The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Tarsonis]

Abridged anime are best anime

[The Archregimancy]

Can someone clarify for me in what capacity anime is (are?) directly related to the topic of this thread.

Has someone claimed that Byzantine mosaics are an early medieval form of anime?

Is there anime of post-apocalyptic nuns distributing alms to the ravaged survivors of a nuclear holocaust?

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Is Akira actually a thinly veiled allegory of the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom?

No doubt enlightenment awaits.

[Bakhara]

While we’re on the subject of anime, I think y’all here would like this.

[Dylar]

Can someone clarify for me in what capacity anime is (are?) directly related to the topic of this thread.

Has someone claimed that Byzantine mosaics are an early medieval form of anime?

Is there anime of post-apocalyptic nuns distributing alms to the ravaged survivors of a nuclear holocaust?

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Is Akira actually a thinly veiled allegory of the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom?

No doubt enlightenment awaits.

Blue Exorcist is a documentary on exorcist training.

[Lord Dominator]

Can someone clarify for me in what capacity anime is (are?) directly related to the topic of this thread.

Has someone claimed that Byzantine mosaics are an early medieval form of anime?

Is there anime of post-apocalyptic nuns distributing alms to the ravaged survivors of a nuclear holocaust?

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Is Akira actually a thinly veiled allegory of the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom?

No doubt enlightenment awaits.

No, probably, probably, heck if I know

[Lost Memories]

Is there anime of post-apocalyptic nuns distributing alms to the ravaged survivors of a nuclear holocaust?

I'm sure that if you dig deep enough something can be found.

But there is actually an anime/manga which pokes at christianity, in the most polite way one could imagine, this one.

While we’re on the subject of anime, I think y’all here would like this.

Shinji with a beard and crown is unwatchable.

[Diopolis]

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Yes.

[Maineiacs]

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Yes.

Please tell me you're joking.

[Grenartia]

Why do you keep saying CTM was saying Galileo was executed? He was put under house arrest for the rest of his life by Pope Paul V (the very same one you claim was a heliocentrist) for the heresy of "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".

As for the question of why Copernicus wasn't similarly persecuted, that's because his model wasn't published until shortly before his death in 1543. In fact, by 1532, he had finished his work, but kept it unpublished for the next 11 years for fear of the very scorn Galileo later earned. There is some speculation that the primary reason it wasn't condemned by the Catholic Church was because of a preface that acknowledged that the hypothesis might be wrong, but it was still useful for astronomical calculations. Indeed, up until Galileo and Kepler came forward with substantial evidence in favor of heliocentrism, most astronomers in Europe rejected Copernicus's conclusions. So even if he had lived past the publication of his book, he likely wouldn't have been persecuted, because he wouldn't have been perceived as a threat.

Given that Pope Paul V was the one who persecuted Galileo for heliocentrism, we can safely say he was not, in fact, a heliocentrist. So lets move on to Kepler. His books were also banned for advocating heliocentrism, but apparently Galileo ignored Kepler's work. Its also notable that Kepler was the assistant and successor to Tycho Brahe, one of the most noted and respected astronomers of his time (admittedly, Brahe didn't advocate heliocentrism, but rather his own system, geo-heliocentrism which is basically geocentrism, but acknowledging that every other body in the solar system orbits the sun except the moon), in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II, who wasn't exactly the most devout Catholic, and was quite tolerant of Protestants (which Kepler was). Essentially, the Catholic Church couldn't do much to Kepler like they could to Galileo, at least until Rudolph abdicated, and even then, he was fully aware of the dangers of being a Protestant and potentially finding a new job under Catholic jurisdiction.He sought employment in an area with more religious freedom, and went to Linz, and then later to Ulm due to the Thirty Years' War. So, basically, Kepler wasn't persecuted, because he made sure to stay firmly out of the Catholic Church's grasp.

I mean, he was executed, I don't understand why I wouldn't say he was.

Indeed, Galileo was put under house arrest in 1633, which is quite important, because he published his letter on Sunspots in 1613, and these outlined his heliocentrism. In 1615 when the inquisition court was called against Galileo, it was the expert Jesuit judges, who ruled in favour of Galileo, that ended his first trial against him, even though it was clear he presented Heliocentric views. Indeed, his ideas went by without the bat of an eye, and indeed enjoyed support, Cardinal Barberini congratulated him on it, in fact. In 1623, the future Pope Urban VIII, who was a cardinal at this time, wrote in homage of Galileo in 1623(!) 10 years after his "heresy" was clearly known. Indeed, the problem was not that the idea itself was heretical, but to present it as beyond a mere hypothesis, was the real issue, indeed at the time there was no evidence of a Copernican system, not until the time of Johannes Keplar, and after his discovery the Church wasn't bothered. Copernicus' hypothesis was used in prior time by the Church, it was simply that it had to be maintained as just an hypothesis, unless evidence could be used to prove it, which eventually happened. With Galileo's tide experiments being incapable to support his hypothesis, there was no reason to believe Copernicus' modal any more than Brahe's modal. Yet, Galileo continued to mock his opponents and this created him a number of life long enemies, and eventually the Pope himself.

