... on Linguistics - History and Prehistory, Modelling and Mismodelling

1) ... on Old and Middle English after PIE and among Germanic langs - featuring videos of Martin Hilpert, 2) ... on Linguistics - History and Prehistory, Modelling and Mismodelling

Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: The Assault On Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents
GeoCurrents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

I

Own reflection, not on comments:

• i) Indo-European origins theories:
  
  
  • 1) "Nazi theory" (or theory disused by its association with Nazism, but possibly going back to Grimm brothers) they came from the Baltic and were originally Nordic race;
    
    
  • 2) Marija Gimbutas and her Kurgan theory, placing PIE in Ukraine
    
    
  • 3) Colin Renfrew's Anatolian theory, saying it originated with agriculture there
  
  
  
• ij) Indo-European spread theories:
  
  
  • 1) violent spread by conquest and migration
    
    
  • 2) peaceful spread by imitation (along with imitation of agriculture, for instance)
    
    
  • 3) mingled spread ...
  
  
  
• iij) Indo-European unity nature theories:
  
  
  • 1) all of above deal with PIE as one real language, which is indeed THE dominant theory, but look how disunited it is as to when adn where and how of this original language!
    
    
  • 2) unity could be by mutual adstrate (Balkan model)
    
    
  • 3) unity could be by prestigious superstrate (Latin as model for West European languages)
    
    
  • 4) both of above could be combined with IE originating as a Lingua Franca (has been proposed by others for Celtic)

II

You know that what you are dumping is a computerised model, right?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Extreme Badness of Google Translate (Copy Pasted both texts)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/11/extreme-badness-of-google-translate.html

III

48:28 Ah, was I saying somewhere that Creationism is getting an illdeserved bad reputation for either being dumped in itself, or its opposite evolutionism being touted in context after context where it is totally irrelevant?

Yes, I did!

Latter phenomenon?

Creation vs. Evolution : Just Ask Anyone ....
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/11/just-ask-anyone.html

Former phenomenon (also by a linguist, see The Missing Spanish Creoles, chapter "Creationist at a Cocktail Party") was noted on top of this essay (continued in comment section, largely):

HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html

I have discussed Creationist models for IE unity in two series of blogposts. And this single one:

Creation vs. Evolution : Giving Tower of Babel a Fair Hearing
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/06/giving-tower-of-babel-fair-hearing.html

IIII

49:01 "assuming that languages get diffused like viruses" ...

Oh, no mindless and massive assumptions like those behind accepted models? Not that I defend Atkinson's modelling per se.

Sardinian or Roumanian - which diverged first? Well, in a way it depends on what you mean by "diverged". If you mean "diverged phonetically" so as to retain [ k ] pronunciation of < c > before palatal vowels or [ u ] where other languages (excepting Roumanian) get [ o ], sure, Sardinian diverged first. But such a divergence would not stop communication and mutual understanding.

On the other hand, getting isolated from the rest ... Roumanian got more thoroughly isolated from any Romance excepting Dalmatian than Sardinian from Italian and Occitan.

Use some of the insights from sociolinguistics!

Like Scanian is diverged from Stockholm dialect, since the spelling < rot > hides a divergence between [ ruwt ] in Stockholm and [ R(e)ouwwt ] (approx.!) in Malmö, with < r > in one case = r (Italian r) and in one case = R (French R). But this divergence does not separate the dialects from each other, vocabulary, phraseology etc flows pretty freely from one to the other (at least if we speak of Swedish as spoken in Scania rather than Scanian proper). That may have been similar to relations between Italian and Sardinian. Roumanian diverged much more thoroughly. You are treating it as evolutionists treat cladograms for supposed common ancestry - in fact Darwin partially plagiarised Grimm brothers.

Some mindless assumptions are also involved in Evolutionism. You said it was a mindless assumption not to allow for possibility of advection and rapid language spread making a difference. I heartily agree, perhaps more than you do. But it is also a massive and mindless assumption to, despite all flood myths (including but not limited to Biblical flood account) deny possibility of Flood having anything to do with Geology and with Geological facts.

I also reacted earlier on about the Wheel line. Two reasons.

1) Flood was approx 5000 years ago, but according to uniformitarian calibration gets carbon dates 20,000 to 50,000 years before present. So the wheel appearing in archaeology is probably much more recent than 3500 BC.

2) That said, wheels have been found at least as/on toys in the American pre-Columbian cultures. Wheels can have been invented well before Noah and the earliest speakers of IE langs (note I am not saying of PIE lang!) may well have had a word for wheels before getting to build any once again. Because they had cultural memory past the stone age after the Flood.

V

Just before 58:19

Still on Pereltsvaig - Anatolian theory might come in a slightly different shape in a YEC, post-Babel setting.

Anatolian and close by linkable to grandsons of Noah:

Iavan - from Japheth (ancestor of Greeks)

Lud - from Shem (ancestor of Lydians probably Lycians and Phrygians too)

Het - from Ham via Canaan (probably ancestral to Hatti people)

Madan - from Japheth (ancestor of Medes and Persians, the latter having admixture from Elam, of Shem, as I recall)

Magog - uncertain whether Anatolian or Scythian, uncertain whether today's relatives are more Turkish or Russian.

A problem 5 originally unrelated languages, which gives a communication problem.

A solution - probably used more than once - create a Lingua Franca, an Esperanto.

Results - probably PIE/Hittite (Nesili) possibly also PFU/Hattic (Hattili).

Variation models - sounds laws may work very rapidly if not working on inherited words but over cuneiform or syllabic writing. Which both Nesili and Hattili had, as I recall.

I forgot about Kaphthorim, from whom Philistines are/were a branch. Minoan Cretan Linear A has been possibly deciphered as an Indo-Iranian dialect. Mount Ida=Mount Indra. So, another people wo very early got its language Indo-Europeanised, involved in the Indo-European "stew" on my model.

1:09:08

Definition of cognates has to exclude borrowing.

With two languages borrowing from each other over a long time (not just Russian Polish with the oro/ro and the olo/lo lists) and bilingualism being very rampant, borrowings would tend to adapt to cognate like patterns. The last example with an oro in Polish might have become ro in areas where Russian was neither absent nor high status.

In Swedish we have pojke and pjexa from Finnish.

If Finnish had had a higher status, and been more present in Sweden, one might have seen even bojke/bjexa. Confer loan other way, bock > pukkuu (pukku?).

Failing this, early IE langs could only have mimicked cognate like behaviour of common words by mutual borrowing via writing, as most borrowing between diverse Swedish dialects of 18th C. or earlier 17th C. (Geatish and Sweonic being originally two diverse dialects of Nordic, while Yamtish and Gutnish - the possible two extra Swedish languages in the model - were clearly more marginal as to standard Swedish and its "constituent dialects" - and from time of Charles X Gustavus, the process includes Scania and Halland / Bohuslän as well).

1:09:28 They might not have known the borrowings were borrowings.

Pay in Swedish is betala and ask is fråga - like betalen, fragen in Dutch and Platt - because 50% of our vocabulary is from Hanseatic Low German. Indigenous words spörga for ask and gälda (=yield) for pay are not well known outside literary or historically linguistic circles.

Danish and Bokmål have an even higher percentage of Low German loans, making "South Scandinavian" (or East Nordic) langs a hybrid by relexicalisation between Nordic as originally spoken and Low German.

VI

59:41

1) Assuming the peer review was bungled in this case, as per Asya Pereltsvaig - then this is a good debunking of the peer review superstition, precisely as the results of the model are of reconstruction, especially by computerised models.

Peer review can clearly be peer misreviewing, just as a model may be mismodelling.

2) But the response to the linguist may have been they wanted a linguist to respond to it in public - as you did. Even computer freaks with no historical linguistics would know some of the results predicted by the model are factually incorrect.

1:07:01 malfaisance?

An editor has possibly a moral obligation to be critical - but does it amount to a juridical obligation to agree in criticism with mainstream science pov?

If that were the case, no criticism of mainstream science pov, no science scoop could ever be possible!

VII

1:05:26 The old guy might have done better as a commenter here than as a questioner back there (as long as internet exists)?

He does not get that Frisian is extant language of politically Netherlandish West Frisia and FORMER language of East Frisia in Germany.

