Research on Belief in God

[Christian]

From that story what I gather is that it *was* heresy all along, as far as the Church was concerned, but that they were simply turning a blind eye until Galileo personally ****ed off the Pope. I'm not sure that's better.

For people interested in Galileo and his dealings with the church I can recommend Bertold Brecht's "Life of Galileo". Not sure how historically accurate it is, but a great read nonetheless

 

[Echoes]

At first Echoes' posts are disturbing, but after a while you just have to shake your head and wonder. He gives extremists a bad name. So much hate.

Where is the hate? Someone wants to exterminate all Muslims from Europe but I am the hater? I'm trying as much as I can at my humble level to appease tensions and I'm the hater. Reversed values. World is crazy.


On another note, I see that atheists are still as dogmatic as can be about Galileo. I've given the facts dozens of times on this forum, but they don't really care. KB's post is close to the truth, I think though.

Copernic's works have never been considered heretical, just put into the index. Galileo is a perjurer. He promised to publish his book in Rome but did it in Florence. The Church did the right thing.

The Church has never vetoed the heliocentric model in anyway. They had no reasons to. The only thing is there was no proof at that time and Galileo never gave any rock solid evidence. The evidence came much later. If you want to assess a historical event, you've got to put yourself in the context of the time. At that time, there was no way the heliocentric model could be proven, as simple as that. Galileo's work was full of mistakes.

 

[RetroActive]

If the scientific method is the criteria that must be used then a lot of theoretical physics and astrophysics don't meet the standard. Where's the lab test for dark matter? Where's it been reproduced? That's but one example of many.

There are astrophysicists that admit that there are metaphysical (religious) aspects to their work, I don't understand where the distinction is. Because it's written in the language of maths it's automatically true? There are physicists that say that say that string theory is pure mathematical fantasy. There's no absolute truth by the standards of the scientific method to much of their work. The journey into the unknown continues, that's the most interesting aspect to me.

The electric universe theory is interesting too. Many in that community have some interesting questions for the big bang theorists (but are ignored).

People like to believe there are answers to these interesting questions we can pose, we like a soothing story whether it's a religious story or a scientific story. What's the Truth? Will we be able to measure it in a purely quantitative way or are there qualitative aspects that will defy precision? I think there's room for both the scientific method and metaphysical speculation, dogmatism in any form is the real error. We're only approaching this in our limited ape shape ways regardless, geez, let's not get carried away with ourselves.

 

[Christian]

Of course scientific theories are not automatically true because they are written "in mathematic language" and no scientist would ever claim such a thing.

They are tested by experiments until proven true or false... and if proven false they are disgarded. This is a very good thing, any theory that is proven wrong is of great value to the progress of science. But until sufficiently put to the test, it is considered a theory. Sometimes theories are thought to be right until someone finds new evidence and are then disgarded.

No religious person would ever consider god a theory - god is the Truth with a capitol T, regardless of what new evidence may surface.

 

[King Boonen]

From that story what I gather is that it *was* heresy all along, as far as the Church was concerned, but that they were simply turning a blind eye until Galileo personally ****ed off the Pope. I'm not sure that's better.

Basically yes, if hadn't decided to take the **** out of the Pope he would have been fine. And ****ing off the Pope was a pretty bloody stupid thing to do.

 

[Christian]

And ****ing off the Pope was a pretty bloody stupid thing to do.

Defying or complying with those in power, that is the question.

 

[RetroActive]

Of course scientific theories are not automatically true because they are written "in mathematic language" and no scientist would ever claim such a thing.

They are tested by experiments until proven true or false... and if proven false they are disgarded. This is a very good thing, any theory that is proven wrong is of great value to the progress of science. But until sufficiently put to the test, it is considered a theory. Sometimes theories are thought to be right until someone finds new evidence and are then disgarded.

No religious person would ever consider god a theory - god is the Truth with a capitol T, regardless of what new evidence may surface.

Tell this fella'.

