Simple question?

Quote: Dalex64

I'm saying geocentrism was pretty obvious and self-evident, at the time, given the limits of their knowledge.

I am sure you are also aware of how vehemently the religious clung to their beliefs on the subject, because of how it agreed with their various holy writings.

Again this is why we have to recognize that self-evident truths don't depend on observation or evidence to support them. Our evidence could be wrong, our observation tricked, our understanding incomplete when it comes to non self-evident truths.

I like the example of geocentrism you bring up because it does seem so obvious and it jives with the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. We should remember that it was a Catholic cleric that eventually showed geocentrism was not true.

You are, as usual, missing my point.

The things that we believe to be true about the nature of the universe might not be true at all.

Until Islamic scientists started to question it somewhere around the year 1100, no one could even conceive a universe that we were not in the center of.

We can only observe a tiny fraction of the universe. Most of it is hidden from us. I don't think we have it right yet. We know our knowledge is incomplete. Einstein was wrong on some things. He didn't even like some of the answers that he came up with, that we believe are right. It wasn't how he thought the universe should be.

So much of what you believe is based on the same methodologies used to develop geocentrism. As I pointed out before, very solid logical arguments were put forth to develop geocentrism. However, further thought, technology, and observations demonstrated that it wasn't true.

Any system of beliefs that is not falsifiable, can not be verified through experimentation, can not be directly observed, is just speculation and opinion, no matter how solid the logic behind it appears to be. Just like geocentrism.

As always, a lack of a proven alternative explaination does not prove something else is true. Not B therefore A is not logical.

Quote: Dalex64

Any system of beliefs that is not falsifiable, can not be verified through experimentation, can not be directly observed, is just speculation and opinion, no matter how solid the logic behind it appears to be. Just like geocentrism.
.

You will never get FrG to admit this. His
entire life revolves around something
he cannot prove and is not verifiable.
Religion is based on emotion, never
logic and facts. Jesus hanging from the
cross when you enter the church is
meant to get an emotional reaction
from you.

The times I've gone to church with my
wife, it's all about emotion. They sing
and get all caught up in it, waving their
arms around, calling out Jesus name.
The sermon is meant to touch an emotional
chord in you. Religion satisfies something
in people, it gives them a sense of bonding
with the community of believers. God has
little to with it, god is just the excuse to
be there.

double

Quote: Dalex64

You are, as usual, missing my point.

The things that we believe to be true about the nature of the universe might not be true at all.

Granted but the truths of logic will not ever be discovered untrue. Surely we can be 100% confident about that, right? We will not in a million years realize that 1+1=anything other than 2. There is a difference in the words we use for such knowledge and for things we believe. We know that something cannot come from nothing, we know that A doesn't equal not-A. We believe that 13.8 billion years ago there was a singularity we call the Big Bang that brought about our expanding universe. We believe human beings evolved and lived originally in Africa. There are some things that we believe that have so much evidence to support them that they border on a self-evident truth and they are proven to us many times a day like gravity or this is where I would put my belief in Jesus Christ. However, as you rightly pointed out geocentrism was similar to these beliefs until literally and figuratively the world was moved with the discovery that we were not the center of the universe. I will even acknowledge that my belief in Jesus Christ could possibly change if someone discovered the grave of Jesus of Nazareth and unearthed his bones. Then they described in detail new ancient documents found at the Dead Sea that describe the trick played on everyone concerning His rising from the dead. Or perhaps as Muslims suggests Jesus Himself will come back and tell Christians they were all wrong and why and that we should all embrace Islam. However, even if God Himself came down and said that there can be a square circle or that A does equal not-A then we would know it was the liar and not true.

Quote:

So much of what you believe is based on the same methodologies used to develop geocentrism. As I pointed out before, very solid logical arguments were put forth to develop geocentrism. However, further thought, technology, and observations demonstrated that it wasn't true.

Yes, I agree and admit that very solid logical arguments and personal experience form the basis on my belief in Christ. However, if somehow it was proved that Jesus died and did not rise from the dead or if there were observations that living a Christian moral life led to the breakdown of society or not of benefit to the believer, or if God Himself reveals something that hither to now we would never have known that showed Jesus was not God then obviously my world would be shaken and changed and like the geocentrists of ages long ago.

Quote: Dalex64

You are, as usual, missing my point.

The things that we believe to be true about the nature of the universe might not be true at all.

Until Islamic scientists started to question it somewhere around the year 1100, no one could even conceive a universe that we were not in the center of.

We can only observe a tiny fraction of the universe. Most of it is hidden from us. I don't think we have it right yet. We know our knowledge is incomplete. Einstein was wrong on some things. He didn't even like some of the answers that he came up with, that we believe are right. It wasn't how he thought the universe should be.

So much of what you believe is based on the same methodologies used to develop geocentrism. As I pointed out before, very solid logical arguments were put forth to develop geocentrism. However, further thought, technology, and observations demonstrated that it wasn't true.

Any system of beliefs that is not falsifiable, can not be verified through experimentation, can not be directly observed, is just speculation and opinion, no matter how solid the logic behind it appears to be. Just like geocentrism.

As always, a lack of a proven alternative explaination does not prove something else is true. Not B therefore A is not logical.

What is an Islamic scientist?

Quote: pew

What is an Islamic scientist?

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model "Islamic astronomy and geocentrism" section.

Quote: Dalex64

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model "Islamic astronomy and geocentrism" section.

That doesn't say what an "Islamic scientist" is. Is it the same as a Christian scientist? Or maybe a Hindu scientist?

Quote: FrGamble

Granted but the truths of logic will not ever be discovered untrue. Surely we can be 100% confident about that, right? We will not in a million years realize that 1+1=anything other than 2. There is a difference in the words we use for such knowledge and for things we believe. We know that something cannot come from nothing, we know that A doesn't equal not-A. We believe that 13.8 billion years ago there was a singularity we call the Big Bang that brought about our expanding universe. We believe human beings evolved and lived originally in Africa. There are some things that we believe that have so much evidence to support them that they border on a self-evident truth and they are proven to us many times a day like gravity or this is where I would put my belief in Jesus Christ. However, as you rightly pointed out geocentrism was similar to these beliefs until literally and figuratively the world was moved with the discovery that we were not the center of the universe. I will even acknowledge that my belief in Jesus Christ could possibly change if someone discovered the grave of Jesus of Nazareth and unearthed his bones. Then they described in detail new ancient documents found at the Dead Sea that describe the trick played on everyone concerning His rising from the dead. Or perhaps as Muslims suggests Jesus Himself will come back and tell Christians they were all wrong and why and that we should all embrace Islam. However, even if God Himself came down and said that there can be a square circle or that A does equal not-A then we would know it was the liar and not true.





Yes, I agree and admit that very solid logical arguments and personal experience form the basis on my belief in Christ. However, if somehow it was proved that Jesus died and did not rise from the dead or if there were observations that living a Christian moral life led to the breakdown of society or not of benefit to the believer, or if God Himself reveals something that hither to now we would never have known that showed Jesus was not God then obviously my world would be shaken and changed and like the geocentrists of ages long ago.

I think just about everything you listed that "we believe" are believed because of a falsifiable chain of evidence. Evidence, not philosophy and reasoning. Philosophy and reasoning is not evidence, and it certainly isn't proof.

Your beliefs about what is good for society also has nothing to do with wether or not the beliefs that led to the society had any basis in reality nor not. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I am still just talking about the things you can not know. You can not know what existed before the big bang. If a god did create everything that exists at some point, you can not know that it is the same "entity" which you believe is God now. You can not know that your beliefs are true. With all of the other religions in the world, you can not know that they are wrong.

Quote: Dalex64

I think just about everything you listed that "we believe" are believed because of a falsifiable chain of evidence.

Including my religious faith.

Quote:

Evidence, not philosophy and reasoning.

First of all we can have all three, second of all, yes - what we believe has to have evidence to support it.

Quote:

Philosophy and reasoning is not evidence, and it certainly isn't proof.

It is the surest form of proof, as close to mathematical proofs we can come to in the real world. Evidence can change our observations can be wrong and we can not know what the heck we are looking at. However, proper reasoning and logic cannot be wrong. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a truth that has lots of evidence to back it up, in fact everything backs it up, but it is true even if you were in some isolation chamber and had nothing to test it with. You can just think about it and know it is correct. As you can with the other logical truths I have mentioned earlier.

The point is that there is truth you can arrive at by using your reason independent of your senses or observation. This kind of truth is universal and will never change.

Quote:

I am still just talking about the things you can not know. You can not know what existed before the big bang. If a god did create everything that exists at some point, you can not know that it is the same "entity" which you believe is God now. You can not know that your beliefs are true. With all of the other religions in the world, you can not know that they are wrong.

You are part right and part wrong. First of all we can know what existed before the big bang, but we cannot know it fully. We know for example that what existed before the Big Bang is truly eternal and outside of space and time. Therefore we also know that it is not material because everything that material exists was created in the Big Bang and we also know that every material thing is contingent and does not have its reason for being in itself. We also know that it is all-powerful as it creates everything. These are some of the easier things I think we can know just by the use of our reason about what existed before the Big Bang and the creation of all matter, space, time, and energy. You are right in that we don't know what this looked like and we don't know its name, etc. However, there are many things we can know with unaided human reason about what existed before the Big Bang.

Now when it comes to my beliefs you are again correct, I believe them, which means we are not dealing with a self-evident truth. I believe that I right about who God is in the same way that you and I both believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Our shared belief about the Earth revolving around the Sun is a pretty safe one and it feels almost self-evident. Every day we experience evidence that it is true. If we were going to stop believing this it would take an enormous amount of almost unconceivable evidence. Maybe in a few years we find out the Sun is just a hologram projected by a alien spaceship that is towing us around the universe for some reason. I think you get the point about how crazy it would be to discover that our evidence, experience, and observations for our whole lives have been wrong. Well, my faith is similar. Everyday I experience the power of the Son of God and feel and see His movement and action in my life and in the life of those around me. Looking at history, philosophy, theology, scientific evidence all that contribute in some ways to support what I believe to be correct about God. The amount of evidence to change my beliefs would be astronomical. I've listed some of the things it would take to have me proven to be wrong about Jesus Christ and it makes my earlier example of the Sun being a hologram look like easy evidence to obtain.

What about others beliefs? I think they sincerely would say some of the same things I would say above. My question then would be if they are really willing to subject their religions to the test of history, the rigors of philosophical examination, scientific observation, look deeply at the effects of their faith anthropologically, what about contributions to culture and serving the poor and needy? Is their faith consistent and help us to understand who we are and where we are going? Does it give a sound and inspiring answer to the question of the meaning of life? Does it correspond to what we know to be true about human freedom, our need for forgiveness, and our yearning to always strive for something better? Anyway, I think you see where I am going. I believe that only Catholic Christianity can respond most effectively and affirmatively to these questions and examinations.

So this is getting too long but let me say one other thing. I would be much more careful and thorough to ever claim that someone who thought they knew who God was wrong then I would be to claim that someone who doesn't even believe in God is wrong. Atheism is defeated by simple logic and we can be sure without doubt that they are wrong.