Dishonest Apologetics

[benedictus2]

Directing you to the moderator’s post was a request to be civil, as per the forum rules.

If I were the only one to challenge you and Cinette on your misrepresentation of Einstein’s ‘beliefs’, I might think it was just me. But since others have also pointed out your errors/false claims and we have the words of the man himself defining his own beliefs which are contradictory to the initial claims, we can assume it’s you who have some ‘splainin’ to do!

Okay, I have been away from this thread for qutie a while. Please point out which “OTHERS” have pointed out my errors.

Otherwise, you are once again guilty of what I have been saying all along.

In the meantime I will try to read back and find the “others” you talk about.

Still the onus is on you to provide these “others”.

I have to write this in big bold letters so you get it:

For the umpteenth time, where did I misrepresent Einstein’s belief?

That is an easy enough question to answer. Facts, man, facts.

As for being civil. someone told me to just ignore those who consistently and intentionally misunderstand my post but I am not in the habit of ignoring posts if I happen to read them.

If I decide to ignore you, I will tell you that I am ignoring your post.
But in the meantime, I think in spite of our spat, it is still worthwhile talking to you

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But to label something as dishonest means that there is an intent to lie.

I agree, which is why I don’t think you can say for sure that someone is engaging in dishonest apologetics. I do think that there is some of that going on in apologetics because of the number of bad arguments that fairly intelligent apologists use, but I don’t think you can be sure that one specific person is intentionally being dishonest.

 

[benedictus2]

The Big Bang theory is about the development of the universe from a point when it was very small. It does not say anything about what happened before a certain point. Many people have the misconception that it proves the universe had a beginning (or shows that it probably did). The truth is that we just don’t know. I suggest you spend some time researching what the Big Bang theory really says. This (talkorigins.org/faqs/astr…g.html#bigbang) might be a good place to start. Anyone can claim that a theory proves something. I could claim that the Quantum Refractory Theory of Hyperspace Dynamics proves that God is impossible. But if you want to have a meaningful, as opposed to merely rhetorical, discussion with someone, it’s good to know what the theories you reference actually say. By the way, I know that your intentions are good and it’s a common mistake, so I don’t blame you for it.

Okay, I do not claim to be a scientist but what little I have read said that the most we can account for is that the universe exploded from a primeval atom. There are scientists who go for the big band and those who don’t. But one thing that we do know at this stage based on observable data (thanks to the hubble telescope) is that the universe is around 14 billion years old.
If it is 14 billion years old and apparently on the way to death in a few more billion years (which again is based on observable data), then to say anything else is pure speculation and lies in the maybes and could bes which as I have said before is inadmissible.

False. I have read papers by many cosmologists who would disagree with this statement. Merely asserting that the scientific evidence points in one direction does not make it so.

What observable proof is there to say that the universe did not begin 14 or so billion years ago. The fact that we even use the term “origin” of the universe means that we going belief is that the universe had an origin. If an origin, then not eternal.

They aren’t mere speculations. If many of the theories of what happened before Planck time have an eternal universe, then I see no reason to rule that out.

What observable data do they have to support these theories?

If the universe could easily have been infinite, then the finiteness of the universe is definitely not evidence of God.

Yes, but is there scientific data to support that the universe could have easily been infinite?

I never said that we should completely rule out the possibility of some form of creator.

But you do rule out some form of creator when you say that there is no God because even in purely deistic sense, God is creator.

I just don’t think we should make any major assumptions unless we have a reason for making them.

That is why I do not. The only assumption I have stated in this thread (even though I do hold some assumptions other than these personally) is the one that science supports. That the universe started 14 billion years ago. Other than that I do not even to speculate on.

But I do not find arguments from authority convincing when those authorities seem to be going against what most experts are saying. And even if the experts were very narrowly divided, this would still only show that we were unsure of whether the universe had a beginning. In order to provide evidence of God, you would have to show that the universe could not have been eternal, and could not have been finite, absent a supernatural creator

Say take for example Roger Penrose’s calculation, are you saying that general scientific consensus disagree with his conclusion that the likelihood of a black hole as against an anthropic universe being more likely? Or is it that the most they can come up with is what you have said above, that “we have no idea what the likelihood of a universe with certain conditions”

 

[benedictus2]

**
Sorry, I think you wrote somewhere that you have visited Peter Kreeft’s site so I thought you know how this all unfolds.

