P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you reject the Big Bang?
If so, you are one of a really, really small group of science-advocates who believe the universe is eternal.
- Status
If so, you are one of a really, really small group of science-advocates who believe the universe is eternal.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Actually to my knowledge that’s false.
The ‘Big Bang’ doesn’t say that the Universe just exploded into existence, it says that the Universe expanded from a tiny point but that it has always been there.
So no that’s not rejecting the Big Bang as that’s what it says.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Please cite your source. Where did you read that the Big Bang states that the universe always existed in the form of a tiny point?
I
inocente
Guest
Allow moi. For starters, Monsignor George Lemaître, the Catholic priest who initiated the big bang theory said as much himself, and warned his Pope not to talk of the big bang as in any way proving there was nothing before. For example he said:
“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.”
and also:
*“As far as I can see, such a theory [his own] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation.”
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Interesting.
So what is it you believe regarding God and creating the universe? Does the Big Bang support the arguments for God’s existence in your view?
I
inocente
Guest
The story goes that the Pope was all ready to make a speech that science had finally proved Genesis (perhaps this was when Hubble’s observations confirmed Lemaître’s hypothesis), and Lemaître hot-footed it over to the Vatican to tell the pope’s advisers no way José (probably not the pope’s name, I extemporize
).I think no matter how much we learn, we will never prove or disprove the existence of God. Another interesting quote from Lemaître on the linked page is:
“He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.”
I think the reverence of that last sentence is a bit like a Jew writing G-d rather than wanting to spell out the holy name.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no, actually. There can be no claim about “always” since time itself, as an aspect of the space-time continuum expanded from that point. To claim that the tiny point has “always been there” is to assume time exists outside of the space time continuum that makes up what the universe essentially is. That is a leap of logic, my friend.
You might find that it helps your case to assume such things, but for someone who claims to adhere firmly to scientific claims alone, your logic needs clarifying. We have no “scientific” reason for claiming time exists outside of space-time, ergo we have NO scientifically supported reason to claim the tiny point “always existed.”
Merely because a physicist like Hawking thinks so, or gives the impression of thinking so in some of his writing, does not “prove” anything. In this regard, his “guess” is no better than anyone else’s since no “guess” can be substantiated any better than anyone else’s “guess.” If you want to get dogmatic about such things, as you did with your insistence that Genesis must be read in a certain way in order to discount it, that is where you lose all credibility.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You left out one word, the addition of which would make your statement true.
We will never inductively prove or disprove the existence of God.
That, however, very much leaves metaphysics or deductive reasoning from necessary, eternal or revealed truths, intact and completely inline with Fr. LeMaitre’s comment.
Of course, you will disagree, but you’d be wrong.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
This sounds suspiciously like faith-based reasoning, no?
Is it not a Science-of-the-Gaps paradigm?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you think the Big Bang supports or refutes the existence of God?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Indeed. And neither the link Winterwolf referred to, nor science in general, claims that the universe existed eternally before the Big Bang. This is just not part of the Big Bang theory as formulated by science, and lies outside of what science can observe – either currently, or forever, that is debatable. See also Lemaitre’s remarks above which still hold today.
As you already pointed out, Winterwolf confuses opinions (guesses), possibly based on mathematical speculation (e.g., Hawking) with actual scientific observation. He confuses his naturalistic dogma with actual science, into which he reads something that just isn’t there.
I am afraid Winterwolf really doesn’t know how science works.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The problem here, is that you are putting your cart before your horse.
The Church maintains a group of exorcists, not because the Church has inductively figured out that demons exist, but that demons exist is a point of revelation. Based upon that revealed truth, together with corroborating physical evidence, exorcisms are indicated.
The Church, unlike you, is not constrained to demonstrating the existence of demons, ghosts and angels strictly from physical evidence. Indications of their existence from physical evidence is never construed as being the entire case for their existence as far as the Church is concerned. That would be your problem, not the Church’s.
Again, you are trying to constrain the Church to mounting YOUR horse being dragged by YOUR cart.
Correct! And the Church does not exclude such possibilities a priori, but neither does she, thereby, admit all possibilities without discretion. In a very real sense, the Church has the advantage of seeing past the limitations of science by having access to revelations concerning the supernatural.
Merely because you have difficulty moving beyond the limitations of observed reality, and therefore deny ALL indications of the supernatural because they defy your limitations does not mean the Church is incapable of making sense of them.
Seems we are making hasty generalizations here, no? Merely because little evidence supports divining rods, auras or the like and we can make little sense of these does not, thereby, discredit all “miraculous” or inexplicable events equally - despite that you have dressed up this claim as a knockdown argument.
There exists “no supporting evidence” implies that you have exhaustively analyzed every bit of the evidence and have reached an indisputable and irrefutable conclusion. Call me skeptical.
