God was behind Big Bang, pope says

Originally posted by Tindalos2013
It bemuses me that this human titled pope utters such things just to gain credit of somekind. He is unwise and dangerous because he refutes the Goddess. ?Where is his devotion to the Glory of Her. He should spend sometime living with shamans to gain an education.

It bemuses me to listen to Dungeons & Dragons geeks that try to talk as if they are from another time and a another realm. In your mind, you are a one thing; in reality you are a burger flipper that probably can't manage a checking account.

Your anti-Pope and church comments are as under qualified as your use of an eloquent manner of speaking.

So first the Genesis account had to be taken literally, else you were killed off and prosecuted by the church. After a while, they accepted evolution (the Catholic church at least) because they realized the literal interpretation is complete and utter nonsense. But of course they still claimed god created life. Essentially, they moved the goal post once proven wrong...

And now the pope is doing it again by filling a gap in knowledge (nobody knows what was before the first bang or what caused it) with magic...aka god.

Typical god of the gaps argument...and obviously nonsense

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So first the Genesis account had to be taken literally, else you were killed off and prosecuted by the church. After a while, they accepted evolution (the Catholic church at least) because they realized the literal interpretation is complete and utter nonsense. But of course they still claimed god created life. Essentially, they moved the goal post once proven wrong...

And now the pope is doing it again by filling a gap in knowledge (nobody knows what was before the first bang or what caused it) with magic...aka god.

Typical god of the gaps argument...and obviously nonsense

Funny, you just described the EXACT movement of the scientific cycle of knowledge as well...That's different though, right? ...Riiight...

As for your signature - Gravity does include instructions for falling. The instructions are negotiated between the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity to produce a result for each set of collected particles interacting with the equation. Books are free - Read some and free your mind.

reply to post by Eldensword


So according to you it's ok to believe in stuff that's demonstrably wrong??

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.

God is a necessary being, so He was never created but has always existed.

reply to post by Barcs


i gotta disagree, i thought universe was great, sg-1 was the best, and Atlantis was good. Atlantis was my least favorite of the 3. Atlantis just seemed like they were trying to imitate sg-1 too much. Universe was a newish concept.

reply to post by Ben81


How does he know this?
has god told him this?

Originally posted by Griffo

.. do we always need a scientific answer to beleive in something ...

Not to believe in something, no; you can believe whatever you want.

Unless there's evidence to back it up though it will not be regarded as fact by the vast majority

edit on 6/1/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

well Griffo, don't you even try to claim the "majority" as a clear majority in every country (bar maybe the likes of North Korea) belive in a non physical existence

How do you like the sound of that

Originally posted by braydenf
i gotta disagree, i thought universe was great, sg-1 was the best, and Atlantis was good. Atlantis was my least favorite of the 3. Atlantis just seemed like they were trying to imitate sg-1 too much. Universe was a newish concept.

Universe had a lot of potential. The main problem was that it was a serious show based on human drama, rather than the happy go lucky sci fi predecessors. Most fans didn't like that, and the fact that the scifi took a backseat to the emotional drama. I see what they were trying to do. They wanted a show similar to Lost where character development and love for the individual characters and their back stories defines it, rather than a continuous developing plot. It just didn't really seem to fit with a stargate show. Battlestar Galactica did a nice job in that regard, but some of those SGU episodes really had me scratching my head. They could have taken place in a barn in Nebraska. No scifi at all. It was supposed to be a scifi show but the plot moved so ridiculously slow and the main antagonists were humans. I think they realized their error halfway through season 2 and tried to make it up for it and win the fanbase back, but it was too late. Things really picked up and were genuinely enjoyable near the end... but season 1 and most of season 2 had pretty much no main plotline, and it seemed like they weren't going anywhere. People lost interest. So much time was spent with the communication stones and completely irrelevant storylines. It stinks that they had to end the show right when it was getting good. I just hope that in some way the star gate franchise returns. They are afraid to even make movies now, because the show did poorly. If they brought back Atlantis, I guarantee they'd be making good money again, and companies wouldn't be afraid to sponsor them. (Sorry about off topic post, I'm a huge fan of the franchise and couldn't contain myself)