J
josie_L
Guest
What do you mean by “eternally created”? Do you not see the big bang as the birth of our Universe?
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.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
JosieL, you raise a very interesting question. As I am not a cosmologist, I have to rely upon the words of cosmologists. While the cosmic background radiation confirming the “Big Bang” does seem to indicated a beginning of our universe 13.7 billion years ago, this does not mean that there was not a preceding universe that gave rise to the initial conditions for our Big Bang.What do you mean by “eternally created”? Do you not see the big bang as the birth of our Universe?
In any case, “creation” is or the ontological dependence of the universe upon what some term “God” is theologically compatible with a variety of cosmological states, including both a definite beginning or an infinite oscillating universe. God is eternal, outside of time, so God’s creative roie is eternal.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m sorry – that last post had a coherence problem due to extra words. Let me rephrase:In any case, “creation” is or the ontological dependence of the universe upon what some term “God” is theologically compatible with a variety of cosmological states, including both a definite beginning or an infinite oscillating universe. God is eternal, outside of time, so God’s creative roie is eternal. StAnastasia
“Creation” most broadly conceived simply means the ontological dependence of the universe upon a source outside, which some refer to as “God.” In view of this ontological dependence, the idea of “creation” is theologically compatible with a variety of cosmological states, including both a definite beginning or an infinite oscillating universe. Our universe could be one of an number of universes in an infinite series of big bangs and bi crunches, all undergirded by the eternal divine reality. God is eternal, outside of time, so God’s creative role is eternal.
StAnastasia
J
josie_L
Guest
Anastasia there is no evidence for such a thing so how is this even being contemplated. Moreover the Bible specifically states “In the beginning God created . . .” not " In the beginning of many beginnings. . . . yada yada yada . . . .I’m sorry – that last post had a coherence problem due to extra words. Let me rephrase:
“Creation” most broadly conceived simply means the ontological dependence of the universe upon a source outside, which some refer to as “God.” In view of this ontological dependence, the idea of “creation” is theologically compatible with a variety of cosmological states, including both a definite beginning or an infinite oscillating universe. Our universe could be one of an number of universes in an infinite series of big bangs and bi crunches, all undergirded by the eternal divine reality. God is eternal, outside of time, so God’s creative role is eternal.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
L, thanks for your post. You’ll have to ask the cosmologists for details about and evidence supporting various theories. Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams gave me their book at a conference last month, called The View from the Center of the Universe http://www.amazon.com/View-Center-U...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248282177&sr=1-1. Joel is one of the chief architects of the theory of cold dark matter.Anastasia there is no evidence for such a thing so how is this even being contemplated. Moreover the Bible specifically states “In the beginning God created . . .” not " In the beginning of many beginnings. . . . yada yada yada . . . .
In any case, since the Bible is not a book about cosmology, the poetic lines of the authors of Genesis are scientifically irrelevant, just as biblical views about falling are irrelevant to the theory of gravity, or like the bilbilcal flat-earth perspective is irrelevant to modern geography.
We monotheist (Jews, Christians, and presumably Muslims) trust that all is possible with an infinite God. It wouldn’t bother me in the least to find out that God’s glory is reflected in multiple universes, as it no doubt is reflected in multiple rational and spiritually responsive life forms elsewhere in our own universe.
StAnastasia
J
josie_L
Guest
Some things within the Bible were meant to be taken literally, moreover, science must realize that it too has limitations. How would multiverses, for example, be detectable or observable to render such a hypothesis as factual? This Joel Primack therefore cannot offer more than clever and imaginative scenarios that are untestable. I would advise you not to put too much emphasis on what they say. I don’t believe science will ever get past the point of knowing if there are other universes because there is no evidence that such a thing exists.L, thanks for your post. You’ll have to ask the cosmologists for details about and evidence supporting various theories. Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams gave me their book at a conference last month, called The View from the Center of the Universe http://www.amazon.com/View-Center-U...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248282177&sr=1-1. Joel is one of the chief architects of the theory of cold dark matter.
In any case, since the Bible is not a book about cosmology, the poetic lines of the authors of Genesis are scientifically irrelevant, just as biblical views about falling are irrelevant to the theory of gravity, or like the bilbilcal flat-earth perspective is irrelevant to modern geography.
We monotheist (Jews, Christians, and presumably Muslims) trust that all is possible with an infinite God. It wouldn’t bother me in the least to find out that God’s glory is reflected in multiple universes, as it no doubt is reflected in multiple rational and spiritually responsive life forms elsewhere in our own universe.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I agree, and Joel doesn’t posit multiverses himself. But theologically it’s irrelevant, since God is God and can do whatever God wants to do. The Genesis creation story is one of the parts that is not meant to be taken literally; I don’t personally know any Catholic theologians who do read it literally, and I know hundreds who read it symbolically and allegorically.Some things within the Bible were meant to be taken literally, moreover, science must realize that it too has limitations. How would multiverses, for example, be detectable or observable to render such a hypothesis as factual? This Joel Primack therefore cannot offer more than clever and imaginative scenarios that are untestable. … I don’t believe science will ever get past the point of knowing if there are other universes because there is no evidence that such a thing exists.
J
josie_L
Guest
Oh no, I wasn’t implying that Genesis should be read literally but I think certain parts are to be taken literally. I know that the CC holds to certain things has being true and therefore non-negotiable. For example, our universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) which wouldn’t you say contradicts the idea of multiverses. Even the words "In the beginning . . . " imply that this was the starting point of space time and matter. And although God is eternal (and He can do as He pleases), He created a world that was meant to point us in his direction, as such, multiverses would sort of contradict this. From what I understand multiverses are like an (endless) eternal production line of universes (without a first cause) wherein by the time our universe is born chance happens to bring about life. And if such a thing were real (He being the first cause) wouldn’t it make God a little inept in that He had to create many universes before we could have ours which contained life (unless of course there is life on other universes)? But He is eternal so he sees all things past present and future simultaneously, which means He knows exactly what needs to be done to create a universe. Anyways I think this hypothesis is false.I agree, and Joel doesn’t posit multiverses himself. But theologically it’s irrelevant, since God is God and can do whatever God wants to do. The Genesis creation story is one of the parts that is not meant to be taken literally; I don’t personally know any Catholic theologians who do read it literally, and I know hundreds who read it symbolically and allegorically.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis must be understood as the Church has taught and understood it for centuries.Oh no, I wasn’t implying that Genesis should be read literally but I think certain parts are to be taken literally. I know that the CC holds to certain things has being true and therefore non-negotiable. For example, our universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) which wouldn’t you say contradicts the idea of multiverses. Even the words "In the beginning . . . " imply that this was the starting point of space time and matter. And although God is eternal (and He can do as He pleases), He created a world that was meant to point us in his direction, as such, multiverses would sort of contradict this. From what I understand multiverses are like an (endless) eternal production line of universes (without a first cause) wherein by the time our universe is born chance happens to bring about life. And if such a thing were real (He being the first cause) wouldn’t it make God a little inept in that He had to create many universes before we could have ours which contained life (unless of course there is life on other universes)? But He is eternal so he sees all things past present and future simultaneously, which means He knows exactly what needs to be done to create a universe. Anyways I think this hypothesis is false.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
(1) Creation ex nihilo does not contradict the idea of multiple universes – God is omnipotent.Oh no, I wasn’t implying that Genesis should be read literally but I think certain parts are to be taken literally. I know that the CC holds to certain things has being true and therefore non-negotiable. For example, our universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) which wouldn’t you say contradicts the idea of multiverses. Even the words "In the beginning . . . " imply that this was the starting point of space time and matter. And although God is eternal (and He can do as He pleases), He created a world that was meant to point us in his direction, as such, multiverses would sort of contradict this. From what I understand multiverses are like an (endless) eternal production line of universes (without a first cause) wherein by the time our universe is born chance happens to bring about life. And if such a thing were real (He being the first cause) wouldn’t it make God a little inept in that He had to create many universes before we could have ours which contained life (unless of course there is life on other universes)? But He is eternal so he sees all things past present and future simultaneously, which means He knows exactly what needs to be done to create a universe. Anyways I think this hypothesis is false.
