Hey FrGamble!

Quote: Dalex64

Nice straw man argument. Excellent example.

Actually the fallacious argument I was going for was reductio ad absurdum.

Quote:

Evolution is just small, random variations through reproduction. Natural selection is the process through which small advantages are propogated, and then evolution again as small random variations produce slightly different forms. We all know that the Catholic Church supports evolution.

As for the amazing sensitive laws of the universe, life fit itself into the laws of the universe, not the other way around. That which was best fit to survive, did. Look into the deep sea. Life has evolved to survive in the conditions there where we could not live, and the things that live there can't survive even in the upper ocean.

It is really too bad that an institution that supported science doesn't like the answers that have been found.

I love the answers science finds and even more so does the Church that as you said supports them. I don't see where we are in disagreement here. You see the wonderful life that just so happens to fit into the perfectly attuned laws that support it.

However, what you are forgetting is that science has found that if these laws of the universe were even minutely adjusted life would not even be given the opportunity to try to adjust to them. Gravity a hair stronger, the atomic forces a little off, etc. and our universe would have collapsed upon itself or be nothing but inert gases spread out into the nothingness.

My dad said if my aunt had balls she'd been my uncle

Quote: FrGamble

However, what you are forgetting is that science has found that if these laws of the universe.

It'll never work, you know. Now that
the Church has finally gotten around
to backing science instead of persecuting
it, they'll never convince anyone above
a 4th grade education that they can show
evidence that god has anything to do with
the science of the universe. Just stick to
eating Jesus body and crossing themselves
sprinkling holy water and the rest of the
superstitious hoodoo, and let scientists
worry about the science.

Quote: FrGamble

Actually the fallacious argument I was going for was reductio ad absurdum.

I love the answers science finds and even more so does the Church that as you said supports them. I don't see where we are in disagreement here. You see the wonderful life that just so happens to fit into the perfectly attuned laws that support it.

However, what you are forgetting is that science has found that if these laws of the universe were even minutely adjusted life would not even be given the opportunity to try to adjust to them. Gravity a hair stronger, the atomic forces a little off, etc. and our universe would have collapsed upon itself or be nothing but inert gases spread out into the nothingness.

So, on the one hand you say that the Church supports the answers that science finds, and on the other hand I give you a possible scientific and mathematical explanation of how the universe could have come from nothing and you dismiss the notion as ridiculous.

Remember, these aren't my personal ideas, they are the ideas of some scientists much smarter than myself who have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with some cohesive explanations for these things.

As for the universe having the right constants necessary to exist, perhaps a bunch of universes formed with the wrong constants and immediately collapsed. We are talking about my ideas now, but for all of the somethings from nothing that come into existence, most of them disappear rather than becoming something. My opinion is still that the universe came first, and life that could live in that universe came second, without implying that the universe was designed to support life.

Quote: Dalex64

As for the universe having the right constants necessary to exist, perhaps a bunch of universes formed with the wrong constants and immediately collapsed.

Physicists and cosmologists are not prone to engage in Alternate Histories of the Universe, but there are have been a few studies made. It turns out you can change the values in some fundamental universal forces (gravity, strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction and electromagnetism), and wind up with universes little different from ours.

There are several notions concerning multiple universes, not necessarily with the same basic laws as ours. Many mysteries remain stubbornly mysterious.

Quote:

My opinion is still that the universe came first, and life that could live in that universe came second, without implying that the universe was designed to support life.

Ah, let me quote Bill Bryson "Life wants to be." Earth offers a wide variety of environments, the vast majority of which are "ideal" to some life forms. A tropical river fish would die instantly if placed in the arctic sea, but arctic fish, seals and polar bears thrive there. animals exist around superhot volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean. A bacterium, Deinococcus radiodurans, can tolerate gamma rays. I could go on and on, but I'll just add this: how many people wear clothes and live in houses? That's how much protection we need from this world that's "so suited for us."

Quote: Dalex64

So, on the one hand you say that the Church supports the answers that science finds, and on the other hand I give you a possible scientific and mathematical explanation of how the universe could have come from nothing and you dismiss the notion as ridiculous.

