Scientists' help wanted!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_Sully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The universe is permeated with reason and is reasonable.

From where did this reason come?
 
it still remains true to say that science, medicine technology and ‘modern man’ would be much further forward and poverty by now probably eradicated had Mother Church not suppressed the advances of science
You need to read or listen to some alternative views (please!)

A good start is “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”, available at your local library.
 
We don’t need universe collapses to make heavier matter - elements up to the weight of iron are made in stars and heavier elements are made in the enormous explosions of supernovae.
I never said 'heavy matter came from collapses.

I said energy/matter potentiality. That is not energy or matter but pre-matter. If matter did not exist as re-matter, it could not possess atomic structure since that structure is dependent upon potentiality for attraction and hence sub-atomic and atomic structure.

Matter we know did not exist in the primitive universe since the prevailing temperature was too hot for matter to form. It existed in the primieval state of photons
 
What is the status of these two…for lack of a better term at this writing…theories?

A. The Universe is expanding.

B. The expansion is deaccelerating.

If these two are true, what is the theory of what happens when the expansion stops?
 
What is the status of these two…for lack of a better term at this writing…theories?

A. The Universe is expanding.

B. The expansion is deaccelerating.

If these two are true, what is the theory of what happens when the expansion stops?
Time stops.

Then if the universe falls back in on itself, time reverses.

Or so I’ve heard.
 
Hello,
it still remains true to say that science, medicine technology and ‘modern man’ would be much further forward and poverty by now probably eradicated had Mother Church not suppressed the advances of science
How could anyone possibly think this? If this were true, then those places in the world where the Church had not ventured to significantly should be very, very advanced and have absolutely no poverty, and be almost utopian. This should be the case according to your logic. Okay, let us look at those areas of the world.

Africa - comprised of mostly third world nations, which are very poor and plagued by epidemics.

Asia - many third world nations with a few modern (last 50 years) nations. Most of the population, even in the advanced nation of China, live in poverty, are plagued by epidemics and are (due mostly to politics) very oppressed.

Americas - until the arrival of the Europeans, was very primitive in the way of the cultures of the peoples.

Middle East - after the Islamic conquest, it was actually quite learned for the first couple centuries of Muslim rule. But, as most will attest, Islam seems stagnated around the ninth century.

Why, if Mother Church is so scientifically oppresive, haven’t these non-Christian/non-Catholic lands been pillars of science and discovery. Why weren’t Ugandans on the moon in the ninteenth century. Or why didn’t the Vietnamese discovery and utilize atomic energy a couple hundred years ago. Why didn’t the Incans use antibiotics and vaccines to ward off the diseases brought by the Conquistadors.

And why is it that the wealthiest nations on Earth, for nearly the past millenium, have been European (America is really a European/British nation). Why has scientific discovery and the Age of Exploration (begun before the Reformation) been driven by Catholic countries.
 
The universe is permeated with reason and is reasonable.

From where did this reason come?
 
Time stops.

Then if the universe falls back in on itself, time reverses.

Or so I’ve heard.
Wkould this give credence to the blurb in the Bible about the end of time?

The Rubberband effect?

The universe in it’s entirety will come back to a single point and BANGS again thus creating a new Heaven and a new Earth?
 
JoeyWarren
Re: Scientists’ help wanted!!
Quote:Originally Posted by ricmat
Time stops.Then if the universe falls back in on itself, time reverses. Or so I’ve heard.
It is not as simple as that. Apart from which, it would not make sense else we would rise from our graves to go back into our mothers wombs 😛

Christ would be crucified but in reverse, finishing with His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and backwards until He became what He always was 👍
Would this give credence to the blurb in the Bible about the end of time?
The Rubberband effect?
The universe in it’s entirety will come back to a single point and BANGS again thus creating a new Heaven and a new Earth?
There is evidence that matter is speeding up but that it takes energy and sooner of later, runs out of steam so that matter becomes so sparce, there is not enough but single atoms floating around in a universe millions times bigger than it is at present! From a credit to the Creator perspective, that simply does not make sense 😛

There is no such thing as a free meal ticket. Once energy is expanded, it ceases to expand. Logical? 😛

A collapsing universe is not only logical but inevitable, giving way to what you call 'a new heaven and a new earth 👍
It does appear to fit the bible nicely doesn’t it
 
Wkould this give credence to the blurb in the Bible about the end of time?

The Rubberband effect?

The universe in it’s entirety will come back to a single point and BANGS again thus creating a new Heaven and a new Earth?
I suspect that the second coming will be much sooner than the collapsing universe — which assuming the theory is true is probably 20 billion years in the future. God can end things just by not holding it in existence, no rubber band effect is necessary.
 
Ricmat wrote:
God can end things just by not holding it in existence, no rubber band effect is necessary.
While I agree with you. God appears to be a Creator, not a RE-Creator! What He does, He gets right the first time around.

Though looking at the mess we have made of this planet [global warming] maybe we will be causing Him to set a new precedent 😛
 
I suspect that the second coming will be much sooner than the collapsing universe — which assuming the theory is true is probably 20 billion years in the future. God can end things just by not holding it in existence, no rubber band effect is necessary.
What do you mean by not holding it in existence? Do you mean that quantum chromodynamics is wrong and Jesus holds atoms together? (see: chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

From Andrei Linde’s webpage:
Observational data indicate that the universe accelerates. If this is caused by the positive vacuum energy (cosmological constant), acceleration of the universe will continue forever. However, recently we have found that in a broad class of theories describing the present stage of acceleration of the universe, this acceleration may end and the universe may eventually collapse. Rather unexpectedly, we found that this may happen not in an extremely distant future, as one could expect, but in about 10-20 billion years. This may happen in a broad class of realistic theories of elementary particles, including, in particular the popular theories based on M-theory and supergravity. This is not a doomsday prediction because other outcomes (such as eternal acceleration of the universe) are also theoretically possible and are equally compelling. The only way to find out which of these possibilities is more realistic is to make cosmological observations. These results may have important implications. One may argue: Why do I care about the most abstract theories of elementary particles, such as M-theory, string theory or supergravity? Why do I care about precise measurements of cosmological parameters? Why do we need to spend billions of dollars for the development of science? Now we can add something new to the existing arguments: Without the development of these theories and without cosmological observations we will be unable to know the fate of the universe and the fate of the mankind. Here one can find a popular discussion of our work (see also an article in SF Chronicle).
I especially love this quote so I will quote it again:
One may argue: Why do I care about the most abstract theories of elementary particles, such as M-theory, string theory or supergravity? Why do I care about precise measurements of cosmological parameters? Why do we need to spend billions of dollars for the development of science? Now we can add something new to the existing arguments: Without the development of these theories and without cosmological observations we will be unable to know the fate of the universe and the fate of the mankind.
 
Hello,
What do you mean by not holding it in existence? Do you mean that quantum chromodynamics is wrong and Jesus holds atoms together?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:
*For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living. (Wisdom 11:24-26) *
 
What do you mean by not holding it in existence? Do you mean that quantum chromodynamics is wrong and Jesus holds atoms together?
God is a trinity of 3 persons. Jesus, the second person is more than just a holy man who walked the earth 2000 years ago, and Jesus is also more than a disinterested (or interested) observer of God’s overall creation.

God need only think (or utter) a word in order for “it” to happen. At the creation of this universe (which is totally outside of and apart from God), God uttered the “Word” - and creation came into being. The physical laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, etc were all created by God. And the moral laws, as exhibited in our collective consciences (natural law) were also imparted on the universe.

The “Word” that God uttered to bring about all of creation was “Jesus”. Therefore Jesus is our “connection” to the family of the Trinity, not just in a spiritual sense, and not just in a moral sense, but also in a very real physical sense.

The universe was created for Jesus, through Jesus, and in some mysterious way, by Jesus.

Jesus later walked the earth, as a new, clearer and more perfect embodiment and example of the moral law. That is how most people think of Jesus. But the Jesus of creation is so much more.

God chose to love us, and created both us and a universe for us to exist in, so that we could learn how to love him. The universe is not some creation, out of control, that God started and could not stop. If God ever chose not to love us, the universe would instantly disappear as though it never was (child’s play after all for the creator of the universe). It is a testimony to God’s love of us that this universe continues to exist, that we continue to sit here and debate it all.

BTW - our ability to reason, discover, investigate, and generally be curious about how the universe works, and our capability of constructing a language (math & science) to describe it in exquisitely beautiful terms is testimony to God’s plan that as we discover more about the universe, as we see more of it’s beauty and glory, we see more and more if the beautiful and glorious God that created it.

And as we see more of God in this way, the more we love God.

.
 
According to physical scientists, when talking about the origins of the universe they use the word “theory” in analogous sense. For the lay people that should be made real clear.

Next idea: When doing science about the start of the universe, they are implying that it follows the laws of human reason. Actually it is most explicit. It is explicit or they should not trust the ability to reason to solve the problems.

Their tests in this area of study must follow the laws of reason.

Furthermore, their test must follow the laws of math which human reasoning created. Ergo, math is reasonable.

From where did all of this reason in the universe come?
 
ribozyme wrote:
The present stage of acceleration of the universe, this acceleration may end and the universe may eventually collapse. Rather unexpectedly, we found that this may happen not in an extremely distant future, as one could expect, but in about 10-20 billion years
If the universe is 15-billion years old and it could collapse in 10-billion years, then Christ has indeed come in ‘the latter days’
 
Hello,

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:
It seems to me that God has abandoned his creation…

Darwinian evolution is the counterforce against the natural tendency to approach thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment. God is not needed to explain any phenomenon in biology. However, I do not have a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life as the origin of life is the origin of Darwinian evolution. If you want to argue that God created the universe, go ahead, but you have to combat the notion that once he created it he abandoned it.

Read this paper, and ask yourself whether its describes a world that God abandoned (or we can assume that God doesn’t exist so he didn’t abandoned this world). While Darwinian evolution is the counterforce, it produces a lot of maladies and biology is rife with imperfection such as the pseudogene in the ascorbic acid biosynthesis pathway in humans.
 
It seems to me that God has abandoned his creation…
Well, you would be wrong. You cannot measure God in biology or any other science. Yes, Darwinian evolution does explain how evolution happens, but it does not rule out direction from God. That is only an assumption made if one doesn’t accept the existence of God to begin with.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top