Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Twitter Replies III












It all depends on how they are studied.





Yes, but the law is in our hearts already.  We don't need tablets.  This is why our laws are modeled after the Commandments.





One thing is freedom of speech, another is abusing a child who has nothing to do with us.







I agree.  I kindly invited Rubicondior to a debate in August of 2012 and the invitation was accepted.  Rubicondior then began to dilly dally and claim victory without even presenting an opening statement.  I insisted that Rosa follow through with the debate, but it became a circus and Rosa was made to look foolish and awkward.  I honestly thought Rubicondior was a serious individual.  It is obvious the account and blog are run by a charlatan.  







All gods that have been described by men are attempts by men to describe the One God.









We all have our reasons for not accepting things.  Many teens reject school and then have a hard time in life. Their decision does not mean it is a right one.












////Hey folks, long read.  blogpost here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/01/atheism-is-stupid.html
My responses below
"As I got older and focused more on physics, I began to realize that God may not be a bad explanation after all for the causality of everything."
I'll grant you that a god started it all now show me how you get from that to "...and that god is the god of the roman catholic church" Why isn't it Zeus? Or Brahma? Or Ra? ////


Sacerdotus replies:

I have answered this so many times on different blogs already.  There is only ONE God, any names or descriptions that exist originate in man's attempt to understand this singular reality.  The questions you pose are irrelevant for this very reason.  This is why the Catholic Church states that every religion understood God among "shadows and images."     




///"There is no God, it is superstition." 
This is a straw man argument. Atheism is a response to the positive claim "there is a god" made by theists. "There is no god" is a claim to knowledge. Knowledge and belief are two separate things, atheism deals with belief only.////



Sacerdotus replies:

There is no straw man.  A belief is knowledge.  Holding the idea that God does not exist is a claim to both belief and knowledge.  You believe the claim that God does not exist.  God's non-existence is knowledge.  It is something you can contemplate on.  It is not some random thought.  



//////"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
#Kalamfacepalm This is a deeply flawed argument. Why can't the universe be infinitely cyclical? How do we know the first cause was a god and not just the way the universe had to be? What caused god? (I refer you to my first question if you say he is infinite). Finally, at best, this argument gets you to a deistic position which is not where I think you want to be.//////


Sacerdotus replies:

The principle of cause and effect is part of science whether you like it or not.  This is taught in physics.  Whether the universe is infinitely cyclical does not take away from the fact that it began at some point.  We believe God to be the first cause because of the understanding we have of God via reason and revelation.  The first cause must be outside of the universe, since order exists, it must be intelligent and self aware.  Apple makes Ipads from outside the materials used for them.  Apple does not convert itself into an ipad.  Similarly, a creator must be outside of the creation.  There is evidence that this universe is a code and most likely a simulation.  There will be a future blog on this.





////"Atheism is NOT a haven for free thought"
Atheists are only united by one thing, they do not accept the claim "there is a god". Outside of this, there is no belief they MUST hold to call themselves an atheist. There are no tenets, no dogma, no scriptures or commandments or commanders.////


Sacerdotus replies:

Atheists hold different ideas regarding God.  Some take an agnostic approach others claim to know for  a fact that God does not exist.  A close examination of atheism will reveal tenets, dogma, science as scripture, progressivism as a moral code. etc.  





//////"Atheists are quick to dismiss God as the causal factor of all that exists without evidence to support this claim."
Because there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim "There is a god and it caused the universe" it's absurd to go through life believing every unsupported claim you hear until you are presented with evidence it isn't true. Why do you dismiss the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the causal agent for the universe if you don't have evidence he didn't cause the universe?//////



Sacerdotus replies:

Define sufficient evidence?  Most of the evidence used in physics is mathematical.  We cannot enter black holes or even get close to them.  How do you think we know about them?  We use mathematics and our understanding of how matter and energy work alongside gravity.  The suggestion that there is not sufficient evidence is unfounded.  There is evidence that supports God but that is limited to the human capacity.  This is no one's fault, just like it is not a physicist's fault that we cannot actually put a black hold under a microscope.  The Flying Spaghetti monster cannot be the causal agent of the universe because it itself has a causal agent.  It is a creation of a comical mind.  This is why in my other blog I challenge atheists to find the originator of the "God concept or myth."  To date, not one has taken the challenge.  





///////////"Atheism does not answer the question of causality and therefore cannot be taken seriously, scientifically speaking."
Atheism doesn't purport to answer the question of causality so this is another ridiculous straw man//////



Sacerdotus replies:

By stating that God did not do it or is not a factor, atheists are purporting an answer already.  They have already ruled God out.  If it wasn't God, then it was an unconscious agent that can manipulate space, time and matter.



//////"The "Big Bang" theory, Evolution - two ideas often cited - do not support Atheism"
Correct but they do put paid to several claims made by theists about the supposed supernatural origins of the universe and the diversity of life respectively.//////


Sacerdotus replies:

How so?  They still do not explain causality.  They highlight processes that occurred after causation.  Pregnancy and gestation does not explain the causality of life.  We have to look deep and see that sex/fertilization etc,  is involved.    





/////"Atheists will misconstrue historical events in order to make religion look primitive or immoral...The crimes of those who were put to death were disobedience and heresy, not scientific progress."
A primitive and immoral punishment considering the crime, no?/////////



Sacerdotus replies:


Again, we can only interpret ancient societies based on how they saw everything, or how they viewed life, justice, love etc.  We cannot think like we do now and apply that view on how they thought back then. 




////Galileo was certainly persecuted by the catholic church for his scientific progress. His heresy charge was a direct result of the heliocentric model conflicting with scripture http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair//////////



Sacerdotus replies:

Actually Copernicus was responsible for the heliocentric model.  The Catholic Church sponsored science and even funded Galileo's work.  The suggestion that the Church persecuted Galileo and is anti-science is not historical.  This is an atheist's take on history.  If you read Cardinal Bellarmine's letter regarding the first hearing of Galileo, he specifically states that the Church would have to examine the interpretation of certain Scripture passages if proof of what Galileo suggested was incontrovertible.  (http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwardsk/hist310/reader/letterbellarmine.pdf)  Galileo was hardly persecuted.  He was treated well and was under house arrest in a Bishop's residence.  He was never officially charged of heresy or convicted.  What he did wrong was teaching his ideas as fact in violation of the Church which funded him.  Would you want someone you are funding teaching things that are not proven and that will cause scandal?  By him doing that it looked like the Church was behind his ideas.  The Church studies things first before making any final proclamations.  This is why it takes the Church a long time to take any final position on any subject matter.    





//////////"...if I went to the president and told him that the Constitution is not real and that I had the real one which states that we need to have a king, not an electoral process that elects people into office. Will the president be happy and quickly jump to believe me and make the changes?"
Nope but the the difference between Galileo and you is that Galileo could present his evidence and you can't and the difference between most modern presidents and the pope of the 1600's is that you won't get put under house arrest for life for lying about a document you have to the president.///////////



Sacerdotus replies:

No, Galileo had no evidence to present.  He defied the Church by teaching his ideas as fact without it being proven.  This arrogance is what got him in trouble since the Church was funding his work.  As stated above, his house arrest was nothing to frown upon.  He lived well in the Bishop's residence.  You are obviously not aware of how the United States government punishes those who are guilty of treason. I suggest you read the Constitution regarding it.  The government will punish those who dissent from its ideas.  For example:  Puerto Rican anarchists were tortured and poisoned with radiation just for voicing opposition against the powers that be. 







///////"This makes any discussion futile and only shows that the Atheist either cannot comprehend the arguments or simply is not interested..."
Because those are the only two options :P Perhaps your arguments or evidence are poor?////////////



Sacerdotus replies:

No, I have provided extensive evidence to atheists and they say it is bogus even without reading it. :)  This makes atheism look "stupid."  






///////////"If one is a free thinker, then one would be objective and absorb whatever evidence or argument presented instead of finding any poor excuse in order to invalidate it."
What you are describing is not a free thinker but a gullible half wit. It is absurd to accept any argument or evidence without first evaluating them for merit and then discarding those without any.
Do I need to go on? There has been very little of merit in your post so far.
Oh alright, one more for the road..//////////////



Sacerdotus replies:

What I describe here is the mental block atheists place on their minds.  In order to be a free thinker, one must not have mental blocks or filters.  Any information must be allowed to enter and go through processing.  Hence the saying, "benefit of doubt."  









//////////////"Atheism is for the intellectual sloth who does not take the effort to find answers to questions."
I'm not sure atheists are the intellectual sloths here. Atheism is a position on a single claim. Nothing more. You have enough of these arguments to keep the crows off your corn for good.//////////////



Sacerdotus replies:

They are intellectual sloths in that they adhere to a claim that cannot be proven nor that is allowed to be questioned.  











A response to  based on his response found here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/01/twitter-replies-iii.html
////"There is only ONE God, any names or descriptions that exist originate in man's attempt to understand this singular reality."
How on earth could you possibly know this? Evidence please. N.B. The bible is the claim you are making not the proof so any quotes from the bible are the very thing that needs evidencing./////



Sacerdotus replies:

Think about it.  Do you know what a singularity is?  The universe is believed to have begun at the "big bang" not "big bangs."  In this singular event, everything exploded into existence.  That being said, there can only be one creator of any particular thing.  Steve Jobs and Bill Gates could not create the IPad simultaneously.  Only ONE developed the product and brought it into the market.  A study of every description of God on Earth will show common denominators.  Even in polytheism there is always a "head" god.  Ancient people understood that there is always a central deity.  I have not cited the Bible at all, I do not understand where you are getting this idea from.  



////"A belief is knowledge. A belief is knowledge. Holding the idea that God does not exist is a claim to both belief and knowledge. You believe the claim that God does not exist. God's non-existence is knowledge"
Nope. False. I'll demonstrate. Your mum calls you up and says: "I just found a $100 note in my pocket!" Do you believe her? She seems like a trustworthy lady so you probably do. Do you KNOW she found $100 in her pocket. Based on the phonecall alone? No you do not. I myself am an agnostic atheist. "There is no god" is very different from "I don't believe there is a god" The second one is not a claim about the existence of a god, it's a claim about your position regarding that god.////



Sacerdotus replies:

The problem with your analogy is that whether I believe mum does or does not have the money does not affect the veracity of her statement.  I have no reason to assume as fact that she does not have $100.  The knowledge is there: $100/possession of and the belief: she does possess it; she does not possess it.  "There is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god" both hold the premise that God does not exist.  No consideration for His existence is given.  




/////"The principle of cause and effect is part of science whether you like it or not. This is taught in physics. Whether the universe is infinitely cyclical does not take away from the fact that it began at some point. We believe God to be the first cause because of the understanding we have of God via reason and revelation. The first cause must be outside of the universe, since order exists, it must be intelligent and self aware. Apple makes Ipads from outside the materials used for them. Apple does not convert itself into an ipad. Similarly, a creator must be outside of the creation. There is evidence that this universe is a code and most likely a simulation. There will be a future blog on this."
This is all special pleading and assuming the universe WAS created. Quantum physics shows us that cause and effect is not so rigid. You say everything but my god had a beginning and I ask why the universe has to have a beginning and not just be bang-crunch into the infinite past? You assume that order requires an intelligence. Snow flakes form based on physical laws spontaneously. Then you descend into pseudoscience.////


Sacerdotus replies:

Special pleading is not applicable here.  Again, the principle of cause and effect is science.  To state otherwise is ridiculous.  Quantum physics does not show cause and effect to be lacking.  It merely shows variables that are not usually looked at in classical physics.  Nevertheless, those variables have a cause.  Randomness does have a beginning in space and time.  There is no such thing as an infinite past.  We know the universe began at a point and is expanding and slowly cooling.  The example of snow flakes shows perfectly that order requires an intelligence as a cause.  Notice you wrote "physical laws."  Laws need a law giver.  Laws do not write themselves, so to speak.  A law is a complex statement that entails strict syntax and semantics in order to present an idea.  If the universe has a creator who is intelligent, logic would dictate that intelligence was used to formulate laws that would allow snowflakes to develop in the way that they do.  


////"Atheists hold different ideas regarding God. Some take an agnostic approach others claim to know for a fact that God does not exist."
Thus proving my point. Thankyou. Again, the only thing that links a gnostic atheist to an agnostic atheist is that they both reject the claim "There is a god"////



Sacerdotus replies:

This idea is touched upon in my other blog posts.  


///"A close examination of atheism will reveal tenets, dogma, science as scripture, progressivism as a moral code. etc. "
Nope. False. I've met plenty of atheists that hold a whole range of ideas from conspiracy theories to pseudoscience to racism. The only thing that links an alien abduction believing atheist to a racist homophobic atheist is that they both reject the claim "There is a god"
If you could point me to some dogma or tenets or scriptures that would be great because nobody told me.////


Sacerdotus replies:

As with any social group, there is always difference in views.  Read the God delusion by Richard Dawkins.  It is heavily relied upon by atheists in order to formulate atheistic sophism.  




///"Most of the evidence used in physics is mathematical."
Are you trying to tell me there is a mathematical proof for god?///



Sacerdotus replies:

My comment is reflective on how physicists can study things light years away by using mathematics.  Some have presented mathematical proofs for God; however, these equations reflect a finite universe and cannot truly explain God but merely show that there is evidence that God can exist.  



///"The suggestion that there is not sufficient evidence is unfounded."
And yet, you are yet to provide me with more than unsupported assertions and flawed arguments. When do we begin?///


Sacerdotus replies:

You have never debated me. I constantly invite atheists to debate and they instead clog my mentions with comical comments.  I am currently working on a series of blog posts showing evidence.  If you become a regular on my blog you will see them as soon as I complete each.  You have not shown my arguments to be flawed nor unsupported.  As in my "Atheism is STUPID" post, you are exhibiting the contrarian rhetoric.  





///"This is why in my other blog I challenge atheists to find the originator of the "God concept or myth."
Humans. Done. Is there a prize?////


Sacerdotus replies:

So you are saying that humans simultaneously developed the "God concept or myth?"  This is a general assertion that has no substance to it.    


///"If it wasn't God, then it was an unconscious agent that can manipulate space, time and matter."
This answer comes from physics, not atheism. Not sure how you've managed to conflate the two.////



Sacerdotus replies:

Physics makes no such statement.     



////"How so? They still do not explain causality."
Strawman. Neither the big bang nor evolution theory purport to explain causality.////


Sacerdotus replies:

Exactly, hence why they cannot be cited as proof against God by atheists.  You have proved my previous point.  The straw man rests on atheists.



///"We cannot think like we do now and apply that view on how they thought back then."
So you're saying that it was not immoral to convict Galileo and place him under house arrest for the rest of his life because of his ideas? Does that mean that slavery in the US wasn't immoral at the time? Such a strange morality you have.///


Sacerdotus replies:

Galileo did the crime and paid the time.  The officials at the time saw it fit based on their laws; who am I to call them immoral?  He was not tortured nor starved to death.  There is no relation between slavery and Galileo so your argument is non-sequitur.  Slavery was imposed on a people, Galileo was punished for his bad actions.  Big difference.  


///"The suggestion that the Church persecuted Galileo and is anti-science is not historical."
This is patently false. Quote: "Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world""
Here is a transcript of his sentencing by 10 cardinals of the inquisition:http://web.archive.org/web/20080516214000/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence
In addition several of his books were banned.///


Sacerdotus replies:

The link you provided shows exactly what I wrote in my previous comment!  He took it upon himself to teach something that was not proven and at the same time claiming that the Bible had to be edited.  Also note that 7 cardinals signed the document.  This is not a proclamation of the entire college of Cardinals, just the opinion of those 7.  Cardinal Bellarmine specifically requested proof of Galileo's claims and none was given.  Read the letter I linked you to.    Do you expect a Cardinal to change his mind just because you made an assertion?  The Church needs more than a mere statement.  


///"He was never officially charged of heresy or convicted."
Read the transcript. Also, if he was never convicted of being "vehemently suspected of heresy" why was he under house arrest?///


Sacerdotus replies:

I already answered this in my first comment.



///"No, Galileo had no evidence to present."
False. Not sure where you keep getting this from? Are you making it up as you go along? He had carefully recorded observations and calculations to back him up.////


Sacerdotus replies:

Did you even read the Cardinal's letter?  He states this himself.  No evidence was provided.  Had there been evidence, he states that the Church would have to "proceed  with  great circumspection  in  explaining  passages of Scripture which  appear to teach the contrary."  I sense you are getting angry from your condescending question.  You cannot rewrite history a-la atheism.  You are showing exactly what I wrote about in my "Atheism is STUPID" post.  Thanks! :)


//"No, I have provided extensive evidence to atheists and they say it is bogus even without reading it. :) This makes atheism look "stupid." 
How do you know that none of them read it? I've read plenty of things provided as "evidence" by theists and it IS bogus. You've asserted a few things here which are NOT evidence of god.///

Sacerdotus replies:

I know because they comment a second after the reading material is given to them.  :)  


///"Hence the saying, "benefit of doubt." "
It's silly to believe things based on "Benefit of the doubt"////

Sacerdotus replies:

I never said believe, I merely stated that we must give the "benefit of doubt" to any idea presented to us instead of filtering them out based on prejudice.  This is a sign of a free thinker.


////"They are intellectual sloths in that they adhere to a claim that cannot be proven nor that is allowed to be questioned. "
If by "They" you mean theists, then sure I agree :) I've already addresed what atheism is above.////



Sacerdotus replies:

No, we are obviously referring to atheists here.  





///@Sacerdotus This is a long one folks...

Response to response to response found here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/01/twitter-replies-iii.html

"That being said, there can only be one creator of any particular thing. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates could not create the IPad simultaneously."

Two things. The first is you're begging the question, you're assuming there WAS a creator of the universe. The second is that many things are created by teams. ////


Sacerdotus replies:

I am not assuming anything.  It is self evident that the universe has a creator.  Whether the Creator is a conscious agent or not is the question.



////"A study of every description of God on Earth will show common denominators. Even in polytheism there is always a "head" god."

Again I ask, how could you possibly know that the descriptions are of the one entity and not a multitude of similar but different entities?///


Sacerdotus replies:

Just take a look at them.  Compare them and see the common trend in describing these gods.  As I have stated before, there is always a "main god" in these cultures showing the ancients believed in a singularity that trumps the rest.




////"I have not cited the Bible at all, I do not understand where you are getting this idea from."

You are a catholic are you not? Presumably, you believe in the god of the bible and Jesus? Hence my reference to the bible which is the source of your claim for the existence of that particular god.///


Sacerdotus replies:

Yes I am Catholic; however, the God of the Bible was known prior to any Scriptures.   This is the point you are missing.



////"The problem with your analogy is that whether I believe mum does or does not have the money does not affect the veracity of her statement.

This is EXACTLY why beliefs and knowledge are different. You can believe your mum found $100 but it can turn out to be wrong. If something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. That's why accepting the claim "I have $100 in my pocket" is not a claim to knowledge. This is philosophy 101 mate, I'm surprised you don't understand this with your philosophy degree and all.

Applying this to the question of gods, if I don't accept your claim, I am not saying that I KNOW there is no god (That can't be known) I am saying I do not accept YOUR claim.///



Sacerdotus replies:


They are different in definition, but not substance.  Both contain knowledge or information.  You cannot believe or disbelieve in something without knowing what that something is first.  This is what you're not seem to be understanding for whatever reason.  It is not a hard concept.  The human brain needs information before it can do anything.  We are not born with data-infused brains.  I hold a degree in philosophy.  



////"No consideration for His existence is given."

False, you have no way of knowing if someone has considered it or dismissed it out of hand.   ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Generally speaking, atheists filter whatever evidence for God is presented to them.  They enter a dialog already set that there is no God.  You are doing this right now.



////"Special pleading is not applicable here."

You're saying everything has to have a cause then removing god from that group and saying it didn't have a cause. That is special pleading. I ask why the universe couldn't cause itself or why there couldn't have been a natural cause for the universe?//


Sacerdotus replies:


No, you misunderstood.  Science says that everything needs a cause.  The same is said in philosophy.  The universe could not cause itself because how can something that does not exist cause itself to exist?   What you are describing is magic, not science or reality.  Moreover, how can the universe have a natural cause if nature came into existence at the birth the of the universe?  Nature would have had to exist prior to the birth of the universe in order for the universe to have a natural cause.  You need to critically think in order to see your fallacious reasoning.


////"The example of snow flakes shows perfectly that order requires an intelligence as a cause. Notice you wrote "physical laws." Laws need a law giver. Laws do not write themselves, so to speak."

You're conflating the term 'law' as used in a legal sense with the term 'law' as used in a scientific sense, a generalised description of observed phenomena. Do you have anything other than assertion to offer me as evidence of a law giver? Why can't the natural laws of the universe be a consequence of its formation, why do they require an author? ///



Sacerdotus replies:


The use of the word 'law' shows order and property.  The legal sense of the word shows the same.  It explicitly states a particular concept.  In the laws of physics, they explicitly and abstractly state a property within order which are mathematical.  Where is the assertion?  Do you disagree that a law needs a law giver and that laws do not write themselves?  If so, what is your evidence for this?   The laws of universe cannot be a consequence of its formation because there is no evidence for this and the laws would have had to exist prior to the birth of the universe.  It would be like gestating as your DNA formed, this is not possible.  At fertilization an exchange of DNA from both parents takes place creating a distinct human being that begins to develop using the information in that new set of DNA.  The universe is the same.  The Big bang would have had to have been the "fertilization" which brings about the laws and then the laws would form the universe as it is today.



//// "A law is a complex statement that entails strict syntax and semantics in order to present an idea."

Because that's how humans interpret the natural world.//


Sacerdotus replies:

Yes, but the universe seems to understand these laws as well.  Is it alive?


////"If the universe has a creator who is intelligent, logic would dictate that intelligence was used to formulate laws that would allow snowflakes to develop in the way that they do."

Again begging the question. That's a mighty big IF.//


Sacerdotus replies:

I am merely making a connection to your snowflake idea and what logic would dictate.  The point originated from you, not me.



////"As with any social group, there is always difference in views. Read the God delusion by Richard Dawkins. It is heavily relied upon by atheists in order to formulate atheistic sophism."

Because there were no atheists before Dawkins came along? Don't avoid the question now, what are some of the tenets, dogma etc of atheism?///


Sacerdotus replies:


Yes there were atheists before Dawkins, and like those of today, they all had different ideas regarding atheism.  Some of the tenets would be a confidence in the non-existence of God without evidence to suggest otherwise, the appeal to science to answer every question,  the appeal to one's desires to dictate life instead of conscience, the appeal to humanism.


/////"however, these equations reflect a finite universe and cannot truly explain God but merely show that there is evidence that God can exist."

I don't see how these equations are evidence for god? Care to point to a particular one?   //


Sacerdotus replies:

Equations are used to show evidence in physics.  We cannot go to distant galaxies or touch black holes.  We rely on math to tell us what they are and what they're doing.  Why can't this be done with God?   I would advice you to look at the equations using Google.  Blogger will not let me post the appropriate symbols here -  it will look like a mess.


///"You have never debated me."

Sorry, I thought that's what we were doing?//


Sacerdotus replies:

No, this is not a debate, I am merely answering your questions.   To debate me go to RationallyFaithful.blogspot.com where it is more formal.


////"You have not shown my arguments to be flawed nor unsupported."

Except I've pointed out a series of logical flaws (some of which you persist with), asked a series of questions you haven't answered and asked you for evidence for your assertions which you haven't provided. Not sure how to debate in a way that will make you happy.///


Sacerdotus replies:


No, you have pointed out your own straw man, not my logical flaws.  I have answered your questions using concepts that are already known in science.  Why you ignore them is beyond me...


////"So you are saying that humans simultaneously developed the "God concept or myth?" This is a general assertion that has no substance to it."

Humans are the only entities that believe in gods (that we've found so far) ergo, humans created the god myth. Would you be happy with sapient, sentient beings? That at least accounts for beings on other planets who may believe in gods.///


Sacerdotus replies:

That is a non-sequitur.  By your logic, we love and are the only creatures to know love, so therefore, we created love.  In order to claim something is a myth, you must know of its origin deriving from the human person.  To date, not one atheist has done this.  If God is indeed a myth, then it would be easy to trace this myth to an author just like I can trace a comic book character to its author.


////"Exactly, hence why they cannot be cited as proof against God by atheists"

As I already pointed out, they're not proof but they give god a lot smaller gap to fit into. Your straw man was claiming they don't explain causality. Still stands.///


Sacerdotus replies:

The God of gaps deals with deism, not theism.  It is fallacious rhetoric.  The theories of science explain processes, not causality.


///"Galileo did the crime and paid the time. The officials at the time saw it fit based on their laws; who am I to call them immoral?"

Because you're a moral thinking being who, I dare say, is a more moral person than your average inquisitor from the 1600s. Or maybe just because it WAS immoral?

Also good of you to admit he was convicted of a thought crime in direct opposition to your previous assertion.///


Sacerdotus replies:

As a moral person, I would have to judge a person by the way they understood things in the past.  I cannot call a government who burned people evil if that was their way of understanding capital punishment.  A government has a right to self preservation.  We might see it as evil now, but to them it was the best way to protect society.  Similarly, people in the future will think we are evil for using capital punishment, abortion and wars to solve human issues.  I never said he was convicted of a thought crime.  I merely used a common saying.


//// He was not tortured nor starved to death."

So? House arrest for an idea is immoral which was clearly my point, don't deflect.///

Sacerdotus replies:

I state this because atheists cite Galileo as if the Church tortured him like Al-qaida would do to prisoners of war.  No such thing happened.  I am not deflecting, but and reflecting on a misconception held by many atheists.


////"There is no relation between slavery and Galileo so your argument is non-sequitur. Slavery was imposed on a people, Galileo was punished for his bad actions. Big difference."

Completely missed the point. They are both immoral situations hence the relationship.

Do you agree that slavery has always been immoral btw? Cause it seems you are saying morality is entirely subjective.///


Sacerdotus replies:

Both are immoral to you, but to me I only see slavery as immoral while the Galileo affair was punishment for "breaking a contract," so to speak.


////"He took it upon himself to teach something that was not proven and at the same time claiming that the Bible had to be edited."

He was locked up and had several of his books banned for publishing his findings. Deeply immoral.///


Sacerdotus replies:

Again, he broke his contract with his sponsor, the Church.  In today's world it would be like programming for Apple knowing Apple has strict anti Flash policies and you defy them and add Flash to the program.  Rest assured Apple will use its heavy hand to sue you...


/////"Also note that 7 cardinals signed the document. This is not a proclamation of the entire college of Cardinals, just the opinion of those 7."

Speaking on behalf of the catholic church. Don't be dishonest.    ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Just because one is a Cardinal does not mean every thing he says is "speaking for the Church."  Only the Vatican when announcing official statements, speaks for the Church.


///"Cardinal Bellarmine specifically requested proof of Galileo's claims and none was given."

You talking about the events of 1616? His trial and conviction happened in 1632-33, 11 years after Bellarmine's death and after Galileo had published a book containing his observations. This book was banned during the trial.///


Sacerdotus replies:

Again, I am answering your previous point.  I am clarifying how the whole affair began.  Galileo presented extraordinary claims and Cardinal Bellarmine requested extraordinary evidence.  When the former could not produce it, Cardinal Baellarmine was not hearing it and conflict began when Galileo insisted on teaching it.  Galileo then took it upon himself to continue propagating these ideas which were not proven and the Church stepped in because they sponsored him.


////"Did you even read the Cardinal's letter? He states this himself. No evidence was provided. Had there been evidence, he states that the Church would have to "proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary."

Which is great except that Galileo's trial started in 1632 and Bellarmine died in 1621. 16 years after he was first asked for it, Galileo was able to produce his evidence but it was banned from publication at the trial. Who is rewriting history? Are you really this dishonest?///


Sacerdotus replies:

You are still misconstruing history.  Galileo did have Urban VIII who was his friend.  Urban VIII allowed him to write on his theories but not to advocate it.  The mentioning of Cardinal Bellarmine was in response to your previous comment.  Obviously, Galileo angered his friend Urban VIII by mocking him as well as his Jesuit friends.  As the saying goes, "don't bite the hand that feeds you."  Galileo bit hard and the Church bit him back.  Galileo could never provide evidence that would counter Aristotle's strongest argument for heliocentrism.  You cannot pick and choose what history to believe.



///"I know because they comment a second after the reading material is given to them. :)"

Maybe they've been presented this information before and found it wanting?

And I'm spent...    ///


Sacerdotus replies:


How would they know without even reading it?  Do atheists have ESP that we are not aware of?


////@sacerdotus I'm a masochist folks. Held out for as long as I

could...

See the whole thing here:

http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/01/twitter-replies-iii.html

"It is self evident that the universe has a creator."

No it isn't, if it was, there'd be nothing to argue about.

You are using a loaded term, "created" to imply there must

be a creator so that you can then argue for your god as a

candidate.Unless you are using the term "creator" to refer to

something like a quantum fluctuation that started off the

big bang? I don't think you are as you capitalised it and

later on you refer to it as an "agent" which makes me think

you are using it in the sense of "The Creator"

We don't know what happened before (from my understanding

using "before" in this context may not even make sense) the

gravitational singularity of the primordial universe began

to expand but that is no excuse to shove god into that gap.///

Sacerdotus replies:  

Why do you think the Big Bang theory even exists?  Why do you think we looked for the Higgs Boson?  We are trying to find the "Creator."  Whether this creator is God or just a random probability generator is yet to be fully explained by science.  There is no gap.  How is it that you can fill in this "gap" with assertions of what was "before" but God is totally out of the equation?  


////

"Just take a look at them. Compare them and see the common

trend in describing these gods. As I have stated before,

there is always a "main god" in these cultures showing the

ancients believed in a singularity that trumps the rest."

Doesn't answer my question and "Just take a look" is not

convincing evidence.//


Sacerdotus replies:

It is convincing evidence if you take the time to look up common gods propagated in ancient civilizations.  I do not have the time nor space here to do your research. There is an atheist website that lists all the gods known to man.  In the future I will write a post on why there can only be on God.  


//// Yes I am Catholic; however, the God of the Bible was known

prior to any Scriptures. This is the point you are missing."

How do you know?//

Sacerdotus replies:

We know because of the dates of the books of the Bible and how they came to be written.


///"They are different in definition, but not substance."

Then why define and use them differently? I hope everyone

else can see how stupid this is.//


Sacerdotus replies:

We define them and use them differently because they are two distinct words.  However, this does not take away that both deal with knowledge.


////"


"You cannot believe or disbelieve in something without

knowing what that something is first."

Knowing what someone is claiming and knowing that claim is

true are two COMPLETELY different propositions. Not sure why

you don't get that?

I know what theists are claiming because they tell me. I

disbelieve their claims but cannot show that the claim is

false. Therefore, I am an atheist and I am not making a

claim about the existence of god. I hope anyone else that

reads this can see this point even if you can't.

Another example:

You:"I hold a degree in philosophy"

Me: I don't believe what you are saying.

Am I claiming to know whether you have a degree in

philosophy? Yes or no?

Be careful how you answer, you may validate my belief

further...///


Sacerdotus replies:


The key word you used is "knowing."  Both require knowledge of said subject before believing/disbelieving.  I'm thinking of something now in my mind.  I want you to disbelieve it and tell me what it is.  You obviously have no idea what I'm thinking so how can you disbelieve something you are not aware of?  Whether you believe I have a degree in philosophy or not does not take away that you know about the degree.  You have just validated my last 3 comments.


///

"Generally speaking, atheists filter whatever evidence for

God is presented to them. They enter a dialog already set

that there is no God. You are doing this right now."

Thanks for another assertion. Do you have ESP we're not

aware of?///


Sacerdotus replies:

Not to my knowledge, but I do have thousands of mentions from atheists you can simply read by searching @sacerdotus.. not to mention that I do embed tweets on my blog.


////"No, you misunderstood. Science says that everything needs a

cause. The same is said in philosophy. The universe could

not cause itself because how can something that does not

exist cause itself to exist?"

You yourself have used the "everything has a cause" argument

to argue for the existence of god as the "causer" and I'm

saying that is special pleading as you've created this

special thing that doesn't have a cause after you've just

finished saying EVERYTHING has a cause. If god doesn't need

a cause then why can't the singularity not have a cause?///

Sacerdotus replies:

God is outside of space and time.  That being said, this being is eternal - has no beginning/no end.  We who are temporal beings are subject to past, present and future, God is not.  A singularity is not eternal   It has a beginning.  


////"Do you disagree that a law needs a law giver and that laws

do not write themselves?"

This is the assertion you make. Why can't the natural laws

be emergent properties of the way our universe condensed

shortly after the big bang?///


Sacerdotus replies:


This is not an assertion, but a common sense question.  I invite you to show me a law that wrote itself.  I already answered you natural laws/properties question in my previous post.



////"The laws of universe cannot be a consequence of its

formation because there is no evidence for this and the laws

would have had to exist prior to the birth of the universe."

I don't know how the laws of the universe came about, I'm

asking you how you know there is a law giver and offering a

possible alternative as an illustration of how it could have

happened without a law giver. ///


Sacerdotus replies:

We know there is  law giver because there are laws.  This is simple logic.  Again, show me a law that writes itself and then you will make more sense.  Until that happens, we human beings can only rationalize using human experiences.  One of our experiences is that laws do not write themselves.  


///"It would be like gestating as your DNA formed, this is not

possible."

Poor analogy. DNA is present before the zygote implants.

Current big bang theory says that the physical laws did not

operate before the expansion of the universe.  ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Poor how?  DNA does not develop as an organism gestates.  It is the DNA that directs the formation of the organism.  The laws of physics became present at the moment of the big bang.  This is what you need to understand clearly.


//// "The Big bang would have had to have been the

"fertilization" which brings about the laws and then the

laws would form the universe as it is today."

Exactly, now you've got it. ///


Sacerdotus replies:

This is what I have been stating while you have been beating around the bush.  What caused the big bang/who wrote the laws into the bang?  These are the questions that religion deals with and science really cannot answer unless it thinks outside the box, so to speak.


////"Yes, but the universe seems to understand these laws as

well. Is it alive?"

Babble.//


Sacerdotus replies:

Not at all.  There are scientists who have ideas that the universe is some sort of organism and that it may be a simulation.  (Future blogs on these coming)

 
/////"I am merely making a connection to your snowflake idea and

what logic would dictate. The point originated from you, not

me."

What logic would dictate IF there was a creator. Like I

said, begging the question.///


Sacerdotus replies:

I used "IF" scientifically speaking.  If I'm arguing from the viewpoint of physics, I can only leave the door open for God.


/////"Some of the tenets would be a confidence in the non-

existence of God without evidence to suggest otherwise, the

appeal to science to answer every question, the appeal to

one's desires to dictate life instead of conscience, the

appeal to humanism."

The first point is restating what an atheist is. The last

two are not necessary to be an atheist. Try again.  ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Well you obviously have not been around the atheist world much.


////"Equations are used to show evidence in physics. We cannot

go to distant galaxies or touch black holes. We rely on math

to tell us what they are and what they're doing. Why can't

this be done with God? I would advice you to look at the

equations using Google. Blogger will not let me post the

appropriate symbols here - it will look like a mess."

You know equations are not evidence right? We make

observations to confirm the equations. Moreover, equations

are often derived FROM observations? This is why we can't do

the same with god. Try naming one or two of them.

"Equations" doesn't really narrow it down for me.///



Sacerdotus replies:

You are mistaken.  In physics, equations make or break a hypothesis or theory.  E-mc2 is an equation that shows what is not tangible.  We cannot study black holes or galaxies from afar, but rely on equations to understand them.  An equation for God would merely show causality is not based on probability.


////"In order to claim something is a myth, you must know of its

origin deriving from the human person. To date, not one

atheist has done this. If God is indeed a myth, then it

would be easy to trace this myth to an author just like I

can trace a comic book character to its author."

Unless that author was born in a time before writing and was

actually one of 1000s spread throughout the human

population. I may not know their names but I know they were

human. What you are asking for has not been provided because

it is impossible to provide.     ///


Sacerdotus replies:

If it is impossible to provide, then the idea that "God is a myth" does not hold weight.  It is a mere assertion.  All myths have an original authorship.


//// "The God of gaps deals with deism, not theism.:

It seems to me as if you've been arguing for a deistic god

this whole time, what's the problem?

Anyway, this statement is false, a theistic god can be used

to fill a gap no problem. See Thor and thunder. ///


Sacerdotus replies:

How so?  I never stated that God is not involved in human affairs.  A theistic view of God is not applicable to the "god of gaps" fallacy.  



////"The theories of science explain processes, not causality."

I think I understand now, you're using the word causality to

refer to the beginning of the universe? Sounds to me like

you're edging towards an argument from ignorance. i.e.

"science can't explain it so it must be god"////


Sacerdotus replies:


No, remember science does not rule out God.  There will be many things science will not be able to explain.  Naturally, if God created everything then "God did it."  However, science is not concerned with this because it cannot measure anything beyond space, time and matter.



//// "I cannot call a government who burned people evil if that

was their way of understanding capital punishment."

Well I can. They were evil to burn people, it was (and still

is) evil to enslave people and it was (and still is) immoral

to lock someone up and ban their writings for having a

contrary idea. ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Well that is your opinion.  However, it is unfair to judge people of the past for the way they interpreted justice.  One must take into account their understanding and situation.