Put simply, say in 2 depending on one and 3 depending on 2, it would all be zero if we do not have one because the very first say in the sequence (2) depends on 1 for being. If 1 in turn dependended on another thing for existence, and so forth, then there would be nothing (zero) because each in turn depends on something that depends on something yet again. Unless there is something that does not depend on anything else for it’s existence, then nothing (zero) will result.

Additionally, I’m curious about how you would define ‘cause’. It makes sense in human terms, but what about in planet formation. Is the cause of a planet the planet just before it finished being fully formed? How would you define it? I think it makes since to say that things have been constantly changing, but I think it can be tricky to cleanly divide things up into causes.

 

[benedictus2]

You have not presented evidence that the universe is finite.

As I said in a previous post, that is what we can tell so far based on observable data, that the universe started 14 billion years ago. If it started, it must be finite. You on the other hand propposed that **maybe **the universe has always been here. But you have no support for this either.

You have also not presented evidence that there must be an uncaused cause.

I think I have answered this in my above post. Becuase an infinite number of caused-causes (that is a cause which was in turn caused in itself cannot go into infinity), there fore there has to be a being that was not in need of causation for it’s existence. That is the uncaused-caused to which we give the name God.

It depends on what is meant by universe.

To simply this disucssion, what do you mean by universe? What do you think I mean when I say universe?

There is no accepted belief that the natural world originated in the Big Bang.

Based on what little I’ve read, there is a leaning towards the Big Bang against the steady state theory.

ree to have your own opinion of what the Big Bang theory means.

I don’t have an opinion on the Big bang theory. What I have written is only what I have read. I am not competent enough to have an opinion on it or the Steady State theory.

But if it contradicts the scientific community’s view of it, you cannot possibly expect people to accept your word over theirs.

Since I do not have an opinon on the Big bang, there is nothing that will contradict the scientific community’s view. I googled it and the article i read said that even those who used to think that the steady state is more plausible now is leaning toward the Big bang.

Before Planck time, all of our laws of physics break down.

Since you said before that we do not know what happened before planck time, then we do not know either that the law of physics would have broken down before then.

We have good reason to expect that things would behave differently.

What would be this good reason to believe they would behave differently?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Okay, I do not claim to be a scientist but what little I have read said that the most we can account for is that the universe exploded from a primeval atom. There are scientists who go for the big band and those who don’t. But one thing that we do know at this stage based on observable data (thanks to the hubble telescope) is that the universe is around 14 billion years old.

Then you misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It says that the universe was incredibly small approximately 14 billion years ago. Before that point, we are unsure exactly what happened. Just like Newtonian physics does not apply to all settings and you need general relativity and quantum physics, our current laws of physics do not apply before Planck time and we have no idea how things would have behaved.

It’s not like there’s a group of scientists that disagrees with the Big Bang theory; there’s a scientific consensus that the Big Bang theory is correct. You are just slightly misinterpreting what the theory actually is.

If it is 14 billion years old and apparently on the way to death in a few more billion years (which again is based on observable data), then to say anything else is pure speculation and lies in the maybes and could bes which as I have said before is inadmissible.

No, if it’s 14 billion years old, then theories that it’s older are false. The problem is that there’s no evidence that the universe is 14 billion years old.

What observable proof is there to say that the universe did not begin 14 or so billion years ago. The fact that we even use the term “origin” of the universe means that we going belief is that the universe had an origin. If an origin, then not eternal.

There’s no proof of what happened before 14 billion years ago. But there is no evidence that it began at that point. If someone asked me where my ancestors originated from, I would say Ireland, or Germany, or something like that. Or I could take the word more literally and say that they came from Africa (because that’s where the human species evolved from), or even from the oceans (where life first originated billions of years ago). Similarly, some people say that the universe originated in the Big Bang.

What observable data do they have to support these theories?

They are consistent with the knowledge we currently have. We don’t yet have enough knowledge about things like String Theory to say which one is right.

Yes, but is there scientific data to support that the universe could have easily been infinite?

We have infinite universe theories that are consistent with the data.

But you do rule out some form of creator when you say that there is no God because even in purely deistic sense, God is creator.

I do not believe that there is a God in the deistic sense. But I don’t think we know enough to completely rule out the possibility that there was some kind of creator to the natural world as we know it. I really have no clue what the odds of something like that are. We have no real way of making an informed guess. However, once you start ascribing tons of qualities to this creator, it quickly becomes exceedingly unlikely that he exists as you described him, unless you have good evidence to support your claims.

That is why I do not. The only assumption I have stated in this thread (even though I do hold some assumptions other than these personally) is the one that science supports. That the universe started 14 billion years ago. Other than that I do not even to speculate on.

You have repeatedly claimed that science supports this, but it does not (at least not in the way you are using the word ‘universe’). If you want me to believe this, you will have to show me evidence that shows that the natural world began less than 14 billion years ago.

Say take for example Roger Penrose’s calculation, are you saying that general scientific consensus disagree with his conclusion that the likelihood of a black hole as against an anthropic universe being more likely? Or is it that the most they can come up with is what you have said above, that “we have no idea what the likelihood of a universe with certain conditions”

Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by “his conclusion that the likelihood of a black hole as against an anthropic universe being more likely”. But I meant what I said about not knowing the likelihood of a universe with certain conditions.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Sorry, I think you wrote somewhere that you have visited Peter Kreeft’s site so I thought you know how this all unfolds.

Put simply, say in 2 depending on one and 3 depending on 2, it would all be zero if we do not have one because the very first say in the sequence (2) depends on 1 for being. If 1 in turn dependended on another thing for existence, and so forth, then there would be nothing (zero) because each in turn depends on something that depends on something yet again. Unless there is something that does not depend on anything else for it’s existence, then nothing (zero) will result.

Or you could have infinitely many integers before 1 and everything has a proximate cause. You haven’t done anything to show this is impossible. I disagree with the argument you’re making, and I’m pretty sure I disagree with Kreeft. But if you want me to respond to his argument, could you link me to which version of it you’re using?

Cause is whatever causes or effects into being another. This applies even in planetary terms. Something must have caused the planet into existence (unless you say that the planets caused themselved into existence). That is why in my reply to your post a few pages back, the somethign that has always been there is God.

What is the proximate cause of a planet being formed? How do you draw the line between causes 1, 2, and 3 in your series of causes. To me it seems more appropriate to say that things are constantly changing then to block them up into a specific series of causes.

And there is also no reason to posit the converse either. At the most all you can arrive at is a 50/50 chance of chance vs creator.

The mere lack of knowledge does not provide any evidence for a creator. If I have no evidence on whether or not there are invisible fairies who will drive me to commit a crime tomorrow, that does not mean I should say there’s a 50% chance that there are. I have no evidence that the universe did not begin 10 minutes ago, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a 50% chance that it did.

But since you are the one who brought the maybes and couldbes …?

Because we don’t yet know. It is not a scientific fact that the universe is infinitely old. I never claimed that it was.

If you are conceding the possibility of something supernatural, what do you think is this supernatural?

I do not think there is something supernatural. But if there were, it could be pretty much anything.

This is where you err with Surfmeister. You keep thinking that I am arguing for the “Catholic” God. Perhaps if we get that cleared up once and for all we won’t keep going back into this circle.

So for the record, I am not talking about the “Catholic” or personal God. You can say that I am talking about the God as Einstein defined him in Cinette’s post. I will try to find the her post number for that.

I know you aren’t arguing for the Catholic version of God. What I am saying is that I have no evidence one way or another on whether there’s some sort of creator. I mentioned the Catholic God to show that even though I think a creator is possible, as soon as you start assigning it properties, like it caring whether we believe in him and behave certain ways, the probability of such a god existing becomes incredibly small (absent evidence to the contrary).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I just addressed a lot of the points you made in your latest point, so I won’t repeat myself. If I skip over a point that you think I don’t address, feel free to repeat it.

To simply this disucssion, what do you mean by universe? What do you think I mean when I say universe?

I mean the entire natural world and it seems like you mean just the spatial and temporal part of our universe that we have some knowledge of.

Based on what little I’ve read, there is a leaning towards the Big Bang against the steady state theory.

I agree. The article I linked to earlier describes quite a lot of the evidence for it. There is no good evidence for the stead state theory.

Since you said before that we do not know what happened before planck time, then we do not know either that the law of physics would have broken down before then.

I mean that they no longer apply. It would be like trying to use a map of a known island on a completely unexplored island. It’s theoretically possible that the islands would be in the exact same shape, but there’s no reason to assume that they would be.

What would be this good reason to believe they would behave differently?

Because once the universe becomes sufficiently dense and hot, quantum effects become more important and you would need a gravitational theory that is consistent with quantum physics. However, we don’t currently have a proven theory of quantum gravitation. So we’re unsure whether the universe would keep shrinking if you went back in time, or whether the universe would start expanding.

 

[Surfmeister]

Lewis: Einstein believed in God.
Martin: Did he? Bless his heart.

Thomas: No, Einstein didn’t believe in God.

<Thomas provides evidence, statements, quotes which support the idea that Einstein certainly didn’t believe in God>

Lewis: Einstein believed in God.
Thomas: No, he didn’t. Quit saying that.
Martin: When did I say Einstein believed in God? Huh? Where? You can’t comprehend anything, moron. Read it S L O W L Y. Atheist. Baboon.

 

[benedictus2]

Lewis: Einstein believed in God.
Martin: Did he? Bless his heart.

Taken as it is, Why would Martin be intellectually dishonest if he does not verify what Lewis said. For one thing, your example does not even say whether Lewis is an authority on the matter. So if Lewis is an accepted authority on the matter it would be quite right for Martin to accept his view. You have done the same thing when you posted SDBs conversations on Sartre. You accepted this to be definitive and I might add gave it the wrong interpretation.

So nice try but try again

Thomas: No, Einstein didn’t believe in God.

<Thomas provides evidence, statements, quotes which support the idea that Einstein certainly didn’t believe in God>

If you are using this as argument for your claim that we have not provided support for our claim that Einstein believed in God, well you are either being dishonest or you have once again failed to read what Cinette has written in big bold blue letters.

And NO (IF YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE THOMAS) YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES CINETTE’S CLAIM.

Cinette posted Einstein’s words.** Now the only way you can prove this wrong is if you can provide credible evidence that Einstein did not say these words and that someone has fabricated them.**

SO HERE I AK YOU, IN BIG BOLD LETTERS SO YOU CAN’T FAIL TO READ IT. DID OR DID NOT EINSTEIN SAY WHAT CINETTE CLAIMS HE SAID?

Until then, you are once again failing to grasp what we have written.

You know what I suggest you do? Go back again to your first post and my post to which you replied. Read and digest. It is exasperating having to correct your misconceptions about our posts all the time. Very tiring and very wearying. Hmm, maybe that is your tactic, wear me out with your irrational arguments and then maybe I will exit this thread. Nice try but try again. But you know what, you just might get me to the point of exhaustion and I will say that’s it I give up the situation is hopeless.

Lewis: Einstein believed in God.
Thomas: No, he didn’t. Quit saying that.
Martin: When did I say Einstein believed in God? Huh? Where? You can’t comprehend anything, moron. Read it S L O W L Y. Atheist. Baboon.

Now you have got me rolling out laughing.

First: All the tenets you have put up there is wrong.
Cinette did say Einstein believed in God and Cinette is right as far as the quote she stated. Now prove that Einstein did not say those words and you will be on the right track. But let me guess you can’t. Why is that? Maybe because Einstein did say those words?

So if you are honest, you will provide support for this claim. What you can’t? Hmm and I thought you were honest:shrug:

Thomas says no he didn’t but Thomas can’t refute what Lewis presented as evidence but gets mad with Martin instead of providing evidence. So Martin is right to call him all the names he called him. And after being called all sorts of names Thomas still fails to provide proof. What a laugh.

Surf, surf, surf, if you will try to put your thinking cap on and devote yourself to finding statements from Sartre and Einstein that will refute what Cinette wrote then maybe you will gain some sort of credibilty.

But up to now, all you have done are convolutions and gyrations trying to extricate yourself from the erroneous conclusion you have made but all you managed to do is dig yourself deeper into this hole.

So here is your last chance: PROVIDE PROOF of our error so that we can move on. I have spent far too much time correcting your erroneous perceptions.

Maybe they are right, I should just put you on my ignore list.

 

[benedictus2]

Then you misunderstand the Big Bang theory. It says that the universe was incredibly small approximately 14 billion years ago. Before that point, we are unsure exactly what happened. Just like Newtonian physics does not apply to all settings and you need general relativity and quantum physics, our current laws of physics do not apply before Planck time and we have no idea how things would have behaved.

It’s not like there’s a group of scientists that disagrees with the Big Bang theory; there’s a scientific consensus that the Big Bang theory is correct. You are just slightly misinterpreting what the theory actually is.

