US Catholic Bishops to Vote on Denying Biden Communion

[GOPerfect]

And Ruger never designed or built a gun. Complexity of design doesn’t come from chaos. The chaos theory was designed to remove God from the equation, but it doesn’t make it true.

The theory of Big Bang is just as valid as any religious theory of creation.

No one knows the truth of our beginning. People have thoughts, feelings and beliefs; no one has real and honest proof.

Nothing but theory's and guesses.

 

[CaseHardened]

God did not create any of them.

Yes, SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

If it was good enough for Aristotle.....

The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) was one of the earliest recorded scholars to articulate the theory of spontaneous generation, the notion that life can arise from nonliving matter. Aristotle proposed that life arose from nonliving material if the material contained pneuma (“vital heat”). As evidence, he noted several instances of the appearance of animals from environments previously devoid of such animals, such as the seemingly sudden appearance of fish in a new puddle of water.[1]

This theory persisted into the seventeenth century, when scientists undertook additional experimentation to support or disprove it. By this time, the proponents of the theory cited how frogs simply seem to appear along the muddy banks of the Nile River in Egypt during the annual flooding. Others observed that mice simply appeared among grain stored in barns with thatched roofs. When the roof leaked and the grain molded, mice appeared. Jan Baptista van Helmont, a seventeenth century Flemish scientist, proposed that mice could arise from rags and wheat kernels left in an open container for 3 weeks. In reality, such habitats provided ideal food sources and shelter for mouse populations to flourish.

However, one of van Helmont’s contemporaries, Italian physician Francesco Redi (1626–1697), performed an experiment in 1668 that was one of the first to refute the idea that maggots (the larvae of flies) spontaneously generate on meat left out in the open air. He predicted that preventing flies from having direct contact with the meat would also prevent the appearance of maggots. Redi left meat in each of six containers (Figure 1). Two were open to the air, two were covered with gauze, and two were tightly sealed. His hypothesis was supported when maggots developed in the uncovered jars, but no maggots appeared in either the gauze-covered or the tightly sealed jars. He concluded that maggots could only form when flies were allowed to lay eggs in the meat, and that the maggots were the offspring of flies, not the product of spontaneous generation.

 

[CaseHardened]

And Ruger never designed or built a gun. Complexity of design doesn’t come from chaos. The chaos theory was designed to remove God from the equation, but it doesn’t make it true.

In my decades of working as a Mechanical Engineer, nothing ever designed itself.

That sure would have made my job easier, tho.

 

[CaseHardened]

To get back ON TOPIC here, wouldn't it be fun to see Joe Biden - Super Catholic disgraced ?

 

[GOPerfect]

God/jesus said they were going to rid the world of sin.

Odin and Thor said they were going to rid the World of the Ice Giants.

I haven't seen any Ice Giants, but I sure see a lot of sin...

 

[GOPerfect]

To get back ON TOPIC here, wouldn't it be fun to see Joe Biden - Super Catholic disgraced ?

I don't care either way.

I would like to see him and the Mutt removed from my White House!

 

[Darth]

And Ruger never designed or built a gun. Complexity of design doesn’t come from chaos. The chaos theory was designed to remove God from the equation, but it doesn’t make it true.

You need to have God in an equation before you must remove him.

We haven't even reached that point.

Not sure what the Ruger thing was in reference to.

 

[Darth]

In my decades of working as a Mechanical Engineer, nothing ever designed itself.

That sure would have made my job easier, tho.

How are we determining the universe was designed?

You'd be without a job as an engineer if you designed this universe.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

@CaseHardened ....


Why all the sad faces on my comments?

I am not the one that said all kinds of nasty thing about the Catholics, others did, not me. I mostly posed questions.

Without ever pushing my beliefs, I would be more than happy to answer questions posed about what I follow. No sad faces from me.


Back on topic, so, the church says it wants to basically boot Biden out of faith due to his stance on abortion. Do the teachings forbid abortion? Or is this a made up thing by the Catholic Church?

On the abortion issue, I find the entire process to be despicable and disgusting. My thoughts are based upon my own feelings; not religious.

Without going too far off the rails, Christianity views life as beginning at the moment of conception. That "fetus" has a soul and is a life. So from that view abortion is no different from infanticide it's killing an innocent life. Life begins at conception not birth.


And yes completely taking all religious aspects out of it, it's completely repugnant and disgusting.

 

[spat]

The theory of Big Bang is just as valid as any religious theory of creation.

No one knows the truth of our beginning. People have thoughts, feelings and beliefs; no one has real and honest proof.

Nothing but theory's and guesses.

The theory of the big bang sounds an awful lot like "let there be light" to me.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Science is concerned with the "how ?" where religion answers the "who and why". Science can never answer the who or the why.

It is a false dilemma to suppose they are in conflict.

Now that's not to say that every fruit loop sect that thinks some guy's magic underpants talk to him is right about the details, but monotheism in general is as likely an explanation as anything science can ever come up with.


Before the atheists can get all militant about the existence of god, you'll need a working definition of god. The most general of those would be "the force that created the universe" and in that case, the existence of the universe is pretty good evidence.

 

[meketrefe]

There was a church that was so narrow that they gave the communion bread sideways.

 

[meketrefe]

I think uncle Joe might be possessed because when he speaks nobody understands shit and when young teens visit the whitehouse his head turns 360 degrees.
Lol

 

[Darth]

Before the atheists can get all militant about the existence of god, you'll need a working definition of god. The most general of those would be "the force that created the universe" and in that case, the existence of the universe is pretty good evidence.

Objection.

First of all, again, at have no reason to belive the universe was "created."

Secondly, that's circular. You don't get to define terms after the event.

Lest I could be God. Because I define God as the person typing this message. Ergo I am God.

 

[spat]

Objection.

First of all, again, at have no reason to belive the universe was "created."

Secondly, that's circular. You don't get to define terms after the event.

Lest I could be God. Because I define God as the person typing this message. Ergo I am God.

There are only 3 possibilities.

1. The universe is eternal, infinitely old. For a number of reasons that seems unlikely.

2. Time is circular such that the universe has a finite duration, but no beginning. It's possible, but there are a number of issues with this theory as well.

2. The universe had a beginning. Current scientific understanding puts that around 13 billion years ago. All evidence points to this theory being the correct one.


If the universe had a beginning, then it has a cause. i.e. something created it.


You are correct, you have to define the terms before the discussion can even begin. Since we haven't agreed on a definition for god, we haven't been able to even begin a reasonable discussion on the subject. What we've been conducting so far is not what you could call a productive discussion.

If you're going to insist on a definition of god that you personally can meet, then I think it's pretty safe to say you're losing the debate.

 

[Darth]

There are only 3 possibilities.

1. The universe is eternal, infinitely old. For a number of reasons that seems unlikely.

2. Time is circular such that the universe has a finite duration, but no beginning. It's possible, but there are a number of issues with this theory as well.

2. The universe had a beginning. Current scientific understanding puts that around 13 billion years ago. All evidence points to this theory being the correct one.


If the universe had a beginning, then it has a cause. i.e. something created it.


You are correct, you have to define the terms before the discussion can even begin. Since we haven't agreed on a definition for god, we haven't been able to even begin a reasonable discussion on the subject. What we've been conducting so far is not what you could call a productive discussion.

If you're going to insist on a definition of god that you personally can meet, then I think it's pretty safe to say you're losing the debate.

How did you come to the conclusion those are the only 3 possibilities?

How did you determine that if it had a beginning, it had a cause and therefor was created?

One way to solve the dilemma in the last 2 paragraphs would be to pick one of the many thousands of Gods invented by man and go from there.

 

[spat]

How did you come to the conclusion those are the only 3 possibilities?

How did you determine that if it had a beginning, it had a cause and therefor was created?

One way to solve the dilemma in the last 2 paragraphs would be to pick one of the many thousands of Gods invented by man and go from there.

Do you dispute that those are the only 3 possibilities ?

My reasoning is based on basic geometry.

There are only 3 ways any object in any number of dimensions can be. Infinite, finite with endpoints, or finite without endpoints.

If it has a beginning, that beginning was an event.

All events have a cause. cause=created.

The odds of any of the concepts of god invented by man being even remotely related to the real one are unimaginably low.

That would be like a cave man figuring out how to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

Closest he's going to manage is "hey, those dots in the sky look like a deer".

 

[Darth]

Do you dispute that those are the only 3 possibilities ?

My reasoning is based on basic geometry.

There are only 3 ways any object in any number of dimensions can be. Infinite, finite with endpoints, or finite without endpoints.

If it has a beginning, that beginning was an event.

All events have a cause. cause=created.

The odds of any of the concepts of god invented by man being even remotely related to the real one are unimaginably low.

That would be like a cave man figuring out how to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

Closest he's going to manage is "hey, those dots in the sky look like a deer".

I have no idea how many possibilities there are. The question was how you got "3."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with geometry, any more than saying "there is 50% chance God exists because there are 2 possibilities. Either he does or he doesn't. 50% chance." Not how it works.

You have not demonstrated there is a "real one" let alone how close any manmade ideas of one could be. You are skipping ahead. You can pick any of the ideas people attribute to a god however as a launchpad to begin a discussion.

The chances of all the things from the dawn of time coming together in such a manner that you and I are having this conversation right now are for all intents and purposes as close to "zero" as you can imagine. Yet here we are.

 

[spat]

I have no idea how many possibilities there are. The question was how you got "3."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with geometry, any more than saying "there is 50% chance God exists because there are 2 possibilities. Either he does or he doesn't. 50% chance." Not how it works.

You have not demonstrated there is a "real one" let alone how close any manmade ideas of one could be. You are skipping ahead. You can pick any of the ideas people attribute to a god however as a launchpad to begin a discussion.

The chances of all the things from the dawn of time coming together in such a manner that you and I are having this conversation right now are for all intents and purposes as close to "zero" as you can imagine. Yet here we are.

I explained how I got 3.

It is precisely geometry. What do you think the universe is ? It is a 4 dimensional spacetime event. Math may now be considered racist, but it's not wrong.

I am prepared to consider 2 possible definitions for "god". Virtually every one of the ideas held by all the various religions would fall under both of them.

The more conventional would be "A sentient omnipotent being".

The more general "The cause of the universe".

The existence of the first is interesting to discuss.

The existence of the second is a near certainty.

 

[FS1040]

The theory of the big bang sounds an awful lot like "let there be light" to me.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Science is concerned with the "how ?" where religion answers the "who and why". Science can never answer the who or the why.

It is a false dilemma to suppose they are in conflict.

Now that's not to say that every fruit loop sect that thinks some guy's magic underpants talk to him is right about the details, but monotheism in general is as likely an explanation as anything science can ever come up with.


Before the atheists can get all militant about the existence of god, you'll need a working definition of god. The most general of those would be "the force that created the universe" and in that case, the existence of the universe is pretty good evidence.

I would disagree. “Science” is never settled. It is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. “Believe the science!” is ridiculous. We’d still be letting blood with leaches if it was settled.

Evolution is a theory of how life evolved from nothing (which is an impossibility).

Evolutionists have, in some cases, resorted to saying aliens seeded life here as they have no other explanation.

From a religious standpoint, evolution introduces death into the equation before Adam and Eve. The Bible teaches that death is a result of sin; specifically, Adam disobeying God.

Atheism or agnosticism is the logical consequence of the evolutionary theory. They are not compatible.

 

[Darth]

I explained how I got 3.

It is precisely geometry. What do you think the universe is ? It is a 4 dimensional spacetime event. Math may now be considered racist, but it's not wrong.

I am prepared to consider 2 possible definitions for "god". Virtually every one of the ideas held by all the various religions would fall under both of them.

The more conventional would be "A sentient omnipotent being".

The more general "The cause of the universe".

The existence of the first is interesting to discuss.

The existence of the second is a near certainty.

Yes, you explained how you got 3 possibilities. You neglected the part when you created a false trichotomy. None of you slapping a label of "it's geography" has anything to do with the logical process.

You are simply wrong about what people consider god. So not "virtually every one" of anything. Some people consider trees God.

And to seal the deal you say that math might be racist, but it's not wrong, and then just invent a probability without even providing the variables involved.

In your world view, does everything have a cause? And things cannot happen without something causing them?

 

[spat]

I would disagree. “Science” is never settled. It is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. “Believe the science!” is ridiculous. We’d still be letting blood with leaches if it was settled.

Evolution is a theory of how life evolved from nothing (which is an impossibility).

Evolutionists have, in some cases, resorted to saying aliens seeded life here as they have no other explanation.

From a religious standpoint, evolution introduces death into the equation before Adam and Eve. The Bible teaches that death is a result of sin; specifically, Adam disobeying God.

Atheism or agnosticism is the logical consequence of the evolutionary theory. They are not compatible.

I never said science was settled. Science is a process. If it's ever "settled" then it no longer exists.


Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

Evolution is about the origin of *species*. I.e. you start with some living stuff and get different living stuff.

Evolution is absolutely compatible with many religions.

For instance the bible says god created all the creatures of the earth. Science is an attempt to understand *how* he created them.

The bible doesn't say he snapped his fingers and they all appeared from thin air in their present form.

We can see evolution at work right before our eyes.

Or do you not believe in selective breeding ? Do you have an alternate explanation for why cows produce twice as much milk as they used to, why chickens are twice as large ?

Because *we* bred them that way. *We* directed their evolution to bring about those changes.

 

[Darth]

I would disagree. “Science” is never settled. It is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. “Believe the science!” is ridiculous. We’d still be letting blood with leaches if it was settled.

Evolution is a theory of how life evolved from nothing (which is an impossibility).

Evolution says nothing whatsoever about how life began.

I would like to know how you determined it is impossible to get life from non life though.

Evolutionists have, in some cases, resorted to saying aliens seeded life here as they have no other explanation.

"Evolutionist" is a made up term, but as to the "no other explanation" nonsense, that would be like saying "God did it."

From a religious standpoint, evolution introduces death into the equation before Adam and Eve. The Bible teaches that death is a result of sin; specifically, Adam disobeying God.

Why should we believe anything the bible says?

Atheism or agnosticism is the logical consequence of the evolutionary theory. They are not compatible.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Agnosticism deals with the certainty of knowledge.

So you're just kind of wrong by definition there.

 

[Darth]

I never said science was settled. Science is a process. If it's ever "settled" then it no longer exists.


Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

Evolution is about the origin of *species*. I.e. you start with some living stuff and get different living stuff.

Evolution is absolutely compatible with man6 religions.

For instance the bible says god created all the creatures of the earth. Science is an attempt to understand *how* he created them.

The bible doesn't say he snapped his fingers and they all appeared from thin air in their present form.

We can see evolution at work right before our eyes.

Or do you not believe in selective breeding ? Do you have an alternate explanation for why cows produce twice as much milk as they used to, why chickens are twice as large ?

Because *we* bred them that way. *We* directed their evolution to bring about those changes.

It's odd, I agree with like 90% of what you say here.

 

[spat]

Yes, you explained how you got 3 possibilities. You neglected the part when you created a false trichotomy. None of you slapping a label of "it's geography" has anything to do with the logical process.

You are simply wrong about what people consider god. So not "virtually every one" of anything. Some people consider trees God.

And to seal the deal you say that math might be racist, but it's not wrong, and then just invent a probability without even providing the variables involved.

In your world view, does everything have a cause? And things cannot happen without something causing them?

Geometry not geography, it's an important difference. Math is the foundation of our understanding of the universe. If you're going to abandon that you might as well give up trying to find any answers.

If it's a false trichometry all you would need to do is suggest a reasonable 4th possibility to prove it.

Which of my premises do you dispute ?

I said "virtually all" not "all" to except the few who have ideas that aren't compatible with my definitions.

You have to admit that the number of people in the world who believe in god, but don't believe that god created the world is extremely small.

I haven't "invented" any probability WTF are you talking about ?

 

[Darth]

Geometry not geography, it's an important difference. Math is the foundation of our understanding of the universe. If you're going to abandon that you might as well give up trying to find any answers.

Yes, I meant geometry. That was my mistake.

If it's a false trichometry all you would need to do is suggest a reasonable 4th possibility to prove it.

No, I wouldn't. You are the one making the claim there are 3. Prove it.

Which of my premises do you dispute ?

I said "virtually all" not "all" to except the few who have ideas that aren't compatible with my definitions.

You have to admit that the number of people in the world who believe in god, but don't believe that god created the world is extremely small.

I don't need to admit that at all. I have no idea of the number of people believing all sorts of wacky shit about a god or gods. So therefor I won't make claims about them.

I haven't "invented" any probability WTF are you talking about ?

:

The existence of the second is a near certainty.

 

[spat]

Yes, I meant geometry. That was my mistake.


No, I wouldn't. You are the one making the claim there are 3. Prove it.


I don't need to admit that at all. I have no idea of the number of people believing all sorts of wacky shit about a god or gods. So therefor I won't make claims about them.


:

I did prove those are the only three possibilities, mathematically.

You haven't offered any critique or flaw in my proof other than to say "no you didn't". That's not an argument.

So if you claim my proof is flawed, I say where's your proof that it is ?

If you aren't going to take any position on any subject, then you aren't participating in a discussion you're just trolling.

 

[Darth]

I did prove those are the only three possibilities, mathematically.

You haven't offered any critique or flaw in my proof other than to say "no you didn't". That's not an argument.

So if you claim my proof is flawed, I say where's your proof that it is ?

If you aren't going to take any position on any subject, then you aren't participating in a discussion you're just trolling.

I think trolling would be more like "There are this many possibilities because math" and not understanding how logical reasoning works, but pretending you do. Let's look at the "geometry" hypothesis:



How many numbers are on this number line?

 

[FS1040]

Evolution says nothing whatsoever about how life began.

I would like to know how you determined it is impossible to get life from non life though.


"Evolutionist" is a made up term, but as to the "no other explanation" nonsense, that would be like saying "God did it."


Why should we believe anything the bible says?


Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Agnosticism deals with the certainty of knowledge.

So you're just kind of wrong by definition there.

LOL. You didn’t answer my pints; merely inserted your beliefs.

 

[Darth]

LOL. You didn’t answer my pints; merely inserted your beliefs.

Well to be fair you didn't make any pints/points, much less pose any questions to "answer", so there is that.

 

[Criticalt]

My Bishop was mute on the subject.
View attachment 114739
Robin

Mine too, but I cant show my bishop here....ill get banned.