W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
and yet, galileo was right
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Warpspeedpetey, 3.5 billion years of evolution has brought about rational intelligence, and it has also brought about moral consciousness. From a scientific point of view, this evolutionary trajectory is neutral with respect to God. As a theist I believe (of course) in a God who has intended from the beginning that the universe to would complexify toward moral and spiritual response. But that belief comes from my theism, not from science.
StAnastasia
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
science shows a purely physical universe, that should be completely dependent on mathematical determinism. having free will seems to infer that there are things beyond any possible scientific explanation, and as a Catholic i find it most likely to be G-d.
but i may start a new thread on it. i would like to find some holes in it.
G
grannymh
Guest
Here’s an odd thought…
As I’m threading my way through these posts, when science is mentioned it seems to point to actual matter, or evidence, or something that has been proven, Isn’t science, itself, a method thing? Isn’t science based on the following: observation, comparison, evaluation, and conclusion? Obviously physical matter is the most natural to observe. But isn’t physical matter the subject of the method?
Blessings,
grannymh
As I’m threading my way through these posts, when science is mentioned it seems to point to actual matter, or evidence, or something that has been proven, Isn’t science, itself, a method thing? Isn’t science based on the following: observation, comparison, evaluation, and conclusion? Obviously physical matter is the most natural to observe. But isn’t physical matter the subject of the method?
Blessings,
grannymh
G
grannymh
Guest
C
cassini
Guest
Warp, now I know your tactics. You never give up, never change your mind on anything, drive your opponents into the asylum with sheer tiredness and frustration. Accordingly, I think I will risk it and retire from debate with you after this post, My frustration came to the fore and you got me calling you Pope Warp, given the pronouncements you were making. If I offended you, I apologise.
I will answer your post just so that you cannot say I ran out of excuses which you are liable to say. It seems we are both entrenched in our beliefs, but whereas you cannot understand mine, I understand yours. I too was once a heliocentricists and evolutionist that accepted the stories taught me since I was aged 5 years old. Converts I know, are like hens’ teeth, pretty rare things. But the truth has set me free. If there were proofs I could not argue against them. But I am satisfied that there are no such proofs. Were this question of G or H not connected with one of the Church’s greatest scandals I would not give a fig whether G or H. I am Catholic enough to have a Catholic’s INSTINCT. I was educated by the Holy Ghost Fathers at a time when Catholicism was untainted with Modernists. We were infused with a special faith, no doubt about that, all doubts going God’s way. I suspect you were not, and that is the difference. Now this instinct clicked in once I was aware of all the circumatances involving the Copernican revolution, the why, the who and the how. It told me that the Church could not have made such a terrible error at that level. Reading that the Church was put through years of ridicule made me further suspect that something was not quite right. Having thoroughly investigated every aspect of the matter I began to see that this situation involved Principalities and Powers and I could hardly believe how complete was the deception. I recalled Jesus calling the Devil the ‘Father of Lies’. Why ‘Father’ I thought, and then I knew. This Devil had the wile and the lies to fool the whole human race, even the elect. Why, even when Catholics are told they are being fooled into believing in the Copernican heresy, they even defend their heresy, not as a heresy of course, but as a proven scientific fact. This has indeed been a further education to me.
Now warp some of your remarks.
All observations are geocentric warp, not heliocentric. H is a mind-system, not an observable one.
I will discuss the Church’s position elsewhere warp for I feel it deserves a better hearing than you give it…
I will answer your post just so that you cannot say I ran out of excuses which you are liable to say. It seems we are both entrenched in our beliefs, but whereas you cannot understand mine, I understand yours. I too was once a heliocentricists and evolutionist that accepted the stories taught me since I was aged 5 years old. Converts I know, are like hens’ teeth, pretty rare things. But the truth has set me free. If there were proofs I could not argue against them. But I am satisfied that there are no such proofs. Were this question of G or H not connected with one of the Church’s greatest scandals I would not give a fig whether G or H. I am Catholic enough to have a Catholic’s INSTINCT. I was educated by the Holy Ghost Fathers at a time when Catholicism was untainted with Modernists. We were infused with a special faith, no doubt about that, all doubts going God’s way. I suspect you were not, and that is the difference. Now this instinct clicked in once I was aware of all the circumatances involving the Copernican revolution, the why, the who and the how. It told me that the Church could not have made such a terrible error at that level. Reading that the Church was put through years of ridicule made me further suspect that something was not quite right. Having thoroughly investigated every aspect of the matter I began to see that this situation involved Principalities and Powers and I could hardly believe how complete was the deception. I recalled Jesus calling the Devil the ‘Father of Lies’. Why ‘Father’ I thought, and then I knew. This Devil had the wile and the lies to fool the whole human race, even the elect. Why, even when Catholics are told they are being fooled into believing in the Copernican heresy, they even defend their heresy, not as a heresy of course, but as a proven scientific fact. This has indeed been a further education to me.
Now warp some of your remarks.
