What are /r/DebateACatholic's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

This argument, or an argument quite like it, goes under the name the "Modal Collapse Argument" (ie. that all possibilities [modalities] collapse into one necessary act). There's a forthcoming response (not by me) in Analysis, if you're willing to read the paper: https://www.academia.edu/33579056/Collapsing_the_Modal_Collapse_Argument_On_an_Invalid_Argument_Against_Divine_Simplicity

His argument is that the Modal Collapse Argument is not just unsound, it's invalid. Your dilemma is not entailed, since Divine Simplicity need not entail that God necessarily created.

Years ago I got and read most of (part of :/ ) The Drama of Salvation by Jimmy Akin.

Jimmy is an apologist for Catholic Answers, a collegue of Trent Horn. He is a former protestant and brilliantly academic in his arguments. Extremely learned guy.

As a A-T wannabe this post makes no sense to me.

For starters:

>I am relatively certain that Natural Law proponents appeal to Paul in Romans 1 to support their philosophy

Natural Law is attributed to Aristotle. I.e. before Christ. Thomas Aquinas "Christanized" Aristotle's work. If there is any Biblical quoting it is tangential at best.

> but since Paul says that the righteousness of God is by grace through faith, I have reason to doubt this.

Natural Law has nothing to do with "righteousness" outright. Natural Law only postulates that aspects of morality via the study of intentionality or final causes. I.e. what an entity is oriented towards.

Finally, >Here's how wikipedia defines it:

Oh well that is your first mistake. :-). But seriously I don't know why but there is a ton of misleading and/or outright wrong information when it comes to philosophy on wikipedia. In this case Natural Law is reduced to a moral code that one can somehow derive from nature. It is a LOT more than that.

For example: >Aristotle's association with natural law may be due to the interpretation given to his works by Thomas Aquinas.[14] But whether Aquinas correctly read Aristotle is a disputed question. According to some, Aquinas conflates the natural law and natural right, the latter of which Aristotle posits in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics (Book IV of the Eudemian Ethics).

Not a single quote from either author or even a sample of what exactly is in dispute. As such we can't even figure out what the author of this article is saying, let alone if there is a dispute between Aristotle's definition and Aquinas.

Pray is a word that has picked up a religious connotation and began to imply worship but for most of history it meant to "ask" or "plead"

Those in heaven are seen praying for people on earth and even bringing prayers of those on earth to God in the bible.

>When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 5:8

>Another angel with a golden censer came and stood at the altar; he was given a great quantity of incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar that is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. Revelation 8:3‭-‬4 NRSV-CI

After the resurrection we are no longer as separated as before for alive or dead we are all alive in Christ's body.

Those who die in Christ are not dead and live. Necromancy refers to the two way communication with the dead. Remember Jesus spoke of not looking Down on children as their Guardian Angels are before God and see the Face of God.

I recommend a book called "The Father's Know Best it explains the early church fathers and their Thoughts on many Catholic doctrines such as Saints and Mary.

I'm feeling lazy so I'm sorry if the info is in random bullet points. Let me know if you need me to clear anything up.

I highly recommend reading Catholicism by Robert Barron. Barron is a Catholic bishop and wrote this book to give a general overview about the Catholic faith and its links to the early church.

He also directed a 10-part documentary series as a companion. Each episode corresponds to a chapter in the book.

Yes it did! Catholic author Hillaire Belloc has a very insightful commentary on this in his The Great Heresies book. Essentially, by the time of Martin Luther a lot of corruption and lack of piety was rampant in the Church. A lot of priests were horrendously trained (there were no seminaries back then and they had only their parish priest to instruct them with however little he knew) and a lot of ecclesiastical offices were being sold to the highest bidder. All this changed for the best through the Counter-Reformation, when the Church was forced to respond to the threat the schism presented to her existence.

On the spiritual side, Martin Luther was right in that the Church had fallen into an excessive emphasis on works of piety (ex. having people go into unending and toilsome pilgrimages to visit [probably fake] relics) that threatened the awareness of the gratuitousness of Faith and a personal relationship with Christ (which the Church always taught, but was simply neglecting). He was also right to point out that the manualistic scholastic theology of his age had become ludicrously cumbersome (it was essentially based on commentaries upon commentaries) and that a return to the Gospel and Scripture was needed. Finally, he was right in that indulgences were being severely mishandled--and the Church acknowledged this critique by limiting the obtaining of indulgences to works of piety (ex. the Rosary, meditating scripture) and stopping their direct sale in exchange for money (which originally had a good intention by encouraging works of charity).

> Because they aren’t contradicting it

Are you not familiar with the work of Aquinas or Councils?

I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Evolution-Fr-Michael-Chaberek/dp/0991988051

> Where did Aquinas say “genesis must be read literally”?

That's a red herring. Aquinas's view on mankind is incompatible with the monkey-to-man hypothesis. Here's a summary:

https://www.ncregister.com/features/how-does-st-thomas-aquinas-approach-evolution

> Also, those individuals aren’t infallible

Are you fallible? If not, then why do you think your judgement is better than 1900 years of Popes, Saints and Councils?

Sorry to add to what is already a long reply, but it really sounds like you are beginning to dwell deeply on the mystery of human suffering for the first time, so I have a couple of recommendations:

1. I strongly recommend you read Viktor Frankel's <em>Man's Search for Meaning</em>. I will buy this book for you if you can't spend the money now. (Just let me know.) This book has nothing to do with homosexuality and virtually nothing to do with religion per se, certainly not Christianity. Frankel is a beloved and reputable scholar recommended by mainstream clinical psychiatrists everywhere. The man lost almost his entire family in death camps and still found meaning there.
2. I strongly recommend you read the book of Job with a Catholic commentary or study guide. This is one of the greatest books of the Bible, overlooked and misunderstood by almost everyone. This video with Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz gives a very, very beautiful and wise talk on Job, and he gets at the heart of what Frankel knew, and what every person needs to know about suffering. This is what Catholics believe as well.

Bottom line: You do not deserve this. It's not fair. So why would God put you through it? This is the question Frankel discusses in a technical, psychological context and which Job asks of God in a religious and philosophical context.

The best defence of Aristotelian metaphysics against modern objections that I could find: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser. Ed Feser is a beast in this area. Finding online articles defending, and not just describing, Aristotelian metaphysics is difficult. 1) It's a specialised topic and 2) it requires a lot of depth. So I don't think I can deliver an article, sorry. Bit of a cop-out, I know.

I have never submitted that there is no evidence for God’s existence. Only faith can tell us certain things about God - such as he is Triune - but that is far different than his existence. FAIL.

You aren’t much different than every atheist that I have walked down the path to the reduction to the absurd.

If you want a “source,” then here:

New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802863833/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabt1_Cn7XFb0Y6WYYK

Written by a PHD in physics. More than enough to keep you busy.

As to the rest of your comments, you didn’t refute anything, all you did was throw a hissy fit and cry “indoctrination.” As to your comment on “commies,” maybe if the world would have listened, we wouldn’t have hundreds of millions dead from an atheistic regime. Just sayin...

My father was in a VA home in Louisiana. Catholics who were residents of the home placed St. Benedict medals throughout. Every other VA home in Louisiana was infected with the Corona Virus except this one which does not have a single one. The medal is what is termed a sacremental and must have the excorcism blessing by a priest. Its graces and favors are due to our faith in the Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer, to the efficacious prayers of St. Benedict, and to the abundant blessings which the Church has bestowed upon those who wear and pray with the Medal. An interesting book, Father Paul of Moll has some interesting anecdotes about the medal.

Father Paul of Moll Book

Why in the world would you depend on a Google search? Aren't you supposed -judging by your post history and reading- to have books lying around?

Okay, this is my last reply. That's because potency and act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act, or of necessity it is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principle. If you say God has some sort of absence in its nature, then it is to say that he is not pure act, which means that he is a composed being of potentiality and actuality. This means that something else put together God and actualize God's potentiality "everything whose act of existing is other than its nature [must] have its act of existing from another" (De ente et Essentia, 4).

If you want a beginner guide, you can fetch yourself a copy of Aquinas by Edward Feser, you really need to brush your Metaphysics first.

Good luck.

You need to be disabused of this scientism before you can hope to have a serious discussion about these subjects. I saw you recommending atheist books to others in your Sam Harris thread. If you're willing to step outside your comfort zone and not just read stuff you already agree with, I would recommend The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. And actually read it, don't just look for reviews on skeptic blogs and pretend you already know what the author is saying. Since you also like Youtube debates, here's one if Feser taking down Sean Faircloth, who was speaking on behalf of Richard Dawkins. Hope it helps.

But why is it "abusive" and "inherently wrong" to beat one's child if I can "find examples" of kids who were beat who turned out okay?

If you want a book which includes a pretty good index of the surveys available and which makes a secular argument against SSM, I would recommend: https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

I asked what was making them sterile because I know to distinguish between mere sterility and sterility caused by impotence.

Would you agree that "parenthood" should only be practiced within the bounds of marriage?

Marriage and conjugal sexual intercourse are inherently linked. One cannot have the one without the other. You're asking what is so wrong with having marriage without sex. An impotent husband cannot fulfill his marital obligations to his wife and thus never becomes "one flesh" with her. Because they are never able to consummate they are by necessity living as brother and sister with the potential for serious temptation but never fulfillment. It seems obvious that this is an inherently unhealthy environment for a child to be raised in.

Same-sex relationships are inherently disordered even more so, as we can see from statistical evidence and the accounts of children raised in same sex households. What you're essentially saying is that a father and mother are indistinct and interchangeable roles such that two fathers or two mothers are really the same anyway.