RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang

RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/19/2011 5:12:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Since the universe is inherently mathematically based, and mathematics is complex and organized, it follows that the universe would be. Obviously you then fall into the problem of whether mathematics itself was "designed" and wind up back at the beginning...there is no way to disprove that there is some designer behind everything, and we atheists rely on the inability to prove that there is a designer despite centuries of attempts to provide the slightest objective evidence there is. Karl Popper and others showed me, a long while ago, that setting out to disprove a thing, especially a thing of that magnitude, is a waste of time. Nah. I'll continue waiting for, and occasionally searching for, the inspiration. [;)]

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 12:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Pairs of 'opposites' can often be seen or considered much more productively as 'mutually dependent'. I think one of the problems I'm having agreeing with your position is that I don't see the two positions as a pair of opposites. This line of discussion started with Kirata talking about Christian nuns and Buddhist monks. I'm having a hard time accepting Buddhist monks as the opposite of Christian nuns, I mean they aren't exactly anti-theists. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that! That analysis only works for paired opposites and I applied it here to the paired opposition of theism and non-theism. While it's amusing to imagine monks and nuns in situations of irreverent mutual dependency, sadly there's no way they constitute paired opposites. Sorry if that wasn't made clear enough in my initial post.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 6:47:05 AM)
I've just read the last few pages and this is a general reply. I've read a bit on the theory of "order out of chaos" and find it compelling, especially when there are demonstrable examples. For example, the earth's distance from the sun, its moon, rate of the earth's orbit about its axis (and precession), tides resulting from the moon's presence, the strength of earth's magnetic field, plate tectonics, composition and density of the earth's atmosphere, and so forth. There are an endless supply of "details" you could go into here. But my point is when you ponder all these things together, you can get a glimpse of how incredible it is that everything ties together to make where we are right now possible. You can even extend some of it (maybe much more than that) into the past and see how if it weren't for certain things having taken place, everything would be a bit different and/or some things may not have happened at all. This "complexity" is the inspiration for the idea of intellegent design. But if you go into it, one detail at a time, you can see how they manifest themselves as a natural consequence of interacting forces with other parts of the whole. I'm not saying this is the answer but simply that it is something you can see, touch, and measure. The question for me is, "Why can't this be the answer?" Taking a step back from all of it...doesn't it seem reasonable to look for the most likely explanation? It may not have all the answers (because we don't have all the details) but what information is available works when tested against the overall whole. If there's something wrong with this approach, I'm interested in discussing. It's the only way to learn anything. Regarding the idea of a creator behind everything, I have this notion that this concept manifests itself as a natural consequence of human thinking. We look for a causal explanation. Science runs everything back in time to see where it leads and are limited by the ability to detect and measure. That's the proverbial "brick wall" for science. In religion, this would be akin to someone asking the familiar question, "If God created the universe, what (or who) created God?" That's all religion can do since religion isn't driven by the same fuel as science (new data). Science keeps developing increasingly powerful technologies to look even further but so far that has revealed there is much further to look (and on it goes). Also, I personally avoid claiming to be part of any particular group. Labels in and of themselves cause problems and I think you can see in this thread a lot of discussion over labels alone. It can derail the line of inquiry into something else entirely. For anyone interested, I recommend the book, "How Nature Works" by Per Bak. It's a little thick in some parts but fascinating to read...particularly the part about the behavior of piles of sand grains.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 8:16:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle While it's amusing to imagine monks and nuns in situations of irreverent mutual dependency, sadly there's no way they constitute paired opposites. Having just seen a kinky nun stage show at a fetish event that is causing amusing mental images, but no I didn't mean to imply that. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I wasn't for a moment suggesting that! That analysis only works for paired opposites and I applied it here to the paired opposition of theism and non-theism. Sorry if that wasn't made clear enough in my initial post. What I was trying to explain is that I'm having trouble picturing theism and non-theism as a pair of opposites. It seems to me that there are more than just two opposing positions. For instance anti-theism, which is in opposition to theism. On the other hand I don't consider the non-theist Buddhist monks we were talking about to be so much in opposition to theism as holding a world view that's unrelated.

