Religion | Gaming | Film | Fashion | Sex | Philosophy | Education | History | Arts | Music | Travel | Photography

Brother Guy Consolmagno: God's Mechanics

More from this series:

In Search of E.T.

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 15 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
socratus Avatar
Posted: 11.18.11, 06:16 AM
Science and Religion. =. What is the vacuum? Answer. # ‘It might even give us some ground to speculate that the vacuum itself (and hence the universe) is ‘conscious’. / Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. / # ‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’ / Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. by Danah Zohar. / ===========.
socratus Avatar
Posted: 08.19.11, 04:43 AM
Does God So Love the Multiverse? / By Don N. Page . / Monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity affirm that God loves all humans and created them in His image. However, we have learned from Darwin that we were not created separately from other life on earth. Some Christians opposed Darwinian evolution because it undercut certain design arguments for the existence of God. Today there is the growing idea that the fine-tuned constants of physics might be explained by a multiverse with very many different sets of constants of physics. Some Christians oppose the multiverse for similarly undercutting other design arguments for the existence of God. However, undercutting one argument does not disprove its conclusion. Here I argue that multiverse ideas, though not automatically a solution to the problems of physics, deserve serious consideration and are not in conflict with Christian theology as I see it. Although this paper as a whole is {\it addressed} primarily to Christians in cosmology and others interested in the relation between the multiverse and theism, it should be of {\it interest} to a wider audience. Proper subsets of this paper are addressed to other Christians, to other theists, to other cosmologists, to other scientists, and to others interested in the multiverse and theism. Does God So Love the Multiverse? / By Don N. Page . / ==========================. # And I ask: Does God So Love the Infinity ? ===============. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus =====================.
socratus Avatar
Posted: 08.19.11, 03:34 AM
Physics and Theology. About creators of God. # Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 / # If physicists made a God they would give him concrete physical parameters. # Which parameters they can be ? We know that God is something Infinite. What is ‘INFINITY’ ? Nobody knows. The conception of ‘ Infinity’ we can find not only in Bible but in Physics too. Are they equal ? Are they different ? I think that ‘INFINITY’ is ‘INFINITY’ and can be only one for every knowledge, for every meaning. I think there isn’t special ‘INFINITY’ for Bible and special ‘INFINITY’ for Physics. I think the conception ‘INFINITY’ is equal for every part of Science. # Again and again the ‘INFINITY’ appears in many physical and mathematical problems. / Part Physics: Theoretical applications of physical infinity . / It means that ‘INFINITY’ is some kind of reality. (!) Does Physicists meet God In the Infinite ? (!) Does God live in the INFINITE ? ( !) To understand this we need to find the answers to the questions: 1) What is / are the physical parameters of the ‘INFINITY’ ? 2) What is connection between the infinity and the concreteness ? 3) What is connection between infinity and quality ? 4) How to explain the unity and inconsistent character between the infinity and the concreteness ? ===============. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus =====================.
logik Avatar
Posted: 06.01.11, 12:08 PM
I don't understand how anyone could agree with this guy in any way. newton was writing poetry? I took us to the moon however. Dawkins fundementalist techie? These people just don't want to understand that religion is totaly obsolete and we can live without it.
mvanderford Avatar
Posted: 01.13.11, 02:15 PM
Religion, not science, is what was 'invented' by humans. Science is what is observed and measured by humans. This is why science changes and why religion stays the same. Science changes in response to new and larger datasets and methods of extending our 'eye' into new locations. Religion , most notably Catholicism, does not change because it is based on a narrative that cannot be modified. This is its attraction to most humans, who want something unchanging to hang onto. Engineers, who are not scientists, may be drawn to fundamental religion because they like straight lines, simple, universal solutions and reliable assumptions. Astronauts and test pilots are also drawn to religion, as their death rate is astoundingly high. Scientists are seldom fundamentalists because they dwell on the fuzzy edges, splitting hairs, finding problems and anomalies. Also, they face few physical risks in ordinary life. Also, people who casually bash Houston are never as smart as they thing they are.
Periergeia Avatar
Posted: 05.25.10, 11:06 PM
Brother Guy Consolmagno represents the best of educated Catholicism. If he was the model of all religious people in the world, religion would no longer be a problem. OTOH, Brother Guy style religions would also be equivalent to free country club memberships for all, and thus completely irrelevant. For the first time it appears to me that fanatic religious suicide bombers and fundamentalist Creationist are the only things that give religions any importance, whatsoever. It's not a good importance, of course, but at least it's something to get excited about. The lukewarm philosophical hand holding offered here, for sure isn't.
onelight Avatar
Posted: 02.14.10, 09:12 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by jglyon "if religion disappeared, we wouldn't know there was anything wrong with war." totally untrue. our morality is written in our genes. And then, Who or What wrote it there?
James Dittes Avatar
James Dittes
Posted: 01.10.09, 07:42 PM
I wish we could have learned more. The beauty of Genesis, of "the poem" Guy speaks about, is how adaptable it is. Flat-earthers before Galileo claimed it as Truth, so do creationists today who have no problems with a sun-centered solar system. In this way, it describes something magical (i.e. Creation) in terms whose parameters change over time but whose wonder has not.
jglyon Avatar
Posted: 01.10.09, 02:23 PM
"if religion disappeared, we wouldn't know there was anything wrong with war." totally untrue. our morality is written in our genes.
stevesorensen Avatar
Posted: 01.08.09, 08:44 PM
How to Accurately Interpret the Bible, After Accurate Observation
Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is flat. It does say God hangs the earth on nothing. It does speak of the circle of the earth. And other things science only "recently" discovered. And Genesis is not poetry, it is prose or narrative. Any scholar worth his salt will tell you the author (probably Moses) meant to communicate Genesis to mean just what it says. One example: yom, Heb. for day, always means a solar day any time it is used to measure in the context, such as "evening and morning, the second day," etc. These are just truthful facts. And the big bang? Oh yah, they say they verified that due to static, after they cleaned off the bird poo, from a shoe-horn shaped little shed-like building in New Jersey, I think it is. The mind of the natural man. So naive, among other things. One could go on and on on so many false assumptions forced into physical things. (fossils, distant starlight and time, etc. etc. etc.) Again, these are truthful facts. This is so.

Advertisement ticker