Mortal Games wrote on 06/13/10 at 00:51:36:

Thanks for saving my time. Still allow me to point out that you are using an Ad Hominem.

http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

Now that I have managed to disagree with everyone in this thread, including my fellow atheists, I would like to get back to Copernicus. Fortunately I followed a course History of Physics during my education, so I think I have something sensible to say about this. Markovich subscribes my statement that Copernicus' heliocentric system cannot maintained these days. I would like to add that it cannot play a role in a discussion about religion then. Btw this system was already proposed by Aristarchus of Samos.
What remains is the historical role of Copernicus' system. Aristarchus was irrelevant from this point of view, as almost everybody rejected his theory. I think Markovich and others vastly overestimate the meaning of Copernicus here for a couple of reasons.
1. I already mentioned that the RK-Church did not oppose during C's life, quite the contrary. During the 16th and 17th Century the cardinals were quite interested in all the new scientific developments. Copernicus is not a martyr of science; neither is Galilei.
2. When C published his De revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Reformation and Contra-Reformation already had begun. The 100 years after C's death people in general were more religious than the 100 years before.
3. Copernicus wrote his book in Latin. As a result only scholars who were interested in physics read the book. Newton knew it of course, but even he was one of the few.

If Copernicus had dealt a blow to christian religion preciously few felt it. Now it cannot denied that from 1450 on the christian god gradually played a lesser role in West-European society. Copernicus was not a major factor. Far more important was the Italian Renaissance, as Mortal Games already has pointed out. After the fall of Constantinopel the Italian scholars were able to study the Antique philosophers by their original works. As a result they lost interest in the bible as the only source of knowledge. The other important factor was the Treaty of Münster, which put an end to 150 years of religious wars. It had become clear that neither the Protestants nor the Roman-Catholics could win; apparently the christian god was on neither side. Add Newton's physics and the 18th Century dislike of RK-clergy and the picture is complete. Only then the myths around Copernicus and Galilei were invented, as people realised they could be used for anti-clergical propaganda. In other words: not Copernicus dealt a blow, 150-200 years after his death he was (ab)used to deal blows and quite often unjustified ones.

Markovich wrote on 06/10/10 at 01:32:57:

For your purpose cause and explanation are equal, but from a scientific point they aren't. I dispute (but cannot conclusively prove) that the universe is causal. It's the other reason that I am an atheist. Birdbrain's omnipotent etc. god is inconsistent, as far as our knowledge goes, with the nuclear bomb. There is no causal theory which describes it.
Btw you have nicely shown why the Cosmological Proof fails.

Antillian wrote on 06/10/10 at 11:03:34:

Thanks for the compliment; that was my aim and probably the reason why everybody disagrees with me.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/11/10 at 13:06:05:

If you want to reject this supergod you cannot blame anyone for rejecting your god.

The biggest key of God, Markovich, is love. [/quote]
As I said before, I don't want the kind of love those "heathens" from Canaan experienced.

Gambit wrote on 06/13/10 at 03:45:03:

just like certain theories about Atlantis ...

You are being intellectually dishonest MNb, and I will not reply to any of your posts in the future.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/08/10 at 11:08:13:

For some reason I don't think English Wikipedia being the authority to decide who was part of the Renaissance and who was not. According to eg Bertrand Russell dirty politics was an essential part of it, Alexander Borgia being a fine example. Remember Macchiavelli? About who he wrote The Prince? And to whom it was dedicated?
It looks like people only belong to the Renaissance if it suits you.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/08/10 at 11:08:13:

Then you know something about me I don't know myself. No way I can subscribe this. The whole point of Popper is that there is an essential difference between proof and confirmation. Essentially you accuse Dawkins of sloppy usage of words with the goal of giving his personal opinions an appearance of scientific objectivity. I hope you realise that is close to scientific fraud. Note your logic implies this; as I haven't read his books it's not what I say.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/08/10 at 11:08:13:


Mortal Games wrote on 06/08/10 at 11:08:13:

Exactly Kierkegaard's and my point. You - in Dawkins' trail - are the one who claims proof, not Kierkegaard and me.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/08/10 at 11:08:13:

Moskalenko's quote is exactly on the right place here, just after you putting forward a dogma.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/08/10 at 13:19:24:

Yes, he didn't because he doesn't exist. He doesn't exist - for me - because I don't worship him. It's as simple as that.BirdBrain wrote on 06/08/10 at 13:19:24:

Exactly my point - I don't like any authority who destroys people just because they have a different opinion. We don't need an anti-christ with a god like that.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/08/10 at 13:19:24:

Murder is wrong, it is evil, but it isn't sin. I define sin as something wrong in the eyes of some god. I don't recognize any god (you reject the vast majority as well), so I reject sin as well. What's wrong with a god who hates sin is that he inspires people to do evil - like murder. I refer to the Crusades.
There is one possible exception. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lot more sympathetic than your god. I know the FSM is meant as a parody, but here I am deadly serious.

Stigma wrote on 06/08/10 at 14:16:14:

This means you temporarily accept that an oop god exists. (Btw, I am not surely about this myself, so go ahead and show that I am wrong).

Stigma wrote on 06/08/10 at 14:16:14:

They don't have any evidence. That does not mean there is evidence for the opposite.

Stigma wrote on 06/08/10 at 14:16:14:

I am not arguing this, how could I being an atheist myself. My point is that the pain/suffering argument suffers from the same flaw as the evil argument. There is no need to treat it separately.

Stigma wrote on 06/08/10 at 14:16:14:

That's what I have been arguing this whole thread: you can't say anything significant about this subject with the aid of science exactly because of this reason. Trying to prove that god does not exist is just as hopeless. From a scientific and a philosophic point agnositicism is the only reasonable point of view. There can be reasons - see Kierkegaard once again - to have faith or not, but they are always subjective.

Markovich wrote on 06/09/10 at 00:11:17:

He didn't, not as much as you seem to assume. For one thing it were the cardinals who urged Copernicus to propose his revolutionary model. His book has only been on the Index for four years; decades after his death. Just like Galilei Copernicus isn't a martyr. Fyi: Copernicus hesitated to publish out of fear for his colleague scientists and not for the RK-church.
My point though, if Copernicus dealt such a blow, this blow has been softened the last 200 years for the reasons you and I have mentioned. You can't use scientific achievements only if it suits you, sorry.

To be continued tomorrow, I have to go. Then I'll improve the lay out as well.

Markovich wrote on 06/10/10 at 01:32:57:


Markovich, you don't make a lick of sense with the supergod argument.  You are trying to understand God, and this reminds me of the end of some movie, where the universe was just a marble that was plucked up off the ground of a floor - a godless theory.   

Your explanation for God?  He puts it this way -"I AM THAT I AM".  With such an arrogant take to God, you will never understand Him - he will confuse you forever. 

Until you humble yourself, He will not reveal Himself to you.  You can claim it is refuted all you want, but the truth is, you are just as confused as when this discussion started.  All this tossing around the possibility of God's existence...Gods, supergods, etc.   

Why don't you get your prayers heard, Markovich?  Have you ever came to God humbly and sought His face?  Have you ever admitted that you don't know everything, and really took a good look at creation, how perfectly it is held.  The Cosmos?  Who made that Cosmos, Markovich?  The Bible says all things were created by God, and the Word of God, and the Spirit of God.  The Word?   That is Christ.  Jesus Christ.  The one you bash, he is the creator of all, including you.  The Word says he made you in the image of God.  Not just your body, but your soul and spirit.  But if you choose to deny Him, that is your choice.   

You will never really see God until you come humbly.  I will continue to pray for you, whether you accept my prayers or not, because I don't want to see you falling away.  Life is not just some random chance.  God is still alive.  He still works miracles.  The very fact you are able to even read these letters and type back is a huge miracle, but is underestimated, like normal life is taken for granted.   


The biggest key of God, Markovich, is love.  You rationalize all these things, but don't really seek God.  You deny Him for some reason.  Maybe something didn't turn out the right way for you at one point in life?  But the truth is, it isn't about me and you - that is a selfish attitude.  God wants us to put Him first - even above us.  Real Christianity is a life of servitude.  MnB quoted scripture concerning bondmen and bondwomen, not realizing the prophetic meanings within the words - becoming a bondman to Jesus Christ.   
Markovich, I could show you God right in front of you, but until you walk humbly, you will never see Him.  He hides Himself from those that think they are so smart and wise - He reveals Himself to those who are humble.  Take a good look at someone who has a real relationship with God.  Look at the real joy in their lives.  They are not deluded.  They can actually feel the presence of God in their lives, just as I can right now - it is a warmth, a comfort, that words cannot describe.  God is real.  I challenge you to set your book smarts down, Markovich, and really give God a chance.  You want to see if He is real?  The Word says to draw close to Him.  Put away your wickedness from you.  You cannot approach God with that kind of stubborn attitude.  Seek God with Your heart.  Only then will you truly find Him.

