If I can find an answer to these questions, I will turn back to religion

[deMontfort]

Like I said: Pursuing an anti-Catholic agenda.

 

[setarcos]

Ironically, that’s what you’re doing here.

How am I being ambiguous with my statements? Where’s the equivocation? Am I being misleading or using redirection to prove a point?

That’s the consensus of contemporary historians.

I think you misunderstand what it means to write a character as a literary caricature of someone. Simplicio was a representative of the old Aristotelian conceptions of the universe. The ideas Simplicio presented were similar to the Popes because the Pope believed in the ideas Simplicio represented. You have to understand the writing style of Galileo and the disposition of the understanding of the people he dealt with at the time. It was also seen as a personal attack on those devoted to Mary and Mary herself by some
because he described according to his observations that the moon was not a pristine crystalline ball but a pot marked imperfect thing.

You seem enamored of this claim, against the witness of historical evidence.

What evidence are you talking about? Its a matter of historical fact that the first Inquisitional investigation on Galileo found him innocent of the charges levied against him. This was partly because Galileo was careful not to publicly publish anything supporting that Copernicanism was proven given that he wasn’t an idiot. Its a matter of historical fact that after he improved his telescope and discovered further evidences against geocentrism he went of his own accord to Rome to argue the matter and his arguments were superior to the oppositions. Its a matter of historical fact that in spite of this he was given an injunction not to teach “in any way” the Copernican view which he agreed to and followed for many years, until the very man that encouraged him to write a treatise on the matter became pope. Are these facts not evidence that Galileo made attempts to appease the Church?

So… you admit the claim, while denying the conclusion? No wonder you love Galileo.

So… you admit the claim, while denying the conclusion? No wonder you love Galileo.

I never denied the claim and what conclusion are you saying I’m denying?

 

[setarcos]

What does this mean? Does recognizing an anti-Catholic agenda somehow diminish the arguments legitimacy? Don’t those who are pro Catholic pursue an anti anti-Catholic agenda?

 

[setarcos]

You don’t understand the magnitude of the influences Galileo had in his day. The Pope was actually an admirer of Galileo’s mental abilities. The Pope previous to becoming pope had actually encouraged Galileo to write a treatise on the subject. Galileo had many powerful backers. The Madici’s not withstanding and yes the fact that Galileo was probably right and the Church knew it all made it very touchy as to how they would handle this situation. The Pope himself wouldn’t summon Galileo to the inquisition and had a hard time actually finding someone willing to do it.

 

[Gorgias]

And is that the real reason why Galileo was kept in his home? Because he hadn’t proven it?

No – because he continued to slander the Church, despite his inability to prove his assertions.

You seem to be under the impression that there wasn’t a religious dimension to political power, influence and control in those times.

No, I get that. It continued to be true even following the Reformation – there were Protestant lands and Catholic lands, and woe to you if you were of one belief and your ruler adhered to the other! However, we don’t claim that this was the fault of clerics or denominations – that’s just the way that cultures, societies, and people thought, back then.

And i don’t think the way he was treated was right regardless of what year you slap on it.

Fair enough. But, I think it’s anachronistic and just as wrong to expect 17th century Europeans to ask according to the standards of the 21st century.

Apparently you didn’t grasp the meaning of my witticism here…moving on.

I did. And kept throwing it back at you. Moving on…

His own assertions were true.

They were?!?!? The sun sits motionless at the center of the universe?!?!? Are you sure you want to assert that?

Backed by empirical evidence and philosophical discourse.

You might want to read up on Newton… who actually did prove the theories.

If the magisterium can be wrong with this then what else can they be wrong with

Any other scientific assertion.

Typical redirection to prove a point instead of sticking with the truth.

So… making two true statements, correcting your incorrect statements, is “redirection”? Got it. Nice spin, by the way.

I’m willing to be shown where I’ve erred so show me.

I already did. You called it “redirection”.

what conclusion are you saying I’m denying?

That Galileo deliberately characterized the Pope as a simpleton. In a published paper. That’s the action that you characterized as “being careful NOT to overly provoke the Church”, remember?

 

[IWantGod]

No – because he continued to slander the Church, despite his inability to prove his assertions.

Can you give me a quote of him slandering the Catholic faith or even slandering and individual in the Catholic Church?

At the end of the day he didn’t slander the Catholic faith, he didn’t commit any heresy. As for an individual in authority, if i find somebodies approach to evidence unreasonable then i will say they are being unreasonable, or even irrational. Now Galileo might of been wrong in regards to whether or not his evidence represented a good enough reason to move away from the old theory, but embarrassing somebody is still not a rational reason to lock up a scientist in his home. It doesn’t matter if it was 2 days before Christ was born, it was still not a reasonable thing to do. Why can’t you accept that?

 

[IWantGod]

Pursuing an anti-Catholic agenda.

No. Pursuing an anti-catholic agenda would be to intentionally spread error against the Catholic faith. If somebody said that some Pope did something wrong or unreasonable at some point in Catholic history, and it is clear or appears that they did, then that is not the same thing pursuing an Anti-catholic agenda, regardless of whether they are in error or not.

 

[setarcos]

They were?!?!? The sun sits motionless at the center of the universe?!?!? Are you sure you want to assert that?

Lol…again your trying to redirect from a true premise to a false one in order to prove all his premises false. The assertions we are talking about are that the geocentric view of the universe was false. You seem to be good at sophistry and foolishly belittling another’s reasoning but you don’t seem to be so good at productive reasoning with another person. Is your only concern here to show that you are right and anyone apposed to you definitively wrong?

You might want to read up on Newton… who actually did prove the theories.

What are you referencing here? You have to be clearer as to what this explains in opposition to what statement.

Any other scientific assertion.

Your misunderstanding what conclusions the Magisterium had wrong and how they came to those conclusions. The Magisteriums scriptural interpretations place the Earth squarely at the center of the entire universe. This was a philosophical/theological interpretation. Not a scientific one. Would you stop with the winking, your making yourself look foolish. It was the epistemology of the times which was about to undergo a paradigm shift in how we were to understand the workings of the universe. The old Aristotelian and theological views were collapsing under the new evidence through experimentation models which Galileo was promoting.

So… making two true statements, correcting your incorrect statements, is “redirection”? Got it. Nice spin, by the way.

What incorrect statement did you correct? My point here is that you tried to redirect from the pertinent to the irrelevant in order to prove that what’s being referred to is incorrect. I believe I addressed in a statement why your redirect was not relevant to the conjectures. That not spin that’s reasoning.

I already did. You called it “redirection”.

Sigh. You really have no clue as to how to reason together do you? You’ve not only not or deliberately chose not to understand my statements within the context that they were written but you’ve skipped to touting your successful proofs of how right you are and wrong I am without good explanation.

 

[setarcos]

That Galileo deliberately characterized the Pope as a simpleton. In a published paper. That’s the action that you characterized as “being careful NOT to overly provoke the Church”, remember?

I presented my reasoning for such things. You presented no refutation.

1. Galileo deliberately waited until after Barberini became pope precisely because he felt it would now be safe to publish his Dialogue. His past experiences with Barberini persuaded him of such.
2. No extent records of his letters public or private indicated that Galileo was an suicidal mad man.
3. The ideas being debated were not Barberini’s unique ideas. They were the age old ideas that Barberini believed in.
   There was a disconnect between Galileo’s methods of discourse and his audiences reception. As I’ve said before his use of metaphor and other polemic tactics often ran him afoul of his opposition. I’m not going to go over the events which indicated Galileo attempted to appease the Churches wishes again since you’ve not made a reasonable rebuttal and you can reread them in my previous posts. I don’t believe Galileo insanely deliberately made Simplicio as a caricature of the Pope but as a conduit condemning old and failing ideas about how the universe worked. That this stung the Pope because these were ideas he believed in or at least the Church touted as assuredly true undoubtedly played a part in his persecution but this came about as an error of category on the part of the Pope and judgment of his use of Polemics on the part of Galileo. If we err on the side of what’s the more reasonable conclusion it makes more sense than to believe Galileo waited until his admirer became Pope just so he could insult him in such a way as to get the attention of the inquisition whose methods were well known to be possibly quite distressful.
   What’s your reasoning for believing Galileo, after being careful up to this point not to tick off the Church, suddenly decides to insult the one person most capable of causing the rest of his life to be unbearably miserable and who previously was considered an admirer and friend?

