- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Thursday, August 25, 2022
No, Geocentrism with Angelic Movement is Not what CMI Classifies as God of the Gaps Fallacy
Heliocentrism : still not proven · Sam Harris, Allie, Me and Cosmic Distances · No, Geocentrism with Angelic Movement is Not what CMI Classifies as God of the Gaps Fallacy
Here CMI are explaining why they don't commit the "same mistake" as Geocentrics or more specifically early Heliocentrics (Newton being cited as apocryphal example) attributing celestial movements to direct act by God and angels:
A Designer Isn’t a ‘God of the Gaps’
St. Lewis IX (25th Aug.) 2022 | Creation Ministries International
Here I am explaining why that attribution is in fact an example both of good sense and of belief in the Bible, just as their (and mine own too) belief in YEC:
10:04 While God works in different ways, one of them is telling angelic spirits what to do on His behalf.
It is obvious with guardian angels, it is obvious with angelic armies (Sisera's banes and the Twelve Legions that Christ COULD have called to defend Him), but it's not all that unobvious when it comes to moving stars (whether fix stars or planets).
Job 38 : 7 When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Morning stars obviously immediately refers to celestial bodies. And "sons of God" should be seen in parallel with Job 1:6 and with Genesis 6:2.
So why are celestial bodies and angels referred to as the same thing? Well, it is not over the top to consider that's because either angels rule planets and stars (Oyarsa model in CSL's Space Trilogy) or stars are a certain type of angels and how they wear their bodies (Ramandu model in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, same author).
Confirmations from Judges 5, about how the extra-human killers of Sisera's men (he was himself killed by a type of the Blessed Virgin) are called "stars" rather than angels, and for Twelve Legions, those are "hosts of heaven" which is an expression used in Exodus about things we are not to adore, namely celestial bodies.
Do you have any kind of logical proof that celestial bodies are confided entirely to "natural law" or rather to agencies of impersonal nature like gravity and inertia? When I defend geocentrism against Atheists, they R E G U L A R L Y come to the point that inertia and gravity could not allow Earth to be the centre of an orbit of the Sun, and as R E G U L A R L Y answer my objection taken from angels by "angels don't exist" - is that your argument? Or sometimes "how big would an angel have to be to do that"? Are you into angels doing things by muscle power proportional to their size and angels being typically human sized?
12:54 Why is inertia and gravity a bad explanation, worse than angels, for how heavenly bodies behave?
I'm giving reasons why as well.
This is mine here : an only gravitation and inertia driven movement of celestial bodies implies Heliocentrism, implies the heresies that Galileo was suspected of and long time advocated, and these ones involve our perception of things to be a kind of optic illusion - the same one we experience from trains, but without the kind of comparison that proves what we see from train windows is an illusion, namely our normal walking experience of trees and hills and bushes and houses.
That a certain optic illusion is perfectly possible in general terms doesn't prove that one is at work in a particular case, like when we watch the stars (7 planets or fix stars) while looking at the horizon or further up the sky. It has to be established in each case separately, on the merits of the case. We do not have a comparable direct knowledge of stars as we have of trees to prove the movements seen (including so called "parallax") are really the optic illusion called parallactic perception of movement.
14:38 Yes, they don't believe in angels, so don't in angelic movers of each body, not in God, so not in God moving the whole universe each day ... how you describe their ultimate motivation to reject YEC is a very good description also of their motivation to reject Geocentrism.
So, what is yours?
Putting Newton's Principia over the Bible (Job 38:7 etc)? Or making Galileo a Church Father and a canonised saint like Freemasons do?
15:30 "no matter how counter-intuitive" (Lewontin quote)
Which the acceptance of Heliocentrism is as well. Seeing it as the "only" possibility just because a scientist says so, is the gateway drug to accepting scientific expertise, real or false, who are you to decide, over your own good sense.