User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:12:51 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ultimately Science does reach the point where it has to acknowledge its own limitations, there are limits in mathematics, physics etc where you simply can not get any more answers from them. Beyond materialism you run into the arena's of philosophy (epistemology, ontology) and eventually faith. A well rounded thinker needs to be able to marshal all of the domains of thought, materialism will only get you so far, the how will only get you so far, eventually you do end up in the domain of the "Why". SO to answer your statement, there are questions in mathematics and science where "God" may not be the answer... but there is a sign on the door saying "Science can not answer this question". (Examples being whether or not a continuum of infinities exists between the infinity of rational and irrational numbers, and creating an elementary arithmetic system which is both consistent and complete as per Gödel) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like what this Pope is saying, but I’ve always said and still maintain that religion and science are not compatible. Religion will continue to mold its interpretation of religious texts/teaching to fit with current scientific discoveries, but it will never be the other way around. No matter how far science progresses, “God” will never be the answer. Therefore, the two will always be in conflict with one another, and thus, not compatible. In my opinion of course…… Ultimately Science does reach the point where it has to acknowledge its own limitations, there are limits in mathematics, physics etc where you simply can not get any more answers from them. Beyond materialism you run into the arena's of philosophy (epistemology, ontology) and eventually faith. A well rounded thinker needs to be able to marshal all of the domains of thought, materialism will only get you so far, the how will only get you so far, eventually you do end up in the domain of the "Why". SO to answer your statement, there are questions in mathematics and science where "God" may not be the answer... but there is a sign on the door saying "Science can not answer this question". (Examples being whether or not a continuum of infinities exists between the infinity of rational and irrational numbers, and creating an elementary arithmetic system which is both consistent and complete as per Gödel) Secular science does a great job of explaining how the existing universe works. It is observed science. For instance, we know how evolution works because we have a very definitive fossil record. We know the speed of light and we know the Laws of Physics and we know all kinds of things about Quantum Physics and are learning more every day. However, science cannot explain how the universe came into existence. It can explain from the Big Bang forward but it cannot explain where the energy from the Big Bang came from, what initiated the Big Bang or what was there before the Big Bang. Everything we know about the existing universe falls apart at that point. Either the universe created itself out of nothing or there is some intelligent design to the creation of the universe. There are really no other explanations. I find it very difficult to believe that something created itself out of nothing so the idea that we are here due to something much bigger than the world we live in makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:13:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats next, Pope? Christ didn't rise from the dead? Nope. That would be magical. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:14:26 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Independent.uk Link
The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared. Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI. Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”. “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment. This former-Catholic-turned-agnostic really likes this pope. *heads explode.gif* Wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:14:47 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big Bang and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive, in fact it is far more of a stretch to consider big bang happened all by itself. Second law of thermodynamics and all that. As far as evolution goes, while Darwin was right about natural selection and other theories, he openly admitted he was wrong about many things concerning the evolution of man, that he made assumptions that could never be proven, a fact evolutionists don't like to admit. Read the book "Darwin's Doubt." It will open your eyes as to what Darwin actually believed. Evolution of man from primates is far from proven feasible, actually quite the opposite is true. Yep, the science behind evolution has not progressed at all since Darwin, so you should base your opinions on it on one single book because it supports how you already feel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:15:10 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. That would be magical. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whats next, Pope? Christ didn't rise from the dead? Nope. That would be magical. Do you believe in magic yourself? How about the universe magically created itself out of nothing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:15:14 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was and is still wrong to do so. I have always maintained that the Roman Catholic church is as much a political organization as it is a church. The first century church does not give any precedent for anything like what the Vatican and all it's hierarchies has become, and the pope has no authority given to proclaim anything, nor has he ever had any except as given by man. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anti-Catholics tend to forget we have a pretty long history of founding Universities and promoting Science. They will point out how we censored science - but it was not because the Church felt the science was wrong - but because the Church understood that the uneducated masses were not prepared for it. Quite honestly - that is still often the case. It was and is still wrong to do so. I have always maintained that the Roman Catholic church is as much a political organization as it is a church. The first century church does not give any precedent for anything like what the Vatican and all it's hierarchies has become, and the pope has no authority given to proclaim anything, nor has he ever had any except as given by man. Whether you believe the Catholic Church is actually the church established by Christ or not, Christ clearly gave a man the authority and power to "bind and loosen" and provided very little rules on how the Church were to be run. But, to the OP topic, any study of the Created is by definition a study or view into the methods of the Creator. Most who try to deny science to so out of pious ignorance - often influenced by the arguments of charlatans, or because they are charlatans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:16:30 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know that's the case for evolution. I think it probably was for the Big Bang as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hasn't the Catholic church accepted evolution and the big bang for quite some time now? I know that's the case for evolution. I think it probably was for the Big Bang as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:16:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anti-Catholics tend to forget we have a pretty long history of founding Universities and promoting Science. They will point out how we censored science - but it was not because the Church felt the science was wrong - but because the Church understood that the uneducated masses were not prepared for it. Quite honestly - that is still often the case. Got a source for that? Even if true, all it means is that the church officially sanctioned the intentional deception of its followers. Funny how the church couldn't even follow the ten basic rules they teach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:16:50 AM EDT
[#9]
This Pope is wrong to say those theories are "right." We simply don't know, and there is no concrete proof that they are right.
But the concept of intelligent design is not new and I've believed it for a long time. God most certainly is NOT a magician with a wand (although He could if He wanted to be), and in His infinite power, He could definitely have created the world through a system like the Big Bang and Evolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:16:56 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, the science behind evolution has not progressed at all since Darwin, so you should base your opinions on it on one single book because it supports how you already feel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Big Bang and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive, in fact it is far more of a stretch to consider big bang happened all by itself. Second law of thermodynamics and all that. As far as evolution goes, while Darwin was right about natural selection and other theories, he openly admitted he was wrong about many things concerning the evolution of man, that he made assumptions that could never be proven, a fact evolutionists don't like to admit. Read the book "Darwin's Doubt." It will open your eyes as to what Darwin actually believed. Evolution of man from primates is far from proven feasible, actually quite the opposite is true. Yep, the science behind evolution has not progressed at all since Darwin, so you should base your opinions on it on one single book because it supports how you already feel. We all know the very first writings on a theory are always considered 100% correct by everybody. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:18:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what they REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:19:27 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It most certainly is not. Christianity began with the teachings of Christ and the first century church, not a roman emperor's (Constantine) decrees in 312 AD. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Catholic means universal. It's the oldest Christian religion It most certainly is not. Christianity began with the teachings of Christ and the first century church, not a roman emperor's (Constantine) decrees in 312 AD. LOL So St. Peter didn't start the Catholic Church directly from the instructions from Jesus himself while on earth? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew xvi, 18 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:20:02 AM EDT
[#13]
If Pope Francis is ever assassinated, it's going to be a Catholic that does it.
I like Pope Francis and think he's is a good man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:21:42 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what the REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what the REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. No. The Bible says that God said "Let there be light." They may have thought they knew what God was talking about, but it turns out they didn't. They made sense of it based on the limited knowledge they have. Today our knowledge is still infinitely limited, but it's slightly greater than it was before. So we have more insight into what God possibly meant. But we still don't know for sure. I think what the Pope is saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and those theories fit within the teachings of the Church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:23:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Church thinking:
"Hm... There's overwhelming evidence that we've been wrong all along and our followers are starting to think critically enough to re-evaluate their belief system. Better 'reinterpret' our holy book for the umpteenth time to make it more compatible with mainstream thinking." Everyone else: "So did your god change his mind? Or was he wrong all along?" ETA: let the butthurt flow 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:24:15 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what they REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what they REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:24:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Church thinking: "Hm... There's overwhelming evidence that we've been wrong all along and our followers are starting to think critically enough to re-evaluate their belief system. Better 'reinterpret' our holy book for the umpteenth time to make it more compatible with mainstream thinking." Everyone else: "So did your god change his mind? Or was he wrong all along?" ETA: let the butthurt flow I'm just gonna c/p this, since it's so useful here. Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. I'm not sure if I should blame the poor state of History or Philosophy education in the Western world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:26:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This has been the official position for a very long time. In fact catholics came up with the idea of the big bang and evolution long before secular scientists did. Yup. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution. I believe God set it into motion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:26:50 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You over estimate the average persons intelligence.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anti-Catholics tend to forget we have a pretty long history of founding Universities and promoting Science. They will point out how we censored science - but it was not because the Church felt the science was wrong - but because the Church understood that the uneducated masses were not prepared for it. Quite honestly - that is still often the case. It was and is still wrong to do so. I have always maintained that the Roman Catholic church is as much a political organization as it is a church. The first century church does not give any precedent for anything like what the Vatican and all it's hierarchies has become, and the pope has no authority given to proclaim anything, nor has he ever had any except as given by man. You over estimate the average persons intelligence. I guess the ninth commandment is too restrictive of a policy to hold the church leadership to, just as it's unreasonable to expect governments and their leaders to follow the law. Lying to the masses in order to pacify and control them sounds like the tactics of a certain bible character that I'm pretty sure most church leaders wouldn't like to be associated with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:27:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what the REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what the REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. I have no idea what they thought, only what they wrote in the Bible. Though, after centuries of people reading an interpreting the Bible, I can see how it could/would be misinterpreted. As I said, though. I see no inconsistencies between what is written in the Bible and our current scientific knowledge. Others may, but I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:27:36 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The Bible says that God said "Let there be light." They may have thought they knew what God was talking about, but it turns out they didn't. They made sense of it based on the limited knowledge they have. Today our knowledge is still infinitely limited, but it's slightly greater than it was before. So we have more insight into what God possibly meant. But we still don't know for sure. I think what the Pope is saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and those theories fit within the teachings of the Church. What God 'meant' is that he created the heaven and the earth. Period. Full stop. Anything flowing from that is icing on the cake, and a product of our innate human desire to explore and understand. God created the heaven and the earth. Thats what we need to know, and what the Bible provides. What we want to know, however, is exactly how he did it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:29:50 AM EDT
[#22]
enjoy hell
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:33:32 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just gonna c/p this, since it's so useful here. Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. I'm not sure if I should blame the poor state of History or Philosophy education in the Western world. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Church thinking: "Hm... There's overwhelming evidence that we've been wrong all along and our followers are starting to think critically enough to re-evaluate their belief system. Better 'reinterpret' our holy book for the umpteenth time to make it more compatible with mainstream thinking." Everyone else: "So did your god change his mind? Or was he wrong all along?" ETA: let the butthurt flow I'm just gonna c/p this, since it's so useful here. Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. I'm not sure if I should blame the poor state of History or Philosophy education in the Western world. You know, this isn't a bad sig line.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:38:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL So St. Peter didn't start the Catholic Church directly from the instructions from Jesus himself while on earth? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew xvi, 18 "Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:42:16 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Pope Francis is ever assassinated, it's going to be a Catholic that does it. I like Pope Francis and think he's is a good man. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:42:21 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what they REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:42:50 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always enjoy watching the surprised reactions when the Pope explains what has been long-standing Catholic doctrine. As it turns out, the Pope is indeed Catholic. Yep. None of this is new. He's just saying what has been church doctrine (for centuries in some cases). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:43:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What God 'meant' is that he created the heaven and the earth. Period. Full stop. Anything flowing from that is icing on the cake, and a product of our innate human desire to explore and understand. God created the heaven and the earth. Thats what we need to know, and what the Bible provides. What we want to know, however, is exactly how he did it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. The Bible says that God said "Let there be light." They may have thought they knew what God was talking about, but it turns out they didn't. They made sense of it based on the limited knowledge they have. Today our knowledge is still infinitely limited, but it's slightly greater than it was before. So we have more insight into what God possibly meant. But we still don't know for sure. I think what the Pope is saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and those theories fit within the teachings of the Church. What God 'meant' is that he created the heaven and the earth. Period. Full stop. Anything flowing from that is icing on the cake, and a product of our innate human desire to explore and understand. God created the heaven and the earth. Thats what we need to know, and what the Bible provides. What we want to know, however, is exactly how he did it. You religious guys can't agree on anything huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:43:41 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whats next, Pope? Christ didn't rise from the dead? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:44:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues like sentence structure and tenses!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LOL So St. Peter didn't start the Catholic Church directly from the instructions from Jesus himself while on earth? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew xvi, 18 "Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues like sentence structure and tenses!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. So is the Sola Scriptura crowd gonna come out and tell us once again that while the Scriptura may be Sola (unless we edit it 1500 years later to cut out the bits we don't like) Jesus never seems to mean what the words say. "Hey, I know that's historically what lots of people, including very smart theologians living not long after the events, have thought for nearly 2k years, but Preacher Bob down at Bob's Big Box of Bible Preachin' done told me differen'" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:45:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You religious guys can't agree on anything huh? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The Bible says that God said "Let there be light." They may have thought they knew what God was talking about, but it turns out they didn't. They made sense of it based on the limited knowledge they have. Today our knowledge is still infinitely limited, but it's slightly greater than it was before. So we have more insight into what God possibly meant. But we still don't know for sure. I think what the Pope is saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and those theories fit within the teachings of the Church. What God 'meant' is that he created the heaven and the earth. Period. Full stop. Anything flowing from that is icing on the cake, and a product of our innate human desire to explore and understand. God created the heaven and the earth. Thats what we need to know, and what the Bible provides. What we want to know, however, is exactly how he did it. You religious guys can't agree on anything huh? /looks around You see anyone agreeing on anything in GD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:45:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Secular science does a great job of explaining how the existing universe works. It is observed science. For instance, we know how evolution works because we have a very definitive fossil record. We know the speed of light and we know the Laws of Physics and we know all kinds of things about Quantum Physics and are learning more every day. However, science cannot explain how the universe came into existence. It can explain from the Big Bang forward but it cannot explain where the energy from the Big Bang came from, what initiated the Big Bang or what was there before the Big Bang. Everything we know about the existing universe falls apart at that point. Either the universe created itself out of nothing or there is some intelligent design to the creation of the universe. There are really no other explanations. I find it very difficult to believe that something created itself out of nothing so the idea that we are here due to something much bigger than the world we live in makes sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like what this Pope is saying, but I’ve always said and still maintain that religion and science are not compatible. Religion will continue to mold its interpretation of religious texts/teaching to fit with current scientific discoveries, but it will never be the other way around. No matter how far science progresses, “God” will never be the answer. Therefore, the two will always be in conflict with one another, and thus, not compatible. In my opinion of course…… Ultimately Science does reach the point where it has to acknowledge its own limitations, there are limits in mathematics, physics etc where you simply can not get any more answers from them. Beyond materialism you run into the arena's of philosophy (epistemology, ontology) and eventually faith. A well rounded thinker needs to be able to marshal all of the domains of thought, materialism will only get you so far, the how will only get you so far, eventually you do end up in the domain of the "Why". SO to answer your statement, there are questions in mathematics and science where "God" may not be the answer... but there is a sign on the door saying "Science can not answer this question". (Examples being whether or not a continuum of infinities exists between the infinity of rational and irrational numbers, and creating an elementary arithmetic system which is both consistent and complete as per Gödel) Secular science does a great job of explaining how the existing universe works. It is observed science. For instance, we know how evolution works because we have a very definitive fossil record. We know the speed of light and we know the Laws of Physics and we know all kinds of things about Quantum Physics and are learning more every day. However, science cannot explain how the universe came into existence. It can explain from the Big Bang forward but it cannot explain where the energy from the Big Bang came from, what initiated the Big Bang or what was there before the Big Bang. Everything we know about the existing universe falls apart at that point. Either the universe created itself out of nothing or there is some intelligent design to the creation of the universe. There are really no other explanations. I find it very difficult to believe that something created itself out of nothing so the idea that we are here due to something much bigger than the world we live in makes sense. You're only focusing on the creation of the Universe. If the energy that created the Universe was created by "a God", what created God? If your answer is that he always existed, why can't that be true for the energy that created the big bang? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:47:51 AM EDT
[#33]
Miracles
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:48:17 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Science and religion are very compatible and there have been some very great scientific minds who were religious. As long as religion remains on the philosophical side and discusses the question of "why," and science discusses the question of "how," there is no conflict. If one believes that God created an ordered universe run by natural laws of his design, one can accept that evolution is one of those laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like what this Pope is saying, but I’ve always said and still maintain that religion and science are not compatible. Religion will continue to mold its interpretation of religious texts/teaching to fit with current scientific discoveries, but it will never be the other way around. No matter how far science progresses, “God” will never be the answer. Therefore, the two will always be in conflict with one another, and thus, not compatible. In my opinion of course…… Science and religion are very compatible and there have been some very great scientific minds who were religious. As long as religion remains on the philosophical side and discusses the question of "why," and science discusses the question of "how," there is no conflict. If one believes that God created an ordered universe run by natural laws of his design, one can accept that evolution is one of those laws. True, but I think we both know that people of faith will always say at some point during the process that, "God did it", or "God started it in motion", etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:48:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Is this going to be an anti-science thread? Or a thread where protestant "True Christians" bash Catholics?
Or will it be both? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:50:11 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This Pope is wrong to say those theories are "right." We simply don't know, and there is no concrete proof that they are right. There is no such thing as "concrete proof", as in, absolute certainty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:50:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LOL So St. Peter didn't start the Catholic Church directly from the instructions from Jesus himself while on earth? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew xvi, 18 "Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. That link leads to some very interesting commentary. Keep clicking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:51:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LOL So St. Peter didn't start the Catholic Church directly from the instructions from Jesus himself while on earth? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew xvi, 18 "Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. That is absolutely correct and has been understood by Protestants for centuries. But Roman Catholics have been trained to believe their doctrine and don't really care to understand the original language use. Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The name (in red), Peter, means "rock or rock man". In the next phase, Jesus used "petra" (in blue) (upon this rock), a feminine form of "rock", not a name. And since it is feminine, it cannot be speaking of Peter, the man. Christ used this play on words to make a point. He does not say "upon you, Peter" or "upon your successors", but "upon this rock" - upon this divine revelation and faith in Christ. "I will build" shows that the formation of this church was still in the future. It began the day of Pentecost. The rock upon which Christ built His church is Faith in Jesus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:51:36 AM EDT
[#39]
I'm half way expecting this guy to make a gay sex tape to show how tolerant he is. Holy crap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:52:43 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So St Augustine came up with the big bang theory before anybody else? Is that why you said I should look it up, instead of just posting the (nonexistent) information? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. So you're saying the people who wrote the bible had an understanding of the Big Bang and that's what they REEEEEAAAAALLY meant, and the centuries of believing it was the Sun were just incorrect. Might I suggest reading the various works of St. Augustine? His writings and thoughts from, oh, 1600 years ago might help you out. So St Augustine came up with the big bang theory before anybody else? Is that why you said I should look it up, instead of just posting the (nonexistent) information? St. Augustine wrote about creation and Genesis. Why give you tidbits of information when many of the whole works are freely available for your own education? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ Scroll on down to Augustine of Hippo. I'd suggest starting with City of God. Sadly, one cannot seem to find a full English version of De Genesi ad Litteram online though, but I'm sure you could find it in hardcopy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:54:40 AM EDT
[#41]
I sometimes don't know who "True Christians" freak out about more: Non-believers who don't believe the religion at all, or fellow Christians who "are doing it wrong" by believing slightly differently than them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:55:01 AM EDT
[#42]
"Why?", is the biggest question of the universe for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:56:30 AM EDT
[#43]
Regarding the original post, the Pope is welcome to believe as he pleases. I do not agree with him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:56:53 AM EDT
[#44]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:57:01 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but I think we both know that people of faith will always say at some point during the process that, "God did it", or "God started it in motion", etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like what this Pope is saying, but I’ve always said and still maintain that religion and science are not compatible. Religion will continue to mold its interpretation of religious texts/teaching to fit with current scientific discoveries, but it will never be the other way around. No matter how far science progresses, “God” will never be the answer. Therefore, the two will always be in conflict with one another, and thus, not compatible. In my opinion of course…… Science and religion are very compatible and there have been some very great scientific minds who were religious. As long as religion remains on the philosophical side and discusses the question of "why," and science discusses the question of "how," there is no conflict. If one believes that God created an ordered universe run by natural laws of his design, one can accept that evolution is one of those laws. True, but I think we both know that people of faith will always say at some point during the process that, "God did it", or "God started it in motion", etc. Well, when we get down to it, at cosmic levels, that's all anyone is doing--guessing. Can you tell me what came before the big bang or why it "banged?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:57:02 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never thought religion and science were mutually exclusive. Big Bang, to me, is "let there be light, and there was." It, actually, makes more sense to me than a standalone "Nobody+ Nothing = Everything" stance. Evolution may have been God "growing" man. Although evolution is missing many links... And everyone spouting time inconsistencies seems laughable to me. At some point one needs to ask.... What is it that God does exactly? If he's capable of creating a Universe from nothing, why is it hard to conceive crafting a planet and life outside the limits of just letting it grow up from mud somewhere by chance in a universe? What's the point of the rest of the story if his only true influence is the expansion of The Universe 14B years ago? Then again I always wondered why he needed to create an entire universe to make some beings and tell them how to live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 12:00:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Catholics have no reason to be frustrated with Pope Francis. He has not said anything that is against doctrine. Outsiders seem to think he has, and seem to think what he is saying is against doctrine. About the only "Catholics" who should be upset are a few Chino's who like to hate in the name of the Church. Pope Francis is very much Love thy Neighbor.
As for the Pope is pro Socialism - that is fairly patently not the case. The Church will represent the needs of the weakest - while recognizing that socialistic governments are almost universally incomparable with religion. Individual we must help the needy. As a Church, we must help the needy. As a Government, we as individuals and we as a Church are unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 12:00:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either the universe created itself out of nothing or there is some intelligent design to the creation of the universe. There are really no other explanations. I find it very difficult to believe that something created itself out of nothing so the idea that we are here due to something much bigger than the world we live in makes sense. False dichotomy. The assumption is that The Universe and it's processes are all that exists. That is not a reasonable assumption to make. The edges of our observation and understanding do set the boundaries of what is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 12:01:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is absolutely correct and has been understood by Protestants for centuries. But Roman Catholics have been trained to believe their doctrine and don't really care to understand the original language use. Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The name (in red), Peter, means "rock or rock man". In the next phase, Jesus used "petra" (in blue) (upon this rock), a feminine form of "rock", not a name. And since it is feminine, it cannot be speaking of Peter, the man. Christ used this play on words to make a point. He does not say "upon you, Peter" or "upon your successors", but "upon this rock" - upon this divine revelation and faith in Christ. "I will build" shows that the formation of this church was still in the future. It began the day of Pentecost. The rock upon which Christ built His church is Faith in Jesus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL So St. Peter didn't start the Catholic Church directly from the instructions from Jesus himself while on earth? "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew xvi, 18 "Let's reinterpret scripture with some eisogesis instead of exegesis, and ignore important grammatical clues!" -Roman Catholics and Matthew 16:18 Same old cherry picking that has been exposed as eisogesis and wrong. That is absolutely correct and has been understood by Protestants for centuries. But Roman Catholics have been trained to believe their doctrine and don't really care to understand the original language use. Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The name (in red), Peter, means "rock or rock man". In the next phase, Jesus used "petra" (in blue) (upon this rock), a feminine form of "rock", not a name. And since it is feminine, it cannot be speaking of Peter, the man. Christ used this play on words to make a point. He does not say "upon you, Peter" or "upon your successors", but "upon this rock" - upon this divine revelation and faith in Christ. "I will build" shows that the formation of this church was still in the future. It began the day of Pentecost. The rock upon which Christ built His church is Faith in Jesus. ITT, we claim Jesus would've used Greek in conversation with his disciples. We'll also ignore John 1:42. We shall also ignore how gendered languages normally work. I blame the existance of English. Next I shall start quoting works from the early Church writers and fathers, because History is fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 12:02:59 PM EDT
[#50]
He's a socialist.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
