Continued Debate

No, Nathaniel Jeanson was NOT Lying About Recent History · Continued Debate

jesuitfreemason

@jesuitfreemason

@hglundahl
Our understanding of the heliocentric nature of our solar system allows us to determine with precision the retrograde motion of the superior planets, a phenomena only possible if we orbit the Sun as do the other planets.
Our understanding of orbital mechanics allows us to launch satellites into any chosen orbit. Geocentrism has zero predictive qualities.

shassett79

@shassett79

@hglundahl "memory and testimony are by default trustworthy, except when they aren't"
It's common knowledge that testimony is often wrong and this is an important consideration in legal proceedings.

"Then you are a bit uneducated about the reasons there are"
Again, I'm unimpressed by your assessment of my education, but you should feel free to give me good reason to believe in supernatural phenomena if you have any.

"But 'it could be' is a very vague reason for anything."
Great, now direct this insight at your religious dogma.

"We have never seen consciousness at all."
Don't play word games. You know I was referring to observations of consciousness.

"There is no specific reasons in either consciousness or physics why consciousness should be a subcategory of physics."
Other than the simple reality consciousness is always associated with a physical substrate and can be directly altered through purely physical interactions with that physical substrate, right? But if your fallback position is that nonphysical consciousness isn't metaphysically impossible, that's fine.

"In other words, it's not 'methodological naturalism'"
Yes, it absolutely is, and your assertions to the contrary are unpersuasive.

"Partly true."
Completely true. Humans make up stories to explain things, and all religions are such stories.

"Like your religion of Naturalism is false. "
This is a silly claim. Naturalism is not a religion and al you have to do to falsify it is show me something supernatural. So stop waving your hands and do that, if you can.

"Not if Mount Everest is a higher mountain and..."
Enough speculation. Prove it happened. Convince geologists that any of this actually happened. Best of luck.

"Tell me what 'here-and-now' discipline I'm supposed to ignore?"
Hard pass. I'm not going to play the "we can't know about things we didn't witness" game with someone who thinks a compendium of Bronze Age mythology accurately describes the beginning of the universe.

"I meant the totally off analysis."
Again, not impressed by your assessments. Keep them to yourself.

"We observe Earth still."
No we don't. The Earth is obviously moving.

"We observe Heaven moving each day, and several bodies in Heaven move in other types of periods"
We'd observe this in either case.

"We have no reason other than methodological naturalism"
Apart from basically everything we know about physics, astronomy, and cosmology. What's your take on gravity, anyway? In your model, what makes the sun orbit the Earth? Is it just god or what?

shassett79

@jesuitfreemason I honestly can't believe we're arguing against geocentrism in 2025, lol.

Seán Pól

@seanpol9863

@hglundahl Mate, you're bending every bit of data to fit a story written by Bronze Age tribesmen. Radiocarbon dating isn't some toy you can tweak with your own "calibration". It's cross-checked with tree rings, ice cores, and volcanic ash layers that all line up across the globe. Jericho's destruction layer doesn't match your made-up Exodus date, and pretending it does is dishonest. Mate, evolution isn't a fairy tale – it's proven by DNA, fossils, and lab experiments showing new traits forming and spreading. You can't just ignore the fusion in human chromosome 2 or the thousands of shared genes we have with chimpanzees. That's physical proof, not opinion. And don't start with your "geocentrism" nonsense. Every test – Foucault's pendulum, stellar parallax, GPS, satellite tracking, even the bloody seasons – proves Earth moves. If the universe spun around us, everything outside would have to travel faster than light. It's insane to call that "data". Mate, you're twisting science into knots to protect an ancient myth. It's not brave or clever – it's denial, plain and simple.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jesuitfreemason "the retrograde motion of the superior planets, a phenomena only possible if we orbit the Sun as do the other planets."

You have proven you don't know Latin or Greek (singular is phenomen-ON, while phenomen-A is plural) as well as your incompetence in astronomy.

Retrogrades are phenomena or constitute a phenomenon which is perfectly possible if:

• the Sun orbits the Zodiac
• and Mars, Jupiter, Saturn as well as Mercury and Venus, as well as planets unknown to the ancients in their turn orbit the Sun.

It's called the Tychonian system.

"Our understanding of orbital mechanics allows us to launch satellites into any chosen orbit."

You know, you are pretty bad at metaphysics as well.

My point isn't orbital mechanics don't exist at all. My point is, God exists, and angels exist, and can override what orbital mechanics would do on their own.

And before you come out with some idiocy about that would be cheating on God's part or sth like that, no, the natural laws, including those of orbital mechanics, never are able to determine the outcome on their own, it's all conditional on other factors interfering or not interfering. For instance, water boiling at 100°C (don't ask me what that is in Fahrenheit!) is contingent on an air pressure of 1 at. Freefall is contingent on lack of obstacle. Etc. Being interfered with by God or angels isn't different from being interfered with by other factors following physical laws.

"Geocentrism has zero predictive qualities."

Let's see. Heliocentrism is false, will therefore lead to absurd conclusions. Dark matter, dark energy, check. Big Bang being a point starting time but allowing no previous time, check. (It would of course function with a Creator, but so does a six literal days' creation 7200 odd years ago).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "It's common knowledge that testimony is often wrong and this is an important consideration in legal proceedings."

The most typical situation is identification of strangers one meets at crime scene and then again in court.

Or colour, speed, size etc of some object or motion.

"now direct this insight at your religious dogma."

Doesn't point that way. I have specific reasons for every basis of "the Catholic Church speaks for God" and not just "it could be" ...

There is a huge difference between a "could be" as a reason, which you give, against testimony (but even so you are selective, you trust testimony on experiments about air pressure), and a "could be" as an answer to an objection. But obviously, if you are into the shrinkish professions, logic is not your forte.

"You know I was referring to observations of consciousness."

You can internally observe your consciousness directly. You can also externally infer consciousness from a behaviour matching your externalisations of your own consciousness.

Only the latter is always associated with a body. As to the former, it happens while you are in the body, but you are not observing your body while observing your consciousness.

"and your assertions to the contrary are unpersuasive."

To someone who sucks at history and doesn't know the clock was invented by people who rejected methodological naturalism in metaphysics or its limits with physics.

(After 1200, before 1400, don't quiz me on the exact date, but it was way before Diderot, d'Alembert or Immanuel Kant).

"Humans make up stories to explain things, and all religions are such stories."

If "made up stories" mean fiction, sorry, you are not just wrong, but biassed as a Commie.

"Prove it happened."

It's enough to prove it could have happened and that this matches Biblical history.

"Convince geologists that any of this actually happened."

Tasman Walker is a geologist, you know. He believes Mount Everest rose after the Flood. Or in the final stages of it, not sure which.

"the "we can't know about things we didn't witness" game"

Not the question. I was challenging you on what direct observation I'm refusing to believe.

"with someone who thinks a compendium of Bronze Age mythology accurately describes the beginning of the universe."

You are so biassed against the Bronze Age (and what sucked most about it wasn't the Hebrews). And against this fudge category you call "mythology" ... the original use of the word was anything the Greeks a) said about gods or origins beyond observation, and b) said about heros very well observed, but only back in a different society known as Mycenaean Greece, described by Homer and Tragedians and very exotic. One could of course make similar collections of stories in other religions, one could even argue Biblical history has its parallels. BUT, very important point, in Biblical history the parts about "God and origins beyond observation" ends in day VI, and the parts about "heros very well observed" (and sometimes in a very different society) start in day VI. This would obviously be totally irrelevant, if you could argue that either A) every sane man must consider the parts about b) heros very well observed as even so total fiction, or B) that at least I as a Christian had to discount them, because they are stories of another religion. I rebut both those positions, whichever you'll try to dare me on.

"Keep them to yourself."

Keep your analyses to yourself.

"No we don't."

You are denying direct empirical evidence, just because you have a habit of reinterpreting it as a parallactic inverse.

"We'd observe this in either case."

Indeed. But as both direct observation and parallactic inverse exist, I have my epistemological criteria for when to use each. Direct observation is the default. Parallactic inverse motion has to be argued. Atheism and Methodological Naturalism aren't valid arguments.

"What's your take on gravity, anyway?"

Exists. When it comes to what it would do to Earth, overridden by direct action by God.

"In your model, what makes the sun orbit the Earth?"

An angel makes the Sun orbit the Zodiac annually. God makes Heaven (with the Zodiac) turn around Earth each 23 h 55 min approx.

"we're arguing against geocentrism in 2025, lol."

Good arguments shouldn't exasperate you. I am delighted to use triangles in squares to prove Pythagoras' theorem, even if it was proven more than 2 and 1/2 millennia ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seanpol9863 "Mate, you're bending every bit of data to fit a story written by Bronze Age tribesmen."

You are biassed against history, if you are biassed against story. You are biassed against Bronze Age history if you are biassed against stories written in the Bronze Age. And if you hate the guts of tribesmen, I suppose you can always join the NSDAP in some not yet banned or successfully underground avatar.

History is written in stories, and being part of a tribe or living in the Bronze Age doesn't disqualify you (I mean, to sane and non-Nazi judgements).

"Radiocarbon dating isn't some toy you can tweak with your own "calibration"."

Minze Stuiver did one, based on tree rings. For the last 3000 years, as far as I know, it doesn't contradict the Biblical timeline. Earlier, before the fall of Troy (a story told and later written by Bronze age Greek tribesmen and their successors, and confirmed by archaeology, despite counting as mythology), like the fall of Jericho or Genesis 14, I'll prefer Biblical history over tree rings.

I have not deleted his calibration, I am doing no damage to it by doing my own, with the latest point of divergence being Jericho's fall. 80 extra years. One of the surest ones is the Chalcolithic habitation of En-Geddi, the time of Genesis 14 (Abraham, born in 2015 BC, was c. 80 years) and the carbon date indicate 1565 extra years.

And I can state that the further back you find Bible+Carbon equations, the more extra years you get.

"tree rings, ice cores, and volcanic ash layers"

You know, back in pre-Troy times, the "cross-check" becomes more and more of a circular proof. But thanks for mentioning ash layers. Campi Flegrei, 39 000 BP = from the Flood, meaning we do have a carbon date for the Flood. 2957 BC is carbon dated with 34 000 extra years. Obviously more than En-Geddi, with 1565, which again is more than Jericho, with only 80.

"Jericho's destruction layer doesn't match your made-up Exodus date, and pretending it does is dishonest."

I am not dishonestly pretending standard radiocarbon matches the 40 years after Roman Catholic Exodus date 1510 BC, see the Christmas martyrology, and I don't mean the Novus Ordo version. I am honestly stating that I diverge from standard radiocarbon, with a calibration based on Bible+carbon matches, and that at this point I see a 80 years' divergence.

"Mate, evolution isn't a fairy tale – it's proven by DNA, fossils, and lab experiments showing new traits forming and spreading."

You seem very keen on arguing in a patchwork of diverse things, without double-checking what each of them actually proves.

Mutations leading to new traits in lab experiments are either sideways, tweaking information already there, or downward, losing information.

"You can't just ignore the fusion in human chromosome 2 or the thousands of shared genes we have with chimpanzees. That's physical proof, not opinion."

Whether it's physical proof of a common origin or of a common creator is however another matter.

Why are you ignoring the impossibility to add new chromosome pairs? And how that clashes with Evolution, if not the supposed one of man from something close to a chimp?

"Every test – Foucault's pendulum, stellar parallax, GPS, satellite tracking, even the bloody seasons – proves Earth moves."

Foucault's pendulum ... God moves the aether along with the stars.

Stellar parallax ... would only prove Earth moves if we could exclude it from being a proper movement. With angelic movers, we can't.

Seasons have been analysed abundantly by Geocentrics, it's a case of the Sun moving around the Zodiac each year, and the Zodiac being tilted to the Celestial Equator. Citing it is proof against Geocentrism is ludicrous.

"GPS, satellite tracking"

Would you mind being more specific about the actual argument?

"If the universe spun around us, everything outside would have to travel faster than light."

If we take it per empty space coordinates, the sphere of the fix stars would be (or if it's thick, its innermost layer would be) travelling at a speed close enough to minimally 2pi the speed of light. In one stellar day, each star makes a circle of 6.28 (stellar) light days. However, the thing is, the aether is what's moving this fast, no star moves that fast within the aether.

"Mate, you're twisting science into knots to protect an ancient myth."

Science has, as another name, "research" and research has done quite a lot of twisting and protected quite a lot of myths, including the insane myth of matter organising itself to life, life evolving itself to consciousness, consciusness developing to the point of being able to do language. That's a totally insane myth, but the majority of research resources these days go to protect it. As Nathaniel Jeanson indirectly alluded to by mentioning the similar fact about school hours.