Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science ·
Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A ·
Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters ·
HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics ·
Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel ·
New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? ·
Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science ·
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles
- I
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 4/11/2019 at 12:28 PM
- You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Here is the deal.
I am Young Earth Creationist. Back in 2001, August 23, I came across the Distant Starlight Problem.
As you know, soh-cah-toa or trigonometry gives an answer about distance only when there is a distance given in the question.
For a Heliocentric, that distance is Earth to Earth. The problem with that distance is - of Earth stands still, we would know the distance from Sun to Sun (along the zodiac = E to E on Heliocentric view), but we would not know that the distance star to star equals S to S.
So, since August 24 2001, I am Geocentric, takes neatly care of the Distant Starlight problem.
Now, if the stars are one light day away (and there are even so very good reasons why they cannot be just 8 light minutes away, unless you count S as a star rather than as a planet), they are each day performing a circle with the radius 1 ld, the diameter 2 ld and the circumference 6.28 ... light days.
This means, they are going 6.28 ... times faster than the speed of light.
Here is where you come in.
I came across this video:
The Speed of Light is NOT About Light
PBS Space Time | 7.X.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
And I made this comment, basically on what it was saying:
New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/04/do-lorentz-transformations-prove.html
As you are into electronics, you would know much more about Lorentz transformations than I do, and that means, if you can at one go refute one or more of my solutions, right off the bat, do so.
Rest assured that your answer or answers (if I reply) won't be wasted, I intend to post the correspondence to this blog:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html
Have a great day and looking forward to hearing from you soon!
Hans Georg Lundahl
- II
- Steve Taylor to me
- 4/12/2019 at 8:07 AM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Hello
I’ve just left the UK for a week. Will look at this when I return. In the meantime can you say whether you believe the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours in duration?
Regards
Steve Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
- III
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 4/12/2019 at 10:15 AM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- " In the meantime can you say whether you believe the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours in duration? "
Roughly speaking definitely, with a possible hesitation on whether the days in Henochs day and up to Flood were a few minutes longer, so that solar year of same length then was 364 and now is 365.2425 days.
Exactly 24 hours, well, with above reservation, plus day 1 could be some hours shorter. Did light appear at 6am or 9am? Was the world created a few minutes before, or was it created 6pm Saturday evening in modern terms?
This means, for star light to arrive to Earth on day five, when birds were created, without starlight created in transit or even more exotic stuff, the stars created on day four would have been at least then one light day and no more above.
Now they could be somewhat further away and that would mean their local movement around us each stellar day is more than 6.28 times the speed of light, which is what brings us to the questions on the Lorentz transformations, as mentioned.
Have a pleasant journey whereever you went!
Hans Georg Lundahl
- IV
- Steve Taylor to me
- 5/23/2019 at 12:58 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Dear Hans-Georg,
Firstly, apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I do not think I have the time to enter a long correspondence, but I would like to make two points:
Yours sincerely
Steve Taylor
- V
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 5/23/2019 at 2:16 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Better late than never!
- 1) I already answered it here:
New blog on the kid : And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-cmi-also-felt-need-to-refute.html
- 2) "If this is true"
It is.
"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:"
False, each starts to apply as soon as God puts it in place, as with laws of biology.
"they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously."
Also false, miracles do not contravene what natural laws state about outcomes of such and such a causality, they only provide causalities not provided themselves as outcomes by natural laws.
"Arguments based on the application of physical laws and measurements that we now observe may therefore be invalid because the such laws do not apply to miraculous situations."
Distant starlight paradox actually does not just apply to Creation week, but continues to apply.
Suppose we see a nova that is supposed to be 100 000 light years away, and we have a problem now, not just back in creation week : why would a light source shine light to us in a maximum of 7500 years (or whatever the Biblical age of Heaven and Earth) if that light should take 100 000 years?
Hence, my observation, it shouldn't.
However, while I am accepting speed of light as observed for the journey of light, I am also allowing each body to rotate with the aether (note that it would only be disproven by Michelson Morley in a non-geocentric setting) at what is locally if not vectorially a speed higher than that of light.
My rationale is, speed of light applies to light spreading through aether, not to aether itself or anything (including fix stars).
Hence my question to you about Lorentz Transformations.
Sincerly,
Hans Georg Lundahl
- Branching out
- branches a and b will deal with different things, but came simultaneously on each exchange, or nearly so. Steve waited and skipped one occasion on the one branch, so like VIII a is not simultaneous with VIII b, but with X b.
- Branch a)
- VI a
- Steve Taylor to me
- 5/23/2019 at 4:27 PM
- RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- <<"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:">>
False, each starts to apply as soon as God puts it in place, as with laws of biology.
So not completely false then ?
- VII a
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM
- Re: RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Speed of light did not apply when darkness was on the face of the deep, but started applying when God created visible light.
Rotation of universe (inside the sphere of God's throne room) around around Earth started applying at least for light source from when God separated night and day.
Probably "firmament" created next day is a rotating and limited sphere of aether, moving around earth and its daily movement (full circle 23 h 55 min or so) started applying from when it was created.
Luminaries having a movement west along the aether and their own movement east (except fix stars) around zodiac started applying from day 4.
Biogenesis of plants started applying on day 3, of fish and birds on day 5, of beasts of earth and of men on day 6.
Your statement again:
<<"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:">>
= Each and all only start applying after creation week, when God withdraws the miraculous stuff.
That is how I read your statement and that is what I call false.
- VIII a
- Steve Taylor to me
- 5/24/2019 at 1:33 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Your idea that the normal laws of physics (whatever they are) kick in as soon as an entity is created is plausible. (I am not sure you are right but don’t say that you are wrong).
My issue is, for example, with the laws of thermodynamics.
Considering the Universe as a closed physical system I cannot see how conservation of mass and energy can apply at all until after day 6 when creative activity ceases ( can you?).
If the first law of thermodynamics is not in operation, we are not in a ‘normal’ physical system or situation. Consequently great caution (at least) is needed in invoking or applying other physical laws if fundamental ones are not in operation (at least for those periods of creative activity).
This is why I am cautious of entering the argument with the assumption that we can use the physics and chemistry that we teach at University in 2019 and which may superseded anyway if mankind is still here in 100 years time….
- IX a
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 5/24/2019 at 1:55 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- " conservation of mass and energy "
Do NOT apply the way you think, the universe has not been a closed physical system ever, but always open to God, angels, devils, human souls, and it is doubtful to claim even animal souls (not image of God, not immortal) are fully physical.
They probably DO apply to real physical closed systems though - if any. Anywhere.
I meant things like speed of light where and however it applies, Ohm's law, Watt's law, Coulombe's law, etc. Aristotle's, Newton's or Einstein's version of gravity, whichever be true.
In other words, clearly observed regularities.
- Branch b)
- VI b
- Steve Taylor to me
- 5/23/2019 at 4:30 PM
- RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- "they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously."
Also false, miracles do not contravene what natural laws state about outcomes of such and such a causality, they only provide causalities not provided themselves as outcomes by natural laws.
Let me understand your position here.
Are you saying that when the Lord Jesus Christ walked upon the sea of Galilee the natural law that we term the law of gravitational attraction applied or not?
- VII b
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 5/24/2019 at 1:12 PM
- Re: RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- Gravitation applied to all natural non-glorious bodies.
One explanation is, the properties of the glorious resurrection body were displayed in advance of resurrection, and the non-glorious everyday appearance was a result of His miraculously inhibiting those properties.
Subtlety (walking through walls / Virgin birth)
Brightness (appearance to Saul / on mount Tabor)
Lightness (ascending to Heaven / walking on water).
Another explanation, less likely to me, is, God provided a causality which was stronger than gravitation.
You are aware gravitation applies when a soccer ball is kicked across the football field, just that the propulsion from the kick applies even more?
You are aware gravitation applies when your pen lies on the table, even if it is 6000 km and some more above centre of Earth, just stabilities of table, floor, ground, tektonic plates and mantle apply even more?
There you have it, God's omnipotence / properties of glorious bodies, whichever, apply even more.
- VIII b
- Steve Taylor to me
- 5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- << Gravitation applied to all natural non-glorious bodies.>>
- (i) The body of the Lord Jesus Christ was a fully human body
- (ii) Peter also walked on water (Matthew 14:29)
It seems to me that gravitation did not apply in these two miraculous situations
- IX b
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 5/24/2019 at 1:23 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- i) the glorious resurrection body is a fully human body, identic in identity but changed in qualities in relation to the human body
- ii) St Peter had a foretaste of his resurrection.
So, gravity did apply and gloriousness of bodies (fully there, though hidden in Jesus, partially there by foretaste in St Peter) applied even more.
- X b
- Steve Taylor to me
- 5/24/2019 at 1:39 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- << i) the glorious resurrection body is a fully human body, identic in identity but changed in qualities in relation to the human body>>
Pls read 1 Corinthians 15 – the resurrection body is said to be a ‘spiritual body’. Personality is preserved but its properties are altered. It is not subject to death for example
<>
This is speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing what you say is true
- XI b
- Me to Steve Taylor
- 5/24/2019 at 2:06 PM
- Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
- 1 Cor 15 says nothing of resurrection body being non-identic, it only states it is changed, i e non-similar on some points.
It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. [43] It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. [44] It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: [45] The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.
It ... it = both it in each pair refer to same object, i e same body. The resurrection body of Christ was identic to his pre-Crucifixion body, since He showed the wounds acquired in the Crucifixion. It had other properties, but was not another body.
" This is speculation on your part "
On Our Lord's body prior to Crucifixion, it is sound Catholic theology, not personal speculation. I know it is true, even if you don't (as a non-Catholic), and that latter is why I gave an alternative in God's omnipotence, and the general relation between natural and omnipotent causation in miraculous events is the one outlined by C. S. Lewis in the book Miracles.
The only thing which is speculation on my part (unless it's half-memory) is St Peter having a foretaste of his resurrection.
But Moses had, since his face was shining, other property of resurrection bodies, so it seems reasonable.
And the shining part, shown to St Paul and on Patmos to St John was also hidden most events after Resurrection. This being Biblical support of the Catholic doctrine (probably inferior in certainty than dogma, but still doctrine) that Christ was hiding the resurrection properties of His Body prior to Resurrection.
Other Biblical support : "I am the resurrection and the life" said before raising of St Lazarus the Four Days Dead, i e before He rose Himself. Applies a bit better if His Body already had resurrection properties, through hypostatic union, and they were hidden, than if He was still waiting for them. But we are waiting for them.
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
