"Since a stationary Earth is THE foundational creation fact in the Bible, it is also the taproot of Bible credibility! Along with the creation of all biological life and mankind which followed, God's creation of an immovable, stationary Earth constitutes the basis - the taproot - for His "tree of knowledge" with its trunk  (the creation of mankind) and all its limbs and branches. Satan knows that if he can kill this taproot - this foundational knowledge - with pseudo-science this would cause the whole "tree of knowledge" to wither and die in time. That's why he started there first!"  Marshall Hall     

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                              Statement: 

"To beg the question: to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume as proven the very thing one is trying to prove. Example - to pass over or ignore the question of 'Is the Earth moving?' by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume that the Earth is moving when trying to disprove that the Earth is NOT moving."

                                                                  Response(s) by Allen Daves: 

1: "Excellent. Since there is no observation or experience that the Earth is moving without assuming that the Earth is indeed moving (begging the question) therefore the only logical course to begin from is a model of the Earth absent of any movement and then attempt to prove or demonstrate movement, if any. Of course all the experiments, without begging the question, would lead one to the conclusion that the Earth is in fact not in motion. It is only via the assumption of its movement, which was never demonstrated to begin with, that one can even begin to explain away the observations and experience that are consistent with the only logical positions to start from, namely that the Earth is without any demonstrable motion. Therefore to assume that the Earth does in fact move is to build upon a foundation of sand and to suggest that it is or must be moving because it could be in some theoretical or imaginary framework, and then to call it science, is not only a circular fallacy but is, well...... quite silly!" 

2: The whole concept of larger objects going around smaller objects begs the question without knowledge of what and where the center of mass for all the objects in question (the universe) is in the first place. You must start with what you have not with what you imagine. To start with a model with no motion of the Earth is not a proof for or against Earth motion nor does it assume anything. It is the only logical position from which to begin the experimental and theoretical process necessary to ascertain any proof for or against. The model itself is not proof, it is only a premise or foundation for the discovery process. As stated many times one must logically  begin with what you have not with what you do not have, and since proof for motion is the question, any model that assumes motion or interprets the data in terms of motion that is used to support or build upon a case for motion is a circular fallacy. Whereas taking observations and conducting experiments with no assumptions of motion is simply beginning with what you have. What you have does not include any argument or justification  for incorporating that idea into ones interpretations of observations. To look out and see other objects in the heavens move does not tell you what is absolute motion, or what or whether or not you would and could feel/detect those motions if you were there...... and since you are not there...... think about that for a while.  

3a: We woke up in a world where things appear to move around us. We had and have no sensation of movement itself. That is where this whole question of the Earth's movement must and did begin...... "everything moving around me." From that point a process of observation and experiment then proceeds to ascertain what is and what is not moving. Well, those experiments which were conducted to make that distinction did show that the Earth is indeed NOT moving. The observations of mass centered on the Earth also promote the Earth's centrality of that position as well. You cannot interpret those observations and experiments in light of a heliocentric framework because that is what those experiments and observations are all about. This is your circular fallacy...... Those who developed and conducted those experiments and observations were not    assuming an Earth-centered universe, but those experiments showed just the opposite of what was        expected...... (They invoked a circular fallacy when they "re-interpreted" the results, with exotic wishful theories, after performing them, to fit their assumptions about Earth's motions).

An Earth not in motion is exactly what those experiments showed, and the only thing that those observations demonstrate, without invoking circular fallacies about the Earth's movement first. It amazes me that you cannot see just how ridiculous your argument is and the fact that the only way to even begin to interpret data as consistent with the heliocentric theory is to assume that heliocentricity is preferred. There has been no experiment conducted on Earth with regard to gravity or any other theory that demonstrates anything other than what the initial observations and experiments show. They do not show things moving around you without invoking the heliocentric circular fallacy first.  

3b: Heliocentricity is not logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you do not have is real. Your position makes no sense without assuming that heliocentricity is preferred first...... which is what everything that led up to and including today's model of heliocentricity was developed to prove in the first place. The problem is that nothing ever did prove heliocentricity without assuming that heliocentricity was the preferred conclusion to begin with, which is what it is trying to prove! Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness? Until you have observations and experience for Earth's movement your position is as plausible as aliens and abductions...... thus we should build our lives around the "fact" that they are the most reasonable and plausible explanation for all unknown phenomena!? Your arguments and examples are in fact examples, not of heliocentricity's plausibility, but rather foolishness of the highest order. Demonstrate or concede but don't use Geocentrism's evidence for heliocentricity by begging the question that heliocentricity is preferred...... because until you have that evidence for heliocentricity all the evidence supports Geocentrism without assuming anything. Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement. All subsequent observations and experiments have been consistent with no movement of the Earth and not one has shown itself to be for heliocentricity without assuming heliocentricity is preferred first, which is the question you beg and the circular fallacy you without fail, must invoke!  

4a: If you are going to appeal to observation and experiment as the solid foundation of "reasoning the issue out" then you can't appeal to theory when observation and experiment do not support that position. Theories about the aether are irrelevant. What is observed and experimentally verified, as so far as it has been conducted in every case attempted, is that relative motion can be easily distinguished from absolute motion via the effects that motion has on light in every case ever observed or performed. There is no other logical conclusion based on observation and experiment that can be logically concluded without imagining and/or assuming some other construct first, without having observational or experimental support for such a thing. You keep invoking circular fallacies and attempting to justify them via your theories and "it could" but when someone points out that it could just as well mean something else you appeal to "observations". Which is it? If you bother to think about it for any length of time you will see that in either case, theory or observation, Geocentrism is the only position that has all the possible and logically sound arguments based on what is available/observed in the past and present. Whereas heliocentricity is built on what is not observed or experienced. As for illusions, that position only makes any sense whatsoever if you have a justification for "it's an illusion" otherwise this conversation itself could just be an illusion! To say that, "it could", therefore that is the most reasonable explanation is ridiculous as well as circular. The universe does not behave disorderly unless you assume that first - that is a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and Geocentrism. When we look out we can see some smaller objects orbiting larger objects but we do not see all smaller objects orbiting the larger objects. All assertions to that fact do assume that to be the case. However, I see the sun circling me, I do not see me circling the sun without assuming that is what is really going on first. As for experiments and observations here on Earth we can distinguish between motion and non-motion regardless of how many "frames" we attempt to create via optical gyroscopes. There is no experiment that demonstrates that there is such a thing as a local reference frame that can be isolated from any other reference frame. So what experiments you are attempting to put forward and what laws of gravity and motion you keep trying to appeal to, do not exist to prove your conclusion without assuming your conclusion is true first. The whole heliocentric position is built on a house of cards and what's worse - none of them rate any higher than a Joker.  

4b: The disagreements that do exist between the various Geocentric scientists have absolutely no bearing on the fact that the only experience available to man - observational or experimental - are only consistent with Geocentrism and are not consistent with heliocentricity without assuming (begging the question) that the universe is heliocentric first...... that the universe is something other than what can be demonstrated from observation and experiment, if that's the case then they should have no problem with us Jesus folks, otherwise there is no observation or experiment demonstrating heliocentricity without assuming it is true first (begging the question). The heliocentrists position is not only logically untenable but has, by its own refusal to accept observation and experiment when it conflicts with its predetermined conclusion about the Earth's motion, has in effect created a "science" that can never prove anything - "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" of anything. If imagination is the justification for heliocentricity then it is not "science". If observation and experiment are to be the benchmarks then there is no room for the heliocentric theory except in one's imagination!  

5: I have and am pointing out that GC/GS (Geocentric/Geostationary) is the only logically deduced conclusion that one can make that can be demonstrated, because you cannot reach any other conclusion without imagining what cannot or has not been observed or experienced.

Yes "theoretically" the sun or the Earth could be moving but only one of those theories/reasons (why things look they way they do) can be demonstrated as a logically deduced conclusion whereas the other cannot without invoking pure imagination first. If you go outside, look up and see something traverse from your left to your right (could be a bird or could be a plane) your first impulse is not, "Hey I am moving", without observation and experiment (O&E) that tells you that…… that would be foolish. Now, what is it that tells you that the sun is not doing the moving and orbiting without assuming and imagining that it is not first? Yes, it “could be true” that the sun is “standing still” and we are spinning, only giving the appearance of a rising sun, rather than the sun is doing exactly what it looks like it is doing, namely going around/orbiting me. But you cannot show a logically deductive path for such a conclusion even if it were true. Therefore you cannot claim that the theory that you are moving is the most plausible explanation for what you observe any more so than with a bird or a plane. What you seem to miss is that a theory and a logical deduction do not follow each other automatically. Feel free to theorize whatever you like but true science claims logical theories as the best ones - and rightly so. They just don't always employ the logical ones. As with you they sometimes prefer imagination over logical deduction. Fine, but don't call it reasonable or the most plausible; there is no logic in that reason nor can you even show it any more plausible without begging the questions, or else you can suppose there are aliens that live in my attic as the theory and reason for all my troubles……

Allen Daves. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Sun's Path Diagram simple (below), more complex HERE - Created by Allen Daves: