General Chat

Janet:

"Would he have decried Galileo's idea telling him to 'prove it' ..."

Actually, I think the whole point is that Galileo did have evidence ...

http://plus.maths.org/content/earth-moves

"In these days of debates on climate change we're often reminded of that other great clash between science and authority, the staunch refusal by the catholic church to accept scientific evidence that the Earth is moving around the Sun. Although Nicolaus Copernicus was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric model, it was Galileo Galilei who got into trouble for it, and who embodies this clash between science and religion in the popular imagination. Galileo's telescopic observations added a substantial body of *evidence* to the theory ...

... Although the catholic church's interpretation of the scriptures firmly opposed the Copernican world view, church authorities were quite happy with astronomers using the heliocentric model for computational purposes. Astronomers were allowed to make calculations based on it, as long as they did not believe or proclaim it as fact. Galileo had successfully negotiated this knife's edge for most of his career — he had been investigated by the Inquisition in 1616, but let off and merely warned informally not to teach Copernicanism. The chief concern of his later trial was not to refute Galileo's *evidence* for the heliocentric system, or to find out how exactly his writings contravened the scriptures, but simply to determine whether Galileo had heeded the church's warning."

Rose:

"If there was evidence 'enough' to convince, there would be no virtue in faith...it would be simply like believing in a banana in the fruit bowl, you see it, there it is...end of. "

And ... your point is ... ? ;)

You're assuming your conclusion.
(This, btw, is the actual meaning of "begging the question".)

What "virtue" is there in "faith"?

None that I know of!


One's private reasons for being glad something (evidence of the supernatural) doesn't exist are not a rebuttal of a request for evidence, or of the reasons for that request. ;)

If Galileo, who is described as a scientist, according to Steven Hawking, could have written on these boards in days gone by about his theory, that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, what side and what argument would Eldrick's ancestors have put forward to say who was right and who was wrong? Would he have decried Galileo's idea telling him to 'prove it' or would he have stood up against the society of the time and say, yup Galileo you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Even some scientists/astronomers of his day got it wrong because they were closed to alternate ideas to their own.-JLe

Religion has been described as the tightest garment into which life was ever laced.

And there is no second act in the play of life. So, do your best during the first & only act.

eldrick a whole lake filled with merlot.......raflmao.
you wish

Beverley - you don't have to prove anything. DIngly Dell is a fictitious made up place, actually. I just made it up - hah! So there.

Same as heaven, hell and paradise.

Hmmm, surprisingly, I don't wear that argument!

There are far too many gods in competition with each other for one of them not to give us a bit of a hint. I mean, just something like a televised walk on water (with proper scientific protocols being observed of course) or even just a little bit of hellfire, the odd sudden mutation into a pillar of salt or better still, turning a whole lake into nice vintage Merlot would get me to church 5 times a day.

Or maybe he or she could stop wars, violence and all manner of nasty things. Oh, I forgot about the free will get out clause in the contract :-)

Ok you've convinced me of one thing Eldrick..i am NOT going to Dingly Dell ...stewed lettuce and haddock, not to mention the marzipan...why I'd die rather than go there :)

If that is your belief Eldrick, I hope you are happy in Dingly Dell. I wouldn't dream of asking you to prove or disprove it's existence. So why can't we be happy with our beliefs without this constant pressure to 'prove'

and ..........adam could,nt even suss out the tree a knowledge till eve told him .
cos the snake told her.see

I GOT ONE............

gods a male because if you notice he passed all the hard stuff onto the female .typical man
we give birth and have all those womany things.
you guys get none a that.:)

But it is Eldrick :)

If there was evidence 'enough' to convince, there would be no virtue in faith...it would be simply like believing in a banana in the fruit bowl, you see it, there it is...end of.

And i think it would take away some of the glory of being here ( not Shropshire lol, the earth ) if you knew beyond doubt that you would be shuffling off to a better place at the end of your 3 score and ten you would not make the most of the beauty and sheer exciting possibilities of the 'here and now ' ( nor who is here with you in fact).

Maybe you can tell me when I meet you in Dingly Dell, the place where everyone goes when they die and live on a diet of stewed lettuce and haddock. Where god is called Eric and his civil partner is a gerbil called Frank and they live in a house made of marzipan and chocolate.

Prove me wrong. It's my belief. Well, it is after a night at the pub.

OHHHH - wonderful question at last!!! Why are they all male? Maybe if they were female you would have had that evidence you so crave.

Maybe I'll be able to provide you with that evidence as and when I'm called to meet him again. But, as I've said before, it will be too late to say 'I told you so'.

No, I want evidence. It doesn't have to be proof in the form of incontrovertable evidence, it just has to be evidence. A tiny shred of it. A little sliver of it. A morsel, a titbit, a soupcon of a hint of evidence will do nicely. Unfortunately, god (or jehovah, or allah, or odin, or jupiter) has taken it upon himself (why are the big gods always male?) not to give me any. Sigh. It's not asking much, really, is it? Really?

We seem to have come full circle - you want proof.

The only proof I need is what is in my heart.

The rest is between me and my maker

Organised religion has more to do with man trying to pigeonhole God into man's own image...rather than the other way around :).

It is terribly limiting I think, either God is more than man can possibly imagine, or I would be inclined to say he doesn't exist ;)

Yep, I think that about sums it up nicely.

However, I'm quite happy to change my mind if they come up with just a little bit of evidence :-)

Of couse, I might be in a group of atheists, in which case we would all be right.

Surely you do not believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?
Aristophanes

(checked for typos - not quite sure about old aristoph thingy whatshisname, but it will do for now)

well i do pray..often.
pls forgive me for the sins ive done
please forgive me for the sins im about to do
and pls forgive me for the ones i do in the future.



I PRAY ALOT .:)

The answer came from Wikipedia Eldrick so if that is wrong, please take it up with them.

Most religions actually worship the same God but in different ways. I don't want to get into a religious argument but my point is that 80% of people in the world believe (to the death in some cases) something you say doesn't exist so in a group of five people, you are right and the other four are wrong.

Hmmm