Quantum Cosmology and Creation | George Coyne | Nobel Conference

[@vicplichota]

Brilliant I almost never have any time for religiousity, but Coyne's talk was fun!

[@markheithaus]

m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3jYkImql9WKnqc This is similar to George Coyne, but the speaker seems more well versed at the philosophy. George Coyne grew up Catholic. Collins grew up non religious and gradually shifted. Still no "proof", but spoke better to the philosophy that got him there.

[@jillespina]

Fr. Coyne drops a clue, around the 44th min. or past it - that creation does not necessarily mean temporal, or "before." He says it assumes 'dependence." What he doesn't say is that 'dependence' could go both ways, that the the existence of the creator is dependent on the creation also. A Jesuit scientist/theologian Teilhard de Chardin more than 50 yrs ago posited that God is the result of the evolution of intelligent life in the universe. Hmmm...

[@NicoleAstolfi-rw1tb]

They are calling them protons here but in this new age we our hearing the number 666 being present in the proton's, can someone explain that to me

[@spaveevo]

interesting talk. the comments below basically say it all so i dont need to say it again but the talk is worth listening to.

[@reprimand33]

Great stuff

[@NicoleAstolfi-rw1tb]

I agree with him ❤

[@junxu147]

I’m amazed that there is even a discussion like this at the modern age. Isn’t religion just a nice imagination without any base and facts? I mean we don’t have to say no to religion as a nice mental experience, but do we still need to discuss on which one is factually true? Can’t one easily make a story like that?

[@684tranminhtuan]

Professor Krauss seemed to be aggressive. There might be a bother conflict from the inside.

[@Physician-as-Patient-Tales]

Why do these people defer to Krauss as though he is Science's anointed prophet.

[@algray8217]

"One thing the Bible is not, is a scientific textbook. Scripture is made up of myth, of poetry, of history. But it is simply not teaching science." "Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly." "Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words". Father George Coyne. May the wise and beloved father Coyne rest in peace. Hawkins, Sagan, Galilei, Kepler, Capernicus, Newton, Hubble, Brahe, Ptolemy, Halley, Einstein and the rest of past astronomers be with you in heavens round table. God speed asteroid 14429. Alejandro Gray Jr.

[@Phaedrus87]

It is fascinating how people can hold sincerely and genuinely believed, but mutually exclusive thoughts in their heads without imploding into catastrophic insanity.

[@AlexanderBollbach]

Phaedrus87 i knooow right?

[@markheithaus]

m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3jYkImql9WKnqc This is similar to George Coyne, but the speaker seems more well versed at the philosophy. George Coyne grew up Catholic. Collins grew up non religious and gradually shifted. Still no "proof", but spoke better to the philosophy that got him there.

[@lonewolfmtnz]

ROF (puking) : "religious thinking" IS the quintessential oxymoron.

[@maestroanth]

I don't get this lecture. I must not be spiritual enough to understand it.

[@eddenz1356]

this is the best religious scientists can do am i right? im still waiting for anything of substance. not sure i can stand much more. i always hold out a tiny amount of hope ill hear someone refreshingly thought provoking. doubt that'll ever happen.

[@markheithaus]

m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3jYkImql9WKnqc This is similar to George Coyne, but the speaker seems more well versed at the philosophy. George Coyne grew up Catholic. Collins grew up non religious and gradually shifted. Still no "proof", but spoke better to the philosophy that got him there.

[@brahilly]

Coyne addressed the "substance" question. If his colleagues on the panel "got it", then maybe you may wish to give it another try.

[@shanejohns7901]

Coyne: "God cannot know what is not 'knowable' (even for God)." Yea, I think that works out to a simple logical Tautology. And it's not really any meaningful limitation on God. It's clear that he also thinks (rather than believes) that "God (by definition) knows everything that IS knowable."

[@Physician-as-Patient-Tales]

Priest: Religion [including the Christian religion] is not a way of knowing anything, including prescriptive behaviour!? Therefore Jesus' claim to be the one and only way to be reconciled to God and saved to Him is unknowable!?

[@pumpuppthevolume]

reply to nehbur or there couldn't be a lightning without a lightning maker :P

[@13thLegio]

I wonder if the way I am just hearing blah-blah-blah from Coyne is the same way that theists hear talks about evolution or counter-theism?

[@Roy__Batty]

That's an interesting comment given that Fr. Coyne has been a vocal opponent of the Intelligent Design movement and a vocal proponent of evolution. You should read more and comment less.

[@13thLegio]

afsansone3 Thanks for the tip but spiritualist mumbo jumbo is still white noise regardless of his position on evolution and ID.

[@brahilly]

@@Roy__Batty Exactly, we have listen through our prejudice.

[@Physician-as-Patient-Tales]

As a Christian, I must say this priest offers a very weak rationale for belief in Scripture and God about whom Scripture describes.

[@brahilly]

I've watched this presentation twice and nowhere does Father Coyne speak of a rationale for scripture. If, however, you had the opportuity to ask him, I'm sure he would have given you something he would argue as being the rational of the Bible. But if your faith is in a Bible as the inherrent word of God, then of course you will find Coyne's beliefs lacking. For me, as one with one foot firmly planted in both the Christian and Buddhist spheres, Coyne is like a continual breath of fresh air.

[@dan6506]

Religious Philosophy= bla bla bla bla bla..........

[@udical]

***** you did not even listen, admit

[@tomneedham1937]

OK. So I am a fundamental atheist - not because I can prove Zeus does not exist - but because I accept the convergence of observations that have been made since the Enlightenment which keeps pointing a very strong and muscular finger towards the implausibility of the existence of Zeus. Now those who have "FAITH" do a lot of semantic hand waving trying to point a finger towards the plausibility of the existence of Zeus, as evidenced by Father Coyne in his presentation. On the other hand, Prof. Krauss is equally guilty of the aforesaid hand waving in his dissertation about "Nothing". The only reason I side with Prof. Krauss is because (a) he is submitting his views as a hypothesis, and (b) should sufficient data/observations come to pass demonstrating his dissertation/hypothesis is, in effect, a lot of hand waving, I am convinced he would be the first to admit it being so. That is the essential difference between someone of "FAITH" and a natural philosopher - the latter is always willing to change his/her mind based on evidence. Someone should have asked Father Coyne what evidence would he accept - if any - that his belief in the existence of Zeus is delusional. My answer to the converse of that question would be: I would accept the existence of Zeus if any Biblical miracle could be repeatedly re-enacted in double blind tests in laboratories around the world.

[@brahilly]

In other words, you just didn't get it. Seems you may have missed what father Coyne had to say about religion and science. Science is a way of knowing about the universe, religion is how we relate, for those who believe, to God.

[@glutinousmaximus]

I had to give this up. It's worse than watching paint dry. Retired Jesuits are not the most entertaining people.

[@glutinousmaximus]

White noise.

[@avszefst749]

The father is really embarrassing himself here.

[@elmerfudd5193]

Religious believers. ADEM and EVE SCIENTISTS .......... ATOM and EVE.. -Ning that must have existed before the BING BANG ☺️