By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hollywood anti catholic bullshit needs to stop

ArchangelMadzz said:
epicurean said:

So if time didn't exist before the Big-Bang, then it would be correct to say the universe had a beginning? 

No, because we don't know. 

The universe could have existed forever and has been contracting and expanding to and from a singularity forever. We would likely never know because the big bang destroys any evidence we can detect of what was before by virtue of the event, all science knows so far is that it happened.

For all we know there could be multiple universes in space with a whole lot of emptyness in between and that light simply can't or have never reached us due to distance. The theory that there was absolutely nothing but a huge singularity that exploded and the galaxy will eventually implode again/shrink to a singularity or that there are multiple universes and ours is not the oldest are pretty much equally likely and unlikely. Hell the first one doesn't even rule out the last one.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network
WolfpackN64 said:
donathos said:

Really though, you've mentioned a couple of times, I think, that the Catholic Church was a force for good in the Middle Ages -- that things would have been worse otherwise -- and I'm interested in your thoughts about that.

The church acted in many ways as a mediator in many conflicts. Often banning weapons they thought cruel (usually that only delayed their use). The church kept a lot of records, including classical works in enviroments that were considered untouchable (abbeys), without which much knowledge would have been lost. Many advancements in measurement of time, philosphy and even mathematics were done by the clerus. In the cities, poor relief often only came through the church and in time of war, many people found safety in abbeys.

In the early colonial period, the church often acted to temper cruelty towards natives (something that is often overlooked). Even prompting Isabella of Span to give orders to the conquistadors to treat the natives with respect (they often didn't of course).

I won't say that the Church did no good during the Middle Ages (or before, or after). Of course they did. And in my opinion, the focus on charity and the elevation of women (if, in many respects, temporary) were genuine advancements attributable to Christianity. But on the other hand, Western Europe (especially) was brought extremely low during the Middle Ages, in a number of respects. Much of the cruelty of the age was done as much in the name of God as otherwise: the treatment of heretics; attacks and prohibitions against pagans and Jews and other minority religious groups; the Crusades (among other religious wars); the Inquisition; etc.

Many of the records that had to be preserved by the clergy (and thank goodness they were) was necessitated because the overall state of education was abysmal, and I think that's accountable in part due to Christian animus against ancient/traditional philosophy and debate (seeing as how such debate led to heresy, and etc.). The cultural focus had shifted from questioning and investigation to faith and obedience. That's not a good environment for scientific advancement. And while there were advancements in some areas at the time, it's hard not to believe that the rate of advancement was slowed, compared to the times before and after the Middle Ages.

And finally, the record of contact with native populations during the colonial period (though not, strictly speaking, during the Middle Ages) is nothing to be proud of, I don't think. Was Christianity a mitigating force against cruelty? Or did it inspire the conquistadors to do essentially as they pleased with the "heathen" natives, believing God to be on their side? I'm sure both were true, in different scenarios, but overall I don't think atheist conquistadors would have been worse...



epicurean said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

It's controlled, nature has to be controlled it would fall apart and none of us would exist. It's controlled by the laws of physics and quantum mechanics. 

If you want to believe god put these in place then sure. I'm just wondering how that links to him putting jesus on a rock of monkeys and sacrificing himself because adam and eve did bad things. Seems a little trivial for such a being.

That's a different arguement. :)

Again, I said that apart from any specific religion.

Did physics exist before the big bang?

If you buy into M-Theory then yes. Our big bang might not even be that special. There could be a big bang for just about every universe out there. 

 

It is not a simple topic to explain well to laymen but imo the big bang makes way more sense than a creator.



Qwark said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

No, because we don't know. 

The universe could have existed forever and has been contracting and expanding to and from a singularity forever. We would likely never know because the big bang destroys any evidence we can detect of what was before by virtue of the event, all science knows so far is that it happened.

For all we know there could be multiple universes in space with a whole lot of emptyness in between and that light simply can't or have never reached us due to distance. The theory that there was absolutely nothing but a huge singularity that exploded and the galaxy will eventually implode again/shrink to a singularity or that there are multiple universes and ours is not the oldest are pretty much equally likely and unlikely. Hell the first one doesn't even rule out the last one.

But by that definition you could define that as our universe though?

I assumed the multiverse theory was that different universes exist in different dimensions and run on different frequencies etc. A large gap would just be called a void? 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

OneTime said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

No, because we don't know. 

The universe could have existed forever and has been contracting and expanding to and from a singularity forever. We would likely never know because the big bang destroys any evidence we can detect of what was before by virtue of the event, all science knows so far is that it happened.

 

Good correction.  :).  There are a number of theories.  Personally I prefer the “this is the only Big Bang”, but I am in noooooooooo way qualified to say that :)

I prefer the idea that the universe has always existed and has been expanding and contracting forever. The idea that once the universe ends that's it forever for all eternity nothingness, unsettles me. Not for any scientific reason do I prefer the other it's just because it makes me feel better ahaha.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network

And to burst everyone's bubble: You're all completely clueless on this! My father (mathematician) has been cited by physicists working on the subject, but STILL would be fully incapable of getting whatsoever from any of their papers.

Modern natural science is so overspecialized that but a handful (okay, MAYBE a few hundred, sometimes) of individuals could ever hope to form an opinion of any value on any current topic of debate.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

epicurean said:
Alara317 said:
When the Catholic church is squeaky clean, then and only then may it be free of criticism.

That's fair. 

I don't think any organization is squeaky clean, though. (I'm also not Catholic).

Exactly. Nothing in this world should be free of criticism and immune to judgement. 



palou said:
And to burst everyone's bubble: You're all completely clueless on this! My father (mathematician) has been cited by physicists working on the subject, but STILL would be fully incapable of getting whatsoever from any of their papers.

Modern natural science is so overspecialized that but a handful (okay, MAYBE a few hundred, sometimes) of individuals could ever hope to form an opinion of any value on any current topic of debate.

And let us know when your uncle from Nintendo leaks more information about the next Smash Brothers. 



Alara317 said:
palou said:
And to burst everyone's bubble: You're all completely clueless on this! My father (mathematician) has been cited by physicists working on the subject, but STILL would be fully incapable of getting whatsoever from any of their papers.

Modern natural science is so overspecialized that but a handful (okay, MAYBE a few hundred, sometimes) of individuals could ever hope to form an opinion of any value on any current topic of debate.

And let us know when your uncle from Nintendo leaks more information about the next Smash Brothers. 

I'll give you a call, haha!

 

But seriously, it *is* a bit annoying to hear people with no qualification whatsoever pretend to know all the flaws of theories conceived upon years and years of dedicated work from all the most knowledgeable individuals on a subject. Yes, there is stuff that's debatable, no, you have nothing of value to contribute to that debate.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

ArchangelMadzz said:
Qwark said:

For all we know there could be multiple universes in space with a whole lot of emptyness in between and that light simply can't or have never reached us due to distance. The theory that there was absolutely nothing but a huge singularity that exploded and the galaxy will eventually implode again/shrink to a singularity or that there are multiple universes and ours is not the oldest are pretty much equally likely and unlikely. Hell the first one doesn't even rule out the last one.

But by that definition you could define that as our universe though?

I assumed the multiverse theory was that different universes exist in different dimensions and run on different frequencies etc. A large gap would just be called a void? 

The other universe would still be in the same space as ours. According to the string theory there are 10 dimensions, but they are not hidden just really small  and not observable yet and make things like quantum energy and relativity possible. I am personally not a fan of the different universes within different dimensions, with different frequencies etc. But I am not a fan of the infinite alternate universes theory either.

I am not claiming there is a different or better said another universe in the same space we live in, but I wouldn't rule it out either.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar