Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You're a smart guy, Halv. Don't buy scientific myth handed down as fact nonsense. The objections to heliocentrism were entrenched well into the 17th century...

A careful examination of the evidence shows that the modern fable that is most people's understanding of the Affair bears little resemblance to historical fact..."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-mo...storical-event

For more from atheist Tim O'Neill...

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/

From Thony Christie...

"...On the face of it, the heliocentric cosmology was absurd from a common-sensical and a physical point of view. Thinkers had grown up on the Aristotelian division between the heavens and the earthly region, between perfection and corruption. In Aristotle's physics, bodies moved to their natural places. Stones fell because the natural place of heavy bodies was the center of the universe, and that was why the Earth was there. Accepting Copernicus's system meant abandoning Aristotelian physics. How would birds find their nest again after they had flown from them? Why does a stone thrown up come straight down if the Earth underneath it is rotating rapidly to the east? Since bodies can only have one sort of motion at a time, how can the Earth have several? And if the Earth is a planet, why should it be the only planet with a moon?

For astronomical purposes, astronomers always assumed that the Earth is as a point with respect to the heavens. Only in the case of the Moon could one notice a parallactic displacement (about 1°) with respect to the fixed stars during its (i.e., the Earth's) diurnal motion. In Copernican astronomy one now had to assume that the orbit of the Earth was as a point with respect to the fixed stars, and because the fixed stars did not reflect the Earth's annual motion by showing an annual parallax, the sphere of the fixed stars had to be immense. What was the purpose of such a large space between the region of Saturn and that of the fixed stars?

These and others were objections that needed answers. The Copernican system simply did not fit into the Aristotelian way of thinking. It took a century and a half for a new physics to be devised to undegird heliocentric astronomy..."

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories...an_system.html

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Aside.../dp/0268029881

More from history of science blogger Thony Christie...

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2018/02...s-strawmaning/

Or consider a monthly play-by-play from Mike Flynn...

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/...own-great.html

...

Good post

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why would you believe they didn't exist? Did non-existent people write the scriptures, too?

We’ve been down that road. I’d be willing to go down it again sometime but the current discussion is about #10089

Originally Posted by Actor

"All knowledge that is not the genuine product of observation, or of the consequence of observation, is in fact utterly without foundation, and truly an illusion." -- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

To which you responded...

Originally Posted by boxcar

Really? Well...well...you just bit your schnoz off to spite your face, didn't you!? Just remember that the next time you speculate about the origins of the universe, this world, or life or the age of things -- because all that puffed up so called knowledge of yours and the other high priests of scientism is not the genuine product of observation or of the consequence of observation and is therefore in fact utterly without foundation, and truly and illusion.

… plus a couple of ad hominems at the end which can be ignored since they contribute nothing to the discussion. Within that response you made the claim “… all that puffed up so called knowledge of yours and the other high priests of scientism is not the genuine product of observation or of the consequence of observation ...” You make this claim. The burden of proof is yours. I will not be holding my breath waiting for your proof.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But "to infer" can also mean to guess, surmise, suggest or hint or even imply.

Fallacy of equivocation. i.e., substituting one definition for another. From context that Lamarck’s meaning is to derive as a conclusion from facts. – Merriam-Webster

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

We’ve been down that road. I’d be willing to go down it again sometime but the current discussion is about #10089

To which you responded...

… plus a couple of ad hominems at the end which can be ignored since they contribute nothing to the discussion. Within that response you made the claim “… all that puffed up so called knowledge of yours and the other high priests of scientism is not the genuine product of observation or of the consequence of observation ...” You make this claim. The burden of proof is yours. I will not be holding my breath waiting for your proof.

Fallacy of equivocation. i.e., substituting one definition for another. From context that Lamarck’s meaning is to derive as a conclusion from facts. – Merriam-Webster

Hey, you're the big fan of Lamarck's. You quoted him. So, you want to use the primary definition of "infer"? Okay. Let's play.

Were the facts directly observed? For example, MW gives as an example, <we see smoke and infer fire -- L.A. White> compare IMPLY.

So, tell us what did any man see at the beginning of the universe? Who witnessed the beginning of the universe? Did someone see "smoke" from the Big Firecracker that exploded in the sky? Do you have the names of the witnesses who saw the beginning of the universe? Do we have any historic documentation from eyewitness accounts?

And by the way, I didn't substitute one definition for another. I used other definitions in MW that seem far better suited to forensic science.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, you're the big fan of Lamarck's.

