The theoretical universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter operaboz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

operaboz

Guest
Well ladies and gents MY name is stephen and im currently writing a series of papers about creation wich i hope to put togeather as a book.In my research i find the big bang a very feasible concept but i am a devout and perhaps a litle too conservitive catholic for a 16 year old.So in my paper i look at both the Geo-eccliasticao(especally catholic) and the modern and the geo-scientific theroies on the creation of the universe.It concludes that both are reasionable arguments for the creation of life and the universes.I refer also to the multicomplex-big bang theroy as a basis.So in my opnion God seems the logial ansewer (all to do with faith).So i ask what is the official sance of the church on the big bang theroy???..
thanks and GOD BLESS…🙂
 
operaboz said:
Well ladies and gents MY name is stephen and im currently writing a series of papers about creation wich i hope to put togeather as a book.In my research i find the big bang a very feasible concept but i am a devout and perhaps a litle too conservitive catholic for a 16 year old.So in my paper i look at both the Geo-eccliasticao(especally catholic) and the modern and the geo-scientific theroies on the creation of the universe.It concludes that both are reasionable arguments for the creation of life and the universes.I refer also to the multicomplex-big bang theroy as a basis.So in my opnion God seems the logial ansewer (all to do with faith).So i ask what is the official sance of the church on the big bang theroy???..
thanks and GOD BLESS…🙂
Click to expand...
First off it was proposed by a Catholic priest - Fr Jacques Lemaire around 1930 or so.

Second faith and reason cannot contradict as they both flow from the same God.

When you do your paper keep the supernatural and natural in mind.
 
Is that a scientific work or a theological work? If it is a scientific work keep religion out of it. You must understand that science (especially physics) is based on theories that give the simplest and most reproducible model of an effect. That does not automatically imply being completely truthful. Science is based on a lot of assumptions and conjectures especially when you look into fields like cosmology.
 
The Church has no official stance on the Big Bang theory.

In any case, the big bang has little to do with Liturgy and Sacraments, so perhaps the thread belongs on a different CA forum!
 
JimG said:
The Church has no official stance on the Big Bang theory.

In any case, the big bang has little to do with Liturgy and Sacraments, so perhaps the thread belongs on a different CA forum!
Click to expand...
Well, one Pope endorsed the Big Bang. I wonder if they will endorse the cyclic model of Turok and Steinhardt.
 
First off it was proposed by a Catholic priest - Fr Jacques Lemaire around 1930 or so.
Click to expand...
There is actually a lot of evidence to support it. The afterglow and background radiation from the Big Bang have been detected. The temperature of interstellar space [which should be at absolute zero seeings there is no heat to warm it, is actually 2.5 degrees above absolute.

Graavitational waves which are ripples in the very fabric of space caused within a split second after the Big Bang according to the US Cobe project. When atoms began to form 300,000 years after the Big Bang it began to clump. It took that long for matter to cool sufficiently to clump.

Theorists such as Marcus Chown argue that prior to the Big Bang space was about the size of a single proton [not the car] and due to the phenominal heat of matter just prior to the Big Bang, the universe 'inflated 10 to the power of 50, to the size it is today 👍
 
Sixtus said:
There is actually a lot of evidence to support it. The afterglow and background radiation from the Big Bang have been detected. The temperature of interstellar space [which should be at absolute zero seeings there is no heat to warm it, is actually 2.5 degrees above absolute.

Graavitational waves which are ripples in the very fabric of space caused within a split second after the Big Bang according to the US Cobe project. When atoms began to form 300,000 years after the Big Bang it began to clump. It took that long for matter to cool sufficiently to clump.

Theorists such as Marcus Chown argue that prior to the Big Bang space was about the size of a single proton [not the car] and due to the phenominal heat of matter just prior to the Big Bang, the universe 'inflated 10 to the power of 50, to the size it is today 👍
Click to expand...
There is support for inflation… however, it is it eternal, it destroys the fine-tuning argument. I do not know if inflation is eternal or not. There is one model out there that does not require a beginning of time; however, the current evidence does not demand one to adhere to it. (See this). It seems that the oscillating universe idea never dies.
 
ribozyme said:
Here is the link to that mentions a Pope endorsed it:

physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/Discover0204.pdf
Click to expand...
They misinterpreted what was meant by the Pope approving it–all he meant was that it was not contrary to Church teaching.

The Church has no official teachings outside faith and morals, so it has no official scientific theories.

The article also made a glaring historical error. Galileo was not put under house arrest (where he did all of his teaching and writing, by the way) for “daring to teach that the Earth went around the sun”, but for disobeying a direct order to stop teaching as proved a theory that was not yet proved. He was in bed with one of two factions desiring control of the Papal States; punishing him was a show of force by the other faction.

Also, he rendered a direct personal insult to his liege-lord, the Pope, in one of his dialogues. England at the time would have tortured him to death.
…

To my knowledge, the evidence does not support an oscillating universe, but a perpetually expanding one.
 
I believe there are a few fundamental prinicples that need to be addressed:

Science clearly teaches that the universe is permeated by reason. From where did this reason come?

How does science use the word “theory” for Big Bang?

How many different schools of thougth are FIGHTING for the correct answers?

Therefore there is explicit disagreement in this area of study.

From where did the material of the Big Bang come?

One must address pre-Big Bang(s).

Is math and science actually able to answer these questions?

Human reason and will are spiritual powers, from where did our spiritual powers of reason and choice come?

Math and physical science was designed to measure, weigh, and count the physical world. They are incapable of addressing the spiritual powers of the human spirit. However, human reason can.

Can physical being account for its existence?

Can physcial being bring itself into existence?

Can psychological powers of human reason and choice bring itself into being?

Can physical and psychological beings hold themselves in existence?

If so, how?

How can physical being create its laws of nature?

Well, these are just a few questions.

God bless your academic trek.
 
I wish to thank tou all for your views it helped emensley.
I would like to leave you with one final thought wich is
If the universe is universal or infinete then perhaps there is an infinite number of universes ours fufiling the right criteria for the creation of life and in my opnion this was the work of all powerfull God.
we have not the power to comprehend the ultimate forces of time and space so there is little hope for us ever comprehending the totall infinite power of the most high.
This matter lies in faith alone not logic .
in saying that we must not fear logic or knowlage but embrace it as long as faith in god and in his holy church is present the we have already surpassed the need for the knolage of the uneverse and its creation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top