mardi 2 septembre 2014

New debate with Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis

My status:
I think I have been here before ...

Rick DeLano
Welcome back Hans-Georg Lundahl.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have a hunch on why I was added back ...

This passage on this blogpost was sent to our friend Sungenis (after already getting to Chuck Missler):

You know Sungenis' theory of what keeps the Earth in its place, centre of Universe?

ALL mass in the Universe rotates around one spot which becomes gravitational centre, in which God put Earth, from which it cannot escape.

Now, he accepts conventional distances and sizes. One problem is that even so - I think you may have made the point about gravitation earlier - the gravitational pull from stars might really be too small to make a difference.

Now, as of lately, I do not accept conventional distances and sizes. Supposing the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri are an angel dancing with it (as per fourth theory of Riccioli) or as it (as per his second, rejected one, which was however accepted by St Jerome), alpha Centauri could be as close as a light day away.

And so on for all the other stars.

Would this make Sungenis' solution for Earth staying in place more plausible?

Not quite sure. Perhaps rather not. Gravitation would increase by the square as distances reduced, but as apparent size is an empiric given fact, and it relates to distance, this would, as I seem to comprehend, mean that the volume of alpha Centauri (and with it gravitation) would be decreasing by the cube as distance shortened.

However, if Earth was instead kept in place electrically? That or simple decree of God would be solutions.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

Rick DeLano
There is absolutely no basis upon which to accept any claim that "the gravitational pull from stars might really be too small to make a difference", since the stars make up far less than 5% of the mass required to explain observations even under conventional theories.

95.9% of the required mass to make gravity work under consensus cosmology assumptions is missing.

They have been looking for it for 70 years so far without success.

Maybe they will find it someday.

Until they do, they invent the difference and call it dark matter/energy.

We call it the firmament.

It is conclusively certain that the Theory of Relativity absolutely requires the physics to be perfectly consistent with a geocentric universe.

If anyone can show that to be wrong, they will have simultaneously falsified and collapsed all of physics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, that is another matter.

"Even under conventional theories." Here we might agree.

It is not that the stars per se are enough to explain the model of Sungenis, but that they are as insufficient to explain other models.

Chuck Missler seems to call that matter "plasma" and identify it with "waters above the firmament".

Rick DeLano
Missler does seem to be thinking along the same lines lately, and we of course wish him and his co-thinkers every success, since the present cosmological world view is on the verge of collapse, and will have to be replaced. The fact that we observe from one and precisely one place in the cosmos is a *metaphysical reality* which can no longer be ignored, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Copernican Principle. We shall have to re-do cosmology from a geocentric premise, and the smartest scientists are already beginning to see this:

Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem
Mahdiyar Noorbala, Vitaly Vanchurin
(Submitted on 21 Jun 2010 (v1), last revised 20 Jan 2011 (this version, v2))


"In the emerging picture an infinite multi- verse is replaced with a finite geocentric region, and the search for the correct measure is replaced by a search for a 3D Lagrangian yet to be discovered.

There are two ways to look for the correct Lagrangian. One could either try to perform direct phenomenological searches or one could try to derive it from first principles. For the phenomenological approach one has to reinter- pret the existing cosmological data from the geocentric view point."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If either Robert Sungenis' model or the standard one requires masses not found, what about returning to angelic model for stellar movements?

I will post link on a separate thread.

Robert Sungenis
Hans, the gravity model that I (and Dr. Bouw) are using does not have any "missing matter." The gravitational tension of the universe's sphere of stars, whatever its strength due to the distance of the stars from Earth, is going to be neutral at the center of mass. So we can have a large universe or a small one. It makes no difference to geocentrism.

Although the idea that angels moved the heavenly bodies was discussed in and out of the patristic and medieval eras, there was no consensus among either group that it was a reality. In fact, in De Potentia 6, 3, Aquinas quotes Augustine from De Trinitatae 2, 10, saying: “How angels do these things, or rather how God does them through his angels, my sight is not keen enough to see, my reason too diffident to unravel, my mind too slow to grasp; nor can I answer with assurance all the queries that could be made on this matter…” Aquinas himself makes no firm conclusion, but only says: “Although an angel may cause the movement of the heavens…” (“Ad quintum dicendum, quod Angelus etsi caelum moveat.” In reality, the whole purpose of De Potentia 6, 3 was to refute the ideas that angels could perform miracles at will without limitation. In other sections of De Potentia, Aquinas shows us his understanding of movement by natural causes: “Although the local movements of the lower bodies as well as other movements are brought about by certain fixed natural causes…” (“Ad undecimum dicendum, quod licet motus locales inferiorum corporum sint a determinatis motoribus naturalibus…,” De potentia, q. 6 a. 3 ad 11). As for Scripture, there exists no passage which states that angels move the heavenly bodies. The most that could be gleaned from Scripture is that angels can exercise extraordinary powers in the temporal realm. Secondly, the patristic and medieval eras give testimony of an absolute consensus to the doctrine of a fixed Earth and a moving sun, whereas no such consensus exists regarding angelic forces moving celestial bodies. Thirdly, geocentrism was confirmed by the magisteriums under several pontiffs, pontiffs that guided and approved the process of condemning Copernicanism from start to finish, whereas an angelic impetus for the heavenly bodies did not even come up for discussion within magisterial ranks.

[Editorial Note: lower bodies. Celestial bodies are higher. In fact, it seems St Thomas considered the movements of celestial bodies as physical causes of those of lower bodies, far beyond what modern physics does and well into what would now qualify as astrology - though excepting of course the free will of man and the providence of God. That moon moves ebb and flood, we admit now too, most of us. That Sun moves day and night, Summer and Winter, also. But he seems to consider Mars makes iron grow in mines and makes some of it magnetic, unless he considered the magnetic part as arising when Venus was in conjunction with Mars.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As to Scripture, the passages would rather suggest that stars ARE a kind of angels. Not meaning the passages do not exist.

The first milennium is more like St Jerome into thinking stars are living beings of angel like nature. The second millennium saw a condemnation of it in Paris, where the "angels move stars as immediate EXTRINSIC cause" took on as the majority view.

EITHER of the two views means there is some liberty of movement as compared to merely physical constraints - though none to disobey God - which is enough to dispense with the merely mechanistic explanations.

"The gravitational tension of the universe's sphere of stars whatever its strength due to the distance of the stars from Earth, is going to be neutral at the center of mass. So we can have a large universe or a small one. It makes no difference to geocentrism"

Even if tension of Sun mould be superior to all the rest?

That would be the moot point.

Rick DeLano
If it could be established established by direct experiment that the Sun is superior in its gravitation effect to the combined gravitation of the rest of the universe, one would have disproven General Relativity.

[Editorial Note: After this sth happened to his comments. After I had answered, before I could copy. As will become apparent later, the superiority would be local only in a huge universe, but still decisive perhaps, or absolute, in a small universe. If say fixed stars are in twice or three times or sth the distance of Pluto.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
De Potentia would be speaking of angels moving HEAVEN (caelum), not moving heavenly bodies.

St Thomas has amply documented he thought God himself moved Heaven, and angels supplied minor movements that unlike this first one were not daily circles.

E g God moves Heaven full circle every 23 h 56 minutes AND angel of Sun moves backward along the Zodiak so that solar day is 24 h and its period along Zodiak one year. In St Jerome's thought it might rather have been celestial bodies animated by a kind of souls that did so. But the quote from St Augustine shows he agreed with St Thomas rather than with St Jerome. His diffidence is not IF but HOW according to your own quote.

Quoting De Potentia:

"Accordingly the corporeal nature obeys the bidding of the spiritual in the point of its natural relation to local movement, but not as regards the reception of a form"

In other words, an angel can move the sun, no problem, but cannot make it shine or not shine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As to the distinction between metaphysical and scientific propositions proposed by Rick DeLano, that seems somewhat irrational. Metaphysics is a science and so is physics. However, my point was that physically the movement of the Sun backward East along the Zodiak had as cause the potence of an angel, just as its movement West WITH heaven had as its cause the direct action of God on the outrmost primum mobile.

How a certain movement could have as its cause one thing metaphysically and not have it physically is totally unclear.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wrong. Angels are NOT a privilege of revealed philosophy a k a theology.

They are equally (under other words) conclusions of say Aristotle or Avicenna, precisely in the domain of movements of celestial bodies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can say that the question what immediately moves a star or a planet is a physical question, and if so, supposing an angel does it, the angels action is the physical cause and the physical answer to the question.

I can also say that it is a metaphysical question, and if so, the other answer "heavenly bodies are immediately moved by gravitation and inertia, or perhaps also electricity to exclusion of spiritual agents" as as metaphysical an answer as "heavenly bodies are immediately moved by angels".

[As metaphysical, but not as right in metaphysics, that is.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What I cannot do is to say that the question is physical if the answer is the one and metaphysical if the answer is the other. Still less, have one answer for each discipline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If it is true of history that the movements of my pen on the paper depend on my fingers rather than on gravity (ink flowing would depend on gravity, but that does not say where it will flow), then very obviously it cannot be true in physics that gravity rather than my fingers direct the pen.

If angels are moving stars and planets, there can be two attitudes only:

  • angels can be questioned rationally as to what they can and cannot do and what they must be to do what they can do (for instance move the stars);


  • the question of what moves planets and stars is not a rational question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I very definitely refuse to have a rational inquiry tied down to an answer which may be wrong because the one which may be right is for formalistic reasons painted out as lying outside the domain of the inquiry.

And I very clearly have St Thomas on my side, since I read the beginning of De Potentia up to where Robert Sungenis cherry picked a quote. St Thomas clearly does say angels are what God uses to direct bodies.

Let us take objection 7 and its answer:

7. According to Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4) all bodies are governed by God through the rational spirit of life; and Gregory says the same (Dial. iv.: so that seemingly the movements of the heavens and of all nature are controlled by the angels even as the movements of the human body are controlled by the soul. Now the soul produces forms in the body independently of the natural active forces of the body: thus a mere fancy makes a man grow hot or cold, or become feverish or even leprous according to physicians. A fortiori then it is possible that by the mere concept of the angel who moves the heavens certain effects be produced in this lower world without the action of natural causes: and thus an angel can work a miracle. ... Reply to the Seventh Objection. In the natural order the soul by its bidding moves the body locally: because its appetitive power commands the movement, and the body obeys its bidding, and this is effected by the motive powers affixed to the organs and derived by the body from the soul which informs the body. Other alterations such as heat, cold and the like derive from the soul by means of local movement. It is also evident that imagination gives rise to a passion whereby in some way the movements of the heart and spirits are affected: and that when the latter are drawn towards the heart or diffused throughout the members the body is likewise affected: and this may lead to disease especially if the matter be so disposed.

So, the principle of Sts Augustine and Gregory remains in full vigour. The parallel certainly suggests that angels have powers of local movement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is not a completely legitimate job for physics to pursue a question while shutting out potentially right answers. As to them having done a reasonably good job, let me recall you to the fact that most of the job you here called good has been conducted by Heliocentrics.

If the right answer is God to a question, either physics must have a right to say at some point "goddidit" or "goddoesit" or physics must leave the question alone. If the right answer to a question is angels, either physics must have a right to say at some point "angelsdoit" or physics must leave the question alone.

NOTE that "natural philosophy" and "physics" are not coextensive. Traditionally physics has been considered as limited to a sublunary sphere.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What moves planets and stars cannot ever be within the OPERATIONAL domain of human inquiry. We are not big and mighty enough to conduct experiments on them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Physics "being itself" does not amount to angels being kept out of the question why the stars and planets move. Rather that would be physics bloated beyond recognition into a mosntruous pseudojudge of the real judges of physics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is very much so limited under the operation of precisely right reason, because precisely right reason precisely has the faculty to recognise that water boiling in kettles, it can experiment on, planets and stars moving it cannot experiment on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are acting as a fundie, of "natural sciences". Even when they contradict the truth, and on some matters even on matters directly revealed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As to your appeal to the "teaching of the Church", I am no more out on my own than you are after 1820.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Optical evidence of where the bodies move are perfectly legitimate and I am not disputing it. THAT is distinct from speculation on what makes them move. That is the whole point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And stop, will you, being so overbearing as to say things like "we have been through this before" I was right then and am right now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Physics as such has no duty to account for those motions. Precisely as physics like physics has no duty to account for what patterns my pen may make on a paper.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, physics can not account for what patterns I choose to write on a paper.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have already become so. [Disagreeable.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Supposing that were sincere, it would be an apology for browbeating about what you feel are limits and scopes of physics, as if it were self evident. Supposing that were sincere, it would be renouncing for the future tones like "now now" and so on. IS it all that sincere?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You said you quit school after it ceased being compulsory? Oh no. You have done quite a bit of adaptation to a rotten culture since then, you sound like a politician.

[Actually, I must admit, it was Dave Armstrong who said so about Rick DeLano's educational background.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I took that literally. I am sorry I was too tired to recall why I disliked your company when I added you again.

[Here I unfriended Rick DeLano again.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, Robert Sungenis, you want to give precisely a physical explanation to Earth staying in centre.

It being placed in exact centre of gravity. Speaking of gravity, btw, the translation of de potentia has a problem. Jordan was stopped while retaining its HEAVINESS, St Thomas was not speaking fo Newtonian "power of gravitation". But say Newton is right, say there are centres of gravity ... many things DOWN ON EARTH (recall the lunar sphere limit) look as if that were true. However, these are not equally forceful for whatever total mass there is, but less and less so, the more the total mass is dispersed.

That being so, if Universe includes giants very much larger than the Sun, that does not mean centre of gravity of all such things would locally be stronger than gravity of the Sun - since the immense distances play in. If on the other hand the universe is very much smaller, then the centre of gravity would perhaps be the Sun itself - insofar as that is relevant. At least it would be very probable that the stars considered as giants bigger than the sun are in fact smaller than Pluto, if as close as I think.

Either way, gravitation seems not quite the right thing to account for a Geocentric universe.

What about:

  • a moving universe has God for a mover
  • smaller moving objects have smaller movers
  • Earth has no mover and so does not move ...

begins to sound like a deal?

[It seems Robert Sungenis also commented on this thread. Then something happened to this last comment of his. Before I could even see it.]

Link to De Potentia, Latin and English parallel, relevant passage in context.
ON THE POWER OF GOD by Thomas Aquinas
translated by the English Dominican Fathers
Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1952, reprint of 1932
Html edition by Joseph Kenny, O.P.


Can Spiritual Creatures Work Miracles by Their Natural Power?

mardi 26 août 2014

At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]

I have been confronted with REPEATED violations of the rule:

"1) This group is for Creationism. If you do not support Creationism, you are welcome to stay and debate on the discussion board and wall, but you must remain civil and RESPECT all members. This also applies to those who support Creationism."

I see no point in staying.

Before leaving, it is time for some honesty. I actually resumed and even copy pasted parts of our debates on my blogs.

New blog on the kid : Resumé de mes débats géocentriques sur le groupe "Creationism"

HGL's F.B. writings : Supernormal stimuli and behavioural addiction? Really now?

[Ibidem] Some Answers on a Thread of Group Creationism

So long, farewell, auf Widersehn à Dieu ...

When you say angels move stars what do you expect?
Now go forth and slander the name of Christianity to all the world.
What, going so soon? I've just found another paper for you, so you can contact the Royal Archaeological Institute!!
Angels move the stars. I love that line
"If you do not support Creationism, you are welcome to stay and debate on the discussion board and wall, but you must remain civil and RESPECT all members."

It is very unfortunate to see someone go and instead of people wishing them well, they take the last opportunity to kick him one more time.
But that's what atheists do
"But that's what atheists do"

Making such generalizations doesn't help either I'm afraid.
The Lord bless you Hans-Georg, for the believer all things work together for good, so I'm sure He will use you in another place He has lined up for you long before your decision - Shalom Brother
Yes, hopefully Hans is now on his way to London, in order to rewrite the timeline of British history. We wait with anticipation...
Well PM unlike you Hans would say outlandish things. And unlike you rather than stay and defend his reasoning he runs away crying.
It is possible to point out the flaw in an argument without being what's called a "douchebag" in your culture, I believe.

Are you old enough to remember that people shook hands after a sports match?

Gestures like that make the difference between civilized people and a bunch of dogs fighting over food.
It's unfortunate you felt the need to leave. Be well.
Nope. It's called "being faced with evidence and unable to handle it".

Hans wanted an archaelogical paper, I went one step further and offered evidence of an even older time than that requested.

Not only that but I provided TWO archaelogical papers.

It's a shame Hans didn't stop by to pick them up on his way to the City.
I normally encourage people to stay. But then he not only said he was leaving he was a cry baby. In other words he was not being a good sport.

