God was behind Big Bang, pope says

reply to post by Methuselah


We have no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, we only have 4 accounts of his life in the Gospels and the Epistles. The Epistles are the earlier works, with the earliest dating to around 50 CE. The Gospels are older still, internally contradictory, contradictory between each other, and contradictory with established history.

On the other hand, we have paintings of George Washington made during his lifetime, we have his writings, we have multiple contemporaneous accounts of his life as well as writings from those who opposed him. The accounts are mostly compatible with history which we can establish through physical evidence, though that story about the cherry tree is probably bunk.

If you want to read a different, yet very interesting perspective on the Big Bang and Genesis, read gerald Schroeders 'science and G-d: the convergence of scientific and biblical wisdom'.

reply to post by dontreally


It's a far more interesting book if you read it as a parody. It's badly done (you can actually derive several ages of the universe from his calculation and all are off by a few billion years) and demonstrates an ignorance of evolution.

Twas not a book worth reading in the least.

reply to post by dontreally


In short:

Logical fallacy: Special pleading

Not answering my questions...what does the mysticism have to say about the genital mutilation of children, the vilification of female reproduction, genocide, and the stoning to death of raped slaves?

Pushing back the goal posts (also, he was an orthodox Rabbi most of his life who, in his later years, realized what he called "The idiocy of orthodoxy")

Special pleading again...with the internet and the number of individuals who turn away from religious tradition after being deeply initiated, we learn the secrets of even the most tight-lipped traditions.

And once more you're making a claim without evidence and with bad reasoning. You're saying that because I reject mysticism I know nothing of the Hebrew scriptures...so because I disagree I'm wrong. I'm sorry, but you have to demonstrate how your position is right before you say I know nothing because I'm wrong.

I disagree with Kabbalists because they have nothing to back up their claims. It's a practice of adding meaning where none existed for the sake of making a horrible and brutal text seem like something that isn't.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ok...You can go on an on with your special pleading and "thats a fallacy" contentions.

This is enough to ignore you, and end our conversations.

It's a practice of adding meaning where none existed for the sake of making a horrible and brutal text seem like something that isn't.

You simply do not know enough. Maybe you have studied, cursorily, Kabbalah and Judaism. You dont read Hebrew, but claim your acquaintance with 'semitic' is sufficient. Thats absurd. Youre full of fallacies yourself.

Anyone who has truly studied the Torah will not give any credence to this absurd 'adding meaning' where this is none argument. Thats absurd. Do you think the torah is just a collection of dainty stories, with no, funamental metaphysical basis? Yes.. You do. This is essentially what you are saying. And that is simply ignorant, and stupid.

So, go bother someone else.

I would like to remind everyone of 3 things that NO ONE KNOWS.
1. Where we come from.
2. Why were Here.
3. Where we go when we leave here.

Anyone that tells you they do know ,Their a liar run and get away from them...

reply to post by KingArthur

Originally posted by KingArthur
I would like to remind everyone of 3 things that NO ONE KNOWS.
1. Where we come from.

Really? I'm quite sure we all come from a woman's uterus...and prior to that the woman came from another woman etc etc all the way down to the last common ancestor.

2. Why were Here.

Is an irrelevant question for a species. We're here for whatever reason we make of it.

3. Where we go when we leave here.

I'm quite sure we have a pretty good idea of decomposition...

Anyone that tells you they do know ,Their a liar run and get away from them...

Well, 1 we're quite aware of, 2 is an irrelevant question, and 3 is also quite well known.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Ok...You can go on an on with your special pleading and "thats a fallacy" contentions.

Except that those are fallacies. If you have a point and I lack the knowledge to understand it, you can actually give me the appropriate information to illustrate a single point.

This is enough to ignore you, and end our conversations.

So actually caring about the logical discourse is enough for me to be ignored? Dammit, I knew my stubborn insistence on 'facts' and 'logic' would be the end of me.

It's a practice of adding meaning where none existed for the sake of making a horrible and brutal text seem like something that isn't.

You simply do not know enough.

Then explain it to me!

Maybe you have studied, cursorily, Kabbalah and Judaism.

Judaism I've studied quite in depth, Kabbalah I've studied as more of a fringe issue.

You dont read Hebrew, but claim your acquaintance with 'semitic' is sufficient.

I don't read Hebrew well. If you give me a week I can probably read a page of Hebrew. The problem is I don't have time.

And I speak a semitic language on a day-to-day basis. It's not 'acquaintance' it's actually having it as my nation's language. Check out my location. I live in the only European nation with a semitic language as its national language (well, that and English).

Thats absurd. Youre full of fallacies yourself.

I'm sorry, but please point out a specific logical fallacy I've employed. Here's a handy reference.

Anyone who has truly studied the Torah will not give any credence to this absurd 'adding meaning' where this is none argument.

Ok, then demonstrate it.

Thats absurd.

Again, please demonstrate how it's absurd.

Do you think the torah is just a collection of dainty stories, with no, funamental metaphysical basis?

No, I think they're a collection of stories from several literary sources (J, E, D, P, R) compiled over hundreds of years. They're stories that started out in a polytheistic society but were slowly shifted more towards monotheism by the J sources.

They're a study in the spiritual history of a people, but there isn't necessarily a deep metaphysical meaning behind the command of a deity to cut functioning tissue off of an infant's penis.

Yes.. You do. This is essentially what you are saying.

Even if I were just saying that, could you prove that I am wrong?

And that is simply ignorant, and stupid.

How is it ignorant or stupid? Could you please prove me wrong?

So, go bother someone else.

Nah, I'm not going to go away just because you say so. Free speech and all that. You can choose not to address me, but I will continue to address you.

I agree with this statement in a metaphorical sense, before the start of the universe was the unitive force, however the way it is phrased it makes it seem like some guy named God started the big bang which is entertaining to think about but not very logical.

reply to post by Ben81


No surprise there. This is not even new. It is well established that a Belgian catholic priest, Georges Lemaître was instrumental in the formulation of the "Big bang" theory. It is the modern fiat lux of the catholic church.

Originally posted by Maslo


The word "theory" does not mean that it is not proven. Germ theory of disease and theory of relativity are not any less true because they are called theories.

Funny you should mention the theory of relativity. Einsteins General theory of relativity and the creation of the universe from a singularity are shown not to be compatible.

reply to post by Methuselah

so what you are saying is... if people dont believe in the evolution theory, and/or they dont believe the earth is billions of years old... if they dont believe this stuff, they lack intelligence?

It might be that they grew up ignorant of science in some primitive society where everybody believed the Earth is only a few thousand years old and nobody knew a thing about genetics or biology. In that case they need not be lacking in intelligence, merely uninformed. But a person who lives in a modern, scientifically advanced society and does not accept the theory of evolution and the true age of the Earth is either mentally deranged or mentally challenged. Sorry, but there it is.

Im wrong because im wrong? not very logical or backed up by anything solid.

I explained exactly why you were wrong. It's a pity you weren't able to understand, but I notice that others did, so I'm not taking the blame for your lack of comprehension this time.

well i really dont see how you can go from Big Bang straight into Theory of Evolution and just assume abiogenesis takes care of itself.

Nobody is doing that, except in your mind.

that what evolution tells us, that it must have happened, since evolution can jump "do all of this neat stuff" abiogenesis must have occurred or must be possible.

Who is assuming abiogenesis? Life evolves, that's all. We don't need to know how it originated to be sure of that; we can see it happening all around us, and we can see that it has been happening for billions of years.

just because you dont think the universe is as young as we say it is does not mean that its not.

Of course it doesn't. But there is plenty of evidence to show how old it is. Of course, the mentally challenged may not be able to understand that evidence, and the mentally deranged may refuse to look at it. But that doesn't change the evidence, nor the fact that Earth is some four billion years old, and the universe some fourteen.

Originally posted by Clavicula

Originally posted by Maslo


The word "theory" does not mean that it is not proven. Germ theory of disease and theory of relativity are not any less true because they are called theories.

Funny you should mention the theory of relativity. Einsteins General theory of relativity and the creation of the universe from a singularity are shown not to be compatible.

Explain it a little more, why should they be incompatible?

reply to post by Maslo


The equation encapsulating the General theory of relativity breaks down when dealing with a singularity. Big bang theory has a singularity as the starting point of the universe. The current standard model of astro physics rely heavily on Einsteins work but this very underpinning of the paradigm fails when it comes to the starting point of the universe.

Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by Maslo

 

The equation encapsulating the General theory of relativity breaks down when dealing with a singularity. Big bang theory has a singularity as the starting point of the universe. The current standard model of astro physics rely heavily on Einsteins work but this very underpinning of the paradigm fails when it comes to the starting point of the universe.

Keep in mind that theory of relativity, just like any other scientific theory, is valid only under some defined conditions. You may have mistaken theory of relativity for "theory of everything" that is supposed to be always valid. We dont have such a theory yet.

Theory of relativity cannot accurately describe what happens when dealing with such high densities like in a black hole, or in a big bang singularity. This does not disprove theory of relativity, it just sets limits on where it is accurate and where it is not.

reply to post by Ben81


I'm sorry I can not take anything an ex-Nazi, gas killing salesman who protects peodophiles and encourages Africans to have sex without condoms (so they kill each other off quicker) has to say seriously. This guys belives in being a decent person about as much as Stalin did.

Red hot poker shoved right up his a#@ is all he is good for.

We are the characters in God's dream.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Ok...You can go on an on with your special pleading and "thats a fallacy" contentions.

This is enough to ignore you, and end our conversations.

He made a valid point...by ignoring him, you're essentially proving that you're ignorant the second someone disagrees with you. Not sure how this fits the "deny ignorance" mantra of this site.

The book is based on PSEUDO-SCIENCE and if you check it out, you realize that it's misrepresenting and misinterpreting science. You might not like that, because you agree with the whole "god" part, but reality is, the science part isn't science in that book..it's pseudo-science

reply to post by theregonnakillme


Argumentum ad hominem. Attack the argument, not the person. I am far from the biggest fan of the Pope, yet his arguments should be addressed rather than his character. Save the character assassination for a thread about the guy's character.

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
reply to post by Ben81

 

I'm sorry I can not take anything an ex-Nazi, gas killing salesman who protects peodophiles and encourages Africans to have sex without condoms (so they kill each other off quicker) has to say seriously. This guys belives in being a decent person about as much as Stalin did.

Red hot poker shoved right up his a#@ is all he is good for.

Your post simply defamatory and untrue, adding nothing to the discussion.
Contrary to popular atheist belief, Benedict was never a Nazi (he was dragooned in to the Hitler Youth as a child, in common with thousands of others, which is not the same thing.)
He does not and never did protect paedophiles, and many of your fellow atheists were turning hand-springs over his recent statements that condoms are acceptable in some circumstances. My question (which no atheist ever answered), in response to this particular hysterical accusation (the one about killing off Africans) is: Given that pre/extra-marital sex (homo or hetero) is against Catholic belief, then Africans at risk already show that they have no adherence to Catholic rules. Why then, would they suddenly and randomly obey the no-condom rule? If they do, it's for other reasons than Catholic dogma!
The usual response to that question was "Yeah, er- well, you're a b*tch!" Sad...
If you're advocating torture and murder, and you are, I am entitled to wonder how much you know about being a decent person?
Vicky