Pope Francis Supports Science While Having Faith In God.

Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,439
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Jul 2015, 12:22 am

Speaking as a Protestant, I genuinely like this Pope. His insights into God's use of evolution and the Big Bang doubtlessly is grounded in his education as a scientist.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

16 Jul 2015, 7:57 am

Lintar wrote:

What I see here is a person who doesn't seem to have the integrity to actually state what his true beliefs really are, and who just wants to be seen as being "trendy" by embracing whatever it is he believes most people in the West accept as being true, even if, objectively speaking, they could not be more wrong. The Bible itself supports neither evolution nor the "Big Bang" theory, so if he considers himself to be a true Christian then he should reject both.

Yes, I know - Genesis is "allegorical", and should not be taken literally. I, however, find it extremely difficult to take anything at all allegorically (only literally), so struggle as I may, I just cannot reconcile modern science with Christianity. It just doesn't work.
.


Just because you struggle with allegory doesn't mean that he does.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

16 Jul 2015, 3:51 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22514.html


What evidence does Pope Francis provide in support of his assertion that "God" is not a "magician with a magic wand"?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,509
Location: Reading, England

16 Jul 2015, 4:43 pm

adifferentname wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22514.html


What evidence does Pope Francis provide in support of his assertion that "God" is not a "magician with a magic wand"?

Either God exists, or does not.
Magicians with magic wands do not exist.
If God exists, God is not a magician with a magic wand.



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,016
Location: Kansas

16 Jul 2015, 5:31 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22514.html


What evidence does Pope Francis provide in support of his assertion that "God" is not a "magician with a magic wand"?

Either God exists, or does not.
Magicians with magic wands do not exist.
If God exists, God is not a magician with a magic wand.


This is just another reason I'm glad I got out of the Catholic Church. The pope is not supposed to stand behind the Big Bang at all. He should be removed and replaced. Do you realize he's upholding the athiest point of view and not the Catholics? Everyone is getting away from the real point here - it's not whether his statement is true or false - he shouldn't be making the statement at all.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,075
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Jul 2015, 5:41 pm

I think Pope Francis is quite innovative, and will leave a legacy that will be hard to top.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

16 Jul 2015, 6:02 pm

nurseangela wrote:
This is just another reason I'm glad I got out of the Catholic Church. The pope is not supposed to stand behind the Big Bang at all. He should be removed and replaced. Do you realize he's upholding the athiest point of view and not the Catholics? Everyone is getting away from the real point here - it's not whether his statement is true or false - he shouldn't be making the statement at all.


The Big Bang is completely consistent with "Let there be light" if a person is in the JudeoChristian tradition. It is not an atheist view at all. Atheists are a very small subset of the people who consider the Big Bang a plausible model of what happened.

He is justified in making the statement. There is also one whopper of a precedent.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/31/pope-franciss-comments-on-the-big-bang-are-not-revolutionary-catholic-teaching-has-long-professed-the-likelihood-of-human-evolution/

Quote:
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, is based on the central proposition that the universe is continually expanding. As a preposition, the universe was originally contained within a single point, in a highly intense state of heat and density. As the universe began to expand it cooled, allowing the formation of subatomic particles, which began a series of physical cosmological processes, which led eventually to the known universe. While this has become the most commonly accepted explanation for the beginnings of the universe, many scientists have previously expressed an instinctive opposition to the notion of a beginning point, since this would represent a question which science could not answer – as Professor Stephen Hawking concluded in his autobiography, “One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe started off”.


I bolded the whopper of a precedent but the bolding in WP 2.0 is nearly invisible. So I'll give it its' own quote.....
Quote:
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest


It was a priest, a CATHOLIC PRIEST who came up with the Big Bang theory in the first place.

Unsurprisingly he was a Jesuit. Unsurprisingly so is Pope Francis.

But you can't call it incompatible with Catholicism if it was thought up by a Catholic priest in the first place.

Here's a little bit about him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Quote:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,753
Location: temperate zone

16 Jul 2015, 6:24 pm

nurseangela wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22514.html


What evidence does Pope Francis provide in support of his assertion that "God" is not a "magician with a magic wand"?

Either God exists, or does not.
Magicians with magic wands do not exist.
If God exists, God is not a magician with a magic wand.


This is just another reason I'm glad I got out of the Catholic Church. The pope is not supposed to stand behind the Big Bang at all. He should be removed and replaced. Do you realize he's upholding the athiest point of view and not the Catholics? Everyone is getting away from the real point here - it's not whether his statement is true or false - he shouldn't be making the statement at all.


Actually "The point of view of the Catholics" since at least the reign of Pope John (1960's) is that "it is up to the individual Catholic to decide whether or not to believe in evolution" not "Creationism is right, and evolution is wrong".



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

16 Jul 2015, 6:38 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22514.html


What evidence does Pope Francis provide in support of his assertion that "God" is not a "magician with a magic wand"?

Either God exists, or does not.
Magicians with magic wands do not exist.
If God exists, God is not a magician with a magic wand.


Did Oldavid hijack your account? If not, that's a stellar homage.



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,016
Location: Kansas

16 Jul 2015, 6:41 pm

Janissy wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
This is just another reason I'm glad I got out of the Catholic Church. The pope is not supposed to stand behind the Big Bang at all. He should be removed and replaced. Do you realize he's upholding the athiest point of view and not the Catholics? Everyone is getting away from the real point here - it's not whether his statement is true or false - he shouldn't be making the statement at all.


The Big Bang is completely consistent with "Let there be light" if a person is in the JudeoChristian tradition. It is not an atheist view at all. Atheists are a very small subset of the people who consider the Big Bang a plausible model of what happened.

He is justified in making the statement. There is also one whopper of a precedent.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/31/pope-franciss-comments-on-the-big-bang-are-not-revolutionary-catholic-teaching-has-long-professed-the-likelihood-of-human-evolution/

Quote:
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, is based on the central proposition that the universe is continually expanding. As a preposition, the universe was originally contained within a single point, in a highly intense state of heat and density. As the universe began to expand it cooled, allowing the formation of subatomic particles, which began a series of physical cosmological processes, which led eventually to the known universe. While this has become the most commonly accepted explanation for the beginnings of the universe, many scientists have previously expressed an instinctive opposition to the notion of a beginning point, since this would represent a question which science could not answer – as Professor Stephen Hawking concluded in his autobiography, “One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe started off”.


I bolded the whopper of a precedent but the bolding in WP 2.0 is nearly invisible. So I'll give it its' own quote.....
Quote:
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest


It was a priest, a CATHOLIC PRIEST who came up with the Big Bang theory in the first place.

Unsurprisingly he was a Jesuit. Unsurprisingly so is Pope Francis.

But you can't call it incompatible with Catholicism if it was thought up by a Catholic priest in the first place.

Here's a little bit about him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Quote:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]


Ok. So if one believes in the Big Bang then you would also believe that someone had to start it - God. Right? Which means that an atheist couldn't believe in the Big Bang?


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,935
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

16 Jul 2015, 6:54 pm

Lintar wrote:
....."The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real" (emphasis added). That's quite a claim to make.

I don't see a problem with the pope saying the theories are real, because I don't hear him saying that he believes the theories have been PROVEN. Sure, they're real----somebody made them up----so, they DO exist; but, that doesn't mean they have been proven, IMO. I feel that even to those who believe they HAVE been proven, they know how quickly science can change, and thereby DISprove a theory.






_________________
White female; age 58; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,017
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

16 Jul 2015, 6:55 pm

I'd consider the conflict like this; the Catholic church has a certain layer of 'deposits' - doctrines in religion that cannot be updated. Next layer up are dogmas which are close to that. That said I don't know how much the Catholic church, by its own internal structure, is able to change its interpretations of the bible. I was raised Catholic but PSR training up through confirmation doesn't take you very far at all - in fact what little 'bible' is in it is paltry. Things like that often make me wonder how much the Catholic church was really able to accept the works of Teilhard de Chardin. Similarly if the holy see came to the Renaissance and likely conclusion Sextus V that the Catholic church was fundamentally a Kabbalistic/Hermetic institution and that it was the only way, shape, or form their degree of adoration toward Mary or the communion of saints and angels made any sense - red tape would be prohibitive. I have to conclude - between examples like Athanaseus Kircher, Teilhard de Chardin, Guy Consolmagno, and most recently Pope Francis, that the beliefs and philosophies of the Jesuits by and large is quite a bit different in it's scope and open-endedness than the church itself. In a way it almost sits in connection like a sort of sanctioned masonic order.

I guess technically one can take science so far as it doesn't shatter cosmological arguments (within bible literalism). Evolution, if carrying both evolution and the bible, takes a very Rosicrucian sort of revamp of the early parts of Genesis and a theosophizing of what Christ's death on the cross meant. Some of this makes me wonder if Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI might have been reading Meditations on the Tarot - to see if Valentin Tomberg's devout yet theosophical/Martinist take on Catholicism was something they could accommodate within the hard lines of what they've been given through the centuries to work with.


nurseangela wrote:
Lord help me. I don't want to go here.

Ok. This is what I know about the new pope and The End Times. (Scary organ music please.)

The old pope was still alive and a new pope doesn't usually get put in his place until he dies. Well, the old pope was whisked away from his post and the new pope took his place. I believe they said that has never happened before in the history of the Vatican. This new pope is going against all the beliefs of the Catholic church to where even the Bishops are starting to say that.....(come closer so you can hear me) he is the helper of the Antichrist. Yep. You heard me. Anyway, what he is doing is what I was saying before in another thread about the NWO (New World Order) - he is bringing in the New World Religion. It's called Chrislam (Christian and Islam). He wants to unite these two religions together and that is IMPOSSIBLE because they have totally different beliefs. The NWO wants to have Sharia Law as the new law of the land.

One thing I know is this pope was supposed to go over to Israel and meet with Netanyahu, but instead he spent all of his time with the Muslims. I know he is in thick as thieves with Castro in Cuba and will be visiting Cuba soon and he is also in bed with Obama and will be visiting the White House I believe in September. First time a pope has ever visited the White House.

All we need now is for the stock market to collapse (an economist was saying they foresee that happening within the next year and Greece is starting the domino effect) and the dollar to be worthless and then we'll be on the road to a New World Government, a New World Religion and a New World Currency and a NWO just like the Elites intended. However, the Bible says different. And what the prophesies are saying is that this new pope is the LAST POPE to be reigning at the time of Armageddon.


Tom Horn and Christ Putnam had a couple heavy hitters - Prophecy of the Popes and Exo-Vaticana - which was their attempt at trying to make sense of Malachi O'Morgaire's prophecy as well as to try and extrapolate also a lot of the language that's been floating around regarding ET excitement.

The new pope's nomination was at a very unusual marker and I don't think this can happen by accident: 3/13/2013 at 8:13 PM (ie. 20:13) in their timezone. Obviously 20+13 is 33, both 13 and 33 are big numbers in the bible as well as other places and you see 13 constantly in the 12+1 configurations whether the tribes in the OT, Apostles around Christ, there were I believe 12 tribes under Ishmael, the Rosicrucians had Christian Rosencreutz with twelve brethren that he worked with, later the Mormons similarly had Joseph Smith and twelve disciples. Love and unity are both valued at 13, 13 is also half of 26 - YHVH. At time time I might not have guessed the Vatican to be in the number theology game but, as old and as stoic an institution as it is and having as big an esoteric library as they do (add to that where Pope Francis comes from - both Buenos Aires and the Jesuit side of the church), it shouldn't surprise me at all when I think about it.

What fascinated me in addition to that were the major meteors that dropped within a few days. I haven't seen anything like that on the news either before or after, it's not something that never happens I'm sure, but the timing, the media effect, a lot of things were just 'odd'.

Tom Horn was mentioning that the Zohar talked about Vatican city being in ruin at a given time and that it would either have to relocate or just be done with. Interestingly enough A.E. Waite might have had some things to say on the issue - the Death card in his deck is meant to symbolize the end of the Piscean age and the beginning of the Aquarian. The bible seems to span from Taurian to Aquarian and the Aquarian age is only hinted at briefly in Luke 22:10.

I have to remain agnostic on whether the Catholic institution will literally come to an end due to some calamity during Pope Francis' tenure. There may be a 'little apocalypse', there may not be. The problem with the Book of Revelations is that to make sense of it in an intellectually congruent manner we're forced to look at it one of two ways 1) as a book that discusses the 66-70 AD sacking of Jerusalem in depth, predicts the fall of Rome, and a 1,000 year kingdom of Catholic rule over Europe or 2) particularly with the seven churches you'd have a map of precessions of the equinox or certain epochs that humanity was passing through and that it's a narrative for story that goes MUCH beyond 2015 and any of our lifetimes. The more one holds up the Platonic cycle and the seven 2,160 year periods the dive down and rise back up in a certain kind of progression with five 2,160 years of golden age - that's 15,120 years (at least the 7 x 2,160 active portion) and it rhymes very much with something that Tom Horn said about Rene Thibault (one of the more famous Jesuit analysts of the O'Morgaire prophecy) who indicated his own belief that God would be done with his plan for us in 15,000 years.

I could blather on but we're in very heavily hyped times at least in terms of long-running prophecies. The 12/21/2012 thing was a bit of a bust, this might be as well, or it might happen but be a much more peaceful dissolution of an institution. Not sure which it will be and, if there are many more popes to come after Francis, it would be an interesting outcome - I suppose I won't be shocked too much that way either.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 16 Jul 2015, 7:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

16 Jul 2015, 6:59 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Ok. So if one believes in the Big Bang then you would also believe that someone had to start it - God. Right? Which means that an atheist couldn't believe in the Big Bang?


Atheist here. I'll answer your points in reverse order.

1- I don't "believe in" the Big Bang. However, I am satisfied that it is the current best explanation for the origin of the Universe.
2- It is not necessary to believe (nor disbelieve) in the Big Bang in order to be an atheist.
3- Your insertion of "God" as the cause of the Big Bang is a classic example of the "god of the gaps".
4- You have no basis for your assertion that "someone had to start it". The origin of the Universe has more possible hypothetical explanations than the entire human race can conceive of, the overwhelming majority of which do not feature intelligent beings.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,753
Location: temperate zone

16 Jul 2015, 7:09 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Janissy wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
This is just another reason I'm glad I got out of the Catholic Church. The pope is not supposed to stand behind the Big Bang at all. He should be removed and replaced. Do you realize he's upholding the athiest point of view and not the Catholics? Everyone is getting away from the real point here - it's not whether his statement is true or false - he shouldn't be making the statement at all.


The Big Bang is completely consistent with "Let there be light" if a person is in the JudeoChristian tradition. It is not an atheist view at all. Atheists are a very small subset of the people who consider the Big Bang a plausible model of what happened.

He is justified in making the statement. There is also one whopper of a precedent.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/10/31/pope-franciss-comments-on-the-big-bang-are-not-revolutionary-catholic-teaching-has-long-professed-the-likelihood-of-human-evolution/

Quote:
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, is based on the central proposition that the universe is continually expanding. As a preposition, the universe was originally contained within a single point, in a highly intense state of heat and density. As the universe began to expand it cooled, allowing the formation of subatomic particles, which began a series of physical cosmological processes, which led eventually to the known universe. While this has become the most commonly accepted explanation for the beginnings of the universe, many scientists have previously expressed an instinctive opposition to the notion of a beginning point, since this would represent a question which science could not answer – as Professor Stephen Hawking concluded in his autobiography, “One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe started off”.


I bolded the whopper of a precedent but the bolding in WP 2.0 is nearly invisible. So I'll give it its' own quote.....
Quote:
The Big Bang theory, originally hypothesised in 1927 by Jesuit priest


It was a priest, a CATHOLIC PRIEST who came up with the Big Bang theory in the first place.

Unsurprisingly he was a Jesuit. Unsurprisingly so is Pope Francis.

But you can't call it incompatible with Catholicism if it was thought up by a Catholic priest in the first place.

Here's a little bit about him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Quote:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]


Ok. So if one believes in the Big Bang then you would also believe that someone had to start it - God. Right? Which means that an atheist couldn't believe in the Big Bang?


You can postulate a deity being behind the Big Bang. Or not. Scientists don't do metaphysics. And Popes don't do physics. But the Pope is allowed to say that "current theories are consistent with current evidence (ie are 'real')".



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,017
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

16 Jul 2015, 7:16 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Ok. So if one believes in the Big Bang then you would also believe that someone had to start it - God. Right? Which means that an atheist couldn't believe in the Big Bang?

The problem with that logic - if one believes that God created the universe then one can't be an atheist, at the most liberal they can be a deist. For an atheist to walk their observations backward along the bible in the manner your suggesting would mean that they wouldn't be allowed to believe that they exist right now because God created the universe and they don't believe in God. If their 'I' experience is still awake and ticking after receiving that bombshell it suggests that atheists and theists are both just as much in relatively stable reality where what one believes tends not to delete either them or the value of their observations in the material world.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling