ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Wilhelmus a Brakel (The Christian's Reasonable Service, 64, 65):
Just to add a scientific flavor to the discussion.
An article about the relationship between mathematical models and reality.
http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/modelstest.doc
A 23 minute geocentristic leaning video:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/geocenvid.htm
Various arguments in favor of geocentrism.
geocexpl.htm
So, which is it? Are we supposed to use the "clear" Biblical data that the earth is in not in motion or the data from the light of nature to convince us of this? If we deny our ability to observe a phenomena as basic as which heavenly bodies are revolving around which heavenly bodies then are we really capable of observing any motion of the stars in their courses above?
In repudiating Clarkian position on knowledge Rev. Winzer pointed out that Christ Himself told the Scribes and Pharisees that they could read the skies for clear indications of weather patterns and other phenomena, yet we're somehow unable to detect whether or not the earth itself is in motion?
Can somebody explain why we must distrust the light of nature regarding bodies in motion given a foundationalist viewpoint? Is it the viewpoint of the geocentrist that demons are deceiving us into believing the rotation of the Earth? Is the only "justified true belief" in this case that which God has apparently propositionally revealed according to this air tight "prooftext" for geocentrism?
Here is a quote from a work of the great Clarkian, Geocentrist, Mathematician Bertrand Russell:
"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient." Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].
Now you can discount him due to his Clarkian tendencies but at least it is another perspective.
CT