The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (Fr. Al, theophan), 133 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,296
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#333877 10/02/09 10:52 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1
Ray S. Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1
Short and to the point:
Does God Exist? [youtube.com]

Ray S. #333887 10/03/09 12:23 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
Yes!

The Big Bang theory seems to require a Big Bang to get things started.

On the 50th anniversary of "The Twilight Zone", an article titles "New Astrophysical Discoveries Leave Little to No Room for Atheism"

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=97929

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Strictly speaking, no.

God does not exist.

God IS.

And the Big Bang has nothing to do with it. From a purely scientific point of vew, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God.

I am annoyed by the atheist scientists who claim they can prove there is no God because they can pronounce "Big Bang", but not nearly as much as I am annoyed by the theist scientists who claim they can prove there is a God because they can pronounce "Big Bang".

Cut it out, people! If you found "it" with your telescope (or your microscope, or your math, etc.), then "it" is not God. At least, not the God of Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Memo

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
"From a purely scientific point of vew, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God."

I have to disagree. Both conclusions depart from the medium of science. Scientific atheism is not a physical science.

Terry

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
I'd add that some contemporary cosmologists are positing a "big bounce" instead, whereby the universe (or multiverse) cycles eternally. A worldview that only sees things in terms of the five senses and mathematics will naturally seek, and find, naturalistic explanations for everything. While it may not say "there is no God" (that would be 'unscientific') its treatment of the question as irrelevant to science is also problematic. Modern science has philosophical foundations that are not compatible with Christianity, but which hardly anybody really talks or thinks about.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by Terry Bohannon
"From a purely scientific point of vew, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God."

I have to disagree. Both conclusions depart from the medium of science.


My point exactly.

Quote
Scientific atheism is not a physical science.


Neither is Scientific theism.

Shalom,
Memo



Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
"Modern science has philosophical foundations that are not compatible with Christianity, but which hardly anybody really talks or thinks about."

Which of the foundations are anti-Christian? Science is anthropomorphic. That itself is anti-Christian.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 71
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 71
"From a purely scientific point of vew, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God." Really? News to me.
Of course, the scientists would like us to believe that. They said it's so, and so it must be true. But Colossians 1 says in vss. [16] for in him [Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. [17] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Amazing! Jesus is the One who holds all things together.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by Dan Hartshorn
"From a purely scientific point of vew, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God." Really? News to me.

Glad to break it for ya.

Quote
Of course, the scientists would like us to believe that. They said it's so, and so it must be true. But Colossians 1 says in vss. [16] for in him [Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. [17] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Amazing! Jesus is the One who holds all things together.


Well, the letter of St. Paul to the Colossians is not a scientific text, therefore, it doesn't prove that my assertion is incorrect.

I do believe in God and I do believe He is the cause of the Big Bang (and of all things, actually), however, I have not seen and do not expect to see science having a final, conclusive and convincing word about this one way or another.

God is simply not within the realm of study of natural sciences.

Shalom,
Memo

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
"God is simply not within the realm of study of natural sciences."

One could argue that philosophy plays an important role in understanding the framework of what nature is, but philosophy cannot be rooted in or established by the physical sciences.

Are you a researcher?

Terry

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Originally Posted by Terry Bohannon
"God is simply not within the realm of study of natural sciences."

One could argue that philosophy plays an important role in understanding the framework of what nature is, but philosophy cannot be rooted in or established by the physical sciences.

Are you a researcher?


I am not. My father is a retired veterinarian who dedicated his entire career to research, so I grew up with the scientific method as a dear family member.

I agree with what you say, our philosophical and theological ideas will certainly influence the formulation of hypotheses and the personal interpretation of theories.

I am pretty sure Fr. LemaƮtre was thinking of God as the cause for the Big Bang when he came up with that hypothesis (yes, the theory of the Big Bang is the brainchild of a Catholic priest) and he kept thinking of God when the theory was finally proven a few decades later. He even forced Einstein to think about God, because much to Einstein's dismay, Fr. LemaƮtre's math supporting the Big Bang was flawless and the whole idea of the Big Bang strongly points to an external cause for the universe, contrary to what Einstein wanted to believe at that time.

However, I still maintain that during the execution of the scientific method, we should refran from using God to fill in the gaps of what we cannot explain entirely. It's not only poor science, using God (for any purpose) is poor religion (at least as far as the Christian religion is concerned).

On the other hand, within the Catholic tradition, it is generally accepted that natural sciences have kind of a "veto" power on theology.

Theological statements (of any rank) cannot go against what natural sciences have proven as fact.

The reason for this is that we belive God created all things, and He is also the source of all Revelation. Therefore, God cannot reveal something that contradicts what He actually did when He created the universe.

In other words, the universe is the way it is because God made it so. When God reveals Himself to mankind, we would not expect Him to be untruthful about His creation, would we?

So, when we find such an apparent contradition, we need to investigate a little further: we need to refine our scientific knowledge or our theological positions (or both).

Shalom,
Memo

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 71
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 71
"From a purely scientific point of view, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God." You are correct scientists say that - from a purely scientific point of view. But of course from a purely scientific point of view there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no resurrection, nothing more to the eucharist than a little wafer and some wine, etc. From a purely scientific point of view man is no more important than Kafka's giant bug, and Jesus (if He really existed) was at best a deluded rabbi suffering from delusions of grandeur (He was on the same level as a poached egg). He took a big risk and paid for it on a cross. But science cannot have the final word. It doesn't have all the evidence. And so when I hear people speak in sonorus tones about how omniscient science is, I just "wink, wink" and "nod, nod".

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
The scientist who does not see the hand of God in a microscope or a telescope is no scientist, but is intentionally dismissing the very evidence in front of him. Every time I look at a slide on the microsope, or gaze at the heavens, the words of the psalm immediately come to mind; "How manifold are Thy works, oh Lord, in wisdom hast Thou madst them all".

Alexandr

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Hello,

Originally Posted by Dan Hartshorn
"From a purely scientific point of view, there could have been a Big Bang with or without God." You are correct scientists say that - from a purely scientific point of view. But of course from a purely scientific point of view there is no God...


That is not what I said.

From a purely scientific point of view, honest scientists cannot tell you whether there is a God or not.

Because natural sciences are not the right tool to answer that question either way.

There can be scientists from any religious affiliation (including "none" for true atheists) and they can all be good scientists and do good science.

Now there are quite a few dishonest atheist scientists who want to press their atheist agenda using science. They have the (God-given!) right to be atheists and freely present and defend their ideas, but they should not try to hijack science to advance their position about God.

On our side of the fence, we have a few of those too: Those who, with a misguided (IMHO) religious zeal, want to push their theological views hijacking science to do that.

Both science-hijackers are wrong in acting like that.

Shalom,
Memo

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5