[Closed] Have we done this yet? Warning: Religious content

Without [religion] we'd not have the culture and civilization we do,

Pure speculation, that's like saying "without Edison, we'd all be sitting in the dark." Who knows what culture and civilisation we might have had?

Currently science is suggesting that under extreme duress those with faith have a higher chance of survival than those without

Is it? Can I have a link to that fact please?

I heard that Russell Brand (as well as being the saviour of global politics) can levitate kittens, since he discovered buddhism, using only the power of his mind.

Does anybody else's faith enable them to perform really cool party tricks?

Cougar - Moderator
Currently science is suggesting that under extreme duress those with faith have a higher chance of survival than those without
Is it? Can I have a link to that fact please?

Does anybody else's faith enable them to perform really cool party tricks?

I can change wine into pee.

Only at "specialist" parties, mind.

It's difficult to be agile and move with the times when your starting point is absolute by design.

Not if you follow the guidance of Augustine as he said in that quote I used before

In such cases, [b]we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that[/b], if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture

He advocated the antithesis of an absolutist approach.

b) an alternative definition of the concept of a god could also be real

For the record, I wrote an absolutely brilliant response to this, but Cougar closed the thread before I hit post.

But, and we return to this he believed god created the world and none of the discovered facts, at that time, countered his beliefs. What we are living with now is what the church has to do when its accounts no longer correspond with our understanding/ reality.

we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture

He [god] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment,”

Junkyard - lazarus
I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.

Its still more Sacred scripture than known fact.

If you replace internal laws, with physics, probably makes more sense!

I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.

It is very simple really, there is always an unknown at the beginning of the process that science has not explained, Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.

mefty - Member
I am not sure how you do that with the big bang or evolution as neither involve a creator.
It is very simple really, there is always an unknown at the beginning of the process that science has not explained, Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.

Explanations are ten a penny, facts are a bit thin on the ground.

Personally I believe the multiverse theory, and not the quantum version, the physical version.

Makes sense of the nothing before or after theory imo, because, there is nothing before or after our universe, our universe if finite, not infinite.

It is very simple really, there is always an unknown at the beginning of the process that science has not explained, Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.

Assuming there has to be a cause or a beginning. (The Big Bang isn't currently considered to be the beginning of the universe.)

The Christian response simply leads to the follow up question: who created God?

What is more likely to lead to an answer: science or theology?

Science...oh ye of little faith 😉

Having just googled the full quote you have ommitted the start

[b]In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision,In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.[/b] In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture

I am still not sure what he would do when his evidence counters the Sacred scripture

it's impossible to state that for certain.

OK they could have but they dont require it and they are not postulated. Anything is theoretically possible

Christians simply say God was responsible for the unknown bit. The unknown will change over time but there will always be one.

what made god

Well, when Mummy God and Daddy God love each other very much, they cuddle in a special way...

what made god

We did.

Which is not to say that junkyard and I are a mummy god and daddy god...

[img] [/img]

Can I report that post and borrow your bleach please

That [i]would[/i] be an abomination.

Nine pages in 24 hours, you have to admire religion it gets more clicks than immigration.

I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!

I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!

Difficult in what way?

Its not but it is a cause without a effect /something from nothing just like the big bang.

I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!

I don't see why the concept of the universe always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of God always having existed.

This is the problem; "god" is a simple answer to a complex question, but it fails as it doesn't actually answer anything, it just shifts the burden from the natural to the supernatural.

The argument goes thus:

C: Where did the universe come from?

A: It didn't, it's always been there.

C: That makes no sense, it must have come from somewhere. I know, God created it!

A: Where did god come from?

C: Oh, he's always been there.

I don't see why the concept of God always having existed is any more difficult than the concept of there being an infinite number of infinite universes!

Thinking about this, maybe I've missed your point.

Are you asking why the concept of god is more or less likely or credible than the multiverse theory? Because that's an [i]incredibly[/i] interesting question probably worthy of its own thread.

Sort of on topic:

[url= https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4748/ten-cosmic-myths ]In the beginning was the vacuum[/url], goes the modern story. It was a “quantum” thing, which means it was not empty but seething with energy. In addition, it was not the vacuum we have today. It was a higher energy form with some amazing properties. For instance, it had repulsive gravity. This caused the vacuum to expand. And the more of it there was, the more was its repulsive gravity and the faster it expanded. Not only that but the more of it there was, the more energy it contained. Imagine having a stack of banknotes between your hands, pulling your hands apart, and finding ever more bank notes. That’s the way this “inflationary” vacuum was. Not surprisingly, cosmologists refer to it as the “ultimate free lunch”.

Like all things quantum, the inflationary vacuum was unpredictable. Here and there, and totally at random, it disintegrated, or “decayed”, into normal, everyday vacuum. All across the ever-expanding sea of vacuum there formed bubbles. But the tremendous energy of the inflationary vacuum had to go somewhere when it decayed. And it did. It went into creating matter in each bubble and heating it to a ferocious temperature. It went into making big bangs. The universe we live in is inside one such big-bang bubble.

In the modern picture, therefore, the Big Bang is not a one-off. It is merely one among countless others, going of like firecrackers across the length and breadth of the inflationary vacuum.

Miketually - I mean that I find it very difficult to really comprehend infinity, it's hard to get my head round it. I can't get my head around God because he is unknowable. However, I can accept that God and infinity are both unknowable to me.

Are you asking why the concept of god is more or less likely or credible than the multiverse theory? Because that's an incredibly interesting question probably worthy of its own thread.

The concept of God was used to fill in the gaps in our knowledge thousands of years ago.

The multiverse theory fills in some gaps in our knowledge now. It will, eventually, be tested against experiment which will either support or disprove it.

Miketually - I mean that I find it very difficult to really comprehend infinity, it's hard to get my head round it. I can't get my head around God because he is unknowable. However, I can accept that God and infinity are both unknowable to me.

Pretty much everyone struggles to understand the higher end stuff in physics; I'm pretty sure that Peter Higgs needs a glass of wine or two in him before he's sure about 'his' boson. But it is understandable to some, and it is knowable.

God has only been increasingly cast as unknowable, as we know more about the natural world. Previously, he was knowable enough that people would kill their own child if told to by god.

I mean that I find it very difficult to really comprehend infinity

You and the rest of the human race, which is absolutely the problem.

My priest is very interested in physics and has done some lectures on the relationship between physics and religion. I liked the point he made that it's unhelpful and incorrect to ascribe God to the bits of science that we don't understand, because over the years, we have been filling in a lot of the holes in our understanding that had previously been attributed to God. As he put it, " God would thus eventually disappear up his own backside"!
He believes that God is all-pervasive and is inherent in the laws of the universe.

Miketually- I disagree that God has only recently been described as unknowable. As far as I understand he has been always described in that way by Orthodoxy.

Vickypea > That's ostensibly what my polymath mate said, yes.

I find it very interesting how we see ourselves as disconnected from the universe instead as a fundamentally part of it (a single being). Think that has something to do with western society being dominated by Abrahamic religions.

I can't get my head around God because he is unknowable. However, I can accept that God and infinity are both unknowable to me.

It makes no sense and this is why folk are a bit rude.

I agree god has always been unknowable - god works in mysterious ways for example

I disagree that God has only recently been described as unknowable. As far as I understand he has been always described in that way by Orthodoxy.

People certainly seem to think that his will is knowable?

My priest is very interested in physics and has done some lectures on the relationship between physics and religion. I liked the point he made that it's unhelpful and incorrect to ascribe God to the bits of science that we don't understand, because over the years, we have been filling in a lot of the holes in our understanding that had previously been attributed to God. As he put it, " God would thus eventually disappear up his own backside"!
He believes that God is all-pervasive and is inherent in the laws of the universe.

Which in pantheism, rather than Christianity?

All praise the cooking pots.

Perhaps pantheism could be a container for pastafarianism?

The study of the history of the Bible is rather interesting. From the original scholarly texts about God and lots of other things to the current Bible.

I've got a great popular history one by.. Karen Armstrong I think.

Junkyard- that is another good question, but I'm sorry, I don't have a satisfactory answer!

For me, my faith is brought to life by the lives of some of the saints. I feel a particular interest in St Cuthbert
and the other saints of Lindisfarne, as I felt a strong sense of the "living God" when I visited Lindisfarne. I'm also interested in St Anthony the Great and St John Chrysostom. I can't quite describe it as inspiration, as I'm not remotely saintly! 😉

Just back from the hospital.

Mother in Law has just lost her battle against cancer.
We've all been sat with her for a week, taking it in shifts.

She hung on long enough to know our wedding on Saturday went well, even though she couldn't be there.
Father in Law died of the same ****ing, ****ing, bastard disease a couple of months ago.

Right now, I'd love to believe in a God.

Rusty, I'm sorry to hear that 🙁

Thanks Mol.

Sorry for being an arse earlier.

Rusty, not really sure what I, or anyone, can say. My thoughts are with you, family and friends.

Also, you got married? Woooo! Congratulations! Let's focus on the good stuff, as I hope she would have done!