Eternal Universe

[thinkandmull]

Linus,

You didn’t click on the link, because its not about Ratzinger’s Eucharest statements, which we discuss on the other thread, but on that the CCC is not infallible. He knew what John Paul II intended

And my point on the eternal universe things is that I haven’t seen where the Church has taught clearly that the universe had a beginning in TIME, not a beginning ontologically

 

[thinkandmull]

No, God cannot give another being the power to create. That is what Aquinas teaches. It the Scriptures, God teaches the absolute dependance of his creation on himself. Does Scripture cite even one instance where one creature created another. Remember that creation means to bring forth a creature from non-being. Only God can do that.

Yes, Catholics must believe those things. Trent is not the only source of Catholic truth. Rather the whole Tradition of the Church is the source of Catholic truth.

Linus2nd

Why do you get upset with me when I possibly disagree with something you haven’t proved. Creatures cannot create from nothing on there own in the way God can, because He can annihilate them at any time. But I wasn’t even talking about that. I was talking about simply existing on its own after creation. Aquinas said this, Aquinas said that,… I want to talk about the arguments themselves

 

[thinkandmull]

The closest thing I can find is Aquinas’ discussion of whether it is an article of faith that the world began:

Emphasis mine. Source: newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm

The difficulty thinkandmull is having is in assuming that creation is some kind of temporal act that is necessarily prior to the effect. So he assumes that first reality = [God] and then reality = [God, universe] and concludes that if the universe is past infinite then there would be no need for God to create it. In reality, it has always been the case that reality = [God, universe] even if the universe is past-finite since there is no identifiable time at which God existed and the universe didn’t, since there is no time before time. Creation is instantaneous and not successive, as Aquinas argues.

I haven’t seen the “proofs that are cogent” that show that there must be a Creator or even a First Mover if motion is eternal

 

[balto]

I haven’t seen the “proofs that are cogent” that show that there must be a Creator or even a First Mover if motion is eternal

I don’t think that we are understanding the word “eternal” in the same way. When you say “God is eternal”, what do you mean by it?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,

You didn’t click on the link, because its not about Ratzinger’s Eucharest statements, which we discuss on the other thread, but on that the CCC is not infallible. He knew what John Paul II intended

I think I mentioned that neither the CCC nor any other Catechism I have seen mentions the physicality of the species after consecration. But if you look here you will find it mentioned several times. I’m still reading the article so I’m not prepared to comment further.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

And my point on the eternal universe things is that I haven’t seen where the Church has taught clearly that the universe had a beginning in TIME, not a beginning ontologically

I gave you the Dogmatic teaching of Trent on this several times. But here it is again.

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]

1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.

I like to give these together because they contain so much that it is good to keep in mind these days…

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why do you get upset with me when I possibly disagree with something you haven’t proved. Creatures cannot create from nothing on there own in the way God can, because He can annihilate them at any time. But I wasn’t even talking about that. I was talking about simply existing on its own after creation. Aquinas said this, Aquinas said that,… I want to talk about the arguments themselves

I explained that God is the effecient cause ( as creator ) of the existence of his creatures. Therefore he keeps them in existence by his continued act of creation. This is the argument Aquinas gives. If you cannot accept that, then accept the teaching of the Church that says, " In him we live and move and have our being. " This means that God is constantly holding us in existence and if he didn’t, we would cease to exist.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

I think I mentioned that neither the CCC nor any other Catechism I have seen mentions the physicality of the species after consecration. But if you look here you will find it mentioned several times. I’m still reading the article so I’m not prepared to comment further.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

I gave you the Dogmatic teaching of Trent on this several times. But here it is again.

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]

1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.

I like to give these together because they contain so much that it is good to keep in mind these days…

Linus2nd

Eternal means always was

The Catechism of Trent says that says that the “species”"quality of the bread remains

The Council you quoted said what I said, that the Churchs teaches about “from the beginning”, but where is the evidence that it mean historically, not ontologically (consistent with an eternal universe)

 

[thinkandmull]

I explained that God is the effecient cause ( as creator ) of the existence of his creatures. Therefore he keeps them in existence by his continued act of creation. This is the argument Aquinas gives. If you cannot accept that, then accept the teaching of the Church that says, " In him we live and move and have our being. " This means that God is constantly holding us in existence and if he didn’t, we would cease to exist.

Linus2nd

I was talking about arguments from philosopher and you having really provided an argument, you just pained a picture. I can imagine it another way though

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was talking about arguments from philosopher and you having really provided an argument, you just pained a picture. I can imagine it another way though

Well, I’ve done all I can for you.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

Eternal means always was

“Always was” is not enough to distinguish eternality from sempiternality. You could say that an eternal reality “always was” and a sempiternal reality “always was,” but in the case of the eternal reality it is outside of time and hence does not change at all. It “always was wholly itself.” A sempiternal reality exists through an infinite timeline and hence “always was becoming.”

The title of this thread is misleading, since it is really discussing the possibility of a sempiternal universe not an eternal one. A sempiternal universe needs to be created since A.) it does not exist by nature since it lacks fullness of being (since it is always becoming something else) and B.) it’s potentiality for change needs to find its ultimate cause in a purely actual, unchanging reality, which Aquinas argues is God in his First Way.

As an aside, an eternal universe would have to be created as well since it would still have a distinction between essence and existence, but this universe quite obviously involves change so I don’t think you are defining the universe as eternal under an unchanging definition.

 

[thinkandmull]

“Always was” is not enough to distinguish eternality from sempiternality. You could say that an eternal reality “always was” and a sempiternal reality “always was,” but in the case of the eternal reality it is outside of time and hence does not change at all. It “always was wholly itself.” A sempiternal reality exists through an infinite timeline and hence “always was becoming.”

The title of this thread is misleading, since it is really discussing the possibility of a sempiternal universe not an eternal one. A sempiternal universe needs to be created since A.) it does not exist by nature since it lacks fullness of being (since it is always becoming something else) and B.) it’s potentiality for change needs to find its ultimate cause in a purely actual, unchanging reality, which Aquinas argues is God in his First Way.

As an aside, an eternal universe would have to be created as well since it would still have a distinction between essence and existence, but this universe quite obviously involves change so I don’t think you are defining the universe as eternal under an unchanging definition.

The First Way isn’t really an argument if you don’t interpret it as the Kalam cosmological argument.

Also, we don’t technically have a distinction between essence and existence, because essence can only be by existing and existing can only be AS something existing. Existence is like people speak of time: apart from things, its just in the head. They are not really different. What the distinction is trying to say in philosophy is that things are contingent on a creator, while God is sufficient, uncreated.

 

[lightbeamrider]

No it is different approach to resolve the problem of origin.

There is no problem of origin. Materialists come up with all these ‘‘guesses’’ based on their philosophical atheism which rules God out. Science does not say anything, scientists do. Its not like they can go back in time to the event in question to repeatedly test their assumptions to what actually happened. If they cannot do that then they really cannot demonstrate anything. It is not like their guesses are on par with actual operational sciences which produces technology. Henry Ford made a car. Darwin wrote a few books and did not make anything.

Lets not use the stellar reputation of science to validate materialists guesses. Abiognesis, a universe from nothing, the universe an effect without a cause etc.

That is if there was ever an absolute nothing then there would always be a nothing. The fact there is something means there always was a something.

So what better explains, no one made something out of nothing or someone made something out of nothing?

 

[balto]

The First Way isn’t really an argument if you don’t interpret it as the Kalam cosmological argument.

I don’t think that is accurate, but I am more interested in what you said below.

Also, we don’t technically have a distinction between essence and existence, because essence can only be by existing and existing can only be AS something existing.

What you are getting at is that essence and existence are not separable, since you never have an essence without existence, but they are distinct notions since their separability gives rise to contingencies.

Existence is like people speak of time: apart from things, its just in the head.

I think you meant to write “essence” not “existence.”

What the distinction is trying to say in philosophy is that things are contingent on a creator, while God is sufficient, uncreated.

:clapping: Now why are you having difficulty realizing that this is more or less the kind of thing Aquinas is getting at in his Five Ways? A past-infinite universe would still be a contingent thing that depends on a creator.

 

[thinkandmull]

There is no argument or syllogism that proves that we are contingent and a Supreme Being is necessary. You either see it or you don’t. I see it most of the time, but sometimes I see a little differently and think “well, maybe its just faith” and shrug my shoulders and go back to the first way of thinking. But there is no clear cut evidence for something and just sees the world, “this is a world”, and that’s that. There are plenty of people who think we just play with feelings in our heads and don’t really know anything, and that it is just the experience of feeling that matters. I try to have more confidence in reason however.

Existence is not a quality of a thing. A thing may have redness, or BE read on the outside, I don’t know the scientific evidence on that. It has roundness because matter can change shape. Suppose something could not change shape. It would BE round. Compare it to the first object; the first one could thus be thought to HAVE roundness and yet BE a round object necessarily (not creating itself though)

So I don’t think of existence as one of the qualities of God

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Infinity when applied to a series or a magnitude is unachievable . Which is the same as infinity applied to an algorithmic finite structure is an unachievable. In laymen terms, a magnitude could be a second, a minute, an hour of time, any specific amount of time. So we are saying, since time can be measured as an algorithmic finite structure( a specific amount of time), infinite amount of time is impossible.

If infinity of the universe was true, than that would also mean you would have infinite degrees Fahrenheit, infinite mass density, and infinite physical force

A Creator exists outside our space/time. The Creator would have created the universe as an organic whole. A Creator put mass/energy into existence in the form of energy and put space/time into existence in the form of a quantum field. It later expanded into a greater space/time field, and put a cosmological constant into existence. These 3 events as a whole, created the Big Bang.

Also, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe must have had a beginning. Disorder in a system must stay the same or increase. Everything strives for equilibrium. An example of this is when you have a cup of coffee that’s hot, you let it sit and over time it will be the same temp as the room you’re in. The cup of coffee is releasing energy into its environment.

The Radiation Paradox also points to the fact that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Infinity when applied to a series or a magnitude is unachievable . Which is the same as infinity applied to an algorithmic finite structure is an unachievable. In laymen terms, a magnitude could be a second, a minute, an hour of time, any specific amount of time. So we are saying, since time can be measured as an algorithmic finite structure( a specific amount of time), infinite amount of time is impossible.

If infinity of the universe was true, than that would also mean you would have infinite degrees Fahrenheit, infinite mass density, and infinite physical force

A Creator exists outside our space/time. The Creator would have created the universe as an organic whole. A Creator put mass/energy into existence in the form of energy and put space/time into existence in the form of a quantum field. It later expanded into a greater space/time field, and put a cosmological constant into existence. These 3 events as a whole, created the Big Bang.

Also, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe must have had a beginning. Disorder in a system must stay the same or increase. Everything strives for equilibrium. An example of this is when you have a cup of coffee that’s hot, you let it sit and over time it will be the same temp as the room you’re in. The cup of coffee is releasing energy into its environment.

The Radiation Paradox also points to the fact that the universe had a beginning.

Your last sentence is interesting. Would you mind explaining that to a layman?

Linus2nd

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Your last sentence is interesting. Would you mind explaining that to a layman?

Linus2nd

Yes, of course. The basic idea is this: there are two kinds of light in the universe, Cosmic Background Radiation from the Big Bang and light from other sources, mostly stars. Some scientists say that 99% of the light in the universe is from the cosmic radiation, and about 1% is from starlight. Observations show that there is only about a hundred past light cycles. Which would mean that the universe must have had a beginning, it would not be infinite.

If you’re really interested in reading more, you should read the book by Father Robert Spitzer, ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’.

I hope this helps. If you have other questions I’ll try to answer them.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you’re really interested in reading more, you should read the book by Father Robert Spitzer, ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’.

Should we start a thread exclusively on this book or on his related DVD?

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Another reason that it is not likely that there is a true mathematical infinity is this: when accelerating subatomic particles in the LHC at Cern, as the particle approaches the speed of light, the mass of the particle increases. And it would require a push of an infinite amount of energy to reach or cross the speed of light barrier. And in the book, ‘The Elegant Universe’ by Brian Greene, he says this is impossible. He says this is why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, because you cannot have infinite energy. I think he is also making the case that there cannot be a mathematical infinity, which points to the fact the universe cannot be infinite.

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Should we start a thread exclusively on this book or on his related DVD?

I think its a good idea. He has a lot of info on this subject in his book.