certo, non è una prova di un dio o Dio particulare, ma si arriva a un principio di cui la filosofia in sequito puo ragionare qualche charatteristiche (come unicità, unità, atto puro (che vuol dire non-potentialità) e altro che corresponde a una certa concezione del divino. Vero, questa concezione per esempio va difficilmente identificato con Zeus (concepito solo con un essere potente), ma è consonnate con un Dio trascendente (che è l'essere) .

Forgive me l should have capitalised “He”.

Hi, I have not had time to translate the Jerusalem books yet, nor record them. Currently I have to finish a book for an Italian publisher. I was meant to record the German original, but that likewise is not complete yet.

@@donjojohannes good morning Father Johannes, thank you for your reply. Good luck with the Italian Pulisher. I wish you well, have a blessed day. ☺️

whats that mean

и ваши тоже))

@@user-fc1co6dv3u у меня никаких священников нет. Я их не признаю всех!

Hi there. So what technological advances you have in mind that were resisted? Btw, if you do some googling you might be surprised to find how many priests were at the forefront of science like Fr Gregor Mendel for Genetics or Fr Julius Nieuland for rubber, or Fr Georges Lamaitre in modern Cosmology to just name 3. There is a wikipedia page on it. Note also that Copernikus was a canon of the church and controversy with Galileo on heliocentrism broke out 73 years later for some more "human" reasons (and the problem that Galileo's arguments like on the cause of tides were actually wrong though his thesis was factually right). And of course arguably the most important technological advancement in the last 2000 years, the printing press, was developed by the catholic, monastery-educated Johannes Gutenberg (who printed letters of indulgences, dictionaries, and the bible for a start.) So I'm not sure what you are referring to in such a "global" criticism and charge. There are of course technologies the Catholic Church rejects on moral grounds, but that has little to do with a stance towards science.

@@donjojohannes Hello. I suspect I was more in mind of scientific advances - but the ones that spring to mind would obviously start with Galileo and would include evolution, stem cells, abortion and contraception (and yes, I count the last two as technological advances). I know a little of the roots of science in the church (Francis Bacon, the Jesuits etc) and acknowledge the contribution. Googling was interesting at it seems the PR dept for the Vatican (amongst which I count your good self) has adapted with the times and are now heavily contributing to Wikipedia articles - possibly to counter the narrative from popular atheists.

You have too much faith in the abilities of the Vatican and its supposed PR department 😉. Or to quote some pope (though I'm not sure it is authentic hence it has been ascribed to different ones): "You want to destroy the catholic church? Look, we, her clergy, have done our best to do so for 2000 years and havn't been able to do it". Galileo is an interesting subject and "popular Atheists" instrumentalize it more often than not basing things on old polemics rather than history. And it was not a battle of Church vs science, because Galileo himself was member of the church as were his supporters (to which the pope belonged until Galileo insulted him rather cheerfully in his work "The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (1632)). Galileo's daughter was a nun btw and we have their letters. There are books on the subject, so I recommend going beyond usual polemics. Evolution is a protestant issue more than a catholic one (since biblical literalism and fundamentalism is a protestant pet). Catholics have people like St Augustine ( died in 430) who did not take the days literally all the way back then. He even has the idea of evolving species from basic forms, though certainly not evolution in the modern sense). Stem cells, abortion and contraception are moral questions for a reason and the first two (as some of the third) touch the non religious question of when human life begins. Here the Church is far more reasonable and logically and biologically coherent with its answer (conception) than the advocates of these things that don't wanna answer the question because it endangers their preferred outcome (end justifying the means i.e. consequentialism is ugly to say the least). Yet even if they said that they did not know when it began or that "personhood" probably only comes "later" they would have to err on the side of caution which they refuse to do too. There is no dilemma or moral quandry. There is only the important question of when human life begins. If you could prove that 3 months in the womb was it, then the Church would have little issue with abortion up to that point. But if 3 months in Europe are the legal limit simply because killing the babies in the womb is easier up to that point (suction - after that the child's head gets to big) than one just doesn't want to see an evil that is clearly there. Not the first time in history either - and not the first time it was called "progress". Remember Eugenics?. Only way out: atheistic nihilism. But then again "moral arguments" against the Church and "its crimes" such as Dawkins and Hitchens have provided with scorn would instantly become silly and incoherent. i.e. they are parasitic on the remnants of Christian morality in a society in order to justify and engender outrage. For in nihilism there is no morality. Hence why Nietzsche in my book is one of the few honest atheists - critiquing himself the atheists still living in the shadow of the God they slew. He was so honest he went mad, which is the most "reasonable" thing to do if you really go through with it. At least this is how I understand it. Cheers.

​@@donjojohannes so the PR dept of the Vatican would probably be the Dicastery for Communication (if you want to google it). Which has a stated mission of meeting "the needs of the Church’s evangelizing mission through the use of production models, technological innovations and forms of communication currently available and those that may yet emerge." As for Dawkins and Hitchens, their outrage is real. If you see it as self serving then you should probably consider the same charge against yourself. Dawkins I'm less sure of, but to label Hitchens a nihilist is just silly. He spoke at length on his view of human morality and was an ardent socialist and reformed marxist. And no, I don't 'remember' eugenics - I am not old enough. I am aware of it just as I am aware of the concordats the church made with those that perpetrated it.

My point on the "new atheists" is not that their moral outrage is not real but that it is (like concepts such as good and evil or "human rights") parasitic on a fixed moral order derivable only from some sort of theism (and historically exactly derived from that). Why? Because atheism (atheist materialism) itself does not have a basis for morality other than man. And since man is a fundamentally materialistic entity in that view he cannot have absolute moral qualities. All he can have is will. But will is a category of power not morality. Sam Harris' attempt likewise is valiant but futile because he cannot base his starting principle on anything other than "preliminary" consensus, which is a meaningless moral quality in anything other than the same "might makes right". Here too Nietzsche is more self aware and coherent. Frustratingly even Alex O 'Connor, who I find the most pleasant and often thoughtful atheist I regularly listen to, falls into the same trap when he has argued for morality on a basic "avoid evil/suffering". Because if there is no value to the individual grounded in something outside the individual, (something above man) any evil done to the individual can be justified with the good of the community (like in the totalitarianism of any collectivism) and even the defense of some collective good of humanity will always suffer the charge of speciism. Because I can justify genocide simply by saying that I make way for the domination of future civilisatiobs of crows or dolphins down the evolutionary road whose societies will maybe be more successfull than that of man. Mind you I wrote "successful" because "better" would be a moral category not available to atheists, even though success too implies final causality which atheists if pressed only grudgingly admit.