UCSD Guestbook: George Coyne the Vatican Observatory

truthtrekker Says:

May 4, 2008 - HE'S WATCHING NIBIRU!!!

Loooooong Says:

May 7, 2008 - Evil ass Jezzy Fuck... Spreading theirs Lies and Deceit as Usual

mcc11505 Says:

Jun 7, 2008 - Thanks for sharing this and allowing comments too~! xox

Nominaaa Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - Orthodox Christianity is true not Catholic

buzzy1026 Says:

Oct 17, 2008 - Father Side-Step is not answering the question...

wildreams Says:

Jan 19, 2009 - Side-step? which part are u refering to?

ananiasacts Says:

Mar 3, 2009 - At least he doesn't take the scripture literally, realizing how utterly absurd that would be. But I have no idea why he, or anyone educated for that matter, would respect a body of literature that casts god into such a disgusting role. And you have to admire a guy that admits faith does nothing to help his pursuit of science. I think most of the phony Christians that are notable here in American would simply lie about that.

ananiasacts Says:

Mar 3, 2009 - I wish they'd have asked George if a universe that had no use or room for any supernatural processes or entities would be better or worse than one that did provide a place and role for an intelligent cosmic overseer.

Drewfsm Says:

Mar 12, 2009 - The Vatican is trying to stay relevant. With our consciousness level being raised by science and our religious ideas also changing the church is trying now to get in on the ground floor. So in a thousand years they can still mix their Bronze Age mythology with science. Maybe a future Galileo or Copernicus will fair better with the church. LOL

salvatoregiordano1 Says:

Apr 7, 2009 - -schifosi pedofili ! vescovi e preti ! e quel porco di dio che non vi castiga !

nicopetromac Says:

Apr 26, 2009 - watch v=OiTbcDeFuhI Spirituality vs. Religion = Knowing vs. Faith

mrqsilveira Says:

Apr 29, 2009 - Father Coyne is a bright mind. I love people like that! He feels my mind with hope and makes me love Jesus even more! As a very acute mind and focused spirit he knows that Galileo's and Darwin's cases are not even a speck before what Freud is saying outloud for more than a century now with the unconscious mind - here is the justice of God - as a factual channel from and to the Spirit . Galileo... Darwin ... All this bla-bla is reduced to distracting noise! Love you, Father Coyne!

littlepebble2 Says:

May 20, 2009 - Fact is stranger than fiction. Now, there are three active Pope. Pope John Paul II - mysticaly slept in April 2005, just like Lazarus -, present Pope Benedict XVI, and "the Little Pebble" i.e. Pope Little Peter Abraham II.

kadene2 Says:

Oct 2, 2009 - The Roman Church (the Holy Roman Empire) is the same as it has always been. When Christianity was becoming too powerful, it just swallowed it up and rewrote the rules. It has stayed abreast of science over the years and as soon as any truth becomes exposed, it morphs to remain current. It will be revolutionary when it finally concedes that there is nothing wrong with contraceptives, and stop preaching that the wafer and wine is magically transformed into flesh and blood.

Generic1987 Says:

Oct 9, 2009 - What, so Fr. Coyne could stare blankly into space? This question in meaningless.

ananiasacts Says:

Oct 9, 2009 - It seems meaningful to me. Would you rather live in a universe that needed a deity to function or one that worked just fine with nothing but mindless physical laws to map present into future?

Generic1987 Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - Even if the universe were functionally self-sufficient, we can never address the nature of the true genesis of the universe. This idea that God is some kind of interventionist has been dismissed among scientifically-literate deists for about a century.

ananiasacts Says:

Oct 10, 2009 - I think you're saying that even if we did know what caused the universe to happen, it would only push back the question to the cause of that cause. Therefore deism is a meaningful conjecture about a first cause. In my mind, the same sort of Occam's razor leaves deism itself in search of a purpose. The burden is on them to come up with a compelling reason to surmise that something so fantastic is needed when the power intrinsic to the phenomenon of emergence can and does explain all known magic.

Generic1987 Says:

Oct 11, 2009 - What makes a creative force any more fantastic then a spontaneous emergence of existence? This genesis of something from nothing has not been observed at any point, where as the cause and effect idea is the basis of all science.

ananiasacts Says:

Oct 11, 2009 - Well, technically it isn't really possible to have nothing. It would violate the uncertainty principle. Even the emptiest space is a seething mass of interactions between virtual particles (and their anti-particles) that pop into existence, possibly interact with other particles, and ultimately annihilate one another. Furthermore, emergent phenomenon pop into existence all the time and can last for ages! Maybe the lowest lawyers of what we experience as physical reality is an emergence too.

Generic1987 Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - Yes, but the uncertainty principle is irrelevant at the singularity, as are all known physical laws. Virtual particles are just force-mediating particles and follow conservation laws.

ananiasacts Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - I don't see how you can make that claim given there are no naked singularities to study. Past the event horizon its just conjecture and there is no good reason not to believe that something might prevent things from becoming smaller than the Planck scale permits. You seem to be looking for an excuse to presuppose magic is necessary to explain reality and there isn't one shred of evidence anywhere that suggests anything other than the opposite of that. Our universe might be just consequence.

Generic1987 Says:

Oct 14, 2009 - I'm not looking for any excuse, because I really have no personal feelings on Deism one way or another. Current work in quantum gravity theory suggests that naked singularities might very well exist, although I don't feel comfortable discussing cosmology on a level higher than what is currently known by the world's physicists.

ananiasacts Says:

Oct 14, 2009 - How this then, "Is it reasonable to conclude that it is possible the universe exists because it is the simplest possible state of affairs?" So far, everything we do understand has a quality about it that suggests a boundary (absolute zero, the speed of light, etc.) To me, that fact alone is circumstantial evidence of a sort to support the conclusion above. That if we could have a simpler universe, we would. (Occams' Razor on steroids?)