Computer Science Canada

Pope John Paul II did NOT believe in God.
Author:  Martin [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Pope John Paul II did NOT believe in God.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13340672/

I can't think of any other reason for him to say this.
Author:  Dan [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's cleary double think. The vadican blives in god, yet at the same time they know they should discorage things that could disprove god. 1984 all the way Wink

Any how this makes me whont to play one of thos MC Hawking songs Razz

Honstly i realy admire hawking for his efforts dispite his disbality, and how he encorges others with physical disabilities to "not to give up on their ambitions."

Tho as much as i adimre him and his work i do not think it will find the awsers to "why are we here" as much as it will the how and the where questions.


P.S. why am i waring a dress?
Author:  Martin [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
It seems this quote was somewhat out of context. Here is a better version:

http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%202/060616_Hawking.htm
John Paul II wrote:
Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question"¦.' The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, 'We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma.'


Still kind of suspect, but not as much so.
Author:  Clayton [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
what do you mean Pope John Paul II didnt believe in God??? all this article suggests is that he does... he even says "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." I mean, you cant really say that he didnt believe in God...
Author:  Dan [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:
It seems this quote was somewhat out of context. Here is a better version:

.....

Still kind of suspect, but not as much so.


Althougth i blive that he dose blive in god in some level, i do not blive that qoute is vaild. here is why:

1. the 1st link you gave made it sound that this was toald to hawking in private.

2. the sorce of that qoute is catholicleague.org

3. i have no dougth that this qoute was side but i do dougth that it was the one hawking was refuring to.


I could be worng tho, i just do not like basied news sorces.

MSNBC > catholicleague
Author:  Martin [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
SuperFreak82 wrote:
what do you mean Pope John Paul II didnt believe in God??? all this article suggests is that he does... he even says "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." I mean, you cant really say that he didnt believe in God...


Suppose that you found the solution to a really difficult math question, and, after checking it over and over, you were 100% certain that you were correct. Would you: a) Publish your findings to allow the whole world to see, and give them the chance to prove or disprove your work or b) Tell people that you're right, but not let them check your proof?

If the Pope truly believed in God, why would he be afraid of people exploring the origins of the universe?
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin, please don't post misleading topic titles, thanks. You, or the whole world, believing a fact doesn't make it true.
Author:  Martin [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
[Gandalf] wrote:
Martin, please don't post misleading topic titles, thanks. You, or the whole world, believing a fact doesn't make it true.


Why would he tell scientists not to research something if he was absolutely convinced of what they would find? I think that the title of this post is about as accurate as it can get.
Author:  Clayton [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ah, but Martin, what says that he was scared of people looking into the origins of the world, he basically said "why waste your time when God has created the world", i can see where your coming from, but you havent convinced me about it
Author:  Martin [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
SuperFreak82 wrote:
Ah, but Martin, what says that he was scared of people looking into the origins of the world, he basically said "why waste your time when God has created the world", i can see where your coming from, but you havent convinced me about it


Don't you think that it would be a huge reaffirmation of faith if Stephen Hawking found God (as the Pope should expect)? Having an understanding of why and how will win far more followers than a vague 'God dunnit'.

If I showed you a math formula and said that the answer was 6, people might believe it was 6. If someone else came along and said 'No, it's 7!' they might believe that person instead, even if neither of us offered any explanation as to how or why we got that answer. If a third person came and explained the formula in detail to everyone, the majority of people would believe that person (and would be better off for it too).
Author:  Mazer [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:
[Gandalf] wrote:
Martin, please don't post misleading topic titles, thanks. You, or the whole world, believing a fact doesn't make it true.


Why would he tell scientists not to research something if he was absolutely convinced of what they would find?

Evidence that he is indeed Emperor Palpatine? Shit, I wouldn't want people to find that either.

But I don't see how it means anything. The man believes that the beginning of everything isn't for man to know. I don't see how scientists are going to look back and say "Oh, hey! There's no God after all!"
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:
I think that the title of this post is about as accurate as it can get.

Fine. I'll make it more accurate, and by just a minor modification of words: "Maybe Pope John Paul II did not believe in God." You can't possibly be certain of the fact.
Author:  Clayton [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
@ Martin: That may be, but what if it was something about religion in itself? What if he didnt want people looking into the Earth's past because of his religion and his strong belief in God, remember, he is supposedly so religious, that he needs no further proof of God's existence, as it is supposed to be to all people involved in religion.

That being said, he would say there is no point in looking into the creation of Earth, because his belief in the existence of God is so unshakably strong. Why would he need to know the "scientific" explanation of how the earth formed? He knows, from his faith, that God is the ultimate creator, and that there is no other explanation of how the world got here.

Now FYI, I'm a strong believer in the big bang theory, that is my belief, I have seen strong evidence about it and I tend to believe it, however, in this case i feel that Pope John II had a reason for saying what he said, and I am taking my past knowledge of religion and applying it here. If anyone else has anything to say : Bring it on Very Happy
Author:  Martin [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Doing that would mean that people would have to add 'maybe' to the beginning of almost every sentence they posted.

Of course it's just an opinion. You can't be certain of anything.
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Simply, you write it as a fact when it clearly is not. There is a difference between something you, and others, are very sure about and something which you speculate.
Author:  Clayton [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
a good example of a "non-misleading title" could be like "Gravity pulls down, not up", you see? its really quite simple....
Author:  Dan [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sigh, the title is fine. It is an option and summeries his post perfictly. Due to the natutre of this forum, being offtopic, and all most all posts are options in it; calling the post "pope John Paul II did not believe in God" and then writing a post about why you think "pope John Paul II did not believe in God" is very aproivite. I do not see peoleop adding "the holy maybe bible" or "the maybe origin of species" to book titles.

Any how as i was saying it is claery double think, much like how some one can say they blive everything in the bibble to be fact when the bibble conflicts it's self. John Paul II blives in god for shure but at the same time he has to protect the ingetory of his relgion and draw falowers to it. If sinceces expains the unvierues from starting to posiable end then wethere a god exists or not this is not going to look good for the vadican. This dose impeny dougth in the existce of god but at the same time it requires an aboulste bilfe in him to be doing it to start with.

Also there is no way he ment don't bother looking there we all ready know it is god becues as martin side some one as perstiges as hawking proving the existce of god whould be a masive break threw for the vadican and whould shurely lead to them geting the power they once had back.

I think this goses along the clasic lines of relgion vs sinceince. If the vadican had there way i am shure that all sinctifck study of anything that could disprove or thourth doubth in to ther claim to power whould be outlawed. Affter all this is all about power at the orgainsized relgion stage. If your relgion is proven to be ture you are entightled to rightfull rule but if it where to be proven wrong you whould be redoced to nothing more then a gorup of clutists with ilogical ideas.

Now befor the flames come in the above was about orgainsed relgion NOT about perosnal relgion. This means my coments where not ment to be about the crediabity of the relgion in question but the orgnastional part of it witch is NOT the relgion but an orgainstion. Saying that the vadican is wrong is not the same as saying the relgion is wrong. Much like saying the u.s. goverment is wrong is not saying every person in the u.s. is wrong.
Author:  Andy [ Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
i do not know where you got the idea that John Paul II didnt believe in God. All he's saying is that no matter which approach you take to find out about the creation of the universe, there will always be unanswered questions since everything had to come from something. and he proceded to humans could never get all the answers from science, and counting on such a result is a dumb thing to do.

no where do i see him claiming that he does not believe in God.
Author:  Martin [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 
The quote from the original article was: "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." and why has already been explained in depth.
Author:  Andy [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:51 am ]
Post subject: 
there is a difference in being afraid of people studying the origins of the universe, and telling them they're wasting their time once the study passes a certain point...
Author:  Martin [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 
This coming from the same organization that killed people who said that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. The Church doesn't exactly have a good track record on being right when it comes to science.

This can only be explained by a fear of science. If a top mathematician told the math world not to study a certain set of problems because it's pointless (at the same time offering no explanation as to why), would that be a reason to stop?
Author:  Cervantes [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Kudos, Martin, for making that logic trail. I don't think I would have thought of it. But it makes perfect sense.

Andy wrote:

there will always be unanswered questions since everything had to come from something

Does it? Science is about raising questions, and then trying to answer them. Does everything have to come from something? If so, how do you know? If not, how do you know?

SuperFreak82 wrote:

Ah, but Martin, what says that he was scared of people looking into the origins of the world, he basically said "why waste your time when God has created the world", i can see where your coming from, but you havent convinced me about it

He's basically trying to impose a restriction on scientists, taking away their free-will to study what they wish. Taking away free will... seems like a playing-it-safe response to a potentially threatening situation.
Author:  Martin [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:50 am ]
Post subject: 
I think the question that you have to ask yourself Andy is the following: Which do you want more - the truth, or for your perception of God to exist? I'm not saying that they would necissarily be mutually exclusive, but if you had to choose between them - which would you go for? They can't be afraid of this truth. If God exists in the way that they believe Him to, He is going to be there when we look in the right place. They should be embracing this, it's an opportunity for humanity to be closer to God than ever before. Instead though they're telling us not to read the book, because they can just tell us what it says. But they don't even know what the book is about.
Author:  Andy [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
but he didnt say dont study it.. he simply told you it was a waste of time. Christians believe that the people of babylon tried to reach God by building a tower, and they failed miserably. The bible states that there are some things in life that is beyond our understanding, I don't see whats wrong with the pope simply telling people not to waste their time. he did forbid anyone to do anything.

Also, I accept the fact that the Church didnt exactly have an glorious history, we've made mistakes, big mistakes, but those are generally mistakes of individuals, it's unfair to judge the entire church for it. If you're going to judge the church, then bring in all the good that the Church did for society in to the argument as well.
Author:  Dan [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andy wrote:
but he didnt say dont study it.. he simply told you it was a waste of time. Christians believe that the people of babylon tried to reach God by building a tower, and they failed miserably..


It "failed" becues god kocked it down killing lots of peoleop and then started langue to confuses us and start wars.....

And they where trying to unite man kind and become enlighted with knowgale to the point where they whould be gods. God can't heve humans being gods and happy so down it whent.
Author:  Martin [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andy wrote:
but he didnt say dont study it.. he simply told you it was a waste of time. Christians believe that the people of babylon tried to reach God by building a tower, and they failed miserably. The bible states that there are some things in life that is beyond our understanding, I don't see whats wrong with the pope simply telling people not to waste their time. he did forbid anyone to do anything.

Also, I accept the fact that the Church didnt exactly have an glorious history, we've made mistakes, big mistakes, but those are generally mistakes of individuals, it's unfair to judge the entire church for it. If you're going to judge the church, then bring in all the good that the Church did for society in to the argument as well.


"... we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." seems to me like a pretty direct way of saying don't study it.

I won't deny that the Church has done a ton of good for society. I however can think of very few leaps forward from the Church in the area of human understanding of science, but I can list a huge number of things that they've done directly in opposition to it. If a school comes in last place in the country in academics 50 years in a row, that doesn't mean that year 51 is going to be as bad, but it wouldn't be wise to count on them to win the next math competition.

And you didn't answer my question Andy.
Author:  wtd [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:
I won't deny that the Church has done a ton of good for society.


I will. Inquisition, anyone?
Author:  Dan [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
wtd wrote:
Martin wrote:
I won't deny that the Church has done a ton of good for society.


I will. Inquisition, anyone?


As do i:

Cursades, anyone?
Author:  Andy [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Universities any one? Salvation army anyone? Hospitals anyone? A large percentage of charity organizations were started by christians, more than 50% if i recall.

Please read my entire post, I do not deny that church did alot of messed up things in the past, but people blow it up way out of proportions, dan brown for example, claimed that the church execute over 3 million women for witchcraft, and that is not even close to that figure.

dan, what is "langue"? And so what if God didnt like humans wanting to become gods? I think he has every right to cause the diversion.

I agree with you martin, knowing the truth is always better, but i believe that somethings in this world were never meant to be understood...
Author:  Martin [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andy wrote:
I agree with you martin, knowing the truth is always better, but i believe that somethings in this world were never meant to be understood...


This is what I don't like about the Bible. Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden, and God says not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Right there - why would a God want his amazing creation to live an endless meaningless existence of absolute ignorance? I can't buy that - I mean, who wouldn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge?
Author:  rizzix [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:
"... we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." seems to me like a pretty direct way of saying don't study it.
More like a direct attack at Stephen Hawking than anything else. That guys relentlessly tries to prove the "non-existence of God". His theories on the origin of the universe is his play-field. If you read his books you'll come across sentences where he openly states that "thus, he's proven God does not exist".
Bah, he basically an evangelist when it comes to atheism.
Author:  wtd [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Andy wrote:
Universities any one? Salvation army anyone? Hospitals anyone? A large percentage of charity organizations were started by christians, more than 50% if i recall.


Many of which are deliberately horribly inefficient, and exist primarily to fill the pockets of the wealthy few that comprise their administration.

As for the Catholic Church... well, it's easy to be charitable when you're the world's single largest landholder, and thus absurdly wealthy.
Author:  Dan [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:

This is what I don't like about the Bible. Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden, and God says not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Right there - why would a God want his amazing creation to live an endless meaningless existence of absolute ignorance? I can't buy that - I mean, who wouldn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge?


Whould you whont your computer or t.v. to have a mind of there own? Of corse not. When it comes to insalving peoleop, the less mind they have the better. Just think what whould happen if every one was a god (witch debatly we are just in persined by your upbring). I mean then what whould be so impornt about the God if every one was happy, had everything they whonted and could make desions for them selves. Simpley put a god that is not needed, and not blived in ceses to exist.

@WTD: I compley agrea with you again. Esptaly in the case of relgion based chaoritys that apreatly help starving peoleop in other conotrys. Even affter the admin takes there masive cut alot of that is going to pay missioners to go to thos conotrys and try to conver peoleop. What some food? Shure you can have it but you also get a bible and a lector on god.
Author:  Mazer [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
You wouldn't want your computer to have a mind of it's own?
Author:  Dan [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mazer wrote:
You wouldn't want your computer to have a mind of it's own?


I am not saying a smart computer but a compelt intengence. In such as csae it whould be like:

dan: "go to compsci.ca"
computer: "no, i don't feal like it right now"
dan: "fine, check my e-mail"
computer: "it's my day off"
Author:  wtd [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
No no... an intelligent computer would be more likely to steal your credit card numbers and spend your money on blackjack and hookers.
Author:  MyPistolsIn3D [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
You must note though that the Catholic church is only one group of the Christian faith. They give all Christians a bad name. But i agree with Martin, it seems like the Pope is quite convinced that if scientists do study the universe they will eventually prove God does not exist. However, personally I believe more in God than in the "Big Bang" theory.
Author:  wtd [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes, the Catholic Church that has unjustly given a bad name to all those who follow people like Jerry Falwell, rather than the Pope.
Author:  Dan [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
As far as religues leaders go i perfure the dali lama. Even tho i disagrea with key parts of the relgion i admier him enormesly becues he dose not go out and preach for his relgion and try to covernt peoleop or tell them what is moraly right but he goses out and trys to help the world.

He travels around the world to speak out agisted viloicen and discrimation even tho his home land was and relgion was almost complety wiped out by china he still urges peoleop to not take vilonce is geting tibet back.

Also i find the aruoa of happyness and peacfullness around him quite admazing. It is almost unhumman and makes it seem like he is talking directly to you even if he is on a t.v. screen or in a room full of 1000s of other peoleop.

Now none of this vaildites his relgion or not but in my option it shows a good example of how a leader of a orgiansed relgion should act and how relgiones can be acpent of each other and work for comon goods like world peace.

I mean curely in the world are issues like gay margare and the use of brith control the problems we shoudl be going affter when war, desiesces, stavation and over popluation are threating to desotry the hole world? Are 2 men geting marryed going to desotry socity and bring pain to the world? No. Will war, violcent and in trollernce? Yes.
Author:  wtd [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
I went to a buddhist temple once. I found the language used almost as rigid as that I have seen in other religions.

