Earth IS Center of Universe?
#41
(07-07-2011, 01:02 AM)kingtheoden Wrote:
(07-07-2011, 12:50 AM)romanaround Wrote:
(07-06-2011, 10:03 PM)kingtheoden Wrote:
(07-06-2011, 09:57 PM)romanaround Wrote: I hate to break it to you guys but evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.

If geocentrism were be accepted by science tomorrow (for the sake of argument), that won't make a lick of a difference to atheists who already reject God despite the proof we already have in creation.

You are just wrong.

On what? That evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive (iow, you can believe in both), or that atheists won't believe in God even if geocentrism was proven by science?

I meant the latter, but actually the former is wrong too. 

Ok, so you believe that atheists will believe in God once geoncentrism is proven by science?

Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

Maybe I'm just a little bit too cynical when it comes to atheists and their over-all good will to look at the evidence.  :shrug:

kingtheoden Wrote:This would uproot traditional understanding of the Fall from Grace, a time after which death entered the world.  If those trilobites died millions of years before death entered the world, well we have a logical problem here.  Different topic though.

I don't think that's a logical problem, though.

Original sin brought death to the world for the race of Adam. Catholic doctrine doesn't define that it brought it to other forms of life.

if Adam and Eve were vegetarian  then naturally there would have been "death" to some forms of vegetative life before the fall, no?

We don't know for sure. But Pope Pius XII allowed for the theory of evolution and saw nothing incompatible with it as long as it was kept within due limits (e.g. no polygenism, or evolution of the soul), and if Pope Pius XII's magisterium allowed it that's good enough for me until Rome says otherwise.
Reply
#42
I thought the Fall extended to all Creation, not just Man. The rationale behind this is that God gave Adam and hence Man dominion over all Creation so when he fell the created world fell with him. Death, disease and disorder now reign not just in the lives of men but in the lives of plants and animals too. At least this seems plausible to me.  I could never personally accept evolution. Evolution would seem to quite literally rot out the foundation of all religion as being anything more than a personal mythology or a psychology. Today you see this happening everywhere, this reduction of religion to psychology and mythology where truth only matters to the individual. It's like reducing religion to Jungian archetypes or Christ to the "hero with a thousand faces" of Joseph Campbell.
Reply
#43
If the universe is infinite, everywhere is the center of the universe.  If the the universe is not infinite, it is possible for the earth to be the center.  This is just my thought.


(07-06-2011, 02:09 PM)cgraye Wrote: I'm pretty sure it's impossible to determine what the center of the universe is.
Reply
#44
(07-06-2011, 02:30 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: the earth is the centre of the universe
it is where r the incarnation occured. no small beans God being born a wee poor babe on this wee lonely rock.
it is where God was crucified, died and resurected.
thats more then enough to make this wee rok the centre of the universe
sip

This

Although I used to say the Rosary online with a guy (SSPX member) that sent me an article that explained geocentrism.  I read it once but couldn't grasp the idea.  It's fairly complicated, or at least I thought it was at the time.  It wouldn't hurt my feelings if science eventually had to bow to the Supreme Master and accept that the earth is literally the center of the universe.  Until then I like DK's explanation.
Reply
#45
(07-07-2011, 06:04 PM)kingtheoden Wrote:
(07-07-2011, 09:52 AM)Melkite Wrote: Why would the Earth need to be the physical center of the universe in order for Christ to come here?  Where in Scripture does it strongly indicate that we are the center?

Melkite, did you read what I wrote?  I gave you a list of reasons why it would on an intuitive basis make sense for Earth to be the center of things.

In real life, the focus is almost always centered in anything.  It's a natural law or order.  While one could conceive of an odd quirk that God would create His ultimate work of Earth and man but not center the heavens around it, it seems unlikely.  Rather, it sounds a lot like crackhead parish councils that move the Tabernacle to a side room, violently disrupting the natural centering of a church.

Furthermore, heliocentrism was promoted to attack the Church.  So it did originate from those who questioned or directly assaulted (as in Galileo's case) the Church's station.

Andrago - You're right.  This would upturn a lot of 'settled science' but so what?  So called intellectual giants like Einstein and Hawking are notorious for total reversals, incomplete explanations, and just plain speculation. 

Good Catholics must study mainstream physics because it is extremely useful and aids mental development.  But never ever should we place our faith in a theoretical model that does break.  Ultimately it is far more sensible that Earth is the center of creation, and there is legitimate hard science to back this.  Furthermore, it is a theologically difficultly to suggest the Fathers and Doctors were all wrong about this -  that we should instead place our trust in deviants and those who hated our Blessed Lord.

This answer is pretty much fundamentalism.  As whoever it was that posted earlier, there are things that we know about the universe that don't make sense if the Earth is the center of the universe.  Suggesting that we need to be the center of the universe because it just makes sense that we would be because God deigned to be incarnated here is really nothing more than sentimentalism.  Whoever it was earlier that said it is more theistic to view everything revolving around the Earth, well, sure, if that were the case, it would seem to imply something intelligent created everything around us.  But once you look outside of Earth, you see that isn't the case.  The other planets revolve around the Sun, not us.  For example, if Venus revolved around us and not the Sun, then we should see it at other times than just before the Sun rises or just after the Sun sets.  If Mercury revolved around us, we should see it at other times besides immediately before sunrise or immediately after sunset.  If everything in the universe revolved around us, then we would be the center of the milky way, and yet we're not.  Just as a whirlpool revolves around it's center, a galaxy revolves around its own, not around us.  We're not the center of the universe.  It is quite irrational to believe that we are, given what we now know about the universe.  Geocentrists provide fodder for atheists to consider Christians a bunch of crackpot fanatics.
Reply
#46
(07-07-2011, 07:34 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I thought the Fall extended to all Creation, not just Man. The rationale behind this is that God gave Adam and hence Man dominion over all Creation so when he fell the created world fell with him. Death, disease and disorder now reign not just in the lives of men but in the lives of plants and animals too. At least this seems plausible to me.  I could never personally accept evolution. Evolution would seem to quite literally rot out the foundation of all religion as being anything more than a personal mythology or a psychology. Today you see this happening everywhere, this reduction of religion to psychology and mythology where truth only matters to the individual. It's like reducing religion to Jungian archetypes or Christ to the "hero with a thousand faces" of Joseph Campbell.

That's my view.  Even when I was completely irreligious, by my college years I completely rejected this for empiracal reasons.  And the fact that those who cooked up this idiotic theory were extremely noxious individuals.
Reply
#47
Respectfully as I can be, Melkite, your song sheet never changes.

If geocentrism is so ig'nant and such fodder for atheists, refute the arguments presented by extremely intellegent scientists.  Instead, you employ sophism.

Your reasoning is just the same as claiming that insisting on actual Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption is fundamentalist.
Reply
#48
(07-07-2011, 01:32 AM)Slayer Wrote: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

The above site will give you the traditional Catholic view of geocentrism.

Another excellent page by John Salza.
Reply
#49
(07-07-2011, 10:51 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Respectfully as I can be, Melkite, your song sheet never changes.

If geocentrism is so ig'nant and such fodder for atheists, refute the arguments presented by extremely intellegent scientists.  Instead, you employ sophism.

Your reasoning is just the same as claiming that insisting on actual Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption is fundamentalist.

Bullshit.  Now, I'm not saying heliocentrism can't have any flaws and that we won't discover things in the future that will require the current heliocentric theory to be revised.  But how do geocentrists explain celestial bodies clearly revolving around something other than us?  Or, for example, how can geocentrism be compatible with seeing stars in one position in the summer and another in the winter, and then return to the same position in the winter?  They aren't revolving around us, because they don't make a complete circuit of the sky.  It's because we are moving in relation to them, not to us.  That's not sophistry, that's just the simplest explanation of what we are seeing.

Do you believe in geocentrism because of something scientific that had convinced you, or do you believe it because you believe the Bible teaches it and science, correctly understood, won't contradict the Bible?
Reply
#50
(07-07-2011, 11:25 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-07-2011, 10:51 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Respectfully as I can be, Melkite, your song sheet never changes.

If geocentrism is so ig'nant and such fodder for atheists, refute the arguments presented by extremely intellegent scientists.  Instead, you employ sophism.

Your reasoning is just the same as claiming that insisting on actual Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption is fundamentalist.

Bullshit.  Now, I'm not saying heliocentrism can't have any flaws and that we won't discover things in the future that will require the current heliocentric theory to be revised.  But how do geocentrists explain celestial bodies clearly revolving around something other than us?  Or, for example, how can geocentrism be compatible with seeing stars in one position in the summer and another in the winter, and then return to the same position in the winter?  They aren't revolving around us, because they don't make a complete circuit of the sky.  It's because we are moving in relation to them, not to us.  That's not sophistry, that's just the simplest explanation of what we are seeing.

Do you believe in geocentrism because of something scientific that had convinced you, or do you believe it because you believe the Bible teaches it and science, correctly understood, won't contradict the Bible?

Calling me Fundamentalist is sophistic.  I do no derive spiritual food from illiterate American snake charmers who can barely string together sentences.

Melkite, read some publications from Catholics with a sensus Catholicus or some secular scientists who argue rather persuasively that most of the astronomical 'settled science' is actually conjecture and psuedo religion.  There are men who will be fired tomorrow and never work again in physics departments even at high schools if they taught the possibility of an electric based Sun or the reality of the aether.

If I had the time to play monk on this, I would.  But I don't and others have done a better job than I could.  So aruge with their math, diagrams, and formulas.

For centuries, millenia, man noticed that stars do shift according to seasons.  That did not stop rather learned men from accepting as obvious fact that the Earth is the center of the universe.  Heliocentrism is a very recent novelty with origins in apostates, heretics, and those who were determined to undermine the Church.

The unveiling of the Copernicus model is a distinct division from the traditional era and the modern era for this reason.

Quote:Do you believe in geocentrism because of something scientific that had convinced you, or do you believe it because you believe the Bible teaches it and science, correctly understood, won't contradict the Bible?

Well, both actually, but how in the world can you imply that the latter is somehow wrong?  If you are a Catholic son loyal to the Holy Father, the Holy Catholic Church and all her truths, you cannot choose to accept a way of the world that clear contradicts Scripture or Tradition.

Geocentrism appears to contradict both (certainly Tradition) and therefore can only be permitted if properly understood.  100% of convinced heliocentrists believe we are an insignificant pale blue speck on the edge of a tattered remote arm in a random ass galaxy.  In other words: We are not special, we have no special role, we just live and fade away like fruit flies.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)