tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post751265781709515304..comments2023-08-22T07:01:08.590-07:00Comments on Agent Intellect: Neo-geocentrismJim S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-64070113923025239132018-05-31T08:32:01.232-07:002018-05-31T08:32:01.232-07:00"most young-earth ministries have embraced a ...<i>"most young-earth ministries have embraced a neo-geocentrism in order to account for the problem of starlight travel time."</i><br /><br />No they have not. I have, and I stand alone.<br /><br /><i>"They argue that the universe we know is actually a white hole -- a black hole so crunched that light begins to escape via quantum tunnelling -- with our galaxy (the Milky Way) at its center."</i><br /><br />I don't believe that, and those who do should not be termed Geocentrics.<br /><br />I guess fix stars are one light day above us. If Voyager I or Voyager II in the future reaches one light day up, and is not nested in fix stars, well, then I'll settle for two light days. Or perhaps three and a half light years.<br /><br />Why one or two light days?<br /><br />Adam and Eve on day six could see fix stars that were created on day four. Normal speed of light, no white hole, no omphalos or starlight created in transit theory = they are two, perhaps only one light day away or above us.<br /><br />Why three and a half light years?<br /><br />When Antichrist starts his rampage, he is probably in a sense telling Christ to get off his throne. What if Christ takes him literally, mounts a horse that takes three and a half years to reach earth at light speed?<br /><br />Supposing the stars are now three and a half light days up, I would say this was an expansion from an original distance of one or two light days. My fav being one, since birds created on day 5 would also have seen starlight from their first.<br /><br /><i>"when fighting the spirit of the age, you shouldn't let it define the terms of the debate."</i><br /><br />Unless one exponent of it shows a logical connection to what you defend, like Distant Starlight showing Heliocentrism as an attack (planned by Satan, not his minions, no doubt) on Earth and Universe being 7000 years old.<br /><br /><i>"Moreover, the fact that they have to appeal to geocentrism in order to defend their belief in a young earth makes the latter even less plausible than it already was."</i><br /><br />Oh, you don't believe in taking the Bible as the Church Fathers took it? Condoleances with some reservation, I prefer getting to Heaven on the terms of the Council of Trent!Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-83577497931463017722009-07-17T10:00:07.826-07:002009-07-17T10:00:07.826-07:00Knee-jerk reactions by Christians or not, the anti...Knee-jerk reactions by Christians or not, the anti-Christian "science" fetishists tend to be intellectually dishonest: they tend to assert anything -- and its opposite -- about us.<br /><br />Christians should take care not to become "science" fetishists themselves: science -- the real thing, contrasted to the fetish-object -- isn't even about truth, in the first place, and we worship Truth.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-84337903303755191322009-07-16T22:08:40.806-07:002009-07-16T22:08:40.806-07:00"This strikes me as an extremely unwise conce..."This strikes me as an extremely unwise concession: when fighting the spirit of the age, you shouldn't let it define the terms of the debate."<br /><br />I heartily agree that a knee-jerk reaction to anti-religious arguments can be dangerous. That's how Christians end up being seen as against to science and a lot of other things that we ought to be for.Tysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03676262563581475175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-46992199891406242802009-07-15T05:11:17.878-07:002009-07-15T05:11:17.878-07:00Hi D. J., thanks for commenting. Sorry to take so ...Hi D. J., thanks for commenting. Sorry to take so long to respond.<br /><br />I think the fact that Sungenis accepts and defends geocentrism shows that his analytical abilities are seriously deficient, and that he is willing to accept incredible claims as credible if they fit with his presuppositions. These two things make me very suspicious of anything else he writes.<br /><br />However, you're right; this is essentially an <i>ad hominem</i> argument. I should address his claims regarding justification on their merits, not on his views of some other topic.<br /><br />Also, I did not mean to tie the Catholic doctrine of justification to geocentrism, just Sungenis's defense of that doctrine. I fully appreciate that the Catholic view does not have any connection to geocentrism.<br /><br />Finally, you might appreciate <a href="http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2008/08/quote-of-day.html" rel="nofollow">this quote</a> that I got from two Catholic philosophers.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-68531803100421134652009-07-11T11:11:46.264-07:002009-07-11T11:11:46.264-07:00Of course, on the Einsteinian view, *every* point ...Of course, on the Einsteinian view, *every* point in space (and, I suspect, every instant of time) is "the center of the universe."Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-61476002263542740632009-07-09T12:42:11.319-07:002009-07-09T12:42:11.319-07:00However, the author of Not by Faith Alone has also...<i>However, the author of Not by Faith Alone has also published a two volume work entitled Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, volume 1 of which deals with "the scientific case for geocentrism", thus absolving me of any requirement to take him seriously.</i><br /><br />I'm going to call your bluff on this implication; the first book's description says it's about the doctrine of justification in the Scriptures, and whether he engages in bunk science isn't necessarily at all relevant to his ability to do solid exegesis. In other words, even if this absolves you of responsibility to take him seriously, this doesn't mean everything in his unrelated argument is bunk. If it did you'd probably also be automatically invalidating the Scriptural arguments of many Catholic authors who <i>don't</i> preach geocentrism.<br /><br />If what you were implying was simply that his book might not be the best to read, sure, I'll go with that.Dan Lowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13013884098326991088noreply@blogger.com