Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate

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

BoothTheGrey

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Not correct to blame Bel-Shamharoth that I just "crashed" into your conversation. First I only wanted to add the "angel"-analogy with Vaia. Then my post became longer.

In my second post I thought most important is to make you aware yourself about your psychological motivations that take place NOT in your consciousness, but below. I am rather sure that for any person with deep faith it must be a hard and painful experience to find evidence that some parts of the faith are just in diametral conflict with reality how it is observed.

Now there are two possibilites: 1. Face the pain and accept the possibility that your faith IS (at least partly) just wrong. 2. Do ALL mindtricks man could do for NOT to face the pain.

In my opinion you chose (and stille choose every day) the second possibility.

And again the hint that someone like me who is in science because it works and for evidence I would feel very little pain (maybe none at all) if there was evidence for ANY of the thousands religions. But there is NONE. All the so called "evidence" that religious folks try to find in old books are pure interpretation-fantasy. But modern technology is NOT up to interpretation. Even if you would REJECT modern computer technology - it still works - even for YOU who reject it. The geocentries worldview has NO maths that would work. The modern astronomy has LOTS of results that work because of their math that is built up by the modern worldview that the earth is orbitting sun. Built a model that is BETTER than the existing one and that can provide all the solutions that science can.

This series shows enough examples what you would have to deal with. Bring a better scientific/math model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« Not correct to blame Bel-Shamharoth that I just "crashed" into your conversation. »

Could have been a collusion from start, but spontaneously you two took a tactic which has been explooited by Mormon missionaries for decades.

« First I only wanted to add the "angel"-analogy with Vaia. »

Again, as a Tolkien geek, I correct your terminology.

Vala. As in VALA. You are confusing with the other word Maia. And yes, Anar and Isil in Tolkien are only Maiar, not Valar.

Plus Quenya plural is in -r, for both words added to final vowel.

BBL to answer the rest.

[back:]

« In my second post I thought most important is to make you aware yourself about your psychological motivations that take place NOT in your consciousness, but below. »

• 1) I was not asking you to make me aware of anything.
  
  
• 2) If it is « below my consciousness » how can it be above yours ?

« I am rather sure that for any person with deep faith »

The phrase « deep faith » is not a Christian term. I do not know, nor want to know what it means, and I think you don't know the precise meaning either, you are playing (collectively with other guys using that « term ») on equivocations.

[At least not a Catholic term - perhaps Pentecostals and similar use phrases like "deep faith" and "shallow faith" where in the case of "shallow faith" a Catholic would be more inclined to speak about heresy or apostasy.]

« it must be a hard and painful experience to find evidence that some parts of the faith are just in diametral conflict with reality how it is observed. »

Reality as it is actually OBSERVED (precise meaning of the term), as opposed to analysed by atheists and semi-atheist scientists, is Geocentric.

Armstrong and co. may or may not have walked on the Moon and seen the Earth turn around itself. At shorter range some astronauts pretty certainly have. But they are a drop in the sea against all the billions who observe reality from Earth and are therefore making Geocentric observations.

« Now there are two possibilites: »

There would have been two possibilities if your proposal about painful had been the case, perhaps.

« 1 . Face the pain and accept the possibility that your faith IS (at least partly) just wrong. »

How come you atheists never take that step ?

« 2. Do ALL mindtricks man could do for NOT to face the pain. »

How come you pretty universally take that step, including trying to stamp my positions and arguments as « mindtricks » ?

Among Atheists of the New Atheists type, as well as its precursors in Communist psychiatry.

« In my opinion you chose (and stille choose every day) the second possibility. »

Your opinion is worthless, since you start with analysing and have not conclusively ruled out the possibility I might be simply right.

« And again the hint that someone like me who is in science because it works and for evidence I would feel very little pain (maybe none at all) if there was evidence for ANY of the thousands religions. But there is NONE. All the so called "evidence" that religious folks try to find in old books are pure interpretation-fantasy. »

Oh boy ! Sweeping statements, but extremely little argumentational susbtance !

« But modern technology is NOT up to interpretation. »

It actually is.

Three options :

• 1) It works because of mechanisms necessary due to the ultimate structure of reality and therefore eternally necessary (basically your option) ;
  
  
• 2) It works because of mechanisms which God built into the material parts of His creation, freely, and since Creation, and in a suspendable way ;
  
  
• 3) It works only due to angelic or diabolical interference exploiting the actions of our engineers and hanging on to their beliefs.

I am for the second opinion with caution, not excluding the third.

« Even if you would REJECT modern computer technology - it still works - even for YOU who reject it. »

I am not rejecting it.

Since it would work on either of explanations 2 or 3, and not only on explanation 1, this has no bearing on the metaphysical question which of these interpretations is correct.

« The geocentries worldview has NO maths that would work. »

The Heliocentric as per Newtonian view has maths which has been shown not to work (at least not to my satisfaction) in the micro-model of Don Petit.

Whether we take age of Earth as 7000 or 4 billion years, that are LOTS more orbits than the 10 to 20 orbits each water droplet makes around a charged knitting needle.

« The modern astronomy has LOTS of results that work because of their math that is built up by the modern worldview that the earth is orbitting sun. »

I think it has lots of larger and better supports than this particular idea.

« Built a model that is BETTER than the existing one and that can provide all the solutions that science can. »

If you mean solutions about astronomy, I just did : angelic movers.

If you mean solutions about technology observable on Earth, none of it is depending on the idea that Earth is turning around itself or orbitting the Sun.

« This series shows enough examples what you would have to deal with. Bring a better scientific/math model. »

The fact is, whether angelic beings could or could not move the celestial bodies is NOT a per se mathematical problem.

Any orbit you could model on physical maths, they could be doing for aesthetic reasons.

So, you have shown confusion of categories.

PS, drop the psychological act.

There is no mathematical model for how to correctly empathise "pains" that are below the conscious level of the one supposed to feel and still not to feel them!

Except perhaps "how many are we shrinks and how many of our Christian opponents can we bully without too much of a backlash" - but that model is far from reliable.

Update

... and leaves.

BoothTheGrey

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I was not asking you to make me aware of anything."

If you dont want to discuss... why do you? Ah - I see - actually you do NOT want to discuss. You want to be RIGHT. You want to "proof" your "faith". That is NOT what science is about.

Take your better models and bring them to university... you will get a nice nobel price if it is really better. But we both know that they arent. These videos are full of what is wrong with such a model. And although you seem to be an intelligent person you are weird enough to keep your "faith" and throw away all the evidence.

The psychological question is FOR YOURSELF. Not for me.

Bye bye

P.S. I read Tolkien only in german and searched to short for english names. Sorry. But fine you tried to get also there on a strawman. How surprising...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the psychological question was certainly the thing on which I mentioned I had not asked you to be made aware of anything.

I do want to discuss.

I do want to have, before the public who reads, a match between two people both thinking each himself right on subject, one of them me.

Psychology is, I will not say for loosers, much worse, it is for "winners" - for people who think they will always win in any kind of concern about their persons.

I'd like to win personally, but I am not a winner.

Except perhaps in discussions, where it might be some fun losing for once in a while.

On to : Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/01/where-tolland-proves-himself-jerk.html