A
Ahimsa
Guest
Just don’t abbreviate it “B.U.”
- Status
T
trth_skr
Guest
!
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Mark << God is not deceitful. Using your logic I can prove geocentrism. >>
I don’t want to talk about geocentrism. I know you are obsessed with the topic, but its not my thing.
Mark << 1. Phil says God would not deliberately plant misleading evidence. 2. For thousands of years man saw the sun, stars, planets etc. going around them. 3. Man has not demonstrated the earth moves (in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the universe). >>
No, No, and No. Here is my logic.
(1) God is not deceitful, he knows how old the earth is, and he is responsible for creating the earth and setting up all the natural processes of evolution: geology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
(2) It took man a little time, but we now have hundreds of thousands of measurements pointing to an age of the earth of 4.5 to 4.6 billion years, and an age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. These quantities are known to within a few percent. We also now know a little bit about our evolution.
(3) If Dobzhansky wasn’t enough, I now call physicist and theologian Fr. Stanley Jaki to the witness stand:
"Unlike concepts relating to the realm of the humanities, quantities do not have a suppleness to be readily abused by those eager to escape their grip. Quantities have a truthfulness of their own, however elementary, a truthfulness which pierces heaven itself.
"The sharpness of this metaphor is meant to put in bold relief a basic truth about Relevation insofar as it comes from a truthful God. To no such God can be assigned any statement that would contradict a truth clearly perceived by plain reason. And plain reason perceives nothing more clearly than quantities. Nowhere does the principle of the oneness of truth impose itself with greater force, and nowhere does the principle of double truth give itself away more devastatingly than in respect to quantities. Truth, in general, can be carried by a great variety of conceptualizations. But whenever a truth contains a quantitative aspect, obvious limits are set to indulging in those varieties, or ‘interpretations.’
"This is especially true in science. Speculations can go on endlessly as to what is electricity or what is gravitation. But in both cases the inverse square law, as a quantitative proposition, secures a firm standpoint. Conversely, a theologian may have some leeway with the proposition that the earth was made by God. He may claim that the proposition merely means an utter ontological dependence, even though the biblical parlance suggests a specific action on God’s part. But if the theologian takes the earth for a body that has preceded the formation of the sun, he has on hand a problem that lends itself to quantitative formulation and verification.
"The same holds true of the propositions that God fixed the earth firmly on the seas and that the earth is flat – which it certainly is in the Bible. Such propositions imply quantitative parameters, as do the Bible’s references to the firmament and to the age of the earth. Such parameters can be investigated and decided by reason with the special certainty quantities convey.
“Our understanding of Revelation must especially conform to that certainty in this age which science instructs with stunning measures of quantitative exactness about the physical realm. Even the slightest disinterest in that conformity would discredit the basic theological claim that Revelation has its source in an infinitely rational God and is directed at human minds created to His very image.” (Stanley Jaki, Bible and Science [Christendom Press, 1996], pages 10-11)
My God is rational and truthful, while your God does away with modern science. The Church is not anti-science, but your God is. See Catechism 159, 283-284.
Phil P
I don’t want to talk about geocentrism. I know you are obsessed with the topic, but its not my thing.
Mark << 1. Phil says God would not deliberately plant misleading evidence. 2. For thousands of years man saw the sun, stars, planets etc. going around them. 3. Man has not demonstrated the earth moves (in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the universe). >>
No, No, and No. Here is my logic.
(1) God is not deceitful, he knows how old the earth is, and he is responsible for creating the earth and setting up all the natural processes of evolution: geology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
(2) It took man a little time, but we now have hundreds of thousands of measurements pointing to an age of the earth of 4.5 to 4.6 billion years, and an age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. These quantities are known to within a few percent. We also now know a little bit about our evolution.
(3) If Dobzhansky wasn’t enough, I now call physicist and theologian Fr. Stanley Jaki to the witness stand:
"Unlike concepts relating to the realm of the humanities, quantities do not have a suppleness to be readily abused by those eager to escape their grip. Quantities have a truthfulness of their own, however elementary, a truthfulness which pierces heaven itself.
"The sharpness of this metaphor is meant to put in bold relief a basic truth about Relevation insofar as it comes from a truthful God. To no such God can be assigned any statement that would contradict a truth clearly perceived by plain reason. And plain reason perceives nothing more clearly than quantities. Nowhere does the principle of the oneness of truth impose itself with greater force, and nowhere does the principle of double truth give itself away more devastatingly than in respect to quantities. Truth, in general, can be carried by a great variety of conceptualizations. But whenever a truth contains a quantitative aspect, obvious limits are set to indulging in those varieties, or ‘interpretations.’
"This is especially true in science. Speculations can go on endlessly as to what is electricity or what is gravitation. But in both cases the inverse square law, as a quantitative proposition, secures a firm standpoint. Conversely, a theologian may have some leeway with the proposition that the earth was made by God. He may claim that the proposition merely means an utter ontological dependence, even though the biblical parlance suggests a specific action on God’s part. But if the theologian takes the earth for a body that has preceded the formation of the sun, he has on hand a problem that lends itself to quantitative formulation and verification.
"The same holds true of the propositions that God fixed the earth firmly on the seas and that the earth is flat – which it certainly is in the Bible. Such propositions imply quantitative parameters, as do the Bible’s references to the firmament and to the age of the earth. Such parameters can be investigated and decided by reason with the special certainty quantities convey.
“Our understanding of Revelation must especially conform to that certainty in this age which science instructs with stunning measures of quantitative exactness about the physical realm. Even the slightest disinterest in that conformity would discredit the basic theological claim that Revelation has its source in an infinitely rational God and is directed at human minds created to His very image.” (Stanley Jaki, Bible and Science [Christendom Press, 1996], pages 10-11)
My God is rational and truthful, while your God does away with modern science. The Church is not anti-science, but your God is. See Catechism 159, 283-284.
Phil P
T
trth_skr
Guest
Fr. Jaki:
It is clear that “Fr.” Jaki is either:
A. ignorant
and / or
B. deceitful.
ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE FLAT EARTH ISSUE EVEN SUPERFICIALLY KNOWS THAT THE FATHERS WERE OVERWHELMINGLY SPHERICAL-EARTHERS. TO TIE GEOCENTRISM TO FLAT EARTH IS A DECEITFUL, DELIBERATE ACT OF LYING, PERFORMED SINGLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOCKING A PRINCIPLE (GEOCENTRISM) THE CHURCH HAS DEFINED. Certainly he is unaware of Catholic Biblical exegetism.
YOUR HONOR. THIS WITNESS, FR. JAKI HAS NO STANDING IN THIS COURT OF TRUTH.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Hmm. NOT a very good example. The interpretation of the fossil as a primate was never generally accepted by the scientific community, never mind being a hominid or a transitional form, and was completely rejected as such within five years of the publication of the single paper describing it. Of all the transitional species identified in the fossil record, is this the best (non-)example that you can give? Are you basing your argument on the proposition that all of the tens of thousands of extinct species identified from the fossil record and all of the hundreds of hominid fossils are mistakenly identified or fraudulent? You’re entitled to think what you like, of course, but if you are genuinely seeking the truth of the matter this line of reasoning is not a good one.What is accepted today as a transitional form will likely be rejected tomorrow. This has happened over and over again.
hecd2:
I’ll give you one rather notorious one. NEBRASKA MAN.
It turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Mark << ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE FLAT EARTH ISSUE EVEN SUPERFICIALLY KNOWS THAT THE FATHERS WERE OVERWHELMINGLY SPHERICAL-EARTHERS. >>
Jaki didn’t mention the Fathers. The Fathers accepted a spherical earth not because it was taught in the Bible but because this was the “science of the day.” The ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians had a flat earth.
Jaki mentioned the Bible itself teaches a flat earth along with geocentrism. I think I agree with him there. God used the “science of the day” to communicate that he is the Creator of all. God wasn’t interested in communicating in the Scriptures exactly how he did the creating or when. That is the purpose of science, and that is what science eventually discovered, although it took time.
My point is science tells us the earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion, and we know this to within a few percent. In my universe of natural processes set up by God, we can use science to discover things that God set up.
