Evolution and the Pope

Quote: FrGamble

modern cosmology's discovery of the expanding universe pointing to an ultimate beginning

Just because the universe periodically expands
and collapses on itself points neither to an end
or a beginning. It's far easier to believe that the
energy has always been here, then to make up
a god that's behind it. Then you get the same
question, if everything is starts and beginnings,
where did god come from, what's his beginning.
If you say (and you have to) god has always been
here, I'll just say 'Aha!'

Once again I refer you to the definition of a non-contingent being and point out to you the problem of an infinite regress.

Quote: FrGamble

Once again I refer you to the definition of a non-contingent being and point out to you the problem of an infinite regress.

Your the one guilty of infinite regress. If this
and if that, it goes on and on. I say one thing,
the universe has always been here and always
will be. Flat out statement.

Quote: FrGamble

What I am trying to say is that, "We can't scientifically prove this point one way or the other, therefore it makes sense to believe in the answer that is most reasonable and probable based on the scientific evidence and philosophical understandings we have."

Again the main pieces of evidence are:
- modern cosmology's discovery of the expanding universe pointing to an ultimate beginning
- the logically consistent argument that 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe has begun to exist. 3. The universe has a cause.
- the idea that something cannot come from nothing
- the impossibility of an infinite regress
- the definition of non-contingent being or force, who has existence in itself without being dependent on anything else.
- this force/entity to be the cause of the universe and all that exists must be eternal (without beginning), spiritual, and all-powerful.

That's a very cogent and concise argument [Sheldon quote removed].

First a quibble: we not only can deduce a beginning from the expansion of the universe, we can see traces of the Big Bang itself in the microwave cosmic background radiation.

Now, while there is every reason to suppose everything has a cause, we don't know that everything must have a cause. Also while there's every reason to believe that everything comes from something, we don't know that it must.

We also know that nothing concrete can be infinite. Abstractions can be (there is no end to the set of natural numbers, nor to the set of fractions of natural numbers; in other words there is no absolutely largest number nor smallest number). But we don't know whether this universe is the entirety of existence or only a part of it. see the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Suppose our universe came from a massive black hole formed in another universe. Infinite regress merely begins to describe what we'd be facing in such a case.

Here's a philosophical question: The behavior of elementary particles is not, and cannot be, deterministic. Yet the objects they make up act more and more deterministically as they grow bigger. Why?

Science would answer that the statistical nature of elementary particle's behavior applies because they fall within Planck's constant, while things bigger than this very tiny constant respond to other laws. This is perfectly true, but the answer is unsatisfying. More so because patently living beings do not act in a deterministic fashion either (nor in a statistical fashion, either).

Quote:

None of this amounts to scientific proof of God's existence as the cause of the universe, but as we have mentioned many times before, the question of does the universe have a cause or creator is NOT going to be answered by science, it can't.

If I won't venture to predict what instruments will be available in ten years, you can be sure I won't even guess what science can and cannot answer about the Universe. There may be no limits to what can be known. The ultimate origin of the universe is a question of ponderable fact, after all. science excels at answering such questions.

Quote:

In any of the other explanations for how the universe exists I see little to no evidence comparable with the above. I think that the cause of the universe being a cosmic sea turtle and the atheistic attempts to prove a multi-verse or eternal existence of matter that popped into being without a cause are equally laughable.

"It's turtles all the way down, mister." ;)

Evidence for the multi-verse is as shaky as the ridiculous name tacked onto it. I'm willing to wait and see. Frankly I hope there aren't parallel, tangential, perpendicular, or any other kinds of universes. But things are as they are and not as we wish them to be (alas!!)

Quote:

Please note that I am not trying to cram anything down your throat.

I do know that. I appreciate it, too. And I will take the opportunity now to say this: we could not be friends, nor even have a cordial relation, if you were trying. I really appreciate it and will even thank you for it.

It's the idea I'm fighting, for reasons I've expressed.

Quote:

Yes the idea bolsters my religion, but there are plenty of arguments you can use to punch holes in my religion besides you denying where reasonable minds and modern science point us to. You don't need to resist this point at all costs. You can acknowledge a cause of the universe and still hate my religion.

Science doesn't point to any kind of outside agent as creator of the universe. And we've learned that what seems reasonable often isn't after careful and detailed observation. I'm not just being contrarian for the sake of being disagreeable.

Quote:

What I hear you saying is. "Science can't prove this point either way, therefore I am going to believe in the answer that makes me most comfortable and since I hate the idea of a personal God I will stick my fingers in my ears, stick out my tongue, and make clever arguments to make it stick."

No, what I'm saying is that the progression of scientific discovery keeps ruling out outside agents to all sorts of phenomena which reasonable minds, in the past, ascribed to God, or gods, because it seemed reasonable and logical to do so. I would be very surprised if this progression did not continue ruling such things out to the bitter end.

Quote:

oh, I almost forgot my most incontrovertible evidence that I am right and you are wrong is the Evenbob agrees with you.

A broken clock is right twice a day. You cannot judge the rightness of an idea by the people who believe in it. Even the noblest movements and organizations contain obstinate idiots.

If I think of another aphorism, I'll let you know.

But it was a good play.

Quote: Nareed

Now, while there is every reason to suppose everything has a cause, we don't know that everything must have a cause. Also while there's every reason to believe that everything comes from something, we don't know that it must.

I'm very curious as to why you would say this?

Quote: FrGamble

I'm very curious as to why you would say this?

Because god is just a theory, that's why.
I think I see this and I think I see that,
so I think there's a god.

What I find interesting is the people
who were once ministers and evangelists,
who after decades, become atheists. They
preached god every day and twice on
Sunday and whamo, they said no more.
Read a book called Losing Faith in Faith,
it's a real eye opener.

God exists yet he can't find the time to
confirm the deal with his most ardently
faithful? A little lame I would say..

Can a theory be true?

By the way it is very lame to exaggerate.

Quote: Evenbob

Because god is just a theory, that's why.
I think I see this and I think I see that,
so I think there's a god.

What I find interesting is the people
who were once ministers and evangelists,
who after decades, become atheists. They
preached god every day and twice on
Sunday and whamo, they said no more.
Read a book called Losing Faith in Faith,
it's a real eye opener.

God exists yet he can't find the time to
confirm the deal with his most ardently
faithful? A little lame I would say..

Do you not believe there is anything greater than you in the universe?

Nothing in parallel realities or esp or 6th sense, something that we haven't become aware of regards influence in the whole galactic federation?

I think it was the 80's when I had an epiphany. No matter where I looked [religion wise] I was finding what was wrong with it. At that time the Catholic church was a 47 billion a year Corporation. Tax exempt. Getting to reset their moral compass, as needed, and start anew. It bothered me.

Then I saw the Lutherans, etc. and their stock portfolios worth billions, and owning lots of defense stocks and making millions [by now billions] on war profiteering. That bothered me too. And whatever shepherd of whatever flock, I could find the hypocrisy, and that got to me as well.

Then something happened, I can't quote it, but somewhere it is written, "Seek and ye shall" find. And, there is a bunch of idiots running around work asking " why is it always in the last place I Iook"?

I found out that I, like others was looking for what was wrong with religion and not seeing the good that they do. On the second part about not looking anymore I like to point out to people, once you have found what you are looking for, why would you keep looking?

So, as hard as it can be, I like to try and take a second or two and see what good there is around me. Finding things to pick at is too easy. I see these wretches everywhere and if I didn't occasionally consider " But for the grace of God, there go I" I might just go crazy.

There has to be some purpose other that just serving ourselves, or "they" might as well just push the big red button. I am more than an animal, and not just because I am smarter than most of them and have opposing thumbs. I am different because I have a soul.

Quote: FrGamble

Can a theory be true?

Scientific theories have a very specific meaning.

Quote:

By the way it is very lame to exaggerate.

Very? ;)

Quote: FrGamble

I'm very curious as to why you would say this?

Because we don't know.

And because there are discontinuities in nature which we were blissfully unaware of for ages.

Consider matter. It seems solid and massive. The reasonable supposition is that it's made up of solid and massive things. Instead we found matter consists largely of empty space, and it's not solid at all. It is massive, but in a way we didn't expect. 99.999% or so of the mass concentrates in 0.0001% of the atom, at the nucleus. That's completely contrary to all reasonable suppositions reached prior to any actual evidence.