So Judaeo-Christian religions fudge it twice by saying that God has always existed (which saves a lot of explanation), and that God had nothing better to do than to create the universe (a trivial passtime for a God - though Gods don't have time to pass, of course) and resists further questioning. Science fudges it once by concentrating on the moments after the Big Bang, strives to explain the remaining questions too, and would be prepared to ditch the Big Bang theory entirely if a superior theory was developed using the Scientific Method. There's not much equivalence there.
Last edited by RedFox; 25th-January-2008 at 01:58 PM. Reason: spelling!
Actually, that is an explanation. You may disagree with it, but that's a different matter.
Although, I'm not completely sure that Christianity specifically says much about God's relationship to time. And "time" itself, of course, is a subjective and complex concept.
Such as?
If "time" was created with the universe, then "What came before the Universe" doesn't really make much sense as a question - before the creation of the universe, there was no time to pass. It's a difficult concept to get your head around, admittedly.
But, interestingly, this concept was propounded 1,500 years ago by Saint Augustine - who said
Which would dovetail quite nicely with the view of someone like Stephen Hawking, who (basically) thinks time evolved with the universe.The world was created with time, not in time
Augustine also said:
Which is a pretty cool answerWhat then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
In short, I think that it's quite plausible to have a religious explanation of creation, which is consistent with our current scientific understanding.
EDIT: Yay! I made an on-topic post!
So what ?
People who know Gods exists are going to 'make music and party', they will let the scientist stare out at space on top of a cold mountain inside a cold observatory. Scientist will catch up, which leads us to....
Science a few years ago was more keen on a steady state theory of the universe, however as its moved towards Gods creation (big bang) I believe the reverse is true. You could argue science is catching up with the gods creation
I like the cartoon re the ridiculous theory re the big bang cira 1940s in the attached
Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)
Back in 1952 the church was saying catch up
--------------------------------------
The cosmological debate acquired religious and political aspects. Pope Pious XII announced in 1952 that big-bang cosmology affirmed the notion of a transcendental creator and was in harmony with Christian dogma. Steady-state theory, denying any beginning or end to time, was in some minds loosely associated with atheism
--------------------------------
Last edited by ducasi; 25th-January-2008 at 05:53 PM. Reason: fixed link
Isn't it weird that the rule is 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' and yet that's not how you spell weird? Do you suppose some bright spark thought that it would enhance the meaning of the word if they spelt it in a weird way?
The more likely explanation is that it has some kind of foreign route - oh, bloody hell, there's another one! I suppose foreign has a foreign route too?
Whilst painting the ceiling, I received a call from my foreign neighbour: a scientit called Dick. He was weighing up the weird concept of how our species may have evolved in a similar fashion to how Genesis describes and wondered if there was sufficient evidence to support such a claim. In the kaleidoscope of thoughts that followed, I seized upon the idea of suggesting that he ring Barry and ask. He did, and Barry told him to f**k off...
It's not a very good rule to be telling our children is it? It's almost as bad as all that Religious nonsense.
You gotta laugh haven't you? Here's a quote that Stuart has found that shows that maybe, just maybe the Catholic Church isn't sooooo rigid that it might consider moving a wee bit with the times.
No acknowledgment from Barry that was a good thing, no... it's just jumping on the band wagon... As I said waaaaay back at the beginning. Give it a rest Barry, if you're not prepared to offer a balanced approach then don't participate.
Oh, I forgot, there's no point in me addressing Barry is there, 'cos he has me on his 'ignore list'..
For those who dont know much about the big bang
This is one of the best brief 'summaries' ive seen
Big Bang
Its nice to get actual measurments in the early inflation period
Its funny we can talk about what happen cira 10 to -43 secs of the start but are a few billion yrs out re when it started
What I particulary like about it , its the first site ive seen that gives some 'size' e.g
---------------------------------------
the Universe grew by a factor of 10-35 (100 billion trillion trillion) in 10-32 seconds, from being unimaginably smaller than a subatomic particle to about the size of a grapefruit.
--------------------------------
--------------------------
10 - 35 Kelvin (100 billion trillion trillion) to give you an idea thats 9 times hotter then a Prawn Phal and 23 times hotter then a chicken vindaloo
--------------
etc etc
And if you eat all that lot in one sitting the CBR (Cosmic Backside Radiation) would prooooobably be evident for 13.7 billion years. Just doing a quick calculation...
Hmmm... so that means that God had a wild night, out got back late after 18 pints, had a prawn phal and a chicken vindaloo and we're the result!
The evidence is there - and it could also explain why the junction of the M25 and the M3 smells of sh1t. And presumambly that means that 'inflation' was caused by a monumental amount of hot gas?
OK DS, just to humour you.
Of course the only reason why your defending Barry's (again..?!) right to use the 'omit' function is because you made a big thing of doing the same a little while back when you too spat the dummy. And that's fine, I completely understand that if someone is constantly making you look a fool why you would want to do that... I mean if you really, really can't help yourself but to reply to a person's post then that's what you should do. EXCEPT if you make a big an'nonce'ment of it (did you see what I did there...?), it takes on a different meaning. You're not just quietely using the 'omit' function, your 'declaring' it. Now, that that means your using it as a tool to desparage the other person; and on that basis that person has the right to use your use of that tool to rub your nose in it.
And why is it such an issue? Well obviously, we have a different opinion, but for me the use of the 'omit' function in this way is the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt. It's the person who says, even though I can be adult about this and simply choose not to read this person's post I won't, I won't, I won't AND I'm going to tell everyone else I won't, I won't, I won't...
Now, don't get me wrong, in other circumstances I can see why some people would want to use it: For example to tune out Barry's religious attacks. But the people who do that DON'T announce it, they just quietly get on with their business - and good luck to them..
But what's EVEN worse is when someone makes a big announcement of putting someone within their 'omit' 'program' and then doesn't actually do it!! Hmmm..... now who might that be... And this then follows two routes:
The reply to Mr X's post on the justification that someone else quoted him and that meant that now having seen it, it required a reply... Errr.... no... Mr X is within your 'omit' 'program' that's not just about the functionality it's also about the fact that you took a stance AND made an announcement, not to be drawn into a debate with him. How foolish do you think you then look when you start replying?
And secondly, they then use the weedy excuse of saying, I'm only replying to Mr X's post in this thread because I tuned him back in to see if he had anything worthwhile to say.... he doesn't, but I'm going to use this opportunity to sling some mud anyway.. sound familiar?
In this situation I think it's pretty obvious who the real 'idiot' is...
PS. Only an idiot would reply to this using any actual words or symbols, or any links to external or internal threads, posts or websites. Share prices can go down as well as up, your home is at risk if you take out a mortgage and cannot maintain your payments..... but you CAN quote it if you like..
Last edited by Rocky; 26th-January-2008 at 10:28 AM.
'nuff said obviously.
It was worth mentioning because most conversations descend into argument with you, so hopefully you take the hint and stop. Except you don't - when I had you on ignore, there were people quoting you and you often mentioned the people who had you on ignore in some sort of disparaging way. Now you're doing it again. You're a funny man - and not in a good way
"spat the dummy" is a good one, when you have this huge post on why you think people shouldn't ignore you
It isn't, you try to make it so, but with you its just another cry for attention - "look at me , they have me on ignore, I'm better than them" I doubt it impresses anyone.And why is it such an issue?
No idea. Please enlighten us.But what's EVEN worse is when someone makes a big announcement of putting someone within their 'omit' 'program' and then doesn't actually do it!! Hmmm..... now who might that be...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks