The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

CC 1253, .... and according to RC theology, Baptism of Desire is authentic baptism.
That really not all that difficult.
According to Roman theology, Catholics also MUST follow their conscience.
If they honestly don't buy a religion's claims it would be sinful to say they did, and "fake" it, (unless they actually think their god is so stupid he wouldn't know they're faking it.)

[Deesse23]

But all this goes to show, evidence does matter, arguments do matter, and they help people, in due time, who want to know the Truth, come to be saved.

I agree with Dr. Craig's approach on the subject generally, which is also very Augustino-Thomistic, and places Logic and Reason in its proper place.

Craigs approach is unreasonable and intellectually dishonest. Just like  Aquin, who was engaged in motivated reasoning. He wasnt interested in finding the truth, he was interested in showing that what he believes is true. Its a known fallacy, and if you know this fallacy, presenting these arguments to others (or convincing/deluding yourself to hold this to be true) is dishonest.

You just admitted to being unreasonable. As unreasonable as Craig (and Aquin), who puts his belief above any logic and reason*. That in return fits to your (and Craigs) intellectual dishonesty. Thats why you are able to withstand being explained why and how you are factually wrong, and then continuing to peddle your bs as if nothing happened. That is why ANY kind of discussion with you is a complete waste of time: Unreasonable and dishonest, by principle.

Craig, as shown in this video you so conveniently ignore, admits to sticking to the Holy Spirit being a "self authentic means of knowing that Christianity is true". If some science contradicts his belief, he decides that science is wrong and waits for "better" scientific results. Not my words, Craig's words. Listen to the video.

Craig prioritizes his belief to any logic, reason or scientific finding. If you agree with him, you also put your "self authentic means of knowing that Christianity is true" above any of the science you constantly abuse and bastardize. Stop pretending that science or phillosophy means anything to you. They are mere tools to you to reinforce your belief. Its your perogative to do that for yourself, but people like us, who are not intellectually dishonest, will stop you from spreading this broken way of thinking, will stop you from spreading this poison to other minds.

Why bringing up all the science, when its not because of science that you believe? Its practiced dishonesty, but i understand that it does not matter to you (and Craig), since you believe to have found something "better" than logic or reason. Unfortunately, it only works for you as long as you keep your ears shut to logic and reason.

Its sad, but unfortunately is causing much harm to humanity. Thats why we cant just let ignorant people like you go ahead: You feel compelled to spread your ignorance like cancer.

* and NO, the "proper place" for logic and reason is NOT below a silly superstition, sorry.

[The Grand Nudger]

I may lack many things, Angrboda, but the discussion is not about me. 

There it is again, why you fail. You've done nothing but externalize your own personal boogeymen since you got here. You're never talking about anything other than yourself.

[Bucky Ball]

GN, I came to personal faith in Christ after I experienced His Love in my heart after Holy Communion. I knew God exists and was real, and that His Love was wonderful, even apart from any philosophy. Dr. Craig came to faith in a similar way. Then later on, we discovered Theological Arguments, with what even Dr. Craig calls "A Great Tradition", referring to those like Augustine and Thomas. Read what Pope Leo XIII said about Scholastic Theology in general. The Scholastic/Medieval Doctors of Theology were always accustomed to use Reason in Theological Disputations.

This makes no sense. Are you saying you received communion BEFORE you had faith ? 
How did that happen ? I hope you confessed it. 

"Those who partake of communion in an unworthy manner are “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27)

[Nishant Xavier]

No, you are not understanding the issue. I watched your video, and I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Craig on that issue, even though Dr. Craig doesn't say what the atheist presenter ridiculously summarizes it as. We could throw far more ad hominems at him, though I don't want to do that.

It's a bit like this, since we were talking about Baptism: if you've never jumped into a swimming pool, say, and have no idea, from first person experience, what being immersed in water feels like, then you're not getting the whole picture. Once you actually have that experience, then you know, and Billions from All Continents across/over 2000 years starting from the Apostles of Christ down to today have had it. The arguments are there to make you take that leap into the water, so to speak; they are accessible even to those who've never experienced Christ. Those who've experienced Christ have an additional witness.

That witness is the Holy Spirit living in us, answered prayers, experienced miracles etc. Here it's a case of both/and, neither/or. If the Philosophical Arguments are sound, there would be reason to believe God exists and can be experienced in a personal way. That's the theory. Then there is Practical Experience. Those are the Practicals, so to speak. The theory is there to lead you to the practicals. Thus there is no contradiction. Was that Ehrman? His summary is ridiculous.

[Angrboda]

CCC 1263 on the effects of Baptism: "1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God." (CCC 1263).

I may lack many things, Angrboda, but the discussion is not about me. [I am striving for Sanctity, but I don't claim to be a saint. God will make Saints of those who surrender their lives to Him and live in obedience to Him.] The discussion is about whether a First Cause of the Universe exists, an Eternal First Being who caused all Temporal Beings to begin to exist. The evidences given earlier in this thread fairly make the case for that. Since Bn depends on Bn-1 for all temporal n, this series could not go on until infinity. Granted that we got here, there was a being B2, who depended on a non-Temporal, i.e. Eternal B1. Since there was no B0, B1 is Eternal, i.e. has no Beginning or End.

The reasons for this were given earlier. Anyone who actually ends up counting to infinity may show me his results, and I'll concede the Argument. Lol.

And the reasons why those reasons fail were also given. If you can bring actual thought to your reply instead of blind repetition, most would be happy to engage. But you choose not to engage with them by not seriously considering the responses you were given. It shows that you aren't really listening. You're just spewing without listening.

[Nishant Xavier]

GN, false. I never mentioned anything about me in the OP, for e.g. but just got into the Argument itself from Contingency. On one of my earlier threads, where again I mentioned nothing about myself, someone asked me to make an Intro Thread, I think it was Happy Skeptic. So, I did, and mentioned things about myself, like that I was an Investment Banker etc. Read my posts on this thread and you'll see the vast majority are not about me. They're about God.

[Nishant Xavier]

Angrboda, you did not engage with this:

"Again, all you have to do to realize the Universe cannot be actually infinite in the past, given that we got here, is count backward into the past.

You claim it is a false analogy to say that if we started from 1,2,3, we will never get to infinity, but allegedly, starting from infinity, we can get to 0.

All you have to do is count backward in time. If we started from -infinity, we would never get to 0. We got to 0, therefore we didn't start from -infinity."

I said it to Polymath in the course of a reply to him, where I engaged seriously with all his arguments; but it also applies to your position, since it is similar.

Where did you engage with it?

[Angrboda]

GN, false. I never mentioned anything about me in the OP, for e.g. but just got into the Argument itself from Contingency. On one of my earlier threads, where again I mentioned nothing about myself, someone asked me to make an Intro Thread, I think it was Happy Skeptic. So, I did, and mentioned things about myself, like that I was an Investment Banker etc. Read my posts on this thread and you'll see the vast majority are not about me. They're about God.

You think you can talk about God without talking about yourself in the process?

[Angrboda]

Angrboda, you did not engage with this:

"Again, all you have to do to realize the Universe cannot be actually infinite in the past, given that we got here, is count backward into the past.

You claim it is a false analogy to say that if we started from 1,2,3, we will never get to infinity, but allegedly, starting from infinity, we can get to 0.

All you have to do is count backward in time. If we started from -infinity, we would never get to 0. We got to 0, therefore we didn't start from -infinity."

I said it to Polymath in the course of a reply to him, where I engaged seriously with all his arguments; but it also applies to your position, since it is similar.

Where did you engage with it?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-65126-p...pid2156867

All of your counter-arguments involve successive addition and showing that successive addition doesn't work. That's because the past wasn't formed by successive addition if the universe is past eternal, so all your counter-arguments are irrelevant nonsequiturs which have nothing to do with what is actually proposed. Nobody denies your arguments, we're simply pointing out that they don't apply because that's not how infinities work. It's just a big math fail on your part. Cite one authoritative source that says that you can form an infinite set through successive addition. Just one. Otherwise, move on because the point has been mooted.