T
Tomdstone
Guest
Nothingness and empty space are two different things.
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Stick to your guns. You are correct. Our great scientists at Harvard would have done well to have read Thomas Aquinas. See below.
Originally Posted by inocente
That leads you to a paradox: the universe is surrounded by nothingness, but as nothingness does not exist, the universe cannot be surrounded by nothingness.
The following page at Harvard-Smithsonian explains (and dispels a number of misconceptions):
cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/questions/
Linus2nd Responds.
All very interesting and highly speculative and imaginative. But give me a hint, where does it say the universe " cannot be surrounded " by nothingness. Of course from a strictly logical point of view, " nothingness " means no being, no space, no matter, no time, no energy, no waves, or, complete non-existence. And non-existence cannot surround anything. It is the state in which only God existed. As Thomas says,
" Reply to Objection 3. When anything is said to be made from nothing, this preposition “from” [ex] does not signify the material cause, but only order; as when we say, “from morning comes midday”–i.e. after morning is midday. But we must understand that this preposition “from” [ex] can comprise the negation implied when I say the word “nothing,” or can be included in it. If taken in the first sense, then we affirm the order by stating the relation between what is now and its previous non-existence. But if the negation includes the preposition, then the order is denied, and the sense is, “It is made from nothing–i.e. it is not made from anything”–as if we were to say, “He speaks of nothing,” because he does not speak of anything. And this is verified in both ways, when it is said, that anything is made from nothing. But in the first way this preposition “from” [ex] implies order, as has been said in this reply. In the second sense, it imports the material cause, which is denied. " ( S.T. Part 1, ques 45, ad 3 ).
Isn’t philosophy wonderful?
Linus2nd
B
Bradski
Guest
Do you want to come around my place for a few games of poker? Bring lots of money.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Sounds interesting. The last time I was in Vegas, I played my system and won over $500, but then stopped there.
B
Bradski
Guest
I was there a few weeks back. Didn’t win a thing. I was actually going to have a poke at you for thinking 5 heads out 10 is less than a 50 - 50 shot. But then I saw you’d said exactly 5 outa 10.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Calculate it using the binomial probability distribution.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
These are interesting presentations of Fr. Spitzer. They are quite enjoyable to watch and his book is interesting to read. Let us assume that Father Spitzer is correct and that God did create the universe and work from there. This presents us with a problem as we know that God is all good and all powerful. Why then does He allow a small helpless baby to be born with horrible and painful defects. The child did nothing wrong; why is it right for such an unfortunate child to have to live such a miserable life of suffering in disease and unending pain? Since God is all good and all powerful why does He not intervene in such a case and allow the helpless child to lead a joyful life instead of a short and painful life of horrible suffering and disease?
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Any proof of these multiverses? Or is it so much wishful thinking?
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
Wouldn’t universes in a multiverse have to interact if they existed and wouldn’t this cause improbabilities in every universe which could not be explained by that universe alone.
And I think the multiverse theory was only voiced because the probabilities of our universe being as it is, with life on earth and everything, was just a bit too unbelievable for those scientific people.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You know the answer. Evil is the result of sin. But God would not allow evil had he not promised ot bring a greater good out of it. Remember He did not spare His own Son. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the problem. But it takes faith to accept it because evil is always repugnant and painful to endure and to see and that is normal. See paragraphs 309-314 and look in the index under " evil."
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM
Linus2nd
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Doesn’t this issue concerning suffering and misery depend upon a “relative” perspective with regard to tolerating it? Our point of view is from this side of death so the only factors we have to consider are those which feature large on this side. Wouldn’t it make a huge difference if we could see the entire picture, that is, not just from our limited point of view but rather from the perspective of eternity?
Doesn’t a perspective on suffering also “colour” its importance? If we take Teresa’s attitude wouldn’t the way we go about life be substantially different from the way someone who is crippled or angered by every small inconvenience? Because their threshold for pain or inconvenience is so low, every distress and trouble becomes mountainous for them.
Perhaps the fall wasn’t so much one involving nature but of our weakened state regarding living through or dealing with the world around us.
Believing in the omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient Being who grounds all existence means believing in and trusting the omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient Being who grounds all existence, not in our ability to understand. If God exists and he “has our backs” then his power to bring good from every evil is unlimited. He never promised it would be easy or painless. Christ was crucified and often the saints faced horrible martyrdoms. Clearly, something is amiss with this world, but suffering or evil are not indefeasible, though our incapacity to deal with them will make them appear that way.
I
inocente
Guest
It’s a science website. You might want to reduce Almighty God to the status of scientific hypothesis, but the guys who wrote that page disagree, as I hope do all Catholic scientists and the Pope.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
No I don’t, as you well know. And neither was that the point Thomas Aquinas was making. Nor is it a matter of approach. But givin the proclivities of Science for the last four hundred years, claiming that Science is the only source of truth, Philosophy is showing that the things ( the truth ) of this world can and should lead us to God. And that is what Thomas was saying. It is not a question of either reason or faith but of both reason and faith. Some day you may understand.
Linus2nd
I
inocente
Guest
Space is not nothingness. Space has dimensions of length, width and height.
Nothingness does not exist. It cannot possibly have any length, width or height.
So it’s silly to speak of nothingness surrounding something. I’m surprised that you guys would try that one.
What, rather than take facts from Harvard, the Smithsonian and NASA, you want me to believe someone on an internet forum who thinks nothing has a size?
Yikes!
I
inocente
Guest
Yes, I know. That’s why it’s silly for people to claim space is surrounded by nothingness. The universe is the totality of all that exists, so by definition it cannot be surrounded.
I
inocente
Guest
No, I’ll never understand.
Those who want science websites to talk about God, along with those who want to prove the existence of God (or an intelligent designer or whatever they want to call Him), along with those who talk as if there are no Christians who are scientists, those are the ones who think science is the only source of truth.
And those who talk as if philosophy is all about God, conveniently forgetting all the schools of philosophy which argue otherwise, and talk as if Jesus wanted philosophical proofs rather than faith, who talk as if salvation can be packaged into proofs, they don’t really help matters much either imho.
Those of us who find no conflict between science and faith, who know Christ is not a theory, we understand what needs to be understood, thanks all the same.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
er… the universe isn’t the totality of everything that exists. The universe exists within the Creator and He is infinite. And ‘nothingness’ refers to the state within the Creator before matter or space was created. They were created from ‘nothing’, that is, from no pre-existing material. You could argue that all the rest of the infinite Creators presence in which the universe does not yet currently reside in consists of Him, the Creator, and ‘nothingness’.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
To an either/or thinker things can either have dimensions and be “something” or have no dimensions and be “nothingness.”
It would seem inconceivable, to such a thinker, for something to be dimensionless and still exist.
Yet God is immaterial and dimensionless, but he is not “nothing.” Rather we might say he is unconstrained in any spatial sense. Perhaps immeasurable is a better word, but even that can be misconstrued.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There is evidence of a multiverse, but not hard proof. Anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at microwave and infra-red frequencies indicate bruising of our universe by other universes. See post 623. Also, it is known that theoretically, there are many solutions to string theory, each one giving a different universe.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You have it all jumbled up. I am speaking for Thomistic Philosophy only. It has been under rentless attack by well known men of science and the philosophy of science which grew out of Galileo and Newton and has reached a screaming pitch today. By answering that challenge Thomistic Philosophers are showing that God can be reached with reason, science has not " killed " him and will never be able to do so.No, I’ll never understand.
Those who want science websites to talk about God, along with those who want to prove the existence of God (or an intelligent designer or whatever they want to call Him), along with those who talk as if there are no Christians who are scientists, those are the ones who think science is the only source of truth.
And those who talk as if philosophy is all about God, conveniently forgetting all the schools of philosophy which argue otherwise, and talk as if Jesus wanted philosophical proofs rather than faith, who talk as if salvation can be packaged into proofs, they don’t really help matters much either imho.
Those of us who find no conflict between science and faith, who know Christ is not a theory, we understand what needs to be understood, thanks all the same.
We are not saying that Philosophy " reveals " the totality of God and His relationship with man or man’s relationship with him. That is job of Faith. We are witnessing to the God who reveales himself in nature. That is why I don’t understand your objection. And I must say your particlar slant is one I have never run across before. Is this something you have acquired on your own or have you gotten it through some source? Can you explain it?
Linus2nd
- Status