Not really. He was, after all, a deist.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You quoted him.

Seemed a good segue.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, tell us what did any man see at the beginning of the universe? Who witnessed the beginning of the universe? Did someone see "smoke" from the Big Firecracker that exploded in the sky? Do you have the names of the witnesses who saw the beginning of the universe? Do we have any historic documentation from eyewitness accounts?

Let's go with what we can, and do, observe now.

• Observation: The red shift of light from distant galaxies.
• Observation: The more distant the galaxy the greater its red shift.
• Consequence of observation: The universe is expanding.
• Consequence of observation: The universe must have been smaller in the past.
• Consequence of observation: There must have been a big bang.
• Consequence of observation: This must have occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
• Consequence of observation: The Genesis account of creation is a fable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not really. He was, after all, a deist.

Seemed a good segue.

Let's go with what we can, and do, observe now.

• Observation: The red shift of light from distant galaxies.
• Observation: The more distant the galaxy the greater its red shift.
• Consequence of observation: The universe is expanding.
• Consequence of observation: The universe must have been smaller in the past.
• Consequence of observation: There must have been a big bang.
• Consequence of observation: This must have occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
• Consequence of observation: The Genesis account of creation is a fable.

What you observe NOW doesn't necessarily lead to all the logical inferences you have made about the PAST. The Present doesn't = the Past.

Have a nice night.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What you observe NOW doesn't necessarily lead to all the logical inferences you have made about the PAST.

Why not?

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Present doesn't = the Past.

No one is saying it does. But if the girl is pregnant in the present it's a pretty good bet she's had sex in the past.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

You're a smart guy, Doc, the element of the Copernican heliocentrism that is importasnt, is not the earath revolving around the sun, but the eath's ROTATION ON IT'S AXIS. Your pal boxcar is confusing the sun "rising" with the earth spinning.

Boxcar is no Copernicus or Galileo of time.This is not a religious battle between a 17th century primitive scientific Church(s) and the birth of heliocentrism. It existed, and did occur in varying degrees....

A Brief Note on Religious Objections to Copernicus:

I get asked about this a great deal, in large measure because the common lore is that the Catholic Church immediately condemned Copernicus and his system, while enlightened Protestants eagerly embraced both. In fact, the response from the leading Protestant theologians of Copernicus' time was swift and negative, though even this response was mostly remarks in passing in conversation or sermons, nothing resembling an organized anti-Copernican campaign. The Catholic Church, despite later official hostility, was largely silent at first. Silence, however, does not necessarily imply approval, as the events of the following century were to so forcefully prove.

Boxcar is a throwback to WAY before the 17th century in many ways. Specifically when it comes to time, space and matter

I wasn't addressing Boxcar's cosmology.

I addressed Boxcar a few pages back. Time is the measure of change. The direction of change is the direction of time. Newborns don't return to the first trimester. And the direction of the explanation is the direction of time. To describe change is to describe something in the past which has changed.

Personally I wouldn't spend pages with one who is arbitrarily reversing his arrow and his language against the common sense experience of the world.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why not?

Because any number of the multiple premises could be wrong.

No one is saying it does. But if the girl is pregnant in the present it's a pretty good bet she's had sex in the past.

That ain't sayin' very much. Who did she have sex with? Exactly when? Was the sex consensual? Or was she artificially inseminated?

Likewise, the universe exists now, therefore there's a pretty good chance it existed before now.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I wasn't addressing Boxcar's cosmology.

I addressed Boxcar a few pages back. Time is the measure of change. The direction of change is the direction of time. Newborns don't return to the first trimester. And the direction of the explanation is the direction of time. To describe change is to describe something in the past which has changed.

Personally I wouldn't spend pages with one who is arbitrarily reversing his arrow and his language against the common sense experience of the world.

In the beginning, even before the foundation of the world, do you believe that God ordained the number of days for all mankind before the restoration of all things, and do you believe that he has ordained all your days?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not really. He was, after all, a deist.

Seemed a good segue.

Let's go with what we can, and do, observe now.

• Observation: The red shift of light from distant galaxies.
• Observation: The more distant the galaxy the greater its red shift.
• Consequence of observation: The universe is expanding.
• Consequence of observation: The universe must have been smaller in the past.
• Consequence of observation: There must have been a big bang.
• Consequence of observation: This must have occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
• Consequence of observation: The Genesis account of creation is a fable.

Only if

a) the author's understood intent was to provide a scientific explanation for creation

b) the author was understood to be, in effect, a stenographer taking dictation without any secondary contribution of his own (i.e., choice of genre, etc.)

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Because any number of the multiple premises could be wrong.

You have to do better than that. Which ones? Can you prove they are wrong?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Who did she have sex with?

It doesn't matter. And don't say it matters to the girl. Of course it matters to her, but it's a straw dog, not the question under consideration.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Exactly when?

DITTO!

Originally Posted by boxcar

Was the sex consensual?

DITTO!

Originally Posted by boxcar

Or was she artificially inseminated?

Possibly, but that's another straw dog. Statistically improbable and therefore it's still a good bet. And there are those who consider artificial insemination to be a form of sexual intercourse.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Likewise, the universe exists now, therefore there's a pretty good chance it existed before now.

No one is claiming otherwise, so what's your point? The question is how long has it existed and the answer is 13.7 billion years.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In the beginning, even before the foundation of the world, do you believe that God ordained the number of days for all mankind before the restoration of all things, and do you believe that he has ordained all your days?

Yes.

I think you're going for the "principle of final causality"?

In the natural world, if A (acorn) is the "efficient" cause of B (oak tree), it's because generating B is the "final" cause of A, the end to which it points.

There is a sense then, in which B causes A.

I wouldn't phrase this metaphysical concept as "the future causing the past", etc.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I wasn't addressing Boxcar's cosmology.

I addressed Boxcar a few pages back. Time is the measure of change. The direction of change is the direction of time. Newborns don't return to the first trimester. And the direction of the explanation is the direction of time. To describe change is to describe something in the past which has changed.

Personally I wouldn't spend pages with one who is arbitrarily reversing his arrow and his language against the common sense experience of the world.

Thanks. Did not see your earlier address to box. He and I have hashed this out previously. I stoppesd posting anything about time. He brought this up attempting to discount my opinion on a totally different topic by telling me " I was so wrong on that other topic it was just like my inability to understand his time theory", the absurd reverse one. You are correct., I allowed myself to get pulled back in again.

Thought I could change his mind....this time.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Yes.

I think you're going for the "principle of final causality"?

In the natural world, if A (acorn) is the "efficient" cause of B (oak tree), it's because generating B is the "final" cause of A, the end to which it points.

There is a sense then, in which B causes A.

I wouldn't phrase this metaphysical concept as "the future causing the past", etc.

100%

Hey box, if you insist on a judge, (I no longer do), let's allow dnlgfnk to judge your claim that there is a clear practical example of effect preceding it's cause on the human scale of events

Well, have you chickened out?
I would like to end this silliness once and for all.

In fact, when you loose, you do not have to stop posting on this thread, just so we can cork you up on time

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You have to do better than that. Which ones? Can you prove they are wrong?

It doesn't matter. And don't say it matters to the girl. Of course it matters to her, but it's a straw dog, not the question under consideration.

DITTO!

DITTO!

Possibly, but that's another straw dog. Statistically improbable and therefore it's still a good bet. And there are those who consider artificial insemination to be a form of sexual intercourse.

No one is claiming otherwise, so what's your point? The question is how long has it existed and the answer is 13.7 billion years.

The term is "straw man", not straw dog.

Of course, all the things I mentioned about the "pregnant girl" matter because scientists claim they know exactly HOW the universe came into existence, they know HOW old it is, they know HOW evolution occurs, they know HOW abiogenesis occurs, they know, they know, they know all the HOWS and WHYs. So, in your lame, overly-simplistic analogy with the pregnant girl, it doesn't tell us anything other than she's pregnant. We know nothing about How or Why she got into that condition.

You see forensic science is no different than a detective -- in fact, to be more specific -- a cold case detective trying to bring an old unsolved case back to to life to look for new clues and reexamine the old ones, etc. in the hopes of finally solving the case. And just like a detective who wasn't at the scene of the crime -- who didn't see or hear anything -- who has no witnesses who have seen or heard anything either -- scientists try to piece together the clues of the universe and they make their boatload of inferences from that. But they have zero direct evidence to go on -- other than the fact the "girl is pregnant", i.e. the universe exists, so it got into this state or condition somehow. And of course, the high priests of sceintism are going to presume to solve the "crime" -- solve the riddles to the universe and by telling us how it all happened.