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

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Three centuries ago Galileo tried to get the Church to modify its arbitrary beliefs to accommodate just a few simple but obvious truths of science, and was nearly killed for his efforts. The Church has not budged from its intransigent position since.

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 " ?

It has been content with sitting back and declaring that, yeah, science is fine. It’s all good. No conflicts. These are lies. There are serious conflicts between fundamental elements of physics, and the fundamental doctrines of the Church. Its passive position is being attacked by well organized and well-funded atheists.

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

The Church must adjust its doctrines in accordance with solid physics, or it will go the way of Zeus and his soap-opera offspring. Just my opinions.

I’ll see soon if it is possible to be a friend of what the Church represents, on the large scale of importance to humanity, while inviting it to retain its moral teachings and revise its theology.

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 ?

 

[RobbyS]

Do you agree that when science gets more speculative it becomes less authoritative? I agree the idea that we might have come from nothing is speculative, but speculation is all we can do, and calling it science, metaphysics, religion or faith changes nothing in my mind - it’s provisional. We also don’t know what conditions were ‘there’ at the moment of the Big Bang, so it makes no difference to arrange tautologies on what ‘nothing’ can or cannot do. Is there any tenet of Christianity which is validated by scientific findings?

Interesting stuff though!

Well, orginal sin. . More to the point, the idea that the universe had a beginning is now accepted science. Aristotle didn’t believe that. Further, the idea that life begins at conception, which was not accepted by science until the 1840s, which was BTW. the imputus for the Texas anti-abortion law in 1856. The very idea that mankind can through reason discern order in the universe;the idea of “progress” in knowledge is a secularization of the Christian view. Compare that with the view of
the ancient pagans and of the Hindus, of existence as a while that keeps rolling on forever, or with the orthodox Muslim view of existence as a matter of Divine whim, which leaves little room for reason.

 

[revert_jen]

So, I don’t know how many of you watched the episode of Discovery’s “Curiosity” just now, but basically they said that God did not create the universe because there wasn’t time before the Big Bang for God to create the universe, so God didn’t create the universe; it was just a coincidence.

As far as I’m concerned, the origin of the universe is not a question that can possibly be answered scientifically now or in the foreseeable future (time travel, or at least time viewing?). Science is supposed to be based on observation and measurement, experiment and reason. Since it is obvious that no scientists observed or measured the beginning of the universe, or can experiment by creating universes of their own, they have no real data upon which to exercise their reason. This means that when a scientist is talking about the origin of the universe, he is not speaking as a scientist, but as a philosopher. In which case his scientific credentials should not be taken into account when deciding whether to listen to him, only his credentials as a philosopher (which are frequently non-existent). I have no problem if a scientist wants to be a philosopher as well. The danger here is that this philosophy, when presented by scientists, is presented so that the credulous accept it as a proven fact, rather than a guess based on some characteristics of the universe which some scientists assume (rather unscientifically) have gone on since the universe began. Sheesh.

I’m quite happy to listen to scientists when they are talking about things which are actually in the province of science, but in general not at all interested in hearing their views as philosophers. In any case, “In the beginning there was nothing, and then with no cause whatsoever, it exploded into everything,” is not my idea of a really useful philosophy. If you leave God in it to create the “nothing” which contains everything and to cause the explosion, it has some merit, but without Him it is just nonsense.

–Jen

P. S. The ads for this program presented it as some big question, you had to watch the show to find out the answer. Was anyone surprised at what their answer turned out to be?
…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, I think.

 

[Benjamin_Joseph]

Do you agree that when science gets more speculative it becomes less authoritative? I agree the idea that we might have come from nothing is speculative, but speculation is all we can do, and calling it science, metaphysics, religion or faith changes nothing in my mind - it’s provisional.

You don’t seem like you should be lumped in with the militant atheism that is currently en vogue, but you must admit that one of the primary critiques they invent against religion is the lack of empirical evidence. It’s not that Hawking is less authoritative because of his speculation, it’s that he is entering into a completely different field to do so. Now I tend to believe we’re all philosophers, but he specifically rails against philosophy in “The Grand Design”, declaring it dead, and then proceeds to participate in it unknowingly and rather amaturishly. I would also disagree that speculation is all we can do. We can rely on the Word of God and learn about him through his revelation.

Is there any tenet of Christianity which is validated by scientific findings?