What you mean, I take it, is that an inductive case cannot serve to provide such a “final” conclusion. Sure, but again, that is the horse you want to drag along behind you, but that is not the Church’s constraint, no matter how much you insist it must be.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I should also note that the “infinitely tiny point” view, along with the “always existing” singularity being expressed by some, assumes that space must somehow exist outside and independent of the initial genesis of space-time. That, however, implies a deep misconception of the event since not just matter and energy came into existence at that instant, but time TOGETHER WITH space did, as well. To claim the initial moment “lasted forever” runs into the same issues as claiming it was “tiny.” Such a view seems to completely gloss over the fact that spacial extension came into existence at that moment along with temporal extension – for that reason what came into existence is known as the space-time continuum, meaning that both came into being where neither existed – no space, no time.
There is no sense to be made of space or time existing “prior” to time or “outside” of space, so it makes no sense to claim anything regarding how small the instant was nor how long it endured prior to it occurring There was no “prior” to and there was no dimensionality or spacial extension until afterwards. Space and time are precisely what did come into being – as difficult as that is to grasp.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Thanks, Peter. Your reply is much better than the one I would have given. Let me just clarify that I see the paranormal phenomena that I discussed (telepathy, telekinesis etc.) as different from the supernatural. I assume you do the same.
Al
A
adawgj
Guest
Not to interrupt the conversation, but what I’m confused about is does the Big Bang mention a start or beginning? Is that part of the observation?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Yes, from the Wiki article:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe.[1] The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[2] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Emphasis mine. WHAT corroborating “physical” evidence? And if there is actual “physical” evidence. then this phenomenon IS subject to scientific discovery. You can’t have it both ways.
Obviously not everyone is possessed by demons ALL the time. Therefore there should be an epistemological method to discover who is possessed and when. What is this method? Or do the individual exorcists receive a “private” revelation each and every time??? How do they know that the exorcism was successful? Do they rely on the decreasing stench of dissipating sulfuric acid?
Too bad that the church is unable/unwilling to DEMONSTRATE the existence of any “revelation”. And you are unable to DEMONSTRATE the existence of anything “supernatural”.
Not really. Since there is EXACTLY the same amount of supporting evidence for both types of claims - namely NONE - it stands to reason to discard both claims as unsupported. But don’t despair. As soon as you will be able to produce actual, repeatable supporting evidence - of ANY kind! - we shall take your claims seriously. And since you asserted that there IS some kind of physical evidence for demons, you should be in an excellent position to continue. So drag forth a demon and present it for examination. Or tell us the precise incantations which will force this “demon” to manifest itself for the delight of the skeptical scientific community.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Clearly, there is SOME physical evidence or exorcists would never be assigned to any manifestation whatsoever. If you are asking me to produce that evidence, sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. Go engage with a few exorcists. I can’t do brain surgery either, but that is no reason to deny brain surgery works or has merit.
My point was that available physical evidence may not be sufficient to satisfy your expectation for that evidence - which I take to mean your expectation that the physical evidence itself must be of sufficient quality to be indisputable based upon the physical nature of the evidence alone. That is not how the Church views it, precisely because the Church has access to a further body evidence that is not merely of a physical nature. You discount that body of evidence a priori, the Church does not.
You view the quest for truth as a unilateral endeavor where the entire onus is on you to know what is and the intended object of your knowledge plays no role in your acquisition of that knowledge. This assumes knowledge IS and CAN ONLY BE objective because that which is to be known, in your view, is merely and essentially “object” with no power, no intention and no capacity to make itself known. This comes from your presumption that essentially “lifeless” matter is the ultimate ground of reality because you presume God does not exist.
Why should your presumption trump the presumptions of others merely because you set that as the arbitrary starting point?
The Church’s view is that the quest for truth is not one-sided on our part but that Reality itself wills to make Itself known in truthful and meaningful interaction. This comes from a presumption - no more or less a priori, unsubstantiated or biased than your presumption - that reality is grounded in living and active Being and not “dead” object. As such, the ground of existence has power, intention and capacity to make Itself known to us.
Revelation is possible, in the Church’s view, because that which is to be known wills to make Himself known to us and does so. Certainly there are questions with regard to how, when and why we can come to know the truth of what is, but the basic premise is that God wills to make himself and ultimate reality known to us and that the endeavor is not merely one-sided on our part, but relational.
What you fail to understand is that your view is not the presumptively correct view merely because materialism happens to be the ideology of the times. We have no more reason to think dead matter grounds reality than we have for thinking Living Being does. You simply begin with that perspective and go from there assigning constraints on what you will or will not accept based upon your grounding presumption. You also constrain others to that perspective and refuse to admit reality might “show itself,” but rather that it must “be uncovered” in a one-sided quest.
I see no reason why your view must be the de facto starting one merely because you determine it to be. There is just as good reason - and, in my view, even more compelling reasons - to begin with the presumption that the ground of reality is Living and Active Being and not merely and inherently lifeless matter.
- Status