... on a Situation Common for Homeless (quora)

Q

Why do some homeless people prefer cash over food when offered?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-homeless-people-prefer-cash-over-food-when-offered/answer/Emily-L%C3%BCtringer

Emily Lütringer

Written Mar 7, 2016

Upvoted by Tilman Ahr, trained chef with a borderline obsessive interest in food history and science,

Elizabeth Penrose, and 4 others you follow

When I was homeless, free food was easy to find. Dumpster diving for overcooked pizza (but otherwise perfect and untouched) and 2-day past expiration date from the grocery store, asking for the stale donuts at the end of the night, walking up to drive throughs at 3am, or just before they are closing and asking politely, soup kitchens, food banks, wild foraging (apple trees were the best), etc.

Money is so much more valuable for everything else - a bit of gas money to give a friend to get you to a doctor appointment, medical supplies and medicines, hygiene items, clothing/blankets/stuff to keep you warm at night, etc etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

For my own part, if I ask for sth in or outside a library, I ask for food, so as not to have to go away and buy it, but when I beg, I agree with you, for a reason you did not mention : what if you already have eaten food (bought, offered, asked for at library before getting there), are moderately full, and the even more food you are getting is threatening to:

• make even drinking a beer with the meal impossible, due to your already having too much sugar;
• make you feel overfilled and drowsy;
• make you get acid reflux;
• make it likely for you to wake up before a full night’s sleep and hard to get back to sleep;
• give you an arousal when you have no sexual partner (and when the food you already ate was chosen with a moderation specifically on this purpose;
• make you more prone to get the pants dirty from next time you have to shit or pee, due to stronger pressure and less ability to keep tight up to toilet, fully;
• AND not pay the washing machine for restoring your clothing after such a story.

Mary McEvoy

Jan 7

What a really good perspective and makes such sense. It is hard to know the best approach to help. I would often buy a sandwich and a coffee but it is mostly met with a disappointed but thankful nod and usually not touched, and you know they would much prefer money.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

For my part I always take that - nearly.

When not, I usually grin politely about already being full. Which is usually true.

Other comment on the affair

For some reason, I looked up her profile, she had written nothing more recent than this answer on March 7th 2016, the link to her FB page was a broken link, her profile is no longer there.

I get the impression someone may have put pressure on her to keep away from social media. I wonder if she is alive and in freedom.

... on "Pope Francis" quote, Quora

Answering Less Than Half of WLC's Diatribe Against YEC · ... on "Pope Francis" quote, Quora

Q

Was Pope Francis misquoted when he said "God is not a divine being or a magician, but the creator who brought everything to life"?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Pope-Francis-misquoted-when-he-said-God-is-not-a-divine-being-or-a-magician-but-the-creator-who-brought-everything-to-life/answer/Joshua-Engel

C on Q

Or does it mean that he denies God's divinity?

The full, possibly misquoted, quote goes:

"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

Joshua Engel

worked at The Rude Mechanicals

Written Oct 30, 2014

Upvoted by Anthony Zarrella

Well... yeah.

Of necessity, it was translated for Americans. Francis spoke in Italian. And what he actually said was:

E così la creazione è andata avanti per secoli e secoli, millenni e millenni finché è diventata quella che conosciamo oggi, proprio perché Dio non è un demiurgo o un mago, ma il Creatore che dà l’essere a tutti gli enti.

From an Italian-language newspaper ("Il big bang non contraddice la creazione")

Which Google translates as:

Thus, the creation has been going on for centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, because God is not a creator [second choice translation: demiurge] or a wizard, but the Creator who gives being to all entities.

"Divine being" is not a particularly good translation. "Creator" is obviously not good, either, since it contradicts Creatore later in the sentence, though it is at least a literal translation of the Italian. "Demiurge" is better, since it's the meaning Francis intended, a Platonic idea of a subordinate creator who is explicitly not the montheistic deity. It is a divine being, but it's stupid to translate it as "divine being" in the same way that it would be stupid to translate "Josh is not a banana" as "Josh is not made of matter" just because bananas are, in fact, made of matter.

In other words: apparently #ihatesciencewriters applies beyond just science writers. It seems that journalists of all stripes are prone to writing obtuse bullshit for clicks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

“ "Demiurge" is better, since it's the meaning Francis intended, a Platonic idea of a subordinate creator who is explicitly not the montheistic deity. “

If “demiurge” is explicitly not the monotheistic deity, why need there be any misunderstanding about the monotheistic deity being a “demiurge” in the first place?

But as a matter of Greek, I think demiourgos means sth like “craftsman” (but my Greek has been dormant for 20+ years, don’t just take my word for it) and God is explicitly compared to a potter in Jeremiah.

So, while in Plotin’s Neoplatonism specifically Demiurge is not the High God, it can be used as a synonym to Creator.

Problem with sentence is not merely this inclarity, but also continuation, in which it seems to imply that a Young Earth Creationist idea about how God created would somehow reduce Him to “demiurge” (?!) or “magician”. Why?

Joshua Engel

19h ago

The problem with the translation is the part that says “God is not a divine being”, as in “God is not any sort of divine being”. That would be a pretty outrageous thing for a Pope to say. Except that it’s not even close to what he said.

Even in the translation, which says “not a divine being or a magician”. It would be hard to read that as merely denying the divinity of God. Exactly what it would imply is unclear. But it’s certainly not what the original sentence meant.

The Pope’s original sentence is clear enough: God is greater than a mere mechanic. The implication is that Young Earth Creationism focuses on the mundane parts of creation, which are better explained by evolution and other scientific disciplines. The Pope is trying to focus attention on ensoulment, or some other aspect of life that goes beyond the mere nuts-and bolts atoms-and-molecules things that the Young Earth Creationists demand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2m ago

OK, but in that precise case he is setting up a very vile strawman about Young Earth Creationism.

It is namely NOT limited to atoms and molecules, it involves primal creation of mass and matter and energy quite as much as ensoulment of persons, both human and - if one can speak of “ensoulment” there - angelic ones, as much as the correct putting together of atoms and molecules into inter alia bodies capable of being more or less ensouled.

Also, why would the “mundane parts” be better explained by evolution?

Is God too fine and spiritual for piecing together genitalia? Did He invent evolution as an intermediary so as not to “get His hands dirty”? Well, if that is the reason, whoever thinks that is Gnostic.

Or if it is that evolution has better evidence than special creation, Young Earth Creationists beg to differ, at least as far as the kinds go.

And how would differing on it be to reduce God to a magician?

Even as to Demiurge in Platonic sense, even a Demiurge would not be a magician merely reshuffling with miraculous quickness what was already there, since in Platonism it is precisely the Demiurge who creates matter - but not the ideas which are reflected in it.

In Christianity, as understood by St Thomas Aquinas, God creates both, He thinks through the ideas in His eternal wisdom as well as creating matter and embodying the ideas in it.

Joshua Engel

6m ago

I’m really not sure why you’re picking an argument with me about creationism. The question was about a matter of translation, and I answered it. I have nothing polite to say about young earth creationists and do not wish to be baited into violating Quora’s BN/BR rule.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"right now"

It has not occurred to you that my follow up question was not by the original questioner and that I for my part was got it what was wrong with the translation and was interested in quite another topic?

If so, it is perhaps true you have nothing polite to say about Catholic Young Earth Creationists, and I would for my part not have squealed about any infringement on your probable level on the Bunny Bear policy.

Update:

Since yesterday when I posted it, some of above comments were deleted for violation of the Bunny Bear policy, and when I was going to appeal (which I did, exchange may be a further update or own post), I obviously looked at the question again and saw another thing.

Comment

on original Q, not under Joshua's answer.

Joaozinho Martins

Oct 31, 2014

Actually, the Pope stated: "L'evoluzione nella natura non contrasta con la nozione di Creazione, perchè l'evoluzione presuppone la creazione degli esseri che si evolvono= Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because the development requires the creation of beings that evolve". I don't think the Pope by 'evolution' here meant 'evolution of man from monkeys' but rather his focus was on human development: 'l'evoluzione presuppone la creazione degli esseri che si evolvono". Right? Next, the Pope stated: " Quando leggiamo nella Genesi il racconto della Creazione rischiamo di immaginare che Dio sia stato un mago, con tanto di bacchetta magica in grado di fare tutte le cose. Ma non è così. Egli ha creato gli esseri e li ha lasciati sviluppare secondo le leggi interne che Lui ha dato ad ognuno, perché si sviluppassero, perché arrivassero alla propria pienezza= When we read in the Genesis account of Creation we are in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he does not. He created beings and let them develop in accordance with the internal laws that He has given to each one....". Here again, I think the misunderstood Pope was focusing on the 'evolving nature' of the human development and not on the so-called Darwinian evolution of men from some imaginary fake anthropoid ancestors! I don't think the Pope, in his message, has discredited BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH given to us in Genesis 1 nor did he say we should not take Genesis account of creation literally. Anyway, the reader can check for himself by reading the whole text of the Pope's original Message in Italian by visiting: [second of below links].

[Links to:]

Barnes and Noble : BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH
by JOAOZINHO da S. F. A. MARTINS
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biblical-creation-truth-joaozinho-da-s-f-a-martins/1109442897

alla Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze. . "Il big bang non contraddice la creazione"
lunedì 27 ottobre 2014
https://www.avvenire.it/chiesa/pagine/big-bang-non-contraddice-intervento-dio

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

“ I don't think the Pope by 'evolution' here meant 'evolution of man from monkeys' but rather his focus was on human development:”

Disingenious, if so he would not have been talking about “evolution in nature” but of “development of man”. The following words are totally compatible with his meaning very small cells developing to pluricellular beings, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, land animals, mammals, primates, monkeys, apes, men.

Also, he very much is polemising against a straightforward and patristic reading of Genesis:

“ When we read in the Genesis account of Creation we are in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he does not. He created beings and let them develop in accordance with the internal laws that He has given to each one...."

What exactly would the “magic wand” reference be about if NOT making for instance man, directly, rather than slowly evolving from sth else?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now / 6 min ago

“I don't think the Pope, in his message, has discredited BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH given to us in Genesis 1 nor did he say we should not take Genesis account of creation literally.”

No, the Pope has not discredited Biblical Creation Truth, but Bergoglio by trying to do so has discredited himself as “Pope”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Btw, I just looked at the link Biblical Creation Truth and saw it was to a book by yourself. If that book included taking Bergoglio for Pope, I think that interview discredited that part of the book.

Also, what exactly do you mean by human development?

... on Four Mainly Genesis Questions (quora)

Q I

Does a new Bible need to be written to coincide with today's attitudes?
https://www.quora.com/Does-a-new-Bible-need-to-be-written-to-coincide-with-todays-attitudes/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

studied at Lund University

Written 17h ago

Not from God’s side, at least!

[I think you may guess from whose side this might seem more desirable.]

Q II

When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, what type of knowledge was it? Was it knowledge like science, or was it something else?
https://www.quora.com/When-Adam-and-Eve-ate-from-the-tree-of-knowledge-what-type-of-knowledge-was-it-Was-it-knowledge-like-science-or-was-it-something-else/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

studied at Lund University

Written just now

It was probably acquaintance knowledge and acquaintance knowledge with evil and how it differs from good.

Acquaintance knowledge with good, as such, they already had by walking with God.

But don’t take my word for it, look it up in the Church Fathers, and if they say sth else, well, stick with them, not me.

Q III

Did Adam and Eve die on the very "day" they ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" (Genesis 2:17)?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-Eve-die-on-the-very-day-they-ate-from-the-tree-of-the-knowledge-of-good-and-bad-Genesis-2-17/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Written 13m ago

Yes, in two distinct mannners.

• they died spiritually the moment or even before the moment when actually eating the apple, and that is within the same day, normal calendar day sense;
• they died physically same millennium as they had done so, and to God “a thousand years is like a day”. Dying within same 1000 years = dying same day.

[On this latter, I was not submitting to Church Fathers possibly saying the contrary, since I recall well that BOTH the ways I mentioned are suppported by some Church Father, the former I think by Chrysostom and the latter by Justin, both Saints, both Church Fathers : so I have nothing to worry about.]

Q IV

Why are we taught that the teachings of the Bible are original when so much of it is borrowed from the mythology of previous religions?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-we-taught-that-the-teachings-of-the-Bible-are-original-when-so-much-of-it-is-borrowed-from-the-mythology-of-previous-religions/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

C on Q

The original pair of human beings, the fall from grace, the Great Flood, the Ten Commandments, the notion of good and evil, the Messiah, etc. can all be traced to earlier Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian cultures. How does this effect my Christian beliefs?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Written just now

[a different "just now" from II]

If you are a Christian, you should NOT be saying any of these derive from other cultures.

