The Center of the Universe

[greyphilosophy]

I've been thinking for the past couple weeks about the discovery that the earth is not the center of the solar system or the galaxy, and what that means. If God is focused on human beings, why not have us at the center and have everything else revolve around us?

This is something I hadn't thought about before and I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on the subject

~Grey

[TheFiveSolas]

grey,

The following has a link to a PDF file (Adobe Acrobat) that has new scientific data suggesting that our galaxy is in the center.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

[Defenestrator]

greyphilosophy:

I've been thinking for the past couple weeks about the discovery that the earth is not the center of the solar system or the galaxy, and what that means. If God is focused on human beings, why not have us at the center and have everything else revolve around us?

This is something I hadn't thought about before and I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on the subject.

Why would being in the center of the universe make us more important? Why would our location in the universe make us any more or less important in "God's eyes?"

God sending His Son to die for our sakes is enough to tell me that I'm important.

[nomad]

maybe because everything revolves around God, not us?

[TheFiveSolas]

Defenestrator & Nomad,

Good points! :thumb:

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88025#post88025)
Defenestrator:

Why would being in the center of the universe make us more important? Why would our location in the universe make us any more or less important in "God's eyes?"


Well, it's not really a matter of greater or lessor importance as a curiosity. If God created this universe for us then I would expect us to be in the middle with everything revolveing around us. If we are not in the center of the universe then I would wonder if God created the universe with a different primary purpose in mind.

[Defenestrator]

greyphilosophy:

Well, it's not really a matter of greater or lessor importance as a curiosity. If God created this universe for us then I would expect us to be in the middle with everything revolveing around us.

Why? What does physical location have to do with anything?

If we are not in the center of the universe then I would wonder if God created the universe with a different primary purpose in mind.

God tells us the purpose of his creation in the Bible:

1 Peter 4:11 - "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever."

Col 1:16 - "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. "

The purpose of Creation was to bring glory to God.

[greyphilosophy]

I think location is important because I don't believe God does anything without reason. I would wonder what the reasons for having the earth be where it is are. (I'm still reading about the red shift and the possibility that the earth is in the center)

Also if the purpose of the universe is so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ, then that would lead me to a human-centric worldview. I would expect the universe to be created for man, with the earth in the center because the most important thing would be Christ's life, death, and resurrection on earth.

[Defenestrator]

greyphilosophy:

I think location is important because I don't believe God does anything without reason.

I don't think God does anything without a reason and I don't think location is important. The earth is where it is because that is where God wants it. If he doesn't want it in the center, there is reason for it.

I would wonder what the reasons for having the earth be where it is are. (I'm still reading about the red shift and the possibility that the earth is in the center)

I'm not arguing that it isn't in the center, just that it doesn't matter.

Also if the purpose of the universe is so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ, then that would lead me to a human-centric worldview.

It would lead me to a God-centric view.

I would expect the universe to be created for man, with the earth in the center because the most important thing would be Christ's life, death, and resurrection on earth.

I would expect the universe to be created for God - just as those verses say. Find me some Scriptural evidence that the universe was created for man. Yes, man is to rule over Creation, but the universe wasn't created for man.

[greyphilosophy]

Defenestrator, I think your answers are shallow and lack insight. I'm not trying to argue any point in particular, but rather try to find reason for the earth's existance where it is. It matters because it reveals something about the Creator. I am deeply interested in learning more about God, even if you don't think it matters.

Perhaps I didn't explain my previous comments very well, so I will attempt to do so again. If the whole purpose of creation is for Jesus Christ to come save the souls of men, then in order for Jesus Christ to fulfill his mission there must first be men. This is what I meant by a human-centric worldview. Perhaps a better term would be Christian humanist worldview. God himself becomming a man shows the importance of men.

TheFiveSolas provided some interesting evidence which points to the earth being in the center. I would expect the earth to be in the center, or at least the sun, if the universe was created for Jesus Christ because it would make the universe built around the very important place where God became man. Right now this is the most plausible explaination to me.

~Grey

[Defenestrator]

greyphilosophy:[/i]

Defenestrator, I think your answers are shallow and lack insight.

Howso? Seriously, if you think I'm wrong, I'd like to know so that I can correct myself. Anybody can chime in, if they like.

I'm not trying to argue any point in particular, but rather try to find reason for the earth's existance where it is. It matters because it reveals something about the Creator. I am deeply interested in learning more about God, even if you don't think it matters.

I'm just asking you to explain why it matters. Something you have failed to do thus far.


Perhaps I didn't explain my previous comments very well, so I will attempt to do so again. If the whole purpose of creation is for Jesus Christ to come save the souls of men,

Is that the whole purpose of creation? I'm not saying it isn't, I'd just like some Biblical support.

then in order for Jesus Christ to fulfill his mission there must first be men. This is what I meant by a human-centric worldview. Perhaps a better term would be Christian humanist worldview. God himself becomming a man shows the importance of men.

Is this the part you think I lack insight on? Please provide Scriptural support that shows that we should have anything but a God-centered worldview.

TheFiveSolas provided some interesting evidence which points to the earth being in the center.

Like I said, I'm not arguing against that.

I would expect the earth to be in the center, or at least the sun, if the universe was created for Jesus Christ because it would make the universe built around the very important place where God became man. Right now this is the most plausible explaination to me.

I don't understand why physical location has anything to do with it, though. Could you elaborate?

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87783#post87783)
TheFiveSolas:

grey,

The following has a link to a PDF file (Adobe Acrobat) that has new scientific data suggesting that our galaxy is in the center.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf
The evidence that your article speaks of - specifically cosmic expansion and redshift - is hardly "new" and does not suggest that there exists a center to the universe at all, let alone that our galaxy is located anywhere near a center. As the article itself cites, a center is defined as a point equidistant from the outer boundaries of something. The problem is that there exist no outer boundaries to the universe from which a center might be defined.

Yours,
Garth

[greyphilosophy]

Defenestrator,

Sorry for my comment about your responses being shallow and lacking insight. If I didn't feel you had something deep and insightful to add I wouldn't be talking with you now. I was just frustrated by your comments because I am seeking reason and you seem to be saying that reason is pointless. What I mean to say is I would feel better if you made comments which added points to the discussion instead of comments which say the discussion is pointless (without stateing reasons why you feel is so.) If you can provide a reasoning as to why it is impossible for us to understand God's reasons, then I would accept that as adding to the discussion. However I find statements which only say "it is because that is where God wants it," without providing evidence that it is consistant with God's wants, less than helpful.

Before I provide any scripture arguments, please answer this question: Is all truth contained in scripture?

I would argue that Jesus Christ was a humanist. He was concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

Also when I make "If" statements I am not required to prove the possibility is reality. I am mearly stateing that if condition A exists, then B would be the result.

You stated in post #9 of this thread that the universe was created for God. I would agree if you mean the universe was created by God for God's purposes. God created the earth (part of the univese) for man.

Here are the positions I would like evidence or reasoning to support:

The earth is either (a) in the center of the universe, or (b) not in the center of the universe

God placed the earth in the center of the universe either (c)because the universe was created for the earth, or (d) not

The placement of the earth in the physical either (e) has a metaphysical parallel (i.e. if you accept position "a" as true to show that we are central in God's kingdom) or (f) it does not.

~Grey

[Defenestrator]

greyphilosophy:

Sorry for my comment about your responses being shallow and lacking insight. If I didn't feel you had something deep and insightful to add I wouldn't be talking with you now. I was just frustrated by your comments because I am seeking reason and you seem to be saying that reason is pointless.

I just trying to get you to give some reasons for your view.

What I mean to say is I would feel better if you made comments which added points to the discussion instead of comments which say the discussion is pointless (without stateing reasons why you feel is so.) If you can provide a reasoning as to why it is impossible for us to understand God's reasons, then I would accept that as adding to the discussion.

I never said it was impossible for us to understand God's reasons.

However I find statements which only say "it is because that is where God wants it," without providing evidence that it is consistant with God's wants, less than helpful.

Well, I think it is definitly unbiblical to say that the earth is somewhere where God doesn't want it.


Before I provide any scripture arguments, please answer this question: Is all truth contained in scripture?

Scripture is 100% truthful and is the infallible Word of God, but not every truth is contained in Scripture.


I would argue that Jesus Christ was a humanist. He was concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

I agree that he was concerned with the welfare and interests of humans.


Also when I make "If" statements I am not required to prove the possibility is reality. I am mearly stateing that if condition A exists, then B would be the result.

You stated in post #9 of this thread that the universe was created for God. I would agree if you mean the universe was created by God for God's purposes. God created the earth (part of the univese) for man.

I'll repeat the Scripture passages I listed earlier:

1 Peter 4:11 - "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever."

Col 1:16 - "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. "

God created in order that He may be praised. God created for himself, not for man.


Here are the positions I would like evidence or reasoning to support:

The earth is either (a) in the center of the universe, or (b) not in the center of the universe

I don't know. If I had to guess based on the evidence, I would say probably not.

God placed the earth in the center of the universe either (c)because the universe was created for the earth, or (d) not

The placement of the earth in the physical either (e) has a metaphysical parallel (i.e. if you accept position "a" as true to show that we are central in God's kingdom) or (f) it does not.

I don't know.

[Woman]

grey,

Why do I get the sneaky suspicion you are setting people up for something? :wink:

Since we are hurling through space at dizzying speeds, where we are at any given moment seems utterly irrelevant. Also, you assume that because man is egocentric so is God. Or maybe the earth is FIRST in some cosmic line-up we're still unaware of.

When you fix your plate, do you always put your favorite food in the center? Is your favorite shirt exactly in the center of your closet? Or in the TOP drawer?

It's about that important.

[Solly]

My wife is the centre of my life, does that mean she must be the centre of the universe too?

The centre of the town where I live is where the local government has its main offices, not where people live.

[Wesley's son]

"if there is a bright center of the universe, we're at the point that is farthest from..."

umm, no wait, that would Tatoonine :wink:



reference quote: Luke to C3-PO in Star Wars: Episode Four: A New Hope

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 12:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88711#post88711)
Defenestrator:



I just trying to get you to give some reasons for your view.
I'm not sure that I've taken a view.

I never said it was impossible for us to understand God's reasons.

I was just trying to show you what I would consider useful comments, as opposed to useless ones.

Well, I think it is definitly unbiblical to say that the earth is somewhere where God doesn't want it.

Not only would it be unbiblical, it would be philosophically impossible.

Scripture is 100% truthful and is the infallible Word of God, but not every truth is contained in Scripture.

Because not every truth is contained in Scripture it is alright to look at other sources of truth. I personally try to use scripture as little as possible (but as much as necessary), and have found it useful when dealing with non-believers.

I agree that he was concerned with the welfare and interests of humans.

I'll repeat the Scripture passages I listed earlier:

1 Peter 4:11 - "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever."

Col 1:16 - "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. "

God created in order that He may be praised. God created for himself, not for man.

God created in order that He may be praised through Jesus Christ. I will agree with that. So in order for Jesus Christ to save the souls of men so that they would glorify God, there must first be an earth. In creating the setting for all the events around Christ's birth there must also be stars, and the heavens speak of God's power, so God created the heavens as part of this plan to be glorified through Jesus Christ. How vast did he make the heavens? If he only made them big enough so that we could never see the end, then it would aid his plan to receive glory just as equally as if the heavens continued for a billion times past our ability to ever observe. It could also be considered wasteful for God to create things we would never observe and would never affect us if his sole purpose for creation was for Jesus Christ to come to earth and be glorified. Would it not be plausible then that God created the universe around the earth as a backdrop, and it is only as big as we could ever observe it? That would make the universe roughly spherical with the earth right in the middle of it.

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88717#post88717)
Woman:

grey,

Why do I get the sneaky suspicion you are setting people up for something? :wink:

If I'm setting people up for something I have no clue what it is

Since we are hurling through space at dizzying speeds, where we are at any given moment seems utterly irrelevant. Also, you assume that because man is egocentric so is God. Or maybe the earth is FIRST in some cosmic line-up we're still unaware of.

What is your reference point for saying we are hurling through space at dizzying speeds? I think I would assume God is earth-centric because He came to earth in bodily form.

When you fix your plate, do you always put your favorite food in the center? Is your favorite shirt exactly in the center of your closet? Or in the TOP drawer?

It's about that important.
I place all my favorite items where I can access them the most efficently. Give me unlimited speed, energy, or what-not so it won't matter where I place them because I'll be able to access them regardless where they are with the same effort, and maybe I would arrange them with some sort of fung-shui.

Today @ 01:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88733#post88733)
Solly:

My wife is the centre of my life, does that mean she must be the centre of the universe too?

The centre of the town where I live is where the local government has its main offices, not where people live.

If you had to build a self-contained ecosystem/biosphere for your wife, would you place her in the center with everything she needs as close at hand as possible?

~Grey

[Woman]

Grey:
What is your reference point for saying we are hurling through space at dizzying speeds?

Any jr. high science book. The speed of earth's rotation, at over 1,000 miles per hour (at the equator) is enough to cause the equator to bulge. The earth's travel around the sun is about 18.0 miles per...second. I'd say that's dizzying.

I think I would assume God is earth-centric because He came to earth in bodily form.

You mean the people living on Rqzxl on a planet, in a galaxy, in the universe far, far away don't count? God may have sent Christ there too. I heard they are sinners of the first order.

[John Powell]

greyphilosophy:
TheFiveSolas provided some interesting evidence which points to the earth being in the center.


POWELL:
I haven't read this, but perhaps it should be discussed in the science section. I have serious doubts about it.

greyphilosophy:
I would expect the earth to be in the center, or at least the sun, if the universe was created for Jesus Christ because it would make the universe built around the very important place where God became man. Right now this is the most plausible explaination to me.


POWELL:
Greyphilosophy, if an X drawn in the finest possible script were at the exact "center" of your city, would it really matter whether it was the center of the nucleus or one of the electrons of the atom at the very center of the X? To argue for an important distinction between the Sun's location and the Earth's on the scale of the universe is similarly ridiculous.

Here, let me ask you this to illuminate the problem. Do you think that astronomers put telescopes in Earth orbit partly so they're closer to the stars and galaxies they observe?

To ask where the center of our 3-dimensional universe is MIGHT be as non-sensical as asking where the center of the surface of the Earth is. Where would you say the center of the surface of the Earth is? Greenwich, England? Some place on the equator? Bethlehem? Jerusalem?

Perhaps our expanding 3-D space + time universe is like the 2-D membrane of an expanding balloon. The center of the balloon is not part of the balloon, it's where the balloon was in 3-D space when it was infinitely small. Likewise, perhaps the center of the 3-D universe is in part of 4-D space where our 3-D universe no longer exists.

On the other hand, perhaps you could say every point in the universe has equal claim to being the center just like every part of the 2-D balloon surface could claim to be the center. All the parts of the balloon were at the center at the beginning.

Now, I'm going to speak from the point of view of me when I was a believing Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
You are assuming that there is only one God for all the universe and all planes of existence. That's the traditional Christian view, but that's not necessarily the Mormon view. Although most Mormons believe there is only one God for the entire universe, others believe that if humans can become Gods of their own planets in the current universe then it makes sense that Elohim, the supreme God of our planet, might have relatives who are Gods of other planets or galaxies or universes.

What is said in the Bible could be interpreted as referring to only our Solar System and the visible stars within our small part of the Galaxy. Maybe God is God over this sector of the Galaxy and His siblings are Gods over the other parts of the Milky Way Galaxy with more distant relatives serving as Gods over other Galaxies. On the other hand, maybe God is the supreme being over this entire Galaxy with His siblings serving as Gods over other Galaxies. However, perhaps God is the supreme being over the entire universe with His siblings serving as Gods over other universes. When God said "there are no other Gods beside me" He might have meant no other supreme beings of this planet besides Him or His Godhead.

Also, this planet is where Jesus became man. Perhaps Elohim had other spirit children as saviors on other planets. Perhaps Jesus is part of the 3-God Godhead over this Earth and such, with other "only begotten sons" as the 2nd member in other triads with Elohim. Maybe Jesus died for the sins of all humans on all planets everywhere through out time, but, on the other hand, maybe His sacrifice was only for those spirits who took bodies on this planet. I don't think the Bible is clear either way.

POWELL:
This might have been more clearly answered if the Bible writers knew about galaxies and the true scale of the universe.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[John Powell]

WOMAN:
The earth's travel around the sun is about 18.0 miles per...second. I'd say that's dizzying.


POWELL:
"Dizzying" has to do with change of velocity (i.e. acceleration) not speed. You don't "feel" constant speed, but changes in speed or direction.

Does flying at constant high speed in a straight line in perfectly still air make you dizzy? It shouldn't.

The Solar system is moving around the center of the galaxy about 7 times faster than the Earth is orbiting the Sun. Since distant quasars are moving away from us at nearly the speed of light this suggests that relative to them we are moving at nearly the speed of light. Does that high speed make you dizzy? Doing it shouldn't, but maybe thinking about it will.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Something I forgot to ask Greyphilosophy:

Does it make much sense to speak of something being AT the center when it's moving at significant speed?

As an interesting tangent, this is one of the reasons that time travel, as generally presented in Sci-Fi movies like "Back to the Future," doesn't work. To survive time travel, even by only seconds, you must also travel in space to where the Earth was or will be.

Furthermore, you have to adjust your velocity since, if you traveled backwards in time by 6 months, for example, when the Earth would be on the opposite side of the Sun, you'd find yourself flying twice the orbital speed of 30 km/s or 60 km/s relative to the surface of the Earth and if you traveled backwards in time to the age of dinosaurs about 100 million years ago you'd find yourself flying twice the Galactic orbital speed of 220 km/s or 440 km/s relative to the surface of the Earth. The Solar System would be on the opposite side of the Galaxy this long ago.

The safest way to travel in time is probably with a space ship from and to points in deep space.

John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 08:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91676#post91676)
John Powell:

POWELL:
Greyphilosophy, if an X drawn in the finest possible script were at the exact "center" of your city, would it really matter whether it was the center of the nucleus or one of the electrons of the atom at the very center of the X? To argue for an important distinction between the Sun's location and the Earth's on the scale of the universe is similarly ridiculous.


I think you misunderstood my statement. I wasn't trying to argue the sun over the earth, but rather say one or the other, putting them at equal import.


