Does time have a beginning?

[JDaniel]

I don;t disagree, but how would that be a response to a question which is whether or not time had a beginning. Of course, in a sense, this question may not be decidable in our world, however, it is found that entropy increases with time in a closed system. If there were a time when there was close to zero entropy, then I suppose that this would mark the beginning of time.

Sid:

Right you are. It is not a response to, did time begin; it was a response to Plato, from this thread. The original question was, “Does time have a beginning?” The purposes of my previous posts were to help define certain properties of time so that a much fuller explanation would make sense and would not entail a tremendous amount of quibbling over definitions. I will tell you that what I have said has as its foundation the arguments of Aristotle and Aquinas, primarily, and Kant and Bergson, secondarily.

Time is definitely a tough exigency to define or describe. To answer the opening question is to carefully and properly define what time is. Kant perceived time to be conceptual, i.e., in the mind only. Bergson went the opposite direction, investing time with a “fully real” status like “motion” itself.

But while Time is never without Motion it is NOT Motion, per se; for time is common to all forms of motion, local motion, quantitative motion and qualitative change. While each of these motions is transpiring, the same time is passing. All we need to do is look at our watches or clocks for verification of this. Furthermore, what we perceive is the same, not three different kinds of motion as regards time.

In our experiences with motion, we have discovered that motion can be faster or slower. A fast motion is one that covers a given space in a shorter time, while a slow motion covers that same space in a longer time. Notwithstanding the fact that faster motion tends to reduce the time it take to traverse a given space, while a slower motion tends to increase it, if we check our watches or clocks we will easily see that the same time is passing.

Now, if time were motion, our descriptions would have to be much different. We would have to describe, for example, a slower time as one that covers a given space in a long time, while a faster time would cover that same space in a shorter time. If that were the case, time would be measured by time, which is not so. However, time does not go faster or slower. Time is essentially constant and it is motions that go faster or slower.

Now, as is clear, time, though not the same as motion, is never without motion. Thus, if the universe had a beginning, as the majority of astronomers and cosmologists suggest, then time began at the instant the first motion occurred (which we assume is the instant of the big bang). However, this seems to be a point of impasse. Is the creation of the universe correlative with the eternal existence of God, or, could God create things, including the universe, at “times” relative to the beings that He creates and that can sense motion and thus time?

There is no question that trillions of things (and beings) have come to be at trillions of different “times” across the span of time of the universe. Is the Universe just another one of those trillions of things? Or, was the universe created in stages? Or, did the Universe occur at the “beginning” of eternity - in which case it should not be suffering the demise of entropy now?

jd

 

[schwank111]

cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

this website has some really interesting information about how science proves the existence of God. One of them is about the beginning of time and why they know time had a beginning.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Motion is merely change specifically referring to change in location.

Time is a measure of the motion of one thing in motion compared to another thing in motion and that is ALL it is. From any motion or change, there is a time to be measured, whether it actually has been measured or not.

When measuring time, we typically use the motion of a clock or the motion of the Sun or stars. We use something with which others can also relate so as to have a standard. But as relativity points out, if everyone’s standard for the measurement of motion, time, slowed down equally, there would be no means for anyone to realize it. Time is just a comparison so if the motion being measured as well as the motion that it is being compared to change together, there is no means to perceive that anything has occurred.

But a “beginning of time”, a beginning of any change to measure, implies that no change had occurred before that moment. That means that no changing could happen. If no changing could happen, how could anything start? Even God would have to decide, make a decision, change his mind, in order to cause the initial change that began time, yet God would have had to already been in a changing state in order to do that and thus not actually begin time.

How long did God wait before he decided to start time? He could not have waited. Thus if God is eternal, changing and thus time must also be eternal.

It actually violates no Scripture, only your misunderstanding of Scriptures. Wouldn’t you prefer to ensure that you understand them properly and not be accidentally worshiping the wrong idea?

---

And btw, the “entropy of the universe” concern is merely one of being on the down sides of a pendulum swing. After the entropy has consumed it thrust, the opposite begins to have the more fundamental influence as the universe no longer seemingly expands, but seemingly contracts toward a central point. The process is endless and must be so, else the entire universe could not exist.

 

[cassini]

This is fun.

James, I like you. Alas you see we have come to a dead end. Albert thinks he has proof so he is not for thinking. Until I can show him a big thing orbiting a little thing he is not for turning either. I have no proof for anything, falsifications by the million, but no proofs. It all comes down to sources of knowledge, Albert has only ONE. I have TWO. He is convinced by metaphysical assumptions, I am convinced by faith, falsifications, the Airy experiment, and the M&M experiment. I take my leave with another philosophical question. If man could compile a satellite bigger than the earth and blast it off into orbit, would it go around the earth or would the satellite stop and the earth go orbiting around the satellite?

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

If there is a Creator God who created all things, then he created (brought into existence) all space and time and everything that exists, other than Himself. If there is no Creator God, then there is no absolute, objective, moral order; everything is a matter of opinion, nothing is absolutely right and good; no action is absolutely morally wrong and evil. Those people who posit there is no creator, no infinitely powerful God and therefore there is no beginning of time, are also implying there is nothing absolutely, morally wrong and evil in killing millions of people for their property (or any other extreme action). If there is an absolute, objective moral order or law; is it not most important to seek to live in accordance with that moral law and rather unimportant to be so concerned with how to prove that time began when God brought creation into existance?
Does anyone want to claim there is nothing absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil in killing millions of people for their property, and therefore there is no God and time had no beginning?

 

[James_S_Saint]

James, I like you. Alas you see we have come to a dead end. Albert thinks he has proof so he is not for thinking. Until I can show him a big thing orbiting a little thing he is not for turning either. I have no proof for anything, falsifications by the million, but no proofs. It all comes down to sources of knowledge, Albert has only ONE. I have TWO. He is convinced by metaphysical assumptions, I am convinced by faith, falsifications, the Airy experiment, and the M&M experiment. I take my leave with another philosophical question.

I am a Texas Boy and tend to get along with the Irish as we have a few things in common (we have the same use for boots ). I have to admire a man who can justly hold his own even if I disagree with him. I seldom contend with those of Christian faith merely because they are being honest and toward a religion that has the potential of doing the right thing. Others either follow a faith that leads to misery for most or are just being dishonest about what they believe (which also leads to misery for most) and sometimes are just not as intellectual as they think they are and thus preach “out of school”.

I am more into the realm of understanding than faith and thus those who claim reasoning and understanding are playing in MY yard, so I have the urge to spank them like the bad little puppies they are.

If a man is going to do a thing, do it right.

 

[AlbertBall]

James, I like you. Alas you see we have come to a dead end. Albert thinks he has proof so he is not for thinking. Until I can show him a big thing orbiting a little thing he is not for turning either. I have no proof for anything, falsifications by the million, but no proofs. It all comes down to sources of knowledge, Albert has only ONE. I have TWO. He is convinced by metaphysical assumptions, I am convinced by faith, falsifications, the Airy experiment, and the M&M experiment. I take my leave with another philosophical question. If man could compile a satellite bigger than the earth and blast it off into orbit, would it go around the earth or would the satellite stop and the earth go orbiting around the satellite?

You just refuse to even entertain anything that does not comply with warped views. I have already explained to you that in order to calculated the orbit of satellites, understanding MASS, not SIZE, is imperative. Yet you still spew out “Until I can show him a big thing orbiting a little thing he”.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You just refuse to even entertain anything that does not comply with warped views.

But the thing is, Al, you appear exactly the same way to me on other issues. So this has been kind of fun to watch.

 

[AlbertBall]

But the thing is, Al, you appear exactly the same way to me on other issues. So this has been kind of fun to watch.

Well that depends what you mean, i openly admit i am only convinced by empirical evidence i have never claimed otherwise.

See post #111 of this thread,

"I have to admit, i belong to the clan of empirical evidence, and as such i am a materialist.

Edit… Actually, maybe i am a naturalist, yeah that would be a better description." - Me

Unlike what we were debating this is most certainly an area where clear empirical evidence is available. Tell me James do you believe the Sun orbits the earth? I am sure i know the answer.

 

[yppop]

Cassini,
You certainly stirred things up with your archaic beliefs. However, you seem to grasp one truth of reality and that is: mass, gravity, energy, time, momentum, and just about every other factor that constitutes science are nothing but abstractions. But I think you misunderstand the aim and nature of science. The philosophical principal of science is logical positivism, which proposes that science be guided by the following tenets:

1. rejects the idea that reality has some purpose;
2. rejects any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
3. rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
4. advocates the study of constant relationship among things without delving into the underlying causes.

The issue at hand resolves around the fourth tenet. So when you argue that “If you can show me that God did not create the earth with a MASS (whatever that is) sufficient to do the G trick according to your Newtonian thinking then I would concede/ Like I said MASS is MAGIC, it is a clever as the devil WORD that was used to fool the world into thinking Bigger is more MASSIVE.” you are correct in one sense and horribly wrong in another. Science doesn’t care what mass “IS”, Newton merely invented it as an abstraction with which he accurately described the “constant relationship among things without delving into the underlying causes.” And his approach works in that it accurately describes what God created. Science describes at an explicate level the relationships of things that God created at the ground of reality, the implicate level. So when you argue geocentrism, you are horribly wrong, for the Earth does rotate such that the sun and the rest of the cosmos appears to revolve about the earth. The stars — and the even more so — the galaxies would have to be moving a lot faster than the speed of light to get back to their starting point each night. Alpha Centauri, the nearest star, is over 4 light-years away, which means, if it revolves around the earth, would have to make a 13 light year circumlocution every 24 hours. No, it is far simpler to assume that the earth rotates. And no matter what you believe, the Coriolis effect proves that the earth rotates.

Cassini you can believe whatever you want, but please reconsider your view on heavenly motions; your geocentric position only sets you up as a straw man that the material secularists love to beat up on. We Catholics have enough trouble arguing God as a creator without having to defend our flanks when the materialists accuse us of being creationists.
Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is no such thing as “empirical evidence” and “materialism” is like arithmetic without even algebra, much less geometry and calculus.

The issue isn’t really within what you have placed your faith, but how much you argue about what you surmise from such faith. Your faith is in what Man has told you, much like Sid. I have to admire Cassine for realizing that Man is doing a lot of telling, but not really as much thinking as it pretends (as he always does).

As long as a man is arguing from faith, he doesn’t see truth, so he would have to just accidentally be on the right side. The alternative is to be very alert to how often Man deceives and get so humble that you can’t think of anything of which you can really claim as your own truth. After a while, truth comes to you, a little bit at a time. But if you stop being humble, you stop seeing any greater truth. It’s a long journey with very little arguing involved, just questions and slowly appearing answers, if your really humble. That’s just the way it is and has always been.

 

[AlbertBall]

There is no such thing as “empirical evidence” and “materialism” is like arithmetic without even algebra, much less geometry and calculus.

There is no such thing as empirical evidence? You’ve lost me ?

The issue isn’t really within what you have placed your faith, but how much you argue about what you surmise from such faith. Your faith is in what Man has told you, much like Sid. I have to admire Cassine for realizing that Man is doing a lot of telling, but not really as much thinking as it pretends (as he always does).

You will have to clarify what you are saying here. You claim my “faith is in what Man has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated scientific knowledge of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as science is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my scientific peers based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in peer reviewed papers for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the scientific method should understand this.

On the other hand this is EXACTLY what the religious do. They accept the world of man based on nothing but “faith”, i find this to be totally illogical.

As long as a man is arguing from faith, he doesn’t see truth, so he would have to just accidentally be on the right side. The alternative is to be very alert to how often Man deceives and get so humble that you can’t think of anything of which you can really claim as your own truth. After a while, truth comes to you, a little bit at a time. But if you stop being humble, you stop seeing any greater truth. It’s a long journey with very little arguing involved, just questions and slowly appearing answers, if your really humble. That’s just the way it is and has always been.

I do not ever argue from “faith” unless you are playing semantics. So we are on the same page, when i mean faith i mean faith like in the religious sense, i.e. believe without evidence.

If you want to know why i only accept empirical evidence it is really quite simple. Science is 100% the king of knowledge. When it comes to the accumulated knowledge of mankind nothing even comes CLOSE to science. It is also the only consistently reliable method i know of for determining the truth about unexplained phenomena. If you know of another then by all means enlighten me. I am not trying to shut myself off from truth, i just really care that my beliefs are true.

I notice you didn’t answer my question, do you believe the sun orbits the earth?

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is no such thing as empirical evidence? You’ve lost me ?

Cassini has pointed out something really important for you to learn about life and mankind. When you express that you function by understanding, you are stepping a bit into “my” yard, my beliefs, methods, religion, church, whatever you want to call it. When you admit that you are faithfully taking someone else’s word for something and keeping that in mind, then I’ll let you play in my yard because at least you are being honest even if being misled.

But compare these 2 quotes;

You claim my “faith is in what Man has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated scientific knowledge of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as science is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my scientific peers based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in peer reviewed papers for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the scientific method should understand this.

You claim my “faith is in what the Church has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated Holy Scriptures of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as history is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my Holy Church based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in Holy Scriptures for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit should understand this.

The Mormons have their version of “the Holy Spirit”. The Catholics have their version of “the Holy Spirit”. At one time, before you were born, Science had a version of “the Scientific Method”. Scientism has developed a newer version of “the Scientific Method”. Just as the Mormon and the Catholic can only take it on faith as to which is really following the real Holy Spirit, you can only take it on faith as to who is following the real Scientific Method.

You read articles and think, “See they say it right here and this other article says it too and look they say Hawkings confirmed it. It has to be true. The Holy Scientific Method has confirmed it.”

The atheist argues against the Scriptures with the notion that whether inspired by God or not, they were written by fallible men and worse, translated not only from language to language, but still must be interpreted into who knows what is real anymore.

Cassini has pointed out the same regarding Science’s history.

What the atheist is pointing out is that there is a great distance between you and the source that you think you are reading and interpreting properly. The literalist says “there is no interpreting. It is right here in simple black and white.” He doesn’t think that he needs to think when reading what someone wrote 2000-3000 years ago in a foreign language in a foreign culture, by virtue of foreign methods, for sake of their own children to survive the world.

You have the advantage of not having to worry too much about the spoken language issue, but the mental language issue is one you seem to not even know anything about. People think in different manners which produce sentences that don’t mean the same to everyone reading them. Reading the original Aquinas or Aristotle should make that clear. A German scientist deeply involved in technical mathematical detail says, “all things are relative” and before long people think he meant that “all things are relative”, yet he really didn’t. Just as with the Bible, you have to consider from where they are speaking when they say things.

But see, you never heard Einstein actually say anything. You never heard the Copenhagen discussions and reasonings for their final interpretations of Science theories. In fact, I doubt that you have ever heard or seen anything about Science directly for your self other than the most simple minded things that are paramount to the person who says, “but I saw it, God stopped that bus.”

You read articles, probably from magazines, some from professors in schools, but all written by someone else who had their own mindset, their own “Scientific Method” concept, and their own reasons for wanting to convince people of something. And "they are a vast many, very few of which fall into your concept of being truly honest. You are placing your faith in a LOT of people. But you think, “oh they have ‘peer review’ so I am safe”. Well guess what, so does the Catholic Church AND the Mormons.

There is a great distance between you and your source. You have only 2 options;

1. place your faith in people who you do not know, but have motives for wanting you to believe them (honest or not)
2. be humble to how easily you can be misled or deceived and critically think for yourself while you read what anyone is proposing as truth, having NO favorites.

It isn’t that Science is lying. Science doesn’t know how to lie. But people are doing the talking. Political people, like Hawkings and magazine editors who must sell magazines and struggling scientists who must agree to what the Science magisterium (consortium) require else they don’t get recognized. Publications are filtered by people who are not in public eye and thus have little need to be honest. Science is not what it was. It is not free to see and be seen. It is behind doors that you will never step through and more than you will sit in a Vatican counsel meeting.

I do not ever argue from “faith” unless you are playing semantics. So we are on the same page, when i mean faith i mean faith like in the religious sense, i.e. believe without evidence.

** Science is 100% the king of knowledge.**

Can you even conceive of how much that sounds EXACTLY like a Mormon missionary?

 

[sidbrown]

I notice you didn’t answer my question, do you believe the sun orbits the earth?

It would be interesting if he did, since apparently, James believes that the earth is flat.

And the Earth is flat. Any child can see that.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Al,

A good example of the Scientism Literalist is our Sidbrown. Throughout his arguments as he quotes others and even me, he displays reading things letter by letter without the slightest thought as to what might be the intent above those letters and words.

And btw, if you choose that number (2) that I stated above, be aware that YOU will suddenly find that you have absolutely nothing that you can say and know that you are right. Yet equally with knowing, I can say many things because many years ago, I decided to not say anything until I knew without any possible doubt that what I said was absolutely true. I suddenly, to my surprise, found that I couldn’t say anything at all. But I held onto the notion and commitment until finally one day a thought occurred to me that I could not dispute. After thinking about it considerably, I decided to write it down in a blank note book. It was awhile more before another thought occurred, but then they slowly began to filter in faster. But more importantly, they began to build upon each other into an immutable and crystalline mountain that no one could dispute. No wind, water, or faith could move that mountain, and to this day hasn’t changed it one ounce. But of course, that doesn’t mean that it can’t get buried at the bottom of the ocean of issues that plague common society today.

When I speak of what I KNOW to be true, there can be no rational question of it, by anybody. But I cannot speak freely because words mean different things to people, especially when many read the same words at the same time from their own private perspective, often with no thought applied at all and no bother to question what I might have meant other than what they presumed without thought.

 

[AlbertBall]

You claim my “faith is in what Man has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated scientific knowledge of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as science is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my scientific peers based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in peer reviewed papers for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the scientific method should understand this.

You claim my “faith is in what the Church has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated Holy Scriptures of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as history is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my Holy Church based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in Holy Scriptures for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit should understand this.

These are NOTHING like the same, you have played a silly word game with no actual understanding about subject.

I don’t mean to be rude, as i have said i have no doubt you are a great engineer. However is is blatantly clear you have an extremely limited knowledge of the scientific method. This is not a bad thing, as i would not expect someone who has not carried out and documented research to have a full understanding of the method. That being said when you make claims like* “It isn’t that Science is lying. Science doesn’t know how to lie. But people are doing the talking. Political people, like Hawkings and magazine editors who must sell magazines and struggling scientists who must agree to what the Science magisterium (consortium) require else they don’t get recognized.”* you sound a little silly.

You then go on to claim “In fact,** I doubt that you have ever heard or seen anything about Science directly for your self** other than the most simple minded things that are paramount to the person who says”. Well i can tell you that at this very moment in time i am carrying out research. You may remember i posted a few quotes to earlier in the thread correcting some of your misunderstandings when it comes to research, well the person i was quoting was ME, that was my own work.

