the jewish so-called "earth's rotation"

[Khalid]

I trust my own two eye

Your own two eyes can observe the Foucault pendulum.
Further there are communications satellites which can be observed to be in geostationary orbits. If the earth is not rotating, why do you suppose that these geostationary communications satellites do not fall to earth under the force of gravity?

True; but the proposition "the Earth is not immobile" is not an object of direct perception, and getting from the foucault pendulum to proposition relies upon a process of induction which presupposes a number of concepts which are epistemically unjustifiable at best (secondary causation, universally binding laws of nature) and demonstrably false at worst (materialism, empiricism).

Also, as I stated more fully: "I trust my own two eyes and divine revelation; with the latter having primacy over the former.". Given an apparent contradiction between my sense data and divine revelation, divine revelation is more certain and must be adhered to without exception. So even if I were to be taken to space and somehow able to directly see the rotation of the earth without any intermediaries (like glasses or a helmet or a telescope), I still would reject the proposition that the Earth rotates on its axis and around the sun.

[Greg]

And that is, in a nutshell, why Islam is a shit political philosophy or religion (if you want to pretend it is a religion).  Because it does not allow you to follow the evidence of your own senses.

No wonder Muslims have not invented anything or contributed any useful progress to the world in the last 1000 years.

If you saw the earth spinning clearly it would be spinning. Therefore the book has been misinterpreted by men, who are able to make mistakes.  Another easily observed fact.

[Khalid]

And that is, in a nutshell, why Islam is a shit political philosophy or religion (if you want to pretend it is a religion).  Because it does not allow you to follow the evidence of your own senses.

No wonder Muslims have not invented anything or contributed any useful progress to the world in the last 1000 years.

If you saw the earth spinning clearly it would be spinning. Therefore the book has been misinterpreted by men, who are able to make mistakes.  Another easily observed fact.

Probably truly; historically the development of natural science was only possible because of the rejection of voluntarism and occasionalism by Scholastic Philosophy which has so thoroughly shaped the west. Though the monster of atheistic materialism which was birthed by the scientific and industrial revolutions has certainly not been kind to the Church and religion more broadly.

Whereas, in Islam, voluntarism and occasionalism of some strip are hardbaked into the religion.

[AlNg]

I trust my own two eye

Your own two eyes can observe the Foucault pendulum.
Further there are communications satellites which can be observed to be in geostationary orbits. If the earth is not rotating, why do you suppose that these geostationary communications satellites do not fall to earth under the force of gravity?

True; but the proposition "the Earth is not immobile" is not an object of direct perception, and getting from the foucault pendulum to proposition relies upon a process of induction which presupposes a number of concepts which are epistemically unjustifiable at best (secondary causation, universally binding laws of nature) and demonstrably false at worst (materialism, empiricism).

Also, as I stated more fully: "I trust my own two eyes and divine revelation; with the latter having primacy over the former.". Given an apparent contradiction between my sense data and divine revelation, divine revelation is more certain and must be adhered to without exception. So even if I were to be taken to space and somehow able to directly see the rotation of the earth without any intermediaries (like glasses or a helmet or a telescope), I still would reject the proposition that the Earth rotates on its axis and around the sun.

Do you believe in the force of gravity? Please explain why geostationary satellites do not fall to earth under the force of gravity? Further, why do you suppose that geosynchronous satellites are launched to the east and not to the west?

[Khalid]

I trust my own two eye

Your own two eyes can observe the Foucault pendulum.
Further there are communications satellites which can be observed to be in geostationary orbits. If the earth is not rotating, why do you suppose that these geostationary communications satellites do not fall to earth under the force of gravity?

True; but the proposition "the Earth is not immobile" is not an object of direct perception, and getting from the foucault pendulum to proposition relies upon a process of induction which presupposes a number of concepts which are epistemically unjustifiable at best (secondary causation, universally binding laws of nature) and demonstrably false at worst (materialism, empiricism).

Also, as I stated more fully: "I trust my own two eyes and divine revelation; with the latter having primacy over the former.". Given an apparent contradiction between my sense data and divine revelation, divine revelation is more certain and must be adhered to without exception. So even if I were to be taken to space and somehow able to directly see the rotation of the earth without any intermediaries (like glasses or a helmet or a telescope), I still would reject the proposition that the Earth rotates on its axis and around the sun.

Do you believe in the force of gravity?

No; insofar as Newton's Laws of Gravitation and the existence of gravitational forces necessarily depend on the truth of prior propositions which I consider epistemically unjustified (such as the existence of secondary causation), I likewise consider both the Laws of Gravitation and gravitational forces equally unjustified and unproveable.

[AlNg]

I likewise consider both the Laws of Gravitation and gravitational forces equally unjustified and unproveable.

No gravitational force? It is easy to lift a snowball off the ground, but not so easy to lift a ton of bricks. What happens if you drop a ball from the leaning tower of pisa?

[Khalid]

I likewise consider both the Laws of Gravitation and gravitational forces equally unjustified and unproveable.

No gravitational force?

I did not specifically deny the existence of gravitational forces (though I could choose to rephrase the argument in order to do so), rather I said their existence is based on an unjustified presupposition; insofar as this is the case, their existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The issue is in the paradigm rather than the conclusion.

It is easy to lift a snowball off the ground, but not so easy to lift a ton of bricks.

This presupposes that I am the cause of both events, but secondary creaturely causation is precisely the presupposition I am asserting is epistemically unjustified. Since I believe God is the sole cause of all things, I deny this; both events are the result of God's will and neither one is "easier" or "harder" for Him.

What happens if you drop a ball from the leaning tower of pisa?

Whatever God wills to happen. In my experience he usually wills dropped balls to fall, but since I reject the existence of mechanistic "laws of nature" which govern the universe I would not say that the ball will always fall. God could will the ball to ascend when dropped.

[james03]

Whatever God wills to happen. In my experience he usually wills dropped balls to fall, but since I reject the existence of mechanistic materialistic "laws of nature" which govern the universe

Somewhat correct.  God ordered all things.  And He is the source of the Law of Gravity.  By definition it can not be materialistic as gravity is immaterial.  So there is a Law of Gravity (I call it a rule), and when it is broken it is called a miracle.

But God is the God of order and Truth.  So His fundamental Laws govern the universe.