Geocentrism?

[thbslawson]

I really don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion. Perhaps it's time we all move on. Just saying.

 

[Logan]

I really don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion. Perhaps it's time we all move on. Just saying.

I agree. I have been somewhat dismayed to find in the "literature" (very little has any kind of discussion of the physics) and even here on the board that there is no general consensus, no consistency. On the one side you have the massive experimentation and engineering and consensus of the last 100+ years, and we've moved forward based on those predictions in remarkable ways.

On the other hand, I see a few individuals, a few websites, each with a different explanation. Is there aether, is there not? Does the earth spin, does it not? Is relativity shown to be true or is it explained away? Does visible light alone behave relativistically or travel at different speeds than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum? Is faster than light movement possible or not? Do satellites follow Newtonian physics or are they "buoyed" up by this aether (which they apparently must if the earth is not rotating)? Is the cosmos a big crystal sphere or not? All of which appears to be conjecture. It may be right, but which one I would have no clue, nor do geocentrists themselves apparently agree.

I'm also disappointed by what appear to be explanations after the fact. Where are the predictions? Where are the results? Would certain schools of geocentrists have been able to put a satellite in geostationary orbit? No. They would have no idea at what height to place it to perfectly balance the "pull" of the cosmos, the "buoyancy" of the aether, and the gravitational pull of the earth. Yet after someone using a standard model does it, everything is refitted to "show" that geocentrism works too.

I should probably have not become involved but I definitely intend to withdraw. Beware that others find this thread quite laughable (though that isn't to say what the world thinks should influence us)

 

[lynnie]

Logan- for what it is worth, in the Time magazine Jan 2000 article about Einstein, Man of the Century, they refer to M-M, and Einstein's genius in solving a mystery that appeared to show the earth at rest. Assuming Time understood Einstein correctly, A.E. himself saw M-M as giving geocentric results based on the pre- relativity physics of the time.

Re predictions, modern astronomy has concluded there must be far more mass than we can see to explain the universe. Hence dark matter. We would call it the firmament.

 

[SRoper]

Rotation of the earth on its axis is not necessarily at odds with geocentricity. Some of them hold to an earth fully at perfect rest, and some to a rotating earth.

You are right that I did not address every variation of geocentrism. I thought my post was already getting quite long. However, I did implicitly address your preferred version and will now address it explicitly.

You will notice that in determining w I said the orbital period is "86,164 seconds (the length of a sidereal day)." A sidereal day is shorter than the length of a solar day as it takes into account the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. You deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so you would put the length of a solar day (60 s/min *60 min/hr*24 hr = 86,400 s) in for the orbital period. I will leave the derivation of r with this new orbital period as an exercise for the reader, but you will find it is off by an order of 100 km, enough for the satellite to no longer be geostationary.

Now you have resorted to casting aspersions on men's character.

I've done nothing of the sort. When you don't make any predictions you can just make it up as you go along. It has nothing to do with character and everything to do with methodology.

None of these explanations explain anything beyond the problem in question, as they aren't based on any overarching theory. They merely exist to avoid the particular challenge at hand.

This is an odd claim since the geocentrist hypothesis of a Planck aether actually purports to provide a unifying theory of gravity, QM, relativity, and electromagnetism. That does not mean their model is correct, but it does mean they are, in fact, using an overarching theory rather than bits and pieces.

Did you notice that we had to enter in a value for w that took into account the Earth's rotation? What would we do if the geocentric model was correct? The Earth wouldn't rotate, so w = 0. If we drop that into (4) the distance required would be infinite!

No, the value would not be zero; it would be determined by accounting for the rotation of the aether with Planck density. Actually, it would be the same value because w ("omega") is a rotational velocy, which is equal for the universe around the earth as it is for the rotation of the earth. All this suffices to say that the calculation for a geosynchronous satellite is not only equally simple in a geocentric model, but rather it is, in fact, identical in every way.

I'm not following. From the geocentric position there is no reason for there to be an omega at all (and you are right about the convention--I just used "w" because it is easier to type). According to them a geostationary satellite isn't spinning around anything--it just levitates in the sky. There would have to be a completely different set of equations. Perhaps on one side you would have the force of gravity (or whatever they substitute since many of them seem to reject Newton's law of gravitation), and on the other side you would have another force to directly counteract it. Then you would have to explain why this force only acts this way at that altitude but at other altitudes the satellites have to move to stay in the sky.

Imagine again a boy with a ball on a string. If the boy spins around the ball will pull the string taut and the ball will continue to face the same side as the boy. If the boy is not spinning, something else is going to have to take the place of the centripetal force in order to keep the ball in place. Maybe the ball is magnetic and you have a giant magnet pulling it out, but you have to substitute something with a new set of equations.

Models, Scott. Models that work, and are the simplest yet found, but still just models. Occam's Razor does not always apply across the board in physics, as you well know from your 1st year HS physics class.

I agree that if it was just a matter of "you have your model, I have my model" we could just move on. However one model got a man on the Moon. The other, well, I don't even believe it is properly called a model because it makes no predictions. We aren't dealing with two models; we are dealing with a model on one hand and smoke and mirrors on the other.

If you think I'm wrong, show me--I'd love to be proven wrong about this. I hear that both models will get to the same result. When we ask for proof we are given a link with a lot of big words but no derivations. I have already shown how we know where to put a geostationary satellite with my model. Let's see how you do it with yours. I hear that it is more complicated. Fine. What are we talking about? Matrix transformations? Vector calculus? I'm not the best mathematician, but I will try to follow. What I'm asking is for you guys to show your work. If one of my professors asked me to derive the altitude of a geostationary satellite and I wrote down, "Planck density, dragging of inertial frames, gravimagneto effect, r = 42,168 km," I'd get a big fat zero.

 

[lynnie]

Re rotation-

Both Genesis and Psalm 104 refer to the moon appointed to mark seasons. You have to admit that it does not work well. The Jews occasionally had to add an entire extra month; we have months out of sync with the moon.

For that reason I have read theories about 12 months, 30 days each, 360 days, and a perfect lunar calendar at creation. Those geocentrists ( and maybe some helios?) think that something happened - the earth was shaken, it reeled, etc. Maybe at the fall, probably at the flood, but enough to destroy the perfect lunar calendar.

I read something secular a while back about ancient carvings that claimed there was a base 10 circle with If I recall correctly 400 degrees and faster rotation-400 days annually If I recall correctly- and the earth has slowed down. It might have been the lunatic fringe ( well, even more lunatic than people think geos are, ha)

The point is, among the creationist community holding to a perfect creation that decayed at the fall, there are people that hold to a perfectly created lunar calendar. Hence the geocentrists that admit to some "spin" on an earth at the center. Just trying to explain the thinking, For what it's worth. Even if they are a minority, it does not change the basic geocentric theory in other respects.

 

[lynnie]

Geocentricity

If anybody is interested in this subject, there appear to be some interesting articled here. In the 90s I read books and saw a video so I haven't read much online.

In skimming one article, it appears that at least some geocentrists are adopting the plasma model of the universe ( aka "The Electric Universe" detailed by various secular astonomers and scientists). This model holds so called empty space to be a plasma, and all kinds of celestial phenomena to be plasma/electrical interactions. They see electromagnetic interactions to be the primary force, not gravity. They have lots of pretty pictures in their books of various nebula that are equal to the results of plasma discharge. Totally not related to geo-helio debates at all, nor to old earth- young earth debates, but very interesting to anybody who likes to read this sort of thing.

 

[thbslawson]

If we follow the same hermeneutical principal interpreting the passages that geocentrists use to defend their position, must we also conclude that the earth is flat from these passages?

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." - Daniel 4:10-11

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." - Matthew 4:8

" And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time," - Luke 4:5

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" - Isaiah 40:22

"He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." - Isaiah 11:12

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." - Revelation 1:7

If one is to be consistent in his hermeneutics with passages that seemingly teach geocentrism, then I don't see how he can draw any other conclusion from the above passages that the earth is flat and not a sphere.

And, if we follow the same hermeneutical principles, could it not also be argued from certain passages that earthquakes and tectonic plate shifting is, in fact, an illusion and not real.

"tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved." - 1 Chr 16:30

"The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved." - Psalm 93:1

"Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.” - Psalm 96:10

Again, I'll argue that if I apply the same hermeneutic being used to defend geocentrism from certain passages to the above passages, I must conclude that earthquakes and tectonic plate shifts and volcanoes are an illusion and do not exist.

We're going around and around and around with all of the scientific arguments, and that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. From what I can gather, the core issue for most geocentrists appears to be that the Scriptures (so they say) teach geocentrism, and my argument is that they do not. If they insist that they do, and they're consistent with their hermeneutics, then they run into a host of other issues and problems that they're going to have a difficult time explaining.

Friends, we must remember, science is not inherently evil. The fact that many who deny God use it in an evil manner does not make it evil. It is the discovery of what God has created. God is the God of physics, mathematics, biology, etc. He has not created the laws of physics to trick us or confuse us. Some of the very technology we are using right now to have this discussion is based upon the fact that the earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun. Were that not to be believed the internet, television, radio, global air travel, GPS, etc would simply not exist.

 

[Mushroom]

Well, I'm just a wood butcher, and Scott, if you're waiting for me to show my work, you're gonna have a long wait. I really don't hold to any dogmatic physical geocentricity, I just find science is often an arrogant byproduct of fallen man's desperate attempts to cast God over his shoulder, so I like poking it in the eye on occasion. Models are useful, and God has used amazing forces and constructs to provide for us life and being, but that's all they are, and they are all designed to bring about His glory and the manifestation of a people for Himself through His Son. I don't have to defend my positions at any professorial cocktail parties, so I'm content to trust the Lord rather than the often hilarious stretches that Hawkings et al will pursue to deny their maker.

In my work, the most complicated math I use is the Pythagorean Theorem (theorem? what?), many of you employ much more complicated calculations often derived from much newer theories that work as far as they go in your labors. I'm not going to put my faith in Pythagoras, and I humbly suggest it may be wise to withhold the same from Einstein, Planck, Hawkings & etc. The constructs, forces, energies, and matter (whatever we call them under whatever model) that we operate in now are apparently not going to be what we experience in eternity, and even if current theories are correct (and I don't concede that they are - been proven wrong too many times in the past), they will all soon be moot.

Happy time travel, ladies and gentlemen!

 

[thbslawson]

Friends, we must remember, science is not inherently evil.

Who thinks science is evil?

Some of the very technology we are using right now to have this discussion is based upon the fact that the earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun. Were that not to be believed the internet, television, radio, global air travel, GPS, etc would simply not exist.

Not wanting to toot my own horn, but I'm finishing up an M.S. in solid-state electronics, which is the backbone of modern technology (cars, computers, smart phones, tablets, GPS devices - anything with a computer chip). Science is my bread and butter, and I have devoted a great deal of study to it. Nevertheless, I can readily admit that science is never finished speaking on a matter and has never given its final word. As Rev. Winzer noted earlier, there have been scientific revolutions before and there will be again. It is amazing how zealous the dogmatism in favor of a particular paradigm is here and how ridiculous the claims are against other paradigms, especially given that no one here has denied that any model that is useful may be used regardless of what Scripture may or may not be determined to say on the subject. Please ponder this carefully, as it is the crucial point here. Even if geocentrism were the right hermeneutical conclusion, it would not preclude using any physical model that is useful.

I'm going to refrain from debating these points. I'd rather discuss the verses I brought up. I'll repeat that if the same hermeneutical principles are applied consistently that the geocentrists are using, then the earth must be flat and earthquakes are not real.

 

[Mushroom]

Or that a virgin gave birth to a Son?

 

[thbslawson]

Or that a virgin gave birth to a Son?

You're avoiding the question, by setting up a straw man here. The Bible explicitly says Christ was born of a virgin. It does not explicitly say the earth is the center of the universe. There's a strong case to be made that Scriptures supposedly "proving" geocentrism can be easily interpreted in another manner consistent with the rest of the Bible. So let's stick to the subject at hand please.

 

[au5t1n]

I'm going to refrain from debating these points. I'd rather discuss the verses I brought up. I'll repeat that if the same hermeneutical principles are applied consistently that the geocentrists are using, then the earth must be flat and earthquakes are not real.

I think that is wise, and I hope the thread continues along hermeneutical lines if it doesn't close first. Thank you for bringing relevant verses and exegetical considerations to the forefront. I am looking forward to seeing what follows.

 

[One Little Nail]

Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.

If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!

how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?

Robert, lest you assume these are good arguments, let me assure you that they are not.

I agree. These are unhelpful arguments, Robert.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

These may be unhelpful arguments but they are unanswered arguments!
Science is postulation upon observable physical phenomena, could you please give me an explanation as to why the stars are circling around a stationary point, is this an optical illusion or is it when physical phenomena doesn't fit a theory it is ignored by science so called.
Heliocentricity paved the way for Evolutionary Theory & Science.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Well the one thing I have learned from this thread is that no one seems to really understand how GPS satellites work.

 

[thbslawson]

Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.

If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!

how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?

Robert, lest you assume these are good arguments, let me assure you that they are not.

I agree. These are unhelpful arguments, Robert.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

These may be unhelpful arguments but they are in answered arguments!
Science is postulation upon observable physical phenomena, could you please give me an explanation as to why the stars are circling around a stationary point, is this an optical illusion or is it when physical phenomena doesn't fit a theory it is ignored by science so called.
Heliocentricity paved the way for Evolutionary Theory & Science.

Here's an explanation, but I doubt you will accept it.

Why Doesn't The North Star Move in the Sky? ~ Ice Cold Science Blog

It goes back to the example I gave earlier. Stand a stick or pole on the ground. Bend over at the waist and put your forehead on it. Now rotate around the stick, but keep it in place. Note, from your perspective the earth seems to be spinning, but it is, in fact, you who are moving. The North Star (a.k.a. Polaris) lies almost directly above the North Pole. Thus as the earth spins on it's axis, it appears to remain in the same place.

 

[MW]

You're avoiding the question, by setting up a straw man here. The Bible explicitly says Christ was born of a virgin. It does not explicitly say the earth is the center of the universe.

The Bible explicitly says the sun stood still, yet for some reason a Bible-believer is considered laughable for believing it.

 

[thbslawson]

You're avoiding the question, by setting up a straw man here. The Bible explicitly says Christ was born of a virgin. It does not explicitly say the earth is the center of the universe.

The Bible explicitly says the sun stood still, yet for some reason a Bible-believer is considered laughable for believing it.

Red herring.

The Bible also says that the earth is fixed and that the whole earth can be viewed from one point. Thus, applying the same hermeneutical principal, you must conclude that earthquakes are an illusion and the earth is flat. How can you not?

 

[MW]

Red herring.

It appears that anything which moves in a theoretical direction you dislike is a red herring. It negates the purpose of having a discussion on alternate points of view.

 

[MW]

Joshua 10:13, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."

Matthew 1:25, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

Both are narratives purporting to describe what actually happened. Both are described as events which took place by means of divine power working in an extraordinary way. Why should the one statement require qualification and not the other?

 

[thbslawson]

Red herring.

It appears that anything which moves in a theoretical direction you dislike is a red herring. It negates the purpose of having a discussion on alternate points of view.

I'm asking a simple and direct question about the hermeneutical principles used in Joshua 10:13 and they are applied in other passages. Thus far you've been either unwilling or unable to answer the questions I've posed in relation to other passages of a similar nature.

Hermeneutics is how we properly interpret a passage in its context. The Bible explicitly says a lot of things, some of which, without any interpretation and greater understanding may even seem contradictory. Therefore, throwing out the virgin birth in this argument is a HUGE red herring. Not only is it totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but seems like an emotionally driven attempt to imply that to deny the literal geocentric reading of Joshua 10:13 is to in fact deny the literal reading of Isaiah 7:14.

You're using a hermeneutical principal to interpret Joshua 10:13. I want someone to show me why that doesn't apply to the other passages I listed.

So if "And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped" means the earth is at the center of the universe, doesn't spin and the sun orbits the earth, then why doesn't ""Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." Mean that the earth is flat?

Why is it so hard to answer this?

 

[MW]

Not only is it totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but seems like an emotionally driven attempt to imply that to deny the literal geocentric reading of Joshua 10:13 is to in fact deny the literal reading of Isaiah 7:14.

That may be the way you feel, but it does not mean the original question was motivated in this way. In a discussion of facts it is well to leave personal feelings aside.

Why is it so hard to answer this?

I don't think it is difficult to answer. Lynnie has placed her answer in very large script but for some reason it was still ignored. Your questions do nothing to challenge the geogentrist's contentions because (1) they are concerned with another phenomenon altogether, or (b) because you are inferring ideas from the text of Scripture rather than allowing the text of Scripture to say what it has to say.

 

[thbslawson]

Not only is it totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but seems like an emotionally driven attempt to imply that to deny the literal geocentric reading of Joshua 10:13 is to in fact deny the literal reading of Isaiah 7:14.

That may be the way you feel, but it does not mean the original question was motivated in this way. In a discussion of facts it is well to leave personal feelings aside.

Why is it so hard to answer this?

I don't think it is difficult to answer. Lynnie has placed her answer in very large script but for some reason it was still ignored. Your questions do nothing to challenge the geogentrist's contentions because (1) they are concerned with another phenomenon altogether, or (b) because you are inferring ideas from the text of Scripture rather than allowing the text of Scripture to say what it has to say.

I read Lynnie's Scriptures, hence my question regarding others and applying the same hermeneutical principle. But I can see this is fruitless. So I'm going to bid everyone goodbye on this subject.

It would be my preference that this thread be closed. I know that's not my decision. My original OP question was answered, and I think it's fairly clear from the dialogue here that very little has been accomplished.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Joshua 10:13, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."

Matthew 1:25, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

Both are narratives purporting to describe what actually happened. Both are described as events which took place by means of divine power working in an extraordinary way. Why should the one statement require qualification and not the other?

I saw a reply to this by Thomas in post 127 but not an answer. Or am I missing something?

 

[MW]

I saw a reply to this by Thomas in post 127 but not an answer. Or am I missing something?

I saw a justification for the red herring comment; nothing which interacts with the parallel or the questions I posed. If there is something which deals with the parallel and does not merely deny the parallel, I will be happy to consider it.

 

[MW]

My original OP question was answered, and I think it's fairly clear from the dialogue here that very little has been accomplished.

The OP contained the following, "I didn't know such wild notions existed." "Is this kind of belief still common?"

It would seem much has been accomplished towards alerting you to the fact that this kind of belief is still maintained by some, although you obviously have not changed your opinion as to this being a "wild notion."

 

[au5t1n]

Rev. Winzer, what if someone said that the passage itself places qualifiers on the "standing still," namely that the "standing still" is "upon Gibeon" (v. 12) and "in the midst of heaven" (v. 13), not "in space" or "with respect to some absolute standard of rest and motion"? How would you respond?

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, what if someone said that the passage itself places a context on the "standing still," namely that the "standing still" is "upon Gibeon" (v. 12) and "in the midst of heaven" (v. 13), not "in space" or "with respect to some absolute standard of rest and motion"? How would you respond?

Gibeon provides the location from Joshua's standpoint while heaven provides the reference point as to the cessation of motion. The text states that the miracle consisted not only in the sun standing still, but in the sun standing still in response to a man's command and that the Lord hearkened to the man. If the sun did not actually stand still one must wonder wherein the miracle consisted.

One must stretch the primae facie meaning of the text to limit the frame of reference to Gibeon, and thereby suppose the miracle takes place entirely in the phenomenological realm; and I would ask why the exegete is motivated to do this. There is nothing in the text to constrain it. There is nothing in the Scriptures themselves which suggest an alternate viewpoint. From where does the alternate viewpoint arise which constrains this exegesis?

 

[au5t1n]

Certainly an exegete ought not insert heliocentrism, but the question is whether he is constrained to conclude geocentrism from the passage. Maybe so, but I'm still puzzled over the significance of the qualifiers and whether they place limitations on how much we can derive from the passage. There is no question in my mind that the sun stood still, but (serious question) what is the sun? We might say it's a ball of gas in space, or we might say it's a light bearer in the sky, and either would be accurate. But in Hebrew surely the latter is a more precise and natural definition, in which case "the sun stood still" would mean that the light in the sky stood still, especially if the statement included qualifiers like "in the midst of heaven"? I am not sure that this would be liberal accommodation since it is not an error or a misconception on the part of the observers.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Philip]

One must stretch the primae facie meaning of the text to limit the frame of reference to Gibeon, and thereby suppose the miracle takes place entirely in the phenomenological realm;

I think here, Rev Winzer, you are confusing two things: 1) the miracle which occurred, and which was seen by all 2) the language that God elected to inspire the scribe to use. What other sort of language would Joshua have used? The claim that this text binds one who believes it to a particular cosmographical stance places a burden on the text that it was never meant to bear. Of course modern physics does not contradict this passage: all it can do is tell us what God had to do to create the miraculous effect.

What God did was to stop the sun in the heavens, in the plain ordinary sense which both a geocentrist or a heliocentrist would understand as a miracle. One must stretch the prima facie meaning of this passage to conclude that it binds us to a particular cosmography.

 

[MW]

Certainly an exegete ought not insert heliocentrism, but the question is whether he is constrained to conclude geocentrism from the passage. Maybe so, but I'm still puzzled over the significance of the qualifiers and whether they place limitations on how much we can derive from the passage. There is no question in my mind that the sun stood still, but (serious question) what is the sun? We might say it's a ball of gas in space, or we might say it's a light bearer in the sky, and either would be accurate. But in Hebrew surely the latter is a more precise and natural definition, in which case "the sun stood still" would mean that the light in the sky stood still, especially if the statement included qualifiers like "in the midst of heaven"? I am not sure that this would be liberal accommodation since it is not an error or a misconception on the part of the observers.

I don't think it is liberal accommodation when the aim is to protect inerrancy in the face of scientific challenges. This would more be a case of fundamentalist accommodation.

As stated in other threads, I have difficulty conceiving of a miracle which only takes place on a phenomenological level. If the "natural" is merely one of appearance, then the "supernatural" is merely above and beyond the appearance.