Thursday, January 30, 2014

How A Heliocentrist Views "The Principle"

In a world of rational thinkers, this would be the kind of response which would characterize the discussion.

In the bubble world of the Self Appointed Ecclesiastical KGB Posse, it is entirely absent.

"The Principle" is every bit as dangerous to the Posse as they desperately want to persuade you it is.

They are right.

The evidence is astonishing, and rapidly mounting, that the Copernican Principle- the foundational metaphysical assumption about reality which lies at the foundation of our modern scientific world view- is wrong.

It does not adequately express the reality we observe around us.

Does this, in itself, prove geocentrism is true?


It does not.

It does, however, establish that the ancient Catholic cosmology is, in important ways, a more truthful representation of reality, of the way things really are, than is the current Big Bang scientific creation myth.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. This was part of a post that Karl Keating made on facebook a few days ago:

    "Tardiores appeals to me at the moment because, for the last several weeks, on this Facebook page I've been engaging with people who have jumped onto the geocentrism bandwagon without giving geocentrism much thought.

    They see someone say, "Science can't tell us what the center of our planetary system is, let alone the center of the universe, so let's just go with the idea that the Earth is that center, since anything could be, and let's conclude further that the Earth is motionless and doesn't even rotate."

    These people respond: "Hey, sounds good to us!", and that's as far as they think it through--which is to say, not far at all.

    Then, when you lay before them problems that blow geocentrism to smithereens--such as the question of how geostationary satellites maintain their positions if the Earth doesn't rotate--they don't even see a problem. They're slow to take a critical stance vis-à-vis geocentrism".

    Poor poor Karl Keating, so desperately trying to scrounge up any argument to bolster your position. If you had any sense at all, you'd know that your attempts to derail geocentrists are truly and embarrassingly pathetic. If you had even the slightest knowledge of science, you would know that the reason to think that the Earth is the center of the universe is the fact that the center of mass doesn't move, and that all of the empirical evidence from experiments conducted shows that the earth isn't moving. So it's not merely that we are just going with the idea that the earth is at the center, and just merely concluding that it is motionless. You really need to do your homework before you open your mouth. Actually your mouth is better described as a "shit cannon". Oh and Karl, if you had so much as done a little homework before you started firing your shit cannon, you would know that the question of how geostationary satellites maintain their positions does not "blow geocentrism to smithereens". You are ignorant of the fact that everything is geometrically the same in the geocentric system, and it would require the exact same force laws to get those satellites where they are, the same distance, etc. If you had actually read Bob's book, you would know that. Every argument, Karl, that you pretend to know the science behind, has been addressed and refuted. If you want to so much as even compete with geocentrism, your gonna have to keep up with the arguments, because you are WAY behind. A good place to start would be by reading Bob's books. I know your scared to do so, despite all your excuses for not reading them. But the real reason you are not reading them is because you, to put it bluntly, just don't have the balls to do so. You really should just stop trying Karl, you are embarrassing yourself each and every time you post little desperate arguments like this. Actually, wait, I changed my mind. Don't stop trying, because the more you try, the more you will be humiliated in the future when everyone realizes how stupid you are. That is something you deserve. We are not "slow to take a critical stance vis-à-vis geocentrism". You are just slow to actually do your homework and keep your mouth shut, opening it only when you can back it up.

  3. The disturbing thing is that Karl is quite aware of the debate between Mark Wyatt and Gary Hoge.
    The debate not only shows the weakness of the geostationary satellite argument, it shows how much thought and consideration is typically applied before someone becomes a geocentrist. So on both fronts it is not just a case of ignorance. He is simply lying.

    1. You are quite right, Alex. I personally shared this link with Karl back before he locked me out of his FB page so he could continue to embarrass himself without the inconvenience of a knowledgeable opponent.

      Be nice if someone could get on there and screenshot the debate (both Shea and Palm showed up, and Palm eventually had to admit that Keating was wrong).

  4. The most baffling thing about all this is Shea & supposedly Keating's excuse to not read GWW or tackle the arguments made. Shea waved this away as claiming that he doesn't need to delve into every nutty conspiracy theory, or read Dan Brown, or watch documentaries like Zeitgeist to deal with arguing against the claims made in these things, he automatically knows it's bunk before even approaching it.

    But they should! Because clearly other people will be reading these conspiracy books, or reading Dan Brown or watching Zeitgeist, and if these people are going to be led away into error, then we are obligated to refute these things in as much detail as possible for the sake of saving souls.

    Understandably, nobody has all the time in the world to devote to every single thing; however for Shea and Keating, IT'S THEIR JOB! They make a living as Apologists! And part of that job is to examine and if necessary repeat and refute the same things over and over again in all their different forms from whatever different sources no matter how nutty they think it is or tiring it becomes. So if GWW or the Principle, according to them, teaches erroneous things, and a significant amount of people are likely to be swayed by it, then all the more necessary would it be for Shea and Keating to prioritize Geocentrism and read GWW and watch The Principle in order to make a detailed criticism of it for the sake of informing others.

    But they are not willing to do that, which not only shows laziness on their part, and irresponsibility of their position, but also suggests intellectual dishonesty. It imitates their very own atheistic or Protestant opponents who might declare that they don't need to study a book on Church History or read the Fathers or read the Bible or study philosophy thoroughly to know the Catholic Church is a false religion which Popes have been making up. They don't need to delve into any proofs of God's existence because they already know that God doesn't exist and Christ never rose from the dead. They've already decided in their own minds what is truth and refuse to look at anything that threatens their worldview.

    So if Shea and Keating take their work and mission seriously then they will have to get their hands dirty and earn their bread by examining every aspect of Geocentrism. It's sad to see them reducing themselves to this level, especially because I personally owe it to people like Karl Keating and his website and its forums for helping me understand the Catholic faith better back in the day. They are still great resources for the average Catholic. However, overtime I have noticed a tendency to tow some official 'party-line' stances with regards to not talking about particular issues on their website and forums and white-washing away certain stories. Basically any controversy that threatens some establishment or points out potential corruption or dishonesty on the part of Church Leaders or puts the Church in a bad light, even though it is a justifiable one, is downplayed or ignored or locked before it goes any further.

    It is really too bad. But the way they are acting and what they are saying totally betrays their ignorance on the topic, and their further refusal to consider it seriously isn't scoring them any points and only seeks to undermine the other good work that they do. I pray that they will both come around to it. I know what it is like to be closed minded, high on my ignorant horse, and to be utterly led astray by the machinations of the modern world. I was once that very person.

    1. Amen! You nailed it. Couldn't have stated it better!

  5. I don't read Mark Shea because I have no time for cafeteria Catholics, or those who think women's ordination is just around the corner, and that gay marriage is a choice between two adults.
    Is this true? No. I just don't like Shea, so I associated him with anti-Catholic groups to discredit him. Is this unfair? Yes. Then why does Shea play the same game when he associates Geocentrists with conspiracy nuts and neo-nazis?

  6. Here's a little something, though slightly unrelated. On Tuesday there was a big public debate between Protestant Creationist Ken Ham and evolutionary agnostic Bill Nye with concern to whether or not the Creation model was viable for science.

    It's a fairly good one worth watching though I think Ham could've done a better job. And perhaps if he were grounded in Catholic intellectual theology he could've undoubtedly done it better.

    Anyway, at 1 hour 20 mins in during Nye's presentation he talks about Hubble, the expansion of the universe, the Big Bang and the 'prediction' of the CMB, and this he uses throughout and later on at 1h44m & 1h55m as his defense of a successful model of naturalist science.

    I wonder how Mr. Nye would react to Geocentrism and your film. : P

  7. I did not watch the debate, but I would agree that both participants would benefit greatly from a Catholic metaphysics.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Yes, the picture does not accurately present the modern geocentric view. You are correct; the modern geocentric theorists, with no exception at all of which I am aware, have adopted some development of the Tychonic system you describe.

  10. Sorry, I wanted to edit my comment, and the only way I could do that was to delete it. My OCD just won't allow me to leave a comment with bad grammar. Only after I deleted the comment did your response become visible to me. Here is my question again, just so your blog comments make sense. :-)

    In the linked to article, does the picture at the top misrepresent the Geocentric view of our solar system? I have so far been under the impression that according to the Geocentric model, while the sun revolves around the earth, the other planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. Is that correct?