Religion - uses all the way, philosophy and science for their all attributes to accomplish, in togetherness of all - > the path of human deepening, in understanding and realizing the religious-philosophical task of regaining people for themselves into a wider world of godly-like soul and environment creation of such to all!!
By Benedict XVI. The Vatican's science institute has 61 members - out of which, 29 are Nobel Prize Winners!! It does walk in it all, as it has, in their assertions!!
You CAN prove that you love someone (or be caught lying about it) with fMRI. Things that are neurologically-based are difficult but that does not mean they are automatically outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
There are no valid questions that are outside the field of scientific inquiry. Answers to questions that are unanswerable are NOT better discovered through wishful thinking and making them up.
@SirDarkStar "There are no valid questions that are outside the field of scientific inquiry." Can you validate this statement scientifically? Can you put it to the test of the scientific method and prove to me that it is true? If so please share.
@tomtom002 The opposite, "I can know the answers to some questions BETTER in the complete and total absence of sound observations of reality", is logically absurd. And in the positive, a study of how brains work will certainly inform us on this question. Even the accepted postulates of logic & mathematics flow from observations of reality.
What questions do you propose can be better be answered in the complete and total absence of careful observation and correlation with reality?
@SirDarkStar Ah, but now you've already proven my point. "The observation of reality" is certainly a scientific endeavor, but that does not mean that it is limited to science. My point was that your statement about scientific inquiry is in fact self-defeating since scientific inquiry cannot verify it. Rather, it is a philosophical observation of reality. But as soon as you open that door you must admit that there are truths which can be discovered absent from science.
@tomtom002 No, I didn't say that scientific methodology is perfect, nor is it fixed, nor can it ANSWER all questions. I ONLY said it can be APPLIED to all questions. The purpose of Scientific methodology is to remove biases, false data, untruth, and errors from a field of study. Why? Because human perception alone is very susceptible to these influences.
So again, you are trying to say that "I can best arrive at TRUE answers by ALLOWING biases, errors and false data", logically absurd.
@SirDarkStar How do you not see the contradiction here? You assume that scientific methodology can at least be applied to all valid questions, but you have already admitted that it cannot be applied to at least one question, ie Are there any valid questions that lie outside of scientific inquiry? My challenge remains, at least show me how you can use scientific methodology to attempt an answer.
@tomtom002 I cannot design an entire protocol within the limits of a youtube comment but already we're asking questions which we can study, so YES we can study this question using scientific methods.
another approach would be bottom up - how does the brain behave, does it have the same rules as a computer, what questions can it ask, etc. difficult yes, but can be studied scientifically.
Now answer MY question: what question is BETTER answered by making shit up and pretending it's true?
@SirDarkStar To study does not mean you are using science. Sure you can break down the "question" but there will still be a category that cannot be answered using empirical data and analysis. For example, is it immoral to kill an innocent human being? A valid question I think we would agree but the answer cannot be found scientifically. I can't put morality into a testtube and statistically analyze the results, but we can still discover moral truths which are unbiased.
@tomtom002 not sure what you think science is, it's not a magic box through which data flows, it is a process which tries to remove bias and errors.
"is it immoral to kill an innocent human being" - I suppose you have missed the rash of books and scientific papers which already ARE studying morality scientifically? Both from attempting to actually define it rigorously as well as fMRI and other empirical measures of brain states.
@SirDarkStar Well that is a good point, I suppose 'science' can be an ambiguous term and if we have a different meaning in mind, then this argument is useless. When I am saying 'science' I mean the general study of the structure and behavior of the physical world through observation and experiment. I am not sure 'removal of bias and error' has any classification of its own. Science certainly tries to do this within itself, but it is not the function of science.
@tomtom002 Did you ask yourself WHY we came up with the various "scientific methodologies"? To eliminate the biases and errors that have lead to false conclusions in the past. If methods in the past WORKED we wouldn't have needed science - we would just free think.
Barron argues a strawman really. Philosophy only explores the REAL in so much as the conclusions are empirically justified. Even the axioms and operators of logic are reduced to the necessary & empirically justified
@SirDarkStar There are rules to philosophy, just as there are rules to science that attempt to remove bias. Just like science they do not always work and things we claim to be ‘true’ may turn out to be false. Yet this does not mean that truth does not exist, just that we must continue to search for it. In science, the majority of the ideas put forth turn out to be wrong, does this mean that science cannot find truth? I think we would both agree that it does not.
@SirDarkStar The point is, there is a dimension of reality in which science by its own laws cannot study, yet we know it exists because we could not answer questions of morality for example if it did not. This dimension can be studied, but we must accept that the answers are nothing like scientific answers. This is the reality we live in.
@tomtom002 Where is your evidence of this magical dimension of morality? How do you justify a claim that brains can interface with it but it cannot be studied? Is there a magic dimension for every category of human behavior, a hunger dimension? How else could humans know they are hungry?
It's all woo & confirmation bias man. Not a single magical claim has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny. Most claimants are blatant frauds. How many hucksters have to be exposed?
@SirDarkStar You're still assuming science is the only applicable method to answering questions. I've already shown why that can't be and its impossible to answer with that assumption. I would suggest looking up: Fr. Barron on the error of "Scientism" He explains it better than I can.
@tomtom002 I'll take my limited "scientism" and conservative epistemological approach over your woo-ism any day.
It is a woo-ism truth that Allah commanded Muhammad to write the Koran because he wanted people to fly planes into buildings on 9/11, they knew it in their little woo-heart and no MERE facts will convince them otherwise. And your religion is exactly the same woo.
the vatican has a telescope so they can spy on the moon inhabitants, to study them, so they can be up to date, with what technologies the extraterrestrials have
"If His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning, they would fall back into nothingness in an instant".
They were correct. To quantify it:
6,117 exajoules (10 to the power of 18) /sec to continually sustain just 17 grains of sand - equal to the chemical bonding energy released from all the barrels of oil (one trillion) that have ever been burned.
The Roman Church (the Holy Roman Empire) is the same as it has always been. When Christianity was becoming too powerful, it just swallowed it up and rewrote the rules. It has stayed abreast of science over the years and as soon as any truth becomes exposed, it morphs to remain current. It will be revolutionary when it finally concedes that there is nothing wrong with contraceptives, and stop preaching that the wafer and wine is magically transformed into flesh and blood.
Pope John Paul II - mysticaly slept in April 2005, just like Lazarus -, present Pope Benedict XVI, and "the Little Pebble" i.e. Pope Little Peter Abraham II.
Father Coyne is a bright mind. I love people like that! He feels my mind with hope and makes me love Jesus even more! As a very acute mind and focused spirit he knows that Galileo's and Darwin's cases are not even a speck before what Freud is saying outloud for more than a century now with the unconscious mind - here is the justice of God - as a factual channel from and to the Spirit . Galileo... Darwin ... All this bla-bla is reduced to distracting noise!
The Vatican is trying to stay relevant. With our consciousness level being raised by science and our religious ideas also changing the church is trying now to get in on the ground floor. So in a thousand years they can still mix their Bronze Age mythology with science. Maybe a future Galileo or Copernicus will fair better with the church. LOL
I wish they'd have asked George if a universe that had no use or room for any supernatural processes or entities would be better or worse than one that did provide a place and role for an intelligent cosmic overseer.
It seems meaningful to me. Would you rather live in a universe that needed a deity to function or one that worked just fine with nothing but mindless physical laws to map present into future?
Even if the universe were functionally self-sufficient, we can never address the nature of the true genesis of the universe. This idea that God is some kind of interventionist has been dismissed among scientifically-literate deists for about a century.
I think you're saying that even if we did know what caused the universe to happen, it would only push back the question to the cause of that cause. Therefore deism is a meaningful conjecture about a first cause. In my mind, the same sort of Occam's razor leaves deism itself in search of a purpose. The burden is on them to come up with a compelling reason to surmise that something so fantastic is needed when the power intrinsic to the phenomenon of emergence can and does explain all known magic.
What makes a creative force any more fantastic then a spontaneous emergence of existence? This genesis of something from nothing has not been observed at any point, where as the cause and effect idea is the basis of all science.
Well, technically it isn't really possible to have nothing. It would violate the uncertainty principle. Even the emptiest space is a seething mass of interactions between virtual particles (and their anti-particles) that pop into existence, possibly interact with other particles, and ultimately annihilate one another. Furthermore, emergent phenomenon pop into existence all the time and can last for ages! Maybe the lowest lawyers of what we experience as physical reality is an emergence too.
Yes, but the uncertainty principle is irrelevant at the singularity, as are all known physical laws. Virtual particles are just force-mediating particles and follow conservation laws.
I don't see how you can make that claim given there are no naked singularities to study. Past the event horizon its just conjecture and there is no good reason not to believe that something might prevent things from becoming smaller than the Planck scale permits.
You seem to be looking for an excuse to presuppose magic is necessary to explain reality and there isn't one shred of evidence anywhere that suggests anything other than the opposite of that. Our universe might be just consequence.
I'm not looking for any excuse, because I really have no personal feelings on Deism one way or another. Current work in quantum gravity theory suggests that naked singularities might very well exist, although I don't feel comfortable discussing cosmology on a level higher than what is currently known by the world's physicists.
How this then, "Is it reasonable to conclude that it is possible the universe exists because it is the simplest possible state of affairs?" So far, everything we do understand has a quality about it that suggests a boundary (absolute zero, the speed of light, etc.) To me, that fact alone is circumstantial evidence of a sort to support the conclusion above. That if we could have a simpler universe, we would. (Occams' Razor on steroids?)
Do you believe that chaos can give birth to reason? I do not. And the more we advance the sciences, the more data we find that reveals a rational universe consisting in laws and order.
As Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
This same sentiment is found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth".
The real question is, how does knowing that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old change the way you treat your fellow man? It appears that throughout history. The institution that focuses on humanity first, instigates the greatest advancements in science. Inspiring people like Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Nicolaus Copernicus, and George Lemaitre.
God tells us to subdue the earth. Heaven is our ultimate goal, not advanced astrophysics.
But a given scientific breakthrough's worth to humanity sometimes cannot be determined for years to come, so progress should never be impeded for the sake of perceived value to society at the present.
To hinder scientific progress is not the issue. I don't think anyone can justify slowing down progress. The problem is the order of importance. Mankind comes first. Man is the observer and the one who benefits from progress. Progress is not a corporal being, it is the result of humans gathering and applying data. The application can either be beneficial or detrimental to mankind.
Truth existed before us and will continue even after our body is in the grave. Religion pursues truth. Science pursues data. They are different disciplines but they do not contradict each other. The papal encyclical "Fides et Ratio" gives a much greater explanation of the relationship between faith and reason than I can provide here.
But I submit that any so called "progress" that works to devalue mankind in any way is no True progress.
@CatholicAmerican I agree with some of what you say, but to suggest that religion pursues truthis a ridiculous statement. Religion seeks to ESTABLISH truth whereas science seeks to DISCOVER truth.
Religions throughout history have made all sorts of claims of truths that are nothing than ludicrous nutbar. Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, heaven, hell, etc... Spewing this nonsense isn't persuing TRUTH.
I argue that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth.
I will not defend other religions, nor would it be reasonable for you to hold a Catholic accountable the erroneous actions of other religions.
The pursuit of Truth is a religious activity. The pursuit of data is a scientific activity. You are making the mistake of turning science into a religion.
@CatholicAmerican Again, that's simply your opinion. Which can be easily proved whong by the way. IF the catholic church "possessed the fullness of truth" then they wouldn't have been wrong on SO many things. They were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe for a couple thousand years. I guess god forgot to tell them that. And they just acknowledged that Evolution is a fact in 1997. Let's see, a full 150 years AFTER it's discovery! They GET thuth from secular thinking and science
It was Fr. Nicholis Copernicus who first posited the heliocentric model.
It was Pope Gregory I who commissioned astronomers to make more accurate observations of the sky and come up with a better system for keeping track of time. Thus the Gregorian Calendar.
It is Fr. George Lemaitre who coined the "Big Bang Theory".
It is the Catholic Church who built the University of Paris.
It is Br. Roger Bacon who is the father of Scientific Laws.
@aburling7 Religion seeks to "establish" moral and supernatural TRUTHS but the Catholic Christian tradition has always been involved in the discovery of "natural truths" to help explain the the world around us and how God relates to His creation. Fr George mentioned that an astronomical disipline began in the 1700s but in reality the Church established the scientific method we use today and the university style of knowledge gathering.in what we often think of aqs the "Dark Ages".
I think one of the most striking examples of this in our day and age is the ungrounded exultation of embryonic stem cell research over the factual and grounded success of ADULT stem cell success.
Creating a unique member of the species homo sapients, only to harvest his or her body parts (stem cells) and destroying that unique individual in the process is a vastly different practice than using adult stem cells that can be harvested from the patient who needs them without killing anyone.
And in the United States we have observed how political lobbies have the power to defund successful adult stem cell research and give those resources to embryonic research because of a race for pattens that no longer exists in adult stem cell research.
What a step backwards for mankind under the false title of "progress". Killing unique human beings for the purpose of harvesting body parts or testing pharmaceuticals can only be classified as disordered behavior.
At least he doesn't take the scripture literally, realizing how utterly absurd that would be. But I have no idea why he, or anyone educated for that matter, would respect a body of literature that casts god into such a disgusting role. And you have to admire a guy that admits faith does nothing to help his pursuit of science. I think most of the phony Christians that are notable here in American would simply lie about that.
This has been flagged as spam show
I Really Like The Video From Your in a wide ranging discussion on science, religion and the interplay of faith and reason
fitnesus 2 weeks ago
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing in a wide ranging discussion on science, religion and the interplay of faith and reason. Serie
lupabuatchannel 2 weeks ago
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." Pope John Paul II
hpa2005 2 months ago
Religion - uses all the way, philosophy and science for their all attributes to accomplish, in togetherness of all - > the path of human deepening, in understanding and realizing the religious-philosophical task of regaining people for themselves into a wider world of godly-like soul and environment creation of such to all!!
By Benedict XVI. The Vatican's science institute has 61 members - out of which, 29 are Nobel Prize Winners!! It does walk in it all, as it has, in their assertions!!
Maroceanful 11 months ago
You CAN prove that you love someone (or be caught lying about it) with fMRI. Things that are neurologically-based are difficult but that does not mean they are automatically outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
There are no valid questions that are outside the field of scientific inquiry. Answers to questions that are unanswerable are NOT better discovered through wishful thinking and making them up.
SirDarkStar 1 year ago 2
@SirDarkStar "There are no valid questions that are outside the field of scientific inquiry." Can you validate this statement scientifically? Can you put it to the test of the scientific method and prove to me that it is true? If so please share.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 The opposite, "I can know the answers to some questions BETTER in the complete and total absence of sound observations of reality", is logically absurd. And in the positive, a study of how brains work will certainly inform us on this question. Even the accepted postulates of logic & mathematics flow from observations of reality.
What questions do you propose can be better be answered in the complete and total absence of careful observation and correlation with reality?
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar Ah, but now you've already proven my point. "The observation of reality" is certainly a scientific endeavor, but that does not mean that it is limited to science. My point was that your statement about scientific inquiry is in fact self-defeating since scientific inquiry cannot verify it. Rather, it is a philosophical observation of reality. But as soon as you open that door you must admit that there are truths which can be discovered absent from science.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 No, I didn't say that scientific methodology is perfect, nor is it fixed, nor can it ANSWER all questions. I ONLY said it can be APPLIED to all questions. The purpose of Scientific methodology is to remove biases, false data, untruth, and errors from a field of study. Why? Because human perception alone is very susceptible to these influences.
So again, you are trying to say that "I can best arrive at TRUE answers by ALLOWING biases, errors and false data", logically absurd.
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar How do you not see the contradiction here? You assume that scientific methodology can at least be applied to all valid questions, but you have already admitted that it cannot be applied to at least one question, ie Are there any valid questions that lie outside of scientific inquiry? My challenge remains, at least show me how you can use scientific methodology to attempt an answer.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 How do you not see the problem with asserting that allowing in bias and false data is better - that is what you are proposing.
"Are there any valid questions that lie outside of scientific inquiry?"
can you categorize different types of questions? [questions about the nature of, questions about the behavior of, ... yes it seems so]
What properties do the known categories of questions have?
Are there any known instances of questions which are BETTER answered with bad data?
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@tomtom002 I cannot design an entire protocol within the limits of a youtube comment but already we're asking questions which we can study, so YES we can study this question using scientific methods.
another approach would be bottom up - how does the brain behave, does it have the same rules as a computer, what questions can it ask, etc. difficult yes, but can be studied scientifically.
Now answer MY question: what question is BETTER answered by making shit up and pretending it's true?
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar To study does not mean you are using science. Sure you can break down the "question" but there will still be a category that cannot be answered using empirical data and analysis. For example, is it immoral to kill an innocent human being? A valid question I think we would agree but the answer cannot be found scientifically. I can't put morality into a testtube and statistically analyze the results, but we can still discover moral truths which are unbiased.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 not sure what you think science is, it's not a magic box through which data flows, it is a process which tries to remove bias and errors.
"is it immoral to kill an innocent human being" - I suppose you have missed the rash of books and scientific papers which already ARE studying morality scientifically? Both from attempting to actually define it rigorously as well as fMRI and other empirical measures of brain states.
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar Well that is a good point, I suppose 'science' can be an ambiguous term and if we have a different meaning in mind, then this argument is useless. When I am saying 'science' I mean the general study of the structure and behavior of the physical world through observation and experiment. I am not sure 'removal of bias and error' has any classification of its own. Science certainly tries to do this within itself, but it is not the function of science.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 Did you ask yourself WHY we came up with the various "scientific methodologies"? To eliminate the biases and errors that have lead to false conclusions in the past. If methods in the past WORKED we wouldn't have needed science - we would just free think.
Barron argues a strawman really. Philosophy only explores the REAL in so much as the conclusions are empirically justified. Even the axioms and operators of logic are reduced to the necessary & empirically justified
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar There are rules to philosophy, just as there are rules to science that attempt to remove bias. Just like science they do not always work and things we claim to be ‘true’ may turn out to be false. Yet this does not mean that truth does not exist, just that we must continue to search for it. In science, the majority of the ideas put forth turn out to be wrong, does this mean that science cannot find truth? I think we would both agree that it does not.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar The point is, there is a dimension of reality in which science by its own laws cannot study, yet we know it exists because we could not answer questions of morality for example if it did not. This dimension can be studied, but we must accept that the answers are nothing like scientific answers. This is the reality we live in.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 Where is your evidence of this magical dimension of morality? How do you justify a claim that brains can interface with it but it cannot be studied? Is there a magic dimension for every category of human behavior, a hunger dimension? How else could humans know they are hungry?
It's all woo & confirmation bias man. Not a single magical claim has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny. Most claimants are blatant frauds. How many hucksters have to be exposed?
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
@SirDarkStar You're still assuming science is the only applicable method to answering questions. I've already shown why that can't be and its impossible to answer with that assumption. I would suggest looking up: Fr. Barron on the error of "Scientism" He explains it better than I can.
God bless.
tomtom002 8 months ago
@tomtom002 I'll take my limited "scientism" and conservative epistemological approach over your woo-ism any day.
It is a woo-ism truth that Allah commanded Muhammad to write the Koran because he wanted people to fly planes into buildings on 9/11, they knew it in their little woo-heart and no MERE facts will convince them otherwise. And your religion is exactly the same woo.
SirDarkStar 8 months ago
the vatican has a telescope so they can spy on the moon inhabitants, to study them, so they can be up to date, with what technologies the extraterrestrials have
acaticlopez 1 year ago
Wow this was really fun to listen to
theadorsia 2 years ago
De fide:
"God keeps all created things in existence"
The First Vatican Council:
"If His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning, they would fall back into nothingness in an instant".
They were correct. To quantify it:
6,117 exajoules (10 to the power of 18) /sec to continually sustain just 17 grains of sand - equal to the chemical bonding energy released from all the barrels of oil (one trillion) that have ever been burned.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 2 years ago
The Roman Church (the Holy Roman Empire) is the same as it has always been. When Christianity was becoming too powerful, it just swallowed it up and rewrote the rules. It has stayed abreast of science over the years and as soon as any truth becomes exposed, it morphs to remain current. It will be revolutionary when it finally concedes that there is nothing wrong with contraceptives, and stop preaching that the wafer and wine is magically transformed into flesh and blood.
kadene2 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Fact is stranger than fiction.
Now, there are three active Pope.
Pope John Paul II - mysticaly slept in April 2005, just like Lazarus -, present Pope Benedict XVI, and "the Little Pebble" i.e. Pope Little Peter Abraham II.
littlepebble2 2 years ago
Father Coyne is a bright mind. I love people like that! He feels my mind with hope and makes me love Jesus even more! As a very acute mind and focused spirit he knows that Galileo's and Darwin's cases are not even a speck before what Freud is saying outloud for more than a century now with the unconscious mind - here is the justice of God - as a factual channel from and to the Spirit . Galileo... Darwin ... All this bla-bla is reduced to distracting noise!
Love you, Father Coyne!
mrqsilveira 2 years ago 2
watch
v=OiTbcDeFuhI
Spirituality vs. Religion = Knowing vs. Faith
nicopetromac 2 years ago
-schifosi pedofili ! vescovi e preti ! e quel porco di dio che non vi castiga !
salvatoregiordano1 2 years ago
The Vatican is trying to stay relevant. With our consciousness level being raised by science and our religious ideas also changing the church is trying now to get in on the ground floor. So in a thousand years they can still mix their Bronze Age mythology with science. Maybe a future Galileo or Copernicus will fair better with the church. LOL
Drewfsm 3 years ago
I wish they'd have asked George if a universe that had no use or room for any supernatural processes or entities would be better or worse than one that did provide a place and role for an intelligent cosmic overseer.
ananiasacts 3 years ago
What, so Fr. Coyne could stare blankly into space? This question in meaningless.
Generic1987 2 years ago
It seems meaningful to me. Would you rather live in a universe that needed a deity to function or one that worked just fine with nothing but mindless physical laws to map present into future?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Even if the universe were functionally self-sufficient, we can never address the nature of the true genesis of the universe. This idea that God is some kind of interventionist has been dismissed among scientifically-literate deists for about a century.
Generic1987 2 years ago
I think you're saying that even if we did know what caused the universe to happen, it would only push back the question to the cause of that cause. Therefore deism is a meaningful conjecture about a first cause. In my mind, the same sort of Occam's razor leaves deism itself in search of a purpose. The burden is on them to come up with a compelling reason to surmise that something so fantastic is needed when the power intrinsic to the phenomenon of emergence can and does explain all known magic.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
What makes a creative force any more fantastic then a spontaneous emergence of existence? This genesis of something from nothing has not been observed at any point, where as the cause and effect idea is the basis of all science.
Generic1987 2 years ago
Well, technically it isn't really possible to have nothing. It would violate the uncertainty principle. Even the emptiest space is a seething mass of interactions between virtual particles (and their anti-particles) that pop into existence, possibly interact with other particles, and ultimately annihilate one another. Furthermore, emergent phenomenon pop into existence all the time and can last for ages! Maybe the lowest lawyers of what we experience as physical reality is an emergence too.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Yes, but the uncertainty principle is irrelevant at the singularity, as are all known physical laws. Virtual particles are just force-mediating particles and follow conservation laws.
Generic1987 2 years ago
I don't see how you can make that claim given there are no naked singularities to study. Past the event horizon its just conjecture and there is no good reason not to believe that something might prevent things from becoming smaller than the Planck scale permits.
You seem to be looking for an excuse to presuppose magic is necessary to explain reality and there isn't one shred of evidence anywhere that suggests anything other than the opposite of that. Our universe might be just consequence.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
I'm not looking for any excuse, because I really have no personal feelings on Deism one way or another. Current work in quantum gravity theory suggests that naked singularities might very well exist, although I don't feel comfortable discussing cosmology on a level higher than what is currently known by the world's physicists.
Generic1987 2 years ago
How this then, "Is it reasonable to conclude that it is possible the universe exists because it is the simplest possible state of affairs?" So far, everything we do understand has a quality about it that suggests a boundary (absolute zero, the speed of light, etc.) To me, that fact alone is circumstantial evidence of a sort to support the conclusion above. That if we could have a simpler universe, we would. (Occams' Razor on steroids?)
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Do you believe that chaos can give birth to reason? I do not. And the more we advance the sciences, the more data we find that reveals a rational universe consisting in laws and order.
As Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
This same sentiment is found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth".
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
@CatholicAmerican Order comes from chaos. How the hell do you think we got here?
aburling7 2 years ago 2
God created the universe. Science is the study of HOW he did it.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
The real question is, how does knowing that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old change the way you treat your fellow man? It appears that throughout history. The institution that focuses on humanity first, instigates the greatest advancements in science. Inspiring people like Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Nicolaus Copernicus, and George Lemaitre.
God tells us to subdue the earth. Heaven is our ultimate goal, not advanced astrophysics.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
But a given scientific breakthrough's worth to humanity sometimes cannot be determined for years to come, so progress should never be impeded for the sake of perceived value to society at the present.
