Universal Laws of Heavenly Bodies

[LightningClap0002]

It's kind of a cause and effect thing happening and I must have skipped some steps. Pick up a textbook on evolution some day and read it. Then read the bible. Compare the two and see what You come up with. In that same textbook there may even be a philosophy on the big bang, the beginning of the Universe. Read that one too. Then read the bible. You should come up with the same conclusion you get when you compare evolution with the bible. But maybe not.

I assume you are a Christian. Sometimes assuming can be wrong.

Grandpa, have you studied philosophy? Have you studied science?

There are two problems with the argument that you have presented.

First and foremost, you are attempting to support a claim that science assumes God doesn't exist. You are attempting to prove this by presenting a single case. See fallacy of incomplete evidence.

Secondly, your example itself doesn't even support your original claim. The claim that science assumes no God requires providing evidence about the nature of science. I will assume then, that you are alternatively trying to prove that SCIENTISTS assume that there is no God when creating theories and running experiments. Your argument still falls to support this claim. Darwin himself was raised Catholic, for a time studied (poorly) to be a clergyman. From what I've read of his biography, he did lose his faith, not really as a result of his scientific endeavors as much as a result of seeing the cruelty of slavery and the terrible living conditions of people around the world. As it has with many, it begged the question "how could a loving God allow this." But again, Darwin's early science did not assume God didn't exist.

 

[LightningClap0002]

I've not taken a position. The evidence is weighing heavily for geocentricity, though. I find the defenses of heliocentricity increasingly contrived.

Respectfully, after experiencing your aversion to original-language scripture texts, I'm left underwhelmed by your processes of reasoning and substantiation.

Your debate isn't really with me, though.

Pneuma, if someone were to demonstrate that all of the other planets in our solar system, or furthermore, that planets from other solar systems orbit the sun (or their respective stars), would that be sufficient evidence for you to embrace a heliocentric view? Further note that heliocentrists only claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, whereas geocentrists claim that the earth is the center of EVERYTHING.

I guess really what I'm asking is would you allow science to prove to you anything that isn't "plain to see"?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Pneuma, if someone were to demonstrate that all of the other planets in our solar system, or furthermore, that planets from other solar systems orbit the sun (or their respective stars), would that be sufficient evidence for you to embrace a heliocentric view? Further note that heliocentrists only claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, whereas geocentrists claim that the earth is the center of EVERYTHING.

I guess really what I'm asking is would you allow science to prove to you anything that isn't "plain to see"?

I spent the vast majority of my life assenting to an array of facts from every quarter, including science and theology. It's not like I've spent a lifetime rejecting everything and never believed the postulations of science and other secular sources.

I am compelled at this stage of life to examine everything much more critically. I've moved away from orthodox positions of doctrine where necessary to pursue truth at any cost. I intend to do the same in areas of science, etc.

Science is, indeed, a philosophical pursuit at its core. There's certainly a difference in a variety of sciences. I have much more challenge for cosmology than, say, metallurgy. Astronomy is certainly a different discipline than biology.

Empirically quantifying and qualifying the cosmos well beyond tactile experience is much different than more constrained areas of observation and experimentation.

Hypothetical and theoretical sciences are much different than "smaller" disciplines.

If you'd adequately answer Strange's simple trig question, that would be a great start.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Pneuma, if someone were to demonstrate that all of the other planets in our solar system, or furthermore, that planets from other solar systems orbit the sun (or their respective stars), would that be sufficient evidence for you to embrace a heliocentric view? Further note that heliocentrists only claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, whereas geocentrists claim that the earth is the center of EVERYTHING.

I guess really what I'm asking is would you allow science to prove to you anything that isn't "plain to see"?

And besides... How would you do that? If any of the trigonometry, etc. is hypothetical and speculative, then all of it is subject to scrutiny. You'd have to solve the baseline presumption issue.

 

[Strangelove]

Grandpa, it sounds like you have a problem with schools...

However, you are again arguing against something that I have not attempted to assert and to which I don't disagree.

My question remains, where are you getting your facts? Mine come from interacting with many scientists and by spending several years studying philosophy, including much time studying the philosophy of science.

Theres no such thing.

Theres absolute science. And theres philosophy. The 2 dont mix.

 

[Strangelove]

Easy Doc. not changing bedfellows only agreeing with the truth bud BTW I have been gone all day left the lappy on here so thats prolly why you figure I wasn't answering.

When it comes to science Doc. I am not reaching for support I am trying to teach you the truth but you refuse to listen because of your unfounded belief in a few select passages that you have misinterpreted.
Don.t care how you want to spin this with word play or fruedian confusion tactics I am NOT wrong about my beliefs in the scientific field That we discuss. You bring forth NOTHING for empiracal evidence just a bunch of voodoo claptrap that others of the Christian faith use to denounce scientific fact because their little minds can't grasp the concept and they can't make it jive with scripture because once again their little minds can't understand basic science.

I will bring forward empirical evidence as soon as you confirm that space is a perfect vacuum made up of absolute nothingness.

Is that definately your position?

I notice also that you address none of the scripture I brought forward.

God SET the moon AND Sun forth in their courses.

 

[Strangelove]

Oh let me guess you wanna use the old a day is as a thousand years unto the lord line.

WRONG

Misinterpreted metaphor bud try again

Huh?

I was asking the question to AOK. I asked if that was HIS position.

Your heads really cloudy Musky. Guns akimbo eh?

 

[Strangelove]

Hogwash your claptrap info is just that he recanted to save his head nothing more!

Then how do you explain this:

[Galileo's Recantation excludes two points included in the original formula for abjuration presented to him by the Cardinals. These two points, objected to by Galileo, would have had him declare that he was not a good Catholic and that he deceived others in publishing his book.]

??

 

[Muskokaman]

Theres no such thing.

Theres absolute science. And theres philosophy. The 2 dont mix.

yOU kNOW dOC. tHAT'S WHAT i TOLD jIMMY!

LOL

 

[Strangelove]

Have you ever looked through a telescope Zone?

How does looking through a telescope prove heliocentricity?

2 quotes from world class Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the phrase “Big Bang theory”:

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

 

[Muskokaman]

Then how do you explain this:

[Galileo's Recantation excludes two points included in the original formula for abjuration presented to him by the Cardinals. These two points, objected to by Galileo, would have had him declare that he was not a good Catholic and that he deceived others in publishing his book.]

??

SOURCE PLEASE?

 

[Strangelove]

That's Doc.s Talmudic regime doing that has nothing to do with the thread!

Jewish fables buddy. Your falling for them again. Open your mind to the possibility you might be wrong.

 

[Strangelove]

Get a telescope and see for your self believe me they don't paint the stars on the end of the telescope you know

Lolz?

Ok I agree stars are real...so what?

Is the trigonometry they use to measure star distances real or hypothetical?

Answer the question and stop DODGING.

 

[Muskokaman]

Lolz?

Ok I agree stars are real...so what?

Is the trigonometry they use to measure star distances real or hypothetical?

000000Answer the question and stop DODGING.

The math is good Doc. and yes that means it's real

 

[Muskokaman]

How does looking through a telescope prove heliocentricity?

2 quotes from world class Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the phrase “Big Bang theory”:

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

Hoyle was a heliocentricist Doc. that quote is from the 40's before the knew about the Cosmic microwave background

 

[Strangelove]

The math is good Doc. and yes that means it's real

The baseline for the trig assumes the earth orbits the sun. It is false, unless you can PROVE the earth orbits the sun.

Do you have proof the earth orbits the sun?

Only after you supply this proof can you say the trig is real.

Looking forward to your evidences.

 

[Strangelove]

Hoyle was a heliocentricist Doc. that quote is from the 40's before the knew about the Cosmic microwave background

Cosmic microwave background doesnt mean anything. Why do you trust these people?

Its all based on hypathetical science.

By the way can you document that this quote is from the 40's? Not saying your wrong but I'd be interested to see the proof. Thanks.

 

[Strangelove]

SOURCE PLEASE?

Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 312-313.

 

[Strangelove]

I've never met even one professing Christian who believes in geocentricity. Not one.

Hey!....................

 

[Strangelove]

Just like any metaphor written in the bible it's all subject to interpretation perhaps a day to God is a billion years and the planet is 4.5 billion according to carbon 14 dating.
Perhaps just maybe when moses was being told all this by God, God had to propound it in a very simplified way so that the common people would be able to Grasp the concept of Creation.
From what I can tell modern science is doing more to prove the biblical scriptures accurate to an unbelievable degree than than any church has for the last 1900 years especially when it comes to the creation of the Universe

Do you Know why it says in the Bible God is in all things and all things are in him?

Here's a hint;

GOD IS THE UNIVERSE
The Alpha and the Omega

every piece of matter every ounce of energy came from him it is his to do with whatever he will. The form or image of God is what he lets us see it is not his entirety.
God in Creation made the Ultimate sacrifice of forever by pouring out his spirit upon the void he made everything from himself it was the ultimate expression of love.
This ideology is mirrored in the cruxifiction when Jesus sacrifices all to save us wretched unworthy sinners with his own blood so that we may not perish from our sins but have everlasting life.

Perhaps this is what God meant when he told us of being luke warm and wanting to spew us out of his mouth?

So you are saying you believe carbon dating and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?