Comments for The Big Noise and the Stars at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sun, 26 May 2013 00:11:24 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4997 Ye Olde S.: Only true in the standard topology of the real nos. Every set can be well-ordered, so that (0 , 1) can have a first (least) element. But don't ask me to produce one! - steve ott Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:46:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4703 It is not quite correct to think of the Big Bang as an "explosion" as of something out into a nothing. There was no "empty space" for the hazel nut to explode "into." Space does not exist without the extension of matter, just as time does not exist without the change of matter. (Einstein weirdly echoed Aquinas on this point; and Augustine once laughed at the notion of "before creation," saying, "as if there could be time before time.") It is more that space-time expanded - quite fast - in that first instant, and is still expanding. But there is no more a "first moment" of time than there is a "first real number" in the open interval (0,1). - Ye Olde Statistician Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:50:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4697 Very nice and insightful essay, Brad. It kind of makes one relax a bit...unburden oneself. It makes one see that we really don't have to carry it all, and that there is indeed a purpose to things. - Emina Melonic Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:07:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4693 When the Big Bang theory won out over steady state, I had recently read "Showings" of Julian of Norwich, written in the 1300's, describing when in 1373, she had a vision in part of which the Lord placed a small ball the size of a small hazelnut into her hand, telling her, "This is everything that is." She thought it so small as to almost go to nothing. So I had a nice feeling about the little ball of the scientists. Science cannot prove or disprove God, I knew long ago-but this is lovely. - Patricia Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:41:53 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4692 Robert Spitzer's "New Proofs for the Existence of God" just came out a few weeks ago from Eerdmans. Am slogging through chapter 2, but it is absolutely fascinating, and I think I can recommend it to anyone who has had a good physics course somewhere along the way. He starts with discussions of various cosmological models but then discusses what the odds are that all of the physical constants are just so that a universe hospitable to life exists. He makes the good point that deciding whether such a universe came about because of chance or God is not a decision that science is equipped to make. However, metaphysics can use scienctific data in its arguments for the existence of God. Kudos to Fr. Spitzer! - John Anderson Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:08:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4691 Of course, there was no "bang", or noise of any sort, because there were no airwaves ("In space no one can hear you scream ..."). Fr. Stanley Jaki in his excellent book Genesis One Throughout the Ages argues that it is a mistake to correlate the latest finds of science with the six-day creation account for the simple reason that there is not a single scientific datum in that narrative. "Let there be light" does not have to signify the gamma rays after the Big Bang. And so forth. - George Sim Johnston Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:24:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4690 Joe, I suspect that your print shop analogy doesn't convey what you intend. It is the kind of illustration used to show a weakness in the Darwinist notion that nothing but chance is required to explain the existence of you and me. God, being not a thing, is by definition an uncaused being. Since time is defined by physical relationships, there was no time prior to the "big bang". Time is a meaningless term on the other side of that divide. For the same reason the term "beginning" has no meaning before the big bang. That was the beginning of everything. It was a singularity. In the Bible, God calls Himself "I am". Such a being is outside of time (transcendent). Our brains are indeed feeble when compared to a consciousness capable of enabling the observable universe, but smart guys Like St. Thomas have been over this stuff for Joes like us. - Other Joe Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:55:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4689 As someone once put it, the idea that the universe and all that's in it started with a Big Bang is akin to the notion that an explosion takes place in a print shop and the result is a dictionary. Or, the watch and watch-maker analogy is instructive. Still, the thought constantly arises: If everything must have a first cause, then who made God? When did He/She/It have a beginning? So we are once again back to square one, overworking our feeble minds for answers that always will be elusive. Still, it's fun to speculate how this crazy cosmos, sometimes perfectly in sync and at other times seemingly totally disordered, came to be -- even though we never will. - Joe Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:59:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4688 Nice column, however it's a little misleading to say Einstein believed in a "steady state" theory prior to Lemaitre's work; more accurately he inherited the "static" universe of the 19th century Newtonian astronomers. The steady state theory of Hoyle and Bondi posited (implausibly) a continuous creation of matter out of nothing to keep the universe in what appeared to be a steady state. Einstein explicitly denigrated this idea. A minor quibble, but for what it's worth. - John Farrell Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:30:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-big-noise-and-the-stars.html#comment-4687 Nietzsche actually formulated a theory of the cosmos in the 1880s similar to Fr. Lemaitre's, and that view became the basis of his belief in what Nietzsche called the eternal recurrence. He posited that since there exists a finite amount of matter/energy and an infinity of time, the universe must not only expand, but that, failing to reach escape velocity, it collapses upon itself and then explodes again--eternally. How sad that the poor soul refused to see the Hand of God at work! He was almost right but infinitely, tragically mistaken. (He also positied that since matter/energy is finite and time is infinitee everything that can happen has happened and will again. Talk about Deja Vu!) - Thomas C. Coleman, Jr. Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:27:04 +0100