The Universe did not have an absolute begining?

[Linusthe2nd]

I have no idea how far the universe extends.
Like your take on God, you can’t prove it doesn’t go forever.
How about if the totality of this infinity were God.
He wouldn’t have to create it, would He.
We would all be a part of God.
We would be free to strive for non violence, we wouldn’t have to discipline the
contempters. We wouldn’t need this controlling “infallibility” claim.

thank you for listening

1. Correct, we can’t prove that the universe is not infinite ( or eternal either ), we accept it as part of the data of Divine Revelation.
2. It does not follow that if the speculative infinit extent of the universe ( or its speculative eternality ) would entail that this would be equated with God. That would be contrary to the data of Revelatiion and reason both.
3. If the universe were infinite ( or eternal ), reason would then require an eternal act of creation through the power of God, who would necessarily exist outside of his eternal creation.
4. Therefore " we " would not be a " part " of God ( which would be contrary to Reason and Faith.
5. We should always choose peace and non violence if that is a reasonable choice. That should be the reasonable choice of both non-believers and men of Faith. Non-violence has nothing to do with the " infallibility " of either God or Faith. And it is not always a reasonable choice. If all men lived according to the infallible teachings of Christian morality, non-violence would be an inevitable consequence.

• You have not established a dilemma. The choice is not between reason ( as defined by you ) and Faith. God is demanded by both reason ( as defined by St. Thomas and Christian philosophers ) and Faith.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

I thought I answered the essential question. This is the question you asked : " Is there really any dogmatic Catholic teaching that clearly demands that we believe in a universe that has a temporal beginning. If so, how does that reflect on our current knowledge that time is a dimension of the universe; the universe begins with time, not in time. "

I gave you the Dogmatic teaching. What else do you want? Linus2nd

No, you gave me a dogmatic teaching with your restricted interpretation of it. You haven’t demonstrated why this teaching cannot be more flexible in “meaning” than the apparent literal context. After all the statement is clearly presented in relation to the belief that the world was not created and instead has no creator (is infinite). I’m not sure that the essential concern was whether the universe literally had a temporal beginning or not in a scientific sense, but rather it is concerned with whether it had a Creator.

I also gave you a possible theology explanation of how the universe could be infinite and created out of nothing at the same time without conflicting with creatio ex nihilo. The fact is time still has a beginning to its “existence” insofar as God actualises all potentiality regardless of whether the universe is infinite or not. Infinite time still has an ontological beginning and therefore needn’t conflict with dogma as you suppose. You didn’t address that; you just shrugged it off with the assumption that you have a superior understanding of this matter: as usual.

Also, like i said, if catholic dogmatic theology intended us to take literally the idea the universe had a beginning in time, “how does that reflect on our current knowledge that time is a dimension of the universe; the universe begins with time, not in time.” If i take the statement literally as you have, then I would have to think that current science contradicts dogma.
Your rigid attitude doesn’t make sense.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, you gave me a dogmatic teaching with your restricted interpretation of it. You haven’t demonstrated why this teaching cannot be more flexible in “meaning” than the apparent literal context. After all the statement is clearly presented in relation to the belief that the world was not created and instead has no creator (is infinite). I’m not sure that the essential concern was whether the universe literally had a temporal beginning or not in a scientific sense, but rather it is concerned with whether it had a Creator.

I also gave you a possible theology explanation of how the universe could be infinite and created out of nothing at the same time without conflicting with creatio ex nihilo. The fact is time still has a beginning to its “existence” insofar as God actualises all potentiality regardless of whether the universe is infinite or not. Infinite time still has an ontological beginning and therefore needn’t conflict with dogma as you suppose. You didn’t address that; you just shrugged it off with the assumption that you have a superior understanding of this matter: as usual.

Also, like i said, if catholic dogmatic theology intended us to take literally the idea the universe had a beginning in time, “how does that reflect on our current knowledge that time is a dimension of the universe; the universe begins with time, not in time.” If i take the statement literally as you have, then I would have to think that current science contradicts dogma.
Your rigid attitude doesn’t make sense.

