Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AN, it seems Robert Sungenis is forgetting our own cosmology:

Youtube is filled with normal everyday people who have become amateur scientists and producers, all telling us that society as a whole has been deceived into thinking that the Earth is round, despite the fact that almost every other celestial body we see in the universe, from our sun, our moon, the planets or the stars, are round.

• 1) He is appealing to Copernican principle in saying Earth must be as every other spot in space (at least every spot which is a body);
  
  
• 2) He is also calling Earth a "celestial" body, which according to Geocentrism it clearly is not.

Robert Sungenis

No, you are reading it wrong. I am not calling Earth a celestial body.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are not calling Earth a celestial body?

Then you are out of grammar!

"despite the fact that almost every other celestial body we see in the universe"

If you had left out "other" you would be talking.

About not calling Earth celestial, that is.

But you would also ruin your argument.

Robert Sungenis

You're correct. I can see how "other" might be confusing. It can have two different meanings in such contexts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not that I know of. And I am as good at grammar as you on physics.

PLUS, if you were not using "other" in full sense, where is your argument?

Robert Sungenis

Hans, you need to know when to let go.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You need to.

I am specialised in grammar, you can decide whether you used the word "other" with or without a reference to the full implication, in either case you lose.

Robert Sungenis

Yeah, you're right. I'll take "other" out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wonderful.

But then you also weaken your argument from parallel.

Robert Sungenis

Not really, since the planets and the Earth follow the same gravitational and inertial laws, which requires a sphere to be the most economical shape.

[Did I miss one of mine or just continue separating two successive comments, which I usually unite?]

Robert Sungenis

Granted, but planets, suns, stars and even the Earth follow the same laws of gravity and inertila forces. That's why everything works so well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) You are presuming to know what laws work for what non-tested objects;
• 2) you are presuming to know the workout of natural, non-spiritual factors ACCORDING TO natural laws would make it work well, even without asking if some of this "science" might be bad science, especially as to explanation of celestial things.

Robert Sungenis

No, I'm very aware of bad science. I make a living off of exposing it. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. If you can prove that it is impossible for gravity and intertial forces to make planets go around suns, and that angels could be the only answer, then you have an argument. But you can't impose angels on the issue ipso facto, which is what Thomas does, unfortunately, and that was because he had no knowledge of gravity and inertial forces in the cosmos. He was still in the crystalline sphere stage of science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Crystalline spheres, yes, he indeed used them in the first version of prima via, in the one given in Summa contra Gentes (book 2? chapter 13!).

But that argument works as well with an aether.

Either way, God is moving things from stars to Oceanic currents in one movement, the outer layers causing the inner ones.

However, his angelic movers have NOT been refuted by anyone.

And just saying another mechanism is possible (supposing it were, see what I am insisting on the Don Petit experiment for) does not prove it is a superior explanation.

Especially not as your assumption it is such depends on faulty categorisations.

St Thomas saying God's ordinary providence moves by "secondary causes" does not exclude but include human and angelic actors.

It does NOT equate with doing everything BY natural law, as if it were a cause. Indeed, it is not. Natural laws are not broken by miracles. An electric miracle would not be breaking Ohm's law. It would only be supplying electric currents from other sources than the ones used and acknowledged by electricians or supplying a blocking of it by some resistance other than things like thinner wires or wood or stone or air. Namely spiritual causes.

This would be the case, both by real miracles worked by God and if possible also fake miracles worked by the devil in the realm of electricity.

But when it comes to movement, like circular and sideways, a will imposing it on an object is commonplace.

For a pen, a man is sufficient. For a planet, you need at least an angel.

A man who moves a pen to write is NOT intruding in the natural processes a pen can be subject to, it is supernatural to the pen, but not to the man. That is why we don't refer to it as a miracle.

And an angel moving a celestial body would be supernatural to the planet or star, but not to the angel, as you have admitted that poltergeists are not making a real miracle, supernatural to the demons themselves, just a fake one, where they are only supernatural in relation to the pots and pans.

[See more under III and V, somewhat VI]

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We must agree that, if the sun were only 3000 miles high and was only 27 miles in diameter, it would produce the sun rays we see in the two above pictures. But this doesn’t prove anything for the flat‐earthers since it can easily be shown that a sun with is .864 million miles in diameter that is 93 million miles away will also produce the same slanted rays. So will a sun that is 47 million miles away and is .432 million miles in diameter; and so will a sun that is 3 million miles away and 27,000 miles in diameter. All of these suns will look the same and produce the same effects on the Earth.

Here one would like some detail.

To the first glance, it looks as if Sungenis was denying that a triangle with base to us and known width gives a known height of triangle, hence a known distance.

The argument Heliocentrics use about parallax, you know.

Robert Sungenis

No detail is needed. It is simply a fact that the various adjustments of diameter and distance will produce the same image in the sky and have the same effects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is true for triangles where we have one angle, not where we have the base.

You are denying trigonometry to Flat Earthers, while previously overdoing it to state we could get same knowledge about distances from parallax even if you assume we are at one angle only.

Robert Sungenis

Sorry man, I'm not following you at all. My answer is simply based on proportion. You don't need Trig. You need Trig for parallax, but my answer does not refer to parallax.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Trigonometry has to do with ANY trigon, any triangular shape.

So, yes, the angle of the sun rays does give you appearance of a triangle, hence trigonometry would apply implying a close sun.

As opposed to parallax on a Geocentric view, since we are at one corner of the triangle.

Robert Sungenis

And all of that is not needed to show the simple proportion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the problem is "showing the simple proportion" does not settle argument on angle of light rays.

[see more under VIII]

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For example, a small sun that is only 3000 miles high might be able to produce the slanted rays we see in the above picture, but it is not going to be able to produce enough gravity to hold in the planets; and it is not going to be able to produce enough light to reflect off the moon and the planets for us to be able to see them from Earth. Flat‐earthers try to solve these problems by claiming that gravity is a fiction and that the planets are mere mock‐ups from NASA. In effect, they have solved one problem only to create two bigger problems.

Would like some detail about light on Moon problem for them.

Sun's gravity holding in planets in their orbits is anyway not a very good explanation, so here Flat Earthers are not even getting a problem.

Angelic movers keeping planets where they are will do.

Also, when he says small sun would not have enough gravity, at some point he presumes we know the "gravity exerted by Sun" is proportional to its "known" mass and that poses the question how you know the solar mass independently of the view that gravity is what keeps planets in orbit around Sun.

Robert Sungenis

What detail is needed? The moon has no light generating properties, period.

Angels do not move planets. That is absurd.

We know its gravity based on what the mass of hydrogen and helium must be in order to fit into a 2pir sphere of .432 million miles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Robert Sungenis angels not moving planets or their moving planets being absurd is YOUR denial of Thomism.

[Btw, not a pure Thomist, accepting some Scotism on principium individuationis, as did Tempier]

You are also contradicting Riccioli and according to the namedropping list of the latter a whole LOT of scholastics.

Your knowing the gravity presumes we have a really good independent clue about gravitational constant in relation to mass PLUS our knowing all of the volume is a mass of hydrogen and helium.

NEITHER of which has independent verification.

Robert Sungenis Missed your answer on Moon problem.

The details is why exactly a close sun would be insufficient for a close Moon. Both being smaller than presumed.

Robert Sungenis

We do have good knowledge of the gravitaional constant. That is a fact. Thomas didn't, and that's why he resorted to angels. And please don't make a blanket accusation about my beliefs or non-beliefs in Thomism. I only reject the Thomas' conclusions of which he has no verification, and which he himself said were speculative.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

You show,

• 1) how we know the gravitational constant
  
  
• and 2) how this makes the position of St Thomas a mistake.

I think you can't.

His position was NEVER ever refuted.

Robert Sungenis

I suggest you go read the experiments that were done by Cavendish, and consistently repeated over at least a hundred years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will.

This Cavendish, right?

Wickipeejuh : Henry Cavendish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish

Robert Sungenis

Thomas' position is wrong because we now know of things like gravity and inertia. Angels are messengers of God. Let them do their job and stopy tying them up with planets that already have forces that move them.

Yep, he's the one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, you are missing that angels had a place in creation apart from man's subsequent fall.

And here is:

Using this equipment, Cavendish calculated the attraction between the balls from the period of oscillation of the torsion balance, and then he used this value to calculate the density of the Earth. Cavendish found that the Earth's average density is 5.48 times greater than that of water. John Henry Poynting later noted that the data should have led to a value of 5.448,[14] and indeed that is the average value of the twenty-nine determinations Cavendish included in his paper.[15] What was extraordinary about Cavendish’s experiment was its elimination of every source of error and every factor that could disturb the experiment and its precision in measuring an astonishingly small attraction, a mere 1/50,000,000 of the weight of the lead balls. The result that Cavendish obtained for the density of the Earth is within 1 percent of the currently accepted figure.

Cavendish's work led others to accurate values for the gravitational constant (G) and Earth's mass. Based on his results, one can calculate a value for G of 6.754 × 10−11N-m²/kg²,[16] which compares favourably with the modern value of 6.67428 × 10−11N-m²/kg².

LED TO ... something is being left out here.

And taking this as a proof of Newtonian mechanism and disproof of St Thomas' is VERY sketchy.

Robert Sungenis

It's not sketchy. It works. And yes, angels had a place in creation, but once the creation is set in motion by natural forces, we don't need angels to push planets.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

HAD?

No, HAVE.

[I should have been more attentive to previous : angels were NOT needed to admonish men when Adam was on very familiar terms with God. The place angels had in creation before Adam's fall, they have not lost because of it. Certain angels have lost their places - like is Satan had been moving Venus or Mercury or some other planet qualifiable as "morning star" - by their own fall. No angel has lost any place in the working of creation just because Adam fell.]

Your argument is logically invalid, one can as easily say, and I do say "we don't need gravity to explain orbits, because angels work".

Robert Sungenis

Then why limit it to planets? Why not include anything in this world that moves?

I'd like an answer to that, Hans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, you have one argument against Aristotle.

He considered celestial bodies move, and their influence moves everything here below.

St Thomas on the other hand will say that angels ARE around here and ARE moving things.

A pen falling to the ground will not need an angelic mover to fall. A pen moved on the paper more often has a human than an angelic mover. But when we get to more complex things, angelic movers are abounding.

Meteorology cannot explain why one certain wind puff goes on the right or on the left of a building - angels are deciding.

Gravity is often held to be confirmed by tides - but sea water can have angelic or demonic movers. Generally we do not (or till recently did not) measure height of tides on oceans but only portal tides. These have no absolutely direct relation to supposed tidal forces (explained as difference between gravitational force on centre of Earth and that on seas), but are so derived through various harmonic relations to oceanic tides which in their turn are not a direct reflex of suppoed tidal forces either, that a more economic explanation would be angelic or demonic movers being behind tides.

Minucius Felix, if I recall correctly, would have it waters have demonic movers. If so, that explains exorcisms over waters before making baptismal or blessed water. It also explains the angry words of the God-Man to the waves.

If they were inanimate, moved by no will, what was His point in being angry?

So, winds and waves are moved by angelic or demonic movers (also confirmed by the opposite, since four angels have the power, Apocalypse 7:1, to prevent winds from ravaging Earth).

Is that a sufficient answer?

Robert Sungenis

Sufficient? Hardly. It's all speculation. Granted, God may ask an angel to stir up water (as he did in the Gospel for the man who was paralyzed for 38 years), but those are isolated incidents and they were miraculous. We know those occur. But you are trying to make movement of waters, wind, etc as a normal everyday task of angels. There is simply no evidence of that anywhere in Scripture. Your view would make the miraculous non-miraculous. Miracles occur when God sets aside the natural laws he made. High and low pressure that creates wind currents is a natural law. Inertia that pushes planets is a natural law. Pens that grop to the ground is due to a natural law. Granted, since pens don't move across the table unless pushed by a force, it is not natural for a pen to go sideways. God could use an angel to make it go sideways, but again, that would be a miraculous event and only done for a special reason. I think you need to understand that Aquinas was like a child when it came to science. he knew nothing of inertia, gravity or inertial forces. So the natural answer from a child who doesn't know any alternative is that the angels move the planets. It is completely understandable, but completely wrong. When it comes to theology and metaphysics, Thomas is one of the best we have, but science was not his forte.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But you are trying to make movement of waters, wind, etc as a normal everyday task of angels."

Yes, that is my cosmology.

"There is simply no evidence of that anywhere in Scripture."

Nor for gravitational view of tides or orbits of celestial bodies.

Actually, stars either being or having spirits (thus, if not being such, having angelic movers) are accessible from not just Matthew 24 (angels moving stars will move them differently, downward, when earth ends, unless passage about sun, moon, stars be allegorical about Church), but also three OT passages I already quoted when we had this discussion earlier.

[The three being Baruch 3:33 - 38, Job 38:7, and Judges 5. One may add Daniel 3, canticle Benedicite]

"Your view would make the miraculous non-miraculous."

Rather allow it to follow the usual real laws in non-usual ways, because the movers are acting in non-usual ways. As far as astronomic or weather conditions are concerned.

As to miracles of healing and resurrections, God is bypassing the usual mechanisms behind health and biological life.

"Miracles occur when God sets aside the natural laws he made."

THAT is not what Scripture says anywhere.

Nor is THAT, as far as I recall, in the Catechism of St Pius X or that of Trent, but it was some time ago.

Nor is THAT in St Thomas Aquinas.

Nor is THAT in the brilliant analysis given by C S Lewis, which he bases on a quote from St Athanasius. In his book Miracles.

"High and low pressure that creates wind currents is a natural law."

No, they are natural phenomena which work, either only or with supplement from angelic movers, according to natural law.

My point is not denying them, but saying there are details where angels in everyday shelters this poor man and exposes that man (evil or on trial) to windpuffs which cannot in detail be predicted by knowing the laws of air pressure.

"Inertia that pushes planets is a natural law. "

No, for two reasons:

• 1) if real, it is not a natural law, but a natural process described by natural law;
• 2) inertia being totally non-decelerating as well as non-accelerating is an innovation in Newton as per previous physics, it is also a clear contradiction of what St Thomas said about Prima Via, proving God because God is needed as first mover in EVERY instant of a rotating universe.

"Pens that grop to the ground is due to a natural law."

ACCORDING to one, not DUE to one. They do drop DUE to whatever gravity in the general sense of the word may be (Aristotelic, Newtonian, Einsteinian theories may or may not coincide with its actual reality).

"Granted, since pens don't move across the table unless pushed by a force, it is not natural for a pen to go sideways"

Exactly. Pens are writing tools by artifice, and naturally know how to drop to the ground, so to speak.

"God could use an angel to make it go sideways, but again, that would be a miraculous event and only done for a special reason."

With pens that would be extraordinary, and not necessarily miraculous.

A poltergeist might do it as easily as a good angel, and either would be doing it by the powers inherent in angelic nature since their creation.

"I think you need to understand that Aquinas was like a child when it came to science. he knew nothing of inertia, gravity or inertial forces."

He knew very well that the pens that drop to the ground are not moving around in circular orbits.

He was not aware of that particular explanation, but he was of Epicure's, which is also naturalistic. And he was not accepting it.

So, why would his being aware now, in Heaven, change his mind on this matter?

Aware of what physicists have said, that is.

Obviously, in Heaven he knows real physics better, but there his knowledge in Heaven is not accessible to us.

His reasonings from when he was alive are.

And your patronising tone implies that the mere fact of discovering a new theory automatically invalidates an older one. Even in areas where the new theory has not been tested by experiment.

"It is completely understandable, but completely wrong. When it comes to theology and metaphysics, Thomas is one of the best we have, but science was not his forte."

I disagree. He based his metaphysics on science - on Aristotelic science.

Also, angels being involved as movers everywhere in our daily life is clearly in De Fide Orthodoxa.

Robert Sungenis

Science was not his forte because his generation didn't know science. Science, per se, didn't come into vogue until men started doing experiments, which wasn't until the the 16th century.

Too much to answer above. If you want me to answer, then break up each refutation so I can reply to each one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Science, per se, didn't come into vogue until men started doing experiments, which wasn't until the the 16th century."

That is a false history of science.

[But true enough of the mechanistic, supposedly scientific world view Sungenis is exposing by rejecting angelic movers - this neo-epicurean approach was not part of medieval science.]

It has been refuted, including by James Hannam I think.

Scholastics were doing experiments, mainly in optics and accepting some from Avicenna in anatomy.

"Too much to answer above. If you want me to answer, then break up each refutation so I can reply to each one."

You are free to do so yourself, one comment per each.

Robert Sungenis

No time for that, sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks for the walkover [in this round], welcome back [to next round] when I have posted them as a blog post.

Robert Sungenis

If you want an answer then stop the shot gun blast of challenges, otherwise I'm going to terminate these discussions. Either make it fair, or I will no longer participate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the blog post will probably make it fairer for you.

You can read it calmly rather than be stressed by updates, and you can answer my latest answers here as you would answer a document by Palm.

Obviously, to make it really fair, you should do so on one pdf in a blog post of yours.

Btw, I was as stressed by your updates coming real time, as you were by mine.

[See more under I and V, somewhat VI]

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Religious beliefs, even agnostic and atheistic ones, go very deep into the human psyche and they are often used as the ultimate criteria for how one judges reality. If something goes against one’s religious beliefs, no matter how true or right it may be, the religious beliefs have a tendency to win the battle.

People who believe in a flat earth are not immune from this psychological malady. Almost to a man, they believe the Earth is flat because they believe the Bible says so.

Malady?

Sounds like advocation of modern psychiatric criteria of mental health!

Obviously, a man who believes sth uncorrect due to an uncorrect religion (and yes, their religions are usually so) is not comparable to a man who is mad or in a frenzy.

Here we come to a very uncharitable and perhaps even unjust view of Robert Sungenis' on his opponents.

Robert Sungenis

It is not uncharitable. It is a fact of the human psyche when religious views are competing with other views, especially when one thinks the Bible is supporting his view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As to the fact being a fact, I can let that stand, with litlle reservation, albeit some.

I gave my great reservation against the word choice MALADY. It means illness.

If it is a normal fact about the human psyche, it is not a mental illness. Hence my objection to "malady".

As to the fact, I am not disputing it is relevant for Flat Earthers : indeed, they usually come from Anticatholic and antischolastic sects who have as little use for Church Fathers as for scholastics.

You were once part of such a sect, I seem to recall, and seem still to have an allergy against scholastic philosophy, as in Thomism, Scotism etc.

Robert Sungenis

Okay, change malady to difficulty

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Or quandary.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If the Earth were flat and had gravity, the tendency would be for the Earth to roll itself into a ball, since that is the most economical shape to accommodate the force of gravity. That is why all the celestial objects we see are round or near round. This is especially true of an object that is 75% water, as the Earth is. Since water is very flexible, it would form into a sphere in the same way that water dripping from a faucet forms spherical drops. The surface tension and gravity will make it form into a sphere, which is the shape that requires the least energy to hold the object together.

Two problem's with the argument:

• 1) presumes correctness of modern understanding of gravity;
  
  
• 2) a lesser detail, also thinks Earth as volume is 75% water, I think that refers rather to the surface. As volume, magma would be more present than water.

Robert Sungenis

The gravity between two objects has been calculated. It is the G in the Newtonian gravity equation: F = GMm/r².

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure, but calculating gravity does not quite prove the calculation corresponds to something in reality, or even if it does, that it is correctly understood.

Exact mathematical results of calculations are a corrective, but nothing like a substitute for exact ideas.

Robert Sungenis

Granted. But if I come near a heater, it starts getting warm. I don't need a thermometer to tell me so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure.

But that is a point in favour of natural perception, not in favour of one particular view of gravity.

Robert Sungenis

A distinction with a difference. If I let go of my pen, it drops to the ground. You can call it gravity or schmavity. The point is the pen drops to the ground.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, as long as you don't catch it with the other hand.

Now, first of all, the concept of "gravity in general" (Aristotelic, Newtonian, Einsteinian, other) refers to heavy things falling to the ground. That is, in a straight line, in a speed which increases so that we have sth like 10m/second squared (if I recall the physics lesson correctly, and the 10 m are somewhat off).

This common reference for gravity does NOT by itself prove universal attraction of masses, which is Newtonian and in an updated version Einsteinian concept of gravity.

Sth else has to prove that.

Furthermore, from that, we are still way from having proven or even demonstrated possibility of orbits (circular or roughly so, about same speed, or rather variations both to faster and to slower, slightly) having for main or exclusive cause an interaction between gravity of centre of mass on object orbiting with inertial non-deceleration of same object - or even of proving inertia is non-decelarating rather than only non-accelerating.

My point about angelic movers is that orbits could be described as having to do with OTHER kind of movement of pen, that on paper, which has a voluntary mover in each case.

Robert Sungenis

Yes, angels could move pens sideways or they could even stop a pen from falling. But if they do so, it is a miraculous event that is setting aside natural laws. The natural law is that the pen either falls to the ground or wants to fall to the ground (potential energy). Anything that would inhibit that (besides another natural act) would be miraculous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But if they do so, it is a miraculous event that is setting aside natural laws. "

No. It would be spiritual, but not above created spiritual nature.

"The natural law is"

The gravity-in-the-general sense described by natural laws is ...

"that the pen either falls to the ground or wants to fall to the ground (potential energy)."

So, the pen retains potential energy to fall down (if that has been proven as a real entity, it at least retains a natural tendency to fall down) while the angel is stopping it from actually doing so.

[The question about "potential energy" being an entity or not is about whether it conserves the quantities of previous and subsequent kinetic energies between them.]

" Anything that would inhibit that (besides another natural act) would be miraculous."

The angel holding it is using its natural powers as much as a man catching it with his hand.

Otherwise you ascribe REAL miracles to poltergeists.

Robert Sungenis

Hardly. The devil can mimic certain miracles that don't require him to create something. He can use naturally occurring things and make them appear to act differently, which is called preternatural. But only God can create, and thus only God can do real miracles. Sometimes the preternatural and the supernatural can seem to overlap (as when a poltergeist moves a pen across a table). But the same truth remains that, by natural laws, pens don't move themselves. To move a pen sideways will require an intelligent agent, but no agent is required for a pen to fall to the ground (except for an agent to let it go). Since gravity does not require an agent, it is a natural event, not a miracle. The same with planets moving. All they require is inertial forces. For you to claim otherwise, you would have to prove that planets can't move my inerital forces and thus require supernatural intervention.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// The devil can mimic certain miracles that don't require him to create something. //

Meaning that an angelic spirit can MOVE OBJECTS by his nature and that this does not constitute an act of creation.

Now Poltergeists are precisely about moving objects.

So apparently was the false miracle of the Egyptian magicians, one explanation by St Thomas Aquinas (I think) being the devil quickly MOVED away the staff and MOVED forward a live snake which he had BROUGHT along for the purpose.

So, angelic spirits having the power to move objects is NOT really miraculous, but ordinary.

"But the same truth remains that, by natural laws, pens don't move themselves."

Agreed, so the pen needs a natural movement downward OR a human or angelic MOVER for movements like those involved in writing.

" Since gravity does not require an agent, it is a natural event, not a miracle."

When a pen falls down, nobody is disputing this is some kind of gravity.

Precisely as no one is disputing when a pen is doing what it was made for, it is NOT a kind of gravity which moves it sideways, even if in certain versions gravity moves ink downward to paper where suction moves it into a colouring of it, while other versions (in English called pencils or crayons) depend in friction.

"The same with planets moving. All they require is inertial forces."

According to your theory a BALANCE between inertial forces and gravity.

However, that would make their movement a parallel to the movement of the pen falling down - with a difference.

A difference which requires, disputed point between Newton and earlier ones, inertia to be non-decelerating as well as the obvious non-accelerating.

From experience on Earth one could as easily or easier conclude we were dealing with "decelerating with some delay".

Angelic movers make them a parallel to the pen used for writing - with less difference.

PLUS, if the balance between two forces were the cause, what guarantees it remains in place?

Hence my insistance on experiment of Don Petit: the water droplets really do move due to static electricity balanced by inertia. And five to twenty orbits after start, after squirting each out, they cling to charged knitting needle.

This seems pretty final against your view.

"For you to claim otherwise, you would have to prove that planets can't move [by] my inerital forces and thus require supernatural intervention."

Angelic movers are not intervening, since in this theory the mechanism God ordinarily is using for celestial bodies moving other than daily movement westward. Precisely as human fingers is what God is ordinarily using for pens to get writing.

Also, you seem confused about burden of proof here.

First, I am claiming angels are IN FACT moving planets and stars.

Then, I am not claiming they do not use (nor absolutely claiming they do use) forces involved in inertia and gravitation. Rather, they could be the third factor which lends stability to the balance between them. But they could also not be.

Finally, "angelic movers are superfluous if gravitation + inertia can explain it" is logically at best equivalent to "gravitation + inertia are superfluous if angelic movers can explain it". At best - and at worst inferior, due to inertia and gravitation being two factors, while angelic movers are one. Occam's very famous razor.

[See more under I and III, somewhat VI]

VI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

that there is no gravity. It is just a figment of Newton’s wild imagination. This, they believe, will allow them to keep the Earth flat. So how do flat‐earthers propose that people and object can remain on Earth without floating away into outer space? ... Other flat‐earthers claim that what hold us humans to the ground is the fact that our density is greater than air. If we were filled with helium, it would make our density less than air and we would rise above the ground. Although this solution answers the issue of how density affects buoyancy, it does not answer the issue of gravity, since it gives no answer as to how the Earth’s air is held close to the Earth and is not sucked into the vacuum of space.

Here this solution is perfectly concordant with the Aristotelic view of gravity, except that they have gravity pointing into one direction of one dimension of space, rather than inward, as Aristotle and St Thomas. And as Epicure, for that matter.

Also, a Hebrew might not agree nature abhors vacuum and Aristotle who said it might not agree there is one, properly speaking, outside what we call our atmosphere.

[Reference to Hebrews, since Jews are traditionally and hence some Hebrew Roots Christians are now Flat Earth. That is where Rob Skiba's interest in subject comes from.]

Robert Sungenis

But Aristotle's gravity could not account for why two bodies different in mass, fall at the same rate. So his is not a good explanation of gravity.

A Hebrew might not agree, but the scientific fact is that when lower pressure meets a higher pressure, there is a vacuum created and equilibrium will be reached eventually.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But Aristotle's gravity could not account for why two bodies different in mass, fall at the same rate."

How so?

What exact part of his theory preculudes it?

"when lower pressure meets a higher pressure, there is a vacuum created and equilibrium will be reached eventually."

And one might answer that there is a limit (perhaps called firmament) which precludes the atmosphere of Earth from actually meeting a lower pressure outside a certain limit.

Robert Sungenis

Couldn't be, since the firmament includes both the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A point for those accepting your identification of firmament.

Hebrews might make a different one.

Robert Sungenis

How could the, since their own text says it is the air and outer space?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do the same texts actually state that air and outer space are different layers of firmament?

Do they exlude firmament refers also to sth like Earth's magnetic field, which helps to keep atmosphere in and certain rays out?

[See more from another angle at I, III and V]

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Revelation 1:7 : Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, everyone who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (RSV)

The flat‐earthers claim that if the Earth were round, it would be impossible for everyone on Earth to see Christ coming back on the clouds. Even if Christ were as big as conventional theory says the Sun is, half of the world would not see him. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that when Christ comes back, the people will still be on the surface of the Earth. But this is not the picture suggested in Scripture. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:16‐7 says that the people on Earth will be raised into the sky when Christ returns:

16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together wthem in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (RSV)

Your solution misses that Revelation 1:7 speaks of everyone on Earth, while 1 Thessalonians only speaks of the rapture of certain Christians (a rapture which is post-tribulation and on which St Thomas expounds that it is not a real exception from the rule of dying, since the raptured acc. to this passage will die and resurrect in mid air).

Robert Sungenis

No, I didn't miss that Rev 1:7 includes everyone. 1Thess4 is an "example," not the only information we have. There is a resurrection of good and bad before the rapture, and I am assuming these bodies are raised in the air as well, and therefore "every eye" (alive and dead-raised) will see him. I am also assuming that the remaining alive people will not be able to stay on the Earth when Christ destroys it, and thus they will see him too.

I think Thomas is wrong. 1Thess 4:16-17 is clear that some don't die. Why in the world would they die just to be raised a few moments later?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because of Adam's sin.

However, St Thomas is not adamant, he is open to God making an exception.

However, you just contradicted one passage in Pius XII' bull from 1950. Are you agreeing Clement XV was made Pope by divine interference that year, so that Pius XII was not a Pope?

I have a reason to consider it was contradicted simply by St John being lifted up in a light after lying down in his tomb.

Robert Sungenis

An exception to death does not mean that death from Adam's sin is being defied. Otherwise, both Enoch and Elijah could not be exceptions. The rapture at Judgment Day is another exception, and one that makes sense, since it is the last day of this world's existence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Otherwise, both Enoch and Elijah could not be exceptions."

The common view is that they aren't.

They will come back as two witnesses acc. to Apocalypse 11 and be martyred, same chapter. Hence, they are no exceptions.

"The rapture at Judgment Day is another exception, and one that makes sense, since it is the last day of this world's existence."

If an exception, it makes sense, but it is not universally granted this be an exception : dying and resurrecting in mid air being the non-exceptional version of this rapture.

You have NOT countered the reference to Pius XII.

Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

[From : APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
November 1, 1950
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html ]

According to this, the raptured would actually not just die and resurrect in mid air, but die, decompose and resurrect in mid air.

Robert Sungenis

No, I think you are reading into what Pius said. He is only making a general statement that everyone before the end of time will die. But the rapture is the end of time. It occurs on the last day, so it is an exception to the general rule. You can't take Pius' general statement and then use it to contradict what 1 Thess 4:16-17 states.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul."

Well, he says "are corrupted" and "will be joined".

Robert Sungenis

[I missed one, reconstruct from quotes in answer]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// They "are corrupted" until the end of time. //

He does not say that.

// You don't have a case, especially when your interpretation of Pius is going to contradict Scripture. //

What if Pacelli was not Pope, what if Clement XV was? Then Pacelli can very well have contradicted Scripture.

Which that passage also does by ascribing decomposition, by implication, to the two witnesses, which Bible says do NOT decompose.

Robert Sungenis

The two witnesses are not included in Pius' statement, and they are symbolic in any case, of the Church's witness of the Gospel and they do not refer to the literal Elijah and Enoch. That interpretation is absurd. It was made because Augustine was reading Malcahi 4 from the LXX, which has "Elijah the Tishbite" whereas the Hebrew only has "Elijah." Augustine thought that "Tishbite" referred to the real Elijah, and totally ignored the fact that Malachi was pointing to John the Baptist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The two witnesses are not included in Pius' statement"

They are if literally two men, since Pacelli was making the non-decomposition or even non-death "an entirely unique privilege".

"and they are symbolic in any case, of the Church's witness of the Gospel and they do not refer to the literal Elijah and Enoch. That interpretation is absurd. It was made because Augustine was reading Malcahi 4 from the LXX, which has "Elijah the Tishbite" whereas the Hebrew only has "Elijah." Augustine thought that "Tishbite" referred to the real Elijah, and totally ignored the fact that Malachi was pointing to John the Baptist."

Now we are seeing some serious problems in your Catholicism.

• 1) St Augustine, a Church Father, is said to have made an absurd statement.
  
  
• 2) LXX is implied as inferior to Hebrew.
  
  As if now extant Hebrew text were the same Hebrew text that LXX writers dealt with.
  
  
• 3) Since Malachi was speaking of Messiah's arrival as one event, despite there being a first and a second coming, he named one forerunner, though there are two.
  
  St John the Baptist was the first forerunner.
  
  St Elijah the Tishbite is the second forerunner, celebrated as such by Eastern liturgy.

Him being one of the two witnesses is therefore inevitable.

The other could be either Henoch or Moses, I have heard good arguments for both, and the tradition of Henoch being the other is basically western only unanimity.

VIII

A. N.

Crepuscular waves.

It looks like the sun is about 20ft above the water.

From:

image provideded by A. N.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156695848845637&set=p.10156695848845637&type=3

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

That is the kind of detail I would have liked from Sungenis' answer!

Robert Sungenis

Mr. Lundahl, this is when your nit-picking gets you in trouble. I'm only saying the Earth is round. Period. And the reference to "celestial body" is merely a general reference for comparison.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, not "period". You are trying to ARGUE it, and of course I nitpick about arguing. If you bother to do that, why not argue well - or leave it to someone who argues better?

Robert Sungenis

Argues better? No one has dealt with the fact that a sun half as close but half its present diameter; or a sun 90% closer and 90% smaller, will produce the same effect. How much better could that simple fact be argued? It is a mathematical model. There are, of course, pictorial ways to show how sun light is bent (as A. N. does above), but it is not a "better" argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is certainly a better argument.

The Flat Earth argument you are dealing with is a geometric and trigonometric one, which supposes the sun rays are not really parallel, like they appear not to be parallel. Not parallel = angle. Angle + we have base = we have distance.

Robert Sungenis

It has nothing to do with trig. It is just a simple proportion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Proportions have to do with trig, whenever they involve triangles.

Say a triangle has a base which we know length of, and two angles from, we can calculate height, saying it has one corner we know the angle of we cannot do so.

The sun rays in the picture are related to the triangular part.

So, do you admit something besides proportion is needed to explain those sun rays?

I admit that proportions are allowable to explain luminosity, but we were not talking about luminosity only, but about sunrays under a cloud showing angles, non parallelity.

Robert Sungenis

And all of that is not needed to show the simple proportion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the problem is "showing the simple proportion" does not settle argument on angle of light rays.

Robert Sungenis

Granted, but the proportion is the main argument, the trig just confirms it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the problem is that for trig not to invalidate it, you need to explain why angles between sun rays are an appearance.

Robert Sungenis

Didn't I do that? I though I explained that radiating from a spherical body will always be at an angle.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the problem is that the angle seems to indicate the spherical body is close, considering the base.

Robert Sungenis

Of course. All we need to do then is show that the same spherical body that is doubled or quadrupled in size and distance will produce the same angles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To a larger base, if further off, right?

That is the only common sense way of taking same angles.

So, we are talking about an observed angle and an observed base of it, with an observed distance.

[With an INFERRED distance, sorry, I hate it when people confuse observe and infer, and I did it myself! On top of this extra bad, since he inference is from angle being really inherent in sun rays. And a false one. My bad.]

IX

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Back to quibbles:

The Bible speaks about the “corners of the Earth,” [Jb 37:3; Is 11:12; 41:9; Ez 7:2; Ap 7:1; 20:8.] or “ends of the Earth.” [Dt 28:64; 33:17; 1Sm 2:10; Jb 28:24; 38:13; Ps 19:4-6; 22:27; 46:9; 48:10; 59:13; 61:2; 65:5; 41:9; Jr 51:16; Dn 4:10-11; Mk 13:27.] The latter two terms do not, of course, mean that the Earth has literal corners or ends. Rather, “corners” refers to the four compass points (north, east, south and west), while “ends” refers to the respective east and west horizons. Hence, Scripture is not implying that the Earth is flat. Not only does Scripture imply that the Earth is a sphere, [Jb 26:10; Pr 8:27-29; Is 40:22.] it never refers to the Earth as being flat.

Actually, take "circle" and "corners" together, the more literal you make both, the more impossible a Flat Earth geography becomes. Both of them cannot be the contour of same flat surface.

So, four corners in Apocalypse 7:1 would seem to refer to actual places, since angels are standing there (sth to consider if anyone thinks "angels are too small to carry planets or even sun").

But on a flat earth map, there are only three South corners, unless you make Australian S coast count as having two (and one of them becomes a very obtuse angle).

To get four, you need a round earth.

Corners being of course those of continent(s), counting as "continent" or "land". Earth as opposed, not to Heaven, but to Sea.

Robert Sungenis

I see your point about the circle and corners together, but I am drawn to the four compass points again for Rev 7:1 because the four winds are mentioned next, and that speaks of NSEW winds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Explicitly?

But supposing so, could not W wind be held in by angels of NW and SW corners holding hands?

Could not NW and NE angel be holding hands (across Polar circle, not across Behrings, primarily) to keep in N wind? And so on.

Robert Sungenis

Scripture does not use NW or SW. It only uses N S E or W.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Four corners" does not specify any.

Therefore, could be NW, NE, SE, SW.

If four ends are N, E, S, W, corners could be those in between.

Robert Sungenis

Could be, but Scripture doesn't use them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, Scripture to best of my knowledge never ever identified CORNERS as N,E,S,W either.

If I am wrong, provide an authority.

Robert Sungenis

Correct, because NSEW were four regions that covered all the land, not pinpoints. Corners are pinpoints where the north meets the east or south meets the west, ect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you. That is what I mean about "ends" being NSEW but "corners" being in between.

CC

Take a cantaloupe, which is similar in shape to the earth, and cut it in half, while holding it together. Then cut it transversely. You just quartered the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

CC, what exact places would you cut Earth in half on? We must be dealing with points that are apparent in geography, I should think?

X a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And a minor one [quibble, that is, see IX], you seem to be attributing The Orthodox Faith to St Basil.

The best known work of that title belongs to St John of Damascus, and I double checked St Basil on Catholic Encyclopedia, where I did not find that title.