When the complaint to the inquisition was filed in 1615, it was actually rejected (thanks to the Jesuits), and indeed, Galileo continued to be a free man between 1613 to 1632, one has to wonder why he was given 20 years of down time for a "heresy" that was clearly identified in at least 1615 and published, himself, in 1613? One has to wonder. The problem with the idea that Galileo was executed for just his ideas is the huge inconsistency, if Galileo was producing this heresy, why wait? If his heresy was so clearly maligned by the church, why befriend him? Unless something latter in life, like his arrogance about his own convictions and his continued production of life-long enemies, began to present Galileo as prideful, rude, unreasonable and arrogant. Galileo eventually turned his friendship into hatred with Urban VIII, when he published his Dialogo, in this work he bi-passed the Papal censorship and put arguments which were very similar to Urban's arguments against Copernicus into the mouth of a character called Simplicio (literally meaning simpleton, and would be the equivalent of calling someone an idiot (or worse) today). Urban always suspected that Simplicio was a caricature of himself, though this wasn't Galileo's intention. Indeed Galileo is a classic example of poor timing, he would eventually be tried by Pope Urban VIII, a pope who would consistently fail in his papacy and was exceeding in nepotism. Indeed if anything the reason for this debacle can be laced with Urban, who as an individual Pope, caused a scientific stagnation of his own accord and will, by both his vanity and greed.

As further confirmation of my point, in 1655 observations were made in the Cathedral of Bologna by Giovanni Cassini to give concrete proof of Kepler's ideas. He showed that Kepler was right and Ptolemy was not. How could the Church see Copernican ideas as heretical but then supply a Cathedral to find evidence in support of it? It's quite clear that it was not Copernican theory itself that was heretical but that to claim it as fact without evidence was where the problem began, even here, however, it took poor circumstance as in Galileo's case to actually be convicted of 'heresy' for it.

Galileo went as far as to not present his discoveries to other scientists of the time, even to Johannes Kepler and believed he was the only one who could make valid discoveries. Quite clear is this fact that Galileo refused to give Kepler one of his telescopes, even though he gave them out to political entities. He ignored Kepler's works and wrote his treatise to Kepler in anagrams. Indeed, Galileo was not experimental in practice and made no critical experimental deduction to prove his hypothesis. The only reason we celebrate Galileo in this area is hindsight, not actual merit, because his attempts to prove Heliocentrism (not that he really tried to) were all failures, these achievements go to Kepler. When Cardinal Bellarmine was conducting the court of inquisition, asked Galileo for evidence to which Galileo refused and had no evidence. When Galileo eventually defended his ideas, he always defended with ideas which had been outdated by Kepler's research, indeed he defended his tides idea until the very end, even though this was clearly incapable as proof. When the Jesuit astronomer Grassi observed comets and claimed them as distant flying objects, Galileo's explanation that they were actually mere reflections of light caused people to abandon Fassi's hypothesis. A clear example of Galileo's distinct lack of respect for evidence.

When the day came for his final trial, Galileo did the utterly unthinkable, and contradicted himself numerous times, even after he was given time to prepare a defence. Galileo stated of his Dialogo that what it is believed to have been said, was actually the opposite, the idea that Dialogo was actual a refutation of Copernicus was clearly deceitful, the judge, and jury, new that Galileo was lying, but instead of showing this clearly by presenting his own letters and books against him, all the court did was require his signature for deposition. His defence of himself would stand in no trial. For he was clearly lying.

Also because I hate these irritating Wikipedia hyperlinks How about I play the game, shall we? Wait? Wikipedia saying something I've been saying for a while? No. That Copernican ideals were aactually fine, but that to present them as truth without evidence was wrong. say what?

From your own source:

Religious opposition to heliocentrism arose from Biblical references such as Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 which include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."[68]

[...]

Galileo defended heliocentrism based on his astronomical observations of 1609 (Sidereus Nuncius 1610). In December 1613, the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo's friends and followers, Benedetto Castelli, with biblical objections to the motion of the earth. According to Maurice Finocchiaro, this was done in a friendly and gracious manner, out of curiosity. Prompted by this incident, Galileo wrote a letter to Castelli in which he argued that heliocentrism was actually not contrary to biblical texts, and that the bible was an authority on faith and morals, not on science. This letter was not published, but circulated widely.[69]

By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.[70] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[71]

[...]

In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith".[76] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[77])

[...]

Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, "Simplicio" in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[81] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio.

Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[82] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy.

[...]

Dava Sobel argues that prior to Galileo's 1633 trial and judgement for heresy, Pope Urban VIII had become preoccupied with court intrigue and problems of state, and began to fear persecution or threats to his own life. In this context, Sobel argues that the problem of Galileo was presented to the pope by court insiders and enemies of Galileo. Having been accused of weakness in defending the church, Urban reacted against Galileo out of anger and fear.[91]

Also, your source very clearly contradicts your claim that Galileo was executed:

Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77.[9][92]

The quoted material speaks for itself. I rest my case.

As for this:



Allow me to introduce you to Giordano Bruno. Truly a man who was a visionary, and ahead of his time. He hypothesized an infinite universe with no central body, where the stars weren't simply points of light, but other suns, around which other planets orbited, possibly even with their own forms of life. For this, he was tried and convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church, and promptly burned at the stake.