The Dogmatic teaching of the Church on this issue is to be taken literally. Catholics are not free to " squeeze " its meaning so it fits in with the current " scientific " theories of time. The Church’s teachings are based on Revelation and Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. If it is seen as conflicting with science then science is obviously wrong or our understanding of it is wrong. I don’t care to debate the possible meanings of time in relation to modern scientific theories in physics. My own philosophical understanding is that of St. Thomas and Aristotle, " …time is the measure of change…"

Linus2nd

 

[catholictiger]

The Dogmatic teaching of the Church on this issue is to be taken literally. Catholics are not free to " squeeze " its meaning so it fits in with the current " scientific " theories of time. The Church’s teachings are based on Revelation and Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. If it is seen as conflicting with science then science is obviously wrong or our understanding of it is wrong. I don’t care to debate the possible meanings of time in relation to modern scientific theories in physics. My own philosophical understanding is that of St. Thomas and Aristotle, " …time is the measure of change…"

Linus2nd

thankfully for us the Church usually agrees with what science says and it leaves science (with exceptions) alone and lets them determine what they can determine and the Chuch stays away from it.

one thing about the relationship between science and faith is that most stuff that Catholicism deals with will never have to handle science and it shouldn’t. Theology shouldn’t handle science and visa versa. Philosophy should never deal with science and Visa Versa. But lets say some time down the future there is a conflict between some papal declaration and scientific theory, or some similar Catholic vs Science conflict. While faithful Catholics would listen to the pope the majority of society would reject him. But I would as a faith Catholic be careful how we accept statements on scientific understandings and faith. If the Catholic Church comes out and condemns lets say that there was something before the big bang and the big bang isn’t the beginning of time, because they are concerned that it would disprove the existence of God. I would say that I believe the Church is overstepping its bounds and saying something they have no more authority or power to make statements on science then any other scientist.

Even though the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit it doesn’t necessitate that everything they claim is infalliable. The Church can make statements that are wrong, contrary to the truth, and damaging to the Church. Look we are human. All the Holy Spirit does (I take this from Pope Emeritus Benedict) is make sure that the Church doesn’t fall apart (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it). This is why the Church can do a contrary thing like condem gallieo and his the sun is the center theory and it is still in tact today.

The simple point I’m trying to make is that you need to be careful any time you deal with science, because the Church isn’t in position from theological grounds to make statements on science. That shouldn’t matter either, because science should never have an impact on faith and morals because science can’t deal with faith and morals, or theology or philosophy.

Lastly on time, based on what I said above I agree with the apparent effect gravity has on time, even though I don’t really believe that time actually exists. It is simply a measurement of a passage of events by our mind. At the same time I believe gravity in fact does effect time, for science that could mean science exists. But agian its not a big difference, its a science vs philosophy issue. Something philosophy says (time is based on measurements of the mind) isn’t always contrary to what science says (time is a real thing effected by gravity.)

 

[cybrs]

Actually, they are not eternal. The science indicates that all that is had a beginning 13.5 Billion years ago. There is no scientific evidence that anything existed prior to that.

13,500,000,000 ± 3% StDev held to be the age of the Universe/ ~4,540,000,000 ±3% StDev = 2.973568281938326…

3 - 2.973568281938326 = 0.0264317 18 061674 = 1/50 + 3/500 + 2/5000 + 3/10,000 + 1/100,000 + 7/1,000,000 + 4.5/25,000,000

Or compared to: e = 2.7182818284590

2.973568281938326 - 2.7182818284590 = 0.255286453479326

.2552 … x 490 = 1919.412461263566

Or:

.255286 {1/4 day for leap year; Day of The Lord?} x 10,000 = 2552.86 = 2556.7864 {7 years} - 3.9264 days/years.

2552.86 - 483 BC = 2069.86 - 1960 {490 x 4} = 109.86…

120 is written - 109.86 = 10.14

109.86 - 49 = 60.86 {Every minute/second and 1 - .86 = .14}

60 x .14 = 8.4 = 2.1 {21 x 10%} x 4.

Or: pi= 3.14159 26535 89793

• 2.973568281938326 = 0.168024371651467… x 1,000 = 168.024371651467 = 120 + 48.02437165 {12 x 4}

Notice: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Roosevelt

2012/ ~7000 BC + 2012 + 1,000 = 4.970178926441352 = 49.70 1789 x 10%

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

13,500,000,000 ± 3% StDev held to be the age of the Universe/ ~4,540,000,000 ±3% StDev = 2.973568281938326…

3 - 2.973568281938326 = 0.0264317 18 061674 = 1/50 + 3/500 + 2/5000 + 3/10,000 + 1/100,000 + 7/1,000,000 + 4.5/25,000,000

Or compared to: e = 2.7182818284590

2.973568281938326 - 2.7182818284590 = 0.255286453479326

.2552 … x 490 = 1919.412461263566

Or:

.255286 {1/4 day for leap year; Day of The Lord?} x 10,000 = 2552.86 = 2556.7864 {7 years} - 3.9264 days/years.

2552.86 - 483 BC = 2069.86 - 1960 {490 x 4} = 109.86…

120 is written - 109.86 = 10.14

109.86 - 49 = 60.86 {Every minute/second and 1 - .86 = .14}

60 x .14 = 8.4 = 2.1 {21 x 10%} x 4.

Or: pi= 3.14159 26535 89793

• 2.973568281938326 = 0.168024371651467… x 1,000 = 168.024371651467 = 120 + 48.02437165 {12 x 4}

Notice: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Roosevelt

2012/ ~7000 BC + 2012 + 1,000 = 4.970178926441352 = 49.70 1789 x 10%

 

[catholictiger]

https://imgur.com/0ogC8

I was thinking the same thing lol.

 

[JimG]

thankfully for us the Church usually agrees with what science says and it leaves science (with exceptions) alone and lets them determine what they can determine and the Chuch stays away from it.

one thing about the relationship between science and faith is that most stuff that Catholicism deals with will never have to handle science and it shouldn’t. Theology shouldn’t handle science and visa versa. Philosophy should never deal with science and Visa Versa. But lets say some time down the future there is a conflict between some papal declaration and scientific theory, or some similar Catholic vs Science conflict. While faithful Catholics would listen to the pope the majority of society would reject him. But I would as a faith Catholic be careful how we accept statements on scientific understandings and faith. If the Catholic Church comes out and condemns lets say that there was something before the big bang and the big bang isn’t the beginning of time, because they are concerned that it would disprove the existence of God. I would say that I believe the Church is overstepping its bounds and saying something they have no more authority or power to make statements on science then any other scientist.

Even though the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit it doesn’t necessitate that everything they claim is infalliable. The Church can make statements that are wrong, contrary to the truth, and damaging to the Church. Look we are human. All the Holy Spirit does (I take this from Pope Emeritus Benedict) is make sure that the Church doesn’t fall apart (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it). This is why the Church can do a contrary thing like condem gallieo and his the sun is the center theory and it is still in tact today.

**The simple point I’m trying to make is that you need to be careful any time you deal with science, because the Church isn’t in position from theological grounds to make statements on science. That shouldn’t matter either, because science should never have an impact on faith and morals because science can’t deal with faith and morals, or theology or philosophy. **

Lastly on time, based on what I said above I agree with the apparent effect gravity has on time, even though I don’t really believe that time actually exists. It is simply a measurement of a passage of events by our mind. At the same time I believe gravity in fact does effect time, for science that could mean science exists. But agian its not a big difference, its a science vs philosophy issue. Something philosophy says (time is based on measurements of the mind) isn’t always contrary to what science says (time is a real thing effected by gravity.)

It is precisely such a consideration, especially as noted in the bolded part above, which makes me wonder if the Church really intended to make a definitive teaching as to a cosmological theory. If it did, fine, I can accept that. But I’m not sure that it did. I think it may have been such a consideration which caused Lemaitre to caution the pope against using the Big Bang theory as a proof of Genesis.

As an aside, it’s been shown that gravity has the same effect on time as does acceleration. For objects which approach the speed of light, time slows down, actually going to zero at light speed, and presumably negative at faster than light speeds. A gravitational field has the same effect.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

** I think it may have been such a consideration which caused Lemaitre to caution the pope against using the Big Bang theory as a proof of Genesis.**

I think LeMaitre was cautioning Pius XII only because, the minute you claim any scientific idea conforms to religious teaching, the whole scientific community gets its bowels in an uproar. LeMaitre was still trying to get the idea of the Big Bang accepted, and he knew the prejudice of many fellow scientists, including Einstein, against the Catholic Church and religion in general.

However, by the time LeMaitre died the evidence was mounting significantly that the Big Bang did happen, and that elements of it were strangely consistent with Genesis.

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 in God and the Astronomers.

“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.”

 

[meinfinitist]

To me, the big bang is a spec in The universe.
The universe has an infinity of big bangs.
Popping, expanding, reuniting pieces, compressing and popping again.
Now we’re talking infinity.
Like your claims, that you say i can’t disprove, you can’t disprove this.
This makes sense to me, even if my small evolutionary brain can’t understand it.
It’s like you understanding a God.
It just feels good and possible without stories or interpreters that “know better”
but can’t explain themselves clearly.

 

[JimG]

To me, the big bang is a spec in The universe.
The universe has an infinity of big bangs.
Popping, expanding, reuniting pieces, compressing and popping again.
Now we’re talking infinity.
Like your claims, that you say i can’t disprove, you can’t disprove this.
This makes sense to me, even if my small evolutionary brain can’t understand it.
It’s like you understanding a God.
It just feels good and possible without stories or interpreters that “know better”
but can’t explain themselves clearly.

An infinity of big bangs is of course, nothing but a speculation, whereas the big bang has scientific evidence pointing to it.

 

[meinfinitist]

In biblical writing times was our big bang even “speculation”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**In biblical writing times was our big bang even “speculation”? **

Probably not. But in modern times it was a Catholic priest who began speculating about it. George LeMaitre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

[bsroufek]

The Big Bang is a complete nonsense theory, because it supposes:

1. there was a giant mass of solid matter at a beginning.
2. It exploded.

If it exploded, why are all the stars basically about the same size in the sky, rather than having a Big Piece there, a Small Piece there, how could an “explosion” have generated stars that are so perfectly even in the sky? Nonsense!

God created the Earth and the Heavens in Six Days. Just as Scripture says.

 

[JimG]

The Big Bang is a complete nonsense theory, because it supposes:

1. there was a giant mass of solid matter at a beginning.
2. It exploded.

If it exploded, why are all the stars basically about the same size in the sky, rather than having a Big Piece there, a Small Piece there, how could an “explosion” have generated stars that are so perfectly even in the sky? Nonsense!

God created the Earth and the Heavens in Six Days. Just as Scripture says.

It is really not accurate to describe the singularity preceding the big bang as a “giant mass of solid matter.” The entire cosmos was compressed into an atom sized space or smaller of nearly infinite density–so dense that solid matter could not exist. Subatomic particles and atoms condensed out of the expanding cosmos later as it cooled, and of course stars came much later.

It is also not accurate to think of it as an explosion. It was not just the material of the cosmos which was expanding, but the space it occupied. Think of a tiny balloon which is being expanded to an enormous size. The universe and the galaxies exist on the surface of that balloon. As it expands, the space between the galaxies becomes greater. It’s really an expanding 4D balloon.

I certainly would not call it a ‘nonsense theory’ without examining the evidence for it in much greater detail.

 

[meinfinitist]

Does a God that created but was not created make more “sense” ?

 

[inocente]

I think LeMaitre was cautioning Pius XII only because, the minute you claim any scientific idea conforms to religious teaching, the whole scientific community gets its bowels in an uproar. LeMaitre was still trying to get the idea of the Big Bang accepted, and he knew the prejudice of many fellow scientists, including Einstein, against the Catholic Church and religion in general.

Nope, he gave the caution for a much more important reason - he was concerned to prevent his pope making a grave error which would bring the Church into disrepute.

Lemaître 's theory does not say that the big bang was a creation event, it says the universe was compressed into a small volume and there is no way of knowing what happened before. There could have been nothing or there could have been something before, currently we have no theory or evidence to know which, and it may be we never can.

Lemaître’s theory also leaves it open about how the big bang was caused, it could have been God, it could have been something else. Lemaître was particularly concerned that people would say he had proved God exists, when he knew he’d done no such thing. He was completely against the creationist habit of trying to turn God into a scientific hypothesis.

It’s unfortunate for the reputation of the Church that so many Catholics still ignore his warnings.

*However, by the time LeMaitre died the evidence was mounting significantly that the Big Bang did happen, and that elements of it were strangely consistent with Genesis.

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.’”

You’ve made this comparison so often you probably should put it on your sig.

I don’t think it’s valid though. The writer of Genesis is trying to imagine what it would be like if nothing existed, and any of us doing that would think of a dark void. Then he imagines something popping into existence and obviously there must be light to see it.

There’s no science there, it’s not at all profound, just how any of us would imagine it. And after that the writer’s cosmology is just plain wrong. Goes to show we can’t expect much science from a pre-scientific age, although as poetic fantasy it’s pretty cool.

 

[meinfinitist]

A perfect God made a creation.
Going down thru the story, a killer had to be created so that His Son could be killied
by this killer to show His love.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
There’s no science there, it’s not at all profound, just how any of us would imagine it. **

Other than Genesis, show me any religion or philosophy in the history of the world that said the universe began with a burst of light.

Nope, he gave the caution for a much more important reason - he was concerned to prevent his pope making a grave error which would bring the Church into disrepute.

Well, yes partly that would have been his motivation at the time that Pius XII spoke. But by the time of Lemaitre’s death, just a few years later, the confirmation of the Big Bang was pretty fully established, so that the connection with Genesis was no longer in doubt. The universe** did** have a beginning in time.

You’ve made this comparison so often you probably should put it on your sig.

I know that irks you no end, which is why I keep mentioning Carl Sagan with Genesis.

 

[tonyrey]

Does a God that created but was not created make more “sense” ?

Does your mind make more sense than matter?