Did God have a beginning?

[nativeastral]

our minds are within the mind of a larger mind or are you taking full credit for your own one?

 

[CroatianCatholic]

No, God did not have a beginning. Scientific evidence has shown that the Universe is expanding and therefore - finite. This means that time is not infinite and therefore matter and space are not infinite. God is eternal because he exists outside of time. It doesn't apply to him as it does to us. He created it.

 

[nativeastral]

No, God did not have a beginning. Scientific evidence has shown that the Universe is expanding and therefore - finite. This means that time is not infinite and therefore matter and space are not infinite. God is eternal because he exists outside of time. It doesn't apply to him as it does to us. He created it.

well, yes apparently Aristotle and the greeks had set back the development of physics for centuries due to their belief in infinity. And the big bang theory as a finite one eventually over rid the steady state and ocsillating one as infinity was so ingrained in scientists minds [despite the Judeao-Christian ex nihilo creation thesis being accepted by the early sciences dominated by this religious paradigm].

Nevertheless do we really know for sure that just because the universe is expanding that it is finite? In reality hypothesis replaces hypothesis as scientific 'knowledge' grows; the hypothesis of g-d stays the same for those who believe in a timeless eternal creator whom we have assigned meaning existence and being to. Unless evidence to the contrary shows otherwise that doesnt involve personal experiential knowledge we can never say for sure what the actual truth of the matter is. there will always be two camps, those who believe and worship a creator god and those who prefer to disbelieve anything super-natural and have 'faith' in science.

 

[Thomas]

And the big bang theory as a finite one eventually over rid the steady state and ocsillating one as infinity was so ingrained in scientists minds [despite the Judeao-Christian ex nihilo creation thesis being accepted by the early sciences dominated by this religious paradigm].

You do know the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Dominican monk? So the ex nihilo thesis is stronger today than it ever was. Pretty good for us Catholics, eh?

Nevertheless do we really know for sure that just because the universe is expanding that it is finite?

That would be the logical implication of the current understanding of science.

In reality hypothesis replaces hypothesis as scientific 'knowledge' grows; the hypothesis of g-d stays the same for those who believe in a timeless eternal creator whom we have assigned meaning existence and being to.

That's a good point.

Science has been obliged to revise its understandings. Christian doctrine, for example, has not, and that a doctrine can remain the sdame for over 2,000 years, and still co-exist with science, says something ...

... and lo, science actually comes down on the side of unchanging doctrine!

There will always be two camps, those who believe and worship a creator god and those who prefer to disbelieve anything super-natural and have 'faith' in science.

What about scientists who have faith in God? It's nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest — the old faith v science debate — there is nothing to preclude a scientist having faith in God, quite the reverse, in fact.

be that as it may however, whether the universe is finite or infinite does not effect God.

Thomas

 

[marcoav]

Re: Did God have a beginning?: In the Beginning

You do know the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Dominican monk? So the ex nihilo thesis is stronger today than it ever was. Pretty good for us Catholics, eh?

Hi. Not only me but also many men of Science currently, i.e. in Physics and Cosmology fields, KNOW that the big bang is a flawed theory that arose from an erroneous interpretation of the Hubble constant (yes, the redshif issue)...
It is an erroneous theory - derived from a defective ultra-materialist view of the universe and life - that been patched through the last decades with theoretical concepts coming from the wildest imagination of the "Bishops" in charge of current institutional scientific body:
- ex: in order to comply with observational data the big bang went form an initial powerful explosion to became a "semeard-out singularity" (?) that expanded till forming the current universe but currently the universe [as matter] not only continues to expand but it has to expand even faster than light (!!!): very astonishing conclusions, taking into account that the same scientific community says 96% of the universe is some sort of substance not yet identified labeled "dark energy" and "dark matter": "The motions of this visible material reveal that it is mere flotsam on an unseen sea of unknown material. We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, "dark matter" and "dark energy," serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance." by Cline, David B., The Search for Dark Matter in the Scientific American, Feb. 2003)

Ironically, the foundational errors of our current scientific theories started with an erroneous inference by a religious man, Rev. Samuel Earnshaw ("Earnshaw's theorem", 1842) who erred in "his assumption that the aether is merely composed of electrically charged particles sitting in a void" (Aspden, H. [1969, 2005]) and opened the way in to the most flawed assumption in science: the special and general theory of relavitivy (!) with its geometrical empty "four-space" (3D space + 1D time [???]). Am i wrong? then listen to words of those who have proved themselves to be great men in the advancement of Science, eg., among some, that i find worthy:

Loius Essen (1908-1997), ["whose most notable achievements were in the precise measurement of time and the determination of the speed of light" (Wikipedia); 1950: 299,792.5±1 km/s]:

• The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their views.
• I was warned that if I persisted (in refuting Einstein's theory) I was likely to spoil my career prospects.
• The general public is misled into believing that science is a mysterious subject which can be understood by only a few exceptionally gifted mathematicians.
• Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favour of dogma.
• ...the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory.

-- in 'Relativity and Time Signals', Wireless World, U.K., October 1978.
​

Currently, there is a very heated debate in the academic and scientific community worldwide since observational astronomic data (measurings) experimental data in laboratories (ex: PVLAS Experiment in 2007 being perplexed with "vacuum [?] acting like a [fluid] crystal" (1) [cf. Aspden, H. in 1998] or UCLA Riverside perplexed in founding in 2003 the "electrostation spin" that no mainstream theory had previously accounted for [cf. Aspden, H. in 1966]; among several others) does not correspond to the existing theories
Current yet insipid knowledge in Science shows that matter is constantly being created with most elementary quantum particles that come into existence from the so labeled "vacuum fluctuations" [of an unseen energy, so labeled "sea of energy": cf. Wiki for vaccum energy, Casimir effect, Van der Waals force: even vacuum is not anymore empty, unline proclaimed by the ideology of materilism in science through the whole last century, but at least is already recognized to be filled with the so called "virtual particles"...].
Ask NASA why it publicly assumed last year, 2008, that they have been throughout the years Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes; there is currently not even any theory in mainstream assumptions showing how G, the constant of gravitation, is determined here on Earth in terms of electrical interaction as between particles; yet arrogance of intellectual proud declares the big bang of the universe of God !?!?!?

Grateful should we be also to our beloved Shakepeare in whose Lay Bible we can learn that "There are more things in heaven and earth, [my friends], Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Btw, not only the big bang theory, which received the blessing of Pope Pius XII in 1951, is flawed as also the interpretation ex nihilo ("out of nothing") is more than an impossibility, it is ILLOGICAL (contrary to the Logos): in Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew text, which may be changed by differently placing the vowels and dividing the words in another way, can be read:
- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
or
- "Out of the ever-existing essence (of space) the twofold energy formed the double heaven." (Heindel, 1909): the "ever-existing essence" not "out of nothing".

Ah, and Light...

Hope this may help for now.
Yours.

_______

1 cf. Revelation 4:6

« We venture to make the assertion that there is but one sin: IGNORANCE, and but one salvation: APPLIED KNOWLEDGE. »

 

[Thomas]

Re: Did God have a beginning?: In the Beginning

OK. Well as no theory is absolute, perfect and flawless, and in the absence of proof as such, I can, as i understand it, hold to what I like.

After all, science has found itself wrong on more than one occasion.

But whatever the theories of the origin of the universe, they do not tell us anything about 'the origin of God' as a question.

Does God have a beginning? No. Why? Because if God had a beginning, God would suffer some order of temporal conditioning, and contingence and change ... and as the word 'God' by definition implies all that is exemplary, then the term 'God' does not allow for contingence, etc.

Does this 'prove' God? No, but it does rather help focus one's thinking on the matter.

Thomas

 

[marcoav]

Please accept my apologies for going a bit off-topic but a very brief correction of a detail in my previous comment i consider also here necessary; please bear with me for a brief moment.

Previously, i have wrote "Current yet insipid knowledge in Science shows that matter is constantly being created ...", but the accurate term i should have employed is constantly RENEWED (...). However, the fiery part of ALL THINGS that i was intending here to prove (1 Thessalonians 5:21) unto you, my friends ...

As a little Prayer from this lost child of yours: Can there be, my Lord, in Thy Will a worthy One that may show the Way unto us all?

 

[nativeastral]

hi markcoav, well, l think you just did, in that eternal moment.

 

[nativeastral]

You do know the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Dominican monk? So the ex nihilo thesis is stronger today than it ever was. Pretty good for us Catholics, eh?

its not a football match, yes the scientific & religious paradigms are matched either way, & has nothing to do with Catholics in particular but the reality or truth essentially



Science has been obliged to revise its understandings. Christian doctrine, for example, has not, and that a doctrine can remain the sdame for over 2,000 years, and still co-exist with science, says something ...

... and lo, science actually comes down on the side of unchanging doctrine!


What about scientists who have faith in God? It's nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest — the old faith v science debate — there is nothing to preclude a scientist having faith in God, quite the reverse, in fact.

be that as it may however, whether the universe is finite or infinite does not effect God.

Thomas

l agree with this outcome at this moment too.

 

[citizenzen]

You do know the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Dominican monk? So the ex nihilo thesis is stronger today than it ever was. Pretty good for us Catholics, eh?

Coming from the side of science, I've said for years, "You want a creative moment? Take the Big Bang. It's right there! It's all yours."

Believing that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago is just nuts.

Science has been obliged to revise its understandings.

That's actually a positive.

Science is obliged to revise it's understandings because we discover new information or improve our ability to detect, test or measure phenomena.

Christian doctrine, for example, has not ...

Like, whatEVER dude.

What about scientists who have faith in God? It's nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest — the old faith v science debate — there is nothing to preclude a scientist having faith in God, quite the reverse, in fact.

On this, we agree. At last, a happy moment.

 

[oldgordy]

Did God have a beginning?




Ps. 90:2: "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."


Is that reasonable?

Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it.


Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it.





(2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

Time is a man devised concept and thus cannot be used to portray the beginning or end of the universe.
With time out of the equation what is is.

We assume everything must have a start and end it may be time to wake up and consider existence without time or size.

 

[shawn]

Did God have a beginning?

How would you know?
Impossible.
people are still arguing over God's existence.
Work on that one first.
Solve it/prove it, then move on to the next rung.
You are way ahead of yourself.
Just makes you look....um....poorly.