Now, I'm going to speak from the point of view of me when I was a believing Mormon.


I think I've read somewhere in LDS writings that Kolob is in the center of the universe. It would make me wonder where heavenly father's father's (heavenly grandfather's?) planet would be. I don't put much trust in the writings of the LDS prophets though, Brigham Young said that there were men on the moon.


POWELL:
Something I forgot to ask Greyphilosophy:

Does it make much sense to speak of something being AT the center when it's moving at significant speed?


I think the question of a reference point was very significant here. What if the sun moved around the earth, and all the other planets moved around the sun? Would it upset anyone's model for the solar system? It shouldn't because nothing has really been changed; it's a matter of perspective.

~Grey

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Greyphilosophy, if an X drawn in the finest possible script were at the exact "center" of your city, would it really matter whether it was the center of the nucleus or one of the electrons of the atom at the very center of the X? To argue for an important distinction between the Sun's location and the Earth's on the scale of the universe is similarly ridiculous.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I think you misunderstood my statement. I wasn't trying to argue the sun over the earth, but rather say one or the other, putting them at equal import.


POWELL:
Why either? Maybe the center should be the Sun-Earth center of gravity or the Solar system center of gravity or something like that.

You seem to want to put the Earth at the center, but realize the Earth goes around the Sun which you might think is stationary, but isn't. In fact the Sun and the entire Solar System is moving about 7 times faster around the center of the Galaxy than the Earth moves around the Sun.

POWELL:
Now, I'm going to speak from the point of view of me when I was a believing Mormon.

GREYPHILOSOPHER:
I think I've read somewhere in LDS writings that Kolob is in the center of the universe.


JOHN MORMON:
Some Mormons probably think that, but what the Mormon scriptures say is that it's the closest orb to the "sphere of glass" on which God dwells. You might expect Kolob to be at the center of God's domain. For example, if God ruled only the Milky Way Galaxy then you might expect Kolob to be near the center of the Galaxy. However, God might choose to put Kolob in the suburbs out in the spiral arms. Washington, D.C., isn't close to the geometrical center of the U.S. is it?

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
It would make me wonder where heavenly father's father's (heavenly grandfather's?) planet would be.


JOHN MORMON:
I wondered such things myself. However, I didn't expect to have that answered before they told me where Kolob was located. I think it's preferable to believe in a God with a family history, even if unknown, than one with no family history. If Jesus could have a father, why couldn't the Father have a father?

POWELL:
Now, I think Joseph Smith made it up since it seemed to make more sense to him than what others have claimed. I think the writers of other religous books, including the Bible, did the same thing.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I don't put much trust in the writings of the LDS prophets though, Brigham Young said that there were men on the moon.


POWELL:
Perhaps.

Paul apparently thought slavery was acceptable and women's rights was unacceptable. Moses apparently thought the sky was blue because it was water held up by a transparent firmament. Some of the prophets seemed to think the Earth was flat. Others thought the Earth was stationary in space. Some thought rabbits chew the cud.

JOHN MORMON:
Prophets are men bound to a large extent by the scientific knowledge available in their day. God tends to reveal spiritual truth, not so much scientific truth.

POWELL:
Something I forgot to ask Greyphilosophy:

Does it make much sense to speak of something being AT the center when it's moving at significant speed?

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I think the question of a reference point was very significant here.


POWELL:
Let me try again. Imagine you were claiming that either your right big toe or your right "longest" toe is the exact geometrical center of the country although you travel around in your city quite a bit. Would such an assertion mean much? Perhaps it would make more sense to claim that the average position in the city of one of your toes is the exact geometrical center of the country.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
What if the sun moved around the earth, and all the other planets moved around the sun?


POWELL:
That was Tycho's Hybrid cosmology. I don't know what that implies, but perhaps such a universe can't exist because gravity would be weirdly dependent on mass. The Sun with 300,000 more mass than Earth would orbit Earth, but planets with more and less mass then us would orbit the Sun. That doesn't seem to make sense.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Would it upset anyone's model for the solar system?


POWELL:
Not Tycho's, but yes the geocentric and the heliocentric models.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
It shouldn't because nothing has really been changed; it's a matter of perspective.

~Grey


POWELL:
What do you mean? Are you saying that if you drive in a car from your place to a friend's that it's really your car that did the moving rather than the road? What would someone viewing from the perspective of the Sun's reference frame see?

John Powell.

[Socrates]

greyphilosophy

What is your reference point for saying we are hurling through space at dizzying speeds?

Woman:Any jr. high science book. The speed of earth's rotation, at over 1,000 miles per hour (at the equator) is enough to cause the equator to bulge. The earth's travel around the sun is about 18.0 miles per...second. I'd say that's dizzying. I'm sure that greyphilosophy didn't mean a reference in the sense of the source of the claim, which no one disputes. Rather, he was asking which reference FRAME the motion was relative to -- you've seen my post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=89636#post89636

greyphilosophy:

I think I would assume God is earth-centric because He came to earth in bodily form.

Woman:You mean the people living on Rqzxl on a planet, in a galaxy, in the universe far, far away don't count? God may have sent Christ there too. I heard they are sinners of the first order.When Woman shows proof of the existence of the sinful Rqzxlians, then she must let us know :lol: Then would the Second Person of the Trinity take on Rqzxlian nature as well, to die for their sins? But the Biblical teaching that Jesus will have only ONE bride counts against ETI -- otherwise He would acquire multiple brides -- a human bride, a Rqzxlian bride, a Vulcan bride, and so on.

[Socrates]

John PowellSome Mormons probably think that, but what the Mormon scriptures say is that it's the closest orb to the "sphere of glass" on which God dwells. You might expect Kolob to be at the center of God's domain. For example, if God ruled only the Milky Way Galaxy then you might expect Kolob to be near the center of the Galaxy. However, God might choose to put Kolob in the suburbs out in the spiral arms. Washington, D.C., isn't close to the geometrical center of the U.S. is it?There are very good design features in our actual location. for one thing, the center of our galaxy probably contains a massive black hole. From The Sun—Our special star (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4180.asp), which cites Chown, M., What a star! New Scientist 162(2192):17, 1999:

Its orbit is fairly circular, meaning that it won’t go too near the inner galaxy where supernovae, extremely energetic star explosions, are more common. It also orbits almost parallel to the galactic plane—otherwise, crossing this plane would be very disruptive. Furthermore, the sun is at an ideal distance from the galactic centre, called the co–rotation radius. Only here does a star’s orbital speed match that of the spiral arms—otherwise the sun would cross the arms too often and be exposed to supernovae.

[John Powell]

SOCRATES:
When Woman shows proof of the existence of the sinful Rqzxlians, then she must let us know


POWELL:
Good point. Of course, she's speaking hypothetically.

SOCRATES:
Then would the Second Person of the Trinity take on Rqzxlian nature as well, to die for their sins? But the Biblical teaching that Jesus will have only ONE bride counts against ETI -- otherwise He would acquire multiple brides -- a human bride, a Rqzxlian bride, a Vulcan bride, and so on.


JOHN MORMON:
Remember, Socrates, that the Bible was written for those on EARTH. If the Bible says only ONE bride it means something like only one bride on Earth. What happens on other Earths is a separate question.

POWELL:
Some Mormons probably think that, but what the Mormon scriptures say is that it's the closest orb to the "sphere of glass" on which God dwells. You might expect Kolob to be at the center of God's domain. For example, if God ruled only the Milky Way Galaxy then you might expect Kolob to be near the center of the Galaxy. However, God might choose to put Kolob in the suburbs out in the spiral arms. Washington, D.C., isn't close to the geometrical center of the U.S. is it?

SOCRATES:
There are very good design features in our actual location. for one thing, the center of our galaxy probably contains a massive black hole.


JOHN MORMON:
So what? Most major cities are built next to water, but not in the water, right? Surely God wouldn't worry about being close to the black hole, but it could be a problem for us. However, if we were a couple hundred parsecs away (analogous to being "on the banks of the river") that might be far enough.

SOCRATES:
From The Sun—Our special star, which cites Chown, M., What a star! New Scientist 162(2192):17, 1999:

CHOWN:
Its orbit is fairly circular, meaning that it won’t go too near the inner galaxy where supernovae, extremely energetic star explosions, are more common.


POWELL:
So what? How much more common? Does Chown suggest that long-term survival of biospheres is unlikely in the bulge of our Galaxy?

CHOWN:
It also orbits almost parallel to the galactic plane—otherwise, crossing this plane would be very disruptive.


POWELL:
Is Chown seriously suggesting that stable planetary orbits are highly unlikely for galactic plane-crossing solar systems? Perhaps when we locate planets in "halo" stars, we'll have something to check this idea against.

CHOWN:
Furthermore, the sun is at an ideal distance from the galactic centre, called the co–rotation radius.


POWELL:
Huh? Is Chown suggesting that the stars in a spiral arm all move together at the same speed? The spiral arms are where new stars are currently forming (especially the very bright blue-white ones). It's not where the density of stars is significantly greater.

It's as if you were flying above the country and every where a new baby was born the roof of the family's house would light up for a year. That doesn't mean that the population density is much less in areas with fewer bright roofs, fewer new births.

CHOWN:
Only here does a star’s orbital speed match that of the spiral arms—otherwise the sun would cross the arms too often and be exposed to supernovae.


POWELL:
So what? How much more? Is he suggesting that long-term survival of biospheres is unlikely for solar systems that frequently cross spiral arms?

It's true that the density of stars, and therefore the likelihood of being near a supernova, is greater in the Galactic bulge than our part of the Galaxy, but that doesn't cause a seriously greater problem for life. It mostly just means that the night time sky is a little brighter and there's a better chance of being in a multiple star system.

Supernovae do pose a risk to long term survival of life on planets, but probably a more serious threat is rogue asteroids and comets. A supernova probably needs to be within about 100 parsecs to cause damage to the biosphere. For total destruction of the biosphere you'd need to be much closer, I'm guessing probably within a parsec. Hasn't anyone done calculations on this?

In our part of the Galaxy I suspect there's one supernova within a hundred parsecs say every some millions of years maybe. Perhaps I'll do the calculation. If we were in the bulge of the galaxy maybe that number would double or triple, but I don't think that would pose as serious a problem as Chown seems to think.

What really matters is how close the Earth is to the Sun, not where the Sun is located in the Galaxy, provided we're at least hundreds of parsecs away from high energy sources like supermassive black holes and supernovae.

It's like this: whether you have a roof over your head is what's really important, not nearly so much whether your home is in a certain part of the country.

John Powell.

[Socrates]

John Powell:Remember, Socrates, that the Bible was written for those on EARTH. If the Bible says only ONE bride it means something like only one bride on Earth. What happens on other Earths is a separate question.There is more to it than that. There is every indication that that the Bible was written for those on EARTH because Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life. Some reasons (taken from AiG www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0311answerslive.asp ):

The Earth was created on Day 1, while the sun, moon and stars (plus any planets the stars might have) were created on Day 4. Adam’s sin resulted in God’s Curse on the whole creation (Romans 8:20–22), so would have affected the e.g., Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnated on Earth alone, took on human nature, died for the sins of those He has the ‘kinsman-redeemer’ relationship with (Isaiah 59:20, Hebrews 2:11–18), then ascended to the right hand of God the Father. He did not take on Vulcan or Klingon nature.

Or Rqzxlian nature. Also, when Jesus took on human nature, it was real, not docetic, and it was permanent, reatined even after His Resurrection and Ascension. Therefore if He went to die for the Rqzxlians, He would still have His human nature. Or if he had gone to them first, by analogy He would still retain His full Rqzxlian nature.

As for both the AiG sun article and the New Scientist article by chown, they argue cogently that our sun is special both as a star in itself, and in its location. Therefore it makes sense that it was designed this way. Conversely, misotheists who dismiss the sun as a small, ordinary star in some galactic backwater haven't a leg to stand on.

:deal: PS: why not repost your questions that you posed to me in the Arena into the Exegesis board, so I can answer them? :shrug:

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Remember, Socrates, that the Bible was written for those on EARTH. If the Bible says only ONE bride it means something like only one bride on Earth. What happens on other Earths is a separate question.

SOCRATES:
There is more to it than that. There is every indication that that the Bible was written for those on EARTH because Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life. Some reasons (taken from AiG www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0311answerslive.asp ):


POWELL:
I haven't read their discussion, but I'm quite sure they are seriously mistaken. I'll provide a critique if you're willing to defend their position (probably this should be in a new thread). If they're relying on their interpretation of the Bible rather than relying on scientific methods then this could be a good example of how science is a more reliable source for answering "big" questions than the Bible.

SOCRATES:
The Earth was created on Day 1, while the sun, moon and stars (plus any planets the stars might have) were created on Day 4.


POWELL:
When someone on Earth looks up in the sky at night, how far are the stars like the Sun that he sees? Within less than 100 light years, which is only about 1/1000th of our galaxy. Thinking that you see to the edge of the universe when you look at the sun-like stars at night is like a child thinking what they see in their room or their house or their neighborhood as being essentially the entire world.

JOHN MORMON:
When Moses spoke of the stars being created he could have been speaking of only those stars visible to the "naked" eye. When he spoke of the creation of plants and animals and people, he was probably only speaking about Earth.

SOCRATES:
Adam?s sin resulted in God?s Curse on the whole creation (Romans 8:20?22), so would have affected the e.g., Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc.


JOHN MORMON:
What is the "whole creation"? I think it must have been essentially just this Solar System with perhaps also nearby star systems.

SOCRATES:
The Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnated on Earth alone, took on human nature, died for the sins of those He has the ?kinsman-redeemer? relationship with (Isaiah 59:20, Hebrews 2:11?18), then ascended to the right hand of God the Father. He did not take on Vulcan or Klingon nature.


JOHN MORMON:
Where does the Bible say He never was or will be incarnated on and the Savior for another planet? Personally, I suspect that if there were Vulcans then they should have had their own Savior, but many Mormons believe that Jesus died for them too. Some Mormons think Earth and the Jews of the time of Jesus are the only ones in all eternity wicked enough to kill their God.

SOCRATES:
Or Rqzxlian nature. Also, when Jesus took on human nature, it was real, not docetic, and it was permanent , reatined even after His Resurrection and Ascension. Therefore if He went to die for the Rqzxlians, He would still have His human nature. Or if he had gone to them first, by analogy He would still retain His full Rqzxlian nature.


JOHN MORMON:
I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I believe you're probably right that Jesus was not born on or became the Savior of other planets with people. He certainly was not the Savior for the planet that His Father, Elohim, was the Savior for.

As Jesus said, (something like) "I only do what my Father did." Meaning, I think, that Elohim was incarnated, lived a sinless life, took on the sins of His spirit brethren, died a horrible death, and resurrected so they could have more rapid eternal progression. Jesus did a similar thing for us, His spirit brethren.

POWELL:
Since Mormons believe they can become Gods, it makes sense to them that the process they're going through is similar to the one that other Gods have gone through in the past. They don't believe that Elohim always was God as other Christians do.

SOCRATES:
As for both the AiG sun article and the New Scientist article by chown, they argue cogently that our sun is special both as a star in itself, and in its location. Therefore it makes sense that it was designed this way. Conversely, misotheists who dismiss the sun as a small, ordinary star in some galactic backwater haven't a leg to stand on.


POWELL:
I respectfully disagree. Although the Sun is above average in size and luminosity, it is ordinary. To insist otherwise would be like claiming that your tribal God were the God of the entire universe. :smile:

SOCRATES:
PS: why not repost your questions that you posed to me in the Arena into the Exegesis board, so I can answer them?


POWELL:
What campus / department at tweb is that in?

John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

John,

I'm not sure exactly why you keep bringing up mormon theology. It fails at so many points when it comes to creation. I had a discussion yesterday with some LDS missionaries, and one of the things we discussed were models for time. I drew a line, and a ray, and discussed how the line would not work because of the impossibility of transverseing an infinite. They drew a circle, and said that that was how one of their prophets described time. I then pointed out that if events are trapped in a loop then there would neither be free will, nor eternal progression, and drew for them a corkscrew, and marked on one ring "Kolob" and the ring above that "Earth". Even still when you uncoil the corkscrew you're still left with the problem of it being a line or a ray. Mormonism does not hold the answer to this fundamental question.

I'm sure you have your own reasons for not being a mormon now, but I wonder why you continue to propagate LDS beliefs.

~Grey

[John Powell]

Greyphilosophy
John,

I'm not sure exactly why you keep bringing up mormon theology. It fails at so many points when it comes to creation.


POWELL:
Would you like to debate my former Mormonism versus your current version of Christianity?

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I had a discussion yesterday with some LDS missionaries, and one of the things we discussed were models for time. I drew a line, and a ray, and discussed how the line would not work because of the impossibility of transverseing an infinite.


POWELL:
Are you aware of Zeno's argument that it's impossible to traverse even a finite distance because of something like the infinity of gaps in between? "Infinity" is not an amount so much as a concept of an amount. It's like the "omnibeing." We can discuss such things, but they don't appear to exist in the logical universe.

If you don't agree that "infinity" is not really a number then what does infinity + 1 equal, if not infinity?

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
They drew a circle, and said that that was how one of their prophets described time.


POWELL:
Yes, that's "an answer," but not necessarily "the answer." Personally, I didn't like that answer. I prefer the infinite time line.

Mormons often have the attitude that if an explanation to a mystery "makes you happy" then it's good enough since mysteries aren't essential knowledge for us right now.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I then pointed out that if events are trapped in a loop then there would neither be free will, nor eternal progression, and drew for them a corkscrew, and marked on one ring "Kolob" and the ring above that "Earth". Even still when you uncoil the corkscrew you're still left with the problem of it being a line or a ray.


POWELL:
Mormons are suspicious of philosophical arguments since they believe that essential truths of the Gospel are "plain and precious."

Just because you claim that a circular time line destroys free will doesn't mean it does. Please post your syllogistic argument.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Mormonism does not hold the answer to this fundamental question.


POWELL:
Mormonism does not claim that it's a "fundamental" question in the way you seem to think. It probably will look like a non-essential mystery to most Mormons.

Are you saying the Bible has the answer? Where?

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I'm sure you have your own reasons for not being a mormon now, but I wonder why you continue to propagate LDS beliefs.

~Grey


POWELL:
For a number of reasons.

1. It's the religion I'm most familiar with.

2. I used to think (and haven't been shown otherwise) it was superior to all other religions as far as being logical and Biblically based.

3. If #2 is true, then it puts you in an awkward position, because the religion I no longer believe in is superior to yours, but atheism apparently is superior still.

By the way, GreyPhilosophy, you didn't answer my questions related to your quest to learn whether the Earth is or should be the center of the universe based on science and your interpretation of the Bible.

John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

Powell,

To answer your last question, I've decided now that something in orbit around something else cannot be the center. It wouldn't make sense mathmatically otherwise. Neither the earth, nor the sun are very probably the center of the universe.

I would love to have a debate with your former mormonism, or even your atheism. I don't quite know how to get one set up though. We would probably have to define what superior is first, and I'm not sure exactly how to do that, so perhaps we could debate which view is most consistant both internally and externally?

Zeno's dichotemy argument I think falls apart when you apply a rate of movement to it. As the distance remaining to the next half approaches zero the time it takes to move to that halfway point approaches zero. Eventually the numbers will become so small as to be considered for all intensive purposes to be zero. If not zero, then 1/infinity, with the time it takes to cover that distance being 1/infinity. Speed or rate is distance/time. If you have time at 1/infinity then your speed becomes infinite covering that last little itty bit of distance. At that speed over that small of a distance you'll make it there in no time at all. I might have a mistake in here somewhere, and probably at least one divide by zero error, but this is my attempt to explain what Zeno's logic would say is impossible. And of course if I fail to prove that it is possible to transverse an infinite number of points then I still don't lose the previous point that it is impossible to transverse an infinite :tongue:

Also I believe the bible does hold an answer to the question of how we and the universe exist. The bible says it was created by God.

~Grey

[Socrates]

Powell:Although the Sun is above average in size and luminosity, it is ordinary. No, it is actually ideal for life on Earth, being the right temperature and having the right radiation output, and it is exceptionally stable for stars of this type. Again, both the AiG article and the New Scientist source explain this.To insist otherwise would be like claiming that your tribal God were the God of the entire universe.What tribal God is this? Do you think I believe in a God unique to Australia? And I've documented my claims about the sun, and "I don't believe them" is not really sufficient.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
By the way, GreyPhilosophy, you didn't answer my questions related to your quest to learn whether the Earth is or should be the center of the universe based on science and your interpretation of the Bible.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Powell,

To answer your last question, I've decided now that something in orbit around something else cannot be the center. It wouldn't make sense mathmatically otherwise. Neither the earth, nor the sun are very probably the center of the universe.


POWELL:
EXCELLENT!!! I have high hopes for you. :yipee:

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
I would love to have a debate with your former mormonism, or even your atheism. I don't quite know how to get one set up though. We would probably have to define what superior is first, and I'm not sure exactly how to do that, so perhaps we could debate which view is most consistant both internally and externally?


POWELL:
It's quite easy actually. I'll post a challenge to you in the "Coach's Quarters." You don't have to accept, for example if you prefer the more informal discussions here, but it's an opportunity for you.

A problem with the Mormon-Christian debate, however, is that my personal brand of Mormonism was different from orthodox Mormonism. I hope it was close enough, however, that you would not feel too put off.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Zeno's dichotemy argument I think falls apart when you apply a rate of movement to it. As the distance remaining to the next half approaches zero the time it takes to move to that halfway point approaches zero. Eventually the numbers will become so small as to be considered for all intensive purposes to be zero. If not zero, then 1/infinity, with the time it takes to cover that distance being 1/infinity. Speed or rate is distance/time. If you have time at 1/infinity then your speed becomes infinite covering that last little itty bit of distance. At that speed over that small of a distance you'll make it there in no time at all. I might have a mistake in here somewhere, and probably at least one divide by zero error, but this is my attempt to explain what Zeno's logic would say is impossible. And of course if I fail to prove that it is possible to transverse an infinite number of points then I still don't lose the previous point that it is impossible to transverse an infinite


POWELL:
Apparently you've thought about this problem. Good. I don't think the key point of your solution is whether the numbers both approach zero but whether they approach zero equally fast.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Also I believe the bible does hold an answer to the question of how we and the universe exist. The bible says it was created by God.

~Grey


POWELL:
I think my question had to do with whether the Bible has the answer to your criticism of the Mormon missionaries about whether time was linear or circular or something like that.

If the Bible doesn't have the answer, why would you criticize those Mormons for not having the answer?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Although the Sun is above average in size and luminosity, it is ordinary.

SOCRATES:
No, it is actually ideal for life on Earth, being the right temperature and having the right radiation output, and it is exceptionally stable for stars of this type. Again, both the AiG article and the New Scientist source explain this.


POWELL:
The "ideal" for Earth isn't too bad a claim although there is a wider range of "ideal" than you seem to think. It's like saying that having the middle home of a cul-de-sac is the ideal place to live, as if elsewhere wouldn't be ideal for other reasons.

However, your statement about exceptional stability for its type appears to be a misunderstanding on your part.

The spectral type - luminosity class of our Sun is G2 V. Are you suggesting that our Sun is an unusual example of that type of star? There is no peculiarity designation to the Sun's spectral type-luminosity class. That's because spectroscopic analysis suggests the Sun is a normal member of that type of star.

Let me help.

Main sequence stars (luminosity class V) are exceptionally stable compared with other luminosity classes such as giants (LC III) and supergiants (LC I) of the same spectral type (i.e. temperature class). So, the Sun is much more stable than G type giants or G type supergiants.

Furthermore, as you "move down" the main sequence from the hot, luminous O, B, A, and F type stars towards the cooler, dimmer G, K, and M type stars, the "stability" increases. O type stars may last only millions of years on the main sequence whereas G type stars last billions of years and M type stars last trillions of years on the M.S.

Since M type main sequence stars are by far the most common type of star in the universe and they are the "most stable" on the main sequence, clearly the Sun is less stable than the average star.

Unfortunately, M-type main sequence stars do not supply very much energy, so they might be poor choices for inhabited planets.

The best type of star for billions-year-long biospheres would probably be G or K-type main sequence stars. Our Sun is an ORDINARY member of this best-for-life star.

Remember the movie "Contact"? The researchers were surprised that the extraterrestrial signal came from Vega. The reason is because Vega is an A-type main sequence star, a hot star. Even if it were an old star then it wouldn't expect to live for billions of years on the main sequence, enough time for evolution to result in intelligent life. Actually, it seems to be a young star based on the presence of circumstellar dust so life may not have even started there yet.

Carl Sagan knew all this. The ET signal came from the direction of Vega, but the aliens didn't live there. It was a relay station. The Jodi Foster character went there and then got sucked down some other wormhole to her final destination.

Is that clear enough?

POWELL:
To insist otherwise would be like claiming that your tribal God were the God of the entire universe.

SOCRATES:
What tribal God is this? Do you think I believe in a God unique to Australia?


POWELL:
I was referring to the Hebrew tribal God. Perhaps you think that's not like the others, just a local supreme deity made up by and for barbaric peoples, but actually is the true omniGod of the universe. That's possible, but highly unlikely IMO.

SOCRATES:
And I've documented my claims about the sun, and "I don't believe them" is not really sufficient.


POWELL:
Why not? You just believed them in what they wrote. You used an appeal to authority. Why won't you believe me? Apparently, you weren't aware that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy.

John Powell
Ph.D., Physics and Astronomy (BYU)

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96690#post96690)
John Powell:

If the Bible doesn't have the answer, why would you criticize those Mormons for not having the answer?


Clearly if the bible has a creation event and a day of judgement then it is promoteing a linear view of time.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If the Bible doesn't have the answer, why would you criticize those Mormons for not having the answer?

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Clearly if the bible has a creation event and a day of judgement then it is promoteing a linear view of time.


POWELL:
You don't seem to understand the difference between what people usually mean by circular and linear time. It's not that circular time implies that every day we do the same thing over and over again, but every trillions of years or something like that time comes around. It's more like the difference between a round and a flat Earth. On small scales they look essentially the same. It's on large scales that differences are seen.

So, if the missionaries had said that time was linear then you would have been happy?

John Powell

[Socrates]

SOCRATES:

No, it is actually ideal for life on Earth, being the right temperature and having the right radiation output, and it is exceptionally stable for stars of this type. Again, both the AiG article and the New Scientist source explain this.

POWELL:The "ideal" for Earth isn't too bad a claim although there is a wider range of "ideal" than you seem to think.Already taken into account. There must be a zone where the temperature is in the range for liquid water to exist. However, your statement about exceptional stability for its type appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. Not at all. First, there is an ideal spectral type of star. Stars both bigger and smaller would not be suitable. So it's a good thing that our sun is NOT one of the biggest stars around. And within that ideal type, the sun is exceptional. The spectral type - luminosity class of our Sun is G2 V. Are you suggesting that our Sun is an unusual example of that type of star? Yes, as the articles said. There is no peculiarity designation to the Sun's spectral type-luminosity class. That's because spectroscopic analysis suggests the Sun is a normal member of that type of star.Spectroscopy doesn't measure stability. And the articles show that the sun is very stable for a star for this ideal spectral type.[list]Let me help.

....

Is that clear enough?Thanx, but no, it told me nothing I didn't already know about stellar astronomy, and there was nothing germane at all about the sun's exceptional stability for its spectral type.

SOCRATES:

What tribal God is this? Do you think I believe in a God unique to Australia?

POWELL:I was referring to the Hebrew tribal God. What Hebrew tribal God? Perhaps you think that's not like the others, just a local supreme deity made up by and for barbaric peoples, Can't resist some chronological snobbery, eh? ... but actually is the true omniGod of the universe. That's possible, but highly unlikely IMO.And your opinion is based on what data? Or just presuppositions?

SOCRATES:

And I've documented my claims about the sun, and "I don't believe them" is not really sufficient.

POWELL:Why not? You just believed them in what they wrote. You used an appeal to authority. No I didn't -- I gave reasons and backed them up with data.[list]Why won't you believe me? Because you have an atheistic axe to grind, perhaps? But really, because you didn't deal with the data.Apparently, you weren't aware that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy.

John Powell
Ph.D., Physics and Astronomy (BYU)Congratulations. So does Danny Faulkner, and he has made similar points to the above. And I believed them because they documented their points, and you have yet to demonstrate any error.

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 07:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96872#post96872)
John Powell:


POWELL:
You don't seem to understand the difference between what people usually mean by circular and linear time. It's not that circular time implies that every day we do the same thing over and over again, but every trillions of years or something like that time comes around. It's more like the difference between a round and a flat Earth. On small scales they look essentially the same. It's on large scales that differences are seen.

So, if the missionaries had said that time was linear then you would have been happy?

John Powell

I understand that a circular view of time could have a really huge circle, however I think it clashes with the LDS doctrines of free will and eternal progression. Maybe you're right and we have different ideas of what a circular view of time is. My view of circular time is that events lead to a point where current events are exactly identical to past events. Regardless of the number of events that have passed in between it would mean that we were just going through the motions of what had already been done and decided. If in circular time the events just fall into similar, though not identical patterns then you would have more of a corkscrew model.

The problem with an infinite timeline is that all possibilities will and have already happened. I think Nietzsche shares this view. I forget which philosopher had a parable about an astronaught on an asteroid with two vials, one which would kill him instantly, and one which would give him immortality. I think the conclusion was that immortality is really really boring.

Yes, if the missionaries said that time had a beginning then I would have agreed, but then I would see that the LDS god is inferrior to the Christian God because the Christian God created everything, was there in the beginning, and is all-powerful. The LDS god only organized matter that already existed, and still progressing has not reached an all-powerful state. Perhaps if you disagree we could make this our debate topic?

~Grey

[John Powell]

SOCRATES:
No, it is actually ideal for life on Earth, being the right temperature and having the right radiation output, and it is exceptionally stable for stars of this type. Again, both the AiG article and the New Scientist source explain this.

POWELL:
The "ideal" for Earth isn't too bad a claim although there is a wider range of "ideal" than you seem to think.

SOCRATES:
Already taken into account. There must be a zone where the temperature is in the range for liquid water to exist.


POWELL:
It's doubtful that you properly took this into account given the second sentence of your response. I'm not talking about other conditions necessary for life besides the kind of star. I'm saying that the kind of star that is acceptable is wider in range than just G2 V.

POWELL:
However, your statement about exceptional stability for its type appears to be a misunderstanding on your part.

SOCRATES:
Not at all. First, there is an ideal spectral type of star. Stars both bigger and smaller would not be suitable. So it's a good thing that our sun is NOT one of the biggest stars around. And within that ideal type, the sun is exceptional.


POWELL:
You still don't seem to understand, Socrates. How much smaller and how much larger than the Sun would things begin to be unsuitable? In other words, what range of spectral types - luminosity classes would be acceptable? Is the Sun exceptional among those stars? No.

POWELL:
The spectral type - luminosity class of our Sun is G2 V. Are you suggesting that our Sun is an unusual example of that type of star?

SOCRATES:
Yes, as the articles said.


POWELL:
Then the articles are seriously mistaken.

It's like claiming that the city you live in is an exceptional example of a city, yet it's not the capital or one of the largest cities of any state or province. Perhaps it would be exceptional to you merely because you lived there. I'll concede the Sun is exceptional in that way.

POWELL:
There is no peculiarity designation to the Sun's spectral type-luminosity class. That's because spectroscopic analysis suggests the Sun is a normal member of that type of star.

SOCRATES:
Spectroscopy doesn't measure stability.


POWELL:
Ridiculous. Who told you that?

What kind of "stability" are you referring to: position in the Galaxy, mass, temperature, luminosity, magnetic field, or what? Spectroscopy would measure variability / stability in the majority of those. I've already argued that galactic positional stability is not that important.

POWELL:
And the articles show that the sun is very stable for a star for this ideal spectral type.


POWELL:
Then the articles are wrong. The Sun is not "very" stable, as in unusually stable, for its spectral type. The Sun is typically stable for its spectral type. The Sun is ORDINARY, Socrates, probably like the majority of conditions of your life, like the city and home you live in, the car you drive, and the computer you use.

POWELL:
Let me help.

....

Is that clear enough?

SOCRATES:
Thanx, but no, it told me nothing I didn't already know about stellar astronomy, and there was nothing germane at all about the sun's exceptional stability for its spectral type.


POWELL:
Perhaps because the Sun is not exceptionally stable for its spectral type.

Since you won't apparently believe me, I suggest you call an astronomy teacher at the nearest college or university and ask him or her if the sun is EXCEPTIONALLY stable for being a G2 main sequence star.

I look forward to your report of what that teacher tells you.

I could do that, but then I would be asking myself the question and you already know the answer.

POWELL:
What tribal God is this? Do you think I believe in a God unique to Australia?

POWELL:
I was referring to the Hebrew tribal God.

SOCRATES:
What Hebrew tribal God?


POWELL:
El, Elohim, or Yahweh or something like that.

POWELL:
Perhaps you think that's not like the others, just a local supreme deity made up by and for barbaric peoples,

SOCRATES:
Can't resist some chronological snobbery, eh?


POWELL:
I usually resist, but I guess I couldn't this time. I admit I'm human.

POWELL:
... but actually is the true omniGod of the universe. That's possible, but highly unlikely IMO.

SOCRATES:
And your opinion is based on what data? Or just presuppositions?


POWELL:
I hope more than just that.

It's partly statistics. What's the chance that a randomly chosen tribal God happens to be the true Creator of the universe? Very small I would think.

SOCRATES:
And I've documented my claims about the sun, and "I don't believe them" is not really sufficient.

POWELL:
Why not? You just believed them in what they wrote. You used an appeal to authority.

SOCRATES:
No I didn't -- I gave reasons and backed them up with data.


POWELL:
You don't seem to fully understand what an appeal to authority is, Socrates. When your argument is that you quote what an authority claims then aren't you making an appeal to authority? If no, then what do you think an appeal to authority is?

To help show this, would you please present those "reasons and data" you referred to in a syllogistic argument?

POWELL:
Why won't you believe me?

SOCRATES:
Because you have an atheistic axe to grind, perhaps? But really, because you didn't deal with the data.


POWELL:
I thought I properly used my extraordinary experience on this topic.

SOCRATES:
Apparently, you weren't aware that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy.

John Powell
Ph.D., Physics and Astronomy (BYU)

SOCRATES:
Congratulations. So does Danny Faulkner, and he has made similar points to the above. And I believed them because they documented their points, and you have yet to demonstrate any error.


POWELL:
Are you saying I should document my points by using an appeal to authority other than myself? Do you want me to indicate an Internet site that gives the spectroscopic designation of the Sun or what do you want?

Are you saying that a Dr. Faulkner agrees with me that the Sun is not EXCEPTIONALLY stable for its spectral type - luminosity class and agrees with me on the other things I claimed above and you believe him? Then why are you appearing to continue to disagree with me on those points?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I now think you DO understand what people mean by circular time and agree with you that it should be considered incompatible with Mormon theology of eternal progression.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Yes, if the missionaries said that time had a beginning then I would have agreed, but then I would see that the LDS god is inferrior to the Christian God because the Christian God created everything, was there in the beginning, and is all-powerful. The LDS god only organized matter that already existed, and still progressing has not reached an all-powerful state.


POWELL:
Right, the LDS God for my former self and many other Mormons is not an Omnibeing. However, I think that's a more logical and more Biblical God than the Christian Omnibeing. It avoids most of the philosophical arguments against the existence of God. The Mormon God, I think, is a more believable entity than an Omnibeing.

GREYPHILOSOPHY:
Perhaps if you disagree we could make this our debate topic?


POWELL:
Yes, the nature of God would be a great topic of debate.

I've been in negotiations with AVMETRO on this topic, but he's been busy doing other things. I also was planning on debating JP Holding on it, but GODISONEPERSON had early dubs.

I've posted my debate challenge to you in the Coach's Quarters.

John Powell

[mickiel]

The scriptures says that their will be no end to Gods kingdom OR ITS GROWTH. Now either that means the territorical size of it will continue to expand forever, or the numerical amount of beings created will continue to always expand. I Personally agree dissagree with any finding from data that the earth is not the center of the universe. God can alter what any scientist find or influence their data. I believe wherever Gods throne is, that is the center of Gods universe, in some time up ahead, his throne will be located on earth. Therefore even if earth is not now the center, it is destined to be. Since Gods throne is located in "the north", i wouldnot be surprised if scientist instruments are showing data that suggest the center of the universe is "north". Gods throne may well be influencing their instruments.

[greyphilosophy]

So you believe we have a deceptive God?

[John Powell]

MICKIEL:
The scriptures says that their will be no end to Gods kingdom OR ITS GROWTH.


POWELL:
Which scripture(s) are you thinking of?

MICKIEL:
Now either that means the territorical size of it will continue to expand forever, or the numerical amount of beings created will continue to always expand.


POWELL:
Are those the only two choices? What if it means that the quality of the entities in the universe were to increase without end?

MICKIEL:
I Personally agree dissagree with any finding from data that the earth is not the center of the universe.


POWELL:
So which is it, agree or disagree?

What if the data were really good, would you still feel the same way?

MICKIEL:
God can alter what any scientist find or influence their data.


POWELL (thanks to Greyphilosophy for the idea):
Can your God lie?

MICKIEL:
I believe wherever Gods throne is, that is the center of Gods universe, in some time up ahead, his throne will be located on earth.


POWELL:
Why must it be at the center? Earthly thrones are essentially never at the exact center of the kingdom. Why should things be different with God? Is it because you think it would be perfect for God's throne to be at the center?

MICKIEL:
Therefore even if earth is not now the center, it is destined to be.


POWELL:
Does that mean that right now we're heading in the direction of the center of the universe? When do you think we'll get there? If you know that, perhaps you could determine where that center is right now. On the other hand, maybe you think God will just pick the Earth up when the time is right and move it instantly to wherever the center is.

MICKIEL:
Since Gods throne is located in "the north", i wouldnot be surprised if scientist instruments are showing data that suggest the center of the universe is "north". Gods throne may well be influencing their instruments.


POWELL:
What scripture are you referring to?

When you're at the north pole, MICKIEL, besides the ability to go up or down, can you go north, south, east or west?

John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

To be fair, I think Mickiel's idea that God's throne is in the middle of the universe and one day will be on earth is interesting. If the earth is traveling towards the center, then maybe when the earth reaches that point it will be judgement day? Perhaps the new heaven and new earth will be created in the center? Even if there is no evidence to support it, I applaud your idea because it would mean there is a parallel between physical location and metaphysical importance.

~Greyphilosophy

[mickiel]

The increase of his government shall be no end. I see this as a possible continual increase in population, not governmental laws, a perfected people do not need continual increase in laws.

Concerning Gods throne and its location being north, there are many scriptures, Psalms 48:1-2 is the most simplest and direct, it should suffice.

[greyphilosophy]

The north side of Mt. Zion slopes down towards Jerusalem. Jerusalem is also called the city of the great King (Matt 5:35). Does it not seem more likely that the psalmist was refering to Jerusalem?

If you don't mind me asking, what church do you belong to? (I might guess JW)

~Grey

[mickiel]

[QUOTE]Today @ 05:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98096#post98096)
greyphilosophy:

The north side of Mt. Zion slopes down towards Jerusalem. Jerusalem is also called the city of the great King (Matt 5:35). Does it not seem more likely that the psalmist was refering to Jerusalem?

Jerusalem types the kingdom of God when the bible speaks of it as a holy city, no city on earth is holy. The bible does not consider physical citys holy.. The events that occured in the city were holy. However here are a few more, Job 26:7, the north was there before anythingelse, which is what "the empty space " means. Even more dramitic, Isaiah 14:13, the location is given in plain direction. Lucifer is thinking of taking Gods throne, notice where he would be sitting if he susceeded, "in the recesses of the north", these should suffice, but if you need, there are still more.


If you don't mind me asking, what church do you belong to? (I might guess JW)

~I hold no intrest in churches at this time, but i do attend several places in Atlanta most of the time, but only because i know all of the people who attend these places, i do not share in their views. If there was a place that believed as i do, i most certainly would attend. I am a definite believer in church attendance, but , as you have seen, my beliefs isolate me, so i must go to places i really do not want to go, i just get tired of the loneliness.

[John Powell]

MICKIEL:
The scriptures says that their will be no end to Gods kingdom OR ITS GROWTH.

POWELL:
Which scripture(s) are you thinking of?

MIKIEL:
Isaiah 9:7

The increase of his government shall be no end. I see this as a possible continual increase in population, not governmental laws, a perfected people do not need continual increase in laws.


POWELL:
I see.

ISA 9:6-7 (KJV):
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

POWELL:
This appears to be saying that there is or will be a child upon whom the government authority of David will be given and whose government authority and peace will continue to increase to cover more and more of the Earth.

How do you see this child as referring to God? Is that because people will call him "The mighty God"? Just because someone calls you God doesn't make you one, does it? Also, how do you see this scripture indicating that the expanding empire applies to things beyond the Earth?

MIKIEL:
Concerning Gods throne and its location being north, there are many scriptures, Psalms 48:1-2 is the most simplest and direct, it should suffice.


POWELL:
I see.

Psalms 48:1-2 (KJV):
1 GREAT is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.

2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

POWELL:
This appears to be referring to mount Zion being to the north. Where do you get that this is saying that God's throne is in the north? Is that at the north pole or something?

You still didn't answer my question about being at the north pole, Mikiel.

Q. When you're at the north pole, MICKIEL, besides the ability to go up or down, can you go north, south, east or west?

John Powell

[mickiel]

Today @ 06:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98197#post98197)
John Powell:



POWELL:
I see.

ISA 9:6-7 (KJV):
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

POWELL:
This appears to be saying that there is or will be a child upon whom the government authority of David will be given and whose government authority and peace will continue to increase to cover more and more of the Earth.

How do you see this child as referring to God? Is that because people will call him "The mighty God"? Just because someone calls you God doesn't make you one, does it? Also, how do you see this scripture indicating that the expanding empire applies to things beyond the Earth?

If you do not see Jesus as being described in verse six, no amount of explination from me can assist you. The verse is self explinatory to one who can see it.



POWELL:
I see.

Psalms 48:1-2 (KJV):
1 GREAT is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.

2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

POWELL:
This appears to be referring to mount Zion being to the north. Where do you get that this is saying that God's throne is in the north? Is that at the north pole or something?

Perhaps Isaiah 14:12-17 will help you see. Lucifer is thinking of taking Gods throne, notice where he would have been if he would have succeeded, vs. 13, he would have been sitting on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north, a clear location of Gods throne.



You still didn't answer my question about being at the north pole, Mikiel.

Q. When you're at the north pole, MICKIEL, besides the ability to go up or down, can you go north, south, east or west?

John Powell

In my view no matter where an individual is located, you still can go in any direction, placement does not determine direction, or limit it unless barriers are included in your riddle.

[John Powell]

greyphilosophy:
The north side of Mt. Zion slopes down towards Jerusalem. Jerusalem is also called the city of the great King (Matt 5:35). Does it not seem more likely that the psalmist was refering to Jerusalem?

MIKIEL:
Jerusalem types the kingdom of God when the bible speaks of it as a holy city, no city on earth is holy. The bible does not consider physical citys holy.. The events that occured in the city were holy.

POWELL:
Really? What about the following?

Neh. 11: 1, 18 (KJV):
1 AND the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other cities.

18 All the Levites in the holy city were two hundred fourscore and four.

POWELL:
Evidently, Nehemiah considered Jerusalem to be the holy city.

MIKIEL:
However here are a few more, Job 26:7, the north was there before anythingelse, which is what "the empty space " means.


POWELL:
Ok

Job 26:7 (KJV):
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

POWELL:
This seems to be saying that God stretches some physical thing considered to be "the north" (the northern part of the dome of the Earth?) over an area that is empty. How can "north" exist before anything else? Did south appear later or something like that?

Evidently, the writer of Job figured the Earth must be hanging because it wasn't falling, but there wasn't anything visible to hang onto. God was performing a super magic trick, I guess, in the mind of the writer of Job.

MIKIEL:
Even more dramitic, Isaiah 14:13, the location is given in plain direction. Lucifer is thinking of taking Gods throne, notice where he would be sitting if he susceeded, "in the recesses of the north", these should suffice, but if you need, there are still more.


POWELL:
Ok. Let's check the context.

Isa 14:4 (KJV):
4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!


POWELL:
This appears to be a tirade against the king of Babylon and the golden city of Babyon.

Isa 14:5-8 (KJV):
5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.


POWELL:
This must be poetic unless you believe that cedars talk that way.

Isa 14:9-12 (KJV):
9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!


POWELL:
Some might think that Isaiah switched gears right here to say something about the devil, but that may not be the case.

Isa 14:13 (KJV):
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:


POWELL:
This is the verse Mikiel referred to. This seems to be chastising the king of Babylon for planning to sit on the mount of the congregation in the north. How do you get that this is referring to God's throne in heaven?

Isa 14:14-16 (KJV):
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;


POWELL:
This appears to be speaking of a man, the King of Babylon, not some spiritual being.

Isa 14:17-20 (KJV):
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.


POWELL:
This seems to be saying that while other kings were buried in glory, the King of Babylon won't.

Isa 14:21-23 (KJV):
21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.


POWELL:
It seems to still be talking about the King of Babylon and his city of Babylon.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Q. When you're at the north pole, MICKIEL, besides the ability to go up or down, can you go north, south, east or west?

MIKIEL:
In my view no matter where an individual is located, you still can go in any direction, placement does not determine direction, or limit it unless barriers are included in your riddle.


POWELL:
Thanks.

This question is to test your understanding of what "north" means. When you're at the north pole, Mikiel, the only direction on the surface of the Earth you can go is south. You can't go north, east, or west. All surface directions at that point are towards the south. The analogous thing is true about the south pole.

What's so special about north, Mikiel? Why isn't God's throne in the south, east, or west?

John Powell

[Socrates]

Dr Powell:You still don't seem to understand, Socrates. How much smaller and how much larger than the Sun would things begin to be unsuitable? In other words, what range of spectral types - luminosity classes would be acceptable? Is the Sun exceptional among those stars? No.Again, there's more to suitabililty than spectral type. And there is a comparatively narrow range of spectral types: if too blue, then the black body radiation spectrum would have too much high energy radiation for a planet in a zone at the right temperature range for liquid water. If too red , then a the corresponding zone around the star would be so close that it would be tidally locked. This refers to main sequence stars.

Dr Powell:I've already argued that galactic positional stability is not that important. Then write a letter to New Scientist because they argued that the co-rotation radius was an ideal feature of our son's position -- Chown, M., What a star! New Scientist 162(2192):17, 1999.

Dr Powell:Then the articles are wrong. The Sun is not "very" stable, as in unusually stable, for its spectral type. The Sun is typically stable for its spectral type. The Sun is ORDINARY, Socrates, probably like the majority of conditions of your life, like the city and home you live in, the car you drive, and the computer you use.Perhaps it's you who is wrong, or relying on outdated information. As the AiG article said, citing Seife, C., Thank our lucky star, New Scientist 161(2168):15, 1999.

But the sun turns out to be an ‘exceptionally stable’ star. Three astronomers recently studied single stars of the same size, brightness and composition of the sun. Almost all of them erupt about once a century in superflares 100 to 100 million times more powerful than the one that blacked out Quebec. If the sun were to erupt in such a superflare, it would destroy Earth’s ozone layer, with catastrophic results for life.

Note that even the titles of the articles indicate something special about our sun.

Dr Powell:Are you saying that a Dr. Faulkner agrees with me that the Sun is not EXCEPTIONALLY stable for its spectral type - luminosity class and agrees with me on the other things I claimed above and you believe him? No, obviously I meant that he agrees with me. BTW, from www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_faulkner.asp

Dr Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. & Ph.D. (Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster, where he teaches physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. -- see his university homepage for more details www.sc.edu/lancaster/faculty/faulkner

[mickiel]

Today @ 06:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98221#post98221)
John Powell:



POWELL:
Thanks.

This question is to test your understanding of what "north" means. When you're at the north pole, Mikiel, the only direction on the surface of the Earth you can go is south. You can't go north, east, or west. All surface directions at that point are towards the south. The analogous thing is true about the south pole.

I most certainly dissagree with this. I don't care where you place me on earth, i can always go in four directions, on your map it may be limited, but on my map its one of four directions i can walk.



What's so special about north, Mikiel? Why isn't God's throne in the south, east, or west?

I don't know.


John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

That's only true on a technicallity that there is a difference between true north and magnetic north, however if both true and magnetic north were in line, and so you were standing on an absolute north pole, there would be no further north you could go. Your compass would be useless except in helping you find the point you were standing on. There is a "northmost" point on the earth, and man has been there. Can you explain this?

[mickiel]

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98217#post98217)
John Powell:



POWELL:
Really? What about the following?

Neh. 11: 1, 18 (KJV):
1 AND the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other cities.

18 All the Levites in the holy city were two hundred fourscore and four.

POWELL:
Evidently, Nehemiah considered Jerusalem to be the holy city.



POWELL:
Ok

Job 26:7 (KJV):
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

POWELL:
This seems to be saying that God stretches some physical thing considered to be "the north" (the northern part of the dome of the Earth?) over an area that is empty. How can "north" exist before anything else? Did south appear later or something like that?

Evidently, the writer of Job figured the Earth must be hanging because it wasn't falling, but there wasn't anything visible to hang onto. God was performing a super magic trick, I guess, in the mind of the writer of Job.



POWELL:
Ok. Let's check the context.



POWELL:
This appears to be a tirade against the king of Babylon and the golden city of Babyon.



POWELL:
This must be poetic unless you believe that cedars talk that way.



POWELL:
Some might think that Isaiah switched gears right here to say something about the devil, but that may not be the case.



POWELL:
This is the verse Mikiel referred to. This seems to be chastising the king of Babylon for planning to sit on the mount of the congregation in the north. How do you get that this is referring to God's throne in heaven?



POWELL:
This appears to be speaking of a man, the King of Babylon, not some spiritual being.



POWELL:
This seems to be saying that while other kings were buried in glory, the King of Babylon won't.



POWELL:
It seems to still be talking about the King of Babylon and his city of Babylon.

John Powell

Leviticus 1:11, The offering is instructed to be slain on the north side of the alter because it would be before the Lord. In Ezk. 48:30-31, the north gates were named for the tribes of Isreal, In Ezk 8:1-5, a vision of glory is given, again toward the north is the direction. There are endless references like this in scripture, use your concordance, i cannot explain WHY, but to me the indications are clear, Gods throne is located in the north. I have studied this before, the scriptures are there for those who can see them.

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98244#post98244)
greyphilosophy:

That's only true on a technicallity that there is a difference between true north and magnetic north, however if both true and magnetic north were in line, and so you were standing on an absolute north pole, there would be no further north you could go. Your compass would be useless except in helping you find the point you were standing on. There is a "northmost" point on the earth, and man has been there. Can you explain this?

I do not know if you are asking me this, i just do not know. I am not a specialist in geography, i could be wrong in this area technically, but i'm sure one of these other guys knows.

[greyphilosophy]

The other guys are saying the same thing I think. Once you are at the north pole you cannot go any further north. It is the northern most point.

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98251#post98251)
greyphilosophy:

The other guys are saying the same thing I think. Once you are at the north pole you cannot go any further north. It is the northern most point.

I stand corrected in that area then. I truly didnot know that was possible. It seems to stand to reason that one could always go in any direction, i have never viewed the earth as flat, it seems impossible to reach a point where you cannot turn in another direction. But i am no scientist, nor an intellectual, perhaps this is above my ability to comprehend.

[greyphilosophy]

I'm sure this isn't above your head, just perhaps that you haven't thought about it before. It is true that you can always head in 4 directions no matter where you are, forwards, backwards, left, and right, however all of those directions are relative to the direction you are faceing. North, South, East, and West refer to directions towards certain points. North and South point to where the axis the earth rotates on touches the surface, East refers to the direction the sun rises (well I'm sure there is a more technical way of saying it) and West where it sets. Although you can always keep traveling east or west, north and south will lead you to two specific points, and once you reach one of those points no matter which way you go, you will be headed towards the other point.

If you still don't get it, take a ball and have it represent a globe. tape it to the floor or table so it doesn't roll away. Draw on the middle of one side of the ball a cross and place N at the top, S at the bottom, E on the right, and W on the left (gently or the ball will unstick itself). Now walk around to the other side of the ball and do the same thing. Now draw a line from the center of the crosses, through the N's, and keep going till you reach the top where the two lines should meet. You can label this junction the north pole. If you continue the line from there you will only find that you are going in the opposite direction of one of the north arrows. This is the northern most point.

You have some good ideas, and I hope that you do not get discouraged by us, but rather try to find a way of incorporateing the new facts you learn into your worldview.

Your brother in Christ,
~Grey

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98261#post98261)
greyphilosophy:

I'm sure this isn't above your head, just perhaps that you haven't thought about it before. It is true that you can always head in 4 directions no matter where you are, forwards, backwards, left, and right, however all of those directions are relative to the direction you are faceing. North, South, East, and West refer to directions towards certain points. North and South point to where the axis the earth rotates on touches the surface, East refers to the direction the sun rises (well I'm sure there is a more technical way of saying it) and West where it sets. Although you can always keep traveling east or west, north and south will lead you to two specific points, and once you reach one of those points no matter which way you go, you will be headed towards the other point.

If you still don't get it, take a ball and have it represent a globe. tape it to the floor or table so it doesn't roll away. Draw on the middle of one side of the ball a cross and place N at the top, S at the bottom, E on the right, and W on the left (gently or the ball will unstick itself). Now walk around to the other side of the ball and do the same thing. Now draw a line from the center of the crosses, through the N's, and keep going till you reach the top where the two lines should meet. You can label this junction the north pole. If you continue the line from there you will only find that you are going in the opposite direction of one of the north arrows. This is the northern most point.

You have some good ideas, and I hope that you do not get discouraged by us, but rather try to find a way of incorporateing the new facts you learn into your worldview.

Your brother in Christ,
~Grey

Thank you for the explination, i understand now. I am not discouraged by others, only at times of my own ignorance.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Ok Socrates, I guess I'll have to read those articles after all and possibly correspond with the authors.

I'll get back to you on this then.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I am fortunate that the four scientists quoted in those two New Scientist articles mentioned by Socrates have already responded to my email request. I'm waiting for permission to post their responses.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I now have the permission from all four scientists to post their emails so I will do that in the thread "Center of the Universe Emails."

John Powell