Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:19 There is "no sensible mechanism" - except of course, angelic movers.

Bel-Shamharoth

The key word there is "sensible".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you mean, since angels are purely rational and have no five senses, the "mechanism" is not "sensible" in the exact sense of the word?

< / irony off > What is not sensible about believing angels are moving planets? (Usual sense of word, this time!)

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Where is your proof that your description of them is accurate in any way, shape or form?

What is not sensible about it is the fact that there is no evidence that angels even exist, let alone that they are doomed to spend ten billion years doing nothing but pushing planets around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) My proof angels exists is in the Bible.
• 2) My description of them as non-corporeal is from the theology of St Thomas Aquinas (shared by Riccioli).
• 3) As far as I have described the matter, pushing planets about is not a doom. It should be a pleasant pastime. A bit like mythology's Helios riding a chariot behind horses. But perhaps closer to biking than to chariot riding. Considering the loops etc described in this video, not too far from certain athletic types of biking or skateboarding.
• 4) "spend ten billion years" - by now more like 7 thousand, 2 hundred and 15 years.
• 5) "doing nothing but" - oh, but they enjoy praying and enjoy the Beatific Vision of God at the same time - precisely as is the case with a guardian angel spending 0 to 120 years "doing nothing but" trying to keep a human being off the track of damnation and put them back on the track of salvation. With certain old sinners it would be even more tedious, since they only can keep them off certain sins which would damn them even deeper, not really any more give them chances of salvation. Playing ball games with the planets between them would be child's play compared to interacting with a sinful human. How good for them that men - after the Fall of Adam - do not live for 7215 years!

Here

I omit giving the response as such in full and instead give answers on each subtopic divided according to numbers. In each division me, him, me. I am so only omitting in the following, his initial appeal "+Hans-Georg Lundahl". As in my third level answer to him I included his second level answer to me within quotation marks, that is how his remarks appear here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) My proof angels exists is in the Bible.

Bel-Shamharoth

1) « where is your evidence that the Bible is a credible source of information? (let me answer that for you; it isn't) »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is another debate. The arguments in that one are mainly historical.

Heliocentric and non-angelic « astronomy » is however one of the attack points against it, one reason why I consider it an error.

Bel-Shamharoth

1a) « Where in the Bible does it mention them spinning the planets, sun, moon and stars around the Earth? »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point was mainly that the Bible says they exist.

If the Bible has directly said « angels are the movers of celestial bodies » the debate of Riccioli’s referring to Kepler and St Thomas Aquinas as having different opinions would not exist, since both claimed to be believers in the Bible, yet Kepler believed Sun moved planets by magnetism and Aquinas God assigned an angel to each star and planet. Some indications stars are either alive or moved by angels who are so is for instance in Baruch 3.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My description of them as non-corporeal is from the theology of St Thomas Aquinas (shared by Riccioli).

Bel-Shamharoth

2) « I don't care where you got your hypothesis from. That does not really make it any more valid since it has not been shown to be true. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You asked « where is your proof » and I am trying to oblige by giving the detail.

Your hypothesis has most certainly not been showed to be true either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3) As far as I have described the matter, pushing planets about is not a doom. It should be a pleasant pastime. A bit like mythology's Helios riding a chariot behind horses. But perhaps closer to biking than to chariot riding. Considering the loops etc described in this video, not too far from certain athletic types of biking or skateboarding.

Bel-Shamharoth

3) « Fine, but why? An omnipotent and omniscient God could create a much better system than that. I could create a much better system than that, and I'm not even all-knowing. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why ? Why create at all, God has been happy for all eternitybefore creating and could have remained happy even without creating ?

Creation was for the glory of God.

Now, one of the glories that God does get from creating is creating rational beings, capable of earning (or having by now already earned) an eternity of bliss with him.

Both before and after earning bliss, intelligent beings are capable of causing things.

For those in Heaven, the main way is by prayer. Nevertheless, for all created things, at least potentially there is some direct efficacy on other things.

God could, says Riccioli, have created stars and be directing each himself and letting no angel touch any of it, given stars life, so they move themselves, given some inanimate mechanism (like Kepler’s magnetism) or given celestial bodies into the charge of angels.

Against first position, God is not doing all Himself, He is creating things which can also do some small asigned part under Him. Against second (an argument which might be somewhat needful of revision ?) bodily life implies changes, which we don’t observe in stars and planets (we do, by now). Against third, magnetism or whatever inanimate mechanism is a less dignified cause than angels for something as high up as celestial bodies.

Bel-Shamharoth

3a) « You have no evidence that this is true. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Neither have you for your hypothesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4) "spend ten billion years" - by now more like 7 thousand, 2 hundred and 15 years.