I think I have the sixth sense, because when I made that comment I knew they would say: Bruno! Bruno was a narcissistic nut case. He loved Hermetic Magic and which can be summed up as, well read it for yourself (it's utter nonsense) he also rejected the core Christian teachings and it is this that would get him finally executed. You present a false syllogism, Bruno held heretical doctrine (abandoned the trintiy, and christology), he also held Heliocentrism, he was executed, therefore, he was executed for his heliocentrism; classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Bruno also presented no evidence for his ideas, evidence which Kepler had began to accumulate in the early 1600's, Bruno's heresy's are what killed him, and Galileo's arrogance and poor timing that killed him. I'm sure I could find a list of Heliocentrist's which were hardly bothered between 1550 and 1642 and they all died of natural deaths for the time: plague, cholera, maybe old age, you'know the usual, but execution? Unlikely.

You say all of that as if it actually justifies Bruno's imprisonment, conviction, and execution. You wanted somebody who was persecuted by the Catholic Church, and I gave it to you. And instead of conceding the point, you doubled down, and cited his very persecution as proof he wasn't persecuted.

It is quite clear that Copernican ideas were controversial, but not in and of themselves heretical. That it was used by their detractors as a weapon to dispense with personal grudges, hatreds, and desires, as with Galileo. The idea that the Church persecuted the sciences of it's day? Lacking. The idea that Popes abused their position for power which caused scientific stagnation? Likely.

I just demonstrated, using your own fucking source, that Copernican ideas were considered heretical. You don't have an intellectually honest leg to stand on, m8.

[Auze]

Is it just my phone, or did the format bug out with that last post?

[Salus Maior]

Has someone claimed that Byzantine mosaics are an early medieval form of anime?
.

Maybe not Byzantine, but Coptic art looks kind of close.

[Ardenesia]

Roman Catholic since April 19, 2014.

[USS Monitor]

Is it just my phone, or did the format bug out with that last post?

The quote and spoiler tags got messed up.

[Grew Wes]

I'm an atheist so I don't care about this trash

[Grew Wes]

Sorry for the shitpost

[Diopolis]

I'm an atheist so I don't care about this trash

So why bother posting?

[Grenartia]

Grenartia, we're not going there again, all the answers to your objections were already provided in the previous 2-3 pages, go read them, and if you still don't get it, call it a day.

No, they were not. I already did read them, since the only post addressing me that I didn't respond to in that massive post was Nubia's (which I just finished responding to). All the other statements after Nubia's were addressed in my massive post, because the points they made were rehashings of points I responded to in the massive post.

So in this page-long rant about how nobody understands your point,

That wasn't my rant. My rant, at least as far as you and Tarsonis are concerned, is that I have yet to see any convincing arguments or evidence that the Cosmological Argument is not the God of the Gaps, and that all I have seen out of Tarsonis is "Nuh uh, its totally different." and all I've seen out of you is "I only just popped in here with no context, but stop being so mean to Tarsonis!"

you still haven’t taken the time to explain your point. So I will assume you have none.

How convenient for you.

If you think I somehow can’t think for myself because I follow an organized religion,

Actually, quite to the contrary. Which is why I don't look highly on you copypasting from the Catholic Church's published dogma. Either construct your arguments in your own words, or don't make an argument at all.

I believe that says far more about how you view Catholics and other high-church Christians than anything.

My only problems with Catholicism stems from its hierarchy.

But it’s fine. I didn’t give you an answer you wanted, and so you decided to try some pathetic attack on my faith.

Oh, come off it with the persecution complex. You're not a martyr.

It’s not like you’re actually debating with the rest of us, you’re just throwing a fit.

I'm actually not throwing a fit. And if you and Tarsonis would bother engaging with me on an intellectually honest level, we could actually continue this debate.

So either give an actual argument, or perhaps start over and maybe give us something of value to talk about.

I HAVE given actual arguments. Just because you claim they're not, doesn't mean they aren't.

Grenartia, we're not going there again, all the answers to your objections were already provided in the previous 2-3 pages, go read them, and if you still don't get it, call it a day.

But the Christians are clearly unthinking and intellectually stupid sheep! They must be told so for another five pages!

The persecution complex continues. Why would I say that when I myself am a Christian? You would do well to stop assuming shit about me, Lumi. You know what they say happens when you do that.

You're making me question the merits of Yale Divinity School.

Ffs, can you get anymore butthurt and arrogant?

Honestly, from where I'm sitting, that could apply to the rest of this thread.

<cut out for quote ease>
Unlike Tarsonis, I'm not going to resort to copouts or anything like that. I'm going to tell you straight up that we in the physics community--
<cut out for quote ease>

Here's your fundamental problem.

You are trying to answer a metaphysical/theological question in physical terms.

The point of metaphysics is to give meaning to the physical and the prime principles behind the physical.

So, its a problem to bring physical terms into a discussion involving a field that claims to attempt to give meaning to the physical.

Theology concerns itself with the nature of God and the religion one chooses to explore, but it is along the same lines of meaning.

You can't really come to a debate about a metaphysical inquiry that tries to explain the why of things, and seriously contend your point with physics and science, things that explain the "how" of things, but not the "why".

I'm fully aware of this. I embrace that dichotomy myself. However, where that "why" concerns itself with the "how", I will stand there to correct the "why" when it messes up the "how".

It's fine if you don't wish to ascribe meaning to the universe, however, that wouldn't necessarily make you a Christian if you at least don't concede the metaphysical point that God created the universe because of whichever reason you prefer to believe in (Clockwork God, Interventionist God, etc.), because then you are implying our existence is without meaning, which is deeply at odds with Christian belief to be honest, as even Clockwork God proponents have come up with reasons why God created the universe.

I'm not doing any of that.

But the Christians are clearly unthinking and intellectually stupid sheep! They must be told so for another five pages!

Grenartia themself is a Christian, so it is beyond me why they so avidly attack Christian arguments.

Because I find said arguments to be terrible.

Grenartia themself is a Christian, so it is beyond me why they so avidly attack Christian arguments.

They're not.

You're not. See, I can play that game, too.

Grenartia themself is a Christian, so it is beyond me why they so avidly attack Christian arguments.

Seriously? In their last post the difference with the minecraft guy was getting almost imperceptible.
(unless we got all fooled and the minecraft guy was too some weird form of christian... dun dun duun)

Though I would go with the duck rule, if it quacks...

Does it not occur to you that one can be a Christian without accepting stupid arguments that claim to be able to prove the existence of God? We don't need proof of God's existence. Jesus Himself says that only faith is sufficient for that. If anything, proof of God's existence weakens faith in God.

I must be misreading the signature then?

Get in a theology debate with Gren and you'll see.

Although don't, you won't get anywhere worthwhile.

I guess the United Church of Christ aren't actual Christians, either.

Typical Catholic arrogance. Only your hierarchy can define who is and who is not a true Christian, apparently.

In fact, I did go back and read the context. Also, my interjection was to correct a mistake you made in your representation of the Big Bang (i.e., you stated that the scientific thinking is that everything came from nothing, when this is simply not the case).

Yeah except that's not what I said, so you interjected to correct a nonexistent mistake based on your own understadning of my argument.

When we say nothing, we mean nothing. No matter, no energy, no Newtonian physics, no quantum physics, no space time continuum, no E=MC^2. Nothing.

Don't lie, Tar. That's a sin.

I do comprehend your argument.

Clearly, you don't. And here's why:

Its not my fault that through willful ignorance, or insufficient intellectual capacity, you cannot comprehend why the Cosmological Argument is simply the God of the Gaps. The gap, in this case, being the lack of scientific explanation for what existed prior to the Big Bang.

It's not because the lack of a scientific explanation for what existed prior to the Big Bang is completely irrelevant to the cosmological argument. The Cosmological argument isn't staked on a lack of knowledge its staked on a reasonable deduction from what we do know. You've created a false strawman representation of the cosmological argument to tilt at, so that you can call it God of the Gaps. You are simply wrong.

Except, it is staked on a lack of knowledge. It relies on scientific unknowns (which, as the very argument cheekily and blatantly points out, will be in infinite supply) to posit that God must exist. Unless I'm interpreting this exchange incorrectly (at which point, instead of unhelpfully saying so, you could bother to actually elaborate):

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:

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.

You then stated that nothing comes from nothing, to which I agreed, and applied your own logic to God.

That's actually not what I said. I said nothing is created from nothing. That means it is logically necessary for there to exist something that was not created. An eternal uncreated prime being/force/etc.[/quote]

It is not logically necessary for there to exist something that wasn't created. In fact, the only reason to even introduce something that wasn't created is to eliminate infinite regression, which only somebody who cannot handle (for whatever reasons) the concept of infinite regression would see fit to introduce into the discussion.

I've called you intellectually dishonest, because it is the most I'm allowed to say within the rules of the forum. The reason I've called you intelectuily dishonest is because of your continued God of the Gaps comments. I've explained twice now why it's not applicable to the Cosmological Argument, but you keep repeating it in asinine fashion as if it constitutes a a refutation, and not just an annoying and childish taunt.

You have not explained why it isn't applicable any amount of times,

I have, this is the third time.[/quote]

And every time, I have to point out that it doesn't really answer anything, at least not adequately.

Me: "Why?"
You: "Because."
Me: "Because why?"
You: "Because."

Repeat ad infinitum.

and certainly not in any way that makes sense.

to you...

Because you keep repeating the Cosmological Argument like a senile parrot.

No. I'm more a Maccaw.

And I'm the Queen of England.

You're making me question the merits of Yale Divinity School.

It certainly begs the question of how God came to exist.

No. It doesn't. Because it's the entire premise of the argument that God didn't "come to exist."

Translation: "Because."

You have identified what created the universe. God. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, you now have to identify what created God, and what created what created God, and so on. The entire last sentence is a copout clearly intended to avoid infinite regression.

Because infinite regression is a logical absurdity. As has been stated multiple times by multiple people on this thread. It's not a cop out, it's what the cosmological argument is. It's a deduction based on the fact that infinite regression is logically absurd.

How is infinite regression logically absurd? Is it because its doing something an infinite amount of times? In calculus, technically we do that all the fucking time. Working with infinitesmal quantities (which you need to add together an infinite amount of times to come out with a finite answer) is at the heart of both differentiation and integration. Do you think its logically absurd when you put the reflective surfaces of two mirrors facing each other, and put something between them? The assertion that infinite regression is logically absurd is itself logically absurd.

Which is a copout.

Ah, yes, the classic eyeroll smiley. My argument is devastated. You have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it isn't a copout. [/sarcasm]

Correction. You made a factual error about the Big Bang, which I attempted to correct.

As I said above, I didn't. You misunderstood.

I'll bite. How so?

You then applied the Cosmological Argument to it,

Nope, it was always about the Cosmological Argument.

and THEN I claimed it was God of the Gaps.

Fallaciously.

I've already demonstrated, multiple times, that it isn't fallacious to make that claim.

You provided no convincing arguments that my assertion was incorrect.

If you think pointing out that Cosmological Argument and God of the Gaps address two entirely different issues and considerations, is not convincing, you really need to go back to Logic 101.

Cosmological Argument is simply a special case of God of the Gaps. Prove me wrong.

In fact, it IS concerned with observable phenomena, because its entire point is that unknown scientific phenomena (I.E., what created the primeval atom, what created what created the primeval atom, etc.) proves there must be a Creator.

No, unknown scientific phenomena is irrelevant to the argument. The cosmological doesn't explain observable phenomena or unobservable phenomena.

Then why did you say this?:

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.....?

If the Cosmological Argument doesn't concern itself with observable or unobservable phenomena, then you shouldn't have to bring up the Big Bang.

If that isn't God of the Gaps, then literally NOTHING is.

No because as has had to be made clear to people multiple times, there is a fundamental difference between how and why. God of the Gaps deals with issues of how. We're all over here talking about issues of why.

Your "why" inherently involves issues of "how".

That, as you have applied it, ends in a copout.

Logical necessity is not a copout.

It is when it isn't actually a necessity.

Only to one who doesn't bother to connect the loose ends.

are you admitting you're grasping at straws here?

Nope. As I pointed out, the issues do in fact, intersect.

I have done far better than simply "nu uh yest it is". I have backed my claim with logic.

You've not offered one argument resembling a logical argument until this post, and that argument was wrong.

Are you even paying attention? I've used nothing but logic since the moment I stepped into this thread. And if my argument is wrong, you have yet to present a logical argument as to why.

You simply kept repeating it like, in your own words, a senile parrot.

Repeating an explanation hoping it would drill through the wood and you'd understand it while you simply kept repeating the same falacious phrase over and over again in your uncomprehension. See the difference?

Yes, you're describing what I've been trying to do to you.

Also, I'm not even a fucking anti-theist. God forbid you actually encounter one, because you can't even seem to handle arguing with a theist!

Oh that characteristic about you has nothing to do with my frustrations, lol.

Then why even bring up your opinions on whether or not I'm an anti-theist or not?

Grenartia themself is a Christian, so it is beyond me why they so avidly attack Christian arguments.

I don’t think this is Devil’s Advocate. Perhaps he has tried to find a satisfactory reason as to how God could exist without a creator, and found the Cosmological Argument unsatisfactory.

*they

And yes, I find the Cosmological Argument incredibly unsatisfactory.

And once again another call of, "Ooh you're from Yale you should be better at this!" Really Gren? What do you want from Tars? Some sort of denial of the Cosmological argument all together?

Ideally? Yes.

For him to declare, "THERE IS NO GOD BECAUSE SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING!"

Not what I'm calling for.

For him to use whatever terms you decide to use in an argument for which you've contributed quite little? Find something else to talk about other than, "YALE STUDENT BAD AT THEOLOGY DURR."

You're acting like I personally pissed in your cereal this morning, Lumi.

Indeed, Galileo was put under house arrest in 1633, which is quite important, because he published his letter on Sunspots in 1613, and these outlined his heliocentrism. In 1615 when the inquisition court was called against Galileo, it was the expert Jesuit judges, who ruled in favour of Galileo, that ended his first trial against him, even though it was clear he presented Heliocentric views. Indeed, his ideas went by without the bat of an eye, and indeed enjoyed support, Cardinal Barberini congratulated him on it, in fact. In 1623, the future Pope Urban VIII, who was a cardinal at this time, wrote in homage of Galileo in 1623(!) 10 years after his "heresy" was clearly known. Indeed, the problem was not that the idea itself was heretical, but to present it as beyond a mere hypothesis, was the real issue, indeed at the time there was no evidence of a Copernican system, not until the time of Johannes Keplar, and after his discovery the Church wasn't bothered. Copernicus' hypothesis was used in prior time by the Church, it was simply that it had to be maintained as just an hypothesis, unless evidence could be used to prove it, which eventually happened. With Galileo's tide experiments being incapable to support his hypothesis, there was no reason to believe Copernicus' modal any more than Brahe's modal. Yet, Galileo continued to mock his opponents and this created him a number of life long enemies, and eventually the Pope himself.

When the complaint to the inquisition was filed in 1615, it was actually rejected (thanks to the Jesuits), and indeed, Galileo continued to be a free man between 1613 to 1632, one has to wonder why he was given 20 years of down time for a "heresy" that was clearly identified in at least 1615 and published, himself, in 1613? One has to wonder. The problem with the idea that Galileo was executed for just his ideas is the huge inconsistency, if Galileo was producing this heresy, why wait? If his heresy was so clearly maligned by the church, why befriend him? Unless something latter in life, like his arrogance about his own convictions and his continued production of life-long enemies, began to present Galileo as prideful, rude, unreasonable and arrogant. Galileo eventually turned his friendship into hatred with Urban VIII, when he published his Dialogo, in this work he bi-passed the Papal censorship and put arguments which were very similar to Urban's arguments against Copernicus into the mouth of a character called Simplicio (literally meaning simpleton, and would be the equivalent of calling someone an idiot (or worse) today). Urban always suspected that Simplicio was a caricature of himself, though this wasn't Galileo's intention. Indeed Galileo is a classic example of poor timing, he would eventually be tried by Pope Urban VIII, a pope who would consistently fail in his papacy and was exceeding in nepotism. Indeed if anything the reason for this debacle can be laced with Urban, who as an individual Pope, caused a scientific stagnation of his own accord and will, by both his vanity and greed.

As further confirmation of my point, in 1655 observations were made in the Cathedral of Bologna by Giovanni Cassini to give concrete proof of Kepler's ideas. He showed that Kepler was right and Ptolemy was not. How could the Church see Copernican ideas as heretical but then supply a Cathedral to find evidence in support of it? It's quite clear that it was not Copernican theory itself that was heretical but that to claim it as fact without evidence was where the problem began, even here, however, it took poor circumstance as in Galileo's case to actually be convicted of 'heresy' for it.

Galileo went as far as to not present his discoveries to other scientists of the time, even to Johannes Kepler and believed he was the only one who could make valid discoveries. Quite clear is this fact that Galileo refused to give Kepler one of his telescopes, even though he gave them out to political entities. He ignored Kepler's works and wrote his treatise to Kepler in anagrams. Indeed, Galileo was not experimental in practice and made no critical experimental deduction to prove his hypothesis. The only reason we celebrate Galileo in this area is hindsight, not actual merit, because his attempts to prove Heliocentrism (not that he really tried to) were all failures, these achievements go to Kepler. When Cardinal Bellarmine was conducting the court of inquisition, asked Galileo for evidence to which Galileo refused and had no evidence. When Galileo eventually defended his ideas, he always defended with ideas which had been outdated by Kepler's research, indeed he defended his tides idea until the very end, even though this was clearly incapable as proof. When the Jesuit astronomer Grassi observed comets and claimed them as distant flying objects, Galileo's explanation that they were actually mere reflections of light caused people to abandon Fassi's hypothesis. A clear example of Galileo's distinct lack of respect for evidence.

When the day came for his final trial, Galileo did the utterly unthinkable, and contradicted himself numerous times, even after he was given time to prepare a defence. Galileo stated of his Dialogo that what it is believed to have been said, was actually the opposite, the idea that Dialogo was actual a refutation of Copernicus was clearly deceitful, the judge, and jury, new that Galileo was lying, but instead of showing this clearly by presenting his own letters and books against him, all the court did was require his signature for deposition. His defence of himself would stand in no trial. For he was clearly lying.

Also because I hate these irritating Wikipedia hyperlinks How about I play the game, shall we? Wait? Wikipedia saying something I've been saying for a while? No. That Copernican ideals were aactually fine, but that to present them as truth without evidence was wrong. say what?

I think I have the sixth sense, because when I made that comment I knew they would say: Bruno! Bruno was a narcissistic nut case. He loved Hermetic Magic and which can be summed up as, well read it for yourself (it's utter nonsense) he also rejected the core Christian teachings and it is this that would get him finally executed. You present a false syllogism, Bruno held heretical doctrine (abandoned the trintiy, and christology), he also held Heliocentrism, he was executed, therefore, he was executed for his heliocentrism; classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Bruno also presented no evidence for his ideas, evidence which Kepler had began to accumulate in the early 1600's, Bruno's heresy's are what killed him, and Galileo's arrogance and poor timing that killed him. I'm sure I could find a list of Heliocentrist's which were hardly bothered between 1550 and 1642 and they all died of natural deaths for the time: plague, cholera, maybe old age, you'know the usual, but execution? Unlikely.

It is quite clear that Copernican ideas were controversial, but not in and of themselves heretical. That it was used by their detractors as a weapon to dispense with personal grudges, hatreds, and desires, as with Galileo. The idea that the Church persecuted the sciences of it's day? Lacking. The idea that Popes abused their position for power which caused scientific stagnation? Likely.

Both are relevant, but here's also my earlier direct quotation from Wikipedia:

I totally agree, the idea that Bruno was just some free thinker, who was swept up in the backwards dogmatism of the Church is mind numbing. The man was genuinely nuts, the people who like him would of found him utterly repugnant in this day and age, which only adds to the irony.

Prove he was "genuinely nuts", and why this means he deserved to be literally burned at the stake. I'll wait.

If this "Bruno" person is the standard for a "free-thinker", it's no wonder Gren thinks I'm some sheeple. I guess the only way I'll be a free-thinker now is if I flaunt ridiculous ideas about Magic for the world to see!

Speaking of burning something at the stake, it must be fun for you to burn that straw effigy of me.

It wasn't simply a wandering lunatic. Ignoring the merits of whether or not Bruno was a lunatic (he wasn't), Copernicus was still beginning to catch on, and heliocentrism ran contrary to Catholic dogma. This was also after the Reformation, so the Catholic hierarchy was keenly aware of how one man going against established teaching could undermine their authority.

Aside from the fact that no, heliocentrism was not against Catholic dogma, Copernicus was before the reformation.

