- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Well, they are wrong aren’t they. The Church teaches dogmatically that God created the entire universe, in time, out of nothing. Further, science, in principle, prove such a proposition. All it could ever prove is that it has not yet found a beginning. And that is proof of nothing at all.
Linus2nd
R
Rubia
Guest
Where does the church teach the universe was created in time? And if so, is it really physical time the church means? We believe that time itself was/is created. That is why I ask. The cosmos is time and space right? How can time be created in time?
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Annybody that is troubled by ideas like this should read On The Eternity of the World by Aquinas. It’s a bit heady but easier to digest than most of his writings. Basically even if the world were eternal, God would still have His role as Creator and Sustainer of existance. The Greeks believed in an eternal world after all so the idea is not even new.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
What is the meaning of time if there is no matter in the universe? The only definition of time I have encountered is t = 2 observable events.Where does the church teach the universe was created in time? And if so, is it really physical time the church means? We believe that time itself was/is created. That is why I ask. The cosmos is time and space right? How can time be created in time?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It’s in the Catechism! But here is the Dogmatic Statement from the First Vatican Council.
1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]
1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.
Linus2nd
1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]
1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.
Linus2nd
J
JorduSpeaks
Guest
This article is really hedgey about backing up its premise. All it really asserts is that the fireball at the start of the universe may not have been a singularity, which is a mathematical construct divorced from the physical universe to begin with. This current theory seems to be more about explaining how we went from a generally homogeneous universe at the beginning of time to the more lumpy universe we have now. In other words, how was matter able to clump together if gravity was pulling it in all directions equally?
Not too long ago, there was a more widely accepted theory of a “cyclical” universe marked by a progression of “big bangs” and “big crunches”, where the universe would expand to the point where it had expended all energy from the big bang and then its own gravity would cause itself to collapse back into a singularity with enough force to trigger another big bang. It was all very neat and tidy, and didn’t require a first cause or anything like that.
Unfortunately for those who ascribed to that theory, it has since been disproved.
Big crunch theory predicts that, as the universe expands, the rate of its expansion would slow down over time, eventually stopping and reversing direction. We now know that the expansion of the universe has not been slowing down, but has actually been speeding up!
Not too long ago, there was a more widely accepted theory of a “cyclical” universe marked by a progression of “big bangs” and “big crunches”, where the universe would expand to the point where it had expended all energy from the big bang and then its own gravity would cause itself to collapse back into a singularity with enough force to trigger another big bang. It was all very neat and tidy, and didn’t require a first cause or anything like that.
Unfortunately for those who ascribed to that theory, it has since been disproved.
Big crunch theory predicts that, as the universe expands, the rate of its expansion would slow down over time, eventually stopping and reversing direction. We now know that the expansion of the universe has not been slowing down, but has actually been speeding up!
- Status