/////"I never said he was convicted of a thought crime."

No but I did because he was.    ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Evidence of this?  Can you show documentation stating that he was convicted of a thought crime?


////"I state this because atheists cite Galileo as if the Church

tortured him like Al-qaida would do to prisoners of war. No

such thing happened. I am not deflecting, but and reflecting

on a misconception held by many atheists. "

Thanks for arguing against a point I didn't make. You are

deflecting.///


Sacerdotus replies:

I am arguing the reasoning behind a point I made.  There is no deflection.  You are just not following the flow of the discussion.


////"Again, he broke his contract with his sponsor, the Church.

In today's world it would be like programming for Apple

knowing Apple has strict anti Flash policies and you defy

them and add Flash to the program. Rest assured Apple will

use its heavy hand to sue you..."

What he did was certainly unlawful at the time but NOT

immoral. Your analogy is poor. His actions were more akin to

a whistleblower who tells the truth despite the

consequences.///


Sacerdotus replies:

Who said it was immoral?  Whistle blowing deals with someone telling the truth about unethical behavior, not science or theology.  


//// "Just because one is a Cardinal does not mean every thing he

says is "speaking for the Church." Only the Vatican when

announcing official statements, speaks for the Church."

Those 7 cardinals were "By the grace of God, Cardinals of

the Holy Roman Church, and especially commissioned by the

Holy Apostolic See as Inquisitors-General against heretical

depravity in all of Christendom."

For those who don't know, in Roman Catholicism "Holy

Apostolic See" is used in the singular and capitalized to

refer specifically to the See of Rome, with reference to the

Pope's status as successor of the Apostle Peter .i.e. the

Vatican and the pope and has been since the mid 5th century.

Are you really going to be dishonest enough to suggest that

panel were just giving their opinions and not there on

official church business as inquisitors? ///


Sacerdotus replies:

Commissioned by the Holy See and speaking for the Holy See are not the same thing.  You are performing a play on words.  This commission was a tribunal which does not speak for the entire Universal Church.  It would be like a small claims court deciding a case for the entire United States court system.  The Vatican/Church does not work that way.


/////"I am clarifying how the whole affair began. Galileo

presented extraordinary claims and Cardinal Bellarmine

requested extraordinary evidence. When the former could not

produce it, Cardinal Baellarmine was not hearing it and

conflict began when Galileo insisted on teaching it."

Which is great except I only ever talked about his trial

where he was convicted and sentenced. Not sure why you

brought up the point that he couldn't provide the evidence

to Bellarmine (there was evidence at the time by the way,

just not as much as at the later trial) when he did provide

the evidence to the trial 16 years later?

If I didn't know better I'd say you were bringing up

pointless arguments to make it look like you were scoring

points against me.///


Sacerdotus replies:

His evidence was not convincing enough.  Some of the Cardinals were on his side and were hoping he would do a better job providing evidence, but he did not.   He even denounced his views stating they were erroneous. There was no way to prove his ideas with the available technology at the time.  



//"You are still misconstruing history. Galileo did have Urban

VIII who was his friend. Urban VIII allowed him to write on

his theories but not to advocate it. The mentioning of

Cardinal Bellarmine was in response to your previous

comment. Obviously, Galileo angered his friend Urban VIII by

mocking him as well as his Jesuit friends. As the saying

goes, "don't bite the hand that feeds you." Galileo bit hard

and the Church bit him back. Galileo could never provide

evidence that would counter Aristotle's strongest argument

for heliocentrism. You cannot pick and choose what history

to believe."

What does any of this have to do with your claim that

Galileo didn't have any evidence for his claims and was not

charged or convicted by the church? Also I think you mean

geocentrism. Providing a reason for why things happen

doesn't change the fact that they happened. Basically,

you're arguing that he got what was coming to him and he

shouldn't have opened his big yap.

Do you still deny that Galileo was convicted for holding a

contrary view to the church despite the good evidence for

his views he presented at his trial?  ///


Sacerdotus replies:


No, Galileo did not argue for geocentrism.  He argued for heliocentrism.  Galileo's problem was that he tried to tell the Church how to teach.  This is a big no no.  He was sponsored by the Church and had to abide by the rules.  The way he presented his findings was interpreted as an attack on Scripture.  Had he changed his approach a bit, he might have not had so much heat on him.   He was not convicted, but was sent to house arrest at the bishops home.  Some punishment...


////"How would they know without even reading it? Do atheists

have ESP that we are not aware of?"

Sometimes there's a clue. If you were to link an article

with the title "Kalam Cosmological Argument" to me I would

probably ignore it as I've encountered it many times before

and I don't think it holds up.///


Sacerdotus replies:


I only link to my blog.






3 comments:

  1. You lost me at, "Your questions are irrelevant." All honest questions are valid. Full stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was commenting on the need to present a plurality of Gods and the demand to chose one of them to represent as "God."

      Delete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (456) God (309) Atheism (239) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (208) Bible (174) Pope Francis (165) Atheist (145) LGBT (130) Science (117) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (84) Rosa Rubicondior (76) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (65) President Obama (56) Prayer (54) Vatican (39) Physics (38) Christian (37) Philosophy (36) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Christmas (31) Psychology (31) Women (29) Biology (28) Politics (28) Liturgy (26) Baseball (25) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Donald Trump (15) Health (14) Death (13) Astrophysics (12) Christ (12) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Poverty (10) Illegal Immigrants (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Apologetics (6) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)