Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Continued

from 3 part a.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I'm toying with the idea of blocking you and you ill-thought-out arguments altogether. Please don't influence me to do so."

Not sure whether my saying so will influence you, but do. However, first, take a look at my blog where these debates are being mirrored.

[links to previous three]

A notification is sooner or later due, and if you had already blocked me, it would be hard to make one.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Good. Now I can let all your viewers know that you are a sham. You have no citations other than yourself, no evidence for anything you say except for some snippets of text and a two thousand year old tome about an angry, unjust, unloving and unforgiving god, and no reason for anyone outside your circle to believe you. If you insist on continuing your belief, then fine. In my experiences, online forums are the worst places to convince people of anything. But I will say that the only the ones who will believe you are the ones who are already convinced that you are correct. So hello to all your subscribers. Believe what you want, but don't expect to be vindicated any time soon.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Incidentally, I would like to say that I am rather upset that you recorded our conversations without my permission. While There is not much that can be done about it, and in the long run it really isn't a big deal, I fear that all you have accomplished is worsening my already bad mood. I do not like being recorded at all, let alone without my knowledge or permission, but as I mentioned, I have been in a bad mood lately, so what you have posted online is essentially me at my worst. Had the circumstances been different, perhaps I could have put up a better fight, but as it stands, I simply don't find it worth the effort. So I would also like to tell your viewers that I am far from an exemplar of the scientific viewpoint. I am just an asshole on YouTube that stupidly got himself into a fight that should never have happened. So if this is going on record, I would like to officially apologize for my behavior, and retire from this debate. I would also like to encourage people to do the research on their own and find out for themselves, and not to just believe the first thing they see on the internet.

P.S. I realize after the fact that this message is drastically different in tone to my previous one. Consider this one my true response. Again, I have been in a bad mood lately, so I have been irritable as a result.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Now I can let all your viewers know that you are a sham."

Readers.

"You have no citations other than yourself"

Linking to Riccioli. But you already said that.

"no evidence for anything you say"

Some things I say are not so much factual claims as logical observations, therefore do not need to be backed up by evidence - other than the one provided by my opponents.

"except for some snippets of text"

Which is evidence enough for what Riccioli thought. I am btw not referring to any by myself known original research on his part, he was in the cited volume simply an author of a standard work - Almagestum Novum being the last standard work of Geocentric Astronomy (not even Sungenis can take its place, since that is not a work "teaching astronomy" in all aspects, but a polemic about a limited number of contested points in it).

"and a two thousand year old tome about an angry, unjust, unloving and unforgiving god,"

Unforgiving is blatantly false, He forgave Peter's denial and Thomas' doubt and Mary Magdalen's sins against chastity and Matthew's and Zacchaeus' against economic honesty and the to us secret sins of the lame man.

Two thousand years old is a few decades too many for books of NT and millennia too few for oldest ones of OT.

"and no reason for anyone outside your circle to believe you."

Except the reasons I give by logical deductions from points raised by opponents, or commonly known.

Or in very few cases, shown to be historically accurate by some snippets of text. I linked to a work where the context of those snippets can be verified.

"If you insist on continuing your belief, then fine. In my experiences, online forums are the worst places to convince people of anything."

To convince opponents of anything.

We argue not just or even not mainly for each other, but to convince one or other silent person among readers.

"But I will say that the only the ones who will believe you"

But I am not asking people to "believe me" as some expert on little known fact or some key witness to sth seen by a few. I am asking my readers to reason - about points I raise.

"are the ones who are already convinced that you are correct."

If believing were the main issue, perhaps.

"So hello to all your subscribers."

On this blog it's myself and kathleen, I suppose kathleen will appreciate your politesse.

However, judging from stats, my daily readers are more than she and myself.

"Believe what you want, but don't expect to be vindicated any time soon."

Might depend on how much our arguments become known to the public.

Btw, I felt I was mainly vindicated when I saw the video with Don Petit's experiment. Perhaps not for the last time.

"Incidentally, I would like to say that I am rather upset that you recorded our conversations without my permission."

I did so with quite a few.

"While There is not much that can be done about it, and in the long run it really isn't a big deal, I fear that all you have accomplished is worsening my already bad mood."

Read sth you like then.

Like my opponents on other posts of same blog - or like sth not at all related to me.

"So I would also like to tell your viewers that I am far from an exemplar of the scientific viewpoint. I am just an asshole on YouTube that stupidly got himself into a fight that should never have happened."

I am reminded of Tom Trinko. A Catholic but a Heliocentric.

On top of the posts of our correspondence, I have published his statement:

I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

He and you believe if you had only been in a better mood or less tired or less irritated at myself, you could have won.

I am homeless. I have toothache, scabies, too little sleep, too irregular meals (not just too little, sometimes opposite), people who spit when passing me mornings and evenings beyond library opening hours when I beg.

And somehow I never felt the need to take this into any apology for my own show.

"So if this is going on record,"

It is.

"I would like to officially apologize for my behavior, and retire from this debate."

Both accepted.

"I would also like to encourage people to do the research on their own and find out for themselves, and not to just believe the first thing they see on the internet."

My sentiments too, except I would add classrooms and text books to "first things they see on etc.".

After all, on your view Almagestum Novum, a standard textbook of astronomy back from geocentric days, decides for a view which you consider absurd.

Angelic movers is a thing you consider absurd.

"P.S. I realize after the fact that this message is drastically different in tone to my previous one. Consider this one my true response. Again, I have been in a bad mood lately, so I have been irritable as a result."

I have not suffered much, except a few moments of irritation, considerably less than some such provoked in my other main up to now situation.

[The one on the streets]

[plus link with notification.]

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I read the post. Thank you for accepting my apology. And with that, I believe our business is concluded. Have a nice day.

On to next.

Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part c

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:23 Riccioli integrated all accuracy related detail where Kepler had been superior to Tycho. Namely adding elliptic shapes to orbits around orbits around solar anual orbit.

So, either you lie about history, or you are mistaken.

Let's suppose you are mistaken.

The error has been pointed out a few times by now, for instance by Sungenis.

So, why have you not heard of it? Has someone cospired to withhold that information from you?

Or, have you heard of it (before doing this video)? If so, how is your behaviour different from conspiring yourself to hide this fact from others?

Bel-Shamharoth

Before anything else, I feel I should ask for citations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Good idea! I give them, along with links, quotes and translation of quotes, some resumé of non-quoted, in this message:

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

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah...sorry...but that doesn't exactly look like a reliable source...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For Riccioli's position?

Did you look so short a moment on it you did not notice I did give links to the pages in Riccioli's book (old edition, scanned by a library) in Latin?

Or is it my translations from Latin you mistrust?

Or is it a book exemplar from Riccioli's own lifetime which you don't consider a reliable source for Riccioli's position, when he is on the title page as author?

C'mon, be a little serious!

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it's the fact that there is a masonic symbol with a circle-and-slash on the top that makes me question it's reliability. Not only that, but I see the Latin phrases, but I don't see any translations. Plus, it seems that English is not your first language, as reading that page is somewhat difficult with the wording of it. Like the first sentence: "I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move?" is gibberish. I can make out what you are trying to say, but this is far from decent English. not only that, but citing yourself is not an acceptable source either. You're basically saying "I am rught because I say so". I hope you see my issue here.

I don't need all that crap anyway, I just need a page that says, in plain English, "Riccoli came up with and published these ideas first".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« No, it's the fact that there is a masonic symbol with a circle-and-slash on the top that makes me question it's reliability. »

It’s my way of stating I thing Freemasonry should be forbidden.

So, does every anti-Masonic writer over the internet seem suspect to you ?

« Not only that, but I see the Latin phrases, but I don't see any translations. »

I seem to have forgotten that detail or to have preferred giving a service to Catholics who either know Latin or know priests who do. I wrote it after a debate with Sungenis and DeLano (who prefer a somewhat convoluted gravitational model over angelic movers, despite being Catholics and Geocentrics.

« Plus, it seems that English is not your first language, as reading that page is somewhat difficult with the wording of it. Like the first sentence: "I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move?" is gibberish. »

NOT SO if taken as continuing the rhetoric question in the title.

It means, with appropriate insertions from title, which is previous sentence, this :

I mean [What Opinion ]on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move [did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One]?

Writing that out in full would have been tedious after a title « What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One? »

I can only conclude that writing or reading texts meant for other purposes than technological or scientific or whatever instruction is not YOUR first SUBJECT.

I mean from when you studied on university.

[Do I need to make insertions or have I made my point ?]

« I can make out what you are trying to say, but this is far from decent English. »

So « I mean [What Opinion ]on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move [did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One]? » would have been better English on your view ? Discredits you as a judge of English or of any language.

« not only that, but citing yourself is not an acceptable source either. You're basically saying "I am rught because I say so". I hope you see my issue here. »

I see your duplicity.

I did NOT give my own blog post as the reference for Riccioli’s view per se, but because it included links to Riccioli.

So, I gave Riccioli as reference to Riccioli’s opinion. At least for those familiar with Latin.

« I don't need all that crap anyway, I just need a page that says, in plain English, "Riccoli came up with and published these ideas first". »

Oh, Riccioli’s Latin (on pages I linked to and transcribed to my post) is « crap » to you ?

And why should the page say Riccioli « came up with and published these ideas first » when he claimed absolutely the opposite, namely to be completely traditional by adhering to the opinion of men like St Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa and I forget how long his namedropping list was when it came to prove he had predecessors ?

You have just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt you are incompetent to judge about older erudition, because you are incompetent in reading it.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And why is that? They believe in the same God you do. Why are they so bad?

What would have been better English? I'm not even sure what you were trying to say, so I couldn't tell you. I think you mean something along the lines of "My hypothesis is that the mechanism by which the planets and other heavenly bodies move is the same as that which Riccoli suggested to be the Fourth and Most Common opinion". Whatever the "fourth and most common opinion" means.

How am I being duplicitous? I am saying you can't cite yourself as a source, because that completely defeats the purpose of citing a source. The reason I asked for citations was so that I could get accepted scientific literature that has been tested and reviewed and tested some more by academic authorities. I don't trust some guy on the internet who just says "angels dun did it" as if that explains everything (which it does not). And yes, you did use your own blog as a source. The link you gave me was to your blog. Like I said, there are no translations, no peer-reviewed literature (which is what I am really looking for), and nothing that really posits anything that can be shown to be true, basically just your own opinions. If anything, it is YOU who is being duplicitous by claiming your opinions to be facts without citing any sources. Setting aside you angels hypothesis, I asked for proof that Riccoli gave more accurate measurements than Tycho, who was considered one of the best astronomers of his time. You have failed to show me where his measurements are, only where his hypotheses about angels are. That is not what I asked for.

I am done talking about this. It seems you completely missed what I was originally asking for, to the point where I got distracted and off-topic. All I will say is that your angels hypothesis does not really explain anything, just pushes the question away to be dealt with later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// I think you mean something along the lines of "My hypothesis is that the mechanism by which the planets and other heavenly bodies move is the same as that which Riccoli suggested to be the Fourth and Most Common opinion". //

That is NOT my language.

I meant to make a rhetorical question about what HE called "the fourth and most common opinion" on the precise matter of what caused celestial bodies to move.

I divided this into two questions:

• 1) the title asking "what opinion did Riccioli call the fourth and most common one"
• 2) line after title, clarifying on what subject Riccioli enumerated four opinions.

Only AFTER this do I clarify what the four opinions are and answer myself which one he called the fourth and most common one.

And I did so by quoting and linking to his work, scanned pages of a 17th C. printed book.

That my own opinion is the same as his is not "my hypothesis", it is incontestable historic fact.

[At least Bel-Shamharoth has done nothing to suggest any real contestation of it.]

// I am saying you can't cite yourself as a source, because that completely defeats the purpose of citing a source //

And I already clarified first time over that I was NOT citing myself as a source. I linked to a post of mine which links to Riccioli as a source.

// The reason I asked for citations was so that I could get accepted scientific literature that has been tested and reviewed and tested some more by academic authorities. //

You don't need that crap in order to know what four opinions Riccioli was talking about and which of them he considered the most common one and therefore enumerated as fourth and last of them.

// I don't trust some guy on the internet who just says "angels dun did it" as if that explains everything (which it does not). //

That was not the point. My point was to answer where I got it from, I answered [among others] Riccioli and gave good reason for so answering.

// And yes, you did use your own blog as a source. The link you gave me was to your blog. //

And it contained links to the pages of Riccioli, namely first to title page and then to the page where he was talking about it.

[Giving one link of mine which links to two or more of an author relevant is economising links.]

// Like I said, there are no translations,//

I probably reckoned on Sungenis having access to a Latinist.

// no peer-reviewed literature (which is what I am really looking for),//

The point is: did Riccioli or did he not think angels moved the orbits which (that you can look up elsewhere) he accepted as Tychonic ones, with the Keplerian modification of adding ellipses instead of perfact circles.

The need is not for peer reviewed articles, the need is for a page of Riccioli. And I gave exactly that.

// and nothing that really posits anything that can be shown to be true, basically just your own opinions. //

About what Riccioli opined?

You are trying to be funny!

"Setting aside you angels hypothesis, I asked for proof that Riccoli gave more accurate measurements than Tycho, who was considered one of the best astronomers of his time."

Tycho was contradicted on two items by his disciple Kepler:

• 1) the latter was a Heliocentric
• 2) the latter was also considering orbits to be elliptic rather than perfectly circular.

Riccioli accepted the latter as a valid correction.

If you know some geometry, you will realise that this means Riccioli was as accurate as Kepler.

That was my point in the first paragraph, first sentence.

On that one, I will gladly refer to Sungenis, who has done lots more than I on the history of the matter. The post I linked to was just my correction of his rash opinion "angelic movers" had been a fringe theory.

And do google Riccioli.

"You have failed to show me where his measurements are, only where his hypotheses about angels are. That is not what I asked for."

Your question as given was in that case imprecisely worded.

I did respond first with asking for a clarification whether I was being asked about a reference for Riccioli's position (on this matter) and you did not contradict this.

So I gave you Riccioli's position. Linking TO him THROUGH myself.

Where he discusses Kepler's elliptic orbits is another matter, I haven't looked that up.

"It seems you completely missed what I was originally asking for, to the point where I got distracted and off-topic."

Because your view of how to use language is inept, you mean to ask about one thing and ask in terms which could also mean another.

"All I will say is that your angels hypothesis does not really explain anything, just pushes the question away to be dealt with later."

Namely?

I would be fine to deal with that too. As long as your criterium for my responses is not that I cite modern peer reviewed academia on angels moving celestial bodies. We both know there is not any, or at least little and not very well known.

Btw, your theory of gravitation would explain lots, if it weren't for the detail (you could call it crap if you like) that its precise terms are two opposing forces, inertia and gravitation, both involving physical property of mass of whatever solid, liquid, gas or plasma is involved and NEITHER of which involved a solid body in between like a string in the stone and string experiment.

How about giving experimental validation for the theory that stone and string experiment works as well without any string (or tub of death experiment without any tub)?

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I mentioned tihis elsewhere, but my time is far more valuable to me than convincing you that you are wrong, which is never going to happen. I have dealt with your type before, and I don't want to waste my time here anymore. But you should probably try to understand the opposing viewpoint before you go and say that it is false. You clearly do not understand what gravitiation is, nor the evidence that backs it up. Not everything in the Universe is a solid, liquid, or gas, only matter, and gravity and inertia are not matter, therefore they do not need a solid, liquid, or gas to operate. That is like saying your bedroom lamp cannot work because you do not have a toaster in your room; they simply don't correlate that way. I suggest you actually do research before you give a BS explanation like "angels dun did it". But you and I both know that you won't do any research, and I don't have the patience to supervise you anymore. So good day, and happy 4th of July.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But you should probably try to understand the opposing viewpoint before you go and say that it is false."

I was actually an adherent of the opposing viewpoint for quite a long time.

As an adult.

You should perhaps try to check things up before you tell someone he's not understanding your viewpoint. Since it is VERY common, most people who oppose it know about it, and many of them would perhaps have had an opportunity to get an understanding of it.

"You clearly do not understand what gravitiation is, nor the evidence that backs it up."

Here we go again ... "you clearly do not understand ..." ... have I heard sth like that before?

I have made very detailed investigations into the question, by debates. And by checking out tides.

"Not everything in the Universe is a solid, liquid, or gas, only matter, and gravity and inertia are not matter, therefore they do not need a solid, liquid, or gas to operate."

I was not saying that in your model gravitation would have a need for a solid in order to be a gravitation.

I was saying that your model is on that precise ground not a real parallel to "stone on string experiment" where there is a solid.

"That is like saying your bedroom lamp cannot work because you do not have a toaster in your room; they simply don't correlate that way."

Not so.

As said, my point was NOT as if gravitation had a need of a solid between the points to be a gravitation between them.

"I suggest you actually do research before you give a BS explanation like "angels dun did it". But you and I both know that you won't do any research,"

In my case because I know I already did it.

As I already told Aleksandr Sokolnik, here is a video of an experiment which only deals with force of attraction + inertia, no solid in between:

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

As I observed to him:

I think this video is the one with slow motion, count how few orbits each droplet makes before it clings to the knitting needle because its gravitation takes upper hand over inertia.

You claim Earth has been orbitting Sun about 4 . 5 billion times. In the video, where electromagnetic attraction takes the place of gravitation, the water droplets come out of an orbitting balance after 5 to 20 orbits.

"and I don't have the patience to supervise you anymore."

I was not asking for your supervision, I was giving you a debate.

"So good day, and happy 4th of July."

Thanks. I am not US Citizen, but thanks anyway. I suppose you are?

On to:

Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/where-bel-shamharoth-says-hello-to.html

As mentioned under part a, it is his response to my notification on that thread.

Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part b

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:10 or a little before:

What "childish claims of cospiracy"?

Am I giving claim that God and angels "conspire" for anything?

Like being useful to us, by seasons and lunar phases, bemusing Heliocentrics and finally amusing your viewers and my readers?

I mean, conspiracy claims are usually about lower deeds, like Bilderbergers conspiring to impose "population control" or things like that.

I do believe that too, but am not entertaining that belief each time I give a Geocentric explanation, Sir!

Bel-Shamharoth

No, the conspiracy he mentions is that the (apparent) majority of flat-Earthers believe that shadowy overlords, typically NASA and the Illuminati, work together to spread "lies" that the Earth is a globe for reasons unknown. Nothing to do with religion.

That's another video series.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Very well, but in that case, believing that conspiracy is NOT a requisite for being a geocentric.

He is simply wrong to claim this conspiracy is all that geocentrics have to offer.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's called hyperbole. It's not ALL they have to offer, but it's all that MOST of them have to offer, and the ones that don't offer that rarely have anything else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, I do offer some conspiracy too, but only after beiong confronted for so long with practical obstacles offereing the rest I have to offer to the world.

What was it a Brexit advocate recently said?

"Not a conspiracy, but worse : a confederacy of dunces".

Though the last word is vastly unfair to Duns Scotus!

So, when it comes to explaining why I have a hard time giving what else to give, I do offer the explanation "conspiracy or confederacy of dunces" too.

But if you really think this is all "we" have to offer, either you haven't met many of us, or you have been trusting someone who was dishonest about us.

It could of course also be you are in fact dishonest, you might be claiming to have read very many of us Geocentrics, and to have come to this conclusion about us, in that case you would be dishonest - like a conspirator, since very many people seem to share this same dishonesty (as perpetrators or as - as I just suggested for your case - victims).

If not, an uncautious reader might get the impression you had read many of us and found "no explanations, only conspiracy theories".

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You haven't been paying attention to a word I have said have you? I am not the one saying these things, I was just clarifying what CHL was saying. Once again, I don't believe that conspiracy is ALL that geocentrists have to offer. But it does seem that a majority of vocal geocentrists DO believe that the globe theory is a conspiracy by the government. CHL just exaggerated that into a generalization about ALL geocentrists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I am not the one saying these things, I was just clarifying what CHL was saying."

What he said needed no clarification. It was simply untrue.

"But it does seem that a majority of vocal geocentrists DO believe that the globe theory is a conspiracy by the government."

• 1) "a majority of those believing X consider non-X a conspiracy" does NOT equal "those believing X only have to say in response to non-X that it is a conspiracy";
• 2) you are confusing geocentrics with flat earthers.

Most known geocentrics, namely Sungenis, DeLano, De Bouw, myself (perhaps, if I may propose my own case as known) are in fact ourselves believers in the globe theory.

Thus, we do not consider globe theory as a conspiracy.

Those who do are mostly Protestants who would also consider Magellan as capable of conspiring with the Papal States to prepare Papal reconquest of Protestant countries through globe theory.

Of the Geocentrics I considered as known in the enumeration I made, only De Bouw is a Protestant. And he also respects Magellan.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently it did need clarification, because you still don't get it. It was a generalization. As I said, most outspoken geocentrists are also conspiracy theorists, so he exaggerates it by saying that they all do.

• 1) See the definition of the word "hyperbole" and the above paragraph.
• 2) No, I am not. They are both very similar in that regard. Many do truly believe in conspiracy on that scale.

I am not sure you understand the theories CHL is referring to when he talks about these people's conspiracy theories. Typically, these people believe there are shadowy entities, typically NASA or the Illuminati, that control the world, and are trying to sedate us with "fake" knowledge of heliocentrism and/or a globe-shaped Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As I said, most outspoken geocentrists are also conspiracy theorists, so he exaggerates it by saying that they all do."

Hyperbolé is one thing, hyperbolé within another hyperbolé is another thing.

Not only generalising from most of us to all of us, but "generalising" and vastly exaggerating having a conspiracy theory into having nothing else - even when the conspiracy theory is actually a minority of what someone actually says.

That is no longer within acceptable limits for hyperbolé, it is falsehood.

"No, I am not. They are both very similar in that regard. Many do truly believe in conspiracy on that scale."

Similar or not is not the point.

A geocentric who believes the globe theory will not pretend that precisely the globe theory is a conspiracy.

Either you forget what you said a few days ago, or you are being diffuse and obtuse on purpose.

"I am not sure you understand the theories CHL is referring to when he talks about these people's conspiracy theories. Typically, these people believe there are shadowy entities, typically NASA or the Illuminati, that control the world, and are trying to sedate us with "fake" knowledge of heliocentrism and/or a globe-shaped Earth."

Yes, I did understand precisely that.

I was being facetious in my previous remark.

But since I am a geocentric believing a gloàbe shaped earth, I will for one thing NOT say globe shaped earth is a conspiracy by people like the groups behind Nelson Rockefeller (responsible for the catastrophic building of Twin Towers!).

ALSO, when it comes to heliocentrism and specifically explaining what CHL thought I could only explain with "childish conspiracy theories" while I do indeed believe there is a conspiracy, that is NOT my explanation for the phenomena he is talking about. Angelic movers is, and on any Christian view, these existed long before Nelson Rockefeller became a conspirator.

He is deliberately shifting attention away from what I have to say on the subject at hand to what I am saying on another matter and what he can best ridicule by not doing so on THAT debate.

And you are trying to defend his foul tactics. Are you conspiring with him?

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are taking things way too seriously. You need to calm down; there is no such thing as "beyond acceptable limits" for exaggeration; that is literally the whole point of exaggeration. And you STILL do not understand in the slightest what is meant by his specific use of "conspiracy theory". I don't have the patience explaining this to you anymore, since if even the basic uses of literary devices eludes you so utterly, I don't think there is hope for you to understand the complex mechanics of the real universe, instead of your fairy tales. So I won't spend my time on you anymore. Good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By "acceptable" I mean the difference between exaggerating what is there and exaggerating what isn't.

You are not qualified to tell me when to calm down, you are not very calm yourself.

"And you STILL do not understand in the slightest what is meant by his specific use of "conspiracy theory"."

Perhaps not his specific use, but I do understand every one else means if saying the phrase "all you have to offer is childish conspiracy theories" something other than "all of you have on occasions offered conspiracy theories, which I consider childish".

Every one else's than his specific use would clearly involve the claim we have nothing else to offer. What is more true is that this is what we sometimes do offer, but some of you want to hear it over and over again.

On to next.

Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:19 There is "no sensible mechanism" - except of course, angelic movers.

Bel-Shamharoth

The key word there is "sensible".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you mean, since angels are purely rational and have no five senses, the "mechanism" is not "sensible" in the exact sense of the word?

< / irony off > What is not sensible about believing angels are moving planets? (Usual sense of word, this time!)

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Where is your proof that your description of them is accurate in any way, shape or form?

What is not sensible about it is the fact that there is no evidence that angels even exist, let alone that they are doomed to spend ten billion years doing nothing but pushing planets around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) My proof angels exists is in the Bible.
• 2) My description of them as non-corporeal is from the theology of St Thomas Aquinas (shared by Riccioli).
• 3) As far as I have described the matter, pushing planets about is not a doom. It should be a pleasant pastime. A bit like mythology's Helios riding a chariot behind horses. But perhaps closer to biking than to chariot riding. Considering the loops etc described in this video, not too far from certain athletic types of biking or skateboarding.
• 4) "spend ten billion years" - by now more like 7 thousand, 2 hundred and 15 years.
• 5) "doing nothing but" - oh, but they enjoy praying and enjoy the Beatific Vision of God at the same time - precisely as is the case with a guardian angel spending 0 to 120 years "doing nothing but" trying to keep a human being off the track of damnation and put them back on the track of salvation. With certain old sinners it would be even more tedious, since they only can keep them off certain sins which would damn them even deeper, not really any more give them chances of salvation. Playing ball games with the planets between them would be child's play compared to interacting with a sinful human. How good for them that men - after the Fall of Adam - do not live for 7215 years!

Here

I omit giving the response as such in full and instead give answers on each subtopic divided according to numbers. In each division me, him, me. I am so only omitting in the following, his initial appeal "+Hans-Georg Lundahl". As in my third level answer to him I included his second level answer to me within quotation marks, that is how his remarks appear here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) My proof angels exists is in the Bible.

Bel-Shamharoth

1) « where is your evidence that the Bible is a credible source of information? (let me answer that for you; it isn't) »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is another debate. The arguments in that one are mainly historical.

Heliocentric and non-angelic « astronomy » is however one of the attack points against it, one reason why I consider it an error.

Bel-Shamharoth

1a) « Where in the Bible does it mention them spinning the planets, sun, moon and stars around the Earth? »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point was mainly that the Bible says they exist.

If the Bible has directly said « angels are the movers of celestial bodies » the debate of Riccioli’s referring to Kepler and St Thomas Aquinas as having different opinions would not exist, since both claimed to be believers in the Bible, yet Kepler believed Sun moved planets by magnetism and Aquinas God assigned an angel to each star and planet. Some indications stars are either alive or moved by angels who are so is for instance in Baruch 3.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My description of them as non-corporeal is from the theology of St Thomas Aquinas (shared by Riccioli).

Bel-Shamharoth

2) « I don't care where you got your hypothesis from. That does not really make it any more valid since it has not been shown to be true. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You asked « where is your proof » and I am trying to oblige by giving the detail.

Your hypothesis has most certainly not been showed to be true either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3) As far as I have described the matter, pushing planets about is not a doom. It should be a pleasant pastime. A bit like mythology's Helios riding a chariot behind horses. But perhaps closer to biking than to chariot riding. Considering the loops etc described in this video, not too far from certain athletic types of biking or skateboarding.

Bel-Shamharoth

3) « Fine, but why? An omnipotent and omniscient God could create a much better system than that. I could create a much better system than that, and I'm not even all-knowing. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why ? Why create at all, God has been happy for all eternitybefore creating and could have remained happy even without creating ?

Creation was for the glory of God.

Now, one of the glories that God does get from creating is creating rational beings, capable of earning (or having by now already earned) an eternity of bliss with him.

Both before and after earning bliss, intelligent beings are capable of causing things.

For those in Heaven, the main way is by prayer. Nevertheless, for all created things, at least potentially there is some direct efficacy on other things.

God could, says Riccioli, have created stars and be directing each himself and letting no angel touch any of it, given stars life, so they move themselves, given some inanimate mechanism (like Kepler’s magnetism) or given celestial bodies into the charge of angels.

Against first position, God is not doing all Himself, He is creating things which can also do some small asigned part under Him. Against second (an argument which might be somewhat needful of revision ?) bodily life implies changes, which we don’t observe in stars and planets (we do, by now). Against third, magnetism or whatever inanimate mechanism is a less dignified cause than angels for something as high up as celestial bodies.

Bel-Shamharoth

3a) « You have no evidence that this is true. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Neither have you for your hypothesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4) "spend ten billion years" - by now more like 7 thousand, 2 hundred and 15 years.

Bel-Shamharoth

4) « No, by now more like 5 billion, plus the 5 billion that the Sun will continue to live. So 10 billion. You don't even have solid evidence for that 7 thousand number, let alone exactly 7,215 years. »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You don’t have any solid evidence for any of your billions of years.

With Heliocentrism down, we have no parallax measure for « 4 light years » being that of « closest stars » and therefore also no ensuing parts of cosmic distance ladder. Therefore no distant light years problem against a « young » universe.

My solid evidence for 5199+2016 years starts with

3 And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot a son after his own form, and after his own image, and he called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, which he lived after his begetting Seth, were seven hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters. 5 And all the days of Adam which he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. 6 Now Seth lived two hundred and five years, and begot Enos. 7 And Seth lived after his begetting Enos, seven hundred and seven years, and he begot sons and daughters.

(English translation of LXX, the text from which St Jerome did a calculation of chronology, or took over one).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5) "doing nothing but" - oh, but they enjoy praying and enjoy the Beatific Vision of God at the same time - precisely as is the case with a guardian angel spending 0 to 120 years "doing nothing but" trying to keep a human being off the track of damnation and put them back on the track of salvation. With certain old sinners it would be even more tedious, since they only can keep them off certain sins which would damn them even deeper, not really any more give them chances of salvation. Playing ball games with the planets between them would be child's play compared to interacting with a sinful human. How good for them that men - after the Fall of Adam - do not live for 7215 years!

Bel-Shamharoth

5) « Once again, where is your proof of this? »

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Too long to take each place in Bible and argue about its relation to all other places. Short answer, Theology of the Catholic Church.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Look, your replies are so long and full of extraneous nonsense that it's not even worth sorting out. I agree that the accuracy of the Bible is another debate, but the debate is settled. It already happened, and the Bible lost. while it gets some things correctly, it gets other things so wildly wrong (including its own stories in some cases) that it is not considered a valid source of knowledge. Believe what you want, I don't care, but you cannot assert as fact what has been shown not to be true, or has not had any substantial evidence to back it up. Not if you expect to be taken seriously anyway. Now, as I said, your responses are full of talk but not a lot said that I won't bother debating you anymore. I've found it's not worth my time to convince people like you online, so I'm going to stop now before we go any further down the rabbit hole.

[In other words, if I may add it here, he gives up because he knows I am winning.]

BoothTheGrey

If you take angels I take Vaia. If you take the bible as "proof" I take the silmarillion. And now?

By the way - do you use a navigation software with your smartphone? You know that it only works because of modern astrphysics? I repeat: It works by modern science. NOT by your angels. Why cant angels tell you all the time where you exactly are? And if you think angels are more trustworthy than science - why do you use computers that also only can work because of modern science? Why cant you use your bible to built an magic angel-youtube with commentary-section?

Cause that what science is about: Its about reality and its about what works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I agree that the accuracy of the Bible is another debate, but the debate is settled. It already happened, and the Bible lost."

When, where, how?

Lost according to whose estimate of winning or losing?

"If you take angels I take Vaia. If you take the bible as "proof" I take the silmarillion. And now?"

Since Tolkien was a Thomist, his valar (L, not i), maiar and other ainur are basically angelic beings.

He even probably considered maiar started moving sun and moon on day four, as I do, since "age of the trees" is probably calqued from day three and "age of sun and moon" started on what is probably a calque of day four. Not quite correct in normal view of Biblical history, but closer than, say, a Catholic trying to combine evolution with it.

It is from his Silmarillion that I first got the idea that angelic beings could be moving sun, moon etc.

Now, there is a basic difference. Silmarillion came out into bookshops after the death of its author. In 1916 when he rode out into WW-I, it did not exist, its earliest chapters were written when he was in war.

It is thus useless to pretend it were some kind of long and well preserved history of earliest things.

Genesis however seems from later books in OT to have always been there with the Hebrew people. And Abraham and even Moses is, according to Biblical genealogies, close enough to Adam to have actually preserved some correct and accurate memories from the very earliest events in human history.

You cannot point to any year later than Moses and say Genesis was composed as a whole then. And Moses just stringed the chapters together plus added the six days. You cannot say "before 1977, no great public had seen Genesis", as you can with Silmarillion.

Plus, books later than Genesis are (except those spanning several generations) usually as a whole written during the events by contemporaries (let's except non-historic books, like psalms, wisdom literature and prophecy too : Daniel was not a contemporary of Antichrist or even Antiochus Epiphanes and Isaiah was not a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth). Books spanning more than one generation were usually written cumulatively, like later the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Hence, events in the Bible are normally speaking very well documented in a way that events in Silmarillion are very much not.

Of course, there is always the revisionist fringe of modernists who will pretend that traditionally assigned authors are not the real ones, but the real ones much later. Like, speaking of Tolkien, would you be prepared to defend a thesis Silmarillion was written last year by Neil Gaiman? I wouldn't.

"You know that it only works because of modern astrphysics?"

OK, what exact astrophysical thesis about someone else's smartphone is essential to its working?

Btw, I don't have one, I sit before a computer in a library.

"Why cant angels tell you all the time where you exactly are?"

They are not allowed to, because I am not a saint and I don't always need to know exactly where I am. Where I am now, I already know because I know the library since several years, and if I were hiking, I might enjoy the possibility to be lost a bit.

But theoretically they could if they wanted to or if God wanted them to.

"Why cant you use your bible to built an magic angel-youtube with commentary-section?"

Because the Bible does not imply directing angels as if they were your tools.

Also, I am not quite sure no angels are after all involved at all in internet.

But if all angels possibly involved were demons, I don't think so many Catholic priests and popes would be using electronic media. So I am not worried (even if perhaps I should be).

Reality and what works are two different concepts. Reality involves lots of things which don't work for you - including every thing which is real and which doesn't work for you.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl The debate was lost on February 4, 2014 at the creation musem, when Ken Ham, stalwart defender of the Bible, was shown to be a stubborn liar at best and a deliberate deceiver of everyone, including himself, at worst. Your last paragraph is gibberish, too. If it doesn't work, it's not reality. Simple as that. The Bible does not work as anything but a blood-soaked fiction. And I no longer have the patience to play this game with you. Good day.

BoothTheGrey

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can only say that Bel-Shamharoth is absolutely right with his last point. Thats what religous folks often do - switch between weird details and basic philosophy concepts. The most important things remain the same: Never ever anybody invented anything with any "holy word".

The concept of science is different: Science is evolving - religion wants to keep the same. And religous folks sometimes even think that they "gotcha" when a scientific theory has to be corrected. But that is EXACTLY what science is about. Religion is the OPPOSITE.

On the psychological level I can see all the strange work you do to avoid the PAIN someone must feel when he sees that his faith in his absolute truth does not work. I can accept how hard it must be. On the other hand I would not feel any pain AT ALL if any religous group would come up with some real good evidence for their faith. But they dont.

And science provides MILLIONS of good evidence. Every modern technology is an experiment for several scientific theories and models. ALL religious folks DO all this experiments like all other people do them. But they still dont want to accept it. That is REJECTION of evidence. I dont think that this should be the result of a deep faith.

My advice: Confront with your inner pain that your faith could be WRONG.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The debate was lost on February 4, 2014 at the creation musem, when Ken Ham, stalwart defender of the Bible, was shown to be a stubborn liar at best and a deliberate deceiver of everyone, including himself, at worst."

Even if that were so, that would just disqualify him as a defender of the Bible, not the cause of the Bible from getting a defense.

"Your last paragraph is gibberish, too. If it doesn't work, it's not reality. Simple as that."

So, a computer connexion which is not working is not a thing that really happens?

Keys that refuse to work (at least pretty long) are not phenomena which really happen?

Locks of car doors that refuse to respond to keys are a myth out of Tolkien's Middle Earth?

You know better than that. Or you live in a very charmed micro-reality. Reality at large has lots of things that do not work.

But I suppose you mean sth like "if angels as movers of celestial bodies don't work, they are not real"?

Well, duh, its the gravitational model which doesn't work when tested by Don petit with static electricity in knitting needles replacing gravitation, without a solid. It's the gravitational model which has broken down.

[see other subthread]

"The Bible does not work as anything but a blood-soaked fiction."

The Bible does NOT work as fiction for the simple reason that no mechanism by which a community claiming to have openly possessed a record since it began can have after its beginning confused a piece of fiction with that record. If anything, docufiction, like Washington Irvings docufiction being in some minds a substitute for the real records about Columbus - but that is not even a fair parallel, since US and its precursors in English colonies come into being a century after Columbus, it is not as if it had happened by the community in place since the days of Columbus, that is the Hispanics.

"And I no longer have the patience to play this game with you."

Feel free to quit the debate. I am not exactly languishing for lack of it, except on the French side of internet, where I happen to live. Among English speakers, I am always getting a new debater.

"Good day."

Same to you. Even you, I would not wish a bad day.

"I can only say that Bel-Shamharoth is absolutely right with his last point."

Which I already refuted.

"Thats what religous folks often do - switch between weird details and basic philosophy concepts."

Any detail must in the last resort be coherent with any real basic philosophy concept. That is why it is important to confer them.

And that however weird the detail might be.

"The most important things remain the same: Never ever anybody invented anything with any "holy word"."

The Rosary has been called the Bible of the Poor.

[Or Gospel of the Poor. "Bible of the Poor" is rather stained glass windows.]

It has probably served as model for the movable types of Gutenberg. Unless it can be proven he had access to Marco Polo's account of China - which before he invented the printing press can have been difficult.

"The concept of science is different: Science is evolving - religion wants to keep the same."

A revelation from God, if genuine, cannot be corrected.

No future human brightness can equal the omniscience, truthfulness and wisdom of God.

"And religous folks sometimes even think that they "gotcha" when a scientific theory has to be corrected."

Even when what is corrected away was the basis of what was antireligious. Or especially then.

"But that is EXACTLY what science is about."

Science is primarily about truth. 2+2=4 will never ever be corrected, because uncommonly for a scientific matter, the theory has no shadown of a doubt in its basis. Hence, on your view, 2+2=4 would not be scientific.

"Religion is the OPPOSITE."

Religion is the same as the certitude that 2+2=4 - except that in this case we are taking the word of the real expert rather than reasoning ourselves.

"On the psychological level I can see all the strange work you do to avoid the PAIN someone must feel when he sees that his faith in his absolute truth does not work. I can accept how hard it must be."

Pseudo-empathy is a common failure among shrinks and atheists.

"On the other hand I would not feel any pain AT ALL if any religous group would come up with some real good evidence for their faith. But they dont."

In that case, I suppose you would be willing to take a look at the reasons for accepting the Gospels?

Take a look at the blog here:

somewhere else
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com

Yes, I am linking to my own blog. No, it is not like citing myself as a source. It is making you familiar with what I have already said, so I don't need to repeat it but can go on with the problems you have with that.

Specifically, take a look at the series involving this message:

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-blooper-dan-barker-from-atheist.html

"And science provides MILLIONS of good evidence."

For most of its propositions, pretty few of which are antireligious. It's another question whether it provides millions of good evidence against religion.

"Every modern technology is an experiment for several scientific theories and models."

Invent rotating parts attached to their fulcrum through electromagnetic attraction of it rather than by a solid surrounding both (cfr tub of death) or a solid string or rod uniting them, and you may have a point about the gravitational model of heliocentrism.

So far, the experiment of Don Petit is not very promising.

[see other subthread, as said.]

"ALL religious folks DO all this experiments like all other people do them. But they still dont want to accept it. That is REJECTION of evidence."

Name one experiment we do and of which we reject the evidence?

"I dont think that this should be the result of a deep faith."

I don't use the phrase "deep faith", sounds like something out of a psychology manual rather than something out of the catechism describing how faith should be.

"My advice: Confront with your inner pain that your faith could be WRONG."

My advice to you is: ditch psychology (whether you are amateur or professional) before you hurt more people. For the moment you are not hurting me, but the professionals as well as their allies in the form of amateur abettors are destroying human lives, same as Oracle of Delphi did. Oh, it worked - but it worked by lots of self fulfilling prophecies, a bit like those of the three witches in Macbeth in the lines "hail the Macbeth" etc. Everyone knew he was thane of Glamis, the devil could have told them he had just become thane of Cawdor, and it was their false prophecy which pushed him (via his wife) to fulfilling it.

[the false prophecy "who shalt be king hereafter", I mean]

Psychology is more often than not involved in the same type of witchcraft and Delphic paganism.

Btw, Bel-Shamharoth and Booth the Grey making a team reminds me a bit of Mormon missionary tactics. Also a thing invented by religious, and which probably works on some levels, since you plagiarise it.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl For one thing, He and I simply agree. That is not the same as "making a team". For another, are you really ignorant enough to think that teaming up was invented by the Mormons? Are you saying that there were no such thing as alliances before the Mormons? As deals? truces? Pacts? Way to take foolishness to the next level. with that, I won't be responding to you anymore. I'm toying with the idea of blocking you and you ill-thought-out arguments altogether. Please don't influence me to do so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant making a team of two persons agreeing in conversation with another usually lone person.

On internet this becomes somewhat diluted.

If you can show any older usages of this method than the Mormon one, I'd be obliged of course?

"I'm toying with the idea of blocking you and you ill-thought-out arguments altogether. Please don't influence me to do so."

Not sure whether my saying so will influence you, but do. However, first, take a look at my blog where these debates are being mirrored.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/debate-under-three-other-of-my-remarks_8.html

part b
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/debate-under-three-other-of-my-remarks_2.html

part c
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/debate-under-three-other-of-my-remarks.html

A notification is sooner or later due, and if you had already blocked me, it would be hard to make one.

Bel-Shamharoth's answer

deserves a post of its own:

Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me

On to next.