Generic1987 2 years ago
To hinder scientific progress is not the issue. I don't think anyone can justify slowing down progress. The problem is the order of importance. Mankind comes first. Man is the observer and the one who benefits from progress. Progress is not a corporal being, it is the result of humans gathering and applying data. The application can either be beneficial or detrimental to mankind.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
Truth existed before us and will continue even after our body is in the grave. Religion pursues truth. Science pursues data. They are different disciplines but they do not contradict each other. The papal encyclical "Fides et Ratio" gives a much greater explanation of the relationship between faith and reason than I can provide here.
But I submit that any so called "progress" that works to devalue mankind in any way is no True progress.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
@CatholicAmerican I agree with some of what you say, but to suggest that religion pursues truthis a ridiculous statement. Religion seeks to ESTABLISH truth whereas science seeks to DISCOVER truth.
Religions throughout history have made all sorts of claims of truths that are nothing than ludicrous nutbar. Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, heaven, hell, etc... Spewing this nonsense isn't persuing TRUTH.
aburling7 2 years ago 2
"to suggest that religion pursues truth is..."
I argue that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth.
I will not defend other religions, nor would it be reasonable for you to hold a Catholic accountable the erroneous actions of other religions.
The pursuit of Truth is a religious activity. The pursuit of data is a scientific activity. You are making the mistake of turning science into a religion.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
@CatholicAmerican Again, that's simply your opinion. Which can be easily proved whong by the way. IF the catholic church "possessed the fullness of truth" then they wouldn't have been wrong on SO many things. They were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe for a couple thousand years. I guess god forgot to tell them that. And they just acknowledged that Evolution is a fact in 1997. Let's see, a full 150 years AFTER it's discovery! They GET thuth from secular thinking and science
aburling7 2 years ago 2
It was Fr. Nicholis Copernicus who first posited the heliocentric model.
It was Pope Gregory I who commissioned astronomers to make more accurate observations of the sky and come up with a better system for keeping track of time. Thus the Gregorian Calendar.
It is Fr. George Lemaitre who coined the "Big Bang Theory".
It is the Catholic Church who built the University of Paris.
It is Br. Roger Bacon who is the father of Scientific Laws.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
you are spinning data. Do you read historical documents or do you just read pithy revisionist blogs?
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
Beginning at 5:59 Fr. Coyne lays out a great explanation of the relationship between Faith and science.
"...Not one establishes the other, or condemns the other."
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
@aburling7 Religion seeks to "establish" moral and supernatural TRUTHS but the Catholic Christian tradition has always been involved in the discovery of "natural truths" to help explain the the world around us and how God relates to His creation. Fr George mentioned that an astronomical disipline began in the 1700s but in reality the Church established the scientific method we use today and the university style of knowledge gathering.in what we often think of aqs the "Dark Ages".
peipappy1 1 year ago
I think one of the most striking examples of this in our day and age is the ungrounded exultation of embryonic stem cell research over the factual and grounded success of ADULT stem cell success.
Creating a unique member of the species homo sapients, only to harvest his or her body parts (stem cells) and destroying that unique individual in the process is a vastly different practice than using adult stem cells that can be harvested from the patient who needs them without killing anyone.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
And in the United States we have observed how political lobbies have the power to defund successful adult stem cell research and give those resources to embryonic research because of a race for pattens that no longer exists in adult stem cell research.
What a step backwards for mankind under the false title of "progress". Killing unique human beings for the purpose of harvesting body parts or testing pharmaceuticals can only be classified as disordered behavior.
CatholicAmerican 2 years ago
At least he doesn't take the scripture literally, realizing how utterly absurd that would be. But I have no idea why he, or anyone educated for that matter, would respect a body of literature that casts god into such a disgusting role. And you have to admire a guy that admits faith does nothing to help his pursuit of science. I think most of the phony Christians that are notable here in American would simply lie about that.
ananiasacts 3 years ago
Father Side-Step is not answering the question...
buzzy1026 3 years ago
Side-step? which part are u refering to?
wildreams 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Orthodox Christianity is true not Catholic
Nominaaa 3 years ago
Thanks for sharing this and allowing comments too~! xox
mcc11505 3 years ago
Evil ass Jezzy Fuck... Spreading theirs Lies and Deceit as Usual
Loooooong 3 years ago
HE'S WATCHING NIBIRU!!!
truthtrekker 3 years ago