Let us say that granted I misunderstood the Big Bang (although what I read said it almost exactly like that - the universe exploded from a “primeval atom” (exactly those words – primeval atom). But even discounting that, you still cannot get away from the fact that the universe is only 14 billion years old, at least that is what observable data tells us. Not speculation. Observable data.

No, if it’s 14 billion years old, then theories that it’s older are false. The problem is that there’s no evidence that the universe is 14 billion years old.

Okay so maybe what I have read got it entirely wrong, but it said that with the advances made via the Hubble telescope they were able to calculate the age of the universe to be around this give or take a few billion years. A few billion years or even trillion years still would not make the universe eternal. So even if the theories that make it older are true, older does not mean eternal. It still states a beginning. And if the universe is dying, then that is another case for it not be eternal.

There’s no proof of what happened before 14 billion years ago. But there is no evidence that it began at that point. If someone asked me where my ancestors originated from, I would say

Ireland, or Germany, or something like that. Or I could take the word more literally and say that they came from Africa (because that’s where the human species evolved from), or even from the oceans (where life first originated billions of years ago). Similarly, some people say that the universe originated in the Big Bang.

As per my reply above, it does not matter whether it was the big bang or not ( I only cited that because I thought that is the concensus) but regardless, all it states it that the universe had a beginning, therefore not eternal.

They are consistent with the knowledge we currently have. We don’t yet have enough knowledge about things like String Theory to say which one is right.

That is not an answer. I asked what observable data supports these theories?

We have infinite universe theories that are consistent with the data.

Again, what I asked is what scientific data supports this, not what theories are consistent with the data. So what scientific data supports your claim that the universe could have easily been infinite?

 

[benedictus2]

I do not believe that there is a God in the deistic sense. But I don’t think we know enough to completely rule out the possibility that there was some kind of creator to the natural world as we know it. I really have no clue what the odds of something like that are. We have no real way of making an informed guess.

So why would you not rule out the possibility of a creator? What is it that makes you think that you cannot rule out the possibility of a creator?

However, once you start ascribing tons of qualities to this creator, it quickly becomes exceedingly unlikely that he exists as you described him, unless you have good evidence to support your claims.

I have mentioned this before but maybe you have not read it. I am not talking about qualities of this creator. I am simply arguing for a Creator. Period. Now you say that I need to provide evidence for how I describe Him. Well, how exactly have I described Him? I have not even given qualities to this Creator. He is simply source of creation as far as my discussion with you is concerned. You keep brining up the Christian God and I have to keep reminding you that the God we are discussing is simply Creator God. The attributes (whatever it maybe that I ascribe to Him) are for another thread.

You have repeatedly claimed that science supports this, but it does not (at least not in the way you are using the word ‘universe’). If you want me to believe this, you will have to show me evidence that shows that the natural world began less than 14 billion years ago.

So you do not believe that the general accepted scientific belief that the universe started 14 billion years ago? But you said stated that it did in one of your earlier posts. As a matter of fact I think you said it started 13.7 million years ago but I think you must have meant billion.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by “his conclusion that the likelihood of a black hole as against an anthropic universe being more likely”. But I meant what I said about not knowing the likelihood of a universe with certain conditions.

I am referring to my post that there is a 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion chance that the big bang given the conditions would have produced black holes rather than a universe conducive to life. Do you think that the general scientific concensus is against that finding by Penrose?

Note: This is my last post for this week but I will respond to your other posts next weekend if the thread is still open. Have to get back to my other project.

 

[benedictus2]

I was done with this thread for this week then I saw this post when I was exiting and could not resist.

After reading the initial posts from you and Cinette, it sounded more like you were saying that here is this brilliant man whose research led him to the conclusion that there is a God, instead of saying that here is this one physicist who actually believes in God (unlike the overwhelming majority of them).

Well Mr Atheist, I would like you to show me where in my post I said that this brilliant scientist believed in God because of his research. You are reading that into what I have written. Even Cinette’s post never ever claimed that Einsteins’s belief was based on scientific research.

All I wrote is that a brilliant scientist believes in God. Nothing more nothing less. If you read more into that then that is your fault.

I thought Surfmeister is the only one guilty of that.

There will always be the occasional scientist who believes in God, but of those who are at the forefront of research, very few actually believe. In a 1996 study of top scientists, only 7% believed in a personal God (Larson and Witham 1998, ”Scientists Still Reject God” Nature 394). So if you think that the expertise of top scientists like Einstein offers them some insight into the question of whether God exists, this is strong evidence against the existence of God.

And this additonal info is unnecessary because nothing in my one liner ever implied that other scientists believed the same.

I think it would help if people will stick to what has been written rather than making up stories about what has been written.

If you had asked me did I mean what you think I mean it would have gone down much better.

Instead, like Surfmeister you start making assumptions.

“When in doubt, ask” is a good dictum.

 

[benedictus2]

Post 400 (I think), Posted by me:
Cinette,
You said:
"When I speak of God I mean God with a capital G and that means the following:

• Almighty God of the Christians
• The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God of the Jewish Faith
• The God of the Muslim Faith"

Einstein did not believe in that God, so it unfair to claim that he did.
Well, that was easy.

And Cinette came back with a good one on post 401.

Yes, Einstein may not believe in the aspects of God that we believe in but if he believes in creator God then He beleives in the same God. He may not know him as the God of Abraham, as the God of the Bible but he did believe in a God.

So how is you above post supposed to rebut me. (Unless of course thsi post is not intended for me) First of all it was Cinette’s post not mine. Secondly, I am not sure what this post is supporst to be in reply to.

Can you try and get the hang of the quoting system? I am not quite sure which post you are addressing. I think you are counting that your post will come straight after the post you are replying to but it is not always the case as you see. Someone can easily sneak in between.

 

[benedictus2]

I have stated and re-stated my position and showed you where those posts were and how I arrived at my conclusions. You not liking my position or my route to those conclusions cannot be helped. You need to read back if you want a re-hash.

No you have not shown me whre those posts where. Maybe I will go back again and ferret them out if they are there. I did go as far back as June 9. I will try to re-read at lunchtime tomorrow but I doubt that I will find anything where you have adequately rebutted me. But there is always hope.

 

[Cinette]

Atheist! Hey!

Here is a list of Jesuit Scientists:
• José de Acosta (1540–1600), one of the first naturalists and anthropologists of the Americas.
• François d’Aguilon-Belgian mathematician and physicist who worked on optics.
• Giuseppe Asclepi-Italian astronomer.
• Joseph Bayma-He did work relating to stereochemistry.
• Giuseppe Biancani-Astronomer and selenographer who wrote Sphaera mundi, seu cosmographia demonstrativa, ac facili methodo tradita
• Bonaventure Berloty-first director of the Ksara Observatory in Lebanon.
• Michel Benoist-Missionary to China and scientist.
• Mario Bettinus-Mathematician and astronomer.
• Jacques de Billy-He wrote on number theory and astronomy.
• Michał Boym-Missionary to China known for botanical and zoological works.
• Roger Joseph Boscovich-Polymath (1711-1787) (17 famous for his atomic theory in part. Also for devising perhaps the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position.
• Paolo Casati-Meteorology and speculation on Vacuums.
• Tommaso Ceva-Mathematician and poet who wrote a work on geometry.
• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), French Palaeontologist and philosopher involved in the discovery of the so-called Peking Man.
• Christopher Clavius (1538-1612), most noted in connection with the Gregorian calendar, but also his arithmetic books were used by many mathematicians including Leibniz and Descartes.
• Guy Consolmagno (1952-), an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory who has primarily devoted himself to planetary science.
• George V. Coyne (1933-), astronomer whose research interests have been in polarimetric studies of various subjects including Seyfert galaxies.
• Albert Curtz-German astronomer.
• James Cullen (mathematician)-Known for the Cullen numbers.
• Johann Baptist Cysat-He did important research on comets and the Orion nebula.
• Jean-Charles de la Faille-Belgian mathematician.
• Josef Dobrovský-philologist, linguist, slavist and historian. One of most promminent persons in Czech national revival.
• Gyula Fényi-Hungarian astronomer noted for his observations of the Sun.
• José Gabriel Funes-Argentine who currently heads the Vatican Observatory, succeeding George Coyne.
• Christoph Grienberger-Astronomer and mathematician.
• Francesco Maria Grimaldi-He coined the word ‘diffraction’ and used instruments to measure geological features on the Moon.
• Maximilian Hell-A director of the Vienna Observatory who wrote astronomy tables and observed the Transit of Venus.
• Pierre Marie Heude-French missionary and zoologist.
• Georg Joseph Kamel-Missionary and botanist, the genus Camellia is named for him.
• Athanasius Kircher-In his Scrutinium Pestis of 1658 he noted the presence of “little worms” or “animalcules” in the blood, and concluded that the disease was caused by microorganisms. This is antecedent to germ theory.
• Wenceslas Pantaleon Kirwitzer-Astronomer and missionary to China.
• Franz Xaver Kugler-Most known for his study of cuneiform tablets he was also a chemist.
• Antoine de Laloubère-Mathematician who studied the properties of the helix.
• Eugene Lafont- Founder of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science
• Manuel Magri (1851-1907) - Maltese folklorist and archaeologist.
• Charles Malapert-Known for observing the stars of the southern sky and being against Copernicus.
• Paul McNally-American astronomer who was a director of the Georgetown observatory.
• Christian Mayer-Czech astronomer known for pioneering study of binary stars.
• Juan Ignacio Molina-Chilean ornithologist and a botanist with a Author citation (botany).
• Alexius Sylvius Polonus-Polish astronomer.
• Franz Reinzer-He wrote about comets, meteors, lightning, winds, fossils, metals, etc.
• Vincenzo Riccati-Jesuit mathematician and physicist.
• Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), mathematician, math translator, and noted for importance to the Jesuit China missions.
• Giovanni Battista Riccioli-He wrote several works on astronomy and was the first to note that Mizar was a “double star.”
• Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri-A mathematician who was perhaps the first European to write about Non-Euclidean geometry.
• Christoph Scheiner-Astronomer noted for a dispute with Galileo Galilei over the discovery of Sunspots.
• Gaspar Schott-He wrote on various mechanical and scientific topics, example gear, but little original research.
• Angelo Secchi-He discovered the existence of solar spicules and drew an early map of Mars
• Gerolamo Sersale-Selenographer, the crater Sirsalis (crater) is named for him.
• Ignacije Szentmartony-“obtained the title of royal mathematician and astronomer” and used his astronomical knowledge in mapping parts of Brazil
• André Tacquet-His work prepared ground for the eventual discovery of calculus.
• Franz de Paula Triesnecker-Austrian astronomer.
• Theodor Wulf-Among the first experimenters to detect excess atmospheric radiation.
• Niccolo Zucchi-Italian astronomer known for his study of Jupiter and work on telescope design.
• Giovanni Battista Zupi-Italian astronomer who discovered that Mercury had orbital phases.

There is an interesting book called “How the Catholic church Built Western Civilization.” by Professor Thomas Woods. Woods is the author of the NewYork Times best seller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History as well as The Church Confronts Modernity. etc. etc. He holds 4 Ivy League degrees, including an A.B from Harvard and a PhD from Columbia.

Even if you don’t believe you will at least be surprised. A most enjoyable book.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

There are over thirty crates on the moon names after Jesuits!

I have no doubt there must be dozens of lay Catholics and other Christians who number among the list of Scientists.

They all believe in God. Everyone of them!

God bless.
Cinette

P.S. Atheist I want to thank you for your prayers from my son and his family. :tiphat:

 

[Sinner82]

Hi! My Parish Priest in his homily shared that he witnessed 4 times the bleeding of the Eucharist. That Eucharist was tested by scientist and was confirmed to have human blood. Until this day the Eucharist is still bleeding. I never saw the Eucharist bleed but I trust the words of the Parish Priest. But I can see how God is using him as an instrument to transform the communities he had touched. I have several reasons for trusting him. When I was a young I saw a ghost, from that experience it reinforeced my belief that man is more than flesh.

I don’t know the other details of the bleeding Eucharist my Parish Priest witnessed so I am sharing similar miracles I found on the internet.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
dsanford.com/miraclehost.html

Peace to all.

 

[wasmit]

secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369

Yes.

 

[wasmit]

Put simply, say in 2 depending on one and 3 depending on 2, it would all be zero if we do not have one because the very first say in the sequence (2) depends on 1 for being. If 1 in turn dependended on another thing for existence, and so forth, then there would be nothing (zero) because each in turn depends on something that depends on something yet again. Unless there is something that does not depend on anything else for it’s existence, then nothing (zero) will result.

Can you please explain this in more detail?

I don’t follow your reasoning.