Sign into an existing account

"O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?" - Romans 9:20

We exist on the edge of God's infinite reach. It is ever expanding, as infinity does by definition, but that means we are privy to see the horrors that lie beyond it. Some may even choose to live among and become those horrors.

Atheists think "Evil exists therefore God does not" is some kind of own, but the fact that evil exists just requires that there must be a good, and that good is of God.

Any videos of this or otherwise reports / articles?

No, that's the "Devil" niggers,being niggers.

Why did God put children on the Earth just to be murdered? That's what you're asking? Otherwise you're just appealing to my own ego asking why He put me on the Earth, hoping you'll get a different answer.

Epicurus intended to prove that gods were apathetic to our suffering, not that they weren't real. He missed one detail though, God could be all powerful and still let evil happen for a greater purpose. Christians have put decent theories on what this purpose could be, but Muslims have the best one, that humans were put on the Eart to be tested which entails God not to intervene openly every single time evil happens (and instead bearing a new subjective question of whether all this suffering is truly worth existence at all). Honestly, it surprises me how few people ask themselves why God put them on this planet to begin with rather than straight up Paradise. It would answer their question in no time.

If you mean 6000 year old earth, that's not my model of preference. But as a Catholic, I concede that God could have created the earth 6000 years ago (YEC model). Young vs old, Catholic doctrine permits either interpretation and essentially leaves it up to a mystery. Part of the reason is because Catholicism holds Biblical doctrinal inerrancy to be axiomatically true, and the Bible can currently be interpreted either way.


It's more nuanced than that. Axioms are assumptions, or foundational premises in a school of thought. Axioms are arguments from ethos.

There is no proof that cosmology remains constant, but it is largely held as a truth for the sake of convenience. It is easier to make determinations based on that constraint.


You're thinking of laws instead of axioms. Laws are basically summary concepts from observations that are held (established by logos) to be a true phenomenon. You can prove a law to be incorrect. There have been laws proven incorrect. But I can't think of an example of something that would be a scientifically testable axiom.

If you think about how empiricism works, there are key assumptions that allow you to make comparisons between things. Assumptions that allow you to create data. Those base assumptions are going to be axioms.

It may be the case that you add more axioms than necessary for the purpose of generating that data, but that's where different schools of thought can affect the models. Someone assuming metaphysical naturalism may create conclusions that may conflict with a theistic religious account. Someone assuming a theistic religious account may create conclusions that conflict with the premise of metaphysical naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism isn't part of science.

Science and religion compliment each other, rather than contradict. Understanding how a clock works is one thing, understanding it was created by a clockmaker is another.

It's great that humans attempt to solve God's creation through their scientific tools and methods, but eventually they will hit the wall and be unable to advance further. That's where the platitude "Because God created it that way" enters the game. Will science at any point explain why the pivotal laws of physics exist? How about the chemical elements and their crucial properties? It seems to me that scientists have already given up on a lot of issues, and are content with proclaiming that "it is what is" rather than entertain the possibility of "magic" (as if pondering on these issues with their consciousness on a floating rock in a convoluted universe dictated by laws isn't "magic" itself).

Regarding evolution, it makes sense that the same God who decided to create the universe gradually would also create humans in stages to make it more natural. Currently there are many unanswered questions regarding secular evolution (e.g. how living organisms developed from non-living matter, how the 2 genders came to emerge from asexual life forms, how only humans came to evolve to this stage while our ape cousins remained primitive, how humans even gained self-awareness for us to hold this convo, etc etc). Of course that won't stop haughty scientists from producing a million hypothesis (maybe this, maybe that) or promising for an answer in the future, but it's a fallacy as in a million years from now on they will be promising the same while we won't be able to disprove it.

Lastly Quran does indeed imply a gradual creation, and i will leave the defense of Bible for the Christians.

The key differentiator between science and religion is that science has the power of prediction. No matter the question, it's useless if "God" is the answer. Such an answer won't help you predict the future.

The annoying part is that there are plenty of people pretending to do science, yet they never managed to predict anything.

Holy shit. So we've gone from the jews run everything to the Catholics run everything?

Your wild conjecture here isn't even internally consistent. "Adopted" Heliocentricism, no, they pioneered it. And it's still used today because it fits very neatly in the model of gravity that has developed since with Newton and Einstein.

And Rome needing to subvert judaism in order to conquer it despite Judea already having been conquered by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks?


Ah shit I see: you're retarded. Romans had a religion, and it wasn't Christianity (until well after the crucifixion of Our Lord - much closer to the Byzantine era than the "eradication of jews" era). Romans took their religious influence from the Greeks - the Roman gods are the Greek gods renamed and adapted with the same fucking mythology. And they conquered all of Southern Europe and North Africa, INCLUDING JUDEA, with that religion at its heart.

"Romans invented Christianity to conquer the jews" is some next level retarded shit. I'm actually impressed lol.