 

[Odilon]

Answer to statement #1. God created the Universe and certain souls rebelled against Him. Due to that fact, all now must complete a journey here on earth before one can remain with Him in heaven. To that end He Himself came here in the form of the man Jesus Christ to experience the world and if you worship the man who saved us, you worship Him.

Answer to statement #2. We are all personally responsible for our sins. We have free will to sin or not to sin, no one is to blame for the latter but ourselves.

Now, just accept it all as a little child, seek to live a holy life, love others as Jesus taught us and go out and live life to the fullest.

 

[Calliope]

It never ceases to amaze me when fellow Catholics cannot accept when our Church leaders have done something wrong at some point or another and go to great lengths to accuse other Catholics of being anti-Catholic when they voice an acceptance of the fact that their church leaders haven’t always been a perfect example of all things virtuous.

It’s unreasonable.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain for I am Oz, the great and terrible…

Don’t you know the Church is right, even when it’s not!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

• Why would God create the entire universe for the sole purpose of having people worship him? This seems very egotistical to me, and I just can’t get my head around the fact that our only purpose in life is to worship God. This is not to say that I am not thankful for what I have (I don’t have any issues with worshipping god), it’s just that I don’t understand why God would be so needing of worship that he created our entire reality just so that he can get it. I feel like it would make a lot more sense if he created us for a purpose other than this.

He created us to delight in all things, not just Him. He cannot be blamed for the fact that all these things reflect their Creator.

1. It is a scientific fact that everyone’s personalities and actions are formed by two things 1. Their biology, and 2. Their experiences (nature and nurture), however nobody is personally responsible for these things - meaning that nobody is actually responsible for their actions. Since God is responsible for both the biology of people and for the situations/experiences they have, he is therefore also responsible for their actions and every decision they make. This means that nobody is personally responsible for their ‘sins’, so how can God send people to hell when it is actually HIM who is the one who caused them to sin?

This is a great question. I would ask, however, the following question: how do you KNOW that an all-powerful God could not create beings whose nature did not compel them to one alternative rather than the other, but who had the free capacity to choose between multiple alternatives? I agree that it might confuse us to figure out HOW God could do this, but do you have evidence that it is beyond His power – that is, that it is logically impossible?

 

[thechrismyster]

“Why would God create the entire universe for the sole purpose” - why do you assume that we’re the sole purpose. He could have created life all over the Universe.

 

[Gorgias]

The assertions we are talking about are that the geocentric view of the universe was false.

He replaced the view that the earth is the center of the universe with the view that the sun is the center of the universe. This is sufficient to demonstrate that, as the Church had asserted, it’s important to get your proof complete prior to announcing that you’ve proven something.

You seem to be good at sophistry

Thank you…?

In any case, this isn’t ‘sophistry’ – this is pointing out that the argument you’re making is false. I understand that this can be embarrassing, and so one response is to call out the person who’s disproven your argument, but isn’t “foolishly belitting another” what you were claiming I do?

Is your only concern here to show that you are right and anyone apposed to you definitively wrong?

No. My primary concern is that the truth – and not inaccuracies – are what are asserted here. Thanks for asking, though!

setarcos:

What are you referencing here?

I’m referencing the fact that it was Newton, not Galileo, who offered proof.

setarcos:

place the Earth squarely at the center of the entire universe. This was a philosophical/theological interpretation. Not a scientific one.

C’mon, now. If I asked 10 scientists, and 10 theologians, and 10 priests, “is the earth the center of the universe?”, do you think even one of them would say that this is a question of theology or philosophy, and not science?!?!? Hardly.

setarcos:

Would you stop with the winking, your making yourself look foolish.

I like my emojis. Besides, it’s better than having one’s grammar or arguments make one look foolish. Which, as it were … pot, kettle?

setarcos:

The old Aristotelian and theological views were collapsing under the new evidence through experimentation models which Galileo was promoting.

Absolutely! However, at the time, they were just unproven models; Galileo asserted that they were proven. He was wrong.

Galileo deliberately waited until after Barberini became pope precisely because he felt it would now be safe to publish his Dialogue. His past experiences with Barberini persuaded him of such.

Right. It’s always best to insult someone only after they’ve assumed a position of power.

setarcos:

this came about as an error of category

Wait – you’re really claiming that, when Galileo insulted the Pope in writing, the fault belonged to the Pope for misunderstanding the insult?

And I’m the sophist in this discussion?

setarcos:

What’s your reasoning for believing Galileo… suddenly decides to insult the one person … who previously was considered an admirer and friend?

From our understanding of Galileo’s actions later in life. The U of Arizona article references it: Galileo’s perspective for proof changed later on, and became “it’s true because I’m saying it.” This kind of hubris is precisely what we see in his writings.

 

[setarcos]

He replaced the view that the earth is the center of the universe with the view that the sun is the center of the universe. This is sufficient to demonstrate that, as the Church had asserted, it’s important to get your proof complete prior to announcing that you’ve proven something.

First off as humans its practically impossible given our continuously finite extent of knowledge to ever prove a theory correct but you can at times prove a theory incorrect. When trying to explain the universe around us we are not recreating the universe exactly in the models we use but at most approximately in a never ending refining and reframing reference of the model to reality. To my knowledge Galileo never formulated a heliocentric theory till long after he improved the instruments whereby he was able to prove as much as is possible that geocentrism was less accurate than heleocentrism in explaining the universe. Previous to this he spent many years proposing hypothesis, performing experiments, and gathering data. When in explaining the universe we come to a point where one model has to be abandoned for another we call this a paradigm shift in our thinking and this is what was happening. It can be quite traumatic. Up to the Church’s injunction against him Galileo wasn’t touting that he proved Heleocentrism correct. He was proposing that he had proved geocentrism incorrect. Incidentally, why is ok for the Church to state that geocentrism was true professing that it was proved to be true even though this was an untruth and yet you think the Church in an act of hypocrisy was correct in telling Galileo not to teach that Heleocentrism was true because he couldn’t prove it at the time?

In any case, this isn’t ‘sophistry’ – this is pointing out that the argument you’re making is false.

Sigh, merely making this statement because you think your right doesn’t make it true. You make statements like this but don’t make reference to how you’ve proven my argument is false. The only thing you’ve proven is that you don’t understand the dynamics of the issues involved here.

and not inaccuracies

Granted…and what inaccuracies have I made?

 

[setarcos]

I’m referencing the fact that it was Newton, not Galileo, who offered proof.

Again you show you lack an understanding of epistemological proofs and how science progresses.
Galileo offered proof that geocentrism was wrong. Galileo in formulating a theory of heliocentrism was not only working within the confines of the hostility of a paradigm shift in thinking but also the confines of the knowledge of the universe up to that point. His proofs were in the form of geometric mathematics and observable repeatable experimentation, the best that could be made at that time. This was the beginnings of the era of “modern” scientific methods. Newton headed another paradigm shift with proof, as did Einstein yet each of these theoretical models of reality were inexact and incomplete. The Churches error was in believing that the model of the universe they held to was complete and accurate. They failed to realize their frame of reference of their model was limited and inaccurate, more limited and inaccurate than Galileo’s heliocentric theory.

C’mon, now. If I asked 10 scientists, and 10 theologians, and 10 priests, “is the earth the center of the universe?”, do you think even one of them would say that this is a question of theology or philosophy, and not science?!?!? Hardly.

Lol, I’m glad you asked this. The scientists would answer scientifically in the negative. The theologians would answer philosophically and be mixed, yes and no, and the Priests would probably answer religiously in the affirmative. Unless they all knew this was specifically a scientific question. In Galileo’s day philosophy/theology and science were the considered the same. What Galileo did was push them apart propelling science into the modern era as a separate discipline.

I like my emojis. Besides, it’s better than having one’s grammar or arguments make one look foolish. Which, as it were … pot, kettle?

Ok keep your emojis, I’m just saying that IF you are incorrect then a winking, or rolling around while crying tears of laughter will make you look pretty foolish in your behavior.

 

[setarcos]

Absolutely! However, at the time, they were just unproven models; Galileo asserted that they were proven. He was wrong.

Once again you misunderstand scientific progress. You cant ever really prove a model correct when modeling reality. It will always have a potential of being proven incorrect. What Galileo did was prove geocentrism incorrect. His heliocetrism theory was just that a theory. His proofs for his theory were the best that could be mustered in his day. The Church thought their model was proven as well but they were wrong. Whats that saying you used? Oh yeah, you know it…pot, kettle.

Right. It’s always best to insult someone only after they’ve assumed a position of power

Its a matter of historical fact that he waited for the reason I gave. Your statement though lends credence to what I’ve said earlier about the Simplicio debacle. Its not so “simplicio” as Galileo just felt like insulting the Pope. Unless Galileo had some sort of sporadic bout of insanity we shouldn’t look so shallowly at the situation. History just doesn’t support the insanity plea and it does support the idea that Galileo saw the Pope as an ally in his arguments.

Wait – you’re really claiming that, when Galileo insulted the Pope in writing, the fault belonged to the Pope for misunderstanding the insult?

I’m saying they both made errors in judgment due to character flaws and mistakes of categorizing the arguments properly. I’m saying I don’t think Simplicio was a deliberate and direct characterization of the Pope or an assault on his mental abilities. The historical facts don’t support this.

From our understanding of Galileo’s actions later in life. The U of Arizona article references it: Galileo’s perspective for proof changed later on, and became “it’s true because I’m saying it.” This kind of hubris is precisely what we see in his writings.

Its pretty clear as I’ve said before that most intellectual giants, and Galileo was one of them, are seen by lesser minds as arrogant, rude, and full of hubris. That’s just the natural result of one mind seeing further than another with exasperation. Was Galileo always right, I think we’ve seen that this is a solid no. Was he always wrong, again a solid no. Was he more right than wrong than most of his contemporaries…probably. If anything though the hubris Galileo had wasn’t directed specifically at the Pope. It was just a sad case of Galileo’s methods of polemics which got him into trouble. Like I said it was a flaw in his Character which promoted an unflattering way to show what the pope believed, to be in error.

 

[fisherman_carl]

1. Why would God create the entire universe for the sole purpose of having people worship him? This seems very egotistical…

What makes you think Christianity teaches that? There isn’t anyone teaching that in historic Christianity. It doesn’t even make sense from a philosophical perspective, since God is the source of all things He doesn’t need anything. Instead everything has what it needs to exist from God. The reasons for God creating the world are much richer than what you or I can fathom. Of course Christianity teaches that God is love.

It is a scientific fact that everyone’s personalities and actions are formed by two things 1. Their biology, and 2. Their experiences (nature and nurture), meaning that nobody is actually responsible for their action

Really, sources? I think this so called scientific ‘fact’ is more a philosophical supposition than a fact. It’s up to you to prove this supposition, since you are making the claim. First you have to prove that humans are nothing but physical matter without a soul who can not possibly have free will because they are nothing more than physical processes. If you could prove the mind is nothing but the brain then I would be forced to agree with you. But if anything the evidence suggests otherwise. So Good luck with that.

 

[TK421]

The best gift that God can give to a creature is Himself. Anything else is infinitely less.