However, Frisian may phonetically be closer cognate to English (cheese, tsise vs. kaas, presence of breaking), it has still had a longer history of bilingualism with Dutch and German. And that German on top of it a Platt, closer to Dutch than to Hochdeutsch.

Arguably Frisian where still extant has been relexicalised through Dutch as much as English through Anglo-Norman French after submitting to some Viking influence. Things a computer program could never deal with.

... on an Amerindian story about a prayer, an Eagle and a Sun, and responding as a Christian

At start of a video, most of which I have not seen yet (may link later):

The Eagle took a prayer to the Sun ... reminds me of St Thomas Aquinas' words about people who approaching the palace of the King see a guard in fine livery and think he is the king. The Sun is not God, just a servant.

Lee Allen

the sun was a god here for a long time be for your god ever got over here show some respect that kind of thanking ( your god is the only god ) was and still is part of the problem

Hans-Georg Lundahl

All men are brothers mean all men have the same ancestor.

This man worshipped one God, not many different ones.

You may have forgotten how you came to worship many gods, it happened before you came to America, and you have forgotten that too. We who stayed back had a memory.

Hebrews - of which Christians are a non-ethnic descendant people - recall how men afraid of another Flood built a Tower under an evil chief, Nimrod. He was to worshippers of the true God sometimes like English / Yankee nations have been to your nations.

And in his time worship of other gods than the true god started.

The Sun is not God. But the Sun is not just a ball of fire either as far as I can see. Or as far as I can reason as a Christian Theologian (not an accredited one, my Bishop has given me no authority, but every believer is in some way a Theologian). Rather, the Sun is a servant of the true God.

Joshua spoke to God and the told the Sun to stand still - and it did - while Joshua routed very evil enemies.

Agamemnon prayed to many gods, including the Sun. One day he wanted to rout a Trojan army before it could take shelter in Troy. He prayed to the Sun. And the Sun went on.

The Greeks observed the long day when Joshua told the Sun what to do as much as the Hebrews did, or Agamemnon would not have had the idea of praying to the Sun.

When he failed, they could not take that the Sun had listened to a Hebrew (an enemy of their Philistine cousins) but not to a Greek. Even later the Sun returned two lines on a sundial, also for a Hebrew. So the Greeks mixed the two miracles, made up the story that the Sun had gone backward and that it was when Agamemnon's father Atreus had done a bad thing to his brother Thyestes.

They said, "when Atreus slaughetred the son of Thyestes and cooked the flesh for the father to eat and then taunted his brother, the Sun was so horrified he rose in the West and set in the East". But the real story is that once, in the time of Joshua, the Sun stood still, when Joshua ordered him, and Agamemnon, the son of Atreus could not get a similar favour, so he wanted this to be forgotten, and that later the sun went back two hours when a King of Judah told the prophet Isaiah that was the sign he wanted in order to believe him.

The Sun is an obedient servant, much like the eagle in your story. And not God.

A poor man goes to a palace to see the King. He sees a palace guard in very fine and stately uniform and says "this must be the king", but it is not, it is only the servant.

The servant of the King has a duty to tell about the real King. And the Sun also tells us about the real God.

Joshua is the same name as Jesus, in Hebrew and Greek. So the Sun obeyed Joshua because he had the name of Jesus.

Hezekias was a King of Judah, an ancestor of St Joseph, who was the fosterfather of Jesus.

The Sun obeyed Hezekias because he was legal ancestor of the True God made man.

So, take advice from the Sun, don't take him for god, take Jesus for God.

... on Old and Middle English after PIE and among Germanic langs - featuring videos of Martin Hilpert

1) ... on Old and Middle English after PIE and among Germanic langs - featuring videos of Martin Hilpert, 2) ... on Linguistics - History and Prehistory, Modelling and Mismodelling

The prehistory of English
Martin Hilpert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVGeW4vXMrE

I

a

Decay or not decay overall, the "sound laws" are the decaying factor, the replacement strategies are the repairing factor.

For instance, using diminutives as such is neither decay, nor repair, but invention.

How do you like - if you read Latin - this dialogue with the salsarii but also the "avicellus habet finum beccum" of Lugdunum?

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Dialogus Temporibus Romanis
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/08/dialogus-temporibus-romanis.html

Sound laws, as they are misnamed, i e sound changes that start out as voluntary vanity but end up as ignorance of older speech (and worse: of older spelling, in some cases, speech being less important from before tape recorders), as estrangement from those preserving it, sometimes also erode useful distinctions.

Solem and solum remain reasonably distinct to this day in Italian and Spanish, but in Gaul there was a time when both were pronounced about as very slow pronunciation of sôle (hope you enjoy that fish!).

Soliculum which had been as funny as "Brother Sun" became the standard word instead of "solem" - hence soleil.

A repair strategy had decayed a fun word to an ordinary word and that had been necessary when a decay of final vowel distinctions had decayed a phonetic distinction to a context based distinction between oral homophones, if not homographs.

So, whether language change is overall repair or decay, it is certainly a change that involves both - in various proportions. Repair is btw obviously conscious, depending on consciousness of meaning and consciousness of an arisen ambiguity.

b

shoures soote = pluie douce?

Doux can be used first (douce France), but general tendency might have beenn especially in Aquitaine rather than Normandy, N-A rather than A-N.

In other words, foreign language influence is not limited to lexical items. Whatever the Jung Grammarians used to say.

c

And the word gay retained a certain decent meaning to the days when CSL let Puddleglum till Jill and Eustace to be "gay and frolic" ... (Silver Chair).

Its new meaning is definitely a reason for cultural pessimism!

II 4:34

Common source. Very philosophically stated.

Mother language, like Archaic and Popular Latin to Romance?

[Meant Vulgar Latin]

Mutual adstrate/Sprachbund, like Balkanic similarities?

Common superstrate language like banalised Classic Latin = Medieval Latin to West European (Romance, Germanic or Celtic) languages?

Common adstrate language of lingua franca nature? Like Romani on diverse slang (both Swedish and Spanish have the gipsy words chey and choor- (-ing/-o) on a certain social level) or Occitan (on a higher social level) on Middle Age court languages?

ALL of above qualify as "common source", precisely as in another field both "common ancestor" and "common Creator" are a "common source" for undeniable similarities.

III 7:11

determining similarities between languages is not necessarily proving a genetic relationship, as the known one between Latin and French/Occitan/Spanish/Italian.

On Balkan you have vocabulary and grammatical similarities crossing over independently of genetic supposed distant and obvious non-relationship between Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian, formerly Turkish.

Genitive/Dative merger "I gave his a book=I gave him a book" of Greek/Romanian originating probably from Latin feminines. Post-posed articles in Romanian and Bulgarian, possibly Albanian which I know very little about. Lexical items all over Balkan. Etc.

IV

a 17:06

k > ? >> ? > k (!?)

[Is k > glottal stop examples much greater than glottal stop to k in occurrence !?]

How many times has either [process] been observed in real time, neither [variant of word] being a *[reconstructed form]?

Of the h in nihil there are two outcomes. Nîl (disappears and identic vowels around simplify hiatus to prolongation) and Medieval nikil. An Englishman like Alcuin would have said nihil with a Germanic h, excepting Cockney, and a Romance speaker in Gaul would have struggled to imitate it and have come up with k.

b 17:59

I can think of one situation in which 0 > h. Epenthetic for hiatus avoidance.

Precisely as one can also have 0 > w, 0 > j if one vowel in hiatus is either back rounded or front high.

But for this to be as plausible as h > 0, I would like to check if Tongan does avoid hiatus. If it doesn't, agreed.

V 22:24

The four Polynesian languages are not subject to doubt. They are perhaps as close as Nordic with Tongan in Icelandic position or Westic, with Tongan in German position (excepting the Second sound shift). At least if the thirteen words are representative of vocabulary.

But there are certainly Balkanic (or a little further East partially inthis example) similarities too. Think of Romanian î, Turkish i with no dot, Polish y (and a similar sound in Russian) ... can these arise through conditioned sound change? Probably yes. Same condition? Perhaps as probable (not true of î before nasal and y wordfinally) Sometimes even in same words shared between them? Why not, though I know of no example.

So how do we know that Indo-European sound correspondences are Polynesian rather than Balkanic?

If Swedish has pojke and pjexa from Finnish, and if Finnish has Joulu and Pukku from Swedish, can we totally exclude situations in which the sound correspondences are not similar whichever way the loan goes?

In this case it is not so, or we would have **bojke and **bjexa but ...

Especially if a superstrate was a written language, like Nesili, which can have had different pronunciations.

Abstract ending syllable -tion(em) has systematic sound law like correspondences in diverse West European languages. And Nesili writing systems was probably syllabic. Right?

VI

a By 24 approx, Grimm's law ...

When did it happen? One could also ask: why and to what sequence of speakers did it happen?

Were Fenno-Ugrians (or other language of soundtype close to Finnish) adopting a language close to Q-Celtic and Latin (and to P-Celtic as for "peduar"/"fidwor") but turning stops from b, p to p, pp, etc? Even Verner might have some such reason, confer "fitta"/"vittu" (sorry for example, if you know what it means, but it shows Finnish lacks f and replaces it with v in loans, and in this case even word initially).

Had Grimm happened lots earlier in Anatolia and are Germanic langs de-satemised Phrygian (or was it Lydian)?

Both Finnish and Hittite (I recall) share with Germanic the trait of a simple past which has no aspectual morphology attached. Slavonic also has such pasts, roughly analysable as "active aorist participles" and with aspect tied to lexical choice between verb pairs. While Greek has the Imperfect Aorist contrast, Latin the Imperfect Perfect contrast and probably Sanskrit something similar, as well as Celtic.

We have seen no pre-Germanic stage of Germanic, we do not know.

[Unless indeed "Brygoi" were very early Germanic speakers]

b 24:18

Combining Grimm/Werner into one scenario:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Coniectura linguistica, pro casu unitatis vetustissimae indo-europaeae linguae.
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/coniectura-linguistica-pro-casu.html

Sed ponitur tunc quaestio de γ quod est laryngalis tertius theoriae laryngalium.

H₃ recunstructed as North German intervocalic G witn labialisation - why in that last extra scenario it did not turn same way as PIE (my reconstruction) γw.

VII 34:55 "All living languages change"

You mean, all living spoken languages change. The written language can stay the same, leading at best to just a new correspondence set between one to one grapheme/phoneme pairs, at worst to a real diglossia.

But if the written language does change it can either be towards or against speech change.

Or it can be suddenly exchanged; most famously perhaps when hyll was respelled hull, geard yard etc. after French spelling system, or earlier when feid replaces fidem after the correspondence in the Alcuinic pronunciation of fidem.

Swedish spelling reform 1906 was useless - and so was Hitler abolishing of Deutsche Schrift and of Schwabach print.

Old English and Middle English
Martin Hilpert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdn-gwLgj80

VIII 5:53

The Basileus when fighting about Sicily in 1033 might also have taken a second thought about hiring Normans, if he had attended to Wyrtgeorn's/Vortigern's bad strategy ...

IX

a

Voice of Father Ure - Alexander Arguelles?

b

gedaeghwamlican - sele - costnunge - ac might have been impossible without context or translation.

I have background in Sweden and Austria so some words (hlaf=Laib, swa swa=såsom, (a)lys=lös=erlöse, gehalgod=helgadt=geheiligt) are more obvious to me than to monoglot English speakers.

X

a

9:57 "and very reasonably got rid of it" ... ha, I dispute that!

[Never got around to stating why it was not very reasonable, but they did get rid of it.]

b

Loss of N/A distinction : Swedish, Danish yes. German/Icelandic no.

XI a 20:01

- Swedish has preserved final vowels ("inversing roles" of -a/-e as compared to OE, but really a different development from same Germanic vowels, as they suppose - Icelandic still even has -u), Danish has -e, like Middle English - probably from around time when this also happened in Middle High German and Middle English.

Dialects of Norrland as to Swedish and of Bavaria/Austria as to High German have gone to the vowel dropping stage, like Modern English.

b

Loss of -n.

Min > mi paralleled in one [at least] Swedish dialect (Småland).

Infinitive -n - lost in Danish and Swedish (rida), preserved in High German (reiten, Swiss and Middle High: rîten).

XII

Two conclusions about comparing history and prehistory as to language studies:

a) in history we see parallel changes - all Westic languages lost vowel distinctions in final syllables, so by comparing them we would be reconstructing infinitives in -en rather than in -an.

If all PIE languages really descend from a common one, its reconstruction is given is a minimal distance from present stages - not necessarily the real one.

The one reconstructed right now is pretty ugly. "pH₂teH₁r" or "pχtehr" for pater/father is a bit Klingon.

b) but when we come to prehistory, we find disputable theories, when we come to history, we come to pretty firm facts.

... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general.

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?

The Hegelian Bengali is called Naimul Haq. He is a retired electrician. I first reacted on his comment before verifying earlier parts of what he had said. Dear fellow Christians, be prepared for some stupid comments in the New Agey way before I get into the debate! But I think it is instructive for my readers to know how Orientals and likeminded (second speaker is in fact an Occidental Buddhist, unless you call Oz "Extremest Orient") reason when among each other. They are not debating, they are flattering each other. Or these on this sample are.

Naimul Haq

Jesus was a disciple of a Buddhist monk, and learned the Buddhist mind set called Bodhiswatta, and taught "love thy enemy" or "do unto others as you expect others to do unto others" and other Buddhist dogmas, granting people liberty, human rights, ahimsa etc that impressed the people of the whole world, who voluntarily accepted Bodhiswatta.

I'mtheway Soareyou

I think maybe your right, there is a lot that points to very similar teachings. one that I love that Christians just don't want to see, is if your eye be single your body will fill with light. there is no way a Christian can understand this unless you look at Hindu and Buddhist teaching. and a very big misunderstanding is the concept of hell. Buddha said it was a state of being from desire, and Christians think its a place we go to for punishment! wow now that is a very big stuff up! I was a Christian for a very long time. but didn't understand a thing until I started looking at Hinduism and Buddhism. in my mind this is the roots of Jesus teaching :0) 

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

You are absolutely right. Buddha institutionalized non-violence,rule of law,human rights, animal rights, liberty, freedom etc. that captivated the minds of the people all over the world, and impressed Christ, encouraged Mohammad as the first head of state to sign the Madina Code (declaration of human rights for all minorities (mainly Jews and Christians,some of whom were killed previously while revolting).

The Magna Carta that ushered in a new quantum leap for mankind, was drawn up in the same spirit of the Buddhist mind set called Bodhiswatta.

The power of Buddhism was quickly realized by the Persi-Babylon alliance that conspired to suppress both Krishna's Sanatan Dharma and Buddhism in one stroke. They supported the Kuru, who introduced Hinduism, by making the Jadu people kill Krishna, and smash the might of the Yadav (H.H.Wilson, The Vishnu Purana).

[He is extremely probably overdoing humanity of Medina code, and very definitely getting Magna Carta wrong, both as to its roots and as to its consequences. It is not from Buddhism Boddhisattwa ethics, it did not establish the rule of law - Constantine did that much earlier, followed by Justinian - and it was not a quantum leap for mankind or even for England.]

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq try telling a Christian that lol thanks :0)

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

Even Muslims and Hindus too. What does it take to appreciate what is good for evolution of mankind.

[The Aussie is tired of Christian countrymen, Naimul has to tell him he's idealising Orientals.]

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq that is the ten thousand dollar question! I have been thinking about it, and to tell the truth I don't know lol. now that the world has become a lot smaller thanks to things like the Net. information about history and every religion you can think of, there are a lot more people waking up to a new perspective of truth an life. and as the governments of the world increase there hold on the rest of us, I think it will take something big that will trigger a desperate need for a major change in how we see ourselves and the universe. I think that as man is more oppressed the more the spirit within us must brake free? but to tell the truth, that is a very tuff question! lol 

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

You are so right,"it will take something big ... for a major change in how we see ourselves".

By 2035 vegetable production will half and population will double,unless we can do something about it, it will blow into our face, and if we can learn anything from history,evolution plays a remorseless role in helping the strong to eliminate the weak, to achieve equilibrium.

Evolution is driven by a program, not very well understood, but enough to observe how this program decides everything we do,and how we behave. Even the Buddhist mind set that once achieved equilibrium,is what evolution had in store for us.Similarly the present cultural war between the various religions, will produce a mind set that will achieve equilibrium.

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq yes that's very true. maybe that is why we are seeing this outbreak of Ebola? there are many powerful people that think thinning out the populations is a good thing!

now that the world is much more connected, someone like a Krishna , Buddha or a Christ would have a much bigger impacted on the world? and most religions think that there is one more round of god like people to go? I don't know what I think about that, maybe its me? LOL! so are you Buddhist? where are you from??

[God preserve me from being "god like people"!]

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

I am a retired electrical engineer from Bangladesh, and not quite a Buddhist, but I believe in a similar mind set suitable for the modern age we live in.

For example the system of education fall far short of what we need to prepare ourselves to live in a world of competition, conflict,conspiracies etc.,and the pitfalls we face like drugs, sex, religious and political indoctrinations etc.

In particular I think all students be given proper training in "meditation", that helps open a third eye that enables you to get a deeper insight of reality, besides the all important quality of "self-control" we desperately need.

Newton once gave a graphic description of meditation (which he used to do a lot) that gave him a flow of ideas that is incessant,enabling him to work njava-script for 18 hours a day-!!!

My favorite is a self taught mathematician named Ramanujan, who died of tuberculosis at the age of 33, and gave us 4000 theorems that has proved valuable in many modern problems he never could imagine. He was trained in Vaishnav Yoga-!!!

[I would like to know how many of his theorems were really unknown to Western Mathematicians, might ask Numberphile about that. Btw, further up in this comment he tells us he's a Bengali who is a retired elecrical engineer. The blasphemy was obvioulsy not here but in his first comment.]

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq ok cool im in Australia, the first country to legalise mass surveillance : (

I was once a Christian, but now I would say I am a student of all religions an spiritual perspectives. I'm trying to find some kind of practical truth that is not just ideology or dogma. and you have hit the nail on the head! MEDITATION is the key i think. it seems to be the fundamental in all of it. even science is showing what has been said for thousands of years. it seems to be an amazing practical proses of overcoming self and opening the gates to the kingdom of God within! I am very exited about this practical path, I think maybe it is the true path. but to tell the truth, I am very new to this, and I have a lot to learn. I would like to have a look at Vaishnav Yoga! sound good.

[Here we found out he was an Aussie.]

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

I partly know of one "practical truth", that even lead to a kind of spirituality,explaining a kind of relationship between us and the program (often called Creator, Designer, God etc.) about which we know through observation and some level of verification. Hegel's dialectical idealism along with his laws of dialectics (unity of opposites) had not been properly investigated. He even conjectured that evolution is a dialectical process.

I find the big bang created dark matter and dark energy with opposite properties, created all the particles along with their anti-particles etc.From such opposites particle physicists are able to explain the evolution of black holes, stars and galaxies, where evolves elements, compounds, organic compounds,amino acids and on to life and intelligence. The complicated genome (program) that produced us is the same creator program,or if you have the courage you can call it the universal program, and we are directly linked to the program.

+I'mtheway Soareyou

Your realization that the universe is conscious and everything is intimately related, is not surprising. There is an orchid flower that will only tap its pollen on the back of a particular insect and not to any other. Insects and orchids are different evolutionary process, yet there must be a conscious designer/coordinator that seems omnipresent.

Keep meditating and you will find yourself vibrating with the universal program.

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq yes thank you:0) the big question for me right now, is what are we, and what is the true relationship? is there something special about us and the source???

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

Sure, we are like a kind of a projection of the program. We compliment each other.

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq its true we do compliment each other. but in the western world we are very separated from each other. the only thing that brings us together is a disaster like floods and cyclones, then we go back to our tiny worlds. even Christians that claim to be the body of Christ are so divided, even with each other and hate and fear anyone that's not Christian or even from there same denomination. I suppose this is a big part of why we need a big change or evolution in mankind. Terence McKenna once said that we need a "archaic revival" and I tend to agree, maybe the old way of living was better ??

Naimul Haq

+I'mtheway Soareyou

I know the western society can be very introvert even among themselves. Germany, France, Britain can have relations that are really weird, like you said, only a disaster brings them together.

I am no expert, but I believe you shall have to work out a solution by yourself. This trend maybe part of the deal that propels your evolution,and in due time will be properly addressed.

Meditation is such an indispensable part of our being and save us from narrow mindedness, that few political leaders realize it.

Marc Moise

Jesus was and is not a disciple my friend. Jesus is God. The one and only God.

[But as man He made Himself a disciple in carpentry - and in the Torah, though there he showed Himself as master at age 12! But right, He was not a disciple of any Buddha or Boddhisattwa. At last a Christian man talking sense!]

Naimul Haq

+Marc Moise

What's The Trinity?

I'mtheway Soareyou

+Naimul Haq hi sorry, I've had a lot on. it is a hard one! maybe I will leave that for the next Buddha or whoever lol and yes your right Meditation is the way. first seek the kingdom within!

+Marc Moise God is everything including Jesus and you!

[Was so disgusted - if I saw it at all - I felt no want to even debate. I have refuted it elsewhere. By resuming the refutation of the ex-Hegelian CSLewis, on part of this blog post:

New blog on the kid : Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. S. Lewis, Aquinas, Existence of God
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/10/sye-ten-bruggencate-c-s-lewis-aquinas.html ]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Naimul Haq , as to your pretence that:

" Jesus was a disciple of a Buddhist monk, and learned the Buddhist mind set called Bodhiswatta, and taught "love thy enemy" or "do unto others as you expect others to do unto others" and other Buddhist dogmas, granting people liberty, human rights, ahimsa etc that impressed the people of the whole world, who voluntarily accepted Bodhiswatta."

What was the name of that Buddhist monk? When and where did they meet?

Where in the Gospels can I read of it?

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never read any Gospel, sorry. Sister Joseph Mary told me so(which I later found to be Buddhist dogmas) when I was a student,for 6 kindergarden years, in Holy Cross School, in Dhaka.

When I told this story to my friend Patrick. a devout Christian, he told me that one of Christ's disciples learned Boddhiswatta from a Buddhist monk, while I thought Jesus personally visited India. Whatever may be the case. Thank you.

[So much good it did him opening Holy Cross school in Dhaka to non-Catholic pupils ...]

Dan Marino

Jesus was a Bodhisattva. He was even predicted in the Rig Veda (even though this comment may be rejected by many Hindus.. you can't change the truth). There are two books that i suggest regarding Jesus 1) 'The Unknown life of Jesus Christ' - Nicholas Notovich 2) 'The Yoga of Jesus' - Swami Prmanahansa Yogananda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That Jesus was predicted by Rig Veda is very possible. Just as it is very probable that he was predicted by a Pagan sibyl.

Nicholas Notovich and Swami Prmanahansa Yogananda can safely be presumed to be wrong.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Love thy enemy, or, do unto others as tou expect others to do unto you, are Buddhist dogmas, accepted by Jesus as part of his preachings. This also indicates Jesus accepted the Buddhist mind set called Boddhiswatta, that was already accepted ny the whole of the civilized world.-!!!

[In Christianity it is rather "want" than "expect", btw]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is such a thing as the natural law and it has a certain set of perfections.

Jesus accepted all of them, He is, as God the Son, as Wisdom of the Father, the law in all of its perfection.

Boddhisattvas accepted part of it.

Not [alas for them] the part on hoping to get to Heaven and not the part about thanking God for creation.

Dan Marino

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Their testimonies are based on ancient Buddhist manuscripts, not conjecture. Even the Vatican knows about this; however, it's to their interest to keeps things quiet and deny any mention of this fact.

Naimul Haq

+Dan Marino

The Buddhist mind set, of nonviolence, human rights, animal rights,rule of law, liberty, freedom etc., called Boddhiswatta, even adapted by Mohammad, who was the first head of state to sign the Medina Code,granting rights of the minorities Jews and Christians, some of whom were killed in a revolt.

In 1215, in the same spirit the British adapted Magna Carta and established the "rule of law", that changed the whole world.

Thanks to the Buddhist mind set-!!!

[He said so before ... it was moreover the English who had Magna Carta, not their British neighbours in the West!]

Dan Marino

+Naimul Haq

"God has no religion." ~ M Gandhi

[answering himself to continue:]

+Dan Marino "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness." ~ Dalai Lama

Naimul Haq

+Dan Marino

So very true, and amazingly so simple, yet many Indians fail to see what made them great, and what made the golden age of India, and of the whole world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Dan Marino

"Their testimonies are based on ancient Buddhist manuscripts, not conjecture."

These ancient Buddhist manuscripts are if so lies. Lies by whoever wrote them earlier on - or by whoever invented them more recently.

"God has no religion" - According to your Mahatma who helped to end British rule over Pakistan. As well as in India.

Before British rule, Hindoos had Suttee and the strangler sect Thuggees. After British rule, Moslems are preparing to execute Asia Bibi.

Mohandas was also a friend of Nehru, who invaded Portugese India.

He was an admirer of the Tolstoy whom even Russian Schismatics had the good sense to excommunicate as the Heretic he was.

God made Himself man and followed the Mosaic religion in perfection. Not the Buddhist one, as "ancient Buddhist manuscripts" tell.

Dalai Lama is mistaken for a God.

His temple is his brain and his heart? His temple to the true God? Or to Buddha? Or to himself?

His philosophy is kindness?

God help the poor guys who take that as a complete philosophy!

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Assuming ancient manuscripts and testimonies are lies,you prove yourself illiterate.

Dan Marino

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

The more you speak.. the more you make yourself look like a fool. Take your disdain elsewhere.

[These guys do not quite feel we Christians "complement them", do they?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

An Ancient manuscript or testimony from Oral tradition, as such, may be true or false.

I assume truth as long as I have no definite reason to assume falsehood.

Contradicting Holy Bible or Catholic Tradition or both is one such reason.

By adhering to Catholicism I do not prove myself illiterate, I prove myself a Catholic.

Same as with Krishna. I have no reason to say Arjuna did not exist or Krishna was not his friend and charioteer. I have very good reason to believe Krishna was not God, was not Lord, and Bhagavadgita is not correct moral or religious truth.

"The more you speak.. the more you make yourself look like a fool."

The Cross of Christ is folly to those who go towards perdition. You can still turn.

"Take your disdain elsewhere."

Disdain for what or whom? For false religion, yes. For half divinising a man who is wrong, yes, or one who was wrong while he lived.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You sound uneducated.

Dan Marino

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm Christian, however, i don't 'follow' Christian values.. i apply them in my life and to those around me. I also revere Buddha and his teachings which were fundamental in the Christian faith (love.. compassion.. kindness) if you believe it or not. I also revere Lord Krishna's teachings of doing the right thing.. having no fear.. and Bhakti (devotion) to one God (who is inside you) Applying the lessons learned (that means accepting everyone as your equal and showing respect) are what these texts are all about.. nothing more.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you summarise Buddha and Bhagavadgita as you do, you might not be wrong doctrinally, only a bit historically.

[Was I "too charitable"? Possibly yes. Sounds more like an Apostate - or one heading there - than someone "doctrinally not wrong"]

Alas, there is another side to Buddhism and another side to Bhagavadgita.

And of course, the "might" here depends very much on how aware you are the titles and reverence you gave Gautama and Krishna ("revere", "Lord") are inappropriate for non-Christian deities and teachers.

For Plato and Aristotle I have respect, but not reverence. As to Krishna, I can hope for him he was a good friend of Arjuna, but he was not a pure teacher of truth only, as he is portrayed.

What I take exception to is, in the one case "life is suffering" and the rest of the "four noble truths" and on the other hand "victory and defeat are the same" ... "everything is the same". If I had never heard those things, or similar ones, I might have hoped both were decent men and given some grace which was misunderstood by the surroundings or - in the case of Krishna, since we have no contemporary writing - those coming long afterwards.

Now Naimul ... EVERY man sounds uneducated to those who have a different education, except when his education specifically includes a kind of understanding of that different education, and sometimes even then.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Education does not come in different packages, otherwise people of different cultures could not have defined an evolutionary continuum. I hope you understand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I very much do not understand what you mean by "people of different cultures" having "defined an evolutionary continuum".

I suspect it is a very incoherent remark and if you suspect otherwise, do have the courtesy to explain in somewhat more explicit words what you mean by "people of different cultures" having "defined an evolutionary continuum".

Education very much does come "in different packages". A Christian education and a Pharisaic education are very much not the same. They do very much not teach the eexact same values. They do very much not give alms to the poor in the same way (I think I am in a position to tell). They do not define virility in the same way.

While we are at education, the real apprenticeship of God when He was made Man and before He started preaching on the Kingdom of Heaven, was not with a Buddhist monk, was not with a Boddhisattva, but was with a Carpenter who was also His adoptive human father : St Joseph.

Next part we get into a wider discussion. He will introduce his meaning of evolutionary continuum. I would have guessed it better if I had read earlier parts of the thread where he expressed admiration for Hegel.

Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Christian education did not appear suddenly from nothing, it came from what came before, which came from what came before, and so on.

However, it is my understanding that Christian system of the state and the church can have an unusual hold on the minds of the subjects, that hearing of divine sounds, and the like, are to be found in abundance, and the system keeps a lots of secrets believed by the subjects without question. White man's renewed effort for democracy and human rights, has justifications.Almost all serial killers (who claim to hear divine sound) are whites and Christians (no offense meant).

Your effort to establish human rights or freedom of thought, although praiseworthy, is by no means over.

I am not an atheist, but believe in evolution from some unknown universal program, that propels evolution everywhere, and that the process is dynamical and not static.

If I may call this universal program, the designer/creator or God, then I think he wanted us to possess the gift of free thought. He also gave the knowledge of mathematics to Meno's slave-!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God gave the knowledge of Mathematics to Meno's slave.

God did not give an exact familiarity with Himself to all men after Adam's sin.

Nor did He intend the solution of how to get to know Him to coincide with the normal human ways of education.

Humanly speaking, a daughter is under her father in education. But God gave knowledge of Himself to more than one virgin, whose father remained Pagan.

Read the story of St Barbara. Her persecutor was her Pagan father.

"However, it is my understanding that Christian system of the state and the church can have an unusual hold on the minds of the subjects, that hearing of divine sounds, and the like, are to be found in abundance, and the system keeps a lots of secrets believed by the subjects without question."

You confuse a lot of different things.

By "hearing of divine sounds", I suppose you mean what Atheistic shrinks call "hearing voices". Actually, you are wrong to suppose most serial killers have that "symptom" and you are wrong to suppose most of them are Christians in the sense of accepting the Christian dogma.

Klebold may have been baptised - I am not sure - but he accepted evolutionist doctrine.

[I was confusing "spree killing" with serial killing - among those there is already one doctor and at least three of Catholic background who were unlikely to be practising Catholics, as I go by wikipedia. Secularism is rampant there too.]

For the Christian dogma having "a strong hold" and even unusually so on believers, has nothing whatsoever to do with "hearing voices". Christianity is a rational conviction.

The State can help the Church or mar the Church - but the dogmata belong to the Church, not to the State. The Anglican community (Church of England) is an aberration.

Miracles rather than hearing voices audibly is the rational basis for Christian belief.

[Sometimes hearing voices audibly on part of one person is involved in a miracle, but if so there is another person verifying the miraculosity of knowledge given by such voices.]

As we are talking about Krishna on this video, he never did anything to clearly show he was God, but Christ did. Krishnas body was burnt to ashes and thrown into the Ganghes (I think), both items may be anachronisms, because I do not believe that custom existed or even that Ganghes existed in the world before the Flood. And just before the Flood is when Kali yuga is supposed to begin, or in other words Krishna is supposed to have died.

But it is certain he did not appear risen from the dead, it is certain he was not bodily raised up into the clouds before eleven witnesses before disappearing.

The basis for Christianity is visible miracles, witnessed by many, not hallucinations experienced by one at a time.

[Whether the hallucinations be pathological or demonic, which are two different things.]

Now, as to the meaning you gave of evolutionary continuum, it contradicts your earlier observation on "education does not come in different packages". Even on your own principles you could have concluded that Christian education was different from Hindoo education, because, as you would say, "they had developed differently".

You also contradict yourself between God wanting us to have "free thought" and trying to rebuke someone expressing his free thought (free from your control at least) as someone "sounding uneducated".

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl God gave us Bodhiswatta so we can embrace values like nonviolence,human right, freedom,free thought etc., much like he gave knowledge of mathematics to Meno's slave. Do not remain the slave, but embrace Bodhiswatta. Do not disobey him, only you will fool yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What you propose is neither freedom nor even free thought.

Non-violence totally is not even a value that Christ embraced. Non-violence in peace time to preserve peace, he did more than anyone or at least than most. Certainly more than Gandhi.

[If He had a right to stone businessmen desecrating the Temple for sacrilege and blasphemy, and only took a rope t whip them, that is definitely non-violence in peace times to preserve peace. For instance.]

I do not know what you mean by "human rights" but if you mean the list in the United Nations Declaration or lists like those in Republic of India, you are fooling yourself.

Aborting female feti (or any feti) because one does not want girls (or boys, or children at that time of life, or children at all or for any other reason) is not a human right and it is still indirectly nearly painted out as one by those erroneous non-Christian lists.

Freedom did not come by Boddhisattwas like it did in the Christendom of the West during the Middle Ages, through Christ and His Church.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you honestly feel free of the state/church controlling your thoughts. See what they have turned you into,so that you still do not know what human rights means.SAD.

Come let us together finish Buddha's mission, namely "free the oppressed white Christians".

[Earlier he admitted not being quite a Buddhist ... now he's speaking with confidence about "Buddha's mission" ...]

Dan Marino

+Naimul Haq

Correct! Ultimately their purpose are the same. Unfortunately some fail to see this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Naimul Haq , I know what human rights mean much better than UN, and thanks to the Church. However not thanks to the state.

The states in Europe have persecuted the Catholic Church for centuries, some shorter time, just recently, some longer time, for centuries. Pretending the "state" is controlling my thoughts when I am Catholic is ridiculous.

Pretending I don't know what human rights are, when you show you don't know it yourself is sad.

Buddha was not someone who freed the oppressed, he was someone who seduced to one falsehood people who being already seduced by other falsehoods saw no opportunity to defend themselves from his falsehoods. Which were partly the same (dharma, reincarnation, abnegation or detachment as such as essence of moral perfection).

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You do not understand the spirit with which we evolve.What is worse, is your lame attempt to discredit what had been established around the civilized world (by the way, you can call yourself civilized only if your system allows you free choice), which is not coming soon for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Catholic system very much does allow me free choice in very many matters.

As to "the spirit with which we evolve", it is called Satan.

Abortion may have been established around the world these days (not quite true, Ireland and Malta have resisted, though Ireland was recently weakened, alas), but that means the world is so much less civilised, so much closer to the Barbarism in the Civilisation that needed Christianity to become truly civilised, namely Rome.

Constantine outlawed abortion, and so much the better for him.

You belong to a people some of whom adore "sacred monkeys" and these practise infanticide, and so your twisted idea of the holy gives you a twisted idea of morality.

[Unless he wants to argue Bengalis are totally different from the guys speaking Hindi and being Hindoos ...]

Here are the sacred monkeys I mean:

English Wikipedia : Northern Plains Gray Langur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_plains_gray_langur

(I had trouble refinding what I had in French read as "entelle")

And even those refrain from infanticide on Himalaya.

Of course, they may have picked this atrocious habit up by imitating evil men ... in the country where they live. India.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Like I said, you do not know how to prove your point, although you seem quite desperate to do so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did not know how to prove your point earlier on.

You said Jesus was disciple of a Boddhisattwa or of a Buddhist monk teachning Boddhisattwa mindset.

I asked you where in the Gospel you had read that.

The modern scholars who pretend so are not in the Gospel. The ancient Buddhist manuscripts are not in the Gospel.

St Joseph teaching Our Lord how to do timberwork is between the lines of the Gospel and firmly in Christian tradition.

But an electric engineer might have a preference for considering God as a current or as a program rather than as Three Persons.

Three Persons in One God.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you found any of Buddha's teaching in your gospel, it would be proof for you, yet when you hear Isa preach it, it makes no sense to you. You are headstrong and uneducated.Sorry.

[my emphasis]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I find items where Our Lord and Siddharta agree, and others where they disagree, it proves Gautama was partially right, partially wrong in essentials. Since no man is wrong on all essentials, "partially right and partially wrong" is the only practical definition of being wrong.

Naimul Haq

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Siddharta Gautama IS OUR LORD.

HGL

He is not Lord of the Universe, nor Lord of Heaven, nor Lord of life.

If you make him your lord, you insult the true one, you rebel against the true one - whether you know it or not.

Some of you may be in the position of some innocent yokel taking part in a rebellion he considered a real government or a real just insurrection to restore just government - and when the true ruler comes to judge, he may be lenient on it.

But it is hardly the case for all and everyone, and even such who are idolaters without being guilty for that, may be damned because of the other sins that were obvious even to them and they were guilty of.

Did the sisters at Holy Cross school never tell you that?

Sourabh Bhattacharya

Lord Buddha himself was the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu just after Krishna. There are a lot of similarities between Buddhism and Vaishnavism, sect based on Lord Krishna 8th avatar of Lord Vishnu. Proof of Lord Buddha as 9th Avatar of Vishnu is inscribed in the Jagannath Temple in Puri,Odisha. Jagannath temple is among the 4 holiest temples for Vaishnavaites. There are also proofs that Jesus spent his time during the period 12-32 yrs in India. He first came to Puri to learn the Shastras. Proof of its is in 2500 years olf library of Shankarachariya based at Puri. From Puri Jesus went to Tibet and learnt Buddhism. Lastly he went to Kashmir. For us the Hindus we rever Lord Buddha just like Lord Krishna after all he is the 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, Juggernaut (which I suppose is what in Hindi transcription is spelled Jagannath), has a very bad sound to English speakers of the West. We are not willing to take inscriptions on the Jagannath Temple as proof for Vishnu or of his supposed Avatars.

Krishna and Siddharta lived. Neither was a god, neither an "Avatar of Vishnu", nor one of the other. Both were men.

Back to Godinci

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

First

a reminder of our last exchange (see first and indeed main part of part one of series):

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl OK hans, I see your point which is no point at all. You propose a model but have nothing to back it up by observational facts. You try to hammer on the mechanism, but we don't have to know the mechanism as such to see that they behave in Newtonian fashion!!!!

Your model (the geometrical description of solar orbitals) predicts nothing at all. If I have not given any answer to your so called challenge how gravity balances inertia (you forgot to include other disturbance, such as friction and interaction with other celestial) then this is simply because I don't need to know this to make my points.

Of course, you can always say that as long you didn't bite in the SUN that you can't proof irrevocably that the sun isn't made of cheese!

However, in the meantime we have to go where all the evidence leads to, and as far we can tell the strength of the gravitational force is determined by the amount of matter (which could be cheese) it contains!

I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around planet Earth - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!

Therefore, I repeat, be so kind to give us your best arguments that are based on observable facts, known things and related commonsense reasoning that can sustain your model, and make predictions!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You try to hammer on the mechanism, but we don't have to know the mechanism as such to see that they behave in Newtonian fashion!!!!"

Ah, then your argument boils down to:

• Mechanism X predicts pattern Y.
• I don't care about Mechanism but Y is verified.
• Therefore mechanism X is true.

No, that is not a full argument at all.

"I therefore stress again, if you want to give some weight to your orbital model - i.e. Sun mainly orbiting around planet Earth - you should at least give us one observable fact that shows us otherwise, because your model requires this!"

All observations from earth tell us it does. Not just mainly, but every day totally. Not irrefutably - but you have given no refutation.

You have given a scientific formalism which does not constitute an argument.

There is some ugly duplicity in the wording you make for your final challenge:

"Therefore, I repeat, be so kind to give us your best arguments that are based on observable facts, known things and related commonsense reasoning that can sustain your model,and make predictions!"

• 1) "observable facts" - observations taken at face value until disproven or observations except those you take to not directly disclose facts?
  
  We both know seven billion people are making observations every day which look geocentric, i e which are geocentric observations.
  
  Shall we count these until formally disproven? Or shall we not count the face value of them since you do not count it as a fact?
  
  I think the commonsense approach is to count each observation as a fact until not only it is explained how it could be mistaken, but also the opposite is proven.
  
  One could explain how every dimension of length was twice as big yesterday all over the universe which was shrinking and by the fact that all other parameters adapt we would not know. I feel it is commonsense not to believe the universe is shrinking until there is proof for that.
  
  
• 2) "known things" - we disagree on what things are known.
  
  
• 3) "and related commonsense reasoning" - since we disagree on what is commonsense (I suppose your usage covers atheistic and uniformitarian assumptions, and it does not cover what I have considered very commonsense) what remains between us is formal logic.
  
  
• 4) "and make predictions!" - here there is no total duplicity, just a trap.
  
  Supposing my mechanic and geometric model to be true, predictions can be made by observing the orbits. And supposing they will continue same way.
  
  You claim the same predictions can be made by working out the logical conclusions of the inverse square law (except for the water droplets attaching to knitting needle - electric attraction works according to inverse square law too? Or? - too fast) or what you take to be such. I claim any angel having access to the choreography God is giving the angels could make same predictions. About, nota bene, relative positions. Those being the ones we agree about.

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, Concerning your argument that ends with “Therefore mechanism X is true” demonstrate again that you didn't understand my point.

What I say is that the movements of celestial in gravitational interaction with each other are perfectly described by Newton’s mathematical formulations (Newton has no mechanism at hand); YET, without knowing the mechanisms his mathematical model allows for a precise description of their movements and allows us to predict outcomes and orbital of things in gravitational interaction.

Since Newton had no mechanism at hand, implies that when orbital behavior of celestials, and other things in gravitational interaction with each other can be perfectly modeled and predicted by Newtonian mathematical formalism, this in no way can validate a mechanism, because no such mechanism has been proposed by him, and is certainly not contained in this mathematical formalism!!!

We don’t have to know the operational mechanism of a thing to know that it behaves in certain ways!!!

As a response to my request of your best argument you say, I quote: “All observations from earth tell us it does. Not just mainly, but every day totally. Not irrefutably - but you have given no refutation.

You further say, I quote: “We both know seven billion people are making observations every day which look geocentric, i e which are geocentric observations. Shall we count these until formally disproven? Or shall we not count the face value of them since you do not count it as a fact?”

You then conclude I quote: I think the commonsense approach is to count each observation as a fact until not only it is explained how it could be mistaken, but also the opposite is proven.

Man Hans, wake-up!

You seem confused . You speak of commonsense, yet in your example you deal only with one sense, which is perception. For clarity, commonsense, according to merriam-webster dictionary, refers to the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.

Now, good decisions, is based on weighing all evidence; the more different, yet related pointers, the better the decision will be. Therefore, using only one observational will often push us in the wrong direction!

Even though, perception seemingly indicates us that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that the Sun rises and falls; yet, the Foucoult pendulum and the Coriolis effect all give substantial weight to the plausibility that the Earth is spinning around Her axis. So, even though there can be given no conclusive proof (this can only be done in mathematics), there are many pointers indicating to the commonsense that the Earth does as such, and doesn't support at all the idea that the Sun is orbiting Earth.

In other words all observable facts give weight to the potential of the truthfulness of this conclusion.

Latter on you say, I quote: “since we disagree on what is commonsense (I suppose your usage covers atheistic and uniformitarian assumptions, and it does not cover what I have considered very commonsense) what remains between us is formal logic.”

Hmm…now you are getting emotional and try to classify me as an atheist.

Never-mind. I’m still waiting for your best arguments that is based on observable facts, known things and commonsense related reasoning to give weight to your non commonsense model of our solar-planetary orbits.

We can explain all kind of things, however, giving explanations doesn’t mean that the assumptions and the conclusions following therefrom are truth related and conform the phenomena we try to describe. Furthermore, logic, in all it forms, means nothing at all, a logical statement doesn't mean that the conclusion that follows here from is truth related. The logic is as good as the hypothesis included in them, when the hypotheses are wrong than we can still come to a valid conclusion; yet, valid and truth are two different things!

Hans, you’re really deviating! Start first of all to give your best arguments that can sustain your orbital model…all the rest is of no meaning now for me. You claim that your model is true, so back-up with pointers!!!

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Concerning your argument that ends with “Therefore mechanism X is true” demonstrate again that you didn't understand my point."

I schematised your reasoning and it boils down to:

• If A then B
• B
• Therefore A.

It is bad logic.

"We don’t have to know the operational mechanism of a thing to know that it behaves in certain ways!!!"

What we DO in fact really know without smuggling in a theory about the mechanism is totally compatible with Geocentrism and with God moving day and night and aiwth angels moving single celestial bodies in relation to that.

"You seem confused . You speak of commonsense, yet in your example you deal only with one sense, which is perception."

Confusion is yours.

Perception is through two senses : sight and equilibriosensation.

"For clarity, commonsense, according to merriam-webster dictionary, refers to the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions."

For clarity, your objection seems to indicate Geocentrics lack that ability.

Very little of the civilisation you enjoy was founded by Heliocentrics.

"Now, good decisions, is based on weighing all evidence; the more different, yet related pointers, the better the decision will be. Therefore, using only one observational will often push us in the wrong direction!"

I agree on the principle.

I do not agree this points to Heliocentrism. You have not yet refuted the Geocentric option. Which, due to perception is the main first one.

"Even though, perception seemingly indicates us that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that the Sun rises and falls; yet, the Foucoult pendulum and the Coriolis effect all give substantial weight to the plausibility that the Earth is spinning around Her axis."

Or, equally, that the Universe spinning around earth each day has a cohesion and is not just a collection of celestial bodies.

St Augustine wondered whether heaven moves with the fix stars attached to it or only all the fix stars move. Your pieces of evidence have lent a credibility to the former option.

"In other words all observable facts give weight to the potential of the truthfulness of this conclusion."

Once again, "all observable facts" leaves out the main and most obvious one.

"So, even though there can be given no conclusive proof (this can only be done in mathematics), there are many pointers indicating to the commonsense that the Earth does as such, and doesn't support at all the idea that the Sun is orbiting Earth."

Sorry, you are confused in thought - probably because of your modernist culture.

Each one you mentioned is compatible with Geocentrism. Fully.

"Hmm…now you are getting emotional and try to classify me as an atheist."

I was not emotional, and I was not classifying you as believing in atheism in all aspects, I was classifying your assumptions in this question as atheistic ones.

You have not even once taken the proposition seriously:

• God moves the Heaven around us each day.
• Angels move each celestial body in relation to Heaven.

The former explains Coriolis and Passage Winds and Foucault's Pendulum, if we add that Heaven has a material or quasimaterial cohesion - aether - reaching down to Earth. The latter explains the Seasons.

If you are not able to take this proposition seriously as a serious alternative to your model, then your assumptions are atheistic and nonangelistic.

If you were to take it seriously one moment, you would have to admit it explains all of our direct observations quite as well as the Newtonian model. And so there is no observation to decide with unequivocal necessity, but the daily observation of seven billion people has a vast prima facie probability.

"Furthermore, logic, in all it forms, means nothing at all," etc.

There are two ways to show a thing:

• observe it
• prove it by logic from observations.

You have tried to replace logic with "scientific method" and you have proven nothing at all.

Godinci

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, this is something new! You say' I quote: If you are not able to take this proposition seriously as a serious alternative to your model, then your assumptions are atheistic and nonangelistic."

What kind of nonsense is that?

I don't see how not believing that GOD or angels are pushing and holding planets in their orbit would make by default someone atheistic. Furthermore, there are many people that believe in the factuality of angels, yet few believe that angels are doing planetary pushing. should we call them therefore atheistic or nonangelistic.

Of course, angels could explain all things, even the nonsense people come-up with; yet, explaining things is one thing, facts are something else.

Your argument of seven billion people has properly been addressed in earlier post!

OK, Hans, it was nice talking to you. Keep the spirit high and try to weigh all available evidence before you come to hasty conclusions.

I leave you the last word; so go for it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I don't see how not believing that GOD or angels are pushing and holding planets in their orbit would make by default someone atheistic."

Not believing it is a fact is not necessarily being an atheist.

Not even considering it as a possibility - and that you have not done - is showing you count on God not to act visibly in His Creation and showing you do not count on His angels to act visibly. By visibly I mean here that the effects are visible - and regular.

"Of course, angels could explain all things, even the nonsense people come-up with; yet, explaining things is one thing, facts are something else."

We have two kinds of facts: direct observations and their theoretical explanations.

Heliocentrism is not in the nature of a direct observation. Is is used to explain some things - which can also be explained by angels.

In fact, Heliocentrism as such works better with angels for the reason I have explained, with parallel of water droplets. Did you bother to see the video?

But if we accept angels as an explanation and God, we do not need Newtonian mechanism and therefore not Heliocentrism either. And that is why we can stay with the observation of seven billion people.

Geocentrism or geostasis is not a nonsense one comes up with - it is rather the commonsense default position of most of mankind when we study it through history and geography.

Angels "can explain all sort of things" - and they have been used by astronomer Riccioli as well as by Philosopher and Theologist St Thomas Aquinas to explain planetary orbits.

Thank you for the discussion and also for ending it!

Sources for my claim about history of ideas:

hanslundahl - Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor
http://hanslundahl.livejournal.com/964.html

I have since then found more places where St Thomas makes same statement.

And as for Riccioli:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly, 5) ... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

Continued from previous parts, same video.

I 51:35

"early Church Fathers"?

Well, St Augustine actually did take it for granted that space has a numeric reflection of Holy Trinity - it has three dimensions because God is Three Persons and wanted this to be hinted at by space, when He created it.

I left Palmarianism after hearing their Catechism includes the statement that "Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, but the Very Pure Virgin from the eighth dimension." Fourth? Eighth? There are three!

II 54:58

Roger Bacon quote:

"Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds its way by experimentation."

As given in translation, "experiment" and "experimentation" can be taken to mean "experience of arranged experiments" rather than experience in general, including the one that the argument is based on.

He is wrong. [If this interpretation is correct.]

Argument must be based on sound principle and on sound experience. But the latter is not always best available by arranging experiments.

Arranged experiments about the brain tell us significantly less about the nature of the mind than the general experience of reasoning, the general experience of moralising do.

Miracles by CSL (1947) gives us a metaphysics if the mind which Baconian experiments on brain matter do not give us, and cannot give us. He is basing it on general and exceptionless experience. Like Aristotle did.

III 55:56

Bacon called uninstructed popular opinion an obstacle to transmitting truth.

He differs from Aristotle. And he was not quite backed up by the Church.

IV Before continuing around 56:00,

two observations. Or three.

1) Roger Bacon was very inimical to St Albert, whose feast day is today. The latter was a Sorbonne Aristotelian (excluding Averroists). St Albert is a Saint. Roger Bacon is not. Sir Francis Bacon of Verulam who repeated him was an enemy of the Catholic Church.

2) Still Roger Bacon was right to a limited extent that arranged experiment can supply lacunae in general experience. He applied this in optics, and he got the making of eye glasses going, thanks to that. I suppose you owe him one, and sooner or later so might I. When Newton got a new optic theory about the nature of colour, he did in fact arrange an experiment to exclude an obvious alternative explanation.

However, when Newton proposed a new theory about movements of celestial bodies (inluding on his view also Earth) he made no experiment to exclude the then common and pretty obvious alternative explanation of a God moving the Universe on a daily basis and angels moving single celestial bodies on slower periodic bases.

So the Newtonian theory lacks a real experimental basis of the kind Roger Bacon was looking for.

3) Unlike Bacon of Verulam and Roger Bacon, Aristotle and such disciples (or part disciples) of his as St Albert and St Thomas, did not consider "untutored opinion of the masses" or whatever the wording as an obstacle to knowledge acquisition.

On the contrary. Untutored masses all believing a thing is prima facie an argument for it. Not a very strong one, but at least not one against it.

The learned believing a thing is also a prima facie, but incomplete argument for what they believe.

Argument becomes much stronger when both untutored masses and the learned believe a thing.

And of course, stronger the better basis you have of this being the case in diverse cultures.

The idea of all mankind previous to oneself being wrong and oneself discovering the truth by ignoring all of it (as the both Bacons proposed one ignore it) is a bit megalomaniac.

However, that masses and learned should each give independently a witness to the truths that are the most obvious, has been lately tampered with by compulsory school putting certain portions and schools among the learned as a kind of intellectual tutors to the masses. That a PhD scientist and a lumberjack today are both likely to be evolutionist is no real argument for evolution, since the days when teaching of evolution became not only licit but compulsory.

V 56:29

Too bad Pius XII did not study St Albert and St Thomas more than he did. He might have avoided the "reconciliation with science" or "premature capitulation to science" on November 22 1951!

But alas, he had already, it would seem, as canonic lawyer advising Pope Benedict XV, gone against them and against Council of Vienne on the issue of taking interest on monetary loans. Too bad.

When it comes to verifying for oneself, modern scientists are very much less likely than St Albert to approve of the attempt, unless you agree with established opinion.

VI 57:11

Monsignor Nicolas Steno (he died as a bishop, as I recall!) was indeed a founder of Geology (after St Albert). He was also, as his colleague Tas Walker has remarked (colleague in geology, not in ecclesiastic office) a Young Earth Creationist, and a Flood Geologist.

Thanks for bringing him up!

VII 58:50

plus and minus signs in Italian book keeping is as far as I know a Franciscan achievement, done previous to St Ignatius.

The + for the credit sign alludes to the creed and the sign of the Cross.

The - for the debit side looks like a line striking out something. It alludes to "dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris" in the Lord's Prayer.

[It is possible a Jesuit later took it from book keeping to mathematical operations, previously marked "a.=adde" or "s.=subtrahe".]

VIII 1:00:13

Giambattista Riccioli, SJ, was also a believer in angelic movers of the Heavenly Bodies.

Unlike St Thomas and like Hebrew Astronomical theory, he seems to have not believed God moved the globality of Heaven. [But in that case, the coordination of angels carrying celestial bodies point to them following a common command.] I have it from his own book.

IX Before continuing past 1:00:13,

references for Steno and Riccioli.

"Upon request of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover, Pope Innocent XI made him Vicar Apostolic for the Nordic Missions on 21 August 1677. He was consecrated titular bishop of Titiopolis on 19 September by Cardinal Barbarigo and moved to the Lutheran North.

In the year after he was made bishop, he was probably involved in the banning of publications by Spinoza, There he had talks with Gottfried Leibniz, the librarian; the two argued about Spinoza and his letter to Albert Burgh, then Steno's pupil. Leibniz recommended a reunification of the churches. Steno worked at the city of Hannover until 1680.

After John Frederick death's, Prince-Bishop of Paderborn Ferdinand of Fürstenberg appointed him as Auxiliary Bishop of Münster (Church Saint Liudger) on 7 October 1680. The new prince-elector Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover was a Protestant. Earlier, Augustus' wife, Sophia of Hanover, had made fun of Steno's piousness; he had sold his bishop's ring and cross to help the needy. He continued zealously the work of counter reform begun by Bernhard von Galen."

English Wiki : Nicolas Steno
section Religious studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno#Religious_studies

So he was successor of one von Galen and remoter predecessor of another one, Clemens August von Galen who opposed Hitler on Euthanasia!

Now for Riccioli and angelic movers ...

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

I give the quote, a resumé of nonquoted name dropping, and link to the pages of the scanned work itself.

X 1:04:47,

Father Roger Boskovich ... I think I looked him up on logarithmic tables one day ...

His theory of Natural Philosophy was before the Settele case and before dissolution of Jesuit order, will have a look.

CDL : Roger Boscovich : A theory of natural philosophy
Author/translator: Boscovich, Ruggero Giuseppe, 1711-1787; Child, J. M. (James Mark)
https://archive.org/details/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich