Celebrate Religion here
Quote: odiousgambitWhat came before the big bang? Is your statement Church doctrine? Just curious.
I used to think of the Universe as quite old, but the more we know about it, the age of it seems young compared to what came out of this single spot.
The first cause of all that exists, who has existence in itself not dependent on anything, the creator, aka God is the beginning of the Big Bang. Because matter, energy, space, and time were all created at that event it is not technically a question of 'before', there is no before the Big Bang there is just God. God has always existed, there was no beginning for the one who began everything. As hard as it is to wrap our minds around this we remember that it is the logical conclusion of knowing that things really do exist and for them to exist they need to be caused. To avoid the impossibility of an infinite regress of causality we have to allow for a first cause, that began everything - this is what I call God and others might call something else.
While this is Church teaching it is not the fruit of theological reflection and revelation. The human mind using reason can come to this realization on its own. That is why Nareed's maddening and repeatitive requests for proof are so silly. The proof is logic and reason that is available to most human beings. What makes it all so much more interesting is that modern cosmology continues to offer more and more evidence to the support creation ex nihilo.
Quote: FrGambleWhile this is Church teaching it is not the fruit of theological reflection and revelation. The human mind using reason can come to this realization on its own.
No, it can't. You start with the assumption that there is a particular god, and go on to assume he created everything, then use the assumption as proof. That's what's silly.
Quote:That is why Nareed's maddening and repeatitive requests for proof are so silly.
There are a number of creation myths. What proof have you that yours is the true one?
The universe, the known universe that is, is so monumentally big that I now have trouble thinking of it as being just a few billion years old and want to know what science theorizes existed before the Big Bang. I wouldnt be the first to wonder if a former universe contracted to a small point that exploded in what is this Big Bang, a repeated process that perhaps has no beginning and happens again, contractions and big bangs repeating endlessly. Since the observed continued and accelerating expansion of the universe [which astronomy did not predict] is not understood and requires a new theory about dark energy, who knows what to expect? I have heard theories that the acceleration will cease and the process eventually reverse into contraction. Again, it is not understood well.
Why ponder this in the religious thread? IMHO there is no question that if these facts were known in say the 17th century what is now theorized as dark energy and dark matter, would be posited as activities explainable by actions of God. I personally probably tend to 'go there' and call in God, which in science is cautioned against since these things may later be better explained by science. But I'm just saying.
Quote: NareedYou start with the assumption that there is a particular god, and go on to assume he created everything, then use the assumption as proof.
No, I start with a neccesary first cause of all existence (I call this God, which I think is your hang up, but we could call this neccesary being who is not dependent on anything else for its exisentence many things). This first cause is not an assumption because it is true that everything that exists needs to have a cause. It is also true and not an assumption that an infinite regress of causality is just well...silly. Therefore there has to be a terminal beginning of all things and this has to come ex nihilo and by a cause that is complete in itself.
This is taken from an essay by Paul Copan and William Craig entitled, "Creatio Ex Nihilo"
Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it—except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
However, When you compress so much matter and energy into a small space the concept of time is quite different than what we experience. We get into Einsteinian time where time and space are all related. But even this general relativity may not hold at the compression of space (and time) at the big bang.
Whatever view of the singularity that began our universe that you believe in, at this point, is as valid as any other view, as none have been proven. This includes the explanation of "God did it". I personally subscribe to Hawking's view that the point is moot, as information from before the big bang cannot be transmitted into our universe. Therefore, any theory that attempts to explain what happens before the big bang would be unprovable.
It is our human experience that says that time must flow from past to future. When you get into the physics of the big bang, the definition of time that we all cling to disappears. When I make this post, there will be a time stamp that essentially puts my (x,y,z,t) coordinate into the ether. When you get into the compression of space that is the big bang, the coordinates of space probably go away as do most of the laws of physics that most of us are unfamiliar with.
My point to all of this is that we ask the question "what happened before the big bang?". My answer is that the concept of time that we're familiar with didn't happen until well after the big bang occurred, and even that statement itself is erroneous.
It's alot easier to point our finger at "God" and say it was "It", but that don't make it so. Imagine if Galileo just didn't bother to point his telescope at Jupiter or was brainwashed to absolutely believe that the Sun was the center of everything. Where would we be now?
Quote: FrGambleNo, I start with a neccesary first cause of all existence (I call this God, which I think is your hang up, but we could call this neccesary being who is not dependent on anything else for its exisentence many things).
But you're still making the unwarranted assumption (i.e. an assumtpion unsupported by evidence) that a being has to be the first casue. In other words, you argue there is a god because there is a god.
Quote:This first cause is not an assumption because it is true that everything that exists needs to have a cause.
Ah, but you say god requires no casue because he is eternal and thus ahs no beginning and no ending. Well, we knoe the universe cannot end, therefore we may assume it never began. Thus the first cause is the eternal universe.
So there :P
Quote: NareedBut you're still making the unwarranted assumption (i.e. an assumtpion unsupported by evidence) that a being has to be the first casue. In other words, you argue there is a god because there is a god.
Your unfortunate aversion to the even the word 'God' is not allowing you to see that the concept of the first cause is not neccesarily a personal God, such as Christians bellieve for example. If you eliminate this assumption from your thinking I am confident that you will see that it is very reasonable to believe that there is something that is a first cause.
Quote: NareedAh, but you say god requires no casue because he is eternal and thus ahs no beginning and no ending. Well, we knoe the universe cannot end, therefore we may assume it never began. Thus the first cause is the eternal universe.
After accusing me of assuming I find it strange you so willingly and recklessly assume (see your definition above) that the universe can have both no end and no beginning?!? I am begining to hope these posts of yours have an end, however knowing you and your persistence I am sure they will continue. I guess it was my fault as I am the first cause of this thread.
This reminds me of a joke:
Have you all ever seen the Simpsons where Homer creates that famous song about Ned Flanders. It gets so popular that he hears it everywhere and begins to hate it. Finally Homer exclaims, "I hate my own creation...now I know what God must feel like."
On a similar note I heard that God made teenagers so that parents could know how it felt to have your creation, who you love, not even acknowledge your existence and want nothing to do with you.
Quote: FrGambleYour unfortunate aversion to the even the word 'God' is not allowing you to see that the concept of the first cause is not neccesarily a personal God, such as Christians bellieve for example.
I don't care what you want to call the first cause, there' no reason to assume it has to be a sentient being.
Quote:After accusing me of assuming I find it strange you so willingly and recklessly assume (see your definition above) that the universe can have both no end and no beginning?!?
If a first cause is eternal, and we know the universe cannot end, then it's reasonable to suppose it didn't begin, either. It's your hangup on there being a god who created the universe that prevents you from even conceiving such a thing.
By the way where is your proof that the universe cannot end?
Quote: FrGambleIt is logic that drives me to a belief in God as the first cause.
Is it?
Quote:By the way where is your proof that the universe cannot end?
To begin with, the law of conservation of matter and energy. matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
Quote: FrGambleIt is logic that drives me to a belief in God as the first cause. I agree the first cause does not need be a sentient being, but there are very serious problems with holding that position, more on that later.
By the way where is your proof that the universe cannot end?
Very simple, according to Hawking (and every one else who realized that on his own before he published it in his first popularist book).
Loosely, the basic problem with the complete end of everything is the same as with its biblical creation: How to start time without even a concept of it; or how to end time while it's still going on, as a process within time?
I suggest youze read up on at least the basic current physics and corresponding metaphyics, which must be second-nature to any such god, before becoming too-ensconced in the various religious debates alone. (Or the physics alone.)
Quote: NareedTo begin with, the law of conservation of matter and energy. matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
I think that's a procrustean argument, as that is what is being challenged/debated here.
Quote: Nareed
To begin with, the law of conservation of matter and energy. matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
It can be transformed into something, that is not a Universe though, can't it? E.g., a singularity, or lots of empty space, curled into a Planck-sized nugget (space curvature has energy), or just a beam of light. The currently accepted view in scientific community is that the Universe *will* end eventually, one way or another.
Quote: GarnabbyVery simple, according to Hawking (and every one else who realized that on his own before he published it in his first popularist book).
Loosely, the basic problem with the complete end of everything is the same as with its biblical creation: How to start time without even a concept of it; or how to end time while it's still going on, as a process within time?
I think, you are misreading Hawking. While whether or not time will ever come to an end may be debatable. It definitely had had the beginning (Big Bang) according to any viable cosmological theory currently in existence.
Quote: weaselmanIt can be transformed into something, that is not a Universe though, can't it? E.g., a singularity, or lots of empty space, curled into a Planck-sized nugget (space curvature has energy), or just a beam of light. The currently accepted view in scientific community is that the Universe *will* end eventually, one way or another.
More to the point, what has such matter to explicitly do with the temporal? (Start and end per se.)
Quote: weaselmanI think, you are misreading Hawking.
That's why i wrote, "loosely" re-stating that argument (for the purpose at-hand). Though i'm not at all sure what you're getting at here.
Quote: weaselmanWhile whether or not time will ever come to an end may be debatable. It definitely had had the beginning (Big Bang) according to any viable cosmological theory currently in existence.
And in which further process(es) of time might all of that lay? Up to the [first cause/final effect], by definition.
That there was, or not, a "big bang" doesn't mean that that was even the "beginning" of something. What's the beginning of infinity in which sense?
Quote: thecesspitThe cause of the Big Bang was God, and therefore God is the universe.
Or conversely then, God resulted from the "big bang", so the universe is God?
Quote: GarnabbyOr conversely then, God resulted from the "big bang", so the universe is God?
The big bang is the result of God exploding. (with great power, comes great explosions)
Quote: thecesspitThe cause of the Big Bang was God, and therefore God is the universe. Very Deistic take there, FrGamble. And lets say we allow it as an axiom for an argument, it doesn't mean there is a personal, knowable god who takes part in the day to day lives of human beings.
Actually it sounds more like a pantheistic take on the universe and I do not hold it at all. I believe in as you say: a personal, knowable God who loves us. Before we get into that though I want to make sure I understand what you are asking. You are not denying the true axiom concering the logical need for a first cause. The first cause, which does not have to be a person or entity, is a metaphysical necessity. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe begins to exist. The universe has a cause that does not have a beginning, but is rather the first cause of everything. This logic is not really in question, what you really want to get at is why should we believe that this first cause is a personal God? Good question.
There seem to be three possibilities. The first being that the universe has always existed, so the first cause is identical to the universe and all matter. This would be the take that God is the universe and the universe is God. This is not correct in my opinion for many reasons. The two remaining options would be(1) a creation ex nihilo by an entity of some kind or (2) a spontenous existence ex nihilo by mysterious and non personal forces.
There are always two parts of every cause, the material cause and the efficent cause. The material cause being the stuff out of which something is made and the efficient cause which is something that produces its effect in being. The artist is the efficient cause of the statue the marble is the material cause. In both of the remaining options the material cause is provided in a baffling and mysterious way. In the case of some entity who actively and purposefuly creates we have our efficient cause supplied. In the non-personal accidental springing to being of all existence we are totally dumbfounded and left without either the material or efficient cause. It is hard enough to get our minds around the mystery of where the material for existence came from without compounding the difficulty in trying to imagine how it came into existence without an efficent cause. This is a small part of why I believe in a personal and knowable and loveable God.
Quote: FrGamblethe true axiom concering the logical need for a first cause. The first cause, which does not have to be a person or entity, is a metaphysical necessity. Everything that begins to exist has a cause... This logic is not really in question
I recognized this as something that had been worked out in some discipline without quite understanding it myself. So I looked it up and offer it here as a link; this is wikipedia but looks reliable. I'll have to ponder this, there is something about it that I don't quite grasp.
Quote: odiousgambitI recognized this as something that had been worked out in some discipline without quite understanding it myself. So I looked it up and offer it here as a link; this is wikipedia but looks reliable. I'll have to ponder this, there is something about it that I don't quite grasp.
Here is a popular article that is easy to read and does a good job explaining things:
Who's deluded?
Here is an awesome website with tons of information about this topic and many, many, many more:
Reasonable Faith
Quote: rxwineThe big bang is the result of God exploding. (with great power, comes great explosions)
Are you speculating that God blew Itself up, committed suicide? Or merely that "bigger bangs" aren't forthcoming?
Quote: GarnabbyAre you speculating that God blew Itself up, committed suicide?
Close. I think (and this not being offered as a strictly scientific hypothesis) that before matter, God existed as pure Mind - absolute abstraction. The Big Bang represented Mind completely surrendering abstract Form and (as is necessary) becoming entirely concrete Matter, and through the apparently ubiquitous process of Evolution (which pertains to all animate and inanimate things, from nebulae to amoebas to primates) found its way to full incarnation as us. This is the simplest (if you will) religious or mystical speculation, I think, which explains all the physical and psychological data, from the evidence for our self-created universe (read Dr. Lawrence Krauss' astronomical research and presentation of this), to Egyptian legends of Amun-Ra coming into being from nothing, to "innate ideas" (Our seemingly instinctive awareness of a "supernatural" God, if that's what it is, might be our collective memorial to our former "Self"?). This view properly asserts that the natural world is all there is, but does not assert that there is no such thing as mind, nor that matter must be all that everhas been.
This speculation is not all that original - Aleister Crowley had a similar view.
Quote: FrGambleActually it sounds more like a pantheistic take on the universe and I do not hold it at all.
Is the supremacy of causality considered pantheism? If God suspends causality, does he not thereby suspend Justice, also?
Quote: GarnabbyMore to the point, what has such matter to explicitly do with the temporal? (Start and end per se.)
Not sure I understand the question. If at some point the Universe exists, and at some later point it does not, that means that it has ended in between.
Quote:That's why i wrote, "loosely" re-stating that argument (for the purpose at-hand). Though i'm not at all sure what you're getting at here.
I am getting at the fact that Hawking, and the rest of contemporary physicists do not hold the view that the Universe did not have the beginning.
Quote:
And in which further process(es) of time might all of that lay? Up to the [first cause/final effect], by definition.
Not sure again what you are asking. What is "further processes of time"?
Quote:That there was, or not, a "big bang" doesn't mean that that was even the "beginning" of something.
No, not by itself. But it does in the context of the modern cosmology.
Quote:What's the beginning of infinity in which sense?
Depends on what kind of infinity you are talking about. There is an infinite number of numbers between zero and one, however, the interval does start and 0 and end at 1.
In any event, by the current scientific view, the Universe is not "inifinite" in any classical sense. It contains finite amount of matter and energy, has finite spatial extent, and finite age.
Quote: NowTheSerpentClose. I think (and this not being offered as a strictly scientific hypothesis) that before matter, God existed as pure Mind - absolute abstraction.
Well, i guess i should've writed "blew" up, as mentally. But then the question, why the physical explosion? Wouldn't you expect a smooth conversion from such a supposedly-ordered mind?
In my estimation, the primary bothersome element to that idea is that matter can be viewed fundamentally as both physical and mental in nature. Therefore, neither can precede the other.
P.S. weaselman, thanks for your good reply. As my time permits, i will try to better explain myself on the outstanding points which remain within the scope of this thread.
Quote: NowTheSerpentThe Big Bang represented Mind completely surrendering abstract Form and (as is necessary) becoming entirely concrete Matter, and through the apparently ubiquitous process of Evolution (which pertains to all animate and inanimate things, from nebulae to amoebas to primates) found its way to full incarnation as us.
This is probably very close to the truth. Like all mysteries,
once its solved, its really not that interesting anymore.
If time is infinite, or doesn't even exist at all, the process
will go on forever. We're in eternity right now.
Quote: GarnabbyBut then the question, why the physical explosion? Wouldn't you expect a smooth conversion from such a supposedly-ordered mind?
Expectations are themselves reflections of Causality, and there's no reason to expect one kind of transition form instead of another, but incidentally, the Big Bang has been characterized as more of a non-cataclysmic expansion and less as an explosion. In either case, it may be helpful to conceive of it as being like the metemorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly, only more pronounced. LOL. :)
And expectations being inherently of the mind, then such a god such have known better!
Were the universe completely separable from time, for that time to carry on in name only; and from space, as you noted earlier. To a less-extreme sense, the spatial start and end of matter (in the forms of the some mentioned) don't directly relate to the notion of a first cause of the universe... that sort of creation.Quote: weaselmanIf at some point the Universe exists, and at some later point it does not, that means that it has ended in between.
Yet when they attempt to further approach and explain it, i hear something like, "The laws of physics then should be radically-different... all hell would break loose with those." So that even the concept of time, itself, would be in question? Possibly to the extent it couldn't be termed even a beginning any longer.Quote: weaselmanI am getting at the fact that Hawking, and the rest of contemporary physicists do not hold the view that the Universe did not have the beginning.
Those of the new discoveries of which some claim would be endless. Though i prefer one which could cover all of those while leaving that door open enough to keep things interesting. Fits in with the approach that science has already moved beyond it. I mean, how do you hide (how) a universe (works)?Quote: weaselmanNot sure again what you are asking. What is "further processes of time"?
Yes, all intervals do, by definition, start (and end). But can an interval really start, and be an interval, within another such interval? Nor can i imagine real physical ,or mental, continuity existing in spurts.Quote: weaselman... the interval does start at 0 and end at 1.
Were the mind and matter, and brain and body, so conveniently-disconnected; and that Universe so-neatly unraveled from its first and only "bang".Quote: weaselmanIn any event, by the current scientific view, the Universe is not "inifinite" in any classical sense. It contains finite amount of matter and energy, has finite spatial extent, and finite age.
Quote: FrGambleReligion inspires us to look at the world in a new way. If the universe and all around us was created by some force or person we call God, it is only natural that we explore it
What we don't understand, we explore. Whats religion got to do
with it? Religion comes to its own usually wrong conclusions and
stands in the way of exploration. Ask Galileo. The Church was
real understanding of his explorations. Why do you always ignore
the history of your own religion, Padre?
Quote: EvenBobWhat we don't understand, we explore. Whats religion got to do
with it? Religion comes to its own usually wrong conclusions and
stands in the way of exploration. Ask Galileo. The Church was
real understanding of his explorations. Why do you always ignore
the history of your own religion, Padre?
It is not as simple as exploring what we don't understand. If what we don't understand has no rational or ordered structure it is like trying to explore and understand where the ball will bounce in roulette. Christianity, to use my own religion, gives science the rich soil in which to grow. It shows that the world is a rational place open to exploration and learning, it is not the chaos and randomness of the big wheel, which is a waste of time trying to study.
Religion, and I must say my own religion in particular, loves science and wants to see it grow strong and healthy. There have been some tragic cases in the past when the Church, which inspired Galileo's pursuit of science, turned around and squashed what it thought were ideas challenging the faith. At these instances the Church failed not only a good and faithful scientist like Galileo, but also the doctrine of the Church that science and our religion cannot be at odds because they both search after truth, which is ultimately God. The Church belatedly came to admit its mistake and reinforced its ancient belief that science and faith walk hand and hand towards God.
Quote: FrGambleIn celebrating religion I just want to say how neat it was that we were naturally led into a good discussion about the beginning of all things and some pretty fancy science discussion - all in a thread about religion. In further reflection this makes sense. Religion inspires us to look at the world in a new way. If the universe and all around us was created by some force or person we call God, it is only natural that we explore it, try to figure it out, and are amazed by it.
This last sentence makes no logical sense at all. Why does it require a God Creator to explore our physical world, or be amazed by it? Careful you don't end up begging the question there.
Quote:The world around us becomes in a very real sense a revelation from God. The divine can be seen by believers in the structure of a snowflake and in the anatomy of a frog. Everything around us takes on new meaning. The world is infused with beauty and speaks to us and teaches us. This makes us want to study the world around us and science is born.
There is no need to create God to see beauty in a snowflake or wonder in the anatomy of a frog, or to even have the natural curiosity in the world around us. Science itself inspires me to be curious. It's our very nature to be curious (or at least some of us to question, other people don't care at all about science, but care about art, or food, or nothing very much at all).
Quote:I guess this explains why many of our greatest scientists have been religious.
Great many great people of all types have been religious. Possibly because a great many people in history were religious, and people are a product of their culture.
Quote:The idea that science and religion are enemies is a bald faced lie, they are allies in search of truth! A great example of this is the John Tempelton Foundation, check out their site JTF
The John Templeton Foundation tries to make scientists apologists for religion in returns for grant money. It's no worse than other foundations trying to get science to explore it's own goals.
Quote: FrGambleIt is not as simple as exploring what we don't understand. If what we don't understand has no rational or ordered structure it is like trying to explore and understand where the ball will bounce in roulette. Christianity, to use my own religion, gives science the rich soil in which to grow. It shows that the world is a rational place open to exploration and learning, it is not the chaos and randomness of the big wheel, which is a waste of time trying to study.
Except the world doesn't work at random.
There is no need to have (or have not) a God underlying the structure of the world in order to study events and try to make predictions and models of the world around us.
Quote: FrGambleThe idea that science and religion are enemies is a bald faced lie,
Religion is an enemy of science. The war is over, though, at elast in the West, and science has little or nothing to fear from religion anymore. To quote Sheldon Cooper "Galileo and the Pope had a little missunderstanding." That can't happen these days.
Oh, there are some reactionary religious types yet, particularly in America, but they can't do worse than cut off government funding for science that offends their religious sensibilities, and push for teaching myths as science. This may sound bad, but it will be a cold day in the mythical Hell before anyone casn seriously consider pressing murder charges for performing abortions, or jailing people for teaching evolution.
You're wrong in thinking that scientists are concerned with "who" created the universe or "why." Scientists want to find out how. When they ask "why" they are looking for the natural laws that explain similar phenomena, Not "what is the purpose of electrons?" but "why do electrons behave the way they do?" This helps in determining "how did the universe evolve from the Big Bang to what we see today?" "how does a black hole form?" "how do genes control this or that aspect of development?" and so on.
Religion doesn't make you want to find out anything. God did it, right? that's explanation enough. How does it work? The way god meant it to. Why did Joe get cancer and Frnak didn't? God willed it what way? Why was Jeff cured of cancer and Jack wasn't? God works in mysterious ways.
Quote: thecesspitExcept the world doesn't work at random.
There is no need to have (or have not) a God underlying the structure of the world in order to study events and try to make predictions and models of the world around us.
The world is indeed not random in fact it is unbelievably fine tuned for life. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said that if the universe expanded even the smallest fraction of a second, we're talking million, millionth of a sec. slower than all would have collapsed again into itself. If you tinker with things like gravity or other laws of physics just a little bit life as we know it can't exist. All of this points a design to the world around us and an amazing intellect behind the structure of the world. This is why we can have so much fun studying events and why we are confident is making predictions based on laws that are consistent and work together in an awesome way.
Quote: NareedReligion is an enemy of science. The war is over, though, at elast in the West, and science has little or nothing to fear from religion anymore.
The idea of science and religion at war is a late 19th century thought that has already been rounded dismissed. So I guess you are right in that the war is over, because it was never a war to begin with. From the beginning of modern science up to this crazy idea that they were against one another the relationship has really been one of friendship (with a few unfortunate spats that happen in every relationship). In the Church's view that is what it should be, two friends who need each others help to grow in knowledge and understanding.
Quote: NareedOh, there are some reactionary religious types yet, particularly in America, but they can't do worse than cut off government funding for science that offends their religious sensibilities, and push for teaching myths as science. This may sound bad, but it will be a cold day in the mythical Hell before anyone casn seriously consider pressing murder charges for performing abortions, or jailing people for teaching evolution.
I am much more worried about being jailed for teaching that science shows us that from the moment of conception the new and unique person has the complete genetic code to guide it in development or that the speed of which intelligent life developed is far too fast for the process of random mutation and natural selection to do unaided. You see the real war is about not allowing science to freely speak. Religion has no fear of science because science only speaks the truth and supports religious ideas. The war is between moral relativism and science. Science has some pretty strong conclusions to make but our modern culture doesn't want to hear anything that might reinforce the religious truth, especially about morality. The problem is that it is all one truth so soon we will see certain discoveries of science suppressed and the poor Galileo event will played out again this time in the secular context. For example I'm amazed people still talk about embryonic stem cells when so much good and promise continue to be made with adult stem cells, which are the only stem cells that have ever helped anyone.
Quote: NareedYou're wrong in thinking that scientists are concerned with "who" created the universe or "why." Scientists want to find out how. When they ask "why" they are looking for the natural laws that explain similar phenomena, Not "what is the purpose of electrons?" but "why do electrons behave the way they do?" This helps in determining "how did the universe evolve from the Big Bang to what we see today?" "how does a black hole form?" "how do genes control this or that aspect of development?" and so on.
This sounds like a good scientist. They should be concerned with how and the why, that is what they can observe and test. The data they collect becomes the grist for the big questions that cannot be put under a microscope but are just as real and important.
Quote: NareedReligion doesn't make you want to find out anything. God did it, right? that's explanation enough. How does it work? The way god meant it to.
"God did it!" is the greatest motivation for wanting to find everything out. This is why we are certain that it does work and that it makes sense. God provides the framework to support the possibility of science. If God didn't make it and it is just some random collection of stuff with no order, what purpose is it to study that? What can we learn from it?
Quote: FrGambleReligion, and I must say my own religion in particular, loves science and wants to see it grow strong and healthy.
Yeah, now that you've been forced to. It was 'go along
with the program' or perish. Religion is always the last
part of civilised society to get 'wised up'. And they always
go into it kicking and screaming. Now you want us to
believe the Church always had our best interests at heart,
when they actualy had their OWN best interests at the
forefront. The whole purpose of organised religion is
not to expand thought, but to stop it. Box it up and sell
it as a packaged deal. Used to be easier when the world
was full of ignorance. The sell is a little tougher these days.
Quote: GarnabbyWere the universe completely separable from time, for that time to carry on in name only; and from space, as you noted earlier.
No, time is an inner concept to the Universe. By most scenarios, whenever the Universe comes to an end, so does the time.
Quote:Yet when they attempt to further approach and explain it, i hear something like, "The laws of physics then should be radically-different... all hell would break loose with those."
Yes, of course. The end of Universe, means the end of physics among many other things. Physical laws are only meaningful inside the Universe (and not any Universe, mind you, but our particular Universe). Talking about physical laws outside the Universe has no meaning.
In particular, claims that physics (or science) is "at war" with religion are completely laughable. The two domains do not intersect, they have nothing to be "at war" about.
Quote:So that even the concept of time, itself, would be in question?
Yes. Just like the concept of width.
Quote:But can an interval really start, and be an interval, within another such interval?
Sure. Why not?
Quote:Nor can i imagine real physical ,or mental, continuity existing in spurts.
Not sure what this means, but note that you not being able to imagine something does not necessarily mean that it cannot exist.
Quote: FrGambleReligion has no fear of science because science only speaks the truth and supports religious ideas. The war is between moral relativism and science.
Science and religion are at odds sofaras being opposites in those definitive forms; but both are pure in those abstract and concrete forms. Both can be the "best and worst of times". Were i to argue that God became the natural world, i would trade off on the former's perfection (over both of the mental and physical) only. And progress to the resultant imperfections of the scientific trying to be religious, and versa... those trying to embrace/rid the other. Ideally, why not allow for also the pure forms to remain all along? All of that would be beyond us anyway. Why the push to either cleanly unify everything, or the opposite?
Quote: FrGambleScience has some pretty strong conclusions to make but our modern culture doesn't want to hear anything that might reinforce the religious truth, especially about morality.
You can say that again! Also politics plays a large role in the science-machine. But fear not, though, it's the deal we cut for ourselves which is always better than that left to the universe in our behalf. It just cuts you out, and after "flushing you down the toilet". Can't outsmart the universe, it can avenge/revenge you in ways you'll never see coming. And the bad outweighs the good in this version of it.
Quote: weaselmanNot sure what this means, but note that you not being able to imagine something does not necessarily mean that it cannot exist.
Of course, i'm not God. (He/she's too busy trying to save him/herself.)
Quote: FrGambleThe idea of science and religion at war is a late 19th century thought that has already been rounded dismissed.
And the idea what we're at war with Germany and Japan is a 1940s idea that has been dismissed, too. Right? Or is the war over and we won?
Quote:So I guess you are right in that the war is over, because it was never a war to begin with. From the beginning of modern science up to this crazy idea that they were against one another the relationship has really been one of friendship (with a few unfortunate spats that happen in every relationship). In the Church's view that is what it should be, two friends who need each others help to grow in knowledge and understanding.
Poppycock! Science has no need of religion.
I must say I admire how the Catholic Church realized it couldn't stand against solid, scientific proof that kept contradicting doctrine, so it chose to change doctrine to allow for science. Sure, the story of Genesis is now a "parable," rather than a literal telling of events, because you can't believe in a six-day creation without evolution and not look foolish. But when you say "Science is our friend! Science has always been our friend!" I'm reminded of a certain book where people say "The enemy is Eastasia! We have always been at war with Eastasia!"
Quote:If God didn't make it and it is just some random collection of stuff with no order, what purpose is it to study that? What can we learn from it?
We can learn how things are, how they work and why they work as they do. What else did you expect?
Quote: EvenBobReligion is always the last
part of civilised society to get 'wised up'. And they always
go into it kicking and screaming. Now you want us to
believe the Church always had our best interests at heart,
when they actualy had their OWN best interests at the
forefront. The whole purpose of organised religion is
not to expand thought, but to stop it. Box it up and sell
it as a packaged deal. Used to be easier when the world
was full of ignorance. The sell is a little tougher these days.
Dude, you've got the wrong thread and the wrong history books. It sounds like what you call 'wised up' are passing fads and wishful thinking and the Church has no time for either. The Church is about eternal and objective truth and unfortunately too many people kick and scream against it because it is not the subjective and changing truth they like. It is your OWN interests that make you think such woeful and wrong headed things about the Church. The Church is only trying to serve mankind and present a message it believes will help truly 'wise up' the world not to its OWN interests, which are often selfish and ill formed, but the interests of God - which are all about making our lives better. The whole purpose of organized region is to help us overcome the ignorance of our closed and little minds to discover something beyond ourselves. I admit this is a little tougher sell because there is so much ignorance and me, me, me mentality out there these days.
Quote: Nareed
Poppycock! Science has no need of religion.
Crazy talk! Science and religion need each other. Here is a nice quote from William Lane Craig, "Furthermore, the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically, but which are guaranteed by the Christian world view; for example: the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. I want to emphasize that science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian world view. Thus, religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured." (essay, What is the Relation between Science and Religion?)
Quote: NareedI must say I admire how the Catholic Church realized it couldn't stand against solid, scientific proof that kept contradicting doctrine, so it chose to change doctrine to allow for science. Sure, the story of Genesis is now a "parable," rather than a literal telling of events, because you can't believe in a six-day creation without evolution and not look foolish.
Just a reminder that the Bible is not a science book. It never was meant to be an eye witness account of creation. It imparts truths, such as the universe was created ex nihilo by God. These truths or doctrines have never changed. What is amazing to me and certainly frustrating to you is that science comes around to discoveries that point to these deeper truths eventually. Robert Jastrow, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, envisions it this way: "[The scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers)
Quote: FrGambleCrazy talk! Science and religion need each other. Here is a nice quote from William Lane Craig,
He wouldn't be the first scientist to be completely ignorant of philosophy and epistemology. The "Christian" world-view he praises comes from ancient Greek philosophers, most certainly including Aristotle.
Quote:Just a reminder that the Bible is not a science book.
Anymore.
Quote:What is amazing to me and certainly frustrating to you is that science comes around to discoveries that point to these deeper truths eventually.
We have always been at war with Eastasia. The lack of exclamation points just changes the tone, not the meaning.
Quote: FrGambleIt sounds like what you call 'wised up' are passing fads and wishful thinking and the Church has no time for either.
Passing fads like 'the earth isn't flat' and 'the earth revolves around
the sun', is that what you mean? These were crazy lunitic heresies
500 years ago, but the Church 'wised up' when they had no other
choice.
Quote: FrGambleThe Church is about eternal and objective truth and unfortunately too many people kick and scream against it
Yup, just like when you told us midwives were witches
and should be burned at the stake.
Quote: FrGambleThe Church is only trying to serve mankind and present a message it believes will help truly 'wise up' the world not to its OWN interests,
Yes, the world saw that 'message' during the Inquisition. Convert or die.
Now that its illegal to kill people who won't convert (dang it) you get
them thru guilt. Oh boy..
Quote: FrGambleThe world is indeed not random in fact it is unbelievably fine tuned for life. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said that if the universe expanded even the smallest fraction of a second, we're talking million, millionth of a sec. slower than all would have collapsed again into itself. If you tinker with things like gravity or other laws of physics just a little bit life as we know it can't exist. All of this points a design to the world around us and an amazing intellect behind the structure of the world. This is why we can have so much fun studying events and why we are confident is making predictions based on laws that are consistent and work together in an awesome way.
That's the Anthromorphic Principle argument right there.
God exists if we exist, and as we can clearly exist, therefore God. Thing you seem to keep missing in my replies is that -there is no need for God- in any of these arguments. This doesn't prove or disprove his existence, but he is not needed. At no point has a scientific answer been usefully explained as "God did it". On investigation we've found more and interesting mysteries and mechanisms behind it. Ideas have been revised, tested and discredited over time, and new truths found.
As my country man, William of Ockham once wrote : Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora (It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer).
(I prefer: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem : entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity, but Ockham didn't write that. Nice place Ockham, I grew up near there)
Quote: thecesspit
God exists if we exist, and as we can clearly exist, therefore God. Thing you seem to keep missing in my replies is that -there is no need for God- in any of these arguments. This doesn't prove or disprove his existence, but he is not needed. At no point has a scientific answer been usefully explained as "God did it". On investigation we've found more and interesting mysteries and mechanisms behind it. Ideas have been revised, tested and discredited over time, and new truths found.
I think I get it and I think I agree. Science can never reach the point where it would say "God did it" because science would have no way of testing that. It is a truly supernatural conclusion only able to be reached through philosophy or theology. Science joyfully continues to delve deeper and deeper into the mysteries of our world and the universe. There will never be a shortage of new truths found and every new truth found does not prove or disprove the existence of God but they continue to provide more evidence that the existence of God is a logical, albeit it non-scientific, conclusion. Thanks.