(2) “In the beginning” is poetic language by a prescientific people who did not understand astronomy.
(3) Why would a multiverse prevent us from looking to its cause?
(4) Why do you think a multiverse would be without a cause?
(5) How does it make God inept to propose that God creates a plurarity of universes? Is a cook inept because she cooks a dozen meals rather than one?
(6) Why would eternal divine omniscience lead you to believe God wouldn’t want to create other universes?
(7) How can a hypothesis be “false”? It might turn out to be incorrect, but that doesn’t make it a false hypothesis.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes agreed. But there is still much that the Church has not confirmed about Genesis.Genesis must be understood as the Church has taught and understood it for centuries.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Why?Genesis must be understood as the Church has taught and understood it for centuries.
B
buffalo
Guest
Because the Holy Spirit the guarantor of truth has not been asleep.Why?
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you expecting any dogmatic reversals soon?Yes agreed. But there is still much that the Church has not confirmed about Genesis.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
If the Holy Spirit has not been asleep, She is aware of developments in the last four centuries in astronomy, biology, chemistry and genetics, which render untenable a literal reading of some portions of the Bible, at least as understood by pre-scientific Patristic theologians…Because the Holy Spirit the guarantor of truth has not been asleep.
J
josie_L
Guest
No. I believe as the Church believes buffalo.Are you expecting any dogmatic reversals soon?
J
josie_L
Guest
How does his omnipotence have anything to do with “ex nihilo”? Something coming out of nothing is literally (as it’s translated by the church) understood as “something coming out of nothing”. This means God brought about “our” universe from nothing.(1) Creation ex nihilo does not contradict the idea of multiple universes – God is omnipotent.
But God did and He’s the one who inspired them to write Genesis.(2) “In the beginning” is poetic language by a prescientific people who did not understand astronomy.
Because scientists interpret a multiverse as being eternal.(3) Why would a multiverse prevent us from looking to its cause?
God cannot be the cause of something that does not exist.(4) Why do you think a multiverse would be without a cause?
Because God is omnipotent and omniscient.(5) How does it make God inept to propose that God creates a plurarity of universes? Is a cook inept because she cooks a dozen meals rather than one?
It’s not that He couldn’t but it doesn’t vibe with what we know about Him through revelation.(6) Why would eternal divine omniscience lead you to believe God wouldn’t want to create other universes?
Well, by false I meant incorrect (I rather thought the words were interchangeable but I guess a hypothesis can’t be false because it’s just science in its experimental stage).(7) How can a hypothesis be “false”? It might turn out to be incorrect, but that doesn’t make it a false hypothesis.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis is important for its simplicity. Simplicity in that man of old and moderns can understand it. To believe otherwise is to put forward the claim that God could not know the future and He has no ability to communicate truths that would be true for all time.If the Holy Spirit has not been asleep, She is aware of developments in the last four centuries in astronomy, biology, chemistry and genetics, which render untenable a literal reading of some portions of the Bible, at least as understood by pre-scientific Patristic theologians…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, it doesn’t necessarily mean that “our” universe came out of nothing. It means that God is the ground of all being, the one who sustains everything in existence, whether that refers to a single universe or an oscillating series of universes of which our universe is a part. God will continue to sustain the universe in being hundreds of billions of years into the future, long after humans have gone extinct, long after the earth has been incinerated by the sun, long after our sun has winked out and the black hole at the center has swallowed much of the Milky Way galaxy. God will still be God, enfolding all creation in divine love.How does his omnipotence have anything to do with “ex nihilo”? Something coming out of nothing is literally (as it’s translated by the church) understood as “something coming out of nothing”. This means God brought about “our” universe from nothing.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What you said was: “From what I understand multiverses are like an (endless) eternal production line of universes (without a first cause) wherein by the time our universe is born chance happens to bring about life.”God cannot be the cause of something that does not exist.
My question: why do assume that an eternal series of universe is “without a first cause”? How do you understand “first cause”?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.