Bel-Shamharoth

4) « No, by now more like 5 billion, plus the 5 billion that the Sun will continue to live. So 10 billion. You don't even have solid evidence for that 7 thousand number, let alone exactly 7,215 years. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You don’t have any solid evidence for any of your billions of years.

With Heliocentrism down, we have no parallax measure for « 4 light years » being that of « closest stars » and therefore also no ensuing parts of cosmic distance ladder. Therefore no distant light years problem against a « young » universe.

My solid evidence for 5199+2016 years starts with

3 And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot a son after his own form, and after his own image, and he called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, which he lived after his begetting Seth, were seven hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters. 5 And all the days of Adam which he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. 6 Now Seth lived two hundred and five years, and begot Enos. 7 And Seth lived after his begetting Enos, seven hundred and seven years, and he begot sons and daughters.

(English translation of LXX, the text from which St Jerome did a calculation of chronology, or took over one).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5) "doing nothing but" - oh, but they enjoy praying and enjoy the Beatific Vision of God at the same time - precisely as is the case with a guardian angel spending 0 to 120 years "doing nothing but" trying to keep a human being off the track of damnation and put them back on the track of salvation. With certain old sinners it would be even more tedious, since they only can keep them off certain sins which would damn them even deeper, not really any more give them chances of salvation. Playing ball games with the planets between them would be child's play compared to interacting with a sinful human. How good for them that men - after the Fall of Adam - do not live for 7215 years!

Bel-Shamharoth

5) « Once again, where is your proof of this? »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Too long to take each place in Bible and argue about its relation to all other places. Short answer, Theology of the Catholic Church.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Look, your replies are so long and full of extraneous nonsense that it's not even worth sorting out. I agree that the accuracy of the Bible is another debate, but the debate is settled. It already happened, and the Bible lost. while it gets some things correctly, it gets other things so wildly wrong (including its own stories in some cases) that it is not considered a valid source of knowledge. Believe what you want, I don't care, but you cannot assert as fact what has been shown not to be true, or has not had any substantial evidence to back it up. Not if you expect to be taken seriously anyway. Now, as I said, your responses are full of talk but not a lot said that I won't bother debating you anymore. I've found it's not worth my time to convince people like you online, so I'm going to stop now before we go any further down the rabbit hole.

[In other words, if I may add it here, he gives up because he knows I am winning.]

BoothTheGrey

If you take angels I take Vaia. If you take the bible as "proof" I take the silmarillion. And now?

By the way - do you use a navigation software with your smartphone? You know that it only works because of modern astrphysics? I repeat: It works by modern science. NOT by your angels. Why cant angels tell you all the time where you exactly are? And if you think angels are more trustworthy than science - why do you use computers that also only can work because of modern science? Why cant you use your bible to built an magic angel-youtube with commentary-section?

Cause that what science is about: Its about reality and its about what works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I agree that the accuracy of the Bible is another debate, but the debate is settled. It already happened, and the Bible lost."

When, where, how?

Lost according to whose estimate of winning or losing?

"If you take angels I take Vaia. If you take the bible as "proof" I take the silmarillion. And now?"

Since Tolkien was a Thomist, his valar (L, not i), maiar and other ainur are basically angelic beings.

He even probably considered maiar started moving sun and moon on day four, as I do, since "age of the trees" is probably calqued from day three and "age of sun and moon" started on what is probably a calque of day four. Not quite correct in normal view of Biblical history, but closer than, say, a Catholic trying to combine evolution with it.

It is from his Silmarillion that I first got the idea that angelic beings could be moving sun, moon etc.

Now, there is a basic difference. Silmarillion came out into bookshops after the death of its author. In 1916 when he rode out into WW-I, it did not exist, its earliest chapters were written when he was in war.

It is thus useless to pretend it were some kind of long and well preserved history of earliest things.

Genesis however seems from later books in OT to have always been there with the Hebrew people. And Abraham and even Moses is, according to Biblical genealogies, close enough to Adam to have actually preserved some correct and accurate memories from the very earliest events in human history.

You cannot point to any year later than Moses and say Genesis was composed as a whole then. And Moses just stringed the chapters together plus added the six days. You cannot say "before 1977, no great public had seen Genesis", as you can with Silmarillion.

Plus, books later than Genesis are (except those spanning several generations) usually as a whole written during the events by contemporaries (let's except non-historic books, like psalms, wisdom literature and prophecy too : Daniel was not a contemporary of Antichrist or even Antiochus Epiphanes and Isaiah was not a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth). Books spanning more than one generation were usually written cumulatively, like later the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Hence, events in the Bible are normally speaking very well documented in a way that events in Silmarillion are very much not.

Of course, there is always the revisionist fringe of modernists who will pretend that traditionally assigned authors are not the real ones, but the real ones much later. Like, speaking of Tolkien, would you be prepared to defend a thesis Silmarillion was written last year by Neil Gaiman? I wouldn't.

"You know that it only works because of modern astrphysics?"

OK, what exact astrophysical thesis about someone else's smartphone is essential to its working?

Btw, I don't have one, I sit before a computer in a library.

"Why cant angels tell you all the time where you exactly are?"

They are not allowed to, because I am not a saint and I don't always need to know exactly where I am. Where I am now, I already know because I know the library since several years, and if I were hiking, I might enjoy the possibility to be lost a bit.

But theoretically they could if they wanted to or if God wanted them to.

"Why cant you use your bible to built an magic angel-youtube with commentary-section?"

Because the Bible does not imply directing angels as if they were your tools.

Also, I am not quite sure no angels are after all involved at all in internet.

But if all angels possibly involved were demons, I don't think so many Catholic priests and popes would be using electronic media. So I am not worried (even if perhaps I should be).

Reality and what works are two different concepts. Reality involves lots of things which don't work for you - including every thing which is real and which doesn't work for you.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl The debate was lost on February 4, 2014 at the creation musem, when Ken Ham, stalwart defender of the Bible, was shown to be a stubborn liar at best and a deliberate deceiver of everyone, including himself, at worst. Your last paragraph is gibberish, too. If it doesn't work, it's not reality. Simple as that. The Bible does not work as anything but a blood-soaked fiction. And I no longer have the patience to play this game with you. Good day.

BoothTheGrey

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can only say that Bel-Shamharoth is absolutely right with his last point. Thats what religous folks often do - switch between weird details and basic philosophy concepts. The most important things remain the same: Never ever anybody invented anything with any "holy word".

The concept of science is different: Science is evolving - religion wants to keep the same. And religous folks sometimes even think that they "gotcha" when a scientific theory has to be corrected. But that is EXACTLY what science is about. Religion is the OPPOSITE.

On the psychological level I can see all the strange work you do to avoid the PAIN someone must feel when he sees that his faith in his absolute truth does not work. I can accept how hard it must be. On the other hand I would not feel any pain AT ALL if any religous group would come up with some real good evidence for their faith. But they dont.

And science provides MILLIONS of good evidence. Every modern technology is an experiment for several scientific theories and models. ALL religious folks DO all this experiments like all other people do them. But they still dont want to accept it. That is REJECTION of evidence. I dont think that this should be the result of a deep faith.

My advice: Confront with your inner pain that your faith could be WRONG.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The debate was lost on February 4, 2014 at the creation musem, when Ken Ham, stalwart defender of the Bible, was shown to be a stubborn liar at best and a deliberate deceiver of everyone, including himself, at worst."

Even if that were so, that would just disqualify him as a defender of the Bible, not the cause of the Bible from getting a defense.

"Your last paragraph is gibberish, too. If it doesn't work, it's not reality. Simple as that."

So, a computer connexion which is not working is not a thing that really happens?

Keys that refuse to work (at least pretty long) are not phenomena which really happen?

Locks of car doors that refuse to respond to keys are a myth out of Tolkien's Middle Earth?

You know better than that. Or you live in a very charmed micro-reality. Reality at large has lots of things that do not work.

But I suppose you mean sth like "if angels as movers of celestial bodies don't work, they are not real"?

Well, duh, its the gravitational model which doesn't work when tested by Don petit with static electricity in knitting needles replacing gravitation, without a solid. It's the gravitational model which has broken down.

[see other subthread]

"The Bible does not work as anything but a blood-soaked fiction."

The Bible does NOT work as fiction for the simple reason that no mechanism by which a community claiming to have openly possessed a record since it began can have after its beginning confused a piece of fiction with that record. If anything, docufiction, like Washington Irvings docufiction being in some minds a substitute for the real records about Columbus - but that is not even a fair parallel, since US and its precursors in English colonies come into being a century after Columbus, it is not as if it had happened by the community in place since the days of Columbus, that is the Hispanics.

"And I no longer have the patience to play this game with you."

Feel free to quit the debate. I am not exactly languishing for lack of it, except on the French side of internet, where I happen to live. Among English speakers, I am always getting a new debater.

"Good day."

Same to you. Even you, I would not wish a bad day.

"I can only say that Bel-Shamharoth is absolutely right with his last point."

Which I already refuted.

"Thats what religous folks often do - switch between weird details and basic philosophy concepts."

Any detail must in the last resort be coherent with any real basic philosophy concept. That is why it is important to confer them.

And that however weird the detail might be.

"The most important things remain the same: Never ever anybody invented anything with any "holy word"."

