We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Quote:"the Seeming Big Bang"

This is where I'd normally interject the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, but theBorg doesn't acknowledge the validity of Catholicism as a Christian religion. The "True Church" is apparently the splintered nationalistic Orthodox churches who group by ethnic identity.

Edit: Well darn, I get nasty when my acid reflux is causing a lot of pain.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shai Hulud's post
19-10-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Mama, oooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
19-10-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(19-10-2016 01:56 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  
Quote:"the Seeming Big Bang"

This is where I'd normally interject the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, but theBorg doesn't acknowledge the validity of Catholicism as a Christian religion. The "True Church" is apparently the splintered nationalistic Orthodox churches who group by ethnic identity.

Edit: Well darn, I get nasty when my acid reflux is causing a lot of pain.

Now you leave that damned, dirty blasphemer Lemaître out of this!

"Cosmic egg", indeed. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
19-10-2016, 08:15 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Back Streets back all right!

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Y'know, I went and read about the Hubble vs. Lemaître timing, because I was appalled I credited it to Hubble instead of Lemaître... but found that while Lemaître published in 1927, he did it in an obscure Belgian journal hardly read outside the country, not being translated into English mainstream journals until 1931, and so Hubble's similar work "scooped" him in the English-speaking world, leaving a false impression.

But what I found most interesting in my read was that Einstein and a few others objected strongly to Lemaître's work, and that it had to overcome a huge degree of skepticism in order to become accepted. It wasn't fully demonstrated until the 60s, when the cosmic background radiation provided better data, and of course recently confirmed by the WMAP satellite's measurements of same.

I bring this up because it's rather amusing, given this long road to acceptance against every test and objection that could be mounted, how casually someone like Borgo here could now dismiss it because it seems to conflict with his presuppositions about the scriptures and their Bronze Age depiction of the creation of the universe.

Ironically, Lemaître was furious when the Pope first tried to do what so many Christians now like to do, in citing the BB as proof of Creation:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion, though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.

(Bold emphasis my own. Internal citations omitted.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-10-2016, 08:48 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(19-10-2016 08:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  .............
I bring this up because it's rather amusing, given this long road to acceptance against every test and objection that could be mounted, how casually someone like Borgo here could now dismiss it because it seems to conflict with his presuppositions about the scriptures and their Bronze Age depiction of the creation of the universe.
...........

the humanist Bertrand Russell originally proposed The Five Minute Hypothesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(19-10-2016 08:48 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 08:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  .............
I bring this up because it's rather amusing, given this long road to acceptance against every test and objection that could be mounted, how casually someone like Borgo here could now dismiss it because it seems to conflict with his presuppositions about the scriptures and their Bronze Age depiction of the creation of the universe.
...........

the humanist Bertrand Russell originally proposed The Five Minute Hypothesis.

Oh, for fuck's sake. It is a philosophical exercise, not science.
You seem utterly unable to understand context. Your thinking is simplistic.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(19-10-2016 08:48 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 08:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  .............
I bring this up because it's rather amusing, given this long road to acceptance against every test and objection that could be mounted, how casually someone like Borgo here could now dismiss it because it seems to conflict with his presuppositions about the scriptures and their Bronze Age depiction of the creation of the universe.
...........

the humanist Bertrand Russell originally proposed The Five Minute Hypothesis.

That's nice. You got a point somewhere?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(19-10-2016 08:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 01:56 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  This is where I'd normally interject the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, but theBorg doesn't acknowledge the validity of Catholicism as a Christian religion. The "True Church" is apparently the splintered nationalistic Orthodox churches who group by ethnic identity.

Edit: Well darn, I get nasty when my acid reflux is causing a lot of pain.

Now you leave that damned, dirty blasphemer Lemaître out of this!

"Cosmic egg", indeed. Tongue
Sure sure Tongue

Also facepalming at the Bertrand Russell thought experiment being brought up so far out of context.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Shai Hulud's post
19-10-2016, 11:29 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(19-10-2016 09:17 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  
(19-10-2016 08:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Now you leave that damned, dirty blasphemer Lemaître out of this!

"Cosmic egg", indeed. Tongue
Sure sure Tongue

Also facepalming at the Bertrand Russell thought experiment being brought up so far out of context.

*sigh* Yeah, I don't think he grasps that Russell didn't "propose" the Five Minute Hypothesis, but was using it ironically to demonstrate the silliness we can reach if we start making up ideas that don't comport with visible reality, and fail to take the premise as a given that what we see is really what it appears to be.

I just watched, last night, a video debate between Matt Dillahunty and some presuppositionalist who kept hammering Matt with a one-time admission he made that yes, we might all just be brains in a vat. I mean, literally, the guy brought it up like fifteen times, as if it proved Matt (and atheism) was ridiculous, and no matter how many times Dillahunty tried to show him that it is only something we (including all philosophers) admit might be true before proceeding on to the "but we're going to have to operate as if this reality is reality" part, he just kept hammering away at it.

Dense.

I suspect we're dealing with the same sort of brain, here. Sadly, this one's not in a vat. Undecided

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: