The eternal, finite universe

[1holycatholic]

Would that not require a random pattern to all movement?

Be more specific.

 

[Detales]

Here’s my concern about causality:

We accept that God is eternal. Eternality, by definition, has no dimension of duration. No time. So if Creation was an act, it defeats the etrnality of God. as does the constant intervention of God as a designer and controller, because those are actions and require change, whose measure is time.The hearing and answering of prayers also fits this description of God acting in time. So a question arises, is God timed, or eternal?

On the other hand, physics tells us that time is a perceptual dimension, and that all of time exists at once. That means that the whole of time is eternal. We also do not know what the state of things was before the Big Bang, an event which whether one claims it as the moment of creation or an inexplicable solely physical event, is by extrapolation the way this universe as we understand it started its development into the dynamic of its galactic epoch we experience today. There are many theories and speculations that there are other modes, dimensions, and paralles to thin universe which make mathemaical sense, and that it is indeed likely part of an ongoing series of universes. This does not deny God, only puts into question God’s relationship to this particular universe that we live in as we descriibe it.

All that would defeats the necessity of Creation of this particular universe as a singular act. So if God is indeed eternal, and the universe is eternal, given that all time is at once, what if those who claim that the universe is the mind and body of God are right? It would explain so much in a far simpler way than the anthropomorphic christianist God playing with His train set.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Would that not require a random pattern to all movement?

Be more specific.

We’re told an electron moves randomly around a nucleus so we need not suspect an initial cause. However we are told space is roughly moving out in a spherical pattern. Thus the reverse would be to a point and time in space. At that point and time all would appear combined thus a change is evident.

 

[annem]

If you are interested in something that might integrate better with quantum physics, while not totally divorced from the Western worldview, I’d suggest reading about Kabbalah or Process philosophy. It is my understanding the Orthodox theology is also energetic or process based moreso. Some of the Orthodox Jewish or Kabbalah theosophy has interesting insights into the Jewish worldview, too, and different readings of the Old Testament.

Personally, I find rants about alien brain sucking leeches to be as intelligent and useful as the stuff you suggest.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

Detales

As for Buddhist/Hindu thought being against reason and scientific understanding, I have found that they are very much in line, both experientially and by means of physiological tests I had done on my person while meditating. Please note, I am neither a Hindu nor a Buddhis

As an 'Advaintist" you are, apparently, claiming to be an ‘ascended master’, by which I assume you mean something with love beads and lots of incense. Is that correct or am I misrepresenting your beliefs?

However, as for your comment about Buddhist/Hindu thought not being against reason and scientific understanding, I must tell you: I cannot imagine what you base this upon. Certainly not on past history or the logical consequences of these beliefs. This is easily proved.

Both Hinduism and Buddhism are based in the idea of the unending cycle of life. All is created and uncreated eternally, so the idea of progress is impossible. This, of course, was the belief of all ancient civilizations until the coming of Judaism and Christianity. And thank you, dear God.

The Jews and Catholics believed in absolute truth. This is why the western world invented science. And it is why it could never have been invented in the east, because there was no idea of an eternal truth. Why do westerners love to argue and debate what is right or wrong about a problem? Why do all Asian civilizations hate argument or even debate, and prefer, instead, smiling agreement, even when it is only a papered over agreement.

Famous story showing why science was never discovered in the east: a Chinese tinkerer created a clock, very early, before it was created in the west in the Middle Ages. But that clock was destroyed when the emperor died. What was the point of keeping it? It would just be made again in some later cycle.

But in the west, which created the university system, which was chock full of busy monks creating and tinkering with things, the clock was of course eventually discovered again. And then improved upon, and improved yet again. And so it was brought back to the east, centuries after its original discovery, and totally amazed the Chinese.
’
May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[1holycatholic]

We’re told an electron moves randomly around a nucleus so we need not suspect an initial cause.

Who says that?

 

[cpayne]

We’re told an electron moves randomly around a nucleus so we need not suspect an initial cause. However we are told space is roughly moving out in a spherical pattern. Thus the reverse would be to a point and time in space. At that point and time all would appear combined thus a change is evident.

I’m not following. Would not any movement or change require a cause of some type?

Second question: When you say “the reverse would be to a point and time in space,” are you talking about like a dense point producing the Big Bang? In other words, are you talking about the Big Bang in the past or about something that might happen in the future?

 

[Detales]

Thank you again, annem, for contributing your lack of understanding to this forum. You are doing all of the non-Catholics on here a great service! And where, in the name of the God you ignorantly claim to worship, do you get this “ascended master” stuff and its accompaniment of disheveld nonsense???

 

[annem]

Thank you again, annem, for contributing your lack of understanding to this forum. You are doing all of the non-Catholics on here a great service! And where, in the name of the God you ignorantly claim to worship, do you get this “ascended master” stuff and its accompaniment of disheveld nonsense???

???Um, you claim to be an Advaitist–and that means an ascended state in Hinduism. :shrug:And my worship of God has nothing to do with ignorance, not after my decade as an atheist and the painful journey I’ve made back to God.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Oh you seem to know well

I’m not following. Would not any movement or change require a cause of some type?

In random movement “change” can not be determined

Second question: When you say “the reverse would be to a point and time in space,” are you talking about like a dense point producing the Big Bang? In other words, are you talking about the Big Bang in the past or about something that might happen in the future?

yes scientist tell us the movement is not random that would mean a cause did or does exist

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Who says that?

It is standard print in fundamental chemistry text

 

[1holycatholic]

It is standard print in fundamental chemistry text

sparknotes.com/chemistry/fundamentals/atomicstructure/section1.html

Please point out where it says: “We’re told an electron moves randomly around a nucleus so we need not suspect an initial cause.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

sparknotes.com/chemistry/fundamentals/atomicstructure/section1.html

Please point out where it says: “We’re told an electron moves randomly around a nucleus so we need not suspect an initial cause.”

In the article which is by no means a textbook it(in red) is obscured by saying “We further know from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that it is impossible to know the precise location of an electron. Despite this limitation, there are regions around the atom where the electron has a high probability of being found. Such regions are referred to as atomic orbitals” I understand that this can confuse you, similarly the sphere verses non sphere can confuse. However even in this article we see the principles of random movement are held. Now concerning cause in random events we have no means to assign any action but in nonrandom actions the first sign of cause is why is this action not random? and the second is what action can create these conditions?

hope that helps

 

[1holycatholic]

In the article which is by no means a textbook it(in red) is obscured by saying “We further know from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that it is impossible to know the precise location of an electron. Despite this limitation, there are regions around the atom where the electron has a high probability of being found. Such regions are referred to as atomic orbitals” I understand that this can confuse you, similarly the sphere verses non sphere can confuse. However even in this article we see the principles of random movement are held. Now concerning cause in random events we have no means to assign any action but in nonrandom actions the first sign of cause is why is this action not random? and the second is what action can create these conditions?

hope that helps

The location is indeterminate, that’s not the same as random.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The location is indeterminate, that’s not the same as random.

How can it be “indeterminate”?

 

[1holycatholic]

How can it be “indeterminate”?

It’s the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle.

How does that eliminate causality? If I might paraphrase Kreeft:
A cause is the conditio sine qua non for an effect.
Are you familiar with Boethius’ Consolatio Philosophiae, (especially chapter five)?

 

[Malperdy]

It’s time to get back to the OP!

Just stumbled across this article:

newswise.com/articles/view/534609/

…which outlines a theory proposed by New Zealander Peter Lynds. The theory essentially states that the universe has been unceasingly cycling backwards and forwards between big bang and big crunch - thus obviating the need for a “beginning”, and supposedly overcoming the problem of violating the second law of thermodynamics.

I would be interested to see comments from those who are better versed in the laws of physics and the nature of time than I, but from a broader perspective, it increases the logical variables and presents another alternative to notions of a first cause.

Many scientists support the theory of the universe having a unique cataclysmic beginning, often called the Big Bang, for which there is evidence in the expanding galaxies and other stellar structures. Some scientists theorize that eons of time in the future the material universe will cease expanding and fall back into itself, and end up in a highly compressed state once again, with the potential for another Big Bang. This theory (conjecture?) leads some to the idea of a universe which repeatedly expands and contracts cyclically over unimaginably vast periods of time. Knowing nothing about cosmological physics I can only speculate on the logical aspects of a ceaselessly (re)cycling universe.

A repeatedly cycling universe must either have a beginning, a first cycle to kick start the process, or have no beginning.
If it has a beginning, then that beginning demands an explanation.
If it has no beginning, and the universe has always existed, then we have the problem of the temporal infinite regress. Simply put, if an infinite number of years extend into the past, then it will take an infinite amount of time to reach any particular time, my next birthday for example. But this contradicts our experience of reality.

In recent times, some scientists have proposed that another way to explain how the universe began without resorting to the intervention of a Creator is to say that the universe simply began on its own accord; by chance. Since, it demonstrably is here (and God is kept out of the equation) it must have just got up and thrust itself into existence.

I suspect that theories in Physics can be put forward for both the ‘It was always here’ model and the ‘It spontaneously occurred’ model, depending on how the scientists involved deal with the physical evidence to hand and how they apply their own highly creative mathematical imaginations. I wonder if there are any other possible theories apart from these two and the Big Bang one (which of course makes room for a God-Creator).

 

[Detales]

Thanks for bringing it back, Malperdy.

Yes, there is another, radically useful, way. Without going into details, starting with the premise of the Allness and Omnipotence of God, there is a cognative line that makes both the atheist and the creationist views out to be equally improbable. If you can set aside for a moment the “God and His train set” notion of creation, as well as the incompleteness of the BB+evoloution thought field, and add a few common notions from physics, you will be able to discover it for yourself. If you can do it, you will, as on other occsions in your life, bang your head off a wall and say "How could I *not *see that from the start?!!!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It’s the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle.

Is that not to say it is random?

How does that eliminate causality?

cause of what? you have no known change

If I might paraphrase Kreeft:
A cause is the conditio sine qua non for an effect.

and the effect is what, that is the problem you have no known affect

Are you familiar with Boethius’ Consolatio Philosophiae, (especially chapter five)?

no I have not read Boethius , nor plan to

 

[1holycatholic]

Is that not to say it is random?

No, it’s indeterminate.

cause of what? you have no known change and the effect is what, that is the problem you have no known affect

Causality is not contingent on knowledge.

no I have not read Boethius , nor plan to