A
atheistgirl
Guest
Yes.atheistgirl
Can you write posts longer than 2-3 sentences that never express a thought beyond tersely dismissing what others think??
Oh comāon ā¦ you knew I was going to say that didnāt you
Sarah x
- Status
Oh comāon ā¦ you knew I was going to say that didnāt you
Sarah x
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Got here unexpectedly, but will leave again soon. I did want to see if this thread hit a singularity and, indeed, it did. Sooner than I thought, though.
S
samiam1611
Guest
Ridge I was totally going to compliment you on your awesome intelligent and enlightening post but since you said you werenāt going to be around for awhile I didnāt bother but seriously I had to show your post to my friend who was like why are you on a catholic forum and I was like cuz of posts like this that are so interesting and intelligent!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Ridgerunner
You canāt go from the Big Bang to supernatural just like that, because some natural thing might have caused the Big Bang, and some physicists think some natural thing did.
But they have no proof that a natural thing caused it. So they should not discount on that ground that a supernatural Thing caused the Big Bang.
You canāt go from the Big Bang to supernatural just like that, because some natural thing might have caused the Big Bang, and some physicists think some natural thing did.
But they have no proof that a natural thing caused it. So they should not discount on that ground that a supernatural Thing caused the Big Bang.
Z
zro_x
Guest
You could claim that the zero-energy universe theory is invalid because it violates divine revelation (it doesnāt), but then that means that you have to believe in the authority of divine revelation for some other reason besides the big bang. You canāt use the big bang to support the authority of divine revelation if you are using divine revelation to support the big bang.(Which divine revelation says nothing about anyway)
Z
zro_x
Guest
It may well be, but youād have to back up that assertion in order to show that it actually is absolute nonsense.Absolute nonesense !!
Z
zro_x
Guest
Where is it defined?
If it is defined by the catholic church, then we can no longer use the big bang to show that God exists. Rather, we are using the existence of God and the authority of the church to discredit the zero-energy universe theory, and our āuncaused causeā proof for God goes out the window. If it is to remain valid, then the theory is going to have to be attacked without appealing to divine revelation.
Z
zro_x
Guest
not sentient? sentience is the quality of having consciousness and perception. Doesnāt God have those qualities?The God of Christianity is not " sentient. " He is Pure Existence. Which means is a living Intellect with a Will and Infinite Power Who Loves and Creates and Who operates most intimately as a primary efficient cause, sustainer, and director of all that exists outside Himself, drawing all theings to His desired end. Now, what is so bad or repugnant about that. Why all the fear ? Seems to me we have everything to gain and nothing to loose.
Z
zro_x
Guest
Your view seems to be that consciousness is caused by physical events. That view may or may not be true, but it is certainly no more or less absurd then the Catholic view that physical events are caused by one particular consciousness. The immaterial mind and the material body are two completely distinct aspects of our reality, and a cause in one creating an effect in the other seems absurd. And yet they do interact! So the question then becomes: which is the cause, and which the effect? The naturalist claims one answer, and the theist claims the other.
F
Fomalhaut
Guest
Pfew, I had to read everything to be sure I wasnāt repeating something someone had said.
First, Iād like to kindly ask moderators not to close the thread preventively. Iām sure we can all get along without calling names. And Iām also not a native speaker, Iām doing my best but feel free to correct me.
I want to point out an important thing about the Big Bang theory. Scientific theories are self-consistent. They donāt contradict themselves. They can contradict each other is some circonstances: quantum theory and General Relativity are contradictory about the nature of space, but thatās because they donāt talk about the same things or events. But in a single theory, there is no internal contradiction. The Big Bang theory relies on logic and a few principles. One of them is the cause and effect principle. This theory doesnāt contradict it.
There is a very simple reason to it: the Big Bang theory does NOT states the existence of a singularity. It only states that at some point, long ago, space-time was pretty tight, and that everything was very very dense. We can imagine that it came from a singularity and that very second the Big Bang theory is talking about is what came just after the āexplosionā of this singularity. But thatās not science.
A conflict between science and religion makes no sense. There had been a few in history, simply because some religious people made some hypothesis on the nature of the world and saw science contradict them. But these religious people shouldnāt be mad at science for that, scientist are not trying to debunk God, they canāt, they never will ! Science is a tool. We look at the world, we formulate a theory to explain what we see, making sure itās testable and falsifiable, we test it, if that works, we stick to the theory for now, if that doesnāt work, we move on. Itās nothing more than that !
About what came before the Big Bang, as I said, science canāt answer that one for now and people can fill this gap with whatever they want. But God is not the only potential answer. Maybe they never was a singularity. Maybe the Universe is following an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction, the āBig Bounceā. Maybe the universe was always as dense as the Big Bang and suddenly expanded as an exponential function: eternally small if you follow the negative numbers, but after a few positive numbers, it takes off ! There are more theories about the āpre Big Bangā but they are not scientific until someone can say: āIf my theory is true, we should be able to observe thatā.
First, Iād like to kindly ask moderators not to close the thread preventively. Iām sure we can all get along without calling names.
And Iām also not a native speaker, Iām doing my best but feel free to correct me.I want to point out an important thing about the Big Bang theory. Scientific theories are self-consistent. They donāt contradict themselves. They can contradict each other is some circonstances: quantum theory and General Relativity are contradictory about the nature of space, but thatās because they donāt talk about the same things or events. But in a single theory, there is no internal contradiction. The Big Bang theory relies on logic and a few principles. One of them is the cause and effect principle. This theory doesnāt contradict it.
There is a very simple reason to it: the Big Bang theory does NOT states the existence of a singularity. It only states that at some point, long ago, space-time was pretty tight, and that everything was very very dense. We can imagine that it came from a singularity and that very second the Big Bang theory is talking about is what came just after the āexplosionā of this singularity. But thatās not science.
A conflict between science and religion makes no sense. There had been a few in history, simply because some religious people made some hypothesis on the nature of the world and saw science contradict them. But these religious people shouldnāt be mad at science for that, scientist are not trying to debunk God, they canāt, they never will ! Science is a tool. We look at the world, we formulate a theory to explain what we see, making sure itās testable and falsifiable, we test it, if that works, we stick to the theory for now, if that doesnāt work, we move on. Itās nothing more than that !
About what came before the Big Bang, as I said, science canāt answer that one for now and people can fill this gap with whatever they want. But God is not the only potential answer. Maybe they never was a singularity. Maybe the Universe is following an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction, the āBig Bounceā. Maybe the universe was always as dense as the Big Bang and suddenly expanded as an exponential function: eternally small if you follow the negative numbers, but after a few positive numbers, it takes off ! There are more theories about the āpre Big Bangā but they are not scientific until someone can say: āIf my theory is true, we should be able to observe thatā.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Formalhaut
**About what came before the Big Bang, as I said, science canāt answer that one for now and people can fill this gap with whatever they want. **
Science will never be able to answer that question because the Big Bang produced time itself. There was no ābeforeā before the Big Bang!
**About what came before the Big Bang, as I said, science canāt answer that one for now and people can fill this gap with whatever they want. **
Science will never be able to answer that question because the Big Bang produced time itself. There was no ābeforeā before the Big Bang!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Francis Collins, born in 1950, was until recently the leader of the Human Genome Project. He was born into a Christian home, but had become an atheist by the time he finished college. After obtaining a PhD. in chemistry he earned an M.D. and soon specialized in genetic diseases. Collins eventually headed a scientific team that found the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, Huntingtonās disease, neurofibromatosis, and the M4 type of acute leukemia. But his work on mapping the human genome was for him āan adventure that beats going to the moon or splitting the atom.ā
Collins has been impressed by scientific developments that lead him to conclude atheism has no intellectual foundation. On the contrary, science has opened the door to a reasonable consideration of God as Creator. In his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins argues that the Big Bang theory cries out for God as a hypothesis to explain creation.
Collins pronounces himself a theistic evolutionist much charmed by the grand design of the universe. As for his own conversion, he freely admits to belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, a belief that was made inevitable first by reading a key passage from C.S. Lewis. Then he encountered, during a nature hike in the Cascade Mountains, the unexpected grandeur of a frozen waterfall hundreds of feet high. Collins had learned to approach God by fusing together the visionary power of both intellect and imagination. He has described his youthful adoption of atheism as one of āwillful blindness.ā
Collins has been impressed by scientific developments that lead him to conclude atheism has no intellectual foundation. On the contrary, science has opened the door to a reasonable consideration of God as Creator. In his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins argues that the Big Bang theory cries out for God as a hypothesis to explain creation.
Collins pronounces himself a theistic evolutionist much charmed by the grand design of the universe. As for his own conversion, he freely admits to belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, a belief that was made inevitable first by reading a key passage from C.S. Lewis. Then he encountered, during a nature hike in the Cascade Mountains, the unexpected grandeur of a frozen waterfall hundreds of feet high. Collins had learned to approach God by fusing together the visionary power of both intellect and imagination. He has described his youthful adoption of atheism as one of āwillful blindness.ā
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Only if you have a severly limited imagination.
āI donāt know, so it must have been God.ā
āI donāt know, so it must have been God.ā
C
centurionguard
Guest
I guess Stephen Hawking despite all his fancied brilliance in intellect of being the worlds most affluent Astrophysicist has turned out to be another Carl Sagan?
Sure āThe Big Bangā is a thought provoking thesis.
But to deny that God is not the Creator of the mind boggling vast canvass we see in the sky at night.
Sometimes thatās what happens when the human mind accumulates too much intelligence. It turns inward on itself
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Or only if you have a severely truncated imagination:
āI donāt know, but it must not have been God.ā
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Arizona
**Or only if you have a severely truncated imagination:
āI donāt know, but it must not have been God.ā **
**Or only if you have a severely truncated imagination:
āI donāt know, but it must not have been God.ā **
V
VirtusTransitus
Guest
Something Iāve noticed over the years. Faith requires humility. Insistence on proof belies arrogance. Iām sure Iām not the first to observe thisā¦
H
HouseUponRock
Guest
Evolution theory (whether it be biological or astronomical) is the āscience falsely calledā of 1 Timothy 6:20. It was created by Freemasonic establishment solely for the purpose of destroying Christianity. For Catholics to support evolution is to support the Masonic-Communistic New World Order religion plain and simple, that classic lie of Satan that āyou shall be as godsā. Because ultimately, if humans are evolving, they will eventually become āgodsā if the theory is trueā¦
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Best inform the Vatican immediately
Because the Vatican has no issue with science, or the fact of evolution, so long as itās accepted at some point in the history of man, God infused one man and one woman with a soul, thus making them fully human, and we are all descended from this pair.
Sarah x
- Status