The Universe did not have an absolute begining?

[catholictiger]

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

I can’t qoute him at the moment but I do believe that Aquinas said that you can’t prove if the universe is infinite or finite, but we can take from divine revelation that the universe is in fact finite and that it did have a beginning in time. God created ex nihilo (which is Catholic Doctrine) out of nothing means there is nothing before that creation. I don’t know where they get this understanding from but I think they may be a little off

sorry I’m so late to this thread but I would like to join in.

 

[JimG]

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the eartha— 2 and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—b 3Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.c 4God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Evening came, and morning followed—the first day."** Genesis 1

If the “first day” is not an absolute beginning, what is it?

That is, of course, assuming that you take the seven day account as literal, and if one is trying to use the big bang theory as confirmation of the Genesis account, that would not work.

 

[catholictiger]

While this openness to possibilities is the context or Mr. Horn’s post I don’t think it is his real “point.” His point, I think, is that some amateur apologists enter debates with atheists thinking that science has proven creation ex nihilo and that this in turn proves God’s existence. When the atheist responds with these alternative cosmological speculations that have been proposed by respected scientists the Catholic does not know how to respond or how Catholic beliefs relate to such theories, and so likely looses the debate and possibly their own faith.

one thing the question of does the universe have a beginning doesn’t matter. When dealing with philosophy you have to explain everything sufficient reason why does it exist, why is there something instead of nothing. So you can posit that the universe is infinite and claim that God must necessarily exist (he is the sufficient cause of the universe, anything that is chaining can’t be its own reason for its existence there must be something moving it allowing it to go from potentiality to actuality and it can’t be itself, God doesn’t need something outside of itself to explain it because God is pure actuality he has no potentiality )

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

“Evening came, and morning followed—the first day.” Genesis 1*

What is there about the phrase “first day” that you do not understand? Is there a day before the “first day”? If so, what day would you call it, and why is it not referred to in Genesis?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

**That is, of course, assuming that you take the seven day account as literal, and if one is trying to use the big bang theory as confirmation of the Genesis account, that would not work. **

Why not?

 

[meinfinitist]

Do revelations explain-justify themselves?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t qoute him at the moment but I do believe that Aquinas said that you can’t prove if the universe is infinite or finite, but we can take from divine revelation that the universe is in fact finite and that it did have a beginning in time. God created ex nihilo (which is Catholic Doctrine) out of nothing means there is nothing before that creation. I don’t know where they get this understanding from but I think they may be a little off

sorry I’m so late to this thread but I would like to join in.

I think the answer is that even some Catholics think that what is true must always be subject to some sort of scientific demonstration, when in fact Catholic Truth is a matter of Revelation as determined by the Magisterium. Some of these truths are indeed beyond scientific demonstration, in an absolute sense. Some however are demonstratable ( philosophically/scientifically ) but the demonstration is so difficult to grasp by ordinary minds that the Church has deemed it necessary to declare even some demonstratable truths as Defined Dogma or as Ordinary Teaching. This it does to assure that all Truths necessary and/or helpful for the salvation of all are clearly taught with Certainty and are to be believed by all Catholics in good standing.

Catholics should be wary that they do not allow themselves to be drawn into the cultural error of scientism. I fear that some Catholics, in order to be acceptible to this culture, do fall into this trap. Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

me
**
Do revelations explain-justify themselves?**

Yes, if they come from God. But first you have to believe.

Does the revelation to the atheist that atheism is true explain-justify itself? Hardly, since no one can prove there is no God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linus

**Catholics should be wary that they do not allow themselves to be drawn into the cultural error of scientism. I fear that some Catholics, in order to be acceptible to this culture, do fall into this trap. Linus2nd **

Your fear is well-founded.

Science seduces many with the notion that knowledge trumps wisdom. It does not, never has, and never will. One does not have to look past the worldwide arsenals of nuclear weapons for proof.

 

[JimG]

By the same token I would caution against using scientific theories such as the big bang, as an instrument to argue in support of Genesis, rather than relying on revelation, philosophy, and theology.

 

[meinfinitist]

Good stuff!
The story of the gathering for Jesus’ twenty first birthday must be true.
“My dear followers, My Father created you with a brain. Look around at His design.
Our bodies are designed to support our brain. The torso, limbs and organs are all
to support the brain. We are a bunch of heads being carried around by bodies.
Use your brain,think for yourself. Don’t just be a good sheep. As time goes I will
keep telling you these things. Those who want to control you will tell you what you
should be thinking. Rember -Use Your Brain! And remember they will try to remove
all references to the importance of your brain.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

me

Those who want to control you will tell you what you should be thinking.

We are all free to think what we like. Thought is not anything that can be controlled, though it can be influenced. We can rightly seek to influence how others think, and especially when they seem to be having problems thinking things through. Parents do this. Are they control freaks? Teachers do this. Are they control freaks? Scientists do this. Are they control freaks? Theologians do this. Are they control freaks? Who doesn’t seek to guide the thinking of others?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Catholics should be wary that they do not allow themselves to be drawn into the cultural error of scientism. I fear that some Catholics, in order to be acceptible to this culture, do fall into this trap. Linus2nd

That is absolutely true. Yet it is also true that some Catholics accuse other Catholics to fall into the trap of scientism when they really don’t.

I for one certainly have been accused of that, only because I fully except evolution (including for the human body, though not for the human soul – impossible since evolution is a material process) and because I hold that an origin of life by natural causes is highly probable. I have been falsely accused of disbelieving in God’s intervention, while the only thing that I don’t believe in is an unnecessarily interventionist God (i.e. one who constantly needs to tinker with His creation).

I believe in a God who intervenes when He wants to, not when He has to (i.e. when the laws of nature that He created are supposedly insufficient for the unfolding of the natural world and need a nudge from time to time).

I despise scientism.

 

[JimG]

JimG

**That is, of course, assuming that you take the seven day account as literal, and if one is trying to use the big bang theory as confirmation of the Genesis account, that would not work. **

Why not?

If one takes the first day as a reference to the first “day” of creation, one could not reconcile such an account with the big bang theory, assuming that is what one wanted to do.

The big bang theory proposes that the universe originated in a singularity of exploding energy, which then expanded (along with space) until it cooled sufficiently to form stars and galaxies, and that planets then condensed from the matter orbiting around the stars.

One might assign the Genesis phrase “let there be light” to the instant of the big bang. But the “first day” for earth or any planet, at that point, lay billions of years in the future. And even after the ‘first day’ on such a planet, plant or animal or human life would not have come along until a few billion additional years.

So I’m just saying that the big bang theory and the Genesis literary structure are entirely different things—one a scientific speculation, one scripture of a particular sort.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

**So I’m just saying that the big bang theory and the Genesis literary structure are entirely different things—one a scientific speculation, one scripture of a particular sort. **

The only way to answer this (you probably won’t go for it) is to read The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder, who has a PhD in physics from M.I.T., has done a comparative study of the Big Bang with Genesis. He divides the history of the universe into seven periods, we are in the seventh. The first involves the initial phase of Big Bang, which is roughly comparable to Day One in Genesis. Clearly, the light described in the first verses is not the Sun or the Moon. It is a light that permeated the universe in its early history, after which, during a cooling off period, the stars and their planets would evolve. For 25 years Schrodeur also studied biblical criticism in detail and became an expert on Genesis. If you can’t read the book, you might try chapter 4 which is titled “The Six Days of Genesis.”

Fascinating parallels between Genesis and science are explained.

 

[JimG]

JimG

**So I’m just saying that the big bang theory and the Genesis literary structure are entirely different things—one a scientific speculation, one scripture of a particular sort. **

The only way to answer this (you probably won’t go for it) is to read The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder, who has a PhD in physics from M.I.T., has done a comparative study of the Big Bang with Genesis. He divides the history of the universe into seven periods, we are in the seventh. The first involves the initial phase of Big Bang, which is roughly comparable to Day One in Genesis. Clearly, the light described in the first verses is not the Sun or the Moon. It is a light that permeated the universe in its early history, after which, during a cooling off period, the stars and their planets would evolve. For 25 years Schrodeur also studied biblical criticism in detail and became an expert on Genesis. If you can’t read the book, you might try chapter 4 which is titled “The Six Days of Genesis.”

Fascinating parallels between Genesis and science are explained.

I haven’t read the book, so I can’t say much about it. But just from what you say here, he seems to be trying to bend Genesis to fit cosmological theory. It would seem that the meaning he assigns to the word “day” in Genesis has been changed to fit the big bang theory, in a way that none of its original readers could have understood and its writer never intended. Was the creation account written for 21st century physicists? I doubt it. This looks like a sort of eisegesis wherein he reads cosmological theory into Genesis. I don’t think that’s appropriate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

** It would seem that the meaning he assigns to the word “day” in Genesis has been changed to fit the big bang theory, in a way that none of its original readers could have understood and its writer never intended.**

This is arguable. The use of the word “day” in Genesis cannot possibly refer to 24 hour days, since the Sun and the moon (by which we measure days) were not created until the 4th “day.” Obviously, the author of Genesis was obliged to use metaphorical language. The passage “Let there be light” must refer to the light of the Big Bang, though the author of Genesis and his readers could not know it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

JimG

** It would seem that the meaning he assigns to the word “day” in Genesis has been changed to fit the big bang theory, in a way that none of its original readers could have understood and its writer never intended.**

This is arguable. The use of the word “day” in Genesis cannot possibly refer to 24 hour days, since the Sun and the moon (by which we measure days) were not created until the 4th “day.” Obviously, the author of Genesis was obliged to use metaphorical language.

Already St. Augustine in the 4th (!) century warned against a literal interpretation of Genesis, including the word “day”.

 

[JimG]

JimG

** It would seem that the meaning he assigns to the word “day” in Genesis has been changed to fit the big bang theory, in a way that none of its original readers could have understood and its writer never intended.**

This is arguable. The use of the word “day” in Genesis cannot possibly refer to 24 hour days, since the Sun and the moon (by which we measure days) were not created until the 4th “day.” Obviously, the author of Genesis was obliged to use metaphorical language. The passage “Let there be light” must refer to the light of the Big Bang, though the author of Genesis and his readers could not know it.

But that’s a sort of scientific analysis. The writer and the original hearers did not think like that. Let’s just accept the Genesis worldview as written and not try to fit the 20th century worldview into it. The theology of creation doesn’t change, and we are not constantly trying to harmonize ancient texts with modern physics.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

But that’s a sort of scientific analysis. The writer and the original hearers did not think like that.

Like what? Certainly they didn’t think of days in terms of billions of years. Nor could they have thought of the Big Bang in modern terms. But it must have seemed interesting to them that the “Let there be Light” could not refer to the twin celestial orbs of day four.

Let’s just accept the Genesis worldview as written and not try to fit the 20th century worldview into it.

Which world view are you talking about?
**
The theology of creation doesn’t change, and we are not constantly trying to harmonize ancient texts with modern physics. **

That’s your decision. You’re welcome to it. With the help of Schroeder, I personally can harmonize (not literally) all kinds of ancient texts with modern physics.