Confessional

Quote: FrGamble

If he has no evidence or reason behind his assertion than while I cannot disprove it I would not consider it true.

He saw it. Happy? Now disprove it.

Quote:

I think you know what I meant, but thanks for bringing up these things. Isn't science and our universe so fascinating!

How would you know?

Quote:

I'm not, I believe he is smiling down from Heaven in the hopes that you may one day realize his important scientific discoveries were not philosophical or theological statements.

Of course not. the Catholic church has made two positive contributions to the world: sponsoring Michelangelo and Fr. Lemaitre. The latter was 100% not theological.

Quote:

"Proving that energy has always been there" I think you said - that made all of Heaven laugh a little,

Only a moron laughs at the truth. if there's a heaven, it would be an insufferable place. For all I care, you can have it.

Here, from Wikipedia:

Quote:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity.

And from Space.com:

Quote:

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today. -

Emphasis added.

This is so elemental fact, I'm amazed you keep denying it.

Space, and perhaps time, began with the Big Bang. Energy, which is equivalent to matter, was there before the expansion took place. This is well-known and the only interpretation of the theory at all. If you're going to make up your own physics like you make up your psychopathic god, we have nothing more to discuss.

Wow Nareed I have no quibble with the Big Bang Theory as you accurately describe it. But why do you not think that there was something that created this singularity? It's like you are a fundamentalist for the Big Bang. Look further than where science can lead us. Obviously science cannot claim to observe the nothingness that existed before this singularity nor the spiritual being that created it. Logic will tell you that this almost infinitely dense starting point for the Universe had to come from somewhere. Calm down a bit and think about it. I'm not denying the Big Bang Theory, I'm simply saying that it points to and is evidence for something no scientific theory can speak to, namely the existence of God.

According to Lemaitre himself (again from Wikipedia):

Quote:

Lemaître was then invited to London in order to take part in a meeting of the British Association on the relation between the physical universe and spirituality. There he proposed that the universe expanded from an initial point, which he called the "Primeval Atom" and developed in a report published in Nature. Lemaître himself also described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"

Emphasis added.

Quote: FrGamble

But why do you not think that there was something that created this singularity?

You're a despicable human being.

You've been going on and on for years how the Big Bang "proves" the universe was created, and have been mocking me every time I say the energy making up the universe was there all along. When presented with evidence to the contrary, you dare brush it aside and pretend you never claimed otherwise?

Then what makes the Big Bang special in the empty discipline that is theology? If "something" created the singularity, how is that different to a steady-state universe and the claim that "something" created it as well? What is there in the observations as made and recorded that suggests the singularity has to come from somewhere? What suggests it hasn't always been there?

Really, I can also win every game if I lie and cheat and move the goal posts and change the rules like a Catholic priest.

Quote: Nareed

Really, I can also win every game if I lie and cheat and move the goal posts and change the rules like a Catholic priest.

I've said this before, FrG is slippery, he'll change
his stance on a moments notice and act like he's
always been that way. You have to have a good
memory for what he's said in the past. From
others I've been talking to, a lot of Catholic
priests are this way. Winning the argument for
the Church is what's most important, how you
get there seems to be irrelevant.

Like Teresa sneaking around her clinics and baptising
people without them knowing what was happening.
That's fine with the Church, being devious is applauded
if it gets them what they want.

Quote: Nareed

You're a despicable human being.

Personal insult -- Three-day suspension. I believe this is the first one at DT. This may pale in comparison to the time you'll have to serve in purgatory for that one.

No, EB, you can't serve any of the time.

Quote: Wizard

Personal insult -- Three-day suspension. I believe this is the first one at DT. This may pale in comparison to the time you'll have to serve in purgatory for that one.

No, EB, you can't serve any of the time.

Wow
I need to start paying more attention to these religion threads
No idea so much action was taking place in here
I'm sure this was tough for the Wiz to do considering what a valued member Nareed is.
Unfortunately I have to agree with the Wiz, a line was stepped over.
Religion and politics, sometimes its tough not to step over that line. Nature of the beast
yet
We love to go back and forth on these subjects :-)
We live in interesting times regarding both subjects.

Quote: Wizard

Personal insult -- Three-day suspension. I believe this is the first one at DT..

Nope, Acesandeights was the first and I
don't think he's been back since.

FrG can be infuriatingly inconsistent on
some of his opinions. Nareed takes some
of this seriously and got momentarily
angry. More latitude should be given
in religion threads, now Nareed will
probably disappear again.

Quote: Nareed

You've been going on and on for years how the Big Bang "proves" the universe was created, and have been mocking me every time I say the energy making up the universe was there all along. When presented with evidence to the contrary, you dare brush it aside and pretend you never claimed otherwise?

I feel like I have been consistent in how I understand evidence vs. proof. I do believe and continue to say the Big Bang theory is evidence that points to the universe being created. If someone can point out a time when I said the Big Bang proves the universe was created I will gladly donate $100 to a charity of the Wizard's choice.

Quote:

Then what makes the Big Bang special in the empty discipline that is theology? If "something" created the singularity, how is that different to a steady-state universe and the claim that "something" created it as well? What is there in the observations as made and recorded that suggests the singularity has to come from somewhere? What suggests it hasn't always been there?

I know I should probably wait to answer this one but I am sure someone can pick up for Nareed. The thing that suggests the singularity has been created is simple and clear logic. If energy cannot create itself but is a contingent and non-necessary thing then it must have been created by a non-contingent necessary being who we commonly refer to as God. You can't observe such a being or test for it by its very nature but it is the inescapable logical foundation of the existence of anything and everything. Again let me try to be clear, the Big Bang theory does not prove the universe was created, it can only go back as far as there is something to observe. From that singularity logic, reason, and philosophy show that if this singularity is a non-necessary thing that does not hold its reason for being in itself then it must have been created.

I again feel that I have been consistent on this point and would gladly serve the remaining days of Nareed's suspension if it can be proven I have said otherwise.

Quote: Dalex64

This does not mean that nothing can be proven, or all evidence carries the same weight and confidence, or lack thereof, or there is no such thing as a level of confidence associated with everything that we consider to be real and the truth.

This is true. It is interesting that many of the things we have no "proof" for are the things we hold most dear and strongly to. Our religion, our politics, our loves, and our views of the world.

Quote:

Here's the fun part - it is testable to determine whether or not I am a real person.

I believe that with the use of reason and logic that God is testable as well. Obviously, you cannot test for God in the same way you can test that you are a real person. But there are other ways to determine what is true besides the scientific method.

Quote:

Again, not all expressions of faith are based on the same quality and confidence in the evidence. You don't get to say that because I take something that we have high confidence in the evidence in on faith that we should accept equally on faith something for which there is little confidence in the evidence.

I like your phrase "confidence in the evidence" and think it is very important to our discussion.

Quote:

Taking one thing on faith does not mean that I must accept everything that is taken in faith, and believe in all things with equal levels of confidence.

That is true. It depends on the confidence you have in the evidence including your personal experiences.

I also want to say that I thank you for not denying the importance of taking things on faith. It is clearly how we live the majority of our lives.

Quote:

Try to keep an open mind the next time we discuss alternative theories regarding the creation and formation of the universe.

I will try.

Quote:

What is the point of teaching this story, and what is the point of the story, if there was no great flood, god did not kill nearly everyone out of mercy, and since he did not kill nearly everyone, he had nothing to repent for by sending a rainbow?

There was I think a great flood that was universalized and used as a parable concerning the dangers and destructiveness of sin. Sin hurts not just the ones committing them, but innocents, and as we see in global warming everyone! The Egyptians had to learn this painful lesson as well.