Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right

dfwtinman · Oct 29, 2014

meowzbark said:
After all, can't prove that God wasn't the one to initiate the Big Bang.

The so-called "problem of evil" suggests that no being with the necessary characterics to be God was there. That is, a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

robjvargas · Oct 29, 2014

Opty said:
Possible, perhaps, but highly implausible and highly improbable. And, given that in discussions such as these, asking one to consider "the possibility" is usually nothing more than a "foot in the door" rhetorical technique, what's probable is much more important than what is possible (unless you're that nutty Alvin Plantinga).

Or Schrodinger.

Opty · Oct 29, 2014

Sigh, my lame theology quip fell flat.

I was referring to his modal, "possibilities" take on the ontological argument (or, as I like to call it, his failed attempt at polishing a turd).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Alvin_Plantinga

Opty · Oct 29, 2014

dfwtinman said:
The so-called "problem of evil" suggests that no being with the necessary characterics to be God was there. That is, a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

As well, even omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, at least logically.

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 29, 2014

An omnipotent, omniscient God existing outside of spacetime is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore not within the purview of science.

The existence of the physical universe as it is and as we understand it to be does not loigically require such a being to bring it about. Therefore, such a hypothesis is not scientifically necessary.

Therefore, Abrahamic theist, atheist, and agnostic scientists can work together just fine without getting into knife fights.

Note: Non-Abrahamic theists of most kinds can also get along just fine in the endeavor of science, but that requires a few more lines of argument, and the subject was Catholicism, so I didn't want to wander too far afield.

robjvargas · Oct 29, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
An omnipotent, omniscient God existing outside of spacetime is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore not within the purview of science.

In an infinite universe, even the astornomically improbable becomes likely to have happened somewhere.

I was baldly speculating, and I didn't use any language asserting that it must be so.

Therefore, I don't see any reason to have such a negative reaction to what I said.

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 29, 2014

robjvargas said:
In an infinite universe, even the astornomically improbable becomes likely to have happened somewhere.

I was baldly speculating, and I didn't use any language asserting that it must be so.

Therefore, I don't see any reason to have such a negative reaction to what I said.

It's not a negative reaction. I'm simply pointing out that God is not a scientific hypothesis.

However, I do have to take issue with your comment above. In an infinite universe with an infinite amount of stuff, all things possible within that universe will eventually happen.

However, no thing impossible in that universe will ever happen.

A universe with an infinite amount of CHON and appropriate environments and where the physics works as ours does is guaranteed to evolve life.

But, if that universe has no spiritual anything in it, it will produce no angels, as they would be an impossibility in that universe.

JimmyB27 · Oct 29, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
I don't understand why there's even an article about this. As long as one believes there is a creator behind the Big Bang and evolution, there is no incompatibility with Catholic thought and there hasn't been for some time.

Now, I must admit to not exactly being a Catholic scholar, but...doesn't it kind of destroy the whole backbone of the faith?
Without Adam and ~~Steve~~ Eve in the garden of Eden, there's no original sin, and without original sin, there's no need for Jesus to die on the cross.

Right?

CassandraW · Oct 29, 2014

Most Catholics I know regard the whole bit about the creation of heaven and earth and the Adam and Eve thing as a metaphor.

It's evangelical Protestants of a certain stamp that insist Genesis is a pure statement of facts.

ETA:

That said, I've never looked up the official Catholic Church position on Adam and Eve. c.e., do you know?

JimmyB27 · Oct 29, 2014

So...Jesus died for nothing?

I'm also confused about the fact that both copies of the Bible I own are apparently missing the glossary pointing out which bits are metaphor and which bits actually happened.

CassandraW · Oct 29, 2014

Catholics don't really do the literal Bible thing. Again, that's more of an evangelical protestant thing.

I'm severely lapsed and have identified as agnostic for quite some time, so take this with a grain of salt. But I think you can have a concept of human sin that doesn't involve a snake and an apple.

rugcat · Oct 29, 2014

CassandraW said:
That said, I've never looked up the official Catholic Church position on Adam and Eve. c.e., do you know?

I believe they are in favor of them.

raburrell · Oct 29, 2014

I claim no particular expertise, but found this article interesting reading on the subject: Adam, Eve, and Evolution

dfwtinman · Oct 29, 2014

The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. — Karl Popper, (Popper, Conjectures and Refutations)

Post 30, also see.

dfwtinman · Oct 29, 2014

raburrell said:
I claim no particular expertise, but found this article interesting reading on the subject: Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Nice find.

blacbird · Oct 30, 2014

robjvargas said:
And yet it's OK to deny even the possibility? Because that's all I stated. A possibility.

The late Christopher Hitchens would say this: If a God did create this universe, and then sat back and watched it happen, He(she/it) is irrelevant.

caw

Diana Hignutt · Oct 30, 2014

JimmyB27 said:
So...Jesus died for nothing?

I'm also confused about the fact that both copies of the Bible I own are apparently missing the glossary pointing out which bits are metaphor and which bits actually happened.

If you assume it's all metaphor you probably can't go wrong, but if you do so, don't blame me for your eternal damnation if I'm mistaken.

quicklime · Oct 30, 2014

Don said:
Word out of the UK this morning:

I only have one question: Will the next papal conclave convene in 2014 or 2015? What's your guess?

I am a severely lapsed Catholic, with no intention of returning. That said, I have watched the new pope with some interest--I happen to be delighted to see the church I left is at least moving forward, but I wonder how many Cardinals have a serious, losing-sleep-over-it-and-getting-ulcers case of buyer's remorse

quicklime · Oct 30, 2014

JimmyB27 said:
...
Without Adam and ~~Steve~~ Eve in the garden of Eden, there's no original sin, and without original sin, there's no need for Jesus to die on the cross.

Right?

*wonders aloud if this is a somewhat douchey and not particularly subtle potshot at homosexuality, using a rather tired fundamentalist battle-cry, prepares to take his lumps from moderation for asking if need be

JimmyB27 · Oct 30, 2014

quicklime said:
*wonders aloud if this is a somewhat douchey and not particularly subtle potshot at homosexuality, using a rather tired fundamentalist battle-cry, prepares to take his lumps from moderation for asking if need be

It was meant to be a somewhat douchey and not particularly subtle potshot at said tired fundamentalists.

c.e.lawson · Oct 30, 2014

blacbird said:
The late Christopher Hitchens would say this: If a God did create this universe, and then sat back and watched it happen, He(she/it) is irrelevant.

caw

And I would say to Mr. Hitchens, "Not if there's an afterlife."

Diana Hignutt · Oct 30, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
And I would say to Mr. Hitchens, "Not if there's an afterlife."

In fairness, even if there is an afterlife, it wouldn't prove God necessarily. But, on the upside, if there is, you might just get to say that to Hitchens.

c.e.lawson · Oct 30, 2014

Diana Hignutt said:
In fairness, even if there is an afterlife, it wouldn't prove God necessarily. But, on the upside, if there is, you might just get to say that to Hitchens.

Now, that would REALLY make my day!

Opty · Oct 30, 2014

Diana Hignutt said:
If you assume it's all metaphor you probably can't go wrong, but if you do so, don't blame me for your eternal damnation if I'm mistaken.

I believe that's known as "Hignutt's Wager."

Celia Cyanide · Oct 30, 2014

JimmyB27 said:
So...Jesus died for nothing?

I'm also confused about the fact that both copies of the Bible I own are apparently missing the glossary pointing out which bits are metaphor and which bits actually happened.

It's kind of like...reading any other book. You get to interpret it for yourself.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right

Cubic Zirconia in the rough

Nurture Phoenixes

Nurture Phoenixes

Hoopy frood

Hoopy frood

Lost in the Fog

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Cubic Zirconia in the rough

Cubic Zirconia in the rough

Very Tired

all out of fucks to give

all out of fucks to give

Hoopy frood

Very Tired

Joker Groupie