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.

[*mipadi*]

I don't see the need to prove anyone wrong in this area. I'm comfortable with my own personal religious beliefs; the beliefs of others don't influence me unless I intend to discuss and learn from the beliefs of others. I'm not even certain why we bother having these discussions. I'm not concerned with another's personal beliefs, so long as his beliefs are not forced on me in such a way as to affect my own life, such as through governmental legislation.

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

[NoSex]

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

Agreed. So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

[NoSex]

So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

Are any believers interested in answering my questions?
Or, are their some believers out their who believe that belief in God is more rational than non-belief?

Because, I think we may have been creating a false dichotomy with the Reason Vs. Faith kind of idea. I'm not sure that all believers adhere to the idea of faith, nor do all nonbelievers deny faith and only embrace reason.

[*kryogenix*]

Are any believers interested in answering my questions?
Or, are their some believers out their who believe that belief in God is more rational than non-belief?

Because, I think we may have been creating a false dichotomy with the Reason Vs. Faith kind of idea. I'm not sure that all believers adhere to the idea of faith, nor do all nonbelievers deny faith and only embrace reason.

Although I'd rather discuss this with you, I don't have the time right now at the moment, so I will refer you to this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

[sadolakced acid]

Although I'd rather discuss this with you, I don't have the time right now at the moment, so I will refer you to this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

and i'd like to refer you to this site:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

the fact that the URL is "new advent" makes it seem a bit prone to bias, don't you think?

[*kryogenix*]

and i'd like to refer you to this site:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

the fact that the URL is "new advent" makes it seem a bit prone to bias, don't you think?

Ok... What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

According to my own sources, he was house arrest for putting his support of the Heliocentric theory in writing, which he admitted while on trial that it was a rather strong support despite the Pope warning him to treat it as a hypothesis.
Your own article says, that that Galilleo is house-arrested because he made too strong of a support statement for heliocentricism and ventured into theological grounds. The Council of Trent in 1616 stated first that it was heretical and then that the "doctrine of the immobility of the Sun" was false and contrary to Holy Scripture. In his writing, he declared that science is a basis for authority. My question is, how could he avoid clashing with the theology when theology holds the oposite theory? What I see here is a censorship of knowledge. If this is still incorrect to you, please explain how.

He was allowed to "conjecture" the theory of heliocentrism, but not outright say that it was the truth.

I still have found no source that claims that Galileo was not treated by any doctor. The sources I see say that he was denied to leave town to see a doctor.

... people being averese to adopting your radical new theory is hardly plausible a crime for house arrest.

Are you saying disobeying a direct order after being given a warning should go unpunished?

From here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/evili.htm

Deflating some Galileo myths

• Galileo created most of his enemies by his own rash attacks.
• Galileo was treated quite leniently.
  • Support from Inquisitor
  • Imprisonment was a loose house arrest
  • Lively Black Market in his books
  • Allowed to keep a Papal pension
  • Galileo corresponded freely
  • He received visitors from Protestant N. Europe (Thomas Hobbes, John Milton)
  • Church took no action when a late book of Galileo was smuggled to Holland and printed.
• Galileo could at any time have found sanctuary in Venice or a Protestant country. Why did he not do so?

[Spirited Away]

He was allowed to "conjecture" the theory of heliocentrism, but not outright say that it was the truth.
I still have found no source that claims that Galileo was not treated by any doctor. The sources I see say that he was denied to leave town to see a doctor.
Are you saying disobeying a direct order after being given a warning should go unpunished?
From here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/evili.htm
[/list]

He was treated (or given permission to see doctors), with money from his own pockets, when he was already too sick/"wasted", as mention in the source (from the University of Michigan) that I posted. He was denied to leave town to see his own doctors in Florence, to be more accurate.

The said order was to not support a scientific theory because it went against the "Holy Scripture". Are you saying that any or all scientific theories/findings that go against the Bible should be punished?

From your own source:

Galileo made clerical enemies by gratuitous attacks on the Jesuits, Scheiner (1613) and Grassi (1623). Both were competent astronomers, and, in fact, Copernicans.
Galileo summoned to Rome and warned but not charged, 1615.
Rumors of formal charges persisted.
Galileo obtained letter from Cardinal Bellarmine stating that no charges filed or sentence passed.
It appears Galileo's enemies planted a contrary document in Vatican files. It surfaced later during his trial.

He was supported by inquisitors? Let be more specific WHICH of the inquistors supported him because obviously there were those against him from the start. Three other concluded that he defended the Copernican theory as truth. To be fair and history proved it, he had more opposition than support. And "support" isn't even the right word because if they had supported him, they'd have given him a fine or something else rather than house arrest. More like a few of them were lenient because he was an old man.

Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate.(Source)

The Church took no action when the book was smuggled? The Church would had had a hell of a time preventing the book from going to Holland when the said book was already available in the black market.

He declined urgings to escape to the Venetian territory and instead asked that proceedings against him be moved to Florence. His request was denied: the Pope insisted that the old man, weak and ill though he was, make the two-hundred mile wintertime journey to Rome. (Source)

This man had to regret his support of the Copernican theory, you may say it's because of his own making, but I'll say that it's because Christianity was intolerant of theories outside of Christian dogma.