Religion and Science!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anastasia

**Add to that my Jewish cosmologist friend from U. C. Santa Cruz, Joel Primack, co-discoverer of dark matter. **

Do you believe that God created the universe?

If you believe that God created the universe, what is your point of bringing up dark matter?
 
There is plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design but science does not recognise the existence of **personal **
It may not be scientiific but it is** highly significant evidence **- which in the long run is far more valuable than all the scientific evidence in the world, as people realise when they’re on their deathbed (if not before!)

Although science can either prove nor disprove the existence of God the very existence of science is evidence for the existence of God! To attribute the power of reason to permutations of molecules is ludicrous…
 
Design and purpose are very important here. Randomness is hard to empirically study because of its unpredictability.
Purpose can be inner-driven as well as outwardly imposed. For instance, animals mate for the purpose of creating offspring, but there is no evidence that a separate supernatural being either designed the process or inspired each, or any, instance of it. There is purpose, but driven by the organism, not an outside force.
The process of gradual, small, but cumulative developments can produce the appearance of design by eliminating the intermediate steps. To build an arch, you cannot just stack stones over air, because they fall. You need to build a supporting scaffolding until you can put the keystone in last, when the pressure of the stones keeps them in place. Then when you take the scaffolding down, everyone wonders how the arch was made.
A similar process happens organically. Duplicate genes switch functions, code for a physical development, which provides an advantage; the development continues to be modified, and some examples disappear. Eventually, modifications built on other, now vanished, modifications result in an organism where complex parts all work together, and Michael Behe comes along and writes a book claiming that the structures could not have evolved all at once because they wouldn’t work. Creationists start dancing on Darwin’s grave until someone points out how other evolved structures modified their functions to provide enough of a prototype of the supposedly irreducibly complex organism that it could survive and develop into the complete organism we see today. Creationists ignore this and keep dancing, but everyone else laughs at them until the Westminster Abbey security forces make everybody go home.
 
I don’t think there is a talking snake in this story, but there is a talking muskrat or duck.
A talking snake is not part of Catholic doctrine. But Satan is part of Catholic doctrine. It is important to understand the distinction between figurative language and Divine Revelation.
 
**
The need for a consensus does not imply that the Church was founded on a consensus! The basic consensus of doctrines has been safeguarded by the Church since the time of the Apostles. **

👍

Indeed, the Church was founded by Christ the King, not Christ the President.

He made his own throne from which to rule. He was not elected by consensus.
And He formed a community with a leader to take His message to the ends of the earth, which has been accomplished in spite of corruption from within - which destroyed Rome - and persecution from without - which destroyed other churches.
 
Purpose can be inner-driven as well as outwardly imposed. For instance, animals mate for the purpose of creating offspring, but there is no evidence that a separate supernatural being either designed the process or inspired each, or any, instance of it. There is purpose, but driven by the organism, not an outside force.
The process of gradual, small, but cumulative developments can produce the appearance of design by eliminating the intermediate steps. To build an arch, you cannot just stack stones over air, because they fall. You need to build a supporting scaffolding until you can put the keystone in last, when the pressure of the stones keeps them in place. Then when you take the scaffolding down, everyone wonders how the arch was made.
A similar process happens organically. Duplicate genes switch functions, code for a physical development, which provides an advantage; the development continues to be modified, and some examples disappear. Eventually, modifications built on other, now vanished, modifications result in an organism where complex parts all work together, and Michael Behe comes along and writes a book claiming that the structures could not have evolved all at once because they wouldn’t work. Creationists start dancing on Darwin’s grave until someone points out how other evolved structures modified their functions to provide enough of a prototype of the supposedly irreducibly complex organism that it could survive and develop into the complete organism we see today. Creationists ignore this and keep dancing, but everyone else laughs at them until the Westminster Abbey security forces make everybody go home.
The scaffold itself was designed for the purpose of building the arch.
 
We have no warrant to believe that there was any physical existence before the Big Bang, since there was no time before the Big Bang in which anything physical could exist.
This isn’t as cut-and-dried as you imply. For instance, we don’t know that time didn’t exist before the Big bang, since physicists tell us that the laws of physics that apply in our world of experience were different in the first few nanoseconds of the process. There are too many possibilities to dogmatize about which ones didn’t or couldn’t have happened. The scientific jury is still out.
But even if God did create everything, there are temporal difficulties. For example, did God’s planning of every detail of how the universe would be, its complex interweaving of law and chance, accident and inevitability, occur instantaneously? It would have to, or else it would take what? Time, yes? But if God existed eternally and then suddenly thought, hey, I’ll manifest my perfections in a physical universe, there would be a before God thought of it and an after, which means time would exist before the BB. The only way to avoid this would be if God’s idea of the universe was as eternal as God himself. But to avoid the time issue, his decision to start the Big Bang, and the act thereof, would have to occur with no time interval also between the planning, the willing, and the doing. That would have to mean that the physical universe is eternal, which makes the BB useless as scientific evidence for the beginning of time or creation.
 
SGW
**
Eventually, modifications built on other, now vanished, modifications result in an organism where complex parts all work together, and Michael Behe comes along and writes a book claiming that the structures could not have evolved all at once because they wouldn’t work. **

That is not Behe’s view. His view is not that they wouldn’t work, but that they couldn’t appear all at once without being designed. They obviously could not evolve because these structures were not yet alive to evolve! How then did they get organized if there was no mind to intelligently organize them?

It’s like supposing that a watch could evolve itself into existence without a designer. And a watch can’t even replicate itself, which power the first life forms had or they could not have survived.
 
Interesting diagram! However, this does not pertain to the Catholic Church because of what is missing.
Well, how about this (sorry, no fancy graphics):

The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.
How do we know?
The Bible and tradition tell us so.
How do we know we can trust them?
The Catholic Church says so.

Some try to break this circle by appealing to the Bible first as a purely historical record, and prove its inspiration by that. I don’t think that’s convincing, for many reasons, but that’s another thread. Too many oceans of ink have been spilled on that issue already, wasting mental energy that I feel could be more usefully employed elsewhere.
 
Anastasia

**If you believe that God created the universe, why not bring up everything? **

I thought you might be bringing up dark matter as a rebuttal to the idea that the universe had a start in time. Dark matter is the kind of desperate ploy that atheists like Roger Penrose might use to explain why God is not necessary.

Apparently you had no reason for bringing it up?
 
Well, how about this (sorry, no fancy graphics):

The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.
How do we know?
The Bible and tradition tell us so.
How do we know we can trust them?
The Catholic Church says so.

.
That is a wonderful circle of truth. Not one lie in it. 🙂

You could also add that Christ said He was God. And that Christ remains present in the Catholic Church. You could also add that we can trust the Catholic Church because the Holy Spirit protects its Deposit of Faith. And we can trust the Catholic Church because Christ said He was God and He promised to send the Holy Spirit in Chapter 14 of John in Scripture…

You could enlarge that circle by saying that Christ died for all people; therefore all people are called to share in eternal life of God --the same God Who revealed Himself through the Hebrew Scriptures and personally in the incarnate Jesus Christ.
 
The process of gradual, small, but cumulative developments can produce the appearance of design by eliminating the intermediate steps. To build an arch, you cannot just stack stones over air, because they fall. You need to build a supporting scaffolding until you can put the keystone in last, when the pressure of the stones keeps them in place. Then when you take the scaffolding down, everyone wonders how the arch was made.
Scaffolds are designed for destruction as well as creation!

Are your plans “driven” by you or your body? Or do you equate them?
 
Anastasia, I thought you might be bringing up dark matter as a rebuttal to the idea that the universe had a start in time. Dark matter is the kind of desperate ploy that atheists like Roger Penrose might use to explain why God is not necessary.

Charlie, no, I was not bringing it up as a rebuttal. It’s not a desperate ploy at all.
Apparently you had no reason for bringing it up?
 
SGW

The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.
How do we know?
The Bible and tradition tell us so.
How do we know we can trust them?
The Catholic Church says so.


You left out the historical data. Who founded the Catholic Church if not Christ? The Catholic Church has all the earmarks of a Church founded by Christ. Protestantism has some of the earmarks, but not all.

For example, Catholicism follows the admonition of Christ that there be “one shepherd and one flock” whereas Protestantism follows the principle of one shepherd and many flocks.
 
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.
How do we know?
The Bible and tradition tell us so.
How do we know we can trust them?
The Catholic Church says so.

Some try to break this circle by appealing to the Bible first as a purely historical record, and prove its inspiration by that. I don’t think that’s convincing, for many reasons, but that’s another thread. Too many oceans of ink have been spilled on that issue already, wasting mental energy that I feel could be more usefully employed elsewhere.
Quite apart from the historical record of the Church there is also the teaching of Christ that cannot be dismissed as totally insignificant (from the point of view of any civilised person…)
 
The scaffold itself was designed for the purpose of building the arch.
It’s an analogy, hence imperfect. The point is that nature can produce organisms that appear to our brains, which evolved a highly efficient pattern-recognition function, to be designed from outside according to a purpose imposed from outside, when both the design and the designer are imaginary. The way nature does this is analogous to the way an arch is built only in that the scaffolding is necessary and later disappears, not in the sense that it is designed with a foreseen purpose in mind – a weakness, I know. But I can’t make an analogy for a physical process using a human construction without necessarily including the fact that it is a human construction; I only included it to illustrate a process, to aid in understanding. I’m sorry that necessity confused things, or that I couldn’t think of a better analogy. I’m sorry that you are so mired in your ideology that this over-elaborate explanation was necessary.
 
Anastasia

**Yes - to identify Joel Primack as a cosmologist of note who is also interested in the preconditions of the big Bang. **

There were no pre-conditions, since God created the universe, which you have already noted. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top