How can something come from nothing?

[inocente]

I don’t think Thomas ever used the term " empty space. " He did speak of motion in a void when discussing the opinions of Aristotle and the Muslim philosophers. But he never gave an opinion of his own about the actual existence of the void that these men spoke of. And neither these men nor Thomas ever addressed the question in terms of " created substance." So we can only say that if Thomas had private thoughts about the actual existence of a " void, " he would have said that it was a part of the universe and so was created along with the rest of the universe. Now he did speak of the " heavens " and celestial movement in the heavens, but he never gave an opinion of the actual composition of the heavens except in reference to the heavenly bodies and their movements. But those were good questions.

The reason I asked is I’m not sure when the concept of an absence of even empty space itself first arose.

I googled “aristotle empty space” and it seems Aristotle thought even that is impossible. The writer of Gen 1 imagines a time when the earth was formless, yet the Spirit hovers over waters which God then separates to make into a vault, so empty space and the concept of absence of space are not there either.

The concept is, literally, unimaginable, or at least the closest I can get is imagining a big black void, but that’s still space. So perhaps it had to wait for modern math. Once we define space as having three dimensions, x, y, z, we immediately wonder about x, y, z. Could there be a world where there is only x and y, like a piece of paper (Flatland)? Could there be a world where x, y, z are limited to a few kilometers, as in Pleasantville? Could x = y = z = 0 (singularity)? Pretty soon we’re into concepts we can easily write down but can’t actually picture.

I’m wondering if any of this occurred to anyone before the nineteenth century, with set theory and non-Euclidean geometries etc. If not, then we can’t really expect older conceptions of creation to survive without a fair amount of morphing.

 

[inocente]

Not indignant about new ideas except when they contradict what we know through Revelation. And Aristotle’s and Thomas’ arguments are just fine when explained properly. Though one must interpret Aristotle through Thomas. Taken by itself, Aristotle’s argument does not hold up given that his God had no direct contact with the universe.

Trouble is, some thought Revelation meant reading Genesis literally, and got really upset with a certain astronomer. Some think Revelation proves the world is 6 000 years old. Some think Revelation proves women’s first ancestor is a rib. Others think other things. Some get so uptight that my first pastor banned any mention of evolution/creationism for the division it caused. What we know through Revelation is that no one can ever agree what we know through Revelation.

*Not sure what you mean but I agree with Lemaitre’. I think he said that science and philosophy and theology must stick to their own territory. The only exception he would make would be that if anything in either philosophy or science contradicted Revelation, the offending proposition would be wrong because Faith is trumps. *

Nope, the opposite, you quoted him: “Philosophy and theology, when kept in isolation from scientific thought, either change into an outdated self-enclosed system, or become a dangerous ideology.”

c.f. truth cannot contradict truth.

Here I disagree. When the materialist concludes that there is no " transcendental Being, " he has stepped into the science of philosophy and theology. He has made a conclusion science cannot make. Since this conclusion violates both the truths of philosophy and Faith, it is wrong. And it is wrong because the science is wrong - somewhere. And we would have to say it is wrong precisely when the scientist tries to redefine the words " nothing " and " nothingness. " Further, it is wrong because all his arguments are conditionals. He is making hypothetical suppositions. And there is nothing conclusive about a hypothetical or conditional statement.

I think you misread the Lemaître quote, he was referring to his theory, not all of science.

According to American Heritage dictionary “nothingness” means:

1. The condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence.
2. Empty space; a void.
3. Lack of consequence; insignificance.
4. Something inconsequential or insignificant.

So, the existence of empty space is nothingness, or the absence of empty space is nothingness, and cosmologists are not redefining anything. Do you have any reason to think that people make a distinction in normal usage? Ask a hundred people whether empty space is a thing or lack of thing.

Have no idea what you mean here. But we are still talking about something that cannot be proven because it cannot be seen or measured - as Lemaitre’ says.

