Hubble Reveals 13.2B-Year-Old Picture of the Universe

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]So what say you Mr. Benedict XVI?[/citation]
Please don't confuse the Catholic Church with the creationist extremists. The Catholic Church does not preach against evolution or the age of the universe or science in general. You are thinking of the more fringe elements of protestantism that make all the noise.
You could try educating yourself before mindlessly bashing, though. Might help.
 
[citation][nom]headscratcher[/nom]Please don't confuse the Catholic Church with the creationist extremists. The Catholic Church does not preach against evolution or the age of the universe or science in general. You are thinking of the more fringe elements of protestantism that make all the noise. You could try educating yourself before mindlessly bashing, though. Might help.[/citation]
I was pretty surprised when I learned that the Catholic Church doesn't object against evolution, though that is not to say they all believe in it either, but I give them credit for not condemning it.
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I was pretty surprised when I learned that the Catholic Church doesn't object against evolution, though that is not to say they all believe in it either, but I give them credit for not condemning it.[/citation]
The Catholic Church has historically been a big supporter of science, though you wouldn't know that from popular culture. It became politically expedient to demonize the Catholic Church during the Renaissance as various political movements sought to secure their power by manipulating protestant sects to creative divisiveness.
The USA is majority Protestants and minority Catholic and so the Protestant message dominates the public discourse. And many of the particularly smaller Protestant sects lack the foundation of a scholarly church and tend toward more radical teachings. And that is who you hear about in the news and from Nye the science guy.
I am a practicing scientist and a Catholic who is informed about Church teaching and history; and I have no problem holding the science of Cosmology and evolution and the theology of Catholicism in my belief structure simultaneously.
 
[citation][nom]headscratcher[/nom]The Catholic Church has historically been a big supporter of science, though you wouldn't know that from popular culture. It became politically expedient to demonize the Catholic Church during the Renaissance as various political movements sought to secure their power by manipulating protestant sects to creative divisiveness. The USA is majority Protestants and minority Catholic and so the Protestant message dominates the public discourse. And many of the particularly smaller Protestant sects lack the foundation of a scholarly church and tend toward more radical teachings. And that is who you hear about in the news and from Nye the science guy.I am a practicing scientist and a Catholic who is informed about Church teaching and history; and I have no problem holding the science of Cosmology and evolution and the theology of Catholicism in my belief structure simultaneously.[/citation]
A couple years ago, I ran into a geneticist who told me he was Catholic and a believer in evolution. He let me know that the Catholic Church believed in evolution. When I got home after talking to him, I learned that he was mostly right, though it wasn't that the Catholic Church fully supported it, but were ok with it as long as it didn't contradict their beliefs (I believe the Catholic Church doesn't take Genesis so literal as many groups do). The man I had talk to, had attributed it to the fact that the Catholic Church evolves its beliefs over time, unlike most Protestants.

That said, I've talk to a few other Catholics since then, and they were surprised that some Catholics believed in evolution, and were taught differently from the churches they attended. Admittedly, they hadn't been to church in quite some time. It may be that not all churches are teaching the same thing, or this thought is very new to the church.
 
[citation][nom]eternalkp[/nom]we can't even make a stupid 3D map of the earth and you want me to believe that scientists are able to guesstimate the universe age? RIIggghttt[/citation]
I'm sure you could make a "stupid 3D map" (what with being stupid and stuff...).
 
NASA made up this image to support their anti-God agenda. My picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur at 200mph, winning at Talladega is WAY more realistic than some ignorant "light bright" photoshop.
 
[citation][nom]XZaapryca[/nom]NASA made up this image to support their anti-God agenda. My picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur at 200mph, winning at Talladega is WAY more realistic than some ignorant "light bright" photoshop.[/citation]
Must resist troll...

...or maybe the leader of the tinfoil hat club...
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]A couple years ago, I ran into a geneticist who told me he was Catholic and a believer in evolution. He let me know that the Catholic Church believed in evolution. When I got home after talking to him, I learned that he was mostly right, though it wasn't that the Catholic Church fully supported it, but were ok with it as long as it didn't contradict their beliefs (I believe the Catholic Church doesn't take Genesis so literal as many groups do). The man I had talk to, had attributed it to the fact that the Catholic Church evolves its beliefs over time, unlike most Protestants.That said, I've talk to a few other Catholics since then, and they were surprised that some Catholics believed in evolution, and were taught differently from the churches they attended. Admittedly, they hadn't been to church in quite some time. It may be that not all churches are teaching the same thing, or this thought is very new to the church.[/citation]
Don't know if I would base much on what "some Catholics" believe. We are just as horribly misinformed and ignorant as anyone else as a group.
I have heard/read from a variety of sources about the Church's historic teaching on Genesis. It is viewed more as moral literature with inherent truths than a modern-style rigorous historic document, which I can't help but agree with. The Bible is a collection of various books by various sources over centuries that were written to convey the truth in different literary styles and cultural contexts that aren't really directly recognizable in a modern context. It is a very long-winded topic really.
I don't find anything in church teaching that disturbs anything that our current state of science has to say about the age of the universe or the evolution of the various species. I find paleontology fascinating.
 
[citation][nom]headscratcher[/nom]Don't know if I would base much on what "some Catholics" believe. We are just as horribly misinformed and ignorant as anyone else as a group. I have heard/read from a variety of sources about the Church's historic teaching on Genesis. It is viewed more as moral literature with inherent truths than a modern-style rigorous historic document, which I can't help but agree with. The Bible is a collection of various books by various sources over centuries that were written to convey the truth in different literary styles and cultural contexts that aren't really directly recognizable in a modern context. It is a very long-winded topic really.I don't find anything in church teaching that disturbs anything that our current state of science has to say about the age of the universe or the evolution of the various species. I find paleontology fascinating.[/citation]
I've always enjoyed watching the Biblical shows on the History channel. It's interesting seeing all the views from different perspective. Personally I'm agnostic.
 
I dont care what any man says...or any church. I care what God has said. He said He made it and I believe it. It doesn't make any sense to many of you, so you'll mock it. Even still it's magnificant was has been created. I challenge any man to create something just as awesome...and oh yeah make your own stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons, etc. I think it's pretty funny that man thinks they have so much power...but all we can do is look. we cant make the very things that make us, yet we say there is no God.
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]I dont care what any man says...or any church. I care what God has said. He said He made it and I believe it. It doesn't make any sense to many of you, so you'll mock it. Even still it's magnificant was has been created. I challenge any man to create something just as awesome...and oh yeah make your own stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons, etc. I think it's pretty funny that man thinks they have so much power...but all we can do is look. we cant make the very things that make us, yet we say there is no God.[/citation]
I have a very religious family with a few pastors as well (but I'm agnostic), so I understand a fair amount, but I find it interesting that you don't account for the human part of the bible. Not only were all the books written by people, many if not most were not directly written by those who get credit for them. The disciples of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote their books. Not only that, the books that were put in were chosen by a committee around 312 AD. Humans played at least a very large part in the written word (or all of it depending on your belief).

To not care what any man or church says, would mean your belief in the bible would also have to be put in question.
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]I dont care what any man says...or any church. I care what God has said. He said He made it and I believe it...[/citation]
Which deity was talking to you? Can you forward a place and time, and a recording of the deity speaking with you? There are many, many people who would be interested in this communication. Was the communication audible, or did you hear a 'voice' inside your head?
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I have a very religious family with a few pastors as well (but I'm agnostic), so I understand a fair amount, but I find it interesting that you don't account for the human part of the bible. Not only were all the books written by people, many if not most were not directly written by those who get credit for them. The disciples of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote their books. Not only that, the books that were put in were chosen by a committee around 312 AD. Humans played at least a very large part in the written word (or all of it depending on your belief).To not care what any man or church says, would mean your belief in the bible would also have to be put in question.[/citation]

I know where you are coming from. I wasn't a believer my whole life and the fact that the Bible was written by men was a very big point of contention for me. So I'll give 2 counter points and hope it's enough clarification for my own belief. Point 1 Jesus said that those that belong to Him recongnize His voice.(whether spoken by Him directly or be it through other people) Point 2. You are correct that man physically wrote the Bible...Old and New Testiment. So as an example in the book of Isaiah, found in the Old Testiment was written by Isaiah...but we have a specific prophecy in Isaiah regarding Cyrus. Take a second to research Cryus and what he did for the state of Israel. Then read about Cyrus in Isaiah which was written well before hand. Though Isaiah was a man...it is no doubt that it was God giving words of prophecy to Isaiah. I hope research helps to clarify things for you.
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Which deity was talking to you? Can you forward a place and time, and a recording of the deity speaking with you? There are many, many people who would be interested in this communication. Was the communication audible, or did you hear a 'voice' inside your head?[/citation]

