The Universe did not have an absolute begining?

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG
**
And if God creates an infinite series, either of space or of time, it is still not eternal. **

If God created an infinite series of moments in time stretching backward and forward, why does the Bible say: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…”?

 

[JimG]

JimG
**
And if God creates an infinite series, either of space or of time, it is still not eternal. **

If God created an infinite series of moments in time stretching backward and forward, why does the Bible say: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…”?

I don’t know. I don’t think that Genesis would have said anything about the details of creation in any case. The big bang is plausible, yet Genesis makes no reference to it and it would have been incomprehensible to its earliest readers.

But I do think that saying, “in the beginning” is the equivalent of saying “when God created,” which might or might not include a temporal zero point.

But that is neither here nor there. I’m quite satisfied with both Genesis and the big bang theory and a 13.7 billion year old universe. I am merely quibbling that God had to do it that way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not introducing ‘scientism.’ I’m only wondering what the “beginning of time” means in relation to the eternity of God. Obviously eternity does not consist in an infinite series of moments. To use the words “prior to” the beginning of time is meaningless. God didn’t have to wait for a period of time before creating time. He creates ex nihilo and then time exists, but it doesn’t apply to him. Eternity applies to him. And if God creates an infinite series, either of space or of time, it is still not eternal.

Nothing. And obviously not, who said it did? Some people will quibble over words until the cows come home. I guess it is a form of intertainment. Why the fixation on " infinite " series, it has nothing to do with the clear definition of the Fourth Lateran Council. I’n not going to debate someone who can’t understand the clear meaning of the text. It is pointless. Think whatever you want, who cares. Linus2nde

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

The big bang is plausible, yet Genesis makes no reference to it and it would have been incomprehensible to its earliest readers.

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: "In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Genesis makes no reference?

 

[JimG]

JimG

The big bang is plausible, yet Genesis makes no reference to it and it would have been incomprehensible to its earliest readers.

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: "In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Genesis makes no reference?

Indeed, I have often read the phrase “Let there be light,” as a reference to the big bang. But one would have had to wait 4,000 years to have made the connection. Certainly the cardinals of the 4th Lateran Council did not have it in mind.

 

[inocente]

Indeed, I have often read the phrase “Let there be light,” as a reference to the big bang. But one would have had to wait 4,000 years to have made the connection. Certainly the cardinals of the 4th Lateran Council did not have it in mind.

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

*Lemaître always differentiated between religious and scientific “levels of cognition” or “orders of reasoning.” This can clearly be seen in his opposition to mixing physical and theological “levels” in the Big Bang hypothesis:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.

The wise Monsignor clearly pointed out that both the laws of physics and history did not exist before the Big Bang so the lack of knowledge about what came before isn’t a temporary phenomenon but intrinsic to our science. If one makes the assumption that God indeed created the universe with the Big Bang, one cannot prove this scientifically. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

I doubt it. Show me where he says this.

 

[inocente]

inocente

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

I doubt it. Show me where he says this.

I did - the link is in my post and I quoted him from it - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

O.K. I think I mistook the thrust of your quote. LeMaitre does not say there could have been a previous time line; he merely says that science cannot rule out the possibility, even if Revelation does. Well, of course, science cannot rule out a lot of things, such as humans living in the same time-line with us galaxies distant from us. That does not mean they do, only that science cannot rule it out. But by the same token, science cannot prove there was a “previous time-line” simply because the evidence of same would have been destroyed by the Big Bang. So we are stuck with what science can prove: that time began with the Big Bang.

 

[Ignatius]

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

All of the scientific evidence is that there was, in fact, a beginning. The idea that the universe always existed is an unscientific notion derived from the 70’s Television show “Cosmos”. It is factually flawed.

 

[Ignatius]

inocente

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

O.K. I think I mistook the thrust of your quote. LeMaitre does not say there could have been a previous time line; he merely says that science cannot rule out the possibility, even if Revelation does. Well, of course, science cannot rule out a lot of things, such as humans living in the same time-line with us galaxies distant from us. That does not mean they do, only that science cannot rule it out. But by the same token, science cannot prove there was a “previous time-line” simply because the evidence of same would have been destroyed by the Big Bang. So we are stuck with what science can prove: that time began with the Big Bang.

Therefore there is no scientifically valid evidence that anything existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

 

[inocente]

inocente

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

O.K. I think I mistook the thrust of your quote. LeMaitre does not say there could have been a previous time line; he merely says that science cannot rule out the possibility, even if Revelation does. Well, of course, science cannot rule out a lot of things, such as humans living in the same time-line with us galaxies distant from us. That does not mean they do, only that science cannot rule it out. But by the same token, science cannot prove there was a “previous time-line” simply because the evidence of same would have been destroyed by the Big Bang. So we are stuck with what science can prove: that time began with the Big Bang.

Lemaître is saying he can make no prediction either way about any previous time-line.

Accordingly the universe could have existed in some other form before the big bang (there could even have been a long series of big bangs) or else nothing existed before the big bang, Lemaître cannot say either way, both are equally probable according to his theory.

The page I linked recounts the story of Lemaître’s alarm when he heard that Pius XII was saying he’d proved Genesis, and that he stopped off at the Vatican to correct the Pope (brave man!). “He realized quite fully the tentative and hypothetical character of scientific theories and for this reason alone, if for no others, opposed the use of such theories to support philosophical, theological or faith statements.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Accordingly the universe could have existed in some other form before the big bang (there could even have been a long series of big bangs) or else nothing existed before the big bang, Lemaître cannot say either way, both are equally probable according to his theory.

Now you really are looking for an argument, aren’t you?

He certainly does not say that both are equally probable. He is only saying that science cannot determine which, if either, is probable.

However, as a priest he certainly believes what Revelation tells us irrespective of what science can say…

 

[Gorgias]

Accordingly the universe could have existed in some other form before the big bang (there could even have been a long series of big bangs) or else nothing existed before the big bang, Lemaître cannot say either way, both are equally probable according to his theory.

Now you really are looking for an argument, aren’t you?

He certainly does not say that both are equally probable. He is only saying that science cannot determine which, if either, is probable.

I’m not reading this as a statement of quantifiable probabilities; rather, both are possible, according to Lemaitre’s theory. Your point, Charlemagne, is well taken: we cannot prove which is true, since our universe (and by implication, our dimension of time) began at that point.

However, as a priest he certainly believes what Revelation tells us irrespective of what science can say…

I’m not certain what this adds to the discussion. The theory of the Big Bang talks about how this universe came into being; it doesn’t necessarily address the notion of creation, per se, especially when taken in light of Einstein’s notion of the convertibility of matter and energy!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All of the scientific evidence is that there was, in fact, a beginning. The idea that the universe always existed is an unscientific notion derived from the 70’s Television show “Cosmos”. It is factually flawed.

O.K. You made the same mistake I often make. You read the O.P. without reading all the following posts. All questions have been answered in posts following the O.P. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lemaître, the priest who developed the big bang theory, pointed out that it doesn’t (and can’t) say whether the universe preexisted. There could have been a previous time-line, all evidence of which was wiped out by the big bang itself:

*Lemaître always differentiated between religious and scientific “levels of cognition” or “orders of reasoning.” This can clearly be seen in his opposition to mixing physical and theological “levels” in the Big Bang hypothesis:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.

The wise Monsignor clearly pointed out that both the laws of physics and history did not exist before the Big Bang so the lack of knowledge about what came before isn’t a temporary phenomenon but intrinsic to our science. If one makes the assumption that God indeed created the universe with the Big Bang, one cannot prove this scientifically. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

Thank you. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not reading this as a statement of quantifiable probabilities; rather, both are possible, according to Lemaitre’s theory. Your point, Charlemagne, is well taken: we cannot prove which is true, since our universe (and by implication, our dimension of time) began at that point.

I’m not certain what this adds to the discussion. The theory of the Big Bang talks about how this universe came into being; it doesn’t necessarily address the notion of creation, per se, especially when taken in light of Einstein’s notion of the convertibility of matter and energy!

There may or may not have been a " before " before the Big Bang. But there is no doubt that the universe had an absolute beginning " ex nihil " at some point in the past. There was in fact a " first moment " for the universe. This we accept on faith. And the data of faith is based on Divine Revelation, and God does not lie. Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Gorgias

**I’m not certain what this adds to the discussion. The theory of the Big Bang talks about how this universe came into being; it doesn’t necessarily address the notion of creation, per se, especially when taken in light of Einstein’s notion of the convertibility of matter and energy! **

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.’”

What this adds to the discussion is that while Genesis is not science, it is consistent with science. Although LeMaitre is the one usually associated with the Big Bang, the BB originally was implied in the mathematics of Einstein’s relativity. Had Einstein done the same math as LeMaitre, he would have had to follow his own theory toward the idea of a Big Bang later attributed to LeMaitre.

Pope Pius XII leaped to the conclusion implied in Genesis that something like a burst of light did start the universe as we know it today. LeMaitre was nervous about that not because the parallel did not apply, but because, remembering Galileo, he did not want his theory to be associated with a theological truth, thus inhibiting other scientists from taking him seriously. He was right to insist on that. Religion is religion, and science is science. But it’s not at all impossible that the twain should meet.

 

[meinfinitist]

Infinity.
No beginning, no end, just change.
No creator, controller needed.
You control.
What are you afraid of?

 

[meltzerboy]

Infinity.
No beginning, no end, just change.
No creator, controller needed.
You control.
What are you afraid of?

But we surely don’t control all of the universe. Further, did anyone say they were afraid?