Here, and in the next quote, where you think you’re quoting me, it’s actually Lemaître, so it’s him you’re not understanding. To repeat it again in full:

*Addressing the philosophical implication of the primeval atom hypothesis at Solvay in 1958, Lemaître states:

“As far as I can see, such a theory 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 m the beginning of creation.”*

Not sure what you mean by " hidden. "

Exactly what Lemaître says in the quote above, as per Isaiah.

So who’s testing God? And it is right to get upset with modern cosmologists who make comments they cannot back up and which contradict Faith. I am not upset with Galileo, I am upset with what how modern scientific apologists have blown the Galileo incident out of all proportion to its significance.

If you would deny the right of freedom of speech then you’re repeating the exact same mistake that was made over Galileo, and you’ve underlined the importance of repeating the sorry tale loudly down throughout history for all who have ears to hear

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The reason I asked is I’m not sure when the concept of an absence of even empty space itself first arose.

I googled “aristotle empty space” and it seems Aristotle thought even that is impossible. The writer of Gen 1 imagines a time when the earth was formless, yet the Spirit hovers over waters which God then separates to make into a vault, so empty space and the concept of absence of space are not there either.

The concept is, literally, unimaginable, or at least the closest I can get is imagining a big black void, but that’s still space. So perhaps it had to wait for modern math. Once we define space as having three dimensions, x, y, z, we immediately wonder about x, y, z. Could there be a world where there is only x and y, like a piece of paper (Flatland)? Could there be a world where x, y, z are limited to a few kilometers, as in Pleasantville? Could x = y = z = 0 (singularity)? Pretty soon we’re into concepts we can easily write down but can’t actually picture.

I’m wondering if any of this occurred to anyone before the nineteenth century, with set theory and non-Euclidean geometries etc. If not, then we can’t really expect older conceptions of creation to survive without a fair amount of morphing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Trouble is, some thought Revelation meant reading Genesis literally, and got really upset with a certain astronomer. Some think Revelation proves the world is 6 000 years old. Some think Revelation proves women’s first ancestor is a rib. Others think other things. Some get so uptight that my first pastor banned any mention of evolution/creationism for the division it caused. What we know through Revelation is that no one can ever agree what we know through Revelation.

That is why Christ founded his church, which would be free from error in matters of faith and morals to the end of time. The Church never taught that the universe was geocentric. This was even doubted by some educated men of the time and even by some ancient Greeks. But most of the common people did believe it, so the Church thought that if this belief of the common man was challenged by anything less than solid proof, it would cause another crisis of faith in the Church. That was the reason behind the Church’s stance. We already had Luther and then the Reformation. So the Church was going to guard against any more dangers to the faith, even if it did not involve Church teaching.

Nope, the opposite, you quoted him: “Philosophy and theology, when kept in isolation from scientific thought, either change into an outdated self-enclosed system, or become a dangerous ideology.”

c.f. truth cannot contradict truth.

But you brought it up again. So I asked why. Right, truth cannot contradict truth. I agree with that. And Lamaitre’ was a man of the Church, he would have meant that if science is teaching something contrary to faith and morals, then science is wrong. You may not believe that, but Lamaitre’ did.

I think you misread the Lemaître quote, he was referring to his theory, not all of science.

I was responding to your remark about materialists. I wasn’t thinking about Lamaitre’.

According to American Heritage dictionary “nothingness” means:

1. The condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence.
2. Empty space; a void.
3. Lack of consequence; insignificance.
4. Something inconsequential or insignificant.

So, the existence of empty space is nothingness, or the absence of empty space is nothingness, and cosmologists are not redefining anything. Do you have any reason to think that people make a distinction in normal usage? Ask a hundred people whether empty space is a thing or lack of thing.

I explained what nothingness meant in the Church’s Dogma about God creating the universe out of nothing. You may disagree with that definition, but don’t put words in my mouth or the Church’s. The Church means " non existence, " or non-being. And modern cosmologists know this and have tried to redefine " nothingness " so that they could have their cake and eat it too. Because Stephen Hawking and others postulate that this is a primordial state of " quantum fluxwation " and try to tell us this is " nothing. " Well that is not the nothing of which the Church speaks, it is not non-being, it is not non-existence.

