I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)cassini Wrote: Maybe I can sum up my synthesis with this one argument.

Cassini, that is a fine synthesis. and it shows exactly how wrong you are and how you have failed now in nearly 20 pages to even engage the core of the arguments against you.

(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)cassini Wrote: Here we have a Catholic Church in 1616 and 1633, holding the whole Catholic world to believe the Bible reveals geocentrism and like Galileo would have put him to death if he had admitted to this heresy.

That has not been proven, but you keep asserting it. In fact, in the case of 1616 you have been proven wrong again and again, but reason, logic, canon law and theology be damned because of your personal dogma.

There was no 1616 infallible decree. Yet you can write :

Quote:The 1616 decree condemned as heretical was to hold the Bible reveals a fixed sun, nothing else was heretical.

Again, there was no such decree, but you make your case for such a decree by a horrifically convoluted path.

In order to make an 1616 assessors theological report (which was never turned into a decree of the Holy Office) into a decree, you kick the matter offer to the Congregation of the Index which after that report issued a decree in which they forbids Copernican books. However, within that decree they neither mention nor cite the report, even though you claim that the report caused the decree (for which their is little evidence, and that would not change things anyway). Even if this were true, we would still need that Index decree to be possibly infallible and actually asserting that something be held by the faithful by Faith. To do this you assert that it was approved by the Pope because he was the head of the Holy Office and the Index was a part of this Congregation, but I showed that was not the case, and you have never been able to show were this decree was approved in forma specifica would would constitute the minimum conditions for infallibility. Even if we could show that, the decree textually does not meet the standards for declaring a dogma, because it is not clear what is being bound and who is bound and the full pontifical authority is being used. Even if we were to grant this, though, the best that could be argues is that this decree would declare infallible that Copernicanism was an error.

You have never engaged that series of arguments but assume the conclusion of this. You make the assertion, so it is yours to prove. You have not done that by your quote-mining of Roberts.

(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)cassini Wrote: Then in 1820, this same Catholic Church allows/teaches that the Bible can be interpreted heliocentrically.

In other words, you stand with a Church that contradicted itself.

And that is exactly why we have said that you are not a Catholic. That statement is blasphemous and heretical if you actually believe it and it's not merely a rhetorical device. Given you earlier suggested that Protestants had preserved the Truth, it seems you do.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(07-03-2019, 03:02 PM)cassini Wrote: Here Fisheaters, have a laugh, guess who believed in a rotating universe about a fixed Earth;

‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon. . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).

More quote-mining, and special pleading because you omit the point of St Augustine's argument which immediately follows what you've quoted (emphasis mine) :

Quote:... The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

St Augustine here is not at all speaking about geocentrism, nor is he professing it as of Faith. This passage in the literal interpretation of Genesis (and remember Augustine along with other Fathers held that the 6 days were not six literal days), is about the need to not make Scripture discord with what is proven or know by natural reason. 

Basically, cassini, Augustine is taking people to task for doing exactly what you're doing.

St Thomas Aquinas agrees in his Summa Theologica I q.68 a.1, in which he cites Augustine and lays out principles for interpreting Scripture in light of natural sciences :

Quote:In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

That you could quote a passage which condemns exactly what you are doing in a way that seems to support your case is a pattern with you, cassini.

Bob Sungenis does it all the time, as well. It seems to be right out of the geocentrism playbook. If the quote doesn't fit, craftily edit it so it does.
Reply
(07-03-2019, 03:02 PM)cassini Wrote: Here Fisheaters, have a laugh, guess who believed in a rotating universe about a fixed Earth;

‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon. . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
As Shakespeare wrote, 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply
(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 09:07 AM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 07:26 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Since I teach Logic, I can tell you, cassini, you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

Wow, not... music?

Big Grin

Back in 2006 when I joined that was the case, but I've done some lateral expansions since then (both in girth and academically).

Cool. I actually teach logic, too.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
(07-03-2019, 04:33 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 09:07 AM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 07:26 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Since I teach Logic, I can tell you, cassini, you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

Wow, not... music?

Big Grin

Back in 2006 when I joined that was the case, but I've done some lateral expansions since then (both in girth and academically).

Cool. I actually teach logic, too.

Well, the girth-wise expansion is not cool. Not at all.
Reply
(07-03-2019, 03:04 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)cassini Wrote: Maybe I can sum up my synthesis with this one argument.

Cassini, that is a fine synthesis. and it shows exactly how wrong you are and how you have failed now in nearly 20 pages to even engage the core of the arguments against you.

(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)cassini Wrote: Here we have a Catholic Church in 1616 and 1633, holding the whole Catholic world to believe the Bible reveals geocentrism and like Galileo would have put him to death if he had admitted to this heresy.

