Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter cassini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So why does having the sun at the centre of the solar system stop us from focusing on God? Once again, that’s like saying gravity is an infringement of God holding us to the earth Himself. God uses gravity to hold us on earth, just like He can use a sun centred solar system to provide us light and warmth.
Conall. Let us compare the two systems:

White on the Doctrine of Geocentricism

‘This doctrine was of the highest respectability: it had been developed at a very early period, and had been elaborated until it accounted well for the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies; its final name, ‘Ptolemaic theory,’ carried weight; and, having thus come from antiquity into the Christian world, St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jewish Tabernacle was ‘‘a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe’’: nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture.
Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the Middle Ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation.
Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. They were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.
The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: ‘‘Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man – that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe, that he may both serve and be served.’’ The vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real astronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo.
The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect between Aristotle and Newton ; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this he carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.
Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all; the God Triune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as the Pope seated in the chair of St Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding the Pope; the three great order of angels in heaven, as real as the three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the whole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and all moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the feudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.
Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it, under the inspiration of Cosmas; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated by angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly bodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next, Mercury; the next, Venus; the next, the sun; the next three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was the primum mobile, and enclosing all was the tenth heaven, the Empyrean. This was immovable, a boundary between creation and the great outer void; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat enthroned, the ‘music of the spheres’ rising to Him as they moved. Thus was the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.
 
Continued Conell

In attendance upon the Divine Majesty, thus enthroned, are vast hosts of angels, who are divided into three hierarchies, one serving in the empyrean, one in the heavens between the empyrean and the earth, and one on the earth. Each of these hierarchies is divided into three choirs, or orders; the first, into the orders of Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; and the main occupation of these is to chant incessantly – to ‘‘continually cry’’ the divine praises. The order of Thrones conveys God’s will to the second hierarchy, which serves in the movable heavens. This second hierarchy is also made up of three orders. The first of these, the order of Dominions, receives the divine commands; the second, the order of Powers, moves the heavens, sun, moon, planets, and stars, opens and shuts the ‘‘windows of heaven,’’ and brings to pass all other celestial phenomena; the third, the order of Empire, guards the others.
The third and lowest hierarchy is also made up of three orders. First of these are the Principalities, the guardian spirits of nations and kingdoms. Next come Archangels; these protect religion, and bear the prayers of the saints to the foot of God’s throne. Finally come Angels; these care for earthly affairs in general, one being appointed to each mortal, and others taking charge of the qualities of plants, metals, stones and the like. Throughout the whole system, from the great Triune God to the lowest group of angels, we see at work the mystic power attached to the triangle and sacred number three – the same which gave the triune deities in Egypt, and which transmitted this theological gift to the Christian world, especially through the Egyptian Athanasius.
Below the earth is hell. This is tenanted by the angels who rebelled under the lead of Lucifer, prince of the seraphim –the former favourite of the Trinity; but, of these rebellious angels, some still rove among the planetary spheres, and give trouble to the good angels; others pervade the atmosphere about the earth, carrying lightning, storm, drought, and hail; others infest earthly society, tempting men to sin; but Peter Lombard and St Thomas Aquinas take pains to show that the work of these devils is, after all, but to discipline man or to mete out deserved punishment.
All this vast scheme had been so riveted into the Ptolemaic view by the use of biblical texts and theological reasoning that the resultant system of the universe was considered impregnable and final. To attack it was blasphemy.
It stood for centuries. Great theological men of science like Vincent of Beauvais and Cardinal d’Ailly, devoted themselves to showing not only that it was supported by Scripture, but also that it supported Scripture. Thus was the geocentric theory embedded in the beliefs and aspirations, in the hopes and fears of Christendom down to the middle of the sixteenth century.’

Now see how heliocentricism gets people thinking on God:

‘From such beginnings [the Copernican revolution], an alternative explanation of the universe came into being [evolutionism]. It didn’t involve gods, at least directly, so it didn’t much favour with the priestly class. Some of their descendants are still trying to stamp it out, even today. The traditional priesthoods eventually worked out an accommodation with this godless way of thinking, but it’s still not popular with creationists, tabloid astrologers, postmodernists and others who prefer the answers you can make up at home.’ Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press/Random House, 1999, p.31.

‘It was Freud who observed that after Copernicus, belief in God who had created the world and kept it in his care was no longer tenable. Although four-and-a-half centuries after the great astronomer’s death, there are millions who have still not heard the bad news.’ John Banville: Irish Times, December 31, 1999.

