Comprehensive coverage

The Pope: God is behind the Big Bang

A website close to the Catholic Church published today that according to the Pope. The universe reflects "the wisdom of the Creator, the infinite creativity of God"

The Pope blesses believers in Rome, 2008. Photo: wikimedia common. The photographer Rvin88 uploaded the photo himself according to CREATIVE COMMON 3.0
The Pope blesses believers in Rome, 2008. Photo: wikimedia common. The photographer Rvin88 uploaded the photo himself according to CREATIVE COMMON 3.0

In an effort to remove from itself the anti-scientific image, the Catholic Church recognized the Big Bang but with one change - Pope Benedict XVI announced yesterday (January 16) that God was behind the cataclysmic beginning of the universe.

A site close to the Catholic Church Published today that according to the Pope. The universe reflects "the wisdom of the creator, the infinite creativity of God" Benedict XVI said these words in a blessing during a Mass for the Feast of the Epiphany that began on January 16.

He added that a wise man who followed a star understood the plan inherent in all creation. The universe is not driven by random chance," he said. "In the beauty of the world, its mystery, its power and its logic, we cannot fail and read the eternal logic" said the Pope. "We have no salvation but the guidance of the only God, creator of heaven and earth."

Apparently this is the Pope's response to the statement of the British physicist Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" that physics and not God created the universe. As we know, the Catholic Church still carries traces of hostility to science when it accused Galileo for teaching the Copernican theory that the sun and not the earth is at the center of what was then considered the entire universe, contrary to what is written in the Bible.

It turns out that this is a continuation of the trend of reconciliation with science. In November 2010 the Pope announced that in some cases he is ready to use condoms (sexual relations between men). In 2009, a senior delegation from the Vatican visited the Sarn particle accelerator where particles are accelerated and collide with each other in order to mimic some of the conditions of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Following that visit, Cardinal Giovanni Laggiolo said that science will help faith to purify itself and that faith will therefore be able to expand the horizons of man who cannot close himself only to the horizons of science."
It's just a shame that the science with which the Catholic Church reconciles is closer to science fiction than to real science. At least in regards to the creation of the universe and evolution.

More on the same topic - The Age of the Sun and Darwinism

The Pope to Hawking - God directs evolution


  1. Do not forget that God created even the wisdom of the Pope.
    So he knows what he's talking about.

  2. For believers who catch a ride on the Pope, and bring him as a reference
    to their primitive views. The Pope believes with complete faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is the true Messiah.
    Maybe he is right in this too? What do you say about this and the words of No. 38?

  3. I believe the Pope's words as much as the following religious "facts":
    1. Jesus is the son of God and after his death he rose again.
    2. Muhammad flew on his horse to Jerusalem from Mecca, tied it to the al-Aqsa mosque (which has not yet been built...), ascended to heaven and spoke with the ancestors and with God.
    3. Picking one's nose on Shabbat is forbidden, because if by chance one hair is cut off in the nose
    After all, this will be considered work on Shabbat and it will really anger God.
    4. That lice are created from the sweat of humans and from the "Ipushin" and not from natural culture. (This is according to our Sages)
    5. That we have a stupid people: in the Exodus, after they saw all the miracles: the ten plagues, the splitting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire and the cloud that accompanied them, Miriam's well
    She accompanied them (otherwise where would they drink in the desert?), after all this they made a calf and said "This is your God Israel who brought you out of Egypt".
    5. That it is God's will that many black calves do not join the army, do not work for their livelihood and live as parasites at the expense of their brothers.
    6. Well, we really need more examples to not believe in God and his business
    The cheaters and liars and swindlers and throwing packages of candles into the fires (the fire workers)

  4. If God did not create the world then who? I believe in a man who wrote a book like evolution and also the Bible. A man named Moses received instructions from the one who created the world. So why don't stupid people believe that? By the way, in the Bible it is written that the sun is in the center and it was written 3000 years ago food for thought, the Bible It is not against science that he approves of it. Every moment that the world exists is a miracle and everything else you will understand on your own, so how come there are no miracles?

  5. For the 15th of creation,

    You are wrong. It is not about two equal opinions, but about one side that believes in the Creator and the story of creation without any support, without empirical evidence, without observation and drawing conclusions. The other side does not claim to know how things happened. He is busy examining facts and researching the environment and draws conclusions according to the results and observations he receives.
    I can't say that God isn't responsible for the Big Bang any more than you can say that Snow White wasn't responsible for it or maybe a pair of flying pink pylons that let out a coordinated puff and she-she was the one who set the big bang in motion.
    Science is not concerned with what cannot be tested and seen. He is busy expanding human knowledge based on actual findings. Science does not have an explanation for everything and never will but as time passes and the means are perfected we know and understand more.
    Unfortunately for the creationists, as science and research progress, more and more religious pillars collapse and religious people jump backwards and throw everything on God's shoulders. poor.

    15 dear,
    You didn't hear 2 sides. You've only heard one side and you've made up your mind to believe it. On the other hand, you are afraid because you understand that if you really listen and learn, the whole branch you are sitting on peacefully now will be cut down in one go.
    Keep living your life and try to be good to others, that's all.

  6. Christianity in retreat... simply aligning itself according to world public opinion.
    After all, if you bring God into the matter, you are always superior to science because God could organize the universe and the earth in such a way that they look primitive even though they were created 6000 years ago... why align God (and without permission!) according to what science says?

    Christianity is in retreat for its existence or on the way to radical changes. Maybe even giving up a large part of the Bible. In contrast, Judaism does not have a pope, there is no higher authority that would make such statements on its behalf, so it is more difficult to know what the direction is...

  7. If you don't see the elephant standing behind the tree\trunk\branch\leaf\pion\chloroplast\chlorophyll\gene\molecule\atom\proton\quark...
    A sign that he is hiding well.

  8. "Contrary to what is written in the Bible." Where exactly?

  9. Science News
    Origin of Life on Earth: 'Natural' Asymmetry of Biological Molecules May Have Come from Space
    A consortium bringing together several French teams has for the first time obtained an excess of left-handed molecules (and then an excess of right-handed ones) under conditions that reproduce those found in interstellar space. This result therefore supports the hypothesis that the asymmetry of biological molecules on Earth has a cosmic origin.

  10. wavy (24)

    Apparently you have to be dead, to discover the other universes... 🙂

    Regarding the rest of your words, I think it goes without saying that the religious attributed any natural thing that is not understood or not properly explained - to the actions of the Holy One, blessed be He.

    What has been will be and what we will do will be done and there is no new moon under the sun

  11. Abby, I always knew you were a genius 🙂
    Well then I will explain everything I explained above in the holy language. Indeed, as you wrote, the Pope issued a statement in response to Stephen Hawking's book "The Great Plan". Hawking in his book claimed that we do not need God for the universe to be created. Hawking was based on the latest theories of the multiverse (proposed as an explanation for inflation). Hawking based his argument on spontaneous creation. What do you mean? A creation from the vacuum and not something external that drives the creation of the universe. Not an external factor that ignited the formation of the universe, not some intelligence that thought and planned the formation of the universe, but a random process that happens in nature - from a collection of factors that arose on their own and rose and emerged from the void. My almost nine-year-old son usually explains it like this: "Mom, it's virtual particles that are created from vacuum."
    Modern science - following quantum theory - explains processes as spontaneously driven. To the extent that the universe is a process that occurred spontaneously, some random bang, it follows that there were an infinite number of such processes and thus an infinite number of universes were created in such a random process. This is the multiverse. It's a bit more complicated than that because the explanation here is not mathematical. And all the time such universes are created. population density. And connecting these universes is a tunnel called a wormhole. But then two very fundamental problems arise that the researchers face:
    1) The problem of the validity of the laws of science: the laws of our science are a priori valid only for our universe itself and not for what is beyond it. We cannot know what lies beyond our universe. Therefore the laws of science that we know can be very different in other worlds if they exist at all - and then there is a vicious circle, because we cannot know if other worlds exist according to the laws of our science because other worlds cannot be valid, but it follows from the laws of our science that worlds exist others (the multiverses). Benthos?
    2) Therefore, how can we find experimental evidence for the existence of the multi-existence? Let's say we find an experimental course that will measure some traces of the formation of multiverses. There is still the problem raised above. This is not another galaxy within our universe that obeys the same laws of nature as our world. It is about another universe where we have no way of knowing what is happening inside it and the laws of nature in it are different by definition.
    This is where religion enters this loophole. And the church understands that science has the simple problem that it is unable to answer various questions because this is how science is structured, as Einstein once said or maybe it was actually Otto Hahn, that you can only see the tail and not the whole animal. Whereas religion always believes that the whole animal can be seen, that it can answer any question in the world with an answer, everything is in the hands of Heaven. And it is very dangerous to answer with the answer: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven", because then you are not building a state either, because "everything is in the hands of Heaven", so you wait for God to build the state for you, and you also do not go out to fight when you are attacked, because "everything is in the hands of Heaven" , then they will destroy your country, and you sit and study and not work, because "everything is in the hands of heaven" and God will already bring everything and take care of everything and arrange everything and he is the creator of everything and everything. Just pray and everything will be fine.

  12. This is hindsight…
    The question of the questions is where is God until the explosion.

    It is clear to any reasonable person that the God of Israel and the Christians is not our God today.

    So, God was an evolutionary product of various "pantheons of gods" (to this day he has nicknames that are tails of this evolution.).

    All religions, especially the Jewish ones (Christianity and Judaism.) perform "course corrections" according to the circumstances and the new findings revealed in science, according to this God is probably made of plasticine and can be perfectly adjusted to the new reality only if you press a little...

    "Religiosity" is a concept that will remain from the distant evolutionary / cultural past, and the intelligent person's attitude should be like his attitude towards our tailbone... It is true that we are no longer monkeys but we accept his presence.

  13. The Pope's announcement may (may for some of the public) turn out to be an innovation that the Pope did not intend and a historical turning point.
    The inclusion of the big bang into religious belief allows/leads to the understanding that the development of the world and everything in it took place in a sequence of development of one thing from another, and that the divine intervention took place perhaps at the moment of the big bang (or before it) and set the rules for the continuation (laws of nature), and from that moment God's active intervention ceased .
    This approach was beautifully presented by Stephen Hawking in his lecture in Jerusalem (worth reading)
    This approach may allow a great many non-phantic people to accept the existence of an active god before the bang and after the decay of the known universe (if and when), and in the meantime to admire the intelligence of that god as it is reflected in the investigations and discoveries of science and culture without the intervention of God, and to understand that there is no hope for a divine blessing in livelihood, health, relationships, etc., and that our destiny and future is in our hands and in our minds and not in any external entity

  14. I cannot write in Hebrew now. Sorry.
    At least the Pope will be able to read this comment, although I think he knows biblical Hebrew. 🙂
    Okay let's start with the comment.
    The Pope indeed responded to Hawking's latest book "The Grand Design", in which Hawking bluntly claimed that God is absent. Hawking based himself on the Multi-universe theory and on spontaneous creation.
    Assuming spontaneous creation or generation as a scientific hypothesis, which is based on quantum premises, then our universe was created spontaneously. Thus there were presumably other universes that were created in this way, and these latter appeared out of vacuum (and pop out all the time). This scenario is self-supporting and self-sustaining, and also it does not require some deriving mechanism to boost it, to ignite it. The problem is twofold. First, experimental. The process involves the latest quantum gravity and multi-universe theories. How do we find an experimental basis for this hypothesis? And suppose we think we have found some hint for an empirical method; how do we know that this method does not support some other hypothesis - the phenomenon which it explains might lead to similar effects on the measuring instruments? It is a common problem to "historical sciences", meaning sciences like, the big bang, studies of ancient fossils, archaeology.
    Another problem is philosophical, science basically can only deal with phenomena inside our own universe. We cannot discover the laws pertaining to "the area" or whatever is there... outside our universe, meaning other universes. This is a problem dealt with by scientists studying the multi-universe problem. Look for Tegmark and so on.
    so here comes God of the Roman Catholic church. Since science cannot supply strict answers to some of the fundamental questions, because this is how science works, the Roman church says, that the missing answers are God's creation.
    And this is the difference between science and religion. science does not have answers to all questions, and religion does.

  15. Even if God is behind the big bang. Still, the church stands behind God.

    Otherwise the Pope would not have spoken at all. After all, these are the priests or rabbis who do not understand anything about science, how will they understand anything about God.

  16. — To 2: The statement that the big bang theory is, as you say, "an incredibly stupid theory", does not lead anywhere, it is a completely subjective statement, which has no scientific or cultural value.

    — Regarding the debate itself: I think that first and foremost, we must find a universally accepted definition of what "God" is. As long as the definition does not exist, there is no point in having this debate.

    —Regarding Hawkings' statement, I personally do not accept it. In my opinion, physics, like chemistry, biology and other branches of science, is not God, not according to my definition of this term. The sciences are nothing but a beautiful summary of everything that arranges, regulates and is supposed to explain the existing. A kind of set of rules, or laws according to which everything that exists is governed. The thing to aim for is to discover the source of these laws // rules // arrangements. Maybe then, if ever, we'll find the thing that made it all. I consciously do not use the term "God".

    - Last note: It is hard for me, personally, to accept the theory that claims that everything was created randomly, by mistake. It doesn't, it doesn't "work out" for me.

    Michael Gottlieb,

  17. The irony is that no one has proof of the truth of his words, but everyone here will put his soul into proving his position.
    I am colloquially called "creative", does that mean I follow everything they tell me with my eyes closed? Definately not!!!
    I've heard 2 sides, I've done my math, and that's what I live by, but anyway I'm not completely dismissing the other side, why? Because just like the other side, I also have no proof
    Arguments will not lead to anything good, see the case of Galileo, which today is clear to everyone, even to the righteous, that he was right.
    The scientists today know exactly what happened up to one thousandth of a millionth of a second after the explosion, they managed to go back 13 billion years ago, but they can no longer do one more second, so can anyone say with certainty that God is not responsible for the explosion?
    In short, until someone has proof, it's better that we respect each other's opinions, no matter how much they sound like idiots to us

  18. To Yuni, the alleged scientists who are trying to challenge evolution are followers of intelligent design - a code name for God because in the US there is a separation between religion and state and religious studies are not allowed in schools, so they are trying to do it under the guise of science. All the arguments you presented are the product of the invention of the Discovery Institute - a prominent American body in this field, and anti-scientific in its own right no less than the Pope.
    And besides that, there are sites where science is part (marginal by the way) of the New Age channel. I assume they will not receive certificates of appreciation signed by the heads of the Israeli Academy of Sciences.

  19. To the editor of the website: fanatical belief in mainstream science is just as bad as religion (as you know it). What today is considered a fact, will often be considered a joke tomorrow. The riddle of life and the universe is light years away from being solved, and the attempts to show that everything is clear and factual are demagoguery for readers and tremendous naivety for those who think so. Those who believe that there is a supernatural creator have very good reasons to think so, and constantly condescending to him is not a reasonable and fair attitude.

    In the USA, as you know, there is a debate among scientists on the question of whether evolution at all took place (the fossil findings indicate the sudden appearance of many species such as during the Cambrian period - this is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented, the probability of which is zero) and if so, whether it is able to explain the development of organs and systems of basic complexity such as Eye. If you are able to describe the development of an organ such as an eye in ten stages of mutation and natural selection, and are unable to explain natural selection to another two thousand necessary stages, it is not a serious science that should be believed fanatically.

    And if you talked about science fiction, the science of the origin of life (formation of the first cell) is currently science fiction.

    One gets the impression here that because the ultra-orthodox are annoying and persecuting, we should in response fanatically believe in every loksh and that's how we will win. I would appreciate it if you could correct me.

  20. Let us not forget that this creature known as the Pope believes in exorcisms, miracles and saints, wisdom and knowledge we will not learn from him.

  21. Well, what about the scientist, I come here to see innovations and you bring this poutz?
    Not missing?
    Or will they answer, do you want to upset people that there are religious people?

    Please please please I am waiting to read interesting things and not the doctrine of the Catholic Church 🙂

  22. And on this it is said: From the Vatican 'the Torah will come'!... PS: What to do - the Pope is more advanced

    From the Aitolot - sorry, the rabbis here - see: the Pope does not reject the use of condoms...!

  23. On the one hand, this is a softening, on the other hand, it is an infinite softening, so now every explanation that science will give is based on the one that God created?
    The truth is that it is more interesting to see Judaism soften, what about Rabbi Ovadia Yosef throwing a word?

  24. For all couples of any kind (2,4 and 6)

    The main difference between the "big bang" and "God created the world", is that, contrary to the religious theory - the big bang actually began as an unaccepted idea and gained its status thanks to decisive supporting observations.

    The Big Bang first appeared from the development of Einstein's field equations, as a byproduct (the equations were not written based on the assumption that there was a Big Bang). Einstein did not believe that the universe changes and that it had a beginning (perhaps for philosophical reasons, but certainly also because there was no observational evidence of this in those days) and therefore, added an artificial factor in his equations called the "cosmological constant", a kind of anti-gravity mechanism designed to keep the universe in its state.
    People such as Lameter and Friedman showed that the same cosmological constant does not settle the equations to the end, and that in fact a big bang is a necessity from the theory of relativity and indeed, after several years observational evidence for the existence of a big bang began to be received.
    Only one theory that talks about a permanent universe (the steady state theory) still managed to hold its own in the face of the observational evidence, but in 1964 the cosmic background radiation was discovered (a prediction from the 40s based on the big bang theory) and shut the door (for now) on any theory of a universe without a big bang - if there was no big bang, then something very, very basic is wrong in the theory of relativity (6, your argument does not agree with it) and among a million other things in known physics (the cosmic background radiation originates, for example, from the fusion of hydrogen atoms - something completely non-relativistic) - and that already needs to be explained.

    I recommend that all couples (2,4, 6 and XNUMX) read Simon Singh's excellent book - "The Big Bang"

  25. The inflation phase which is the important phase in the big bang theory but is not based on known physics but more on a desire to bridge the difference between known physics and the observable universe.
    It is even possible that the universe is not expanding at all, that the photons lose energy in the mechanism of gravity on their journey from the other side of the universe and therefore appear redder and the universe is not expanding at all

  26. To all those who have sought justice and want to cancel Bible studies in Israel. See the Pope what he thinks about God. Shame on the Jewish people who live in Zion.

  27. I tend to agree with #2's opinion.
    Currently, no one knows how the universe began, except for creationists.
    Using the argument "the universe began with the big bang" is just like saying that God created the universe.

    "God is behind everything" is one of the basic assumptions of every religion.
    If you like, here is a link - what happens in Natan Zahavi's show when you try to use this trick on him:

  28. I'm not sure I understand the big bang theory or it's just an incredibly stupid theory. Based on what I know about the big bang theory, I think that it can be dismissed and not considered a scientific theory at all, but rather science fiction and illogical.

  29. If you pay attention to the changes taking place in Christianity in recent years, you see that Christianity actually embraces science for the benefit of religion, that is, if there are aliens then they are the creations of God, if there was an explosion then it is also the work of God.

    In fact, all theories are God's design, the easier it is to accept changes that contradict what is written in the Bible or the Old/New Testament.

    There is a real problem in which the heads of the world's religions are, when religious faith is fading as man and the world progress and do not see tangible miracles as they were in ancient times and if they were at all, the popes in Christianity, unlike the representatives of the other religions, Judaism and Islam, adapt themselves to the new era and the changes that are seen in the not so distant future which cause For people to believe more and more that religious faith is more intended for creating culture and maintaining laws that were acceptable in ancient times are disappearing, the leaders of Christianity prefer to adapt to an advanced technological world so as not to lose their power.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Science website logo