I
inocente
Guest
Once tonyrey writes sentences like those we can be sure something has gone sadly amiss.
Possible all the right words but not necessarily in the right order.
¿Que?
- Status
Possible all the right words but not necessarily in the right order.
¿Que?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Once tonyrey writes sentences like those we can be sure something has gone sadly amiss.
I
inocente
Guest
Then this numbskull apologizes in all jurisdictions across every time zone without any let, hindrance or reservations whatsoever, but really bro I can’t parse your meaning and it seems StrawberryJam couldn’t either. Would you rephrase?
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’ve really put the cat among the pigeons!
Let me try to put the record straight:
- The existence of science is explained by scientists FACT
- The existence of scientists is explained by science HYPOTHESIS
- Therefore science is explained by itself CONCLUSION!
I
inocente
Guest
The big bang theory was first formulated eighty years ago by the mighty fine Catholic scientist Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître.I’ve really put the cat among the pigeons!
Let me try to put the record straight:
- The existence of science is explained by scientists FACT
- The existence of scientists is explained by science HYPOTHESIS
- Therefore science is explained by itself CONCLUSION!
Pope Pius XII had hopes of using it and other science to prove the existence of God (“Un 'ora”, in Italian only at vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1951/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19511122_di-serena_it.html ) but when Lemaître got wind of it he spoke to the pope’s advisors. What the pope didn’t realize is that science cannot interpret the metaphysics, the big bang can be used to argue a universe without god just as easily as with. Lemaître said:
He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.
- catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847Also all science is provisional since it is based on falsification rather than proof. Ideas can change and it turns out that many cosmologists are now questioning the big bang, specifically the expansion in the first fraction of a second from a singularity because it requires infinities, and infinities are anathema in math. Most of the theory is safe, it’s well established that the universe was once very small, what they are questioning in whether it was actually the beginning of time. Lemaître wouldn’t be alarmed:
We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations. – (same source as above)
Pius XII wisely heeded Lemaître’s warning to not reduce “the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis”. This also applies in discussing evolution, etc.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I agree that God can never be a scientific hypothesis. However i disagree that the big-bang can be used to support atheism. If it were logically possible to show in principle that an evolving universe could exist without God, than this would be the same as saying that God as Christians define him cannot possibly exist.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Hey there, What’s going on?
I see inocente took much more time and has much more patience than I do on this at this point.
Tonyrey, your list is one unexpected from a catholic.
unless I am mistaken it is this:
False.
The rest is so ridiculous, and false.
Thankfully, you do not speak for the catholic or any other church.
I see inocente took much more time and has much more patience than I do on this at this point.
Tonyrey, your list is one unexpected from a catholic.
unless I am mistaken it is this:
- The existence of science is explained by scientists FACT
- The existence of scientists is explained by science HYPOTHESIS
- Therefore science is explained by itself CONCLUSION!
False.
The rest is so ridiculous, and false.
Thankfully, you do not speak for the catholic or any other church.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Why can’t God ever be a scientific hypothesis?
Tell us.
I’m not sure where any non theist cited the big bang as a support for athiesm.
Perhaps a change of screen name would be in order at this point.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Science is the study of physical objects and their effects.
N
nfreak141
Guest
Ahem… allow me to vent:
Those who believe in creationism are hard headed fools that refuse and outright refute knowledge, which I do believe is a sin. The whole point of that story was to show the creative power of God and how He keeps the order of the world. The Book of Genesis is so rife with symbolism and ancient traditions in the first half that to think of it as literal truth is not just childish, it is juvenile.
I see that some people also believe in the deluge. You guys do realize that is stuff of legends, correct? It is Babylonian mythology that the Hebrews edited to make it fit for monotheism. The Ark is a symbol of God, and through God there is hope and truth.
Guys, we seriously need to move on. The Early Saints specialized in Philosophy, which is basically the ancient world’s equivalent of scientists and rationalists. If the Church Fathers were not afraid to reform and progress their minds, why are we? Doesn’t Scripture say we should embrace knowledge AND wisdom?
You embrace knowledge through accepting scientific changes. You embrace wisdom by looking at the Bible and getting the wisdom of God and the Church - the Bible and the Catechesis. You can’t embrace one without the other. What is knowledge without wisdom? Godless. What is wisdom without knowledge? Foolish. If you are either Godless or foolish, then you have nothing.
I’m done… for now.
Those who believe in creationism are hard headed fools that refuse and outright refute knowledge, which I do believe is a sin. The whole point of that story was to show the creative power of God and how He keeps the order of the world. The Book of Genesis is so rife with symbolism and ancient traditions in the first half that to think of it as literal truth is not just childish, it is juvenile.
I see that some people also believe in the deluge. You guys do realize that is stuff of legends, correct? It is Babylonian mythology that the Hebrews edited to make it fit for monotheism. The Ark is a symbol of God, and through God there is hope and truth.
Guys, we seriously need to move on. The Early Saints specialized in Philosophy, which is basically the ancient world’s equivalent of scientists and rationalists. If the Church Fathers were not afraid to reform and progress their minds, why are we? Doesn’t Scripture say we should embrace knowledge AND wisdom?
You embrace knowledge through accepting scientific changes. You embrace wisdom by looking at the Bible and getting the wisdom of God and the Church - the Bible and the Catechesis. You can’t embrace one without the other. What is knowledge without wisdom? Godless. What is wisdom without knowledge? Foolish. If you are either Godless or foolish, then you have nothing.
I’m done… for now.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Catholic Church holds that Adam and Eve are real people and original sin is a real event.
I
inocente
Guest
It’s possible – e.g. the big bounce hypothesis with natural tuning during the bounce. :curtsey:
The operative word is “hypothesis” though. Lemaître makes two points (a) real science is neutral, it can be interpreted to argue for or against God, (b) science is provisional, theories can change, so reducing God to a hypothesis will almost certainly end in tears, as well as being somewhat undignified.
Note ID fails on both counts.
Big bang is strangely uncontroversial for creationists given that Lemaître himself said it could mark reincarnation rather than creation. As you say it’s potentially a far more dangerous idea than the ToE, but I guess many look no further than comfortingly assuming it confirms Genesis.
T
tonyrey
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Given that my eyes are not quite open; I have not yet had my morning Pepsi; and that post 863 says “The Catholic Church holds that Adam and Eve are real people and original sin is a real event.” I’m not all that sure that science is needed to confirm the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis.
Ah, one says. There are times when some interpretations of scientific research oppose Catholic doctrine. True. But then one needs to double check the interpretation for an ungrounded assumption that the evidence can warrant an extrapolation that all possibilities have been totally ruled out.
I
inocente
Guest
Just to be clear, in my posts above I’ve used ToE to mean the theory of evolution, as there is no theory of everything and even the idea that there could be a theory of everything is philosophically, mathematically and scientifically controversial.Have you never heard of the TOE?
I
inocente
Guest
I’m not a Catholic and so am not bound by whatever the teaching is here, but this might be highly problematic for Lemaître. He might say that the only way of finding the truth of two real actual parents for the human species would be through science (since it involves searching for objective evidence) but this leads straight back to the bijou issuette of reducing divine revelation to science hypotheses. Another quote from him (same source as in post #857):
The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.
Well that might be a bit blunt
but I like the cut of his jib. If it’s necessary for my or Lemaître’s salvation to read the OT literally then Christ already knows it ain’t going to happen.
R
ricmat
Guest
Wow, you are truly amazing!
We’ve been discussing these issues for years now, and many of us have thousands of posts on the subjects above. But you immediately have the Real Answer.
You remind me of the non-Catholics that show up and triumphantly play their trump card that we Catholics should stop worshiping Mary, stop burning bibles, and stop worshiping statues.
Here is my answer to your answer:
Stick around for a while and stick your toe in the water before the rest of you jumping in.
Scientific “facts” change.
Blind acceptance of “Science” is a mistake, both scientifically and theologically.
There is no science test for admittance to Heaven.
G
grannymh
Guest
The comment in my post 866 stands as is in regard to some of the interpretations of scientific research.
"But then one needs to double check the interpretation for an ungrounded assumption that the evidence can warrant an extrapolation that all possibilities have been totally ruled out. "
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
How does this show that the universe exists by itself, by its own power?
I
inocente
Guest
Big bounce is an imagined sequence of big bangs and big crunches for which there’s absolutely no evidence, but speculate around it anyway. If the starting conditions evolve at each bounce the universe will get better and better all by itself. We can play at inventing a new religion, Bouncerism
. Why is there evil in the world? Because there haven’t been enough bounces to evolve it away yet. And so on.Depressingly there would be absolutely nothing special about us at all. Not only did we evolve on an insignificant little planet orbiting a very average star in a galaxy of billions, itself one of billions of galaxies, we’re in just one of a potentially infinite number of universes, and it’s only the best so far, there’s much better to come.
We could still say the sequence was started by an unmoved mover but what would be the point - the creator would be so very distant as to be absent.
- Status