Geo/Helio, Franco, Sor Eusebia and St Joseph of Cupertino - with Ebony Manta

EbonyManta

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I once heard that, in Russia for instance, a good portion of people believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Until now, I believed that all such people were merely uneducated and didn't know the truth. This is the first time I've seen someone who has heard the details of the heliocentric theory and... denies it.

I suppose you could concoct this big system where spirits are responsible for moving objects around far smaller objects for some reason... but I really don't know why you would. The heliocentric view is far simpler, corresponds to what we know about how the universe works, and doesn't require God and his subordinates to constantly micromanage everything. Heliocentrism... well, as far as I can simplify it, it comes down to the fact that objects with more mass cause objects with lesser mass to move around them, simple as that.

Most of your arguments seem to come down to saying that the evidence for heliocentrism is meaningless or could go either way, and then choosing to believe in geocentrism instead.

I also really want to add, concerning the belief that will can move objects - I have tried, on various occasions, to move inanimate objects with thought and will alone. They have all failed. Furthermore, I have just willed my fingers to move, and did nothing else. They did not move. Then I actually moved them the way they're suppose to be moved, by my brain sending signals to them to move, and they obeyed. To further prove that point, at one time my leg had fallen asleep to the point where it was completely numb. When I tried to stand, I actually collapsed because my ankle was unresponsive and didn't properly stabilize me. No amount of willpower would move my foot then. Willpower alone does not move objects. Willpower can do a lot of things within the human mind, but only within it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The heliocentric view is far simpler, corresponds to what we know about how the universe works, and doesn't require God and his subordinates to constantly micromanage everything."

Corresponds with what you think you know about how the universe works, and I think quite a lot is micromanaged either by God or by angels, good or bad ones, not just on extraordinary occasions which strike us as miraculous, but everyday.

So, how do you disprove that kind of world view? Your example of man needing a body to impose its will on surroundings is clearly not a parallel to what we think of God or of angels.

I am not even saying the evidence on Helio- / Geo- is strictly equivocal and can go either way. Unless you start with a materialistic world view, the optic and inner ears evidence is more directly for earth being still and universe moving.

EbonyManta

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I shall rephrase. It corresponds with how the universe appears to work, by every method we can use to find out. We can't use methods to find out whether spirits are moving the celestial bodies or not, so obviously we go with the method which is more naturalistic.

BECAUSE that worldview cannot be disproven, it is not scientific or realistic. As for my example of humans needing their bodies to do things, it proves that in no instance have we ever observed willpower alone accomplishing things, and you assigning such a quality to angels and God is pure conjecture.

Under ideal circumstances science doesn't start with a view at all except for what we've observed, and what we've observed is a materialistic universe. As for the optic evidence, it would look exactly the same to us whether the earth is rotating or the sun is revolving around the earth, and there isn't any inner-ear evidence. I'm assuming you're referring to the ability of our balance mechanisms to detect motion, but that only applies when we're accelerating, decelerating, or changing direction, and the change in direction due to being on the surface of a slowly rotating planet would be so subtle and unnoticeable that we'd have tuned it out long ago and couldn't detect it even if we wanted to. It's rather like air pressure - air pressure is more intense than you'd think, but you'll never really notice it until it's taken away from you.

As for your worldview, it only makes sense if you start with a spiritualistic worldview (which to be honest, I do believe in spirits in a sense, but also that they operate according to natural laws). The motions of the planets don't make sense until you realize that they're orbiting the sun, and it's foolish to think that the Earth would be different, much less that the entire universe is somehow revolving around the spot on which we're standing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I shall rephrase. It corresponds with how the universe appears to work,"

No, it doesn't. The Universe appears to be Geocentric, which won't work on purely naturalistic causalities.

"by every method we can use to find out."

Again, no.

"We can't use methods to find out whether spirits are moving the celestial bodies or not, so obviously we go with the method which is more naturalistic."

If you can't use any method to find out whether spirits move celestial bodies or not, you can't use any method to find if something else is entirely responsible for moving it either.

The masses calculated for Sun or for Jupiter are calculated on the presumption that masses and gravitation are responsible for orbits, as in entirely responsible. For instance, mass of Moon is NOT calclulated on apparent material times its density times the volume of the Moon. It is calculated so that no angel shall be needed to have it in orbit around Earth once a Month (the daily orbit being reduced to an only apparent one), that is, it is calculated so that masses and gravitation shall explain the orbit in Newtonian-Laplacean celestial mechanics.

By now there is a method to find out if these work. They don't, at least not for more than 10 to 20 orbits, or sth.

I am, as you may imagine after watching the video here, a great fan of Don Petit:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

"BECAUSE that worldview cannot be disproven, it is not scientific or realistic."

And therefore you MUST stick with the other one, and therefore you cannot disprove that one, and therefore that is also - on this principle - not scientific or realistic.

"As for my example of humans needing their bodies to do things, it proves that in no instance have we ever observed willpower alone accomplishing things, and you assigning such a quality to angels and God is pure conjecture."

Nope, it is also observed historic fact. By the way, in the case of pure spirits, it is not a question of "willpower" but of act of will over object within its power (all objects within power of God, material objects within power of angels present at location of them insofar as God orders or permits). Apart from this extrapolation from Geocentric astronomy, we also have recorded miracles and recorded demonic infestations.

In a monastery or convent in Spain, there was a poltergeist. How do I know that? Because, the poltergeist was twice not driven away by a priest, they couldn't get one quick, but by the prayers of a very simple and young nun or religious, Sor Eusebia Palomino Yenes. She died in 1935 and also predicted accurately which of two other sisters would and which wouldn't be martyred under the war of 1936-39, before Franco came around to save nuns from rapes and murders.

Human persons cannot levitate. If one does, it stands to reason angels or demons are carrying him. Simon Magus levitated due to demons in Rome - but the prayers of St Peter stopped them, he fell down and broke his bones. Two priests within the last centuries levitated during Holy Mass.

St Philip Neri and St Joseph Cupertino. Not once or twice, but again and again. Philip Romolo Neri, CO, (Italian: Filippo di Neri; 21 July 1515 – 25 May 1595)

Joseph of Cupertino, O.F.M. Conv. (Italian: Giuseppe da Copertino) (June 17, 1603 – September 18, 1663)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino#/media/File:San_Giuseppe_da_Copertino_si_eleva_in_volo_alla_vista_della_Basilica_di_Loreto.jpg

Obviously, the angelic spirits who helped St Joseph of Cupertino to levitate were NOT of same alignment as those levitating Simon Magus in Rome.

EbonyManta

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "And therefore you MUST stick with the other one, and therefore you cannot disprove that one, and therefore that is also - on this principle - not scientific or realistic."

Sure we can disprove it, it just hasn't been disproved.

[Note he didn't mention Don Petit's knitting needle and the water droplets ... maybe beyond his "scientific" paygrade?]

"[stuff about supernatural influences and people levitating]"

I can't confirm the tale of the Spanish nun, at least not through Wikipedia. I did a quick Google search, but most of the results were in Spanish or otherwise provided no details. Also, I think that's the first time I've heard anything positive said about Franco.

For Simon Magus, I find it amusing that you're citing an apocryphal text. As for the other saints you mention, I did a Google search on St. Joseph. For about 7 pages of results the only results I found were Catholic in nature, and most of the time were either irrelevant or contained little or no discussion as to the truth of assertions that he could levitate. I found no secular discussions of his ability to fly, so I can't really say for certain anything about him, either. Either way, I can't really find any "historical" information.

To be perfectly honest, as a scientist you have to accept that there are things we don't know about the universe. And there are philosophers who speculate that even the things we do know might be changed at any given time, though I don't particularly subscribe to that theory itself. But, going back to the scientist angle, we have to actually observe and measure things before we accept them as fact. A lot of strange things happen in the world - or are reported to happen - but they all seem rather elusive as far as science is concerned.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Sure we can disprove it, it just hasn't been disproved."

Nope, you are making YOURSELF inaccessible for any disprovals there are.

"I can't confirm the tale of the Spanish nun, at least not through Wikipedia."

Try Spanish wikipedia, Sor Eusebia Palomino Yenes. I read the story in a Spanish booklet while in Spain.

"I did a quick Google search, but most of the results were in Spanish or otherwise provided no details."

Sure. Take some Spanish hit and get a Hispanophone friend of yours to translate it.

"Also, I think that's the first time I've heard anything positive said about Franco."

That says something of where you come from.

Reds killed nuns, priests into the thousands and bishops at a rate of 12 (there are not all that many bishops at a time in all Spain, maybe max 30 or sth).

"For Simon Magus, I find it amusing that you're citing an apocryphal text."

Do you? I am a Catholic, and to me, Acts of St Peter are not Canonic Scripture, but neither are they "apocrypha" in the bad sense, like "Gospel of St Thomas" (written by Gnostics) would be.

"For about 7 pages of results the only results I found were Catholic in nature"

And as a Franco hater you are obviously discounting all Catholic sources? So, says sth about your bias.

"and most of the time were either irrelevant or contained little or no discussion as to the truth of assertions that he could levitate."

Why should they DISCUSS what was perfectly obvious?

"I found no secular discussions of his ability to fly, so I can't really say for certain anything about him, either."

Means that Atheists have found no way to debunk the levitation and therefore prefer not to talk about it.

"Either way, I can't really find any "historical" information."

Except the one provided by Catholics? What kind of exreme Protestant are you, Atheist?!

"But, going back to the scientist angle, we have to actually observe and measure things before we accept them as fact."

Give me ONE plausible scenario how:

• 1) NOONE observes either St Philip Neri or St Joseph of Cupertino levitate while they are alive
  
  
• AND 2) EVERYONE starts saying they did after they died.

Just ONE plausible scenario. In other words, we are talking about OBSERVED fact, unless you have a really good surprise scenario.

[He preferred to change the topic after this one!]