In your universe of God using “accelerated decay rates” and “accelerated light speed” and other (supposedly bogus) fossil and molecular data indicating common descent, we can discover nothing about the age, origin, and evolution of the earth and universe. In your universe, geologists and astronomers and biologists may as well give up, turn out the laboratory lights, and go home.
The judge has ruled: my God is rational and truthful and works within the natural laws and science he created and set up, your God is not. I invite you again to read the Catechism 159, 283-284 and maybe tell me what you think those paragraphs mean.
BTW, I will add that Fr. Stanley Jaki is a little more distinguished than yourself or Sungenis on physics and Catholic theology.
Phil P
Jaki didn’t mention the Fathers. The Fathers accepted a spherical earth not because it was taught in the Bible but because this was the “science of the day.” The ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians had a flat earth.
Jaki mentioned the Bible itself teaches a flat earth along with geocentrism. I think I agree with him there. God used the “science of the day” to communicate that he is the Creator of all. God wasn’t interested in communicating in the Scriptures exactly how he did the creating or when. That is the purpose of science, and that is what science eventually discovered, although it took time.
My point is science tells us the earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion, and we know this to within a few percent. In my universe of natural processes set up by God, we can use science to discover things that God set up.
In your universe of God using “accelerated decay rates” and “accelerated light speed” and other (supposedly bogus) fossil and molecular data indicating common descent, we can discover nothing about the age, origin, and evolution of the earth and universe. In your universe, geologists and astronomers and biologists may as well give up, turn out the laboratory lights, and go home.
The judge has ruled: my God is rational and truthful and works within the natural laws and science he created and set up, your God is not. I invite you again to read the Catechism 159, 283-284 and maybe tell me what you think those paragraphs mean.
BTW, I will add that Fr. Stanley Jaki is a little more distinguished than yourself or Sungenis on physics and Catholic theology.
Phil P
T
trth_skr
Guest
No, Phil you do not understand. Flat earth is not taught in the Bible. It is the Church that determines what is taught in the Bible. We are not protestants. That is why I mentioned the fathers. The fathers were spherical earthers and interpreted Scriptures as such. Flat earth is largely a 19th century protestant innovation. The fathers did not not interpret “the points of the compass” as meaning the earth was flat (except maybe a couple, e.g., Lactinius).
Pure, unadultrated nonsense. The Church has interpreted the Scriptures as geocentric, but not flat earth. REMEMBER WE ARE CATHOLIC, NOT PROTESTANT! It is not each man interpreting the Scriptures for himself.
Maybe, but unlike Fr. Jaki, Robert and I are not deceitful.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
I do not deny that radiocarbon dating and other techniques lead one to that conclusion.
You are still presuming that God had to use natural processes as we understand them from the the moment of creation onwards. There are many possibilities as to when and if God used natural processes in the creation event. Clearly at some point in time, what we refer to as “natural processes” did take over. Still we do not even know what these natural processes are . We cannot even define what mass is. All we can do is determine some relationships between quantities.
You are not adressing and completely ignoring any possible metaphysical implications of creation and existence. You seem to be operating in a mode where materialism is the ultimate reality.
I said nothing about “accelerated decay rates” or “accelerated light speed” I said accelerated processes. And I said God could possibly have done this. I do not know. For all I know He could have created the universe intact. In my mind, I do not require that God used naturalistic processes to create the universe, but speculate that He could have. It is a materialist’s assumption that the universe originated from strictly materialist origins.I understand the results of research to date seem to imply the conclusions you cite (i.e., 4.5 billion year old earth, 14.5 billion year old universe). I am not willing ot bet my faith on those results, especially considering the philosophical thrust of most science dealing with cosmology and cosmogony.
Maybe if some day we can develop technology allowing us to work with plasmas at orders of magnitude higher temperatures than we can now (or than we can even imagine now), we would come to a different conclusion about the age of the universe.
My God has the ability to work within natural laws beyond our knwledge. My God can create the natural laws. My God is not limited to working within the natural laws.
They do not conflict with the possibility that God used natural processes which we yet have an understanding of. Nor does it say that God had to use natural processes to create the universe.
In fact since God made something out of nothing, to even imply that God has to use natural processes for creation sounds heretical. Natural process cannot create something out of nothing. Natural processes cannot operate until God created something.
Nothing in those paragraphs say that scientists have some inherent right to discover the origins of the universe at this point in time, if ever.
Phil, I started this as a philosophical discussion. What it sounds like you are saying is that you are not willing to consider philosophy beyond materialism.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Z
zian
Guest
Thanks for the link to this article, Phil. Looks interesting and I will have to read it through in its entirety. Especially, since it will never be the case that I am going to become an expert on interpretation of Hebrew (I’ve got other fish to fry), I’ll have to rely on the skills and logical exposition skills of others to edify me in this regard.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Support that statement.
Oh, so the Scriptures and their interpertation by the Church is deceitful. If He wasn’t interested in doing what He did why did He do what He did?
I agree He did not communicate *exactly *how He did it, but we should listen to what He did communicate, and not try waving it off as rehashed Babylonian myths used as a tool for teaching a moral lesson or some nonsense such as that.
What science says today will be drastically different 100 years from now, and again 100 years after that.
Don’t bet your faith on science.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Phil, this link appears to be a sola scriptura interpretation. It is interesting, and I never claimed the Scriptures directly taught a spherical earth. I have seen such arguments, but they generally depend on the KJV, for instance. Still the fathers never unanomously or even largely held a flat earth view, rather they held spherical earth. I am sure they were quite aware of these issues. I agree that there appear to be some good arguments for flat earth in the Scriptures (as outlinied in this paper), but the Church has not interpreted Scriptures in this way. There are many things in the Scriptures the Chruch has not ruled on. Flat earth is a 19th century protestant inovation. For Fr. Jaki to tie flat earth (not ruled on by the Church) and geocentrism (ruled on affirmitively by the Church) is disingenuous and very protestant at best.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
P
PhilVaz
Guest
I made a couple of points. This thread is off topic of mt-Eve and Y-Adam. But I believe all of these points can be supported.
(1) The Bible’s “scientific worldview” is the one held to by the ancient Hebrews, ancient Babylonians, and ancient Egyptians. That is, the earth was flat. The article I linked above is by an evangelical Protestant but discusses the Hebrew and relevant biblical texts. I can also quote John Paul II on the Genesis "cosmology":
“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)
Translation: the Bible used “the science of the day” (e.g. a FLAT earth and geocentric universe) to communicate to us that God is the Creator. You cannot get a modern astronomy, physics, geology, or biology out of the text (that is called scientific “concordism” by Jaki).
(2) Since the fifth century BC Greeks, and Ptolemy in 1st and 2nd century AD and onward, most rational people understood the earth as spherical. The Fathers (with a few exceptions, Lactantius you mentioned, possibly others, also Cosmas "Christian Topography" of the 6th century) interpreted the Bible in light of that science. The Bible itself however does not clearly teach the spherical earth, and instead implies a flat earth.
(3) Here is more Fr. Stanley Jaki on the flat earth and the Bible:
“If asked about his physical surroundings or about the physical world at large, the typical Israelite would have given a reply very irritating to the modern mind. It is irritating to say the least to hear that the earth is a flat disk, the sky an inverted hard bowl, and that the two form a vast tent-like structure. Of course, other inhabitants of the ancient Near-East would have given similar answers…To be sure, much the same would have been done by a typical ancient Egyptian and Babylonian…The hardness of the sky, but especially the immobility of the earth, had to appear all the more a divinely ordained physical fact as, according to the Bible, a mere man, Joshua, could be authorized by God to stop the sun and the moon in their tracks and, apparently, for a whole day…Obviously, to modern eyes dazzled by space rockets cruising along ‘world lines’ set by Einstein’s four-dimensional cosmology nothing could seem more jarring than the Bible’s physical world, which is little more than a glorified tent. To that tent the Bible assigns the sky as its cover and the earth as its floor, though hardly in a consistent way. In Genesis 1 the sky is a firmament, that is, a hard metal bowl, whereas in Psalm 104 and Isaiah 45:24 it is more like a canvas that can be stretched out…Herein lies one of the non-trivially unscientific aspects of the world as described in the Bible…Well before the advent of modern science, and indeed of heliocentrism, the contrast between that biblical world-tent and the world of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic geocentrism had to appear enormous.” (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Bible and Science, pages 19-25)
Obviously Fr. Jaki is not the magisterium, but he does have a good handle on modern physics, Catholic theology, and biblical interpretation.
The magisterium does not define scientific issues. The Fathers interpreted the Bible in light of the best science of their day, we should do the same. That’s my view and it is not materialism.
Phil P
(1) The Bible’s “scientific worldview” is the one held to by the ancient Hebrews, ancient Babylonians, and ancient Egyptians. That is, the earth was flat. The article I linked above is by an evangelical Protestant but discusses the Hebrew and relevant biblical texts. I can also quote John Paul II on the Genesis "cosmology":
“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)
Translation: the Bible used “the science of the day” (e.g. a FLAT earth and geocentric universe) to communicate to us that God is the Creator. You cannot get a modern astronomy, physics, geology, or biology out of the text (that is called scientific “concordism” by Jaki).
(2) Since the fifth century BC Greeks, and Ptolemy in 1st and 2nd century AD and onward, most rational people understood the earth as spherical. The Fathers (with a few exceptions, Lactantius you mentioned, possibly others, also Cosmas "Christian Topography" of the 6th century) interpreted the Bible in light of that science. The Bible itself however does not clearly teach the spherical earth, and instead implies a flat earth.
(3) Here is more Fr. Stanley Jaki on the flat earth and the Bible:
“If asked about his physical surroundings or about the physical world at large, the typical Israelite would have given a reply very irritating to the modern mind. It is irritating to say the least to hear that the earth is a flat disk, the sky an inverted hard bowl, and that the two form a vast tent-like structure. Of course, other inhabitants of the ancient Near-East would have given similar answers…To be sure, much the same would have been done by a typical ancient Egyptian and Babylonian…The hardness of the sky, but especially the immobility of the earth, had to appear all the more a divinely ordained physical fact as, according to the Bible, a mere man, Joshua, could be authorized by God to stop the sun and the moon in their tracks and, apparently, for a whole day…Obviously, to modern eyes dazzled by space rockets cruising along ‘world lines’ set by Einstein’s four-dimensional cosmology nothing could seem more jarring than the Bible’s physical world, which is little more than a glorified tent. To that tent the Bible assigns the sky as its cover and the earth as its floor, though hardly in a consistent way. In Genesis 1 the sky is a firmament, that is, a hard metal bowl, whereas in Psalm 104 and Isaiah 45:24 it is more like a canvas that can be stretched out…Herein lies one of the non-trivially unscientific aspects of the world as described in the Bible…Well before the advent of modern science, and indeed of heliocentrism, the contrast between that biblical world-tent and the world of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic geocentrism had to appear enormous.” (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Bible and Science, pages 19-25)
Obviously Fr. Jaki is not the magisterium, but he does have a good handle on modern physics, Catholic theology, and biblical interpretation.
The magisterium does not define scientific issues. The Fathers interpreted the Bible in light of the best science of their day, we should do the same. That’s my view and it is not materialism.
Phil P
4
4FenianBhoys
Guest
I always find these shows fascinating because, as per my Anthropology 101 text, geological differences, climate, and glacial routes of the iceage, (and possibly a few more) are the reasons scientists speculate greater and older finds in African regions then elsewhere on earth. Meaning: Who knows what’s been destroyed or completely washed away on other continents. And then, in a Genetics class we learned that we also share a ridiculous portion of our DNA with bananas…It seems science can be so definitive, yet unable to synchronise its own data in the face of evidentiary loss. sigh
T
trth_skr
Guest
Here is the CAI view against the flat earth in Genesis idea:
CAI on NAB said:
Be careful with protestant Scriptural exegetics (and modern Catholic ones). That is what I mean by going with what the Church has declared- they have never declared a flat earth interpretation of Scripture.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status