The universe with no need of God

[Root of Jesse]

No, no, you understanding of history is way off here. Galileo was charged with suspicion of heresy, as he recanted his position, under threat of torture if he didn't. He was given a light sentence because of teh influence of those who took pity on hum, realized he was an old, sick man, which he was. There were other clergy who wanted him brunt, however. His books were put on the prohibited list by the church, up til about 1735. The Jesuit order may well be the intellectual, scientific branch of the church. But at the time, the reigning science was definitely Aristotle all the way. Also, Galileo was dealing with the powers that be which were not all Jesuit.

Do you understand what "heresy" means? To be guilty of heresy means that you refuse to be corrected. Even "suspicion of heresy" is different from what you said before. He was tried by the Inquisition, so were many. In fact, some committed heresy in order for their cases to be submitted to the more lenient Inquisition than the local secular courts.
Galileo's crime was trying to present a theory as a doctrine. He was told to stop, and for many years he did, but he was free to teach his theory. Then he wrote a book with a character who was unflattering to the Pope, and had the subject matter of heliocentrism. That's what he was placed under house arrest for. He remained a faithful Catholic.
Did you miss Copernicus? His theory wasn't Aristotles. Neither was Kepler's. But Kepler was a Protestant and valued his credentials in the community, so he didn't publish his books. But none of them could prove it to the standards of the day.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Darwin did not become an atheist, however. You would know that if you studied his writings more closely.

Where did I say he became an atheist?

 

[Davian]

Copernicanism was a doctrine, heliocentric theory was a theory.

Semantics that were not reflected in that article. One could consider Copernicanism a theory, and promote heliocentric theory as doctrine. I asked, what is the difference? Does the Sun orbit the Earth in one of them?

No, I don't.

You did it in post #152 when you cited Brahe in support of your position, then dismissed him as Protestant when he was shown to allow his religion to inform his science (ironic, when by all indications that is what you do).

There's some Christians who are wrong on things. That's why there's so many denominations.

And you think they are all wrong, except for yours. I get that.

So you agree that YE Creationism is not what "Christians" believe?

I am not commenting on what individual "Christians" believe. My point was that you have not differentiated yourself from the YEC crowd in anything other than timescales.

Right. So we agree.

Do you have a reason I should not?

I am exploring what you mean by "fact"; if you feel that the Earth orbiting the Sun was not "fact" in Galileo's time, and it is still not proved today, why do you accept it as fact now? By what criteria?

Once again, it is not for theology or religion to tell us how the heavens go. That's not religion's purpose.

Yet you allow your religion to dictate what science to accept, or not, particularly in the case of biology.

Is that all you believe the Inquisition did? Need to study up, then.

I don't care if they also emptied the wastepaper baskets in the Vatican; The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. wiki

Well, why should God come before anything else? Secondly, there's nothing inherently wrong with believing Creation and believing Evolution at the same time.

Again, I do not know what you mean by "evolution" in this context. Do you mean the scientific theory of evolution, with no biblical flood or literal or historical Adam and Eve?

If you have kids, have you ever had a book that explains a scientific reality in a story format? You know, maybe with a sperm with eyes and an ova with eyelashes?

No, not that I recall. The books we have, where they are not outright fictional, get the basic science right.

Is the truth not conveyed?

Truth, as in an accurate description of reality? No.

In the same way, the Creation accounts tell us that God started it all, and little more after that.

"...little more after that"? What happened to the flooding of the Earth, talking snakes, walking on water, magic tricks with the bread and wine, moving mountains? Just stories?

It's not my problem how you perceive things.

Is that not the problem you intended to tackle with you decided to participate in this forum?

Why don't you ask all the Creationists you know to identify themselves, by religion?

That is what I am doing right now, with you.

If it leaves out God, I do not agree with it.

Science leaves out that which is of no significance.

Otherwise, I don't really care how it happened.

If you specifically reject science that conflicts with your religious principles, obviously you do care.

It's still part of the Creation account.

Sure. Where in the bible does it allow for the billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis prior to the formation of the Earth?

You said "diversity of life, not origin.", yet Darwin wrote "ORIGIN of species".

Sure. A book about the origin of the various car brands and manufacturers need not address the origin of the wheel. Where are you going with this?

It's a gift to all of us. Sometimes people (like you) do not recognize gifts given them.

A gift that comes at the cost of one's intellectual integrity. Expensive, at that.

That's their problem.

You are stuck with not being able to establish the veracity of your particular beliefs, just as they are. If you cannot prove to them that you are right, and they are wrong, how on Earth can you attempt to gain any traction with unbelievers?

Christ gave us a body of beliefs, and it's contained in the Catechism.

Subject to interpretation, obviously.

You could say thank you to the Catholic Church, which feeds more hungry people, clothes more naked, gives drink to more thirsty and shelter to more homeless than any organization on earth.

While it is good to see that the church spends some of its billions of tax-free dollars on something other than rolling it back into itself, what taints it is the proselytizing that accompanies such aid.

I also put no value in the charitable efforts of religious organizations as an indicator of the veracity of their beliefs.

I don't see "exploring reality in a manner that reduces bias and error". There's many tons of bias and error in science, and I'm more concerned with bias.

I said, if you think you have a better methodology for exploring reality in a manner that reduces bias and error, feel free to present it. Got anything?

No, I'm just pretty much done with you. Apologetics is not just about you and your ilk.

My "ilk"? I am just a n00b with some questions.

But of course, apologetics are always far better received by those that already believe.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Semantics that were not reflected in that article. One could consider Copernicanism a theory, and promote heliocentric theory as doctrine. I asked, what is the difference? Does the Sun orbit the Earth in one of them?

You did it in post #152 when you cited Brahe in support of your position, then dismissed him as Protestant when he was shown to allow his religion to inform his science (ironic, when by all indications that is what you do).

And you think they are all wrong, except for yours. I get that.

I am not commenting on what individual "Christians" believe. My point was that you have not differentiated yourself from the YEC crowd in anything other than timescales.

I am exploring what you mean by "fact"; if you feel that the Earth orbiting the Sun was not "fact" in Galileo's time, and it is still not proved today, why do you accept it as fact now? By what criteria?

Yet you allow your religion to dictate what science to accept, or not, particularly in the case of biology.

I don't care if they also emptied the wastepaper baskets in the Vatican; The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. wiki

Again, I do not know what you mean by "evolution" in this context. Do you mean the scientific theory of evolution, with no biblical flood or literal or historical Adam and Eve?

No, not that I recall. The books we have, where they are not outright fictional, get the basic science right.

Truth, as in an accurate description of reality? No.

"...little more after that"? What happened to the flooding of the Earth, talking snakes, walking on water, magic tricks with the bread and wine, moving mountains? Just stories?

Is that not the problem you intended to tackle with you decided to participate in this forum?

That is what I am doing right now, with you.

Science leaves out that which is of no significance.

If you specifically reject science that conflicts with your religious principles, obviously you do care.

Sure. Where in the bible does it allow for the billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis prior to the formation of the Earth?

Sure. A book about the origin of the various car brands and manufacturers need not address the origin of the wheel. Where are you going with this?

A gift that comes at the cost of one's intellectual integrity. Expensive, at that.

You are stuck with not being able to establish the veracity of your particular beliefs, just as they are. If you cannot prove to them that you are right, and they are wrong, how on Earth can you attempt to gain any traction with unbelievers?

Subject to interpretation, obviously.

While it is good to see that the church spends some of its billions of tax-free dollars on something other than rolling it back into itself, what taints it is the proselytizing that accompanies such aid.

I also put no value in the charitable efforts of religious organizations as an indicator of the veracity of their beliefs.

I said, if you think you have a better methodology for exploring reality in a manner that reduces bias and error, feel free to present it. Got anything?

My "ilk"? I am just a n00b with some questions.

But of course, apologetics are always far better received by those that already believe.

There's so much wrong here, I'm not going to try. You're not a noob and your questions have been answered. Got more questions? Pray to God. Your values are skewed, your logic is skewed, and I won't deal with it again. I hope you get straight before you meet your maker.

 

[Davian]

There's so much wrong here, I'm not going to try.

I don't think you have been trying for the last several posts.

You're not a noob

High praise, you being "Admiralty", and all that.

and your questions have been answered.

If you want to call it that.

Got more questions? Pray to God.

"Want free stuff? Write a letter to Santa".

Your values are skewed, your logic is skewed,

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

and I won't deal with it again. I hope you get straight before you meet your maker.

Ah, the scare tactic. An apologetic run would not be complete without it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't think you have been trying for the last several posts.

High praise, you being "Admiralty", and all that.

If you want to call it that.

"Want free stuff? Write a letter to Santa".

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Ah, the scare tactic. An apologetic run would not be complete without it.

So a prayer for you is a scare tactic? See what I mean? You don't know how to parse what people write. The End.

 

[Davian]

So a prayer for you is a scare tactic? See what I mean? You don't know how to parse what people write.

Let's parse that statement.

"I hope you get straight..."

..come around to the understanding that virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge is wildly inaccurate and that your particular Catholic/Christian beliefs are true...

" ...before you meet your maker."

...implying the consequences of failing to "get straight" prior to that moment. What are those consequences, in your particular theology? Eternal Hell, burning etc? Therein lies the "scare tactic" bit.

Now, I don't think for a picosecond that there is anything to worry about, but I still see the implication of your "prayer".

The End.

 

[Hawkins]

...implying the consequences of failing to "get straight" prior to that moment. What are those consequences, in your particular theology? Eternal Hell, burning etc? Therein lies the "scare tactic" bit.

The point is, if it's true (for the sake of argument, assume that hell is true), what should be done such that the truth can be spoken but without the "scare tactic bit" being perceived?

Or rather your fallacious argument here is that "because something is scary such that it cannot be true?"

 

[Davian]

The point is, if it's true (for the sake of argument, assume that hell is true), what should be done such that the truth can be spoken but without the "scare tactic bit" being perceived?

Or rather your fallacious argument here is that "because something is scary such that it cannot be true?"

I made no such argument.

If the biblical "Hell" exists, and is to be conveyed as a scary concept, I would think that the intellectual thing to do would be to open with that statement, then proceed to make a case for its existence (or a case for the theology in which it is incorporated), rather than throwing it out there after the attempt to make the case for it has been abandoned, which is what I observed here.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Pascal's Wager is alive and well, I see.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It's been nearly a week and no one has been able to formulate a rebuttal. I take it that all Christians who've read this admit that their worldview is not superior in terms of explanatory power.

I rebutted it on your other Existence of God thread.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I rebutted it on your other Existence of God thread.

That isn't my thread, and your rebuttal was rather vacuous.

 

[Ed1wolf]

That isn't my thread, and your rebuttal was rather vacuous.

You didn't start it but you had posted on it. Evidence it was vacuous?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You didn't start it but you had posted on it. Evidence it was vacuous?

In post #290 you said,

The law of causality is analytically true. IOW true by definition or analysis. It is a logical extension of the law of non-contradiction.

I replied,

Can you show this logical extension?

You replied,

It is an axiomatic corollary of the law of non-contradiction.

(Emphasis added.) I was being polite when I said your response was vacuous. The reality is that your response indicates a fundamental lack of knowledge about how logic works.

An axiom is an assumption. A corollary is a logical conclusion. Combining those words into one term is an oxymoron.

 

[Ed1wolf]

In post #290 you said,

The law of causality is analytically true. IOW true by definition or analysis. It is a logical extension of the law of non-contradiction.

I replied,

Can you show this logical extension?

You replied,

It is an axiomatic corollary of the law of non-contradiction.

(Emphasis added.) I was being polite when I said your response was vacuous. The reality is that your response indicates a fundamental lack of knowledge about how logic works.

An axiom is an assumption. A corollary is a logical conclusion. Combining those words into one term is an oxymoron.

No, a corollary is a proposition that naturally follows from an axiom already proved see definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corollary

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, a corollary is a proposition that naturally follows from an axiom already proved see definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corollary

I'm saying that a corollary is a conclusion and you're telling me that I'm wrong because it's something that naturally follows from an axiom? So then are you saying that conclusions do not naturally follow from axioms?

Then please tell me what a conclusion is.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm saying that a corollary is a conclusion and you're telling me that I'm wrong because it's something that naturally follows from an axiom? So then are you saying that conclusions do not naturally follow from axioms?

Then please tell me what a conclusion is.

My point is that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My point is that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction.

And yet you cannot demonstrate this. I've asked you several times.

You don't have to do it yourself. Just look it up and copy what you find. But you can't because no one in history has done this.

So please just admit you're wrong and carry on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My point is that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction.

I suspect that you are misremembering something. One can draw a connection between the law of causality and the law of identity, but I don't see how you can get that from the law of non-contradiction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I suspect that you are misremembering something. One can draw a connection between the law of causality and the law of identity, but I don't see how you can get that from the law of non-contradiction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

How can one draw such a connection?