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 1:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I've read a bit on the theory of "order out of chaos" and find it compelling... if you go into it, one detail at a time, you can see how they manifest themselves as a natural consequence of interacting forces with other parts of the whole. If the interactions follow in a fashion ordered by physical laws, where then is the hypothetical initial chaos? quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub doesn't it seem reasonable to look for the most likely explanation? Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the order we see in the universe reflects the inherent nature of its source? quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Regarding the idea of a creator behind everything... Let's set the idea of a "designer" aside? After all, nobody here is arguing for one. K.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 4:02:28 PM)
Well, I guess we have to define what chaos is then. For me, chaos is the absence of patterns. I'm wondering if physical laws manifest out of the material that makes up the universe. I saw a program not too long ago where an astrophysicist proposed that at the point of the big bang...time and space did not yet exist because there was no universe as we think of it. So to think of the big bang like you might think of an expanding spherical explosion is a mistake. He proposed the idea that the universe (and please indulge me on the choice of words) arrived everywhere at once so to speak. Not entirely mind you because as it took shape, the physical laws (along with time and space) also began to take shape as forces and influence everything from that point on...including expansion. So perhaps physical laws are a property of the material that makes up the universe in its most rudimentary form and the two manifest together. A sort of chicken and the egg problem. It seems to me if the universe were to collapse we would see something similar in reverse. Physical laws would start to become unstable and eventually break down altogether...perhaps with gravity being the last to go...and at that moment...another big bang occurs. Of course, all of this does not take into consideration the more recent exploration into dark matter and dark energy. My head hurts! I agree about the designer but needed to mention it in the context of my post.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 4:18:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel . What I was trying to explain is that I'm having trouble picturing theism and non-theism as a pair of opposites. It seems to me that there are more than just two opposing positions. For instance anti-theism, which is in opposition to theism. On the other hand I don't consider the non-theist Buddhist monks we were talking about to be so much in opposition to theism as holding a world view that's unrelated. Yes it is certainly possible that there is more than one paired opposition to theism We can list: a-theism – the denial of the existence of a deity; anti-theism – opposition to the idea/practice of the existence of a deity; and non-theism – the absence of the existence of a deity. Each of these definitions is linked at a conceptual level through their reliance on the possibility of the existence of a deity to have meaning. Once the possibility of the existence of a deity is introduced, then all subsequent positions (theism/atheism/anti-theism/non-theism etc) share a dependence on each other and the foundational concept for their existence and meaning. While there could be more than the three variations mentioned, or differing definitions employed, my feeling is that the logic will hold regardless. My sense is that your reservation is related to non-theism. It is certainly possible for us to imagine a world that is non-theistic, where there is no concept of theism and where a kind of non-theism would operate as you put it earlier in the thread, as a default position. And it would be legitimate for us (in our world) to describe that world accurately as non-theistic. But, and this is the key for me, we could only do that because we have prior exposure to, and understanding of the concept of theism. That is the way we would see and describe such a world because we have the option of describing it in the terms we use in our (exposed-to-theism) world. Such an option would not be available to the inhabitants of that (imagined) non-theistic world. Having no prior exposure to, nor understanding of theism, and therefore no awareness of its meaning or possible meaning, it would be beyond the range of their existence, of their possibilities. To the inhabitants of that world, it would be the same as describing chalk in terms of cheese and/or non-cheese ie meaningless. They could have another term or concept to describe what we call a non-theistic world, but it couldn’t be ‘non-theism’. So even though it makes some theoretical sense to us, I am unconvinced that it would be proper or appropriate to use the term non-theistic to describe that world. It would be a case of us imposing our pre-existing terms and values on an altogether different world. Generally, that’s not seen as a recommended route to understanding.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 4:32:20 PM)
A stronger statement of the 'order out of chaos' position is the idea of self-organisation. Being trained in narratives that insist on a beginning, a middle and an end, some people find this logic counter-intuitive. If you look, you can see the principle of self organisation at work everywhere.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 4:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Generally, that’s not seen as a recommended route to understanding. What do you think would be recommended route to understanding, then?

PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 4:47:39 PM)
quote: It would be a case of us imposing our pre-existing terms and values on an altogether different world. Generally, that’s not seen as a recommended route to understanding. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If you look, you can see the principle of self organisation at work everywhere. Ouch. Not sure that those two statements go well together! [;)]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 5:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Karl Popper and others showed me, a long while ago, that setting out to disprove a thing, especially a thing of that magnitude, is a waste of time. Nah. I'll continue waiting for, and occasionally searching for, the inspiration. [;)] I prefer the philosophy of John Popper. ;)

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 7:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Generally, that’s not seen as a recommended route to understanding. What do you think would be recommended route to understanding, then? I find trying to understand things on their own terms useful, don't you? Though far be it from me to suggest it's the only route. So please feel free to suggest other/alternative routes if you so desire.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 10:02:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: It would be a case of us imposing our pre-existing terms and values on an altogether different world. Generally, that’s not seen as a recommended route to understanding. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If you look, you can see the principle of self organisation at work everywhere. Ouch. Not sure that those two statements go well together! [;)] I can't say I am very clear about what you are alluding to here. Perhaps, if one assumes there is only one way of understanding things, then there may be a potential for friction. But, as that is not an assumption I would ever make, it doesn't seem to me to be terribly relevant. In the second post, what I sought to do was to alert people to just one of many ways of looking at things (a possibly unfamiliar one at that) and to invite them to check it out for themselves. If I failed to convey that - then my bad.

BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 10:37:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I am a believer in God but I'm also a believer in science and I don't ever feel any confusion with believing in both. Maybe you haven't taken a good look at the two concepts. One is based on the study of reality, and one is made up by people who didn't believe in reality. Actually, the people that came up with religion, no matter what religion, tried to explain reality in a way they could understand from the time of the oral traditions as laid down in any creation myth or story you wish to consider. Now, being a person of faith (yes I believe in god) and I have a college education, I see no problem with comparing the scientific progress of the Universe from the big bang to the same progression as found in Genesis. When you consider that the progression in Genesis is as follows: 1) Creation of heaven and earth, but please note that the bible says that the earth was WITHOUT form. 2) Then came light. Now considering that Stars were the second step in the progression of the Universe, speaking of the larger items found in creation 3) Then around the stars he created two firmaments, one the heavens, but he had not yet created the planets. Figure this to be the separation of interstellar space from the discs of matter that surrounded the stars. 4) God created the planets. 5) Then god brought forth life, plant and animal. Now granted, the creation of the sun and moon are out of place at this point. 6) God created animal life, 7) Modern Man appeared. When you consider that most, if not all creation myths have the same progression, it would seem that prehistoric people had some clue as to how and in what way the Universe came into existence. Science just confirmed what was already written down. By the way, the Catholic Church funds scientific research, there is a Catholic Church observatory that has discovered some of the exosolar planets that have been discovered. There are priests that have doctoral degrees in the hard sciences and these men have found more in science to confirm their faith than they have things to disprove it or put it in doubt. Criticizing people who choose to have faith in something greater than themselves is rather childish. We have free will, God made us that way. We can choose to believe or choose to not believe. I find that my faith is a comfort. I have had some experiences in my life that I could find no logical, rational explanation on why they played out the way they did. One of which is when I drove a truck and a drunk crossed the median at over a hundred miles an hour. He hit the right front fender and tire, causing me to lose control, the tractor separated from the trailer and rolled over one and a half times. I ended up with a broken arm. The highway patrol that arrived on the scene took there time before checking the cab, since they figured no one would have survived. I felt inspired to post the following in another thread: quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM In the explorations of logic by the ancient Greeks they arrived at an astonishing conclusion. There was, but one God. quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I hinted earlier when I mentioned attorneys and the degree of logical training they receive. It is less than many realize. I have arrived at the conclusion that it is because logic can get you only so far for the reason stated earlier. Economics, law, and many other fields as well are not governed by the laws of reason (as shocking as this may seem). Pussy is not governed by reason either. Now ain't that an astonishing conclusion. So as shocking as it may seem, to say that the economy is structurally unsound is saying less than you realize. What I wrote is a plausibility argument for the existence of God in that religion has been criticized as being irrational, but this is also true for economics, law, and politics. I see no empirical evidence that supports the thesis that the world is a more rational, better place in the absence of religion.

BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 10:58:05 PM)
For further background see the following threads: A rant about deliberately fuzzy math. http://www.collarchat.com/m_3525695/mpage_1/tm.htm Raising the debt ceiling http://www.collarchat.com/m_3523034/mpage_1/tm.htm The ancient Greeks were looking for this one God when they encountered Christianity. Their reply was, Eureka! As odd as it may seem faith and reason are not as incompatible as it may seem to some. The ancient Greeks came to similar conclusions independently via an earnest search for the truth. They knew that the one God would have certain properties. For example, they knew he would be peace loving. Just think Socrates. They also knew that there would be a Christ with a capital C. I spoke earlier about the christ of statistics.

BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/20/2011 11:04:59 PM)
The only intellectually honest position one can take is that we really do not fully understand how any of this actually works and so excising the supposed tumor, e.g. religion, has no real factual support.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/21/2011 12:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The only intellectually honest position one can take is that we really do not fully understand how any of this actually works and so excising the supposed tumor, e.g. religion, has no real factual support. I fully agree with the part of your statement that I have emphasised in bold. To me, it sounds like a manifesto for agnostics. If we don't fully understand how any of this actually works, then on what intellectually honest basis can any one be asked to believe in, or to reject totally the existence of a deity or religion in general? If we don't fully understand, then we have no basis for asserting that any dogmatic position is true, have we? In the absence of full understanding, the only intellectually honest option left is agnosticism, a mind open to all possibilities but convinced of none.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/21/2011 12:25:36 AM)
quote: If we don't fully understand how any of this actually works, then on what intellectually honest basis can any one be asked to believe in, or to reject totally the existence of a deity or religion in general? If we don't fully understand, then we have no basis for asserting that any dogmatic position is true, have we? In the absence of full understanding, the only intellectually honest option left is agnosticism, a mind open to all possibilities but convinced of none. Perfect! And the winner of this debate is... tweak!

BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/21/2011 2:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The only intellectually honest position one can take is that we really do not fully understand how any of this actually works and so excising the supposed tumor, e.g. religion, has no real factual support. An example should help illustrate my point. Christianity ever strives to oppress homosexuals and pagans. Does anyone really know what they are observing? Because of this efforts to exterminate homosexuals and pagans is illegitimate, but the door swings both ways. This is the argument for what is known as negative freedom which is freedom from coercion. See the work of Isaiah Berlin.

BenevolentM -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/21/2011 2:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If we don't fully understand how any of this actually works, then on what intellectually honest basis can any one be asked to believe in, or to reject totally the existence of a deity or religion in general? If we don't fully understand, then we have no basis for asserting that any dogmatic position is true, have we? In the absence of full understanding, the only intellectually honest option left is agnosticism, a mind open to all possibilities but convinced of none. Perfect! And the winner of this debate is... tweak! I take offense because she borrowed from my work and stated what were obvious corollaries. I was not given credit.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875