G
GaryTaylor
Guest
:tiphat:
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Big Bang is a theory based on mathematical models created by astophysicists, with some supporting evidence derived from observed changes in that part of the universe about which we know. I am no physicist or mathemetician, either one, but they believe that if they use mathematics to “run the clock back” on those changes that are observable, they arrive at a moment in time in which the universe was concentrated into a tiny speck of incredible energy which they expanded (or “exploded”) with some of the energy “congealing” into matter.
Now, maybe that’s reality and maybe it isn’t, but our faith does not depend on its being true or untrue, either one.
Most physicists think they can’t go back in time past that event because everything would have been changed by the event itself; all the physical rules and everything. Some think they can, but not by anything observable; only by mathematical constructs.
Some think the Big Bang was preceded by fields of energy corresponding to dimensions which, in colliding, created the Big Bang, but which are otherwise unknowable. Some think those fields go out of existence and back into existence by processes nobody has ever witnessed or ever will, but which, to some, seem to work out on the math chalkboard.
So, if they were able to do what most of them think they can’t do, and go back and back and back some more into time, having any idea at all of what it looked like or how it worked becomes ever more remote.
So, in talking about whether the universe was “eternal” creation by God cannot be excluded because if the God of the Christians is real, then His means of creation and His means of knowing His own mind and intentions, are not knowable to us. Quite possibly, not ever.
If God is infinite, we will never plumb His depths even in a trillion billion years of absorbing his self-revelation to us in heaven. Never. We’ll likely know a whole lot more than even the most advanced physicists do now, but we may never really know how God conceived of the universe (and whatever else He created). The likelihood is we’ll be awed by what we do learn, and enjoy it. But we can’t know God as God knows Himself or we would be Gods ourselves.
I am personally not bothered in the slightest by whether there was or was not a Big Bang or whether there were eleven dimensions or only ten, or perhaps only one, or whether something about the creative process caused the universe to wink out and then flash on again in series, or whether something we might call “the universe” existed in some manner in the Mind of God forever.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
If the universe were eternal, then Revelation and the Bible, and our faith would be different. Revelation would have said the universe was eternal and the Bible would have mentioned this, and or faith and Christianity would have been teaching this fact.
You can’t come along after Revelation and say, " But what if…" God is not some ignoramous, nor does he play tricks. If he had created an eternal universe he would have said so.
Linus2nd.
F
Faith1960
Guest
And NONE of the above is a threat to our faith, even if the universe,was an eternal creation by God, (meaning God created it and created it that way)?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
If the universe is eternal then there is no earlier or later [time], there is no eternal causation within time, there also would be no expansion, vibration, activity=time.
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
Would he? Apart from the fact that God is the creator, why would a fact like the age of the universe be relivant to the salvation of humankind? God did not tell us about Evolution and that has cuased many to be conflicted about their faith.
F
Faith1960
Guest
All are which current accepted theories?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Yes the eternal or what we call eternity I’ll just have to call God and admit at some point time began.
I have been reading Stephan Hawkins which theory I suppose is the one which seems popular. Not altogether using the below arguments but he seemed to pick up on what I have. None of his theories exclude the possibility of God.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.christianpost.com%2Fconfident-christian%2Fstephen-hawkings-three-arguments-against-god-23109%2F&ei=TXLjVLeVI8m4ggSngoKoDQ&usg=AFQjCNFB7XxTO9J_Ujs-0Xdnty6egWOBew
J
JimG
Guest
In speaking of the universe as possibly “eternal” I think what is really meant is a universe with an infinite extension in time. That’s not eternal. Theologically speaking eternity is having no extension in time, but rather possessing all of one’s being at once rather than in a series of moments.
Suppose a metallurgist were to stamp out a perfect metal ring, a perfect circle. Some microscopic beings living on the ring explore it and conclude, ‘our universe is eternal; it has no beginning and no ending.’ That’s true, they will never come to a beginning point of the circle. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t created.
God can create any kind of universe He likes—one with a temporal starting point, like the Big Bang. One with no temporal starting point, one in which time extends infinitely in both directions. But it still needs to be created. Space and time need to be created, along with all matter and energy.
Suppose a metallurgist were to stamp out a perfect metal ring, a perfect circle. Some microscopic beings living on the ring explore it and conclude, ‘our universe is eternal; it has no beginning and no ending.’ That’s true, they will never come to a beginning point of the circle. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t created.
God can create any kind of universe He likes—one with a temporal starting point, like the Big Bang. One with no temporal starting point, one in which time extends infinitely in both directions. But it still needs to be created. Space and time need to be created, along with all matter and energy.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I think/thought that the article I linked meant that the universe has always been here.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think so, and from that point comes the further reading of Aquinas on the topic. I think its important to see how the science-philosophy and theology collide. Otherwise as mentioned above its very easy to misunderstand and for example suggest something came from nothing.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Freadingthesumma.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fquestion-10.html&ei=Dm_jVOvrHculgwSW4YOwDw&usg=AFQjCNF3ZoXum-3wQdlepb6u6fTyla2Twg
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Freadingthesumma.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fquestion-10.html&ei=Dm_jVOvrHculgwSW4YOwDw&usg=AFQjCNF3ZoXum-3wQdlepb6u6fTyla2Twg
F
Faith1960
Guest
I think/thought that the article I linked meant that the universe has always been here.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, and that would not be an eternal universe. That would be a universal with no beginning or ending points in time. A universe can be spatially or temporally limited, or not. It still needs a Creator, who creates the universe along with time and space. Creation does not take place within time or space.I think/thought that the article I linked meant that the universe has always been here.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So, with regard to what the article I posted says, what it’s talking about would have no negative impact on Catholicism?
J
JimG
Guest
No.
Personally I have doubts about the hypothesis. In some ways it seems a stretch just to avoid the conclusion of the Big Bang. But it would have no effect on Catholicism either way. Catholicism doesn’t have positions on scientific theories.
B
Bahman
Guest
It does.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
That article is terrible, good thing you posted it so we could put that stretch of the imagination to rest.
The OP article states…The universe may have existed forever, but offers no theory how, but the same one as always which is…
That is a small particle.
Then it negates to explain its existence and completely avoids the question.
Further the article supposes General Relativity is at odds with the big bang which ironically the string theory admits they can’t use the theory and have to alter it. And of cource that math appears to be missing.
J
JimG
Guest
From the article:
"Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity. "
Now, I’m not a quantum physicist, but to me, I would think, okay, so what’s the problem? So we can’t explain what happened at or ‘before’ the big bang. So what? Neither can the math or the physics explain what happens inside a black hole.
We may like to think that creation must occur within time, but it doesn’t. In fact, it can’t, because it is only with creation that time is created. So whether the universe began in a singularity or not, it still had to be created. And regardless of whether it starts with a singularity or not, it still possesses its being in a series of temporal instants, not as an eternal now.
"Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity. "
Now, I’m not a quantum physicist, but to me, I would think, okay, so what’s the problem? So we can’t explain what happened at or ‘before’ the big bang. So what? Neither can the math or the physics explain what happens inside a black hole.
We may like to think that creation must occur within time, but it doesn’t. In fact, it can’t, because it is only with creation that time is created. So whether the universe began in a singularity or not, it still had to be created. And regardless of whether it starts with a singularity or not, it still possesses its being in a series of temporal instants, not as an eternal now.
D
davidv
Guest
How?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Just to be clear, I meant the article in my OP. So with regard to the article in the OP I posted says, what it says would have no negative impact on Catholicism?
- Status