Friday, December 8, 2017

Answering "Lemon Lee" on Aquinas


"I always asked it expecting there to be an answer."

Lee Lemon or Atheist Lee on how she was asking questions about God and the Bible back when she was a Christian (other video).

I still do.

But, what is more, I had exactly the same attitude when asking questions about Big Bang or Evolution or Mind from Matter or Origin of Language in an Evolutionary perspective.

I don't do that any more. The reason I don't do that is that, back when I started believing in the Bible, I was getting to brickwalls when it came to these things often labelled "science".

Now, we'll see Lemon Lee doing some similar things when she is answering the five ways of St Thomas.

Video here commented on
Atheist Lee, "What about the proofs of Aquinas?"
Lee Lemon | added 11th Dec. 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4hcb-oVAg


Intro
0:36 These five are proofs of God.

While each ends with a (partial) definition of God corresponding to what he has just proved, Aquinas definitely does set up to prove God here.

Citing St Thomas
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Summa Theologica, Part I, Q 2, A3
http://newadvent.com/summa/1002.htm#article3


I
1:02 Unknown to Aquinas, things can interact?

When Aquinas proves the unmoved mover, he is beginning with lots of panoramas of the interaction.

OK, a pen falls to the ground alone. But how many other things can a pen do alone?

How many directions are involved in falling to the ground? As I count, one.

A flame of fire can move in exactly one opposite direction, up.

If things as simple as being made of heavy or light matter were just moving themselves in those directions, and this from all eternity (while St Thomas doesn't actually use the Kalam of "beginning", he is of course aware that only without a beginning could a universe function in any way without God, so he concentrates in how even then the universe needs a God to function), well, there would be no movements left, since all which could soar up would have soared up and all which could fall down would have fallen down.

II
1:43 Things can "just happen"? Without a cause?

If I drop a pen, it is usually accidentally. My fingers let go because I am tired and the pen, left to itself, drops to the ground.

But how come the pen was above the ground? I had caused it to be higher by holding it.

How come I did not consistently so hold it? I was tired.

How come I was tired? Something had kept me from getting to sleep early enough or waking up late enough. A lot of that happens when you are homeless. But I would not say it "just" happens.

If I lie inside the first porch of a house, but outside the inner one, there is a lock preventing me from getting higher in the stair case. If I lie there, at a certain early hour, someone is going to take out the garbage bins for communal emptying. Now, this s not bothering a lot of other persons, but this is because they are further in, further from the noise. That was the night to yesterday. And the security agent this morning had been sent on purpose to wake me up. It was 6:16 when I got out.

1:45 half lives are not self caused, they are caused - or so they suppose - by instability in the nucleides set up.

And this is because stability in the setup needs to follow certain rules. Like Carbon 12 or Nitrogen 14, stable isotopes, at least until exposed to radioactivity, have 6 protons and 6 neutrons in Carbon 12, 7 protons and 7 neutrons in Nitrogen 14. Now Carbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons.

Hence, there is an instability and a half life.

And while Carbon 14 having 6 protons and 8 neutrons, this causing the half life, there is some cause why 6 protons and 6 neutrons or 7 protons and 7 neutrons is a "better idea." Stability wise.

1:58 The explosion of a grain silo is definitely caused.

It is caused by heat and growth of germing seeds.

2:05 And next question is, what causes certain conditions to promote ignition?

III
2:21 - 2:27

A bit wrong.

If EVERYTHING had the possibility of not existing, sooner or later over eternity, the non-existence of everything would coincide. But once that happens (and it would have happened an eternal number of times except for the following), whatever had existed before that could never more be brought back to existence, since only sth existing can cause the existence of a thing which can non-exist.

Therefore SOMETHING needs to be necessarily (and therefore eternally) existing. Creation is not even as yet considered. Even God being personal is only considered in some way in proof 4 and 5 - and in following questions.

St Thomas concludes this proof with "and this everyone calls God" but of course in the time of Epicure, one Epicure was identifying "atoms" (not identic to things like C12, N14 or C14, obviusly) as this.

2:32 "creator" is not even in the proof.

St Thomas had his reasons for not bringing in Epicure's atomism, like being unused to it and its being less intellectually satisfying than hylomorphism and Euclidean matter.

A non-identity of Euclidean matter with the eternally necessary is fairly obvious : it can be divided and it can be composed and is therefore a contingently existing thing.

2:50 "the idea that something has to be created" - is not involved in third way.

The idea that many observable things don't exist before coming into existence and many observable things cease to exist when destroyed (like a tree not existing before planted and not existing any longer when burned down) is very much involved. But it is also an everyday observation.

3:10 While Aquinas may not have had YOUR idea of what exists in empty space, he certainly did not consider it empty.

Also, the "nothing" he was talking of in case of an eternity of non-necessary only extants is a conclusion from that premiss, not an observation.

He most definitely did not think that there was a place or time when and where one would literally find nothing. So, that is not involved in his argument.

3:18 facepalm

  • "people at the time" is not involved in St Thomas' argument and their limitations don't refute it - you need to refute it on its terms, not on its presumed indebtedness to a limitation he had because of living when he did;
  • "contingent being creating" is so misunderstanding what the word contingent means - and the processes imagined for planets coming into being are contingent ones, not eternally necessary ones
  • "creating" is not at all involved in the argument : from the fact St Thomas is a Theist and a Creationist, you are reading into his argument that he must have had creation in mind, when he is in fact not stating it there.


3:27 "we now know" - no, we don't, and most times you hear that phrase, it is false. The proposed process had never in fact been observed, in this case.

"how a planet can come into existence without the help from any intelligent being"

Was "intelligent" a mis-subtitling for "contingent" or was "intelligent" what you said?

Intelligence of the necessary being is not a consideration entering as yet into third way as such.

And contingency of what brings planets into being is not really denied by the sources you are using.

IV
3:54 "even perfection is an idea which we don't see in reality"

Sure we do, you and I are more perfect than the substitling automaton, since we understand language, which is a perfection.

4:05 St Thomas was stating from observed difference in degree of perfection that there is a being which is MOST perfect. I don't see how you have put that in doubt just by not getting what it means.

4:12 Perfection is subjective?

Well, I don't know of any subject to whom not understanding language is more perfect or as perfect as understanding it. Except of course, some subjects, if you can call them that, not understanding language and not understanding the difference.

The fact that subjects exist is an argument for St Thomas degree of perfections, not against it.

V
5:00 Recall some sense data.

Earth is still. Sun is moving about it each day, creating day and night.

You CAN prove that stars outside planets must be VERY far away, and even so, their angular speed is above that of the sun, they circle Earth in 23 hours 55 minutes. Considering the distance, that is at an enormous speed. (I have calculated that their local speed is, if one light day away, superior to the speed of light). Even at that enormous speed, they don't collide and don't burst or explode.

You are dealing with as perfect a machinery as you can get (this admiration was one of the reasons why, as a byproduct, regarding nature as a machine became popular). It is working day and night, year after year (and Sun changing the angle slightly along Zodiac plane is involved in seasons), producing the ideal conditions for biological life on Earth. It all happened by chance?

Hmmm ... next time you watch the Bolshoi ballet, how about considering the coordination of all the dancers also happened by chance?

Linguistics on Quora


Q
Is it possible for someone to read and write in one language and speak and listen in another?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-someone-to-read-and-write-in-one-language-and-speak-and-listen-in-another/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered just now
If he reads and writes at all and is not deaf, it is even necessary.

If to me written Swedish and spoken Swedish are the “same language” this is because I have an acquired synaesthesia between the two languages.

It is partly but only partly an acquired synaesthesia for “this letter” and “this sound”. Some letters are pronounced differently due to context specific to Swedish and some sounds are also spelled differently in contexts specific to Swedish.

For instance, the letter G is pronounced as in Great Goose usually before consonants, and before certain vowels (A, O, U, Å), but it is pronounced like Y in Yarn before other vowels (E, I, Y, Ö, Ä). After such a vowel or after R or L, G may also be pronounced like Y in Yarn.

It is only the written language which has a same letter in both cases.

Gatans goda glada gummors gåta in the spoken language has one sound for each G.

Ger giftiga gymnastiker att göra med gästernas högda elghornsskedar in the spoken language has another sound for each G.

Similarily, this other sound can in the written language be spelled J instead of G only for one of the words (höjda is a more modern spelling of högda), while other words need it to be spelled J : just i Jultidens jobbiga jägtande jagande julklappsjagt.

Note that one of the J is where the normal rules would imply the spelling G for jägtande, except here the spelling rule is overridden by etymology.

I have here omitted other spellings of the J sound (several) and other pronunciation (only one more) of G (NG, GN, NK - two groups beginning with same sound after that sound spelled alone with both letters spelling it in the groups).

Since each speaker who is also a reader and writer has acquired one synaesthesia, he may obviously also acquire another one.

Two languages are often considered two dialects of same language, when each of the two spoken ones can coexist in synaesthesia with same written one. On the other hand one spoken language can coexists with two spellings, like American rhotic dialects of English are fairly similar or same North and South of Canadian border, but a certain pronounced word will be spelled “labor” on one side of the border and “labour” on the other side. And if elsewhere it is pronounced very differently, it is mostly not about how second vowel sound is pronounced, but how the letter R is, or isn’t.

The spelling of English - roughly fairly constant since 1350 - has coexisted with more than one spoken language. You just give the same text to a man from Ozark area and a man from Delhi, and you will see British spelling is coexisting with different English spoken languages - and therefore the British spelling, coexisting with either is identic to neither. Some more of it have been there since Chaucer.

And, in Ozark area, you let some other man used to the spelling bee write the text down after its pronunciation, and you will see the Ozark language is capable of coexisting with both British and American spelling. Therefore it is identic to neither and could theoretically coexist with even other spelling systems (and actually does so in Li’l Abner by Al Capp).

In other words, if someone was thinking of my considerations about French and Latin, with someone speaking in French and writing in Latin around 800 AD, actually there is not much of a problem. It is just that the relation between writing and speech would be as complex as in Swedish or English, not as simple as in Classical Latin.

Or, if someone was thinking of my writing “19th C” Swedish and speaking “21st C” Swedish, it’s like the Canadian border : a division in spelling that has no real bearing on how words are pronounced. 1906 was not a “development” in spelling, it was an administrative reform in it.

Q
How do you find the origins of words?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-the-origins-of-words/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered 7h ago
Tolkien wanted to know the origin of the word “wasp”.

He believed in the IE proto-language theory. This means, if “wasp” is common to sufficient IE branches, it is derived from the proto-language. If it is not derived from it, it should show up in only one branch or if in more, in a neighbourly one.

If you believe that, you start studying what words meaning wasp, perhaps also bee and similar, but reminding of wasp in looks, look like in other branches.

Wasp and German Wespe are obviously the same branch. In Latin you have vespa, which could actually be the origin of German Wespe (but would be difficult to reconcile with a vocalism of wasp). French guêpe and Italian vespa will get you no further, since both derived from Latin vespa.

In Lithuanian you seem to have vabzdys and vapsvas (reconstructed from genitive plural vapsvų, before looking at dictionary). Sorry, vapsva. As to vabzdys, it seems to mean insect, in general.

In Polish you get osa - which could mean that it is derived from the word which in Lithuanian gets vapsva. PIE P would not be preserved at and of a syllable. PIE W could vanish between an S and a vowel. And short PIE A or O, while A in Germanic and Baltic, are O in Slavonic. An original PIE W would perhaps disappear before O, or by dissimilation with following w, before it disappeared.

An original WOPSWA would in Lithuanian be vapsva and in Polish either **wosa or - as shown osa. It would explain the English form waps.

An original WEPSWA could somewhere be remade by metathesis as WESPA and explain Latin vespa. Therefore also German Wespe.

And according to PIE theory, short O and E were sometimes interchangeable, so, one could get a word which was both WOPSWA and WEPSWA.

So, what Tolkien probably did put in the entry for that dictionary word was :

wasp, from waps by contamination with vespa, from IE *wopswa alt. *wepswa, confer Lith vapsva and Polish osa (or he might have used Church Slavonic or Russian or sth).

I say “probably”, because I have not actually read this entry.

Now, if one does not believe IE unity derives from one proto-language, one can still believe the word has one proto-form, and very possibly that one bandied around between early forms of above mentioned languages.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

On Francisco J. Ayala


... on Knowledge of Hagiographers · ... on Nature of Catholic Authority · On Francisco J. Ayala

***** 15. Evolution vs. Creationism: Biblical Literalism *****
Qualitative Research Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkcC8FkS6Nc


Only part of the section with Francisco J. Ayala:

2:22
Chapter 2 of Genesis does not show God creating dry land or sun, moon and stars after Adam was created.

It also does not show any days passing between Adam's and Eve's creation, it is compatible with both being created on day 6, as per the resumé in chapter 1.

The "difficulty" for literalism is [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

Here the solution proposed by translater is that we are talking about animals formed before Adam. Kent Hovind has another solution, God made extra examples of all kinds so Adam could watch Him create and verify He was the creator.

2:37
Who is this guy? He considers that in Genesis 2 not just animals but plants (in general, as opposed to just one garden of them with trees poofing up for Adam's edification in it) and even stars - not even mentioned in chapter 2! were created after Adam. That would indeed involve a contradiction with chapter 1, which fortunately is not there.

Checking by scrolling back the video: Francisco Ayala, Ph.D., Donald Bre Professor of Biological Sciences, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, U.C. Irvine, 2001 National Medal of Science Laureate

Oh, at least no US university gave him any credits for his skills in Biblical exegesis ... good ...

3:00
"[hundreds and hundreds of] inconsistencies and incompatibilities"

Probably Francisco Ayala checked an Atheist's Annotated Bible or sth.

Each of the "inconsistencies" self destructs when checked against the actual words of the Bible.

Two things scientists are often very poor on: Bible and Medieval History.

3:57 - 3:59
"[the writers of the Bible could not speak of atoms or natural selection] or even of the earth going around the Sun, because there not what people thought was the case at the time in"

Francisco Ayala, I do not quite get what you are trying to convey.

Back when I was a Lutheran (fortunately no more!) I was against women "priests". Some guys argued that Jesus could only name male apostles, because the priesthood back then was reserved for men ... well, in Israel it was, since Aaron and before (if you read Genesis), but that was a thing God had arranged more than 1000 years before. In the Pagan world, there were lots of cults with female priestesses. Isis, Aphrodite, and a few more, there were female priestesses back then. A N D Jesus still chose male only Apostles.

What they were thinking was, back then people had not progressed beyond a certain misogyny, and so Jesus adapted to it, and now we have progressed beyond it, Christianity no longer needs to adapt to a misogyny no longer reflecting our culture.

Of course this is blasphemous, it implies God when living among us like Man was inadequate (at least without the help of very recent interpreters pushing "empathy" for what Christ must really have meant very far) to "bear witness for truth".

You seem to have a very similar and very evil idea that scientific progress is a one way story and that while God was believing atoms, natural selection and heliocentrism, He not just ignored atoms, but contradicted Natural Selection and Heliocentrism just to adapt to the people He was molding like pottery clay through the 40 years of Desert Journey. Ah, He can make them circumcise, He can make them abhor porc meat, which Egyptians did not abhor, He can ... and yet if He had also given them Heliocentrism, it would have been too much for them.

While there were no instruments with which to "measure parallax" back then, the knowledge of Heliocentrism could have been a supernatural one, one acquired by trust in God, as knowledge of Hittites has so long been for Christians, up to about a century ago.

So much for the idea God could not have revealed it.

As to the writers, they were not autonomous intellectuals to whom God revealed nothing, but some of them were prophets.

Now, atoms may or may not be true (the globes you find in electronic microscopy and where you have a big and two smaller ones for water molecules are not correctly named atoms, only conventually so : if they were really a-tomoi, indivisible, there would be no isotopes and no radioactivity : whether carbon 14 decays to carbon 12 or to nitrogen 14 which is its origin - I have heard both - both its origin and its decay contradict there being no parts in carbon 14 which can go away or be added).

Atoms are at least not contradicted by the Bible.

But for Natural Selection, you even have a contrary statement in the Bible, twice at least:

Matth 10:[29] Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.

Same thing said in Luke, but here is an older mention:

Ps 103:[21] The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God.

In other words, decision of what animals survive is not "natural selection", but an apparent "chance selection" which is really a "providence of God" selection.

Similarily, Heliocentrism is also contradicted twice, or more:

Ps 103:[5] Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.

And even earlier than that:

Joshua 10:[12] Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. [13] And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

As said, this was after God had been giving Israel extra lessons for free in the Desert, and you pretend God could not have revealed Heliocentrism to them, so Joshua could have told Earth not to turn for a while? Are we supposed to conclude that God did not know He was going to make the miracle? Or that He didn't care about which words he used, what created entity he adressed after praying?

No, it is rather the idea of Francisco Ayala which is blashemous. Not Biblical literalism!

I just
found out a few things about Francisco J. Ayala:

"Francisco José Ayala Pereda (born March 12, 1934) is a Spanish-American evolutionary biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine.[2] He is a former Dominican priest,[3][4] ordained in 1960,[5] but left the priesthood that same year. After graduating from the University of Salamanca, he moved to the United States in 1961 to study for a PhD at Columbia University. There, he studied for his doctorate under Theodosius Dobzhansky, graduating in 1964.[6] He became a US citizen in 1971."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala


First identity of this post, keeping it:postID=7883265666845594547 - perhaps fits Francisco J. Ayala?

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Alex Pismenny on Democracy and Freedom, Quora


Q
Can you be free in a non-democratic nation?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-free-in-a-non-democratic-nation/answer/Alex-Pismenny


Alex Pismenny
Interested in social theory
Answered Nov 17
Absolutely you can. “Democratic” means, certain people get to vote and to be elected to certain offices. That is the only privilege that you don’t get in a non-democratic country.

You still should have all the fundamental rights:

  • The right of self-defense
  • The right to voice opinions other than direct incitements to violence or divulging secrets of others
  • The right to buy and sell property between willing seller and willing and able buyer
  • The right to contract for labor between willing laborer and willing and able able employer
  • The freedom of conscience


Note that what I listed above are true freedoms: they require nothing from others in a coercive way in order for me to enjoy them.

The right to vote and be elected is not such fundamental right. It is a privilege that the society as a whole may or may not give its citizens. The privilege is always subject to complex restrictions, for example, so that a majority may not abuse the minority because the majority has the votes.

At the same time, many democratic societies restrict or abolish certain fundamental rights.

There is no direct connection between democracy and freedom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
7h ago
“ many democratic societies restrict or abolish certain fundamental rights.”

Just take a look at Sweden and Norway ….

May I copy your excellent answer to my blog?

Alex Pismenny
3h ago
Please, I’ll be honored.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Heliocentrism (quora)


Q
What were you taught in school & later found to be untrue? I.e. I was taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America, but my son was taught it was the Native Americans.
https://www.quora.com/What-were-you-taught-in-school-later-found-to-be-untrue-I-e-I-was-taught-that-Christopher-Columbus-discovered-America-but-my-son-was-taught-it-was-the-Native-Americans/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered Mon
That the Earth circles the Sun. OK, one day in school I suspected it, and asked for the physics’ teacher’s proof.

His was, there is a good coordination between planetary masses and orbits as predicted Newtonian way.

However, planetary masses are deduced by the orbits according to the theories of Newtonian physics. I don’t know how many are independently known, for instance by flybys, and if these have really taken place.

Also, supposing the flybys have taken place and proven planetary masses, there are options for Newtonian physics being true (as far as vectorial components for planets are concerned) while Earth is still the centre. Sungenis and his associate in Croatia are giving one of them. Luka Popov, I think his name is.

But while at school, I still accepted the explanation as proof.

Answered
by I Jesse Raffield and by II David Hansel

I
Jesse Raffield
Did you ever figure out which orbits which?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mon
I consider Sun orbits Earth each day, Zodiac each year.

Jesse Raffield
Mon · 3 upvotes
It doesn't bother you that probes on Mars have literally observed the Earth going around the Sun?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
11h ago
You get a camera (film, not stills), a chopper and go circle about a tower. From the chopper you can “literally observe” the tower turning around itself, which in reality it of course does not, standing still on the ground.

You get the idea?

Or you thought I considered Mars as concentric around Earth? No, I am Tychonian. Sun concentric around Earth (outside Moon, inside stars) but other planets concentric around Sun. The relative movements “in solar system” are the same.

Jesse Raffield
11h ago · 1 upvote
So your reason for believing this is just a case of special pleading? What arbitrary rules your world must work by.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
11h ago
I don’t know how “special pleading” applies to world views.

It applies to arguments.

The world can work by arbitrary rules, if there are arbiters, like angels, or an arbiter, like God.

Jesse Raffield
10h ago · 1 upvote
Its special pleading in the fact that for no particular reason you claim that the Earth somehow doesn't follow the laws of physics like every other planet.

I see that you're quite religious from your answers and questions, is that why you reject obviously true facts?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
5h ago
The laws of physics would only “dictate” the course of a globe (Earth, Sun or planet) if nothing else is.

If you occasionally move a pen or a keyboard, you have some experience in things that move without physical laws being the prime cause and directive force of the movement - since your will is.

No law of physics is forcing you to type an A if you want to type a B.

Our real difference is whether persons who can move things according to their will come only human sized or come in spiritual mights of infinity (God) or whatever individual globe one is moving (angels).

“why you reject obviously true facts?”

I don’t reject any obviously true fact, since what is “obviously true” to an atheist is not objectively speaking “obviously true”.

II
David Hansel
20h ago · 1 upvote
Please tell me this is a troll answer…

Hans-Georg Lundahl
6h ago
Prepared for a shock?

You have had 14 hours to digest it, take a look at my dialogue with Jesse Raffield.

David Hansel
2h ago
You’re right, it is a shock to see that someone can so poorly misunderstand the world and how to construct an argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
9m ago
As to “how to construct an argument” I am indeed not impressed by some here.

But you might be referring to someone else than I am referring to?

God and Galaxies (quora)


Q
How does knowing that there are countless galaxies with countless stars and planets make the God of the Bible seem unlikely to exist?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-knowing-that-there-are-countless-galaxies-with-countless-stars-and-planets-make-the-God-of-the-Bible-seem-unlikely-to-exist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Answer requested
by Nathan Solis

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
Answering:

“How does knowing that there are countless galaxies with countless stars and planets make the God of the Bible seem unlikely to exist?”*

  • we don’t know that; specifically, “galaxies other than our own” could easily be an erroneous conclusion in Heliocentrism;
  • even if we knew that, it wouldn’t make the God of the Bible the least less likely to exist, He would just be the creator of so many more galaxies if they exist, and of so many less ones, if they don’t exist, but being infinite, among other things in power, one or other is no problem to Him.


* It is often useful on quora to state what one is answering, since the question can be changed and your answer still remain.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Is Narcissism a Sin? (Quora)


Q
What is God's punishment for narcissists?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Gods-punishment-for-narcissists/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
Who says “narcissists” or “homosexuals” or “cleptomaniacs” or any psychological label constitute a group of sinners?

Sodomy is a sin, but homosexuality is not always expressed in this sin, and does not always merit the punishments for it.

A cleptomaniac who is not stealing anything or whose stealing only amounts to venial sins or is systematically payed back when the excitement of pilfering undetected has been satisfied is not punished for mortal sins of theft.

And you can make a similar case about narcissism. Psychological labels are not very important. Acts are.