The Catholic Church itself stated Heliocentrism was contrary to its dogma, as shown above. Also, Copernicus died in 1543, some quarter century after the start of the Reformation.

Meh. The Church went ahead and tried to remove his books from publication, and it sat on the Forbidden Books Index up until Benedict 14, He who wears The Funny Hat.

Thankfully, they didn’t burn him at the stake, but it was still a crackdown on things that ran counter to Scripture.

Heliocentrism doesn't contradict scripture.

That's not how the Catholic hierarchy of Galileo's day interpreted it.

No, but rejecting geocentrism is, and it was equally heretical.

Also, why are you trying to justify his utterly barbaric execution? The man was a martyr for free thought.

No, rejecting geocentrism was not equally heretical to dismissing all major Christian tenets. Not once have I justified his execution, but madmen should not be considered "free thinkers."

I challenge you, as well, to prove he was a madman. Was it simply because he rejected Catholic dogma?

Is it just my phone, or did the format bug out with that last post?

The quote and spoiler tags got messed up.

Thanks for fixing my fuckup, Monitor. Hopefully this one isn't messed up, either.

For the inevitable responses to this, I'll address them when I get back from work.

[Washington Resistance Army]

My only problems with Catholicism stems from its hierarchy.

How exactly does that work? Church hierarchy has existed since the earliest days of the religion. Is it just Catholicism in general or what?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here's your fundamental problem.

You are trying to answer a metaphysical/theological question in physical terms.

The point of metaphysics is to give meaning to the physical and the prime principles behind the physical.

So, its a problem to bring physical terms into a discussion involving a field that claims to attempt to give meaning to the physical.

<image>

Theology concerns itself with the nature of God and the religion one chooses to explore, but it is along the same lines of meaning.

You can't really come to a debate about a metaphysical inquiry that tries to explain the why of things, and seriously contend your point with physics and science, things that explain the "how" of things, but not the "why".

I'm fully aware of this. I embrace that dichotomy myself. However, where that "why" concerns itself with the "how", I will stand there to correct the "why" when it messes up the "how".

It's fine if you don't wish to ascribe meaning to the universe, however, that wouldn't necessarily make you a Christian if you at least don't concede the metaphysical point that God created the universe because of whichever reason you prefer to believe in (Clockwork God, Interventionist God, etc.), because then you are implying our existence is without meaning, which is deeply at odds with Christian belief to be honest, as even Clockwork God proponents have come up with reasons why God created the universe.

I'm not doing any of that.

The problem is that the cosmological argument of God doesn't concern itself with the "how". It concerns itself with the "why". Giving meaning to the physical is not, in itself, explaining the physical. Saying "the universe was created because of God" is not the same as "God created the universe through such and such means".

Even if we go with the natural science explanation of the Big Bang, what happened at an indeterminate time before the big bang, and so on, it would not stop being just a mechanical process, a mechanical process which theology argues was initiated by God for whichever reason.

The Cosmological arguments is not a "Lord of the Gaps" argument because the Lord of the Gaps argument is literally reducing God as the materialistic processes are proved to be something not of a divine nature, but of a material nature. In other words, the Lord of the Gaps is a way to keep an Interventionist God in the picture. Cosmological arguments argue the "why" and, for it to argue a "why" it has to be perceived as a priori statement that God created the universe, because it is the theological terminator of the sequence of creation, unless you wish to try infinite regression of processes.

Arguing that this is a Lord of the Gaps argument would make every other possible deity form (Clockwork, etc.) besides Interventionist completely ludicrous. This is not in dispute, really, given you have not given another explanation as to why should we reject the cosmological argument, or another model, as it were, of a non-interventionist deity in the universe.

If, and only if, you decide that God is nothing but a convenient myth can you reject even the clockwork conception of a deity in that God is a non-interference factor at all in the universe because it is all just a myth anyways, and that puts you in the same bind you say you're not trying to do, which is removing meaning out of the universe and hence giving God a non-trivial place in the universe, by doing such, you are rejecting the main lynchpin of Christian faith, and in doing so, you are not only casting doubt into your faith, but you are also casting doubt into whether or not you are even a Christian at all.

[Ransium]

I'm an atheist so I don't care about this trash

Don't post in threads that you don't care about and think are trash, especially about how you don't care about them and think they are trash. You are unofficially warned for trolling. Furthermore I suggest you read the site rules before posting further: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044

[Lost Memories]

Does it not occur to you that one can be a Christian without accepting stupid arguments that claim to be able to prove the existence of God? We don't need proof of God's existence. Jesus Himself says that only faith is sufficient for that. If anything, proof of God's existence weakens faith in God.

I stand on the idea that christianity is defined by the following of some principles and ways to understand the world. Anything which stands outside or even in opposition to those principles can't be called christian, if not in name only, but not in substance.

Things like saying Giordano Bruno was a martyr of free-thinking, should be at least eyebrown raising for any christian, or for anyone with a wider historical view of the time.
An other thing is having total distrust of the church, which isn't so uncommon for christians of protestant origin, but the idea is bad because at its roots it means: The apostles of Jesus were failures, they failed the duty Jesus had entrusted them to become a church, they failed to establish a continuous legacy on earth connecting the past of Jesus to the present, they failed to transmit the message of Jesus in its entirety of meaning (which goes past anything a book can contain).

The cosmological argument whose Tarsonis re-explained multiple times, isn't about proving anything. Not in the physical sense anyway.
It is all about trying to answer the question of "What is the origin of the world?" (or "why the world exists?") and the answer any christian comes to is "God".
To which, by faith alone as you say, you should agree on that answer too.
The thing is though, you seems to be taking by faith an answer, which was originally achieved by (philosophical) reasoning.
While, the components of the argument, which made it possible to reach that answer, are as much important, but by discarting the reasoning which connects the question to the answer, what is lost, is a deeper understanding of the answer. In this case, what is lost, is a deeper understanding of God.

You say that trying to explain the answer weakens the faith, but to me it seems that ignoring the process to the answer makes the answer less meaningful, and the faith less rich.
Faith should be developed too, it shouldn't be just a prepackaged item.

Which is what any branch of christianity with apostolic succession has been doing for the longest time, developing the faith, all the way from Jesus to us in the present.

[Luminesa]

If you have a problem with me defending Tars, Gren, all I have to say is too bad. Maybe don’t base your argument around how a Yale grad is supposed to entertain a person who doesn’t want an answer. Now do you have anything productive to say, or are you just going to loop everyone in a circle?

Furthermore, I will answer a question to your debate however I want. I will answer with quotes from the Catechism, with the Bible, and with what I have taught, either directly quoted or in my own words. And I will not entertain foolishness. I will teach, because I am a teacher. I don’t prescribe to a sophomoric style of debating. I do my research, I read what my Church says, and I agree with Her. Wholeheartedly. If you think you can come in here and tell me how to talk about my Church, you truly do believe you have far more influence over me than you actually have.

Now are you going to chop this all apart and make some snarky comments, or are you going to step-up? I’ll keep asking until you do it, and if you don’t want to, perhaps you need to find another thread to argue in.

[Hakons]

Roman Catholic since April 19, 2014.

Welcome to the thread! What made you become Roman Catholic?

Grenartia themself is a Christian, so it is beyond me why they so avidly attack Christian arguments.

Because I find said arguments to be terrible.

Wouldn't time and energy be spent better arguing or doing good works for the sake of Christ, rather than assaulting an online Christian community? I must compliment you for your energy and your comprehensive work, but I implore you to use it for better activities than denying a common Christian argument, denouncing the Church, and misrepresenting historical theology.

Seriously? In their last post the difference with the minecraft guy was getting almost imperceptible.
(unless we got all fooled and the minecraft guy was too some weird form of christian... dun dun duun)

Though I would go with the duck rule, if it quacks...

Does it not occur to you that one can be a Christian without accepting stupid arguments that claim to be able to prove the existence of God? We don't need proof of God's existence. Jesus Himself says that only faith is sufficient for that. If anything, proof of God's existence weakens faith in God.

Faith is certainly sufficient, but some people like to use the intellect that God has given us to make philosophical reasons as well. I grow tired of apologetics, but many Christians like them and prefer to use secular philosophy to buttress the religious philosophy. Developing a proof for God does not weaken faith, since the people that seek them strengthen their faith from the proof. In other words, perhaps you don't need a proof or the Cosmological Argument, but many other Christians do, and your arguments against it put you in the bin full of atheists and secularists that seek to destroy our faith.

Get in a theology debate with Gren and you'll see.

Although don't, you won't get anywhere worthwhile.

I guess the United Church of Christ aren't actual Christians, either.

Typical Catholic arrogance. Only your hierarchy can define who is and who is not a true Christian, apparently.

The UCC appears to be a standard mainline Protestant Church. I'm currently Methodist, so that makes me similar to you , though I'm moving towards Catholicism. We can judge who is and is not Christian by comparing what they profess to what Christians profess. In other words, we compare personal confession to established religious confession, like the Nicene Creed. If someone claims to be Christian, yet does not believe what Christians believe, they are not Christian. If someone claims to be Christian, yet does not believe in Christ's teachings and the continuous Apostolic succession of these teachings, they are not Christian.

[Northern Davincia]

Can someone clarify for me in what capacity anime is (are?) directly related to the topic of this thread.

Has someone claimed that Byzantine mosaics are an early medieval form of anime?

Is there anime of post-apocalyptic nuns distributing alms to the ravaged survivors of a nuclear holocaust?

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Is Akira actually a thinly veiled allegory of the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom?

No doubt enlightenment awaits.

Madoka Magica is loosely based on Faust, which is a rather important Christian tale as it warns against making deals with the devil. Trinity Blood has a Catholic priest for a protagonist.

[Luminesa]

Can someone clarify for me in what capacity anime is (are?) directly related to the topic of this thread.

Has someone claimed that Byzantine mosaics are an early medieval form of anime?

Is there anime of post-apocalyptic nuns distributing alms to the ravaged survivors of a nuclear holocaust?

Have those pesky evangelical protestants actually produced an abomination of actual 'Christian' anime?

Is Akira actually a thinly veiled allegory of the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom?

No doubt enlightenment awaits.

Madoka Magica is loosely based on Faust, which is a rather important Christian tale as it warns against making deals with the devil. Trinity Blood has a Catholic priest for a protagonist.

All Arch needs to know is Madoka did nothing wrong.