God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope Benedict

Yahoo News ^ | 01/06/2011 | Philip Pullella

[wendy1946]

Somebody really needs to clue the Vatican into recent events and thinking in physics and astronomy.

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??

[allmendream]

“Supernatural Creationism is something that ‘man’ can’t wrap their heads”

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.

[allmendream]

This guy, for example, has no problem wrapping his head around Supernatural Creationism.

[Cronos]

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.

[Cronos]

Actually you would gather wrongly then. Read what the Pope actually said:

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

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God,"

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth,"

He never actually said the words that the article's authors said. The only inference is The pope reiterated that God's plan was behind even such theories such as the Big Bang and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident. --> now that you agree with -- whatever "theories" (namely pseudo-science) comes up for evolution, God's plan is really what is behind the creation of everything and we should reject the idea of an accident.

The way the MSM twists the pope's words is tiresomely obvious by now

[Cronos]

Actually you would gather wrongly then. Read what the Pope actually said:

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

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God,"

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth,"

He never actually said the words that the article's authors said. The only inference is The pope reiterated that God's plan was behind even such theories such as the Big Bang and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident. --> now that you agree with -- whatever "theories" (namely pseudo-science) comes up for evolution, God's plan is really what is behind the creation of everything and we should reject the idea of an accident.

The way the MSM twists the pope's words is tiresomely obvious by now

[Cronos]

Sigh, it would be good to focus on what the pope actually SAID "The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," instead of what the reporters wrote up. Don't believe the MSM when they want to make their own spin on things

[Cronos]

Wendy, firstly, read what the pope actually said ""The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe,"" --> he talks about big-bang THEORIES. At no point does he acknowledge them in any way. This is the MSM's by now tiresomely obvious spin, writing up headlines -- if you read what he actually said, you get a completely different picture, like "Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God,"

[Cronos]

Oh, bibtut — do you think that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC?

[Cronos]

I am just trying to figure out exactly what the Pope believe

It's quite simple if you read what he actually said as opposed to the text written around it by reporters. "The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," "Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God,"

The world was created by God -- that's clear enough in what he said

in the mid-1980s, Pope Benedict XVI, while serving as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a defense of the doctrine of creation against Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation." Humans, Benedict XVI insisted, are "not the products of chance and error," and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design.""

The Church's stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. It has just not commentated on the veracity -- just that God's hand was behind our creation.

Commentators tend to interpret the Church's position in the way most favorable to their own arguments

The International Theological Conference of 2004 said

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.....

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 God’s providential plan for creation

or you can refer Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995],

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.

The Church's stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. It has just not commentated on the veracity -- just that God's hand was behind our creation

[Zionist Conspirator]

So, is every Catholic in Poland an evolutionist?

[Cronos]

Catholic doctrine only reiterates that GOD created everything that is seen and unseen, creator of Heaven and earth.

No declarations of dogma specific to this have been made EXCEPT that you must acknowledge that God was the creator of everything (as encapsulated in the Nicene Creed). Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation BY GOD took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."
"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

the humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.

[wendy1946]

He never actually said the words that the article's authors said. The only inference is The pope reiterated that God's plan was behind even such theories such as the Big Bang and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident. -->

That's still wrong. God cannot possibly want us to believe in stupid theories.

[Cronos]

There have been speculations as far back and before Augustine who said

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4:27)

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar"

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

"We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it"

[Cronos]

So, is every conspirator a believer in the Protocols? btw, I’m American

[Cronos]

God's plan was behind -- implying that God created the universe. There is no statement supporting any of the theories. Do read what the pope actually says on this (which is not much) not on the spin made up by the MSM.

Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident

[Cronos]

Let's ask you, do you believe that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC?

now, if I take your answer, whatever it may be and say that is official jewish doctrine, that's incorrect of me. If you take your interpretation of a question to guess at hidden doctrine, that's trying to put kabballah into ordinary forum responses.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Let's ask you, do you believe that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC?

First of all, where do you get the idea that Bishop Ussher is the only alternative to cosmic evolution? Do you honestly believe that until Ussher came along everyone was a non-literalist who believed Genesis was a mere cypher representing purely natural processes?

Second of all, anyone who believes that a baby can be born without a father (or that a wafer becomes the "body and blood" of their demigod, or that Mary made the sun dance in 1917, or that dead people can come back to life, or that J*sus multiplied five loaves and two fishes to feed five thousand people, etc.) can believe the universe suddenly and supernaturally came into existence as a fully functional entity 5771 years ago. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in any of these, because each is a rejection of judging what happened in the ancient past from "how we know the world really works." Cosmic evolution and the "big bang" are based on nothing in the world other than the fact that we see mountains, rivers, canyons, stars, galaxies, novas, etc., coming into being today and retroject this natural process back to the very beginning and assume that the origin of the universe was along the very same lines and in obedience to the very same laws. By the same logic we would know that babies can't be born to virgins or that dead people don't come back to life.

There is one and only one reason why Catholics single out young earth creationism as an object for derision, scorn, and exclusion: it's associated with the wrong type of people (the Bubbas in the trailer parks). And it seems that the "universal church" doesn't have room for Bubba. It allows American Indians to bring their totem poles with them, but Genesis is out. Genesis is "un-Catholic."

I note that you earlier disputed my assertion that most Catholics regard Genesis (especially the first eleven chapters) as didactic mythology. You ridiculed this notion, but now confirm that you hold this position yourself, since Genesis' only purpose to you is to teach "spiritual" or "theological" truths and contains no historical facts.

You know, I tried to be Catholic for four years. And I noticed that all the publications extolled Juan Diego's tilma and the blood of St. Januarius but that every article on Genesis condemned understanding it has factual history at all.

The so-called "universal church" doesn't want Bubba, and since I *am* Bubba, and it doesn't want me (or people like me), then I resent the obviously bogus claim to universality.

now, if I take your answer, whatever it may be and say that is official jewish doctrine, that's incorrect of me. If you take your interpretation of a question to guess at hidden doctrine, that's trying to put kabballah into ordinary forum responses.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that qabbalistic interpretations are against forum rules. Where in the sam hill did that come from?

I don't claim to know exactly what happened or exactly how G-d created the world (unlike hypocritical scientists who believe in chr*stian "miracles"). I do know that Genesis was written by G-d Himself. It is not the product of "oral tradition." Every single letter was dictated by G-d to Moses, including the sizes, shapes, crowns, and spaces between. I also know that Genesis contains actual factual history and not merely "theological" or "spiritual truths."

I also know that appeals to a "big bang" or other natural phenomena to explain ex-nihilation is unnececessary, that it is not at all "obvious" that the world could not have come into existence in a fully functional state just as Genesis describes it because the laws of nature did not begin to function until the world was fully formed and set into motion on the Sixth Day (la`asot, as the text says). And I know that people who cling to uniformitarianism for cosmogony while rejecting it when it comes to where babies come from are snobs and hypocrites.

I also know that this is precisely the 5771st year of human history, which began on the Sixth Day of Creation with the making of Adam and Eve and that everything from that point on is literal history. And I have absolutely no reason whatsoever for rejecting the previous five days as literal history either.

I apologize for thinking you were posting from Poland, but since you use the Polish flag you are quite aware that that is the message that is conveyed, and it is obviously the message you wish to convey. Next I suppose you'll condemn the "dishonesty" of my own screen name!

[Cronos]

Firstly, I asked this question to "bibletruth", not you initially.

Secondly, I never gave any indication of this being the only alternative. I asked a simple question. you can answer yes, no or as you have done, something else

thirdly, as I pointed out, if I take your answer, whatever it may be and say that is official jewish doctrine, that's incorrect of me. Similarly, for you to take anyone's OPINION as a statement of doctrine is equally incorrect.

Fourthly, yes, we get it,
you say
anyone who believes that a baby can be born without a father
dead people can come back to life

you don't believe in Christianity and don't believe Christ is the Son of God and don't believe that Christ came back to life

[Cronos]

Finally, as I pointed out — your statement of inference based on my question is as silly as anyone believing the evil Protocols of the Elders.