Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28212 times)

Tradman · « **Reply #105 on:** October 19, 2023, 02:08:16 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on October 19, 2023, 12:32:49 PM

The existence of the Earth is also a necessary component of heliocentrism. Who decides which details are implicitly included and which aren't?

The existence of earth doesn't depend on it being a globe so your sentence doesn't compute. In determining what is included or not, I'm just looking at what the Church said. I think it would be hard to prove the globe wasn't included in the condemnation when the words of the Holy Office used were: ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture’. Do you really think their words show intention to maintain some of Pythagorean doctrine? Doesn't appear Church authorities had any exemptions in mind. Even though the condemnation didn't specifically include or exclude the globe, they called Pythagorean doctrine (of the globe), false altogether. Again, just reading the words.

Jaynek · « **Reply #106 on:** October 19, 2023, 02:12:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2023, 06:42:18 AM

So this idea of a ball floating around the vacuum of space at no point entered the minds of any Church Fathers, despite the fact that some try to read it into them.

As I recall, the idea of "vacuum of space" was not part of secular science then either. They (secular thinkers) generally thought the earth was a sphere nested inside a series of other spheres which held the heavenly bodies. Some of the Church Fathers, if not all, would have been familiar with this model. According to Pliny, even uneducated people were aware that the earth is a sphere.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #107 on:** October 19, 2023, 02:20:06 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2023, 02:12:20 PM

They generally thought the earth was a sphere nested inside a series of other spheres ...

Bullshit. Now you're showing your complete dishonesty. Church Fathers unanimously believed that the WORLD was a sphere (including the firmament) and that it was suspended in water (or at the bottom and covered by water). Most of them followed the Hebrew cosmology (since it's rooted in Sacred Scripture), and not the pagan / Pythagorean system.

Jaynek · « **Reply #108 on:** October 19, 2023, 02:27:51 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2023, 02:20:06 PM

Bullshit. Now you're showing your complete dishonesty. Church Fathers unanimously believed that the WORLD was a sphere (including the firmament) and that it was suspended in water (or at the bottom and covered by water).

I am not sure why you thought the word "they" in my post referred to Church Fathers. After seeing your misunderstanding I modified my post to make it even clearer.

I did this after seeing the first version of the above, which was merely the word "bullshit". I'm not sure I would have thought it worth responding to you if I had seen your false accusation of dishonesty.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #109 on:** October 19, 2023, 03:12:01 PM »

Quote

However, in the case of the writings attributed to Enoch, a consensus that he was not the author

It was determined that Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents (by the Jews) which were lost during the destruction of Jerusalem. The original, pre-Jerusalem-destruction-book-of-Enoch was considered inspired by the OT Jєωιѕн religion.

Tradman · « **Reply #110 on:** October 19, 2023, 03:42:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 19, 2023, 03:12:01 PM

It was determined that Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents (by the Jєωs) which were lost during the destruction of Jerusalem. The original, pre-Jerusalem-destruction-book-of-Enoch was considered inspired by the OT Jєωιѕн religion.

Just wondering, who determined Enoch was not the author of the "found" docuмents? Are we talking about the famous ones found in the 40's? Also,
what about docuмents of Enoch's in which the Vatican is in possession? Do you have more information?

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #111 on:** October 20, 2023, 06:33:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2023, 10:54:43 AM

No, it didn't come up. They were specifically examining Sacred Scripture and the Fathers with regard to the contention that the earth moved. Regardless, no determination was made regarding the shape of the earth ... one way or the other.

They probably should have looked into it, as the Church Fathers were unanimous that there was a physical firmament that kept physical waters off the earth ... as is clearly found in Sacred Scripture.

What I’m suggesting is that, to me, it’s impossible to believe that the Earth’s shape didn’t come up since the Earth was certainly the central object in the controversy. This of course is assuming that the common opinion at the time was that the Earth was actually flat or variation there of.

You can even hear Saint Robert Bellarmine, the pope, and the trial judges saying, ‘this nut Galileo believes that the Earth is some sort of ball!!! Do you believe it’?

Now, if the common opinion was that the Earth was in fact a globe, then yes, it’s shape wouldn’t have been contested and thus not have been discussed and I would agree with you on this point.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #112 on:** October 20, 2023, 07:07:48 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 20, 2023, 06:33:08 AM

What I’m suggesting is that, to me, it’s impossible to believe that the Earth’s shape didn’t come up since the Earth was certainly the central object in the controversy. This of course is assuming that the common opinion at the time was that the Earth was actually flat or variation there of.

You can even hear Saint Robert Bellarmine, the pope, and the trial judges saying, ‘this nut Galileo believes that the Earth is some sort of ball!!! Do you believe it’?

Now, if the common opinion was that the Earth was in fact a globe, then yes, it’s shape wouldn’t have been contested and thus not have been discussed and I would agree with you on this point.

For whatever reason, the subject didn't come up. Could simply have been that Galileo's focus was in the skies, and not on the earth and it wasn't a point of emphasis in his various writings. Typically the Holy Office investigates only actual statements made by an individual and don't deal with broader doctrinal questions (which is usually addressed directly by popes). Holy Office responds to specific cases rather than general doctrinal questions.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #113 on:** October 20, 2023, 01:43:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 20, 2023, 07:07:48 AM

For whatever reason, the subject came up. Could simply have been that Galileo's focus was in the skies, and not on the earth and it wasn't a point of emphasis in his various writings. Typically the Holy Office investigates only actual statements made by an individual and don't deal with broader doctrinal questions (which is usually addressed directly by popes). Holy Office responds to specific cases rather than general doctrinal questions.

I think you meant: “the subject didn’t come up”?

Are you saying that it is *possible* that Galileo wasn’t convinced that the Earth was a globe and ultimately it had no bearing on his heliocentric theory? If so, I think that it’s almost impossible to believe.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #114 on:** October 20, 2023, 02:11:35 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 20, 2023, 01:43:30 PM

I think you meant: “the subject didn’t come up”?

Are you saying that it is *possible* that Galileo wasn’t convinced that the Earth was a globe and ultimately it had no bearing on his heliocentric theory? If so, I think that it’s almost impossible to believe.

Right, that was a typo. I'm sure Galileo thought the earth was a globe, but I doubt it came up in his works. He probably simply assumed it. How many people who write about astronomy today even discuss the shape of the earth? They simply take it for granted, and I imagine did as well, so I doubt there was mention of it in any of his writings. Unless one is arguing with a Flat Earther, how many times would a modern astronomer even explicitly make the assertion, the statement "the earth is a globe". They just assume this and take it for granted, and then start talking about quasars, nebulae, etc. And if he barely if ever mentioned it in his works, it's not something the Holy Office would bother to address, since they only address concrete propositions.

Tradman · « **Reply #115 on:** October 20, 2023, 02:31:48 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 20, 2023, 01:43:30 PM

I think you meant: “the subject didn’t come up”?

Are you saying that it is *possible* that Galileo wasn’t convinced that the Earth was a globe and ultimately it had no bearing on his heliocentric theory? If so, I think that it’s almost impossible to believe.

I know this question was for Ladislaus, and he can handle his own responses, but I wanted to respond as well. The subject of the globe did come up. We have Inchofer, the bishop who assessed and recorded everything, in Galileo trial, the 6th argument against Galileo, regarding the "Great Orb", with water on the outside. They are talking about how the globe doesn't work with the firmament, it's movement, the water outside, etc. Now, you may have passed that up because it didn't say globe earth or flat earth or whatever, but is was an argument against Galileo. Now, you may ask, why wasn't it specifically condemned then? There was no reason to do so because they were going to throw the entire Pythagorean Doctrine out based on moving earth, no doubt, a much easier task. And thirdly, there's no doubt Church authorities were disgusted with Copernicus' petty jab at a Father of the Church, a fellow bishop and a man with which they all agreed, because Lanctantius rejected the globe as ridiculous. I don't think they agreed with Galileo who agreed with Copernicus earth was a globe, against someone they greatly respected, a pillar of the Church who thought it was stupid. I've again provided the three sources from the AA Martinez Burned Alive because given any consideration, they speak for themselves.

Sixth Argument against heliocentrism in the Galileo docuмents, Inchofer

According to Genesis 1, there are waters in heaven above the firmament and beneath it. ‘Therefore the Earth’s Water is not contained only in the solidity of the Earth, and consequently the natural place of the Earth is not the centre, but possibly, outside it and carried in circular motion in a Great Orb.’

pg217
Antipodes

Inchofer cited Lactantius and Augustine for having criticized the theory of the antipodes. In City of God, Augustine denied the antipodes as a ‘fable’ that had not been proved, because, he said, even if the Earth indeed were spherical, one would have to prove that it has lands throughout, not just bare waters, plus, one would have to prove that there were people there, and descended from Adam.224 Augustine preferred biblical and historical evidence over scientific conjectures. Similarly, Inchofer argued that the Earth’s motion was imaginary and false.

pg 23 (view of Lactanctius)

In this preface, Copernicus also took the opportunity to criticize those who stupidly argued about mathematical topics without understanding them. In this connection, he briefly criticized Lactantius, an ancient Christian authority, noting that although he was a celebrated writer, he was not a mathematician. Copernicus complained that Lactantius spoke in a childish way about the shape of the Earth, in saying that it is ‘ridiculous’ that its shape is spherical.2

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #116 on:** October 20, 2023, 03:45:41 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on October 20, 2023, 02:31:48 PM

I know this question was for Ladislaus, and he can handle his own responses, but I wanted to respond as well. The subject of the globe did come up. We have Inchofer, the bishop who assessed and recorded everything, in Galileo trial, the 6th argument against Galileo, regarding the "Great Orb", with water on the outside. They are talking about how the globe doesn't work with the firmament, it's movement, the water outside, etc. Now, you may have passed that up because it didn't say globe earth or flat earth or whatever, but is was an argument against Galileo.

Thanks for this, but I counter that this doesn’t necessarily make an argument against the geocentric model with a global Earth. It seems that the prosecutors are just pointing out how the Earth must be (tentatively?) motionless in order to keep stability.

First you write: “They are talking about how the globe doesn’t work the firmament” then you write: “you may have passed that up because it didn't say globe earth or flat earth or whatever”. Did they mention a globe or not? Can you give me the reference or direct me to the specific citation.

So I still contend that it was believed by all learned men at the time that the Earth was a globe and not flat or a “snow globe” type design.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #117 on:** October 20, 2023, 04:31:14 PM »

Quote

I'm sure Galileo thought the earth was a globe, but I doubt it came up in his works.

Anyone that believes in heliocentrism HAS to believe the earth is a globe, or else how can the earth spin through space and orbit the sun? You have to reduce the earth to a planet-shape, like all the others.

Heliocentrism is a DIRECT attack on catholic scripture and it’s implied philosophy of the earth being the center of the universe, which Christ Redeemed.

A globe earth does not pose as many problems, doctrinally or philosophically, though some issues still remain. If Galileo had simply posited the earth was a globe, I doubt the Church would’ve gotten involved.

Tradman · « **Reply #118 on:** October 20, 2023, 06:05:51 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 20, 2023, 03:45:41 PM

Thanks for this, but I counter that this doesn’t necessarily make an argument against the geocentric model with a global Earth. It seems that the prosecutors are just pointing out how the Earth must be (tentatively?) motionless in order to keep stability.

First you write: “They are talking about how the globe doesn’t work the firmament” then you write: “you may have passed that up because it didn't say globe earth or flat earth or whatever”. Did they mention a globe or not? Can you give me the reference or direct me to the specific citation.

So I still contend that it was believed by all learned men at the time that the Earth was a globe and not flat or a “snow globe” type design.

Thanks for this honest treatment of the subject. It's a rare thing to see someone bother.

Let's first discuss our individual positions. You assume everyone thought earth was a globe. I don't think they did. The reason being, the long time assumption was the Hebrew concept of the universe/cosmos was accepted by Christendom. Heaven above, earth in the middle under the firmament, and hell below. The Fathers bear this out in their arguments against the pagans throughout history. But we're discussing this matter so lets finish that. The reason I bring this up is that your assumption will color your ability to determine what is being said. Let's look at the details.

They mentioned the globe, but said it like this, ' carried in circular motion in a Great Orb'. The words before this are a complaining that earth is no longer at the center in Galileo's theory, not fixed, but is a globe circling (orb). Remember, they have long defended the Hebrew cosmology as described above. No doubt they've heard this globe argument, it's not like it hasn't been long debated. The interesting thing is they are talking about it, and it winds up as the 6th argument against Galileo. I understand that you're saying about it being a moving globe as opposed to a fixed globe, but again, that's because you assume they "knew it was a globe", just not moving.

Then we see they discuss Augustine who denied the antipodes as a ‘fable’ because, he said, even if the Earth indeed were spherical, and he gives the conditions that he says must work if the earth is spherical. First, Augustine's statement says, "even if the Earth were spherical" shows it was not really accepted. Augustine's conditions were: one would have to prove that it has lands throughout, not just bare waters (their understanding is that earth sits upon water so what's the point if there's no land). This also proves they do not accept the globe because they don't even understand how it would work. The statement continues: one would have to prove that there were people there (which doesn't make sense to them obviously), and descended from Adam.224 Then it says, "Augustine preferred biblical and historical evidence over scientific conjectures," showing he didn't buy it, which is verified by Leo Ferrari in his book about Augustine.

Now let me add some things. AA Martinez has only skimmed the surface of this subject because he is a globe believer. There's no way he is pulling entire statements with the information we need to really know what they were saying in all instances because he isn't even looking for it. He too thinks everyone believed earth is a globe. However, even Martinez concludes Augustine rejected the globe because he preferred biblical and historical evidence. It's not possible the Galileo trial Church authorities accepted the globe (although they generously appear to consider it) because it doesn't fit with Scripture. And also because Augustine rejected it. And he rejected 'scientific conjecture', the same thing they are facing in this trial.

They are aware of the potshot by Copernicus against Lactantius, who also didn't believe earth is a globe. With two Fathers of the Church, in these statements alone, we can determine they didn't really believe earth is a globe, favoring the Fathers. Ultimately, we have many more Fathers and saints and typology and Scripture to prove the globe was not accepted by Catholics, even if it was working it's way into the system slowly but surely.

I'm not sure I addressed your concerns but I'm trying to get to the truth and this is what I see.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #119 on:** October 20, 2023, 06:24:27 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2023, 04:31:14 PM

Anyone that believes in heliocentrism HAS to believe the earth is a globe, or else how can the earth spin through space and orbit the sun? You have to reduce the earth to a planet-shape, like all the others.

Well, in theory, you could hold that the earth is a globe in the sense of a snow globe and somehow moves around the sun ... but I doubt anyone actually held that.

Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28212 times)

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Pax Vobis

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat

Pax Vobis

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Ladislaus

Re: The Earth is Flat