I object to it because it is a theory of the coming into existence of the universe that proceeds from the naturalistic perspective.
Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain the ultimate coming into existence of “matter and energy”
. Fr. Georges Lemaître does not say, as a scientist, whether or not something natural existed prior to his “primeval atom”.
Big Bang does not attempt to answer the question as to why there is something rather than nothing. In this sense, Big Bang is not a theory about “coming into existence”. Physics treats of matter in motion, explaining the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations.
It appears, once again that you are faulting physics for not being theology, while simultaneously allegedly that physics usurps theology by giving natural explanations for what can only have a theological explanation. Since, this is a thread about proving things, I think you have utterly failed to be relevant to the thread topic by refusing to offer proof, or at least logical, informed argument and reasons for your position.
What is it in BBt that physics explains, which you think requires rather a theological explanation? Be specific in your answer. (So, far you have conveniently avoided being specific in your statements.)
We ought to know by reason that the universe was created by God,and we ought not to accept a theory that ignores God where it is necessary to acknowedge his power.
See foregoing question. (I am not concerned for now with those cosmological theories (Hawkings, et al) that step beyond the proper scope and limit of physics in an attempt to disprove the contingency of the universe.)
Nor should we accept a theory that purports to explain an event that cannot be witnessed or measured by any means.
It’s ironic that you pick Big Bang theory which to pose your objection since the theory is one of the most solidly supported broad scope theories in the history of science.
Nonetheless, your question cannot be answered until you demonstrate at least a basic understanding of the theory you criticize.
The popes are skeptical of naturalistic theories that cannot be verified.
Do you have any idea of the logical and factual errors this statement contains? Of course not. First, in the larger context of your argument, it begs the question (
petitio principii). You have merely assumed the truth of your conclusion that BBt cannot be verified, when that is the very claim for which you have failed from the outset to offer any rational argument, evidence or proof.
Second, while popes and scientists themselves are skeptical about scientific theories that cannot be verified, modern popes since Pope Pius XII do not view BBt as unverified. And much more evidence supporting the BBt has accumulated since
Fr. Georges Lemaître first formulated the theory in 1927**: **
“In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae and forecast the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann’s equations for an expanding universe. Also the red shifts themselves were not constant but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae; and their distance from observers.” (
History of the Big Bang theory)
Third, Pope Pius XII taught BBt according to the science of the day. For example, see,
Address of Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951.
Eg: “32. Let us now turn our attention to the past. The farther back we go, the more matter presents itself as always more enriched with free energy, and as a theater of vast cosmic disturbances. Thus everything seems to indicate that the material universe had in finite times a mighty beginning, provided as it was with an indescribably vast abundance of energy reserves, in virture of which, at first rapidly and then with increasing slowness, it evolved into its present state.”
I recommend that you study the entire address by the pope, which will then remind you not to make such blatantly false assertions about the popes and BBt.
As a side note, Pope Pius XII originally tended to speak of the BBt as proof for the existence of God and evidence for
creatio ex nihilo. However, at the advice of Fr. Georges Lemaître, the pope backed away from those assertions as a reading of more into the scientific theory than was or could be there. The pope’s enthusiasm for the theory explains the full title of the address, which speaks of a proof for the existence of God. Properly speaking, BBt, or any scientific theory, does cannot prove the existence of God. The most it can do is point the mind in that direction, just as any natural, non-scientific reflection on the marvels of nature can do.
It just occurred to me that Pope Pius XII once tended to speak of BBt as evidence for God, while you speak of the theory as godless and illogical. The contrast in interpretations is instructive. It’s a contrast between the pope, who studied BBt, and “anthony022071”, who has never studied the theory.
Do I need to quote subsequent popes and their acceptance of BBt, or is the one reference enough for you to see the falsity of your statement. It really won’t hurt you to research something yourself, for once.
Brief mention, academician Stephen W. Hawking is a member of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Here is a brief mention about him from the Vatican website:
