Evidence for God from Science

***What is geocentricity?***

Simply put, geocentricity says the earth is the center of the universe,not the sun. The sun revolves around the earth, not the earth around thesun.

I got this quote from a geocentricity website. Who actually believes the Sun is the center of the universe? Is this what Geocentricity is? The sun revolves around the earth? Doesn't the object with a greater mass(sun) have the stronger pull on an object with the lesser mass(earth).

truthman wrote:According to special relativity, any point of reference is valid. Einstein used the comparison of a person watching a train go by (fixed relative to the surface of the earth) versus a person riding on the train (fixed relative to the train). The speed of light will be the same for either one, but time and distance will vary, depending on your point of reference. However, either point of reference is valid.
Now, you can chose the centre of the earth, the centre of the Sun, or a passing meteor if you wish. It just makes the math more complicated if you choose the earth.
An exercise to illustrate: 2 people stand facing each other, hold hands and lean back on their heals and start going around and around. Now, who is going around the other? You can choose either one or a point in the middle as your point of reference.
Now, regarding the universe. What single point in the universe is standing still while all the rest is moving? We can't answer the question. So, pick a point in the universe, and make that your point of reference.
Now, accepting that God made the universe so that man could live and be born again as children of God, what is the centre of His focus?

Now, granted, there may be a problem with the exegesis of these guys, but it is not a simple cut and dried "they're wrong and ignorant" That is why I said it is a starting point for serious discussion.

truthman, I understand what YOU are saying here. The Sun rises in the east. From the Earth's perspective, it does. But, that is a figurative rising, not a literal one. The Sun only appears to rise because we are seeing it from the surface of the Earth. These geocentrists seem to be saying(correct me if I'm wrong)that the Sun LITERALLY revolves around the Earth.

Now, accepting that God made the universe so that man could live and be born again as children of God, what is the centre of His focus?

That means that You think the earth is physically in the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around it?

When you say the earth revolves around the sun, you have to choose the sun as your point of reference.
We naturally want to do that because the sun has a larger mass, but unless we could prove that a point at the centre of the sun is fixed in space, it is arbitrary.
When you say the earth is the centre it may be arbitrary or it may be based on faith (be it well founded or not).
If you choose the earth as your point of reference, then you see the sun revolving around the earth. It just gets tricky trying to describe the orbits of the other planets
For common reference, though, there is nothing wrong with saying the sun revolves around the earth.

RickD wrote: That means that You think the earth is physically in the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around it?

No. I did not say that, now did I? I asked a question: you provide your own answer.

I believe the problem here is that although the theory of relativity has been around an hundred years and has been well validated, our educational system has largely ignored it. It is hard for many people to grasp. They particularly ignore it if it challenges anything that they can use to try and disprove God and mock the Bible and Christianity. The story of Copernicus versus the church is one they love and use as much as possible. Then, like good little robots, we are all supposed to believe them and repeat it as often as possible, and attack anyone who doesn't as ignorant or stupid.

Relativity also makes understanding time and the age of the universe and earth very complicated. Everyone seems to want to think that everything in the universe has experienced time equally, while relativity says otherwise.

truthman wrote:When you say the earth revolves around the sun, you have to choose the sun as your point of reference.
We naturally want to do that because the sun has a larger mass, but unless we could prove that a point at the centre of the sun is fixed in space, it is arbitrary.
When you say the earth is the centre it may be arbitrary or it may be based on faith (be it well founded or not).
If you choose the earth as your point of reference, then you see the sun revolving around the earth. It just gets tricky trying to describe the orbits of the other planets
For common reference, though, there is nothing wrong with saying the sun revolves around the earth.

If you choose the earth as your point of reference, then you see the sun revolving around the earth. It just gets tricky trying to describe the orbits of the other planets

when we choose the earth as point of reference, the sun SEEMS to be revolving around the earth. We know the earth,all planets,moons asteroids etc. in our solar system revolve around the sun. Just like from the earth, the sun seems to be setting.

For common reference, though, there is nothing wrong with saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Except that we now know that all the planets in our s.s. revolve around the sun. Wouldn't geocentricity state that the planets revolve around the earth, as the sun revolves around the earth?

RickD wrote: when we choose the earth as point of reference, the sun SEEMS to be revolving around the earth. We know the earth,all planets,moons asteroids etc. in our solar system revolve around the sun. Just like from the earth, the sun seems to be setting

We can only "know" that the earth, all planets, moons, asteroids, etc. in our solar system revolve around the sun if we choose the sun as our reference point.
I know this is hard, but relativity says that ALL REFERENCE POINTS ARE EQUALLY VALID. If you choose the earth as your reference point, then the sun goes around the earth.

Except that we now know that all the planets in our s.s. revolve around the sun. Wouldn't geocentricity state that the planets revolve around the earth, as the sun revolves around the earth?

Yes, geocentricity describes the sun and planets as revolving around the earth, and as I said, geocentricity makes describing the orbits of the other planets difficult. It has the sun and everything else in the SS orbiting the earth in a very complicated way.

truthman said:

Relativity also makes understanding time and the age of the universe and earth very complicated.

I think I'm beginning to understand relativity now. From earth's perspective, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. From Neptune's perspective, the universe is 83.14 million years old. from pluto's perspective, the universe is only 55.24 million years old. or, If one believes in a 6000 year old universe from earth's perspective, from pluto's perspective, the universe is only 24 years old.

Well, that's funny but of course it's not quite like that. But, according to relativity, the faster something moves away from a reference point, the slower time moves in respect to the reference point. Time totally stops if matter reaches the speed of light (although it would take an infinite amount of energy) and if it could somehow go faster than the speed of light, time would go backwards. So, objects moving at a high rate of speed in reference to each other will experience a slower rate of time than objects that are not moving with reference to each other.So, what really complicates it is: what reference point or points should we use????
In a universe where nothing ever moved time would be simple: everything would experience time the same. That is the concept most people have of the universe, but it is far from reality.

The theory of Relativity is not being applied in this context at all. Truth is not relative. What the geocentric perspective did historically (and does now) is elevate a particular hermeneutic of Scripture and equate it with Scripture itself. It is wrong both because it does not align with the truth of the physical universe and also because it is bad theology. It's one thing to keep an open mind about things. It's another for a group of people to open it and let their brains, as it were, slide out.

There's certainly value in questioning and challenging things that have been supposed true and accepted as conventional widom. Science can do that and should do that and anything is fair game. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, being appealed to here, was a slap in the face of Newtonian Physics. Since then, much of Einstein's theory has been challenged and great modifications made as well.

This is not what is taking place here. The theory of Geocentricity being promoted by this small group is independent of any physical observation and futher, as they've constructed their argument, it is impossible to prove or disprove their assertion. What they've done is take a particular version of the Bible, elevate it by itself above the original manuscripts themselves, applied a literal hermeneutic that itself is not Biblical, and closed the discussion and their minds to anything else. Science in their context is a tool to manipulate and there is no reliance or acknowledgement of it and by default, the universe God made upon which it rests as a method of interpretation.

When faith becomes disconnected from the reality of the world God Himself created, then it has passed from Biblical faith, which is rooted in that reality as well as the reality of God and the exact situation Augustine spoke of in the quote in my signature has come to pass.

I'm just confused how a reasonably intelligent person could actually believe this.

How can a reasonably intelligent person not believe in a creator?

These people obviously have serious reality problems. But I've posted here long enough to know there are plenty of Christians who are led around by nose, white wash scripture, and cowtow to the god of popular scientific opinion.

Who is in a worse state Rick? These people, who although misguided, likely have trusted in the work of Christ as savior. Or, the one who is at perfect harmony with popular scientific opinon and reject Christ? Sure I understand. When people come up with such dogmatic beleifs that contradict what we observe in nature, it does place the faith in the light of wacko, nut jobs.
But equally, sometimes I wonder if people who put so much focus on this God and science thing, and try to make their faith view comply with secular scientific opinion, miss the prime directive all together.

Jay,

I think there's danger at both ends of the spectrum and that argument can be constructed with equal validity when people are out of balance.

I think most of the God vs Science argument is somewhat artificial, although I think it's important. Science relies upon extremely precise and unambiguous language. The Bible was not written to accomodate that need in science, at least not with science as a primary intended audience. I think the Bible is very precise and clear on the issues God gave it primarily to address.

There is a faction of Christianity that promotes what they describe as "literalism" which I believe carries with it some inherent danger that reading the Scripture through that prism, has imputed upon the Scripture, meanings and understandings that were neither present, nor understood in that context when it was originally given and received. Note, that I'm not saying "literalism" is wrong or that much of the Bible isn't intended to be understood literally. I'm addressing a particular element of that camp, which the original post in this thread illustrates in the extreme.

I have no way to know the motives of those individually who adopt these extreme positions. I'm not presuming to know them or even to think that they are anything but sincere. Invoking a "Pascal's Wager" type approach that excuses their actions in the light that they themselves (and only God knows) are saved is only one part of the equation. The other part is the impact that their professed point of view has in turning others away from the truth who look at this and determine that they are representative enough of the whole, so as to reject everything they have to say with regard to the Bible and more importantly, Jesus Christ. The latter is not excused by the former, unless you elevate them as somehow more important or worthy of God's love than others.

That's how I see it anyway, and I'm not promoting the opposite extreme that Science is the whole spectrum of truth.

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:The theory of Relativity is not being applied in this context at all. Truth is not relative. What the geocentric perspective did historically (and does now) is elevate a particular hermeneutic of Scripture and equate it with Scripture itself. It is wrong both because it does not align with the truth of the physical universe and also because it is bad theology. It's one thing to keep an open mind about things. It's another for a group of people to open it and let their brains, as it were, slide out.

How can you say relativity does not apply to geocentricity? What relativity did 100 years ago and still does is make it a moot point that cannot be used to call someone else stupid or having 'let their brains, as it were, slide out'. Relativity says ignorant people who hold to a Copernican view are no more correct or better than ignorant people who hold to a geocentric view.
Regarding hermeneutics: there are good and bad hermeneutics; right and wrong hermeneutics. One hermeneutic can lead to error while one to truth. These people have apparently followed a literal, grammatical hermeneutic (which allows for metaphor and allegory when obvious), which leads them to believe that every word God has spoken is true. Now what is so terribly wrong with that? I don't believe it is their hermeneutic that is so wrong but perhaps their exegesis of certain passages that is questionable.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This is not what is taking place here. The theory of Geocentricity being promoted by this small group is independent of any physical observation and futher, as they've constructed their argument, it is impossible to prove or disprove their assertion. What they've done is take a particular version of the Bible, elevate it by itself above the original manuscripts themselves, applied a literal hermeneutic that itself is not Biblical, and closed the discussion and their minds to anything else. Science in their context is a tool to manipulate and there is no reliance or acknowledgement of it and by default, the universe God made upon which it rests as a method of interpretation.

In reading their statement it indicates that they have concluded that science is not the end all and be all, that it often claims certain truth that is later proven wrong (such as Newtonian physics and Copernicanism) leading them to conclude that it is best to stand on God's word as the final and unchanging authority. If you make man and his reason the final authority, you are right in there with the secular humanists. While I might not agree with everything they say or conclude, they are not the ignorant beasts you make them out to be.

Canuckster1127 wrote:When faith becomes disconnected from the reality of the world God Himself created, then it has passed from Biblical faith, which is rooted in that reality as well as the reality of God and the exact situation Augustine spoke of in the quote in my signature has come to pass.

Biblical faith is rooted in the infallibility of God, the all knowing God of truth. When faith is subjected to the ultimate and final authority of science and the reason of man, it is no longer faith in or worship of God, but has become faith in and the worship of man.

How can you say relativity does not apply to geocentricity? What relativity did 100 years ago and still does is make it a moot point that cannot be used to call someone else stupid or having 'let their brains, as it were, slide out'. Relativity says ignorant people who hold to a Copernican view are no more correct or better than ignorant people who hold to a geocentric view.
Regarding hermeneutics: there are good and bad hermeneutics; right and wrong hermeneutics. One hermeneutic can lead to error while one to truth. These people have apparently followed a literal, grammatical hermeneutic (which allows for metaphor and allegory when obvious), which leads them to believe that every word God has spoken is true. Now what is so terribly wrong with that? I don't believe it is their hermeneutic that is so wrong but perhaps their exegesis of certain passages that is questionable.

With regards to those who, today, hold to geocentrism, the issue becomes one of deliberate ignorance. It's not as if they are saying, as you are, "oh, relativity allows perspective to justify geocentrism"...they are rejecting some pretty basic observational data. It's not that they are embracing relativity with respect to Scripture, they are rejecting any observations. Now maybe this is wrong, but I would be willing to bet that they aren't even interested in what relativity states. And without relativity, *their* view holds that, whatever basic observations says, it's wrong.

Even holding to relativity, however, we would certainly not see the Copernican geometry.

We have had these discussions before here and let's again review the discussion guidelines with regard to respecting each other.

These people obviously have serious reality problems. But I've posted here long enough to know there are plenty of Christians who are led around by nose, white wash scripture, and cowtow to the god of popular scientific opinion.

This attitude has no place here on this board. This board holds that both creation and Scripture and trustworthy testimonies to God and His actions. Any supposed contradiction between the two is due to our fallibility in interpreting one or the other.

As Bart correctly stated, there are problems in both ends of the spectrum. Those that deny science without considering the data because of fear or because of some idea that they are "kowtowing" to science have some serious problems just as those that are willing to loosen Scripture. God has given us His creation to study and He has given us His word to study. Many scientists get it right and God has revealed His truths because of good methodology. Many let their rejection of God affect their philosophy and their conclusions. We see here an example of the opposite, where a group of people have let their rigid interpretation of scripture reject some basic observations of the universe.

zoegirl wrote:With regards to those who, today, hold to geocentrism, the issue becomes one of deliberate ignorance. It's not as if they are saying, as you are, "oh, relativity allows perspective to justify geocentrism"...they are rejecting some pretty basic observational data. It's not that they are embracing relativity with respect to Scripture, they are rejecting any observations. Now maybe this is wrong, but I would be willing to bet that they aren't even interested in what relativity states. And without relativity, *their* view holds that, whatever basic observations says, it's wrong.

It is not deliberate ignorance, it is a deliberate faith (be it right or wrong). Faith is not ignorance.
It is a statement of faith in God and His word as the ultimate and final authority, which is commendable. Granted, they should be more thorough in their study and exegesis of Scripture regarding passages implying geocentricity, and yes, they should even study science and be open to studying how the 2 work together, but that can also be said of the vast majority of people, the vast majority of Christians, and a lot of guys posting here. What disturbs me is the apparent ignorance of some who post here while blasting people of faith as ignorant.