The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Grenartia]

Yet, the thing that got him on the Catholic radar was his cosmological hypotheses.

1. Not true, the thing that got him on the Catholic radar was becoming a priest. What got him in hot water with the Inquisition was defending heresies as a priest.

Also, where is the proof that these other heresies were not manufactured or otherwise exaggerated by his persecutors?

2. Where's the proof that they were?

1. And then the water cooled off, he lived his life arguing his cosmological hypotheses, and then returned to Italy to teach, and got betrayed on the basis of his hypotheses.

2. Its well known that such things happened in other cases. As such, there's reason to doubt the legitimacy of the Inquisition's arguments and evidence against him.

[Lord Dominator]

Regarding Bruno from the Wikipedia article, underlining mine. I think the fourth underlining is perhaps the most important one here.

Other scholars oppose such views, and claim Bruno's martyrdom to science to be exaggerated, or outright false. For Yates, while "nineteenth century liberals" were thrown "into ecstasies" over Bruno's Copernicanism, "Bruno pushes Copernicus' scientific work back into a prescientific stage, back into Hermetism, interpreting the Copernican diagram as a hieroglyph of divine mysteries."[57]

According to historian Mordechai Feingold, "Both admirers and critics of Giordano Bruno basically agree that he was pompous and arrogant, highly valuing his opinions and showing little patience with anyone who even mildly disagreed with him." Discussing Bruno's experience of rejection when he visited Oxford University, Feingold suggests that "it might have been Bruno's manner, his language and his self-assertiveness, rather than his ideas" that caused offence.[58]
Theological heresyEdit

In his Lectures on the History of Philosophy Hegel writes that Bruno's life represented "a bold rejection of all Catholic beliefs resting on mere authority."[59]

Alfonso Ingegno states that Bruno's philosophy "challenges the developments of the Reformation, calls into question the truth-value of the whole of Christianity, and claims that Christ perpetrated a deceit on mankind... Bruno suggests that we can now recognize the universal law which controls the perpetual becoming of all things in an infinite universe."[60] A. M. Paterson says that, while we no longer have a copy of the official papal condemnation of Bruno, his heresies included "the doctrine of the infinite universe and the innumerable worlds" and his beliefs "on the movement of the earth".[61]

Michael White notes that the Inquisition may have pursued Bruno early in his life on the basis of his opposition to Aristotle, interest in Arianism, reading of Erasmus, and possession of banned texts.[62] White considers that Bruno's later heresy was "multifaceted" and may have rested on his conception of infinite worlds. "This was perhaps the most dangerous notion of all... If other worlds existed with intelligent beings living there, did they too have their visitations? The idea was quite unthinkable."[62]

Frances Yates rejects what she describes as the "legend that Bruno was prosecuted as a philosophical thinker, was burned for his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth." Yates however writes that "the Church was... perfectly within its rights if it included philosophical points in its condemnation of Bruno's heresies" because "the philosophical points were quite inseparable from the heresies."[63]

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[64]

[Tarsonis]

1. Not true, the thing that got him on the Catholic radar was becoming a priest. What got him in hot water with the Inquisition was defending heresies as a priest.



2. Where's the proof that they were?

1. And then the water cooled off, he lived his life arguing his cosmological hypotheses, and then returned to Italy to teach, and got betrayed on the basis of his hypotheses.

2. Its well known that such things happened in other cases. As such, there's reason to doubt the legitimacy of the Inquisition's arguments and evidence against him.

" Among the numerous charges of blasphemy and heresy brought against him in Venice, based on Mocenigo's denunciation, was his belief in the plurality of worlds, as well as accusations of personal misconduct. "

Among

[Grenartia]

I'd like to point out that the Big Bang does not really posit that all the matter and energy in the universe came from nothing, simply that an infinitesmal point (I.E., a singularity, though not necessarily a black hole) containing all of the matter and energy in the universe rapidly expanded some 13 billion years ago.

And that singularity came from.....?

The official scientific thought on the matter can be summed up in the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton, when asked about the source of the gravitational force he described in Principia:

I frame no hypotheses

[Lost Memories]

We don't know. Perhaps the collapse of a previous universe. Perhaps a quantum event in a parallel universe. Perhaps a god. We really don't know (but please don't hedge your bets exclusively on the third option and assume that of all possible gods it is the Judeo-Christian god, or the god any religion is centred around)

And those things came from? and then Those things came from? You see what I'm getting at? This isn't an argument of natural science but of reason. Go back and read my post.

There is a saying which goes "Don't debate with fools, they'll drag you to their level and beat you with their experience"
And so far CTM didn't show any sign of realizing they're utterly ignorant of the subject they want to have a critic about. But hope is the last to die.

And finally, even if they weren't embellished, the fact remains that the Catholic Church was still clearly in the wrong for persecuting him, to say nothing of his utterly barbaric method of execution (which itself ignores the fact that execution itself is barbaric) in the first place.

How do you think revolutionaries, traitors and otherwise destabilizing or insurgent figures were treated in any other kingdom or state at the time of Giordano Bruno? (or how are terrorists, dictators and coup activists treated today, when they face justice)
Not much different from how heretics were treated, maybe because they're sort of the same thing.
The magic and heresy were just the face of a body of social unrest and disorder.

[New haven america]

I'd like to point out that the Big Bang does not really posit that all the matter and energy in the universe came from nothing, simply that an infinitesmal point (I.E., a singularity, though not necessarily a black hole) containing all of the matter and energy in the universe rapidly expanded some 13 billion years ago.

And that singularity came from.....?

I'd like to point out that the person who observed the expanding universe and created the Big Bang was a priest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Also, if you've ever read up on how God created the Universe (This would require knowledge in Jewish creation stories), then heheheh, there are a lot of similarities between it and the Big Bang...

[Grenartia]

And finally, even if they weren't embellished, the fact remains that the Catholic Church was still clearly in the wrong for persecuting him, to say nothing of his utterly barbaric method of execution (which itself ignores the fact that execution itself is barbaric) in the first place.

How do you think revolutionaries, traitors and otherwise destabilizing or insurgent figures were treated in any other kingdom or state at the time of Giordano Bruno? (or how are terrorists, dictators and coup activists treated today, when they face justice)
Not much different from how heretics were treated, maybe because they're sort of the same thing.
The magic and heresy were just the face of a body of social unrest and disorder.

They are the same thing, in effect. Dissidents. And you're pointing this out as if I'm automatically ok with the treatment you describe said other dissidents receiving.

[Northern Davincia]

1. Polytheists have gods that can be wounded, age, die, or even disagree in spite of having far more knowledge than mortals. Poseidon was unable to stop Odysseus from reaching Ithaca despite putting a curse on him. Occam's Razor helps me deduce that these feeble gods are not worth my time nor my prayers. You misunderstand the Islamic belief; according to Muslims, Jesus wasn't present for the crucifixion whatsoever.
2. Has an equal amount of matter and antimatter been observed?

1. Is this an attempt to patch the false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager?
2. Not on a macro level, there is an imbalance between matter and antimatter. However, on the quantum level, empty space itself is churning with virtual particles and virtual antiparticles appearing and annihilating each other. Normally, every particle and antiparticle travels towards each other and annihilates (however at the singularity of a black hole the particles will be separated, so some virtual particles and antiparticles will become real particles, thus taking mass from the black hole - this is known as Hawking radiation)

I wasn't thinking of Pascal's Wager, but now that you mention it, I'll end up in Hades or be reincarnated regardless if I worship pagan gods. Might as well worship the one that offers eternal life. :^)

[Tarsonis]

And that singularity came from.....?

The official scientific thought on the matter can be summed up in the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton, when asked about the source of the gravitational force he described in Principia:

I frame no hypotheses

And that singularity came from.....?

I'd like to point out that the person who hypothesized the Big Bang was a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître]priest[/url]

Also, if you've ever read up on how God created the Universe (This would require knowledge in Jewish creation stories), then heheheh, there are a lot of similarities between it and the Big Bang...

[Lost Memories]

How do you think revolutionaries, traitors and otherwise destabilizing or insurgent figures were treated in any other kingdom or state at the time of Giordano Bruno? (or how are terrorists, dictators and coup activists treated today, when they face justice)
Not much different from how heretics were treated, maybe because they're sort of the same thing.
The magic and heresy were just the face of a body of social unrest and disorder.

They are the same thing, in effect. Dissidents. And you're pointing this out as if I'm automatically ok with the treatment you describe said other dissidents receiving.

I'm not assuming you're ok with it, nor I am, it was a different time, you have to understand it in its own context.

[Northern Davincia]

Bruno wasn't really a scientist, he had a fever dream one night and tried to assert it as truth. He was literally laughed out of Cambridge for his assertions. The fact that he was ultimately right was luck, not rigor.

Secondly his execution for heresy had very little if nothing to do with his cosmological model.

He wasn't, as you imply, some random guy who had a fever dream and went out like some homeless guy on a street corner yelling incoherent rambling. He was an educated man, and used logic to defend his hypotheses. Plenty of times, scientific inspirations have come from rather unscientific places (Einstein's insights about Relativity, for instance, came from daydreaming while working at the patent office). The genetic argument doesn't really apply here, since he did make an honest and sincere effort at justifying himself.

What evidence was available in Bruno's time in favor of exoplanets and stars being like our sun? Einstein had proof of relativity.

[Lord Dominator]

The official scientific thought on the matter can be summed up in the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton, when asked about the source of the gravitational force he described in Principia:

I'd like to point out that the person who hypothesized the Big Bang was a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître]priest[/url]

Also, if you've ever read up on how God created the Universe (This would require knowledge in Jewish creation stories), then heheheh, there are a lot of similarities between it and the Big Bang...

Thank you for that wonderful gif. It shall nicely round out my reaction image collection.

[Tarsonis]

1. Is this an attempt to patch the false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager?
2. Not on a macro level, there is an imbalance between matter and antimatter. However, on the quantum level, empty space itself is churning with virtual particles and virtual antiparticles appearing and annihilating each other. Normally, every particle and antiparticle travels towards each other and annihilates (however at the singularity of a black hole the particles will be separated, so some virtual particles and antiparticles will become real particles, thus taking mass from the black hole - this is known as Hawking radiation)

I wasn't thinking of Pascal's Wager, but now that you mention it, I'll end up in Hades or be reincarnated regardless if I worship pagan gods. Might as well worship the one that offers eternal life. :^)

Which is all Pascal's wager is good for, comparative religion.

[Grenartia]

The official scientific thought on the matter can be summed up in the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton, when asked about the source of the gravitational force he described in Principia:

I'd like to point out that the person who hypothesized the Big Bang was a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître]priest[/url]

Also, if you've ever read up on how God created the Universe (This would require knowledge in Jewish creation stories), then heheheh, there are a lot of similarities between it and the Big Bang...

Then what, praytell, is your point?

[Grenartia]

He wasn't, as you imply, some random guy who had a fever dream and went out like some homeless guy on a street corner yelling incoherent rambling. He was an educated man, and used logic to defend his hypotheses. Plenty of times, scientific inspirations have come from rather unscientific places (Einstein's insights about Relativity, for instance, came from daydreaming while working at the patent office). The genetic argument doesn't really apply here, since he did make an honest and sincere effort at justifying himself.

What evidence was available in Bruno's time in favor of exoplanets and stars being like our sun? Einstein had proof of relativity.

Actually, Einstein did not. He simply described a model which he felt could adequately explain things better than the models then being used then (rather similarly to Newton's observations on gravity). The true proofs of relativity came later.

Bruno's hypothesis wasn't what one would consider scientifically rigorous today, but at the same time, scientific rigor barely existed back then anyways. He wasn't being rigorous because in his time, he didn't need to be. Simply having a logical basis (which he did) and a platform (such as formal lectures or writings) was enough to have one's idea be seriously debated. Physics at this time was thought of as simply an extension of philosophy (which would admittedly be a more accurate description of Giordano's field than physics itself).

[Tarsonis]

Then what, praytell, is your point?

Exactly the point I made. You can identify what created the universe, but then you have to identify what created that, and then what created that, and so on and so on. No matter how far you walk it back eventually you'll have to get to that which was not created.

[Grenartia]

Then what, praytell, is your point?

Exactly the point I made. You can identify what created the universe, but then you have to identify what created that, and then what created that, and so on and so on. No matter how far you walk it back eventually you'll have to get to that which was not created.

The God of the Gaps.

[Northern Davincia]

What evidence was available in Bruno's time in favor of exoplanets and stars being like our sun? Einstein had proof of relativity.

Actually, Einstein did not. He simply described a model which he felt could adequately explain things better than the models then being used then (rather similarly to Newton's observations on gravity). The true proofs of relativity came later.

Bruno's hypothesis wasn't what one would consider scientifically rigorous today, but at the same time, scientific rigor barely existed back then anyways. He wasn't being rigorous because in his time, he didn't need to be. Simply having a logical basis (which he did) and a platform (such as formal lectures or writings) was enough to have one's idea be seriously debated. Physics at this time was thought of as simply an extension of philosophy (which would admittedly be a more accurate description of Giordano's field than physics itself).

Arthur Eddington photographed a solar eclipse in 1919, and with it, demonstrated that gravity bends light. The proof was certainly available in Einstein's life that relativity was objectively real.
The fact that science was less rigorous in Bruno's time is irrelevant, because he had nothing to base his cosmological views on.

[Tarsonis]

Exactly the point I made. You can identify what created the universe, but then you have to identify what created that, and then what created that, and so on and so on. No matter how far you walk it back eventually you'll have to get to that which was not created.

The God of the Gaps.

Um no, no it isn't. It's the Cosmological argument. Those aren't the same thing. Perhaps you need to spend more time on RationalWiki. Nice try though.

[Dylar]

Yet, the thing that got him on the Catholic radar was his cosmological hypotheses.

Also, where is the proof that these other heresies were not manufactured or otherwise exaggerated by his persecutors?

What reason would there be to manufacture heresies?

Well, I mean, there was that one time with King Phillip and the Knights Templar...

[Northern Davincia]

What reason would there be to manufacture heresies?

Well, I mean, there was that one time with King Phillip and the Knights Templar...

Both of which were larger concerns than a wandering lunatic.

[Tarsonis]

Well, I mean, there was that one time with King Phillip and the Knights Templar...

Both of which were larger concerns than a wandering lunatic.

Yeah, we need the Knights Templar back to crush those heathen masons

[Grenartia]

Actually, Einstein did not. He simply described a model which he felt could adequately explain things better than the models then being used then (rather similarly to Newton's observations on gravity). The true proofs of relativity came later.

Bruno's hypothesis wasn't what one would consider scientifically rigorous today, but at the same time, scientific rigor barely existed back then anyways. He wasn't being rigorous because in his time, he didn't need to be. Simply having a logical basis (which he did) and a platform (such as formal lectures or writings) was enough to have one's idea be seriously debated. Physics at this time was thought of as simply an extension of philosophy (which would admittedly be a more accurate description of Giordano's field than physics itself).

1. Arthur Eddington photographed a solar eclipse in 1919, and with it, demonstrated that gravity bends light. The proof was certainly available in Einstein's life that relativity was objectively real.
2. The fact that science was less rigorous in Bruno's time is irrelevant, because he had nothing to base his cosmological views on.

1. I never denied that proof was never obtained during Einstein's life. Simply that it wasn't avaliable until after he presented his hypothesis.

2. Well, everything in his cosmological hypotheses (other than the infinite universe, which is obtained through simple logic) logically follows from the base assumption that every star is a sun. And even that in and of itself isn't so drastic of a leap to make.

[Northern Davincia]

1. Arthur Eddington photographed a solar eclipse in 1919, and with it, demonstrated that gravity bends light. The proof was certainly available in Einstein's life that relativity was objectively real.
2. The fact that science was less rigorous in Bruno's time is irrelevant, because he had nothing to base his cosmological views on.

1. I never denied that proof was never obtained during Einstein's life. Simply that it wasn't avaliable until after he presented his hypothesis.

2. Well, everything in his cosmological hypotheses (other than the infinite universe, which is obtained through simple logic) logically follows from the base assumption that every star is a sun. And even that in and of itself isn't so drastic of a leap to make.

On what logical basis can you assert every star to be a sun (without observing it)? You're presenting Bruno as a logician more than a scientist.

[Kowani]

The God of the Gaps.

Um no, no it isn't. It's the Cosmological argument. Those aren't the same thing. Perhaps you need to spend more time on RationalWiki. Nice try though.

>Implying RW is a credible source.

But seriously, the problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it attempts to solve a problem of infinite regress. Except it fails to explain how that unmoved mover is the Christian God, (Kalam is a different argument), it fails to explain by what mechanism God would will himself into existence, and it definitely doesn’t address that pesky fact: The Order of Creation described in Genesis is somewhat out of order with the actual Big Bang.