God was behind Big Bang, pope says

reply to post by Ben81


Yes but there is also Job 4:17
"Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?" Thus emplying that God is nor just nor pure.

Ahh but any theorist will tell you that even in the utmost chaos symmetry and patterns will ensue.

LOL. Very nice discussing this with you but unfortunatly I must be on my way.
Later. ;-)

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by Ben81

 

Yes but there is also Job 4:17
"Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?" Thus emplying that God is nor just nor pure.

no one is above anyone .. living in pure eguality.. living in wisdom with no greed

this was his plan .. or legacy to us ... and look what we did .. how humans abuse the heaven like planet .. EARTH

reply to post by Ben81


Haaa!! Ben81 I have to go but it was very nice discuissing this with you. Very refreshing Thank you.

reply to post by PieKeeper


And how does that disprove the presence of order?

You dont see anything meaningful in the solar system like structure of an atom - the microcosm, with the aolr system itself? This doesnt seem like an intelligently designed ORDERED creation to you?

Again. You rest on the assumptiopn, and so form all your beliefs that because i cant completely understand than it must be chaotic and accidental.

And psychologists wonder why schizophrenia is vastly worse in the morally relative and nihilistic west than in other parts of the world. Its this lack of 'direction' and lack of DISTINCTION made. If you cant see whats clearly before you - ie; that things are orderly, than that actually qualifies as symptomatic of schizophrenia or overall mental disorder. To quote the renoned psychologist David Shakow

(1) The central, directly meaningful stimulus is avoided, apparently because it is disturbing (or in this case, undesirable) instead the peripheral is endowed with meaning (you opt for a skeptical, i want proof! attitude, despite its impracticality) (2) a casual attitude appears in which only part of the field is accepted as stimulus (you study the order in nature, but disassociate it from its greater meaning/significance). (3) the subject has a fixed idea and resorts to it without regard for the [central and contradictory] stimulus. (4) The peripheral is selectively attended to (the obvious order is ignored), captures attention, and is adhered to.

This skepticism is so shoddy it really doesnt even deserve acknowledgement.

Originally posted by dontreally
And how does that disprove the presence of order?

It doesn't, it's an example of something that doesn't lead me to believe that the universe was "intelligently designed."

Originally posted by dontreally
You dont see anything meaningful in the solar system like structure of an atom - the microcosm, with the aolr system itself? This doesnt seem like an intelligently designed ORDERED creation to you?

Should I see anything "meaningful" in the solar system? Should it seem intelligently designed?

If so, why?

Originally posted by dontreally
Again. You rest on the assumptiopn, and so form all your beliefs that because i cant completely understand than it must be chaotic and accidental.

Assumption of what? I never said that I was "forming all of my beliefs" on an assumption. Scientifically, the universe does not appear to be intelligently designed. There's no reason to believe that it was.

Originally posted by dontreally
And psychologists wonder why schizophrenia is vastly worse in the morally relative and nihilistic west than in other parts of the world. Its this lack of 'direction' and lack of DISTINCTION made. If you cant see whats clearly before you - ie; that things are orderly, than that actually qualifies as symptomatic of schizophrenia or overall mental disorder.

So, basically you're resorting to personal attacks by implying that I have a mental disorder. Nice.

Originally posted by dontreally
This skepticism is so shoddy it really doesnt even deserve acknowledgement.

We're asking for evidence. Just because to you it looks like it was intelligently designed does not make it so. This is what we call "subjective." You can look at a cloud and say that it resembles a certain object, but it's still a cloud and it doesn't care what you think it looks like.

250,000BC: "Oh look, fire...we can't explain it, god did it!"

3000BC: "Damn, all our crops are dying...we can't explain it, god did it!!"

10AC: "Look at that huuuuuge comet...we can't explain it, god did it!!"

1000AC: "Damn, she cured that man with those herbs...she must be possessed by the devil!!"

2011: "Scientists can't explain the big bang...so obviously god did it!!"

Am I the only one who sees this strategy of attributing complexity and things we don't understand to a deity isn't working out that well?? For crying out loud, it got a HORRIBLE track record, lol.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Don't you get it?

If you use the excuse enough, it HAS to work eventually!

reply to post by Ben81


The idea that God started the Big Bang answers nothing.

It's a God of the gaps fallacy but it's definitely not the dumbest thing the pope has ever said.

The statement that "this universe couldn't occur by chance" annoys me to no end.

In order to be perceived and experienced by something the universe HAD to exist. That is not to say the Universe HAD to exist however.

Either eventually something would cause the universe to come into existence, or nothing would ever happen, in which case it wouldn't matter because no one would be aware of nothingness.

reply to post by Iam'___'


If you dream up something, it is not a 'theory' it is a 'conjecture'. Now, if you observe a phenomenon a few times and come up with an idea to explain it, that would be a 'hypothesis'. But then you have to test it and support it with evidence, eventually putting it up to the level of a 'theory'. I hope this clears up the terminology for you, as the way science uses words and the way we use words in everyday speech are slightly different.



Again I say, where is the evidence for the Pope's claim? It's still no better than me saying that in 500 years I'll go back to before the Big Bang, fart, and thus create the Big Bang...actually, that's slightly better, as we'd be able to test it by monitoring my life. If I die before that time, my claim is false. If I somehow manage to live that long due to some sort of breakthrough in medicine, you'll be able to see whether or not I do it. The Pope might as well have just made the claim that an invisible, incorporeal, miniature talking car was flying around his head telling him everything.

reply to post by Ben81


"Maybe the Creator is a powerfull billion year old alien or an ascended energy being that we are very far from understand or even comprehend how is that all possible ... we have so many questions .. do we always need a scientific answer to beleive in something ... "

lool..i am glad u didnt pick the word "god"...otherwise ..i would say something that would be offensive.

reply to post by Ben81


I've always liked to think that god is a life force or flow of energy that is in EVERYTHING, and when we pass on or die, we go back to that energy, to be with this "god". You can pray to this energy, you can speak with it. It is in everything, and it is responsible for the existence of everything,

I've liked to think that when "reincarnations" occur, it is simply that peice of energy from the bigger flow being placed back into an organism for a specific reason that this "Godly Energy" has given it.

Anyone that's played Final Fantasy VII, knows what I mean, as it's very similar to the Life Stream, only my thoughts have lead me to think that it would be on an inter-universal scale, far into infinity, as the energy would have been responsible for everything.

I'm not super-religious... I believe there is a God, in the sense that there is an energy responsible for EVERYTHING we see right now. I don't think there's some white-cloaked old man with a large white beard, holding a wooden staff or anything. I think that anyone who believes that should stick to Mythology, as only in mythology were human-shaped figures considered a God.

Okay...so after reading the post...The way i see it is Hes just trying to get people to believe in God..but you think the people that decided to make up this religion didn't already know things about the earth and say hey.. we could throw this into the bible that way it adds up with this other stuff to make these people who are not really going to be thinking because that's what they will grow up believeing...and yea thats all i have to say for now.. (:

Thomas...X

and yes i know i do not express myself in the best way...but my ideas are way better in my head.. it just doesnt always right out the way i want it to...

Originally posted by Condemned0625
This statement is beyond laughable for my standards. Now he's saying "god" caused the big bang? How many more discoveries will it take until theists finally realize that there is absolutely NO evidence for gods? Do they not realize the problem of infinite regression? How can a deity exist infinitely into the past (alpha, beginning, always was, etc.)? The "creator" requires a creator for himself, which in turn requires his creator to also have a creator and so on, thus causing infinite regression. The pope needs to prove it.

Utter nonsense, thier either is a Creator or God or there is not.Not a secret it takes faith to believe in God.It always has.

When will people who believe stop trying to convert people who don't want to believe? God created the big bang? I thought the big bang was still a theory and a disputable one at that? Wouldn't the majority of the science field have to accept it before it becomes legit?

The pope is just talking nonsense to get nonbelievers to believe. And I, as a believer, am ashamed of the tactics used by the pope to try to gather followers.

The truth is we don't know what created the universe nor what was before it. Us with the faith follow without evidence and I know science driven minds want proof which we can't supply. But the big bang is just a theory. A theory which is at war with many other rivals that try to pinpoint our creation.

Of course the Pope is saying God is behind the Big Bang. What else is he gonna say, He had nothing to do with it?

The Holy See must have located one particular suppressed scroll found at Qumran, long thought to exist, & to be stored in the Vatican Archives. I'll summarize its contents:

One day, God decided to get out His box of fireworks. As there was no Universe yet, there was no particular occasion that called for it; God simply liked to play with all the whiz-bang and sparkly things. After all, Him being God, it's not likely He was gonna get hurt.

He noticed that the Fireworks Angel had delivered something new this time around. "Hmm", he said to Himself, reading aloud the label. "Exploding Universe Cracker"... the possibilities, He knew, were endless.
"By Me", He thundered (His all-powerful enthusiasm knocking an angel named Lucifer right out of the sky to begin one Hell of a fall), "This sounds like jolly good fun!"

Lighting the fuse with the tip of His finger, God then peeked out from behind His golden throne, holding His ears and waiting delightedly to see what would happen when His new toy detonated.
The rest, as they say, is history... hey, if the Pope can make this stuff up, so can I!

I've had this image in my head for a long time now. Nice to finally find a place where I can share it. I know some will get a kick out of it; for the rest of you, the line to start flaming me forms on your left.

Well from my point of view we where made by someone or something. All our body features play a roll.

reply to post by Condemned0625


that would make sense if G-d wasnt the creator of logic

Originally posted by fusionhunter
Well from my point of view we where made by someone or something. All our body features play a roll.

Wrong.

Humans have a number of vestigial features, products of our evolutionary past that no longer serve any significant purpose, if any at all.

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

Carl Sagan