Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galileo and the Church (quora) · ... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella · With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science
On quora mail. "Last Tuesday" is so on Friday 9.III.2018, meaning it was 6.III.2018.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Tue
- If you like to add more to the debate, there will of course be updates on this:
... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/on-whether-geocentrism-is-obliging.html
- Anthony Zarrella
- 15h ago
- Richard Muller's answer to What evidence can prove the Earth actually orbits the sun? It seems very unrealistic.
Thoughts? I suppose this is a much more complex version of St. Robert Bellarmine’s “saves the appearances” solution, but it does seem to be a solution that allows both of us to be more or less right.
See, my insistence on heliocentrism is because, due to the way gravity works, the Sun pulls the Earth towards it with more relative force than vice versa (I’m speaking very imprecisely from a physics perspective—technically the forces are exactly equal, but an equal force affects a lesser mass far more than it does a greater mass). So, if we use a coordinate system and frame of reference that allows for an elegant formulation of gravitational effects, then it leaves us with the Earth orbiting the Sun.
But as Prof. Muller notes, it is possible to construct a consistent model in which the Earth is wholly immobile… it simply requires a lot of convolutions in the models and equations that aren’t necessary if we allow a moving Earth.
The one thing I’m waiting to hear back from him on is whether the equatorial bulge can be explained without positing a spinning Earth.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 7h ago
- You can hear it from me : if the ether spins around earth, equatorial bulge could result from that or be preproduced by God to fit that.
As to gravitation, it is a somewhat ambiguous topic.
I thought that Earth orbitting Sun for 4 . 5 billion orbits would be ridiculous, since I looked at the experiments of another orbitting, that one due to static electricity, I was then beaten in a debate on the two body problem Earth and Sun, but for one thing, it was only for 4 . 5 billion orbits, not for an eternity of them and also, it was only for a two body problem - it seems a several body problem has no fixed solution, Chinese just showed that.
A l s o … as Christians we believe in God and in Angels.
St Thomas believed the daily movement to be one of the whole heavens, under the Empyree, and it is produced by God. He and Riccioli agree more or less the yearly movement of the Sun around the Zodiac is produced by whatever angel is moving it (for St Thomas : the angel moves the Sun in relation to its sphere which is moved by God via some other spheres, “slowly,” eastward, for Riccioli, the angel moves the Sun through the void, westward, much faster, just a bit slower than each angel moves each star of the fix stars westward).
This means, we need not expect the outcome to depend only on gravitation, since we don’t expect a football match to be played by gravitation of ball and earth without any players either.
- Anthony Zarrella
- 1h ago
- As for ether, I’m trying to see if the system can be made to work without requiring a radical revision of known science (also, not really sure how ether would cause an equatorial bulge—the present explanation has to do with the centrifugal force of the spinning Earth, not anything pulling it externally).
The same goes for divine special intervention—yes, of course I believe that God could create an equatorial bulge directly, but…
- Why? Unless it’s His goal to make us think the Earth is spinning, why bother to make it an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere as most ancients and Medieval scholars thought?
- As I’ve said before, I believe that God gave us reason in a rationally explicable world. Therefore, “God did it Himself” is an ill-fitting explanation in cases where there is no particular salvific or revelatory purpose apparent. (Again, not at all because He can’t but because it doesn’t fit with what I believe He would do.)
As to angels, of course I believe in them, and I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe. It would bother me not at all to posit that there’s an angel whose divine assignment is to hold atoms together (what we call the “weak nuclear force”), or to regulate the flow of electrons, or to pull masses towards one another (“gravity”). I could even posit that there’s an individual angel assigned to the orbit of each planet and star.
But that is a satisfactory answer to the question of “Why do the physical laws work?” I don’t find it a particularly satisfying substitute for explicable, empirically deducible physical laws.
St. Thomas was the most gifted theologian in history (and the patron of my own Sacrament of Confirmation)—but he was no more than an educated amateur (at best) in the sciences.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 1h ago
- “Therefore, “God did it Himself” is an ill-fitting explanation in cases where there is no particular salvific or revelatory purpose apparent. “
Non sequitur.
Semi-Deism.
Paley believed in a watchmaker - he only touches the watch to rewind when wound wrong or things.
St Thomas believed in a God who first made and then is running - directly - the universe, like a man can be first instrument maker and then musician.
“I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe”
That was not the point.
In case you missed the football parallel, a ball is not moving across the plane for only reasons of gravitation and inertia between earth and ball. It is moved by freewilled agents.
My point is, to St Thomas and to Riccioli, God assigned freewilled agents to precisely move celestial bodies in a way only freewilled agents can do. Not as mere secretaries of blind laws.
“But that is a satisfactory answer to the question of “Why do the physical laws work?” I don’t find it a particularly satisfying substitute for explicable, empirically deducible physical laws.”
The ball moving across the field as in a match is precisely NOT an empirically deducible physical law about effects of ball + earth + intertia + gravitation.
No event ever occurred moved by a physical law. They only shape what other agents are doing. Get that basic, and miracles are no intellectual problem.
“St. Thomas was the most gifted theologian in history (and the patron of my own Sacrament of Confirmation)—but he was no more than an educated amateur (at best) in the sciences.”
Dito for you.
That said, he was the pupil of the most gifted scientist of his time, St Albert the Great.
So, what is your point?
Scientists today have another ideology? Fine, I know that. Is it Christian?
- Anthony Zarrella
- 1h ago
- “Paley believed in a watchmaker - he only touches the watch to rewind when wound wrong or things.
St Thomas believed in a God who first made and then is running - directly - the universe, like a man can be first instrument maker and then musician.”
Yes, but even a pianist who first crafted his own piano then allows the hammers to actuate the strings and the foot pedals to deploy the stops—he does not reach under the lid and pluck the strings by hand.
“My point is, to St Thomas and to Riccioli, God assigned freewilled agents to precisely move celestial bodies in a way only freewilled agents can do. Not as mere secretaries of blind laws.”
With all respect to St. Thomas, that fails to account for the precise regularity observed across times and places.
I can accept free-willed angels carrying out God’s laws, but the data before us suggests that, free will notwithstanding, they are constrained at least by obedience to move the celestial bodies only in accordance with strict laws. Is it possible that someday a situation may arise that may prompt an angel moving a planet to deviate from his course in defiance of all known celestial mechanics? Sure, it’s possible. But all we can say for the moment is that it appears to have never yet occurred in all of human history.
“No event ever occurred moved by a physical law. They only shape what other agents are doing. Get that basic, and miracles are no intellectual problem.”
Sure, in some sense I agree.
But if every event is a willed miracle, then we live in an inexplicable world, in which we may never understand nor rely upon any natural phenomenon at all, much less exploit it for human advancement.
Even if you prefer to cast “natural law” as nothing more than, “systematic observation of the consistent divine actions which our faithful Lord has given us leave to rely upon,” it comes to the same basic idea in my mind—that it is God’s will that the universe conform to patterns and laws that we can discover and presume valid.
If we discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature, then we’re left to presume a capricious God—one who might “pull the rug out from under us” at any moment. I know that’s no God you believe in—we both believe He is ever-faithful to His promises, and constant in His will.
To me, it is no more problematic to posit that God will consistently will that two masses attract one another in proportion to their mass (whether immediately willed or via divine command to angelic ministers) than to posit that God will consistently will that a valid act of consecration will effectuate transubstantiation.
“That said, he was the pupil of the most gifted scientist of his time, St Albert the Great.
So, what is your point?
Scientists today have another ideology? Fine, I know that. Is it Christian?”
A good point—though I’m not sure it gets you where you’re going.
Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise.
And no—some modern scientists may have an anti-Christian ideology, but when I speak of principles of “science” I am referring merely to science in its best form, the quest to use our God-given reason and intellect to learn of the mind of God through His creation. The only “ideology” is that empirical and testable observation is the cornerstone of new knowledge (which seems to me eminently reasonably, given that general revelation has ceased).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 30m ago
- “Yes, but even a pianist who first crafted his own piano then allows the hammers to actuate the strings and the foot pedals to deploy the stops—he does not reach under the lid and pluck the strings by hand.”
Harpist may be more appropriate.
Also, if God so constructed the universe, outermost part of turning aether is one part He “plucks by hand” and celestial movements are what angels “pluck by hand” and God by their obedience.
Note, when God moves most things through “secondary causes”, let’s not forget the most noble of those are freewilled creatures and the most noble in nature of those are angels.
“With all respect to St. Thomas, that fails to account for the precise regularity observed across times and places.”
Not at all, if you refer to that of stellar movements.
Angels don’t fumble.
“I can accept free-willed angels carrying out God’s laws, but the data before us suggests that, free will notwithstanding, they are constrained at least by obedience to move the celestial bodies only in accordance with strict laws.”
You are confusing “data” with “conclusions by scientists”.
They are simply NOT synonymous.
The laws which would govern a ball if only Earth’s mass and its own mass are relevant cease to be the main thing (for spectators at least) when players come into play.
You have no datum whatsoever proving a celestial body is moved by gravitation and inertia exclusively and not by any freewilled movers, that is ideology, not data.
“Is it possible that someday a situation may arise that may prompt an angel moving a planet to deviate from his course in defiance of all known celestial mechanics?”
Celestian mechanics are not a known, they are an ideology.
“Sure, it’s possible. But all we can say for the moment is that it appears to have never yet occurred in all of human history.”
You are forgetting two OT Solar Miracles Joshua and Hezechiah, the Son going dark without a Moon to eclipse it over Calvary and the Sun dancing over Fatima.
Four times equal never since when? You are repeating a ideologeme from an atheist who denies all four occurrences, no doubt, but doesn’t tell you so, he doesn’t like you to know all of his premisses.
"But if every event is a willed miracle, then we live in an inexplicable world, in which we may never understand nor rely upon any natural phenomenon at all, much less exploit it for human advancement."
Not at all.
First, I did not say all events not caused by natural laws are miracles.
Second, a set of natural laws are very fine for our earthly uses of manipilating our environment, both in accordance with "mandate" and because of Adam's curse, but since God, angels and the things they manipulate are not what we manipulate, theoretically, they could even be not even describable according to natural law. Obviously, even if they are on some level describable as such, this doesn't mean God and angels need to observe merely human limits in how they are manipulated.
"Even if you prefer to cast “natural law” as nothing more than, “systematic observation of the consistent divine actions which our faithful Lord has given us leave to rely upon,” it comes to the same basic idea in my mind—that it is God’s will that the universe conform to patterns and laws that we can discover and presume valid."
In that sense, Tychonian orbits, God moving the aether and angels moving celestial bodies (stars, sun, moon, planets, comets) within it breaks exactly no natural law which we can rely on as being valid.
"If we discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature, then we’re left to presume a capricious God—one who might “pull the rug out from under us” at any moment. I know that’s no God you believe in—we both believe He is ever-faithful to His promises, and constant in His will."
So? I have never said I "discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature". You are giving me a false dichotomy between such a discarding and bowing down to "then it is celestial mechanics that decides solely where celestial bodies are". Tertium datur, ego dedi and you are ignoring it.
"To me, it is no more problematic to posit that God will consistently will that two masses attract one another in proportion to their mass (whether immediately willed or via divine command to angelic ministers) than to posit that God will consistently will that a valid act of consecration will effectuate transubstantiation."
Nor is it to me that God also consistently wills that freewilled agents can interfere with the course gravity would give a body if not interfered with.Have you played volleyball? The goal is to keep the ball off the ground while it is on your half of the course. This is directly contrary to the course given by Earth's gravitation to the ball.
AND you somehow see now problem with volleyball being played, but see a problem with angelic movers doing celestial movements not determined fully by celestial mechanics ... where exactly is your consistency?
"Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise."
I am sorry, but you are once again repeating an ideologeme having no relation to the facts.A body of its own could on his view have a tendency to rise (if light) or to fall (if heavy). This due only to its nature and environment. If this were all, celestial bodies would stay in their spheres, since that is where they are balanced with surrounding bodies ... if sun sank to orbit of moon it would rise as a balloon you dip into water, if it rose to stars it would sink as the balloon went down on the water. This does NOT explain either daily nor yearly movement and is NOT mediated by angels. The movements are over and above the natural tendency and mediated as to daily one by God and as to yearly one by an angel.This does very much NOT equate to the angel just executing the sun staying in its sphere.
How come with changed physical details suddenly this metaphysics of celestial movements is inacceptable to you?
Also ... "Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics" no way, José!
Aristotle did that more than thousand five hundred years earlier.
Also ... "of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise." No way again!
He said what he said, he did not mumble what supposed successors want him to have said but they said it more clearly.
"And no—some modern scientists may have an anti-Christian ideology, but when I speak of principles of “science” I am referring merely to science in its best form,"
No. You have very consistently used a "method" which either is atheistic or anangelic or reduces the role of God and angels to merely executing what scientists with atheistic and anangelic methods have "predicted".
If that is NOT anti-Christian, I don't know what is!
It may be noted that due to a glitch on computer access (deliberately arranged on Nanterre University Library, where my popularity is moderate at best?) deprived me of seeing the last message had been sent, and so I kept sending it over and over again, and Zarrella may think I was overinsisting against him, when I was overinsisting against the computer./HGL
