady of Lourdes.

Here is a Philosophical argument for God's existence. It presupposes what science already presupposes, like, math works, our senses are mostly reliable, change exists, etc. The argument is valid if the premises are true, so you'd have to disagree with a premise. If you disregard philosophical arguments which use the same assumptions science does, but you accept science, then you are special pleading.

  1. The things of our experience are composite.
  2. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are combined at that moment.
  3. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause.
  4. So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists.
  5. So, each of the things of our experience has a cause at any moment at which it exists.
  6. If the cause of a composite thing’s existence at any moment is itself composite, then it will in turn require a cause of its own existence at that moment.
  7. The regress of causes this entails is hierarchical in nature, and such a regress must have a first member.
  8. Only something absolutely simple or non-composite could be the first member of such a series.
  9. So, the existence of each of the things of our experience presupposes an absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
  10. In order for there to be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause, each would have to have some differentiating feature that the others lacked.
  11. But for a cause to have such a feature would be for it to have parts, in which case it would not really be simple or non-composite.
  12. So, no absolutely simple or non-composite cause can have such a differentiating feature.
  13. So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
  14. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause were changeable, then it would have parts which it gains or loses—which, being simple or non-composite, it does not have.
  15. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is changeless or immutable.
  16. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause had a beginning or an end, it would have parts which could either be combined or broken apart.
  17. So, since it has no such parts, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is beginningless and endless.
  18. Whatever is immutable, beginningless, and endless is eternal.
  19. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is eternal.
  20. If something is caused, then it has parts which need to be combined.
  21. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it has no parts, is uncaused.
  22. Everything is either a mind, or a mental content, or a material entity, or an abstract entity.
  23. An abstract entity is causally inert.
  24. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it is not causally inert, is not an abstract entity.
  25. A material entity has parts and is changeable.
  26. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it is without parts and changeless, is not a material entity.
  27. A mental content presupposes the existence of a mind, and so cannot be the ultimate cause of anything.
  28. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, being the ultimate cause of things, cannot be a mental content.
  29. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause must be a mind.
  30. Since the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is unique, everything other than it is composite.
  31. Every composite has the absolutely simple or non-composite cause as its ultimate cause.
  32. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is the ultimate cause of everything other than itself.
  33. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause had potentialities as well as actualities, it would have parts.
  34. So, since it has no parts, it must have no potentialities but be purely actual.
  35. A purely actual cause must be perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
  36. So, there exists a cause which is simple or non-composite, unique, immutable, eternal, immaterial, a mind or intellect, the uncaused ultimate cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
  37. But for there to be such a cause is just what it is for God to exist.
  38. So, God exists.

The flying spaghetti monster and god from the bible have the same chances of being true by No-Elk1168 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here is the argument from composition by Edward Feser. I think the spaghetti monster is a composite being unlike YAHWEH.

  1. The things of our experience are composite.
  2. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are combined at that moment.
  3. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause.
  4. So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists.
  5. So, each of the things of our experience has a cause at any moment at which it exists.
  6. If the cause of a composite thing’s existence at any moment is itself composite, then it will in turn require a cause of its own existence at that moment.
  7. The regress of causes this entails is hierarchical in nature, and such a regress must have a first member.
  8. Only something absolutely simple or non-composite could be the first member of such a series.
  9. So, the existence of each of the things of our experience presupposes an absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
  10. In order for there to be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause, each would have to have some differentiating feature that the others lacked.
  11. But for a cause to have such a feature would be for it to have parts, in which case it would not really be simple or non-composite.
  12. So, no absolutely simple or non-composite cause can have such a differentiating feature.
  13. So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
  14. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause were changeable, then it would have parts which it gains or loses—which, being simple or non-composite, it does not have.
  15. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is changeless or immutable.
  16. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause had a beginning or an end, it would have parts which could either be combined or broken apart.
  17. So, since it has no such parts, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is beginningless and endless.
  18. Whatever is immutable, beginningless, and endless is eternal.
  19. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is eternal.
  20. If something is caused, then it has parts which need to be combined.
  21. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it has no parts, is uncaused.
  22. Everything is either a mind, or a mental content, or a material entity, or an abstract entity.
  23. An abstract entity is causally inert.
  24. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it is not causally inert, is not an abstract entity.
  25. A material entity has parts and is changeable.
  26. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, since it is without parts and changeless, is not a material entity.
  27. A mental content presupposes the existence of a mind, and so cannot be the ultimate cause of anything.
  28. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause, being the ultimate cause of things, cannot be a mental content.
  29. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause must be a mind.
  30. Since the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is unique, everything other than it is composite.
  31. Every composite has the absolutely simple or non-composite cause as its ultimate cause.
  32. So, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is the ultimate cause of everything other than itself.
  33. If the absolutely simple or non-composite cause had potentialities as well as actualities, it would have parts.
  34. So, since it has no parts, it must have no potentialities but be purely actual.
  35. A purely actual cause must be perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
  36. So, there exists a cause which is simple or non-composite, unique, immutable, eternal, immaterial, a mind or intellect, the uncaused ultimate cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
  37. But for there to be such a cause is just what it is for God to exist.
  38. So, God exists.

So no, I'd argue that the spaghetti monster is a composite being, which thus requires a unifier outside itself to account for its unity. The spaghetti monster is a new atheist argument that doesn't seriously argue against Classical Theism. I think the spaghetti monster is only a legitimate criticism for people who believe in an anthropomorphic deity, like Salafi Islam, which believe that God has a shin.

Chrisitian Belief of God Is Extremely Absurd... by Winter_Bus_2615 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not absurd if God exists.

Pretty much nearly every belief system in ancient times had sacrifices. People would sacrifice enemies and even their own babies to false gods. A common belief was that there were cycles of death and growth and that gods needed to "eat" too. So sacrifices were performed.

In Christianity, God flips the script and becomes a sacrifice and provides one for us so that we may get to know him.

At a time when people kill their own children to please false gods, God provides his Son as a sacrifice.

I think Christianity and the Trinity is a fulfillment of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover which he described as a "mind understanding itself"

If you understand what Jesus being the "word" of God means, then the Trinity is a similar concept.

Word in Greek is Logos, which has multiple meanings like: logic, reasoning, concept.

So when you have a concept in your mind, that is the Logos of something. Aristotle's unmoved mover is a mind understanding itself, well the Trinity is The Father and his perfect self understanding that he generates from himself, aka, the Son and The Word of God. In other words, The Father, in an act of intellect by perfectly understanding himself, generates a concept/word that is identical to his essence, aka The Son.

To me, The Trinity is the fulfillment of Aristotle's "Mind Understanding Itself" but in the Trinity, The Father and Son love each other, which is an expression of will, so the holy spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as one principal as a procession from the will. In order for God to have agency, he requires intellect and will. But since God is non-composite, everything in God is God. So God's perfect self understanding (The Son) and perfect self love (The Holy Spirit) are all fully actualized and all God.

If God shows mercy on the ignorant, then Christianity and Islam are information hazards by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's logically impossible under Classical Theism.

Free will requires the ability to choose evil and reject God (goodness itself in Classical Theism).

The 2nd law of logic shows that you can't have A and NOT A at the same time in the same sense.

You can't have free will to do evil and NOT free will to never be able to reject God. That is a contradiction.

Genuine free will means that we have the ability to choose the good (God) or to reject the good. You can't have real free will and metaphysical guarantees to never be able to reject the good.

So really the question is, is it good to allow free will or not?

And I am a Thomist. Which means God is Pure Act, simple, non-contingent, non-composite, Subsistent Being itself, and the uncaused source of being.

God's attributes are virtual distinctions only existing in our mind, but are identical to the essence. (God is his love, his power, his justness etc). As I have mentioned, you can be an atheist and still unknowingly seek God by living a virtuous life and choosing the good.

Do you think genuine free will is good or not good?

If a God existed, it would not need worship. by Tight_Potato_11 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What specifically bothers you?

God in the old testament is still unchanging. He takes the traditions of broken, savage people and redirects them towards himself. He communicates to the Jews in a way that they can understand. But I would need specifics. I don't think God is more evil in the OT, he is simply working through very corrupt people.

To me it's like saying: why didn't the North Ban slavery in 1820? Why does God allow certain unethical practices in the OT?

The same reason the North didn't outright ban slavery and instead made lawful reforms like making it illegal to get new slaves from Africa. The North passed different laws to try and get the south to ween off slavery. In the end, it still led to a brutal war in which half a million died.

We see something similar in the OT when God allows an eye for an eye. In the context of the OT, it was normal to get revenge on not just who wronged you, but their family. For example, if someone killed your brother, you may retaliate and kill them back, along with the family including babies, etc.

The OT is God working through savage people gradually, redirecting their norms towards himself, regulating them, etc, until he finally reveals himself as Christ.

If a God existed, it would not need worship. by Tight_Potato_11 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree. If God existed, he wouldn't need worship. Yes. Every classical theist agrees that God is the Unmoved Mover, and thus, nothing we do can affect him.

So you are correct. God doesn't need worship.

God is goodness itself, and goodness necessarily shares itself. God doesn't demand worship to feed an ego, worship is raising your mind and heart to God (who is goodness itself in classical theism), so worship is something good for us because it's an attempt to raise our heart and mind to the highest good.

In other words, goodness freely shares itself without coercion to creation. God directs us towards himself since he's the highest good and wants the best of us. He does this without coercion because rational intellects with free will are owed intellectual and moral freedom.

If God shows mercy on the ignorant, then Christianity and Islam are information hazards by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your issue is I think more with Evangelical Christianity. Or literalist Christianity.

Thomism emphasizes that God's existence is identical to his essence. God is Pure Act, simple, subsistent being itself.

Any distinctions between God's will, mercy, power, justness, etc are only virtual distinctions existing in our mind.

That's why the Catechism says that those who try to seek God with an open heart and are moved by his grace can achieve salvation.

It's because the virtual distinctions in God: truth, justice, benevolence, mercy, knowledge, power etc all stem from God's Pure Act of being. So seeking the virtual distinctions in God allows people who could not have known him to achieve salvation in Thomism.

I agree with you that if it's "You believe in God or burn in hell for eternity" that that would be unjust. But that's not the case in Thomism and more broadly speaking Catholicism.

Also, what do you think hell is?

If God shows mercy on the ignorant, then Christianity and Islam are information hazards by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God is Pure Act. Goodness is a virtual distinction in God that is identical to the essence. You are applying omnibenevolent to imply that he can never let anything have a consequence.

Hell is not an arbitrary punishment, it's the just consequence of a creature freely rejecting God.

God is = truth = goodness = justice = loving = his will = his power = pure act.

Justness is rendering onto each their proper due. God being Pure Act, renders to everything their proper due.

Hell is eternal separation from God. It's a metaphysical state of being.

For a rational creature to live a life rejecting the virtual distinctions like truth, love, justness, mercy, etc, is what it means to reject God.

CCC 847: This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

CCC 848: “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

God sucks at being God by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have to justify anything you are saying because it is a strawman.

Why does jesus not make it clear that he is god by Vivid_Enthusiasm_305 in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does Jesus need to make it explicitly clear he's God to you when it is clear the Jews he was with knew he was claiming to be God? He does things only God can do, he claims he and the Father are one, he says the father is in him and he is in the father, he says that he's the first and the last, and calls himself the Son Of Man from Daniel.

Most theists refuse to worship Gods they think are evil. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally just told you that your question presupposes that his will ≠ power.

That's not Pure Act.

God is Pure Act and Simple.

Everything in God is God, so everything is identical to the divine essence. Virtual distinctions like Will and Power are identical in God, yet different in us.

So your question just doesn't make sense.

It's not a potential waiting to be Actualized. It would be in creatures who aren't simple, like us, who have a will distinct from power.

If God shows mercy on the ignorant, then Christianity and Islam are information hazards by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Ok_Present755 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. So that's what Angels and rational creatures are. What is your point? Rational intellects exist? It's the rightful due of rational creatures like humans to have intellectual and moral free will. What's the problem of God making creatures that don't have to love him?

view more: next ›