Top Saudi Cleric: The Sun Revolves Around The Earth…

[Khadaji]

Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?

This is precisely what pisses me off about religious people, if there was a god, scientists would accept it,

Only a god that was material would be accepted by scientists, as they reject as a fundamental fact that there is anything beyond matter & energy.

But a god that existed only materially wouldn't be a god.

Of course, this also has the hidden assumption that scientists don't believe in God. Historically speaking, far more scientists have been religious than have been atheist. But even in modern times, you cannot make the flat assertion that scientists as a rule are atheist.

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. - LA Times.

You can argue the exact percentage, different polls have different numbers, but it's always going to be a healthy number.

but religious people would only accept it as long as it fits 'their' version, what happens if it turns out there are millions of gods that are nothing like what they believe in but they exist? They'd be pretty fucked then with their logic but it seems that scientists are discovering how life clicks step by step, finding out if there's an afterlife is the only real problem because you have to physically die in order to find out about it.

I can respect people for wanting to believe in things, but I can't respect people who deny reality and expect me to respect that.

[RodeoX]

Only a god that was material would be accepted by scientists, as they reject as a fundamental fact that there is anything beyond matter & energy.

Well, no. Scientists currently believe, based on evidence, that the universe is comprised only of matter/energy (same thing), spacetime, fundamental forces, etc.

But this is the thing about science - if you present evidence that the universe extends beyond the current model, scientists will change their minds. Just like they did when Einstein extended the classical model of relativity.

Amen.
That is the part so many people miss. If someone provided evidence that the Earth was in the center of the universe then it would be studied and tested to see if additional facts contradict or support the original findings. Those who follow the religious path start with an assumption and try to make their findings fit. That is not how science works, that is called superstition.
The problem with this approach is that one must be willfully ignorant of simple, provable facts. For example if you want to believe that Noah and the ark was an actual event. You must ignore the fact that the story is really a copy of an ancient Sumerian story. You must also throw out what is known about geology, physics, biology, history, etc. You must get yourself into a superstitious child-like state of mind. The moment you apply logic the whole thing starts to unravel. 

[Khadaji]

Only a god that was material would be accepted by scientists, as they reject as a fundamental fact that there is anything beyond matter & energy.

Well, no. Scientists currently believe, based on evidence, that the universe is comprised only of matter/energy (same thing), spacetime, fundamental forces, etc.

Well yes. Materialism is a given in modern science.

It's not a belief based on evidence, it's a fundamental axiom of the system of science. Feel free to research it...

But this is the thing about science - if you present evidence that the universe extends beyond the current model, scientists will change their minds. Just like they did when Einstein extended the classical model of relativity.

If anything non-material is rejected a priori, then nothing will ever be 'discovered' or theorized that's non-material.

[1369]

Space is easier to move than objects, the universe revolves around itself, thus movement is relative to your point of reality

[Bit_Happy]

The Flat Earth Society (also known as the International Flat Earth Society or the International Flat Earth Research Society) is an organization whose aim to further the idea that the Earth is flat instead of an oblate spheroid. The modern organization was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956[1] and was later led by Charles K. Johnson, who based the organization in his home in Lancaster, California. The formal society was inactive after Johnson’s death in 2001 but was resurrected in 2004 by its new president Daniel Shenton.[2]

The ideas argued by the society are widely viewed by accomplished scientists as pseudoscientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Silly people.
Nothing "revolves" around anything. It's all flat. 

[Swordsoffreedom]

The Flat Earth Society (also known as the International Flat Earth Society or the International Flat Earth Research Society) is an organization whose aim to further the idea that the Earth is flat instead of an oblate spheroid. The modern organization was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956[1] and was later led by Charles K. Johnson, who based the organization in his home in Lancaster, California. The formal society was inactive after Johnson’s death in 2001 but was resurrected in 2004 by its new president Daniel Shenton.[2]

The ideas argued by the society are widely viewed by accomplished scientists as pseudoscientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Silly people.
Nothing "revolves" around anything. It's all flat. 

I guess we can extend this question is the Universe Flat or is the Universe Circular

Also not quite sure but are Galaxys Flat or Circular or a bunch of weird shapes ?

[Wilikon]

There seems to be at least one logical flaw and one misunderstanding in the OP.

As a scientist I can accept the statement "And the sun runs towards its stopping point" since the sun is moving through space relative to the galactic centre, which is also moving relative to other galaxies. More figuratively, the sun is also 'running down' since it is consuming its own fuel and will one day stop shining. Neither interpretation has any relevance to the question of the earth going around the sun, or the sun going around the earth.

The cleric seems to think that modern science says the sun stays still. It doesn't say that.

But I'm not sure about the four elephants and the turtle.

"Allah says in a Koranic verse: “And the sun runs towards its stopping point. That is the determination of the All-Powerful, the All-Knowing.”

Are you saying the OP is Allah AND it may have a logical flaw? Please World direct all your Fatwa toward Mr stinky