• The notion of good and evil derives of our nature, and Adam and Eve had both as very clear notions from when they ate of the fruit, but only of God, and therefore of good, a clearer notion before it.
• The Ten Commandments belong to our notion of good and evil, and no exact same list, both as exhaustive and as to the point with nothing superfluous is before or after it. Notable, the ban on other gods than God or on idolatry cannot derive at all from a Pagan culture.
• The Great Flood happened before humanity of the post-Flood world divided into Hebrews and Gentiles, it is not the least surprising that Gentiles also should have notions on it. Note that Babylonian notion of it differs mostly in theology and that Greek notion of it seems to be mixed with less open Greek references to Abraham and Sarah (a childless old couple of great piety, visited by three superhhuman beings who were warning of a disaster) and to Lot and his daughters (who after disaster were worried about how the world should be repeopled). The Inca version involves replacing Ark with Andes and making the survivors a borther and a sister who married - as later on also, Inca dynasty had sibling marriages.
• The Messiah as “seed of the woman” was promised to us (literally posed as a threat to the serpent) when man fell, 2242 or 1656 or sth years before the Flood and hence before the division between Hebrews and Gentiles too, so it would not totally be surprising to find such a notion among Gentiles either.
  
  Note that Gentile prophecies, like the Sibyl, may be so unclear in concept that they point both to the true Messiah and to Antichrist. This is not the case with Hebrew prophecy, where “seed of the woman” and “seed of the serpent” are two diverse things. As a comparison, it seems the Hindoo figure of Bharat resumes both the Biblical Henochs (the Cainite Empire or City Founder, at least honorary such while his father did the founding and the Sethite very pious man who was taken up). Likewise, Gentile prophecies would tend to confuse certain theological issues, though the Church can of course make proper use of what is true in them. The Sibyl also foretold the Day of Judgement. See Dies Irae.

Hope this may help!

... on should Christians trust NASA?

Sex In Space: How It's Done
Seeker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhcPKmvWTqE

I

Hi, I think I know that face from somewhere ... Lacy Green, right?

Wait, Laci, with an I at the end?

II

Laci, after watching the whole video, congrats. Some people said sth about "why would NASA lie to us" (about anything, basically) "when they are professionals and a government agency (and so on)?"

It seems the ones going on space mission are professional pervs. Married couples not allowed on same mission = sins guaranteed.

Unless you were dealing with well trained monks OR nuns. Even they depend a bit on not hanging around with the other sex, for staying chaste, and they also depend on lots of prayer time, which I think NASA is not really encouraging.

Or for that matter, the Russians - I think ISS is international, so you access it from both Cape Canaveral and Baikonur. Perhaps some other places as well. OK, technically Baikonur is not Russia, but Kazachstan.

Possible - not certain - disclaimer, here:

10 Simple Things You Cannot Do In Space
NatGeo Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGDtreWBhpE

Me and Zarella on Quora on Heliocentrism and Joshua's Long Day

... Geocentrism, Social Reactions + Try at Debate · Me and Zarella on Quora on Heliocentrism and Joshua's Long Day · Me and Zarella on "qui loquutus est per prophetas"

Q

Why do religious people reject evolution but accept that the earth moves around the sun?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-religious-people-reject-evolution-but-accept-that-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

C on Q

In Gallileo's trial the church argued that his views contradicted the bible. And indeed it removes the Earth from the centre of the universe. Why is this now accepted by religious people while evolution is still doubted?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Written just now

There is a majority which accepts both and a minority (among which me) which rejects both.

And between them, there is compromise.

Of course, being religious and accepting both is also compromise.

But in this version, they usually come from accepting both or from families having rejected evolution earlier, but from accepting both, or from families who accepted heliocentrism, but felt like “frog is getting too hot in this casserole” when it came to evolution.

Q

If the earth moves around the Sun, why did Joshua tell the Sun to stand still and not the earth?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-earth-moves-around-the-Sun-why-did-Joshua-tell-the-Sun-to-stand-still-and-not-the-earth

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Written Thu

Good point.

I think the Earth stands still and Sun and Moon have a double orbit, a daily compared to localities on Earth and a longer periodical one compared to constellations.

So, what Joshua told the Sun to do, the Sun itself did, and the Earth was not doing it, as the Earth was not being told anything and is not moving otherwise anymore than on that occasion.

One

other answer (of 15)

Anthony Zarrella

Lifelong Catholic and avid student of theology

Written Fri

Let’s put it this way…

When you are working a miracle by the power of God Almighty, it’s a safe bet to let Him handle the technical details.

Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel,

“Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Ai′jalon.”

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

So, Joshua didn’t need to know that, technically, the sun doesn’t move (relative to the Earth), but rather the Earth spins and makes the sun appear to move.

God knew how it worked, so when Joshua asked Him to make the sun “stand still,” He took care of it.

It’s sort of like how you can talk to your office’s tech guy and ask for something to be done with your computer:

You have no freaking clue what actually needs to happen, in terms of sorcerous and arcane “dosspromps” and “rejeddits” and “jahvahscripped” - as far as you’re concerned, he could wave a live chicken over your monitor while mumbling in Sumerian, and you’d assume it was all part of the process.

You just know that you want your computer to stop doing this and start doing that.

But the IT guy knows how your computer works, so he does what he knows you want, even if you don’t know all the technical terms to ask for it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri

But on your view, Joshua erroneously adressed the wrong visible entity, God’s will adressed the right one, all while letting both Joshua and the witnessing Israelites believe He had adressed the same one with His power as Joshua had adressed with His words.

Your view is undermining the truthfulness of God.

Suppose Christopher Columbus had prayed on a day of despair, “God, take us instantly to China” or even better, told the ships “in the name of God, go instantly to China” and they had with obviously mircaculous speed been brought to the coast of Americas, then God would have been deceiving Columbus into believing it was China.

As it was, there was no direct miracle, nor did Columbus specify China, only “land”. So, there was no deception there.

But on your view, there was a real deception in Joshua 10.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri

“It’s sort of like how you can talk to your office’s tech guy and ask for something to be done with your computer”

Etc.

False parallel.

Joshua did not ONLY talk to God and let God handle all.

Joshua FIRST talked to God, THEN, visibly on God’s instruction, talked to Sun and Moon.

Answering Less Than Half of WLC's Diatribe Against YEC

Answering Less Than Half of WLC's Diatribe Against YEC · ... on "Pope Francis" quote, Quora

Video

Young Earth Creationism is Not Supported in the Bible | William Lane Craig, PhD
Theology, Philosophy and Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNhdMv3Si3c

Challenge

Theology, Philosophy and Science

Yup, I can tell that every single young-earth creationist who has commented here thus far today (August 12, 2015 at 11:45 AM) hasn't even bothered watching this video. (All they're doing is looking up what YEC websites have to say about William Lane Craig). Kind of reminds me of the atheists who make cowardly drive-by comments without watching the video that challenges their views. Figures.

My answers

I

4:19 - seeing subtitles, not hearing. Is William Lane Craig referring to Gerhard von Rad? At least as per preview, Genesis 1 is featured on p. 148 according to "index of Biblical passages". OK.

Resuming passage of WLC as per subtitles. The scientific ideas of the time (and no doubt there were some) were - at least those cited here - found to be an ideal vehicle for the theology of the author of the priestly document ...

• 1) would WLC admit that this author is Moses?
• 2) would WLC admit that not just the theology was infallible and inerrant, but its very interwoven scientific according to the time ideas were so too, insofar as expressed in Genesis 1?

If yes, how can WLC conclude that Young Earth Creationism is not supported? If no, how can we consider him a Christian, rather than a modernist heretic?

5:06 If we are not committed to the science expressed in Genesis 1, if we think it is outmoded and overtaken by modern science, we are not treating Genesis 1 as integrally a mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit.

Let me give a parallel. Catholic doctrine considers papacy as infallible on certain occasions of Pope expressing and using his office. We do not mean that Popes are deprived of free will, that they are automata of God like the Sibyl of Cumae and her colleague in I think Ephesus were automata of Apollon - a Pythonic spirit which St Paul threw out of the latter one. Read Aeneid VI for a view of what both were suffering.

We mean that a Pope acting as Pope normally freely wills the good of the Church, and God providentially preserves his will from stumbling on personal errors so as to destroy it by doctrinal error, which is a great evil of the Church - or rather of those outside it, since those caught in doctrinal errors do not remain in it.

So, we also do not believe Moses was an automaton or a robot, even if verbal inspiration is there in the fact of dictation several times over through Exodus and Leviticus. But we believe that whatever error Moses may have been under in scientific terms could not have become operative in the formulation of the texts which are authoritatively considered the word of God through Moses. Because providence.

If you believe that science errors crept in into the text taken in its literal sense, you are not seeing God as providentially making sure every detail on every legitimate level (and the literal is one, you just conceded that) is free from any and every kind of error. I e, you are treating the words of Genesis 1 as I would treat an essay by C. S. Lewis (Fernseed and Elephants is a great one, I believe his phrase about "we are not Fundamentalists" reflects a very bad error in his outlook - but the essay is nevertheless good, since he is in the rest attacking the enemies of Fundamentalists, he is attacking Bultmann, as to the Gospels). Moses and Joshua were not just 1510 - 1470 BC colleagues of C. S. Lewis, as theologians worthy to imitate, but nevertheless sometimes failing. Moses and Joshua, on the occasions of writing this corpus of text, were in the same sense as Popes, but extending beyond theological infallibility even into factual inerrancy, mouthpieces of God.

II

6:01 God created Earth in six consecutive days 10,000 - 20,000 years ago?

WLC should do some upgrading about where YEC are. Most of us now actually do agree with the genealogies, which means we take Creation as having taken place 5777 (or less for Samaritans) to 7525 years ago (or a bit more for one divergent Medieval calculation). All definitely less than 10,000 years ago. At least this is so for the ones I "hang around with" mentally, Kent Hovind, Creation Ministries International, presumably, though I go there less often, Answers in Genesis and Institute of Creation Research too.

Back when I was twelve, YEC was, by Edgar H. Andrews in From Nothing to Nature considered to be a camp divided on whether Sun and Moon were created on day four or became visible on day four on Earth.

Now it is more like, everyone agrees that Sun and Moon and Stars were created on day IV, but we disagree on how to reconcile this with Distant Starlight Problem. AND disagree with the hypothesis presented by Edgar H. Andrews, namely starlight created in transit.

Mainstream would be like "light from Andromeda galaxy may have taken 2.55 million years to reach us by the time standard of Andromeda galaxy, but it is still within the 6000 years according to Earth's time standard".

Kent Hovind would have argued that the parallax for Andromeda galaxy - even that for alpha Centauri at 4 light years, approx - involves triangulation of "a very skinny triangle".

Not sure how he deals with fact that Andromeda galaxy is distance measured by other means than triangulation, and that these means are founded on triangulation at very much shorter ranges, like alpha Centauri triangulated as closest etc.

I would for my part argue that we don't have a triangulation situation if we don't have Earth orbitting the Sun (also, if Earth is created before day four and Sun on day four it doesn't make sense to have Earth orbitting Sun before day 4 when it had no Sun to orbit about, and doesn't make much sense either to say it was stationary up to day 4 and then started orbitting on day 4.) The Andromeda spiral nebula is a complex and rather tiny object on a sphere of "fix stars" (keeping conventional name) which is probably just 1 light day above us. So, WLC is pointing out an inconsistency which is no longer there in the YEC camp.

The YECs I mentally "hang out with" are saying there was no problem at all for plants to live one day before God created the Sun, since there is no problem for chlorophyll to synthesise on other light than Sunlight, if comparably strong. Which the primal visible light was. Again, WLC is pointing out an inconsistency which may have been there 20 years ago, which may still be there in the YEC private conversations he has occasion to hear, but which is no longer there in the major mouthpieces of the YEC position. So, 6:37 is arguing about a position I don't share as a YEC.

III

7:17 von Rad hardly needs to argue that the text is meant to be taken literally in a scientific way, pose the question like that and it is the obvious answer.

Precisely as, if you pose the notion of positive and negative numbers, it is in the end an obvious answer that -3*-4=+12. Not -12 and not 12i, for instance.*

However, the question is ill posed, since rather than "science", the correct category is rather "history". And CMI doesn't fall into a trap which opens up to questions like "oh, and what experiment verifies plants existed before sun", CMI and I take it as history - a scientifically accurate as opposed to inaccurate history, but nevertheless history, as in eyewitness account of a past event ultimately by the eyewitness(es) present : God and angels.

Either of these then transmitted this knowledge either to Adam or to Moses or to both. Precisely as Nicodemus needs to have transmitted his conversation with Jesus to some disciples, ultimately to St John - unless Jesus did so Himself.

* However, it is preferrable to say that "-3" and "-4" do not exist as "numbers lower than 0", since this is where certain Atheist take a cue from to argue that "regress in infinity IS possible, Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas WERE wrong". They can exist as "relative numbers", as "three lower than x" or as "four lower than y", though.

IV

9:15 Yes, I definitely agree Adam and Eve and God and even the serpent are intended as literal persons. This is a good concession to our side, thank you, much appreciated. Btw, Adam and Eve are not just connected to Abraham but also to Nimrod, not just to Moses but also to the Pharao, genealogically speaking. Unless you would argue they lost their birthright by doing evil and not repenting and by doing their evil against men.

V

9:43 God named Adam. Men descend from him. God also basically told him "you are the first man".

It is fairly logical that he should have the name of his entire collective posterity, like Heber after that became ancestor of a people named Hebrews, for instance.

It is more like Adam is a metonymy than a metaphor for men. Look up metonymy. It is defined as "pars pro toto" and as "totum pro parte". In the case of "pars pro toto", the part should be a prominent one. When sword fighters are said to "hold a strong blade" why is blade mentioned rather than hilt (which they are actually holding) or rather than "sword" (which is both what they are immediately holding and what contains a strong blade)? Is the blade a symbol for the sword or a prominent part of it?

10:14 Adam and Eve represented man before God. Sure. So did Jesus and Mary on Calvary. "not just historical" must never be used like a mythicist would use the phrase about Jesus. I hope WLC is no great fan of Richard Carrier's favourite mode of conclusion?

VI

10:41 God walking is in a sense anthropomorphic, but this does not need to be a metaphor, it can have been a habitual theophany granted to Adam and Eve.

10:45 God calls out "where are you". On a later occasion He said of a woman "who touched me". No need to take any of this non-historically.

10:51 Can't resist. "He's looking for them in a garden". On a certain later occasion - He is truly risen - a woman was looking for Him in a garden.

11:00 And when God healed a blind, he took dust from the earth, spat on it and made a kind of clay. Why would God not have been present in a way which would have made this mode of creation visible to an observer?

11:08 "this is not intended to convey that God literally bent down and performed CPR" Why exactly not? If God is going to talk to Adam as soon as he is alive and can be talked to, why would He not be present in a form talkable to?

11:18 Rather, this is using literary and metaphorical devices to describe God's creation of humanity. If this came from a Jew who discards Baruch chapter 3 from his Tanakh canon and denies God came in the flesh, it would be a comprehensible quandary. But on the literary level, this is not very comprehensible as literature or literary criticism or exposition. You could say "God created humanity. Author borrowed story type and description method from narratives about false gods, who were themselves material, like Marduk literally pushing a weapon through Tiamat. Hence, story as it stands is not literal history". But then you contradict yourself, because you just said Genesis 1, 2, 3 is literal history. But in the frame of narrative as a whole being literal history, you can hardly single out the verses about God performing CPR through Adam's nose as a literary device. There is no such thing in literature.

VII

12:03 Genesis 1 is highly stylised. Well, so is - at least to a Catholic familiar with the scenes - the account of the Passion. Not quite as stylised, God has more style than certain human actors like Pilate or Kaiaphas. But nevertheless stylised. So, would you draw the conclusions of a Richard Carrier about Gospel accounts? I would most definitely not.

12:12 God said, God made, it was so. Passion account has similar running through figures, like God repeatedly doing nothing to defend Himself. God was caught, and He did nothing. God was judged, and He answered only some of what He was asked. God was condemned and He did nothing. Etc. VERY stylised. As Crucifixion is on "day 6", the parallel is very appropriate. So, does this stylised account in the Gospels hide a real narrative not given in which God tried to run away or punch back or talk Himself out of it? Or can a highly stylised account even so be literal historic truth and fact?

12:18 You find this structure repeated over and over again through the chapter. As the relevant ones in the four Gospels.

12:51 Get a Hebrew version of Matthew and look at number of Hebrew letters in Passion account. Or use the Greek letters of the Nestlé Ahland text. I presume you will find similar patterns there. Could it be that God is capable in His providence to make such extremely remarcable coincidences happen even without sacrificing one iota to non-factuality?

When you have tested the number of Greek letters in Nestlé Ahland, you will probably be telling me, taking it as "Gospel truth" in the usual sense of it being history about the crucifixion is to have a very naive view of the kind of literature St Matthew or St John or whoever were writing.

Or, if not, why not? After all, in one fish net there were 153 fish. Square root of 3 has 265/153 as an approximation. Clearly it is a reference to the typical 265 work days a year and praying the rosary (153 Hail Marys) being "the root of" the Blessed Trinity (or living with the Blessed Trinity) and so it is a very naive view of the type of text to imagine that some actual literal fish were caught in a literal fishing net. (h/t to tektontv for example).

It does not occur to the fictitious objector (a clear spoof on WLC, of course) that God is capable of making hints to mathematically literate persons, knowing that approximation of Square root of three, who are historically sufficiently literate to know work days per year in Middle Ages were roughly 265 out of 365 and who are sufficiently liturgically literate to know the Rosary has 153 Hail Marys if prayed all through, while doing this by counting on a fisherman actually counting how many literal fish he got in the literal net. Oh, no. Coincidences like that are always literary figures, like whoever wrote down :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Princes_of_Serendip

but therefore never anything in the real world, whose author being God does not share the taste in Serendipity. What if He actually does?

13:36 You have just said that most Evangelical Exegetes today are apostates.

VIII

13:56 Genesis 1, 2, 3 is not the genre of Silmarillion, Sir, and if the genre of Silmarillion exists, that is partly due to people talking horseshit about the genre of Genesis 1, 2, 3.

14:27 It is not the use of the word day, it is the events described, which preclude us from taking yom as other than literal 24 hour days. Long time periods don't begin after a morning, then end through an evening and a night up to next morning.

The one alternative to 24 hour days is the one moment creation envisaged by St Augustine : here evening and morning refers to how angels saw these aspects of creation and sixfold of days refers to how the one act of God was subdivided into six more convenient and less bewildering (even for angels) overviews of that one moment.

Even that is a stretch, since sixth day would be the day which Adam experienced as including many hours, both before and after creation of Eve. So it is no wonder this view was minoritarian among Church Fathers. Even so, it is clearly a YEC one. Elsewhere St Augustine goes out of his way to polemise against Egyptians and similar giving a historic timeline of 40,000 years. Because this contradicts the Biblical timeline.

Zacharia 14:6-7 And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall be no light, but cold and frost.And there shall be one day, which is known to the Lord, not day nor night: and in the time of the evening there shall be light.

Acc to comment by Bishop Challoner:

[6] "No light": Viz., in that dismal time of persecution of Antiochus, when it was neither day nor night: (ver. 7) because they neither had the comfortable light of the day, nor the repose of the night. [7] "In the time of the evening there shall be light": An unexpected light shall arise by the means of the Machabees, when things shall seem to be at the worst.

Zacharia was speaking about a literal 24 hour period, at the beginning of which all seemed like Antiochus had the definite upper hand, and at the end of the which Greek had learned the word "MAKKABAIOC" in a manner somewhat dolourous to some of its worse speakers.

Such swings of fortune are sudden, they are not gradual, as if Zachariah had referred to a longer period. He is rather speaking of one 24 hour period which forms the limit between two periods. Like October 19, 202 BC, at Zama, showed Hannibal was not Ba'al's almighty and invincible revenge on Rome.

But unlike the day of the Maccabees, Zama had had a preparation from a day in 212 when Hannibal had a city but not its harbour, that being Tarentum. That day of the Maccabees, on the other hand, was really sudden, unhoped for by Hebrews and unfeared by Antiochus IV.

Unhoped for by Hebrews, unless of course one was reading Zacharia 14 and seeing what "neither day nor night" meant.

15:27 If you think Zachariah 14:7 refers to "the day of the Lord" in the sense of the Day of Judgement (which will come as unfeared to those assembling at Harmageddon as the Maccabees came to Antiochus), even so there is a single day on which Christ comes riding on horseback from Heaven and a sword from his mouth takes care of that second "Antiochus Epiphanes".

IX

16:01 Exodus 20:9-11. Wonder if there were Sabbatarian plotters involved in 9-11, but anyway, thank you so much. This text is cited by CMI too. Now, let's hear what you try to make of it.

16:08 "the author is reflecting back on Genesis narrative" Do you agree with Moses that God spoke the words, or do you not? Is Exodus 20:1 indicative that God on a real occasion spoke real comprehensible words to a real person, like God did to Nicodemus in John 3, or is it a literary device, according to you?

20:30 Sabbath is indeed a 24 hour day in Genesis, but it starts on evening of day 6. So, unlike previous days that start on mornings and continue evening and to next morning, it starts on an evening and continues through morning and day to next evening. In each case probably already in Adam's and Eve's first Sabbath rest evening was marked by two stars being visible. The discrepancy you noted is there, but it does not involve a denial that the Sabbath is a 24 hour period.

20:45 God is still in the period of not creating new things. Sure, but no longer in the period of not making new deals. After that sabbath, some time, He had to make a new deal due to Eve listening to a serpent. Indeed, since then God has become in the eyes of the Pharisees a sabbath breaker, has been put to death on a cross, and has made a new deal with creation according to which He also remains in it as a creature, confirming the Incarnation by Resurrecting. Otherwise, how could Sunday have replaced the Sabbath?

21:25 Adam and Eve were created on day 6, to them it was a 24 hour day, and to them it ended, like God's work of creating new things, on the evening of day 6. That is one literal day which precludes considering subsequent Sabbath day or previous non-human creation days as not being 24 hour periods.

X

22:23 "There is no grammatical rule in Hebrew which says that Yom followed by an ordinal number has to refer to a 24 hour day." Semantic and pragmatic considerations very generally follow from logic and not from grammatical rules. Lame reply.

22:33 "even if it were the case that nowhere else in Hebrew literature that we have extant"

... WLC is not a Catholic. In other words, he is not accepting the rule : "if Church Fathers agree on the meaning of a passage, that is the meaning of the passage".

The Reformers tried to substitute with another rule: "if a word always means so elsewhere in the canonic Scriptures - we need not look outside the canon - it means so in the passage we look at too".

Here WLC has jettisoned this rule too. In other words, he has established himself as lawless in Exegetics, just to avoid 6 calendar day Creationism.

22:44 "that could just be an accident of the Hebrew literature that happens to have survived"

Right. Out goes the Philological method of interpreting Scripture, the one which Reformers thought could replace the Patristic one.

With this attitude even going back to a Patristic one wouldn't work. If I said all canonised Church Fathers except one call the six days literal ones (if speaking of Genesis 1 at all) and absolutely none calls them periods longer than literal days, that could just be an accident of the Church literature which happens to have survived from the pens held by men who happened to be canonised.

No trust in Providence giving a hint, and a very broad one, at all. God could speak to a man like WLC, he could just turn a deaf ear.

22:50 "there is no grammatical rule that would require Yom followed by an ordinal number to refer to a 24 hour period of time".

Extremely lame. As lame as "am I my brother's keeper" - when in fact keeper and killer are not the sole alternatives and when a question like "where is" can be asked of other than keepers. Here the pretence about Hebrew grammar is as lame as Cain's pretence about keeper.

My professor in Greek (in my case not NT Greek, but he was that too) used to say there is such a thing as pragmatics which is not all formulated in rules of grammar.

23:14 "it's just an accident of history"

Ask an atheist if it is just an accident of history you grew up among ... in fact not Christians, it would seem, but people of an ex-Christian culture, rather than among say freemason Muslims from whom you could convert to religious Islam. Just an accident of history right, God's providence has nothing to do with that, thinking there is such a thing is just stupid superstition, right? Well, some of us are Christians and do believe in Providence.

Here I rested,

for now, from further exposure to this worst video I have ever hear with WLC. And perhaps some exegetes more important than he are lawless too. So, while I have not watched the whole video, it would now no longer be true to claim "All they're doing is looking up what YEC websites have to say about William Lane Craig", as the bumper sticker comment says. Even so, I have only answered less than half.

... Geocentrism, Social Reactions + Try at Debate

... Geocentrism, Social Reactions + Try at Debate · Me and Zarella on Quora on Heliocentrism and Joshua's Long Day · Me and Zarella on "qui loquutus est per prophetas"

Video commented on

Aftermath When The Earth Stops Spinning(full documentary)HD
Science & Nature Documentaries HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqCowa0iQo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As I am a Geocentric and believe the Earth is not spinning anyway and the Universe will go on spinning to Doomsday, around Earth from East to West each day, I am against the theory even before watching the arguments laid out ...

Alex Beath

...... no one cares

C.R.DESTORER YT

rosted!!!!!!!!!!

Klaminite

Hans-Georg Lundahl No one gives a fuck?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Last month (or so) exactly THREE commenters have commented under my comment, none to answer any point, first and last to tell me "no one cares" and middle one to tell me sth which is not intelligible to me, since in slang. A word I might have to look up in urban dictionary.

Now, if it were true no one cares, why do at least two, possibly three care to tell me that?

Jonathan

Hans-Georg Lundahl fake

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you seem somewhat tongue tied and unable to do a debate with arguments?

Alex Beath

You were the one that came here looking for attention; you got it? What's your problem

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not looking for "attention" but for serious debate.

I did NOT get that.

Alex Beath

Sorry but why would you go to YouTube looking for a debate?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I sometimes get some.

Sean Watts

As you are a very bad troll, your statement is irrelevant.

Snipit1990

You came to youtube looking for a debate about something that is scientifically wrong? Though your response will most likely be I don't trust the science involved and then we will go round in circles like a spinning globe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You came to youtube looking for a debate about something that is scientifically wrong?"

A debate will involve the other opinion which you consider scientifically right.

"Though your response will most likely be I don't trust the science involved"

If you state your specific reasons for trusting "the science involved", I will state mine for not trusting these as sufficient.

We see every day Earth still beneath our feet (or butts or stretched out bodies, depending on position) and Sun and Moon and Stars moving across the sky.

The claim you consider science is that it is the reverse which happens, namely Earth turning and any bodies above moving at least moving very much slower than this daily turn.

An extraordinary claim involving a need for extraordinary evidence - does the so called science have that?

"and then we will go round in circles like a spinning globe."

Whether that one be the globe of Earth or the globe of Heaven above Earth ... unless we agree to not trust science as a result, but trace the results to observations and logic.

And then see if what you call science reasoned well or ill from it.

Klaminite

Hans-Georg Lundahl So explain how the earth has such a strong gravitational field as to keep something many times more its mass (and density) in line, without scorching earth.

Your science was disproven many centuries ago, but for someone with his head stuck that far up his ass I'm not suprised you think the dumbest of things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, since you essentially deny the existance of gravity, your own claim refutes itself. Centrifugal force would throw anyone off this planet, unless we had a counteracting point, also, since the sun now has no gravity, it would have moved a ways away from us, and so would the milky way. In fact, one could also note that there would be no need for trajectory calculations for orbital re-entries, since you can launch something up and it would stay there. It would also disagree with the seasons, since the earth needs to rotate on a tilted y axis, which it does. And, we would have been pounded by meteors had we not stayed circling denser object (your head, for example). Do you know how many deadly asteroids are colliding with Jupiter? So many that in the last twelve hours at least one would have struck us. Also, the moons the only thing that orbits us, along with my sides after realizing you actually thought you had a chance to "debate". No one takes these kinds of people seriously anymore. You're the same kind of person who believes causing people to bleed cures them from disease.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nice try, I am right now a bit tired to go into all details, but two things jump out:

• I am denying gravity, which I am not;
• gravity is the only possible factor of anything astronomical remotely working, which might explain your impression about me, since I don't agree about that.

And what are you meaning with centrifugal force would have thrown us off the globe, if in Geocentrism there isn't any, since Earth is not what is turning?

[Perhaps hasty, it could be there due to turning cosmos]

"So explain how the earth has such a strong gravitational field as to keep something many times more its mass (and density) in line," You are presuming gravitational fields are the only things in all of human experience which can produce any kind of orbits. Like a horse race, jockeys and riders all circling around and around in an orbit, is that because of a gravitational field in the middle of the hippodrome, or is there another reason, perhaps?

Lee Dawkins

Hans-Georg Lundahl ave a word mate

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK?

B T

Your argument is asinine as it's based entirely on the complete rejection of the observable universe and likely further discredited by being fueled by if not entirely founded on conspiracy theory.

As such, you have made your argument undebatable and welcomed ridicule because it is, quite literally, ridiculous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Your argument is asinine as it's based entirely on the complete rejection of the observable universe"

The observable universe is observed from Earth and therefore from a Geocentric viewpoint.

You may of course reject it, in favour of conjecture, but you cannot claim to base that on "the entire observable universe".

"and likely further discredited by being fueled by if not entirely founded on conspiracy theory."

That is as much a conjecture (namely about me) as the kind of conspiracy theories I presume and conjecture you think of are conjectures about scientists.

So, no, I have not made my argument undebatable, you have pretended to find it such by conjectures of what it means, ignoring what it says on the can.

Giovanni Panaka

Hans-Georg Lundahl go back to elementary bro

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Noting another school ground bully who can't be bothered to actually argue rationally.

Problem is, I lost count ...

[To Giovanni Panaka]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Above was to Giovanni Panaka

Here is an answer to Timedi Causa Est Nescire, whose much more civilised comment ws removed as spam.

"Hans-Georg Lundahl I will willingly argue with you, however I will only make this reply and will wake up tomorrow and continue. I will try to make this debate as civilized as possible, I will start with a question, just to get to know you. What evidence was sufficient enough in your point of view that it convinced you the earth was flat? Also, I think you should know, I am quite well informed about the flat earth theorem. (Edit) I think it would only be appropriate if you asked me a question as well to get this started, after you answer mine of course. "

This was: "Removed as spam and only visible to you"

Now, there is a problem, not just with his Latin, timendi, not timedi, please, but also with his logic. I never ever in this thread or otherwise said I subscribed to the Flat Earth theorem.

And I don't do that. I am Geocentric, not Flat Earth.

The primary evidence for any geocentric is we see and feel Earth non-moving and see heavenly bodies moving at our normal stations of observation.

A somewhat more recondite evidence has nevertheless convinced many Catholics that the earth is moving. It is Bessel's observation, which he considered to be "parallax" and which phenomenon is therefore commonly referred to as parallax. Parallax means the apparent movement in an observed body due to real movement in the observer (including in the place he is observing from).

Now, what convinced me that "parallax" (as per Bessel's observation) need not be parallax (as per above explanation) and could well be a proper movement, as well as "aberration" being so, is that stars have been observed with proper movements actually termed such, much greater than parallax, about half as great per year, but linear not circular, compared to aberration.

What convinces me that circular proper movements in good accord with sun's movement as to time, but not necessarily as to pace, is at all possible is that as a Catholic I believe there are angels, and as a Thomist I knew already that St Thomas Aquinas believed heavenly bodies were moved by angels.

Megan Richards

Sigh Yeah no-one cares about your attention seeking comment. We know you don't believe that so stop trying to stir shit up we have enough of that online as it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Another attempt to interrupt the debate.

Interesting that you can "know" sth which is contrary to the facts.

Alex Beath

How do you mute a comment thread this is getting fuckin ridiculous now

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, your attempts of interrupting debate by telling me what can and what can't be debated, is actually ridiculous.

Since I started thread, I might be the one who can mute it (apart from video owner?), and I am not doing it.

Meanwhile

This post has got 66 views since first posted, 12 last 24 hours, and the stats for blog as a whole for that time (11-12.IV.2017, c. 11:20) are France 109, Belgium 52, United Kingdom 26, United States 6, Russia 2, Australia 1, China 1. If all who are either watching this as separate post or as top of main page of blog can get into their heads I am serious about this debate and annoyed by these guys trying to block debate, that would be fairly good./HGL

Alex Beath

I'm literally involved in your little 'debate' in no way shape or form

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are however disrupting with your comments a thread I started in view of getting precisely a debate.

If you want to substantiate your words, leave off commenting here. You CAN mute your own reception of updates, you know!

Megan Richards

Okay you want 'debate' sure. Say you do believe earth is the center of the solar system/universe. My first question to you than is how would that be possible? Based on what we know of how physics functions here on earth and in outer space something the size of earth would never be able to hold something the size of the sun in orbit, let alone our entire solar system. Even our own itty bitty moon is moving away from us because our planet's gravitational pull on it isn't strong enough to keep it dead locked in orbit for long.

Second question I have for you is how can earth be the center of the universe when there can be no true 'center' to the universe? As when speaking from a physics and logic standpoint everything used as a point of referance would technically be the 'center'. The universe isn't a flat disc shape after all with a central point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Megan Richards, hope you didn't take my remark to Alex as at you.* Here are some answers to you:

"My first question to you than is how would that be possible? Based on what we know of how physics functions here on earth and in outer space something the size of earth would never be able to hold something the size of the sun in orbit"

There are two possible answers, maybe some in between too:

• 1) nothing is per gravitation "holding" anything in solar system "in orbit" but Earth stays fixed due to the divine fiat saying it is "lowest point" while celestial bodies are moved in orbits by angels, not by gravitation (purely Thomistic view)
  
  
• 2) Sun is per gravitation holding things in orbit as per heliocentric model, but Earth is held even stronger in place by the gravitational centre point of the whole universe, including all stars (Newtonian geocentrism, as per Gerardus Bouw, Malcolm Bowden, Robert Sungenis).

One can think of combinations of these too.

"Second question I have for you is how can earth be the center of the universe when there can be no true 'center' to the universe? As when speaking from a physics and logic standpoint everything used as a point our galaxy" = one among many, no centre known.The even older view is of course, there is a sphere of fixed stars, within which youof referance would technically be the 'center'. The universe isn't a flat disc shape after all with a central point."

There you are presuming "scientific knowledge" as premiss worthy raw data, when in fact the acentric view of the universe is a very recent one.

Up to 1920, even a "Heliocentric" cosmographer would say that "the galaxy" = "the universe" = a globe full of lots of stars, including our sun, all way through, actually flatter on one axis than on other.

Then there was a debate between Shapley and Kapteyn which lasted 1920-30, then " have Earth (or acc to Galileo and Copernicus Sun) in the middle, and what are now called "solar system objects" (except Earth / Sun) between that centre and that outer limit.In this view, which can hardly be refuted except by assuming Heliocentrism already proven, there can be and there is a centre.

* Her comment was technically in two comments and my answer to Alex came between them.

Cray cray Wutang

Hans-Georg Lundahl how much do you lift bro?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why? I did not say I was moving any celestial body, and angels aren't using muscles either human sized or superhuman sized, but their domination over matter is direct, not via anything in their bodies, since they have no bodies.

Days

later:

Killcard101

Did you get what you were looking for? Are you happy you had your petty debate?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think some people here decided it should be petty, because each time I gave an argument in response to someone's, I got no further response.

That is not what I consider a debate. But petty, that is a word. For it and for those who were watching this video.

Even

later than that:

Gerald Moody

Hans-Georg Lundahl some people just aren't worth the effort of a debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, I agree - but who's worth and not worth a debate differs according to taste.

How come those who start out debating me shut up, while those who feel I am not worth the effort of a debate nevertheless take the at least slight effort of telling me that?

Cray cray Wutang

Hans-Georg Lundahl hey how's your day going?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fairly good thanks.

Sun spinning beautifully around us at marvellous speeds and yet seeming slow because of the enormous distance - it hasn't stopped yet.

Ales Chalupa

Megan Richards how can you know ? Have you been in space ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Good point!

Thank you!

PhuchopH

I would debate with you, if I weren't an idiot lolol.

However, I think don't think YouTube is the best place for a debate. Maybe you could try Reddit or some kind of Science forum?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

PhuchopH, I don't know why you think youtube is a bad place.

Is it because it isn't moderated, so my answers to you cannot be gagged if they should be too hard for you to answer and hence "embarassing"?

Or is it because on a science forum you would have lots of supporters for any consensual view, ready to shout me down?

PhuchopH

I think the comments on your post speak for their self. Also, unlike most people on Youtube, I had no intentions of attempting to be an asshole in my comment. I simply believe you'd have better luck at finding a rational debate on some type of science forum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The latter, I believe you.

The former - they are a record of bad behaviour as it comes to youtube debates.

Sorry if I was too suspicious, I meant to be a bit snarky at least.

Ahmad Rasheed

Well then, have you worked out an EXACT explanation for the coming of day and night, change of seasons, increasing and decreasing of day and night lengths, summer and winter solstice ? And i mean an accurate and convincing explanation, rather than "heavens revolve round the earth" crap

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I haven't personally done so, but Riccioli did so centuries ago.

Next question?

Oh, by the way, "convincing" is a matter of taste, in case you didn't know.

God turning the heavens around earth each day (or each 23 hours and about 55 minutes, speed of a stellar day) and angels moving planets, including Sun and Moon, in relation to zodiak (which very well explains both seasons and months) may not convince you, because you may be an atheist.

It should convince any Christian or anyone believing in some sort of god and in angels.

Jeffrey Davis

Hans-Georg Lundahl What evidence do you have to prove that the Earth does not rotate?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The preliminary proof is that our eyes and inner ears (equilibrial sense) don't say so.

This is valid until a stronger proof refutes this.

There is no stronger proof refuting this, ergo the preliminary proof is valid. Just as we are same size as yesterday because there is no proof that all of the universe shrank to half their size in each dimension.

"preliminary" = the usual term is "prima facie evidence"