I'm sorry Cassini, I just don't accept your premise here. You can't tar all scientists with the brush of the loud. There is room for a creator behind all scientific theories, no matter how fundamental they get. Even if the big bang theory were 100% correct, there is room for the question 'what went before, and what caused it?' It is in the answers to this question that the faithful find God. It is where I find God, and no matter how much my fellow scientists discover about how the world works, I will continue to see my creator God behind it all.
Boy I would love a separate thread on this subject. Of course I do not tar all scientists with the same brush, only those promoting their 'scientific proofs' for ORIGINS that would include the Big Bang and all the evolution that stems from this ASSUMPTION. They include their 'science' 'proving' heliocentrism, long ages, and that imbecilic evolution.
What you are doing is seeing the creator in what is, not in the false science that supposedly gave rise to what is. How can any Catholic think that there is no difference in a Creator who willed all that is into existence, or a Creator who supposedly can be found in a Big Bang evolution of everything, a theory that is so ridiculous that it is an insult to human intelligence given to us by God.? As I said, it is intellectual pride that causes this blindness. Millions however, when they were indoctrinated with evoluitionism, yes the same theistic-evolution you have no problem with, REJECTED faith in an omnipotent Creator.
Here is the opinion of a wise philosopher:
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that [Big Bang] cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by [Big Bang] cosmology he should be at the mercy of [Big Bang] cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously” [Big Bang] cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]
[1]Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
Topic: The Fruits of the Flat Earth Position (Read 57666 times)