I knew I would be mocked...but if you want to genuinely have a conversation about it, I'll be glad to. If you aim just to mock me, what is the point?
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]I knew I would be mocked...but if you want to genuinely have a conversation about it, I'll be glad to. If you aim just to mock me, what is the point?[/citation]
They are real questions, and very simple. You stated a deity 'said' something to you, so I assume you do not mean you read it in modern translation of an ancient text or something. Were the words spoken audibly, or in some way only you could perceive? I see you did not state, 'I believe', so you feel you are stating something that is a true experience for all people, not just those with similar faith-based beliefs. I'm very interested.
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]They are real questions, and very simple. You stated a deity 'said' something to you, so I assume you do not mean you read it in modern translation of an ancient text or something. Were the words spoken audibly, or in some way only you could perceive? I see you did not state, 'I believe', so you feel you are stating something that is a true experience for all people, not just those with similar faith-based beliefs. I'm very interested.[/citation]

Well, If I had stated I believe or God said...it is no different in this matter. My belief is from a book that I believe was written by God through man. But logically speaking belief does not form truth. Truth begets belief. So I could believe in Creationism and you could believe in Evolution, but in reality there is only one way life came into existance. It doesn't change based on belief. So yes I believe in Creationism...therefore holding it to be true...therefore holding it to be true for all people. The same would apply to end times as well. Either the earth will live on forever or it wont. What we believe doesn't change that. Rather it's our responsibility to discover truth and live by it in order to have sober lives. Maybe this was a long answer to your question, but I hope it answers it none the less.
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]Well, If I had stated I believe or God said...it is no different in this matter. My belief is from a book that I believe was written by God through man. But logically speaking belief does not form truth. Truth begets belief. So I could believe in Creationism and you could believe in Evolution, but in reality there is only one way life came into existance. It doesn't change based on belief. So yes I believe in Creationism...therefore holding it to be true...therefore holding it to be true for all people. The same would apply to end times as well. Either the earth will live on forever or it wont. What we believe doesn't change that. Rather it's our responsibility to discover truth and live by it in order to have sober lives. Maybe this was a long answer to your question, but I hope it answers it none the less.[/citation]
Close enough, but 'Truth begets belief' sounds like a voting scheme, which doesn't indicate universal 'truth' to me, or else, for example, the Earth would have been flat at one point not too long ago. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, I'm just saying belief and truth are akin to perpendicular axes - on the same plain, but non-interacting.
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Close enough, but 'Truth begets belief' sounds like a voting scheme, which doesn't indicate universal 'truth' to me, or else, for example, the Earth would have been flat at one point not too long ago. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, I'm just saying belief and truth are akin to perpendicular axes - on the same plain, but non-interacting.[/citation]
On the contrary, that are interacting. Ever been pissed off at someone for something, only to find out you were misinformed and then realized you were wrong yourself? Originally you were angry at somthing you thought was true, then after accepting the truth, your attitude changes, signaling a change in belief. At the point when you were angry, you were believing something that was false. It may have been "true to you", thus causing a difinitive reaction. But once the actual truth was realized, the definitive reaction becomes more inline with the truth. Extreme examples of this are called insanity or delusion. I guess I am trying to say that belief doesn't make something true. but rather we are responsible to align our beliefs with truth. All this being said...what is to change your mind about the creation of the existance or even of God? All I can say is if you truely seek it, you can find the answers.
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]...what is to change your mind about the creation of the existance or even of God? All I can say is if you truely seek it, you can find the answers.[/citation]
Faith-based beliefs would lead to _my_ answers, and no matter how true for me, have not the slightest effect on someone else's 'truth'. It's the mistake of being around the like-minded too much. Look how you use the Judeo-Christian (capitalized) 'God' term, trying to indicate that Western Monotheism is the only 'true' belief system. Pushed too far, it becomes religious bigotry.
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Faith-based beliefs would lead to _my_ answers, and no matter how true for me, have not the slightest effect on someone else's 'truth'. It's the mistake of being around the like-minded too much. Look how you use the Judeo-Christian (capitalized) 'God' term, trying to indicate that Western Monotheism is the only 'true' belief system. Pushed too far, it becomes religious bigotry.[/citation]

Likewise for atheism....just as bigoted. They say to be tolerant, but the entire belief is based on non toleration in it's roots. You may not believe in God or you think that the existance of many gods can be true. Have you thought out the logical consequences to thows beliefs? I mean really thought about it what it means if there is no God...no eternity...no life after death? What are the consequences of that belief system. Nietzsche would be a good place to start. But I assure you will end up where he did and everyone else who follows his philosophy... that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. This is the crux of atheism and it's founder Neitzshe....and its outcome is insanity. Neitzshe would tell you. But seriously just take a few minutes and write down the implications of no God.
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]Likewise for atheism...[/citation]
No one said anything about those whose faith-based belief system is atheistic. That's a different topic. I agree that if you have spent your entire existence (as in the Judeo/Christian belief that you are created at conception, not the generally Eastern belief in an ongoing cyclic existence) embedded in a theistic community, dropping belief in a deity leaves a big hole for you, but that's not the point. Not everyone is starting from that particular place. Implying that a particular set of faith-based beliefs are 'correct' (and therefore deeming other faith-based belief systems as incorrect) is, at best, rude, and at worst.. (well, I've already said that). You have been socialized to believe in a single deity system with the attached name being 'God'. Others have other perfectly valid and 'true' beliefs for themselves. To suggest that others should stop what they are doing and study your beliefs with great intensity (with the belief they will see more 'truth' in your beliefs) is a project better directed at oneself (for studying their beliefs with that same intensity). In any case, an outward face of agnosticism is the most inclusive and therefore kind (and isn't kindness the point of the whole thing?)
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom](and isn't kindness the point of the whole thing?)[/citation]

To some maybe...but what is the point of the whole thing? And as far as "Implying that a particular set of faith-based beliefs are 'correct'= deeming other faith-based belief systems as incorrect" This is true....for all religions. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong or anything like that. But I'm trying to point out that truth behind all the arguements. To say that Christians and Muslims are both correct is and false statement. The 2 theologies can not coexist as correct at the same time. Nor can Budism and hinduism or Judaism, or atheism, or Darwinism, etc. They all are different. What you are talking about is reletivism, which is convoluted...the whole philosophy can't even exist under it's own pretenses. Even your last post is against your own point. If i can't claim that anyone else is wong...who are you to say I am wrong? And I have not been socialized to believe anything. I was an atheist for 25years....I didn't study Christianity and convert. Yet after I was converted, the flaws of my atheistic believes became apparent. The real question is do you actually seek truth, or are you seeking to add to the stronghold of your own philosophy?
 
[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]And as far as "Implying that a particular set of faith-based beliefs are 'correct'= deeming other faith-based belief systems as incorrect" This is true....for all religions.[/citation]
1) Are you suggesting it is OK, 'because everybody does it'? I would certainly have higher expectations of myself and my beliefs.
2) Not necessarily. For example Buddhism neither posits nor denies any deities. The questions is considered secondary, at best.

[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong or anything like that. But I'm trying to point out that truth behind all the arguements. To say that Christians and Muslims are both correct is and false statement. The 2 theologies can not coexist as correct at the same time.[/citation]
This is where things go seriously wrong. Personal faith-based beliefs are just that: personal. They only have meaning within oneself. It's not as though the strength of one person's beliefs make them true for someone else. It's not as though there is some kind of concrete or physical evidence created out the of strength of one or many people's simultaneous beliefs. They wouldn't be faith-based beliefs if that was the case. It would be as if a large number of people felt very strongly that the color blue is truly the best color. Would it be true that it is best color?


[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]What you are talking about is reletivism, which is convoluted...the whole philosophy can't even exist under it's own pretenses. Even your last post is against your own point. If i can't claim that anyone else is wong...who are you to say I am wrong? And I have not been socialized to believe anything. I was an atheist for 25years....I didn't study Christianity and convert. Yet after I was converted, the flaws of my atheistic believes became apparent.[/citation]
The wrongness is not in the beliefs, it is in trying to decide they are true of other people. Deciding that one particular belief system is 'the truth' not just for yourself (which is perfectly valid), but deciding it is universally true, means you must then include a belief that non-believers are either ignorant or stupid. I, personally, don't get a gut belief about a creator-deity, no matter what I might try, but then again I'd be in a pretty sad state to decide that 3/4 of the world's population (every one of them) is seriously deluded.

Truth in faith-based beliefs are as personal as left and right handedness. Logical extensions of the outcome of the removal of a belief system from someone who is immersed in that believing community is just a thought experiment. Read Neitzshe writings with an eye toward his unwritten feelings about being a complete social outcast and they make a lot more sense. Thought experiments are not compatible with faith-based beliefs.

[citation][nom]ejb222[/nom]The real question is do you actually seek truth, or are you seeking to add to the stronghold of your own philosophy?[/citation]
Unfortunately your only satisfactory definition of my seeking truth would be if I came to believe as you do. That doesn't sound like open seeking.
 
[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]The Engineers are out there.[/citation]

Just watched Prometheus last night, and I thought the exact same thing looking at this picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom