S
- Status
A
ANewWorld
Guest
JD, you are the only one on this thread playing games. You play syntactical and semantic games with words. My phrase “undeniable truths(i.e. facts)” is not a red herring because I am saying exactly what I mean, FACTS.
The Church does not condemn motion of the planet as a heresy now as they did during the Galileo Trial. I never said anything about the Church mistreating or torturing him. This is what I specifically called you out for. I’m sorry I didn’t specifically use the phrase, “Provide evidence for where I said Galileo was tortured” but this is what I’m referring to for all of your last statements that you are calling “naked assertions.”
My phrase, “you call it faith” perhaps would’ve been more clear if I said, “one calls it faith” or “it is called faith” not implying you specifically said it. However, if you have a different definition of faith other than belief without proof, I’d like to hear it.
Furthermore, my assertion that this is how the Church behaved during the Dark Ages is not a slap in the face (and I apologize if you interpreted it that way, though your rebuttal was a blatant ad hominem attack), unless you are also implying that John Paul II was slapping the Church in the face and I am certainly not implying this. During his apology, he expressed sorrow for “everything from the Crusades to the Inquisition, the forced conversions, to sins against women and anti- Jewish acts” (transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html)
As for your “having a good belly laugh” I’m glad to hear that have so much respect. I have been nothing but honest and forthright in having a conversation with you while you attempt to create diversions so you can have a good laugh at the expense of people who disagree with you. If you have not been intentionally baiting myself and others on this thread, you certainly responded in a radically defensive way when I said, “I cannot tell if you’re being intentionally disingenuous.”
As Jesus said, “If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?” I wish no ill will toward you or anyone; I just enjoy open and honest discourse. I will simply not engage with you on other threads if you are going to intentionally twist words around in way adding nothing to the discussion.
The Church does not condemn motion of the planet as a heresy now as they did during the Galileo Trial. I never said anything about the Church mistreating or torturing him. This is what I specifically called you out for. I’m sorry I didn’t specifically use the phrase, “Provide evidence for where I said Galileo was tortured” but this is what I’m referring to for all of your last statements that you are calling “naked assertions.”
My phrase, “you call it faith” perhaps would’ve been more clear if I said, “one calls it faith” or “it is called faith” not implying you specifically said it. However, if you have a different definition of faith other than belief without proof, I’d like to hear it.
Furthermore, my assertion that this is how the Church behaved during the Dark Ages is not a slap in the face (and I apologize if you interpreted it that way, though your rebuttal was a blatant ad hominem attack), unless you are also implying that John Paul II was slapping the Church in the face and I am certainly not implying this. During his apology, he expressed sorrow for “everything from the Crusades to the Inquisition, the forced conversions, to sins against women and anti- Jewish acts” (transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html)
As for your “having a good belly laugh” I’m glad to hear that have so much respect. I have been nothing but honest and forthright in having a conversation with you while you attempt to create diversions so you can have a good laugh at the expense of people who disagree with you. If you have not been intentionally baiting myself and others on this thread, you certainly responded in a radically defensive way when I said, “I cannot tell if you’re being intentionally disingenuous.”
As Jesus said, “If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?” I wish no ill will toward you or anyone; I just enjoy open and honest discourse. I will simply not engage with you on other threads if you are going to intentionally twist words around in way adding nothing to the discussion.
A
ANewWorld
Guest
Don’t worry Strawberry. JD is just picturing having a good laugh at our expense. He said as much in his last post. “Trolling” is the internet term for it.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
ANewWorld, I’m going to tell you right now that regardless if JDaniel is interpreting what your posts are saying correctly what he’s saying is genuine. JDaniel has been around here for a good long while now and trust me, he is not a troll in any sense of the word. At most he is having trouble understanding what you are saying.
A
ANewWorld
Guest
I’m sorry MarcAnthony, I realize JDaniel has been around a long time, his posts are searchable as are everyones, but I’m just not buying that he’s failing to grasp the points being made here. In other posts, he talks about things such as Hilbert’s proof with regard to real infinities, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, logical fallacies, etc. He is obviously well educated and well spoken.
Yet here, despite my apologies and my repeated clarification, he has yet to address anything, but instead blames me for twisting the vernacular of “facts,” “theories,” and “models.” Looking back through the posts, JDaniel clearly is the one who pinned the term “theory” to heliocentrism.
Later, in post #39, JDaniel quotes me as saying heliocentrism is a model, analogous to the way Fahrenheit and Celsius describe the facts of what the temperature is. He then says models are not facts as a rebuttal. His rebuttal to a statement I made is the statement I made! I said models are not facts; he said models are not facts!
He claims I am misusing the vernacular all to avoid the topic at hand. I never said a model is a fact or that a theory is a fact or any combination thereof. I brought up models only when JDaniel first said “heliocentric theory.” To be clear again, I understand what a model is, just like the Six Models of the Catholic church describes the way the church works, so the heliocentric model describes the way the planets orbit the sun.
Then, in post #42 I clarified my positions, once again pointing out that the first false accusation on this thread was where he claimed he’s sick of hearing about Galileo’s treatment. Please, quote the post where I said anything about Galileo’s treatment and point out where I have ever asserted anything about it other than the two quoted statements about the falsehood of Galileo’s assertions. Of course, by now I feel I’m wasting my breath, because that’s not been the focus here. The focus has been to avoid honest intellectual conversation, which as I have asserted multiple times is what I am trying to have.
I have been consistent in my position, I have attempted to clarify any misunderstandings. If it is really just a misunderstanding; I again apologize to you JDaniel and invite you to please address the initial point I made about the Galileo Affair.
Yet here, despite my apologies and my repeated clarification, he has yet to address anything, but instead blames me for twisting the vernacular of “facts,” “theories,” and “models.” Looking back through the posts, JDaniel clearly is the one who pinned the term “theory” to heliocentrism.
Reread post #24, I won’t quote the whole thing here for sake of space. I said nothing about theories or models…I quoted two scientific facts the Church now recognizes as true but previously said were false.
Later, in post #39, JDaniel quotes me as saying heliocentrism is a model, analogous to the way Fahrenheit and Celsius describe the facts of what the temperature is. He then says models are not facts as a rebuttal. His rebuttal to a statement I made is the statement I made! I said models are not facts; he said models are not facts!
He claims I am misusing the vernacular all to avoid the topic at hand. I never said a model is a fact or that a theory is a fact or any combination thereof. I brought up models only when JDaniel first said “heliocentric theory.” To be clear again, I understand what a model is, just like the Six Models of the Catholic church describes the way the church works, so the heliocentric model describes the way the planets orbit the sun.
Then, in post #42 I clarified my positions, once again pointing out that the first false accusation on this thread was where he claimed he’s sick of hearing about Galileo’s treatment. Please, quote the post where I said anything about Galileo’s treatment and point out where I have ever asserted anything about it other than the two quoted statements about the falsehood of Galileo’s assertions. Of course, by now I feel I’m wasting my breath, because that’s not been the focus here. The focus has been to avoid honest intellectual conversation, which as I have asserted multiple times is what I am trying to have.
I have been consistent in my position, I have attempted to clarify any misunderstandings. If it is really just a misunderstanding; I again apologize to you JDaniel and invite you to please address the initial point I made about the Galileo Affair.
P
Poseidon
Guest
I agree with ANewWorld here. JDaniel’s posts on this thread have been entirely off topic and have done nothing but hijack it and send it off the original discussion (about atheism, faith, and intellectual honesty) toward a semantical game about the definition of “theory” and some random conversation about Galileo.
So while I’m sure he’s got some great posts on other threads, here it really seems like he’s either trolling for replies or intentionally trying to get the thread off topic.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If you think about it, if anyone gets to heaven and Jesus Christ is right there before them, why wouldn’t they be a Christian?
A
ANewWorld
Guest
Poseidon, I was the one who originally brought up Galileo. I thought that it was be a valid example since the church reversed course through Pope John Paul II’s apology. I quite mistakenly thought this would not cause controversy since the church apologized and asked forgiveness on the matter. I certainly could see how it would cause controversy if I had said he received “terrible treatment.” I never said anything of the sort.
But yes, we are in agreement, I am using trolling in the sense that he’s simply attempting to irritate rather than have an honest discussion.
I am new here and it seems many threads ebb and flow when stuff related to the original topic. If the correct protocol would be to segue into a different thread, then I apologize.
A
ANewWorld
Guest
I think we all agree on that one! And before I get jumped all over for that, I mean all of us who have posted on this thread so far.
J
JDaniel
Guest
TS:
Does it involve making a choice? In other words, were there two or more competing theories, one of them chosen over the other(s) for whatever reasons?
For example, between the heliocentric and geocentric theories, I count two. But, that’s not all: we also have Tycho Brahe’s theory. So, we have three. All are reasonably good, explanatory models. The heliocentric theory was chosen primarily because it was less complicated and supposedly more elegant. However, nobody has yet to pick a spot, way out there in space, and sit motionless for three years (at least) and observe the movements of the spheres in question. And you’d still call this more than a hypothesis? Wow! Would you be tied to your religion! Can’t you see this? This is really very simple stuff!
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
After you, kind sir!
J
JDaniel
Guest
ANW:
And, is, “the sun is the center of the world and motionless” an “undeniable” fact? That’s all I want to know from you.
Remember, this is an essential part of what you refer to as “undeniable fact.” I’ll answer the question for you: “It is not.” The sun is not motionless. What we have here is a Theory which is really little more than hypothesis. But, a far cry from “undeniable fact.” (You wouldn’t get much past a peer review with those kinds of postulations. By using words like “undeniable fact,” you skew the entire integrity of your case, and perhaps it is what led to an incorrect conclusion. Honor the words. Don’t hob-nob the words to make your case. That’s my point.
Let’s let Galileo rest in peace and stop using him as an unsupportive baseball bat.
God bless,
jd
P
Poseidon
Guest
Wait - are you seriously saying that you think the idea that the planets revolve around the sun is only a hypothesis? Really?TS:
Does it involve making a choice? In other words, were there two or more competing theories, one of them chosen over the other(s) for whatever reasons?
For example, between the heliocentric and geocentric theories, I count two. But, that’s not all: we also have Tycho Brahe’s theory. So, we have three. All are reasonably good, explanatory models. The heliocentric theory was chosen primarily because it was less complicated and supposedly more elegant. However, nobody has yet to pick a spot, way out there in space, and sit motionless for three years (at least) and observe the movements of the spheres in question. And you’d still call this more than a hypothesis? Wow! Would you be tied to your religion! Can’t you see this? This is really very simple stuff!
God bless,
jd
And we certainly have observed the spheres in question. Not “motionless” because that’s impossible within the sun’s gravitational pull, and also meaningless in space. We have, however, been observing the stars and planets from earth for a few thousand years. That data all supports the theory that the planets revolve around the sun. We also observe these things from satellites. Geocentrism is not a viable hypothesis anymore. I’m not sure what Brahe’s theory is off the top of my head, so I can’t comment on it. We say the heliocentric theory is true because it matches our observations. NOT on faith. NOT because it is simple or elegant. We believe it because it’s true.
P
Poseidon
Guest
Don’t worry about it! You can bring up any point you think is relevant. I was just using it as an example of how the thread had gotten off topic. It was relevant at first but then kind of got into this discussion about the treatment of Galileo by the church.
Sometimes threads get off topic into some very interesting discussions, and I actually like it when that happens. This wasn’t really one of them though.
P
Poseidon
Guest
Heliocentrism is a model for the solar system. Relative to the planets the sun is pretty much motionless. Relative to the galaxy and universe the sun is not motionless. But no one’s saying that it is. Solar system. Not galaxy.ANW:
And, is, “the sun is the center of the world and motionless” an “undeniable” fact? That’s all I want to know from you.
Remember, this is an essential part of what you refer to as “undeniable fact.” I’ll answer the question for you: “It is not.” The sun is not motionless. What we have here is a Theory which is really little more than hypothesis. But, a far cry from “undeniable fact.” (You wouldn’t get much past a peer review with those kinds of postulations. By using words like “undeniable fact,” you skew the entire integrity of your case, and perhaps it is what led to an incorrect conclusion. Honor the words. Don’t hob-nob the words to make your case. That’s my point.
Let’s let Galileo rest in peace and stop using him as an unsupportive baseball bat.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
ANW:
What you are calling “facts” are not facts in almost everyone else’s world. I am chagrined that you don’t understand that.
And, neither did I.
All of your so-called “undeniable facts” are simply NOT undeniable facts. They are mere assertions, which you are currently augmenting to suit you.
This is irrelevant to my position.
No it wasn’t and you know it.
Please read some history, especially of and around this period. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Really? Didn’t I just simply say, “not at all, I’m completely ingenuous?” How is that “radically defensive?” I will say this about you, you are an embellisher.
Nor I you, if you are going to use words any way you want to without regard as to how they are used and usually understood in everyday discourse. That isn’t debating. That’s, well . . .it isn’t debating. Anyway,
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Poseidon:
Hypothesis - theory, what’s the diff?
And yet we have three models.
THERE IS CURRENTLY NO WAY TO PROVE IT ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT QUESTION, WITHOUT DOUBT. It’s as simple as that. There’s merely selections made from all of the observations. And, we assume that the selections that we’ve made are the correct ones. Honestly, even I assume we’ve made the correct selections. But, I will not go all the way out on that limb. It is far too easy to get quagmired by the mis-use of language.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Poseidon:
You see the quagmire? What exactly does, “pretty much motionless” mean? Might it, perhaps, mean “motionless but moving?” It doesn’t matter what the reference is. It means its a “strong hypothesis,” i.e., “theory.” It does not mean it’s a “fact.” Perhaps Tycho Brahe’s model will become the theory 50 years from now. Or, maybe another one. Or, maybe heliocentrism augmented. Neither of us knows.
God bless,
jd
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
You can use what ever model meets your needs at the time…
Some models have more explanatory power than others. When talking about physical phenomenon at relatively low speeds that are under about the same gravitational influence we tend to use Newtonian models. When dealing with objects with a significant difference in speed or under a significant difference of gravitational influence Einstein’s models work much better. Newtonian models are simpler but Einstein’s models offer better precision which becomes vital for applications such as GPS. The difference in the results is measurable which provides an objective metric for the accuracy between the two systems.
Similarly, if you find that the geocentric model meets a certain need then you are free to use it. It still has value for observational value. Though the heliocentric model does a simpler job of explaining the movements of the planets. You could elect to not use either and go with the Newtonian n-body solution.
It sounds like you might not have an understanding of astrometry and positional reference frames. Position is only meaningful with respect to a reference frame. The reference frame used for positions of objects in our solar system is based on the relative position of over 200 objects that are outside of our galaxy (and thus outside of our solar system) that are so far away that their angular motion is essentially zero.However, nobody has yet to pick a spot, way out there in space, and sit motionless for three years (at least) and observe the movements of the spheres in question. And you’d still call this more than a hypothesis? Wow! Would you be tied to your religion! Can’t you see this? This is really very simple stuff!
There’s two books that I have laying next to me that might be helpful in gaining a better understanding for this. One is simply titled “Orbital Mechanics” by Prussing and Conway. It’s a college book for students of astrodynamics and spends a good bit of time talking about the movement of bodies moving only under the influence of gravity and their own inertial (it talks of powered flights too, but that’s later in the book and not relevant to this discussion). The other one is “Astronomy on the Personal Computer.” It goes into a lot of explanations too with full source code and diagrams. Best thing about this book is that if you’ve got a telescope and know your position on the globe you can test the accuracy of the equations in the book with it. The computer controlled ones are the best, as you can feed the output of one of the programs directly into the telescope so you don’t have to worry about aiming (I use the one pictured below).
These too books together are slightly over 100 USD and they may exercise your math skills a bit. But if this is a topic in which you’ve got genuine interest you may find them to be worth the money.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1949&pictureid=13084
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
The sun is a reference point that is nice to use for some observations. You may find almost motionless in some reference frames, but moving at a high speed in another. The chosen reference frame will depend on what you are doing.ANW:
And, is, “the sun is the center of the world and motionless” an “undeniable” fact? That’s all I want to know from you.
Proofs are never the result of science. Models of explanation supported by observational data are.
The reference does matter as motion of this type only has meaning within the context of a reference frame. See International Celestial Reference Frame.
- Status