For Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven

[Marc_Anthony]

Whoops, made a pretty significant typo.

Correction:

As for the Galileo affair I still want to see exactly what he was saying in context. I highly doubt Cardinal Ratzinger was in direct opposition to the Pope and I guarantee that he’s not saying it’s okay to ignore science in favor of dogma.

 

[ANewWorld]

I don’t have to study Newton’s and Einstein’s theories to figure out which is correct. They are both correct in the realms to which they apply. Now the mathematical rigor of the formal proofs escapes me because it’s well beyond what I’ve studied. But, we can see them applied in the technology that surrounds us in modern times, see I can be philosophical too.

As far as Ratzinger’s comments, from what I’ve read, he was not fully aligned with Pope John Paul II. Feel free to follow the source links from Wikipedia on the subject to see where I got this from. Obviously, neither you nor I can see into the Pope’s mind.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, I don’t believe it’s people such as yourself or even most Catholics that I really have bone to pick with. Who am I to try to rob people of the hope of salvation? If I understand the Church’s teachings correctly, and some of this was pointed out in the YouTube video, God and only God judges an individual at death. He can see into your mind and knows you better than you know yourself and he would understand why in the honest search for truth you came to the conclusions you did. Any rational person who honestly believes God exists and might send you into a burning lake of fire for eternity would obviously not act in a way to make this happen. And to speak to the topic of this thread, I take serious issue with people who claim others are going to Hell. As I understand it, according to the very dogma they so faithfully believe in, this is putting themselves in the place of God.

I do not believe science is out to disprove God and neither do many atheists. Contrary to much of the media’s portrayal of angry atheists condemning the Church (don’t get me wrong, people inside and outside of the Church should be angry when scandals occur), I think the offense is taken much more from the ironically dogmatic and radical views of Protestant fundamentalists (yet they claimed to separate to get away from dogma) and to a much greater degree Islam. Telling a person he’s going to hell may insult him, but blowing oneself up in the name of jihad is a much bigger and very real issue. They believe in what they are doing just as much as devout Catholics. Both believe in scientifically unverifiable truths, but I’d be taking a much more harsh stance toward beliefs if this was a open forum sponsored by extremist Muslims (as if they would even create such a thing).

 

[ANewWorld]

If he were truly skeptic he wouldn’t be atheist, he would be agnostic, at best.
God bless,
D

The use of “atheist” and “agnostic” in this sense is not semantically different. He never asserts that he or anyone else has disproven God, only that he sees no evidence. In fact, I have seen him say he’s open to evidence; isn’t this what you mean by agnostic? I agree there are atheists who state with 100% certainty there is no God, but back to the scientific method, science does not prove negatives outside of the specific case of things that contradict what is proven.

 

[ANewWorld]

ANW:
Is a ‘theory’ the same thing as a “fact?” IOW, does theory = fact?

Really, isn’t a ‘theory’ nothing more than an ‘hypothesis’ that’s been around the block a few more times?

Poor Galileo. During his confinement (punishment) he was put up like royalty, fed like royalty, treated better than he probably treated the servants that took care of his every need. I am tired of hearing about Galileo and his so-called problems with the Church. Document the terrible treatment that he received - or retract the postulation.

A theory is defined by a body of scientific fact and observation. So, no it is not “a single fact” but it is much more than a “hypothesis that’s been around the block a few more times.” For e.g., you won’t suddenly see gravity not attract objects to each other or an object in motion cease to be in motion without being acted on by an outside force.

As for Galileo, I find it quite ironic that you want me to “document” the treatment or “retract the postulation.” In other words, you want me to show evidence for my claims? I shall oblige, but first I’ll point out yet again the Straw Man you have put forth. Please cite where I said Galileo received horrible treatment, my implication was that the 17th century Church blatantly stated as false undeniable truths for which Pope John Paul II did indeed apologize for and facts the Church herself now accepts as truth. That is, I am pointing out that the Church changed positions in light of evidence. Here is a brief snippet of the Inquisitions Judgment…the full source is linked below it. This is unambiguously speaking against the science, not just Galileo’s disobedience.

"…[T]he Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun’s stability and the earth’s motions as follows:

That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."

web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html

 

[Marc_Anthony]

However, these individual pieces as well as the Church’s change in positions throughout the years do undeniably prove that everything the Church says is not always correct and thus everything they say cannot be the undisputed word of a an omniscient God.

Okay, yeah.

Glad we found something we could agree on.

 

[JDaniel]

A theory is defined by a body of scientific fact and observation. So, no it is not “a single fact” but it is much more than a “hypothesis that’s been around the block a few more times.” For e.g., you won’t suddenly see gravity not attract objects to each other or an object in motion cease to be in motion without being acted on by an outside force.

As for Galileo, I find it quite ironic that you want me to “document” the treatment or “retract the postulation.” In other words, you want me to show evidence for my claims? I shall oblige, but first I’ll point out yet again the Straw Man you have put forth. Please cite where I said Galileo received horrible treatment, my implication was that the 17th century Church blatantly stated as false undeniable truths for which Pope John Paul II did indeed apologize for and facts the Church herself now accepts as truth. That is, I am pointing out that the Church changed positions in light of evidence. Here is a brief snippet of the Inquisitions Judgment…the full source is linked below it. This is unambiguously speaking against the science, not just Galileo’s disobedience.

"…[T]he Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun’s stability and the earth’s motions as follows:

That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."

web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html

A theory is defined by a body of scientific fact and observation.

ANW:

If that’s so, how could a theory ever change or be changed? The Sun is a fact, not a theory. Is Heliocentrism a fact?

So, no it is not “a single fact” but it is much more than a “hypothesis that’s been around the block a few more times.” For e.g., you won’t suddenly see gravity not attract objects to each other or an object in motion cease to be in motion without being acted on by an outside force.

But gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact. Like the sun.

As for Galileo, I find it quite ironic that you want me to “document” the treatment or “retract the postulation.” In other words, you want me to show evidence for my claims? I shall oblige, but first I’ll point out yet again the Straw Man you have put forth. Please cite where I said Galileo received horrible treatment, my implication was that the 17th century Church blatantly stated as false undeniable truths for which Pope John Paul II did indeed apologize for and facts the Church herself now accepts as truth.

What “undeniable truths?”

That is, I am pointing out that the Church changed positions in light of evidence. Here is a brief snippet of the Inquisitions Judgment…the full source is linked below it. This is unambiguously speaking against the science, not just Galileo’s disobedience.

"…[T]he Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun’s stability and the earth’s motions as follows:

That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."

web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html

I tried to open this site, but after about 20 minutes of what appeared to be attempted loadings, I gave up and closed the site. Nevertheless, modern astronomy and physics seems to show that the heliocentric theory is the correct theory. Why, then, is it still just a “theory?” Why is it not a “fact?” A theory is not a fact, nor a fact a theory. A theory can be modified. The designation of “less likely” does not guaranty an absolute. Perhaps the Earth is motionless and at the center of Universe. Perhaps the Sun revolves around the Earth. And, perhaps the rest of the galaxies and stars revolve around the Sun. (Tycho Brahe’s model) All we can say is that, “to the best of our knowledge and belief, the Sun is the center of our solar system and the Earth revolves around it.” But that’s a model too. And as we know, a model is not a fact.

God bless,
jd

 

[Poseidon]

Do you know what hubris is?

Excessive pride. If you’re trying to say I’m being hubristic then you’ll have to explain a bit, because I don’t think I am.

 

[Poseidon]

ANW:

If that’s so, how could a theory ever change or be changed? The Sun is a fact, not a theory. Is Heliocentrism a fact?

I’ll take a shot at these. A theory can be changed by new evidence. For example, our current understanding is that the sun produces heat and light by fusing hydrogen into helium in its core. If we started to gather more evidence and that evidence pointed to the sun producing heat and light by magic, then we’d form a hypothesis that the sun is magic. If we continued to gather evidence that supported the magic hypothesis t would become the magic theory. The fusion theory would still be around though, unless evidence turned up against it. Two competing theories can exist at once.

But gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact. Like the sun.