I still shake hands after winning or losing. and I never complain.
KP - where was this discussion?

The idea that angels were moving stars around was always a minority view, even when people held that view. The idea was that heavenly bodies were intelligent beings which were rational, and that's why they could follow courses in the sky which appeared to mimic 'perfection', i.e circles. Those who believed in such stuff believed the sun and moon were also intelligent entities, and the debate was whether they had souls. The idea that angels were pushing them around was always bizarre, and it was people like Cosmas and his Christian Topography, which no-one believed or understood which was purveying the diea.

Your 'explanation'of SN1987A is as ridiculous as claiming there is a man in the moon - in fact it's eactly the same thing, and equivalent to worshipping the sun as a god.

[HGL’s edit : Saying there is a man in the Moon does not amount to worshipping him !]
Please don't go. We need a geocentric creationist here.
Next thread down EG
I'm sorry to see you leave, while I can be overly critical and sometimes harsh I did enjoy verbally sparing with you, perhaps our paths will cross once more, I will eternally have questions of a technical natural regarding geocentricism so I shall leave you with the thought, if not today, maybe tomorrow
Follow your heart , Hans.
How do the admins have time to keep up with this/other pages?
Bye Felicia.
When was someone disrespectful to you??? I sure was never tagged.

And if you see no point in staying why do you see a point in announcing that you see no point?
it's a good point...
I can point out that as an admin of other pages it is very difficult to take action against rule breaking that you do not see
General remark from me :
My leaving the group does not amount to my hating each and every one of the guys I talked to. I have not blocked the guys who regretted my leaving or my leaving so soon.
Comments were
posted after I copied this. Here comes a new batch and my final comment to it. Before I go there, SO lives in Mykonos in Greece, and to him the fact of "angels moving stars" being marginal in Byzantium may amount to same theory being marginal tout court. If Cosmas Indicopleustes was marginal in Byzantium mainly for being flat earther and that position was definitely as marginal in Sorbonne, it does not follow that he was also marginal in Byzantium for "angels moving stars", and if he was (there is some other evidence he might have been) it does not follow this was as marginal centuries later in Sorbonne or even that people in Sorbonne were aware he had said that. But here is the new batch of comments:
"I have been confronted with REPEATED violations of the rule" - Hans

>> And yet you've never tagged an admin who can do something about it? But you expect that we read every comment on every thread for everything that could be taken as offensive?

I have creationism to explain to those who don't understand it. Sorry if I didn't show up to every thread. Good luck on other pages.
We see no point in you staying either. Finally! Agreement!
R « Jesuslives »
You for real dawg?
Basically Hans is a good argument for banning the internet.

And I just want to point out how awkward it is to have PM defending atheists! That is what Hans brought us to! But thanks PM, I try to point out the same thing when I hear folks generalize about Christians.
Before I throw a tantrum and leave, here is several links to my blogs written in gibberish.
I think PM would appreciate that, JF. (just tagging him so he knows)
After the animosity shown when I left
I think I can safely conclude I was not imagining being treated disrespectfully. A guy who considers me a good argument for banning the internet, and who is an atheist who feels hurt when a Christian defends atheists against hasty generalisations (which I would too), then there is not any kind of proof all atheists hate Christianity, but a definite proof he does and feels safe among the atheists he associates with in venting it.

He may very well be defending Christians against generalisations, but I feel the generalisation of relying on God and the supernatural as valid explanations (one thing every Christian should as per Catechism of St Pius X) may be one of the horrid things he feels one must not paint out all Christians as doing.

There was a time when C. S. Lewis was part of the debate, when a Christian stating definite belief in the miracles of Christ could, in some corners of the Western World, be accused of slandering Christianity.

A thing to the moderator : I was not complaining about them not doing their job. I find it the job of debators to be civilised rather than of moderators to force them to it.
More on SO:
a) His wall (or what he shares with people not his friends on FB) contains material of three types:

  • i) A video about Near East history of claims to Holy Land.
  • ij) A philosophical video about "just now - ism" (shared on Creationism group)
  • iij) Three items about creationism "being in a crisis.

The things about creationism are from june 24, the other two an item each from June 23.

b) on about section I found one item except location:

I am interested in the prsychology of belief systems, especially those in which the believers have been sucked into an intellectual back hole, what John Cleese once called "closed systems of thought".

A Modern Thinker : Paradigm and Ideology

It has not occurred to him that his own belief is a closed system of thought. That a scientist engaged in research has a psychologically different state of mind than a believer, but that the people who read him have the same state of mind as believers. In either case ranging from unnecessarily narrow minded supicion against people not substantially disagreeing to extreme broad mindedness verging on apostasy, and in between the simple state of believing a thing to be true to exclusion of its opposite.

Are we dealing with a psychologist based in Greece, surrounded by disciples of Romanides? I do not know, but it seems eerily like it.

We are probably dealing with a man who regards the Holy Land as a peaceful place as soon as there is no more anything holy about it, but if he wants persuasion only, he is not winning the fight for that peace with his anticreationism, and if he is prepared to war against creationists to get peace in the Holy Land, there is a name for such peace: desolation.

jeudi 21 août 2014

Supernormal stimuli and behavioural addiction? Really now?

Status of TF:

And now for something slightly different. What do you think about animals, including humans, having "hardwired" neural pathways and behaviors? Here's a very interesting short essay/comic on "supernormal stimulation" that attempts to explain why humans tend to indulge in or even become addicted to things like junk food, the internet and pornography. Is there be a disconnect between creation and evolution in explaining these behaviors? Heck, there's even a quotation from C.S. Lewis towards the end on fighting temptation.

Sparring Mind : Supernormal Stimuli: This is Your Brain on Porn, Junk Food, and the Internet
by Gregory Ciotti


[One exchange of words left out]


Who says internet (or "junk food" even) is comparable to porn?

One cannot speak of internet as an addiction. Those who do are forgetting what words really mean in medicine.

One cannot speak of internet as a temptation that is forgetting who is to judge what is sin. "Thous shalt not use internet" is not a commandment, and neither is "thou shalt use internet if at all only little".

It is about communication, and human communication is not an addiction or temptation, it can be a temptation because of content, but not because of format (excepting nudity outside marriage).


Hi Hans-Georg,

\\Who says internet (or "junk food" even) is comparable to porn?//

The article I posted, as they qualify as "supernormal stimuli." They're stimulating different neural and behavioral pathways, but the author is arguing that they can have very similar effects.

\\One cannot speak of internet as an addiction. Those who do are forgetting what words really mean in medicine.//

It's currently listed in the appendix of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, tagged for "further study." Not official an addiction yet, but it's obviously about as new as you can get so there's very little research on it.

Wikipedia : Internet Addiction Disorder

\\One cannot speak of internet as a temptation that is forgetting who is to judge what is sin. "Thous shalt not use internet" is not a commandment, and neither is "thou shalt use internet if at all only little".//

I suppose the "sinful" nature of the examples in the article would depend on if you lump them into "sloth, gluttony, and lust" of the "deadly sins" for the internet, junk food, and pornography.

\\It is about communication, and human communication is not an addiction or temptation, it can be a temptation because of content, but not because of format //

Well, the article certainly lists several "harmful" side effects of internet usage, though it's not aimed to address sin.


Starting to read article and looking at definition of "supernormal stimuli":

" supernormal stimuli, a term evolutionary biologists use to describe any stimulus that elicits a response stronger than the stimulus for which it evolved"

Evolutionary biologists? Hullo! We are NOT evolved. We are created. And Our Creator knew perfectly well Internet was coming through us.

THEN stimulating a neural and behavioural pathway is not a thing that is bad. It is not a thing that is morally good either. It is a physical good for the behaviour and is not physically bad for the person unless it leads into physical and moral harm. The problem with porn is not the neural pathway per se as such - you get that with prayer too - but the fact that it is directed to the moral damage of lust. That is not so with internet or so called junk food.

As to "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", you can very well nickname it the Devil's Bible. Alcohol and heroine give addictions, and you do not need to study the Devil's Bible for that.

Internet is not a supernormal stimulus in the sense given by the article. I am not for porn. The supercute is used in manga - to bad or good use depending on the moral the mangaka confers with his story. Facebook is not super anything. Except when one comes when every friend is online and there come too many notifications : then notifications clicking are super annoying. It is reason, and the real human pleasure of friendship which keeps people on FB who would otherwise flee it due to overmany notifications. Of course everyone I like on, FB is someone I think I would like in real life too. Sometimes I come across people on FB who annoy me, and who in real life I might have shunned - and I still have a discussion with them, because I know (or at worst feel I know) my intercourse with them is limited to that discussion. As human communication, FB is rather a SUB-normal stimulus in that way. Though I would ditch the category stimulus altogether and call FB what it is: human communication.

