This is big : the pope accepts big bang

Nomad

ThePrettyDamned said:

One last thought: you wouldn't expect to be able to teach a dog quantum mechanics. Humans will have an intellectual limit - is it not feasible that we simply cannot understand, but some future race does have the further capacity to do so? Therefore, at some point, future intellectual endeavour will cease to be worthwhile and we'll be little more than worker drones.

Until there is a way of acquiring or building knowledge that doesn't depend on what we can experience within the universe, then it seems unlikely (to say the least) that what's going on outside the universe can be worked out.

thecolourbox

Can't believe its taken so long for them to imply the old testament written all those years ago might actually be better not taken completely literally? Maybe those that detract from it based on taking that part of it word for word might also catch up in another 150 years

The way i see it, when people don't understand how to explain stuff they come up with stories to get it across that way

Ive always thought my understanding of the big bang was quite applicable to the stages described in the creation story (if not the literal timeframes), remarkably so considering when it was written and how little they could have known for sure?

Bucket

I don't mind this Pope, he seems alright. He actually seems to hold some sensible viewpoints, which is rare for these fuckers

Axe_meister

Let's hope other religious leaders take note,

VimFuego

I've never had an issue with the idea of the almighty creating the whole of the universe and everything in it, in my daily life I don't pay much mind to how the universe works, just so long as it does. What really irks me is that god also created sin. Now, I don't have much of an issue with sin per se, it's the things he decided to put in there. Sex, drugs, loud music, sloth. All the fun things. Why couldn't he have put marzipan in there? I'd be quite happy for marzipan to be a sin. I could avoid that sin all my life and gone to heaven when I pop. Or hard work. Why can't hard work be a sin? I'm sure the world would be a far better place if there was a bit less hard work around. Stupid god.

Axe_meister

So if God created the big bang, who created god? Of course humans did, therefore we are gods.

fretmeister

Axe_meister;395667" said:

Let's hope other religious leaders take note,

Read the comments under the story.

Plenty of his flock are ashamed.

Twats.

hungrymark

Bucket;395588" said:

I don't mind this Pope, he seems alright. He actually seems to hold some sensible viewpoints, which is rare for these fuckers

What an aggressive way to be conciliatory.

Bucket

hungrymark said:

Bucket;395588" said:

I don't mind this Pope, he seems alright. He actually seems to hold some sensible viewpoints, which is rare for these fuckers

What an aggressive way to be conciliatory.

Well let's be honest, most of the rest of the high-ups in the Catholic church are stuck in the middle ages and that makes it difficult for me to find any merit in anything they say. The Pope seems different - the Catholic church sorely needs someone like him in a position of influence, with some progressive (ish) viewpoints that might help to bring the church into line with what most normal people think.

Bucket

Here's an update on the Pope's position by the way:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/im-making-it-up-as-i-go-along-says-pope-2014102992215

PolarityMan

Bucket said:

Here's an update on the Pope's position by the way:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/im-making-it-up-as-i-go-along-says-pope-2014102992215

Dammit now I know nothing about his velocity.

Phil_aka_Pip

Bucket said:

hungrymark said:

Bucket;395588" said:

I don't mind this Pope, he seems alright. He actually seems to hold some sensible viewpoints, which is rare for these fuckers

What an aggressive way to be conciliatory.

Well let's be honest, most of the rest of the high-ups in the Catholic church are stuck in the middle ages and that makes it difficult for me to find any merit in anything they say. The Pope seems different - the Catholic church sorely needs someone like him in a position of influence, with some progressive (ish) viewpoints that might help to bring the church into line with what most normal people think.

I think that's the wrong way round, @Bucket. Not that I expect you (or anyone else) to agree with the Pope, but if there is such a thing as absolute truth, which religious organisations usually say that there is, then it's a bit silly to expect them to fall into line with what the rest of society outside that organisation thinks - which is usually relative to the conditions under which they live. If they don't stand up for what they believe there is little point in their existence. I'm not saying you should subscribe to it, just saying that absolutist religions shouldn't have to bend their teaching to fit what those outside the religion want. I have vague recollections of people saying they became attracted to Islam because it speaks with a voice of authority and not the wet all-things-to-all-men approach of the Church of England.

Bucket

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I have vague recollections of people saying they became attracted to Islam because it speaks with a voice of authority and not the wet all-things-to-all-men approach of the Church of England. 

I vaguely understand that, but personally I'd rather be left to decide how to live my life on my own terms (well, at least within the law) instead of being told what I can and can't do. However, if you do like being told what to do with your life then I reckon it's as well that the people telling you what to do are at least sane, which is why I welcome this news.

Phil_aka_Pip

Some people want that. I accept that you don't. For myself, I prefer some boundaries (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc), some principles (love thy neighbour as thyself), and the freedom to decide for myself how consistent any proposed course of action or attitude would be with a given principle. I prefer "what is not expressly forbidden is permissible", to "all is forbidden except what is expressly permitted".

Cirrus

PolarityMan;395884" said:

Dammit now I know nothing about his velocity.

Chortle!

For me the big question is self awareness. Why can't we understand it, or even why it arises in the first place? Is it just an illusion? If not, does it have any relationship whatsoever to the physical universe in a way we can detect or measure? Is it just a natural byproduct of a thing in the universe interacting with other things?

I tend to the conclusion that the universe as we understand and experience it - this huge space filled with stars and matter and energy, marshaled into a linear order by time - is just a hugely flawed but best estimate of what's really going on. It's the best way our brains have of understanding a universe with only a few very limited senses. Consciousness is everything, but what is consciousness without a body? Without a brain to perform calculations, detect sensory information, store memories and the experiences and physical limitations that give us our personalities and the sum of our lives? It's nothing. An incredible nothing that we label self awareness. It's a thing that has nothing to do with matter or energy, it's something we can neither affect or detect with any tool we could possibly wield. Yet it's the most important thing there could ever be. That's how limited our understanding of existence is.

imalone

thecolourbox said:

Can't believe its taken so long for them to imply the old testament written all those years ago might actually be better not taken completely literally? Maybe those that detract from it based on taking that part of it word for word might also catch up in another 150 years

The way i see it, when people don't understand how to explain stuff they come up with stories to get it across that way

Ive always thought my understanding of the big bang was quite applicable to the stages described in the creation story (if not the literal timeframes), remarkably so considering when it was written and how little they could have known for sure?

Treatment of Galileo aside, the RC church has typically been willing to accept scientific theories on the cosmos and don't go much in for literal interpretations of large chunks of the bible. Literal creationism is more a feature of some protestant sects.

Nomad said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

One last thought: you wouldn't expect to be able to teach a dog quantum mechanics. Humans will have an intellectual limit - is it not feasible that we simply cannot understand, but some future race does have the further capacity to do so? Therefore, at some point, future intellectual endeavour will cease to be worthwhile and we'll be little more than worker drones.

Until there is a way of acquiring or building knowledge that doesn't depend on what we can experience within the universe, then it seems unlikely (to say the least) that what's going on outside the universe can be worked out.

Things outside the universe that can have no effect on it may as well not exist (Occam's razor), things outside the universe that can have an effect on it aren't really outside the universe (hence all these string and supergravity theories about extra dimensions which are only observable under certain conditions).

frankus

the thing with self-determination and good personal boundaries is they're a really recent occurence for most of us, some in the last ten years.

Even somewhere like Russia who put the first man into space are culturally dependent on powerful rulers who dominate. The reason for this is simple - Russia had it's first taste of freedom about a century ago and it was gone in a blink, they've never known a successful government that didn't involve opression.. we've been slowly crawling there since the civil war.

It's the bullying arrogance of an immature older sibling, for the west to condemn others for that which it's only recently stopped doing itself. Is it right that we see the damage religion causes and demand that everyone not rely on religion? We only know that through experience, and we want to shame other countries from changing through experience and submitting to prescriptive doctrine.

It's hypocritical and it won't work, because, the countries we're shaming are the countries we colonised, bombed or impoverished. It's grand feeling high and mighty but it's that very attitude that is making it easier for injustices and fear to thrive in "less developed" countries.

It's very easy for the top 5% of the world's population to sip their starbucks, google facts and treat others like provincials

dafuzz

ThePrettyDamned said:

It will expand until it can expand no more, then "snap back", compressing our universe into an infinitely small state, which then rebounds as another big bang occurs. 

I've always believed this to be likely. I also assume that when the universe contracts, time will run backwards. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference due to the way our brains process information, so might well be moving backwards now. This might have happened an infinite number of times already, with events always playing out the same way, and us just trains running back and forth on our tracks, and might continue to happen for infinity.

frankus

I used to like the Douglas Adams / Carl Sagan / Vedic Scriptures idea that the universe replaces a simpler universe with different laws of physics as that neatly dodges the idea that singularities like the centre of a black hole and the start of the big bang might possibly be simple but Einsteins maths goes wobbly at those critical points... and needs to be rewritten.

carlos

Big Bang means no Adam and Eve (sorry for the unintended pun there). But if no Adam and Eve then where does Original Sin come from? Because if no Original Sin what's the point of life in this planet as we don't need to redeem ourselves?