The Void

[brap]

I am not a creationist but beleive in the theory of the Big Bang, however I have a problem with one aspect of all the theories of the "creation: of the universe, “The Void”. In my limited mind I cannot understand the absence of matter or energy. I have never seen an explaination for this absence or a theory to explain it. If the universe is expanding what exactly is it expanding into? If the universe was at one time a infinitesimally compressed ball, where exactly was it?

 

[spockrates]

It’s actually not expanding into nothing, it’s expanding into what scientists call dark energy, which is invisible to the naked eye. About 70% of space is made up of this dark energy. There is also a substance called dark matter, which also cannot be seen, which is more plentiful than visible matter, such as stars, planets and the like.

It’s possible (I’m only guessing, now, but perhaps some professional theologians have said the same) that this dark energy is actually God Himself. Makes sense to me, since Sacred Scripture tells us:

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

(Ephesians 1:22-23)

 

[tonyrey]

I am not a creationist but believe in the theory of the Big Bang, however I have a problem with one aspect of all the theories of the "creation: of the universe, “The Void”. In my limited mind I cannot understand the absence of matter or energy.

Not surprising - there’s nothing to understand! I think your real problem may be how physical energy comes from nothing… It doesn’t. It is created by Love, i.e. God.

 

[o_mlly]

I am not a creationist but beleive in the theory of the Big Bang,

If you believe in the Big Bang, does it not follow that there must be a Big Banger?

however I have a problem with one aspect of all the theories of the "creation: of the universe, “The Void”. In my limited mind I cannot understand the absence of matter or energy. I have never seen an explaination for this absence or a theory to explain it. If the universe is expanding what exactly is it expanding into? If the universe was at one time a infinitesimally compressed ball, where exactly was it?

In my understanding of the Big Bang theory, there is not a complete void but a condensation of all matter and energy into as you say “a compressed ball.” As far as the theory goes, one may logically extend it to be cyclical, that is not just one Big Bang but many. If so then an equally interesting question, is where does the matter and energy condense from as well as expand into. The answer, I think, must be the same – the void.

 

[mrhenrik]

If you believe in the Big Bang, does it not follow that there must be a Big Banger?

No, that does not follow. We have reason to believe there was a Big Bang, but there is no reason to believe there was a Big Banger. There should probably be something causing the Big Bang, but what that is we do not know. Going from “we don’t know” to “it must’ve been the Christian god!” is a massive leap of faith with no scientific base (and no base in scripture either as far as I know).

Besides, whatever caused the Big Bang must’ve been caused by something else anyhow.

 

[brap]

It’s actually not expanding into nothing, it’s expanding into what scientists call dark energy, which is invisible to the naked eye. About 70% of space is made up of this dark energy. There is also a substance called dark matter, which also cannot be seen, which is more plentiful than visible matter, such as stars, planets and the like.

It’s possible (I’m only guessing, now, but perhaps some professional theologians have said the same) that this dark energy is actually God Himself. Makes sense to me, since Sacred Scripture tells us:

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

(Ephesians 1:22-23)

So what is Dark Energy/Matter? Nothing? Something? A name for something that is unknown because we don’t understand or comprehend it’s state of being? Kinda sorta sounds like the definition of a supreme being. I am trying hard to follow the reasoning of people that point to science and ridicule those of us who believe in God but at the same time accept the limitations of science as a matter of fact.

 

[mrhenrik]

So what is Dark Energy/Matter? Nothing? Something? A name for something that is unknown because we don’t understand or comprehend it’s state of being? Kinda sorta sounds like the definition of a supreme being. I am trying hard to follow the reasoning of people that point to science and ridicule those of us who believe in God but at the same time accept the limitations of science as a matter of fact.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

A blunt analogy to the discovery of dark matter could be walking into a completely transparent glass wall. You can’t see it, but every time you bump into it you get that eerie feeling there’s something there.

Dark matter is, according to Wikipedia, inferred to exist due to it’s gravitational effects on visible matter.

Comparing the theory of dark matter with the Christian god is folly. The only similarity is that we can’t see either of them. There are, as discussed in the Wikipedia article, a number of pointers towards the existence of dark matter - evidence, research results and all that jazz. There is very little, if anything, pointing towards the existence of a god.

Your last sentence interests me. Science provides a limited answer based on research, observations and real-world evidence and you dismiss it in favour of musings with no footing in science (real-world evidence) or even scripture for that sake?

 

[o_mlly]

No, that does not follow. We have reason to believe there was a Big Bang, but there is no reason to believe there was a Big Banger. There should probably be something causing the Big Bang, but what that is we do not know. Going from “we don’t know” to “it must’ve been the Christian god!” is a massive leap of faith with no scientific base (and no base in scripture either as far as I know).

Besides, whatever caused the Big Bang must’ve been caused by something else anyhow.

You contradict yourself. You write “no reason to believe there was a Big Banger” and then conclude “whatever caused the Big Bang must’ve been caused by something …”

Every effect (Big Bang) necessarily has a cause. Make as many iterations as you like but you must eventually address a first effect – the original Big Bang. You’ll still need an original Big Banger.

 

[mrhenrik]

Big Banger as in a person/entity causing the Big Bang - it could’ve been anything. Adding a supreme being doesn’t make it better - if you follow cause and effect that far something must have caused the supreme being. Why must there be a first effect and how did that come into being if nothing caused it?

 

[o_mlly]

Big Banger as in a person/entity causing the Big Bang - it could’ve been anything. Adding a supreme being doesn’t make it better - if you follow cause and effect that far something must have caused the supreme being. Why must there be a first effect and how did that come into being if nothing caused it?

You say the correctly the Big Banger “could’ve been anything.” However, you say incorrectly that “something must have caused the supreme being.” To be the Supreme Being is by definition to be without cause – necessary being, as opposed to contingent being.

As to why there must be a first cause, read the pagan Aristotle. Then read Aquinas.

 

[mrhenrik]

If the supreme being could be without cause, why couldn’t the Big Bang be without cause? If I just pull out of my hat a definition of the Big Bang which says it is without cause - does that make it exempt from cause and effect?

Read something a bit newer, like Hawkins. The circular model of time is gaining ground, and in that model there need not be a first cause. Reading Aristotle and Aquinas seems like a superficial suggestion - surely you’ll be able to specify a bit more or do you just want me to read everything they wrote?

 

[HelenaMT]

… The circular model of time is gaining ground, and in that model there need not be a first cause. Reading Aristotle and Aquinas seems like a superficial suggestion - surely you’ll be able to specify a bit more or do you just want me to read everything they wrote?

Can you explain how the circular model of time makes a first cause irrelevant ? I’m sure I’m not the only one who is unfamiliar with the reference, but if there is a point to be made by using it it would be nice to hear it developed a bit more.

 

[Thing]

If the supreme being could be without cause, why couldn’t the Big Bang be without cause?..?

No, I don’t think so. Before the BB there was just a point of something, a singularity. And there was nothing else in existance - in this, your present model. In this model your singularity is eternal as it never had a cause, it always was. So, it always was a ‘stable point’, a permanent singularity with nothing in existance around or outside it. So the question is, why then did the point, the BB, explode or expand if it was an eternal, stable point. It could only have been some outside force or energy which could change an eternally stable point into an explosion which gives rise to a universe. In other words the eternal BB needed a ‘cause’ external to itself.

 

[Thing]

I am not a creationist but beleive in the theory of the Big Bang, however I have a problem with one aspect of all the theories of the "creation: of the universe, “The Void”. In my limited mind I cannot understand the absence of matter or energy. I have never seen an explaination for this absence or a theory to explain it. If the universe is expanding what exactly is it expanding into? If the universe was at one time a infinitesimally compressed ball, where exactly was it?

I *could *tell you why - but that would be spoiling your fun. Besides it took me ages and ages to figure it out, and you want me to just tell you!!

 

[o_mlly]

If the supreme being could be without cause, why couldn’t the Big Bang be without cause? If I just pull out of my hat a definition of the Big Bang which says it is without cause - does that make it exempt from cause and effect?

Read something a bit newer, like Hawkins. The circular model of time is gaining ground, and in that model there need not be a first cause. Reading Aristotle and Aquinas seems like a superficial suggestion - surely you’ll be able to specify a bit more or do you just want me to read everything they wrote?

Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, chapter 9.

Aquinas, Summa Q.2 a.3.

The ancient Egyptians believed in a circular model of time. A small insignificant nation, former slaves of the Egyptians, developed the linear model of time.

 

[spockrates]

So what is Dark Energy/Matter? Nothing? Something? A name for something that is unknown because we don’t understand or comprehend it’s state of being? Kinda sorta sounds like the definition of a supreme being. I am trying hard to follow the reasoning of people that point to science and ridicule those of us who believe in God but at the same time accept the limitations of science as a matter of fact.

Don’t ask me what it is, I only know that scientists say they have proved that it is. I’m no scientist, so who am I to disagree?

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+dark+matter&aq=0&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=what+is+dark+matt&gs_rfai=

google.com/#hl=en&q=what+is+dark+energy+in+the+universe&aq=2&aqi=l1g2&aql=&oq=what+is+dark+energy&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

 

[o_mlly]

Don’t ask me what it is, I only know that scientists say they have proved that it is. I’m no scientist, so who am I to disagree?

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+dark+matter&aq=0&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=what+is+dark+matt&gs_rfai=

google.com/#hl=en&q=what+is+dark+energy+in+the+universe&aq=2&aqi=l1g2&aql=&oq=what+is+dark+energy&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

Dark matter/energy is invention, not discovery by our scientific community. Funny, science, the art of observation, has never observed the phenomena they call dark matter/energy but can talk about it endlessly. Anything to avoid a non-materialistic answer to our existence including abandoning their own methodology – “if I can’t sense it, I can’t know it.”

 

[spockrates]

Dark matter/energy is invention, not discovery by our scientific community. Funny, science, the art of observation, has never observed the phenomena they call dark matter/energy but can talk about it endlessly. Anything to avoid a non-materialistic answer to our existence including abandoning their own methodology – “if I can’t sense it, I can’t know it.”

Let me ask you this, OM: When you look at a coin at the bottom of a wading pool, why does it look distorted and not round, as a coin should be?

 

[Detales]

brap~The problem is that as a Catholic you are accepting the materialist view of the Church which is essentially dualistic, but distinct from the dualism of science which does it by exclusion. The Church does it by separating Spirit and matter, God and Man.

The VOID is the everlasting and eternal Allness of God, which appears to human intellect as void because it is not a mental concept. It is Being, from which all is and is not separate from.

An excellent work on this topic is F. Merrell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. You might enjoy reading it.

 

[brap]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Comparing the theory of dark matter with the Christian god is folly. The only similarity is that we can’t see either of them. There are, as discussed in the Wikipedia article, a number of pointers towards the existence of dark matter - evidence, research results and all that jazz. There is very little, if anything, pointing towards the existence of a god.

Your last sentence interests me. Science provides a limited answer based on research, observations and real-world evidence and you dismiss it in favour of musings with no footing in science (real-world evidence) or even scripture for that sake?

Science is a construct of our mind. God is a construct of our mind. The evidence of dark matter is really a *conclusion *based on a observation. We do not have a can of dark matter/energy in a lab somewhere. Those who argue in favor of “science” speak with a certainty that what they say is immutable. Even the very defintion of their argument says it is not by it’s very name - “theory”.

I have not dismissed the theory of Dark Matter/Energy. I, as you stated, am musing beyond it.

I also did not compare it to a “Christian” God. One could say that that is your *conclusion *based on your *observation *that this was posted in a Christian forum, however faulty that might have been.