Seriously. You must be out of your Fraking mind.
You are always looking for negatives to impose your prejudicial views.
My post was an observation based on the scientific method that so far is proving that what we know i.e. the big bang theory [ not the tv show ]
is true and if you try and equate that science to the existence of a super natural "god" being that is based around our tiny and I mean fraking tiny existence then its just , for a better word "Bonkers"

Big Mac. I meant to say milky way.

Many of these theories are untestable but are taken as true in everyday conversation.

Who knows, maybe Rupert Sheldrake is on the right path with his "morphic resonance".

 

[King Boonen]

Defying or complying with those in power, that is the question.

He didn't even have to fully comply. He had a later that stated he was forced to renounce his work so he could defend the reason he did it. Urban VIII even let him publish Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems, all he had to do was not ridicule the most powerful man in the world...

 

[Christian]

All this got me thinking about an old acquaintance of mine who keeps posting a lot about her new age pantheistic views on facebook. I have to say, that is some class A bullsh*t right there. It's like a mixture of elements from various religions, superstitions and some superficial sciency-stuff thrown in. But passed off as science. I know it's pretty harmless but just really annoying.

Has anyone else encountered this type of new spiritualism? I figure there is no reason us atheists and monotheists can't come together and make fun of these pantheist nutbags

Here is an article that she posted from a website called "Spirit Science and Metaphysics" rolleyes: ) to illustrate what I am talking about:

7 Signs That The Law Of Attraction Is Working For You

 

[The Hitch]

Nope, I don't really have an explanation for the question. It baffles me why otherwise intelligent people continue to think that this somewhat silly question is a serious problem for theistic belief. Clearly Christians and almost all theists nowadays don't believe in a created god. So the answer is quite simple; none created God, God is eternal. Eternal things - unlike our universe, which we know for a fact to be finite rather than eternal - don't warrant the question "what is the cause of this thing?"

If you have a theory that claims to explain everything i would expect you to be able to explain this most obvious question

Oops no explanation. Another hole in the ultra arrogant theory that is Christianity.

 

[RetroActive]

All this got me thinking about an old acquaintance of mine who keeps posting a lot about her new age pantheistic views on facebook. I have to say, that is some class A bullsh*t right there. It's like a mixture of elements from various religions, superstitions and some superficial sciency-stuff thrown in. But passed off as science. I know it's pretty harmless but just really annoying.

Has anyone else encountered this type of new spiritualism? I figure there is no reason us atheists and monotheists can't come together and make fun of these pantheist nutbags

Here is an article that she posted from a website called "Spirit Science and Metaphysics" rolleyes: ) to illustrate what I am talking about:

7 Signs That The Law Of Attraction Is Working For You

Quantum physicists were very upset about what they discovered too. Damn, this mystical **** again. I don't know, do you know? If you actually understand magnetic fields (for instance) science has been waiting for you!

Your friend has posted some garbage therefore it's all garbage. Interesting.

 

[Merckx index]

Basically yes, if hadn't decided to take the **** out of the Pope he would have been fine. And ****ing off the Pope was a pretty bloody stupid thing to do.

Sounds like he had it coming to him?

I’m not very familiar with the Galileo case, and I’m not going to challenge the version of events you, and earlier, Echoes, have presented. But assuming it’s mostly correct, it raises a couple of questions for me:

1) If the Pope had no problem with the heliocentric model, why did Galileo refer to him as Simplicus? Surely that implies that the Pope’s views were quite opposed to heliocentrism?
2) If Galileo’s mistake was just to insult the Pope, why did the latter insist he recant? Why not just demand an apology, perhaps an admission that there were other views, rather than specifically requiring Galileo to take back his view of heliocentrism?

My take on this is that the Church was indeed strongly opposed to heliocentrism, but didn’t feel the need to come down hard on people who advocated it, as long as they did so fairly quietly and respectfully, suggesting it as an alternative view, rather than emphasizing that the Church was wrong. Rather like today’s advocates of Intelligent Design, who deny evolution, but whose goal is just that it be taught as an alternative view of our origins.

If that’s the case, I see an interesting parallel with Charlie Hebdo. For my money, Sam Harris’s criticisms of Islam are far more devastating than any cartoon could ever be. I don’t agree with him entirely, but I would be far more willing to risk my life to defend his freedom to write than I would CH’s freedom to publish cartoons. This, to me, is a far more precious example of free speech than a cartoon is. I really don’t think liberal society is threatened if certain kinds of cartoons are just not published. I very much do think it’s threatened if books like Harris’, which pull no punches, are not published.

But to the best of my knowledge, no attempts on Harris’ life have ever been made. Why not?

One reason, of course, is that cartoons circulate far more widely than most books, particularly when the book is written in a language not accessible to most jihadists. A cartoon can be reprinted anywhere, and even without translation, its basic message may be apparent to everyone, often even children. It takes a little more effort and maturity to get the message of a book.

But I think it’s also a matter of respect. Harris ridicules Islam, but he does it on a purely intellectual level. He calls it the mother lode of bad ideas, but—and this is a distinction anyone in this forum should be familiar with—he’s playing the ball, not the man. He’s not saying that either Mohammed or the people who follow him are idiots. He’s attacking their beliefs, not they themselves. Many Islamic societies will not tolerate even this in their own countries, but they will tolerate it when it occurs in other countries.

Galileo, like Hebdo, I think, was playing the man. He was insulting the Pope. But this doesn’t mean that the Pope was fine with the heliocentric model. It just means that when you get the Pope mad enough, the basic source of his anger—a challenge to the Church’s views—comes to the surface.

Playing the man is a recipe for inflaming a situation. I’m not saying magazines like Hebdo shouldn’t have the right to do this, but I am questioning whether this is the best use of their resources. The question is, what is their ultimate goal? If it’s to convince people that fundamentalist or literalist Islam, like any other fundamentalist religion, is a bad idea, then probably cartoons are not the best way to go. Because to get beyond fundamentalist religion, you have to have some intelligence and open-mindedness, and cartoons, appealing to the lowest common denominator, don’t require this. It seems to me that they just preach to the converted.

I may be wrong about this, but if I am, it means that such cartoons have played a major role in changing people’s minds about religion. I would like to see evidence that they have.

******

When the Pope was in Manila, a young girl asked him why God allowed such girls to become involved with prostitution and drugs. If the Pope had been honest, dedicated to truth, he would have answered, because the kind of God the Church teaches about, who can hear and respond to the prayers of individuals, doesn’t exist. We can argue about a higher intelligence, but there is no Big Daddy in the Sky.

*******

Many of these theories are untestable but are taken as true in everyday conversation.

String theory is largely untestable, but I don’t know any physicist who accepts it as true, and the great majority, I think, reject it in large part just because it isn’t testable.

Who knows, maybe Rupert Sheldrake is on the right path with his "morphic resonance".

There really is no evidence supporting Sheldrake’s claims. The examples he provides, e.g., protein folding, certain developmental processes, can be adequately explained in current scientific terms. And it’s often not appreciated that Sheldrake’s theory is really quite conservative. It doesn’t explain how new forms of life emerge, it just provides an additional edge to natural selection of favorable forms.

 

[RetroActive]

in Manila, a young girl asked him why God allowed such girls to become involved with prostitution and drugs. If the Pope had been honest, dedicated to truth, he would have answered, because the kind of God the Church teaches about, who can hear and respond to the prayers of individuals, doesn’t exist. We can argue about a higher intelligence, but there is no Big Daddy in the Sky

*******



String theory is largely untestable, but I don’t know any physicist who accepts it as true, and the great majority, I think, reject it in large part just because it isn’t testable.



There really is no evidence supporting Sheldrake’s claims. The examples he provides, e.g., protein folding, certain developmental processes, can be adequately explained in current scientific terms. And it’s often not appreciated that Sheldrake’s theory is really quite conservative. It doesn’t explain how new forms of life emerge, it just provides an additional edge to natural selection of favorable forms.

I agree with the bolded. The higher intelligence aspect (consciousness) of Sheldrake's morphic resonance is where he gets in trouble I think. If I start contemplating the electric universe theory (plasma physics), morphic resonance and even epigenetics my mind starts imagining subtler energetic fields in a panentheistic way. Evidence, no, but it's interesting to think about now and again.
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

String theory was just one example. People are exploring some mind bending stuff but how it relates to reality (whatever that is) is ?????

I'm watching Feynman try to explain QED to the layman (me). "I don't understand it either but this is how it works (apparently)". Fun stuff.

 

[rhubroma]

Sounds like he had it coming to him?

I’m not very familiar with the Galileo case, and I’m not going to challenge the version of events you, and earlier, Echoes, have presented. But assuming it’s mostly correct, it raises a couple of questions for me:

1) If the Pope had no problem with the heliocentric model, why did Galileo refer to him as Simplicus? Surely that implies that the Pope’s views were quite opposed to heliocentrism?
2) If Galileo’s mistake was just to insult the Pope, why did the latter insist he recant? Why not just demand an apology, perhaps an admission that there were other views, rather than specifically requiring Galileo to take back his view of heliocentrism?

My take on this is that the Church was indeed strongly opposed to heliocentrism, but didn’t feel the need to come down hard on people who advocated it, as long as they did so fairly quietly and respectfully, suggesting it as an alternative view, rather than emphasizing that the Church was wrong. Rather like today’s advocates of Intelligent Design, who deny evolution, but whose goal is just that it be taught as an alternative view of our origins.

If that’s the case, I see an interesting parallel with Charlie Hebdo. For my money, Sam Harris’s criticisms of Islam are far more devastating than any cartoon could ever be. I don’t agree with him entirely, but I would be far more willing to risk my life to defend his freedom to write than I would CH’s freedom to publish cartoons. This, to me, is a far more precious example of free speech than a cartoon is. I really don’t think liberal society is threatened if certain kinds of cartoons are just not published. I very much do think it’s threatened if books like Harris’, which pull no punches, are not published.

But to the best of my knowledge, no attempts on Harris’ life have ever been made. Why not?

One reason, of course, is that cartoons circulate far more widely than most books, particularly when the book is written in a language not accessible to most jihadists. A cartoon can be reprinted anywhere, and even without translation, its basic message may be apparent to everyone, often even children. It takes a little more effort and maturity to get the message of a book.

But I think it’s also a matter of respect. Harris ridicules Islam, but he does it on a purely intellectual level. He calls it the mother lode of bad ideas, but—and this is a distinction anyone in this forum should be familiar with—he’s playing the ball, not the man. He’s not saying that either Mohammed or the people who follow him are idiots. He’s attacking their beliefs, not they themselves. Many Islamic societies will not tolerate even this in their own countries, but they will tolerate it when it occurs in other countries.

Galileo, like Hebdo, I think, was playing the man. He was insulting the Pope. But this doesn’t mean that the Pope was fine with the heliocentric model. It just means that when you get the Pope mad enough, the basic source of his anger—a challenge to the Church’s views—comes to the surface.

Playing the man is a recipe for inflaming a situation. I’m not saying magazines like Hebdo shouldn’t have the right to do this, but I am questioning whether this is the best use of their resources. The question is, what is their ultimate goal? If it’s to convince people that fundamentalist or literalist Islam, like any other fundamentalist religion, is a bad idea, then probably cartoons are not the best way to go. Because to get beyond fundamentalist religion, you have to have some intelligence and open-mindedness, and cartoons, appealing to the lowest common denominator, don’t require this. It seems to me that they just preach to the converted.

I may be wrong about this, but if I am, it means that such cartoons have played a major role in changing people’s minds about religion. I would like to see evidence that they have.

******

When the Pope was in Manila, a young girl asked him why God allowed such girls to become involved with prostitution and drugs. If the Pope had been honest, dedicated to truth, he would have answered, because the kind of God the Church teaches about, who can hear and respond to the prayers of individuals, doesn’t exist. We can argue about a higher intelligence, but there is no Big Daddy in the Sky.

*******



String theory is largely untestable, but I don’t know any physicist who accepts it as true, and the great majority, I think, reject it in large part just because it isn’t testable.



There really is no evidence supporting Sheldrake’s claims. The examples he provides, e.g., protein folding, certain developmental processes, can be adequately explained in current scientific terms. And it’s often not appreciated that Sheldrake’s theory is really quite conservative. It doesn’t explain how new forms of life emerge, it just provides an additional edge to natural selection of favorable forms.

Firstly don't use anything that Echoes is writing as having any basis in truth. The Roman Church was much more open to science and ecumenical in its historical perspective, as a result of humanism's rediscovery of antiquity, until the Lutheran controversy that gave rise to the Counter Reformation and Council of Trent. At this point religious "purity" (over ecumenicalism), censorship and doctrinal fervor became the order of the day.

If in Copernicus' day the Church could tolerate (or rather at least not be openly hostile towards) the heliocentric theory, after Trent it decidedly could not. Why? Because the protestant movements upset Catholic universality permanently, irrevocably took power from the Church, for which the reactionary, anti-modern response was inevitable on the part of Rome - which continued, unabatedly, into the XIX and XX centuries. So just as the Jerome Latin vulgate was now the only acceptable basis for forming scriptural exegesis (in other words not too, for example, Ficinian pia philosophia and teologia poetica), Aristotle's geocentric theory of the cosmos, to which the medieval church dogmatically adhered, became unchallengeable. This is what got Galileo in trouble, for which he was first censored, then placed under house arrest. For if the world was no longer a the center of the universe, how could humanity be central to God's plan for salvation?

Before Galileo, of course, you had the case of the philosopher/heretic Giordano Bruno who suffered an even worse fate at the hands of the Catholic Inquisition, his ultimate destiny on the stake at Campo dei Fiori having been sealed by the same Bellarmine who would soon silence Galileo.

That Galileo's punishment was not justifiable, against what Echoes stupidly claims, is totally confirmed by, almost 400 years later, Pope John Paul II making an official apology (with great difficulty no doubt, but officially).

The comparison, however, between Galileo's theory and so called Intelligent Design, is misleading. For Galileo's intentions to show that the a$$es (to use Bruno's terminology) among the Catholic clergy were wrong, rested upon the most modern scientific means: theoretical mathematics and empirical analysis, however flawed and fallible. By contrast the promoters of "Intelligent Design" today among the intelligentsia reside within the clerical camp of Galileo's times. This is fundamental, of course, since the "alternative view" before the establishment to which Galileo espoused, has nothing to do with the alternative view of today's a$$es that deny evolution.

Lastly I'm not sure why you find Charlie Hebdo's positions on, not Islam, but radical, fanatical, archaic Islamismo, would be any less worthy to defend in terms of the legal state and its codes?

 

[Christian]

One reason, of course, is that cartoons circulate far more widely than most books, particularly when the book is written in a language not accessible to most jihadists. A cartoon can be reprinted anywhere, and even without translation, its basic message may be apparent to everyone, often even children. It takes a little more effort and maturity to get the message of a book.

Not sure about this. Charlie Hebdo had a weekly run of 60.000 copies. That is nothing. Harris' books have probably been sold much more than this, maybe even translated into other languages (I would assume they have). But I agree - a cartoon appeals to basic emotions whereas you have to go through the trouble of reading a book first to then try and figure out how you feel about it.

It is wrong to think that Charlie Hebdo has been a weekly offense to billions of muslims. With such a small run, it was virtually a non-issue. I am sure that 98% of muslims in France lived their lives utterly unconcerned by this. The same counts for the three caricatures burried inside a danish paper. No one had heard about this, no one would have even known about it if it hadn't been for the fascists blowing it way out of proportion.

The error is to think that terrorists care about these comics, or that they would not terrorize free societies if it wasn't for comics like these. The comics are only an excuse, and if they didn't exist they would find some other reason to terrorize - they're terrorists, that's what they do. You cannot win with these people, there is nothing to negotiate with fascists.

And what about Salman Rushdie? He wrote a book, didn't do him any good.

He’s not saying that either Mohammed or the people who follow him are idiots. He’s attacking their beliefs, not they themselves. Many Islamic societies will not tolerate even this in their own countries, but they will tolerate it when it occurs in other countries.

Galileo, like Hebdo, I think, was playing the man.

I don't think Charlie Hebdo was playing the man. They did not make Mohammed out to be an idiot, nor all muslims. I can only repeat what is to me their most iconic drawing: a desperate looking Mohammed holding his hands in front of his face (so you can't see it!!), saying "It's tough to be loved by idiots". The caption reads: "Mohammed overwhelmed by the fundamentalists". In no way does this suggest that Mohammed is an idiot (actually the opposite), nor that every muslim is an idiot. It says fundamentalists are idiots, which is just calling a spade a spade.

Playing the man is a recipe for inflaming a situation. I’m not saying magazines like Hebdo shouldn’t have the right to do this, but I am questioning whether this is the best use of their resources. The question is, what is their ultimate goal? If it’s to convince people that fundamentalist or literalist Islam, like any other fundamentalist religion, is a bad idea, then probably cartoons are not the best way to go. Because to get beyond fundamentalist religion, you have to have some intelligence and open-mindedness, and cartoons, appealing to the lowest common denominator, don’t require this. It seems to me that they just preach to the converted.

Of course Charlie Hebdo was never going to convince a fundamentalist to say "You know what, maybe this actually isn't that good of an idea". It is pointless to appeal to these people with rationality. But what is the goal, or what is the point? rhubroma put it well a few weeks ago: there is no better therapy than to laugh at the absurd and the terrifying. It is cathartic.

I may be wrong about this, but if I am, it means that such cartoons have played a major role in changing people’s minds about religion. I would like to see evidence that they have.

I don't know if many people change their mind about religion after reading Harris or Hitchens... I'm sure some have but I would assume that it's only a minority. Few religious people would pick up such books in the first place, which is understandable since many of us would never pick up a "Proof of Heaven" type book. Just as most religious people didn't read Charlie Hebdo and none of us read the Jehovas Witnesses newspaper, except sometimes for a good laugh

 

[Echoes]

If I were to paraphrase Adrien Abauzit, I'd use the quote "Titanic was a plane" in order to describe what the atheists are claiming here. The realities do not exist. They write history. They control the past and hence control the future.

No, the Church was not strongly opposed to the heliocentric model, I said it time and again, they accepted the hypotheses with great interest. There's no theological reason to reject it, they had never taught an astronomic model in an infallible.

Fact is that Galileo had a gigantic ego and never accepted the fact the Saint Office didn't consider his model as evidence while it was full of mistakes. This idiot still believed in the circular planet movement while Kepler - a true genius, him - had already proved the movement was elliptic. He insulted the Pope because the latter refused to recognise his "genius" (besides it was all in the context of the Thirty Year War), period. Kepler's model was already taught in some Jesuit colleges, by the way.

Galileo never discovered anything and never proved anything. It's easy in 2015 to claim that he was right (about the earth revolving around the sun, I mean, because he was wrong about many things) but in the 17th century, there was no evidence at all. The experimental evidence came much later...

In 1616 he promised never claim his hypotheses were evidence and he promised to publish his books in Rome but in 1632, for the Dialogue he got the Imprimatur in Florence. It's perjury. When you give your word, you keep it. I have no problem with the decision that the Church took.

 

[rhubroma]

If I were to paraphrase Adrien Abauzit, I'd use the quote "Titanic was a plane" in order to describe what the atheists are claiming here. The realities do not exist. They write history. They control the past and hence control the future.

No, the Church was not strongly opposed to the heliocentric model, I said it time and again, they accepted the hypotheses with great interest. There's no theological reason to reject it, they had never taught an astronomic model in an infallible.

Fact is that Galileo had a gigantic ego and never accepted the fact the Saint Office didn't consider his model as evidence while it was full of mistakes. This idiot still believed in the circular planet movement while Kepler - a true genius, him - had already proved the movement was elliptic. He insulted the Pope because the latter refused to recognise his "genius" (besides it was all in the context of the Thirty Year War), period. Kepler's model was already taught in some Jesuit colleges, by the way.

Galileo never discovered anything and never proved anything. It's easy in 2015 to claim that he was right (about the earth revolving around the sun, I mean, because he was wrong about many things) but in the 17th century, there was no evidence at all. The experimental evidence came much later...

In 1616 he promised never claim his hypotheses were evidence and he promised to publish his books in Rome but in 1632, for the Dialogue he got the Imprimatur in Florence. It's perjury. When you give your word, you keep it. I have no problem with the decision that the Church took.

You negate the evidence from the outcome Inquisition hearing and his own, forced, recantation:

I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.

I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.

The Pisan was under threat of suffering torture and execution. The Roman Church denounced the heliocentric model as heresy. You have no clue about what you are talking about, which makes it all the more inane and idiotic.

 

[Echoes]

I should believe him if he says so. What imbecility.

 

[hrotha]

I should believe him if he says so. What imbecility.

You're aware that, in an Inquisitional trial, the recantation would be approved, if not outright written and then presented to the accused to sign, by the judges, right? In other words, that right there is more representative of the views of the Church than of Galileo.

 

[ray j willings]

Tell this fella'.


Many of these theories are untestable but are taken as true in everyday conversation.

Who knows, maybe Rupert Sheldrake is on the right path with his "morphic resonance".

What a load of nonsense, Don't cloud the issue and try and paint a picture that is not there. Scientists have proved through things like the speed of light

"which can be measured between 2 fixed points" how old our universe is.
We have even mapped out our universe.
We can tell through various observations that the universe is inflating/expanding.
Many of the theories as you have stated are fact. The work done in CERN also confirms that we are close to understanding how our universe came to be.
Not theories facts.
We have facts and evidence that makes sense of our we came to be.
You just rely on a fictional deity , one of many by the way . to fill in the questions that you cannot answer or will not except the evidence in front of your eyes. Noahs ark is a perfect example of how belief brainwashes people to believe such nonsense. One religious nut even suggested that Noah only took the small dinosoaurs aboard so they would fit ,,,,what

Here is just a few Gods that people believed in
Thor
Odin
Tyr
Anansi
Abassi
Eshu
Isis
Bast
Set
Aran
Brigit
Dagda
Turan

There are hundreds
I mean there are so many Gods that people believe/believed in yet you opt to choose your one and dismiss all the other gods as being false ones.
What makes your choice of god the right one? Is that not due to your upbringing and the social arena you mix in.
Think about it. if you were born a Muslim you would believe in different God.
How does that make your God the true God?

Now Back to factual debate, can any believer tell my why god would inflate the universe?

 

[rhubroma]

You're aware that, in an Inquisitional trial, the recantation would be approved, if not outright written and then presented to the accused to sign, by the judges, right? In other words, that right there is more representative of the views of the Church than of Galileo.

Bingo of course.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

If you have a theory that claims to explain everything i would expect you to be able to explain this most obvious question

Oops no explanation. Another hole in the ultra arrogant theory that is Christianity.

Whoever told you religion is a theory that claims to explain everything? That's certainly not how I would describe my religion.

Besides, I already gave you an explanation. Maybe you find it unsatisfactory or maybe you have some other issues with the idea of God, but the question "Who created the creator?" in reference to the God of theistic belief, shows that you fail to grasp a very basic notion of the idea you are trying to attack. As I said; God is eternal. Eternal things don't have a beginning, so there isn't anything that caused it to be. Therefore the creator, if he is indeed eternal, is obviously not created. If you ask the question "who created the creator?" you are already presupposing that the creator is in fact created, which most theists do not believe. It's really not that complicated.

Now Back to factual debate, can any believer tell my why god would inflate the universe?

Nope, I don't know why God would create the universe with inflation. Knowing exactly what motivated God in creating the universe exactly the way he did isn't really something anybody claims to know. It might be interesting to know for sure, but it's not really a part of religion.

 

[Echoes]

The recantation was not written by the judges but by Galileo himself and yeah he didn't understand anything at why he was arrested. He acted like a crybaby. The proof is that he switched side straightway, claimed that geocentrism was right and propose to give evidence for it. Lol! We should remember that 9 out of the 10 cardinals + the Pope himself believed in the heliocentric model and in Kepler's laws - only there was no proof yet -, so they sure did not want any proof for the geocentric model. Of course, you'd deny these facts but what do I care, read the report of the trial and you'll see.

Galileo got arrested because he was a perjurer and obtained an Imprimatur in Florence by fraud. Case closed. The arrest was justified. The sentence was even very mild. End of story.

Edit: oh I forgot, just one more thing. The threat of torture is bullsh*t, entirely made up by atheists. He was 72 and above 60 years of age, you no longer risk torture at that time.

 

[RetroActive]

What a load of nonsense, Don't cloud the issue and try and paint a picture that is not there. Scientists have proved through things like the speed of light

"which can be measured between 2 fixed points" how old our universe is.
We have even mapped out our universe.
We can tell through various observations that the universe is inflating/expanding.
Many of the theories as you have stated are fact. The work done in CERN also confirms that we are close to understanding how our universe came to be.
Not theories facts.
We have facts and evidence that makes sense of our we came to be.
You just rely on a fictional deity , one of many by the way . to fill in the questions that you cannot answer or will not except the evidence in front of your eyes. Noahs ark is a perfect example of how belief brainwashes people to believe such nonsense. One religious nut even suggested that Noah only took the small dinosoaurs aboard so they would fit ,,,,what

Here is just a few Gods that people believed in
Thor
Odin
Tyr
Anansi
Abassi
Eshu
Isis
Bast
Set
Aran
Brigit
Dagda
Turan

There are hundreds
I mean there are so many Gods that people believe/believed in yet you opt to choose your one and dismiss all the other gods as being false ones.
What makes your choice of god the right one? Is that not due to your upbringing and the social arena you mix in.
Think about it. if you were born a Muslim you would believe in different God.
How does that make your God the true God?

Now Back to factual debate, can any believer tell my why god would inflate the universe?

You're badly oversimplifying all of Cosmology with your 'facts', you take things as absolute that are still being debated in the scientific community. They're still trying to understand but you've closed the case.

 

[ray j willings]

Whoever told you religion is a theory that claims to explain everything? That's certainly not how I would describe my religion.

Besides, I already gave you an explanation. Maybe you find it unsatisfactory or maybe you have some other issues with the idea of God, but the question "Who created the creator?" in reference to the God of theistic belief, shows that you fail to grasp a very basic notion of the idea you are trying to attack. As I said; God is eternal. Eternal things don't have a beginning, so there isn't anything that caused it to be. Therefore the creator, if he is indeed eternal, is obviously not created. If you ask the question "who created the creator?" you are already presupposing that the creator is in fact created, which most theists do not believe. It's really not that complicated.



Nope, I don't know why God would create the universe with inflation. Knowing exactly what motivated God in creating the universe exactly the way he did isn't really something anybody claims to know. It might be interesting to know for sure, but it's not really a part of religion.

Once again when a believer cannot answer a question he/she replies I don't know why god did that.
Its simple god did not inflate the universe because there is no such thing as god and no evidence or proof for a god. Inflation we know is fact because we use the scientific method which proves this.