O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.(1 Timothy 6:20-21) NKJV
Logic, no matter how rigorous, breaks down when we speculate about something which we previously made up. Such as THE NARRATIVE we get from mainstream science for the origin of the universe (SciPop).
It begins from the starting point of having rejected the truth: God’s revealed testimony about our origin. In this case the logic is no longer deductive but inductive. This means that the premise, what you want to believe, is used to supply evidence for the conclusion. This is what we call SciPop.
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.– Inductive Reasoning, definition (Wikipedia)
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.– Matty’s Razor
Inducing Heliocentricity Part 1
The collective will of our society, referred to here as SciPop, decided to believe that the Earth orbits the sun. This is because of the corrupt nature of the human heart and our desire to be free of a righteous God of judgement. Nothing speaks so clearly that there’s a God of creation than to have a cosmological system where the Earth is at the center, especially when that’s an empirical observation. However, it’s easy to dismiss God if you can convince people that the Earth is an utterly insignificant speck among billions of insignificant specks.
Inductive Reasoning (example)
Science has a value for the mass of the sun of 1.9E+30 Kg. This number is calculated by assuming several things. We assume that we know:
- the mass of the earth,
- the earth / sun radial distance,
- the duration of the earth / sun orbit.
The calculation is a mathematical expression of the following logic:
How massive would the sun have to be in order to hold the earth (of known mass) in orbit (of known radius and duration)?– Newton’s and Kepler’s Laws
Therefore the mass of the sun is calculated by assuming heliocentricity which we didn’t prove, we chose to believe it. As such, the mass of the sun can’t be used as proof of heliocentricity, because that’s circular reasoning.
Using the same math but assuming Geocentrosphericity gives us a mass for the sun which is smaller by a factor of 9.87E-12 (Matty’s Constant).
Inducing Heliocentricity Part 2
One of the best examples of inductive reasoning in popular science is the use of stellar parallax to confirm that the Earth orbits the sun (heliocentricity). This is what we euphemistically refer to as Galileo’s bluff.
- Assumption of heliocentricity,
- the effect this has on stellar parallax,
- the arbitrary designation of stars as suns and galaxies.
Stellar parallax is measured at different times of the year when the Earth is on opposite sides of the sun. The assumption of heliocentricity is made before we make any observations. We can’t prove that the Earth is moving. We assumed that the Earth is moving then use this assumption to interpret our subsequent observations.
Galileo’s Inductive, Reductive Circular Reasoning
- Assuming the premise of heliocentricity,
- then earth will be on either side of the sun every six months.
- Using induction (not deduction because the premise, the assumption of heliocentricity, is used to supply evidence for the conclusion):
- the angle we measure to a star (parallax) should change during the course of a year,
- if the greatest difference should be when the earth is on either side of the sun,
- then measuring parallax six months apart should prove that the earth is moving (circular reasoning).
- IF the amount of parallax is so small that it can’t be measured, as Galileo found, we begin another circle of reasoning (reductive induction):
- assuming the lack of parallax is because stars are further away than we thought,
- and assuming stars are far enough away to explain the lack of parallax (circular reasoning),
- we induce, based on angular size, that they’re as large as the sun (or larger).
- Call upon the name of Jesus Christ,
- believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
- confess your sin.
Heliocentricity isn’t a conclusion which can be deduced. It’s an example of induction. The premise (heliocentricity) was used to interpret evidence in a way that appears to confirm that the Earth orbits the sun. This is also known as circular reasoning. The fact that this isn’t the only possible interpretation of the evidence is irrelevant, because our premise dictates what we believe the evidence can mean.
- By assuming heliocentricity we can use stellar parallax to confirm heliocentricity.
- We also assume that stars are distant suns and galaxies (synonymy).
- By assuming that stars are distant suns we can use the assumption of heliocentricity to calculate vastly inflated distances to them.
- The vastly inflated distances may be used with stellar spectroscopy to support the assumption of an ancient Earth (needed for biological evolution) as follows:
- spectra show that radioisotope ratios in stars match the ratios we measure on Earth,
- by assuming that the light has traveled for billions of years across the distances contrived by assuming heliocentricity,
- this supports the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay has been constant for billions of years.
The dangerous part is when the scientific community decides to ignore a blatant disregard for the application of logic. This is known as peer review and it means that the broad consensus of the scientific community can override any interpretation of evidence it finds to be inconvenient. An example is the use of Newtonian mathematics and Kepler’s Laws to calculate the mass of the sun (Part 1, above).
House of Serenity
Health and Wellness