god thread, number 3 Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

So, it seems that everything talked about in another thread leads to religion.

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

[Spirited Away]

The

Galileo Controversy
Why did the

Catholic Church condemn Galileo?

The first article states, and I quote, that "Copernicus did not
intend [for heliocentrism to be presented as a theory which explains
the movements of planets in simpler ways than geocentricism]" and
that the clergyman Osiander wrote such preface to... in a way
protect Copernicus. Question: Ptolemy's philosophy was considered as
gospel truth. Wouldn't Copernicus' heliocentric theory counter the
gospel truth, and therefore it would have made him a heretic in the eyes of
believers? Of course, you must agree with me that the fear of being
labled heretic was there, history is evidence enough. Anyway, don't
you think that Corpernicus did not correct Osiander's added preface
because he had a tangible fear of the religious consequences?

Also, though Aristotle refuted heliocentricism, he may be justly
excused. The the lack of scientific instruments in his time could
not support his scientific theory otherwise. The same cannot be said
in Galileo's time. How exactly did Galileo "mocked" the Pope? I'm
confused. If Galileo simply did not agree with Pope Urban VIII's
theory and refuted it in his work since he was presenting a quite
different theory, isn't discrediting other theories fair game? Why
is it mocking? If that's mocking, then isn't the Second
Commandment "mocking" of other religions? (A whole other debate)

No torture? Imprisonment for pursuing knowledge legally and
logically is not torture? You know what we call that nowdays? Not
exactly cruel, though very close to it, but unusual punishment comes
to mind.

I also find the closing statement amusing for its lack of simple logic.

"It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace
Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not
entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just
the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the
universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe
and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy
rather than the earth."

Duh, of course we know that now because of the technology we have.
But for a man in that time period to find something so close to the
truth is rather amazing, don't you think?
I'll bother with the second article later. I'm still having a hard time
digesting what I just read.

[*kryogenix*]

Question: Ptolemy's philosophy was considered as
gospel truth. Wouldn't Copernicus' heliocentric theory counter the
gospel truth, and therefore it would have made him a heretic in the eyes of
believers? Of course, you must agree with me that the fear of being
labled heretic was there, history is evidence enough. Anyway, don't
you think that Corpernicus did not correct Osiander's added preface
because he had a tangible fear of the religious consequences?

Let's make sure we're using the same definitions. What do you mean when you say "gospel truth?" There were no infallible statements made about the orbit of Earth and the Sun. Secondly, who does the article state that Osiander was trying to protect Copernicus from?

Copernicus did not correct Osiander because he died the year the book was published.

Also, though Aristotle refuted heliocentricism, he may be justly
excused. The the lack of scientific instruments in his time could
not support his scientific theory otherwise. The same cannot be said
in Galileo's time. How exactly did Galileo "mocked" the Pope? I'm
confused. If Galileo simply did not agree with Pope Urban VIII's
theory and refuted it in his work since he was presenting a quite
different theory, isn't discrediting other theories fair game? Why
is it mocking? If that's mocking, then isn't the Second
Commandment "mocking" of other religions? (A whole other debate)

Read the article a little more closely:

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

Simplicio was the fool in Galileo's work. Using a fool to convey the Pope's message constitutes as mockery in my book.

No torture? Imprisonment for pursuing knowledge legally and
logically is not torture? You know what we call that nowdays? Not
exactly cruel, though very close to it, but unusual punishment comes
to mind.

Well, he was held under house arrest for disobeying an order.

I also find the closing statement amusing for its lack of simple logic.

Duh, of course we know that now because of the technology we have.
But for a man in that time period to find something so close to the
truth is rather amazing, don't you think?
I'll bother with the second article later. I'm still having a hard time
digesting what I just read.

Wait a second. Did Galileo actually prove anything conclusively? Galileo himself acknowledged that couldn't prove the motion of the earth.

jesus cannot be the son of god.

god is a spiritual being. Mary, is a corpreal being.

in order for Mary to have a child, she must get sperm.

therefore; god must have sperm.

if god has sperm, and this sperm was able to combine with mary's egg and make jesus, then it must ahve been very close to human.

so close in fact, that god would have had to hae been human.

therefore; either jesus is not the son of god or god is human.

The Virgin Birth was a miracle. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This maintains that Jesus is the son of God and that God is not human.

[Spirited Away]

1)Let's make sure we're using the same definitions. What do you mean when you say "gospel truth?" There were no infallible statements made about the orbit of Earth and the Sun. Secondly, who does the article state that Osiander was trying to protect Copernicus from?
2)Copernicus did not correct Osiander because he died the year the book was published.
3) Read the article a little more closely:
Simplicio was the fool in Galileo's work. Using a fool to convey the Pope's message constitutes as mockery in my book.
4) Well, he was held under house arrest for disobeying an order.
5)Wait a second. Did Galileo actually prove anything conclusively? Galileo himself acknowledged that couldn't prove the motion of the earth.

1) I'm using the term in the same context as what people, the ordinary mostly, would and have called it in those times. Prove me they'd call it otherwise. Men, leaders of the Church have believed the Bible taught, condoned, accepted the geocentric theory, therefore, what they say must be true. Gospel truth, biblical truth. What is the definition that you want me to perceive? You say there were no infallible statements, yet the Church said state a theory other than Ptolemy's and face house arrest or other forms on unsual punishment.
2) Let me rephrase since I clearly didn't research the first time. Osiander "protected" Copernicus from Protestants, or so the article says, but the chances that Copernicus would have endured the same fate as Galilleo had he not given up proving his theory is most obvious
3) Again, disagreement of theories that did not coincide with your own is mockery. Are you saying that the Church's condemnation of Galilleo's work arised from the Pope's wounded pride, even though it was the Church/Pope that tried to prevent Galilleo's publishing anything by calling it heresy?
Okay, James, you're now Galilleo (for the sake of argument imagine you're actually Galilleo and forget your strong belief in the Pope). You know your theory makes sense and you try to make others see it but the Church says you're committing heresy with your efforts . Though the sensible thing to do is NOT to further their anger, you can't help but believe that they are fools for not following your line of thought... after all... it makes so much sense.
4) A house arrest that also denied him of physicians for his hernia, denied him of having guests... He later found out during this house arrest that whatever he published have been banned. What a way to die.
What are your views about Giordano Bruno?
5) Actually, Galilleo took back a lot of things he claimed during the trials with the threat of torture and imprisonment. However, he did prove that the Venus orbits the Sun (in support of heliocentricism). I agree though, he believed in earth's motion but could not prove it conclusively. Hmm, but his belief in earth's motion while the Church didn't, enough genius for me.