Two Minor Disagreements with Ken Ham

Two Minor Disagreements with Ken Ham · Aquinas and Geocentrism

The Problem With Atheism Nobody Talks About . . .
Answers in Genesis, 20 April 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czdZd-RhrU4

14:25 c. A video of the earth, round and spinning.

Sure, the video can show the earth is round. But before you conclude it is spinning, how about asking whether the point of observation could be spinning around it?

You fly a chopper around a tower and make a video, the video will show the shower turning around itself, but we know it is the chopper that's turning.

All About Britain

It's spinning, that's what makes DAYS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain Yeah, what is spinning? Earth or Universe?

Either of them would make days, and the universe spinning is what we observe.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, we don't observe the universe spinning - the Universe is vast and would not cause day and night. The earth is spinning on its axis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain You are confusing observations with conclusions.

What exactly is your idea of the vastness of the universe, and what is it based on?

Anyway, if the universe spins around us each day and the Sun along with it, that is one clear possibility for day and night being caused. That was in fact how St. Thomas Aquinas explained the phenomena.

Do you have any observation running against this?

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes we can observe the sun MOVING against the background of the stars as if we were looking at it from different directions. I have also personally observed planets passing in front of the Sun in their orbits. We can also observe planets orbiting the sun - they definitely go around it and their moons go around them.

The seasons are caused by our angle of tilt relative to our orbit - as we tilt towards the Sun we get summer, and winter as we tilt away.

We have also sent objects into space, to other planets and also to the Sun - if the Heliocentric model was false we could not have accurately calculated their trajectories. Neither would this have worked if our theory of gravitations was wrong - one probe was required to slingshot around not one but two planets on its way to intercept a comet.

The Sun is massive which is why planets far out in the Solar System are trapped by its gravity. If they were to be trapped by OUR gravity, Earth would also have to be a similar size - and the gravity of such a body would not have allowed us to exist on it's surface.

These observations all work together in the Heliocentric model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain "Yes we can observe the sun MOVING against the background of the stars as if we were looking at it from different directions."

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is because the angel who is appointed it is pushing it Eastward along the zodiac / ecliptic plain.

Not a problem for Geocentrism.

"I have also personally observed planets passing in front of the Sun in their orbits."

I believe you. So had Tycho Brahe, who was a Geocentric. So was Riccioli, who was a Geocentric.

"The seasons are caused by our angle of tilt relative to our orbit - as we tilt towards the Sun we get summer, and winter as we tilt away."

Or the angle of the Zodiac, at which the Sun moves sometimes North of the Equator and sometimes South of it, passing across it when intering Pisces and Virgo.

"We have also sent objects into space, to other planets and also to the Sun - if the Heliocentric model was false we could not have accurately calculated their trajectories."

Calculating the relative directions it would pass through is feasible by the coincidences of Heliocentrism with Tychonianism.

"Neither would this have worked if our theory of gravitations was wrong - one probe was required to slingshot around not one but two planets on its way to intercept a comet."

So, gravity exists.

"The Sun is massive which is why planets far out in the Solar System are trapped by its gravity. If they were to be trapped by OUR gravity,"

Ah, here you are not making observations, but reducing the possible explanations to gravity + inertia.

With God assigning the Earth a specific place in the geometric centre of the Universe, and with the massive Sun pulling Earth from all different directions around 24 h, and the massive Sun itself moved along the Zodiac by an angel, Geocentrism is still perfectly feasible.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"According to St. Thomas Aquinas," - no one cares what Aquinas thought - he was not a scientist and had no access to data.

If we are speaking of inertia: There is no reason for the Sun to go in a circle as there is no force acting on it large enough to make it do this. There is nothing massive enough in the Solar System to make the sun move like that - and, if it was moving, to stop it moving in a straight line.

The only way gravity can work is that the tiny tiny planets orbit the massive massive Sun. In the same way as the smaller Moon, orbits the earth. In fact, the Earth does move as the moon goes around it.

The calculations for this require the Universal Gravitational Constant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain "he was not a scientist"

He actually was. Priests back then tended to be amateur scientists in proportion as they were interested in Aristotle. As Aquinas certainly was, and his mentor St. Albert tried to dissect a bee.

"and had no access to data."

What exact data do we access that he didn't?

Again, there is a difference between observation and conclusion.

"There is no reason for the Sun to go in a circle as there is no force acting on it large enough to make it do this."

Angelic movers don't move objects by exposing them to physical vectors. They move objects at will. So much for the annual West to East circle. For the daily circle East to West, the Sun is simply sharing the movement of the Universe and the same observation applies to God, except He can do it for the entire universe, for more than just one heavenly body.

"The only way gravity can work is that the tiny tiny planets orbit the massive massive Sun."

Yes, if gravity (imposing vectors in direction of the object exerting it) were the only possible causality, along with inertia, for movements of heavenly bodies, you would have a point.

We as Christians believe God exists and angels exist, and therefore that gravity and inertia are not the sole agents about heavenly bodies.

"The calculations for this require the Universal Gravitational Constant."

It is very relevant for whatever involves gravity, but not very relevant for what is moved directly by Divine fiat, or by the will of an angel.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I meant that Aquinas was not a scientist in the modern sense - I was a bit lazy when I wrote that. He had no understanding of modern astronomy etc.

He did not understand Gravitational Theory. There are no such things as Angelic movers. In order to argue against the observable laws of Physics which would require that the Earth goes around the Sun (and not the other way around) - you have invented supernatural explanations, for which you have no evidence, to circumvent physical laws which, in EVERY OTHER INSTANCE act consistently - names Newton's Laws of Motion.

Finally, you have no evidence that the Heliocentric model can not produce the results we observe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain "I meant that Aquinas was not a scientist in the modern sense - I was a bit lazy when I wrote that. He had no understanding of modern astronomy etc."

Neither was or had any founder of modern astronomy.

"He did not understand Gravitational Theory."

Which is not an observation.

"There are no such things as Angelic movers."

That negation is also not an observation.

"In order to argue against the observable laws of Physics"

That everything that is moved is moved only by gravitation and inertia and nothing else is not a law of physics and not an observation.

"which would require that the Earth goes around the Sun (and not the other way around)"

I F gravitation and inertia were the only available options for movements in angelic bodies. [Sorry : celestial bodies.]

"you have invented supernatural explanations, for which you have no evidence,"

Except the observed Geocentric universe.

"to circumvent physical laws which, in EVERY OTHER INSTANCE act consistently - names Newton's Laws of Motion."

Your fingers move in obedience only to Newton's laws of motion on the keyboard? My bad, I thought I was answering someone who was deciding what words to write by an act of will - sorry ...

"Finally, you have no evidence that the Heliocentric model can not produce the results we observe."

That's a very low level you pull yourself down to.

It's you who would need evidence that the Geocentric model (Tychonian version) cannt produce the results we observe, and you haven't got that evidence, except by hairbrained negations that ultimately deny human thought itself, least of all actual observations.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't understand how you are using the phrase "Not an observation" - could you explain?

No object moves except by the application of a force. A force acting any mass requires energy proportional to the mass x acceleration. These are universal LAWS.

This includes your fingers which do not move solely "by an act of will" except that by firing a sequence of neurones, muscles in the fingers expend chemical energy that applies force to the keys.

Inertia does not move anything - it is that property of a body which maintains it speed and direction in the absence of a net acting force. A planet will move in a straight line unless a force is acting on it. In the case of a planet, that force is Gravity.

All bodies exert forces on one another - but because the Sun is 330,000 times as massive as the earth, it's gravitation force is proportionally as strong, thus the Earth MUST go around the SUN and not the other way around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain "I don't understand how you are using the phrase "Not an observation" - could you explain?"

We see the sun move across the sky. That is an observation. I'll examplify what is not in a minute.

"No object moves except by the application of a force. A force acting any mass requires energy proportional to the mass x acceleration. These are universal LAWS."

That is a theory of universal laws, which is not an observation.

Our mind is not known for vectorial properties, that's why telekinesis doesn't work. Even so, our mind controls our willed actions. A clear counterexample to the supposedly "universal law" formulated as "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force."

Newton was only thinking of corporeal causation, outside the body, not of will controlling the body.

"This includes your fingers which do not move solely "by an act of will" except that by firing a sequence of neurones, muscles in the fingers expend chemical energy that applies force to the keys."

Even so, the will is a non-material thing firing a sequence of neurones, as you put it.

"Inertia does not move anything - it is that property of a body which maintains it speed and direction in the absence of a net acting force."

Well, that moves things that are already moving. For instance, in the famous example of gravitational pulls causing orbits, the vector inward is gravity and the vector sideways is inertia.

"A planet will move in a straight line unless a force is acting on it."

According even to that theory, it's a planet only because it orbits and it orbits only because of inertia sideways - if only gravity were acting, it would fall into the larger body.

"it's gravitation force is proportionally as strong, thus the Earth MUST go around the SUN and not the other way around."

Again, IF gravity and inertia were the only factors affecting movement of celestial bodies.

According to the atheistic theory that mind is only possible as a sideproduct of biological bodies, obviously no mind could act on that scale.

But again, that theory is not an observation. It is not something seen, heard, smelled, touched, tasted, and it goes contrary to introspective observation of what the mind is.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Mind has no ability to act without the chemical energy expended in moving the body and the forces applied both to body parts and any external thing that part touches. It is not a counter example, in any way, to Newton's first law of motion.

"That is a theory of universal laws, which is not an observation." - No. It's a Universal Law. A theory is something quite different from a law. You appear to be trying to provide some examples where the First Law does not apply, but this is 'not observed'.

Gravity and inertia ARE the only forces acting on a Planet or ANY OTHER body in orbit around the sun including comets and asteroids. What we call them is immaterial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain Your pretentions are not observations.

"Mind has no ability to act without the chemical energy expended in moving the body and the forces applied both to body parts and any external thing that part touches."

Since the mind clearly is not the body, it has on some level.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl How is "mind Since the mind clearly is not the body," - this is not observed. Mind is a function of the arrangement of neurons in the Brain - or have you observed otherwise.

It may be thought of ON SOME LEVEL but since we are talking about bodies in motion, their inertia and the forces required to make them move in a circle - it does not pertain.

The Laws of Physicas ARE observations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain "Mind is a function of the arrangement of neurons in the Brain - or have you observed otherwise."

Yes - by introspection.

Besides, if that were true, each thought would be entirely determined by the arrangement of neurons, that would be entirely determined by Newton's laws in relation to atoms and subatomic particles in them, and that would make no thought determined by the truth or coherence of the content of the thought.

Which would leave none of us with any objective logic reason to believe any reasoning, including that which says (without it being observed) that the mind is a function of arrangement of neurons.

"It may be thought of ON SOME LEVEL but since we are talking about bodies in motion, their inertia and the forces required to make them move in a circle - it does not pertain."

It certainly does.

If I (qua mind) can decide to type (qua body with fingers) a coherent thought that's more complex than a few vectors applied to my fingers, an angel can decide to obey God and provide a planet like Mars with an overall orbit like a spirograph pattern, like a circle with a moving centre which coincides with the moving Sun.

"The Laws of Physicas ARE observations."

They are one way of analysing observations, and not observations themselves. On earth, you find no examples of any bodies that continue in a straight line of constant speed because no other force is applied. You can of course if you want analyse that as gravitation of earth or friction against a surface on earth slowing movements down.

But even supposing the laws are fairly correct analyses of observations when it comes to the interaction of purely bodily factors, the idea that mind is a function of matter most certainly is not an obervation. Or even classification of any such.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, I did stray into absolute causality there.

No, planets orbit the Sun because they are obeying the observable and universal laws of physics. No need for angels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain Sun turns around the zodiac each year and with the zodiac around earth each day. Because of God doing the latter, an angel the former.

No need for reinterpreting the observations, which in and of themselves are describing what I described.

All About Britain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, no it really does not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@All About Britain You again confuse your observations with what you believe because of conclusions from among other things observations, but also your view of ultimate causality.

55:00 sth "God's word, not man's word"

Romans 10

How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!