The Rosary has been called the Bible of the Poor.

[Or Gospel of the Poor. "Bible of the Poor" is rather stained glass windows.]

It has probably served as model for the movable types of Gutenberg. Unless it can be proven he had access to Marco Polo's account of China - which before he invented the printing press can have been difficult.

"The concept of science is different: Science is evolving - religion wants to keep the same."

A revelation from God, if genuine, cannot be corrected.

No future human brightness can equal the omniscience, truthfulness and wisdom of God.

"And religous folks sometimes even think that they "gotcha" when a scientific theory has to be corrected."

Even when what is corrected away was the basis of what was antireligious. Or especially then.

"But that is EXACTLY what science is about."

Science is primarily about truth. 2+2=4 will never ever be corrected, because uncommonly for a scientific matter, the theory has no shadown of a doubt in its basis. Hence, on your view, 2+2=4 would not be scientific.

"Religion is the OPPOSITE."

Religion is the same as the certitude that 2+2=4 - except that in this case we are taking the word of the real expert rather than reasoning ourselves.

"On the psychological level I can see all the strange work you do to avoid the PAIN someone must feel when he sees that his faith in his absolute truth does not work. I can accept how hard it must be."

Pseudo-empathy is a common failure among shrinks and atheists.

"On the other hand I would not feel any pain AT ALL if any religous group would come up with some real good evidence for their faith. But they dont."

In that case, I suppose you would be willing to take a look at the reasons for accepting the Gospels?

Take a look at the blog here:

somewhere else
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com

Yes, I am linking to my own blog. No, it is not like citing myself as a source. It is making you familiar with what I have already said, so I don't need to repeat it but can go on with the problems you have with that.

Specifically, take a look at the series involving this message:

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-blooper-dan-barker-from-atheist.html

"And science provides MILLIONS of good evidence."

For most of its propositions, pretty few of which are antireligious. It's another question whether it provides millions of good evidence against religion.

"Every modern technology is an experiment for several scientific theories and models."

Invent rotating parts attached to their fulcrum through electromagnetic attraction of it rather than by a solid surrounding both (cfr tub of death) or a solid string or rod uniting them, and you may have a point about the gravitational model of heliocentrism.

So far, the experiment of Don Petit is not very promising.

[see other subthread, as said.]

"ALL religious folks DO all this experiments like all other people do them. But they still dont want to accept it. That is REJECTION of evidence."

Name one experiment we do and of which we reject the evidence?

"I dont think that this should be the result of a deep faith."

I don't use the phrase "deep faith", sounds like something out of a psychology manual rather than something out of the catechism describing how faith should be.

"My advice: Confront with your inner pain that your faith could be WRONG."

My advice to you is: ditch psychology (whether you are amateur or professional) before you hurt more people. For the moment you are not hurting me, but the professionals as well as their allies in the form of amateur abettors are destroying human lives, same as Oracle of Delphi did. Oh, it worked - but it worked by lots of self fulfilling prophecies, a bit like those of the three witches in Macbeth in the lines "hail the Macbeth" etc. Everyone knew he was thane of Glamis, the devil could have told them he had just become thane of Cawdor, and it was their false prophecy which pushed him (via his wife) to fulfilling it.

[the false prophecy "who shalt be king hereafter", I mean]

Psychology is more often than not involved in the same type of witchcraft and Delphic paganism.

Btw, Bel-Shamharoth and Booth the Grey making a team reminds me a bit of Mormon missionary tactics. Also a thing invented by religious, and which probably works on some levels, since you plagiarise it.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl For one thing, He and I simply agree. That is not the same as "making a team". For another, are you really ignorant enough to think that teaming up was invented by the Mormons? Are you saying that there were no such thing as alliances before the Mormons? As deals? truces? Pacts? Way to take foolishness to the next level. with that, I won't be responding to you anymore. I'm toying with the idea of blocking you and you ill-thought-out arguments altogether. Please don't influence me to do so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant making a team of two persons agreeing in conversation with another usually lone person.

On internet this becomes somewhat diluted.

If you can show any older usages of this method than the Mormon one, I'd be obliged of course?

"I'm toying with the idea of blocking you and you ill-thought-out arguments altogether. Please don't influence me to do so."

Not sure whether my saying so will influence you, but do. However, first, take a look at my blog where these debates are being mirrored.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/debate-under-three-other-of-my-remarks_8.html

part b
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/debate-under-three-other-of-my-remarks_2.html

part c
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/debate-under-three-other-of-my-remarks.html

A notification is sooner or later due, and if you had already blocked me, it would be hard to make one.

Bel-Shamharoth's answer

deserves a post of its own:

Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me

On to next.