That has not been proven, but you keep asserting it. In fact, in the case of 1616 you have been proven wrong again and again, but reason, logic, canon law and theology be damned because of your personal dogma.

There was no 1616 infallible decree. Yet you can write :

Quote:The 1616 decree condemned as heretical was to hold the Bible reveals a fixed sun, nothing else was heretical.

Again, there was no such decree, but you make your case for such a decree by a horrifically convoluted path.

In order to make an 1616 assessors theological report (which was never turned into a decree of the Holy Office) into a decree, you kick the matter offer to the Congregation of the Index which after that report issued a decree in which they forbids Copernican books. However, within that decree they neither mention nor cite the report, even though you claim that the report caused the decree (for which their is little evidence, and that would not change things anyway). Even if this were true, we would still need that Index decree to be possibly infallible and actually asserting that something be held by the faithful by Faith. To do this you assert that it was approved by the Pope because he was the head of the Holy Office and the Index was a part of this Congregation, but I showed that was not the case, and you have never been able to show were this decree was approved in forma specifica would would constitute the minimum conditions for infallibility. Even if we could show that, the decree textually does not meet the standards for declaring a dogma, because it is not clear what is being bound and who is bound and the full pontifical authority is being used. Even if we were to grant this, though, the best that could be argues is that this decree would declare infallible that Copernicanism was an error.

You have never engaged that series of arguments but assume the conclusion of this. You make the assertion, so it is yours to prove. You have not done that by your quote-mining of Roberts.

(07-03-2019, 01:58 PM)cassini Wrote: Then in 1820, this same Catholic Church allows/teaches that the Bible can be interpreted heliocentrically.

In other words, you stand with a Church that contradicted itself.

And that is exactly why we have said that you are not a Catholic. That statement is blasphemous and heretical if you actually believe it and it's not merely a rhetorical device. Given you earlier suggested that Protestants had preserved the Truth, it seems you do.

Here above we have Magister at his best. Nothing but rhetoric. You actually argue that the Galileo case of 1616 and 1633 did not happen. Are you joking? Are you taking the readers of Fisheaters as fools? You say 'it has not been proven.' What has not been proven? Galileo lied on oath and still got life imprisonment. Google in the Galileo case and you will get 25,500,000 different sites telling it exactly as I have told it.

In my post I recorded the documents that show the Church of 1820 fully accepted the infallibility of the '1616 papal decree.' Yet you simply dismiss this fact of history. Are you serious Magister, that is pathetic. Magister is a greater authority than the heliocentric senior officer of the holy Office in 1820. Its a bit like an atheist arguing, 'well nobody ever proved Christ rose from the dead.'

And then you accuse me of not being Catholic because I stated the Catholic Church contradicted itself. I studied the history of the Catholic Church in this matter. In 1616 the Church said biblical heliocentrism was formal heresy. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII found Galileo guilty of suspicion of heresy in the following manner:

 The Inquisition’s Sentence:
‘…  “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.... Understanding that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” 
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I did not make that up, that is from the Inquisition's records. but Magister says it is all bunkum, never proven infallible or whatever. 'Why didn't you tell them to go jump in the river Galileo, it was never proven!'

But in 1820, in an obvious non-infallible way, by the way, the Catholic Church managed to allow heliocentric books to be printed and believed. Now in HISTORY'S BOOK that is a Church contradicting itself. It is history and if believing history makes one not a Catholic in Magister's eyes, then God did not rise from the dead.
Reply
(07-03-2019, 03:19 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-03-2019, 03:02 PM)cassini Wrote: Here Fisheaters, have a laugh, guess who believed in a rotating universe about a fixed Earth;

‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon. . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).

More quote-mining, and special pleading because you omit the point of St Augustine's argument which immediately follows what you've quoted (emphasis mine) :

Quote:... The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

St Augustine here is not at all speaking about geocentrism, nor is he professing it as of Faith. This passage in the literal interpretation of Genesis (and remember Augustine along with other Fathers held that the 6 days were not six literal days), is about the need to not make Scripture discord with what is proven or know by natural reason. 

Basically, cassini, Augustine is taking people to task for doing exactly what you're doing.

St Thomas Aquinas agrees in his Summa Theologica I q.68 a.1, in which he cites Augustine and lays out principles for interpreting Scripture in light of natural sciences :

Quote:In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

That you could quote a passage which condemns exactly what you are doing in a way that seems to support your case is a pattern with you, cassini.

Bob Sungenis does it all the time, as well. It seems to be right out of the geocentrism playbook. If the quote doesn't fit, craftily edit it so it does.

No he was not taking people to task for doing exactly what you're [I'M] doing. If that is true, then you accuse the Church of 1616 and 1633 of doing what Augustine was warning not to do. In fact, Augustine was warning the likes of Galileo and yourself not to use false-science to change the meaning of Scripture.
Reply
When I started university I officially rejected the Catholic faith of my family and became an atheist.
As I was involved in science I just assumed that the scientific theory of evolution was undeniable fact.

However my field is engineering, an applied science. The evolution theory was coming from a theoretical branch of science and I soon learnt that their standard of evidence is mere speculation. I then noticed that these scientists were nearly all atheists which I found suspicious. And a lot of these scientists like Richard Dawkins have more to say about religion than their field of science. Students in these fields are not allowed to put forward any hypothesis that does not conform to Darwinistic principals.

Eventually I rejected the theory along with the big bang. If we understand how life began then show us. In a lab, create life from nothing. We know lot about the gnome of humans and other animals now. But we cannot demonstrate evolution through DNA manipulation. And unless u have a model of a universe in motion u cannot explain anything about it.

In criminal law the standard of evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil law the standard of evidence must be enough to tip the balance of probability.
In theoretical science the standard of evidence must support the theory.
Reply
(07-04-2019, 07:13 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: When I started university I officially rejected the Catholic faith of my family and became an atheist.
As I was involved in science I just assumed that the scientific theory of evolution was undeniable fact.

However my field is engineering, an applied science. The evolution theory was coming from a theoretical branch of science and I soon learnt that their standard of evidence is mere speculation. I then noticed that these scientists were nearly all atheists which I found suspicious. And a lot of these scientists like Richard Dawkins have more to say about religion than their field of science. Students in these fields are not allowed to put forward any hypothesis that does not conform to Darwinistic principals.

Eventually I rejected the theory along with the big bang. If we understand how life began then show us. In a lab, create life from nothing. We know lot about the gnome of humans and other animals now. But we cannot demonstrate evolution through DNA manipulation. And unless u have a model of a universe in motion u cannot explain anything about it.

In criminal law the standard of evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil law the standard of evidence must be enough to tip the balance of probability.
In theoretical science the standard of evidence must support the theory.

My God Pork you are a breath of fresh air. I was raised as a 'Catholic' evolutionist and heliocentrist. When I was 50 years of age I read a book on the evolution fraud written by a Protestant and it took me ten minutes to see I was made a fool of. I used to quote Pope Pius XII who endorced the Big Bang as God's creative act billions of years ago. I was very angry because Catholicism had decreed the flock must be protected from false philosophy. The Big Bang, the mother of ALL evolutions, including the Nebular theory, the so-called evolution of 'our solar system' you have correctly rejected as pseudo-science. 

Do you know the history of the Big Bang theory? When hubble theorised, yes theorised, that the universe was expanding, A Catholic priest Lemaitre, extrapolated this expansion and came to an initial cause for it, an explosion. In his book, Copernicus wrote that if the universe was geocentric, then the rotating stars would tend to move outwards, similar to a ferris swing seat. So you see there is a geocentric cause for an expanding universe also, if the universe is expanding.

Unfortunately Pork you did not say if you are still an atheist. Once Big Bang evolution is seen for what it is, an atheists version of the universe, with no divine input at all, I hope you will see the absurdity of Catholics since 1835 in their trying to rescue Catholicism by trying to con the flock into the belief that God solved all the impossibilities evident in the big bang evolution history.

Having reasoned correctly the evolution of all is nonsense, there is only one other possibility, that an omnipotent cause was responsible. Traditional Catholicism teaches this. Consider for example the millions of different species of flower in the world, their shapes and colours. If you got ten thousand human artists to think up as many different kinds of flowers there are they would never replicate those coming from the mind of God.

If we think about this Earth that modern Catholicism has lowered to a planet, you will also see the work of divine omnipotence. There is nothing on this Earth that God did not anticipate for man's existence. Any of you rerading this in your home or elsewhere, realise that everything came from God's Earth. The walls around you, the paint, the chairs, the ingredients of your computers, your clothes, and your food. Think of all the different types of food man eats, all thoes flavours, all thought up by God for man's use and benefit. Year after year the Earth keeps producing, my God but wasn't evolution marvellous.

Now just because this false philosophy is rampant among Churchmen since the succumbed to heliocentrism, Darwinism and Big Bang creation, this does not stain the Catholic faith itself. Tt teaches immediate creation of all. We have to know the difference between opinions and teachings to find the true Catholic Church  Just as all those homosexual Cardinals, bishops and priests today dominate the clergy, this does not mean there are not good priests who keep the Faith.
Reply
Serious question cassini, but how does the theory of the universe being formed via an explosion contradict the Faith, so long as one accepts that it was willed and guided by God?
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)