I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Well, what I meant with 'Hindu', was a Hundu god and you grasped that idea pretty well I think.

A Hindu or any other person can have a limited grasp of the true God, even if their religion says something else, because the true God can be known through natural reason. That doesn't mean there are several true Gods, but simply that the one true God can be understood imperfectly outside the fullness of the truth. Like most other things that can be known.

But come to think of it, I could have said "vacuum cleaner" for I define my vacuum cleaner to be nothing less than non-contingent actuality (thanx LEDO). And don't ask me to show that my vacuum cleaner is indeed noncontingent actuality, it is so by definition and that it manifests itself also as my vacuum cleaner has nothing to do with the fact that it is non-contingent actuality.

A vacuumcleaner is an object in spacetime which is composed of matter. It's impure actuality is not a matter of definition but empirical observation. It depends on something else in spacetime for its existence. It depends on a causal procession prior to itself for it's own actuality and formation. Indeed, it depends on the very existence of spacetime for it's own existence. This is radical contingency.

But you can define everything as you like, if you want and if it pleases you. But it won't help you understanding reality.

This is plain false or badly stated. In social groups unknowing of the christian god it is perfectly possible to make moral judgements on others behalf.

But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. People can adhere to moral standards and conventions as much as they like. But that does not make that morality any less subjective, and that does not mean another society won't have another moral convention which directly contradicts it. You need an outside, objective standard to _objectively_ judge which subjective moral contention is the right one.

That doesn't mean you can't still make meaningless subjective affirmations of morality. But that doesn't make them any less subjective and unbinding.

Moral judgement is everywhere and has been everywhere. So, if you assert that in order to have moral judgement a transcendental moral is a necessary prerequisite you have to give proof for this, because it is in flagrant contradiction with the body of evidence from human history. What are your arguments for that?

You simply are either addressing a straw man or genuinely don't understand my argument.

What I am talking about is not whether or not people can make moral judgements. They can, out of subjective grounds which have no objective authority. What I addressed was the grounds of moral judgements, in the epistemic structure of respectively a) Christian worldviews, b) non-Christian/non-monotheological worldviews, and that without God you have no way of transcending subjective societal conventions and subjective moral standards which have no everlasting authority. That fact nullifies all moral contentions as illusory abstractions which can be ignored with no transcendental consequence, in an atheist worldview.

You're much too hasty my friend. You claim that your god created everything including nature (what is your evidence?), that he maintains us in existence as free charity (what is your evidence?), and that our goal is to accept that (you're wrong there, it definitely is not my goal). And that is only a short preamble.

You are completely misunderstanding what I was trying to achieve with that post.

If you are looking, again, for evidence, then you need to stop asking questions which are not primarily concerned with evidence, which PRESUPPOSE that Christian dogma exist, and then asking for evidence when I answer those questions which already presuppose the existence of Christian dogma.
Unless you start understanding what I am saying, I will no longer respond to your posts.

Since your god created everything, he must have created kid cancer.

If you are speaking of cancer in humans, I have already explained the Christian stance on mortality in humanity and this is simply another instance of that.

But of course, that entirely entails that God exists to begin with on the grounds I have given. If not, there is no objective reason to follow any will except your own.

Now we're talking. Bring on the arguments, I say.

We are not "talking" now. You have come into a thread and ignored everything I've already said. I have brought on the arguments; you have ignored it and expect me to repeat my rational reasons for belief in God just for your convenience. Go to page 1 and 2.

Can we? What part of this course did I miss?

Again, with such questions, you are showing you have not read my early posts in this threads or that you did not understand them.

Missed that argument again. Can you repeat for me why exactly Hinduism disqualifies for the task?

Because Hinduism explicitly contradicts the nature of God as it can be known through natural reason.

I did not ask you what we mortals can do according to RC-tradition, but I asked you to substantiate the claim that your god holds absolute moral.

I have already answered that question, even though you don't realise it. The reason you don't realise it is probably that I didn't explicitly use the term "moral" in my explanation.