Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sean M's avatar

An argument based on "where is the reference point" is perfectly valid - especially given modern physics. I have never thought to revisit the heliocentrism argument from this perspective. Well played Ed.

Expand full comment
David B Hayes's avatar

On the Geocentrism point, you need a science update. Materialists tried for a long time to argue that the physical universe was finite and eternal (philosophically, something has to be infinite and eternal, and if it is not God, it must be matter). But modern science and the big bang theory proved that the material universe had a beginning, a finite size, and a possible ending. Also, Einstein made the rather technical argument that the universe could not be an infinite space with an even density of stars and galaxies because the infinite series that describes light coming to the earth from far away does not converge. If the material universe were truly infinite and had a constant density of shining matter, the night sky would be brighter than the sun instead of the 4 degree Kelvin afterimage of the big bang.

To modern physicists it looks like there is one finite material universe that started with a flash of light, the big bang, and that about 100 physical constants just happen to have absolutely values within small ranges that are absolutely necessary for life to exist, as if a super mind designed the universe.

Read about this and more in The Great Transformation: How Contemporary Science Harmonizes with the Spiritual Life. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Contemporary-Harmonizes-Spiritual/dp/B09GJFZ6QL

Expand full comment
15 more comments...
Latest

No posts