Originally posted by lucifershammerHow so? Is it intellectual dishonesty for you to tell us Jesus is God? Can you "prove" it?
If Galileo did not have the time to prove his theory, why was he letting all of Europe know that his theory was true? That's just plain intellectual dishonesty.
Seems you have a different standard for scientists threatened with death for their ideas than for yourself.
Originally posted by no1marauderKepler's laws did not settle the issue of geocentrism vs. heliocentrism in the 1620s and 1630s. Note what Robert Hooke writes in 1674:
Wikipedia says no such thing. It says Brahe's theory was "influential in the late 16th and 17th century". That means it's the dominant theory into the "1700's" like you claimed? Learn how to read.
Kepler's laws in 1621 and his accurate predictions regarding Venus in 1631 ended any real scientific debate about heliocentrism.
EDIT: The Tyc ...[text shortened]... is "world view was not widely accepted". http://www.nada.kth.se/~fred/tycho/index.html
"[The problem of the earth’s mobility] hath much exercised the Wits of our best modern Astronomers and Philosophers, amongst which notwithstanding there hath not been any one who hath found out a certain manifestation either of the one or the other Doctrine"
(Robert Hooke, An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations, (London, 1674), pp. 1, 3. )
While Kepler's laws allowed for the heliocentric model to be used as a working model, the dispute over whether the mathematical model represented physical reality continued. Newton's Law of Gravitation did not settle the matter (it's easy enough to see why if you look at the math) either.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't pretend Jesus' divinity is a matter of science. Galileo claimed his theory was - there's the difference.
How so? Is it intellectual dishonesty for you to tell us Jesus is God? Can you "prove" it?
Seems you have a different standard for scientists threatened with death for their ideas than for yourself.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerShifting the goalposts as usual. You've done a lot of ducking and dodging tonight. I did learn something from perusing the web tonight that I didn't know; the SOB Bellarmine who issued that ridiculous injunction against Galileo teaching his theories was later made a saint! Was eventually sending an old man to prison for trying to spread the truth one of his "miracles"?
I don't pretend Jesus' divinity is a matter of science. Galileo claimed his theory was - there's the difference.
Originally posted by vistesdIt can be quite an indigestible subject.
This has been great fun, but it’s late, and if I have another brandy I’ll bring up the Cathars again! ‘Night guys.
You were both wrong anyway--turns out the people in question called themselves neither Cathars nor Albigensians but Friends of God (Amis de Dieu) or Goodmen (Bonshommes). Oh yes. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
1 edit
For anyone who takes seriously LH's ridiculous assertion that the RCC was just waiting for Galileo to come up with more scientific evidence to support the Copernician system (heliocentric) and then everything would have been hunky dory, here's the report of the Inquistion in 1616:
Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.
Proposition to be assessed:
(1) The sun is the center of the world and wholly immovable of local motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd. philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.
(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but it moves as a whole, also with diurnal motion.
Assessment: All said that this proposition is deserving of the like censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least errouneous in faith.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/scripture.html
As one can clearly see who is not totally brainwashed, it relies solely on Scripture, no scientific objections anywhere to be found.
The site above gives many of the documents regarding the trial of Galileo for those with either a strong stomach or a sympathy for the suppression of ideas on religious grounds.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm looking forward to the denial. Last night was a real show.
For anyone who takes seriously LH's ridiculous assertion that the RCC was just waiting for Galileo to come up with more scientific evidence to support the Copernician system (heliocentric) and then everything would have been hunky dory, here's the report of the Inquistion in 1616:
Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 Februar ...[text shortened]... with either a strong stomach or a sympathy for the suppression of ideas on religious grounds.
Originally posted by no1marauderOne would think that a person of your capacity for cogent thought sufficient enough for argument would at least have some left over for piecing together the gist of LH's assertion.
For anyone who takes seriously LH's ridiculous assertion that the RCC was just waiting for Galileo to come up with more scientific evidence to support the Copernician system (heliocentric) and then everything would have been hunky dory, here's the report of the Inquistion in 1616:
Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 Februar ...[text shortened]... with either a strong stomach or a sympathy for the suppression of ideas on religious grounds.
He is not saying RCC was right; he is not saying Gally's idea was wrong; he is saying Gally's intention of proferring an idea that was not demonstrable is wrong, especially as the idea flew in the face of accepted science and Scriptural interpretation at that time.
IF Gally had an idea that was opposing known science and accepted dogma, he had better bring a demonstration with the same. He failed to do this. For this, Gally was wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBy that logic, so was Einstein, Newton and virtually every scientific innovator "wrong". Of course, none of them were threatened with being burned at the stake for being "wrong".
One would think that a person of your capacity for cogent thought sufficient enough for argument would at least have some left over for piecing together the gist of LH's assertion.
He is not saying RCC was right; he is not saying Gally's idea was wrong; he is saying Gally's intention of proferring an idea that was not demonstrable is wrong, especially a ...[text shortened]... etter bring a demonstration with the same. He failed to do this. For this, Gally was wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut it was all Galileo's fault for being pushy and "meddling in theology". Did you forget to read LH's crap?
And, you forget to read.
No one said RCC was right in their bullying/torture/threat of torture.
From page 6:
Originally posted by no1marauder
Who cares if he could scientifically prove his theory using 1600's technology? That's a ridiculous red herring. The point is he was not even allowed to teach or write about his theories because they were declared heresy by your moronic Church.
It's not a red herring because, if Galileo could have proven his theories, there wouldn't have been a trial in the first place*. If he could not prove his theories then, as a scientist, to assert that his position must be accepted as definitively true by all and sundry was just intellectual dishonesty. If he could not prove his theories, then he had no factual basis on which to pressure the Church to interpret the Scripture in a particular way as he did (which, of course, is precisely what the term "meddling in theology/Scripture" refers to).
The "raped woman shouldn't have been out at 1 AM" argument.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerBTW, Galileo was explictly threatened with torture. From his fourth deposition on June 21, 1633:
3. Do you have any proof for that? Or are you just going to go with "Galileo had heard about Bruno etc."?
4. Really? How many trials did Galileo have? What were the charges brought against him? What did Cardinal Bellarmine (the head of the Roman Inquisition) say about Galileo's thesis before the trial? What were the conditions of Galileo's sentence? ...[text shortened]... questions. But, if you don't, then I seriously suggest you research this aspect of history.
Having been told that from the book itself and the reasons advanced for the affirmative side, namely that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, he is presumed, as it was stated, that he holds Copernicus's opinion, or at least that he held it at the time, therefore he was told that unless he decided to proffer the truth, one would have recourse to the remedies of the law and to appropriate steps against him.
A: I do not hold this opinion of Copernicus, and I have not held it after being ordered by injunction to abandon it. For the rest, here I am in your hands; do as you please.
And he was told to tell the truth; otherwise one would have recourse to torture.
A: I am here to obey, but I have not held this opinion after the determination was made.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/depositions.html