Replies

"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.

Why should the Church have to prove that which had been accepted and "proven" for nearly 1500 years? The burden of proof was on Galileo, as he was challenging the scientific standard.

--Reason:
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
--Common Sense;
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment

So, 500+ years ago, if I were to logically, rationally, and analytically think about it, it would seem that the Earth didn't move; Common sense would back up that assertion, as I don't feel like I am moving, and the Earth doesn't show it, so it must be that I am still. Again, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE is useful...

Galileo peered through a telescope, right. Then when he was challenged, he offered no concrete evidence, something which would have been helpful, to say the least, as it flies in the face of REASON and COMMON SENSE that he was right, not to mention it was contrary to 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific knowledge. Now, if he had said look, this telescope backs me up, as does this and this, and this law of Gravity that Newton will develop in 100 years, and this idea about orbits Kepler has already developed &c... we'd not be having this discussion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said it so simply--a telescope alone does not do the trick because you can't see the Earth moving, you can see everything around the Earth moving. Reason would say, OK, this is compelling, I wonder what other evidence I can find.

Again, GALILEO WAS RIGHT--he was not wrong in his Copernican assertion. The ONLY issue I see here, and the only thing with which I have a problem is that you seem to think he should have been showered with accolades for NOT proving his assertion--he made a compelling case, but not until Newton 100 years later and parallaxes &c even later was he DEFINITIVELY vindicated. He submitted himself to the Church's authority, so that is a non-issue. He was criticized by his fellow scientists. He had not presented sufficient evidence to overturn 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific "fact". Why do you require the Church prove that which had already been "proven"?