Plotting a journey to the moon is done geocentrically. They calculate the movement of the moon around the earth and then send up the spaceship. To do it heliocentrically they would have to calculate the rotation of the earth against an immobile moon. Get it? They do the same with planet probes. They calculate eclipses etc the same way, geocentrically. Check Encyclopaedia Briticannia under ECLIPSE.
All observations are geocentric warp, not heliocentric. H is a mind-system, not an observable one.
I will discuss the Church’s position elsewhere warp for I feel it deserves a better hearing than you give it…
C
cassini
Guest
Galileo was put on trial ultimately for saying Churchmen were wrong in interpreting the Bible geocentrically and consequently he wanted all to correct this and read the Scriptures heliocentrically. (I call this Copernicanism, i.e., a belief in H and that the Bible should be interpreted Hlly).
Note first what the Lateran Council V of 1512-17 had to say:
‘And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of illuminated faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatise otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.’ —(Denzinger - 738)
Given the Church’s duty is to preserve truth, and truth is reality, physical, philosophical and spiritual reality that permeates all time, past, present and future, even to its co-relationship with eternity, then all things that threaten truth must be condemned and corrected by the Church. This obligation was dogmatised at Vatican Council I of 1869-70:
‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)
The Council of Trent
One could say that as far as the Church is concerned, the Galileo case began with the Council at Trent, a city in the Austrian Tyrol, which was held from the year 1545 to 1563. Three popes presided over this council, Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV. The assembly was convened for the purpose of combating Protestantism and reforming the disciplines of the Catholic Church. It was the longest and without doubt the most important general council in the history of the Church. Among the principal dogmatic decisions were, the confirmation of the Nicene Creed; the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate (the Latin version of the Bible); the canonicity of all the books contained therein, and of them only, and the definition of the doctrine of Original Sin. After the Council came the Catechism of Trent, and interestingly, in it we find inferences to a geocentric world.
Of crucial importance to the condemnation of earthmoving and sun-fixing, and the Earthmovers themselves, are the methods prescribed for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture decreed on April 8, 1546:
‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ — (Denzinger - 786)
By Order of Trent
Note carefully the law as regards biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. That, according to the conclusion of the Council, is a settled matter. But what has been missed by many of the casuists, apologists and Church critics, is the imposition put by the Church on the ordinaries. They were obliged to report any breach of this directive to their superiors. Throughout the vast literature written on the matter, even to this very day, those who exposed Galileo’s breach of Trent have been called many names, from ‘his enemies’ to their being ‘jealous and vindictive’ etc.
‘When the meddlesome Dominican Caccini preached against Galileo’s theories…’
Rarely, if ever, will one find much understanding that Church discipline bound all Catholics morally to highlight the likes of Galileo’s written defiance of Trent’s hermeneutics and exegesis of the Scriptures.
Such then was the situation within the Church as we come to examine the Galileo case.
C
cassini
Guest
continued for grannymh:
The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition
In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.
Pope Paul V Confirms the Verdict
The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Given there is no record of the considerations we do not know the basis of the ‘philosophical’ censure which was/is not subject to canonical penalty. To say the sun moves, now formal heresy, is to deny a doctrine of faith. The second proposition, the movement of the earth, was not found formally heretical because it is based on certain scriptural inferences but not according to the words themselves. Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church declare or confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, only that the sun moves and that the earth, at the centre of the universe, does not. These then are principles, not models. The Inquisition did not comment on the ‘scientific’ (so-called proofs) aspect of the proposals but stuck to its area of purview and comment. With regard its definition of formal heresy and ‘erroneous to the faith’; the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.
The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition
In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.
Pope Paul V Confirms the Verdict
The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Given there is no record of the considerations we do not know the basis of the ‘philosophical’ censure which was/is not subject to canonical penalty. To say the sun moves, now formal heresy, is to deny a doctrine of faith. The second proposition, the movement of the earth, was not found formally heretical because it is based on certain scriptural inferences but not according to the words themselves. Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church declare or confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, only that the sun moves and that the earth, at the centre of the universe, does not. These then are principles, not models. The Inquisition did not comment on the ‘scientific’ (so-called proofs) aspect of the proposals but stuck to its area of purview and comment. With regard its definition of formal heresy and ‘erroneous to the faith’; the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
tactics? as tough this were a battle. no wonder you wont admit being wrong. you think it is surrendering.
i change my mind when presented with sufficient evidence. you still provide no evidence. why should a keyboard tire you out? how is presenting evidence a frustration? it can only be a problem if your position is wrong. if it were right you would have some evidence.
,
seems like a cheap way to quit without admitting error
yes it was my fault, i made geocentrism look foolish after hundreds of years of scientific respect.
geocentrism ran out of excusues several hundred years ago
,
i have evidence of the truth, you have beliefs, i understand them, i just dont think that they should be presented as valid, lest someone should see them at fault the church
proof is all over the place, we even have pictures. what more do you need
i dont think that we could be considered a ‘taint’ on the faith, especially not JPII, and frankly the church has been modern on these issues for quite some time.
thats the problem, you think i am less faithful. than JPII and billions of others would think otherwise.
instinct is not evidence or argument, you could have said this is just how you feel and ended the conversation long ago.
thats called a ‘conspiracy theory’ they got them on alien abductions, the Illuminati, masons, Jews, rothschilds, black helicopters and a host of other subjects. none respected by mainstream academicians, scientists or theologians. geocentrism is a new one on me.
we have pictures, are you saying the devil faked them somehow. that he has faked all the other evidence?
