The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them

[Into the Night]

So wordy but at the exact same time so incomprehensibly lazy.

 

[Yakuda]

The universe exists.

This is akin to using the word you want to define in the definition. So you're saying the evidence that the universe has always existed is that the universe exists. The universe exists therefore it has always existed. I exist therefore I will always exist. Excellent

 

[Yakuda]

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science, just as the Theory of the Continuum (the universe has always existed and always will).
From our local position, we do observe a so-called 'red shift' of galaxies as they move away from us, but even if they are, our little corner of the universe has nothing do with anywhere else that so far has not been observed.

No boundary of the universe has ever been observed.

Assuming said priest (Lemaître) is proposing a theory that is actually True, where was God before the Big Bang? If He was outside the universe, then the 'universe' isn't the universe. It is not universal.
If God was part of the Big Bang, that directly conflicts with the numerous descriptions of Him being from everlasting to everlasting.

So what Lemaître proposed has some problems that conflicts directly with the Catholic Church and the teachings of God.

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

 

[Into the Night]

...who was ALSO a degreed cosmologist and physicist.

Which do you think was necessary to establish the "Big Bang"? Religious faith or observation and measurement of physical objects?

The Theory of the Big Bang is attractive to people that can't handle the concept of infinity well.

 

[Into the Night]

I am doubtful that it was his Catholicism that carried the day in terms of science. Just like Murray Gell-Mann being way into Buddhism and even tried to apply it in his classification of subatomic particles (riffing on the "8-fold way", if I recall), but at the end of the day it wasn't the Buddhism that made the case, it was the science.

There is no science of the Big Bang. The Theory of the Big Bang is a nonscientific theory.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong.



Why did you mention it?

No? Much of physics is there because people assume the existence of a rational God with rational laws.

 

[Into the Night]

Religion cannot have any role in science.

But it does. It's not a problem.

Nicolas Steno is another prime example. He established the core of much of what we know about old earth Geology but he, himself, ultimately left the sciences and became a Bishop.

Science has no location. The theories of science Steno created don't leave. They are still here. They still originated from him. Becoming a Bishop doesn't change anything.

Murray Gell-Mann (a leader in the early development of the standard model of physics) was heavily influenced by Buddhism when he tried to leverage it for his classification scheme of subatomic particles (8 fold way). BUT THE RELIGIOUS STUFF HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the science per se.

But it did. You gave the example yourself.

Sure the people doing it were religious in one way or another, and maybe even they felt it was a great thing to see the "mind of God" in their discoveries.

I've heard that description, yes.

But religion CANNOT play a role in science

Why not? It does.

since science works ONLY with the testable and/or observable.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Tests in science only try to break a theory of science. That's all.

This is not to say that scientists cannot be religious, but they are forbidden to introduce "miracles" into their science

Void argument fallacy. You have not described any 'miracle'.

and there's almost nothing I can think of that would call for a religious thought in the science lab.

Science isn't a lab.
Many theories of science are inspired by religion. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Into the Night]

This is akin to using the word you want to define in the definition.

Not at all. I am not defining anything.

So you're saying the evidence that the universe has always existed is that the universe exists.

Yes.

The universe exists therefore it has always existed.

Modal fallacy. Nothing about the universe existing requires that it has always existed. Yet the fact that the universe exists is evidence that it may have always existed and always will.

I exist therefore I will always exist.
Excellent

A possibility, but again, a modal fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

I just listed them in my post. Go read it again.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

No? Much of physics is there because people assume the existence of a rational God with rational laws.

So you think religion plays a role in science?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

But it does. It's not a problem.

Science has no location. The theories of science Steno created don't leave. They are still here. They still originated from him. Becoming a Bishop doesn't change anything.

But it did. You gave the example yourself.

I've heard that description, yes.

Why not? It does.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Tests in science only try to break a theory of science. That's all.

Void argument fallacy. You have not described any 'miracle'.

Science isn't a lab.
Many theories of science are inspired by religion. There is nothing wrong with that.

I'm so glad you typed all that out. Here you go.

 

[Yakuda]

Not at all. I am not defining anything.

Yes.

Modal fallacy. Nothing about the universe existing requires that it has always existed. Yet the fact that the universe exists is evidence that it may have always existed and always will.

A possibility, but again, a modal fallacy.

The existence of the universe is evidence only that the universe exists. The fact the universe exists is evidence it may have been created just like the presence of a birthday cakes suggests it was created.

 

[Yakuda]

I just listed them in my post. Go read it again.

I did and I didn't see any specific contradiction to Catholic church teaching mentioned. I may have missed it but I don't believe i did.

 

[Into the Night]

The existence of the universe is evidence only that the universe exists. The fact the universe exists is evidence it may have been created just like the presence of a birthday cakes suggests it was created.

That is also true.

 

[Into the Night]

I did and I didn't see any specific contradiction to Catholic church teaching mentioned. I may have missed it but I don't believe i did.

How would you resolve the paradox of the Big Bang then, and still stay within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Either the 'universe' isn't universal and therefore is not the universe, or
God had a beginning and therefore an end.

Which is it?

 

[Yakuda]

How would you resolve the paradox of the Big Bang then, and still stay within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Either the 'universe' isn't universal and therefore is not the universe, or
God had a beginning and therefore an end.

Which is it?

You've created a false dichotomy. What church teaching is directly contradicted by the theory of the big bang?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

How would you resolve the paradox of the Big Bang then, and still stay within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Either the 'universe' isn't universal and therefore is not the universe, or
God had a beginning and therefore an end.

I don't think those are real paradoxes.

Why would God now have a necessary "end" just because he has a "beginning"? I understand Aquinas use of the "first uncaused cause" but I have never heard of the requirement of an "end" just because something begins.

And as for the universe being eternal just because it is the universe, I've never heard that. How are you defining universe?

 

[Into the Night]

How would you resolve the paradox of the Big Bang then, and still stay within the bounds of the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Either the 'universe' isn't universal and therefore is not the universe, or
God had a beginning and therefore an end.

Which is it?

You've created a false dichotomy. What church teaching is directly contradicted by the theory of the big bang?

You think so? Provide a third alternative.

or resolve the paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think those are real paradoxes.

Paradox. It's a real paradox. There is no other kind of paradox, dumbass.

Why would God now have a necessary "end" just because he has a "beginning"?

RQAA.

I understand Aquinas use of the "first uncaused cause" but I have never heard of the requirement of an "end" just because something begins.

Irrelevant.

And as for the universe being eternal just because it is the universe, I've never heard that. How are you defining universe?

I did not define or create this word. It means the totality of existing things. The whole cosmos. The word has been in use in English and French since 1580, and in Latin even earlier. So has 'universal'. Too bad you don't understand English.

I never said the universe had no beginning and no end just because it exists. You are word stuffing again.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Paradox. It's a real paradox. There is no other kind of paradox, dumbass.

RQAA.

Irrelevant.

I did not define or create this word. It means the totality of existing things. The whole cosmos. The word has been in use in English and French since 1580, and in Latin even earlier. So has 'universal'. Too bad you don't understand English.

I never said the universe had no beginning and no end just because it exists. You are word stuffing again.