Here, and in the next quote, where you think you’re quoting me, it’s actually Lemaître, so it’s him you’re not understanding. To repeat it again in full:

Exactly what Lemaître says in the quote above, as per Isaiah.

Well then, perhaps I misunderstood what Lamaitre’ meant, it is a little obscure. But you quoted it for a purpose. My response, as I read the quotation was that 1. science cannot speculate about the transcendent meaning of this theory and be doing science. Such speculatons are the special provence of the philosopher. And 2, it has nothing to do with what the believer can or can’t know. And 3. I don’t understand what the reference to Isiah means in relation to this theory, except to say that the way God brought things into existence is a mystery. It certainly does not mean that man cannot know that God did bring things into existence from nothing ( philosophical and theological nothing )…And it does not mean that the theory showed how God brought things into existence.

If you would deny the right of freedom of speech then you’re repeating the exact same mistake that was made over Galileo, and you’ve underlined the importance of repeating the sorry tale loudly down throughout history for all who have ears to hear

I’m not denying anyone’s right of speech. I’m saying the whole thing has been blown out of proportion with the sole purpose of giving the Chuch a black eye based on the erroneous supposition that the Church had or has a serious problem with science. That is not the case and science knows it. Catholics have always been heavily involved in science and Catholic schools, colleges and universities are heavily involved in science. But there are more than a few who use the incident as propaganda. And why is it that it is only the Catholic Church that is singled out? I’ll tell you this, if the day ever comes when the Catholic Church is relagated to the ashbin of history, even the Protestants and Fundamentalists will realize they have lost something of inestimable value.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The reason I asked is I’m not sure when the concept of an absence of even empty space itself first arose.

I googled “aristotle empty space” and it seems Aristotle thought even that is impossible. The writer of Gen 1 imagines a time when the earth was formless, yet the Spirit hovers over waters which God then separates to make into a vault, so empty space and the concept of absence of space are not there either.

The concept is, literally, unimaginable, or at least the closest I can get is imagining a big black void, but that’s still space. So perhaps it had to wait for modern math. Once we define space as having three dimensions, x, y, z, we immediately wonder about x, y, z. Could there be a world where there is only x and y, like a piece of paper (Flatland)? Could there be a world where x, y, z are limited to a few kilometers, as in Pleasantville? Could x = y = z = 0 (singularity)? Pretty soon we’re into concepts we can easily write down but can’t actually picture.

I’m wondering if any of this occurred to anyone before the nineteenth century, with set theory and non-Euclidean geometries etc. If not, then we can’t really expect older conceptions of creation to survive without a fair amount of morphing.

Did you want me to say something? I thought I had said enough.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

That is why Christ founded his church, which would be free from error in matters of faith and morals to the end of time. The Church never taught that the universe was geocentric. This was even doubted by some educated men of the time and even by some ancient Greeks. But most of the common people did believe it, so the Church thought that if this belief of the common man was challenged by anything less than solid proof, it would cause another crisis of faith in the Church. That was the reason behind the Church’s stance. We already had Luther and then the Reformation. So the Church was going to guard against any more dangers to the faith, even if it did not involve Church teaching.

Allow John Paul II to dispel that myth. Speaking of the errors made in the Galileo affair, JPII states:

“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.” - L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

But you brought it up again. So I asked why. Right, truth cannot contradict truth. I agree with that. And Lamaitre’ was a man of the Church, he would have meant that if science is teaching something contrary to faith and morals, then science is wrong. You may not believe that, but Lamaitre’ did.

Lemaître (not as you spell it) would know that objective evidence cannot lie, and therefore theologians got it wrong. As Lemaître says, and you might well weep as you read it:

“Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts.”

I explained what nothingness meant in the Church’s Dogma about God creating the universe out of nothing. You may disagree with that definition, but don’t put words in my mouth or the Church’s. The Church means " non existence, " or non-being.

That’s not what you said though. You didn’t refer to any technical definition which the Church might have.

Not sure how you expect cosmologists to comply with, or even be aware of, the differing use of terms by every religion in the world, but looking at the CCC, 337 says “God himself created the visible world”, and as space isn’t visible it seems the writers of the CCC are not helping your case.

My response, as I read the quotation was that 1. science cannot speculate about the transcendent meaning of this theory and be doing science. Such speculatons are the special provence of the philosopher. And 2, it has nothing to do with what the believer can or can’t know.

I didn’t know philosophers and theologians have trade unions and no one else is allowed in. Wouldn’t a better philosophy be that anyone who wants can speculate on anything we wish to? Who’s army is going to stop us?

And 3. I don’t understand what the reference to Isiah means in relation to this theory

Lemaître seems to be saying: (1) God is Creator. (2) Therefore the place where we might most expect God to show Himself is at the point of creation, the big bang itself. (3) But even here we find no evidence either way. (4) This tells us something about God.

That God is profoundly Almighty, far too great to ever be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, to any mere god-of-the-gaps, to the god who some modern Christians seem to imagine fits neatly into their back pocket. We are too puny to even imagine God. God is the holy of holies. And so Lemaître rediscovers Isaiah’s philosophy and his science leads him towards God.

I’m not denying anyone’s right of speech. I’m saying the whole thing has been blown out of proportion with the sole purpose of giving the Chuch a black eye based on the erroneous supposition that the Church had or has a serious problem with science.

The value of the Galileo story isn’t in any of that. It isn’t in whatever competing theories people had, it isn’t about the Church. It’s about whether intelligence agencies have a right to listen to our phone conversations to protect the state. It’s about whether a religion has the right to make women cover themselves from head to foot in public to protect God. It’s about whether pornography should be banned to protect family values. It’s about the extent to which any powerful group should be permitted to step on the individual to protect itself.

Getting a black eye tends to make us wary of getting another - if we try to censor history rather than learn lessons from it then history will repeat itself.

 

[inocente]

Did you want me to say something? I thought I had said enough.

I’m challenging the notion that, prior to the 19th century, anyone conceived of absence of space, as distinct from the concept of empty space.

If I’m right then the entire idea that space itself could be created comes from modern physics alone, which would put an end to claims that theologians long ago wrapped up the whole business of nothingness.

So what I’d like to see, from any quarter, is evidence of when the distinction between the idea of absence of space, as distinct from empty space, first arose.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Allow John Paul II to dispel that myth. Speaking of the errors made in the Galileo affair, JPII states:

"The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture." - L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

I already said that John Paul was not teaching about faith and morals and therefore was expressing a prudential judgment - which no Catholic is bound to adhere to. It is similar to the situation when Vatican sources might claim that " global warming :" is caused partially by the activities of man. No Catholic would be bound to adhere to such a statement.

Lemaître (not as you spell it) would know that objective evidence cannot lie, and therefore theologians got it wrong. As Lemaître says, and you might well weep as you read it

You seem to be errecting a straw man here. The fact that some theologians might have considered the " Big Bang " as proof that God created the universe out of nothing in time was some how illustrative of some imagined proof that Catholic theologians were opposed to scientific evidence and, by extension, that such an extrapolation is proof that the Church is opposed to the facts or efforts of science. I doubt that Lemaitre’ held such a view, I’m certain he didn’t. He might well object to the opinions of some theologians on their interpretations of the meaning of the " Big Bang, " but that is not the extrapolation your comment implies. If you want to interpret his comments that way that is your business. But that is only your opinion.

“Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts.”

Well, this is quote out of context and without a reference to that context. So the exact meaning of the quote escapes me. I don’t see how you can be so certain of its exact meaning. Even so, at face value, it is just an opinion. Then so what?

That’s not what you said though. You didn’t refer to any technical definition which the Church might have.

Your objection here is unreasonable. The Dogma was formulated at a time when the definition given by Thomas Aquinas was the accepted view and the Church has never nuanced that understanding. It was the prevaling view. And still is except in the opinion of some scientists and cosmologists. The latter are welcome to their interpretation, but it is an artiface to " save the appearances, " something akin to a scientific " god of the gaps."

Not sure how you expect cosmologists to comply with, or even be aware of, the differing use of terms by every religion in the world, but looking at the CCC, 337 says “God himself created the visible world”, and as space isn’t visible it seems the writers of the CCC are not helping your case.

Please! That was a very poor effort. It is pretty far fetched that they were, generally, unaware of how the Catholic Church interprets the terms " nothing " and " nothingness. " In fact, the very reason why they treated it as a nuance proves that they were quite aware of the Church’s historic interpretation - that is what they intended to challenge, they made a point of it. Otherwise, why did they draw attentiion to it, why did they make a point of it? Further, they were not unaware of the traditional dictionary definition.

didn’t know philosophers and theologians have trade unions and no one else is allowed in. Wouldn’t a better philosophy be that anyone who wants can speculate on anything we wish to? Who’s army is going to stop us?

As far as I am concerned you can have any opinion you want, but you shouldn’t be surprised if it is challenged by opposing views. After all it is an open market, though the general effort of the social market place is to ridicule and sideline opinions and views which challenge the prevailing, secular " Weltanschuung. " By the way, what is you Biblically based view, do you believe that God created the entire universe, both the material and the spiritual, out of no prior existing matter or " stuff, " even " quantum fluxations ( that is, nothing - no prior existing being.) The only alternative is some kind of eternal universe. So what is your insightful, Biblical opinion? Or are you truely perplexed?

An army, really? My oh my. And the Weltanschuung you seem to favor is not an army I suppose? But no you are free to adhere to whatever unreasonable views you care to adhere to

Since you seem comitted to arguing with a " pointed stick " don’t be surprised if others employ the same strategy .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Inocente: Post 128 continued

Lemaître seems to be saying: (1) God is Creator. (2) Therefore the place where we might most expect God to show Himself is at the point of creation, the big bang itself. (3) But even here we find no evidence either way. (4) This tells us something about God.

Now this surprises me. He specifically warned Pius XII, not to use the " Big Bang " as proof of this. And the Pope took his advice. Lemaitre’ did not think the " Big Bang " was such proof, for the reason that science could not see what lay behind this event, if anything. So, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, which you seem to think scores some point against something I have said?

That God is profoundly Almighty, far too great to ever be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, to any mere god-of-the-gaps, to the god who some modern Christians seem to imagine fits neatly into their back pocket.

It isn’t exactly complimentary to your views when you accuse all arguments which disagree with them of being " god of the gaps " arguments simply because they are not scientifically based. This highly is perjorative and is reductive to a general ad hominem directed against anyone disagreeing with you.

We are too puny to even imagine God. God is the holy of holies. And so Lemaître rediscovers Isaiah’s philosophy and his science leads him towards God.

Yes, we cannot fathom the reality of God but I’m not sure what Lemaitre’ meant, so I don’t see how you can be. It may be helpful if you provided the context and reference. But whatever it is, Lemaitre’ is welcome to his opinions as well.

The value of the Galileo story isn’t in any of that. It isn’t in whatever competing theories people had, it isn’t about the Church. It’s about whether intelligence agencies have a right to listen to our phone conversations to protect the state. It’s about whether a religion has the right to make women cover themselves from head to foot in public to protect God. It’s about whether pornography should be banned to protect family values. It’s about the extent to which any powerful group should be permitted to step on the individual to protect itself.

Fiddlesticks, you are just looking for excuses to poke the Church in the eye. Your extrapolations are truely fabulous. Congratulations on your completer absence of any objectivity.

Getting a black eye tends to make us wary of getting another - if we try to censor history rather than learn lessons from it then history will repeat itself.

It seems to me you are making a valient effort to " sensor history." You seem to think that the prevaling, secular Weltanschuung is some kind of infallible law to which all must bow or be hounded out of polite company. Congratulations again.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m challenging the notion that, prior to the 19th century, anyone conceived of absence of space, as distinct from the concept of empty space.

What difference does it make and who says there is a distinction between the concepts of " space " and " empty space " and who in the world has actually defined what these mean? Can you tell me what they mean? And why do you ask? I just don’t see the importance of your question.

If I’m right then the entire idea that space itself could be created comes from modern physics alone,

Well, you haven’t mentioned this before. But I beg to differ. Nothing in this universe is excluded from God’s creation, as found in Gen. 1,1. And nothing is excluded from the Catholic Church’s Dogma defining God’s creative act, not even " space. " ( more on that later ).

Assuming that you can find a generally accepted scientific definition of " space, " so what?

which would put an end to claims that theologians long ago wrapped up the whole business of nothingness.

I don’t see your two points as connected at all. You are assuming that " space " is either the absence all forms of existence, or that " space " has been defined ( and it has not ) as the nuanced " nothing " which scientists like Hawing claim it is. Such arguments are illigitimate in that they attempt to gull the public by using a term, " nothing, " in a non-traditional way, hoping to capitalize on its exaulted status, hoping the public does not notice the slight of hand. And you know, it was nearly successful. The problem was the duplicity of the whole sordid attempt was immediately seen by alert philosophers and ordinary individuals like myself.

So while the Church is continuously pilliored for the Gallileo affair, science gets off scott free for its own " sins. " So, the Church evil and science is good. Seems like a double standard to me.
.
Why are you concerned about where the term " space " comes from? I really don’t see how some scientists and cosmologists can legitimately redefine a term whose definition has been crystal clear far into the 20th century. It has only been with the advent of men like Stephen Hawking that anyone thought any differently at all. And even he says, " …well, it is not really nothing, rather it is a near nothing ( paraphrased ). " So he is simply reaching for a way to replace the term " nothing, " so he can say that the universe always existed.

But even then he will not get away from creation. Thomas’ Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God all assume an eternally existing, eternally created universe, for which an eternally existing God is necessary. So Hawking has not disposed of God and he has not disposed of creation… Beause no matter how Hawking and others describe the " beginning " of their universe, it is still is a contingent universe, concerning which it and all its parts and cycles can either be or not be. And in an eternity of time, at some point nothing would exist, not even " quantum fluxuations. " And this does not even consider the metaphysical problem of really existing things being composed of matter and form or potency and act, for which there must be a first Pure Act as Cause, which is absolutely other than what it causes…

And what does your Bible tell you, when it says God created heaven and earth? Do you think that Moses really meant " create? And if he did, then God created the whole universe, both the material and the spiritual out of no prior existing anything, not even " quantum fluxuations. "

The point is, whether you like it or not, the philosophers and theologians of the 13th century and down to the present day have the correct understanding of " nothing. " And this is the meaning the Church meant when she defined the Act of Creation by God. And you know what, if the Catholic Church did not exist, this whole phoney notion may well have succeeded and mankind would have been well on the path to universal skepticism and atheism. And don’t think the modern scientists like Hawking have missed the point of that, why do you think they are so bitter? They got caught with their hands in the cookey jar. As far as I can tell it is only the Church and her dogmas, and he own philosophers and theologians who have stood in the breach.

So what I’d like to see, from any quarter, is evidence of when the distinction between the idea of absence of space, as distinct from empty space, first arose.

First of all, who has authoritatively defined " space, " And secondly, if we accept the common notion as is in common usage to day, " empty space " refers to something that does not exist, because even in the remotest " empty " regions of outer space there is estimated to be one nuclear particle per cubic centimeter. That causes the problem of what to call the " space " between these particles where there are none.

You are aware aren’t you that well into the 20th century, not only philsosphers but scientists as well, did not think space was " empty, " but considered it to filled with a very subtle kind of matter called ether. So the idea of a genuine empty space has existed only since Einstein, and even he hung on to the ether for quite awhile.

My personal opinion is that there actually is no " empty space, " that if it is real, it is a thing, however rareified, and it was part of God’s creation…

Linus2nd

 

[anthonymarie]

It’s unscientific in the sense that investigation presupposes cause, we always assume a phenomenon has a cause. Science never investigates whether something has a cause, it assumes the cause and investigates the “nature” of the cause.

To postulate a phenomenon unseen in nature (namely that something can come about without a cause) is pure philosophical speculation that contradicts the principles of scientific investigation. Have you tried accusing your friend of being “anti-scientific”?

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s unscientific in the sense that investigation presupposes cause, we always assume a phenomenon has a cause. Science never investigates whether something has a cause, it assumes the cause and investigates the “nature” of the cause.

To postulate a phenomenon unseen in nature (namely that something can come about without a cause) is pure philosophical speculation that contradicts the principles of scientific investigation. Have you tried accusing your friend of being “anti-scientific”?

Excellent post. Says this scientist (I am a biochemist).

I have very little patience when people say that in quantum mechanics something can be ‘uncaused’ (now assuming the quantum vacuum as ‘nothing’ while it is not really nothing as we have established earlier).

I wrote about this in chaper 4, The uncaused universe, of my article:
Cosmological arguments for the existence of God

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s unscientific in the sense that investigation presupposes cause, we always assume a phenomenon has a cause. Science never investigates whether something has a cause, it assumes the cause and investigates the “nature” of the cause.

To postulate a phenomenon unseen in nature (namely that something can come about without a cause) is pure philosophical speculation that contradicts the principles of scientific investigation. Have you tried accusing your friend of being “anti-scientific”?

The object of your objection is not clear. Exactly what are you objecting to? You must assume that the readers here are not scientists and probably not philosophers either.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Excellent post. Says this scientist (I am a biochemist).

I have very little patience when people say that in quantum mechanics something can be ‘uncaused’ (now assuming the quantum vacuum as ‘nothing’ while it is not really nothing as we have established earlier).

I wrote about this in chaper 4, The uncaused universe, of my article:
Cosmological arguments for the existence of God

Come on Al, no one is going to plow through all that and I would have strong objections to some of it which we can’t discusse here. Just make your point in simple language. If you can’t do that. your argument, no matter how fine, won’t go far here.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

Excellent post. Says this scientist (I am a biochemist).

I have very little patience when people say that in quantum mechanics something can be ‘uncaused’ (now assuming the quantum vacuum as ‘nothing’ while it is not really nothing as we have established earlier).

I wrote about this in chaper 4, The uncaused universe, of my article:
Cosmological arguments for the existence of God

I second that.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Come on Al, no one is going to plow through all that and I would have strong objections to some of it which we can’t discusse here. Just make your point in simple language. If you can’t do that. your argument, no matter how fine, won’t go far here.

Pax
Linus2nd

All your joking aside, you only have to plough through the brief chapter 4

 

[Kurisu35712]

Lemaître seems to be saying: (1) God is Creator. (2) Therefore the place where we might most expect God to show Himself is at the point of creation, the big bang itself. (3) But even here we find no evidence either way. (4) This tells us something about God.

That God is profoundly Almighty, far too great to ever be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, to any mere god-of-the-gaps, to the god who some modern Christians seem to imagine fits neatly into their back pocket. We are too puny to even imagine God. God is the holy of holies. And so Lemaître rediscovers Isaiah’s philosophy and his science leads him towards God.

I was actually considering posting something very similar in response last night, but ended up not doing so since I figured you’d say the same thing.

I admit, I’m not exactly certain where this argument is going. Personally, I’m finding myself agreeing with inocente on most of these things. Specifically on this point, my interpretation was that the Big Bang theory illustrates an origin for the universe, as spacetime, that has a definitive starting point. We can postulate an origin point. However, since “time” as referring to the chronological measurable period from the present back to that origin point has only existed since that point, we cannot measure beyond that beginning. We cannot find evidence as to what was or was not prior to the Big Bang. As a result, the theory certainly can point towards a creator, at least in the sense that something had to be there to start the Big Bang, since nothing in our universe is observed to begin without the influence of something else. However, we cannot observe what that original influence was. For a Catholic (and any Christian really), it is pretty much obvious that the thing that started the Big Bang was God, who exists outside of the time He created. However, that fact cannot be studied through the scientific method. We would logically expect God to reveal Himself as that initiating force that began creation. But there is no hard evidence for that, as we cannot measure or observe prior to that point. Hence Lemaitre claiming that God is “hidden,” referencing Isaiah.

God could have very well given us concrete proof of His existence through the Big Bang. But He chose not to. Lemaitre’s point, as well as inocente’s, is that this fact tells us something about the nature of God. He cannot be tested. He cannot be observed on our terms. If he shows Himself to us, it is because He has chosen to reveal Himself, not because we somehow discovered how to see Him. God is incomprehensible to us, and we cannot measure Him. I think that was Lemaitre’s point. No matter how much science we throw at Him, God will not make Himself able to be proven. He has nothing to prove. We were not called to believe in Him based on a scientific hypothesis. We were simply called to believe.

Aside from that, I’m not exactly sure where the argument is headed. As far as empty space. Empty space is part of creation. It is among the things that God created. Prior to that, it wasn’t as if there was God floating around in empty space. There was just God. Nothingness can definitely refer to empty space though. I actually had a discussion with my dad about this when I was younger. I couldn’t wrap my head around the idea that the universe was infinite, because I pictured it as essentially a ball that God was holding. I just couldn’t get that once you hit the end of the universe, the end of where stuff is, how there could be nothing. But truly it isn’t that there is a lack of existence there. There is more space. Empty space, with no particles, no planets, no dark matter, etc. But space nonetheless. As in a location where things can eventually be. Pure nothingness is incomprehensible to us, at least in a way that can be visualized, because when we imagine nothing, we just imagine no things. We don’t picture a lack of existence because frankly we can’t. Even doing so, we still see emptiness. Things can fit there, as we tend to picture just space with nothing contained within it, but there is something even if it’s just the potential for things to exist.

I’m not sure if that made any sense, but I’ll post it anyway.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I actually had a discussion with my dad about this when I was younger. I couldn’t wrap my head around the idea that the universe was infinite, because I pictured it as essentially a ball that God was holding. I just couldn’t get that once you hit the end of the universe, the end of where stuff is, how there could be nothing. But truly it isn’t that there is a lack of existence there. There is more space. Empty space, with no particles, no planets, no dark matter, etc. But space nonetheless. As in a location where things can eventually be.

Actually, that is not quite correct. Space expands together with the expanding universe, there is no ‘empty space’ beyond the universe.

As for the Big Bang theory as science formulates it, you are right, it only says that the universe started from a very small point. What was “before” that point, or where that point “came from”, science says nothing. Sure, there are mathematical models ‘pre-Big Bang’, but there are no scientific observations to support them.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Actually, that is not quite correct. Space expands together with the expanding universe, there is no ‘empty space’ beyond the universe.

As for the Big Bang theory as science formulates it, you are right, it only says that the universe started from a very small point. What was “before” that point, or where that point “came from”, science says nothing. Sure, there are mathematical models ‘pre-Big Bang’, but there are no scientific observations to support them.

I probably should’ve clarified, that was the explanation he gave me when I was 7 or 8, just to illustrate the idea of infinity to a child. Now that you said that though, I do remember learning about the expansion of spacetime in physics. Honestly, if physics wasn’t such a difficult subject for me, I’d probably take some more classes on it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was actually considering posting something very similar in response last night, but ended up not doing so since I figured you’d say the same thing…[snip].

What Inocente means by, " That God is profoundly Almighty, far too great to ever be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, to any mere god-of-the-gaps, to the god who some modern Christians seem to imagine fits neatly into their back pocket. We are too puny to even imagine God. God is the holy of holies. And so Lemaître rediscovers Isaiah’s philosophy and his science leads him towards God, " is not quite as benign as first appears.

He means that any effort to " prove " that a personal God exists is not available to man either through science or through philosophical reflection, but only by Revelation. He rejects absolutely any philosophical proof of God’s existence as well as all the types of arguments the Church teaches as valid in paragraphs 31-34 of the Catechism. So be wary of what you agree to.
You know that the Church teaches De Fide that unaided human reason can know for certain that a personal God exists. If you read the Catechism you can read it for yourself. And that was the whole point of St. Paul’s teaching that God can be known through the things he has made.

Pax
Linus2nd