Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 12:55 AM
350 online now:
granpa, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), RAZD (3 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,955 Year: 25,561/21,208 Month: 1,188/2,338 Week: 309/450 Day: 2/72 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   New Geocentrist Blunder
ringo
Member
Posts: 13730
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 31 of 53 (749129)
02-02-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
02-01-2015 9:08 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
Faith writes:

... he had to learn the Bible on his own.


Did he learn it from commentaries like you did, or did he actually read it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 02-01-2015 9:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 53 (749147)
02-02-2015 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
02-01-2015 9:08 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
Much like the Catholic Church had explained ALL religious truth, and were unquestionable in their proclamation of that truth, Aristotle was regarded as the absolute and final authority on the truth of all physical matters. Of course, had anything that Aristotle taught about the physical world conflicted with the Catholic teaching of the Bible, they would have rejected it. Instead, Aristotle's ideas fit well within the framework of the Bible.

So yes, the Catholic Church embraced Aristotle, but it was the absolute, unquestionable authority that was the issue, not the association itself. Sound familiar?

It was really Aristotle that inspired the Roman Church and was the cause of the persecution of Galileo, not the Bible, although I'm sure they tried to put it all together as if the Bible said the same thing, which it doesn't.

I would be interested to see the evidence from the Bible for a heliocentric model of the universe. I say a straight-forward, simple reading of the Bible puts it sharply at odds with Copernicus and Galileo's discoveries. There are those who argue that it was Copernicus and not Darwin who began the descent of modern man into accepting evidence external from the Bible over the Biblical revelation itself.

Perhaps you could build a case for the Bible teaching heliocentricism as opposed to geocentricism?

Perhaps you could debunk the claim that ancient Hebrew cosmology looked something like the image below?

The image includes references to pertinent scriptures to get you started.

Thanks,

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 02-01-2015 9:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 1:58 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 53 (749152)
02-02-2015 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by herebedragons
02-02-2015 1:43 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
I don't think there is Biblical evidence for either a geocentric or heliocentric universe. The picture you post basically gives the natural understanding of how things look from earth but doesn't provide any case for a geocentric universe as such. What Galileo said doesn't contradict the way things look from earth anyway, it just explains the observable movements more exactly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 1:43 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 2:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 3:01 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 53 (749155)
02-02-2015 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
02-02-2015 1:58 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
I don't think there is Biblical evidence for either a geocentric or heliocentric universe.

I completely agree, but I am not a Biblical-literalist / inerrantist.

The picture you post basically gives the natural understanding of how things look from earth

Not exactly. It is a model of cosmology based on ancient Hebrew writings. So it's not an image of how things look from the ground, but how the ancient Hebrews described the cosmos based on their worldview.

but doesn't provide any case for a geocentric universe as such

Sure it does. The earth is stationary and the entire cosmos moves around in the "firmament." That IS geocentric.

What Galileo said doesn't contradict the way things look from earth anyway,

But it does contradict specific statements from the Bible. I didn't want to make this another discussion of how the Bible is in error, so I thought it could be approached slightly different. I thought maybe you could support the case that the Bible DOES support heliocentricism without having to resort to evidence from outside the Bible.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 1:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:03 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 35 of 53 (749169)
02-02-2015 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
02-02-2015 1:58 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
What Galileo said doesn't contradict the way things look from earth anyway, it just explains the observable movements more exactly.

Well, not just more exactly. The thing is, if you have a Copernican universe, than certain facts, in particular the retrograde motions of the planets, how and when and where they occur, follow naturally from Copernicism. But if you have a Ptolemaic universe, then there are more degrees of freedom, the solar system could look Copernican, or it could look completely different. It takes a knife-edge balance of the figures to make a Ptolemaic universe look Copernican --- a mere hair's breadth adjustment to a single figure, and it wouldn't.

So, we live in a universe that looks Copernican. To say that it is really Ptolemaic, we would need to suppose either:

(1) The Ptolemaic universe is a result of natural causes, and the reason it looks Copernican is the result of a coincidence which is literally infinity to one against.

(2) The Ptolemaic universe was made as is by God, who carefully fine-tuned every single one of its parameters so as to make it look like Galileo is right, because he really likes fucking with physicists.

That's an argument that could have been --- and was --- made in Galileo's time. Today, we have an actual theory of gravity, and the parallel argument with respect to that is still stronger. If we're not right, then we're either the victim of an enormous naturalistic coincidence, or of vast supernatural malice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 1:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 53 (749171)
02-02-2015 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by herebedragons
02-02-2015 2:15 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
Yes the image is geocentric but it doesn't MAKE A CASE for geocentrism was my point. The Bible describes the physical universe from the point of view of earth, I don't see that as a case for geocentrism as a scientific concept.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 2:15 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 53 (749173)
02-02-2015 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2015 3:01 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
Not getting your point I'm afraid. From the point of view of Earth it's the things in the sky that are moving, that's all the "geocentrism" I think is implied in the Biblical descriptions. There were certainly people who studied the heavens in Biblical times and had very detailed understanding of the movements of the planets, but they never came up with heliocentrism. They were astrologers rather than astronomers who were quite aware of the retrograde movement of the planets because their interpretations took all that into account, without understanding it from the perspective of physics.

So what am I missing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 3:28 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 38 of 53 (749177)
02-02-2015 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
02-02-2015 3:10 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
So what am I missing?

Well, for example, consider the planets Venus and Mercury. We never see these very far from the Sun. In the Copernican system, this is because they never are very far from the Sun. But in the Ptolemaic system, the system has to be very exactly fine-tuned for any planets to behave like that. Change just one figure, and we'd always see them opposite the Sun, or 90 degrees round from it. Change another figure even by a fraction, and their position relative to the Sun would change century by century. EIther way, if we change the figures, they stop looking Copernican.

Again, consider the retrograde motion of the outer planets. In the Copernican system, they must go retrograde when, and only when, we see them as being in the opposite direction to the Sun. But in the Ptolemaic system, if you change one figure, we could always see them going retrograde when they're near the Sun, or at 90 degrees to it, or whatever, which would be inexplicable in the Copernican system; change another figure even very slightly, and the angle would shift year on year, which again wouldn't look Copernican.

So someone creating a Ptolemaic system would have to choose all these figures very precisely to make it look as though we were living in a Copernican system. It would amount to deliberate fraud.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 39 of 53 (749178)
02-02-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2015 3:28 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Who is trying to make anything "look" Copernican? The ancient astrologers charted what they could chart, what's this business about changing the numbers and why would they do that?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 53 (749185)
02-02-2015 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2015 3:28 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
I think my confusion comes down to not knowing why you keep referring to the "Ptolemaic" system. I suppose you are talking about the RC Church's problem with Galileo but you've completely lost me. I'm trying to say that I don't think there is any Biblical position on geocentrism that could have been used against Galileo because it's only a descriptive system of how things look from Earth, and shouldn't become an obstacle to changing to a heliocentric perspective. Making the Biblical decriptions into a scientific claim is the problem and I suppose that's what the RC Church did in melding it with Aristotle's system.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 10:26 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 41 of 53 (749199)
02-02-2015 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2015 3:01 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
I don't think that anyone who subscribes to geocentricism is going to be concerned about fine-tuning. In fact, many see this fine-tuning as evidence that the universe was created by God in a miraculous way (read that: in the way they believe it was done). So I'm not sure that going from fine-tuning in the nth degree to fine-tuning in the (n*n)th degree is going to make any difference.

I think an easier way to explain the problem is how a Ptolemaic model cannot be explain by the forces and theories we can observe and verify. For instance, I am sure you have seen the orbits of the planets in a geocentric model that look like they have been drawn with a Spirograph. There is no way that gravity, as we know it and understand it could explain orbits like those. So, from the perspective of the earth the orbits could be following those crazy paths, and it would match our observations. However, we would have to completely discard our understanding of gravity along with several other observable and verifiable phenomenon such as parallax, conservation of momentum, angular momentum, etc.

Interestingly, one could also imagine an earth that was created a mere 6,000 years ago that looks just like it does today. But in the same way, the processes we know and observe could never explain that model. Mutation, adaptation, plate tectonics, and many more, would need to be completely revised and probably even scraped to make sense of a world that functioned in that way.

Of course, anyone who subscribes to geocentricism would not be swayed by those arguments either

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2015 9:50 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 42 of 53 (749201)
02-02-2015 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by herebedragons
02-02-2015 9:24 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
I don't think that anyone who subscribes to geocentricism is going to be concerned about fine-tuning. In fact, many see this fine-tuning as evidence that the universe was created by God in a miraculous way (read that: in the way they believe it was done). So I'm not sure that going from fine-tuning in the nth degree to fine-tuning in the (n*n)th degree is going to make any difference.

But the point is that it would have to be fine-tuned to look Copernican. In effect, the solar system would have to be a big lie carefully designed to catch us out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 9:24 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 53 (749202)
02-02-2015 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
02-02-2015 3:59 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
The Ptolemaic system is the geocentric model that was developed by Claudius Ptolemaeus. It was pretty much the standard model of the cosmos for about 1,500 years.

Making the Biblical decriptions into a scientific claim is the problem

Yes, I agree. But that is exactly what is being done with youth earth creationist models.

because it's only a descriptive system of how things look from Earth, and shouldn't become an obstacle to changing to a heliocentric perspective.

But, the objection is that a simple, literal reading of the Bible gives an image of a geocentric model and not heliocentric. The change in models came from evidence that was gather externally from the Bible, not from the Biblical passages themselves. In this way it is no different than evolutionary models supplanting 6-day creation models. An understanding of the physical world that had a long standing, well established acceptance by the orthodox religious institution (which you value very highly) was rejected in favor of scientific discoveries (which you believe are fraught with uncertainties).

It is just like our discussion about the "windows of heaven" we had some time ago. Why consider the term "windows of heaven" to be understood as figurative when it is in the midst of a whole bunch of stuff that is meant to be taken literally? Is it because we know from evidence external to the Bible that there is no such thing as "windows of heaven?"

From a literalistic, inerrant perspective, the Bible DOES have a clear position on geocentricism. So, why are you willing to abandon that clear Biblical teaching for the fallacies of scientific discovery?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqT7-XZYTY
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 3:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 10:52 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 53 (749204)
02-02-2015 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by herebedragons
02-02-2015 10:26 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
Yes I know more or less what the Ptolemaic system is, I just don't see how it fits into a discussion of the Bible's geocentric views which aren't a scientific system, just a description of what is observed of the sky from Earth. The Biblical descriptions pre-existed Ptolemy by millennia.

An image isn't a scientific system.

I have no problem with extrabibilical information that makes sense of things WITHOUT CONTRADICTING THE BIBLE, since the Bible doesn't try to explain everything. I don't see that the heliocentric system contradicts the Bible, it merely allows a new perspective on the same information that's expressed in the geocentric view. Evolution on the other hand directly contradicts the Bible.

Yes the image is geocentric, and it's "scientific" to the extent that it gives an account of what is actually seen, but it's not scientific in the sense of trying to explain what is seen, how the observed movements occur and so on. That remained for the heliocentric explanation.

I don't remember much about the discussion of the windows of heaven unfortunately but I would not have said anything like what I'm saying here because I believe the "windows" describes something real that existed before the Flood and no longer exists, though the term "windows" I regard as a poetic expression of the experience of the deluge from the sky as if from openings.

The image you posted, on the other hand, reflects an interpretation of the heavens as even we see them now from Earth.

I'm not up to looking at the links, is there anything there I really need to see?

I suspect that what is called geocentrism is mostly anthropocentrism anyway. The Bible IS very clear that humanity is God's special Creation, and as the geocentrists in the video at the beginning of the thread point out. this idea is supported by the barrenness of life on other planets. That's about the extent of my willingness to entertain geocentrism.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2015 10:26 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2015 2:36 PM Faith has responded
 Message 50 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2015 9:04 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 45 of 53 (749271)
02-03-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
02-02-2015 10:52 PM


Re: Geocentrists I have known.
Yes I know more or less what the Ptolemaic system is, I just don't see how it fits into a discussion of the Bible's geocentric views which aren't a scientific system, just a description of what is observed of the sky from Earth.

Well, OK, if that's all you want to say, then great. We shouldn't say that the Bible presents us with a "scientific system"? That's fine by me. The Catholic Church, being evil, wanted to interpret the Bible too literally? Maybe they did.

You want to be an evolutionist now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-02-2015 10:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 02-03-2015 2:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017