Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    sorry but that doesn't make any sense. you're saying that degrees of infinity are more simple than degrees of finity - infinity by definition is more complicated with reference to the number it constitutes. just because you can summon up the conception of infinity quicker than, say, the conception of 456,769,334,632,543,453,775,632, 201, is totally irrelevant. it's like saying "this huge skyscraper is more simple than this tiny bungalow simply because I have a better idea of the dimensions of the skyscraper based on its simple design - that doesn't literally make it a more simple entity.



    what on earth are you talking about? is this really necessary? you expect me to just happen to know what "e" or "k", for instance, constitute here?



    if it's using your understanding of simplicity/complexity then I've already toild you how it doesn't make sense
    It's not just the way I use it it's how it's used in contemporary philosophy of science. Anyway, like I said I can't give full justice to a book length treatment here, and I am not a theist either
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benandjerry)
    It's not just the way I use it it's how it's used in contemporary philosophy of science. Anyway, like I said I can't give full justice to a book length treatment here, and I am not a theist either
    well it didn't grant it any justice when you were saying that degrees of infinity were simpler than finity when infinity is literally infinitely complex whereas finity is at least a certain, limited number.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    The argument you put forth against the Big Bang is one that can be applied to god. If god exists outside of time, then he never happened.

    And I never said the big bang exists outside of time, I said it exists outside of the outside of time, in a place that god can't reach. This claim has just as much validity as yours.



    Stating eternity is outside of time is a contradiction in terms. Eternity is an application of the concept of time and so can't exist outside of time.

    I know you can't make sense of the big bang theory and so have latched on to this 'outside of time' malarkey. It is why you hold onto the god delusion. But you don't have to concern yourself with that. The rest of scientifically literate people can make sense of it.



    I (and i'm sure many other people on this thread) don't think even you understand your own thought process. I understand the imaginary concept of eternal first cause. The problem is that you think it's a real concept.




    There's no hypocrisy. I will always be an advocate for truth, not belief. Belief doesn't require facts or evidence. It's something that can help justify peoples own misunderstanding of the world. And we've all seen how someone's beliefs can cause so much harm and damage (although I don't think your misguided belief have harmed anyone).



    If you think what you mentioned can in any way be considered proof, then you have no chance at any academic institution. Although I do hope you'll educate yourself as education is important.

    I very much know my own logic. What i've been spouting is not my logic but your logic ('outside of time' / outside of the outside of time'. I've merely reflected your own logic back at you and when I do you can see that it makes no sense. But when you look at your own exact logic it some how makes sense. We'll work on your sense of logic together.
    God isn't an event, so there is no such thing as him having never happened, he has always been 'happening' if I may say so but that doesn't work for the Big Bang, if it's eternal it must always be happening.

    ' And I never said the big bang exists outside of time, I said it exists outside of the outside of time, in a place that god can't reach. This claim has just as much validity as yours. '

    No it doesn't, how can an event exist outside of the outside of time, that makes no sense whatsoever. One of the NASA Officials said the universe is a shadow of something greater, God is omnipresent so he is everywhere. There is no place he can't reach.

    ' Stating eternity is outside of time is a contradiction in terms. Eternity is an application of the concept of time and so can't exist outside of time. '

    Yes, eternity is but something that IS ETERNAL isn't. Eternity isn't a lot of time - that makes no sense, it is to be outside of time. Even then as I said, something that is eternal isn't an application of the concept of time. I know why you're struggling - I doubt you have studied this strand of quantum physics.

    'I know you can't make sense of the big bang theory and so have latched on to this 'outside of time' malarkey. It is why you hold onto the god delusion. But you don't have to concern yourself with that. The rest of scientifically literate people can make sense of it.'

    No you're just confused. Even if you use your definition that eternity is infinite time, then how can the Big Bang be eternal, you make no sense in mine or your own logic. The Big Bang is an event not a Person so how can it be eternal LOL and then you call yourself scientifically literate.


    'I (and i'm sure many other people on this thread) don't think even you understand your own thought process. I understand the imaginary concept of eternal first cause. The problem is that you think it's a real concept.'

    It was you that suggested the Big Bang could be the eternal first cause and now you're trying to act as if you didn't get proven wrong. If it's not a real concept you're still wrong.

    'There's no hypocrisy. I will always be an advocate for truth, not belief. Belief doesn't require facts or evidence. It's something that can help justify peoples own misunderstanding of the world. And we've all seen how someone's beliefs can cause so much harm and damage (although I don't think your misguided belief have harmed anyone).'

    My beliefs aren't misguided and won't harm anyone. Science has harmed many just as 'religion' has. Belief doesn't require facts or evidence but it doesn;t mean it can't utilise them.

    'If you think what you mentioned can in any way be considered proof, then you have no chance at any academic institution. Although I do hope you'll educate yourself as education is important.
    I very much know my own logic. What i've been spouting is not my logic but your logic ('outside of time' / outside of the outside of time'. I've merely reflected your own logic back at you and when I do you can see that it makes no sense. But when you look at your own exact logic it some how makes sense. We'll work on your sense of logic together.'

    This cringy smile is just getting weird LOL From what we have already seen, you've has disproved yourself so I'm worried about your education.

    All you did was prove my logic was sound. The Big Bang is an event, so how can it be an eternal first cause? Your mind saddens me, it's not scientifically literate, logical or anything - it's just bigoted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Agreed.I'm willing to bet that science will cure the blind,the lame and even old age before religion ever does.
    The blind and lame have all been cured by Jesus already. If by old age, you mean living forever, it's not possible and science will never TRULY do it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I did kind of mean that yes.At least I dont think immortality is really possible but I think we could certainly live longer than we do now.The point was that religion doesnt really offer solutions.For example take the question of creation.Religion gave us the myth of adam and eve.And it stuck to that myth for over a millenium.Science in the form of charles darwin,explained that humans came about through evolution.The church maintained that the sun went around the earth until copernicus came along to disprove that.Religion also held back medicine.The church banned dissection which meant no one could find out anything about the human body.You say religion offers solutions to moral problems but it doesn't really.Most catholics just cherrypick the parts of the bible they like.For example it condones slavery in the bible,christians ignore this.They use their conscience as a guide and that is where morals come from.We dont need religion for morals.We only need our conscience and empathy.
    Charles Darwin still believed in God. This is the 2nd time you've come to a thread I'm in but I'm sure you are going to run again.

    The Catholic Church said the sun went around the earth and it banned dissection but that has nothing to do with Christianity and the Bible. Adam and Eve existed.

    The Bible doesn't condone slavery. It condones the voluntary slavery that was present in New Testament times where even doctors and lawyers were slaves of others to earn extra money.

    Using your conscience only for morals is wrong because relative morality is unreliable and someone's conscience can become seared - meaning it is useless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I dont think its wrong to say that christianity caused science to be held back.Galileo was arrested for heresy.Guardiano bruno was burned alive because he refused to say that there were no other worlds.Even newton whilst making brilliant insights into gravity became side-tracked with pseudoscience like alchemy.He even thought there were messages hidden in the bible.It was the churches position that held science back.The church contributed to the inquisition and gave credence to the existence of demons and witches. T hey refused to accept the earth was not at the centre of the universe and they refused to accept evolution.They only accepted scientific theories when the evidence became too much.

    And christians do cherry pick the bible.They ignore the entire old testement,saying only the new testement applys. Even though Jesus specifically says that the law still applys.He says that heaven and earth will not pass away and not the least stroke of a pen shall be removed from the law.

    And where exactly do you think those moral theories come from? They come from our consvience and our empathy with other humans.
    That wasn't Christianity, it was the Catholic Church doing this and it wasn't even true Christianity. You say 'church' to act as if it is every Christian when we know it's all Catholics.

    The Bible has never said the earth was at the center of the universe and alchemy is nothing to do with the Bible.

    It's obvious you want to say there are no demons but I guarantee you if you find a true Satanist (there was this guy that was interviewed before but he's changed now) and ask him how to be possessed, you won't be doubting anymore.

    'And christians do cherry pick the bible.They ignore the entire old testement,saying only the new testement applys. Even though Jesus specifically says that the law still applys.He says that heaven and earth will not pass away and not the least stroke of a pen shall be removed from the law.

    And where exactly do you think those moral theories come from? They come from our consvience and our empathy with other humans.'

    Actually, he says until the law is fulfilled and it was - by his death LOL. It's so obvious when people who don't have the Holy Spirit don't read the Bible - they are the real cherry pickers.

    Our morals came from the conscience that God gave us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Charles Darwin still believed in God.
    I don't believe that to be true. He was certainly Religious initially, but he slowly lost his faith over time. In his latter years he openly said he was Agnostic and didn't believe in many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity. This is what i have gathered from sources such as Documentaries on his life and his own Autobiography.
    The Wikipedia page similarly corresponds with this point:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...Charles_Darwin

    but we're really getting off-topic from the original argument made by OP.
    Quote from his autobiography: "i cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
    I agree with his sentiment here. I find it presumptuous and unfounded to assume a god (or an eternal first cause in general) created the universe, let alone a personal god you think is the "right one".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The blind and lame have all been cured by Jesus already. If by old age, you mean living forever, it's not possible and science will never TRULY do it.
    Well it certainly has more of a shot than religion does.Its already eradicated one infectious disease which was thought impossible.(smallpox).If you understand how something works you can cure it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Charles Darwin still believed in God. This is the 2nd time you've come to a thread I'm in but I'm sure you are going to run again.

    The Catholic Church said the sun went around the earth and it banned dissection but that has nothing to do with Christianity and the Bible. Adam and Eve existed.

    The Bible doesn't condone slavery. It condones the voluntary slavery that was present in New Testament times where even doctors and lawyers were slaves of others to earn extra money.

    Using your conscience only for morals is wrong because relative morality is unreliable and someone's conscience can become seared - meaning it is useless.
    Darwin believed in god because he was brought up christian in the 18 th century.It would be unusual if he didnt and he definitely had his doubts.And you quoted me.I deliberately avoided quoting you.
    Adam and eve did not exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    That wasn't Christianity, it was the Catholic Church doing this and it wasn't even true Christianity. You say 'church' to act as if it is every Christian when we know it's all Catholics.

    The Bible has never said the earth was at the center of the universe and alchemy is nothing to do with the Bible.

    It's obvious you want to say there are no demons but I guarantee you if you find a true Satanist (there was this guy that was interviewed before but he's changed now) and ask him how to be possessed, you won't be doubting anymore.

    'And christians do cherry pick the bible.They ignore the entire old testement,saying only the new testement applys. Even though Jesus specifically says that the law still applys.He says that heaven and earth will not pass away and not the least stroke of a pen shall be removed from the law.

    And where exactly do you think those moral theories come from? They come from our consvience and our empathy with other humans.'

    Actually, he says until the law is fulfilled and it was - by his death LOL. It's so obvious when people who don't have the Holy Spirit don't read the Bible - they are the real cherry pickers.

    Our morals came from the conscience that God gave us.
    He says until everything is accomplished."for truly I tell you until heaven and earth dissapear,not the smallest letter,not the least stroke of a pen.... " Heaven and earth are still here,the law is still valid.Lol.Are you seriously arguing for demons now.Go home.Demons dont exist.They are a primitive superstition by people who didnt know any better.Person gets ill.Obviously the local witch caused it.Crops failed.Not weather patterns no.Must obviously be black magic.Guy acts mentally deranged.Couldn't possibly be a brain disorder.He must be posessed.Get real please.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainJuice)
    The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

    We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.
    Something certainly can come from nothing; a proven example of (more or less) this is quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. The purpose of raising such a point is that an argument oft-presented by religious people against the big bang is that 'the universe can't have just come from nothing'. If you use such a reasoning, to then claim God can come from nothing is inherently contradictory.

    For instance, you say that there must be an 'Eternal First Cause'; then the question merely becomes why couldn't the universe itself have been this 'Eternal First Cause'? If you argue that the first Thing to exist had no creator and simply Was, then how can you show that the universe couldn't have been this very Thing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTungsten74)
    I don't believe that to be true. He was certainly Religious initially, but he slowly lost his faith over time. In his latter years he openly said he was Agnostic and didn't believe in many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity. This is what i have gathered from sources such as Documentaries on his life and his own Autobiography.
    The Wikipedia page similarly corresponds with this point:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...Charles_Darwin

    but we're really getting off-topic from the original argument made by OP.
    Quote from his autobiography: "i cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
    I agree with his sentiment here. I find it presumptuous and unfounded to assume a god (or an eternal first cause in general) created the universe, let alone a personal god you think is the "right one".
    I'm sure 'Wikipedia' is a reliable source - we all learned that in Year 7 but despite that when Darwin came up with his theory of natural selection and evolution (which was a bit flawed at the time) - he attributed it to God.

    If you don't want to believe that God created the universe but it only saddens me to realise your punishment which will last for eternity. Perhaps, in the tribulation period, you may realise although going through that tribulation will not be easy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    God isn't an event, so there is no such thing as him having never happened, he has always been 'happening' if I may say so but that doesn't work for the Big Bang, if it's eternal it must always be happening.

    ' And I never said the big bang exists outside of time, I said it exists outside of the outside of time, in a place that god can't reach. This claim has just as much validity as yours. '

    No it doesn't, how can an event exist outside of the outside of time, that makes no sense whatsoever. One of the NASA Officials said the universe is a shadow of something greater, God is omnipresent so he is everywhere. There is no place he can't reach.

    ' Stating eternity is outside of time is a contradiction in terms. Eternity is an application of the concept of time and so can't exist outside of time. '

    Yes, eternity is but something that IS ETERNAL isn't. Eternity isn't a lot of time - that makes no sense, it is to be outside of time. Even then as I said, something that is eternal isn't an application of the concept of time. I know why you're struggling - I doubt you have studied this strand of quantum physics.

    'I know you can't make sense of the big bang theory and so have latched on to this 'outside of time' malarkey. It is why you hold onto the god delusion. But you don't have to concern yourself with that. The rest of scientifically literate people can make sense of it.'

    No you're just confused. Even if you use your definition that eternity is infinite time, then how can the Big Bang be eternal, you make no sense in mine or your own logic. The Big Bang is an event not a Person so how can it be eternal LOL and then you call yourself scientifically literate.


    'I (and i'm sure many other people on this thread) don't think even you understand your own thought process. I understand the imaginary concept of eternal first cause. The problem is that you think it's a real concept.'

    It was you that suggested the Big Bang could be the eternal first cause and now you're trying to act as if you didn't get proven wrong. If it's not a real concept you're still wrong.

    'There's no hypocrisy. I will always be an advocate for truth, not belief. Belief doesn't require facts or evidence. It's something that can help justify peoples own misunderstanding of the world. And we've all seen how someone's beliefs can cause so much harm and damage (although I don't think your misguided belief have harmed anyone).'

    My beliefs aren't misguided and won't harm anyone. Science has harmed many just as 'religion' has. Belief doesn't require facts or evidence but it doesn;t mean it can't utilise them.

    'If you think what you mentioned can in any way be considered proof, then you have no chance at any academic institution. Although I do hope you'll educate yourself as education is important.
    I very much know my own logic. What i've been spouting is not my logic but your logic ('outside of time' / outside of the outside of time'. I've merely reflected your own logic back at you and when I do you can see that it makes no sense. But when you look at your own exact logic it some how makes sense. We'll work on your sense of logic together.'

    This cringy smile is just getting weird LOL From what we have already seen, you've has disproved yourself so I'm worried about your education.

    All you did was prove my logic was sound. The Big Bang is an event, so how can it be an eternal first cause? Your mind saddens me, it's not scientifically literate, logical or anything - it's just bigoted.
    Without having read the full thread of comments, I would just like to point out that referring to the Big Bang as eternal, or using any other measure of time to describe the Big Bang, is inherently wrong. The Big Bang theory proposes that the Big Bang was the point at which time began; asking what came 'before' the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole - it's an inherently contradictory question. I'll quote Stephen Hawking (from The Grand Design) as he puts it far better than I ever could:

    1) “In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics.”

    2) “The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Well it certainly has more of a shot than religion does.Its already eradicated one infectious disease which was thought impossible.(smallpox).If you understand how something works you can cure it.
    Religion isn't there to solve illnesses and going to heaven isnt about religion - it's about a relationship with God.

    The fact that science eradicated smallpox is brilliant but that doesn't go against religion but simply shows science has a different purpose and it often reaps good benefits from its endeavours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    He says until everything is accomplished."for truly I tell you until heaven and earth dissapear,not the smallest letter,not the least stroke of a pen.... " Heaven and earth are still here,the law is still valid.Lol.Are you seriously arguing for demons now.Go home.Demons dont exist.They are a primitive superstition by people who didnt know any better.Person gets ill.Obviously the local witch caused it.Crops failed.Not weather patterns no.Must obviously be black magic.Guy acts mentally deranged.Couldn't possibly be a brain disorder.He must be posessed.Get real please.
    Loving the blatant cherry-picking...

    Matthew 5:17-19, from the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

    All has been accomplished as Christ has died on the cross so.. hmm.

    I'm not arguing for demons, I'm saying they do exist. If you think they aren't, I already said that you can go to a real Satanist and ask him to get you possessed.

    Lol, some people are possessed and some people have mental disorders.

    If you've ever been to Africa or countries where they have old traditional religions, you will know there are things called witch-doctors and the consequences of their actions are very real. Obviously, you've never been there, so your ignorance has blinded you to the reality of what you're saying.

    Yes, many people in the past were called witches for no reason and people scapegoated but that doesn't mean they are not in existence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Without having read the full thread of comments, I would just like to point out that referring to the Big Bang as eternal, or using any other measure of time to describe the Big Bang, is inherently wrong. The Big Bang theory proposes that the Big Bang was the point at which time began; asking what came 'before' the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole - it's an inherently contradictory question. I'll quote Stephen Hawking (from The Grand Design) as he puts it far better than I ever could:

    1) “In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics.”

    2) “The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
    THANK YOU. You have reason. To Hawking's second point, I would simply say God is transcendent and exists outside of time but anyway...

    It started here:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Why can't the big bang be the eternal first cause?
    '!!mentor!!' here seems to being a hypocrite, contradicting himself and going back on his word and yet he suggests the Big Bang is eternal then proceeds to call me scientifically illiterate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I'm sure 'Wikipedia' is a reliable source
    Oh come on, your clinging at straws here. There was a reason why i stated that its documented he lost his faith in his own autobiography and legit documentaries first, because i knew that if someone wanted to desperately try and find a counter-argument when they don't have one, they would say "hurr durr, Wikipedia is an unreliable source". Come on now, lets actually be intellectually honest when we debate, and not completely ignore my point. Feel free to read his autobiography yourself and check. He documented his loss of faith in god many times in his later life.
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    when Darwin came up with his theory of natural selection and evolution - he attributed it to God.
    Which doesn't contradict anything i said. He lost his faith gradually over time, AFTER he published Origin of species.
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    it only saddens me to realise your punishment which will last for eternity. Perhaps, in the tribulation period, you may realise although going through that tribulation will not be easy.
    Yawn. Threatening an Atheist with hell is like me threatening you with knife wielding tooth fairies.
    The fact you seem so content in reminding someone that they will be punished for eternity in such a condescending way is always a reminder to me why religious people tend to be less moral than irreligious people. What a vile thought to have and excuse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah it is actually annoying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainJuice)
    The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

    We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.
    "We know there must be an Eternal First Cause ,as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence." Incorrect. We don't even know that the beginning of the universe is the actual beginning, it could just be the result of a contracting universe. The universe itself could be "eternal". No one knows anything for certain about the beginning of the universe. So what evidence do you have that the universe must have a first cause?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I dont think its wrong to say that christianity caused science to be held back.Galileo was arrested for heresy.Guardiano bruno was burned alive because he refused to say that there were no other worlds.Even newton whilst making brilliant insights into gravity became side-tracked with pseudoscience like alchemy.He even thought there were messages hidden in the bible.It was the churches position that held science back.The church contributed to the inquisition and gave credence to the existence of demons and witches. T hey refused to accept the earth was not at the centre of the universe and they refused to accept evolution.They only accepted scientific theories when the evidence became too much.

    And christians do cherry pick the bible.They ignore the entire old testement,saying only the new testement applys. Even though Jesus specifically says that the law still applys.He says that heaven and earth will not pass away and not the least stroke of a pen shall be removed from the law.

    And where exactly do you think those moral theories come from? They come from our consvience and our empathy with other humans.
    Did you actually read the link I gave? It addresses most of the points you bring up.

    Regarding the number of scientists in the medieval period who were free to practice science with the acceptance of the church.

    'When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.'

    The idea that science and religion were at war is just not a hypothesis historians of science accept anymore.

    'In the academic sphere, at least, the "Conflict Thesis" of a historical war between science and theology has been long since overturned. It is very odd that so many of my fellow atheists cling so desperately to a long-dead position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century polemicists and not the careful research of recent, objective, peer-reviewed historians. This is strange behavior for people who like to label themselves "rationalists".'

    The role of the church in encouraging knowledge and helping it flourish.

    'Hannam also gives an excellent precis of the Twelfth Century Renaissance which, contrary to popular perception and to "the Myth", was the real period in which ancient learning flooded back into western Europe. Far from being resisted by the Church, it was churchmen who sought this knowledge out among the Muslims and Jews of Spain and Sicily. And far from being resisted or banned by the Church, it was embraced and formed the basis of the syllabus in that other great Medieval contribution to the world: the universities that were starting to appear across Christendom.'

    That scientific advancements were happening far before what many would consider modern science (under Descartes and Galileo) had existed.

    'Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect. With Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine, and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given them, with remarkable effects'

    That unorthodox hypothesis regarding the cosmos which was not standard church teaching of the time were plentiful, with no menacing church holding them back.

    'Similarly, the physics and astronomy of Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme were radical and profound, but generally unknown to the average reader. Buridan was one of the first to compare the movements of the cosmos to those of another Medieval innovation - the clock. The image of a clockwork universe which was to serve scientists well into our own era began in the Middle Ages. And Oresme's speculations about a rotating Earth shows that Medieval scholars were happy to contemplate what were (to them) fairly outlandish ideas to see if they might work - Oresme found that this particular idea actually worked quite well. These men are hardly the products of a "dark age" and their careers are conspicuously free of any of the Inquisitors and threats of burning so fondly and luridly imagined by the fevered proponents of "the Myth".'

    Regarding Galileo.

    'As mentioned above, no manifestation of "the Myth" is complete without the Galileo Affair being raised. The proponents of the idea that the Church stifled science and reason in the Middle Ages have to wheel him out, because without him they actually have absolutely zero examples of the Church persecuting anyone for anything to do with inquiries into the natural world. The common conception that Galileo was persecuted for being right about heliocentrism is a total oversimplification of a complex business, and one that ignores the fact that Galileo's main problem was not simply that his ideas disagreed with scriptural interpretation but also with the science of the time.
    Contrary to the way the affair is usually depicted, the real sticking point was the fact that the scientific objections to heliocentrism at the time were still powerful enough to prevent its acceptance. Cardinal Bellarmine made it clear to Galileo in 1616 that if those scientific objections could be overcome then scripture could and would be reinterpreted. But while the objections still stood, the Church, understandably, was hardly going to overturn several centuries of exegesis for the sake of a flawed theory. Galileo agreed to only teach heliocentrism as a theoretical calculating device, then promptly turned around and, in typical style, taught it as fact. Thus his prosecution by the Inquistion in 1633.'

    This idea that science and religion were at each other's throats is an untenable hypothesis in contemporary history of science, and only has any following within popular leave history.

    To say Christians in general cherry pick the bible is too vague. Certainly, some Christians cherry pick but that doesn't mean the majority do. I'm fact, the two oldest christian institutions (Orthodox and Catholic Church) both have rich theology regarding the role of the Old Testament. This is the same with the major Protestant denominations like the Anglican Church. To say that mainstream orthodox christianity says only the New Testament applies is simply false. Although, you may have a shallow idea of the relationship between the two.

    Perhaps you could explain divine command theory as simply ethics derived from conscience. But Natural law theory absolutely isn't. It's based on philosophy of nature and Aristotelian metaphysics. But the bottom line is a moral theory which is based just on conscience cannot offer any solutions except subjectivity and relativism.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Wake up and smell the...
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.