S
Sanctus_Paladin
Guest
You tread a very fine line my friend.
- Status
M
MonFrere
Guest
From what I’ve read, among scientists, the cosmologists are the ones most likely to believe in God. Maybe not the God of the Bible, but in a “god” none the less. Einstein, for example, euphemistically referred to “the Ancient One”.
Andrew Flew, once an avowed atheist, is now a theist because of the anthropic principle I mentioned a couple days ago.
The head of the Genome Project, Francis Collins, is a believer. The man is also an evolutionist. There are a growing number of scientists that are able to reconcile a belief in God with a belief in evolution.
The Holy Father wrote a short volume while a Cardinal that were homilies he gave on Genesis 1 - 3. The Holy Father also didn’t have a problem with the concept of evolution.
So, I think the assumption that the more one studies science, or cosmology, the more likely one is to believe in agnosticism or atheism is unfounded.
MonFrere
M
mangy_dog
Guest
In your initial scenario, (intelligent beings on other planets) - even if (and a very doubtful if) this were a fact…Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross would’ve only been necessary once for the entire universe because He is a divine being and maker of all tha is seen and unseen. So His sacrafice is Super-abundant.
Now, returning to the real universe where there is no intelligent, sentient beings anywhere else in the universe except on earth - the other “senses” you speak of may have a point of reference in our first parents, Adam and Eve. Their preternatural existence would probably allude to the spiritual communion they enjoyed with God and His angels, whom they saw and spoke with on a regular basisi before the temptation and the fall. That’s when their preternatural existence became natural. Thus limiting the senses to what we have today.
We will one day enjoy this preternatural existence again. And we will have glorified bodies like the proto-type - Jesus resurrected who, even though He entered the room, doors and windows shut, to greet the apostles gathered there, …He percieved their apprehension and ate food. And so, they understood.
Don’t be deluded about extraterrestrial life originating elsewhere in the universe, and having a utopian, spiritually enlightened, highly technological civilization. It just isn’t true. That thinking is the work of the antichrist, part of his plan for the great delusion of man.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Good connection you made with what I said about the human body to Adam and Eve, and the resurrected body. That is right on track.
Now, I’m not sure why you rule out the possiblity of intelligent life existing elswhere in the universe. Your comment seems arbitrary in light of the fact that there is nothing to rule out such a possibility. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger once spoke of it as a possibility, as well. He made this observation, due in part to the fact that there is nothing theologically unacceptable about the idea. Hence, your comment about it being the work of antichrist is profoundly unwarranted.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
itinerant1 :tiphat:
M
mangy_dog
Guest
I remember Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments on this subject and the - not finding anything theologically unnacceptable made reference to the super-abundant sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Take a look at the accepted apparitions of the Virgin Mary in LaSalette, Fátima. They make reference to the “great delusion”.
It’s about all I can type without getting kicked out by CAF Mod. squad.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Balducci made similar comments but did not abscribe his opinion as being in line with the Holy See.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread is straying from the original topic. Please, if you wish to discuss side issues, start new threads or post in existing ones. Thank you, all.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The centre, purpose, point, reason, rationale, & “excuse” for the universe is not man - it is for Christ. It centres on Him, comes from Him, is fulfilled in Him, owes all it is to Him, is good because of Him, is redeemed by Him, can be truly happy only in Him.
Where do people get the idea that the whole thing revolves around us
?Jesus Christ is Our Saviour because of our dire need - not because we are wonderful, but because we were alienated from Him, dead in sins and trespasses, on the way to damnation. Not because we were more wonderful than any other creature, but because God Who tells us to love our enemies, set an example by first loving His enemies.
Calvin has a beautiful description of the world - he calls it “the theatre of the Glory of God”. That surely is no less true of all created things. They glorify God, even if we know nothing of them.
C
Chancellare
Guest
As you can see, “large” is a relative word. For the ants, the state of California is ‘such a large universe’. The universe might be too large for humans but what made you think it is large enough for God?
M
MH84
Guest
Read Post #19
I
itinerant1
Guest
This is not possible since God is infinite, immaterial being and the unviverse is finite and physical. So any attempt to characterize how the universe appears to God in spatial terms, e.g. large or small, implicitly assumes God exists in a physical category, and asserts a relative relationship, which holds true only between physical beings, or between physical beings and those spiritual beings whose nature is to be ‘intimately’ united to a physical body.
The statement “to God the universe in infentesimally small”, other than containing at typo, commits the fallacy of ambiguity based confusion regarding the ontological. The inherent formal ontological confusion generates an informal logical error of ambiguity. Hence, the statement is not logically valid, and its truth value is null and void.
I
itinerant1
Guest
What poets know is this world was too small for Jesus:
To the Virgin Mary
No room at the crowded inn for you. And why?
The world itself is too cramped for what’s inside you.
~Andreas Gryphius (1616-1664)
I
itinerant1
Guest
Here is a possible answer, but it is not one that will appeal to the Biblical literalist:
When considering the question from the aspect of the hierarchy of being, the physical size of the universe needs to be such that its infinite possibilites enable the realization of beings of a higher level than those that are strictly physical. God’ Providence enables the physical cosmos to evolve toward the production of beings that possess life. The vastness of the universe is one of the necessary means for cosmic evolution to attain its Divinely ordained goal. This leaves open, at least to human minds, the possibility that life has been generated in more than one place in the cosmos.
The great number and diversity of things existing in the universe, as a whole, reflect something more of the nature of God, just as the many qualities of a multitude of men, taken as a whole, reflect something more of the nature of Man, understood to be Christ Himself. That is, Christ is not “a man”. Christ “is Man”.
When considering the question from the aspect of the hierarchy of being, the physical size of the universe needs to be such that its infinite possibilites enable the realization of beings of a higher level than those that are strictly physical. God’ Providence enables the physical cosmos to evolve toward the production of beings that possess life. The vastness of the universe is one of the necessary means for cosmic evolution to attain its Divinely ordained goal. This leaves open, at least to human minds, the possibility that life has been generated in more than one place in the cosmos.
The great number and diversity of things existing in the universe, as a whole, reflect something more of the nature of God, just as the many qualities of a multitude of men, taken as a whole, reflect something more of the nature of Man, understood to be Christ Himself. That is, Christ is not “a man”. Christ “is Man”.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Everybody seems to assume we’re alone in the universe. Completely aside of the possibility that there are other critters out there like us (which I doubt, but I don’t know there aren’t) we’re not alone in the universe. There are other beings, and we know there are. They are called “angels”.
What do we know about their function? Not much. We know some are guardians. Some are messengers. Beyond that, we don’t know what they do.
I am given to fantasizing about such things to a fault, but suppose the function of one angel, just one, let’s say, is to govern the action of atomic particles on the smallest imaginable scale; neutrinos and quarks and such. Let’s say another’s function is to apply the principles God laid down for the governance of large bodies, the curvature of space/time around them, and so on. Let’s say one governs the ignition of Big Bangs or the intersection of ‘branes’, keeping them in some rhythm so complex and so impossible to explore that we can never penetrate it.
We don’t know much about what they do. We know they exist. We know they’re powerful and intelligent beyond our power to even imagine. We know they serve in some manner. We know some serve in some ways that are (barely) revealed to us, but we don’t know what the whole bunch of them does. And we don’t know why it is important for them to serve, but it seems to be in their proper nature to do so. We do know Lucifer said he wouldn’t serve. But we don’t know what he refused to do. There must be something in their nature that requires service, and if they refuse it, they deny their entire natures somehow, and thus their union with God. Perhaps there is a harmony they keep, on a titanic scale, about which we know nothing at all. Maybe that’s part of the “song” they sing in praise of God.
That’s not to say it might not be out there for us to explore in future millenia, or as God’s guests in heaven later on.
But just maybe there’s a lot more to the governance and purpose of the universe than we know, being sort of centered on ourselves, and maybe a lot of it doesn’t have a thing to do with us.
What do we know about their function? Not much. We know some are guardians. Some are messengers. Beyond that, we don’t know what they do.
I am given to fantasizing about such things to a fault, but suppose the function of one angel, just one, let’s say, is to govern the action of atomic particles on the smallest imaginable scale; neutrinos and quarks and such. Let’s say another’s function is to apply the principles God laid down for the governance of large bodies, the curvature of space/time around them, and so on. Let’s say one governs the ignition of Big Bangs or the intersection of ‘branes’, keeping them in some rhythm so complex and so impossible to explore that we can never penetrate it.
We don’t know much about what they do. We know they exist. We know they’re powerful and intelligent beyond our power to even imagine. We know they serve in some manner. We know some serve in some ways that are (barely) revealed to us, but we don’t know what the whole bunch of them does. And we don’t know why it is important for them to serve, but it seems to be in their proper nature to do so. We do know Lucifer said he wouldn’t serve. But we don’t know what he refused to do. There must be something in their nature that requires service, and if they refuse it, they deny their entire natures somehow, and thus their union with God. Perhaps there is a harmony they keep, on a titanic scale, about which we know nothing at all. Maybe that’s part of the “song” they sing in praise of God.
That’s not to say it might not be out there for us to explore in future millenia, or as God’s guests in heaven later on.
But just maybe there’s a lot more to the governance and purpose of the universe than we know, being sort of centered on ourselves, and maybe a lot of it doesn’t have a thing to do with us.
L
LovePatience
Guest
If the universe isn’t centered on us, then why would God send his only son to suffer and die for our sins? God doesn’t have two sons, just one. Would Jesus suffer and die for the sins of other beings in our universe who abused free will but simply not reveal this to us since it doesn’t concern us?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Atheists argue that humans are too insignificant in the context of the entire universe, a purported insignificance related to their size as compared to the vastness of the universe. So how can believers be so parochial to think that there might be a God who cares about us, and given the insignificance of humans, how can we even start to believe that our existence is on purpose? Does it not all point to a pointless, godless universe?
There are several issues here:
“Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: “The world was made for the glory of God.” St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and communicate it”, for God has no other reason to create than his love and goodness.”
What would show the glory of God better, a vast universe or a small one? Rather than to claim that God created the universe for humans, it would thus probably be more accurate to say that God created the universe with humans in mind.
“Physics can also suggest why the universe has to be so large. The laws of gravity discovered by Einstein relate the size of the universe directly to its age. The fact that the universe is many billions of light-years across is related to the fact that it has lasted several billions of years. Perhaps we would be less daunted by a cozy little universe the size, say, of a continent. But such a universe would have lasted only a few milliseconds. Even a universe the size of the solar system would have lasted only a few hours. A universe constructed in such a way as to evolve life may well have had to extend widely in space as well as in time. It may well be that the frightening expanses that are so often said to be a sign of human insignificance may actually, like so many other features of our strange universe, point to man, as they also proclaim the glory of God.” (End quote)
Thus, neither can humans be much larger than they are, nor can the universe be much smaller than it is, given the developmental manner in which it was created. Rational analysis shows that the argument for the insignificance of humans based on size, in relation to the sheer vastness of the universe, is merely an emotional argument.
The famous astrophysicist Martin Rees makes a more rational argument in an interview, when asked if he does not feel an infinitely tiny speck of no significance:
“I don’t because the earth, though small in the cosmos may still be a most important part of it. It may be the only place where there’s life like us. And so what makes things fascinating is how complicated they are and not how big they are. And for all we know the earth, tiny though it is, could be the centre of the cosmos in terms of complexity.”
There are several issues here:
- Not just atheists, also believers have wondered about the significance of man in the grand scheme of things. Already the psalmist in the Bible exclaimed “When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” Does that seem parochial to you? I don’t think so.
- How can believers claim the universe was made just for us? Well, I don’t and there are probably few religions that do. I have never heard the Catholic religion claim that the entire universe was exclusively made for humans (perhaps some fundamentalist Christians do).
“Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: “The world was made for the glory of God.” St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and communicate it”, for God has no other reason to create than his love and goodness.”
What would show the glory of God better, a vast universe or a small one? Rather than to claim that God created the universe for humans, it would thus probably be more accurate to say that God created the universe with humans in mind.
- Does it make any difference for the value of human life how large humans are? The pursuit and attainment of happiness, knowledge and an intellectually fulfilled life, moral virtues, love, interpersonal relations, beauty in art and nature, adventure in life, creativity, fulfillment of our positive capacities, needs, desires, interests and purposes – is all this dependent on our physical size? Would all this be diminished if we were 100 times smaller than we are? I don’t think so. Yes, we might not be able to play guitar or piano, but this holds just as much if we were 100 times larger than we actually are. Would our lives be any more significant or valuable if each us were the size of Jupiter? Hardly. It is just that we would not have any air to breathe or anything to eat, and we would collapse into undifferentiated mush under our own gravity (in the core of Jupiter, hydrogen is crushed by gravity into a high-pressure metal-like state). We are apparently just the right size for what we are by nature.
- If humans cannot get so much larger, how about a smaller universe to “raise our significance”? It turns out that this does not work according to physics. As physicist Stephen Barr writes in his essay on Anthropic Coincidences about age and size of the universe:
“Physics can also suggest why the universe has to be so large. The laws of gravity discovered by Einstein relate the size of the universe directly to its age. The fact that the universe is many billions of light-years across is related to the fact that it has lasted several billions of years. Perhaps we would be less daunted by a cozy little universe the size, say, of a continent. But such a universe would have lasted only a few milliseconds. Even a universe the size of the solar system would have lasted only a few hours. A universe constructed in such a way as to evolve life may well have had to extend widely in space as well as in time. It may well be that the frightening expanses that are so often said to be a sign of human insignificance may actually, like so many other features of our strange universe, point to man, as they also proclaim the glory of God.” (End quote)
Thus, neither can humans be much larger than they are, nor can the universe be much smaller than it is, given the developmental manner in which it was created. Rational analysis shows that the argument for the insignificance of humans based on size, in relation to the sheer vastness of the universe, is merely an emotional argument.
The famous astrophysicist Martin Rees makes a more rational argument in an interview, when asked if he does not feel an infinitely tiny speck of no significance:
“I don’t because the earth, though small in the cosmos may still be a most important part of it. It may be the only place where there’s life like us. And so what makes things fascinating is how complicated they are and not how big they are. And for all we know the earth, tiny though it is, could be the centre of the cosmos in terms of complexity.”
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
What would show the glory of God better, a vast universe or a small one?
Already in the 15th century the Cardinal, theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa claimed that only an infinite universe would be worthy of its Creator. He would have been delighted to see the pictures from the Hubble telescope.
Already in the 15th century the Cardinal, theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa claimed that only an infinite universe would be worthy of its Creator. He would have been delighted to see the pictures from the Hubble telescope.
N
Nigel7
Guest
Maybe our universe is actually very very small. As humans we think that everything has to be relative to us and our own understanding. It’s all just energy, some sort of phenomenon that we understand according to our very limited perception.
What really is time and space?
Hmm?
What really is time and space?
Hmm?
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
According to many cosmologists, at some point in the far distant future our descendents won’t even be able to observe most of our universe due to the expansion of space. From their perspective, the other 100+ billion galaxies that inspire such awe in us now will be nothing more than unverifiable legends.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is hubris to imagine we are the centrepiece of creation even though the Son of God came to our planet. It is possible - and even likely - that He has redeemed other persons in the universe, either through His self-sacrifice here or elsewhere.
Great art is not judged by its utility!
I don’t!
It wasn’t!
More reasons than we can imagine…
- Status