[geocentrism] Re: Absolute vs probable
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:16:43 +1000
Yep, here is my response. in blue as before to your teal.. It was hurried, I
did not think about it but let it rip straight from ye old brainbox. So forgive
the typos, and spelling. Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Absolute vs probable
Philip M
I've gathered together here small and large excerpts of your recent posts
which appear to me to be good illustrations of what I've referred to recently
under the absolute vs relative banner. I've come to regret the choice of the
term 'relative' here because what I'm really commenting upon is 'absolutely
true' vs 'probably true'. My position is that the religious side of the debate
claims for itself absolute truth while the scientific side claims for itself
only probability. Further, the religious side claims that the scientific side
falsly claims the absolutes 'truth' and 'proof'.
I'll make interspersions in these excerpts in olive which will, I hope, help
you to further understand my point of view.
Except Paul, you must accept that the religious side only refers to
absolutism in matters of faith. We do not extend those absolutes to the
physical sciences we put forward. We examine cosmology from the premise that
the world is stationary, and theorise from there. ( I have declared this
elsewhere)
The religious absolutes we adhere to must, to us, be a guide to the
direction of our research. We could never claim that our research results are
absolute truth. We merely claim they are the more probable, which is exactly
the same condition you claim for science, except your research is not guided by
any religious absolutes. Actually, more than that, your science has to reject
any PROBABILITY that stems from any research based upon a religious conviction,
We might claim you have an anti-religious conviction.
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 23:52:54 2007 [ Why Geocentric Research ]
When observational data arises which appears to contradict or "falsify" a
given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm have not,
historically, immediately rejected the paradigm in question (as Sir Karl
Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do) but have
gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting
the paradigm, through ad hoc variations to the theory, sympathetic
interpretations of the data which allow for assimilation, determination that
the "conundrum" the data was obtained to explain in the first place is
misconceived, or in extreme cases simply ignoring the data altogether (for
example, on the basis of the lack of scientific credentials of its source).
A commentator I once heard on late night ABC made a similar point. He said
that what generally happens is that elderly scientists don't generally change
their minds, but rather, they die. The younger, more open minded people coming
up, are more able to accept new ideas and they become the new generation of
scientists. The same process applies in other fields including theology.
This sample was not my work but from Wekipaedia. ? But this, The same
process applies in other fields including theology., is not true for TRUE
theology. Seeing as you bought into an argument on theology, let me answer.
It is true that modern theologians act in the way of everchanging progress
similar to the physical sciences, but these are heretics espousing the heresy
of Modernism. Modernism has been defined as the synthesis of all heresies.
Religious truth which is GOD is the same unchanging and unchangeable truth
yesterday today and tomorrow.
As an aside, Jesus Christ Himself prophesied this eventually, called loosely
the Great apostasy of scripture, which was given more detail by Christopher
Ferrara in another post I sent.
==================================================
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 22:19:38 2007 [ Why Geocentric Research ]
What if we left Scripture out of the debate and asked our scientific
questions concerning reality of what is happening? Why cannot we just just
stick to proving over and over , what Bernies post is saying, that not a single
assumption upon which Newtonian science rests can be proven? That not a single
presumption or assumption upon which heliocentric theory of the universe can be
proven?
But Philip, the same applies to the geocentric position -- you can't prove
Earth is stationary either. And the same applies to scripture by the way. But
that won't help you you know, because science is about probability, not
certainty. Of course we cannot prove it, but whilst you admit both views are on
equal footing as regards the right to claim probability, you refuse to allow
for any possibility on our side. And I have to question yours,
science is about probability, not certainty. How can you say such a thing?
True science must look for truth, not for uncertainty, which mere probability
can only provide. As a scientist, I would want to know the truth of a matter,
not a probability. And to find out a truth, I must include EVERY POSSIBILITY
for consideration, excluding none.
Your problem is that you say a thing is more probable based upon a faith in a
sequence of assumed probabilities, that is no more than a consensus of like
minded anti-God vocal majority.
"you can't prove Earth is stationary either. And the same applies to
scripture by the way." That last is an opinion, by the way, which can easily be
disproven to any who is honest about wanting to learn. I realise the evidence
is, as called in law, circumstantial, but isn't scientific evidence mostly
circumstantial?
==================================================
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 21:43:33 2007 [ bad Catholics v Good guy ]
I just dug up a few points out of another file called Canonised Heresies, by
Paula Haigh, which discusses what we are talking about, that is the science
which calls evolution and gheliocentric cosmology fact. My selections I labled
good and bad guys.
Bad Catholic
5.The Church will neither affirm nor deny evolution, as it is not her
business to do so.Father Ernest Messenger .
Good Guy:
St. Thomas Aquinas represented the tradition of the Church when he said in
his Summa (ST, I, 1, a 6, ad 2) that Theology has no concern to prove the
principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatsoever is found in
other sciences contrary to any truth of this science (i.e., of theology) must
be condemned as false: Destroying counsels and every height that exalts itself
against the knowledge of God. (2 Cor. X: 4, 5)
A presumption of infallibility -- an absolute. Yes ! as a theological
statement for the faithful. It does not presume to prove the principles of
other sciences, but only to judge them. Scientists not theologians, of the
faith will, or must then re-examine the science in question, which after all is
not claimed as a certainty, to try to arrive at a different possibility. NB
The same theology states elsewhere, that should a proof , an absolute certainty
proof be given to show the earth moved, then theology would be obliged to
re-examine its theology. That could hardly be called absolutism. But so far
this certainty of proof has not been forthcoming. It is a feasable theory, but
not absolute. and could be completely reversed without undoing any mathmatical
laws. Likewise geocentricity.
Bad Catholic Father Ernest Messenger
4. There is nothing in the theory of evolution intrinsically repugnant to
either Scripture or faith.
Good Guy:
He Father Ernest Messenger is a prime example of both the cause and the
effects of the loss of Thomistic metaphysics and the Catholic Theology that
builds on self-evident A presumption surely! and necessary principles What is
the source of this necessity? of natural reason. But this is theology Paul.
Metaphysics. not the science of physics. In metaphysics Gods word cannot be
taken as a presumption. and the source of the necessity is God, who desires our
salvation.
For just as Grace builds on nature, so does a sound Theology build on a sound
cosmology Geocentric? This too is a presumption. and physics with all the other
lower Elitism. natural sciences. It is a presumption in the science of physics
, but not in theology. And yes, theology is based upon God which is elitist and
hierarchial. We are still not in the science of physics, but merely laying down
the terms of reference for scientists who are Christian.
This can only happen when the hierarchical nature of knowledge and the
sciences is observed. Again that presumption of superiority. And yes, theology
is based upon God which is elitist and hierarchial. For as St. Thomas says, it
belongs to Theology - not to prove the principles of the lower sciences - but
to judge their truth or falsity in accordance with the Truths of Faith A
contradiction of terms surely. that are the object of Theology.
Still in theology?.. Good going Paul.. Perhaps this is your road to
Damascus. Given that MS is committed within its terms of reference to deny
Theology, which is but to judge their truth or falsity , it has to be a
contradiction. Not with true science, but with those whose aim is antichrist
and exclusive. Knowingly or unknowingly. Many freemasons on the bottom rung do
not know the prime objectives of that order.
This is the duty of the Church, using Her Theology, that all science may
achieve the end of all creation which is the Glory of God. Finally, So really,
if the church had had its way, we'd all still be sheep hearders, tillers of the
soil, hewers of wood and drawers of water (if you are black), devoting all our
spare time to glorifying God? Actually that sounds like a good idea. Adam who
suddenly became aware of all truth of good and evil, chose that lifestyle. His
rebellious sons are the reason we are having this talk. They chose to use the
knowledge (science), which probably had more certainty than what todays science
of probabilities have, to build amazing civilisations, all pagan. This is just
another age more degenerated than those, and due for the same extinction, only
worse, "such as the world has never seen before..."
But God did not tell Adam or us we must exclude science, or all the nice
things we treasure, but Adam having fed from the tree of knowledge knew all
things, and so knowing, realised which life style had the most value, and which
would help to ensure the greatest reward ever. History throughout has shown
that civilisations collapsed due to the moral collapse consequent to the easy
life style, the things we treasure. About these riches Jesus said, 'It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get
to heaven.' Does not the depth and richness of this Mans teachings not
sometimes amaze you? He cannot be faulted. Others who copy some of His wisdom
always stuff up somewhere.
Paul merely refusing to consider a God, does not, and cannot make Him
nonexistent. Your reasoning is dangerous, because your soul is eternal, and an
eternity of hell fire, cannot be evaded after death.. Its forever. Your science
cannot disprove Him. Can any soul gamble his eternal life on probabilities? Is
it worth such a risk?
Selected quotes showing the errors of science when it excludes the discipline
of theological judgement.
Presumptive Words
The major rhetorical device used by Father Zahm is that of the presumptive
word. This is but a concise form of circular reasoning, begging the question,
of assuming as self-evident See above for example of 'self-evident' used by the
theological side. and proven what is really but an unproven hypothesis or mere
prejudice with no basis in reality. Closely aligned with this device is that of
the false cause which often ridicules an opponent on false premises.
An example of both these fallacies in one sentence is the following:
Many causes might be assigned for the interest that has been manifested in
this question [of the antiquity of man] - an interest which, far from
subsiding, seems to enhance as time rolls on - but not the least potent has
been, no doubt, the antagonism that by many was imagined to exist between the
teachings of Scriptural chronology and the findings of modern science. (Bible,
Science and Faith, p. 177-8)
The presumptive words here are "imagined", "findings" and "modern science".
Throughout his books, on almost every page, Fr. Zahm uses these and similar
presumptive words. Science is the major one because, with the exception of
certain passages where he distinguishes certain "schools" of scientists, this
one word Science is always used as denoting those discoveries of the various
natural sciences in a way that assumes the interpretations of the data to be
infallibly true. That is to say, they are undeniable "facts" - another
presumptive word very frequently found in Fr. Zahm's books. I suspect that
'infallibly' and 'facts' are an interpretation on the part of the commentator.
It is worth noting that this emphasis upon facts goes back to French Catholic
lay scientist Lamarck (1714-1829) who could well be described as the first
Positivist as well as a prominent proto-evolutionist. According to him,
Positive knowledge could not give absolute certainty, but since it was the
only knowledge available, "let us collect with care the facts which we can
observe, let us consult experience wherever we can, and when this experience is
accessible to us, let us assemble all the inductions which observation of facts
analogous to those which escape us can furnish, and let us assert nothing
categorically: in this way, we shall be able little by little to discover the
causes of a multitude of natural phenomena, and perhaps, even of phenomena
which seem the most incomprehensible. (From the Beginning, Vol. 2, page 251-2)
(Emphases added) Lamark starts out saying 'Positive knowledge could not give
absolute certainty' and further states '...let us assert nothing
categorically...'. Surely this qualifies the whole of the paragraph. Just what
word would you use here instead of 'facts'? Would you excise the word 'facts'
from all but theological discourse? As one reader, I have no doubt about what
he means. I would excise the word 'facts' when used as a truth which is a lie
or a presumption in science. To say, ..."let us assert nothing categorically"
and then call a mere probability a "fact" is a contradiction, and maybe a
slippery way out so that he cannot be burned at the stake.
Your reading was biased, and seemingly confrontational rather than reasoned.
No matter how much the general public may misuse the word, the exact concise
meaning (excepting new updated dictionaries) for fact is an "axiomatic truth. "
a nonfact is a non truth.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the commonly acknowledged founder of Positivism,
could have lifted his ideas on scientific method and epistemology right out of
Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique (1809):
Positivism is now a general term for philosophical positions which stress the
factual aspects of knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, and generally
try to reduce factual statements to some foundation in sensation ... (From the
Beginning, Vol. 2, page 252) (Emphases added)
This care to collect facts which are observable and therefore "positive"
knowledge, nevertheless reduced knowledge to sensation and therefore to the
phenomenal rather than the real, epistemological inheritance from Kant. Fr.
Zahm willingly inherited and made his own this radically deviant epistemology
rather than checking the canonized philosophy of Thomism which would have based
his science as well as his epistemology on sound rather than erroneous grounds.
From what I can gather, the commentator here is suggesting that before stating
that all observations indicate that all white cockatoos are left handed, I
should make an exhaustive search of the Bible, and all its commentaries by
learned (and sanctioned) theologians, so as to ensure that I don't make an
error. What about the observation that possums are both aboreal and nocturnal?
Or that, with rare exceptions, marsupials are native of Australia? How about
the observation that crocodiles are the only reptiles with a four chambered
heart? What about parthenogenetic reproduction within the (exclusively) female
whiptail lizards? Is there indeed, anything which can be stated, in the opinion
of the commentator, without recourse to theology? You are failing to get it!
Most things lizards for example do not concern theology. Only that science
which confronts theology is judged. You personally may go your own way.
Christians of faith must follow the scriptual imperatives. Such Paul, even
though you do not subscribe to Christian beliefs, is their right. As
scientists they are entitled to their thesis. And you cannot prove them any
more wrong than conventional science. Its a matter of two faiths.. One faith
in God.. The other faith in Man. we can easily see where that latter faith is
leading us today.
But like the majority of the scientists of his day, and of ours, he had long
ago rejected the metaphysical and theological bases of all reality and
especially, of Biblical exegesis, in exchange for the more sensational
"observation" and "collection" of sensational "facts". In the following pages,
it will become evident just now bizarre the interpretation of the facts can
become when
the divine light of Scripture and Tradition is abandoned in favor of the
"findings" and "discoveries" of an atheistic Science.
Today, both heliocentrism and evolution are claimed to be "facts". The late
Stephen Jay Gould, in an article published in Time magazine for August 23,
1999, manifesting his acceptance of Comte's positivism, said
... evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly
as the earth's revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. ... In this
sense, we can call evolution a "fact". (Science does not deal in certainty, so
"fact" can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree that it would
be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent. You may not agree with him,
but I submit that this is a perfectly reasonable statement. In particular, his
treatment of 'fact' is as I suggested above. And the assent is provisional.Your
submission is illogical .. a fact is not a fact if it is not an absolute
truth.. it is merely a probable possibility. It is illogical to claim a
provisional truth. Thats devious.
The unmistakable implication is that if you do not accept the two "facts" of
heliocentrism and evolution, at least provisionally - which provision is
assumed to be the most rational - you are simply perverse. And we all know that
the perverse person is one who refuses to accept the obvious, the self-evident,
the proven fact. (Incidentally, neither heliocentrism nor evolution has a shred
of real, empirical proof to support it.) However, both Fr. Zahm and Stephen Jay
Gould hedge their scientifically documented facts with disclaimers such as
"Science does not deal in certainty" and "Science cannot contradict the Bible."
Yet in both cases we are perverse or intellectually enslaved if we do not
accept the pronouncements of this infallible Science. Again, perfectly
reasonable statements. I didn't see 'infallible' mentioned! I fear the
commentator is determined to be offended. Becauseyou do not accept the
dictionary true meaning that a fact is a truth, an axiom, A fact or a truth is
an infallibly true. It can be declared a fact infallibly, (thats a double
superlative) that the three internal angles of a triangle add up to 180
degrees. That is a fact. That the world turns is an opinion, even a probability
but not yet a proven fact.
=========================================================
From philip madsen Sat Mar 10 22:35:16 2007 [ Why Geocentric Research ]
However one spoiled the objectivity of it. "I am looking for evidence of a
fixed Earth, ... ". He isn't searching for truth, he is seeking evidence which
will support, not just an assumption, but a conviction.
Like Edison, who was certain that he would find the light bulb. Most of MS
treat most assumptions with conviction, do you not also treat the assumption of
evolution with a conviction Paul?
Yes, Edison did find his light bulb. Was he certain that he would? (That's an
absolute you know -- would he have gambolled his life on it do you think?). He
nearly did .By your definition, he could not have been certain, because there
is no Biblical description of a light bulb. obstropolis, and indicative of
sarcasm, or is it real hate for things God and Bible?. Mr. John W. Keely
however, died before his motor performed, and though others still seek to bring
his vision to fruition, it remains immobile. History is replete with people who
were certain that their idea/invention would work but were unable to so
demonstrate. A recent episode of The New Inventors had a hopeful person who had
invented a new form of electric motor which he was certain would revolutionise
industry. It relied for its action upon utilising the magnetic field at the
other end of the poles, in total 50%, which he perceived to be wasted in
current designs. Would a theological search have helped? obstropolis, and
indicative of sarcasm etc. Unlikely, but a quick search of basic electrical
engineering texts would have. .Was all of this diversion necessary for you to
avoid the real question within the same post, "do you not also treat the
assumption of evolution with a conviction Paul?"
I've previously declined to comment on evolution on the grounds that it is
not a part of geocentrism. But for the record, and in response to your specific
question, I would state that the preponderance of evidence would indicate the
validity of such a position. I am not alone in this of course. I wonder if you
have seen this quote? Would you care to guess who is the author?
"Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God":
"While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of
this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement
among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion
years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth
are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have
descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in
the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory
of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on
earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical
anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the
origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid
population of common genetic lineage."
Is that a "yes" to admission of conviction on evolution, and its co subject
geocentrism, then?
Now that last proof for evolution can easily be negated, but I'll leave it
for another time as it would be rather lengthy and complex to be complete.
Yet the answer was in a simple way written within your small
quotation.....""While there is little consensus among scientists about how the
origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained...." And the
following, "there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt
on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago" Is general agreement a
consensus then? Does consensus make it sufficient for conviction, let alone to
be a truth ? How many times has this general agreement been broken throughout
history, in general, and more recently in particular.
Are you familiar with how much complexity there really is within that first
microscopic life ?
And what happened to that law of science, that to be impirical, it had to be
able to be duplicated in the laboratory by fellow scientists?
And finally why bother, if the overall urgency was not an insane endeavour
to prove there was no God to create anything. No other reason.
Phil
=========================================================
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 11/03/2007
9:27 AM
Other related posts:
