In The Beginning

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faith1960

Guest
Science tells us the Big Bang started with a speck (singularity?) the size of part of a proton and then exploded and expanded, still expanding to this day.
Genesis said God created from nothing. A speck is not nothing. Is Genesis wrong?
 
Faith1960 said:
Science tells us the Big Bang started with a speck (singularity?) the size of part of a proton and then exploded and expanded, still expanding to this day.
Genesis said God created from nothing. A speck is not nothing. Is Genesis wrong?
Click to expand...
No.

First off, Genesis is not a science book.

Second, science isn’t telling us where the ‘speck’ came from. If you want to assert the Big Bang, and simultaneously look to Genesis, you need to identify the source of the ‘speck’. If it’s God, then we still have creation ex nihilo.
 
 
Gorgias said:
No.

First off, Genesis is not a science book.

Second, science isn’t telling us where the ‘speck’ came from. If you want to assert the Big Bang, and simultaneously look to Genesis, you need to identify the source of the ‘speck’. If it’s God, then we still have creation ex nihilo.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that prior to the Big Bang this singularity was there but it was created by God, and prior to the singularity there was nothing?

I posted about this a couple months ago and want to know if I have it right.
 
I personally think that the way Genesis was written is amazing for the time period it covers. It speaks about creation in ways that make sense for the time it was written. To me, science fits right in with the knowledge they had at the time and with the revelation that was given them back then.
 
AussieTrish said:
First in this argument you need to determine if the Big Bang Theory is correct, or if any scientific theory regarding creation is correct.
These are after all, theories, not facts.
Scientists disagree

science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
news.com.au/technology/science/has-the-big-bang-theory-been-busted/story-fn5fsgyc-1226721187118
rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2191333/Aussie-scientists-challenge-Big-Bang-theory-say-Universe-froze-way-existence-Big-Chill.html
Click to expand...
Maybe I shouldn’t have asked if this conflicts with Genesis, but that our faith teaches that the universe was created ex nihilo.
 
Faith1960 said:
Maybe I shouldn’t have asked if this conflicts with Genesis, but that our faith teaches that the universe was created ex nihilo.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a problem for Thomas Aquinas. He said it takes someone or something outside of our nature to make the first natural move (prime movement).

A welcome from Missouri.
 
Faith1960 said:
So are you saying that prior to the Big Bang this singularity was there but it was created by God, and prior to the singularity there was nothing?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess what I’m saying is that a theory that begins with pre-existent matter (i.e., the singularity) can’t make any claims about ‘ex nihilo’ creation, so yeah – if you’re making a claim about something that happened in 1950, and I have evidence about something that started in 1960, I can’t exactly say that my evidence proves your claim is wrong… right?

On the other hand, science might say, “we can’t make any empirical claims about anything prior to the singularity.” And, in saying this, they’d be correct. Yet, all that this claim asserts is that science is incapable of making claims about things that preceded the physical universe; that is, they’re saying that the competence of science doesn’t extend into theology. Yep… I’d agree with that… 😉
 
mdcpensive1 said:
It wasn’t a problem for Thomas Aquinas. He said it takes someone or something outside of our nature to make the first natural move (prime movement).

A welcome from Missouri.
Click to expand...
Gorgias said:
Well, I guess what I’m saying is that a theory that begins with pre-existent matter (i.e., the singularity) can’t make any claims about ‘ex nihilo’ creation, so yeah – if you’re making a claim about something that happened in 1950, and I have evidence about something that started in 1960, I can’t exactly say that my evidence proves your claim is wrong… right?
Click to expand...
I’m confused. We are required to believe our universe was created ex nihilo so how can it have been from nothing if the singularity was there?

And great , just great . There’s a thread in the philosophy forum that I’d skimmed but hadn’t read well. Turns out some math wizards have worked to find that the universe could have come into being spontaneously, from nothing… Which ties in with the my Stephen Hawking thread.
 
Faith1960 said:
So are you saying that prior to the Big Bang this singularity was there but it was created by God, and prior to the singularity there was nothing?

I posted about this a couple months ago and want to know if I have it right.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
For all we know, the Big Bang may have generated matter, energy, space, and time where there were none to begin with, but there had to be something, at least some law of nature that allowed it to happen. Maybe God created the law (or spoke the word?), and everything else followed.

Stephen Hawking, in The Grand Design, I think, says that there may be a multitude of universes with different laws (“multiverse”). That does not change the argument, but only pushes it down to another level. If there is such a thing as multiverse, the physicist must assume that it follows a deeper law of nature. Where did that law or that state of existence come from?
 
Science has made many claims which were later to be found inaccurate and there will be many more. I put my faith in God, not in man. Keep your focus where it needs to be and ignore the noise which is nothing but distraction. Rest in knowing God created all things and in this existence we will never understand how it was done.
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m confused. We are required to believe our universe was created ex nihilo so how can it have been from nothing if the singularity was there?
Click to expand...
We’re saying that God created the singularity, or Quantum Gravity, or whatever else was ‘there’ before the Big Bang. You seem to be looking at what scientists can prove (or posit) and taking that as the ‘start’. What God revealed to us ‘precedes’ creation (strictly speaking, the notion of time is difficult to use in order to describe the situation, since time, too, is part of creation, and therefore, is something that God created. So, God is ‘prior’ to all of creation.).
There’s a thread in the philosophy forum that I’d skimmed but hadn’t read well. Turns out some math wizards have worked to find that the universe could have come into being spontaneously, from nothing… Which ties in with the my Stephen Hawking thread.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen that thread. The thing is, nothing physical can be caused by ‘nothing’; the attempts at proving a natural ex nihilo creation are generally “smoke and mirrors” – they posit something, even if it’s a framework or a force (e.g., gravity), from which creation proceeds.

I can see where these scientists are frustrated, though. All along, theists have claimed that God created everything from nothing, and they took it to mean “no (physical) thing”. So, now they have a non-physical ‘thing’ from which they can claim that creation proceeded. Voila! They think they’ve found the solution! Now there’s both a “no thing” and a lack of a ‘need’ to include God in the description of creation! Only problem is, now we’re pointing to these non-physical things and saying, “umm… that’s not ‘nothing’, it’s ‘something’. You just pushed back the goal one level.” 🤷
 
We must first look at the hierarchy between science and theology. Which one is submitted to the other. For, there must be a hierarchy, because two things cannot oppose each other in claim and be right at the same time. The Tertium non datur principle. It either is right or is wrong, a third possibility cannot be. Science, or may I best say Scientology, is trying it’s best to oppose theology. For thousands of years man excepted that God, because he is God, knows best. And that’s why theology was at the top of everything else, philosophy, physics, biology, science (which was quite low on the list). Yet, the compelling arguments of science have dented that trust in theology, and therefor that God really knows what his talking about, culminating with the statement that God doesn’t exist. This last one is the fundamental principle of modern science. Scientists will try to prove everything as having a cause in itself, and not an outside cause, which would be God. Many theories, which are exactly that, theories, have been proved and disproved by modern science. For science to be fully operative, it must be subjected to theology, for God does know what he says, and knows what he created and how he created the Universe. Science cannot oppose theology. They must fit perfectly. Do not put your trust in men, but in God. We have all that we need for our salvation contained in Catholic theology, all others, as interesting as they may seem, are secondary. God bless!
 
Gorgias said:
We’re saying that God created the singularity, or Quantum Gravity, or whatever else was ‘there’ before the Big Bang. You seem to be looking at what scientists can prove (or posit) and taking that as the ‘start’. What God revealed to us ‘precedes’ creation (strictly speaking, the notion of time is difficult to use in order to describe the situation, since time, too, is part of creation, and therefore, is something that God created. So, God is ‘prior’ to all of creation.).

I haven’t seen that thread. The thing is, nothing physical can be caused by ‘nothing’; the attempts at proving a natural ex nihilo creation are generally “smoke and mirrors” – they posit something, even if it’s a framework or a force (e.g., gravity), from which creation proceeds.

I can see where these scientists are frustrated, though. All along, theists have claimed that God created everything from nothing, and they took it to mean “no (physical) thing”. So, now they have a non-physical ‘thing’ from which they can claim that creation proceeded. Voila! They think they’ve found the solution! Now there’s both a “no thing” and a lack of a ‘need’ to include God in the description of creation! Only problem is, now we’re pointing to these non-physical things and saying, “umm… that’s not ‘nothing’, it’s ‘something’. You just pushed back the goal one level.” 🤷
Click to expand...
Here’s the article. medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3
 
Faith1960 said:
Science tells us the Big Bang started with a speck (singularity?) the size of part of a proton and then exploded and expanded, still expanding to this day.
Genesis said God created from nothing. A speck is not nothing. Is Genesis wrong?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Big Bang theory and Genesis is about the same thing ? I think Genesis is about the creation of paradise, not the univers we are in right now. I do also believe paradise was created trough speech as is the new paradise 🙂
 
Faith1960 said:
Here’s the article. medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3
Click to expand...
Thanks!

I found this sentence interesting: “these guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.”

Umm… that’s an unfinished sentence. It leaves an unspoken question unanswered: “because of quantum fluctuations”… in what? You see, there cannot be fluctuations in nothing; if they posit quantum fluctuations, they must be fluctuations in something! So, by the very premise, they’re saying that they aren’t talking about ‘ex nihilo’, but ‘ex something that’s not nothing’! And, sure enough, they name it: “eisenberg’s uncertainty principle… allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”

So, there it is: they’re not talking about creation from nothing, but creation from “the metastable false vacuum.” In other words, they’re admitting that their theories still only go back as far as a pre-existing framework. Genesis, on the other hand, posits that God creates from a true ‘nothing’; no material, no universe, no framework, no physical forces. That’s why the scientific theories don’t conflict with theological assertions of creation.
 
Gorgias said:
Thanks!

I found this sentence interesting: “these guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.”

Umm… that’s an unfinished sentence. It leaves an unspoken question unanswered: “because of quantum fluctuations”… in what? You see, there cannot be fluctuations in nothing; if they posit quantum fluctuations, they must be fluctuations in something! So, by the very premise, they’re saying that they aren’t talking about ‘ex nihilo’, but ‘ex something that’s not nothing’! And, sure enough, they name it: “eisenberg’s uncertainty principle… allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”

So, there it is: they’re not talking about creation from nothing, but creation from “the metastable false vacuum.” In other words, they’re admitting that their theories still only go back as far as a pre-existing framework. Genesis, on the other hand, posits that God creates from a true ‘nothing’; no material, no universe, no framework, no physical forces. That’s why the scientific theories don’t conflict with theological assertions of creation.
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes sense, thanks!
 
PNEUMA said:
I don’t think the Big Bang theory and Genesis is about the same thing ? I think Genesis is about the creation of paradise, not the univers we are in right now. I do also believe paradise was created trough speech as is the new paradise 🙂
Click to expand...
:eek: You do realize that this statement is contrary to the belief of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top