I would like now to address BirdBrain's notion that we need the suppposed god to account for the existence of the Sun, Moon and stars.  As expressed, this is clearly a mistake, since we can account for the existence of all these objects in terms of the standard model and associated historical account, perhaps as modified to reflect new information, of matter, energy and space-time.  But the question could better have been put, "Without God, what could explain All That Exists? -- Must not All That Exists have come from something?"  This larger question is not subject to the same easy dismissal that can be given to, "What made the Sun?"

My rejoinder is this.

First consider the set, {all existing things}.  For the purposes of my argument, I don't care what this set contains; I only care that everything that actually exists is gathered into this set.  Now let us consider the question, "What is the cause (or equally, what is the explanation) of this set?

If we only consider what it means to be the set {all that exists}, it should be clear that the indicated question not only has no answer, but that it is a category mistake.  When we say that B is caused by A, we mean that the eventuation of B is necessarily preceded by, and necessarily follows from, the eventuation of A, both of which are existing things.  Thus, I am the son of my mother and father, whose biological union gave rise to me via definite physical processes.  My mother, my father, and the specific biological processes by which I originated are all part of the set of existing things.  "Causation" itself is but the relation of one existing thing to other existing things.  The same is true of "explanation."

So that when we come to the set of {all existing things}, regardless of the supposed contents of this set, we are at a loss for cause or explanation.  We have reached the outer limits of What Exists, and beyond is not merely unknown, but is known not to exist.  By assumption, there lies beyond this set nothing that could explain it or cause it, in the sense that these words have their customary meanings.

The upshot is that the set, {all existing things} necessarily has no cause and no explanation.  You can call its existence a mystery, which it certainly seems to our earthbound minds, but is more correct to say that to seek its cause is a category mistake; paraphrasing the Bible, It Is That It Is: It must be taken as sufficient unto Itself.

So I have shown that whatever is contained in the set, {all existing things} is without explanation or cause, with the consequence that the search for an ultimate explanation of all things is necessarily futile.

Now in the first place there is all that is known to exist on the basis of observation, that is, matter, energy and space-time, which I like to call the Cosmos.  BirdBrain argues that this set requires an explanation, and that therefore, it must be the creation of his supposed god.  So let us then include his god in {all that exists} and ask, what is the cause of this set {Cosmos + BirdBrain's god}?  If the Cosmos required an explanation, or a cause, surely this augmented set also does.  So BirdBrain's god must have a supergod, and the set {Cosmos + BirdBrain's god + supergod} must have a super-supergod, and so on and so on and so on, ad infinitum but never with the satisfaction that the ultimate cause has been found.  So either we chase our tail forever or we admit that the set, {all existing things} is sufficient unto itself, and that the question of its cause is improper.

If, then, the set of all things must be taken as sufficient unto itself -- and I have shown that it must -- the only question is, of what does this set consist?  The most economical answer and the one most easily believed is that the set {all that exists} consists of the Cosmos and no more.  Since BirdBrain's argument that no set of existing things can rest without an explanation has been refuted, the simplest thing is to agree that the Cosmos is all that exists, and hence, the Cosmos itself is that which requires no explanation.  

The alternative is to posit entities that are not only unknown, but which also are quite improbable, and which even then are insufficient to supply an ultimate explanation.  If indeed BirdBrain's god exists, one thing he certainly cannot do, and that is, explain his own existence.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/09/10 at 20:16:14:

Maybe I was unclear. God being non-existent is of course not obvious, that's why I've bothered to look into all those philosophical discussions. But the God of the old testament fits the political purposes of the ancient Israelites so well that the alternative theory should obviously be considered: That He was a human creation rather than the other way around.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/09/10 at 20:16:14:

There's physicalism and epiphenomenalism, to mention just two theories in the philosophy of mind that don't assume anything mysterious outside the physical world. And "we don't really know yet" is always an alternative to religious or pseudoscientific explanations of puzzling phenomena. Many scientists who push their pet theories could also benefit from such humility.

Personally I haven't been all that fascinated by this discusssion, particularly since religion's most vocal defender has persisted in the perfectly circular argumentative method of quoting the Bible to prove the truths alleged therein.  This is the sort of thing that you often get from believers, but reading long examples of circular reasoning is hardly fascinating.

@Antillian: Loud, shmoud.  Nobody's posting in all caps and nobody's using exclamation points, not very many, anyway.  Want to discuss this?  Discuss.  Don't want to?  Stay out, or at least don't mock those who do.

I actually don't mind the loud voices. This has been a fascinating discussion. 

Pity the atheists insist on taking the blue pill still