Like i said i have no doubt you are a good engineer, but you clearly do not understand how research works, any why papers are published.
**
So lets start from here, to avoid getting bogged down. Please explain how the scriptures are results based. Please present the results and what conclusions you draw from the results. ** People also present some applications of these results.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Please try to avoid thinking that you know more about Science methods than I. I am trying to be charitable.

What you apparently cannot see AT ALL. Is that there is something between you and what you believe to be your source of information. It is that something, that causes ALL of the troubles other than your refusal to see that it is there. It is like someone watching a news program and assuming the news editor showed exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth during that 2 minute report. Even if the news team was totally honest, which I can’t even imagine, they still have a serious problem of airtime and have to choose which very short sound clip to display to the public.

With Science, airtime isn’t exactly the problem, but all of the other issues are still there. There is a team of people between you and what you have accepted as truth (from Science). You are ignoring how often such people distort even unintentionally. They have little choice, yet you seem to believe that such distortions hardly ever, if ever take place. Cassini was pointing out a typical case regardless of who was ultimately right.

It is your faith in what you think other people are saying as well as your faith in their intentions and their abilities to overcome their situation of communicating truth.

But it’s your religion. If you want to hold those people as your prophets and as your faith, go for it. But if you are arguing with me, then your religion means nothing to me. I “know” what I argue about. You have merely heard from others.

 

[AlbertBall]

Please try to avoid thinking that you know more about Science methods than I. I am trying to be charitable.

What you apparently cannot see AT ALL. Is that there is something between you and what you believe to be your source of information. It is that something, that causes ALL of the troubles other than your refusal to see that it is there. It is like someone watching a news program and assuming the news editor showed exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth during that 2 minute report. Even if the news team was totally honest, which I can’t even imagine, they still have a serious problem of airtime and have to choose which very short sound clip to display to the public.

With Science, airtime isn’t exactly the problem, but all of the other issues are still there. There is a team of people between you and what you have accepted as truth (from Science). You are ignoring how often such people distort even unintentionally. They have little choice, yet you seem to believe that such distortions hardly ever, if ever take place. Cassini was pointing out a typical case regardless of who was ultimately right.

It is your faith in what you think other people are saying as well as your faith in their intentions and their abilities to overcome their situation of communicating truth.

But it’s your religion. If you want to hold those people as your prophets and as your faith, go for it. But if you are arguing with me, then your religion means nothing to me. I “know” what I argue about. You have merely heard from others.

I didn’t say “Science methods”, i said THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I am talking specifically about research, if you like i can go back through this thread and quote you. I have seen several quotes that show you do not understand how research works. Here one such jem in your last post. “It is like someone watching a news program and assuming the news editor showed exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth during that 2 minute report.” Lets be honest we BOTH know you are not a research scientist.

Anyway, let stay on track YOU MADE A CLAIM, now i want to you to BACK IT UP!

So either explain how the scriptures are results based. Please present the results and what conclusions you draw from the results. People also present some applications of these results.

OR admit you were incorrect about…

*"You claim my “faith is in what Man has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated scientific knowledge of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as science is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my scientific peers based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in peer reviewed papers for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the scientific method should understand this.

You claim my “faith is in what the Church has told you”. If you mean i believe the accumulated Holy Scriptures of mankind, then you are correct. However there is no “faith” involved, as history is results based. If you mean i just accept the word of my Holy Church based on “faith” you are 100% wrong. I can accept what i read in Holy Scriptures for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the Holy Spirit should understand this. "*

LOL i mean you don’t really believe the editor of nature publishes papers cause like likes the nice big words in them do you?

Oh an no need to be charitable, one of us actually understands how research works, one of us IS actually carrying out research as we speak. It isn’t you. **Now those results PLEASE, i wont be letting them go, either present them or admit your mistake. **

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Sid, Nobody on earth has ever ‘explained’ the forces we call universal gravity. Many have proposed theories like Newton, le Sage and Descartes, but that’s all they are just theories. My theory for a geocentric universe is electromagnetic forces generated gyroscope like from a rotating universe. The other planets have been proven to orbit the sun. It is the relative motion between the earth and sun that cannot be determined by any science other than theology (revelation). Kepler only discovered one Law, his Third, the other two ellipse ‘Laws’ are only a compromise of his. IIt is the Church in 1616 that said a fixed sun is a heresy because it is contrary to Scripture. The foucault pendulum only proves there is a force around the earth, like the Coriolis force. This force can be caused by a rotating universe or a rotating earth so it only proves the force exists. No few physicists agree but what does that prove, the Bible is interpreted by MAJORITY RULE or by the Church?

I have been reading this thread, and your statement that IIt is the Church in 1616 that said a fixed sun is a heresy because it is contrary to Scripture., caught my eye. What was the full context, and is it possible that the statement does not prove the earth is fixed and does not even require that?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I didn’t say “Science methods”, i said THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I am talking specifically about research, if you like i can go back through this thread and quote you. I have seen several quotes that show you do not understand how research works. Here one such jem in your last post. “It is like someone watching a news program and assuming the news editor showed exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth during that 2 minute report.” Lets be honest we BOTH know you are not a research scientist.

So you are claiming to be a research scientist???

Exactly what is your field? What do you publish? Can we see some of your work? But don’t think that I share your respect for scientists. I have met a number of them in actual practice. They are mathematical technicians and nothing more. They often don’t think at all beyond what is the most simple minded thoughts imaginable. I have debated them directly face-to-face and have yet to lose such a debate nor leave one unresolved.

An example from just weeks ago from a 20 year practicing physicist, person to person, in my living room;

We were discussing the effect of charged particle reflection off of a charged metallic surface and were concerned with an extremely small evacuated space of 200 nanometers. At one point, he proclaimed that it doesn’t matter how small of a space you have, there will always be an atom within it. I was taken back a bit as it was relevant as to how many atoms were within our small vacuumed space. So I questioned what he meant and found that he really believed that no matter how small of a space you have, there is always, 100% of the time, an atom within it. I had to provide an example of dividing a space wherein only 8 atoms existed, divided several times. When I finally got down to a space wherein there was only one atom and proposed to divide that space, I asked him how many atoms would be in each space. He had the most dumbfounded look on his face. He was speechless and confounded. He had never thought deeply enough in all of those 20 years in practice to even imagine that there could be a space wherein an atom would not be present even though he had already shown to know that in outer space one might have as much as a cubic meter without an atom in it (depending on exactly where you were at the time). He was not stupid, he was typical. He had never thought outside of his little box of experience.

I have run into many scientists, especially physicists, who do not think past what is right in front of their face and the mathematics involved. I have debated scientists at NASA concerning 1/4 wave optical processors and maximum achievable memory transfers for sake of 128 processor computers attempting to resolve 100,000 variable matrices in realistic time, The University of Budapest concerning the minimum real diameter of black holes, The US Navy at Lakehurst N.J. concerning the significance of power signal to noise ratios involved in computer and human reception, Psychologists at Texas Tech Univ. concerning the definition and construct of a mind, and others less prestigious throughout the US and Germany.

Believe me. I AM being charitable.

Anyway, let stay on track YOU MADE A CLAIM, now i want to you to BACK IT UP!

MY claim was merely THEIR claim and that is that history has SHOWN the evidence of the existence of God and His miracles. The “results” are obvious, such a Jesus walking on water, Moses dividing the Red Sea. They take what they are told of the past at face value and accept the explanation for it because the people relaying the information WOULD NEVER unintentionally deceive or lie… Just as YOU do.

I can accept what i read in peer reviewed papers for a variety of reasons, none of which are faith. Anyone which a clear understanding of the scientific method should understand this.

Do you not realize that the Catholic Church ALSO requires peer reviewed material before it can be published under the Church’s name?

You worship “THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD” they worship “THE HOLY SPIRIT”.

You know nothing of their method, they know a great deal of yours.