This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← God was behind Big Bang, pope says

God was behind Big Bang, pope says - Comments

JumpinJackFlash's Avatar Comment 1 by JumpinJackFlash

Shame that particles can't sue for plagiarism.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:05:37 UTC | #579370

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 2 by Rawhard Dickins

Just an unsubstantiated assertion.

The infinite regression stands to live another day!

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:08:03 UTC | #579374

keithapm's Avatar Comment 3 by keithapm

Nope a gay unicorn named Ralph, a specialist in universal interior design, was "behind the big bang." Prove it ain't so Popey, before you start pushing your equally absurd idea.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:09:12 UTC | #579376

sbooder's Avatar Comment 4 by sbooder

I wonder why the Popes predecessors neglected to inform us that god created the Universe in the way that Science has now discovered, an oversight I take it.

Cracking work though, to complete it in only 6 days, he must have worked through the nights too.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:11:40 UTC | #579379

monkey uncle's Avatar Comment 5 by monkey uncle

"Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality."

Sounds like the Holy Farter needs to read Steven Hawking's The Grand Design. Professor Hawking does a pretty fair job explaining how the Universe could have bootstrapped itself into existence out of nothing.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:17:45 UTC | #579381

Denomyar's Avatar Comment 6 by Denomyar

Excellent. Who could complain about this alignment of religion with the rationalities of science? This type of expression should be fostered. We couldn't ask for a better person to smash religious fundamentalism and literal creationism than the Pope.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:17:57 UTC | #579382

chrisnicholl's Avatar Comment 7 by chrisnicholl

why can't they just sit back and not try to claim everything they have no understanding of:-O fairly pathetic!

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:19:12 UTC | #579383

monkey uncle's Avatar Comment 8 by monkey uncle

We couldn't ask for a better person to smash religious fundamentalism and literal creationism than the Pope.

No, most fundamentalists believe that Roman Catholicism is a perversion of true Christianity. They won't accept his word any more than they would accept Richard Dawkins' word.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:23:35 UTC | #579385

Neil5150's Avatar Comment 9 by Neil5150

Seems to me he's working real hard this year for the Richard Dawkins award.

"The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins."

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:25:26 UTC | #579386

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 10 by AtheistEgbert

The Pope is senile. The more he opens his mouth, the more converts he makes toward atheism.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:30:07 UTC | #579387

Nirmankaya's Avatar Comment 11 by Nirmankaya

In addition to Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design, read Brian Greene's The Fabric of The Cosmos. Both these book show ultimately that we live in a creation without a creator, or at least how it is epistemologically irresponsible to posit a creator for creation.
Saying God created everything is a cop-out, and simply could be interpretd as anything existing before the big bang. But what Hawking explains beautifully is that anyting before the Big Bang has had no consequence on the development of our universe (most likely multi-verse). The concept he uses is called a no-boudary condition, which I won't go into here. It necessarily follows then that even if God existed, It wouldn't be a creator, and I suppose certainly that It would be something that shouldn't be worshipped and prayed to. Just some food for thought.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:33:49 UTC | #579388

Flapjack's Avatar Comment 12 by Flapjack

Take it away Robin Ince...

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:35:01 UTC | #579389

HardNosedSkeptic's Avatar Comment 13 by HardNosedSkeptic

God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday.

When did he become an expert on cosmology?

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:48:47 UTC | #579390

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 14 by Schrodinger's Cat

The big bang was then followed by Catholic priests banging anything that moved.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:49:50 UTC | #579391

keithapm's Avatar Comment 15 by keithapm

VATICAN CITY — God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday.

Evidence for that can be seen in um... Benny's unwavering faith and his infallibility. 

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe,"...

Who are they?

Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

The bible says nothing about three kings.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St. Peter's Basilica on the feast day.

In other words, on absolutely no evidence, you have to interpret the universe to be an expression of how really clever your imaginary friend is... 

Proof God does not exist?

Nope. But not proof that he does either.

Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality."

Science is mind limiting!? Really Benny?  Too stupid for words.

He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.

Yes science doesn't know everything. But has religion anything to back up the answers it provides other than fairy tales, nonsense and wishful thinking?

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said.

In other words, you cannot allow yourself to draw any conclusions other than Benny's because that might just challenge your daft beliefs in unfounded nonsense.

Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed the Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.

Faith, the unwavering belief in a given proposition despite there being no evidence to support it and even if all the available evidence goes against it is anti-science by definition.

Galileo was rehabilitated...

It only took them 500 years to admit the mistake.

...and the Church now also accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

Nor can I... except that it's rather wasteful, haphazard method of doing it  that could work without him. Not to mention all that suffering and death. Oh yeah... I forgot he moves in mysterious ways.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism — the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible...

Good.

...and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.

When your creation story conflicts with reality, call it allegory and you get to keep it.

But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation.

It objects to anything that makes it's belief in it's imaginary friend look ridiculous. Why should anybody care?

It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

Oh, how very clever of them, figure this one out on their own? ... Actually, no they didn't did they?

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:51:10 UTC | #579392

Vaal's Avatar Comment 16 by Vaal

And your evidence for this is??? Oaf!

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:12:56 UTC | #579400

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 17 by Alan4discussion

.....

  • God was behind Big Bang, pope says
  • ..And must have been totally blown away (out of space and time?).

    Comment 13 by HardNosedSkeptic

    When did he become an expert on cosmology?

    Hey! Come on; - Infallibility!!

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:14:14 UTC | #579402

    gatotk4c4's Avatar Comment 18 by gatotk4c4

    Looking at RCC, they use the same strategy 'god-of-gaps' since Copernicus, shamelessly. RCC assumes 'embrace and conquer' accepting big-bang, as well as evolution, but on their own term. Even if this approach seemed thinkey (= looking as if thinking :D) compared to young-earth stupidity, on deeper level this approach is worse.

    If you accept big-bang (by the pope saying the above) then you have to accept many things in cosmology as truth, things like heisenberg uncertainties, quantum mechanics, the fundamental physical forces theories. All of these are based on things that are totally against the-jesus-theory of reality.

    At least the YECs are more consistent, crazy in a much simpler level. RCC's inconsistencies are much deeper, and therefore much more troublesome.

    Unless we accept the concept that RCC is a socio-politico-economic entity (read: memeplex) that support itself based on ignorance of the masses.

    Ahh..

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:27:21 UTC | #579406

    prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 19 by prettygoodformonkeys

    I was happy to see that the basic thrust of Hawking's latest book was that knowledge of the universe was beyond, and often contrary to, intuition - as well as our animal senses. Religion still runs on the dwindling fumes of ancient intuition.

    I suggest that if he wants to say something worth listening to about the universe, Popey-Pants should use mathematics.

    It's the only thing that's worked.

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:41:52 UTC | #579409

    ModernMan's Avatar Comment 20 by ModernMan

    Modernman to Caveman Jerry (Falwell, let's say)

    MM: Why does the apple fall from the tree?

    CJ: Because the great Bootooo in the sky makes it fall...

    MM: Hmm, actually, I've investigated the problem a bit and found out that masses behave as if they attracted each other. But I wonder why...

    CJ: Easy: because the great Bootoo in the sky makes masses attract each other...

    MM: Oh but wait! after further investigation I found that masses behave like that because they seem to curve space-time... But I wonder why...

    CJ: Easy: because (INTERRUPTED)

    MM: Ok, ok, I get it...

    At any point in the causal chain, it is always possible to invoke a supernatural cause. Science's current view is that there was a Big Bang, and it currently has no clear explanation as to how it came to be. But guess what: Caveman Jerry has an explanation.

    Primitive.

    /MMan

    PS: I've always wanted to create an animation about this...Even a website about Caveman Jerry' primitive ideas. Can anybody help?

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:50:41 UTC | #579414

    Rodger T's Avatar Comment 21 by Rodger T

    With a hat like that,how could he possibly not be telling us the truth? It`s bigger than his head.

    Nice online poll on that site.

    Hey, we can change the dogma to fit any possibility,its our book we wrote it and it is infallible. Next he will be telling us god is responsible for plate tectonics,fossils and the earth is older than 6000 years. Nothing like a few scientific facts to stuff your faith.

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:50:44 UTC | #579415

    mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 22 by mirandaceleste

    Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist

    Who argues this?

    The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism — the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible — and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.

    Hmm. I don't know about that. Granted, it's been a while, so things may have changed, but, from the late '80s through the early '90s, when I attended a Catholic grade school, I was taught young earth creationism. I started Catholic (Jesuit) high school in late 1993, and in my biology course that year, there was no mention of evolution other than to deride it. But then, in 1996, JP II made his waffle-y wishy-washy statement about evolution, and, as a result, in the zoology course I took in my final year of high school ('96-'97) we were allowed to watch two Attenborough videos, but that was it.

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:57:41 UTC | #579419

    colluvial's Avatar Comment 23 by colluvial

    Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality."

    The "point" that science has arrived at is capable of stretching our sense of vastness and majesty beyond its limits. Benedict, on the other hand, has invested all his intellectual capital in a silly little idea that involves sky fairies and funny hats. No wonder he's a bitter old man.

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:04:10 UTC | #579421

    God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 24 by God fearing Atheist

    Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist,

    Go on Ratz, name names. It wouldn't be Dr Straw Man would it?

    God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang

    Oh Ratz, such a brilliant scientific theory! Where is your paper being published? Do you think it will get you a Nobel? It bloody well should!

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:04:26 UTC | #579423

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 25 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 18 by gatotk4c4

    If you accept big-bang (by the pope saying the above) then you have to accept many things in cosmology as truth, things like heisenberg uncertainties, quantum mechanics, the fundamental physical forces theories.

    Yes, but only if you are bright enough to recognise this! Theist disconnect comes to mind!

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:08:32 UTC | #579424

    Der Papst's Avatar Comment 26 by Der Papst

    That Pope Guy - he’s some geezer. He reckons that a bloke called God did a bit of magic the conjured entire Universe into existence. Fuck me, that Popes a clever bastard; a mind reader and a fucking scientist. And here am I thinking he’s just dirty paedophile enabler. No wonder he’s not been caught.

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:09:07 UTC | #579425

    Philster61's Avatar Comment 27 by Philster61

    Spoken like a true Pope.....

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:16:50 UTC | #579430

    Vaal's Avatar Comment 28 by Vaal

    God of the Gaps and personal incredulity sandwich = God! Wow. How persuasive!

    Sad. Seems they still haven’t learnt from the Galileo fiasco! The same bread with different butter.

    sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

    See’s no reason? Thats it? What profound thought processes. What a sterling science paper that would make. See’s no reason for A, evidence for seeing no reason zilch, other than personal incredulity, blind faith and dogma. F- for that paper.

    Perhaps O infallible one, you would care to explain the mechanism of evolution bringing about our species through the supernatural? Why did it take so many hundreds of millions of years, couldn’t he just have bypassed the dinosaurs?

    Did he just get a bit bored of not being worshipped, or has he just got vainer and crankier throughout those aeons? Also, what did he have against Neanderthals? Not to mention how many Sun’s he had to get through to get the materials for an earth-like planet to exist, and the basic building blocks of life. He is one patient Supernatural bunny!

    Be very interesting to see the probability of our species arising should the evolutionary clock be rewound and started from scratch. Mind you, the probability of human beings re-emerging are considerably greater than the probability of your celestial dictator existing.

    Very poor effort!

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:20:50 UTC | #579433

    JuJu's Avatar Comment 29 by JuJu

    Like a lot of others here have alluded to. If you took the popes current understanding of how god accomplished everything and overlapped it on the actual bible, they wouldn't resemble one another at all.

    At what point do they give up and realize the game has been lost?

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:24:00 UTC | #579435

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 30 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 29 by JuJu

    At what point do they give up and realize the game has been lost?

    You must have seen theist trolls! When you reach check-mate, they argue about the rules and pretend you must have turned the table, as that is what they were saying all along. You just haven't the "correct" theist training to interpret it!

    Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:36:22 UTC | #579439