Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics
St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person
Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate)
OrchOR - what is that?
Link to trigonometry lesson about astronomy and with diagrams
Thread owner: I'm an 'agnostic' because I do not believe that human reason alone can lead to any absolute certainty about God--or anything else.
Me: I do believe, with St Paul, with St John of Damascus, with St Thomas Aquinas and with the West, that human reason even alone can recognise certainly that there is a God, a creator and director of Cosmos.
"th o": Hans: Human reason can recognize that there is a God, but I doubt it can 'prove' it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Me: Beyond _reasonable_ doubt yes. Like chromosome number diversity of mammals. If you say "polyploid" I say: such foeti do not survive in mammals. They are a considerable percentage of spontaneous abortions, due to not being accepted by mother's immunity system. http://o-x.fr/hspi
other opponent for rest of my debating: " Human reason can recognize that there is a God, but I doubt it can 'prove' it beyond a shadow of a doubt." Well how close do you suppose we can get? ;) Universal Orch-OR: 1.) The quantum wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (by definition) 2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Sir Roger Penrose's Orch-OR thesis) Conclusion: The wave-function of the universe is a mind -or is at least within a mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Me: I am not sure there is proof for a quantum wave function of the universe, I am sure that either it is not very accessible or it has another name in simpler terminology.
- There is, it's used in quantum gravity all of the time. In fact it's a prerequisite for loop quantum gravity. It's the "Psi" in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. It's just that the order of variable and function get reversed so as to produce wave-function dependent functionals. The idea being to generate a space-time metric from the wave-function from outside of space-time.
Me: "it's used in quantum gravity all of the time. In fact it's a prerequisite for loop quantum gravity" That is not a proof, unless "loop quantum gravity" be itself proven. Its the n function of the NN-equation would only mean something if known or to those who know that the NN-equation is rightly applied to reality and that the n function has its right place in it. Whatever the n or whoever mathematician/physicist NN.
- "That is not a proof, unless "loop quantum gravity" be itself proven." Well it also exists in string theory. And those two theories combined comprise 95% of all research done on quantum gravity. So unless we know nothing at all about quantum gravity and need to start from scratch the universe has a wave-function. Besides that it is really just a logical extrapolation from the Schrodinger equation. A wave-function can be computed for any system no matter how large just so long as we know the values of kinetic and potential energy in that system. ý"Whatever the n or whoever mathematician/physicist NN." Funny. But it's not that difficult to conceive of this. (I explain some of the rudimentary concepts in the video) And it would be a shame to put down a straight up proof like this.
Me: As far as I am concerned we may indeed know nothing at all about quantum gravity. As said, I am not at all agnostic about God, but I am about quantum gravity. Even sceptic. "And it would be a shame to put down a straight up proof like this." Again: http://o-x.fr/hspi
- "As far as I am concerned we may indeed know nothing at all about quantum gravity." Well we do know that something has to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity -though I am secretly under the view that this is in a sense "already here" and that the holographic principle can just be derived from quantum mechanics as is just by switching the order of variable and function. That said, Wheeler-DeWitt works even if there is only QM. It's just applying the Schrodinger equation (which we already know) to the universe at large.
Me: I need to be more precise: as far as I am concerned we know nothing at all about either quantum mechanics or relativity. Or, we do know historically, relativity in a sense is a byproduct of heliocentric error.
- As for chromosome count there are ways around that. I mean for example two chromosomes that exist in chimps exist as one chromosome in man as it has been discovered that the chromosome in man is actually a fused chromosome. Now as for the larger picture, it appears that evolution happened much faster than it should have if it all happened by chance. However most of academia will not go for that. They even shoot down things that smack of this even if they are not directly theistic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_evolution_(alternative) There are plenty of ways to get around design arguments. However this betrays a larger point however. Why go for indirect evidence when you could just as well have direct evidence? They want something that is empirical, and they (think) they know that we will and can not give it to them. Well what if we blew their minds by doing it anyway?
Thread owner (briefly back): Evolution happened?
Me: See http://o-x.fr/hspi - not in mammals, unless the mammal with the highest number of chromosomes also has original number (which is bosh, since it is far higher than 48 which on the other hand is the most typical chromosome number).
- @"I need to be more precise: as far as I am concerned we know nothing at all about either quantum mechanics or relativity." Actually we do. 2/3rds of electronics is based on quantum mechanical principles -including some of the more exotic phenomenon such as in tunneling diodes. And we see relativity in action every time we fire up the particle accelerator and see time dilation. @"Or, we do know historically, relativity in a sense is a byproduct of heliocentric error." Well that's just the discovery that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. That's not an "error," that was discovered by Galileo and was part of the basis for Newtonian mechanics along time ago. And statistically speaking it would be extremely improbable for a preferred reference frame to happen to coincide with the earth even if there was. @"Evolution happened?" Well unless you have another explanation for why atavistic DNA for velociraptor snouts is hidding in the chicken genome: http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/feb06/teethG022106.gif As for 6 days/13.7 BY there is an intriguing and literalist way to resolve this. A Jewish physicist named Gerald Schroeder divided the age of the universe by the big bang expansion factor and very curiously once he had factored out for time dilation got six 24 hour days! It's just it wasn't 6 days in our time frame is all. @"with the highest number of chromosomes also has original number" Well the point however is that chromosomes can split and fuse. (we've seen a chromosome in the human genome that has all of the appearances from being fused from two chromosomes earlier) But why go for the indirect proof when we could go for the direct proof? Even Dawkins once entertained ID he just said that aliens must have done it though. Why not just circumvent that entirely? If Penrose is right and if we take his premise to it's ultimate conclusion, then Universal Orch-OR wave-function collapse pulls that off handily. The universe is contained within a mind.
Me: http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/feb06/teethG022106.gif Howly bird theory: "Velociraptor" and "T Rex" are mutant birds. a) timeline has nothing to do with either howly bird theory or chromosome numbers b) neither timeline possibility or velociraptor/howly birds/T Rex have any bearing making chromosome NUMBER INCREASE IN MAMMALS possible. http://o-x.fr/hspi - "and he created ... each after its own species" I said Chromosome number INCREASE is impossible in mammals. Chromosomes fusing, even fused chromosomes resplitting, do NOT prove chromosome splits can happen and do not prove we see a result where there are more chromosomes each with its own centromere and telomere. Chromosome number manipulation by aliens is not impossible. This purely earthly matter leaves paganism possible. Eliminate heliocentrism, and prima via of St Thomas Aquinas proves there is one God for all the universe: nothing else could keep the stars moving each "24" hours (really a little less, since twenty four hours is sun around earth and it lags behind the stars) a full circle around earth.
- But chromosomes can split -hence they can increase. They can also fuse and thereby decrease. What I'm saying on the larger scale is that the ID/creation approach is a dead end when trying to prove God. Now when we look at individual genes however we see that curiously that the DNA of one animal has all sorts of other DNA in it that suspiciously overlap with that of others -even when that DNA is not being used for some kind of common structure. In the case of the genetics experiments with the chicken embryos they managed to coax some of this DNA into activation and very intriguingly the chicken grew a dino mouth instead of a beak. I mean I'm going at this from a friendly approach -atheists will go at it much more critically. As a result once all arguments have been heard it will go back and forth so much so as to be completely muddled -similar to how most philosophy arguments go. But with Penrose's model. I can prove God head on. Simply if Penrose is right and if quantum mechanics is right then God must exist automatically -as the universe's wave-function could not by definition be collapsed by a physical object outside of it.
Me: @"But chromosomes can split -hence they can increase." That is neither proven nor even plausible. It is affirmed by JZMyers (ill famed for Eucharistic desecrations), but his answer to my argument (which has obviously been made by others too) does not explain where full set of centremere with two telomeres come from. My dear, if you think I have NOT discussed these things with atheists, you are wrong. http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/ - mainly atheists, some agnostics, a taoist, a liberal catholic among my opponents http://o-x.fr/9cke - discussing with mainly an atheist denying Joshua told the sun to do stand still
- @"Chromosome number manipulation by aliens is not impossible. This purely earthly matter leaves paganism possible." Well it could be. Not to say that it is, but it's certainly not something that could be ruled out -even though it is really quite ridiculous sounding. @ "Eliminate heliocentrism," Heliocentrism is clearly correct however as was demonstrated with Copernicus and Kepler. And even if the earth was somehow the center of the solar system, the solar system itself rotates around the galaxy and so it would be constantly changing reference frames that way. @ "and prima via of St Thomas Aquinas proves there is one God for all the universe: nothing else could keep the stars moving each "24" hours (really a little less, since twenty four hours is sun around earth and it lags behind the stars) a full circle around earth." But gravity and inertia already do that. That's simple astronomy though. Using God to explain stuff that is already explained doesn't get you anywhere.
Me: You have proven God exists to people who know about and believe Penrose's model, congratulations! @"Heliocentrism is ... was demonstrated with Copernicus and Kepler." No, actually. Actually not even when parallaxes turned up in fixed stars
- Well Penrose's model is the only viable model of the mind once the eliminativist models which insist we are all zombies (Dennett is really quite ridiculous on this) have been gotten rid of. And all you have to do is explain Penrose's model. It's fairly simple in itself -though the motivation for it is complex. And once modern science gets over it's 70 year positivist funk, people will just read about and it will become common knowledge.
Me: nothing else could keep _the stars_ moving each "24" hours (really a little less, since twenty four hours is sun around earth and it lags behind the stars) a full circle around earth. @"But gravity and inertia already do that" -
according to heliocentric model. But not if geocentrism is physical reality.
- @"No, actually. Actually not even when parallaxes turned up in fixed stars." Well it's done now anyway as we now know the masses of the sun and the planets, and the sun is the center of gravity of the solar system.
Me: The fact of mind could be there, even if minds were different all independent of any first mind? Though CSL said something about that NOT being the case for human mind as "first". @ "as we now know the masses of the sun and the planets, and the sun is the center of gravity of the solar system" we know the masses from? as far as I know, we do not know them from anything except an extrapolation from heliocentrism (and guesses about solidity of exteriorly observed material, and calculus from that)
- @ my "- according to heliocentric model. But not if geocentrism is physical reality." But geocentrism has already been disproven ages ago. The sun is the center of the solar system since it has the most mass and can be computed to be the center of mass. And we know it's mass because we have sent satellites based on calculations involving the sun's mass on orbits around the solar system that agree with those calculations.
Me: Satellites around earth mainly take into account: - Earth; - Gravitation from sun on earth/close to earth. What of it would differ and how if geocentrism was true?
- @ my "The fact of mind could be there, even if minds were different all independent of any first mind?" Well no, you'd need to have a Universal Orch-OR before you could have any subsidiary little Orch-OR's inside of our brains -as the minds inside our brains are not the first wave-functions and the first wave-function was collapsed via Orch-OR. @ my: "Though CSL said something about that NOT being the case for human mind as "first"." CSL? But yes the human mind could not be the first mind.
Me: Ah, he sees mind as "a wave function" - what if mind is immaterial?
- @ my: "Satellites around earth mainly take into account:" I'm talking about probes sent towards the sun however. Not ordinary satellites. @ my: "What of it would differ and how if geocentrism was true?" If geocentrism was true, the sun would not be the center of gravity in the solar system. And if the sun was not the center of gravity in the solar system the interplanetary probes we send out -especially the ones that go into orbit around the sun- would go way off course.@ my: "Ah, he sees mind as "a wave function" - what if mind is immaterial?" What if it's BOTH! ;) See I don't fit into categories well -I'm a neutral monist. The wave-function surprisingly has no physical units of any kind! It's all quantum information -thought-stuff if you will- not matter deep down! Matter doesn't exist as such.
Me: According to Tycho Brahe the sun IS the center of system involving venus and mars and stuff, AND the earth is the center of the sun's both daily and annual orbit.
- Since Venus and Mars have more mass combined than the Earth then in such a situation the Earth would very quickly change from it's position and settle into an orbit about the sun as the sun would have the greater gravitational field. So even if the sun rotated around the Earth it would quickly fall into an equilibrium position and reverse itself -with the Earth going around the sun.
Me: IF gravity was all that decided. Notice the circle in argument? Stage A you prefer not to bring in any god since gravity can do it, Stage B you admit that gravity cannot fix the geocentric world our senses (including as augmented by telescope) tell us we live in. My answer is: non-B, we cannot a priori limit causes to non-living, non-intelligent, non-volitional ones, such as gravity, and therefore we cannot exclude geocentrism: and non-A, since geocentrism is (on that account at least) acceptable, it proves, if accepted that there is a God who turns all the universe around, as gravity and masses cannot fix a geocentric universe.
- @ my: "IF gravity was all that decided." Gravity is all that decides. The two nuclear forces are short range, and the electromagnetic force cancels out in matter. The only remaining force is gravity. @ my: "Stage B you admit that gravity cannot fix the geocentric world our senses (including as augmented by telescope) tell us we live in." Except our senses DON'T tell us we live in that. In fact our senses tell us the exact opposite. Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Newtonian gravity explains the entire solar system -with the exception of the precession of Mercury which is explained by GR and the flyby anomalies which I can explain with my QG model. Nothing about our world tells us that we live in a geocentric world -in fact all evidence points to the contrary. I never made a circular argument because I never said that our solar system is geocentric in the first place. Stage B is simple false. Adding unnecessary premises to make a theory more complex and thereby achieve unobserved results is just pseudoscience. With science we are constrained by Ockham's razor and empirical evidence. @ my: "My answer is: non-B, we cannot a priori limit causes to non-living, non-intelligent, non-volitional ones, such as gravity, and therefore we cannot exclude geocentrism:" But geocentrism is already excluded based on what we already know. Galileo showed it to be invalid by the discovery that the Earth moves back in the 1600's. Where have you been for the last 400 years? Eppure si muove! @ my: "and non-A, since geocentrism is (on that account at least) acceptable, it proves, if accepted that there is a God who turns all the universe around," But it's not acceptable. The empirical evidence has already validated the Copernican model. @ my: "as gravity and masses cannot fix a geocentric universe." They don't need to. Because there is no center to the universe anyway -at least not in space. The universe is homogenous and is wrapped around on itself in hyperspace. If there is a "center" it's in hyperspace- not even in our space. Why use God to explain something that has already been explained, instead of trying to prove Him straight up? This isn't even "God of the gaps" -it's "God of the no gaps." And why try to use a red herring premise to do it? If we already know geocentrism to be wrong it is no good to use it as a premise.
Me: Big if. I am arguing we do not. I am also arguing heliocentrism by gravity and inertia is less good as an explanation than supposed by the scientific community. I mean, it is classic to "illustrate" the balancing of gravitation inward towards the sun and inertia forward potentially out on a tangent by parallel of stone on a string. Problem with that parallel is: string is not as obviously an equal force _pulling_ in_ward_ as a superior force _holding in_. [point I do not think he answered] @ his: "Gravity is all that decides." Supposing there be no minds and wills to do so. @ his: "Except our senses DON'T tell us we live in that. In fact our senses tell us the exact opposite. Where on Earth did you ever get that idea?" By using my senses known to concur with everyone elses, as opposed to your conclusions. @ his: "I never made a circular argument because I never said that our solar system is geocentric in the first place. Stage B is simple false." In stage B I was not saying you supposed the universe to be geocentric. Read again. @ his: "Adding unnecessary premises to make a theory more complex and thereby achieve unobserved results is just pseudoscience." Heliocentrism is unobserved. It is concluded, but certainly not observed. @ his: "But geocentrism is already excluded based on what we already know. Galileo showed it to be invalid by the discovery that the Earth moves back in the 1600's. Where have you been for the last 400 years? Eppure si muove!" Great rhetoric. But him saying that makes him perjurous (since he had just renounced heliocentrism under oath) and does in no way prove him any discoverer. Proofs not big talk or big talk under ones breath is what validates a discovery. The merely theoretic possibility was as discovered by Bishop Nicole Oresme. He rejected its reality. [I do not think he answered this either] I have not been anywhere for most of the last 400 years, I did not exist until fourty years ago and two. + Nine months, of course. I have however been reading up on the debates both before and after Galileo. You seem to have read the usual version, in which he is a prophet of your theory. I had said: and non-A, since geocentrism is (on that account at least) acceptable, it proves, if accepted that there is a God who turns all the universe around, Now you answer: "But it's not acceptable. The empirical evidence has already validated the Copernican model." Not any empirical knowledge I know to validate it. I had said: as gravity and masses cannot fix a geocentric universe. You answer: "They don't need to. Because there is no center to the universe anyway -at least not in space. The universe is homogenous and is wrapped around on itself in hyperspace. If there is a "center" it's in hyperspace- not even in our space." Another of the consequences of heliocentric error. You know, you start up with one false position, and before you know you end up with a lot of them. Like this. Which is purely theoretical, totally non-empiric.
- @ my: "By using my senses known to concur with everyone elses, as opposed to your conclusions." Um no they are not known to concur with everyone else's. That is why geocentrism is not believed in anymore -you being the single exception I have seen to that rule. @ my: "you admit that gravity cannot fix the geocentric world" On the contrary: [quoting himself] "So even if the sun rotated around the Earth it would quickly fall into an equilibrium position and reverse itself -with the Earth going around the sun" @ my: "Heliocentrism is unobserved. It is concluded, but certainly not observed." But we do. We have scientists observing it via the trajectories of solar probes. The sun is the center of gravity of the solar system and all smaller objects orbit about it very precisely in accordance with Newton's laws. @ my: "But him saying that makes him perjurous (since he had just renounced heliocentrism under oath) and does in no way prove him any discoverer." A.) He demonstrated it before with his telescope observations. B.) Yes it would make him perjurous, seeing whereas he was in danger of execution did he not tell a lie I can not blame him. When you have people who will not listen to reason running the court you have to be very careful with what you say. @ my: "Proofs not big talk or big talk under ones breath is what validates a discovery." I was referring to the basis for his statement "but it moves" -his observations with the telescope. @ my: "I had said: and non-A, since geocentrism is (on that account at least) acceptable, it proves, if accepted that there is a God who turns all the universe around," Key words "if accepted." The only reason to accept it however is to assume that there is a supernatural force keeping it in place (ie. God). Therefore it can not be a proof for the existence of God, because the existence of God is implicit in it's assumption. A better proof would be to say that we observe things (the Earth included) moving about through the universe, and that everything that started moving had a cause and then point to the original cause as God. But this would not entail rejecting known science. @ my: "Not any empirical knowledge I know to validate it." There are four forces in the universe. The strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. The first two are short range the third is canceled out in ordinary matter, thereby leaving only gravity to act in systems such as the solar system. The empirical evidence is that once you use Newton's laws, the mass of the Earth, and the distance from the Earth to the sun, you can accurately compute the length of the year, based on the theory that the Earth goes around the sun. We can then experimentally observe that the length of the year corresponds to what we expected with our theory thereby giving evidence of our theory. [I had no time to answer that he is mixing direct empiric evidence with conclusions] @ my: "I had said: as gravity and masses cannot fix a geocentric universe." What empirical evidence do you have for this? Certainly gravity can unfix it regardless. (the sun being heavier would automatically jerk the Earth out of its position at the center of the solar system) Also without a center of mass how can you define what you mean by a "center" in the first place? Remember an empty universe with no masses or forces by definition has no center. So if the center is not dependent on mass or force it is by definition simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. @ my: "Another of the consequences of heliocentric error. You know, you start up with one false position, and before you know you end up with a lot of them. Like this. Which is purely theoretical, totally non-empiric." No, that was actually based on relativity and non-locality in quantum mechanics -neither of which have anything to do with heliocentrism. Relativity (the original Michelson-Morley motivation notwithstanding) is based on observations of particles moving close to the speed of light in accelerators. The GR version is discovered based on time dilation experiments between the ground and the tops of tall skyscrapers. And non-locality is a quantum effect observed in labs. To unify GR with QM we are required to come up with a theory that is by definition more fundamental than space-time. Since space and time are relationally defined (for example the center of an empty universe without relations between particles would be everywhere and nowhere) and the positions of particles are defined by the wave-function, one can invert the order of variable and function in the wave-function to find that space and time are wave-function dependent. Thus whenever the same values of the wave-function repeat space also repeats -thereby showing that the universe is "wrapped around" on itself. Now we will need astronomy to show it experimentally, but we can deduce that without any relation to anything outside of the earth. In theory both relativity theories could be deduced and proven without reference to anything outside the earth either. Now how do you know geocentrism is valid? What experimental evidence do you have for it? @ my: "Supposing there be no minds and wills to do so." Supposing also that do not live in the Matrix either where such things are programmed to be, or that a flying spaghetti monster is not tethering the earth in place. (I don't like to use the atheists toy here, but the "God of the no gaps" begs for it) The point being that insofar as we can know anything at all with science, we have no reason to believe that a mind or will is fixing the earth in place. It's not observed and it's converse (heliocentrism) is far more simple and explanatory. WE DO HOWEVER have good scientific reason to believe that the universe is inside of a MIND! (Universal Orch-OR) That line of reasoning does not require unobservables producing unobserved forces to make theories work with the evidence that could be much more easily explained with far simpler theories anyway. Hans, I'm curious how do you explain retrograde motion for not just one but all of the planets? Why is it that these retrograde motions all just happen to perfectly coincide with what would be the case if the Copernican model and Newtonian gravity were true? You have to admit that's an awfully weird coincidence if the Copernican model were not true. (this is not to mention the coincidence's involved with Kepler's laws) And how do you explain why every other planet in every other discovered solar system orbits about it's star whereas ours is the only one in the universe that does not? [Leaving aside two words between him and thread owner].
Me : This last point : It is not weird if Copernican model modified by Keplerian elliptic orbits is untrue [and] if [instead]Tychonian model modified by Keplerian elliptic orbits is true. If Heliocentric model is false, we do not know any distances to the stars, beyond the fact that they are outside "solar system" where distances can be measured by sun shine and angles of reflection. In that case, we do not know there is anything as far away as "4 light years" or even beyond, and in that case we do not know anything about exoplanets having comparable sizes or not. As for argument, it is not more impressive by bringing in exoplanets than as a critique of Tychonian system. There also it is insufficient as disproof of direct sense observation. @ his: "Um no they are not known to concur with everyone else's. That is why geocentrism is not believed in anymore -you being the single exception I have seen to that rule." Oh, you are saying no one else sees sun move in heaven and earth stand still below us? REMEMBER: I was talking about direct sense observation. The exception being Armstrong and company on the moon - a tiny one compared to six billion pairs of eyes and inner ears. I said: you admit that gravity cannot fix the geocentric world. "On the contrary:" and quoting yourself: "So even if the sun rotated around the Earth it would quickly fall into an equilibrium position and reverse itself -with the Earth going around the sun" Exactly. That is precisely the admission I was talking about: gravity cannot fix geocentric universe as a stable thing. Heliocentrism is unobserved. It is concluded, but certainly not observed. @ his: "But we do. We have scientists observing it via the trajectories of solar probes. The sun is the center of gravity of the solar system and all smaller objects orbit about it very precisely in accordance with Newton's laws." Duh .... to my knowledge nothing has been sent into the sun to observe earth from there. It would burn. We have no heliocentric observations. We have heliocentric conclusions - of that once you explain what solar probes are and of other things - but we have no heliocentric observations. And very few lunocentric ones (Armstrong et c). [Maybe I misunderstood, and there were things sent to sun that indeed burnt up in it] On Galileo: @ his: "A.) He demonstrated it before with his telescope observations." What? That Jupiter has satellites - yes, I accept that. That Jupiter has a red spot - yes, I accept that too. That earth moves or sun stands still? No way José. @ his: "B.) Yes it would make him perjurous, seeing whereas he was in danger of execution did he not tell a lie I can not blame him. When you have people who will not listen to reason running the court you have to be very careful with what you say." Tell that to the Christian martyrs of old, will you. As for your insult to the reason of among other judges St Robert Bellarmine, it is enough to show you historically unbalanced, it does not show you scientifically balanced. You screw up your logic too: I had said: and non-A, since geocentrism is (on that account at least) acceptable, it proves, if accepted that there is a God who turns all the universe around, @ his: "Key words "if accepted." The only reason to accept... it however is to assume that there is a supernatural force keeping it in place (ie. God). Therefore it can not be a proof for the existence of God, because the existence of God is implicit in it's assumption." Not at all. The possibility of God running the universe is sufficient to make geocentrism acceptable, but is per se not a reason to accept it. The reason to accept it is our sense observation. Unless this is proven to be illusoric, which it can only be to an atheist. Wherefore it serves to prove existence of God. Sorry to say it pal, but you have been quite a bit brainwashed since Kant tried to refute five ways of St Thomas Aquinas that way. @ his: ý"Now how do you know geocentrism is valid? What experimental evidence do you have for it?" Two eyes. Two inner ears. Both telling earth stands still. The former also that sun moves in relation to this still standing earth. Prima facie this is evidence for geocentrism. If this can be proven illusoric, the prima facie is not enough. But since this has not been proven illusoric, the prima facie evidence is enough. [As his answer will show, he misunderstood what I said about prima facie]. @ his: "Relativity (the original Michelson-Morley motivation notwithstanding) is based on observations of particles moving close to the speed of light in accelerators." Very easy to observe those particles, right? @ his: "The GR version is discovered based on time dilation experiments between the ground and the tops of tall skyscrapers. And non-locality is a quantum effect observed in labs." Time dilation? Sure it is not just clock works slowing down? Non-locality? You mean of particles below microscopic observation size, or something? Again: very easy to observe, right? When something is easy to observe, we do have a basis of empiric nature. When observations are so hard they have to be supplemented by conclusions, we really have less of such. I will take the two eyes and the two inner ears above particle accelerators and lab stuff any day. I said: Supposing there be no minds and wills to do so. @ his: "Supposing also that do not live in the Matrix either where such things are programmed to be, or that a flying spaghetti monster is not tethering the earth in place. (I don't like to use the atheists toy here, but the "God of the no gaps" begs for it)" Sorry, but it is rather heliocentrism that calls for comparisons with Matrix. @ his: "The point being that insofar as we can know anything at all with science, we have no reason to believe that a mind or will is fixing the earth in place. It's not observed and it's converse (heliocentrism) is far more simple and explanatory." Earth staying in place IS observed by about everyone, including yourself when not engaged in heliocentric thought and forgetful of such obervation. @ his: "WE DO HOWEVER have good scientific reason to believe that the universe is inside of a MIND! (Universal Orch-OR) That line of reasoning does not require unobservables producing unobserved forces to make theories work with the evidence that could be much more easily explained with far simpler theories anyway." Now, IS that "mind" as in "wave-function" disguised in unattractive terminology like "universal Orch-OR" really an observable reality? You are far from convincing me, I am more inclined, even next to convinced you have far too materialistic a view of what mind is. Mind is capable of knowing truth: not necessarily every mind capable of knowing every truth, but generally speaking any mind is capable of knowing any truth within its intellectual and or empiric reach. Mind is also capable of controlling matter. Every time you lift a tea cup your mind is controlling the matter of your hands in an attempt - often enough successful, I hope - to control the matter known as ceramics/porcelaine by which you even more indirectly control the hot and fluid matter known as tea. Do feel free to exchange word "tea" and "tea cup" for anything you like better, even if it should be coffee. @ his: "There are four forces in the universe. The strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. The first two are short range the third is canceled out in ordinary matter, thereby leaving only gravity to act in systems such as the solar system." You left out only that mind rules more or less matter. @ his: "The empirical evidence is that once you use Newton's laws, the mass of the Earth, and the distance from the Earth to the sun, you can accurately compute the length of the year, based on the theory that the Earth goes around the sun. We can then experimentally observe that the length of the year corresponds to what we expected with our theory thereby giving evidence of our theory." Assuming you just left out unintentionnally mass of the sun, you DO leave out that neither mass of sun nor mass of earth are known outside this paradigm. Except by wagers about solidity of surface material. Just saw your profile. You like CSL, right. Mind rules matter (well, more or less of it) is a principle illustrated on astronomical matter - though in a heliocentric scenario ("Arbol field") by the Oyarsas in one of his novel series. The principle as such is of course implied by anything remotely approaching Berkeleyan philosophy. You do have direct introspective knowledge that mind rules parts of what you perceive as matter. You have only remotely conclusional knowledge of universe having "only" the four fources of which electromagnetism is too cancelled out and two other too short range to leave "anything" but gravitation as explaining observed astronomy.
- @ my: "Exactly. That is precisely the admission I was talking about: gravity cannot fix geocentric universe as a stable thing." What I was getting at is that nothing could. Since there was a significant amount of time before us -I would suspect it would take only 50 years or so for this transition to occur- even if we started out in a geocentric solar system we would certainly be in a heliocentric solar system now. @ my: "Mind rules matter (well, more or less of it) is a principle illustrated on astronomical matter" Yes but we have no reason to believe that mind is ruling matter in this way rather in a conventional way. It would make our star system a highly bizarre one in the entire universe -which is therefore just as unlikely for it to be true. The general rule of thumb is that in science we approach issues with relative caution. Even if matter is dependent on mind -which in some specific cases I find valid -it does not therefore follow that insane conclusions are also valid -even though they might in principle be valid. Geocentrism is about as off kilter as flat-earth theory or Fomenko's views of history in that regard. @ my: "Two eyes." Um, we see the earth spinning though. All we have to do is look up at the sky and see ourselves moving relative to the sun in the day and relative to the stars at night. And seeing the retrograde motion of the planets as we move past them at faster rates depending on which angle we are at at a point in our orbit. @ my: "Two inner ears." Inner ears only determine stillness relative to a field of force they are in. Since the fluid in your inner ear is tugged down by the same gravitational force that tugs you down, you'd never catch it. And if you doubt however that the Earth's rotation exists because of this just observe the Coriolis force in a water fountain next time you take a drink in public. @ my: "Both [eyes and inner ears] telling earth stands still." By these same set of standards one could argue that the Earth is flat rather than round. Why? We have two eyes to see that it is flat and we have inner ears which tell us that up is up and down is down and that therefore the people in Australia would fall off of the Earth. But this kind of reasoning is obviously wrong. It is not taking into account the nature of the forces being used. (the fact that they are central forces etc.) @ my: "The former [i e eyes but not inner ears] also that sun moves in relation to this still standing earth. Prima facie this is evidence for geocentrism." I've never seen that though. I've seen the Earth move relative to the sun and that is why we see the sun in different positions during the day. @ my: "If this can be proven illusoric, the prima facie is not enough. But since this has not been proven illusoric, the prima facie evidence is enough." Look technically (assuming that is that we treat the instantaneous angular acceleration as non-existent) we can pick any reference frame for our reference frame and call it the "center." So technically you can hold to geocentrism -sort of (you will still have a problem with the angular acceleration/Coriolis force) however this doesn't mean anything other than a mathematical construct as "center" doesn't even mean anything in outer space unless we mean "center of gravity." You do not take the universe to be a hypersphere so that concludes that space must extend to infinity. Where is the center of an infinite universe? You measure off infinity from both sides and find the center but half of infinity is also infinity and so the center is both at a point and an infinite distance from that point. Hence the center is both everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Thus it is entirely meaningless to say that there even is such a thing as a center in (not just mine but your's also) the universe. @ my: "[geocentrism] proves, if accepted" No you screwed your logic up. You can't prove things that are already built into the presuppositions from which you are supposed to be proving things. That is the fallacy of circular reasoning. If accept A then it proves A, but that is not a valid argument. And geocentrism is only acceptable if we make all sorts of bizarre and unnecessary assumptions -to explain the exact sort of data that we could just as well explain without a massively contrived theory. @ my: "The reason to accept it is our sense observation. Unless this is proven to be illusoric, which it can only be to an atheist." It's not "illusoric" at all, because it does not appear to do what you are saying. And it is not true that it can only be that way to an atheist. As it is that way to 99.999% of people -theist or atheist. If it can ONLY be that way to an atheist then that means heliocentrists can only be atheists. But that is a rather ad hoc assumption. Before reference to any evidence there is no reason whatsoever why theists would be geocentric or heliocentric or atheists for that matter. However what you are doing when you say this is arguing that one can not believe in science and believe in God, which A.) is simple false, and B.) plays right into the "new atheists" hands. (I mean who would be a theist if it openly contradicted science?) @ my: "Wherefore it serves to prove existence of God." No it doesn't prove any such thing, because the premises for the proof are themselves erroneous. If you doubt this just look at the Coriolis force in the water fountain. @ my: "Sorry to say it pal, but you have been quite a bit brainwashed since Kant tried to refute five ways of St Thomas Aquinas that way." Um, don't you think this is the pot calling the kettle black? I mean whose holding to 1500th century views about the universe here? I mean this is literally the next worst thing than flat-earth theory. Geocentrism has almost become a cliche for "medieval quackery." As for Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas I do not believe any of the five arguments were based on purely ad hoc premises. Geocentrism is purely ad hoc since we have no evidence for a force holding the Earth in the center of the solar system -and since we further more have no idea of what it would even mean for there to be a "center" in outer space without reference to a force. And since we have never observed this force of yours we can't say that the Earth is in a "center" either -unless perhaps you want to go the purely Galilean relativity route -but that is indistinguishable mathematically from heliocentrism or for that matter lunocentrism or marsocentrism. @ my: "If Heliocentric model is false, we do not know any distances to the stars, beyond the fact that they are outside "solar system" where distances can be measured by sun shine and angles of reflection." Sure we could. First of all it would... be quite fantastical to assume that all of the stars just happen to coincide at EXACTLY the same speed around the Earth. But still we could tell based on relative angles of reflections. (A geocentric universe can still be modeled mathematically as heliocentric for all practical purposes) @ my: "In that case, we do not know there is anything as far away as "4 light years" or even beyond, and in that case we do not know anything about exoplanets having comparable sizes or not." But geocentrism is mathematically indistinguishable from heliocentrism as far as motion is concerned. So that doesn't follow. The rest of astronomy still holds. Now it is worth noting here that for geocentrism to hold this would mean that our star system just happens to be the only one that behaves as it does. Wouldn't that be highly ad hoc? @ my: "As for argument, it is not more impressive by bringing in exoplanets than as a critique of Tychonian system." No, it would show the highly ad hoc nature of a geocentric solar system. Which would argue strongly against it. @ my: "There also it is insufficient as disproof of direct sense observation." But there isn't any direct sense observations of geocentrism.
Me: I said: Exactly. That is precisely the admission I was talking about: gravity cannot fix geocentric universe as a stable thing. @ his: "What I was getting at is that nothing could. Since there was a significant amount of time before us -I would suspect it would take only 50 years or so for this transition to occur- even if we started out in a geocentric solar system we would certainly be in a heliocentric solar system now." Ah, if nothing can fix a geocentric universe, gravity cannot fix a geocentric universe. Gravity cannot, but if there be a mind mighter than the matter gravitations, speeds et c of the universe it can. So, rule out God, rule out geocentrism. Admit geocentrism and you have proven God. Mind rules matter (well, more or less of it) is a principle illustrated on astronomical matter @ his: "Yes but we have no reason to believe that mind is ruling matter in this way rather in a conventional way." Conventional way being what? @ his: " It would make our star system a highly bizarre one in the entire universe -which is therefore just as unlikely for it to be true." Statistics prove geocentric universe to be unlikely. Statistics probably prove ANY universe at all unlikely. So they are no argument against our eyes. Furthermore your argument presupposes stars are in size comparable to sun and exoplanets comparable to earth. This in turn presupposes "generally accepted" distance measures, closest ones by parallax triangulation. And parallax triangulation presupposes heliocentrism. How that? If you observe a star at slightly different angles at mid summer and mid winter solstices, heliocentrism means earth has moved a known distance and we have observed it from two points: earth at mid summer and earth at mid winter, star itself remaining in same position, leaving us with two known angles and a known distance. Geocentrism means that SUN rather than earth has moved a known distance, and star an unknown distance leaving us with only one known angle. If stars are very much closer than conluded by heliocentrics, they might also be very much smaller than sun and exoplanets very much smaller than earth. @ his: "The general rule of thumb is that in science we approach issues with relative caution. Even if matter is dependent on mind -which in some specific cases I find valid -it does not therefore follow that insane conclusions are also valid -even though they might in principle be valid. Geocentrism is about as off kilter as flat-earth theory or Fomenko's views of history in that regard." I have no idea what Fomenko's view of history is. I do know that a flat earth was ruled out by Eratosthenes and fully disproven practically by Magellan. My plea is: your arguments for heliocentrism do not amount even to Eratosthenes, let alone Magellan. As for caution in science, it might have been well to apply it before accepting heliocentrism. St Robert Bellarmine stood for such caution. Galileo did not. I said [about prima facie evidence for geocentrism]: Two eyes. @ his: "Um, we see the earth spinning though. All we have to do is look up at the sky and see ourselves moving relative to the sun in the day and relative to the stars at night. And seeing the retrograde motion of the planets as we move past them at faster rates depending on which angle we are at at a point in our orbit." Your argument is not about seeing but about interpreting sight according to heliocentric paradigm. We do not see ourselves moving relative to the sun, we see the sun moving relative to us. Before we reinterprete that as seeing ourselves moving relative to the sun, I prefer a sound proof, which this "observation of us moving" is not. [Two inner ears.] I said: Both [eyes and inner ears] telling earth stands still. @ his: "By these same set of standards one could argue that the Earth is flat rather than round. Why? We have two eyes to see that it is flat and we have inner ears which tell us that up is up and down is down" Eyes cannot distinguish between relatively flat (which earth is indeed to our size) and absolutely flat. BUT they CAN see that the flattest thing there is, i e sea water level, is really curved at sailing distances. Sails getting low last and all that. Even on very calm days from very high towers where waves can absolutely not have hidden "the boat itself" (whatever that is in English) before the mast. @ his: "and that therefore the people in Australia would fall off of the Earth. But this kind of reasoning is obviously wrong. It is not taking into account the nature of the forces being used. (the fact that they are central forces etc.)" Indeed, but here eyes themselves offer a corrective. @ his: "Inner ears only determine stillness relative to a field of force they are in. Since the fluid in your inner ear is tugged down by the same gravitational force that tugs you down, you'd never catch it." May be a valid explanation for Armstrong on moon. Before accepting it as valid for us on earth, I want sound proof. Prima facie eyes and inner ears do tell us earth stands still. @ his: "And if you doubt however that the Earth's rotation exists because of this just observe the Coriolis force in a water fountain next time you take a drink in public." I have been arguing about coriolis more than just once, I actually looked it up in the version Foucault's pendulum on Wikipedia. Seems such a pendulum would turn around a full circle once every 24 hours at poles, considerably slower further down and not at all at equator. AND phenomenon is equally explicable (as the cannon balls dropped from Tower of Pisa) by rotation of universe around earth every day. Which is explicable by a God ruling it. I said: The former also that sun moves in relation to this still standing earth. Prima facie this is evidence for geocentrism. @ his: "I've never seen that though. I've seen the Earth move relative to the sun and that is why we see the sun in different positions during the day." That is not a description of what you see, it is an heliocentric analysis or reinterpretation of your geocentric observation. I had said: If this can be proven illusoric, the prima facie is not enough. But since this has not been proven illusoric, the prima facie evidence is enough. I will not quote your answer, as it is all very correct in your modern cosmology paradigm, but that one is based on heliocentrism, so basically, in order to disprove the geocentrism for which there is prima facie evidence, you assume the heliocentrism, which has none such within eye sight. @ his: "No you screwed your logic up. You can't prove things that are already built into the presuppositions from which you are supposed to be proving things. That is the fallacy of circular reasoning." If they are built in as proofs I cannot, it would be circular reasoning. Not so if they are built in as explanations or as possible explanations. @ his: "If accept A then it proves A, but that is not a valid argument." Indeed not, and neither is it the argument I made. @ his: "And geocentrism is only acceptable if we make all sorts of bizarre and unnecessary assumptions -to explain the exact sort of data that we could just as well explain without a massively contrived theory." The fact that mind rules matter is not a contrived theory. That and a mind controlling ALL the matter there is are enough to explain geocentrism. It is rather heliocentrism that gets you into lots of contrived theories, such a General Relativity and a Univere without a centre in space being wrapped up around itself in hyperspace. Occam, heard of his razor? I remember from your earlier remarks that you have. But it seems you are so used to using it only on God and on angels that you omit using it on heliocentrism and modern cosmology. @ his: "If it can ONLY be that way to an atheist then that means heliocentrists can only be atheists." No. The disproof for geocentrism is that gravity and masses and inertia - i e blind physical forces - would not allow it. As a disproof that is only valid for people assuming those are all there ultimately is to reality, i e materialistic atheists. The Christians and other Theists who nevertheless accept geocentrism as disproven on that account are simply giving in more to atheism than they need according to their own beliefs. @ his: "However what you are doing when you say this is arguing that one can not believe in science and believe in God," I am not. I do believe in God and in bacteriology as of Pasteur. I do believe in God and in Mendel's laws of heredity. I do believe in God and in these laws proving general stability of chromosome numbers. I do believe chromosome fusions occur, but not chromosome splits except very soon after resplits, before the original telomere matter has disappeared in newly unified chromosome. The human chromosome supposed to correspond to two chimp ones cannot resplit. @ his: " which A.) is simple false, and B.) plays right into the "new atheists" hands. (I mean who would be a theist if it openly contradicted science?)" Depends very much on how secure one thinks science is. I believe Christian dogma o be secure and entrusted to episcopacy. I do not believe that astronomers constitute another episcopacy. Once again about the prima facie evidence for geocentrism: The reason to accept it is our sense observation. Unless this is proven to be illusoric, which it can only be to an atheist. @ his: "It's not "illusoric" at all, because it does not appear to do what you are saying." Not even APPEAR TO? Remember, I never said sense evidence was full foolproof irrefutable proof for geocentrism. Only a prima facie evidence, which theoretically might be over turned by better arguments. @ his: "And it is not true that it can only be that way to an atheist. As it is that way to 99.999% of people -theist or atheist." That amount of people are not the number fully rationnally convinced of heliocentrism, rather the number who learned it in school, mastered repeating its arguments and neglecting any contrary ones as "obvious" misunderstandings", because they were educated in modern schools, compulsorily, and with compulsory education in precisely heliocentrsim, and that going on for a some few generations before the oldest alive now. @ my "Sorry to say it pal, but you have been quite a bit brainwashed since Kant tried to refute five ways of St Thomas Aquinas that way." you answered: "Um, don't you think this is the pot calling the kettle black? I mean whose holding to 1500th century views about the universe here? I mean this is literally the next worst thing than flat-earth theory. Geocentrism has almost become a cliche for 'medieval quackery.'" Well, talking about 15th C views, how do you know which C has the best and most correct views? By assuming the correctness of yuour own C's? @ his: "As for Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas I do not believe any of the five arguments were based on purely ad hoc premises." They were indeed not. BUT the premisses of proof for God are also explananda with God for their explanation. And Kant saw that as them "presupposing God" i e he diagnosed circular argument when the argumentation was sense observation (including geocentrism for prima via) to God and the explanation was God to sense observations. @ his: "Geocentrism is purely ad hoc since we have no evidence for a force holding the Earth in the center of the solar system" Not centre of solar system. Centre of universe. And the evidence we have is the same as for geocentrism itself, i e the most obvious interpretation of our sense observations. @ his: " -and since we further more have no idea of what it would even mean for there to be a "center" in outer space without reference to a force." Forgetting about geometry, no doubt. Centre is the point within circumference that is most equidistant to points on that circumference. @ his: "And since we have never observed this force of yours we can't say that the Earth is in a "center" either -unless perhaps you want to go the purely Galilean relativity route -but that is indistinguishable mathematically from heliocentrism or for that matter lunocentrism or marsocentrism." Except that marsocentrism and heliocentrism have never been observed, geocentrism is normally observed and lunocetrism has been observed a very few times under abnormal conditions (in space suits, observers need ing to get back to geocentric observations in order to survive and live normally). I said: If Heliocentric model is false, we do not know any distances to the stars, beyond the fact that they are outside "solar system" where distances can be measured by sun shine and angles of reflection. Now instead of following up and really checking out what follows if geocentrism is accepted, you hurry to argue against it: "Sure we could. First of all it would be quite fantastical to assume that all of the stars just happen to coincide at EXACTLY the same speed around the Earth." Why? [Then you go on:] "But still we could tell based on relative angles of reflections. (A geocentric universe can still be modeled mathematically as heliocentric for all practical purposes)" For practical purposes within solar system, yes. For the very theoretical purpose of measuring star distances by parallax triangulation - no. You are in fact assuming geocentrism as a childish view of acentric universe and heliocentric solar system to be corrected as quickly as possible. That is: refusing to take its implications seriously at all. If heliocentrism is true about earth, the apparent movements of proxima Centauri are parallactic to real annual movements of earth. There is then a known distance, between earth and earth at different times of year. It can be used for triangulation along with two angles: earth at summer to star as "seen from" earth at winter, earth at winter and star as "seen from" earth at summer. In order to make the same triangulation for a geocentric universe you have to assume same distance made by proxima Centauri - before realising this is a synonym for heliocentric solar system, which indeed it is, wherefore geocentrism [i e taken seriosuly]does not warrant that triangulation.
Another thread starts by this link:
http://www.geocentrism.com/Catholic_Geocentrism_1
MR: Why? It insults reason and intellect.
CK: It does?
CT: Yes, it does.
LR: They're probably young-earth creationists, too. Haha!
Me: Levi Russell, though I have so far received no invitation to that conference, I submit without shame or self-denigration: I am a young earth creationist TOO.
CT: All young earth creationists deny that our God is the God of reason. This is an idea offensive to pious ears and detrimental to faith.
Me, @CT answering also a few other points: a) you are asking Geocentrics to take it from you that Foucault's pendulum proves earth to be moving? Or you presume Geocentrics have never heard of Foucault's pendulum or that we are predicting another result than the one we get? b) you presume that Denzinger is a comlete list of binding definitions - but that has not been defined either: a) because it is not an offical Vatican document - correct me if I am wrong - b) because that is not in Denzinger, indeed the title Enchiridion (hand-book in Greek) does not aim at absolute completion.
CT: a) Because Foucault's pendulum is understood by actual physicists as being proof of the Earth's rotation. You know: people who know more about this than you. You could also look at any of thousands of satellite time-lapses of the Earth which depict it rotating, or listen to astronauts who have seen it rotate with their own eyes. Morons... b) Denzinger does include all De Fide definitions up to the present. If the Earth was ever defined as the center of the universe (which, by the way, the Church has no power whatsoever to do anyway, as it is not a matter of faith or morals), it would definitely be in Denzinger. But that's okay. I'd also happily accept the citation from the original Conciliar document or Papal bull so defining it. But lacking either of these, I think it best for you to simply keep silent on this point.
By the way, there is a name for what you and [other person] are attempting to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie Just deny the the obvious vigourously enough and eventually somebody will believe you, right? [other person brought in what subjects one majored in] Okay, well I actually majored in mathematics. I didn't just take a few classes.
Me: a) @ his: "You could also look at any of thousands of satellite time-lapses of the Earth which depict it rotating, or listen to astronauts who have seen it rotate with their own eyes." Would not I as a Geocentric explain that like Heliocentrics explain the contrary apparence, which is by far the most common one? I do. @ his: "Because Foucault's pendulum is understood by actual physicists as being proof of the Earth's rotation. You know: people who know more about this than you." They DO know more about how Foucaults pendulum works than I, there I am simply their pupil. Via Wikipedia. They do NOT know logic better than I and therefore they do NOT know better than I if Foucault's pendulum proves the earth to be moving. In that respect, they only know their theories about it better than they - and you - think I know these selfsame theories.
b) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
@ his: "If the Earth was ever defined as the center of the universe, it would definitely be in Denzinger." Not if Denzinger was being too apologetic about former thing. @ his: "which, by the way, the Church has no power whatsoever to do anyway, as it is not a matter of faith or morals" should be: which, by the way, the Church has no power whatsoever to do anyway, _unless it be_ a matter of faith or morals; relation to faith: veracity of book of Joshua and of orders used by speakers related to miracles (put that in doubt and you can equally put reality of demons in doubt, though Christ expelled them) relation to morals: heliocentrism is not at all obvious as such to the common man and involves a very big reliance, not only for observations, but also for conclusions and therefore applied logic on specialists - a kind of gnosticism as for "big lie" I am arguing that that is precisely what HELIO-centrism is. C, if you majored in mathematics, you will enjoy what implications geocentrism have for trigonometry of parallax triangulation.
CT: @ my: "should be: which, by the way, the Church has no power whatsoever to do anyway, _unless it be_ a matter of faith or morals" No, it should be as I wrote it. There was no error in my prose. @ my: "relation to faith: veracity of book of Joshua" Ridiculous. There is no contradiction in saying that the Earth revolves about the Sun and that at a particular time, the Sun stood still in the sky. A Copernican view of the solar system does not rob us of the usual metaphors we use to describe celestial phenomena. We continue to this day to say that the sun rises and sets. This is a complete red herring from you. @ my: "relation to morals: heliocentrism is not at all obvious as such to the common man and involves a very big reliance, not only for observations, but also for conclusions and therefore applied logic on specialists - a kind of gnosticism" Even more absurd If you use almost any type of technology today, you rely on the expertise of certain scientific specialists. Do you drive a car? Use a microwave? A camera to photograph family events? Are these all gnosticism? To say so is beyond stupid. Even if you had valid points here, which you decided do not, it matters not a whit whether the proposition is related to faith and morals. I could play six degrees of faith and morals all day long with every manner of proposition. The proposition itself has to concern faith or morals. No dice. Sorry. [@?? he added:] Seeing is believing, gentlemen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmmv0gOfWw That's time-lapse photography of the Earth from the Galileo satellite. Notice the odd circular motion about its axis. We call that rotation.
Me: Even before looking at video: Would not I as a Geocentric explain that like Heliocentrics explain the contrary apparence, which is by far the most common one? I do. Why bother to repeat a point I already refuted? Fly a chopper around a tower, film tower from chopper and tower will appear to be turning. @ his: "There is no contradiction in saying that the Earth revolves about the Sun and that at a particular time, the Sun stood still in the sky. A Copernican view of the solar system does not rob us of the usual metaphors we use to describe celestial phenomena." You forget my point - very conveniently - about words of Joshua. And their relation to words of Christ when exorcising demons. Will you agree with some modern psychiatrists that demons also were only a metaphor? Hope not. Credo in unum Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem, ... factorem visibilum et INVISIBILIUM ... and that is in Denzinger. It is also in Holy Mass. I said: heliocentrism is not at all obvious as such to the common man and involves a very big reliance, _not only for observations, but also for conclusions and therefore applied logic_ on specialists - a kind of gnosticism @ his: "Even more absurd... If you use almost any type of technology today, you rely on the expertise of certain scientific specialists. Do you drive a car? Use a microwave? A camera to photograph family events? Are these all gnosticism? To say so is beyond stupid." I need not rely for experts on logic or conclusions for that. The use I make is my experiment and my logic as much as theirs says it works. They may be slightly off the hook on why it works, that is beside the point. Using technology as an argument for relying on experts in every theoretical question is an argument for a kind of gnosticism. @ his: "The proposition itself has to concern faith or morals." Faith in veracity of a miracle worker is involved in faith. Morals are involved by that implication, your stance on relying on experts being a kind of idolatry or superstition.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
