A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

And that pertains to the Big Bang being a Christian concept how?

The Bible says there was a point where there was nothing - no time, no space, nothing. Then, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

And, that's what this theory states as well.

That's how this scientific theory helps establish as scientific the claims of my particular religion (and, admittedly, many others).

[TimAllen]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Edwin Hubble

Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre

Lemaitre's theory was introduced back in the 1930's, he "discovered" it in the 20's but didnt publish until the 30's.

The Big Bang theory was a theory espoused by a Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre and the theory was agreed/approved upon by the Catholic Church

A THEORY.


And you left this part out, He (Lemaitre) is saying in all of his research that an original event took place to form the Heavens and the Earth, thereby justifying what he believed.

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre’s view in 1933: “‘There is no conflict between religion and science,’ Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both.”

One event caused it all....
He is right One God caused it all... Kinda powerful huh?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, catholiceducation.org holds more water in your eyes than then University of MI for objectivity?

Either way, how does that compare with the rest of the theory and how it's been refined, by noted relgious scholars like Steven Hawking?

Perhaps the first person to state the theory was a Catholic priest as well as a mathemetician. Did he espouse it as Catholic and/or Christian theory, or scientific theory? Did the many scientist after him who refined it to scientific theory do so for religious or scientific reason?

No CatholicEducation.org was an example, there was also a Google link to his name, here it is again Georges-Henri Lemaitre (or you can ignore it like you did before)

Minimize it all you want, neverless the Theory of "Something out of Nothing" (Big Bang), the one you have problems grasping or believing, is one created by a Christian Priest and approved of by the largest Christian Organization.

Since the concept escapes you, Hubble further refined Lemaitres theory, he didnt create it.

Before you decide to use someone to support your stance (kinda like Mitochondrial Eve) make sure you have a clear understandinng of what their actual beliefs are.

At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988)

Hmm Space/Cosmos/Universe has no beginning... who made that claim a few posts ago?

The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Space/Cosmos/Universe wasnt created (cant be destroyed) it just was... gee that sounds familiar

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.

Space/Cosmos/Universe has no need for a creator, since there is no beginning nor end... where have i heard that before?

The concept of something not having a begining or creation is odd, because its not a concept thats easily grasped.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

I agree in part. My point has to do with the "if." The definitions of gods offered by religions not only do not allow for detection, but also do not allow for the possibility of detection.

God walked on earth. God spoke directly with people. God is detectable both in the abstract, and (if He so chooses) in the physical.

Your post seemed to imply that there was no middle ground between possibility and fact, or that all possibilities were of equal probability. Was that not the case?

Of course there is a difference between possibility and fact - provability. As was asked in the movie "Contact", though, how can you prove you love your mother/wife/father/son/daughter/whatever? It's as true as you can possibly imagine, but prove it scientifically. Not all possibilities have equal probability. However, probability has to make assumptions to become quantitative. If you presume the supernatural doesn't exist, that certainly makes the probability of God much less! But, if you allow equally for the possibility of the supernatural, the probability of an intelligent design guiding all that exists becomes much more likely.

That may be reasonable according to the interior logic of religions. The problem is that the typical religion claims to have the only way for humans to make their lives better, and further claims that this way cannot be challenged or because it allegedly comes from a god or gods.

Well, certainly the technical aspects of research/science can make our lives better, and few religions (not zero, but few) have a problem with this. The typical religion, in terms of making people's lives better, discusses actions and heartfelt emotions, and controlling one's motives, etc. As far as researching the technical matters of how things happen - I think most religions welcome being able to prove to the doubter with evidence that satisfies the doubter. However, as PsyOps talked about above, faith does mean that there may be a point of inability to prove, and belief must take over. Now, mostly, that's still talking about how one acts and what they feel, but could be extended to physical proof of how a Creator performs His miracles.

That is not an assumption. It is simply one possibility derived from our accumulated knowledge about molecular biology.

But, to say that life could occur on other plantets with just the right conditions, then calculate what percentage of planets might meet those conditions, one must assume what conditions there were which caused life. Calculate life on other planets presuming that it could not spontaneously occur without an intelligent designer, and now you've got a whole new equation with a far different probability.

No, conjecture would be an idea

And, without any form of proof, that's all this is, an idea. A thought. A possibility. Like, for example, creation

Rudimentary moral behavior has been observed in animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that morality is an evolutionary adaptation. We cannot assume that morality was created by an outside agency.

No, we can't just assume it. Any more than we can assume that it's an evolutionary adaptation. They're both equally likely, and both deserve exploration equally.

No, because the design possibility includes host of assumptions about the designer. Any explanation of a natural phenomenon should involve as few assumptions as possible, and the number of assumptions decreases the probability.

Maybe, but the assumptions do not preclude the possibility. The shere complexity of life makes happenstance that much less likely, don't you think?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

The Bible says there was a point where there was nothing - no time, no space, nothing. Then, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

And, that's what this theory states as well.

That's how this scientific theory helps establish as scientific the claims of my particular religion (and, admittedly, many others).

The Bible makes lots of claims, one being that Cain married some mythical woman, but you cant use your "Proof" to prove your "Proof"

Actually, sorry, you have it backwards, Religion (Lemaitre) is trying to use Science (Concept of Big Bang) to prove itself (Genesis).

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

The experiences (and, no, it wasn't voices in my head or something like that) proved to me that life is NOT just happenstance - there's a plan, a reason, a motive behind how things flow.

No offense, but such experiences are not sufficient proof.

Originally Posted by This_person

That doesn't stop me from wanting to know how that's done, or how things work.

I admire that sentiment.

Originally Posted by This_person

If I read you correctly, you're saying that we have to do our research as to how things happened without giving serious consideration to why things happened.

Not quite. I'm saying that your "why" would really be a "how." In strict scientific terms, the idea of a designer behind a natural event would be like the idea of a natural cause for a natural event. The former is less probable because it rests on the assumption of a designer and because there is no evidence for the designer.

Originally Posted by This_person

Because, if we give serious consideration as to why things happened, we might have to subordinate ourselves to a supreme being's will.

No, to the will of people who claim to act on behalf of such beings. That is a huge difference, and one of the chief objections to supernaturalistic religion. Plus, my point would also apply to deism, even though deism doesn't define its god as a moral authority.

Originally Posted by This_person

I, personally, think that's a dangerous way to approach things. I think it dismisses a possibility. It relieves science of any moral foundation. That's scary to me.

No question that a disregard for morality in science can be dangerous. But that is not the fault of science, which is a tool for knowing the physical universe.

My idea for a naturalistic religion is that true morality is not about submission to authority, whether it's an earthly authority or an alleged heavenly authority. That is simply doing what one is told. (To be clear, I'm talking about submission and not simple respect for authority, because with the latter we retain our will. True morality involves valuing others, considering the consequences of our actions on others.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by TimAllen

A THEORY.


And you left this part out, He (Lemaitre) is saying in all of his research that an original event took place to form the Heavens and the Earth, thereby justifying what he believed.

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre’s view in 1933: “‘There is no conflict between religion and science,’ Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both.”

One event caused it all....
He is right One God caused it all... Kinda powerful huh?

So you agree, he was a Catholic Priest (i do believe thats Christian) came up with a Theory that was approved by the Catholic Church (... wait their Christian too).

thanks buddy!

[TimAllen]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

So you agree, he was a Catholic Priest (i do believe thats Christian) came up with a Theory that was approved by the Catholic Church (... wait their Christian too).

thanks buddy!

You are good and taking a single part of a quote and trying to make it fit your theory..His research showed that there was a single event that caused everything, as in God creating the Heavens and the Earth...that would be a large single event correct?

I never said he was not a priest....No where does it quote nor does it say that the Catholic Church approved of "The Big Bang Theory" Lemaitre did not coin the phrase either.... Read this again....

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre’s view in 1933: “‘There is no conflict between religion and science,’ Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both.”



I think it says that what he figured out is good because he one event did occur to make everything and God did it...

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

No CatholicEducation.org was an example, there was also a Google link to his name, here it is again Georges-Henri Lemaitre (or you can ignore it like you did before)

I didn't ignore it, there were more links than I noticed.

Minimize it all you want, neverless the Theory of "Something out of Nothing" (Big Bang), the one you have problems grasping or believing, is one created by a Christian Priest and approved of by the largest Christian Organization.

Since the concept escapes you, Hubble further refined Lemaitres theory, he didnt create it.

Before you decide to use someone to support your stance (kinda like Mitochondrial Eve) make sure you have a clear understandinng of what their actual beliefs are.


Hmm Space/Cosmos/Universe has no beginning... who made that claim a few posts ago?


Space/Cosmos/Universe wasnt created (cant be destroyed) it just was... gee that sounds familiar


Space/Cosmos/Universe has no need for a creator, since there is no beginning nor end... where have i heard that before?

The concept of something not having a begining or creation is odd, because its not a concept thats easily grasped.

I think perhaps we're both saying the universe came from nothing, and that is both a scientific and religious concept. Where is your argument?

As far as the universe goes, the Christian religion does not make the claim that there is no beginning nor end - we really believe there is both a beginning and an end. I'm not sure where you're disagreement is.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

The Bible makes lots of claims, one being that Cain married some mythical woman, but you cant use your "Proof" to prove your "Proof"

Actually, sorry, you have it backwards, Religion (Lemaitre) is trying to use Science (Concept of Big Bang) to prove itself (Genesis).

So, he offered the Big Bang up as a religious theory in his role as priest, or a scientific on in his role as methematician. Did he offer it up for scientific review? Has it been researched and expounded upon in a scientific way, or a religious one?