Although, her starting point is that Australians are walking around upside down, so it may take longer than usual to get to the normal level of understanding.
To be fair, it does depend on your external frame of reference…
I read that Beeb article about The Light Paper earlier - I just need a small bottle of accelerant, say some anti-viral hand wash, a quick squirt, Light Paper, step away smartly.
when it comes down to it are aliens or lizard people actually more nutty than sky fairies and virgin births?
Well if you are struggling to make a distinction between the two it might help if I point out that the geezer who came up with the Big Bang Theory, which is backed by compelling scientific evidence and is widely accepted as explaining the creation of the Universe, was a devout Catholic priest.
which bit of Flat Earth, Moon landings, Aliens at Area 51, Underground War, Q-Anon (democrats eating babies) Lizard people, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails are true or partly true in your estimation then?
MK Ultra is one that immediately springs to mind.
It's about the only one isn't it?
How to go from reality to fun crazy to scary crazy in five easy steps
It’s about the only one isn’t it?
But it wasn't one of the conspiracy theories which you listed.
There is a huge fundamental difference between conspiracy theories involving shape changing reptiles and chemtrails, and conspiracy theories involving governments and political parties etc.
That some conspiracy theories turn out to be true should not surprise anyone, human beings have conspired and engaged in conspiracies throughout history.
As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, that is why the word "conspiracy" exists in the English language.
Well if you are struggling to make a distinction between the two it might help if I point out that the geezer who came up with the Big Bang Theory, which is backed by compelling scientific evidence and is widely accepted as explaining the creation of the Universe, was a devout Catholic priest.
That's the point, there is no distinction to the conspiracies, only to the individuals and their ability to lie to themselves (assuming Lemaitre actually believed in sky fairies and such and not more of a David Jenkins "conjuring trick with bones").
The big bang theory despite the holes and inconsistencies is still "the best" theory we have hence it's likely to have occurred "something like" that or at least "something like that from our perspective". It neither requires nor precludes a super-being or race of super-beings being involved but it does exclude either of the creation myths in Genesis in any literal sense and in order to accept the proofs the literal 6000yr old earth/universe has to be soundly put aside.
At the other end is something like transubstantiation where every scientific method known will prove beyond any doubt its bread and wine before and after or young earth creationists.
At one end its believing in something simply because it can't be proven not to exist and at the other its believing in something that can be proven to be false but most is in the middle.
What is really the difference between some technologically advanced aliens and believing in angels?
But it wasn’t one of the conspiracy theories which you listed.
There is a huge fundamental difference between conspiracy theories involving shape changing reptiles and chemtrails, and conspiracy theories involving governments and political parties etc.
That some conspiracy theories turn out to be true should not surprise anyone, human beings have conspired and engaged in conspiracies throughout history.
As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, that is why the word “conspiracy” exists in the English language.
They nearly all have some truths... even something like chemtrails has a truth aspect to it as weather experiments etc. can and do take place.
The basis behind all of them is sowing doubt over some "facts" you have been told by some authoritative figure.
That false fact barely needs to be related in many cases as it's simply a gateway.
This is why there is a large overlap between conspiracies, once you establish "scientists are lying" or "government are lying" the conspiracy leaders can dismiss anything and everything from "scientists" or "governments".
What is really the difference between some technologically advanced aliens and believing in angels?
Because most of the major religions have doctrine and set of morals attached, and belief in Aliens doesn't?
I don't think it's as simple in saying "These two things have no proof, but people believe them ergo they are the same". I think a good proportion Catholics don't believe that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of Christ, but I'd suggest that lots (most? All?) of Ickes supporters really do think there are Lizard aliens walking amongst us. the difference is the moral philosophy and a shared set of communal activities, I'm a very secular Jew, I still light candles on Friday and there's a Mezuzah on the door, others get married in the pretty church on the green, or have Buddhist funerals.
virgin births?
FWIW, Mary wasn't originally described as a virgin. When the original Hebrew bibles were translated into Greek back in the day, the Hebrew word for 'unmarried woman' was mistranslated into the Greek word for 'virgin', and then that was later translated into Latin, and etc etc.
See this from the Rev Giles Fraser
When the original Hebrew bibles were translated into Greek back in the day, the Hebrew word for ‘unmarried woman’ was mistranslated into the Greek word for ‘virgin’, and then that was later translated into Latin, and etc etc.
Completely off topic but that ^^ is very true. And it still causes problems today with different versions of the bible.
Isaiah 7:14 is a classic example with some versions of the bible today refering to a "young woman" and others refering to a virgin.
Although in the case of Isaiah 7:14 I don't think it was an unmarried woman but the wife of King Ahaz.
That doesn't really apply to Mary though as all Christian denominations as far as I am aware, except possibly extremely low Anglicans, fully accept her virginity as it deals with the issue of 'original sin'.
If you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was the Son of God then stuff like virgin births isn't going to be an issue. In the case of ultra-low Anglicans I'm not convinced that they all necessarily believe in God, I think the attraction is probably that it's the established church and taking your children to church on Sunday mornings has middle-class appeal.
assuming Lemaitre actually believed in sky fairies
Yeah he remained a priest all his life, and his Big Bang Theory was/is accepted by the Catholic church, you need to have a significant devotion to sky fairies to be a Catholic priest.
Because most of the major religions have doctrine and set of morals attached, and belief in Aliens doesn’t?
many of the "alien" ones do have "morals" attached at some level or another.
There are a whole bunch of "aliens were warning us of ...."
I don’t think it’s as simple in saying “These two things have no proof, but people believe them ergo they are the same”. I think a good proportion Catholics don’t believe that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of Christ, but I’d suggest that lots (most? All?) of Ickes supporters really do think there are Lizard aliens walking amongst us. the difference is the moral philosophy and a shared set of communal activities, I’m a very secular Jew, I still light candles on Friday and there’s a Mezuzah on the door, others get married in the pretty church on the green, or have Buddhist funerals.
I don't think any of the Icke supporters START OFF like that and it is to an extent the same but inverse process of being a secular jew.
You can pick and choose what you choose to believe and don't, what is literal and what is symbolic etc. you don't I assume go around stoning people or genociding peoples or believe the world is a literal 6000yrs old.
Conspiracy theorists are just picking from a smorgasbord and like major religions there is a whole raft of degrees and levels. If we put aside the matrilineal aspect then like other religions you are jewish because your parents are and you were brought up that way and you see some personal value in continuing the parts you subscribe to and ignoring the ones you don't. (and a proportion of parents friends were probably etc. etc.)
Most conspiracy theorists are going in the other direction ... they are rejecting some parts of what they were told was true and replacing it with something else.
The key here lies in the way they are manipulated. Rather than starting out with the "this is what everyone believes so it must be true" they are starting with this is what you were told and it's false.
The reptiles/aliens/mind control chips all come later...
The full on Icke stuff is the "fundamentalist" or "radicalised" version .. neither he nor his believers jumped in both feet on that.
The common factor for making this first step almost regardless of the end-point is prove a trusted source lied, the aim is not to get them to believe in lizard people but to discredit parents, teachers, scientists, government spokespeople.
Where possible these will be linked to a direction but they don't need to be.
As an example if the Smithsonian had 1c for every time the "Stages of man" / "March of Progress" graphic has been quoted by young earthers I doubt they'd ever need funding again.
"Show me a monkey giving birth to a human" .. and various derivations of.
Frankly I'm shocked it's (still in) any text books even in the USA but perhaps it's fundy teachers slipping it in OR they actually don't need to because its out there and they can just pretend??
I was equally shocked hearing Dawkins saying that (sic) scientists should never have said the vaccine would prevent covid 100%... I certainly don't remember that so perhaps he's referring to other countries. He could be mistaken of course ... the point though really is even in the UK the "government" didn't make it very clear and they certainly seemed happy to ley people believe that.. You don't need a degree in social sciences to work out that after a single person did contract covid after vaccine that would be all you needed for the deniers'
** I'll jump back here ***
I think a good proportion Catholics don’t believe that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of Christ
Oh, I agree which is why I said most is in-between.
The literal virgin birth or literal resurrection or literal burning bush. (merely sticking to NT)
Because most of the major religions have doctrine and set of morals attached
As a fairly secular jew you can pick and choose... you don't have to pick the genocidal parts or mass slaughter ones you can decide they are a fable/parable or symbolic and you can pick and choose a bit how literal or how much you believe
If you look into flat earth as an example there are many different "churches" with differing doctrines.
Infinite plane vs disk around the arctic vs biblical pillars - there are "great floods" or not... are the other planets real or not.. fall of the edge vs ?? A dome vs space exists...
So the only commonality really is "it's flat" which is itself a point of reference from a human aspect based on 3 spatial dimensions and time. The shape is a bit irrelevant if you were a alien/super-being looking with say gravity as a frame of reference in which case it's nearly "flat"
Different "flat earthers" believe different parts... most flat earthers subscribe to other conspiracies as well.
This is where it ** jumps back **
This is where the conspiracy theories jump back... once the "victims" are isolated and convinced "authority" is lying they become part of marginalised groups and echo chambers.
Ernie
Yeah he remained a priest all his life, and his Big Bang Theory was/is accepted by the Catholic church, you need to have a significant devotion to sky fairies to be a Catholic priest.
You certainly need to support them, that doesn't mean you actually believe in them when your employer requires you say you do. More to the point perhaps is he may or may not have believed there is some guiding consciousness that might as well be called god or alien .. or he might or might not have believed more doctrine.
To give an analogy, I'm sure not all faith healers/tarot readers/ouji thingy practitioners actually BELEIVE.
If you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was the Son of God then stuff like virgin births isn’t going to be an issue. In the case of ultra-low Anglicans I’m not convinced that they all necessarily believe in God, I think the attraction is probably that it’s the established church and taking your children to church on Sunday mornings has middle-class appeal.
I don't think it's a special case for ultra-low Anglicans .. or that it's specific to christian sects or "traditional religions". Many flat earthers seem to be just in it for the community... something to belong to and being part of a special club.
Plenty of flat earthers also believe in mutually exclusive (in detail) things as well.
As the penalty has decreased so more people are more honest.
If the penalty is being burned alive any sensible non believer is just going to go with not being burned alive - you would need something else to really believe in to pick being burned alive.
If the penalty is not being invited to the fete it's a different matter.
Just want to comment on this, mentioned a couple of times:
... a secular jew.
You can pick and choose what you choose to believe and don’t, what is literal and what is symbolic etc. you don’t I assume go around stoning people or genociding peoples or believe the world is a literal 6000yrs old.
Religious/orthodox Jews (hi!) also don't go around doing/believing that, at least not necessarily always in a literal manner. People reading some line in the Old Testament and assuming that every traditional religion takes that as, um, gospel and then assuming that they all believe in sky fairies is simplistic to the point of being insulting. Not aiming that at anyone in particular 🙂
But I do have my own space laser 😉
Really good show on Radio 4 about the nutters behind the paper.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssm/episodes/downloads
You certainly need to support them, that doesn’t mean you actually believe in them when your employer requires you say you do.
LOL! You are desperate to believe that George Lemaitre might have bee an atheist 😂
As well as being a Catholic priest he was a theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics. The idea that he was possibly guilty of a huge fraud, ie being a devout and practicing Catholic priest despite not even believing in God, or sky fairies to use your preferred term of ridicule, is clearly nonsense.
Whatever your veiws on his religion it is obvious that George Lemaitre was driven by a deep desire to seek the truth, as he saw it. You can be confident that he personally believed everything that he claimed to believe.
But I do have my own space laser
I await with baited breath every morning in the hope that the postie will bring the letter that tells me it's my turn to run world politics, the media, corporations I literally cannot wait. I do wonder if the cabal at the centre of it all have the wrong address for me though...
It must be a conspiracy etc etc...
I await with baited breath every morning in the hope that the postie will bring the letter that tells me it’s my turn to run world politics, the media, corporations I literally cannot wait. I do wonder if the cabal at the centre of it all have the wrong address for me though…
Not enough baby blood in your diet. Also you need to be richer.
Don't worry, they're watching you through your phone and vaccine microchip, you'll be contacted when it's time...
Religious/orthodox Jews (hi!) also don’t go around doing/believing that, at least not necessarily always in a literal manner. People reading some line in the Old Testament and assuming that every traditional religion takes that as, um, gospel and then assuming that they all believe in sky fairies is simplistic to the point of being insulting. Not aiming that at anyone in particular
that's exactly thing thing with conspiracy theorists...
not all** flat earther's believe the whole kaboodle and there are even different "churches" of doctrine.
**There isn't even a single doctrine .. the only real tenet is believing or at least professing that the earth is flat.
and then assuming that they all believe in sky fairies is simplistic to the point of being insulting
So if someone subscribes to a religion (or conspiracy) but doesn't believe the "core tenet" of some magical being who created everything (or the world is actually flat in cartesian space) what's the difference ???
I'm not knocking the tradition, sense of community or the 10 commandments being a generally decent thing... but if they don't actually believe in some supernatural super-being then the belief thing is just an aside.
This is not (very) different to what conspiracy theories provide.
A sense of community .. some basic rules like "only trust what you can see for yourself" being a popular one.
LOL! You are desperate to believe that George Lemaitre might have bee an atheist 😂
I don't really care, I'm more concerned that just because he had a job as a priest anyone would think that means he believed in a super being.
As well as being a Catholic priest he was a theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics. The idea that he was possibly guilty of a huge fraud, ie being a devout and practicing Catholic priest despite not even believing in God, or sky fairies to use your preferred term of ridicule, is clearly nonsense.
Huh ??
Why wouldn't he just profess a belief if it was expedient?
It's a multi-level thing anyway.
In the belief or not in some vengeful omnipotent being waiting to punish those who don't follow what they dictate then non-belief in that entity means there is no vengeful omnipotent being
This idea that an atheists must be scared of what a vengeful omnipotent being is going to do to them is a distinctly theist precept.
At a different level .. as others have mentioned being an adherent of a religion doesn't mean all adherents believe all aspects nor does it mean he didn't for example think that traditions and values are not enough to continue to support something.
David Jenkins was a Bishop... or does that not count because he was the wrong flavour of christianity?
Whatever your veiws on his religion it is obvious that George Lemaitre was driven by a deep desire to seek the truth, as he saw it. You can be confident that he personally believed everything that he claimed to believe.
To take an example .. Do you really think that as a priest giving communion and telling people they are literally receiving the body and blood of christ he actually believed that?
Do you really think that as a priest giving communion and telling people they are literally receiving the body and blood of christ he actually believed that?
Of course he did. Do you not understand what being a Catholic priest actually involves?
I have no idea why you believe that Georges Lemaitre might have been living a lie, I have never heard anyone else suggest that he wasn't a devout Catholic priest, although presumably it is because you can't quite reconcile the fact that someone with a brilliant mind should believe in an omnipotent being.
At 29 years of age Lemaitre became a priest fairly late in life, ie he wasn't sent off to the seminary at a very young age. He became a highly respected scientist, he could have left the priesthood any time he wanted, he certainly didn't need the Catholic church to pay his wages.
Catholics priests don't receive wages as such and his life as a priest would have meant that it would have been very simple and frugal. As an ordinary academic he would have been far better off financially.
And as a priest he would have almost certainly have said mass on a daily basis, to answer your original question.
Btw I believe that the term "big bang theory" was originally used to ridicule Lemaitre. It might seem a perfectly reasonable way to describe his theory today but when Lemaitre first suggested his theory the term was apparently used by his detractors. Presumably by people like you who thought he was a bit of a nutter 😉
Lemaitre is a brilliant name too. He certainly lived up to it.
Of course he did. Do you not understand what being a Catholic priest actually involves?
I find the idea that Lemaitre believed that bread and wine very literally turned into flesh and blood beyond ridiculous.
Even the pope acknowledges this isn't true now.
Do you not understand what being a Catholic priest actually involves?
I'm trying to be polite and you obviously don't want the answer to that.
So if someone subscribes to a religion (or conspiracy) but doesn’t believe the “core tenet” of some magical being who created everything (or the world is actually flat in cartesian space) what’s the difference ???
I’m not knocking the tradition, sense of community or the 10 commandments being a generally decent thing… but if they don’t actually believe in some supernatural super-being then the belief thing is just an aside.
I never said everything about religion has to be 100% provable science... simply that just because someone believes in a "supernatural super-being" doesn't mean they ignore modern science, and that they can be compatible.
(Note I am never very good at arguing any point and getting my meaning across, this doesn't necessarily mean the point is not valid and that someone else wouldn't do a better job! In short: don't jump to conclusions about a massive complicated subject about which you may have very little actual understanding.)
presumably it is because you can’t quite reconcile the fact that someone with a brilliant mind should believe in an omnipotent being
My FiL is a religious Jew and a professor of physics who also manages computer science & security at his country's equivalent of CERN... intelligence has nothing to do with it, it's not only stupid people like me who believe in fairies 😉
I find the idea that Lemaitre believed that bread and wine very literally turned into flesh and blood beyond ridiculous.
Even the pope acknowledges this isn’t true now.
I'm trying to be polite too but you frankly don't understand Catholic teaching. Of course the Pope believes in transubstantiation, it is absolutely central to Catholic teaching.
Next you will be asking if I believe that the Pope is a Catholic 😊
Lemaitre, the man who came up with the now widely accepted theory of how the Universe was created, was a devout Catholic priest, get over it, or not, as might be the case.
Terrifying.
Less terrifying when it seems the numbers dont add up, though anyone believing such twaddle is a worry...
https://twitter.com/EdmundGriffiths/status/1668547152551849984?t=b8-ir2R4FkperfN8wbyx7g&s=19
I find the idea that Lemaitre believed that bread and wine very literally turned into flesh and blood beyond ridiculous.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect
so said Issac Newton. Principia is dedicated to essentially working out the Maths that God must use to make the universe work. I find that idea that you think these people didn't understand fully that their God existed and guided their hand beyond ridiculous. (and just a wee bit arrogant)
Who made god?
Now you're just trying to pick a fight 😉
Moi? 😁
It's a valid question though, isn't it? If "god" is the answer to "where did stuff come from?" then all we've done is displaced the problem elsewhere. The universe cannot possibly be "eternal and infinite" therefore in order to explain it there must be a god who totally can be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My FiL is a religious Jew and a professor of physics who also manages computer science & security at his country’s equivalent of CERN… intelligence has nothing to do with it, it’s not only stupid people like me who believe in fairies 😉
I have an aunt is who is both a young earth creationist and a head of science at a (well regarded) school 🤷♂️ people are wierd
One of the most intelligent people I ever knew - a genuine polymath whose idea of fun was "for absolutely no reason other than I'm at a loose end this weekend, I think I'll go and learn Russian" - was a practising Christian. I asked him how he rationalised that and he told me he put it in a box marked "Other." Like, over here is physics and over there is something else.
I have an aunt is who is both a young earth creationist and a head of science at a (well regarded) school
Where, in the United States?
No UK state school would allow a science teacher to teach creationism. I doubt that an independent school would be allowed to. Certainly not as a science.
The Catholic church's position on Genesis is that it is a "fable", it can be taught only to convey a message, to tell a story to provide a lesson or morality.
No UK state school would allow a science teacher to teach creationism
Wasn't there a bit of a To Do when it was discovered that some Academies ( I want to say in the North East, but I could be wrong) were teaching it? This would 've been early noughties though I think.
No UK state school would allow a science teacher to teach creationism.
The poster you're replying to didn't say they were teaching it.
No they didn't. I assumed that they were as it made it more relevant to what was being discussed.
Edit: It would also mean that the head of science in a well regarded school was teaching stuff which she didn't believe.
Not exactly a solid foundation for a well regarded school.
Our assumptions differ, then.
Does it matter? Science doesn't require belief, the facts don't change based on the opinions of the teacher. (Of course, if they're teaching Creationism in a Science class then that's problematic, but that's a scenario of your own assumption.)
Arguably the same could be true of an RE teacher if the lessons are "Christians believe X whereas Muslims believe Y," the teacher potentially believing that it's all nonsense is neither here nor there.
Schools have curriculums that they had to follow, last I knew.
Arguably the same could be true of an RE teacher if the lessons are “Christians believe X whereas Muslims believe Y,” the teacher potentially believing that it’s all nonsense is neither here nor there.
We had a mix of very good / interesting and truly shite RE teachers.
The very good ones taught about the different religions, histories, beliefs etc while the very bad ones put on a lot of videos. One we watched over the course of about 4 lessons was a 2hr "documentary" about Nostradamus from the point of view of proving he was a genius, could tell the future, how many of his predictions had come true and so on.
We had a Jehovah's Witness girl in our class who was excused RE lessons, the school assembly (which was a predominantly Christian affair with a hymn and sometimes a short parable from the school chaplain) and she also refused to attend any biology classes about evolution or sex education.
Schools have curriculums that they had to follow, last I knew.
You are somewhat out of date if you mean the national curriculum.
Academies dont have to so thats an ever increasing number of kids.
The poster you’re replying to didn’t say they were teaching it.
Correct. They didn't mix their personal beliefs with the day job.
I asked him how he rationalised that and he told me he put it in a box marked “Other.” Like, over here is physics and over there is something else.
Yes, my aunt said something similar, science says world old, and that number goes in the science box. (her interpretation of) Bible says world young, that number goes in the faith box. She believed the numbers in the faith box, but taught the numbers in the science box. Seemed bonkers to me. Lots of things that woman, but not a fool. Like i said, people are weird!
You are somewhat out of date if you mean the national curriculum.
Right. Dunno, I left high school in the late 80s, I believed that what they're expected to teach was mandated.
We had a Jehovah’s Witness girl in our class who was excused RE lessons, the school assembly (which was a predominantly Christian affair with a hymn and sometimes a short parable from the school chaplain) and she also refused to attend any biology classes about evolution or sex education.
Different times. I'd have loved to have been able to skip RE and assembly being a devout atheist.
Religious privilege gets right on my nipples. RE is - well, should be - religious EDUCATION not doctrine. Whatever your beliefs (or whatever beliefs you've been told to believe by your family) there shouldn't be a harm in learning what other people think. I learned about WWII at school, it didn't make me a Nazi. Teachings of faith belong in a church / mosque / synagogue etc.
Seemed bonkers to me.
What I find strange is that a school where the head of the science department taught subjects which she didn't personally believe we're factually true was "well regarded".
So when her pupils asked her questions she basically (in her opinion) lied to them?
I am struggling to believe that she was a particularly good teacher although I don't doubt that she got away with it.
And what a poor commitment to her religious beliefs - to deny on a daily basis that she has them.
people are weird!
Well yes, some certainly are!
So when her pupils asked her questions she basically (in her opinion) lied to them? ... And what a poor commitment to her religious beliefs – to deny on a daily basis that she has them.
We could go back to what was said about similar people - scientists with faith - they might have two compartments within their mind; one for ideas about faith, another for ideas about science... We're bigger than our ideas about the world <more than just the sum of our parts>. Both concerned with what we don't know. One thing I do know, we don't know anything about this person so seems rather futile and argumentative to assume anything about them whatsoever.
Different times. I’d have loved to have been able to skip RE and assembly being a devout atheist.
I was at secondary school early 90's. Also an atheist, but did RE GCSE because the alternative was geography and I hated that.
RE GCSE was great. It was structured around different topics and how a selection of different religions respond to that topic. We'd also pick out bits of the various texts and see how that related to modern life.
It wasn't in any way teaching us that this is the Bible and this is fact.
If anything, it reinforced my atheism tbh.
Gone a bit off topic, what's on the front page of the "The Light!?" 😉
I never said everything about religion has to be 100% provable science… simply that just because someone believes in a “supernatural super-being” doesn’t mean they ignore modern science, and that they can be compatible.
(Note I am never very good at arguing any point and getting my meaning across, this doesn’t necessarily mean the point is not valid and that someone else wouldn’t do a better job! In short: don’t jump to conclusions about a massive complicated subject about which you may have very little actual understanding.)
You don't need to argue it well... my real point is there is little or no difference between believing in something with no proof that is simply a product of your upbringing and most conspiracy theories. The existence or not of supernatural beings is slightly separate in it's proving the non existence.
Cougar
Who made god?
It’s a valid question though, isn’t it? If “god” is the answer to “where did stuff come from?” then all we’ve done is displaced the problem elsewhere. The universe cannot possibly be “eternal and infinite” therefore in order to explain it there must be a god who totally can be.
To put that simply if an alien race created our universe from some other dimension is that gods or their elected leader or whomever a God? What would be the difference? It doesn't solve infinite regression
Proving the non existence of something mythical is not possible but the other examples are where something can be proven not to be true such as transubstantiation where bread and wine is LITERALLY transformed into flesh and blood.
My FiL is a religious Jew and a professor of physics who also manages computer science & security at his country’s equivalent of CERN… intelligence has nothing to do with it, it’s not only stupid people like me who believe in fairies
Let's take a step back... so 'aliens taught how to build the pyramids' .. (popular conspiracy)
What is the "nature" of god for you're FiL?? Is it a supreme being who created the universe and to whom we therefore owe some respect and tradition or does he really believe Moses lived to 400 and the walls of Jericho literally fell with a trumpet and carrying a box round them? etc.
Ernielynch
I’m trying to be polite too but you frankly don’t understand Catholic teaching. Of course the Pope believes in transubstantiation, it is absolutely central to Catholic teaching.
The previous Pope allowed gluten free host and so far as I know that hasn't been overturned.
Either it's hypocrisy OR transubstantiation is not literal to them.
