View Single Post
  #138  
Old Jun 4, '10, 11:53 pm
masterjedi747 masterjedi747 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2005
Posts: 818
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
An example is the long day of Joshua where the sun stood still in the sky for 24 hours. Can you find a natural explanation for that miracle. Or shall I suppose that you do not believe that this miracle occurred.
(1) If there was a natural explanation, then it wouldn't strictly be a miracle. (2) It certainly was a miracle. (3) In fact I believe it was the same sort of miracle that took place at Fatima.

Note, however, that in neither case is it necessary to assume that either the earth or the sun actually departed in any way from their ordinary motion. Why? Because in neither case were these miracles witnessed by the entire world. The miracle at Fatima was witnessed only by those present at Fatima, and by the Pope in Rome. Not a single other person in the entire world reported seeing the sun dance and fall towards the earth that day, which is a huge indication that the motion of the sun at Fatima was a localized vision, not a true physical displacement. Likewise with the miracle of Joshua: nobody else in the entire world reported seeing the sun stand still (or refuse to rise) for 24 hours. Not a single pagan culture existing in the world at that time recorded that event in their history. You know what that tells me? That Joshua's miracle of sun was a localized apparition, not a true physical cessation of any celestial motion. Now, am I denying that God could have moved the heavenly bodies in such a miraculous manner, if He had so chosen? No, I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying that, even though He could have, it certainly doesn't look like He did. Instead, as usual, He chose to be significantly more subtle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
If God can perform miracles as an extraordinary action upon the natural world, I see no reason to conclude... that he cannot perform miracles in ordinary and daily actions upon the natural world.
I'm not saying that He can't. I'm saying that He doesn't. And I'm telling you that classical philosophy is vehemently opposed to any suggestion that He does, because it is horribly, horribly insulting to believe that God created a universe in which nature was broken. As if to suggest that a universe in which nature is complete and self-consistent somehow detracts from glory of God, or renders Him that much more unnecessary. Quite the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Like I said. You cannot prove that God does not cause the planets to orbit the sun and the sun to orbit the earth by direct supernatural power.
No, but I can explain to you why it's a truly terrible, ugly philosophical suggestion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
And if that be the case then no scientific measurement will ever confirm one way or another whether this be the case or not.
The scientific measurements have long provided us with more than enough reason to render the above suggestion contrary to reason, in addition to already being philosophically repugnant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
...I believe what I see that the sun does indeed rise in the morning and travels through the sky. I also therefore believe the witnesses who saw the risen Lord on Easter morning.
Logic = Fail. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Jesus is himself called the "Sun of Righteousness". Therefore if the sun does not really rise but only seems to rise... then maybe the rising of the "Sun of Righteousness" is also a trick of the senses, an optical illusion that those witnesses only thought they saw the risen "Son" but in fact he only appeared to be risen.
Metaphor recognition = Fail. Logic = Fail. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
In fact the modern teaching has a striking similarity to the teachings of notorious heretic Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake for his heresies by the Congregation of the Inquisition. He is roundly regarded today as the first martyr for (the new religion) science.
So... kind of like Joan of Arc, who was not only burnt at the stake, but excommunicated before her execution... and yet somehow managed to be canonized as a Saint. Funny, it looks like we now have two more historical instances of non-infallible Church proclamations being recognized as errors, and consequently overturned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Notice how strikingly similar his teachings are to the beliefs advanced by modern science.
I'd like to make a minor note, that modern science does not actually hold the universe to the infinite, either with regard to space or time. On that note, holding the history of the universe to be actually infinite is contrary to Church teaching on the creation of the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
It shows how dramatically science changes whereas the truths of God are stable and unchanging throughout all the ages.
Hurrah, we actually kind of agree on something!

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Today if we are to believe modern science we have to concede that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was wrong and that Giordano Bruno was right.
He wasn't right about everything; but quite a few things, yes. And unless you're under the mistaken assumption that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office claims infallibility, this isn't that big of a deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Who is out there making some apologies for the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office?
Pope John Paul II, for starters. But we've already been over that.
__________________

"The theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill." - Cardinal John Henry Newman