Gaunilo argues that just because someone can conceive of something it does not make it a reality and that there is not one way to conceive of God - the very fact that Gaunilo was arguing with Anselm proves that everyone coneives of God differently. He used the ideo of a ‘Perfect Island’ to show his point by saying everyone can imagine a wonderful remote island but this does not mean the island exists. Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticisms. He stated that God is non-continent whereas all other things on Earth are contingent. Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument.
The Roman Catholic Church didn’t want people to use science to explain things in the universe because it went against what they believe God did. Just like for example, the Big Bang Theory. Even though the Big Band Theory did not come into effect until the twentieth century, it goes against what Christian’s believe because they are denying that God created the universe and instead are saying that it was created by a cataclysmic event out in space. And our galaxy was
Euleeta White THEO 201-B03 July 5, 2013 BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW CORE COMPETENCY Some people question God’s involvement in His creation even though the bible teach that He is creator of the universe. There are claims that He is not actively involved, nor is He in control of anything going on in the world due to its fallen state. However, God is still in control of everything that sways in the wind, or creeps on the ground. He has not abandoned His creation. The Bible speaks contrary to these claims.
In particular, the phases of Venus, which showed it to circle the sun, and the observation of moons orbiting Jupiter contradicted the geocentric model where the orbit of all celestial bodies was centered on the Earth. For Galileo, saying that the Earth went around the Sun contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church. Some in the Church believed that his observations were correct; many members of the Church believed that he must be wrong. His observations contradicted the Bible. An example used was a passage in Joshua where God causes the Sun to stand still and lengthen the day.
Nonoverlapping Magisteria Nonoverlapping magisteria discussed that there is no conflict within the two topics of religion and evolution. The primary element was to rationalize how the magisterias of science and religion, and also evolution and creationism do not “overlap.” As stated in the article by Gould, “The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value” (pg.1) The way nonoverlapping is used upon the text is to signify that religion and science bump up right next to each other, but don’t take account for one another. To have Creation Science taught within a science class would start conflict. Public schools took prayer out their morning announcements, so I would have a hard time thinking that institutions would consider making a science with a higher being (creator) the source of the world and creation.
In his letter, Galileo asserts the Bible as a direct authority on faith and not as of one on science when his states, “that our authors knew the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are useful to no one for salvation" The idea that the Earth moved and the sun stood still did not contradict scripture. If the scripture was interpreted correctly then the sun could only stand still if the sun normally moved around the Earth. Galileo wanted people during the 18th century to open their minds to the scientific discoveries and realize that a new idea did not have to repute scriptures. He argued against the accusations the he was condemning the Bible in a way that was, "without understanding it, weighing it, or so much as reading it". Galileo claimed to strongly believe the Bible and its message of faith.
Scientific advancements such as heliocentricity and atomism disproved geocentricity and Aristotelian beliefs. The Catholic Church supported many of those views and anyone who opposed those beliefs were made instant targets of the pope and his follwers.4 Punishments were very severe, including house arrest, to discourage scientific advancement, but some refused to give in to church demands. Aristotelian belief was that the Earth was the center of everything, which tied well into the churches’ misunderstanding of several bible verses. This misunderstanding caused the church to strictly promote the idea of an Earth-centered universe.4 Many scientists were persecuted, but Galileo was the most notable. With him inventing the one of the first telescopes, he could see multiple areas of space never seen before such as Jupiter.
However one fact remains, both individuals went against the church by defying both it's legitimacy and power as well as it’s power, but as aforementioned, for very different purposes, but in both cases resulted in earning the title of heretic. Another area in which contrast could be seen between the two “heretics” was what one could call the outcome of their heretic practices against the church. In the case of Martin Luther he was excommunicated and sought after, but even more significantly he never recanted for his work nor apologized for it or for his clear contradiction against the Church. While on the other hand, Galileo recanted all his works, and suffered only a sentence of house arrest as a result. Each man although both suffered the burden of the title of being a heretic, each earned the infamous title through different manners, and each suffered contrasting consequences as a result of what was regarded as heretical practices.
Astronomers such as Galileo knew that the sun was the center rather than the earth, but the church suppressed new ideas and new information from reaching the people. The church forced
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.