God was behind Big Bang, pope says

Originally posted by journey2010
I have always asked: Why can't science and religion get along?

It's because religion gets all threatening if and when you might happen to disagree with them and their beliefs. They say stuff like you're gonna get your head chopped off or be sent to hell for eternity if you don't subscribe to their version of blah blah blah. Until they remove those threats from their dogma, there will be no getting along with them. In fact, don't turn your backs to them, else they might start another crusade to burn and kill the truth. They're just interested in beliefs, not the truth, it's why there are so many different religions and their conflicting versions of god dogma.

So, I now ask, why can't all those 4000+ religions not get along with each other? Why are there so many religions with so many different/conflicting versions of their contrived beliefs? Maybe religion needs to learn to get together first before trying to get together with the scientists. Once religion is reduced to one, and they have learned to stop with their nasty offensive threats, maybe then science can get along with religion. Maybe?

reply to post by Ben81


Ahh, what's new??? The popes say a lot of crazy stuff, for instance:

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." --POPE LEO XIII
(Then again...Satan said this too... I will be like the most High." LUCIFER, ISAIAH 14:14) coincidence???

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)." --POPE BONIFACE VIII

"No person shall preach without the permission of his Superior. All preachers shall explain the Gospel according to the Fathers. They shall not explain futurity or the times of Antichrist!" Pope Leo X, 1516

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which NO ONE at all is saved. -Pope Innocent III

So we can easily and safely assume with no biased at all based on the facts presented that whatever the popes say, can be equal in authority to the words of Donald Duck or Micky Mouse.

Extra: Popes who had children that became popes: (naughty popes)
Pope Anastasius (399-401) sired Pope Innocent I (401-417)
Pope Hormisday (514-523) sired Pope Silverius (536-537)
Pope Sergius II (904-911) sired Pope John XI (931-935)
Just another long bloodline of elities ruling over us, just shameful.

reply to post by fusionhunter


Goose bumps. What role do those play? I'd say there are a few rare people for which they play a role, but those are only the overly hairy individuals, not the vast majority. Goose bumps are vestiges of our past.

(I posted something similar to my post below in another thread, thought I should post it here as well)

Scientists are aware through predominantly that of empiricism, that our universe has a large number of cosmological constants, which if slightly off by a fraction, would result in us not existing.

It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse. Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by pure chance.

The problem with the multiverse is that it is not based on empiricism/knowledge, because we simply don’t know what lies beyond our own universe, or indeed, even if there are, any other universes. What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again, neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

Originally posted by Joecroft


(I posted something similar to my post below in another thread, thought I should post it here as well)

Scientists are aware through predominantly that of empiricism, that our universe has a large number of cosmological constants, which if slightly off by a fraction, would result in us not existing.

Yet scientists have no clue if those constants could even possibly have other values. There is also the fact that the universe would seemingly be able to chug on as is without the weak force of the universe, one of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity).

It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

No, it is based on assumption. We are unable to determine whether or not those numbers have any other possible values, so any leap based upon the values of those numbers is merely assumption.

One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse.

Yes, one of many unproven hypotheses with regards to theoretical cosmology.

Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by pure chance.

Or possibly all universes have the exact same fundamental physical constants, thus they all formed into stable universes. We don't have to appeal to the multiverse to say that the 'fine tuning' argument for a creator is a bit silly.

The problem with the multiverse is that it is not based on empiricism/knowledge, because we simply don’t know what lies beyond our own universe, or indeed, even if there are, any other universes.

Indeed, I actually agree with you here. It is currently a hypothesis, so only scientific inquiry will tell, probably with the next couple of decades, whether or not the concept is near the truth.

Of course, I also cut this paragraph off here to highlight something, we only have one sample. We have no way of knowing of other possible value for constants due to this fact, and to leap to the conclusion that these constants were finally tuned would be to make the same mistake as those who appeal solely to the multiverse.

What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again, neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.

Actually, the idea of the multiverse is falsifiable. It is within the realm of scientific investigation and is currently going through scientific inquiry. Of course, it is only one hypothesis amongst many.

The conceptions of deities, on the other hand, vary. Some are unfalsifiable. Some might be. But that is a separate issue and something for another thread.

Originally posted by KingKeever1611
reply to post by Ben81

 

Ahh, what's new??? The popes say a lot of crazy stuff, for instance:

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." --POPE LEO XIII
(Then again...Satan said this too... I will be like the most High." LUCIFER, ISAIAH 14:14) coincidence???

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)." --POPE BONIFACE VIII
.

Every time I hear salvationist theory from a religous institution I remind them of Matthew 24...they soon fall quiet.

R

Given that the pope has no scientific knowledge (or evidence for that matter) that would qualify him to make such a claim...his entire statement as well as this thread are a bit useless. It's as if Michael Jordan made comments regarding astrophysics. Insanity...especially given that we live in the 21st century!

reply to post by MrXYZ


It's the same with that Jenny McCarthy, the play boy model. The amount of drivel she talks about vaccines being evil when she obviously has no say in the matter what-so-ever because she doesn't know what she's talking about

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Given that the pope has no scientific knowledge ...

He doesn't need to, because he has a staff of science advisors. I am very surprised that you don't already know that!
Vicky

Any type of person that makes assumptions is truly ignorant. There is nothing wrong with making a guess and being wrong...but to assume you know everything and then teach it to the rest of the world as fact will always be a crime that separates humanity.

Science and religion alike. Until they find physical proof of a God or the origin on the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe more than the other.

Any type of person that makes assumptions is truly ignorant. There is nothing wrong with making a guess and being wrong...but to assume you know everything and then teach it to the rest of the world as fact will always be a crime that separates humanity.

Science and religion alike. Until they find physical proof of a God or the origin on the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe more than the other.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Given that the pope has no scientific knowledge ...

He doesn't need to, because he has a staff of science advisors. I am very surprised that you don't already know that!
Vicky

You mean the same science advisors that took 150 years to accept a theory the rest of the scientific community has long accepted before them? The same advisors that were hellbent to stating the earth is flat even after it came out they were wrong? And what makes you so sure those "advisors" are not biased or that their statements even get heard/accepted?

reply to post by Ben81

(I know the universe is not a product of chance from) simple deduction

Deduction from what? What are your first premises?

*

reply to post by dontreally

Wasn't asking you, was I?

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

I've lived most of my life with no tonsils, no gall bladder and no appendix.
The absence of these has benefitted my health.
So how can you say, "all our body features play a roll" (sic)?
Or does playing a role in causing illness qualify?

Originally posted by Ben81
There is always a balance ...
we see more salt water covering earth yes .. but there is at least 70% of dirt
the rest of the planet is water

what about Mars now

Please define dirt and explain how you came up with that figure.

What about Mars?

Perhaps if it had a more hospitable environment intelligent animals would have evolved there too. Perhaps it was once more hospitable and intelligent creatures did live there until some disaster caused it to become total desert. Perhaps our existance here is a matter of luck and we will one day have the bad luck to be wiped out too. Or perhaps abiogenesis and evolution are bound to eventually result in the existance of intelligent life on any suitably hospitable celestial body.

reply to post by Astyanax


Ouch.

Apt that you have a bug/parasite as your avatar. Thats what people like you are to this world. Parasitic.

If you have ever studied mysticism you would look at the matter differently. If you approach it with a moral relatvism, or positivism, youre not gonna get anywhere outside your basic egotistical assumptions.

This world IS intelligently designed because simply put, it appears that way. No need to conflct or confuse the scenario by concentrating on peripheral matters like reductionist logic. It is what it is. We are creations studying the principals of G-d and thats the type of attitude that most of histories greatest scientists have had; Isaac Newton for instance derived his knowledge from the mathematical basis of the Torah (in Hebrew, letters are also numbers).

Its funny that people like you worship chance. I really dont think it a coincidence that the Hebrew word for 'luck' (or chance) is Gad - which has the gematria of 7. Gad is very similar to the German Gott, and English God.

I think were learning something about the pagan foundation of western culture with that correspondence. Although to you, it appears to be accidental.

reply to post by dontreally


What you just did is called "STATING A BELIEF". You're making fun of the other guy for demanding evidence and logic/rationality to back up creationist claims, think about that. You aren't even providing evidence to back up your claims, you rather choose to pick on the guy simply because he refuses to blindly believe like you...

That's not only very ignorant, but also kinda sad. You're so brainwashed, you refuse to even look at facts, and get angry if others insist on accepting facts or looking at evidence.

reply to post by dontreally

Apt that you have a bug/parasite as your avatar. Thats what people like you are to this world. Parasitic.

It's a dinosaur, sweetie. Now run along, there's a dear, and find someone on ATS who is still willing to talk to you, because I am not.

reply to post by Astyanax


What the hell is wrong with you?

Weve spoken once or twice and youve already formed the strong emotional opinion of never wanting to talk with me?

you must be a real easy person to get along with in real life!

reply to post by MrXYZ


Im critizing his approach.

The approach hes using is called positivism which initself is limited to just logical matters.

Logic is fine; but unfortunately, life transcends logic; just as the dichotomy between particle and wave shows. We can only get so far with logic. In question of existence positivism doesnt cut it.