Replies

Osiander, Schoenberg, and Copernicus all had an intro to the book. The one that called it "hypothetical" was Osianders. Copernicus wrote his own intro. We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's.

No, REASON says the Earth is stationery. See, here is where "historical perspective" is nice. Common sense and reason were simpatico 400+ years ago. Common sense said that the Earth didn't move, and reason, as they investigated it, concurred. The Earth doesn't feel like it is moving, all the heavenly bodies seem like the are, so REASON, if you just sit and stare, tends to indicate that you are right. But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong.

Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?

"Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?"

I am showing the hypocrisy of your position. You require of Galileo what you NEVER required of the Church: proof.

"No, REASON says the Earth is stationery."

No, you are confusing common sense with reason.

"But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong."

Galileo did though, and reason showed he was right (if you stand by the above statement).

"We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's."

Which said, contrary to Copernicus' position, that the model presented was not physically real.