As to the expression "behavioural addiction", better ditch it. There is a real word for it, and it is habit. Habits are not a medical condition as long as they are habits and not medical addictions (alcohol, heroine). Therefore, habits are not the domain for doctors, but rather for moralists to judge, and these in turn have to turn to the Bible and not to the Devil's Bible (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in misdirected awe for shrinks as if they were medical experts on the matters.

Some Answers on a Thread of Group Creationism

Status of DL on group wall:

If the bible for some reason was missing Genesis 1 and 2 and the two genealogies in the gospels were not there would you still think that scientists were lying to you about an old earth or would the evidence suggest the world is 6000 years old and we don't need Genesis 1 and 2 to tell us this?

My answer to status:

"would you still think that scientists were lying to you about an old earth or would the evidence suggest the world is 6000 years old and we don't need Genesis 1 and 2 to tell us this?"

Neither. I would consider that Scientists were lying to themselves about the clarity of the evidence (even if I did not get to this before actually believing Genesis 1-2 and the genealogy of St Luke) and I would be looking at other historical datings of the world. How far back in time did Egyptian or Babylonian archaeology go? Is there historical evidence before Tolkien's life of the events in Silmarillion? How long ago was Atlantis? Etc. I would, in absence of Biblical authority, probably take pagan authority on world being 40.000 years old. And I would in doing so be a bit confused on whether God or the gods created earth.

My answers to some other points brought up:

"Matthew 1:6 says Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3: 31 says that Jesus was the son of David through NATHAN. Which one is correct?"

Matthew is correct about Jesus' juridical sonship through his stepfather St Joseph. Luke is correct about his physical sonship through the Blessed Virgin Mary (whose real grandfather was stepgrandfather to St Joseph or something, so Luke was also jurically correct about St Joseph, as Matthew was physically correct about him).

APART from this, if you descend from someone who lived centuries ago, you usually do so on more than one line of descent. A man being your father's father's father's father may also have been your mother's father's father's father through two other men, as well as being even your father's mother's mother's father. ANY genealogy of the Biblical type is of necessity a selection. If it uses the words "begat", one can exclude transitions from father in law to son in law marrying daughter of the first. It can also exclude stepfather and stepson relations. Now, the genealogy in Matthew uses the word begat. That in Luke does not.

"Geology (and they were christians) decided that the earth was older than 6000 years in the 1700's"

In the 1700's lots of Christians were Apostates. Even without evolution. Probably common acceptance of Heliocentrism had sth to do with that. The Church was right to condemn the two theses of Galileo, and he was right to condemn them himself, first publically, and later in his conscience.

"there are areas on the earth that show no flood."

Oh? What area has NO Cretaceous, NO Permian, NO Carboniferous or Missisippian, NO Palaeocene, NO Ediacaran, NO Cambrian, NO precambrian etc. fossils?

"Because Adam didn't have a scribe or a pen or scrolls."

He can have been the first scribe. But if instead he was passing along the story per oral tradition, the pre-Abrahamic and thus possibly pre-written accounts, passed down orally, come down in so short snippets that these can have been carefully formulated in sufficient brevity and clarity for correct oral transmission per learning by heart.

We cannot FOLLOW written accounts as if every piece of writing that was there has come down to us. Absense of direct evidence as in manuscripts is not evidence of absense.

Presence of a certain "total culture" remain of a certain community (thus not just things like the tombs of Abraham in Canaanite territory as it was then) with total absence of any writing is of course evidence of absence in that particular community, but not as for all contemporaries [thereof].

"It actually appears it was written long after moses was dead. Probably written during captivity in Babylon."

ALSO. By exact copying from scrolls brough along from pre-exile Jerusalem, copied from the series of scrolls preserved when Athaliah had tried to obliterate the law, which in turn were copied from scrolls going back to Moses.

THAT is what the story of books subsequent to Deuteronomy suggest very strongly as the history of the Mosaic texts.

Saying it was not only written but actually authored during captivity in Babylon is heretical.

[On the two genealogies again:]

"Creationists think they are for determining the age if the earth. Matthew would laugh at that."

1) Genealogy of St Matthew is for documenting Christ is Messiah of Israel. "Son of David Son of Abraham".

2) Genealogy of St Luke is for documenting Christ is descended from the first man in a line that has recalled what the Gentiles have forgotten. That He is therefore also redeemer of the Gentiles.

3) Genealogy of St Luke reaching back to Adam gives us the number of generations. And Genesis gives us the number of generations among these that were extra long lived. That a chronology was not the primary purpose of the genealogy does not preclude that the genealogy actually provides such a thing too. Biblical inerrancy does not mean it is "inerrant about whatever it really intends and purposes to make its main point, but fallible in sideissues" it means the Bible is inerrant in side issues as well as main points.

vendredi 25 juillet 2014

I am not sure you know Artur Sebastian Rosman

He has a blog called Cosmos in the Lost. Somewhere on it, he claims, if I recall correctly, that Bergoglio is a reader of his. I am not, or not frequently.

He added me to a FB group, Atheist vs Theist.

Now, there are MANY and QUICK people replying to me there. And I am getting notifications about it, so it makes it hard to ignore even one reply while doing something else on FB.

On top of that I see threads cluttered with reply after reply - and no nested, only chronologically serial sequence of threads.

It approximates an oral debate in which one man is heckled by a Yeshiva.

I am not a Jew. I do not consider a Yeshiva an appropriate social place for a Christian. This is not how I like to do my debating.

Let me give an example.

Someone made a claim, I answered it by a reference with link to my blogpost on whether Kepler thought God's thoughts after Him.

I get a reply, implying he can't accept my post since "omniscience excludes freewill". Someone else chimes in and says "omniscience is either omniscience 100% or it is not omniscience" - as if that were the issue.

Now, I was making it very clear in the blog post that YES, if there are two pencils before me, then God very clearly did know from the beginning of the Universe or rather from all eternity which one I was going to pick. Omniscience is 100% omniscience, anything less is not God.

However, this does NOT exclude freewill. The question is namely about the MODE of omniscience.

The guys seriously started treating the following two sentences as equivalent:

  • If God knows that I am picking the right pencil, it is logically impossible that it be the left one I pick (though it was not impossible for me to pick it);
  • If God knows that I am picking the right pencil, this - through logical impossibility of reverse being factual outcome - excludes my will from even ability to chose in the reverse fashion.

Of these two sentences, the former is true, the latter is false, and treating them as synonymous is a very bad pilpul. And yes, this very clearly means that after some kind of fashion God choose to let created deciders decide in time what God was going to know from all eternity. But it is also true God from eternity knew exactly what persons were possible to create and did not create all of those. So it does not make God less in control over outcomes. But our own choices are meant to be there in His plan.

I have no intention as far as I can arrange (and as far as God hears my prayers) to spend my life in a Yeshiva that is unable to get such a simple logical distinction.

If a seeing man leads a blind man, he can save him from the pit. If a blind man leads a blind man both fall into the pit. If three blind men forcefully try to lead a seeing man who sees the pit, he has reason to get angry.

When they calm down for when it's night over there, I will have to painfully extract relevant comments from the thread - if I am to show you.

Stupidity - as mentioned - erected to sophistication because that is the sophistication that goes in the Yeshiva. Me getting into that kind of company? No. Me letting them decide, whether I can write or not? God preserve me from their dictatorship over my licit exploits! Me letting their errors correct my adhesion to Catholic Truth? No way José! Saint James, Moorkiller, pray for me!

As I complained about how debates go in certain FB groups, this not being the only one, I can say Bill Gates stole a good debating club from me, when in February 2009 he closed down the MSN Groups, and Mark Zuckerberg has not given me back an equivalent. But certain someones are doing it worse than it needs be, avoiding direct debate with me, but tracking me down into quagmires where debate is impossible. If Rosman really wanted to see me debate an atheist, why not use the mirrors I made of debates on youtube or earlier on netscape boards (back when seeing the debate messages nested were an option and when I had access, and when Muslims were not depriving me if sleep by deliberately making noise close to me when seeing me asleep).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Saint James the Greater
Apostle, called also Moorkiller

Retrieving parts of discussion:

NN, a scientific'fact'is never wrong as long as it passes the rigors of the scientific process. all that happens is that a new theory will replace it that is more correct, that describes the principles more accurately. Newtons clockwork universe wasn't wrong it was just surpassed with the quantum relatavistic universe of Einstein. Newtons ideas describe how planets act very well still today.

New blog on the kid : Did Kepler (or if it was Newton) think God's thoughts after him?

RA, I just proved you wrong, omniscience on part of God no more takes away one's freedom than the science of present observation by another does so. Your logic skills severly suck.
oo this one again... omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive...
PW a certain type of omniscience would be excluding free will, not the kind we Christians attribute to God, as demonstrated in the blog post.
it's very simple.

there are two pencils in front of you.

Lets pretend god KNOWS you will pick up the pencil on the left, god knew this since the beginning of the universe.

if you have free will, you could pick up the pencil on the right. but for that to happen, god can't be omniscient as he would have been wrong.

"a certain type of omniscience"????

there is no certain type, there is "all knowing" and NOT all knowing... [confusing "type" with "degree"]
Fai Rdinkum
no degress of omni ... either omni or not omni
God being omniscient means He knew from the beginning of the universe which pencil I would pick up AND that I was quite free to pick up the other one.
not if he knew you would pick up the one on the left...

[I missed following two points in general chaos:]

can you do differently to what god KNOWS you will do?

the paradox only exists when you try to combine freewill and omniscience, to say that the two are mutually exclusive is (imo) the only logical conclusion.

caveating 'omni' just makes it laughable
[linking to above on this article]
ok... so... we get to a divine plan...

If there is a divine plan, can it go wrong?
No. Persons can screw up, but that is accounted for.

[I missed following comment:]
many scientific things? Uh, no. Most science is pretty intuitive. Most of the crazy shit happens with quantum mechanics.
i do agree that these forums could do with being nested, but only pages get that feature.. nice one facebook

so a divine plan cannot go wrong?

and we are part of that plan.

while there is a known plan, that we cannot stray from, there cannot be free will
Looking for answers before science
I think that has already been answered too. We can stray, but that does not stray the plan away.
ok, lets talk about the suffering of innocents.... how does that fall into gods plan? does he know it happens? does he care?
God knows every innocent person suffering, no suffering happens without his allowing it for some or other reason (there are different ones) and never without God caring.
oh, he allows it for some reason... fair enough...

Answers supplementary retrieved from other thread:

An omnipotent beeing can't have a free will because omnipotent includes omniscent. If god is omniscent then everything is predetermined since his existence. Otherwise he couldn't know the future.

And this lack of free will applies also for theists. And to this effect you can blame god for everything
RP, you just stated the hitherto unstated objection to God's omniscience allowing freewill.

If I make a game, only way I can know in advance how to me it WILL in my future work out is by predetermining it, leaving no choice/freewill to players and no part to chance. BUT if I leave certain things to other players and to chance, I will certainly be surprised. And thus I cannot be omniscient about it.

HOWEVER, in God's case, what happens now with us after Creation is to us posterior to our individual creations and to the creation of the universe, BUT it is not so posterior to God. Instead, God is watching it happen and this in an eternal present.

He knows the future which is future to us, because to Him it is not future but present.

And SUCH "fore"-knowledge does not depend on predetermining to exclusion of freewill.
It doesn't matter if our future is his present - he is omniscent and one can blame him for everything - for every little cruelty and crime ... This virtual scy-daddy is gui lty ...
Obviously god had no free will. He wouldn't have killed so many millions if he'd had any choice in the matter I'm sure.
Hans, in your last sentence, what I just read was, "Therefore, there would be no paradox in there being a paradox."
RS, if you like. The Bavarian at Cana observed Christ had turned water into wine. "Kein Wunder, ist halt a Wunder g'schehn" - Nothing special, only happened a miracle.

More seriously, God being above time means that certain things are not paradoxical to Him which would be it to us.

If our future is God's present (as much as our present and as our past) God's knowledge about it is of same nature as my knowledge of what I watch insofar as it doesn't predetermine the things watched.
claims? got evidence?
Explanation offered. Got objections?

jeudi 17 juillet 2014

Notre Dame de Carmel, un jour après

Le texte suivant est par Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp‎, Une Séculiaire des Carmélites, fut hier publié sur Le Rosaire avec les Psaumes, est ici republié avec sa permission:

Belle et Sainte fête de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel !

Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel et le Saint Scapulaire

L'Ordre du Carmel se donne une origine aussi ancienne que glorieuse ; on croit, non sans raisons sérieuses, que cet Ordre n'est que la continuation de l'école des prophètes établie au mont Carmel par le prophète Élie. Les disciples de cette école furent au premier rang parmi les convertis au christianisme naissant, et le Carmel devint le berceau de la vie monastique depuis Jésus-Christ.

Après la dispersion des Apôtres, l'an 38, ils bâtirent une chapelle en l'honneur de Marie et se vouèrent tout spécialement à célébrer ses louanges.

C'est à l'occasion des épreuves subies par l'Ordre du Carmel que les Carmes vinrent en France avec le roi saint Louis. Ils y établirent plusieurs maisons et allèrent même s'implanter en Angleterre, où ils eurent le bonheur de voir saint Simon Stock embrasser leur Institut. Ce grand Saint devint, en 1245, supérieur général des Carmes, et n'oublia rien pour rallumer la dévotion à Marie dans son Ordre.

La fête de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel a pour but de rappeler une grâce insigne accordée par Marie à l'Ordre du Carmel et par lui à toute l'Église. Dans la nuit du 16 juillet, Simon Stock demandait, avec une ferveur toute spéciale, la protection de la Sainte Vierge sur son Institut. Au lever de l'aurore, Marie lui apparut, accompagnée d'une multitude d'anges, environnée de lumière et vêtue de l'habit du Carmel. Son visage était souriant ; dans ses mains elle tenait le scapulaire de l'Ordre. Devant le Saint elle s'en revêtit elle-même, en disant : « Ceci est un privilège pour toi et pour tous les Carmes. Quiconque mourra en portant cet habit ne souffrira pas le feu éternel. »

Le Saint fit des miracles pour confirmer la réalité de cette vision. Ce fut l'origine de la Confrérie de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel, pour les chrétiens qui, ne pouvant embrasser la Règle, veulent attirer sur eux les bénédictions promises au scapulaire. Le privilège le plus considérable accordé à la confrérie du Mont-Carmel après celui que Marie fit connaître à saint Simon Stock, est celui qui fut révélé au Pape Jean XXII : la délivrance du purgatoire, le samedi après leur mort, des confrères du Mont-Carmel qui auront été fidèles à l'esprit et aux règles de la Confrérie. Outre ces deux privilèges, il y a de nombreuses indulgences attachées au scapulaire.

vendredi 11 juillet 2014

Literal Truth of Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 : Debates on more than one aspect

Friend (status)
Do you believe that the biblical account of creation is the truth?
Yes (or one of them a Yep)
Unless one sincerely identified the self as something other than Christian, I suppose the answer would have to be in the affirmative..,
One has to, to remain Catholic.
JM (after three consecutive yes among above)
And the belief in evolution is boarding on mad!

To believe in something so absurd as life popping up from non living material by random chance, is incredible. It is not science, but an unreasonable faith.
Central tenet of the Catholic faith. You could say the philosophic framework of the beginning of God's work with man.
But this is the only faith allowed in the classrooms in this insane county of ours.
Sts Aquinas and Augustine state that the account must be assented to literally
Yes, evolution is a lie. How could man evolve from inferior beings? To be so like that, these inferiors beings would have to have a superior intelligence to Man. Also, matter by itself cannot transform in nothing else different than what what already is. Man is an animal, but a rational and spiritual one, raw matter does not possess any of these properties.
Man has not evolved but devolved! Sin brought death into the world!

All are born into this world under the curse inherited by the fall of our first parents. Christ came to free us from that curse.
John Vennari
There is no reason not to
Yep. Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis.
Ask an evolutionist how we went from being dust into the first cell and they get stuck n say " oh that's now a separate field of study ", or something like that. Shouldn't they have to prove these things before they ask us to prove that God exists ?
Theistic evolution is a cowardly way of giving into modern social pressure. You can't have it both ways.. Once you say God wasn't speaking literally about creation you will start to use the same logic for issues like the Eucharist, and baptism. and before you know it you have homosexual ministers in your "church"
Yes, absolutely. It is the foundation for everything else. Creation in the image and likeness of God, and the original sin explain humans quite well.
Unfortunately even in traditional churches theistic evolution beliefs are rising rapidly. Read an article the other day written by a man who claims to be catholic saying theistic evolution is 100% compatible with Christians. Made me sick.
The Big Bang Hypothesis and the Evolutionism Hypothesis are both Perpetual Motion Machines and thus violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are thus false.
The primary scientific problem with macroevolution is the increase in complexity of information which is not observed to take place anywhere in the universe without a rational agent actin upon the information. Not sure what the Big Bang has to do with a perpetual motion machine.
I do believe in the literal account of the creation as given in Genesis.
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

"On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers."

-St. Augustine, Commentary on Genesis

St. Augustine does, of course, demand that we believe in the literal truth of the Scriptures, but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the "plain truth" of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity.

Theistic evolution is not a cop-out. It is a fine application to the findings of modern science of the principle set forth in St. Thomas' Summa Contra Gentiles, 3a 75 & 76, in which the application of Divine Providence to all contingent singulars and to all singulars immediately is established. The notion that a Christian could believe that there are particular events occurring in nature that are not willed by God is absurd.

N., in good Thomistic thought, an instrumental cause may be lower than its effect. That's the whole point of theistic evolution.

Sadly, AM, neither the Big Bang nor Evolution demand infinite time in either direction. With respect to evolution in particular, Earth is not a closed system, and it receives abundant energy from without in the form of solar radiation.

AK, even if you take the increase in [genetic] information to be a real problem demanding a prior complexity to explain it, the whole mechanism of evolution as willed by God could easily be viewed as a cosmic pencil, which operates according to mechanical principles, and the physical reality of whose writing is ultimately explained by these mechanical principles, but which is writing that which is meaningful as willed by the Writer. It would do no good to say that the ink in the pen could not wholly explain the words on the page just because they are information-bearing. Genes may be explained fully in a physical way by the process of evolution, directed however by Providence in such a way as to bear information.

David Bawden, alias HH Pope Michael
Creation is true as recounted in Genesis.
AM (answering SC here, but doing so much later)
SC, you don't read too well and you are lacking in logic skills. I never said anything about the earth as a closed system. The universe however, IS a closed system. As for the earth, it's energy gain from the sun is equal to its energy loss, and if it weren't then the temperature would either increase or decrease. The earth however gains no biological material from space, nor expels any into space, so therefore as far as biological matter and energy is concerned, the earth IS a closed system and the overall entropy is increasing within biological matter and substances.

Five (including me)
Yes, most assuredly, the account of creation given in Genesis is to be taken literally, I believe the biblical creation is the truth, not a iota of it shall pass away.
HGL, me
"Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis." (MO) - Where is the dislike button? Georges Lemaître who invented BB (as it was later called) was not so literalist about first two chapters of Genesis as the 1909 Biblical Commission's answers demanded.

[turning to SC:]

" but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the 'plain truth' of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity."

- Again, where is the dislike button? He does NOT say that because it is Scripture it is automatically "obscure and far beyond our vision". He is saying that WHEN it is of such things Scripture treats, then it may be interpreted differently.

Read all of this series (links on top of each message, numbered 1 - 12, bt actually fifteen or sixteen, since some have a/b or a/b/c), here is 1:

Creation vs. Evolution : Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four

And this one too:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)

JCCD (to status/question, presumably)
I don't understand why people feel the need to try and marry principles set forth specifically to undermine the traditional Catholic teachings with actual Catholic doctrine. I guess it's the fear of possibly putting faith into something that scientism claims it can disprove? Either way, this heliocentric, (r)evolutionary thought has no place in the Church.
I enjoy this analogy the best.....So, I go into an auto part store or warehouse that has every thing for all types of cars. So, I blow up the store/warehouse, and the parts miraculously fall from the sky, assembled themselves into various vehicles.....That makes as much sense as the randomness of Evolution.

No, St. Augustine does not say that Scripture is "obscure and far beyond our vision." Nor did I. But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision. And they are matters that remain obscure and far beyond our vision, "even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture."

Which is exactly what I said. Now, please, speak to point.

The point is that the plain sense of "speak" is what we do in conversation every day. But Augustine presses the meaning of this word. The plain sense of "light" is what is generated by the sun. But Augustine also admits that a spiritual light, the light that enlightens rational beings, could be *a possible* literal sense of the passage.

So St. Augustine is not married, as I claimed, to perspicuity or to the "plain sense" of the text, although he will certainly agree that the text is literally true---although the literal sense may have to be sought out.


"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

-Pius XII, Humani Generis

"So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution. First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes. Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development."

-Pope Benedict XVI, a "man experienced" in sacred theology, on the present state of his field on this question, in a letter to Prof. Odifreddi

Now, please. They have a place in the Church.


Theistic evolution does not magically do away with the doctrine of God's providence.

Now, I will be fastforwarding along ...
... my debate with SC. Sometimes. When messages start to split up in numbered arguments, I will follow each number before going back to the next number starting from same message as previously. But I will also interesperse this with other dialogue along the debate.
To SC, and

[1 2 3 see below FIRST SPLIT.]


Ah, and how would you fare among colleagues or even pupils and their parents, if outing yourself as a YEC (or even Geocentric)?

I was a schoolteacher for one term. I am glad I am no more, as schools are now. Including not only this doctrinal matter, but also the moral matter of school compulsion. To a moral schoolteacher, the pupil with his parents would normally be the client and the parents would decide on their part if teacher can stay with pupil, as well as teacher deciding on his part whether pupil can stay with him.

BUT in the modern system being a schoolteacher implies earning money on DRAFTED pupils. Plus excludes expelling nasty pupils.


In my locality, the American Middle West, I would fare better and better if I held either of those opinions.

(1 2 3 - see below, as noted.)


SC, I am not so smart so I will believe God for things beyond my comprehension....Meanwhile, it is 7:45 a.m. in the Midwest. Don't you guys have to get dressed and go to work, and earn a living? Or, are you all independently very wealthy?
Then class must be happening soon, Eh, SC?
Summer break. :)
Oh, right. It's Summer back at home in the States.

Living in two worlds and 2 time zones is confusing as heck.
I can imagine!
Is the economy getting better, worst, or staying just the same back at home?
Phew, what a question. I couldn't really say. My best guess would be that it is static. I have been very blessed to have been called for my jobs, rather than having to apply, so I don't have a good handle on what the job market is like.

It's still a good time to buy a house...
Not when only about 50 million to 68 million Americans have some kind of jobs, and about 146 millions are jobless....Folks don't have money to buy much of anything these days.
Well, I mean to say, it's a buyer's market.
Yes, it does. Well, Sean, if you are pretty certain that you will have your job for the next 15 to 30 years, then go for it. For goodness' sake, please don't take out a variable - balloon type - loan. You will be so very sorry if you do. I'm sure you already know this.


First split
1 - 2 - 3 above taken separately
1) the answer to me:

"But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision."

To the mechanics, yes.

To the story line no.

I have ventured a guess myself:

On day two, the "waters above the firmament" means, at least partly, H2. The firmament itself is O2, oxygen.

On day four, God used H2 from day two, but not all of it, to make sun and stars.

When windows of the firmament were opened under flood, that part was the hydrogen and the oxygen layers meeting in small overlaps ("windows") and reacting with combustion (2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O).

Meaning some of it is now lost in the oceans (lost for star production and combustion, at any rate).

Yes, some of the mechanics may be obscure, that doesn't mean the story line is.

(1) The basic storyline that God created the Heavens and the Earth is not in dispute. The fact that whatsoever he willed, he brought about, is not in dispute. But just where does the "basic storyline" end? If I may believe equally with many of the Fathers that the world was created in seven literal days, or with St. Augustine, in an instant, and that the earth bore in itself the potency to bring forth the various species according to their kinds; if I may believe in a literal spoken word of God, in literal light or in the rational, intelligible principle having been created...

I don't see how this passage yields to obvious scientific interpretation in any way. Particularly not when considered together with Genesis 2.
2) To the answer to AD:

a) Pius XII did not forbid that Discussions take place. That does not equal him allowing Catholics to accept evolution as factually true. One can see that encyclical as shilly shally on the point.

If one stated that a Catholic may neither believe nor defend theistic evolution, but he is free to discuss it with non-Catholics believing it and not allowed, if a professor at a university, to stop in the name of the Church non-Catholics from defending it, this would not be the most plausible meaning of the words, taken by themselves, but a possible one, and theologically preferrable insofar as one accepts him as having been Pope.

b) Now to Ratzinger:

"So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution."