‘HAWKING AND THE MIND OF GOD. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God…his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest.’ John Banville: Irish Times, December 31, 1999.

There are three examples of heliocentricism Conall. Perhaps that answers your question.
 
I told you elsewhere that St Paul advised me even if an angel of light were to appear before me and tell me to ignore the papal decree of 1616 ad a null and void piece of rubbish, not to believe him. There is your answer for all to read.
are you saying that you literally received a personal revelation from St. Paul?
 
"since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

If this statement, issued directly by Pope Urban through the Congregation is not a declaration of immutability, then we speak different languages.

Here’s more for others to read
Code:
   “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine [Here the Commission quotes Bellarmine’s letter]:
‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, …-that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.’

… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you.
“And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.” ’
May I suggest that in his book Galileo was claiming the right to deny traditional interpretations of Scripture and to substitute what amounted to a conclusioin to a thought experiment of his own devising. To this I add that in 1635 Galileo was a long way from having produced the scientific model produced by Newton a generation later with the aid of much better research and with superior mathetmaical tools. In short, Galileo was challenging the authority of Scripture at the very time that Europe was embroiled in religious civil war, which had produced
a veritable tidal wave of radical skepticism. One response to this would be Descartes’ new philosophy; another, fideism. Galileo was playing with fire, but with the egotism of a child, he insisted on pouring oil on the fire until he had caught the attention of everyone. What I find funny is the puniness of the penance imposed on him. It seems as thougth everyone involved in this affair had some sense of how ridiculous it all was. In the end, Galileo was given “time out” in the corner of the room and verbally spanked.
 
are you saying that you literally received a personal revelation from St. Paul?
Are you saying you don’t know the Word of God?

St. Paul:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8, cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14)
For those who don’t know, the magisterium, which of course includes the pope, has never overturned the Church’s authoritative ruling that this opinion - let’s call it a-geocentrism - is “heretical” and “formal heresy”. We Catholic geocentrists believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from ever declaring something to be a heresy that is not in fact a heresy. If anyone can produce evidence to the contrary, I should like to see it.

At the same time, the Church has chosen, under Her God-given Authority, not to enforce this ruling - to loose the faithful - for the time being. And we saw this right at the outset:
…we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.” ’
This view preserves the perfection and infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority, therefore I believe it is true.
 
Are you saying you don’t know the Word of God?

St. Paul:

For those who don’t know, the magisterium, which of course includes the pope, has never overturned the Church’s authoritative ruling that this opinion - let’s call it a-geocentrism - is “heretical” and “formal heresy”. We Catholic geocentrists believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from ever declaring something to be a heresy that is not in fact a heresy. If anyone can produce evidence to the contrary, I should like to see it.

At the same time, the Church has chosen, under Her God-given Authority, not to enforce this ruling - to loose the faithful - for the time being. And we saw this right at the outset:

This view preserves the perfection and infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority, therefore I believe it is true.
Geocentricism is NOT a teaching of the Church and is NOT something Catholics must believe and accept.
 
Are you saying you don’t know the Word of God?
how do you get that from the supplied scripture? cassini said he was advised by St. Paul.
“I told you elsewhere that St Paul advised me even if an angel of light were to appear before me and tell me to ignore the papal decree of 1616 ad a null and void piece of rubbish, not to believe him. There is your answer for all to read.”
looks alot different from the Scripture you qouted,
For those who don’t know, the magisterium, which of course includes the pope, has never overturned the Church’s authoritative ruling that this opinion - let’s call it a-geocentrism - is “heretical” and “formal heresy”. We Catholic geocentrists believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from ever declaring something to be a heresy that is not in fact a heresy. If anyone can produce evidence to the contrary, I should like to see it.
give it time it took the church 400 years to officially admit the mistake, until 1992.

geocentrism is wrong, even the church now admits it, these arguments have already been crushed on the faith and science thread

they are just so much conspiracy theory crackpottery
 
geocentrism is wrong, even the church now admits it, these arguments have already been crushed on the faith and science thread

they are just so much conspiracy theory crackpottery
It’s a fact that mainstream science acknowledges that they haven’t falsified geocentrism, and that they can’t under Special Relativity. So “crush” all you want.
 
We know all but a few have denied God’s word that the world is geocentric. We know all but a few deny the fact that it is impossible to tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or the earth relative to the sun. Most accept relativity but reject its consequences. Most ridicule those who accept relativity as a fact and geocentricism as a consequence of this fact.
Relativity does not support this idea of yours that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

You need to understand acceleration and centripetal force. A mass like the sun would not be captured by the earth’s gravity. It is too massive to change direction continuously to form a circular orbit around the earth. It would require a huge force to make the sun do that, much larger than the force of the Earth’s gravity. What do you suppose provides that force?

It doesn’t make much sense.
 
It’s a fact that mainstream science acknowledges that they haven’t falsified geocentrism, and that they can’t under Special Relativity. So “crush” all you want.
who are these mainstream scientists? because we can see from observational evidence of other star systems, and observational evidence of this star system from various spacecraft that geocentrism is wrong.

in other words we can actually see that geocentrism is wrong, and all the scientists i know would laugh at the idea.

bty, i didnt crush them, the physicists on the boards did.
 
who are these mainstream scientists? because we can see from observational evidence of other star systems, and observational evidence of this star system from various spacecraft that geocentrism is wrong.

in other words we can actually see that geocentrism is wrong, and all the scientists i know would laugh at the idea.

bty, i didnt crush them, the physicists on the boards did.
What you say is simply not true. You can go to Wikipedia, no friend of creationists or geocentrists, right now and see this:
Non-falsifiability of geocentrism
If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone.[dubious – discuss] Ideas such as this which are not falsifiable may be true[dubious – discuss], but they are not scientific theories.
Modern geocentrists have pointed out when defending their beliefs that physics allows for geocentric descriptions that can describe the physical universe if one allows for non-inertial reference frames.[citation needed]
And you can go look at the discussions there. But that quote, or something like it, has been there for at least a couple years since I first became interested in the issue. So if you’re saying that mainstream science has actually falsified geocentrism, then are you saying there’s some grand conspiracy going on at Wikipedia?

P.S. sorry if I made it sound like you were one of the crushers!
 
What you say is simply not true. You can go to Wikipedia, no friend of creationists or geocentrists, right now and see this:
not true? we have sent out many spacecraft all over the solar system, from which one can observe the solar system, we have seen other star systems with their planets occluding their stars, which is how we find them.
And you can go look at the discussions there. But that quote, or something like it, has been there for at least a couple years since I first became interested in the issue. So if you’re saying that mainstream science has actually falsified geocentrism, then are you saying there’s some grand conspiracy going on at Wikipedia?
P.S. sorry if I made it sound like you were one of the crushers!
Falsifiability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term “Testability” is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

see, those observations do falsify your position. to put it in laymans terms, pictures don’t lie. geocentrism is falsifiable, and is also false from those observations. it is testable and it fails.
 
see, those observations do falsify your position. to put it in laymans terms, pictures don’t lie. geocentrism is falsifiable, and is also false from those observations. it is testable and it fails.
So it is a conspiracy! You really should go to Wikipedia and inform them that geocentrism has already been falsified.
 
What you say is simply not true. You can go to Wikipedia, no friend of creationists or geocentrists, right now and:
If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone.[dubious – discuss] Ideas such as this which are not falsifiable may be true[dubious – discuss], but they are not scientific theories.
Luke, perhaps you could explain to those of us who are less scientifically inclined what a ‘non-intertial reference frame’ is?

I’m more familiar with normal, inertial reference frames. In an inertial reference frame, when a big heavy object moves in a circle, it’s actually accelerating constantly. That’s why it would be hard work to spin a heavy stone or other object around you on a rope. It wants to go straight.

To spin something the size of the earth around a point, you would need an extremely large force to keep it from going straight. That force could only be provided by the gravity from something much larger, like the sun.

To spin something like the sun around a point, you would need something much larger than the sun to provide the gravitational force to keep it from continuing in a straight line. The earth wouldn’t be strong enough.

So if the earth is sitting still, with the sun moving around it, where does the force come from that makes the sun keep going in a circle? Does God do that miraculously? If so, do you have a theory as to why he does that in our solar system, but in the others he just lets the law of gravity govern those things?
 
who are these mainstream scientists? because we can see from observational evidence of other star systems, and observational evidence of this star system from various spacecraft that geocentrism is wrong.

in other words we can actually see that geocentrism is wrong, and all the scientists i know would laugh at the idea.

bty, i didnt crush them, the physicists on the boards did.
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problems with a heliocentric universe…it’s a model that facilitates the scientific view. However, one must understand that, in order to accept a heliocentric universe, one must put the sun as being stationnary first, something which is just as ridiculous as putting the earth stationnary, realistically speaking. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong in using such a model in order to better understand the realtionship between the sun and planets.

One might argue that the sun “causes” the earth to move and therefore such can be viewed as a realistic situation. However, the sun is not the cause, but the spacetime curvature which is itself caused by, not only the sun, but everything within the universe, is the existing cause.
To reply and say, that since the sun is the greatest
influence on the spacetime curvature within our solar system
, we can therefore use the sun as the only cause for simplicity.
I fully agree; however, this testifies the use of a heliocentric universe to be taken as a model only and does not form part of what reality actually is.

So a heliocentric universe can certainly be used for scientific purposes…but what model ought we to use for a philosophical or religious setting? Why put the sun stationary in this case? Why not the philosophical subject itself, the observer? If Galileo inserted the heliocentric views of the universe into the arena of religion, then, in my opinion, he was wrong…unless you could show me that the heliocentric universe is indeed a reality and not simply a model.

Andre
 
So it is a conspiracy! You really should go to Wikipedia and inform them that geocentrism has already been falsified.
no, its observational evidence that invalidates the view of geocentrism. geocentrism is proven wrong.🙂
 
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problems with a heliocentric universe…it’s a model that facilitates the scientific view. However, one must understand that, in order to accept a heliocentric universe, one must put the sun as being stationnary first, something which is just as ridiculous as putting the earth stationnary, realistically speaking. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong in using such a model in order to better understand the realtionship between the sun and planets.

One might argue that the sun “causes” the earth to move and therefore such can be viewed as a realistic situation. However, the sun is not the cause, but the spacetime curvature which is itself caused by, not only the sun, but everything within the universe, is the existing cause.
To reply and say, that since the sun is the greatest
influence on the spacetime curvature within our solar system
, we can therefore use the sun as the only cause for simplicity.
I fully agree; however, this testifies the use of a heliocentric universe to be taken as a model only and does not form part of what reality actually is.

So a heliocentric universe can certainly be used for scientific purposes…but what model ought we to use for a philosophical or religious setting? Why put the sun stationary in this case? Why not the philosophical subject itself, the observer? If Galileo inserted the heliocentric views of the universe into the arena of religion, then, in my opinion, he was wrong…unless you could show me that the heliocentric universe is indeed a reality and not simply a model.

Andre
i dont understand why the sun must be stationary. we have observational evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system. it being stationary would seem to be unimportant

i dont see how a philosophical or religious setting influences the observational evidence.

geocentrism is proven false by that evidence.
 
no, its observational evidence that invalidates the view of geocentrism. geocentrism is proven wrong.🙂
Okay, then you should have no problem producing a peer-reviewed scientific study declaring that they have falsified geocentrism. Can we see one please? After all, we’ve been waiting for 400 years since Galileo “proved” it.
 
So a heliocentric universe can certainly be used for scientific purposes…but what model ought we to use for a philosophical or religious setting? Why put the sun stationary in this case? Why not the philosophical subject itself, the observer? If Galileo inserted the heliocentric views of the universe into the arena of religion, then, in my opinion, he was wrong…unless you could show me that the heliocentric universe is indeed a reality and not simply a model.
Hmm… yes heliocentrism isn’t completely correct, but its a lot more accurate than geocentrism. It was a scientific theory that improved upon the existing theory. Of course its not completely correct.

Sure, geocentrism has a lot of use for philosophy and day-to-day things here on earth. It’s a lot more convenient to say that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. But you can’t argue that it is more accurate.
 
Luke, perhaps you could explain to those of us who are less scientifically inclined what a ‘non-intertial reference frame’ is?
Hey Neil, I’m not an expert in science either, but I do know that a ‘non-inertial reference frame’ can mean, as we saw in their quote, using an immobile earth as a reference point, which scientists do all the time when they launch rockets into space.
To spin something like the sun around a point, you would need something much larger than the sun to provide the gravitational force to keep it from continuing in a straight line. The earth wouldn’t be strong enough.
Would the universe suffice? 😉 You have to keep in mind that all the mass in the universe affects everything else - and I’ll finish the point next.
So if the earth is sitting still, with the sun moving around it, where does the force come from that makes the sun keep going in a circle? Does God do that miraculously?
:rolleyes: No, God set everything in motion in the beginning, as the Church Fathers taught. So, to answer your questions, just imagine that God created a spherical, bounded universe so perfectly balanced and fine tuned that the earth is the immobile gravitational center. Go ahead and ask a scientist if this is feasible, reminding them, if necessary, about the mind boggling fine tuning of the universe that modern science has revealed. But keep in mind, every man is a liar, only God is true. :bowdown: So I’ll stick with the unanimous opinion of the Fathers based on their interpretation of Scripture. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top