- Astronomers have deliberately ignored fundamental experimental results of the 1870's and 1880's that showed the earth to be standing still
- That all phenomena-including the stationary satellite thousands of miles above the earth- are better explained by geocentricity
Lordy, my head hurts. I'm guessing that those researchers in 1870whatever then went on to claim that Pasteurization was a complete hoax and that eugenics was the wave of the future. In fairness to The Ancients, gravity was not an easy concept to grasp or prove with crude tools. I mean, things fell because they wanted to get back to earth because it was the center of God's universe, right? In fact, it wasn't until around 1915 that gravity could truly be understood in the theoretical sense as it applied to celestial bodies. But, c'mon, we can respect The Ancients without falling into the same mental traps. As for geosynchronous orbit of satellites, it works because the are at such an altitude and rotating about earth at such a rate that they appear to stand still. And that is what this is really all about.
But what about the other planets? If you take earth as our center once again, which is now proven to be in an elliptical orbit from outside (satellite) observation, and put it inside of the orbit of an outer planet that completes an orbit in twice the time, you get this (dig that free-hand squiggle!):
Say what? That planet just pulled an Immelman! I think we can intuitively note that something is amiss. I'm a hard-core dork, so I plotted this on paper before sketching it. If Johan Claus von Lichtenstein (or his cousin Jingleheimer Schmitt von Lichtenstein) observed the path of the outer planet for less than 24 months (in my scenario, actual times differ), he could miss the little loop that throws the whole hypothesis out of what.
Even this shady representation of multibody dynamics falls to pieces if you just launch a space vehicle that is not tied to any planetary orbit. It shows the solar system to be a group of planets orbiting the sun. Does this marginalize God? Hardly! Embrace the beauty of what He has set in motion. The earth can be "made" to be the literal center of the universe, mathematically. So what? God's true focus is His love for us, not an argument over coordinate transformations. I've done a LOT of coordinate transformations, and I assure you it revealed my lack of desire to obtain a PhD, not any great Truths about life. Learn to walk in His Will by study of scripture, be compassionate (I Tell You What does not yet excel in compassion) and forgiving (ditto), claim his Righteousness, and turn your back on snake oil.
4 comments:
To present a dissenting view, some would say you too are falling into the same mental traps as the Ancients, you're just a little further up the timescale.
Just as you are saying that there's no need to insert "God" into something that has a scientific explanation and proof, many would say that there is no need to insert "God" into a universe that has entirely scientific explanations.
However, just as the belief in God is ancient, disbelief in Him is equally ancient. So nobody is paving new ground, whether rational, mystical, or somewhere in between.
As for the universe having entirely scientific explanations, I think we're seeing the distant horizon of "the final answer" on just about every area of research pushed continually backward to reveal... more questions than answers. This has been ongoing for centuries, and shows no signs of ending. I think when you look at recent discoveries such as chaos theory and the uncertainty principle, you find that the "whole picture" cannot be uncovered, end of story. You will go on chasing bigger or smaller fractal patterns and never reach the end of the line, as chaos theory would explain. Our universe is too expansive on macro and micro scale for the human mind to grasp.
The fact is, if one is seeking total enlightenment, as I imagine you fashion yourself a rationalist and would do so, it cannot be obtained through either religion or science alone. This was the crux of my Dual Citizenship post (http://stewchats.blogspot.com/2008/04/dual-citizenship.html).
I always welcome feedback.
Red Wings Rock.
To again present the dissenting view, just because there is no known scientific explanation doesn't justify the insertion of a supernatural force into the process.
One of the most compelling arguments I've found against the existence of God is the "who created God" argument. No matter what problem you are using God as the solution for, God actually complicates things rather than simplifying them.
Take the beginning of the universe. I say Big Bang, you say Divine Creation. You say that the Big Bang is SO improbable, God is the more elegant/logical solution. My counterpoint is, where did God come from?
The fact is, no matter how unlikely the Big Bang is, God is even more unlikely. If there was a omnipotent presence that created the universe, where did it come from? The origins of anything we would call "God" is far more unlikely than any scientific explanation that has been put forth so far.
I actually do not find the Big Bang improbable at all. Anyway, as DJ Gallo reported, the Big Bang was a Joba Chamberlain fastball hitting God's batting helmet because He was crowding the plate.
The whole point of God is that he is, by definition, incomprehensible. How can something or someone have omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience? How can God be, have always been, and ever be? As I said in my last response, the universe itself is not something that can be bounded, at the micro or macro scale, by the human mind. Therefore, why would we suppose that God, the creator of and one who imposes His Will on the universe, would be somebody we could "get"? Love Him and accept His mercy and seek to know His Will for our lives, yes.
There are elements of a father/child relationship. Remember when you were young and your father was incredible and infallible? Fishing, fixing cars, handiwork in the house, feats of strength, whatever he had skill at was amazing because you couldn't even begin to understand how he could do that. Likewise, even when he disciplined you, you never could "get" the importance of what he was teaching because discipline and work ethic are beyond the mind of a 7 year old. You just know homework and broccoli suck. And, of course, you couldn't even comprehend how he could be so old and have come into being.
Regarding the relative improbability of God, when we are faced with scientific proposals that require dark matter that makes up 3/4 of the universe but can't be found or 11+ dimensions of space/time or multiple universes to exist, does God really seem so unlikely in the face of that? Most of those things just remind me of phlogiston.
As a close, I apologize earlier for using the terms "religion" and "faith" interchangeably. Religion is an artifact of man, and is always to be held as imperfect and even suspect. Faith is the foundational and personal belief in God and divinely inspired scripture, which is the basis for evangelical Christianity.
Post a Comment