Skip to comments.God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope Benedict
Posted on 01/06/2011 12:57:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) 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 on 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.
Researchers at CERN, the nuclear research center in Geneva, have been smashing protons together at near the speed of light to simulate conditions that they believe brought into existence the primordial universe from which stars, planets and life on earth -- and perhaps elsewhere -- eventually emerged.
Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."
He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Works for me.
check out the hateful comments by the atheists under the comments.
The scientific aspects of our development is simply God’s recipe for our creation. It shows that something comes from somewhere, not nothing.
Agreed - from a non-Catholic... But the Pope makes sense on this one.
Talk about having to review the basics for the truly ignorant.
You bet your life He was. Good for the Pope to say so clearly.
I’m happy for the science guys to delve into the “hows” of the creation of the universe. Whatever they find is sure to be fascinating, it always is.
God is the author of the universe. I’m not sure why some think the “how” negates somehow the “who”. It never does.
I gather from this that the Pope believes in Intelligent Design...
Go Pope B!
Non Catholic Pope Dittos..you tell em BENE!!!
God’s Word is not number one with the RCC but their man made doctrine. It’s no wonder how the Pope is mislead.
God spoke the world into existence - something ‘man’ can’t wrap their heads around - so they inserting what ‘they think’.
Man with their human senses cannot understand the Supernatural - so they agree with whatever man comes up with what makes ‘sense’ to them. The blind leading the blind.
Can't say that he does:
Creationists, Intelligent Design Advocates Blast Vatican for Not Inviting Them to Evo Conference
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
How a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory
The Sense that it is True that Six-Day Creationism is Paganism
Creationist Defends Bible-Based Science Against Vatican Astronomer's Criticism
Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'
Big bang theory makes sense. God said “BANG!” and the universe came into existence.
What I gather is no has no idea who God is.
I doubt that it is Intelligent Design so much as the concept that the origin of the universe as well as evolution ARE God’s plan and design, despite man’s interpretation of “God’s word” (Genesis). It always amazes me that man can be so arrogant as to believe that he knows the mind and will of God. God does not have the limitations that man would attribute to his creations.
So, the Pope is saying God started the universe with a bang but has left it alone since? What is the difference between the concept of God creating the universe and the concept of Intelligent Design?
If the Pope believes that God did not intend to create Man by deliberate purposeful action, then all of Christianity collapses. That would be a strange thing for the Pope to say.
Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.
Hmmm not quite.
According to God Himself, he didn’t create the sun, moon or stars until the 4th day.
But He says He created light on the first. Which would make sense only today when we consider the speed of light and the distance of the stars.
So the Bible tells us He actually created light first and put it in motion before their sources were created. Otherwise most of our night sky would still be pitch black.
Truth is, it’s so far beyond our understanding that to give a guy with a telescope and a calculator the crown that he actually KNOWS what he’s talking about and how it all came to be is beyond absurd. Big Bang? How about Big Suckers?
Actually, if the Bible were our only source, we don’t even know how many Magis there were (how they got to be called “Kings” is another issue).
sez you. since you weren’t there 13.7B yrs ago, you can’t be sure what G*d did.
“What is the difference between the concept of God creating the universe and the concept of Intelligent Design?”
“Intelligent Design” is a very specific formulation that goes something like this.... the universe is very old, and living species are descended via common descent, but evolution is not sufficient to explain the changes necessary, so God has to directly intervene at times.
It is analogous to saying that - Yes, gravity is responsible for the shape of the universe, but it is not sufficient to explain it, so God has to directly intervene at times to hold everything together and keep everything in orbit.
It posits a not very intelligent designer, whose tool to change living species, natural selection of genetic variation, is not sufficient to the task assigned it - necessitating direct intervention.
Uh, wrong! God created the heavens and the earth, but He did not use the Big Bang!
Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism
-Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), p. 5
I never liked the big bang theory where one thing ran into another thing and we had creation. Who made the things????
Even more importantly, secular scientists now are refuting the Big Bang theory...too many anomalies!
behind the big bang . . . why didn’t I think of that?
Point taken, but it doesn’t solve the paradox, that is, the Pope is apparently denying God’s purposeful creation of the Universe and Man, in favor of what? Christianity cannot hold up unless there is a supernatural Personal God, separate from Creation, that purposely created the Universe and then Man in His image.
I am just trying to figure out exactly what the Pope believes. We know he is not an Atheist, and apparently we know he does not believe in Intelligent Design, and from what I understand, he certainly does not believe in Biblical literalist Creationism. What else is left?
This is an AFFIRMATION of God's purposeful creation of the Universe and man. Everything existed in the mind of God before it came into physical being. The fact that I am the product of a mechanistically random shuffling of my grandparents chromosomes does not mean that God did not know me and know what I would be.
What else is left is what I and many others believe. That God brought the world into being, and that the stars being created right now through gravity and nuclear fusion are just as much created by God as our own, and the data suggests they were formed through the same mechanism.
A literal interpretation however would suggest that the Sun was created subsequent to the Earth during the “morning and evening” of the fourth “day” - all mornings evenings and days without a Sun - whatever that means in a “literal” sense. And all days to the Lord, which were told are “as to a thousand years” which again I don't think is meant in any mathematical sense.
My KJV Bible says Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. PERIOD
Genesis 1:2 AND the earth *became* without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (Sure is not talking about Noah's flood.)
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
verse 2 describes destruction and upheaval of this earth where in no life survived... no not even the so called fittest the TOE'ers claim that was the birthing pot called primordial hot steaming soup.
Christ and Paul as well as Peter all call Genesis 1:2 the foundation of this world... which 'the foundation' is a verb that means casting down/overthrow. Overthrow of who, well Lucifer of course, when he decided he could do things better, a claim liberals all the time like to say of themselves.
Genesis 1:3 forward reads like a Divine 'clean-up' wherein this earth was restored for 'life' in every form could survive.
There is no hint or clue as to the exact time when Genesis 1:1 took place, could have been billions or millions of years ago.
How does your scenario apply to Christianity? i.e...God created Man in His own image, Man rebelled and fell from grace of God, God became Man as Christ and was crucified to redeem Man. By choosing to believe in Christ, Man is saved and goes to Heaven and is with God, otherwise he goes to Hell, and is without God.
There is also chance in the Universe. My children are what they are as a result of random shuffling of chromosomes - but I still love them all. And maybe we are featherless bipeds through variation and natural selection - but God still loves us. And I have no difficulty in believing that he foresaw that his Creation would evolve beings in his own image - that is to say, rational beings capable of moral choice.
And it banged big not so long ago, 6 thousand and some change years.
I’m so glad to hear this, because the quantum fluctuation thing was making me nauseous.
The Sun is most likely a third generation star. Metals, you know. God knew what He was doing.
Everything is allegory with the Roman Catholic church: where it is clearly in Scripture that a literal reading and Biblical interpretation is required: which the Holy Spirit has been given to us Christians in HIS ministry to provide insight and teachings by the LORD GOD in all matters of faith and Bible doctrine rightly divided.
With the Roman Catholic's, Gods Word is not number one; rather it is second only to their man made traditions and notion of works oriented doctrines. Its clear that the Pope is mislead on evolution concepts...
I know exactly what the Pope believes: it is Theistic evolution: since the 'pope' is not an Atheist, nor does he believe in Intelligent Design; but rather the Biblical literal believer on Creationism is correct as recorded in Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20:11: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth... and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If any Roman Catholic cared to read the Bible in Exodus 20 in keep the context reference understood, he/she will learn from the LORD GOD that HE used a 24-hour day to create each day, the LORD GOD did not use Theistic evolution, e.g., Big Bang!
While Theistic evolution and creation are similar in concept; where they differ is precisely where Theistic evolution fails to accept the 24-hour Biblical day that the LORD GOD clearly communicated to us in Genesis and Exodus in regards to it as ONLY six days; not six million trillion days...etc...
God spoke the world into existence in only SIX literal days: Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20 are absolute proofs. But Supernatural Creationism is something that man cant wrap their heads, resulting in contemplating only what they think occurred.
Man will always seek to utilize their human senses to try to understand God; but man's senses cannot understand the Supernatural Creation that the LORD GOD utilized in HIS creative acts in Genesis, so as a result, Roman Catholics agree with whatever scientist come up with that makes sense to them. The blind scientist leading the blind religious system.
Either you believe what man 'thinks' or what the LORD GOD created!
I believe the LORD GOD far above man's thoughts: for in Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are NOT your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts [higher] than your thoughts.
And Isaiah 55:10-11 continue: For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
God's word shall not fail. God supernaturally created the heaven and earth in six literal 24-hour days. God word shall not be mocked. God word shall not fail to be true. God work and WORD shall accomplish that which HE pleased, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto HE sent it.
The big bang idea was never based on anything better than the idea of an expanding universe which itself was never based on anything better than a misunderstanding of cosmic redshift. In real life, the universe is not expanding, and there never was a big bang.
http://cosmologystatement.org/ http://www.haltonarp.com/ http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
That's the scientific view of the thing. Nonetheless a rational person shouldn't even need science to reject the big bang idea; it should have been rejected on philosophical first principles on day one. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes. How in hell is anything supposed to "bang" its way out of that?
Moreover, how is this supposed to have happened at a finite point in time 17B years ago? The expanse of time prior to that would be infinite...
Likewise, there is a question of yuppies claiming that "There wasn't any time before the big bang"... That's basically idiotic. Does that mean that my Japanese Timex watch wouldn't work before the "Big Bang(TM)"?? I mean, the thing came with a guarantee...
Likewise I hear Christian yuppies claiming that they like the big bang idea because it amounts to a creation story of sorts, and must somehow or other be compatible with the creation story of Genesis.
It isn't. Big Bang is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package. I don't picture a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God all of a sudden deciding that creating a universe would be a cool thing to do while the idea had never occurred to him previously, and whether that is supposed to have happened 6K or 17B years ago doesn't matter. The evidence indicates that the universe, like God, is eternal, and that the creation stories we read refer to the creation of our living world, as per Genesis, something like 6K - 10K years ago. The Earth viewed as a collection of rocks is older than that.
The other part of the thing which is junk science is the idea of black holes based on gravity, which is by many orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature. Merely asking gravity to hold our sun and Alpha Centauri together is like asking gravity to hold two microscopic dust motes together from four miles distance; how in hell is this same weakest force supposed to collapse whole major cosmic objects into black holes??
Oh really? Is that why every primitive society had a supernatural creation myth, but only modern man with an understanding of physical processes has determined how creation could have come about by physical means?
A being of infinite power going “poof” and things popping into existence is something even a primitive can understand.
Gravity and nuclear fusion and the building of heavy elements inside stars is something it takes intelligence and knowledge to have a concept of.
And yet some use the mantle of science to guess “who”. In my opinion, that is not science, but moving into a field of speculation. Real science is observation and is perfectly compatible with religion.
Oh, bibtut — do you think that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC?
In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence.....or you can refer Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995],
A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within Gods providential plan for creation
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.Now, I'm sure that for the average reporter that's too many words and they got lost half-way (I hope you didn't!), so the MSM makes up what they want to as they're too dumb to really print what the Pope or anyone of any mean intelligence really says Also -- note again that all of these above are either from theological conferences or the pope's thoughts, these are not doctrine.