Discovery Channel's "Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?"

[rel1]

rel1:
In a fluid universe cause and effect become meaningless because you cannot seperate the two.Even artificially the physicist have tried and tried to no avail. If one is trying to discover the God partical, good luck, because in my opinion it does not exist. How can it be possible in a universe (all existence) to sustain itself in nothingness or simulated nothingness; it is impossible.Whether you agree or disagree, something does not and cannot sustain or even can initially exist without something else. So in that respect the ingredients of the universe must have eternally existed… it’s just the form and function that have changed.
Aether, which is a form of energy cannot exist without something else to feed on. Our universe includes all of everything. It can not be otherwise. God (if you choose to use the term) includes,and is a part of all of existence.If we feel compelled to worship, worship the whole because God is,as christians believe, ALL of EVERYTHING.

In regards to time; time is basically an observable and continuous change or action in reference to an observable object or event. In our reality everything needs a reference. That is how we make sense of the world. Remember everything in reality only exist in the NOW. And human conciousness will never experience the absolute NOW because our senses are not immediate. Everything too is in continuous change, so the universe is essentially not the same as it was when your last thought occurred.`You are not the same person either. Christians think that God created everything in 6 days, however in my view, God, which is ALL, must be recreating our reality every moment.

Is God logically necessary? Depends on how you as an individual have customized your God. Thought or imagination is absolutely unique to that particular individual so we all in essense have different Gods. My God is all so I definitely think he, she and it are logically necessary.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yet it is beholden to some other laws right? Just as we are and therefore it cannot be a god anymore than we are. No matter how how powerful a being in this universe may be, it is no different in kind than we. Further, at some point in the chain it seems that you must assert that this higher law is logically necessary, yet, I can see no logical contradiction formed by the negation of any being short of Actus Purus, which is already what we call G-d. It seems to me that it might be intellectually or psychologically satisfying to assert a kind of grand unified theory of G-d, bringing together the various disciplines. Yet, if in doing so one formulates a mere caricature of G-d, something less than a truly authentic and absolute G-d, one has missed the point. G-d must be absolute and primary, whatever else might be, it cannot be called a god in any sense more meaningful than Zeus, Odin, or Osiris. The modern man bowing to the ancient “gods”, in an attempt to be scientific seems to be an action at odds with itself.

Warp i have grown weary and old from the many years of crushing fallacies and fantasies. Your conceptual power has grown tremendously (or perhaps it was always there without my knowing?). I now feel comfortable leaving the philosophy forum in your hands.
Let me retire, die, and fade in to legend…:stretcher:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp i have grown weary and old from the many years of crushing fallacies and fantasies. Your conceptual power has grown tremendously (or perhaps it was always there without my knowing?). I now feel comfortable leaving the philosophy forum in your hands.
Let me retire, die, and fade in to legend…:stretcher:

Oh stop. Any moment someone will expose me as an utter fake, a child repeating what he has heard from his betters. But thank you for the compliment.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Balderdash , more " black legend " ! Stop with the crying for Galileo . First of all , the heliocentric theory isn’t even named after Galileo , but rather Nicolas Copernicus , a Pole who died 21 years before Galileo was even born . For extra credit , tell me what Copernicus’s “day job” was ? Yes , it’s relevant .
50 % of the scientists contemporary to Galileo didn’t believe his theory either , including Tycho Brahe , an esteemed Danish astronomer . This is meant to show that this belief wasn’t a slam dunk .

Secondly , The RCC had ZERO problem with Galileo asserting his theory as an hypothesis , for the reason that Galileo could NOT prove his hypothesis with that era’s technology . In order to prove his theory he would have to have demonstrated a parallax shift in the stars and he could NOT . Oh well , who needs proof ? It’s only science .

Killed for his efforts , simply preposterous ! The prima donna , and he was one , was afforded the same accomodations as his judges . Galileo coud have avoide this affair , but he insisted on asserting his theory without proof and then wanted to apply it to scripture .
The Pope was actually his friend and benefactor and Galileo repaid him by publicly mocking him . How prudent . And house arrest doesn’t even rise to the level of corporal punishment , let alone " nearly Killed " .

There is another part of this story that is usually omitted . Galileo proclaimed that our sun was the center of the universe , but that is false ! Why is that bon mot glossed over ? Perhaps because it takes some of the shine the off of the " victim " who is a usefull club to beat the Catholic Church ?

For more extra credit , Galileo had 2 daughters , what was their " day Job " ?

As someone else asked ,please state these serious conflicts of which you speak ?

So when Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit & when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church , He was just joshin’ ?

Please enumerate these doctrines that don’t accord w/ solid physics ?

Re: Galileo , there is a good source about what really happened on the Faith side of this site . Simply type Galileo in the searsh engine , I believe it is the 1st refernce listed .

Your opinion of the Catholic Church’s relationship to science is simply false . Regarding the orignial post @ the creation of the universe , did anyone invoke Georges Lemaitre ? Lemaitre is the father of the big bang theory , or what he called a " hypothesis of the primeval atom " . Rather elegant , don’t you think ?
Lemaitre posyulated this in 1927 , but he couldn’t prove it . If he was correct , galaxies should be moving further apart . In 1929 , Hubble observed the galaxies doing just that . Viola , the proof of Lemaitre’s theory .
Lemaitre also predicted that if his theory was correct , there would also be " back ground " radiation leftover from the big bang . Two other scientists later observed this & proved Lemaitre correct .
Have you all heard of this Georges Lemaitre ? You should have . But even if you have heard of him did you know he was a Belgian , Roman Catholic Priest ? Yup , that’s right , a Catholic Priest ( actually a Monsignor ) , go figure . That big bad anti-science Catholic Church, the Luddites .

Who is the father of genetics ? Gregor Mendel , what was his " day job " ?

Have you ever heard of Louis Pasteur ? How devout a Catholic was he ?

Why are 30 craters on the surface of our moon named after Jesuits ?

Why is seismology called the , 'Jesuit Science " ? ( And this is a relatively new science ) .
Why is the most prestigious award in seismology named after a Jesuit ? Why because the Catholic Church abhors sciene , of course !
Who was Blaise Pascal , what was his religion and why are some of his theories of hydraulics still taught ?

Those 2 breast cancer genes , are they BRA-1 and BRA-2 ( or is it BRAC 1 & 2 ) , who discovered them and where were they discovered ?

I don’t have the time or space to keep this up , but your characterization of the RCC and it’s relation to science is just false .
Do some reading ! Where do you get such ideas ?

Thank you for taking the time to defend.