Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “If this was false, then instead of offering anecdotal ‘support,’ you would have offered (as has been charged against me) actual quotes from actual books. This you have failed to do.”
[b]This is false.
If this was false, then instead of offering anecdotal ‘support,’ you would have offered (as has been charged against me) actual quotes from actual books. This you have failed to do.
I do not accept that I have to follow blindly somebody else’s footprints and I do not accept nobody and nothing as the source of the so called “a ...[text shortened]... [b]And this is a fact even today.
Apples with oranges is a concept completely lost on you.[/b]
edit: “You couldn’t be more wrong. The leadership of the RCC was opposed to his theories on the basis of conjecture. And--- again--- that was a power struggle and nothing more.”
At every post of mine I show you at every cognitive level that your claims are absurd and lacking of scientific facts and evidence, and instead of debating you avoid to answer honestly my questions and now you want me to copy and paste a text of the same nature in order to prove you that your claims are absurd. I don't have to do such a thing since the absurdity of your sophisms is obvious.
For example, regarding Galileo, the person who was responsible in full for his trial (Pope Urban VIII) urged the Congregation of the Index who had condemned the Copernican system in 1616 to avoid to characterize it heretical. Galileo’s chief interrogator Vincenzo Maculano wanted badly to write and to comment on the Copernican system himself, and Tommaso Campanella had warned the Church of political embarrassment in case they would finally decide to condemn an astronomical system that might be vindicated. In fact, Urban VIII had allowed Galileo to write on the Copernican system in order to have the theory treated hypothetically, but Galileo had used the Earth's motion to explain the tides, giving the Copernican theory a status at variance with Urban's contention that an omnipotent deity could have produced the tides by any number of different mechanisms.
Therefore the leadership of the RCC was opposed to Galileo’ theory strictly because the pope wanted him to bring up a specific conclusion that it had to back up by any means the core religious beliefs of the RCC. But Galileo took another way and the rest is history.
Thus, obviously Pope Urban VIII attempted to manipulate the scientist for the sake of his sacred “absolute truth” -he conducted the good ole standard theologian trick.
Of course this opinion is historically verified: feel free to check on your own the scientific facts and evidence of every respected professor of the History of Science; for starters try John Brooke’s “Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives” -Cambridge University Press 1991- and “Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of Science and Religion” by Brooke and Geoffrey Cantor (T. & T. Clark, 1998).
And I still here wait for you to bring up scientific facts and evidence that they will then ease you to support efficiently the opinion that you expressed at your first post of this thread
😵
Originally posted by jaywillWhat exactly would you like us to talk about Strobel's interviews?
The talk was not about his pesonal faith but about the fine tuning of the universe for life as seen in physics.
I could not get to your website for a reply. But your irrelevant generalization and dodge of the material in Lee's talk there was not encouraging that you intended to deal with the issues of physics presented in the talk.
And, in your opinion, what exactly is the relation of these interviews with this thread and which way do they back up the supposition that the religion -and not the science and the philosophy alone- is the agent that boosted the Western civilisation?
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleDown the black hole of insanity ...
I see it as an experiment: I want to know where exactly somebody can go in order to hold an untenable position😵
On a side note: the hardline Counter-Reformation intolerance of the RCC didn't work out very well for it.
Did you notice Freaky's fudge? The Pope's business with Galileo was 'a power struggle, nothing more' -- therefore the intellectual freedom guaranteed by Christianity remained intact! Amazing stuff.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFreaky has a religionist approach mixed with false interpretations. His argument lacks of historical, philosophic and sociological back up and it is peppered with pseudo-intellectualism and arbitrary false conclusions. Once you check how he justifies his claims it is obvious that he uses not a valid methodology; he uses a false pseudo-scientific argument in order to give arguments that he wants them to justify a greater authority. BTW, this is exactly what theology is all about.
Down the black hole of insanity ...
On a side note: the hardline Counter-Reformation intolerance of the RCC didn't work out very well for it.
Did you notice Freaky's fudge? The Pope's business with Galileo was 'a power struggle, nothing more' -- therefore the intellectual freedom guaranteed by Christianity remained intact! Amazing stuff.
I cannot dismiss the possibility that Freaky is aware of the fact that he distorts intentionally the historical records and that he uses this method in order to make his conclusions and his “absolute truth” appear convincing
😵
Originally posted by black beetleThe old hocus-pocus rigmarole.
Freaky has a religionist approach mixed with false interpretations. His argument lacks of historical, philosophic and sociological back up and it is peppered with pseudo-intellectualism and arbitrary false conclusions. Once you check how he justifies his claims it is obvious that he uses not a valid methodology; he uses a false pseudo-scientific argumen ...[text shortened]... uses this method in order to make his conclusions and his “absolute truth” appear convincing
😵
I've never claimed that Freaky is stupid. I'm sure he really lights up a pulpit.
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetle=================================
What exactly would you like us to talk about Strobel's interviews?
And, in your opinion, what exactly is the relation of these interviews with this thread and which way do they back up the supposition that the religion -and not the science and the philosophy alone- is the agent that boosted the Western civilisation?
😵
What exactly would you like us to talk about Strobel's interviews?
===================
As far as my intention in submitting that link there were not "interviews" (plural). I put up one link about the evidence in physics for the Creator's intelligent tuning of the universe for life.
===================================
And, in your opinion, what exactly is the relation of these interviews with this thread and which way do they back up the supposition that the religion -and not the science and the philosophy alone- is the agent that boosted the Western civilisation
==========================================
I was only interested in submitting a talk given on the evidence for fine tuning of the universe for the existence of life. I believe it is good argument for the existence of God.
Following the present day evidence provided by physics God's existence is a logical conclusion. And following that evidence doesn't reveal "intellectual impoverishment" on the part of those who find it compelling.
Originally posted by jaywillThis could be a proof of existance of any creative god, not the christian god per se.
I was only interested in submitting a talk given on the evidence for fine tuning of the universe for the existence of life. I believe it is good argument for the existence of God.
The christian god is a destructive god (remember the great flood?), so another more creative god is rather responsible for the creation of the universe, evolution, and everything.
4 edits
=========================================
This could be a proof of existance of any creative god, not the christian god per se.
=========================================
That's no great devestating set back to me as a Christian. I didn't say "christian god" had to be indicated there. I don't know if Mr. Stobel said that.
Maybe you just prefer it be any other God beside the God of the Bible.
===========================================
The christian god is a destructive god (remember the great flood?), so another more creative god is rather responsible for the creation of the universe, evolution, and everything.
=======================================
You don't seriously expect me to take only the incident of the flood of Noah as the total representative of the character of God, do you?
You can't seriously expect me to consider the Bible as consisting of only the two or three chapters dealing with Noah's flood. That's pretty narrow and stinted.
Rather I would consider the entire 66 books of the bible to point not only to destruction but rather to death and resurrection.
Perhaps you consider the flood destructive because you are an anarchist who feels a righteous God should just allow sin to go unchecked ad naseum. Perahps you cannot see that a God who allows unrighteousness to run rampant without checking it with judgement, is not righteous.
Perhaps you prefer an unrighteous God to match your unrighteousness. This is a problem with us. I include myself. We want a permissive and unrighteous Divine Being to loosely allow us to sin ad infinitum.
Anyway, the ark is constructive. The salvation of 8 people and the animals preserved therein is constructive. And the example left us that God will also save the believers in the end in Christ is constructive. Plus the second chance given to mankind after the flood is constructive.
So I think you have no case.
That is really another discussion. That fine tuning discussion presents evidence for intelligent God who is purposeful.
Originally posted by jaywillScience doesn't deal with logical conclusions but hypothesis and proof (as far as I know; correct me if I'm wrong). Unless somebody has actually discovered, or proven, God, all we've got is another elegantly embroidered variation of the old assumption (this stuff works so well that a deity must have got it going). A leap of faith is still required.
Following the present day evidence provided by physics God's existence is a logical conclusion. And following that evidence doesn't reveal "intellectual impoverishment" on the part of those who find it compelling.
Note that I have made a number of assumptions here -- I haven't watched the link -- so if you could point the falsity of my assumptions, you'll interest me enough to watch the video.