Robert Sungenis

Thank you. I will check that out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do.

You are welcome!

St Basil, if I recall correctly was even refusing to take sides between Flat Earth and Globe.

Robert Sungenis

Never heard that before. You'll need to show some references. The ones I have show Basil was a spherical earther.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your problem is you are quoting plenty as from him when referring to De Fide Orthodoxa, which is not by him.

Robert Sungenis

No, because he says it in the Hexamaeron.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where, I'll look it up. I think his refusal to decide is Hexaemeron.

CC

You are probably referring to Homily IX of St. Basil's Hexaemeron:

"Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am indeed.

Thank you very much.

I also found it myself while looking up references:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/03/any-fathers-not-supporting-round-earth.html

One error previously: I had taken it on others' words that St Cyril was Flat Earth.

Either way, any father who is either flat earth or box shaped universe at least is by that fact not giving consensus status to crystalline spheres, which is a good thing considering recent discoveries, like the observations of Tycho Brahe.

Robert Sungenis, you were probably thinking about a place you did not quote, Ist Homily, starting second half of chapter 8 through all of chapter 10, according to chapter headings on Newadvent site.

Look at my comment under it.

X b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

St Cyril of Jerusalem has been counted as a Flat Earther, your quote does not quite counter this (unless it was St Cyprian of Carthage?)

Robert Sungenis

Not it is Cyril. It is not the strongest passage, but I don't think anyone can claim Cyril was a flat-earther from it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From IT?

St Cyril has presumably produced more preserved text than that quote.

Either St Cyril or St Cyprian was claimed to believe in the Hebrew/ANE cosmology of box shaped universe with Earth as one ledge.

I'd like to see the text in context, haven't looked it up yet.

Robert Sungenis

That's your homework assignment :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are not giving me homework assignments.

I take it when I can.

AND I accept other readers of St Cyril than you, too.

[However, if you look at

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/03/any-fathers-not-supporting-round-earth.html

you will find there is no clear reference to St Cyril being Flat Earth. I basically found one honest atheist probably admitting other atheists had made a presumably sloppy reference. I had the idea from those other presumably sloppy atheists.]

X c

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And your quote from Lactantius does not take into account that he is referring to a philosopheme he is disbelieving in.

Robert Sungenis

Well, it was hard to tell what Lactantius himself actually was siding with. Since he says, "Well, that would make it a globe..." I thought he was actually using that as his own view and which contradicted his opponent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, his opponents were Round Earth Pagans.

Robert Sungenis

I find that hard to reconcile, since I find nowhere that Lactantius was a flat-earther. Do you have a reference?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I read the passage.

Robert Sungenis

That passsage I quoted is not definitive, since the context is not talking about it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think I recall the context DOES talk about it.

Including the mere title of the work.

[Section of the work, only book three has a title I refer to.]

Robert Sungenis

you'll need to show it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Searching reference, now.

[Found it with a vengeance at

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/03/any-fathers-not-supporting-round-earth.html]

XI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First, it the earth were a flat disc, the North Star, Polaris, would be at the top dead center and we would be able to see it from anywhere on the disc, even from the perimeter of the disc. (See FIG. 1). But the fact is, a little less than half the humans on earth, that is, those who live in what is normally understood as the southern hemisphere, don’t see Polaris at all. Instead, those in the southern hemisphere see the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis (with a telescope because it is dim). Likewise, those in the northern hemisphere cannot see Sigma Octantis.

Now we are talking.

But next argument adresses the "totally flat earth" view, not the modern flat earth torus view, where equator is on top of a torus and this hides parts of earth from each other.

Obviously, there is a problem with the torus view as well.

Two [opposite] points of equator should be able to see each other across the dimple for the North Pole, if torus view was true.

Robert Sungenis

Even if it was a torus, you could still see at least a few thousand miles toward the other side. But we can only see a few hundred, therefore it is not a torus either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree.

I am not a flat earther, precisely due to problems with torus model.

Btw, you repeated the point of my last words. Did you read all?

Robert Sungenis

I saw where you said the torus model had problems, but you didn't specify what the problem were.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case, I might have written last two lines after you read the rest.

[checking]

No, since you answered five minutes ago.

Here they are:

"Two points of equator should be able to see each other across the dimple for the North Pole, if torus view was true."

Robert Sungenis

Ah, ok.

Update I
14.III.2016

J. P. Holding on Tektonics has a good passage on the distinction which Robert Sungenis tried to use against angelic movers being regular parts of the universe:

[myth #14] The supernatural exists.

Uh oh, what am I saying? I'm saying that we've all fallen prey to the post-Enlightenment distinction between the natural and the so-called supernatural. In other words, this is an artifical category, one that has led to such silly ideas as that miracles (acts of God) "violate natural law".

God works in and through the natural world and within its "laws" -- while some miracles are beyond human capacity to duplicate, they hardly require any violation of nature's "laws" (other than perhaps, creation ex nihilo, and even that is not certainly a "violation").

Put it this way: Why is it not a "violation" of the law of gravity when I pick up a box? Why IS it such a violation when God picks up that same box?

The inconsistency was invented of itself, and unfortunately, we continue to let the debate continue on these terms, and this makes our apologetic for things like the Resurrection more difficult than it needs to be.

The ironic thing is that a humanist like Gene Roddenberry could conceive of beings like the Organians without blinking an eye, but also could reject the supernatural as impossible.

From

Tekton Apologetics : Myths About Christianity
http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.php