Cosmology is one of the studies of classical philosophy

[Pancras]

In the Catholic Church, philosophy has traditionally been categorized into various studies, usually 7 in number, beginning with LOGIC.

The second study has for many hundreds of years been cosmology. Therefore, cosmology is a topic proper to philosophy.

I have seen the following appear in several places, including but not limited to the Internet.

Recent observations in the universe have changed even mainstream cosmologists’ view of our universe and our place in it. This is for real, and things are changing very fast. Here are some recent, recognized quotes from three world-renown scientists:

“There is a crisis in cosmology.” -Michio Kaku

*“It’s an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed.” -Lawrence Krauss
*
“Life is extremely rare. We are in fact the only life in our entire universe, and I actually think we are very significant.” -Max Tegmark

My question for the members of Catholic Answers Forum is the following:

Why would a worldwide recognized theoretical physicist like Michio Kaku, or a recognized scientist like Lawrence Krauss, or a professor of science like Max Tegmark, say that there is a crisis in cosmology, “everything has changed,” or “we are the only life in our universe,” if they had no basis for saying these things?

The first distinction to make, is that it is not the cosmos per se that is “changing very fast,” but it is rather to our perception of the cosmos, that is, the study of cosmology, that this “changing very fast” refers. When Lawrence Krauss says “everything has changed,” he’s not saying that the stars in the various constellations have moved around or that the universal laws of nature have been suddenly reformed, but rather he is saying that our awareness or our outlook on what the cosmos has to show us all has changed. To him, our awareness, apparently, is “everything.” That alone is significant, it seems to me, that he would regard our view of the cosmos and how we think of it, as being “everything.”

Now, *change *implies a movement from one thing to another, therefore, what exactly do you suppose is “moving,” and what is this “change” moving away from, and toward what do you suppose is this “change” **moving toward? **

Can these two entities (moving away from, and moving toward) be identified?

If so, can they be described?
.

 

[Pancras]

What I really wanted to ask above is the following, but it seemed to sound a bit too complicated, however, now that I see the words in context, it seems to me perhaps someone might appreciate more accurate language, so here goes:

Now, change implies a movement of something from one place or thing to another.

Therefore, what exactly do you suppose is said to be “moving?”

And away from what does this “change” imply it is moving away from, and toward what do you suppose is this “change” implied to be moving toward?

Can these three entities (the thing moving, what it’s moving away from, and what it’s moving toward) be identified?

If so, can they be described?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I really wanted to ask above is the following, but it seemed to sound a bit too complicated, however, now that I see the words in context, it seems to me perhaps someone might appreciate more accurate language, so here goes:

Now, change implies a movement of something from one place or thing to another.

Therefore, what exactly do you suppose is said to be “moving?”

And away from what does this “change” imply it is moving away from, and toward what do you suppose is this “change” implied to be moving toward?

Can these three entities (the thing moving, what it’s moving away from, and what it’s moving toward) be identified?

If so, can they be described?

I think that they are implying that the old view that God created the universe is passing away and that now " we " think the universe created itself. Of course they are wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Okay, you are talking about this movie trailor:

youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg

It’s a film about geocentricism. Based on that alone does this film deserve any further serious consideration?

The Narrator said the following.
Kate Mulgrew:

I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew.
source

Lawrence Krauss:

Facebook, and Twitter accounts began to buzz about clips of me appearing in some purported new documentary film promoting … wait for it … geocentrism!
…]
I learned that its producer also apparently questions the Holocaust. It is tempting to say that both claims are obscene nonsense, but I believe that does a disservice to the word nonsense.
…]
So, the question I had to face after discovering this abuse of my words was what to do about it. I have no recollection of being interviewed for such a film, and of course had I known of its premise I would have refused. So, either the producers used clips of me that were in the public domain, or they bought them from other production companies that I may have given some rights to distribute my interviews to, or they may have interviewed me under false pretenses, in which case I probably signed some release. I simply don’t know.

Source

 

[Pancras]

I think that they are implying that the old view that God created the universe is passing away and that now " we " think the universe created itself. Of course they are wrong.

Linus2nd

I can understand why you would think they’d be talking about religious faith and belief in God, but no, they seem to be talking about what they believe regarding the ***physical cosmos itself, ***not necessarily anything regarding its origins.

“I think that they are implying that the old view that God created the universe is passing away and that now ‘we’ think the universe created itself. Of course they are wrong.” -Linus2nd

These are three scientists who were educated in schools that taught them that everyone believes that the distribution of stars and galaxies and latent radiation in deep space is random and ubiquitous. But we have had some 15 years now of consistent data – upon close examination thereof, it is now found the distribution is not random at all, nor is it ubiquitous. It is arranged conspicuously in two ways that these 3 scientists and thousands more like them, do not want to think could ever be possible.

They don’t want to go into the question of where the universe came from or how it came into being, because that’s ‘religion’ and they’re not in the ‘religion’ business. Nonetheless, it’s what they BELIEVE (i.e. their ‘faith’) that is being changed.

When Lawrence Krauss says, “It’s an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed,” he is talking about how he cannot get up in the morning and believe that his daily work schedule will be the same as it was 15 years ago, because what he was able to say in answers to questions 15 years ago he can no longer say. There have been discoveries in the past 15 years that change our perception of what the objective reality of outer space is, in and of itself. He’s saying that “it’s an exciting time in cosmology,” because the rules to the game are different now, and the challenge of how to cope with a changing game is an exciting challenge.

The challenge that faces scientists who would try to keep the same by-line alive even if by life support, are facing having to go to extremes they haven’t had to go to, previously, even, for example, to the point of claiming what they have been quoted as having said in the past isn’t what they actually said.
.

 

[Pancras]

Cosmology, as a category of philosophy, has endured a lot of change in the past 500 years, but it’s not the only area of philosophy that has undergone change. Another one, for example, has been psychology. The transformation of what “psychology” meant to everyone on planet earth who used the word 500 years ago, into what it means today nearly universally, is not a small thing. When you use the word “psychology” today, practically nobody thinks today that you mean what people 500 years ago would have thought you had meant then. Certainly, as times change, the meaning of certain words change because language is a living thing and change does happen.

But the change that has happened in philosophy over the past few centuries can be dissected and considered in its parts, one of which is psychology, another of which is ethics, and yet another of which is cosmology. I shouldn’t have to explain how the philosophy of ethics has changed over the past few hundred years. That is, it should be another thread. Likewise, psychology.

Regarding cosmology, however, it might be useful to consider how it has gradually been transformed over the centuries, without immediate regard to whether this transformation has been a good thing, or a bad thing, or a morally neutral thing.
.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Cosmology is certainly in a state of flux.

To the extent that atheists are operating in the field, you will always find this to be so.

While the Big Bang posited a start to the universe, a Creation moment, atheists have been seeking a way to stop that interpretation of the Big Bang. Since the universe was created, you would think logic would allow a Creator. But no. For the atheist, this is impossible. Anything but a Creator. So now we get the universe creating itself.

Not exactly the most logical explanation possible, but in the absence of any other explanation, for the atheist it is acceptable.

Reminding us again of the wisdom of Psalms: “The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

 

[Pat_Albertson]

“There is a crisis in cosmology.” -Michio Kaku

Kaku is probably referring to either dark energy in conjunction with the possible presence of a small finite non-zero value for Einstein’s cosmological constant, or else the difficulty in making string theory work.

“It’s an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed.” -Lawrence Krauss

My guess is that Krauss is referring solely to dark energy along with Einstein’s cosmological constant, same as above.

“Life is extremely rare. We are in fact the only life in our entire universe, and I actually think we are very significant.” -Max Tegmark

I’m not sure about Tegmark. He theorizes about the multiverse (which naturally enough would include the Everett many-worlds hypothesis) and beyond a lot, so he’s probably talking about how to get around the classical wave function collapse in quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, and going against my guess just above, I don’t see why, if one has already admitted the possibility of the Everett many-worlds hypothesis, one would need to worry about the collapse of the wave function, since the Everett many-worlds hypothesis will take care of that all by itself without any need for more different strange parallel universes as incarnations of mathematical possibilities. Perhaps he’s trying to absorb the classical wave function collapse into his own theories via something like the strong anthropic principle.

I’ll close by saying that those are just guesses off the top of my head. I don’t actually know why those three men said the things they said. I could very well be wrong.

 

[Pancras]

Cosmology is certainly in a state of flux.

Your choice of words is most appropriate, Charlemagne III, for it was some 2 or 3 millennia ago when ancient philosophers whom we continue to quote and study today, spent their entire lives in debates over whether flux is even possible. The “state of flux” per se, was a controversial topic for several centuries.

And curiously, cosmology was right in the thick of it!

To the extent that atheists are operating in the field, you will always find this to be so.

Again, your words raise up a litany of historical reference. It has only been in the past century (the 20th) that this “atheism” has wormed its way into some manner of respectability. There were authors of books written 150 years ago, who, when we look back at them from our vantage point of hindsight, would seem likely to have been “closet atheists” by the manner in which they wrote. They pretended to have Christian faith, but they subtly attacked same in a myriad of ways. Perhaps their feigned faith was only for the purpose of self-preservation for they would have known that if they had been honest about their atheism, they would have been as unwelcome as a “skunk at a lawn party.”

While the Big Bang posited a start to the universe, a Creation moment, atheists have been seeking a way to stop that interpretation of the Big Bang. Since the universe was created, you would think logic would allow a Creator. But no. For the atheist, this is impossible. Anything but a Creator. So now we get the universe creating itself.

Not exactly the most logical explanation possible, but in the absence of any other explanation, for the atheist it is acceptable.

Reminding us again of the wisdom of Psalms: “The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

You have put it very succinctly, sir, and I appreciate your insight.

It is interesting to see how close these atheists are willing to get to the revelation of God while continuing to deny its substance. I am reminded of the ancient Israelites and their experiences with the Ark of the Covenant. No one dared to touch it because they would be struck dead on the spot if they did. One guy attempted to keep it from falling over while it was being transported, and touching it immediately fell to the ground and his body underwent accelerated decay in front of eyewitnesses. Talk about ‘deterrent’.

But then, after the Crucifixion, when the heavy curtain in the Temple was torn from floor to ceiling, suddenly the Ark was no longer unapproachable. It was as if it had become an empty shell of what it had been in the past.

Atheists today dare to do and say things that would have ruined them in ages past, when the living faith of Christianity was as the power of the Ark in the Old Testament. They’re finding themselves able to say things that pass scrutiny at large because in no small part, entities that would have denounced them on the spot in ages past now turn their power against anyone who would do so, and it is now forbidden to be “judgmental” or to make anyone who insults the Catholic Faith “feel bad” by telling them they’re wrong.
.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists today dare to do and say things that would have ruined them in ages past, when the living faith of Christianity was as the power of the Ark in the Old Testament. They’re finding themselves able to say things that pass scrutiny at large because in no small part, entities that would have denounced them on the spot in ages past now turn their power against anyone who would do so, and it is now forbidden to be “judgmental” or to make anyone who insults the Catholic Faith “feel bad” by telling them they’re wrong.

Thanks for your interesting comments. When Christians tell me I should not confront the atheists, I remind them that confrontation has been going on since the dawn of human history. Perhaps the most eloquent moment of the age old debate occurred in the Psalms.

“The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

He has only fooled himself, and it is charity to let him know it.

 

[Pancras]

Kaku is probably referring to either dark energy in conjunction with the possible presence of a small finite non-zero value for Einstein’s cosmological constant, or else the difficulty in making string theory work.My guess is that Krauss is referring solely to dark energy along with Einstein’s cosmological constant, same as above.I’m not sure about Tegmark. He theorizes about the multiverse (which naturally enough would include the Everett many-worlds hypothesis) and beyond a lot, so he’s probably talking about how to get around the classical wave function collapse in quantum mechanics.

Elsewhere in his interview, Kaku does mention dark energy (he asserts that a Nobel prize awaits anyone who can unlock the secrets of dark matter, FWIW), and I think I saw him mention string theory as well, but I’m not sure. I’ll have to go looking for that. Krauss, however, is specifically answering Tegmark’s discovery of the CMB pattern, and trying to put a happy face on a shocking situation. He was one of the point-men who dared to predict that the microwave background radiation in deep space had no organization or pattern to it, but that anything pointing in that direction must have been a ‘mistake’ and the NEW PROBE(s) would certainly clear that all up. That was in 2006, but now, 8 years later, the new probe(s) have only re-confirmed what he had been so sure would go away. Rather than lose sleep over it, he is trying to make the best of a rather sticky situation in which he finds himself, &c., &c.

I appreciate your informed assessment, Pat Albertson. You obviously are speaking from a vantage point of experience and training. Perhaps it would interest you to know that Max Tegmark is the person who enjoys the place in the history of science and of cosmology too, of being the one who discovered the curious CMB anomaly that has turned into this present controversy. Quantum mechanics aside for a moment (even though it is without doubt properly a legitimate study under the broad theme of cosmology, since it addresses aspects of our physical universe), the quote I mentioned in the OP is in context of his address of the CMB map phenomenon which he personally discovered amidst the mountains of data retrieved from the collected output from recent satellites and deep space probes.

A lot of money, time, trouble and effort have gone into collecting data, with diligent effort by all concerned largely focused on finding evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and/or evidence of the ‘big bang’ that can prove the physical origins of our universe and the vast age thereof (in the multiple billions of years). Successive probes have been designed to achieve this end, but upon their delivery of the data they collected, something quite unexpected has turned up, and it is that unexpectedness that is the basis of these 3 quotes I have given in the OP.

On the other hand, and going against my guess just above, I don’t see why, if one has already admitted the possibility of the Everett many-worlds hypothesis, one would need to worry about the collapse of the wave function, since the Everett many-worlds hypothesis will take care of that all by itself without any need for more different strange parallel universes as incarnations of mathematical possibilities. Perhaps he’s trying to absorb the classical wave function collapse into his own theories via something like the strong anthropic principle.

I’ll close by saying that those are just guesses off the top of my head. I don’t actually know why those three men said the things they said. I could very well be wrong.

But even if you are “wrong” you are nonetheless “right” inasmuch as your immediate reaction provides an honest assessment of what it would at least SEEM to be that has caused these 3 scientists to say these things. I have no doubt that the information that is soon due to emerge for all to see will be of interest to you, for it will no doubt answer your question, but it will likely raise new ones. It would be great if you could return to this thread to post whatever new questions you may have, along with any newfound answers you may have come up with. I really appreciate your contribution!
.

 

[Pancras]

Thanks for your interesting comments. When Christians tell me I should not confront the atheists, I remind them that confrontation has been going on since the dawn of human history. Perhaps the most eloquent moment of the age old debate occurred in the Psalms.

“The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

He has only fooled himself, and it is charity to let him know it.

You’re welcome. We are at a time in history when the rules are also in a state of flux. Time was you could stand up and defend the Faith without being shouted down from all corners of the arena. But in the days of the early Church, it wasn’t like that, and remember, in the days of the terror in England under the butcher Bess &c., you had best keep your mouth closed if you wanted to keep your head on. So we shouldn’t be too surprised that times are seeming to return to a state of persecution. There are many warnings.

Perhaps confrontation isn’t always the best approach, but rather informed and perceptive questions could be more powerful. I have heard of several conversions, one of an Armenian Orthodox, one of a Mormon, and another of a “pentecostal protestant.” They were all likewise following a Trad Catholic asking them specific questions that were geared to their own misunderstanding of the Faith. Only after they found out what the answers were, did they then start to realize what they had been missing before that time.

I have to wonder how many atheists there are who misunderstand the Church for some key reason, after they have believed on faith something they were told, when later they may find out that it was not true at all. Of course, there are always those who look for reasons to doubt anything that conflicts with their deliberately contrary agenda. But that’s another topic.

We’re discussing cosmology here in general and the crisis in cosmology in particular.
.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Cosmology, as a category of philosophy, has endured a lot of change in the past 500 years, but it’s not the only area of philosophy that has undergone change. Another one, for example, has been psychology. The transformation of what “psychology” meant to everyone on planet earth who used the word 500 years ago, into what it means today nearly universally, is not a small thing. When you use the word “psychology” today, practically nobody thinks today that you mean what people 500 years ago would have thought you had meant then. Certainly, as times change, the meaning of certain words change because language is a living thing and change does happen.

But the change that has happened in philosophy over the past few centuries can be dissected and considered in its parts, one of which is psychology, another of which is ethics, and yet another of which is cosmology. I shouldn’t have to explain how the philosophy of ethics has changed over the past few hundred years. That is, it should be another thread. Likewise, psychology.

Regarding cosmology, however, it might be useful to consider how it has gradually been transformed over the centuries, without immediate regard to whether this transformation has been a good thing, or a bad thing, or a morally neutral thing.
.

My resonse to your posts 5 & 6. I have not studied these men, only what people here say and what I have seen on a couple of videos. What I want to warn all Catholics about is that when modern Cosmolotists suggest something, or say something that is conrtary to Catholic Doctrine, what they say that is contrary to Catholic Doctrine has to be rejected if one wants to remain a practicing Catholic.

Linus2nd

 

[Pancras]

My resonse to your posts 5 & 6. I have not studied these men, only what people here say and what I have seen on a couple of videos. What I want to warn all Catholics about is that when modern Cosmolotists suggest something, or say something that is conrtary to Catholic Doctrine, what they say that is contrary to Catholic Doctrine has to be rejected if one wants to remain a practicing Catholic.

Linus2nd

Perhaps you would be interested to hear about the condemnations of 1277, of which some had to do with cosmological principles. These were disseminated by the bishop of Paris for his faithful to observe in their work on studying Scripture. Note: this was 400 years before Galileo – as long as it has been from Galileo to our own time.

Of the nearly 100 condemned propositions or concepts was this one, #83, which caught my attention:

Quote: Condemned Proposition 83 safeguarded the doctrine of creation.
“That the world, although it was made from nothing, was not newly-made, and although it passed from non-being to being, the non-being did not precede in duration but only in nature.”

What does this mean for the ‘big bang’? It condemns the notion that the universe (at the time they used to say “the world”) was not newly-made (as in the big bang), and it condemns the notion that when the universe came into being it was only its nature that began (as in the big bang), while in time it had a prior existence if in a different nature (as in the big bang).

Proposition 83 therefore, precludes the possibility of any “big bang” that occurred in time, because that would constitute a precedence of being, from non-being “in nature,” but not “in duration.” Consequently, on this basis (#83) the Catholics of Paris in 1277 were forbidden to believe in any kind of ‘big bang’, even if it were construed as a “creation event,” because according to this legitimate bishop’s synod, Catholics must believe that when God created the universe, He did so *ex-nihilo, *and that there was nothing previous in time, nor previous in nature, which He used in His act of creation.

As we understand this principle today, it means that time itself was created, such that light could be created (light cannot exist without a framework of time – a principle that even modern skeptics would not argue against), and after light came the earth, and then the rest of creation built around the earth.
.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps you would be interested to hear about the condemnations of 1277, of which some had to do with cosmological principles. These were disseminated by the bishop of Paris for his faithful to observe in their work on studying Scripture. Note: this was 400 years before Galileo – as long as it has been from Galileo to our own time.

Of the nearly 100 condemned propositions or concepts was this one, #83, which caught my attention:

What does this mean for the ‘big bang’? It condemns the notion that the universe (at the time they used to say “the world”) was not newly-made (as in the big bang), and it condemns the notion that when the universe came into being it was only its nature that began (as in the big bang), while in time it had a prior existence if in a different nature (as in the big bang).

Proposition 83 therefore, precludes the possibility of any “big bang” that occurred in time, because that would constitute a precedence of being, from non-being “in nature,” but not “in duration.” Consequently, on this basis (#83) the Catholics of Paris in 1277 were forbidden to believe in any kind of ‘big bang’, even if it were construed as a “creation event,” because according to this legitimate bishop’s synod, Catholics must believe that when God created the universe, He did so *ex-nihilo, *and that there was nothing previous in time, nor previous in nature, which He used in His act of creation.

As we understand this principle today, it means that time itself was created, such that light could be created (light cannot exist without a framework of time – a principle that even modern skeptics would not argue against), and after light came the earth, and then the rest of creation built around the earth.
.

The statement in # 83 is somewhat obtuse. I’m not sure exactly what it means. I don’t see how it would condemn a " Big Bang " as long as we understand that the " matter " from which issued this event was created, in time, ex nihilo. In this scenario the creation event would not be the Big Bang but the matter which preceeded it. Just my opinion.

Linus2nd

 

[hildegaard]

This new documentary coming out is truly relevant to this topic. It explores recent evidence that challenges the Copernican Principle in a big way. Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, Julian Barbour, George Ellis, and others are in the movie. Since the movie deals with the Copernican Principle, geocentrists are also interviewed, including Robert Sungenis. Here is the trailer:

youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg

 

[Pancras]

This new documentary coming out is truly relevant to this topic. It explores recent evidence that challenges the Copernican Principle in a big way. Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, Julian Barbour, George Ellis, and others are in the movie. Since the movie deals with the Copernican Principle, geocentrists are also interviewed, including Robert Sungenis. Here is the trailer:

youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg

I’ve had a feeling that something is happening behind the scenes when I’ve gone to Griffith Park Observatory lately. There is an ‘atmosphere’ (sorry) a ‘climate’ (uhhh…) a, how shall we say, an ambiance of uncertainty hanging heavy in the air all around the place. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but it seems there is some kind of lurking disturbance afoot that nobody wants to talk about.

One thing I’ve found curious is that when they set up the Foucault pendulum dominoes, then stand back and watch them fall over one at a time, the docent seems to be ill-at-ease whenever a visitor asks certain questions. One time, the docent actually excused himself and said he had to go answer an important phone call. It seemed like he was trying to escape an uncomfortable situation because he was not able to satisfactorily reply to one particular question. After he left, a discussion ensued among the visitors and some walked away seemingly disgusted at what was being said, but others stayed to listen, and I was among those. It was pretty interesting, because it seems that the docents and astronomers are only willing to go so far, and then they want to change topic. But other visitors are having a free discussion that is in some ways more interesting than the “official” presentation.

Now, I just watched the “trailer” in your link above, hildegaard. But I had to use a search engine to make it open. Here is a link that actually opens the trailer page:

youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg

I don’t pretend to know what’s wrong with your link or why this one is better, but what works, works!

I must say, thinking back perhaps those I spoke to at the Observatory had also seen this trailer. But I have no idea, because they weren’t talking about it. Now, I’ll have to go back and find out, because I have more information to go on. Do you know where I can read more about this new movie coming up? When is it going to be released?

.

 

[Pancras]

Quote: Condemned proposition #83
“That the world, although it was made from nothing, was not newly-made, and although it passed from non-being to being, the non-being did not precede in duration but only in nature.”

The statement in # 83 is somewhat obtuse. I’m not sure exactly what it means. I don’t see how it would condemn a “Big Bang” as long as we understand that the “matter” from which issued this event was created, in time, ex nihilo. In this scenario the creation event would not be the Big Bang but the matter which preceded it. Just my opinion.

Linus2nd

The condemned proposition #83 uses language that is not what we would see today, but remember, it’s 737 years old. We need to be aware of how they said things in that time.

But as for what it means, let me try an extrapolation of it, and see if that helps.

“That the universe, although it was made from nothing (ex-nihilo), was not newly-made (how could it have been made from nothing without being newly made??), and although it passed from non-being to being (ex-nihilo), the non-being did not precede in duration (the nothingness from whence it came was not nothingness in time, because the material had some manner of prior existence) but only in nature (that is, the STUFF that would become the material of the universe existed in some manner of alternative nature in time, such as a “singularity” or a “state of energy” or some nascent manner of pre-existence, such that what is proposed here was there, just before the ‘big bang’ happened).”

You see, there are two modes of being, of which the authors of this #83 were fully aware. These Parisian bishops of 737 years ago knew that being in potency (posse) is not the same thing as being in act (esse). It could be subtly said that something could be *in posse, *but not be in actu, at the same time, and then the non-existence only applies to the *esse *and not the posse. They were condemning a proposition that would make a false distinction between the material of the universe having been made from nothing in both time and nature (that before it was created there was no manner of existence at all of the material of the universe), and the material having been made from “nothingness” only in regards to the nature it now has (in actu), but that there had been some kind of potential existence that pre-existed the creation event (in posse), which this proposition refers to as, “but only in nature.”

The present day theorists in cosmology are trying to get away with saying either one of two things:

Firstly, they may say that in the beginning there was nothing and this nothingness suddenly exploded into somethingness. This laughable fantasy obviously has a very limited life potential.

Secondly, they may say, while we claim that there was ‘nothing’ in the beginning, we have found clues in the cosmos that indicate there was some manner of thing, some small, tiny, infinitesimal “singularity” or nascent energy or lingering vibration or whatever. Therefore, it is not just a ‘big bang’ but a Big Lie, because if there was nothing, then there was nothing, and not *almost *nothing.

The proposition above was condemned because it said that the *nothingness *was actually somethingness.

737 years ago, the bishops of Paris condemned the notion that there had been anything at all when God created the world (universe) out of nothing. They were facing the speculation of scientists or Bible exegetes at the time who were saying that sure, ex-nihilo, however, that TIME already existed before God created the world, and that therefore, there had to be some kind of rumbling energy or nascent vibration or ‘singularity’ out there in space – hey, space! If there was time and space, then there must have been something IN it! What good is time and space with no matter to fill it? Maybe there was time, space and ether.

Answer: Okay, time space and ether. But then, God would have had to have first created the time, space, and ether, (perhaps not in that order!) which is something, not nothing.

.

 

[Pancras]

.
We could have our answer in four words of Scripture: “Let There Be Light.”

What is necessary for light to exist? It travels over a distance, so you need space. It travels at a speed, so you need time. And it travels through some sort of medium, so you need something like water, or air, or a vacuum – wait, there’s nothing in a vacuum. Okay so let’s say ether. For light to exist you need time, space and the ether. Therefore, when God said, “let there be light,” He could have been speaking in a general sense about having said a bit more than that, but the light is the most crucial element, since that was the whole point. Maybe He had said, “First let there be time, second, let there be space, and third, let there be ether. Okay, now we’re ready for light. Let There Be Light.”

We could simply be missing a few preface details, is all.
.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote: Condemned proposition #83
“That the world, although it was made from nothing, was not newly-made, and although it passed from non-being to being, the non-being did not precede in duration but only in nature.”

The condemned proposition #83 uses language that is not what we would see today, but remember, it’s 737 years old. We need to be aware of how they said things in that time.

But as for what it means, let me try an extrapolation of it, and see if that helps.

“That the universe, although it was made from nothing (ex-nihilo), was not newly-made (how could it have been made from nothing without being newly made??), and although it passed from non-being to being (ex-nihilo), the non-being did not precede in duration (the nothingness from whence it came was not nothingness in time, because the material had some manner of prior existence) but only in nature (that is, the STUFF that would become the material of the universe existed in some manner of alternative nature in time, such as a “singularity” or a “state of energy” or some nascent manner of pre-existence, such that what is proposed here was there, just before the ‘big bang’ happened).”

You see, there are two modes of being, of which the authors of this #83 were fully aware. These Parisian bishops of 737 years ago knew that being in potency (posse) is not the same thing as being in act (esse). It could be subtly said that something could be *in posse, *but not be in actu, at the same time, and then the non-existence only applies to the *esse *and not the posse. They were condemning a proposition that would make a false distinction between the material of the universe having been made from nothing in both time and nature (that before it was created there was no manner of existence at all of the material of the universe), and the material having been made from “nothingness” only in regards to the nature it now has (in actu), but that there had been some kind of potential existence that pre-existed the creation event (in posse), which this proposition refers to as, “but only in nature.”

The present day theorists in cosmology are trying to get away with saying either one of two things:

Firstly, they may say that in the beginning there was nothing and this nothingness suddenly exploded into somethingness. This laughable fantasy obviously has a very limited life potential.

Secondly, they may say, while we claim that there was ‘nothing’ in the beginning, we have found clues in the cosmos that indicate there was some manner of thing, some small, tiny, infinitesimal “singularity” or nascent energy or lingering vibration or whatever. Therefore, it is not just a ‘big bang’ but a Big Lie, because if there was nothing, then there was nothing, and not *almost *nothing.

The proposition above was condemned because it said that the *nothingness *was actually somethingness.

737 years ago, the bishops of Paris condemned the notion that there had been anything at all when God created the world (universe) out of nothing. They were facing the speculation of scientists or Bible exegetes at the time who were saying that sure, ex-nihilo, however, that TIME already existed before God created the world, and that therefore, there had to be some kind of rumbling energy or nascent vibration or ‘singularity’ out there in space – hey, space! If there was time and space, then there must have been something IN it! What good is time and space with no matter to fill it? Maybe there was time, space and ether.

Answer: Okay, time space and ether. But then, God would have had to have first created the time, space, and ether, (perhaps not in that order!) which is something, not nothing.

.

Your explanation seems correct, I will take your word for it, since I couldn’t make heads or tails out of article 83. One would have to be somewhat of a historian on councilear teachings to interpret it correctly.

Linus2nd