New York Post : "Polish" Death Camps and more

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

Exactly the kind of reply I would expect from you, Harry. Nonsensical
and completely irrelevant to what I have written. You should really
start your own forum :)

I was going to talk about multi-verses and fractals and time/space but I see there is a much more pressing matter.
That is not common sence, you are throwing logic completely out the window.
Why are you so so so willing to believe that your God has always existed but hydrogen (for a good example) could only be created?.

You did put a smile face, which right now could mean anything :)

SeanBM


I must have misinterpreted these words, i thought you thought you were showing me something.


Great comedian, I know the part but not that well.

Why not - I'm only a simple electronics engineer but we had a good course
on modern physics at the university and it is an interesting subject.


?

I believe God to have always been there and not created. I would like you
to notice the word "believe". We are talking about faith here not knowledge.

Don't tell me that such an intelligent fellow as yourself doesn't understand
the difference between faith and knowledge.


Well, I admit that apart from stating my belief, the way I phrased it and the context
I put it into was also a little wind-up attempt, sorry :)


Oh, sorry - I didn't see you edited it. Why? Well, it simply makes more sense to me.
I do not claim to have some kind of scientific proof of that, but it seems plausible
to me.

~13.7


Yes, and no. Since it's expanding the limits are expanding too.
By the time you utter (or even think) about the size of the universe it will have already expanded beyond the size you were aware of.


Logically, and considering the laws of the universe as we know them something caused the universe to come to being. That something is not a part of science since science deals only with everything contained within time-space. Time-space did not exists before the Big Bang+Planck. Whatever that reason it suddenly appeared was, that reason wasn't material in the scientific sense. You call it god, I dunno what to call it. I simply don't know. The brane theory attempts to put science into that time before big bang but at this point it's a little over my head.

Fair enough.

You've got it all wrong...the norse mythology describes it quite clearly:


And so on...and THAT is the one and only truth!!!

And so this is the only way this conversation could go.

I think "blind faith" and/or belief should be questioned but that is another conversation and will only lead right back to your last quote, so that's it, I think.


I have tried to read quite a bit about these and more theories, the 11 dimensions, time itself is a difficult enough concept for me, a good book is Wrinkles in Time and the scientific observations that time is different at the top of a mountain and in the earth's crust and it even depends on what speed you are travelling, well it is a mine field but I like wrecking my head some times.

Another good book is "Superstrings and the search for theory of everything" by F. David
Peat and Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace". Sometimes it is headwrecking indeed, but also quite
interesting.

The two scenarios point to the same the same. A point on top of the mountain travels at a different speed than a point in the center of the planet.

I didn't read the book you mention. Sounds interesting so I ordered it for the Winter hibernation time.

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is better.

You're on ignore from now on, retard. This is my last reply to your post.

Is this a sequel to the Tanakh your people hold so dear?

My people do not hold the Tanakh in the slightest regard. It's just another fairy tale like all the rest of them.

For example a concept that God doesn't exist? :)


This is wrong and illogical interpretation. Who are you that you think that you could strip anybody of his free will if you would want? This is impossible, so don't pretend otherwise. Your children will chose their own way later anyway. This is up to you to help them to obtain knowledge.

A person who call itself Catholic follow Catholic teaching and not making up personal interpretation of the Bible. Christianity is about evangelizing, if you discovered truth as you believe, this is your obligation to share it with others.

Would you also wait till your children discover truth on their own about other less important matters? Or perhaps you will try to tell them what you have learned? Most parents chose the second option and this is the only reasonable solution that used to push humankind forward.

The entire Catholic religion IS a set of personal interpretations of the Bible.

The bible is already written by fallible humans...

Of course, and it is exactly what I'm going to do. I will not, however, force
them to do anything and I will respect any choice that they will make.
If they choose to be Catholics - I'll be very happy, if not - I will respect
their choice. That is exactly what I have written in my post so I don't
see what you're getting at.


When did I make up a personal interpretation of the Bible???


Again - what are you talking about? I never said that I will not tell them what
I have learned. Where did you get this from? All I said is that I will not FORCE
my children to do anything.

Through the centuries highly competent people regarding this subject reached some consensus. In our church it is job of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to oversees Catholic doctrine. Individual initiatives this is Protestant thing.

Torq, apparently I misunderstood your point but I have a feeling that I'm not the only one who interpreted your post in such way. Naturally this is hard to imagine that you could force anybody to be Christian, so this is pretty obvious and not worth of discussion in my opinion.

Competent or not they had personal views and decided to agree on some of them. Others, with other personal views, did not so we have Protestants, Muslims and such.


Not Catholic?
Isn't the Pope and individual? He has the power (and won't refrain from using it) to define his personal interpretation of the bible.

I agree and I accept their interpretation because I consider them to be highly competent representatives of 'old successful brand'.


You are mistaken if you think that Pope make his decision without any consultations. Even Pope cannot change everything according to his wishes.

Times change, new facts come to the surface and new highly competent people express their opinions.


Not everything for sure, but some dogmas, important to religious people he can certainly impose on the flock.

The Pope may consult others but in the end it is his personal interpretation that makes him pick and choose from among all the other personal interpretations.

For example? Who would you chose to replace Vatican?


Yes but decision of highly competent person (a Pope) after consultation with other highly competent people is worth of trust. You must have noticed that I'm an elitist and I find such order natural. I reject individual initiatives of average ignorants and you cannot deny that 'Germanic' protestantism often turned to be a complete joke because of such people and their interpretations.

Who says I would like to replace the Vatican?


They are as worthy of trust as those:
Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Vitaly Ginzburg, Frédéric Joliot-Curie or Albert Einstein, to name just a few.


I won't even try to deny that. RC Church has had its share of idiotic interpretations, laws and rules.

And most of them know that it is the wrong thing to do, as well.


A compilation of texts commonly referred to as The Bible. They contain the Word of God.


On another otherwise-unrelated not, suppose that the chance of a Supreme Being existing is so small as to be next to zero, or 1/infinity. Also assuming that such a Supreme Being has ultimate power, therefore able to exist in all universes, we move on to the concept of having infinite universes in the multiverse - quantum foam and all that. Therefore the probability of the existence of a Supreme Being is 1. Ta-dah!

More for fun than as a serious argument.


Incorrect. Google "Define:estimate"


List, please, number of times the Pope has officially spoken ex cathedra. Otherwise, we'll all know that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Why should I?
I prefer actual language dictionaries.


Doesn't matter how many times. The fact is he can and he has. Once is good enough.


Speaking of which, and reversing the table, as per Pius XII the Pope doesn't have to speak ex cathedra for his words to have significant impact on future teachings of the Catholic dogma.

It would be good if you paid greater attention to detail and refrain from assuming I said things I didn't.

Any of which will tell you that the word 'estimate' probably does not mean what you think it does.


You'd think it would be significant, if one is to insinuate that a Pope exercises no restraint in his use of ex cathedra.


To not recognize any such reversal,


If Munificentissimus Deus is the item to which you are referring, you do know that this is, in fact, considered to be an exercise of ex cathedra?

Do you always conclude what people think before checking facts?
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estimate


Insinuation is a tricky word, and yet again you just assumed I thought or meant that.
I neither stated nor insinuated the Pope exercises no restraints in anything.


Yes, I do know this for a fact.
7 declarations are considered ex cathedra:

- Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ;
- Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
- Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning as heretical five propositions of Jansen;
- Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning as heretical seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia;
- Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception; and
- Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

While the list may be incomplete since the Vatican does not tell us everything that happens behind closed doors. There is little dispute in regards to the last two on the list above.

Only if they tell me. In your case, you said that Hoyle would need to know "every single last bit of tiniest detail of life and the universe, the knowledge that is attributed only to that god is alleged to have.", and the same level of exact detail on Boeing 707's, to make his approximation. Which was incorrect.


You said that the Pope "won't refrain" from using ex cathedra. Since the number of times this has happened is a fraction of the number of Popes in history, 1/38 to be specific, and a Pope could choose to do this at any time he wishes, it is an obvious conclusion that the Pope will refrain from using it quite often. Almost constantly, in fact.


So what did you mean by, "as per Pius XII the Pope doesn't have to speak ex cathedra for his words to have significant impact on future teachings of the Catholic dogma"? Please be clear.

You made yet another assumption.
How did you figure I meant "approximation" instead of "conclusion"?
How about I estimate that the planet Earth weights 150 tonnes? It is an estimate. Close enough?

Now compare the complexity and what's involved with the estimate comparing the complexity of a plane to the complexity of the universe (of which a plane is a part).

Also look into the plane. It has a purpose and hence it is created to meet that purpose. IMO the universe, or anything in it has no purpose. It just is as of now.


You have asked whether the Pope used ex cathedra. Yes.
You're poking but no holes yet.


I am not Pius XII. I can only quote him for you:

But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.

source