I would think for one who marches in here with such a flair for bravado, you would be well aware of these things, but perhaps in Romania the education system is somewhat flawed.

The mathematician and theologian Antoine Arnauld, for one. Many consider him the greatest mathematician of all time.

Pascal was of course a theologian. Anyone with any skill in math or physics must of course have heard of him.

Swedenberg, I would hope you would at least be familiar with him. A prominent inventor, scientist, and mathematician, who is considered one of the greatest universal geniuses. He wrote truly amazing works of theology in his later life, and there are three well documented instances where he seemed to possess skills that would be classified as ESP.

I could go on, Isaac Newton, Gallileo, Kepler of course, Robert Bacon, Albertus Magnus, who first isolated arsenic, the Father of Botany Otto Brunfels, Copernicus, Napier, who invented logarithms, the geneticist Mendel, even the Big Bang theory was theorized by a Catholic priest.

The list goes on and on and on and on. Even many of the Popes contributed to scientific fields.

Methinks you should take your education more seriously before storming the proverbial gates of heaven.

ad hominem. No offense but if you want me to take you seriously you should not start a post with a logical fallacy. I would have thought that anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension would have been able to understand that I was asking for those you specifically referred to. As such, that is a second fallacy on your behalf.They don't teach us mind reading in Romania either.

You are making my own argumens for me. Arnauld started as a theologist, remember? well, as a law student who transferred to theology, but t's the same thing.as in what I have posted slightly higher?

You said that many scientists, after starting in science, became theologists. Arnauld is not one of them. Seriously, read the posts and read your own arguments.


Let me make things clear for you: I have not claimed that there were no Christian scientists. My point was and still is that in the intellectual context of their times, they had to be or get burned. Atheism is a rather new movement.

Yet while I appreciate him as a mathematician, Pascal's Wager is far too flawed and easy to put hles in for me to take him seriously as a theologian. Anyone who fails to understand that belief is not an option needs to hang on his robe.
Same thing
your argument was this

make it already.



same thing.
You built a lovely strawman there, but no one denied the existence of Christian scientists. prove your argument.

methinks you need to learn a thing or three about rules of debate, logical fallacies, logics per se, and THEN try to debate. You have defeated yourself in your post, all I am doing is pointing the holes in your reasoning to you.
The only argument you have is pascal, and his value as a theologian is low.

Why don't you read higher up? Seriously, read the posts and read you own arguments.

Let me reiterate my post that you asked me to back up, as you were obviously unclear on the points:

"No. Good try though. Many of them began their academic careers as students of science, and then went over to religion and theology later in life.

Although many members of religious orders did contribute greatly to the advances in mathematics and science, but I would hardly call most of these the great geniuses."

So obviously I was giving you examples of both whose I considered great geniuses who eventually went over to mysticism, and those who worked prominently in both fields, since you did not ask me to specify one over the other. I was figuring that someone of your obvious intellectual standing would appreciate the differences, but I suppose I was wrong.

And this was your original silly statement that I was refuting:

"because they didn't have a choice? Because in an oppressive system one fights from within the system or dies outside of it?"

A statement which you in no way made any effort to support, but threw out there for those like myself to laugh at.

So obviously, unlike yourself, I have obviously read the posts and read my own argument.

But onwards and upwards, so to speak

You're 100% incorrect concerning Swedenborg. He started as a scientist and a inventor, and in midlife became a mystic and theologian. If you're going to make an issue of fallacies, at least get your facts straight. He had his mystical experience at the age of 56, and then began his major theological writings, well after he had established himself as prolific scientist and inventor, and well after he was offered the mathematics chair at Uppsala University.

Second, because you don't particularly care for Pascal's theological writings do not mean they don't exist. As you quoted, I stated that many who started in science later went on to theology, which Pascal certainly did. Your particular judgement on the quality of his theology is irrelevant.

Third, let's move on to Sir Isaac Newton. He didn't start writing theology until the 1690's. His Principia was written in 1687. In the end, he ended up writing more on religion than he did on science, if you go by sheer volume.

As far as Kepler is concerned, Harmonices Mundi was written later in his career, after most of his astronomy, and ascertained, "that the geometrical things have provided the Creator with the model for decorating the whole world." Although I personally wouldn't classify it as pure theology, if any of of you scientific types out there would like to claim it as your own, be my guest. It deals mostly with metaphysical music. It was written later in his career.

Oh, and by the way, I meant Roger Bacon, not the American politician Robert Bacon. That's what happens when I drink red wines. You should have flaunted your superior education and pointed this out to me!!! He was big on empiricism and the scientific method, although later in life he wrote more on alchemy, the occult, and theology.

Although John Napier wrote on The Book of Revelations before he made his most famous mathematical discoveries, he began his education in mathematics and physics, and thus my statement, "Many of them began their academic careers as students of science, and then went over to religion and theology later in life" still holds true for him.

For the others I listed, they managed to make contributions to science while working within the confines of their respective religious dispositions. As I said, I could list countless more, but let's see you make a case for your argument first, or try to weasel your way out of the intellectual failures you have so clearly exposed.

As for your cries of ad hominem, I say if the shoes fit, wear them. You proved delightfully uneducated based on the few examples I gave, and were completely unable to differentiate between the two classes of human character I was presenting.

As far as your "rules of logic and debating"? Please. I follow no rules except my own. When you can get your facts straight, perhaps I'll consider adhering to your rules. That's a rather big "perhaps" though. I've agreed to abide by the rules of this forum only, and nowhere do I see anything about stating that I cannot speculate in the arenas of what are commonly called fallacies by the intellectual elite. If that were the case, few would be able to post here, including yourself. You hardly pointed any holes in my reasoning to you, you just plainly illustrated how poorly educated you are in all the matters of science, history, and religion, and the straw man you accuse me of has thickened his skin in light of this post.












__________________