I bet he had no wish to get into details, that might give the internal contradictions away. Concise he was allowed to be.

"First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes."

What nonsense if we look at it biologically!

"Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development."

What God had to do, and what, according to what He showed Moses or told Adam, actually did are two different things.

The syllogism "potuit, decuit, fecit" may be right about the immaculate conception (which is anyway, irrespective of syllogism, true), but in order for it to exist, there must be not only a "potuit" but also a "decuit".

I have horrors for the kind of moral theologian who would say that it "decuit Deo" to create the species through a drawn out process of suffering and death before Adam sinned. Or that it "decuit Deo" to create Adam's body through so many intermediates, while reserving only the soul for Himself.

Furthermore, denying that "God intervened manually in the process of evolution" can mean two very differnet things:

  • a) denying that there was a process of evolution which is the right meaning, but not very likely seeing the nonsense he uttered about "the tree of life";
  • b) admitting the process of evolution, but saying He did "not have to intervene" because He had programmed it so perfectly beforehand.

(2) The biologists don't concur with your characterization of their science. If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession, I can't stop you, but the interrelationship between all life is certainly not "nonsense" from a biological perspective.

3) Answer to PK:

The latter (see my discussion of Ratzinger just above) does not deny God's providence? It does, because it replaces providence with continual manual intervening in every aspect of the history of the entire universe with a preprogramming that excludes manual intervening.

But whether it denies or does not deny Providence, it very certainly denies Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures (as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII) as well as Patristic-Sense-Only Exegesis (as defined by Trent). Church Fathers differed on details (most notably on whether earth was round or flat or they refused to decide, on whether carnivore kinds were created carnivores or vegetarians, on whether creation of six days was six days (nearly all Fathers) or one moment (St Augustine in books Five-Six of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII). But they all differ in one single way from long age exegesis.

And they should.

(3) No, as you correctly observed earlier, there is a difference between what God "had to do" and what He did do. Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both. It is all the ways in which God directs history to His purpose.

HGL (to 1 - 3)
It is one verse in Genesis 2, or maybe two or three, that made St Augustine believe that the six days were same day and hence same moment. No other canonised Church Fathers held that (Origen is not canonised). BOTH sides agree the universe was not much older than Adam. Genesis 2 is obviously a detailed account of things described more generally as day six.

"If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession"

Biologists are very certainly NOT an entire profession all agreeing on tree of life. Those who do have been through academia where pressure was that way. They are majority, but not all. And of the majority, much is lipservice due to intellectual terror from evolutionist establishment.

"the interrelationship between all life is certainly not 'nonsense' from a biological perspective."

If by interrelationship you DO mean tree of life, it is at best a non-proven. One could argue even contradicted item.

If by interrelationship of all life you do NOT mean common ancestry, then "tree of life" and "evolution" are very bad names for it.

"Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both."

Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first. The second is what God took maximum six literal days to do, according to any Church Father, including St Augustine, and it is not called providence, it is called creation.

When St Augustine brings up the question whether light created on day one was literal - i e visible - or intelligible, he certainly did not exclude the visible light from being created or from being created first instant of day one. Whether or not one should accept any time for the "and the earth was empty and void" before day one.

Two boys quarrel "pa bought the house on an auction for 30 dollars before fixing it" - "no, it was only one dollar". Will anyone say that their pa buying it for a million from a luxurious broker is within the frame of discrepancy between the boys? I would say they agree that being excluded.


SC, Pius XII gave permission to study it, not believe in it.

Benedict XVI, though he's the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful.

If you believe it, or just want to defend people's supposed "rights" to believe it, then you're going to have to settle that with your own conscience. It's not Catholic. It's opposed to the Fathers of the Church. It's absurd. It's a waste of time. It's scientism.
How very incredible you would make the Faith.

As I do not reject wholesale similar statements of the postconciliar Magisterium, my conscience is quite at ease.
AD, "Benedict XVI, though he's the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful."

Is ... as in his resignation was invalid?

But actually, not only no Pope has any way of making that stupidity binding, it is a real suspicion if the man was not a heretic while uttering those words, and if that was before election of 2005 (or if he made similar ones while apparently cardinal) he was never elected, since he had made himself ineligible.

I'm not passing any judgement on any pope. All I know is that Benedict XVI was elected, and is still alive. Francis was also elected. My judgement is that we have 2 living popes.

Whether or not his resignation was valid will have to be determined by the Church at some point in the future. I don't know enough about popes resigning to know if it can even legally be done.

WHO does [have that kind of knowledge]?

But a theological position like that one is heretical, and I know that a man holding it while otherwise elected Pope was disqualified by heresy - if that position was pertinacious.

So far he has not shown otherwise.

1 - 6 are now the diverse parts of each word between SC and me, and we are here splitting up the dialogue according to numeration. On 3 - 6 SC will be giving me the last word. On 1/2 I will at one point give a unitary answer, which will lead up to the end.

(1) And what exactly is "not much older?" How old must I believe the universe to be before I am in disagreement with the Fathers?

So old that retelling the story you believe in your own words to a modern scientific public would entail not chosing the words of Genesis and the Fathers.

(1) Since we have been arguing *this whole time* whether the literal sense of the words contained in Genesis are compatible with a scientific understanding of the age of the earth and the descent of living creatures, my case is that, yes, certainly the literal sense of the words of Genesis is true.
(2) The Creationists are building an amusement park at great cost near my house, where they have already built a museum. They are not welcome everywhere, but they are welcome in certain places, and they have money. I certainly don't see productive research coming from their model.

I do not see productive research coming from people engaged in dating dinosaur bones to 65 million years Before Present either. And those guys have LOTS of more money.

(2) To quote Pope S. John Paul II,

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

1 and 2)
Here is where we disagree, and I do not count the pseudo-canonised previously pseudo-pope Wojtyla as an authority.
Will be answered by SC at the END.

(3) "One could argue even contradicted?" It is a model that proves explanatory and even predictive of both fossil and genetic data.

Except of course the genetic data they chose to disregard.

Like impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in new pairs of chromosomes, especially in mammals.

It is very weak to rest a scientific case on a negative claim. One thing I do know, however, that they do not "ignore" this problem, but study it like everything else, which is why you can find it discussed in the scientific literature.

My claim is NOT negative. It is a claim about positive obstacles making chromosome fissions (outside evil genetic engineering) as giving rise to new pairs of chromosomes, biologically impossible in mammals.

So, this is a strong argument.

So strong, when I had argued it under PZ Myers' blog post on subject, he deleted comments after a date that by a year or so preceded my first comment, i e he deleted all my comments.
Here, SC Discussed no further.

I on my part forgot to answer his claim that the problem is discussed in the scientific literature. It is, but VERY cautiously. IN Sweden we say "like a cat around hot porridge".

Since he did not dispute my reclaim, I did not have a chance to link (in the thread, as I had intended, had he not avoided the issue) to my own contribution to the discussion:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

Which omission I have here before my readers corrected.
St. Thomas Aquinas appears to disagree with your notion of contingency in the Universe, in SCG 3a, 75.

S c G, III, 75 Chapter 75

Which is what I said.
Here is what you said, "Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first," in response to my claim that Providence cannot *merely* mean God's manual intervention into reality, but can also mean His good ordering of that reality, in knowledge, to direct things to their ends.

Here is what St. Thomas says:

"However, suppose someone says that God takes care of these singulars to the extent of preserving them in being, but not in regard to anything else; this is utterly impossible. In fact, all other events that occur in connection with singulars are related to their preservation or corruption. So, if God takes care of singulars as far as their preservation is concerned, He takes care of every contingent event connected with them."

Also St. Thomas' favorite example of the master arranging the meeting between two servants by sending them both to market at the same time. It appears a chance event to them, when in fact it was carefully planned from the beginning.

[I forgot to answer that one on thread, unless he added to the comment afterwards, but here St Thomas is not saying anything on careful providential plans from the beginning having to be subsumed in the general rules - on the contrary, a master sending both to a market would be manually working that providence outside the general rules of the household, if not against them.]

4) Your quote from St Thomas neither contradicts my position, nor any of my actual words.

My point is that ORDERING THINGS IN NECESSARY RELATIONS is what God did during the creation week, and those relations do not change.

PROVIDENCE is taking care of singulars. The passage you just cited means God is not only taking care of each singular with a view to itself, but also with a view to other singulars in view of necessary relations between such established ... previous to the providence, under creation week.

5, context
[St Augustine on creation of intelligible light to exclusion or inclusion of visible light on day one]
I'm not arguing for exclusion here, but inclusion.

Good, then ALL church Fathers agree God created visible light on day one. And therefore that He created it independently of the Sun.

How so? Even if to St Augustine, in the one-moment-exposition, the six days are not temporally consecutive, they are however ordered in an order of internal necessity. Meaning light necesarily comes before the sun, not the reverse.

Which makes sense, given that more than the Sun in this Universe gives off light. My question was about literal days.

More than the sun gives off light? No, no, no, this is NOT what I meant.

I meant God created visible LIGHT before He created ANY light source, naturally such. Including, but NOT limited to the Sun.

A bit like bread being the natural cause of the accidents of bread, how it looks, etc. BUT in Holy Eucharist God upholds accidents of bread very much without this natural source of these accidents.

So, to (1) you apparently mean "less than a literal week." Why would the first day be a space of 24 hours, when the Sun had not yet even been created?
Indeed, the Patristic Options are:

  • a) a Literal Week (all Church Fathers, incuding St Augustine in Book One of De Genesi) perhaps minus a few hours;
  • b) Less, i e a single moment (St Augustine in Books 5 - 6 of De Genesi ad Literam).

Your question was answered in Book one of the Genesi ad Literam, I think it was chapter ten. Heaven rotated before Sun rotated with it. God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun, and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along.

Actually, one could argue, all days prior to creation of Sun may have had the length of stellar days, that is the speed of rotation of the Universe. I e a few minutes less than 24 h.

But, my question is not answered because that is not how day and night work.
"God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun"

That is indeed not how night and day work now.

"and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along."

That is however how night and day work now, therefore your question is answered.

Yes, I am a Geocentric, both because this aspect of creation week warrants it AND because it takes care of Distant Starlight problem.

End of
Second split. SC answering some of above, and me replying will start the END.


SDKR @ friend
do you believe?
then why ask?

its like asking, do you believe in the blessed trinity?

of course i do. duh

Because a Catholic I know does not and I was wondering about my friends on here.
is he or she in your fb account?

why wonder?

i know no catholic who doesnt agree with the catholic church's teaching. solemn or ordinary. submission. we are the church taught.

if one considers himself or herself as catholic, SUBMIT!

[Edoting remark: Sure, but some guys, I think SC is among them, submit to a pseudomagisterium - to acts that would not be sufficiently magisterial for that submission even if their doers were holders of magisterium.]


We are not making any headway. We have discovered no common ground further in the course of this discussion than that with which we began. I think our principal disagreement is, as you pointed out (1) & (2).

Pius XII permitted discussion at least, and at latest John Paul II permitted belief. That cinches it for me. That will never cinch it for you.

[Editor: And therefore he thinks any discussion of what evidence is about chromosome numbers or what St Thomas said about providence is superfluous to him?]

Pius XII did not go further than permit discussion, and provisorical holding in discussions.

John Paul II did not only permit but recommend belief. That means there is an abyss separating their two doctrines.
Hans-Georg Lundahl in software engineering terms, God created classes before he created instances of the classes (objects).

That would be what St Augustine was saying. And that the creating of classes took a single instant for God, but six or seven instants for angels looking on. St Thomas harmonises the views insofar as he says God THEN created the first (or with Sun/Moon and a few more: only) instances DURING A WEEK of really successive time. Thank you AM.

Why permit discussion on a thing if it is impossible that it be true? One of the possible results of a discussion would in fact be the recommendation of belief in the thing that has been discussed. They exist in continuity with one another, particularly given the enormous space of decades between them.

Pius XII was stalking for time.

The one recommendation the Church COULD finally give was of the traditional doctrine.

The Church cannot define evolution to be true and revealed in Depositum Fidei any more than she can define Heliocentrism to be true and defined in Depositum Fidei.

A Pontiff's personal recommendation of scientific belief on scientific grounds and his authoritative judgment (which presumably accompanies it) that such belief is compatible with Christian doctrine are distinct.

Which PRESUMABLY accompanies it?

The problem is there was no EXPLICIT authoritative judgement that either Heliocentrism or Darwinism was compatible with Christian belief. Ever. And there might be a reason for that.

In my view, the reason is that such an authoritative statement would equal "infallible heresy" = a statement claming infallibility while being heretical as to content = a proof the one making it was not Pope while making it, and that means, acc. to most theologians WE consult, a proof he was never validly elected Pope, since a heretic and ineligible in the first place.

Meaning St Robert Bellarmine went through the theoretical worst case scenarios, and he concluded, among other things, that a man who was Catholic while elected Pope could never, while staying Pope, become a heretic.

So, if an apparently elected Pope not by slip of tongue but in the most solemn manner imaginable utters a heresy, he is proving he was never Pope.

Leo XIII, Benedict XV both AVOIDED doing that by explicitly endorsing Heliocentrism, so they only hinted indirectly Heliocentrism might just possibly be licit. So as to keep in their persons the faith, so as to keep their authority, so that persons on lower levels endorsing Heliocentrism in what they considered obedience to them would at least be subjectively obeying a real Pope. And Pius XII seems to have done sth like that about Darwinism. With JP-II, B-XVI, "Formula I" we are seeing a real break.

Even J-XXIII and P-VI where conducting a more quiet break, with acceptance of psychology.

(1) Presumably may be used in many senses. Rephrased, "which it would make sense be given at the same time," rather than, "which I presume to be understood in the first."

(2) And what does an EXPLICIT authoritative judgment take? As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine. There are your theses, held privately, about the consensus patruum, but as I am aware, this has never been formally invoked to compel the beliefs of Catholics on a "six-day-or-less" Creation, as you would have it. There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory.

(3) The heliocentrism "problem," if you're going to be accurate, should be taken back past Leo XIII to Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works.

"As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine."

Council of Trent explicitly condemns non-patristic exegesis of Genesis as well as any other parts of the Bible. You have shown no way around the Patristic explicit unity on an earth that is millennia old rather than millions or billions of years.

A bit more explicit than that: Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, had his book placed on the index.

"There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory."

One of the non-negotiables is Adam's soul created directly by God.

This means that if he corporeally descended from non-humans, his consciousness would have been radically different from that of his parents.

This would have made it impossible for him to honour the parent animaks of which he was a human offspring - unless he lost them before he became a human. And that again would imply death before sin.

Also, Pius XII is not alone in speaking of the first human couple. Our Lord did so too. Marc 10:6. Does NOT look pretty comparing timescales ... if you take the evolutionary view.

"Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works."

Benedict XIV permitted publication of works treating of heliocentrism as a hypothesis. NOT works treating it as real truth.

Hence the Settele case.

Father Anfossi was overridden. But - one thing Sungenis said and one thing I know myself about this affair - the then Pope had no access to the 1633 condemnations, he was even misled about their contents (thanks, Sungenis), AND the Pope did NOT explicitly state a Catholic was free to believe such printed works as that of Settele.

I studied THAT one more than a year ago:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele

So, Benedict XIV and Pius VII BOTH refused to make an explicit retraction of the 1633 ruling, and BOTH refused to make an explicit endorsement of the Copernican system as not at variance with faith. They only made lesser acts which could reasonably be presumed to imply Copernican theory was OK.


In 1829 "when a statue to Copernicus was being unveiled at Warsaw, and a great convocation had met in the church for the celebration of the mass as part of the ceremony, at the last moment the clergy refused in a body to attend a service in honor of a man whose book was on the Index." And in the same year, a Spanish bishop consulted the Roman Inquisition about whether the Copernican system could be retained, and instead of a definite answer he was sent the recent rulings stemming from the Settele episode.


Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
Par Maurice A. Finocchiaro [p. 198]

Settele had changed a phrase before getting a first imprimatur. He claimed to have in his book a proof that the earth moves. I am afraid it is not a proof receivable for a Thomistic metaphysician.

Multum videtur mihi legendum, domne! Gratias pro explicationibus tuis perplenis tibi ago. Nec do, nec concedo, sed haudquaquam plus contribuere possim nisi plus et legem.

Tuas paginas interretales maximo studio adspiciebam.
Bene est, aspice et hanc paginam:

[Hanc ipsissimam, in quam uinculum dare superfluum uidetur.]

Mirabile visu! Tot dialogos quasi Neoplatonicos! Quisnam autem sum? Sumne Timaeus?
Es "SC".