C
CWBetts
Guest
And as for straw men, Atheists contend that God’s existence be scientifically proven, but neither can it be refuted. I love how atheists can’t figure out when to use science, and when to use metaphysics.
- Status
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
The reason I identify myself as agnostic versus atheist (and although I’m too skeptical to call myself a deist, I don’t find deism to be the least bit irrational) is because of metaphysics.
I base my refutations of theism (as it’s framed in contemporary society) on facts and logical deduction from those facts. And although I don’t find metaphysics conclusive enough to compel me to identify as a deist, I acknowledge some metaphysical theories are good ones.
A simple metaphysical argument is everything and every event has a preceding cause. This is more than a theory, in the macro world we know nothing is possible without a preceding cause. Some game theorists even do a pretty good job of predicting how humans will react to certain extrinsic circumstances.
However, while I don’t deny the relationship between cause and effect, I also realize this argument doesn’t prove the necessity of god. First, we know the classical ideal of causation collapses in the quantum world. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we cannot make valid presumptions with regard to the origins of the universe until we at least have an accepted unified theory of physics in place.
So maybe you’re right, I don’t view metaphysics as rigorous enough to tell us whether or not a god exists (but in fairness I debate the validity of theism as it’s currently framed i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., and not whether or not a power who exists beyond our cognition could have been responsible for putting our universe in motion). There are plenty of facts that render Judeo-Christianity implausible, whereas saying the big bang erupted from nothing at this point in time amounts to trying to prove a negative (which in my view is pointless).
Oh and the “straw-man” was mentioning Dan Brown’s work in the context of our discussion (this by inference attributes the argument to me, when of course I never mentioned Dan Brown, and then you proceeded to argue against the “straw-man” you invented. Classic logical fallacy).
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
OK fair enough. However, it’s also worth mentioning that the church did ultimately condemn Copernicus’ work (but it took them six decades). First, Copernicus published his major work, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, in the year of his death. Three years after his death, in 1546, Dominican Giovanni Maria Tolosani, denounced the theory in an appendix to a work defending the absolute truth of Scripture. And, again, ultimately the church condemned his work (and subsequently persecuted Galileo for endorsing and publicly advocating Copernican heliocentrism).
This was of course due to their erroneous interpretation of scripture, specifically passages like Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Ecclesiastes 1:5, etc.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Unfortuantely for your argument, Papal Infallibility does not extend to science. Faith and morality, yes; astronomy, no.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
What faith did you find.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
so church infallibility doesn’t extend to interpretation of scripture? Cool, I’ll go let the protestants know
J
josie_L
Guest
He was an ex-Catholic turned atheist, and has now returned to his former faith.
J
josie_L
Guest
It was Galileo who was trying to interpret scripture (that’s partly why he got into trouble). The Church however had not decreed anything in respect to heliocentrism (it was still on the fence as to which view was correct) until Galileo arrogantly assumed his hypothesis to be fact even though he did not have the evidence to state such. In fact, when Copernicus stated his heliocentric view there was no denouncement of his hypothesis because much of scripture still had to be explained.so church infallibility doesn’t extend to interpretation of scripture? Cool, I’ll go let the protestants know
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
you know … I guess I’d be disappointed if you guys stopped making silly statements
How dare a scientist publish his conclusions made after painstaking work and calculations? An insult to the holy roman empire, burn him alive, make him scream, and may he burn for a million years in purgatory before he’s vanquished to hell.
At this point I’d like to think I’ve seen it all … but it never ceases to amaze me how much absurdity you guys are willing to swallow? Sometimes I think if the CC told you to jump off a bridge, you would (as long as it was a papal declaration).
Man, it’s the 21st century people.
J
josie_L
Guest
There is in the book of Joshua, a scripture that states the Sun stood still, Galileo believed that this meant that his heliocentric view was correct, i.e., he was trying to use scripture to reinforce his view but in a manner that was arrogant.you know … I guess I’d be disappointed if you guys stopped making silly statements
Yes, he had done painstaking work and calculations and that is why he was lauded by the Church (there was much fanfare when he went to visit the Pope in Rome), however, he got into heaps of trouble because although he had a strong position it was not yet proven that heliocentrism was correct, but nevertheless he tried to market it as if it was indeed fact. He also foolishly reneged on the promise made to his friend, Pope Urban to publish a book that would debate both views with equal regard (as nothing was as yet confirmed), but instead did the reverse and insulted Pope Urban as a result (made him out to be a buffoon in his book).How dare a scientist publish his conclusions made after painstaking work and calculations? An insult to the holy roman empire, burn him alive, make him scream, and may he burn for a million years in purgatory before he’s vanquished to hell.
I’m a good little soldier.
Tis it? Thou not deceiveth me?
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
on what historical basis can you say Galileo was arrogant?
First, Galileo innovated on the telescope, creating one with 30x magnification. One of his first observations were of Jupiter & its moons. The fact that Jupiter had moons that orbited it in itself debunked Aristotelian cosmology (which was anathema to the church right off the bat). Then by observing Venus he rendered Ptolemy’s model impossible. Galileo also observed sun spots and craters on the moon (Aristotle thought the moon was a perfectly round disc).
I mean at least do a little bit of research before you spew out facts that have no basis in reality?
Galileo’s only mistake was to not incorporate some of Kepler’s calculations (regarding rotation of the sun).
Code:
* Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.One of my favorite Galileo quotes:
*“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” *
so you’re not just a luke-warm Catholic (who doesn’t have an especially good grasp of church history); you’re a knowledgeable and willing accomplice to the churches horrendous conduct both today and throughout history? You’re an apologetic for an oppressive institution that discriminates against minority groups, shields criminal child molesters from prosecution, and has a history that includes suppressing science and burning human beings at the stake.I’m a good little soldier.
Good for you
C
CWBetts
Guest
Infallibility has strict requirements:so church infallibility doesn’t extend to interpretation of scripture? Cool, I’ll go let the protestants know
- The topic must be faith and morals
- The Pope must be issuing an official statement
- The statement must be issues ex cathedra, that is, the Pope must be acting as shepherd of the earthly Church.
To put this in perspective, the last time a statement me all of these criteria was 1954, by Pope Pius XII. Intrpretations pronounced in privet hearings and such are NOT infallible
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
so then private interpretation of scripture is fine?
Oh yeah, and since cosmology and physics do not fall within the scope of infallibility … can we also assume the same policy applies to biology?
Also, if the church didn’t consider it’s view of the applicable scriptures at issue during the Galileo affair “infallible” … under what authority did it persecute Galileo?
There’s a concept called constructive performance in our common law, which only codifies what common sense tells us anyway. Irrespective of claims drawn on paper, people and institutions are objectively judged according to their conduct. Everything about the Galileo affair suggests the church believed it was acting under the guise of infallibility. How could they justify persecuting someone any other way?
Moreover, this wasn’t an isolated incident. This was an action taken with the sitting Pope’s fully knowledge and approval (and it was justified by later papal bulls). It was a very public prosecution of a leading figure in Northern Italian society, Galileo. This isn’t something that could have reasonably happened if all the parties involved, the local aristocrats, and the public didn’t believe it was an action taken under the churches infallible authority. Any other conclusion strikes me as far fetched post hoc apologetics, with little association to logic.
J
josie_L
Guest
Just letting you know that people who go to Purgatory do not go to Hell.How dare a scientist publish his conclusions made after painstaking work and calculations? An insult to the holy roman empire, burn him alive, make him scream, and may he burn for a million years in purgatory before he’s vanquished to hell.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Private inteperetation is fine within limits. Private interpretation cannot contradict anything in Sacred Tradition. Acceptance of the theory of evolution does not contradict the belief in God. I. myself accept portions of evolution.
J
josie_L
Guest
You have gone way overboard in your denouncement of me, so I won’t be responding to your posts from now on (unless you apologize).so you’re not just a luke-warm Catholic (who doesn’t have an especially good grasp of church history); you’re a knowledgeable and willing accomplice to the churches horrendous conduct both today and throughout history? You’re an apologetic for an oppressive institution that discriminates against minority groups, shields criminal child molesters from prosecution, and has a history that includes suppressing science and burning human beings at the stake.
Good for you
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
be that as it may, we’re not going to agree here (so we’ll have to agree to disagree). I’ll only note that you’ll find yourself “agreeing” more and more with theories regarding evolution as time goes on (and as more evidence develops). As science discovers more, church dogma will slowly erode (as of course is the historical pattern).
I do have one question though. The church states life begins at conception, does that mean they believe god inserts a soul into a fetus at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg? And if so then why do they care about eggs that are not fertilized by sperm, but are used for scientific research all the same?
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
It was all true, and I won’t be intimidated or “guilted” by emotive hyperbole into retracting a true statement. You can ignore me all you like, or CAF can send me packing … but I won’t capitulate to intellectual intimidation.
The only qualifying remark I will offer is that’s how I view all well informed apologists (and I don’t view protestants as much better than the CC). So the statement wasn’t a personal attack, but rather a broad critique of Christian apologists.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Actually I used to be much more in favor of evolution, but with each new discovery, the holes get more numerous. I would appreciate it if you would not talk down to me because I have faith in a Creator.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
This is you #----------------------------------------------------------and this is me,but I still love you
- Status