The Universe did not have an absolute begining?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you imagine
an infinity of big bangs?

We have to control ourselves,
or do we prefer to be controlled by others?

Some fear possibilities-
death
no after life
hunger
police
bandits
sickness
etc.
Are there teachings of our youth that we don’t allow ourselves to really question
without some kind of fear?
 
meinfinitist said:
Can you imagine
an infinity of big bangs?

We have to control ourselves,
or do we prefer to be controlled by others?

Some fear possibilities-
death
no after life
hunger
police
bandits
sickness
etc.
Are there teachings of our youth that we don’t allow ourselves to really question
without some kind of fear?
Click to expand...
To answer your first question, yes I can imagine it; it is conceivable, though not very likely. The list of fears you note are real; however, on this Forum and in real life, I think most of us question many of these things without fear. Stick around a while and you’ll discover.

What is an infinitist? Is it some kind of philosophy or religion?
 
me

Can you imagine
an infinity of big bangs?

I can, but why should I when there is not even evidence (and cannot be) of more than one Big Bang?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
me

Can you imagine
an infinity of big bangs?

I can, but why should I when there is not even evidence (and cannot be) of more than one Big Bang?
Click to expand...
This hypothetical made me think of the multiverse theory, which is also popular among some cosmologists, and which also has no evidence to support it. (Except, possibly assigning a reality to each possible outcome of a quantum event, but I won’t go into that.)

But, back to the Big Bang. Looked at from God’s point of view rather than man’s, the instant of creation does not occur prior to today, and today does not occur prior to 14 billion years into the future. From God’s point of view, all those instants are essentially simultaneous. They are all NOW to Him, though not to us.

My point is simply that whatever shape the “timeline” of creation takes, the “beginning of time” is always the instant of creation, even if time were created as an infinite series. (And no, I am not claiming that that is what God created. What he did create, though, I am sure is a lot more mysterious than our current understanding may realize.)
 
me

**My point is simply there was no creation. **

Is this just a hunch, or do you have proof?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Now you really are looking for an argument, aren’t you? 😉
Click to expand...
Not looking for an argument, just very much in agreement with Lemaître. He’s one of the few Catholics I know of who argue both that the bible must not be mistaken for a science textbook and also that God has never provided any scientific evidence of His existence.

In Lemaître’s own words:

*Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*
 
inocente

Not looking for an argument, just very much in agreement with Lemaître. He’s one of the few Catholics I know of who argue both that the bible must not be mistaken for a science textbook and also that God has never provided any scientific evidence of His existence.

Perhaps you have not been conversant with many Catholic writers and thinkers?

While the Church has always insisted that reason can bring us to God through philosophy, it has never asserted that God is subject to scientific verification. But neither has it allowed that science can be used as evidence against God. God is not to be found on a laboratory petri dish or through the lens of a telescope.

There are, however, some moments when we see certain consistencies between religion and science, as in the case of Intelligent Design and the Big Bang. These are not claimed to be proofs of God so much as evidence of harmony between religion and science.
 
I don’t want to argue, just like facts.
Intelligent design-way more then a billion species are extinct.Oh oh or oops?
Why is god not in petrie dish or telescope?
Can the totality of infinity be the god?
(what does the lack of a capitol g do to your nervous system?)
 
meinfinitist said:
I don’t want to argue, just like facts.
Intelligent design-way more then a billion species are extinct.Oh oh or oops?
Why is god not in petrie dish or telescope?
Can the totality of infinity be the god?
(what does the lack of a capitol g do to your nervous system?)
Click to expand...
Those of us who believe in G-d do not think He has a physical form that can be detected by ordinary scientific means. Further, the extinction process is not necessarily a non-intelligent plan since it enables organisms who are more fit to survive and thrive. FYI, neither Catholicism nor Judaism, for the most part, denies the theory of evolution so long as it is understood that G-d started the process and maintains it. If you choose not to believe in G-d, that is your decision.
 
me

**(what does the lack of a capitol g do to your nervous system?) **

It suggests to me a juvenile disrespect for the Creator. 😉

What does it do for your nervous system?
 
Please do not see me as belligerent.
I am looking for answers.
I have trouble when i’m told “it’s a mystery, you have to believe”
it’s like standing, with your feet planted firmly in the air.
Why does there have to have been a creation, by a creator that has always been?
A father, a son, but no talk of the grandfathers.
Doesn’t simple infinity seem so much more plausable?
How would the old story tellers have explained the Hubble ultra deep field?

thank you
 
me

Doesn’t simple infinity seem so much more plausable?
How would the old story tellers have explained the Hubble ultra deep field?

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
 
me
**
Why does there have to have been a creation, by a creator that has always been?**

Why does there have to be a universe that has always been? :confused:
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The following statement was made by Apologist Trent Horn on the C.A. Apologetics Blog (catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/cave-diving-and-apologetics ), on April 24 :

" They ( Catholics ) may not even know that the Church does not require belief that the universe began, only that it was created (God could have created an eternal universe). "

In my 74 years as a Catholic ( educated in Catholic institutions through College ) I have never heard this. And in the CCC, paragraph 327 we read, " 327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body. ( Fourth Laturen Council ). "

So how does Trent justify the assertion that Catholics are not required to believe that the universe had an absolute beginning in time ? This is something entirely new to me. Even St. Thomas taught that Catholics believe, on Faith, that the universe had an absolute beginning in time.

Who is right ? May Catholics actually hold either position, that the universe existed eternally or that it had an absolute beginning in time ?

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
1215 x 2 = 2430

2556.6975 {7 years x 365.2425} - 2430 = 126.6975 years = ~4.54 Billion years held to be the age of the earth via scientific methods/(6,000 x 6,000) - {8/9 - 3/10 - 2/1000 - 5/10,000}

He was with Him in The Beginning where at time t=0, there appears to be an infinite form of mass/energy/force.

Notice: Forms 8th King and 3 divided by 10 and 2 of 1,000 {2,000} and ~7010 BC + ~2013 AD + 8 + 1,000?
 
Thank you very much for the answers, deep down, I knew I would get.
May you be comfortable with your decisions.

Thank you
 
I’m comfortable with my decision for Christ. With some of my other decisions I’m not so comfortable. 👍

Enjoy the long life that is ahead of you.
 
meinfinitist said:
Doesn’t simple infinity seem so much more plausable?
How would the old story tellers have explained the Hubble ultra deep field?

thank you
Click to expand...
What sort of infinity do you have in mind? Something like the infinite series of integers, or the infinite series of points on a line, or the infinity of points on a plane, or the infinity of decimal numbers? Or an infinity of quantum splits, or an infinity of universes? How does infinity explain anything? How does infinity explain why there is something rather than nothing?
 
meinfinitist said:
Please do not see me as belligerent.
I am looking for answers.
Click to expand...
That’s reasonable…!
I have trouble when i’m told “it’s a mystery, you have to believe”
Click to expand...
And yet, you believe that the universe has no creation. How can you believe in that mysterious non-origin, when there’s no set of facts to support it?
A father, a son, but no talk of the grandfathers.
Click to expand...
LOL… that’s because humans need ancestors – but an eternal being does not!
Doesn’t simple infinity seem so much more plausible?
Click to expand...
Not really. How do you understand something physical – that is, something that is not eternal – without understanding that it has both a beginning and an end? Is there anything physical out there, which you have experienced, that is infinite and eternal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top