.
i was reffering to the return journey, thats done from the moon.
why would the moon need to be immobile? so no i dont get it.
that is far out, you better talk to an astrophysicist, im pretty sure thats not how they plan to return a probe from the surface of mars.
eclipses happen here, so what the big deal with that?
thats wrong, there are many pictures from various probes. its not a mind set, its proven by the evidence. why cant you admit that?
the churches position was expressed by JPII and the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences in 1992.
you are embarrassing the church by proclaiming the churches position falsely. thats why i am still talking to you, young people may see your writing on the subject and be forever lost from us because they think you are speaking for the church. who could take us seriously in light of that?
N
Namesake
Guest
Can you believe that lots of times scientists do science just because it’s fun? It doesn’t have to be important, just fun science. Sometimes fun science turns out to be important, but that doesn’t have to be the reason the science is done.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Real Truth Behind the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism
Dear buffalo,
I was looking for a declared heresy and found none. There were words like heretical, against scripture, condemned, church fathers, etc., but their context was not that of a formal council and a formal statement of heresy. Nonetheless,I am always open to correction.
Blessings,
grannymh
G
grannymh
Guest
Agreed.
H
hecd2
Guest
Can you? We didn’t talk about this but I’m interested to know what you think the reason is. (There is a strong biological hypothesis that you might know about, but I’d like to know what your view is.)
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
As I said over in Rogerteder’s thread:
It’s an alternative hypothesis to explain the Type 1a supernova data that led to the conclusion that expansion was accelerating. They show that the SN data we currently have (that are explained by accelerated expansion) can also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living within 15 Mpc of the centre of an area of reduced matter density, a void, about the size of the observable universe. (ie the local expansion rate is greater than the expansion rate further away, because the matter density is lower locally) They make the point that the two hypotheses can be distinguished by observations of Sn 1a at z= 0.1 to 0.4.
No-one is giving up LCDM yet
So even of this turns out to be right, how is living near the centre of a region of reduced density that is part of the universe the same as the earth being *the *unmoving centre of the universe?
Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm
H
hecd2
Guest
Are you looking in the mirror
Oh no! I was so enjoying observing the erudition and the reasoned debate. I thought it was going to go on for *much *longer.
There, you see. Never let facts get in the way of a nice theory. Ah well, all good things have to come to an end… are you sure you two guys don’t want to carry on???
Alec
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
im up for it.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please warpspeedpetey,
If a new thread gets started by you, please pm me because I rarely scan the list of threads.
Blessings,
grannymh
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
okey doke
Please warpspeedpetey,
If a new thread gets started by you, please pm me because I rarely scan the list of threads.
Blessings,
grannymh
B
buffalo
Guest
Take it up with them.As I said over in Rogerteder’s thread:
It’s an alternative hypothesis to explain the Type 1a supernova data that led to the conclusion that expansion was accelerating. They show that the SN data we currently have (that are explained by accelerated expansion) can also be explained by the hypothesis that we are living within 15 Mpc of the centre of an area of reduced matter density, a void, about the size of the observable universe. (ie the local expansion rate is greater than the expansion rate further away, because the matter density is lower locally) They make the point that the two hypotheses can be distinguished by observations of Sn 1a at z= 0.1 to 0.4.
No-one is giving up LCDM yet
So even of this turns out to be right, how is living near the centre of a region of reduced density that is part of the universe the same as the earth being *the *unmoving centre of the universe?
Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm
M
mlz
Guest
you are embarrassing the church by proclaiming the churches position falsely. thats why i am still talking to you, young people may see your writing on the subject and be forever lost from us because they think you are speaking for the church. who could take us seriously in light of that?
Just so you know, I’m sure there are others like me just reading (for days) your discussions. I am not Catholic but have been looking at the Catholic church and it’s teachings and quite honestly “Cassini” you seem to be somewhat of a rebel in your church- sure you’re not a "Protest"ant?! One thing I’ve liked about the Catholic church is that it seems to position itself in terms of evolution being “theist evolutionist” which is where I’m at and many Protestant (especially Evangelical ones) aren’t. So…remember, others are reading and interested in what you are saying and how the Catholic church is being represented.
mlz
PS StA and Hecd2 - appreciate what you’ve shared
Just so you know, I’m sure there are others like me just reading (for days) your discussions. I am not Catholic but have been looking at the Catholic church and it’s teachings and quite honestly “Cassini” you seem to be somewhat of a rebel in your church- sure you’re not a "Protest"ant?! One thing I’ve liked about the Catholic church is that it seems to position itself in terms of evolution being “theist evolutionist” which is where I’m at and many Protestant (especially Evangelical ones) aren’t. So…remember, others are reading and interested in what you are saying and how the Catholic church is being represented.
mlz
PS StA and Hecd2 - appreciate what you’ve shared
- Status