Just wait until you realize how many scientists throughout history were educated by a church.
Why belief in a god is an unfalsifiable claim that serves no purpose
- Thread starter Romanov2488
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Don’t forget the scientists who were also persecuted by the church and the scientists who weren’t educated by a church.
You mean Gallileo? Did you know that Copernicus was the one who invented the Heliocentric model, not Gallileo? Did you know that the church successfully disproved Gallileo's arguments using Tycho Brahe's points. Gallileo was putting forward a flawed argument for Heliocentrism, an argument by the tides. Even after being disproven on this, he deliberately insulted and misrepresented the church's arguments, which is why he was committed to house arrest, from where he was given permission multiple times to travel abroad and even publish a book. When Newton put forward the correct argument for Heliocentrism, it was accepted without controversy.
So this is an often propagandized event which was both rare and largely inconsequential in history.
I've found an amusing article on the topic:
intellectualmathematics.com
Snippet from article:
First things first. How do the tides work? As we know today, “the ebb and flow of the sea arise from the action of the sun and the moon.” That’s Newton’s accurate statement of the correct explanation for the tides. They are a consequence of gravitational forces, as Newton proved. The moon, and to a lesser extent the sun, pull water towards them, causing our oceans to bulge now in one direction, then the other. This was clearly understood already in Galileo’s time. Kepler explained it perfectly, and many others likewise proposed lunar-attraction theories of the tides. In fact, the lunisolar theory of tides is found already in ancient sources, including the causal role of the sun and moon, and descriptions of the effects in extensive and accurate detail.
Galileo, however, got all of this completely wrong. Why should “the tides of the seas follow the movements of the fireballs in the skies,” as Kepler had put it? Galileo considered the very notion “childish” and “occult,” and declared himself “astonished” that “Kepler, enlightened and acute thinker as he was, … listened and assented to the notion of the Moon’s influence on the water.” Those are Galileo’s words. Continuing in his treatise, he writes: “There are many who refer the tides to the moon, saying that this has a particular dominion over the waters … [and] that the moon, wandering through the sky, attracts and draws up toward itself a heap of water which goes along following it.”
Yes, many indeed believed such things. And they were right. But Galileo would have none of it. This theory is not “one which we can duplicate for ourselves by means of appropriate devices,” he objects. How indeed could we ever “make the water contained in a motionless vessel run to and fro, or rise and fall”? Certainly not by moving about some heavy rock located many miles away. “But if,” says Galileo, “by simply setting the vessel in motion, I can represent for you without any artifice at all precisely those changes which are perceived in the waters of the sea, why should you reject this cause and take refuge in miracles?”
That’s Galileo’s objection to the lunar theory of tides: It’s hocus-pocus. It assumes the existence of mysterious forces that we cannot otherwise observe or test. Proper science should be based on stuff we can do in a laboratory, like shaking a bowl of water.
Actually I think this argument is not a half bad. How is the moon supposed to influence the oceans across thousands of miles of empty space? What reason do we have to believe that such a force exists? It doesn’t fit with any common-sense knowledge. It doesn’t fit with any empirical experience. It’s a wild idea. A kind of mysticism.
But maybe that’s the lesson of the story. Sometimes wild ideas are right. Rational scientific prudence is not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s a good thing we had some Keplers who said “why not?” instead of only Galileos who said “don’t be silly.”
A “childish,” “occult,” theory based on “miracles.” That’s what Galileo thought of the lunar theory of tides. He put it in so many words, literally. And with good reason. But he was wrong. The world is “occult,” it turns out.
Galileo’s theory of tides
Galileo dismissed the notion that the moon influences the tides as “childish” and “occult.” Instead he argued that tides are a kind of sloshing due to the motion of the earth. This very poor theory is inconsistent with several of his own scientific principles. Transcript At the end of
intellectualmathematics.com
Snippet from article:
First things first. How do the tides work? As we know today, “the ebb and flow of the sea arise from the action of the sun and the moon.” That’s Newton’s accurate statement of the correct explanation for the tides. They are a consequence of gravitational forces, as Newton proved. The moon, and to a lesser extent the sun, pull water towards them, causing our oceans to bulge now in one direction, then the other. This was clearly understood already in Galileo’s time. Kepler explained it perfectly, and many others likewise proposed lunar-attraction theories of the tides. In fact, the lunisolar theory of tides is found already in ancient sources, including the causal role of the sun and moon, and descriptions of the effects in extensive and accurate detail.
Galileo, however, got all of this completely wrong. Why should “the tides of the seas follow the movements of the fireballs in the skies,” as Kepler had put it? Galileo considered the very notion “childish” and “occult,” and declared himself “astonished” that “Kepler, enlightened and acute thinker as he was, … listened and assented to the notion of the Moon’s influence on the water.” Those are Galileo’s words. Continuing in his treatise, he writes: “There are many who refer the tides to the moon, saying that this has a particular dominion over the waters … [and] that the moon, wandering through the sky, attracts and draws up toward itself a heap of water which goes along following it.”
Yes, many indeed believed such things. And they were right. But Galileo would have none of it. This theory is not “one which we can duplicate for ourselves by means of appropriate devices,” he objects. How indeed could we ever “make the water contained in a motionless vessel run to and fro, or rise and fall”? Certainly not by moving about some heavy rock located many miles away. “But if,” says Galileo, “by simply setting the vessel in motion, I can represent for you without any artifice at all precisely those changes which are perceived in the waters of the sea, why should you reject this cause and take refuge in miracles?”
That’s Galileo’s objection to the lunar theory of tides: It’s hocus-pocus. It assumes the existence of mysterious forces that we cannot otherwise observe or test. Proper science should be based on stuff we can do in a laboratory, like shaking a bowl of water.
Actually I think this argument is not a half bad. How is the moon supposed to influence the oceans across thousands of miles of empty space? What reason do we have to believe that such a force exists? It doesn’t fit with any common-sense knowledge. It doesn’t fit with any empirical experience. It’s a wild idea. A kind of mysticism.
But maybe that’s the lesson of the story. Sometimes wild ideas are right. Rational scientific prudence is not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s a good thing we had some Keplers who said “why not?” instead of only Galileos who said “don’t be silly.”
A “childish,” “occult,” theory based on “miracles.” That’s what Galileo thought of the lunar theory of tides. He put it in so many words, literally. And with good reason. But he was wrong. The world is “occult,” it turns out.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,948
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Not only is that just another anti-Catholic LIE – you are wrong that Jesus is the ONLY one who is to be worshipped. The Father and the Holy Spirit are the 1st and 3rd Persons of the Trinity.
As to your manure about Catholics “worshipping” saints in Heaven – the is ZERO basis for this nonsense – nor is there a SINGLE teaching in the Catechism.
Remember what I told you about what the Bible says about LIARS . . .
Rev. 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
You’re being hysterical and projecting your own manure. I have only been paraphrasing what both Catholics and Protestants say about one another. It is not my personal opinion, it is theirs. I have heard both sides and paraphrasing what they said.
Do yourself a favor and go ask any Protestant what they think is wrong with Catholicism and vice versa and you’re going to get the same responses that I have provided.
If you think that I am promoting one over another, you are dead wrong. Both the Catholics and the Protestants are fools because religion is a cancer overall.
You can also take your nonsense of a Bible and ram it down someone else’s throat. Your people call for the execution of gay people, enough said.
There was a black man who does science I heard the other day say something along the lines of "From the evidences I see there is still suffering and sickness in the world and if there is God in existence wouldn't he fix it", and I mean that is logical reasoning, but it also means that God should be like us and should fix these things. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world; thus sickness and death does still exist in it. Will die one day, I wonder what they guy believes happens when he dies?
If there is nothing more than physical reality, and nothing more beyond the physical - most would suggest they go back into the dirt and that is the end of their existence.
If there is nothing more than physical reality, and nothing more beyond the physical - most would suggest they go back into the dirt and that is the end of their existence.
Just because one doesn’t believe in a god, doesn’t mean that they believe there is only physical reality. That would be a false dichotomy.
Sure, everyone has to think for themselves, and you won't know what they really believe unless you ask them.
That is how knowledge is made known, being told. Though as human beings we are very capable of lying to others to keep motives unnoticed if need be.
That is how knowledge is made known, being told. Though as human beings we are very capable of lying to others to keep motives unnoticed if need be.
Hey BreadofLife, why are you lying your ass off over in this post by falsely quoting me with this garbage. This man literally falsely quoted me where I am claiming that I’ve been a pastor for 37 years LOL!! I am an atheist. What are you on man?
I regard God as self or consciousness. Not some external being. We are already outside of space time because our consciousness dwells in the here and now. My direct experience is always right now. Time is merely an illusion with which the mind perceives. My location is always here.
Christianity has been hijacked by the fundamentalists and filtered through dualistic Greek and Roman thinking.
I posted a logical proof on page 8 which was completely ignored amidst all the pointless bickering.
And also in response to the idea that God is the self, this is demonstrably false. God is the essence of every positive attribute: omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence and unless you embody these traits you cannot claim to be God. Therefore, God is external to you, because God exists and you are not Him.
Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
So tell me where you were when the world was made?
At least, you recognize that the consciousness is the sum total of your experience; that all that you experience is within the consciousness, and yet - you believe that everything can be measured by the scientific method - except the consciousness itself! And if there are things that exist outside of your consciousness for other people to observe and report to you on; then tell me - whose consciousness do these things exist in, when they are not being observed?
My proof:
Also as a sidenote, as a mental experiment I tried to conceptualize the "anti-God", a being which necessarily exemplifies every negative trait. So it would be the weakest, most ignorant, most evil creature possible, which also does not exist, in either reality, or in conception. And the fact is - I can't conceive of it. Because it is logically impossible to conceive of something which, by definition can't be conceived of. The act of hypothesizing of the anti-God inherently disproves its existence. I don't know if anyone else finds the idea of this amusing... probably not.
Nothing exists outside of consciousness. Anything that is ever known, is known by consciousness. Consciousness only seems to localize itself in the form of the mind. What you call “things existing outside of your consciousness” are really things existing outside of your mind, but not consciousness. Everything that could be known or is known, consciousness is present. The mind is a filter for consciousness like a prism that refracts white light into the rainbow. Omniscience isn’t knowing how many kangaroos live in Australia, but knowing the beingness which underlies all form from a fork, to a dog, a computer, and you and me.
But underneath this body, mind, and thoughts, I am god incarnate and so is everything else from the murderers to the most saintly of all people. The only difference is some are still trapped in the illusion of the “little me”.
So no, I can’t and will never agree that God is external.
God is nondualistic. It transcends right and wrong, good and bad, absolute and relative. It’s just simply what is. Pure isness, existence. This is it. There is nowhere to go, nothing to do. You are your own heaven and hell. No matter where you end up, it is always here and now.
Where was I when the world was made? I was always here-now. Have you ever been anywhere else but here-now?
Last edited:
Did you know the Vatican finally admitted Galileo was right? Everything you just said is essentially victim blaming.
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the “Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.” He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions not for "half baked astronomy" as some "rogue historians" church apologists might falsely state.
In the years after Copernicus, heliocentrism was a relatively uncontroversial, though the lack of an observed Stellar Parallax prevented anyone from accepting it as physically true. More dangerous (at least to Italians), in the wake of the Counter Reformation and the conflicts that would culminate in the 30 Years War, was opposition to papal authority. Biblical references sometimes used to attack heliocentrism included Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 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." Galileo defended heliocentrism, and in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina argued that it was not contrary to biblical texts. He took the Augustinian position that poetry, songs, instructions or historical statements in biblical texts need not always be interpreted literally. Galileo argued that the authors wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world in which the sun does rise and set, and discussed a different kind of "movement" of the earth, not rotations.
By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, though his greater offense was his attempt to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.
Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his Copernican and biblical ideas. At the start of 1616, Monsignor Francesco Ingoli initiated a debate with Galileo, sending him an essay disputing the Copernican system. Galileo later stated that he believed this essay to have been instrumental in the action against Copernicanism that followed. According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the Inquisition's actions.
The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned Brahe's argument that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."
The essay also included four theological arguments, but Ingoli suggested Galileo focus on the physical and mathematical arguments, and he did not mention Galileo's biblical ideas. 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." (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.)
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. In March 2008 the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Nicola Cabibbo, announced a plan to honour Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls. In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy.
A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended. The Catholic Church seems to be still a sore loser in the court of world and scientific history.
God rebuke you, Satan. You claim that God doesn't exist, yet you right now claim yourself to be God (and without the scientific instruments to prove it). So you have your "Little You". And I have my "Little Me" and there is a gulf between them. Why aren't I you or you me? You say the gulf is created by the ego. If you can let go of the ego, you will become me and everything else. So what do you hope to become then? Omnipotent? How do you lose the ego? I will tell you how: Benevolence. How do you transcend the flesh? Being free of fleshly desires. How do you think with someone else's mind? Wisdom. To have dominion over all you must have supreme wisdom and benevolence and power - and what is this being that has these things? It is God, it is what you wish you could be, but never can for as long as you think that you are already the greatest thing possible and that your current experience is the highest experience attainable.
God is also the idea of Satan. God is the totality of everything, the beingness of everything. Satan is nothing more than God forgetting that he is God. You are also God, pretending you aren’t. All you’re seeing is your own flesh, and not your divinity because you aren’t whole, you are divided inside. Flesh vs. spirit, bla bla bla. Flesh IS spirit. All is one, yin and yang.
God is both flesh and divine. Existence is divine. There is no reason to look for something divine outside of existence. That’s what miserable people do. You have reduced this existence to trash which is why you need an escape out of it, a heaven.
This was Jesus’ essential teaching. I’m not the one perverting it, you are. You are praying to a god and Jesus is laughing at you…laughing at you praying to yourself.
Last edited:
No, Satan is the one who thinks he is God but is not. He has already stolen your soul, and once he takes your soul, he uses you to take the soul of others. So I say again, God rebuke you, Satan.
God is within us, but we are not God, His will is not your will and His mind is not your mind. We are children of God but we are not God. You are a drop of water in the ocean but you are not the ocean. Do you know how foolish it is to say you are all waters, yet you cannot cause a single drop to fall from the sky?
The wage of sin is death - what is sin? It is error. Your theological error will lead you to destroy yourself. You believe that God just goes and forgets himself - and why is that? Is God hiding from something? Perhaps God dreams he is a human because outside of this world, there is only nothing, a great void, and he is alone, forever, to wander the depths of his own consciousness in despair, unable to even suicide? Is that why God forgets himself? Is this why our world exists? If you believe in nothing higher, this is the curse you place on yourself, this will be your pit of hell.
Yet, somehow, goodness exists in the world. It illuminates all things, it reveals all beauty and truth. So where does this goodness come from? Is it from you, the hopeless wanderer alone in the dark? No, it comes from above. Through service to this good, your eternity gains meaning.
No. One who can see God in the world can see good in everything. The good times are a gift from God, the hard times are a lesson. Our friends are to be cherished and our enemies are to be prayed for. This is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
What is trash is existence for the sake of existence. It is in the striving that we find meaning, in the self-perfection, and service to others. A life of self-control and love for others and contentment with whatever fate may bring, this is true bliss. Envying, strife, hatred, uncontrollable urges, these are the things that make life miserable. What comes after this life, none can say, but even if this life were all there were - a life of virtue is its own reward.
Jesus' teachings on prayer? Even Jesus, the Son of God, prayed to the Father. Even God serves God.
Matthew 6:9-13
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
The highest ideal is to always be a servant to others. And we seek service to the Divine in order to become more like the Divine. It is in giving that we receive. We receive love from those we are kind to, we receive wisdom from having the humility to listen to others, we receive peace of mind from knowing that there is something greater. We cannot receieve any of these things from our own selves!
Similar threads
