If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
razredge said:
Morality is not objective under atheism - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t see why so many modern atheists object to that, I’d have thought they would take a different stance and say (“Yeah, our morality is subjective, but yours is too!”)
Click to expand...
I have no idea what your definition of “morality” might be. I stated mine, and it is obviously objective, but not absolute.
 
catholic1seeks said:
What do atheists usually say?

Something else to address:
Is it even possible for the Universe to have always existed?
Click to expand...
The principle of creativity is what God is. He just happens to be a conscious, thinking being as well. God is not a blind force. He is a person, or rather three persons, in the sense that He has a personality. He is not just an amorphous blob. Reason is what He is. Creative Reason existed before everything else. And that Creative Reason, is God.
 
razredge said:
Morality is not objective under atheism - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t see why so many modern atheists object to that, I’d have thought they would take a different stance and say (“Yeah, our morality is subjective, but yours is too!”)
Click to expand...
Is Catholic morality objective? Take for example the question of slavery or the question of burning a heretic at tha stake. Hasn’t the teaching changed on those issues?
 
Spock said:
I have no idea what your definition of “morality” might be. I stated mine, and it is obviously objective, but not absolute.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you’re merely redefining what objective means rather than addressing the issue.

Your ‘objective’ morals are really just subjective.
louis91766 said:
Is Catholic morality objective? Take for example the question of slavery or the question of burning a heretic at tha stake. Hasn’t the teaching changed on those issues?
Click to expand...
You are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. It could be that morality is objective but we’re not good at figuring out this morality.

This is only a problem for people who think the Church has always taught or practiced what is true or moral.
 
razredge said:
Ah, but you’re merely redefining what objective means rather than addressing the issue.

Your ‘objective’ morals are really just subjective.
Click to expand...
Redefining words is not helpful. Objective means that something exists apart from some individual’s opinion about it. Morality means the “written and unwritten rules which describe the accepted behavior in a certain society in a specific timeframe”. These rules exist objectively, no matter if one person knows about them or not, accepts them or not. These rules change from one society to another, and change from one time to another, even within the same society. As such the morality is not “absloute”. What is so difficult to understand this?
 
Spock said:
Redefining words is not helpful. Objective means that something exists apart from some individual’s opinion about it. Morality means the “written and unwritten rules which describe the accepted behavior in a certain society in a specific timeframe”. These rules exist objectively, no matter if one person knows about them or not, accepts them or not. These rules change from one society to another, and change from one time to another, even within the same society. As such the morality is not “absloute”. What is so difficult to understand this?
Click to expand...
Most philosophers and people would not accept this as ‘objective’ as it is still dependent on the views of a particular society.

By ‘absolute’, you really mean ‘objective’
 
razredge said:
Ah, but you’re merely redefining what objective means rather than addressing the issue.

Your ‘objective’ morals are really just subjective.

You are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. It could be that morality is objective but we’re not good at figuring out this morality.

This is only a problem for people who think the Church has always taught or practiced what is true or moral.
Click to expand...
Do you say that the Catholic Church has taught as moral, what in fact is immoral?
 
louis91766 said:
Do you say that the Catholic Church has taught as moral, what in fact is immoral?
Click to expand...
Serious question - are you actually an atheist/protestant stealth troll? 😉

It is possible that the Church has taught immoral things in the past.
 
Spock said:
Maybe “some” would disagree. Where did you get that “most”?

No, I don’t.
Click to expand...
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are “mind-independent”—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.
Click to expand...
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Click to expand...
Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Click to expand...
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Click to expand...
 
All of them say exactly what I did. Independent of a subjective opinion. Those rules are precisely of this kind. And none of your quoted definitions mention anything about “unchanging”, as they should not - because that would be “absolute”, unchanging morality. What are we arguing about???

Up until the early 1900’s, it was perfectly acceptable (in other words: moral) to consume the so-called mind-altering drugs, cocaine was actually called a wonder-drug, people took opium, morphine and heroin to relax. All those substances were over-the-counter. Today the “rules” are different - unfortunately. Their status changed when the Willian Randolph Hearst (the newspaper magnete) wanted to protect his huge investment in forests, and convinced the idiots in Congress to outlaw hemp - which is the cheapest and best material for producing paper. The Constitution was actually written on hemp-paper. The idiots caved in as usual. History lesson is over.
 
Isn’t there an attribute of God that defines his power over non existence? Doesn’t one have to exist in order to be All powerful?
 
louis91766 said:
But the Holy Spirit is supposed to be guiding the Church? It seems like you are denying this.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Church is right at every point in time, rather that the Spirit guides the Church to a greater understanding over time.
Spock said:
All of them say exactly what I did. Independent of a subjective opinion. Those rules are precisely of this kind. And none of your quoted definitions mention anything about “unchanging”, as they should not - because that would be “absolute”, unchanging morality. What are we arguing about???
Click to expand...
 
razredge said:
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Church is right at every point in time, …
Click to expand...
This is contrary to Catholic teaching as we see from:
“The Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. No one may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with the Catholic Church.”-- From the Dictatus of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085)
 
louis91766 said:
This is contrary to Catholic teaching as we see from:
“The Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. No one may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with the Catholic Church.”-- From the Dictatus of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085)
Click to expand...
Papal infallibility and Magisterial Infallibity… yes the ‘Church will never err’, what he probably means is that any single bishop can write a private work which is not within the realm of infallibility.
 
louis91766 said:
This is contrary to Catholic teaching as we see from:
“The Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. No one may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with the Catholic Church.”-- From the Dictatus of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085)
Click to expand...
Lol, sure as long as all the doctrines, teachings & practices which did change are ignored or said to be exceptions to this rule.

Also, the Pope merely asserting than the Churh and himself are inerrant doesn’t actually make it so.
 
lemondiesel said:
Isn’t there an attribute of God that defines his power over non existence? Doesn’t one have to exist in order to be All powerful?
Click to expand...
“Power over non existence” is a nonsensical phrase, and yes, one must exist to possess any attribute, including omnipotence.
 
razredge said:
Lol, sure as long as all the doctrines, teachings & practices which did change are ignored or said to be exceptions to this rule.

Also, the Pope merely asserting than the Churh and himself are inerrant doesn’t actually make it so.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with an official authoritative declaration of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top