For at least 6,000 years Jews and then Christians have been contending that everything was created by one God from nothing (I could be wrong but I think this is unique to us and Islam). The only reason we had for this was divine revelation. In 1931 it was still the popular scientific sentiment that the universe was eternal. It took a Catholic priest and mathematician (Lemaitre) to provide the evidence and the theory that became the big bang, showing that there was a singular moment when all space and time came into existence, ultimately proving the scientific aspect of what the church had always preached. We are spoiled because we’ve grown up with the big bang but you have to remember how revolutionary it was and its implications. It has forced many an atheist into uncomfortable and sometimes untenable theories (the anthropic principle, the multiverse). This is only one example but is obviously the most pertinent to this particular thread.

 

[James1215]

Well, orginal sin. . More to the point, the idea that the universe had a beginning is now accepted science. Aristotle didn’t believe that. Further, the idea that life begins at conception, which was not accepted by science until the 1840s, which was BTW. the imputus for the Texas anti-abortion law in 1856. The very idea that mankind can through reason discern order in the universe;the idea of “progress” in knowledge is a secularization of the Christian view. Compare that with the view of
the ancient pagans and of the Hindus, of existence as a while that keeps rolling on forever, or with the orthodox Muslim view of existence as a matter of Divine whim, which leaves little room for reason.

Sure, validation of the idea of a beginning, but revision to include the beginning of the whole massive universe rather than just the earth. I think that casts more doubt than support. As Sam Harris has amusingly pointed out, water was created before hydrogen according to the Bible, yet of course water contains hydrogen. The idea that life begins at conception… tricky. Is that in the Bible? It may have emerged simultaneously with the evidence for life at conception. As yet there is no validation of a soul at conception, nor even of a soul at all, and that rather than mere life is the Christian bit. Science shows that we can discern order in the universe, which is a claim of Christianity…? I think we can have an order without it being God’s order, but as yet order is definitely evidenced. I don’t know if progress is actually a Christian idea, and it is difficult to see how progress has been validated. As to the other religious ideas, isn’t the Creation also a matter of divine whim? God is not subject to reason, is He? No idea how Original Sin has been validated either, as the existence of moral attitudes does not show that we are objectively bad and that we Fell. Even so, I realise this is nothing conclusive for whether someone should have faith nor am I helping keep on topic!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…God is not both prior to being and a being, surely.

Of course not. You’re equivocating the word being. Since you refused to use standard terminology, here post #417, because…

1. This brings us to your issue with definitions. Dictionary definitions give the interrelation of words and concepts within language, which has a conventional relation to reality. I might use a dictionary definition to talk about some well known concept, but I would not refer to a dictionary to tell me what is actually there. They are books of tautologies.

You will have to give an official list of your private definitions, otherwise meaningful communication about this subject will be rather difficult.

 

[James1215]

Benjamin Joseph,

I don’t consider myself to be a militant atheist because I am not militant! There’s no trace of violence in lacking belief in a god. I agree it is regrettable that Hawking is so scathing about philosophy, based purely on reviews of his work, but I also think that any and all thought has a lot to learn from the investigations of science.

On the supposed charge of a lack of empirical evidence for Christianity, for me the charge is rather that no empirical evidence can affirm or refute God, which is rather convenient. God is literally invisible; He works in mysterious ways; He is beyond space, time and everything, and yet is also responsible for everything; He is incomprehensibly good and awesome… the list could go on. The key thing for me is that God is incomprehensible and unfindable, except in faith. What’s the point in trying to believe in something even believers don’t understand? Job said he saw things too wonderful to understand. Well, how did he know they were wonderful? Tell us what you saw, Job! When concrete things about God come out, they are (in my view) either vague, ignorant of science, outside the realm of senses or sailing too close to wishful thinking. None of that has ever convinced me.

 

[James1215]

Of course not. You’re equivocating the word being. Since you refused to use standard terminology, here post #417, because…You will have to give an official list of your private definitions, otherwise meaningful communication about this subject will be rather difficult.

Fortunately, I am not the one defining God.

If God is ‘not both prior to being and a being’, is it better to say that God is the origin of being, in that He created Himself spontaneously, and with that, the potential for other existence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Fortunately, I am not the one defining God.

But you are the one who equivocated.

If God is ‘not both prior to being and a being’,

This statement still equivocates the word being.

 

[Neildown]

I didn’t watch the program, nor did I even know about it for that matter, but I think the things you brought up show the narrowness that some atheists actually possess.

God didn’t have enough time to create the universe? Really? Do they understand the basic CONCEPT of God? Nonetheless the complexities of alternate realities?

First of all, God is not bound by the fabrication we call time. What we call “time” is the earth revolving around the sun, creating night and day at a steady pace in a way in which we can understand or record it. It is simply something we made up so that we could somewhat understand it. We have no way to tell whether or not “time” started with the creation of the universe - this is just a shallow, philosophical potshot in my opinion.

Also, anyone in the field of this science should be able to realize that this world, this universe, this existence in which we thrive, is below the one the ultimate Creator possesses or lives in if He is in fact out there. You have to look at existence itself much like a spectrum - there is physical and then there is spiritual - 2 different levels of existence. I’d have no doubt that there are maybe even more “existences” out there than just physical and spiritual. Perhaps the “spiritual” we know of actually leads on to another higher place and another after that, and so on, and perhaps there are lower realities than physicality, though I haven’t seen evidence for that one. Point is, you can only make a definitive conclusion on the formation of the universe if you shut yourself in a secular box - it may lead you to an easier, quicker conclusion, but it isn’t utilizing all the evidence given, thus it is flawed.

Another thing which I thought I would address, as I saw someone say God is “energy”. God cannot be energy because energy is impersonal and random - it does not feel, it does not sense, it does not love. He is obviously not of this world, but this world of His making. He exists in a higher state than anything we can perceive in this universe, thus it stands to reason that He is more than “energy”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…On the supposed charge of a lack of empirical evidence for Christianity, for me the charge is rather that no empirical evidence can affirm or refute God, which is rather convenient.

Falsification is the same class of epistemic contradictions as empiricism and verificationsism.

…The key thing for me is that God is incomprehensible and unfindable, except in faith.

Why is that a problem?

What’s the point in trying to believe in something even believers don’t understand?

I would say that we understand G-d to the capacity of which we are able.

Job said he saw things too wonderful to understand. Well, how did he know they were wonderful? Tell us what you saw, Job!

**won·der/**ˈwəndər/
Noun: A feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

What did you think “wonder” meant?

When concrete things about God come out, they are (in my view) either vague, ignorant of science, outside the realm of senses or sailing too close to wishful thinking. None of that has ever convinced me.

Considering none of that has anything to do with the epistemology of G-d, it’s no wonder, it isn’t convincing. You’re looking around with logically contradictory tools like empiricism, verificationsim and falsification. Science says nothing about G-d. Zero. there is no reason that G-d should be restricted to your personal sensory experience. You look at the world through a filter specifically designed to filter out G-d. Just like sunglasses filter out UV.

 

[Benjamin_Joseph]

On the supposed charge of a lack of empirical evidence for Christianity, for me the charge is rather that no empirical evidence can affirm or refute God, which is rather convenient.

To paraphrase the Shawshank redemption: Since it is true that God exists, sir, I find it decidedly inconvenient.

What’s the point in trying to believe in something even believers don’t understand?

That’s why God is so great. All he asks is that we try and believe, and leave our pride at the door. I prefer analogies of little children when questions of proof and understanding are raised. Imagine a daycare full of 4 year olds, one of whom’s dad is away at war. The other kids ask him if he has a dad and he says yes. They tell him they don’t believe him and they want proof. He says I don’t have any. But mom talks to him every night. And I do too. He says he loves me and I say I love him. He says he’ll see me soon. Some of the kids believe because they relate to the experience of the boy. Some of them decide not to make up their mind and wait until there is absolute proof one way or the other. The remaining few (very, very few) continue to chide the boy and tell him he’s wrong and he’s an idiot and all sorts of other things because he believes in a fairy tale his mom told him to make him feel better. If only they could see what they are giving up in favor of their arrogance. They lose a chance of the boy’s friendship and fellowship just because they won’t give him the benefit of the doubt. It hasn’t been proven to their satisfaction, therefore it is false. And they are the arbiter of all truth. After all, they’re almost in Kindergarten!

 

[exnihilo]

In 1931 it was still the popular scientific sentiment that the universe was eternal. It took a Catholic priest and mathematician (Lemaitre) to provide the evidence and the theory that became the big bang, showing that there was a singular moment when all space and time came into existence, ultimately proving the scientific aspect of what the church had always preached. We are spoiled because we’ve grown up with the big bang but you have to remember how revolutionary it was and its implications. It has forced many an atheist into uncomfortable and sometimes untenable theories (the anthropic principle, the multiverse). This is only one example but is obviously the most pertinent to this particular thread.

This point is so very important. We cant turn back the clock to live in the pre Big Bang time. But we can know from research that the idea of the Big Bang was very controversial precisely because it served as evidence for the Christian idea of creation. It was resisted because of what many wanted to be true, an eternal universe. Prior to the Big Bang there was no good physical evidence of the creation of the universe. But afterwards it became impossible to deny that the world came into being.

This is important for understanding God’s justice. We often find it hard to understand how a good person who does not believe could be denied Heaven. But with the issue of the creation or eternality of the universe we can see that men will reject truth in order to deny God. How could this not be sinful?

First of all, God is not bound by the fabrication we call time. What we call “time” is the earth revolving around the sun, creating night and day at a steady pace in a way in which we can understand or record it. It is simply something we made up so that we could somewhat understand it. We have no way to tell whether or not “time” started with the creation of the universe - this is just a shallow, philosophical potshot in my opinion.

I think you might be too strong in your description of time being a fabrication. We certainly sense the passage of time. As to what precisely time is we may have no sure way of currently knowing. It seems to involve change and the feeling of movement. I would not want to deny this experience because it seems so genuine. For me I have a harder time understanding the eternal than time because time is what I have experience with.

 

[James1215]

I’d like to add that time is not change. According to general relativity, time is fundamental to the fabric of the universe. So God can easily said to be unchanging, but understanding how He is outside the fabric of the universe is rather more challenging.

 

[James1215]

To paraphrase the Shawshank redemption: Since it is true that God exists, sir, I find it decidedly inconvenient.

That’s why God is so great. All he asks is that we try and believe, and leave our pride at the door. I prefer analogies of little children when questions of proof and understanding are raised…

Another thing which is immune to evidence is Freudianism. Say I’m a psychoanalyst and I accuse every client of having had childhood trauma, there’s no way of denying it. Anyone who says I’m wrong is repressing their trauma - they can’t remember. Anyone who gets angry is revealing their insecurity which can only affirm my original diagnosis… The same with God! (More or less). How about the familiar “There wouldn’t be any atheists if God didn’t exist”. “There wouldn’t be any denial of childhood trauma without childhood trauma”

(@Warpspeedpetey, the thing to do is break Freud’s ideas down into components which can be tested or evidenced, otherwise we’ll never be able to know one way or the other.)

That child could demonstrate plausible reason to believe. If other children have phones (or friends) they understand that people do not cease to exist when they leave the room, and can be contacted. Why should I as a 4-year-old phone-user not believe that the kid is telling the truth? If I didn’t use phones, would I be irrational for not necessarily believing?

 

[exnihilo]

I’d like to add that time is not change. According to general relativity, time is fundamental to the fabric of the universe.

What is time then? Is there a difference in philosophical time and time as described by General Relativity? It seems to me that I might have heard someone say as much but cant recall.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’d like to add that time is not change. According to general relativity, time is fundamental to the fabric of the universe…

General relativity demonstrates that time is not a universal constant. It says nothing about the ontological status of time. This is such a well known issue that physicists call it “The Problem of Time”. You probably Googled the wrong term.

 

[James1215]

Warpspeedpetey, also - at least people can demonstrate that UV radiation exists

And if anyone wants to pursue empiricism, I suggest:
ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

 

[James1215]

What is time then? Is there a difference in philosophical time and time as described by General Relativity? It seems to me that I might have heard someone say as much but cant recall.

Fair enough if there is, but I can’t say I’ve heard of it. What good would a philosophical time be if it wasn’t found in reality? My point is that any arguments from the idea that time is simply observed change are suspect. Isn’t it possible for time to exist when no change happens? A more complex and less anthropocentric notion of time complicates the idea of a God outside time.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Another thing which is immune to evidence is Freudianism.

That will be news to Jungians worldwide. Further, you mean to say it is not falsifiable, but as I have told you before, falsification is a logical contradiction, of the same class as empiricism and verification criterions of meaning. To claim that a statement can only be true/meaningful if it can be falsified, cannot itself be falsified. Holding logical contradictions as valid is literally the defintion of irrational belief.

(@Warpspeedpetey, the thing to do is break Freud’s ideas down into components which can be tested or evidenced, otherwise we’ll never be able to know one way or the other.)

The thing to do is stop treating logical contradictions as if they are valid simply because they provide some emotional comfort. They make one feel certain where certainty doesn’t exist. If you really want to know truth, you are going to have to accept some uncomfortable epistemic facts.