Gravity actually is a theory. It is also a fact. We know it exists because we observe its effects every day, but we don’t know how it works. Is it warping of space-time as Einstein thought? Is it caused by gravitons as quantum physicists think? Is it both at once? We don’t know.

 

[JDaniel]

I’ll take a shot at these. A theory can be changed by new evidence. For example, our current understanding is that the sun produces heat and light by fusing hydrogen into helium in its core. If we started to gather more evidence and that evidence pointed to the sun producing heat and light by magic, then we’d form a hypothesis that the sun is magic. If we continued to gather evidence that supported the magic hypothesis t would become the magic theory. The fusion theory would still be around though, unless evidence turned up against it. Two competing theories can exist at once.

Gravity actually is a theory. It is also a fact. We know it exists because we observe its effects every day, but we don’t know how it works. Is it warping of space-time as Einstein thought? Is it caused by gravitons as quantum physicists think? Is it both at once? We don’t know.

Poseidon:

Did you actually post the above? Do you really not know the difference between a “fact” and a “theory?”

If gravity is merely a theory and thus subject to change, I suggest you not step foot outside of your house! Oops! I forgot: your house would float away too.

God bless,
jd

 

[Poseidon]

Poseidon:

Did you actually post the above? Do you really not know the difference between a “fact” and a “theory?”

If gravity is merely a theory and thus subject to change, I suggest you not step foot outside of your house! Oops! I forgot: your house would float away too.

God bless,
jd

Actually, my house wouldn’t float away. It would be flung into space at several hundred miles per hour as the earth exploded.

And in case you missed it, I didn’t say gravity isn’t a fact. I actually explicitly stated that it is. It is both a fact and a theory at once - a fact in its existence, and a theory in its mechanism.

 

[JDaniel]

Actually, my house wouldn’t float away. It would be flung into space at several hundred miles per hour as the earth exploded.

And in case you missed it, I didn’t say gravity isn’t a fact. I actually explicitly stated that it is. It is both a fact and a theory at once - a fact in its existence, and a theory in its mechanism.

Poseidon:

Actually “gravity” is the “fact.” “How gravity might operate” is the “theory.” Two separate things. If I have a toothache, that is a fact. I wouldn’t care in the least anything about the theory of how pain travels through neurons. The misuse of words can be a dangerous thing.

God bless,
jd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Poseidon:

Did you actually post the above? Do you really not know the difference between a “fact” and a “theory?”

Theory in common nomenclature is synonymous with a hunch, speculation, or hypothesis. In the context of science it usually refers to an explanitive model supported by evidence (see “scientific theory”).
Wiki:

A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Here are some other theories with which you may be familiar:

• Germ Theory of disease
• Theory of Relativity
• Atomic Theory
• Cell Theory
• Plate Tectonics Theory

 

[Poseidon]

Poseidon:

Actually “gravity” is the “fact.” “How gravity might operate” is the “theory.” Two separate things. If I have a toothache, that is a fact. I wouldn’t care in the least anything about the theory of how pain travels through neurons. The misuse of words can be a dangerous thing.

God bless,
jd

Well, I didn’t intend to get into an argument over semantics on this thread, but I guess I have to. Yes, gravity is a fact. It obviously exists. However the mechanism by which it works is known as the theory of gravity. A theory doesn’t mean a guess, it means a model that is supported by scientific data. That is what gravity is. This isn’t adding to the topic at hand though.

 

[ANewWorld]

Poseidon: I empathize with you. This is like playing football but the rules are changed to state that both sides have to run toward the home team’s end zone…

JDaniel: I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally disingenuous, but I will briefly address your comments about “heliocentric theory.” This is not a theory in the scientific definition, nor is it a theory in the colloquial definition meaning hypothesis, it is simply a way of modeling a solar system. The heliocentric model defines the star as the central point of the coordinate system. “Solar system” is by definition a system where a star is at the center. This is a definition, not a theory. You can draw an analogy by thinking of different temperature scales. Fahrenheit and Celsius scales are not theories, they are simply different models, describing the same facts. To say it is 30 degrees Celsius and 86 degrees Fahrenheit are two different ways of describing the same temperature; it does change what the actual temperature is…

