Quotations and Literature Forum

It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:01 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 9:26 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 1217
Location: Australia
:) Sorry about the time difference, I had begun to realise you were staying awake late!

In any case, I must give this a rest for a while as other things need to be done - but thanks, all discussions on this forum stimulate thought and I enjoy the interaction of all of us here.

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 11:05 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
http://www.skeptical-science.com/religi ... -god-gaps/

Quote:
Galileo has been sent a letter explaining that all is forgiven and that he was right all along (well yes that’s Catholicism for you, its only 500 years too late). Also evolution is asserted to be factual, and of course the Big Bang really happened. So where, from the viewpoint of the Catholic church, does God fit in? Well, apparently the answer is … (yep, you can see this one coming can’t you) … “God did it”.



Belief demands that the Universe (or multi-verse) cannot have just happened, it must have had a creator, and that creator was God

“Ah”, say the skeptics, “Who then created God”?

“God was not created”, they reply, “He always existed, God is eternal and outside of time”.

Oh… hang on a moment now … did you see what happened there? The believers have a special exception rule for God, and they claim he had no beginning and exists outside of time. Since they cannot accept that the universe just happened, they have simply invented another layer, called it God, and instead applied the “just is” rule to this made-up God instead. I guess I don’t need to point out some of the other little flaws here such as a complete lack of any evidence for this claim.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 1217
Location: Australia
Anajo, perfect Catch 22 :lol: :lol:

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
Fun!

It is clear that this article is peppered with logical fallacies, false presumptions/false premises, and - although, I understand it was the basis for the article to begin with - such a debate really has nothing to do with the religion, let alone Catholicism. There is also something to be said about its comparison with the invisible green dragon. But let's just focus on the article for now.

There are no objections that Gamble makes, really, until the third paragraph. So I'll start there. (The last two paragraphs don't mean much either, so the meat is in the middle.)

In essence, they accept that the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, the big bang, is factually correct. Little things like solid evidence that point to this make it a tad tricky to dismiss, so they don’t.


Yes - true, the theist believes that the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe - The Big Bang - is factually correct. In fact, the theist does not merely "believe" it, but knows it. No one argues about facts. Solid evidence is not only "a tad tricky to dismiss" - it is impossible to dismiss. Also, what is the purpose of adding the phrase "so they don't"? What is Gamble suspicious of? Is he assuming that believers think theism is contradictory to science? Or, that believers draw the premises from the conclusion, and not vice versa? Or, that the believer has ulterior motives of some kind? What purpose does "so they don't" serve, exactly?

Instead they simply wrap God around the entire package and declare “God Did it”. Now this approach has a rather major flaw that has been air-brushed out with the usual religious hand-waving shoe-shuffle dance that only the truly religious can pull off.


Again - is Gamble assuming that the theist makes the conclusion before taking evidence into account? This is a classic straw man. Also, he neglected to say what the major flaw is. Instead, he made an obvious appeal to spite. Ad hominem.

The facts are (as we currently understand them) the universe has no creator.


This is the point under contention; and to assume it in order to prove his point is begging the question. THE FACT IS: the universe had a beginning, and it is not eternal. THAT is the fact. The fact is that when the universe came into being, then time and space came into being. That is to say, there was a point when time and space did not exist.

Belief demands that the Universe (or multi-verse) cannot have just happened, it must have had a creator, and that creator was God.

Actually, philosophy demands such a claim. This is precisely where causality plays its part.

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that were set in motion were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

That is perfectly logical. Pure reason.

“Ah”, say the skeptics, “Who then created God”?

"God was not created”, they reply, “He always existed, God is eternal and outside of time”.


This is as a result of the premises. It is a necessary consequence. If time and space has not always existed, then its creator cannot be confined by time and space. Please see the line of reasoning above.

Oh… hang on a moment now … did you see what happened there? The believers have a special exception rule for God, and they claim he had no beginning and exists outside of time.

Again, see above. God is the only exception by necessity. Not by excuses, as Gamble would have it. Gamble is inferring that theists say that God is the exception because it is convenient for their argument. This is an appeal to spite/ridicule. He is attacking another straw man. Has he forgotten that "i" comes before "e", except after "c"? Why does Gamble find that God being an exception is so objectionable?

Since they cannot accept that the universe just happened, they have simply invented another layer, called it God, and instead applied the “just is” rule to this made-up God instead. I guess I don’t need to point out some of the other little flaws here such as a complete lack of any evidence for this claim.

Appeal to spite. He also claims that the theist's lack of evidence is a flaw, when in reality "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



Overall, Dave Gamble does not directly attack the issue. Instead, he relies on different appeals to spite, ridicule, straw men, ad hominem, &c. I find no reason to adhere to his reasoning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 5:12 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Hi Tommy,
There are a number of issues to address. Let's begin here, and continue with the other considerations later, okay?

Tommy GS wrote:
Also, what is the purpose of adding the phrase "so they don't"? What is Gamble suspicious of? Is he assuming that believers think theism is contradictory to science?


Re Galileo:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Re Librorum Prohibitorum and Kepler and Copernicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Re Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
(Giordano Bruno) was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal. After his death he gained considerable fame; in the 19th and early 20th centuries, commentators focusing on his astronomical beliefs regarded him as a martyr for free thought and modern scientific ideas

And then there are the Decrees of the First Vatican

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume2.htm

Quote:
Chapter 4 On faith and reason

3. here are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God
which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

9. Hence all faithful Christians
*are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith,

On God Creator of all things
5. If anyone
*does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or
*holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or
*denies that the world was created for the glory of God:
let him be anathema.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 7:30 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
Anajo, you have left me with little commentary. I think what you are saying is, "Yes, Dave Gamble is under the impression that theism is contradictory because of the following links...."

I am not entirely sure why you brought up Galileo, and the list of forbidden books. Those issues are over and done with. The Church recognized her wrong and apologized for it; and the list was abolished in the 60s.

Regarding Giordano Bruno: I'm not sure what his errors were, but it looks like they were mostly theological. Whatever scientific developments he made, thumbs up! :) Again, you didn't leave much of your own comment, so I'm not sure what arguments you are making.

Regarding Vatican I: considering all of the technological and scientific developments since 1870 (uh... it is now 2011...) the Church takes the following stance in paragraph 159 in the CCC:

Faith and science:
Quote:
Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.


In other words, truth is truth. If there is truth in Islam, Pantheism, science (&c.), it came from God. It can be no other way. If God is Truth, then scientific truths cannot contradict him. Some say that God wrote two books: the Bible and creation.

Quote:
"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

Again, if it came from the same source, then it is naturally complementary.



The automobile can be just as much explained by Henry Ford as it can the pistons. Not one or the other. Both. No Henry Ford = no pistons. Pistons = who designed the pistons, and made them to function in a certain way? Henry Ford.


You addressed Catholicism, specifically. I do not know what other religions have to say about faith and science. In any case, CCC 159 is reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:29 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
You know Tommy, I shouldn't have gotten involved in this conversation in the first place. There was a time when I thought it was important and interesting to debate theists, so I was following some prior pattern. These days, I don't consider religion much nor do I consider it all that important in my life. Catholisicm is important to you. That's fine. I have other things that I'd rather focus on right now such as art and music and... well, you know me, being naughty and such.. :P

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 2:24 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:16 am
Posts: 3140
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Here here, these discussions are just repetitive. You mshall believe as you believe, I as I and Tommy as he. All different but all good folk regardless so the beliefs are irrelevant to how I perceive the person.

_________________
السلام عليكم


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:57 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 1217
Location: Australia
Agreed,we've been here done this many times before, but still respect each other.

Perhaps this last session has given Tommy practice for future answers to difficult questions . :wink:

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
DSW wrote:
Here here, these discussions are just repetitive. You mshall believe as you believe, I as I and Tommy as he. All different but all good folk regardless so the beliefs are irrelevant to how I perceive the person.


Amen.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:01 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
gumtree wrote:
Agreed,we've been here done this many times before, but still respect each other.

Perhaps this last session has given Tommy practice for future answers to difficult questions . :wink:


And again, amen.. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlfxe8ujn7M

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 6:23 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
Yes - it has!

Life is one, big classroom, ain't it!



“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way”.

C.S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DyncDocaovala and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group