N
Noose001
Guest
Christians do not make such claims and the one true God says He is God of gods and King of kings. We have a name for these other gods; demons or idols. An idol can be something or nothing at all.
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Certainly. “The universe and life could come into existence without God if Vishnu had created the universe and life, not the Christian God.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
“Finally, in desperation he called upon Vishnu for help” (Vishnu saving the elephant, Gajendra Moksha).
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
That’s a strawman profile and it applies on other “Christian” forums more than this Catholic forum. It was a Belgian Catholic priest, who first proposed the “big bang theory” and an expanding universe. Link: Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s not my opinion.Freddy:
480 posts later, and you have said several times, we don’t know how the universe came to be. This means we have no evidence that it happened by natural causes or with the guidance of God.
No, because you have said you have no proof how the universe came to be.
However, if you say it is my opinion that the universe came to be by natural causes, then I am happy to accept this.
There is no supernatural evidence for how the earth came to be. Planetary formation is understood and we know the physical processes that result in planets being formed. There’s no gap in our knowledge where we assume a supernatural act is required to continue the process. Likewise stars. Likewise galaxies.
And we can rerun the tape and work out how everything came to be, from hot plasma to elements and eventually us. There is no asterix somewhere in the account where you’re referred to scripture.
We can take it back to the first few lengths of time that are meaningless to anyone but theoretical physicists. And still it’s all entirely natural. All explained by maths and physics and chemistry.
So if you don’t mind, seeing as the whole universe gives all indications of being formed entirely naturally then I will stick with that option until someone has evidence to the contrary.
However, if you want to suggest that God is behind it all, then I will have no problem with that whatsoever.
F
Freddy
Guest
Unfortunately, there are quite a few people within this very thread who will either claim the planet is a few thousand years old or, in some cases, refuse to deny it.Freddy:
That’s a strawman profile and it applies on other “Christian” forums more than this Catholic forum. It was a Belgian Catholic priest, who first proposed the “big bang theory” and an expanding universe. Link: Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia
Please feel free to discuss it with them. I try to avoid it because, as you will find out, it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
When you say “if Vishnu had created the universe and life”. Did he or didn’t he?
If Vishnu created the universe, then how was that purely by natural causes?
The whole point of this thread was to ask, how could the universe and life come to be without any intelligent creator?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Can you try replying to the original question please. How did the Universe come to be by natural causes? Not how did the Earth happen by natural causes.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
If that were true, then science would not have anything to say about the Big Bang, the makeup of the universe and how molecular life is arranged. Clearly that’s not the case. These and more all touch on the “beginning” of the space-time continuum.
We come upon the real source of the issue. You conflate faith with knowledge. Science is the antithesis of a religion because it is not a revelation of truth. Whereas a proclaimed divine source basically downloads privileged knowledge on believers and gives them the answers in a nut shell. All the person has to do is decide whether they accept that story as truth. That’s faith.
Science is never a complete set of data. There is no “The End.” It’s an ongoing draft of acquired knowledge that is not revealed, but determined through testing and experimentation to be accurate. If the information is later found to be incomplete or incorrect in some way, the old theory is replaced and the whole draft gets revised.
There is no faith involved in that model. It’s “demonstrate the evidence” in an objectively measurable way or the information is not acceptable.
That’s the opposite of revealed truth from religion, which presents its truths as unassailable by any investigative technique or human logic.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Currently science says that the universe came into being from a cause; the cause of the Big Bang. Developments after the Big Bang show no evidence of any supernatural intervention, and that includes the origin of material life on earth.
Science has hypothesised a number of possible causes for the Big Bang: the multiverse, colliding branes and others. None of those hypothetical causes are intelligent, and all can potentially trigger the Big Bang.
So far there is no scientific evidence to show that intelligence is required in a cause for the Big Bang.
F
Freddy
Guest
You’ve got to read the whole post, Eric. I only started with the earth.Eric_Hyom:
Can you try replying to the original question please. How did the Universe come to be by natural causes? Not how did the Earth happen by natural causes.
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, science does not know or claim to know the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory uses math to explain the probable physics after the Big Bang but not the Big Bang itself. See Planck Time.
Again, you are wrong. The thread is not about faith, it’s about science. Science is not the antithesis of faith. As a matter of epistemology, natural faith in the truth of the philosophy that nature is fixed and regular in its operations underpins all science; the truth of which cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Science doesn’t “know” anything. It’s a model for deriving information. It’s not a religion.
Also, your statement that there’s no science involved in the Big Bang theory is nonsensical. Math is used for measurement, but the method of questioning, creating a hypotheses, collecting evidence, testing and so on is exactly the scientific method.
Yet you mentioned faith first. Science does not deal in “truths” as religion does. It is a method for collecting data, measuring, and evaluating it.
Because data can be incomplete, corrupted, or not measurable by current tools, the conclusions derived from the data may likewise be erroneous. Some conclusions have a great deal more data and experimentation to support them, like the the theory of gravity, which we often call “law” because of the degree of confidence in the data.
But any law or theory of science can be modified, redacted, or even completely discarded if other, compelling information comes in that can be demonstrated by the scientific method.
That is the difference between science and faith. The my knowledge, your Catholic Church can never receive new information that suddenly conflicts with the truth of the Virgin birth or that Jesus is God. Religion makes claims for itself and its authority on truth that are considered permanent, unchangeable.
That is opposite of science. It is also why I think many theists claim there’s no conflict between religion and science because they operate in different zones. Religion deals in certitude, science deals in confidence levels, which can frequently change.
Last edited:
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Eric_Hyom:
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
What happened an hour before the Big Bang, or a year before?
How did the Bang happen purely by natural causes?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Now, you’re just being silly.
We call the above a straw man argument around here.
Because faith comes first. Or, do you deny that all science is based on faith; that the nature of reality is fixed and regular? If so then show us using the scientific method that demonstrates nature to be so.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
No. It’s based upon repeated observation. The senses do seem to reliably convey information about reality. If they didn’t, then the conclusions attained by scientific method would not bear results that are useful or predictive. If data gathered by empirical senses is faulty then its results should not have any coherence or consistently align with reality.
Faith by contrast is believing in something you do not have the ability to empirically test. You cannot observe the soul under a microscope and witness the forgiveness of sin. There is no lab test for observing the grace conferred through baptism. You accept these things based on faith.
I do not accept that amoxicillin will kill Strep bacteria based on faith, but on repeated lab experiments where it is directly observable by the human eye.
And logically, if faith and empirical observation were not considered two different standards of determining reality, why did Jesus offer empirical observation to Thomas? Thomas is not called Believing Thomas for preferring the evidence of his own eyes. He is regarded as a skeptic because of it.
And if faith were required to believe what our own senses tell us, then it would hardly be regarded as a gift in the Bible, and something God endows believers with. Jesus certainly wouldn’t have told his disciples, who in fear of perishing because of what their senses told them about their environment, “Oh ye of little faith!”
Clearly, their senses and past observations told them that a storm at sea could kill them. That required no faith at all. What did require it was believing they had the son of God on their boat and had supernatural ability to disperse atmospheric conditions on command.
They “believed” their senses, yet Jesus called them out for their lack of faith. Not misplaced faith - lack of it.
Science is a tool for collecting information. It is not a static repository of truth.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, but now you are making my point. ?
And you continue to make my point. The scientific method cannot empirically prove the scientific method as reliable.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Because Thomas lacked faith, Jesus provided the empirical evidence to overcome his doubt. The empirical may not be able to evidence all the truths of faith but it can arrive at some. Once the empirical has demonstrated with certainty the truth of an issue then faith is no longer necessary. But certainty is always beyond the scientific method.
Don’t shortchange science. It’s more than a collection instrument. Science seeks to understand the cause of observed effects.
N
Noose001
Guest
No but you do believe you will be healed from a disease caused by strep when you take amoxicillin. It is not a guarantee that you will be healed.
I just don’t understand your point.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Because that is circular. Empirical evidence does not empirically prove itself because it is predicated on certain understanding of reality. If empiricism is not reliable then the information derived from that method should not reliably conform to reality.
If you wish to equate reality itself with faith, you are assigning a new definition to the word that defies conventional understanding. Reality is the default. We all experience it and for the most part, accept it and what our senses tell us.
You can argue that that acceptance requires faith, but if so, to merely experience reality is to have faith. Yet, the Bible frequently describes people who are faithless and makes a clear delineation those who have it and those who don’t.
You may argue about the nature of reality and how we perceive it. We could merely be simulation. But even if so, the rules of the simulated reality are still a given, and to follow those rules to coherence is hardly remarkable.
If you redefine faith to include whatever your senses tell you, I think you’ve done more than any secular person to undermine religious claims to the supernatural origin of faith.
- Status