God was behind Big Bang, pope says

[Jeffersons Ghost]

'The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe'

VATICAN CITY — God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday.

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St. Peter's Basilica on the feast day.

While the pope has spoken before about evolution, he has rarely delved back in time to discuss specific concepts such as the Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40945242/ns/technology_and_science-science/

[fascisthunter]

1. ok... why not?!

As long as people grasp something that's been proven, I'm ok with that. That way they grasp science and it's truths while having the liberty to believe in their maker.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. I believe in my mother and father, they existed...

The Big Bang as modified by expansion theories and some evidence in circles in the microwave background showing that the expanding universe bumped into other universes is a good theory that I accept with reservations.

But I am an agnostic and see no evidence that God exists, then or now, though I keep an open mind.

[formercia]

15. I'm not into leaps of faith either

If the Lemmings want to believe it, so be it.

I would prefer that Ratso provide a link.

[RainDog]

12. cause he's out of a job if he can't invent a myth to keep him there n/t

[Deep13]

67. Because it's almost certainly impossible. nt

[Deep13]

79. There's no evidence to support it.

People may of course believe as they will, but scientific ideas come from the evidence, not from our preconceptions. Frankly, "god did it" creates more problems than it solves since the origin of a god complex enough to create the universe is harder to explain than the universe itself.

[Webster Green]

2. Hey Pope!

Fuck off asshole!

Who cares what you think, you fucking perv?

You God can kiss my butt.

[malaise]

13. +1.000

Does he ever STFU

[rpannier]

3. I'm okay with it

At least the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution

[Lucinda]

6. x2

I see it as progress

[hlthe2b]

4. I don't care how they satisfy themselves re: the actual science...

as long as they acknowledge the validity of the science, including evolution. I can live with this stance. Hell, it is probably in line with what Darwin, himself maintained in order to try to bridge science and religion.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Can he explain why god needed to created all of the galaxies, planets and stars in the unverse?

If god was such a great creator than why the need to create other parts of the universe with mostly uninhabited planets?

If god was such a great creator why does/did he have all those angels and archangels? Did he create those angels and archangels or were they really equal to him? If he created them then he screwed up big time with the Devil. They can't say it was planned that way because all of their beliefs lead to the belief that the devil fell from grace along with others.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Please also explain why Alien univeses appear to exist.

Epic Discovery: Astronomers Announce First Evidence Of Alien Universes
>

[rug]

23. You assume there was a need.

[LiberalFighter]

25. I'm not sure what you mean by your response

That god figured what the hell let's just see what he can do?

Or he doesn't need a reason?

Or a need for the Pope to provide a reason?

[rug]

26. You said, "god needed to created all of the galaxies, planets and stars in the unverse".

That's making an assumption that god had a need to.

[darkstar3]

28. Also assuming God exists.

[rug]

29. True, but why assume needs of a nonexistent entity?

[laconicsax]

30. And again you admit that you don't believe your god exists. n/t

[rug]

32. Not at all. Assuming god does not exist, it's silly to attribute needs to it.

As an aside, do you play organ music and twirl your mustache when you type "your god"?

[laconicsax]

34. That's a great idea! I'll have to try it next time.

I just need an organ and a mustache to twirl...

As an aside, is it not your god? It certainly isn't my god and it certainly isn't my Hindu neighbors' god.

[rug]

35. If there is a god, it's everyone's god.

Otherwise it wouldn't be god.

[laconicsax]

39. Well that rules out the Abrahamic god.

In Genesis 31, Laban makes reference to "the god of Abraham," "the god of Nahor" and "the god of their father." Well, seeing how Abraham and Nahor were brothers and Abraham is considered to be the first to believe in his god, it follows that Nahor and their father believed in a different god than Abraham.

By your definition, the Abrahamic god can't be a god--the Bible plainly states that the Abrahamic god isn't everyone's god.

(BTW: That stuff must have taken place in Appalachia--Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister, their son married his first cousin (once removed), and their son married his first cousins (once removed). That isn't a family tree--it's a family vine.)

[rug]

45. It doesn't follow at all.

The reference to Nahor is a reference to the Arameans, a contemporaneous group that worshipped idols.

What you fail to grasp is that the disparate descriptions of God, made by disparate groups of humans, does not alter the nature of God, which is universal.

Not that this will change your agenda.

[laconicsax]

49. And your proof is what?

That's quite the arrogant claim you make there. Care to back any of it up?

[rug]

52. As soon as you prove God has needs.

[laconicsax]

54. Why should I prove something I never claimed?

[AlecBGreen]

59. 2 points

"By your definition, the Abrahamic god can't be a god--the Bible plainly states that the Abrahamic god isn't everyone's god."

I think the OT makes a point of saying, contrary to widespread belief, there arent local deities, there aren't animal gods, there aren't gods in lightning or other natural phenomena, there is only One True God. That is the message I take from it.

The OT goes on to suggest that God for some reason picked an obscure people in a remote corner of the world and chose them for a special purpose: they would be entrusted with the task of announcing his presence, preaching his message through the prophets and, some time later, in giving rise to the Messiah. It is certainly not a logical choice but in looking at the spread of monotheism today it would be hard to argue with its effectiveness. Aside from a few uncontacted tribes in Amazonia, Africa, New Guinea, etc, it would safe to say nearly everyone on earth has heard of God. I do not however agree with some of the methods that many of Gods followers have used to spread that message.

Point 2 - Take it easy on Appalachia. We're good people living in a beautiful corner of the world.

Dolly Sods Wilderness, WV. Come by some time and Ill show you around :)

[LiberalFighter]

31. I was referencing the pope if he could give an explanation.

If there isn't a reasonable explanation then how can there be a god?

[rug]

33. Still, you assumed there are needs that require explanation.

[laconicsax]

36. Are there needs that require no explanation? n/t

[rug]

37. You assume there are needs

assuming you're sticking to the subject.

[laconicsax]

40. I assumed nothing.

You said that LiberalFighter assumed that there were needs requiring an explanation. That implies that your god has needs but its foolish to assume that those needs require an explanation.

[rug]

44. Of course you did.

The premise of the post is that God has needs, which you adopted. It's an assumption without evidence. Prove it.

[laconicsax]

50. Why should I prove your premise? n/t

[rug]

53. Because it's yours.

[laconicsax]

55. Is it really that hard to answer a yes-or-no questions?

You said, "Still, [LiberalFighter] assumed there are needs that require explanation."
I asked, "Are there needs that require no explanation?"

It's a yes-or-no question. Does your god have needs that require no explanation. Since you seem hung up on the implicitly accepted premise that your god has needs, I'll ask a second yes-or-no question: Does your god have needs? All this back and forth about me assuming things is pointless and you know it.

All you need to do is answer one question (conditionally two):

Does your god have needs?
If yes, do any or all of those needs require explanation?

[rug]

56. No.

[laconicsax]

57. Thank you.

[MzShellG]

8. I've always thought this.

Theres no way the big bang happened by accident. It cannot be recreated and everything on earth has a purpose and was made with precision.

[darkstar3]

21. The human body was in no way made with precision.

Neither was any other body.

[AlecBGreen]

43. I think it depends on what scale you observe it, and what you compare it with

the human body has gross inefficiencies (our spine, for one, is very poorly designed for an upright creature). OTOH the life of a cell is a marvel of efficiency and precision.

The human body is a marvelous mix of simplicity & complexity which is still capable of great improvement. Kind of like the human race as a whole :) If that makes no sense, I can re-explain. Havent had breakfast yet.

[darkstar3]

47. Efficiency is no sign of design,

and neither is complexity. Think about this: Animal cells, not to mention plant cells, have had billions of years, and in some cases hundreds of trillions of generations, to improve through natural selection.

There is simply no reason to assume that the human body needed a designer.

[AlecBGreen]

48. I agree 100% DS

part of my challenge as a biology teacher is to convince kids that IT IS POSSIBLE for these things to happen on a strictly chemical/evolutionary level. Its a hard sell to some.

"There is simply no reason to assume that the human body needed a designer."

If God DID create the human body in present form, he made a few goofs... Nipples on guys? WTF...

[darkstar3]

51. How about

running a waste evacuation system through a recreation area?

[AlecBGreen]

58. lol

some people use it for both *ew*

[Manifestor_of_Light]

72. Death in childbirth for 10% of mothers and babies.

Oftentimes the hole in the woman's pelvis, which must be 4 inches in diameter, is too small, in 5 - 10% of women, who will then certainly DIE without surgical intervention with a C-section. Along with childbed fever, those causes and other complications wiped out one-third of mothers before modern medicine.

I am one of those women who would certainly be dead without a C-section, along with my healthy eight-pound child, now grown. It is frightening, truly frightening to be in labor and have a completely stuck baby. Fortunately I knew ahead of time I would need a C-section. My doctor was smart enough to figure this out when he examined me when I first came to him when pregnant.

C-sections are necessary in other mammals too.

Another one: Placing the blood vessels in front of the retina.

[laconicsax]

73. How about simply having the photoreceptor cells facing backwards?

Fantastic design, our eyes. The intelligent designer must love cephalopods more since their photoreceptor cells have the light-sensitive parts in front.

[peopleb4money]

74. Yah, I think there's an underlying consciousness that were intriniscially all a part of.

[laconicsax]

75. There's so much wrong with what you wrote here.

I honestly don't know where to start.

[Canuckistanian]

10. It's the liturgical leapfrog idea

Whenever science gets to a point where actual science ends and speculation begins, the Church leaps in and says "God did it".

If we had taken this to heart, we'd still be riding around on donkeys and trying to cure cancer patients with leeches.

[mdmc]

11. thats what I've been trying to say,,

[Angry Dragon]

14. But which god??

[bananas]

16. Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang", it conflicted with his religious beliefs

The term "Big Bang" was coined by Hoyle, he didn't accept the theory because he was an atheist, and to him, the idea that there was a moment of creation implied the existence of a creator, which conflicted with his religious beliefs.

So he came up with the Steady State Theory: as the universe expanded, new matter was created out of nothing by nobody in empty space, keeping the universe exactly as it has been forever and ever amen.

[HockeyMom]

17. At least they don't consider Bible a Science Textbook

Yes, they do teach Evolution in their science classes. God created Evolution is saved for Religion Class. HOW they make these conclusion is moot. At least they GET there unlike the Bible is Science people.

Don't agree with much of the Catholic Church, been there, done that, but I will give them credit for this one over other religions.

[Ellipsis]

18. Wouldn't that be kind of a given? I don't get it.

[Deep13]

69. Nothing is a given in science.

One cannot assume a divine origin to the universe without any supporting evidence and still hope to be close to the truth.

[msongs]

19. god is behind the child molesting priests as well. nt

[LAGC]

27. No, that's the devil.

God doesn't do bad things. He just lets bad things happen through the devil.

Even though he's omnipotent, he's powerless to stop the devil.

The devil, I tell you.

[peopleb4money]

76. I see satan as the negative component of the human psyche

I think God is just pure love and doesn't really allow Satan to do anything. Satan is just the negative potential for human beings, and God is the positive potential. Satan was just a consequence of free will within imperfected beings. Were in the middle of the perfecting process as a species. Were at the same place unicellular life was at one time when they were creating unstable, imperfect colonies that would one day become multi-cellular life. I think God was imperfect at one time but went through the same thing were going through to find perfection. Were a part of a massive, creative consciousness that will one day lead to space exploration, greater knowledge, and birth into Godhood where we'll be a massive intelligence that controls the laws of nature of the universe and births new forms of perception and cosmological exploration. I see us as explorers and that this is just a small part of the ride.

[laconicsax]

77. Why would "pure love" allow people to suffer from disease, violence, and malnutrition?

Is it for their own good that millions of children die of malnutrition every day?
Is it for their own good that millions die from preventable illness?
Is it for their own good that millions of women are raped?

[GeorgeGist]

20. Chance is God.

[darkstar3]

22. And what reason do we have to believe that, Mr. Poke?

[Deep13]

70. I think we can safely rely on it because...

...a man in a dress with a big hat said so. :evilgrin:

[moobu2]

24. That's not what it say's in the Bible.

More like a God of what science hasn't explained yet.

[applegrove]

38. Of course god made it happen.

[Bad Thoughts]

41. Catholic Priest Proposed Big Bang

The physicist who proposed the Big Bang--or what we have come to know as the Big Bang--was in fact a Catholic priest from Belgium, Georges Lemaître. I won't affirm his accuracy or the durability of his ideas, but at least some have argued that this concept was not purely a reflection on the consequences of Einstein's ideas but also an attempt to rectify them to Catholic concepts.

[rug]

46. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic priest as well.

[Bad Thoughts]

68. Lemaître's Ideas were actually quite durable

It's not just that he proposed the "Big Bang" as a moment of creation, but two of the concepts that go along with it--that the past is finite and that space is constantly expanding within the universe--have more or less gained acceptance, even from Hawking.

It's amazing we aren't discussing this topic in terms of the intersection of science and religion, only their opposition.

[rug]

71. I agree.

But then, I can predict the responses why not.

:thumbsup:

[Codeine]

42. He also created the Hitler Youth, eh Pope Ratz? nt

[Unvanguard]

60. There was no space prior to the Big Bang, so He couldn't have been "behind" it.

:)

[Iggo]

62. FTW

:patriot:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. God is not the 4 degree Kelvin background radiation.

I think he's confused.

[laconicsax]

63. Does this mean that God causes quantum fluctuations?

:shrug:

[Nihil]

64. Shortly before going blind ... (n/t)

:hide:

[laconicsax]

65. That's an ancient-Egyptian creation myth. n/t

[Deep13]

66. And he knows this how exactly?

Saying "god did it" explains nothing. And it begs the question: what made god? Anyway, the answer to what caused the big bang has to be dictated by the evidence. While we may not like the idea that it may be the result of chance or some other purposeless process and that we have no special significance in the unvirse, our subjective preferences are irrelevant to what the answer is. One would think that by now the RC Church would know better than to stick its nose into scientific matters.

[Deep13]

78. Prove it, scientific community says. nt