Seguing back to Galileo, I am sorry the link did not open for you; I double checked and the url is correct, which was pasted as a source, but I explicitly quoted the most pertinent section. The Church specifically stated the two facts I posted as heretical. No more encompassing theory of gravity or anything else as going to change the fact that the Earth and the other planets in our solar system are in orbit around our sun. Neither will it change the fact that the Earth is non-stationary. For example, Einstein’s Relativity Theory wasn’t discovered yet and it stated that objects are in motion relative to one another so the sun is in fact in motion relative to other solar systems and galaxies, but none of this changed the fact that in the scope of our solar system, the planets go around the sun and the sun is fixed relative to the planets.

To summarize the discussion so far;

1. I made an assertion about the church denying factual statements about the above as heretical.
2. You told me to provide evidence for the postulation, else retract it (though you asked me to prove something I did not say.)
3. I provided the proof for what I did say (i.e. the church declared factual statements were false and heretical).
4. You then questioned what undeniable truths (i.e. facts) these were and then went into a bizarre side discussion about facts and theories with Poseidon and myself in which you attributed more claims to us that we did not make.

I made a claim and backed it up; now, speaking to the more general topic of this thread, if someone asks you for proof about something religious, you call it faith. But, when you ask me for proof for something contradicting a belief you hold, you ask for proof (perfectly rational, albeit hypocritical with regard to the standard to which you uphold your own assertions). In summary, your beliefs require no proof, assertions contrary to these beliefs require proof and if this proof is provided, they can be dismissed with the assertions you haven’t proven. The irony is not lost here that this is exactly how the Church behaved during the Dark Ages.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, I didn’t intend to get into an argument over semantics on this thread, but I guess I have to. Yes, gravity is a fact. It obviously exists. However the mechanism by which it works is known as the theory of gravity. A theory doesn’t mean a guess, it means a model that is supported by scientific data. That is what gravity is. This isn’t adding to the topic at hand though.

Poseidon:

Neither did I. So, what is “gravity?” A “model?” BTW, where did I ever say that a “theory was a guess?” Hmmm?

". . . gravity is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses. . . - wikipedia. This is not a bad definition of the phenomenon of gravity, but it’s not perfect by any means. ‘Gravity’ is not a “theory.” Neither is it a “model.” Nor is it a “hypothesis.” The wikipedia definition is only a fair representation of the factical of gravity. Gravity is not a “model supported by scientific data.” A “model” can never become a “fact,” unless “model” is the subject under discussion. But, we’re discussing “gravity.”

Don’t you think that it’s rather important to make sure we are both using our words as they are normally and typically used in the vernacular? Or, shall we invent the game as we go? How can we ever locate Truth in a "game’ we invent as we go?

Anyway, nice chat.

God bless,
jd

 

[StrawberryJam]

JDaniel,

Gravity is a fact. I would love to prove it to you as I live in a city with very tall buildings.
Would you like to see gravity in action?

 

[ANewWorld]

Poseidon:
Don’t you think that it’s rather important to make sure we are both using our words as they are normally and typically used in the vernacular? Or, shall we invent the game as we go? How can we ever locate Truth in a "game’ we invent as we go?

God bless,
jd

JD, thank you. Your last response leaves no doubt that you are being entirely disingenuous. I would hope on a Catholic message board, there’d be honest, open discussion. You use numerous logical fallacies and/or completely ignore a logical assertion that has been put forth and then ramble on about different words not being the same.

To simplify this, I’ll put forth the two facts one more time. I am not talking about semantic games about theories or models, these two statements are the facts you asked for, I provided them and you had no rationale other than to first pretend that I didn’t provide them and then second to ignore them:

"…[T]he Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun’s stability and the earth’s motions as follows:

That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."

 

[ReachingFaith]

JDaniel,

Gravity is a fact. I would love to prove it to you as I live in a city with very tall buildings.
Would you like to see gravity in action?

there is no lol smiley! That needs fixed. Maybe I missed it…anyway, lol!! I needed a good laugh.

 

[JDaniel]

Poseidon: I empathize with you. This is like playing football but the rules are changed to state that both sides have to run toward the home team’s end zone.

ANW:

I will ask you a question: How will we ever discover Truth if we use words that are not being used as they normally would be in the vernacular? That is part of your game?

JDaniel: I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally disingenuous,

Nope, I’m quite ingenuous.

but I will briefly address your comments about “heliocentric theory.” This is not a theory in the scientific definition, nor is it a theory in the colloquial definition meaning hypothesis, it is simply a way of modeling a solar system.

So, you are saying unequivocally that ""heliiocentrism is a ‘model’.

The heliocentric model defines the star as the central point of the coordinate system. “Solar system” is by definition a system where a star is at the center. This is a definition, not a theory. You can draw an analogy by thinking of different temperature scales. Fahrenheit and Celsius scales are not theories, they are simply different models, describing the same facts. To say it is 30 degrees Celsius and 86 degrees Fahrenheit are two different ways of describing the same temperature; it does change what the actual temperature is…

‘Analogies’ are not proofs. ‘Models’ are not facts, no matter how badly you want them to be. In fact, an analogy is no evidence at all. Why: because anything can be compared with anything else.

Seguing back to Galileo, I am sorry the link did not open for you; I double checked and the url is correct, which was pasted as a source, but I explicitly quoted the most pertinent section. The Church specifically stated the two facts I posted as heretical.

“It is perhaps not entirely unreasonable to suggest that part of the reason the Pope had it in for Galileo was that in his book, the great scientist unwisely chose to ascribe the Pope’s own words to a character defending the Ptolemic system named Simplicius. And considering that Galileo didn’t even manage to get himself excommunicated despite his public baiting of the Pope, a feat achieved by dozens of princes, kings, and Holy Roman Emperors, it’s clear that his dangerous Copernican ideas were never regarded as posing a dire threat to the Church, the modern mythology notwithstanding.” - The Irrational Atheist, p.41, Vox Day.
Just wanted to clear that up for you.

No more encompassing theory of gravity or anything else as going to change the fact that the Earth and the other planets in our solar system are in orbit around our sun. Neither will it change the fact that the Earth is non-stationary. For example, Einstein’s Relativity Theory wasn’t discovered yet and it stated that objects are in motion relative to one another so the sun is in fact in motion relative to other solar systems and galaxies, but none of this changed the fact that in the scope of our solar system, the planets go around the sun and the sun is fixed relative to the planets.

And we are absolutely certain of this how?

To summarize the discussion so far;

1. I made an assertion about the church denying factual statements about the above as heretical.

I quoted Vox Day above.

1. You then questioned what undeniable truths (i.e. facts) these were and then went into a bizarre side discussion about facts and theories with Poseidon and myself in which you attributed more claims to us that we did not make.

This is a Red Herring. What are the “undeniable truths?” That’s all. Just state them.

I made a claim and backed it up; now, speaking to the more general topic of this thread, if someone asks you for proof about something religious, you call it faith.

And, I did this where? When? Post #?

But, when you ask me for proof for something contradicting a belief you hold, you ask for proof (perfectly rational, albeit hypocritical with regard to the standard to which you uphold your own assertions).

Once again, you make a naked assertion and actually think you can get away with it! If we were sitting across from one another, we’d be having a good belly laugh right now!

In summary, your beliefs require no proof, assertions contrary to these beliefs require proof and if this proof is provided, they can be dismissed with the assertions you haven’t proven.

Until this post, you haven’t asked for the proof for any assertions made by me. Another Red Herring.

The irony is not lost here that this is exactly how the Church behaved during the Dark Ages.

And then, you top it off with another naked assertion. Actually, it’s more than that. It’s a naked assertion the purpose of which is to disparage the Church and slap the hospitality of a CATHOLIC forum right in the face. Good start.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,

Gravity is a fact. I would love to prove it to you as I live in a city with very tall buildings.
Would you like to see gravity in action?

Strawberry:

How much have you had to . . . oh well, never mind. “Gravity is a fact.” Thank you. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for several posts now. That acknowledged, why do you want me dead? Or, is it the libation?

God bless,
jd