Remember, these aren't my personal ideas, they are the ideas of some scientists much smarter than myself who have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with some cohesive explanations for these things.

I don't know if I would dismiss them as ridiculous, after all these scientists are much smarter than myself about such things. However, I think they too would admit that the "nothing" they are talking about is really not nothing in the philosophical sense of creation ex nihilio. I think they would also be the first to say the creation of something out of nothing is a process we don't understand, nor will science ever be able to understand, because the nature of science is to observe and test phenomenon and that can't be done with nothingness.

Look the reality is we cannot escape the logical fact that for something to exist a non-contingent all-powerful spiritual being/force must exist. All the twisting and turning, multiple universes, etc. is just delaying dealing with the truth of "God's" existence.

Quote:

As for the universe having the right constants necessary to exist, perhaps a bunch of universes formed with the wrong constants and immediately collapsed. We are talking about my ideas now, but for all of the somethings from nothing that come into existence, most of them disappear rather than becoming something. My opinion is still that the universe came first, and life that could live in that universe came second, without implying that the universe was designed to support life.

It is a valid opinion or guess and I have no problem with going along with you if you want. I don't see how if there were multiple universes that failed it implies that this one is not very special and able to support life. I also don't see how any of this effects our above discussion about one universe or multiple universes all coming from that one source we commonly refer to as God.

Here is a very good balanced article about the issue: Fine-tuned universe?

Quote: Dalex64

So, on the one hand you say that the Church supports the answers that science finds, and on the other hand I give you a possible scientific and mathematical explanation of how the universe could have come from nothing and you dismiss the notion as ridiculous.

Of course! The Church is the original science
cherry picker. They love the science that goes
with their beliefs, and dismiss the science
(like Galileo) that disagrees with it. Nothing
has changed, nothing at all.

Could you name one scientific discovery that the Church disagrees with?

Quote: FrGamble

Could you name one scientific discovery that the Church disagrees with?

That's easy, the Science of Reincarnation. It's
a bonafide science and has been for over 50
years. It points inarguably to evidence that
reincarnation is very real. The Church's response
it the same as it was to Galileo, it's laughs it
off as nonsense. Galileo or Stephenson could
point to irrefutable conclusions from their
research and because it disagrees with the
dogma of the Church, it gets dismissed out
of hand.

And then there's this:

"People who are attracted to others of the same sex develop their orientation before they are born. This is not a choice...In 2014, researchers confirmed the association between same-sex orientation in men and a specific chromosomal region..Evidence points toward the existence of a complex interaction between genes and environment, which are responsible for the heritable nature of sexual orientation in the fetus."

http://www.assaf.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/8-June-Diversity-in-human-sexuality1.pdf

A person is born Gay, it's not a choice as the Church
maintains. Discriminating against Gay sexuality is
just like discriminating against skin color. Every day
more evidence is piling up that it's just as Gay's have
always maintained, they were BORN Gay. Will the
Church ever look at this and change their doctrine
on how they treat Gay sexuality? No way. They will
continue to send Gay priests to special places where
they can be 'reasoned out of' their Gayness. They
will continue to treat Gay people as 'sick', and for
what. Ancient prejudice. God goofs up yet again.

Here are reincarnation science links you won't read
because the Church has already spoken on it.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/29/science-now-proves-reincarnation-a-look-at-the-souls-journey-after-death/

http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/case_types-page#CORT

You say disagrees with in the present tense, and perhaps they do not presently disagree with things like whether or not the earth is at the center of the universe, they certainly have had their conflicts in the past.

They have also had to admit that not all of the bible is literal truth. http://ncse.com/religion/creationists-popes-statement
Saying that evolution is responsible for the development of the human body is also saying that the stories of genesis aren't the literal truth.

There are certainly other modern "christian" sects which disagree on many points of science, and I think the catholic church gets lumped in with them.

As for the science of reincarnation, like the something-from-nothing theories, while providing an explaination, they have far from mainstream support and do not prove anything is true with any reasonable level of certainty, unlike other modern scientific theories such as evolution and relativity.