Cringe

Brushing your teeth isn't as useful as drinking water

Yet it's important

No you won't lmao

Ontology precedes science

So?

How does that help me?

How is that useful to my life?

So you are interested in Ontology and the nature of being!

Good thing Catholicism opposes superstition

Science comes after ontology

Lmao

Read a book

Ever heard of scholasticism?

Catholics still perform* exorcisms

?

You are a subjective moralist pretending there is an objective morality

Haven't read anything ever on philosophy, religion, or theology

How would you know, avid brainlet ?

Because that isn't historically true

So are you telling me that because morality changes its objective, holy fuck

You don't even know what objective means

You think because it's biological it's objective

>

This is your atheists folks

Please read a book, I beg of you

I don't even need to, you think common traits means objective

This is stuff settled centuries ago

Like where did you get this, Sam Harris?

Like even if you really respectable atheist philosophers that would be fine

You @Riley ```its objective in the sense that it is common among most humans```

I'm going to ignore any historical claims for now, this doesn't make any of that objective

I asked if you believe in an objective morality, if it's a no, then your point is moot, if you believe that primitive evolved instincts is what we should emulate, that's a very very slippery slope

@Riley so here it is again, you are shying away from using instincts as an objective measure, which is good because that isn't objective. You say you don't necessarily think these instincts matter, but they form our morals. So once again you have no argument against the bible here. What is your point?

When I scroll down I see you using loaded terms like *best interest*, which once again needs an objective measuring stick that you ultimately must reject.

@Riley think real hard about why I asked you about objective morality

Lol

@Riley didn't we already go over this? In order for science to be true you need axiomatic assumptions to be true, so if making these assumptions is anti scientific, then science is anti scientific.

Might not have been you I had the conversation with, but I think it was

Anyways, furthermore I would argue the axioms required for science overlap with that of Christianity.

Or Catholics more specifically, with the scholastics for example

And to the comment on quantum physics, I believe he's probably partly referring to the fact that superpositions, wave collapse, etc are starking in resemblance to potencia and without that metaphysics we are failing to comprehend these things because we are falling for Parmenides idea that everything is pure act

I really am not a physicist so I have no comment on that

@Bogatyr Bogumir is that what you were referring to?

@Riley metaphysics precedes math

Part of metaphysics talks about the nature of somethings being. The reason things change, universal concrete particulars, etc. Aristotle formulated that in order for something to change, it must have that change already in potential. What we see in quantum mechanics is that a particle has tons of potential states it could be in, but is only ever *actually* one

And we need metaphysics for quantum mechanics to be intelligible, so you are wrong either way

@Riley ```The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.```

It's not about combining waves

Well obviously, that's wave particle duality, which is a separate, but not unrelated thing

@Wubbzo in relation to Aristotelian metaphysics

@Sven Brender logic depends on philosophy

@Sven Brender @Riley so you think science relies on no axioms? If this were true there would need to be multiple realities, as there are multiple "valid" logistical systems

I'm addressing what Sven asserted

Epistemology->Metaphysics->Logic->Science...

Arguably logic and metaphysics *might* be switched, it depends

To say Science is more fundamental than logic is just wrong there

Based

@Riley apart from the allegorical stories the book is pretty sound

Like even the more obscure details like king Uzziah have been uncovered

A good portion, but not most

The flood and creation are allegorical

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the exodus was

Yes they do mention the plagues actually

Let me get the thing rq

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus the Ipuwer Papyrus is debated as evidence, but otherwise historians regard information about it as unrecoverable bc of the age and time period.

Did you read my qualifier?

I mean I've met pagans in the Aristotelian tradition, which is interesting

@Deleted User a monotheistic God is mutually exclusive to polytheistic religions, if you respond that there is simply one absolute spiritual being, and all others derive from it, then that narrows it down to Catholicism, deism, and a few eastern philosophies.

@Notso can you back that up? That would only be a couple football stadiums worth of people.

And your statement on the activity of God, are you implying the New Testament isn't literally the narrative of a hypostatic God on Earth?

You are twisting Sola fide as well, you seem to have a sola scriptura view as well, all around bad theology

Yeah I just did the math, there would only need to be 5 people every km, that's just a lie from you

@Notso would you look at that, I used 200000km which is entirely wrong lol. Anyways, it isn't unprecedented for such large numbers to flee a nation. We can look to the 400,000 Tatars who fled Russia in one night, the real question is how wide the group of people was.

Some Christians and Atheists regard it as a translation error, but I'm not sure that holds to scrutiny granted the prevalence of the number 600000

@Riley bad arguments "THEISTS BELIEVE IN THEISM, WHAT IS THIS THEISM" and no, one school run by boomers doesn't reflect church doctrine sped

@Notso that didn't debunk my claim lmao...

Try again

@Riley you've also not put forward a worldview outside of theism that you can use to judge it that doesn't rely on "ooga booga axioms"

Should I cite a list of atheists acting immoral and use it as proof atheism is bad?

This is the lowest tier of atheist argumentation

Literally any worldview you hold is incoherent with your justifications for atheism, and you laugh at theists lmao

Addie, a self admitted brainlet calls Catholics stupid

@Sven Brender I've heard this over and over that science has answered the questions religion used to, can you back this up?

As far as I know, no scientist has even attempted to bridge the is ought gap

Maybe besides Aristotle

It could possibly have to do with the increasing homosexual cast in the books

Anyways it was definitely a dumb decision

@Riley ```Anyways it was definitely a dumb decision```

It's not that far up

@Riley for the 86th time scientific axioms need justifications

You cannot provide them

You are religious

@Riley that's not even a debate point, you are just a degenerate

Monism or dualism, what's the opinions here

@Attika @Riley biblical arguments for the flat earth are almost all based on mistranslations funnily enough

What the argument about?

I see

That would be easy if everyone was Aristotelian, as we could appeal to final causes of man, but obviously we can't right now

So using some gay nihilistic secular worldview there is no degeneracy, go free pedophiles