R
Richca
Guest
Ok, thank you phil.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Richca
Guest
I have a lot of things on my mind I feel like I need to write down so if you guys will be patience with me, I’d appreciate it.
I have a working model of the beginnings of the universe in keeping with the general structure of Genesis 1 and the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. I’ve been thinking about the nature of stars and how God created them for he gave them their natures. Now, God could have created them whole and immediately out of nothing, gave them their natures, and they continue shining as stars according to their natures and how they work. But, we have previously postulated that God first created the elements, the foundation as it were from which he would later form mixed bodies, mixtures or compounds of the elements. The creation of light happened on day one, not from the very beginning it seems Gen. 1: 1-2.
We’ll isolate out a single star and see how God created it in this model I’m proposing and sort of simplyfy it. God creates in the initial act of creation a dense cloud of hydrogen atoms without the accidents such as the electrical charges, strong and weak forces and gravity. Here for simplification, I’m just going to use gravity as a natural accidental form that follows bodies. Then, such as on day one, he gives these atoms, the protons, nuetrons, electrons, their natural accidents, the electrical charges, strong and weak forces, and gravity. With their accidents, elemental atoms can interact with each other and with other kinds of elemental atoms. From here the force of gravity causes pressure in the core of the cloud or birthing star which in turn causes heat and keeps the star from collapsing in on itself. The fusion process begins of the hydrogen atoms into helium and light or photons are emitted.
Stellar nucleosynthesis is a theory and so is the atomic structure of atoms really. That’s okay, we can still use them here keeping in mind that they are theories.
Whole galaxies of stars are created and formed similarly. In the initial act of creation where God creates the entire matter of the corporeal universe under elemental forms, these elements God places in the form of the galaxies and dense clouds of all the stars that are going to be formed and birthed. On day one of Genesis, God chooses which clouds of the elements to give the accidental forms too and the stars are birthed such as I said above. This day of Genesis last billions of years so at various times he gives various clouds of the elements their accidents to birth new stars. Or, God gave all the elements in a galaxy their accidental forms together, but in initially creating various densities of the clouds they birth into stars according to various times.
The galaxies and the stars in it get their rotation from the effect of gravity and possibly help from an expanding heavens if that is postulated. There you have in a nutshell the creation and formation of galaxies
and stars by God the Creator. This is a working model.
I have a working model of the beginnings of the universe in keeping with the general structure of Genesis 1 and the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. I’ve been thinking about the nature of stars and how God created them for he gave them their natures. Now, God could have created them whole and immediately out of nothing, gave them their natures, and they continue shining as stars according to their natures and how they work. But, we have previously postulated that God first created the elements, the foundation as it were from which he would later form mixed bodies, mixtures or compounds of the elements. The creation of light happened on day one, not from the very beginning it seems Gen. 1: 1-2.
We’ll isolate out a single star and see how God created it in this model I’m proposing and sort of simplyfy it. God creates in the initial act of creation a dense cloud of hydrogen atoms without the accidents such as the electrical charges, strong and weak forces and gravity. Here for simplification, I’m just going to use gravity as a natural accidental form that follows bodies. Then, such as on day one, he gives these atoms, the protons, nuetrons, electrons, their natural accidents, the electrical charges, strong and weak forces, and gravity. With their accidents, elemental atoms can interact with each other and with other kinds of elemental atoms. From here the force of gravity causes pressure in the core of the cloud or birthing star which in turn causes heat and keeps the star from collapsing in on itself. The fusion process begins of the hydrogen atoms into helium and light or photons are emitted.
Stellar nucleosynthesis is a theory and so is the atomic structure of atoms really. That’s okay, we can still use them here keeping in mind that they are theories.
Whole galaxies of stars are created and formed similarly. In the initial act of creation where God creates the entire matter of the corporeal universe under elemental forms, these elements God places in the form of the galaxies and dense clouds of all the stars that are going to be formed and birthed. On day one of Genesis, God chooses which clouds of the elements to give the accidental forms too and the stars are birthed such as I said above. This day of Genesis last billions of years so at various times he gives various clouds of the elements their accidents to birth new stars. Or, God gave all the elements in a galaxy their accidental forms together, but in initially creating various densities of the clouds they birth into stars according to various times.
The galaxies and the stars in it get their rotation from the effect of gravity and possibly help from an expanding heavens if that is postulated. There you have in a nutshell the creation and formation of galaxies
and stars by God the Creator. This is a working model.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
I postulate the elements not being created with their accidents in the beginning of creation because St Thomas also says this in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard and it makes sense to me.
The beginning of the universe it appears from Genesis 1 starts out cold and dark and such is our model here. This is the opposite of the Big Bang model where the universe is hot and bright at the start. From what I understand, the physics of the Big Bang model has to start out hot and bright in order to produce the ‘matter’ of the elements. This is an erroneous conception of matter according to Thomistic metaphysics. Matter can only be produced by creation and not from any creature whatsoever and it only exists with substantial forms. Modern day physics essentially studies the accidents of things and more specifically the accident of quantity abstracted from sensible qualities. This is fine because that is what the science of physics is about. Aristotlelian/Thomistic metaphysics reaches to the substance of things which is what primarily is a being or exists. Sensible qualities which are accidental forms are also real.
I postulate the elements not being created with their accidents in the beginning of creation because St Thomas also says this in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard and it makes sense to me.
The beginning of the universe it appears from Genesis 1 starts out cold and dark and such is our model here. This is the opposite of the Big Bang model where the universe is hot and bright at the start. From what I understand, the physics of the Big Bang model has to start out hot and bright in order to produce the ‘matter’ of the elements. This is an erroneous conception of matter according to Thomistic metaphysics. Matter can only be produced by creation and not from any creature whatsoever and it only exists with substantial forms. Modern day physics essentially studies the accidents of things and more specifically the accident of quantity abstracted from sensible qualities. This is fine because that is what the science of physics is about. Aristotlelian/Thomistic metaphysics reaches to the substance of things which is what primarily is a being or exists. Sensible qualities which are accidental forms are also real.
Last edited:
B
bobperk
Guest
The site (Thomistic evolution) has many interesting articles (I have read about a dozen of them so far), but too often the authors rely on a non-Magisterial 2004 International Theological Commission document to support their views. Granted, many of the topics addressed by the authors are open to theological speculation, but they over-emphasize this one document which differs markedly from all previous Church writings that address creation and evolution. Nonetheless, I do like the articles and find them informative. I just think they would have greater weight by appealing to a broader corpus of writings.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
I challenged a few of them and they would not even reply.The site (Thomistic evolution) has many interesting articles (I have read about a dozen of them so far), but too often the authors rely on a non-Magisterial 2004 International Theological Commission document to support their views. Granted, many of the topics addressed by the authors are open to theological speculation, but they over-emphasize this one document which differs markedly from all previous Church writings that address creation and evolution. Nonetheless, I do like the articles and find them informative. I just think they would have greater weight by appealing to a broader corpus of writings.
R
Richca
Guest
"Gorgias:
As you say, let’s look at his argument. You say ’ it doesn’t attempt to say that a material form cannot have made a human.’ If you go back one question, namely, question 90, Aquinas treats of the ‘First Production of Man’s Soul.’ The human soul is the form of the human body. In this question, Aquinas treats of whether the human soul is produced immediately by creation and he answers in the affirmative. This is what we hold as catholics that every human soul which is the substantial form of the body is immediately created by God. So here, Aquinas rejects the notion that either a material form or an angel can produce the human soul form. The human soul which is a spiritual form like an angel cannot be educed or transmuted out of the potentiality of matter, a spiritual form cannot emerge out of matter. So, this is the answer to what you say here, namely, Aquinas already established in the prior question that a material form cannot produce the human soul and thus make a human being.
Gorgias, you completely misunderstand what Aquinas is plainly and clearly teaching in the quote from the Summa Theologica Buffalo gave. It would be better for one to simply say they disagree with Aquinas and be honest about it instead of trying to make him say what he clearly does not say and what he does affirm is clearly against the idea of the evolution of the human body. Again, if one holds to a belief in the evolution of the human body, then I think they ought to just honestly admit that Aquinas is wrong here as Aquinas quotes from the Bible ‘God created man out of the earth’ (Sirach 17:1) and just prior to the article under discussion here he affirms again that God created the first man’s body from the slime/clay of the earth (Gen. 2:7). Slime/clay, earth or ‘dust of the ground’ are inanimate substances.So, here’s the thing. I get it that you’re attempting to use this to prove that evolution is false, but that’s not what the text is saying. A theory of evolution wasn’t in play in Aquinas’ day, so he can’t be arguing what you’d like him to be arguing.Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God.
Let’s look at his argument again: it doesn’t attempt to say that a material form cannot have made a human. Instead, it’s arguing against the proposition that some other immaterial form created humans. That’s what Aquinas is arguing against. (In fact, he implicitly assents to the principle that, at a later date, scientists argued: “a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form that is in matter, according as composite is made by composite”. That’s an argument for evolution! (Although I wouldn’t claim that Aquinas isn’t arguing evolution, but is unwittingly providing the grounds from which one can argue for evolution!))
So, Aquinas is simply pointing out that no other immaterial form created the first human being from which another human could be generated, and therefore, the creation of man belongs to God alone.
As you say, let’s look at his argument. You say ’ it doesn’t attempt to say that a material form cannot have made a human.’ If you go back one question, namely, question 90, Aquinas treats of the ‘First Production of Man’s Soul.’ The human soul is the form of the human body. In this question, Aquinas treats of whether the human soul is produced immediately by creation and he answers in the affirmative. This is what we hold as catholics that every human soul which is the substantial form of the body is immediately created by God. So here, Aquinas rejects the notion that either a material form or an angel can produce the human soul form. The human soul which is a spiritual form like an angel cannot be educed or transmuted out of the potentiality of matter, a spiritual form cannot emerge out of matter. So, this is the answer to what you say here, namely, Aquinas already established in the prior question that a material form cannot produce the human soul and thus make a human being.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued reply to Gorgias)
First, as you semi-rightly affirm, Aquinas rejects the idea that the material forms in matter emanate from angels. Although, in other places in the ST besides here in which he says ’ For this reason the angels cannot transform a body except by making use of something in the nature of a seed, as Augustine says’, Aquinas affirms that angels can and actually do educe material forms out of the potentiality of matter in their administration over the corporeal world under God’s providence. However, secondly, by saying ‘a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form in matter, according as composite is made by composite,’ he is talking about material forms of which are all the forms in the corporeal world except the human intellectual soul which is a spiritual form. Thus in reply to obj. 3 in Q. 90, art. 2, Aquinas states ‘As we have said, there is no comparison between the rational soul and other forms’.
Although Aquinas already addressed this in the prior question 90, he here brings it up again. He says “Some, indeed, supposed that the forms which are in corporeal matter are derived from some immaterial forms,” for example, angels who are pure spirits. Since the human soul is a spiritual form, some thought that maybe it is derived from an angel, indeed, some thought that not only the human soul but also all material forms in matter where derived from ‘immaterial forms’ or angels.Gorgias: instead, it’s arguing against the proposition that some other immaterial form created humans. That’s what Aquinas is arguing against.
Aquinas isn’t implicitly assenting to ‘a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form in matter, according as composite is made by composite.’ This is what he states, he affirms this. And what scientist has ever argued that ‘a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form in matter, according as composite is made by composite’? Do scientists even know what Aquinas is saying here, or what a form is or matter according to Aquinas? Scientists do not speak in these terms or of hylemorphism or of substance and accidents.Gorgias: In fact, he implicitly assents to the principle that, at a later date, scientists argued: “a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form that is in matter, according as composite is made by composite”.
First, as you semi-rightly affirm, Aquinas rejects the idea that the material forms in matter emanate from angels. Although, in other places in the ST besides here in which he says ’ For this reason the angels cannot transform a body except by making use of something in the nature of a seed, as Augustine says’, Aquinas affirms that angels can and actually do educe material forms out of the potentiality of matter in their administration over the corporeal world under God’s providence. However, secondly, by saying ‘a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form in matter, according as composite is made by composite,’ he is talking about material forms of which are all the forms in the corporeal world except the human intellectual soul which is a spiritual form. Thus in reply to obj. 3 in Q. 90, art. 2, Aquinas states ‘As we have said, there is no comparison between the rational soul and other forms’.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued reply to Gorgias)
Consequently, as neither a material form or an angel can produce the human form or soul of the human body of the first man, Aquinas states ‘Therefore, as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God.’
And also in the beginning of his answer to the article in question he states ‘I answer that, The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God.’ Any created power means any creature either earthly or heavenly.
What Aquinas is saying and what the CCC also says is that that human soul or spirit is the form of the body and that the union of soul and body or form and matter makes one being, a human being with one human nature. The nature of a human being is a composite of the spiritual human soul and the human body. Thus in Aquinas’ view and according to his own metaphysics, there is no such thing as a non-human animal form or soul in a human body, it doesn’t make any sense as neither would a tiger soul in an elephant body.
Consequently, as neither a material form or an angel can produce the human form or soul of the human body of the first man, Aquinas states ‘Therefore, as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God.’
And also in the beginning of his answer to the article in question he states ‘I answer that, The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God.’ Any created power means any creature either earthly or heavenly.
What Aquinas is saying and what the CCC also says is that that human soul or spirit is the form of the body and that the union of soul and body or form and matter makes one being, a human being with one human nature. The nature of a human being is a composite of the spiritual human soul and the human body. Thus in Aquinas’ view and according to his own metaphysics, there is no such thing as a non-human animal form or soul in a human body, it doesn’t make any sense as neither would a tiger soul in an elephant body.
Not at all. But, I’m curious to know why you think it would be?Gorgias: That’s an argument for evolution!
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
Addition made to prior post in bold:
The galaxies and the stars in it get their rotation and movement from the effect of gravity and possibly help from an expanding heavens if that is postulated and/or God or angels set them in motion. There you have in a nutshell the creation and formation of galaxies
and stars by God the Creator. This is a working model.
The galaxies and the stars in it get their rotation and movement from the effect of gravity and possibly help from an expanding heavens if that is postulated and/or God or angels set them in motion. There you have in a nutshell the creation and formation of galaxies
and stars by God the Creator. This is a working model.
Last edited:
B
bobperk
Guest
Today’s supposed discovery of “life’s building blocks” on Mars (aka methane gas produced by an unidentified nonliving process) will undoubtedly produce the usual bold assertions that life will just arise anywhere as long as certain elements exist in a certain atmosphere with enough time.
But in the grand scope of how unfathomably large the universe is, Mars is just a stone’s throw away form Earth. The distance between my outstretched arms is enormous in proportion to the relative distance between us and the red planet. But as humans we are naturally impressed by gigantic sizes and long times since they are so beyond our ability to travel or live within. So even if it is determined that there are some forms of living microbes on Mars, it is essentially right next door to earth when considering that other planets exist trillions and trillions of miles away from us. And furthermore, microbes while living cannot be said to be thinking or possess any type of self-awareness.
The vast majority of space will be most likely known to us only through pictures, calculations, and theories. So what purpose do these planets which we will never see serve? The farthest that we can detect are about 25,000 light years away (1.47 x 10^17) and those are still relatively close compared to the rest of the universe.
We know that there will be a “new heaven and a new earth,” when the current creation “passes away,” but will God create them after the complete disappearance of the entire universe, or will He use the matter of the current universe to fashion a new one? So perhaps that is the reason for these extremely far-away planets (aside from serving as evidence of God’s grandeur, and objects of our curiosity, cooperation and discovery). Might they be matter reserved for a new creation? I am not sure how that could be reconciled either with Scripture or St. Thomas’s writings.
But in the grand scope of how unfathomably large the universe is, Mars is just a stone’s throw away form Earth. The distance between my outstretched arms is enormous in proportion to the relative distance between us and the red planet. But as humans we are naturally impressed by gigantic sizes and long times since they are so beyond our ability to travel or live within. So even if it is determined that there are some forms of living microbes on Mars, it is essentially right next door to earth when considering that other planets exist trillions and trillions of miles away from us. And furthermore, microbes while living cannot be said to be thinking or possess any type of self-awareness.
The vast majority of space will be most likely known to us only through pictures, calculations, and theories. So what purpose do these planets which we will never see serve? The farthest that we can detect are about 25,000 light years away (1.47 x 10^17) and those are still relatively close compared to the rest of the universe.
We know that there will be a “new heaven and a new earth,” when the current creation “passes away,” but will God create them after the complete disappearance of the entire universe, or will He use the matter of the current universe to fashion a new one? So perhaps that is the reason for these extremely far-away planets (aside from serving as evidence of God’s grandeur, and objects of our curiosity, cooperation and discovery). Might they be matter reserved for a new creation? I am not sure how that could be reconciled either with Scripture or St. Thomas’s writings.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
St Thomas treats of the Final Conflagration in the Supplement to the Summa Theologica. The Supplement are selections taken from his commentary on the sentences of Peter Lombard which he wrote when he was a younger man. St Thomas died before completing the ST. In the Supplement, St Thomas argues that the new heavens and the new earth will be fashioned with the matter of the present universe but transformed into incorruptibility like our resurrected bodies. I’m thinking of incorruptible forms that perfects the potentiality of matter in the various substances and creatures. Christ’s resurrection is the pattern of our resurrection hopefully into eternal life. Christ rose with the same body he died in on the cross. But his body was transformed into incorruptibility and immortality. And we will rise with the same bodies we have in the present life made out of the matter of the present universe I believe like Jesus’ body but transformed into incorruptibility and this is what St Thomas says too.We know that there will be a “new heaven and a new earth,” when the current creation “passes away,” but will God create them after the complete disappearance of the entire universe, or will He use the matter of the current universe to fashion a new one? So perhaps that is the reason for these extremely far-away planets (aside from serving as evidence of God’s grandeur, and objects of our curiosity, cooperation and discovery). Might they be matter reserved for a new creation? I am not sure how that could be reconciled either with Scripture or St. Thomas’s writings.
According to 2 Peter 3, the final conflagration is going to take place by fire, a kind of cleansing of creation, renewal and transformation. A cleansing of the world’s wickedness similar to the Biblical Flood. And according to St Paul the whole creation, the corporeal world, is going to be renewed as it is subject to corruption now:
‘For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies’ (Romans 8: 19-23).
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I’d like to say a word on the phenomenon that astronomers observe known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and how that may been produced by God in the early universe by other means than the Big Bang.
We seem to have a literal confirmation of this phenomenon in the Genesis 1 creation narrative where it is written ‘And God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light’ (v.3). Light is a creation of God and its nature is truly astounding according to what we presently think the nature of light is. The present theory is that light is a photon with wave/particle duality properties and travels at 186,000 miles per hour. Marvelous!
The present scientific theory concerning the production of the CMBR if I’m not mistaken is that it was produced very shortly after the initial Big Bang event something like on the order of 10-40 to 10-30 seconds after the initial event when the universe was the size of a proton. Apparently, according to the Big Bang model, this is the only way to get the CMBR to have the uniform temperature it is observed to have otherwise after this time of the CMBR production you get what is known as the horizon problem. Inflationary theories or extremely rapid expansion of the universe on the order of micro-seconds right after the production of the CMBR are used in conjunction with the CMBR.
The model of the creation of the universe I’ve been proposing on this thread has no need of the Big Bang but simply the creative power of God. I have also distinguished between the creation of the substance of the heavens and the creation of elemental atoms such as on the periodic table and their elemental parts such as the electrons, protons, and neutrons which even these according to the present atomic theory are comprised of still more elemental parts some of which or most, I’m not sure, are not found to exist in the real world outside of the protons, neutrons, or electrons on their own as it were, but only have a transient like existence separate from the protons and neutrons in atom smashers. For the sake of simplicity or convenience, I’ll lump and go by the name element the different elemental atoms on the periodic table, electrons, protons, neutrons and their various parts as simply all elements. Some of these are substances that can exist by themselves and the elemental atoms in some sense are mixed bodies or compounds analogous to water being a compound of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
We seem to have a literal confirmation of this phenomenon in the Genesis 1 creation narrative where it is written ‘And God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light’ (v.3). Light is a creation of God and its nature is truly astounding according to what we presently think the nature of light is. The present theory is that light is a photon with wave/particle duality properties and travels at 186,000 miles per hour. Marvelous!
The present scientific theory concerning the production of the CMBR if I’m not mistaken is that it was produced very shortly after the initial Big Bang event something like on the order of 10-40 to 10-30 seconds after the initial event when the universe was the size of a proton. Apparently, according to the Big Bang model, this is the only way to get the CMBR to have the uniform temperature it is observed to have otherwise after this time of the CMBR production you get what is known as the horizon problem. Inflationary theories or extremely rapid expansion of the universe on the order of micro-seconds right after the production of the CMBR are used in conjunction with the CMBR.
The model of the creation of the universe I’ve been proposing on this thread has no need of the Big Bang but simply the creative power of God. I have also distinguished between the creation of the substance of the heavens and the creation of elemental atoms such as on the periodic table and their elemental parts such as the electrons, protons, and neutrons which even these according to the present atomic theory are comprised of still more elemental parts some of which or most, I’m not sure, are not found to exist in the real world outside of the protons, neutrons, or electrons on their own as it were, but only have a transient like existence separate from the protons and neutrons in atom smashers. For the sake of simplicity or convenience, I’ll lump and go by the name element the different elemental atoms on the periodic table, electrons, protons, neutrons and their various parts as simply all elements. Some of these are substances that can exist by themselves and the elemental atoms in some sense are mixed bodies or compounds analogous to water being a compound of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
I don’t think I do. But, I haven’t had a chance to read your post carefully – and I want to! – so I want to say that I’ll get to it this weekend.Gorgias, you completely misunderstand what Aquinas is plainly and clearly teaching in the quote from the Summa Theologica Buffalo gave.
Thanks for your response – I’ll reply in a couple days!
G.
R
Richca
Guest
I’m going to backtrack for a minute with a few thoughts on the Big Bang model. The only way I see this working in some manner is essentially miraculous and presently I’m not sure if it would work with Thomistic metaphysics without further thought as well as theological and Holy Scripture issues. Here are a few thoughts off the top of my head. Firstly, I would not describe the Big Bang singularity as some kind of singularity of pure energy nor is it needed. Energy in Thomistic metaphysics is an accident of a substance involving accidental forms such as powers and the operations or actions of those powers. In other words, in the corporeal world you first need a substance composed of substantial form and prime matter before you can get an action or energy. Actions or energies flow from substances, they are accidental forms of a substance and for many substances they are natural properties of their natures but flow from the substance.
Secondly, there is no need of extreme temperatures of heat as proposed by the Big Bang theorists. This idea results I believe from a confusion between matter and energy, substance and accidents from a Thomistic metaphysic perspective. Heat is a kind of energy too, an accidental quality or form. I believe according to the present science, there is a kind of heat energy it is said in connection with the motion of bodies, namely, kinetic energy I believe. But, you first need a body to move before one can get this kind of ‘heat’ energy. Exactly, what kind of energy that this is called ‘heat’ or kinetic energy involving moving bodies I don’t want to get into presently.
Anyway, to make a long story short the singularity would involve the creation of a point like thing comprised of the substance of the heavens and substantial elements entirely without accidents or as point like particles which would involve at least the accident of quantity. A substance entirely without accidents is invisible and indivisible and even beyond a mathematical point like particle. The presence of substantial elements in the singularity entirely without accidents would be analogous to Christ’s substantial presence of his body and blood in the eucharist which is a miraculous presence. However, the accidents of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist are actually present but after the manner of substance.
It doesn’t really matter what size God could have began this singularity sort of thing. It makes no difference from what I see whether this singularity is a point particle like size or any bigger size even the size of our present universe. However, one way to explain the CMBR is to start out this singularity very small like the present Big Bang Theory but there are other ways to explain I believe the CMBR phenomenon without resorting to the Big Bang singularity as I hope to get into later.
Secondly, there is no need of extreme temperatures of heat as proposed by the Big Bang theorists. This idea results I believe from a confusion between matter and energy, substance and accidents from a Thomistic metaphysic perspective. Heat is a kind of energy too, an accidental quality or form. I believe according to the present science, there is a kind of heat energy it is said in connection with the motion of bodies, namely, kinetic energy I believe. But, you first need a body to move before one can get this kind of ‘heat’ energy. Exactly, what kind of energy that this is called ‘heat’ or kinetic energy involving moving bodies I don’t want to get into presently.
Anyway, to make a long story short the singularity would involve the creation of a point like thing comprised of the substance of the heavens and substantial elements entirely without accidents or as point like particles which would involve at least the accident of quantity. A substance entirely without accidents is invisible and indivisible and even beyond a mathematical point like particle. The presence of substantial elements in the singularity entirely without accidents would be analogous to Christ’s substantial presence of his body and blood in the eucharist which is a miraculous presence. However, the accidents of Christ’s body and blood in the eucharist are actually present but after the manner of substance.
It doesn’t really matter what size God could have began this singularity sort of thing. It makes no difference from what I see whether this singularity is a point particle like size or any bigger size even the size of our present universe. However, one way to explain the CMBR is to start out this singularity very small like the present Big Bang Theory but there are other ways to explain I believe the CMBR phenomenon without resorting to the Big Bang singularity as I hope to get into later.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
From the point like singularity theory, the expansion of space or the substance of the heavens would result from I don’t know what really but possibly some kind of energy or accidental form God created the substance of the heavens with, I suppose similar with what is proposed presently as dark energy. The visible appearance of the first elements are the creation of the accidents of the substances initially created by God in the point like singularity. It is not necessary that only hydrogen or helium were substantially created before the expansion took place. God could have created all the substantial forms of all the elemental atoms and their parts in the initial singularity, in fact, I think he may have had too in this scenario. And their individual visible appearances are the creation of their accidents at whatever time He chose to do so
It is not necessary at all that only stars produced all the heavier elements in quasar explosions although maybe some are. Presently, I’m kind of finding it hard to conceive how a massive explosion produces fusion of elemental parts at the same time. Astronomers classify stars broadly into population I and population II stars based on the metallicity or presence of the various elements in stars. The ones with heavier elements, I forget momentarily which population stars these are, are broadly conceived as newer stars. What if God created heavier elements at the same time as the lighter ones and this is why the stars have the heavier elements in them? In such a scenario, the metallicity of stars is going to be no indication of their age. Such stars may have been around since the beginning of creation. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, 75% of the stars in the universe are said to be white dwarfs I believe is the name, smaller stars than our own sun, which because it is said they burn hydrogen more slowly than bigger stars, can last for many billions of years, hundreds of billions of years and I even read one article saying up to a trillion years. Our universe is only supposed to be about 13-15 billion years old
I believe a number of philosophical issues would have to be worked out if at all possible according to this singularity point beginning of the universe theory which in one sense could be conceived as only having to do with the creation of the substance of the heavens and which later God created the elemental substances after some measure of the expansion of the heavens. And I have issues, philosophical and theological, with nature, inanimate and without mind or will, simply running its course in the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and the rest. Such a scenario, though maybe possible in some limited aspects, is going to have issues I believe with Holy Scripture, the Genesis creation narratives, and philosophical and theological doctrines. There are definitely issues to be dealt with. At the very least, the Big Bang theory is not the only possible and perhaps even improbable explanation of the beginning of the universe and the origin of things. In my next posts, I’m planning on looking at other possible explanations of the cause of the phenomenon of the CMBR besides the Big Bang model
From the point like singularity theory, the expansion of space or the substance of the heavens would result from I don’t know what really but possibly some kind of energy or accidental form God created the substance of the heavens with, I suppose similar with what is proposed presently as dark energy. The visible appearance of the first elements are the creation of the accidents of the substances initially created by God in the point like singularity. It is not necessary that only hydrogen or helium were substantially created before the expansion took place. God could have created all the substantial forms of all the elemental atoms and their parts in the initial singularity, in fact, I think he may have had too in this scenario. And their individual visible appearances are the creation of their accidents at whatever time He chose to do so
It is not necessary at all that only stars produced all the heavier elements in quasar explosions although maybe some are. Presently, I’m kind of finding it hard to conceive how a massive explosion produces fusion of elemental parts at the same time. Astronomers classify stars broadly into population I and population II stars based on the metallicity or presence of the various elements in stars. The ones with heavier elements, I forget momentarily which population stars these are, are broadly conceived as newer stars. What if God created heavier elements at the same time as the lighter ones and this is why the stars have the heavier elements in them? In such a scenario, the metallicity of stars is going to be no indication of their age. Such stars may have been around since the beginning of creation. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, 75% of the stars in the universe are said to be white dwarfs I believe is the name, smaller stars than our own sun, which because it is said they burn hydrogen more slowly than bigger stars, can last for many billions of years, hundreds of billions of years and I even read one article saying up to a trillion years. Our universe is only supposed to be about 13-15 billion years old
I believe a number of philosophical issues would have to be worked out if at all possible according to this singularity point beginning of the universe theory which in one sense could be conceived as only having to do with the creation of the substance of the heavens and which later God created the elemental substances after some measure of the expansion of the heavens. And I have issues, philosophical and theological, with nature, inanimate and without mind or will, simply running its course in the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and the rest. Such a scenario, though maybe possible in some limited aspects, is going to have issues I believe with Holy Scripture, the Genesis creation narratives, and philosophical and theological doctrines. There are definitely issues to be dealt with. At the very least, the Big Bang theory is not the only possible and perhaps even improbable explanation of the beginning of the universe and the origin of things. In my next posts, I’m planning on looking at other possible explanations of the cause of the phenomenon of the CMBR besides the Big Bang model
Last edited:
G
GodSpawned
Guest
I am going to try here to summarise and correct a few things people have said about the big Bang. Hopefully it will be useful to someone. The philosophy side I’ll leave for others.
Before 10^-38 seconds (really small number) after the big bang science can (currently) tell us nothing. The energies are too high and the mathematics of particle physics and quantum mechanics just turn to mush.
After that the energies were still incredibly high. There was a short period of very rapid inflation, which caused the universe to be ‘flat’ (meaning density doesn’t vary much). Within the first three minutes the really energetic particles decay and fuse into light nuclei (mainly hydrogen and helium, nothing bigger than Boron) and free electrons. The proportions of these elements match the models- and the model came before the experimental evidence.
~300,000 year later the universe has cooled enough for electrons to bind to the nuclei, creating free atoms. At this time the universe goes from opaque to transparent. we have been able to detect this.
From here we get the first stars. These were mostly hydrogen and far bigger than the ones we get now. It’s here we get every other element from Carbon to Uranium. How these galaxies formed is an open question- dark matter was involved somewhere- but not exactly sure how yet.
Large stars burn bright but not for very long. When they die they explode (exact mechanism is interesting- not relevant to this discussion though). This spreads the heavy elements around the universe. repeat the process a few times and you have enough heavy atoms to make a planet like Earth.
Before 10^-38 seconds (really small number) after the big bang science can (currently) tell us nothing. The energies are too high and the mathematics of particle physics and quantum mechanics just turn to mush.
After that the energies were still incredibly high. There was a short period of very rapid inflation, which caused the universe to be ‘flat’ (meaning density doesn’t vary much). Within the first three minutes the really energetic particles decay and fuse into light nuclei (mainly hydrogen and helium, nothing bigger than Boron) and free electrons. The proportions of these elements match the models- and the model came before the experimental evidence.
~300,000 year later the universe has cooled enough for electrons to bind to the nuclei, creating free atoms. At this time the universe goes from opaque to transparent. we have been able to detect this.
From here we get the first stars. These were mostly hydrogen and far bigger than the ones we get now. It’s here we get every other element from Carbon to Uranium. How these galaxies formed is an open question- dark matter was involved somewhere- but not exactly sure how yet.
Large stars burn bright but not for very long. When they die they explode (exact mechanism is interesting- not relevant to this discussion though). This spreads the heavy elements around the universe. repeat the process a few times and you have enough heavy atoms to make a planet like Earth.
B
bobperk
Guest
Thank you for the response. If indeed the new heaven and new earth will be fashioned anew using the existing matter of the universe after a purification. perhaps all those “extra” planets, galaxies, and phenomena yet unexplained will serve in creating the New Eden and our glorified bodies. For to possess bodies exhibiting that of the Resurrected Lord, with properties of change and impassibility, our bodies will need to be imbued with the particles that allow such mysterious properties. Presumably the energy available in the sum of these distant reaches of the universe will somehow contribute to both our new home and new bodies.
R
Richca
Guest
I like to think the new heavens will contain all the billions of galaxies astronomers say that are out there now and who knows really how far the heavens extend too. But the galaxies will be transformed into incorruptibility and we will be able to explore the far reaches of the heavens in our resurrected bodies just by willing it. One of the supernatural gifts the scholastic theologians say God bestows on a glorified body is agility. Think of Christ’s ascension into heaven and St Paul says he ascended above all the heavens. The gift of agility means that we will be able to move our bodies with ease, they will be wholly subjected to the soul which is the form of the body and offer no resistance to the command of our will which is a spiritual power.
St Paul says our bodies will rise a spiritual body. This does not mean our bodies will be transformed into spirits but that our bodies will be entirely subjected to our spiritual soul and its powers. The spiritual powers of our soul which are the intellect and will by which we are principally made in the image and likeness of God are powers or energies as it were in a whole different order than the corporeal powers and energies of the elements such as electromagnetism and light. For example, it is said that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in this world. But the speed of light compared to the movement of angels who are pure spirits is as the speed of a snail to the speed of light. It is said that the diameter of which we can see out into the heavens at the present time is either 30, 46, or 92 billion light years. I’m not to sure why the different numbers, I haven’t looked into it much. If we take the 46 number, that means it would take light 46 billion years to traverse from one end to the other end of what we can so far see. An angel can traverse this distance in an instant simply by the application of his will to move to another place.
St Paul says our bodies will rise a spiritual body. This does not mean our bodies will be transformed into spirits but that our bodies will be entirely subjected to our spiritual soul and its powers. The spiritual powers of our soul which are the intellect and will by which we are principally made in the image and likeness of God are powers or energies as it were in a whole different order than the corporeal powers and energies of the elements such as electromagnetism and light. For example, it is said that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in this world. But the speed of light compared to the movement of angels who are pure spirits is as the speed of a snail to the speed of light. It is said that the diameter of which we can see out into the heavens at the present time is either 30, 46, or 92 billion light years. I’m not to sure why the different numbers, I haven’t looked into it much. If we take the 46 number, that means it would take light 46 billion years to traverse from one end to the other end of what we can so far see. An angel can traverse this distance in an instant simply by the application of his will to move to another place.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
Here are a couple of possible explanations I’ve been thinking about of the cause of the phenomenon of the CMBR other than the Big Bang. Honestly, the more I think about the Big Bang model the less probable do I personally find it.
(1) As I have previously said, I believe the initial act of creation involved the production out of nothing of the entire matter of the corporeal universe under elemental forms but without accidents (the substance of the heavens are of another nature than the elements on the periodic table). God created also in this initial act a great many photons which I believe to be substances composed of substantial form and prime matter but without accidents as well and evenly distributed thoughout the heavens. When God said “Let there be light” and there was light’, he created the photons accidents which involve also their energies. He bestowed on the photons roughly the same quanta of energy and once they received this energy they took off at the speed of light. In this model there is no horizon problem as with the Big Bang model and so it doesn’t matter how far apart the photons are from each other or the size of the universe at this time assuming it expands because God bestowed on the photons roughly the same quanta of energy. They don’t need to ‘communicate’ with each other as it were in order to get the uniform temperature that is observed today.
(2) In the initial act of creation, the elements were spread roughly uniform over the heavens. When God said “Let there be light” and there was light’, he bestowed on elemental atoms there accidents such as the electrical charges of the electrons and protons and the strong and weak nuclear forces. He bestowed on the electrons a particular quanta of energetic photons which they released as light jumping back to their normal orbital state. From here God began to form the galaxies and individual stars from the elemental atoms.
(1) As I have previously said, I believe the initial act of creation involved the production out of nothing of the entire matter of the corporeal universe under elemental forms but without accidents (the substance of the heavens are of another nature than the elements on the periodic table). God created also in this initial act a great many photons which I believe to be substances composed of substantial form and prime matter but without accidents as well and evenly distributed thoughout the heavens. When God said “Let there be light” and there was light’, he created the photons accidents which involve also their energies. He bestowed on the photons roughly the same quanta of energy and once they received this energy they took off at the speed of light. In this model there is no horizon problem as with the Big Bang model and so it doesn’t matter how far apart the photons are from each other or the size of the universe at this time assuming it expands because God bestowed on the photons roughly the same quanta of energy. They don’t need to ‘communicate’ with each other as it were in order to get the uniform temperature that is observed today.
(2) In the initial act of creation, the elements were spread roughly uniform over the heavens. When God said “Let there be light” and there was light’, he bestowed on elemental atoms there accidents such as the electrical charges of the electrons and protons and the strong and weak nuclear forces. He bestowed on the electrons a particular quanta of energetic photons which they released as light jumping back to their normal orbital state. From here God began to form the galaxies and individual stars from the elemental atoms.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
These are world class scholars.I challenged a few of them and they would not even reply.
They aren’t going to waste time “arguing” against elementary ideas and strawmen.
@buffalo I’ve followed your posts on here for a while. You do not make any arguments which are anywhere near worthy of a world class scholar to spend even a second on. The answers to your strawmen are available via google - scholars don’t need to spend precious time answering them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.