The Geocentrism Challenge

[his-servant-too]

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.

You can submit your "proofs" to our e-mail address cairomeo@aol.com. We will then offer a response. Both your "proof" and our response will be posted on the CAI science page at our website. If you do not want your actual name listed, we will change your name, but your contents will be posted. If you do not want either your name or your contents posted, then you are not eligible for a reply from CAI nor the $1,000 reward. CAI will be the sole judge of whether you have successfully proven your case. But since CAI is built on its reputation of honesty and truthfulness, rest assured that if you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money.

Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.

The $1,000 Challenge will go on indefinitely. So, if you're up for the challenge, take your best shot!

Some may be tempted to say, "Oh this silly. Everyone knows the earth goes around the sun. What is CAI trying to prove, anyway?! What difference does it make?" Well here's the long and short answer to that question. It directly effects how you view God, Scripture, the Church and Modern Man.

* It effects your view of Modern Man because if he is wrong about the two teachings he has proposed as fundamental to modern knowledge (Evolution and Heliocentrism) this suggests that many other things man believes about the world are suspect of falsehood. As we know, modern man has continually used the Copernican model and its variant forms (Galileo, Kepler, et al) in an effort to weaken both the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church to hold them accountable for the way they live their lives. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times: "We don't have to take the Bible literally because, as we all know, the sun doesn't go around the earth, but Scripture says it does. So why should I trust the Bible?"

If Scripture can be dismissed by claiming that it is mostly a collection of myths and fables from ignorant and primitive people; and if the Church can be faulted for siding with an aberrant view of cosmology; then modern man thinks he has found the ultimate excuse for relieving himself of being bound by either Scripture or the Church.

That is not all. If one examines the so-called "scientific proofs" for either Evolution or Heliocentrism, the proofs simply do not exist. Yet modern man, so desperate to find his excuses, has turned mere theories into "facts," and has thereby convinced the world that IT, not the Church or Scripture, is the king of truth.

* It effects your view of the Church because if it can be proven that, after the Church clung so tenaciously to the view that the sun revolves around the earth, but that now the Church finally has to admit she was wrong about one of its more authoritative teachings in the seventeenth century, this does not bode well for convincing modern man to abide by the Church's official teaching on ANY issue. Unfortunately, this is precisely the attitude we have seen from modern man. Man, because he has convinced himself that his "science" has turned Scripture into superstitious myths and fables; and the Church into a mere purveyor of the same; has become so cock-sure of himself in the little world he has created, that he not only has no need for God, he has attacked, and thinks he has destroyed, the very foundations of that belief. The modern Church, because she has been weak in fighting this issue, and indeed, ever since the days of George Terrell and Teilhard de Chardin has been infiltrated by free-thinking evolutionists, it totters to-and-fro, in one instance apologizing and condoning, and in other instances drawing back and distancing itself, resulting in no sure-footing for the world to rest upon. Meanwhile, a recent poll of young people in Europe reveals that 47% of them attribute their spiritual apathy to the difference between the theological and scientific explanations for the origin of the world. As for the Church's previous condemnations of Copernicanism and Galileo, here are the facts: The Inquisition of 1615 in Rome declared the position of Galileo to be "scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it" (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 6, p. 344). Following this was a decree from the Congregation of the Index on March 5, 1616, prohibiting various heretical works, and among them were those advocating the Copernican system. As for the Pope at that time, Paul V, "there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided" (Ibid, p. 344). To Galileo's dismay, the next Pope, Urban VIII, would not annul the judgment of the Inquisition. The Encyclopedia concludes: "That both these pontiffs [Paul V and Urban VIII] were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did" (Ibid, p. 345). So despite what anyone says, the Catholic Church has never endorsed the Copernican theory and no pope has ever annulled the decrees of Paul V or Urban VIII. The only thing the Church has done is apologized for the treatment of Galileo in a 1992 address by John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Science.

* It effects your view of Scripture. Scripture is very clear that the earth is stationary and that the sun, moon and stars revolve around it. (By the way, in case you're wondering, "flat-earthers" are not accepted here, since Scripture does not teach a flat earth, nor did the Fathers teach it). If there was only one or two places where the Geocentric teaching appeared in Scripture, one might have the license to say that those passages were just incidental and really didn't reflect the teaching of Scripture at large. But the fact is that Geocentrism permeates Scripture. Here are some of the more salient passages (Sirach 43:2-5; 43:9-10; 46:4; Psalm 19:5-7; 104:5; 104:19; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:5; 2 Kings 20:9-11; 2 Chronicles 32:24; Isaiah 38:7-8; Joshua 10:12-14; Judges 5:31; Job 9:7; Habakkuk 3:11; (1 Esdras 4:12); James 1:12). I could list many more, but I think these will suffice.

Now, of course, someone will immediately object: "Well, we don't have to interpret these passages literally." Says who? The Church has made no dogmatic teaching saying that we don't have to take these Scriptures literally. In fact, Leo XIII taught in Providentissimus Deus (1893) that, in the first instance, Scripture MUST be interpreted literally, unless there is some compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.

In fact, I find it quite puzzling that Catholics, who would die for a literal interpretation of the Scripture "This is my body" in Matthew 26:26; or "unless a man is born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5; or "upon this rock I will build my church" in Matthew 16:18; or "he who sins you shall forgive they are forgiven" in John 20:23, suddenly become so anti-literal when even clearer passages (i.e., those teaching Geocentrism) permeate Scripture. A common epithet foisted upon Catholics who disbelieve in Evolution and Heliocentrism is that they have "a Protestant mind-set," based on the prevailing opinion that some Protestants are known to read the Bible more literally. Yet isn't it ironic that to the Protestant mind it is the CATHOLIC who maintains the crassly literal interpretation of Scripture when, for example, passages such as Matthew 26:26 are interpreted by the Catholic Church to mean that we actually eat Jesus' body -- something absolutely repulsive to Protestants.

So it seems that the issues before us are not those revolving around whether one is Catholic or Protestant; rather, it's a matter of which Scriptures someone decides to interpret literally and which he decides not to interpret literally. Of course, that polarity leaves the whole thing wide open for discussion, which is precisely what we are seeking to do at CAI (except the passages that have been dogmatized by the Church).

* Finally, it also effects your view of God because God says that, even though for Him all things are possible (Matt 19:26), there is one thing that is absolutely impossible for Him: and that is to lie (Titus 1:2). Again, if we are to base our understanding of a passage, such as Matthew 26:26, on the precise literal meaning of Jesus' words because we believe that He actually said what He meant and could not lie to us, then why do some people find it so easy to read the above passages which speak about a stationary earth and a moving sun as mere figures of speech? The only reason is that people believe science has proven that the earth goes around the sun. If they are right then, of course, we would have to interpret those passages figuratively.

But the $64,000 question is: Are they right? Mind you, this cannot simply be a case of saying that the Heliocentric model works. Mathematically speaking, as several astronomers have told me, one could make Jupiter the center of the universe and work out a mathematical model in which all the motions of the heavenly bodies are accounted for, but a mathematical model is not necessarily reality (which is precisely the problem with modern science, since much of it is mere mathematical hypothesis, not necessarily physical reality).

The main question they have to answer is: Can it be proven, by direct and irrefutable scientific evidence, that the Heliocentric system is the ONLY viable system to understand the universe. I can safely tell you that the answer to that question is an unqualified NO, and thus I don't make the "CAI $1000 Challenge" lightly. Even the more astute heliocentric physicists have admitted as much. As the famous physicist Hans Reichenbach has said: "Here lies one of the reasons which led the scientists to accept the Copernican system, even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint, practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system" (From Copernicus to Einstein, p. 18). Hence, even if there is a possibility that the Heliocentric system is wrong and the Geocentric right, then it would behoove Scriptural exegetes to reserve their opinion on the passages of Scripture which teach Geocentrism, for science has not proven their case against them.

By the same token, did the Church seek advice and counsel from science when she, after interpreting Matthew 26:26, took a dogmatic stand on its literal meaning? Of course not, for science had nothing to offer in the way of irrefutable proof that Transubstantiation could not occur. In the same way, science has no irrefutable proof that the earth revolves around the sun, and this, in my opinion, demands a literal interpretation of the Geocentric passages in Scripture. If someday science can prove, irrefutably, that the earth indeed goes around the sun, then we will understand all those passages figuratively, but not until that time; and it is my opinion that we will NEVER have to do so.

If someone wants to argue that the Catholic Church takes Matthew 26:26 literally because the Tradition of the Church as far back as the early Fathers binds us to do so; well, the same can be said about Geocentrism, since all of the Fathers, without exception, were Geocentrists, even in the face of several Greek astronomers (Aristarchus of Samos; Heraclides of Pontus) who were already advocating Heliocentrism one thousand years before Copernicus.

So, if you're so inclined, take your best shot! We're laying our reputation on the line in order to bring this vital truth to the world, and we at CAI have the courage to do so.

Robert Sungenis

Catholic Apologetics International

May 7, 2002

Has anyone seen this?

[M45510G1C]

Yeh I've seen it. I doubt anyone is ever gonna collect on it tho as geocentricism isn't really falsifiable.

[nebula]

The evidence is all there - the problem is, anyone can take the evidence and find a way to disclaim it as evidence. I have seen it being done.

I say it's a scam.

[his-servant-too]

The evidence is all there - the problem is, anyone can take the evidence and find a way to disclaim it as evidence.  I have seen it being done.

I say it's a scam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're saying the earth does revolve around the sun?

[M45510G1C]

The evidence is all there - the problem is, anyone can take the evidence and find a way to disclaim it as evidence.  I have seen it being done.

I say it's a scam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeh, I've seen workable mathematical models which put Jupiter at the center of the universe. The problem is that we just don't have the means to prove this sort of thing beyond a doubt.

[Kansasdad]

WOW I have never heard of this. interesting.

Kansas Dad

[nebula]

So you're saying the earth does revolve around the sun?

I'm saying the evidence is there - but anyone can discredit it as evidence if they want to.

[Keith]

The situation could be reversed, too, couldn't it? They can't prove that the earth does not revolve around the sun.

[Guest Zayit]

Geocentrism in and of itself cannot be proven false and should be considered a religious or philosophic idea, not a scientific theory. If you build on this outward you can see how the thought of geocentrism can expand upon.

"As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,

so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...

situated in the centre of the world,

and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,

and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,

and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,

and the ark in the centre of the holy place,

and the foundation stone before the holy place,

because from it the world was founded."

Midrash Tanchuma, Qedoshim.

From the Book of Jubilees chapter 8 -

'Blessed be the Lord God of Shem

And may the Lord dwell in the dwelling of Shem.'

19 And he knew that the Garden of Eden is the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the Lord, and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert, and Mount Zion -the centre of the navel of the earth: these three

20 were created as holy places facing each other. And he blessed the God of gods, who had put the

21 word of the Lord into his mouth, and the Lord for evermore.

Interesting article

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v46/ai_19680322

[Bread_of_Life]

The supposed ambiguity that the Earth rotates around the Sun is caused by Einsteinian relativity - in which it is very difficult without being in an inertial frame to tell if one object is moving relative to another, or whether it's the other way round, or whether both objects are moving.

However, in this case, the problem is solved, because the earth is measurably accelerating - and acceleration is not a relative quantity - it can be measured without being in an inertial frame. If the earth is the body accelerating, then it is the body rotating. Problem solved.

Similarly, when you are in a trian carriage - is it the earth that's moving of you? How can you tell? What measurement could you make to prove it? The way to tell is, as the train accelerates, you can see the hanging hand rails tilt to one side, indicating acceleration. This tells you that it's you that is moving, not the earth.

The fact that geocentrism still exists (although at first I thought this was a joke) is testimony against the extreme literalist mindview when it comes to scientific endeavour - it is sad that some people would believe that the Sun rotates round the earth when plainly by all scientific discovery the opposite is true.