[geocentrism] Re: God and Science
- From: sungenis@xxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:09:29 -0500
Wonderful. Perhaps, Renger, you can send a letter to Stephen Hawking and tell
him that "humility" is not a criterion for deciding cosmological issues, and
therefore he doesn't have to be considered proud when he is tempted to agree
with the observational evidence in the cosmos that the Earth is in the center.
Robert S.
-----Original Message-----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:36 pm
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: God and Science
Good.
nd HC doesn't rest on modesty (which, as you point out, is a philosophical
oncept - not a scientific one) - Let's get back to the science.
- Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
uoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Regner,
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Philip, Allen and others,
There seems to be some confusion about my motives here, so I would like
to stress these few points:
A) I accept your religion. I dont care what your relgion is..
B) I am an atheist.I dont care what your relgion is..
C) I am NOT trying to "convert" any of you.I dont care what your relgion
is..
D) I don't see the HC/GC debate having any bearing on whether there is
a God or not.
You are, of course, free to have another opinion on that but don't blame
that opinion on me.
I will ignore any further accusations of me trying to take away your God. I
did not bring up the philosophical/ religious aspects of it all. You admited
that was what was under discussion in. I'm just point out that for anyone to
use modesty as a criteria for interpreting data is a religious & or
philosophical reason. I want to exclude that just as you do. but "modesty" is
not a reason based on Logic, observation and experience. As such HC has no
proof external of it’s Philosophy/ religion. Whether you like it or not, to
say or base an interpretation on the presence or absence of a God is a
religious venture, regardless of what evidence you put forward to either
support or deny that position. The point is you cant get away from
philosophy/ religion it no mater which side you take. As such, if left with
only evidence of or against God or a particular model of the universe we are
only left with one possible conclusion without invoking circular fallacies of
imagination. We
have no data that tells us there is no God thus we cannot use a religious
philosophy of "modesty" to champion a given interpretation. HC can not lay
claim to observations in support of it without invoking a religious/
philosophical tweek to the data. On the other hand GC does not have to assume
there is or is not a God to take the observations at face value which show in
fact a GC universe. We must take the data at face value unless there is a
logical not religious/philosophical reason for doing so. Even HC folk know
and admit that the ultimate criteria is "modesty" but it is "modesty" as
their philosophy/ religion dictates. It is not an objective definition based
on the scientific data!?
Whether or not you believe in a god or the God is your problem but in any
case the data only show a GC universe. There is no other interpretation of
the data you can arrive at without first invoking a religious or at least a
very very subjective "modesty". If the universe can just explode and create
all the order and intelligence that we observe, ( by definition of the terms,
those terms at least come from humans who are by their own definition
intelligent and where the term design comes from in the first place ) then
why would/could you argue "modesty" when a earth centered universe could just
as well be one more amazing miracle of life that "mother nature" did? On the
other hand, one can see how a earth centered universe would make it harder
for many people to accept that everything is just all by accident.
E) Since a God is almighty, he/she is obviously unfalsifiable and
therefore
outside the reach of the scientific method.
Science does NOT preclude a God. that is not the issue "modesty" and the
criteria for data interpritaion is...
F) The Universe seems to follow some astonishingly simple laws of physics.
and yet there are so many annomilies to those "simle laws"...ummmmm
That is the reason there is such a thing as the science of physics.
This is what we are investigating here.
G) I am here to show you why I see overwhelming evidence for HC,
and to examine your overwhelming evidence for GC. you can't look at one
without the other, as i said the evidence for GC is in HC's claims and
errors...
Judging from the warm-up discussion about Earth's rotation, it seems
like it might take a good while before we get through it.
G-Z) I am not trying to take away your God. Im not trying to give you a God
either...
Regner
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
Other related posts:
