Fr. Spitzer is too deep for me.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.
Ditto Rizzi when he gets into Quantum Mechanics…Wrong. We know that real number exist.
Universe could be infinite and expand.
How do you get that?
The laws of physics must have time-reversal symmetry. Shouldn’t they be? Entropy is not measurable!
Let us know when you start the thread.I think its a good idea. He has a lot of info on this subject in his book.
I also quoted another source, Brian Greene, who says in he’s book ‘The Elegant Universe’, that infinite energy is impossible.
The universe is expanding. We know this from red shifting( measuring the light waves from stars). But infinite? I have an open mind. But all the books I’ve read do not show me any math proofs that can explain a true mathematical infinity.
Entropy is the measurement of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. In machinery, or machine systems, entropy is measured all the time.
OK. I don’t have a lot of time today, but I’ll let you know.
In other words, its means the light from stars did not always exist.
What if the universe IS eternal, how could it have no impact on our faith?
Was this explained in the link you provided, where it says “Aquinas saw no contradiction in the notion of an eternal universe. For even if the universe had no temporal beginning it will still depend on God for its very being?”
My understanding of Thomas, based mainly on the conversations on this forum, indicates that this is a mischaracterization of Thomas’ position. I believe the correct understanding is the Thomas’ first cause argument does not depend on the universe having a beginning. The first cause argument is a valid argument independent of whether the universe is eternal, or not. As a faithful Catholic, he would have accepted the revelation taught by the Church that the universe had a beginning.
At this point we either accept revelation that the universe had a beginning as true, or not.
Anyone else like to chime in? Especially those who were part of the earlier discussion?
Can you be clear as to whether the Earth and the Universe are the same. I think the subtle scriptural difference might be significant from the standpoint of the overall question as relates to proof by revelation.
Hi thinkandmull. Consider the following on the legitimacy of assigning divinity to creation. ( I extend an apology to Linus for responding to the question put to him). But I see as opposed to Linus that it is not wrong to assign divinity to creation. The OT hints in this direction. If that which is to be judged is creation, namely its highest member, man, then this proves that man profanes God (who has no use for bullocks) when he sins.
"MAY BE eternal? That implies it may also NOT BE eternal?
Yes, God has told us through divine revelation that the universe is not eternal but that He created it in the beginning of time. God certainly knows and we believe He is telling us the truth. That’s it.
And if God isn’t telling us the truth, who is?