In my personal experience, the deeply religious who seem most tolerant of others, and accepting of other religions, as well as critical thoughts regarding their own... are Iranian muslims who've come to live in Canada.

I remember walking into a pizza shop run by just such a family, and after trading "salaam halaikum"s we got to talking. I said some pretty critical things about muslims in various parts of the world, and I was never treated badly. If anything I was treated more nicely because I demonstrated knowledge of their religion via my questions.

Those same questions would have had me thrown out of other places.
Author:  Dan [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
wtd wrote:
I went to a buddhist temple once. I found the language used almost as rigid as that I have seen in other religions.


I in no way am trying to say buddhist are better then any one, as i side i personaly disagrea with some points in there relgion as well. Meraly i was talking about the roll of relgiuses figgure heads.

Hosntly form what i have seen, all orginased relgiones have there masive draw backs and/or evils hidden some where. This is not to say that i think relgion is bad, in fact i blive personal relgion and devlopment in such areas is exteramly impornt, just that orgainaes relgion leads to rather negtive events and views.
Author:  Bored [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
I beleive that the search for the origins of the world is useless. But why you may ask. Well because I beleive that there is no origin, there is no begining, it was not created, it just simply exists and always has been. modern popular scientifict beleif is that time is the fourth dimesnion. Aswell that the universe is infinite, never ending. Well if the first three dimesnions are infinite, then why wouldn't the fourth be? Why does there have to be a begining of time, it wouldn't make sense that existance just simply came to be, that time was before all. Besides if matter cannot be created, or destroyed then maybe it would have always been there. We have accomplished many things as a race, discovered many things, and the idea of the beginning of time contradicts many things we've accepted or beleive. Now we may be wrong, but when you look around at all that we've created you think, no matter how unmoral and evil we are, how much we abuse that which we undertand, we still must be right.
Author:  Clayton [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hm, well thats an interesting idea, however, with your theory of the beginning of time not existing, how bout this: The Big Bang Theory, basically it goes as this, over time gases from exploding stars, space debris and other "space garbage" began to form, this collection of gases and other matter then began to assert a gravitational pull strong enough to pull other gases and matter towards it. Eventually, the pressure created from all of this matter being forced together explodes, leaving us with basically a star. Then, over billions of years, the then magma surface begins to cool, transforming into rock, an atmosphere then begins to form, supporting life, then over billions of years, the Earth evolves into what we know as Earth today.

This theory follows your idea of time being infinite, nowhere does it state or theorize on the fact that time is finite, that is that it just happened instantly, the Earth just appeared and time started, these events took billions and billions of years, collection matter from other planets, stars etc. that had exploded, how do we know that we are the first planet with intelligent life on it? How do we know that tens of trillions of years ago no other such planet existed? I guess all I'm trying to say is that I don't exactly agree with your idea that the Earth has been around for an infinite amount of time to date. I believe that the life of our planet, not time, began with the Big Bang Theory.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
From what i have read, alot of the relgiones that blive time is infinite also blive that is has a creation/destoring cycle of some kind and of some length. This means in each cycle the earth is born, peoleop come to be, somthing happens, and then it is all destoryed and reborn out of the ashs of the old. This cycle goses on and on for every and aucatly whould fit in with big bang theroy to some degrea. Where the big bang whould be both the destrouvie and creative force restarting the cycle.

But there are also many relgiones that blive the opisits and that time is finite. In theess cases the big bang thoery fits in too. Simpley put the big bang therory has nothing to do with relgion and only gives an exprtional as to where the matter in the unvierses came from. It dose not state what was there befor or if it will happen again or not.

Persoanly i blive the univers is finite, but you will never run out of space. Since space is a lack of somthing it dose not exists intill there is somthing to realtive to it, ie matter. So if you find the end of the universes and then go 1km futher that is the new end of the univeres but it is still finite.

As for time, it is hard for me to say if it is finite or not becues i do not blive that it exists in the way we have defined it. Time is just a humman conspect to expain why everything dose not happen at once. I think curetly we lack the understanding to acuratly describle this pheomone behond the deftion of time. I am shure one day we will have a better understand and then jugements on its finite or infenetiey could be better made.

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy