This is scratching at a need to describe the history of science as part of catechizing Catholic youth. Great video.

@ThomisticInstitute

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the encouragement! God bless you.

@deanc685

2 жыл бұрын

@@ThomisticInstitute The work you are doing is laying a foundation to improve preaching and teaching Catholic youth to help reconcile their concerns about faith and science. There is a lot of material out there from Protestants which may be good but as Dominicans there is always, in the back of our minds, a dress of accidentally preaching heresy. While TI does not have the capacity to work with those working at the grass root or diocesan level what would be helpful would be a “train the trainer” seminar for third order religious or laity scientists or teachers on teaching about faith, reason, and science. In Christ and St Dominic, Dean C

@michaelsaint9794

2 жыл бұрын

@@deanc685 You are brilliant. This is a huge point. Is anyone doing this? How many people do we meet who say, "... but Science.", "I believe in Science.", or the like? A competent re-presentation of "science" & its methodologies, and its history - while acknowledging the world, Creation, humanity and The Church - should gather so many minds. Especially so whence "catechizing young minds", and all those infected by Modernism (& other errors). Bravo, much. needed. insight. Thank you!

@donquixotedelamancha58

Жыл бұрын

I'm doing that already

You forgot to say he was a friend of Albert Einstein who believed in an infinite universe. The conversation lasted 25 years and the great scientist accepted the theory.

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

There is no evidence that it is not infinite.

"Light was released from matter; it began its independent existence. If you wish, 'light was separated from darkness.'" That hit me smack between the eyes.

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

Completely different statements

Great video! Going to have students in a Sunday school class watch. Will you all make a video on the “Fine Tuned Universe” theory found in science?

Love the detail that she, being a laywoman, wears the same colors than the Order of Preachers ❤️

"Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created. He established them forever and ever; He fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed." ~ Psalm 148: 5-6

Great video. Thanks.

@ThomisticInstitute

Жыл бұрын

Our pleasure! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

Spread the word

Cool, thanks Fr. Lemaitre

Excellent!!

@ThomisticInstitute

2 жыл бұрын

Many thanks!

I would have titled it "Why the Big Bang matches the Catholic understanding of the universe"

Proved once again that science and religion complement each other.

@standev1

2 жыл бұрын

True science - yes. However in this case, one has to do great harm to religion in order to pretend it somehow fits with the erroneous theory of Fr. Lemaitre.

@winstonbarquez9538

2 жыл бұрын

@@standev1 pray tell what erroneous theory? Are you referring to Fr Lemaitre's theory of the expanding universe, which has been corroborated by Einstein, Hubble, Penzias and Wilson?

@standev1

2 жыл бұрын

@@winstonbarquez9538 I am referring to the theory of Big Bang discussed in the video, yes.

@winstonbarquez9538

2 жыл бұрын

@@standev1 why so?

@standev1

2 жыл бұрын

@@winstonbarquez9538 it contradicts the divine revelation about the creation of the world. Genesis 1 tells us how God created the world. First, the Earth was created, covered by waters. Then the light. Then the plants. Only later the Sun and the moon, and the stars. We have to believe the infallible Word of God, not the fashionable theories of the day.

A wonderfully accessible podcast. Let those who have ears hear. Thank you!

@ThomisticInstitute

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening. God bless you!

The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha2), where Mo is the observed mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world), and (alpha2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon's needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell's inequality AND Buffon's problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations-- no citation needed.)

A quantum closed-loop string is 2Pi, where the radius is equal to the circumference and a unit circle EXISTS, but has no radius or circumference-- it reconciles (instantaneous) quantum entanglement of gravitational and electrostatic forces, but is paradoxically undefined in the equation expressing the mass needed to reconcile those same forces: M = Mo/ (2Pi - 1)(alpha2), expressed in my post immediately 3 step below this one (in date order).

CCC: 296 📖 we believe that God needs no pre-existing thing in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance God creates freely “OUT OF NOTHING.”💥

I remember when I studied back then, we were still (or are we still?) questioning whether the expansion of the visible universe will continue on or will it come to a halt and then contract to "start things all over" again. I'm not sure even if we can compress and blend all matters out there into a single point again that the "big bang" will start again, because if infinite amount of mass is concentrated into a single entity, wouldn't it make the gravity infinitely huge that nothing will ever start again? Not to mention that space itself was created out of the "big bang", and so I don't think even if all matters in the universe contract again, space itself would return to "no-space" existence. Isn't it taught that just after the big bang, since matters as we know them had not existed yet, therefore gravity was not there yet (because gravity can only exist where there is "mass"?) and that is why the "big bang" could start in the first place? Or am I mistaken? So I just think we have black holes, where they are supposedly "singularities" where "law of physics break down" but still black holes exhibit mass and hence gravity, therefore even black holes do not eradicate mass and set laws of nature, as we can study them as well and make models of them. Also, as the "big bang" unfolded, everything seemed to fall into place rather rapidly as though there was already an invisible mold of "rules" set to be so, that the "law of physics" was already there invisibly as things went along, that it is not "matters" that made the law of nature, but the law of nature arranges matters and all. How do you explain the creation of the laws of nature? the "big bang" of the laws of physics? As though logic itself can fall into place to make itself logical? My point is that, the "big bang" couldn't be a countless repeated process, but I think it was once and for all because of the obvious irreversibility of things. You just can't undo certain things back in time even if you "re-create" a primordial condition by smashing particles at light speed or something, or smashing black holes at light speed for that matter. There must be a Primary Agent that caused everything if things, that is all things made, are never truly irreversible.

@boku5192

2 жыл бұрын

Well said

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

You need to forget the Old Earth & Evolution of Life paradigms that most scientists RELIGIOUSLY believe. There were no Laws of Physics during Creation. Adam was created to live for ever. The Earth & the Universe were created in God's realm ... where only God's laws apply. The Laws of Physics came into existence ... when Adam & Even sinned .. and brought decay and death to all of creation Genesis is clear ... the the Earth was instantly created first in the vast dark emptiness of sapce ( with no laws of physics). Then God said "Let there be light" and he then defined night & day. What was the source of that light? The Stars, Sun & Moon appear in Day 4. Remember that there is only the Earth all alone in space ... and then a bright light appears. Yes. It was the Big Bang ... billions of light years(distance) from Earth. The Earth & Universe were created apart from each other. God created the Universe over 4 days, rapidly expanding its size, and he stopped its expansion once the Universe reached & passed Earth. When God stopped the expansion, it fixed the Stars in the skies, ... then God made the Sun, Moon & planets and set them & Earth in their orbits. Again. There is no speed of light during creation. EArth & the Universe were created in God's realm. The Laws of Physics came into existence ... with the fall of Mankind. The Universe & Earth are less than 6000 years old. We nows know that God has given man 6000 years to reign before Jesus returns for the 1000 year reign then judgement day. The Jews have a creation year of 3760 which makes Earth around 5780 years old. It's not the creation year but the fall of mankind date. Christians are way off, with Man already ruling 6000 years The actual creation year somewhere between 3950 - 3760 BC And again, there were no laws of physics during Creation. The Laws came into existence with the Fall of Man.

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

The fact is we dont know exactly. And thata ok.

Great enterprise. I just had this shared on my facebook. Am having difficulty determining though which of the elements Helium and Hydrogen was formed first. Other articles I had read and video watched on this topic seems to state that it was hydrogen which did. While in here, it seems it's helium instead.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌌 *The Compatibility of Big Bang and Catholic Creation* - Introduction to reconciling the Big Bang theory with the Catholic understanding of creation. - Historical context: Initially met with skepticism not for contradicting Christianity but seemingly confirming it. - Lemaître's proposal in the late 1920s challenged the prevailing idea of an infinitely existing universe. 01:30 🌌 *The Big Bang as a Beginning* - Clarification that the Big Bang is the beginning of our material cosmos but not creation out of nothing. - Emphasizes that the Big Bang, while not theological proof, makes the question of existence more significant. - Links the Big Bang theory to the notion of creatio ex nihilo and its implications for the universe's existence. 03:26 🔬 *Unfolding of the Early Universe* - Describes the early stages after the Big Bang, including the cooling, separation of physical forces, and the formation of complex particles. - Highlights the significant events during the first minutes and 400,000 years after the Big Bang. - Introduction of recombination, the release of light, and the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. 05:42 🌌 *Emergence of Stars and Building Blocks* - Narrates the formation of stars from collapsing gas, leading to the emergence of a new cosmos. - Explains the role of stars in producing heavier elements through fusion and supernovae explosions. - Connects the scientific account with the Christian tradition's emphasis on creation unfolding over time. 07:30 🤔 *Catholic Church's Reception and Fr. Lemaître* - Explores the compatibility of modern cosmology with the Christian narrative, contrasting it with earlier static cosmologies. - Discusses the warm welcome of the Big Bang theory by the Catholic Church, notably by Pope Pius XII. - Reflects on Fr. Lemaître's unique qualifications, blending scientific expertise with theological understanding. 08:53 🙏 *Fr. Lemaître's Contribution* - Acknowledges Fr. Lemaître's dual expertise in science and mathematics. - Speculates on the possible influence of Lemaître's theological knowledge in shaping his scientific ideas. - Contemplates how Fr. Lemaître's insight, coupled with a theological perspective, led to the groundbreaking discovery of the Big Bang theory.

beautiful

psalms 119

Wonderfully fascinating to contemplate.

The Thomistic PBS Spacetime

The closest thing to absolute certainty is found in abstract math (in application, there is always an uncertainty, like when counting apples). The best that can be done in the real world is to bet on the odds, while accepting the risk. BOTTOM-UP (Big Bang) cosmology had bet on smaller primal galaxies with the JWST, and lost; whereas, TOP-DOWN cosmology PREDICTED larger primal galaxies, and won. Betting on the odds, TOP-DOWN WINS-- no need for citation because relating the definition of "TOP-DOWN" to the JWST findings of larger primal galaxies is a NEAR TAUTOLOGY!

I am not a theologian, but I was raised as a Christian. Therefore, I accepted the Gospels as historical records. However, what the Genesis narrative tells us of the beginning aligns differently with what science teaches. So, as a result, I accepted the story of creation on faith. Later, as an adult, I read a popular science magazine article about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and how its data reveals that our Earth and solar system may be cosmically aligned. Then came the Planck satellite confirming the WMAP data. Could this be evidence that the book of Genesis is based on historical events? Perhaps, but unfortunately, I am not a scientist and can only understand about one percent of the science. Nevertheless, according to cosmologists, one thing is evident, the alignments somehow exist! Moreover, because the data does not fit the Standard Model of Cosmology, scientists dubbed it the Axis of Evil. But, as reported by Genesis, would these alignments be the Axis of Beginning? Did WMAP and the Planck satellites' data of the cosmic microwave background reveal a universe aligned with the Earth and solar system that may show Genesis as history? This may be why scientists are so silent concerning these alignments. And do these alignments support the Big Bang? Could this data be relative to a possible cosmic model of Intelligent Design? Instead of an Axis of Evil, what if these alignments show an actual Axis of Beginning?

From the video I understand that, on the one hand the big bang theory means we don't have an eternal universe. On the other hand it is not creation ex nihilo. Not sure I know how to square these yet.

@urlanbarros

2 жыл бұрын

If we don't have an eternal universe, then it was created. If it was created, it happened from nothing, ex nihilo; otherwise, we'd have an universe, but it contradicts the first. It's simpler to understand the sequence of causes until God because the universe was created by Him. But, if God wanted, the universe could be eternal.

@stormchaser9738

2 жыл бұрын

The Big Bang itself is not ex-nihlio, since it arose out a pre-existing singularity or something like it. That being said, it points to a non-eternal universe that would’ve needed to be created ex-nihlio. Where did the singularity come from? It was either created or it’s eternal. But if it’s eternal, then that means it existed for infinite time and randomly woke up one day and decided “you know what, I’m going to explode and make a whole universe.” Which makes no sense to me, since nothing could have possibly changed to trigger that. Therefore the Big Bang theory strongly points towards an ex-nihlio creation.

@wowaconia

2 жыл бұрын

​@@stormchaser9738 How does it point to creation ex-nihilo? All the data indicates that matter/energy has always existed in some form. Scientists call its current configuration "the Universe". Also, time is a measure of change and there was no change in the initial singularity until the quantum fluctuation/"Big Bang" so there is no time before the initial singularity. Time only begins with the expansion. Saying there is time before time, is like saying lets walk north of the north pole. In creation ex-nihilo there is not even space/void until Creation as there is only YHWH who is not physical matter/energy and does not have/use space. So by this, there can not be some other god that makes space and YHWH puts stuff into that space - there is only YHWH and "no-thing" which he makes stuff out of somehow. This is because the only other option is creation ex-deo, him making stuff out of parts of himself - but as Aquinas says YHWH has no parts (he can't be broken down into pieces).

Using my TOP DOWN cosmology, the rate of change of alpha is -2.7958 x 10^-17/ year, based upon a perceived age of the universe of 13.799 x 10^9 years.

God's work takes time with in the universe and science explains everything, the big bang theory is true in the sense that the universe is expanding like in our own world, our planet... What Msgr George's Lemaitre emphasize in his theory was true though I don't have the degree to prove my self but with an open mind and a practicality around us, makes sense....

imagine a universe that starts with a single particle of gigantic mass that spontaneously divides into two smaller masses (with a force that unites them, like, say primordial gravity). Imagine that over "time" the process of division continues, producing "newer," lighter particles (and forces that unite them) over "time." (Note: The cascade of particles is presently observed as nuclear decay, where heavier elements spontaneously transition into lighter elements.) To see how rapidly the NUMBER of particles (of increasingly smaller mass) can grow in a short amount of time, just multiply 2 x 2 = repeatedly on a small calculator-- in a very short time the numbers go off the scale. Just imagine, then, IN THE PROCESS OF DIVIDING, heavier masses that eventually form galaxies divide over time, seeming coming from nowhere at each epoch of division. This process is known as TOP DOWN evolution. In the end, you have present-day smaller galaxies, plus the cosmic heat signature of NOW-EXTINCT past elements (including galaxies), known today as the cosmic microwave background radiation. (Note: Smaller early galaxies are required by the BOTTOM UP big bang theory, where predicted smaller galaxies form larger galaxies over time, and where the predicted cosmic microwave background radiation would be "smooth," rather than "lumpy," like it would be with the TOP DOWN process I just described.) (PS: Leave the origin of our universe to other theories, PLEASE, so as not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater.")

It is only a "theory" in his curiosity in astronomy.

Why we didn't learn this on school?!!!!

@CedanyTheAlaskan

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly private schools(Catholic schools in particular) dumb down a lot of study. Not equipping it's students to defend the faith in a charitable loving way. I do hope we have a revival

@A_Skeptic

2 жыл бұрын

@@CedanyTheAlaskan same brother

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

Because it’s nonsense. This is Christian propaganda

We don't need Rocket science...We need believers..God spoke and it was :)

It is to be noted that atheistic scientists are desperate to account for the bb event without God. No one is successful yet.

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

Wrong

Hydrogen-rich stars and galaxies of equivalent mass, respectively, previously and inappropriately deemed to be colliding under BOTTOM UP (BBT) cosmology are actually and appropriately DIVIDING under TOP DOWN cosmology, which respects and predicts this behavior from evolutionary changes regarding critical masses (witness our own galaxy and Andromeda, representing main sequence evolution).

Those who do not know their past cannot hope to truly know their future. There is a cabal hiding that past in the present paradigm, IMO

Euler's "proof of God" is equivalent to (2pi - 1) = 0 in the quantum realm.

If there was a big bang, there had to be a Big Banger,

Its not a contradiction if the Creator made the Big bang happen...

דאס איז א פאנטאסטיש ווידעא. די פראפעסארין איז זייער קלאר. הער לעמעטרע איז געווען אן עכט געני.

It’s not just a Catholic doctrine of creation that celebrates science, any Christian classical theist celebrates science and doesn’t look for God in the lacuna of physical processes in a physical order. Rather the entire physical order in its completeness testifies of its creator.

Unfortunately the new in vouge theory is eternal inflation. In which an ever exponentially expanding inflaton field spontaneously develops pockets which drop into a lower energy state and slow their expansion, leading to new universes. These pockets which are quickly isolated from eachother via the rapid inflation of the space outside the pocket.

@jakechen8273

2 жыл бұрын

Inflation theory is very popular nowadays, but it has some serious problems, so it's quite early to make any certain judgement. In fact even for the new inflation theory, one can derive theoretically that there has to be a singularity in some past. Actually, past time infinity is a robust prediction of the theory of general relativity.

G.A.T.C

“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” - St. Augustine, City of God 12.10

@avechristusrexx

2 жыл бұрын

Love your channel, brother! :)

@jakechen8273

2 жыл бұрын

This is quite silly, given in St. Augustine's time cosmology is not separable to mythology. The Manichaean cosmology that St. Augustine was attracted to is especially elaborate but has little grounding in empirical observation. This is very different from modern cosmology which has quite strong support both from observational and theoretical sides.

@boku5192

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakechen8273 true

@jakechen8273

2 жыл бұрын

@@boku5192 Thanks! BTW, I'd like to clarify that I'm actually a fan of @The Byzantine Scotist 's channel on bible and Scotism. A lot of good resources and insightful comments. I just disagree with his specific take here on modern cosmology.

@thstroyur

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jakechen8273 "This is very different from modern cosmology which has quite strong support both from observational and theoretical sides" That is contentious: cosmology (and moreso cosmogony), just like any other discipline within what we may term "Natural History", assumes uniformitarian conditions that are hard to justify beyond blind belief in them, and which, BTW, presuppose methodological naturalism; the _fact_ of an increasingly large amount of astronomical data (mostly - but not exclusively - the measured properties of starlight) being fitted within a RW/LCDM framework or similar shouldn't distract us from that fact, nor from the other fact that the lion's share of our _direct_ physical experimentation has so far been confined to this lil' place I like to call 'the Solar System' - yet here we are, pontificating about the physics of places and objects millions to billions of parsecs from here, as if it's been written in stone...

The Book of Genesis was written far after the events it states, if you go the literal route in interpretation. Why would its writer have intended to make this a literal story if he was writing thousands of years after the timeline? Lots of creation myths share very similar themes with the Christian narrative. I’d say there is a good reason for that.

1:18 material reality. Not reality. Thats where creation doesnt fit. Stop there, thesis invalid.

Friedmann did it better.

The Bible view of creation implies plastic formation. in the book of Genesis God made people in this case Adam and Eve out of the Earth. But take a step back where does the Earth comes from? it is anbiguous in the Bible. Any of you read the Genesis stories in the Bible? the Seven days one and the Adam and Eve. When we think about this we want to see what it is implied here. because we have two different images of God that are implicit in all of this. God is creator or perfect. God undertands is one kind of view to some extend God is separate from creation. That God made the world and he understand this other creature that he made. The second view is that God is absolute not separate from creation. and it goes by man is not separate . Man is not independent. Christ in me. God is absolute reality not an item in reality which is the way we usually speak of God. God is the ground of all reality.

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

Got evidence for this god?

It doesn't make sense philosophically that the universe is expanding: Where is it expanding to? Then, science cannot study origins, as it is an event of the past, not subject to experimentation. Besides, origins is the making of the universe which science studies, and in order to study something, that something has to be complete - it's as if I handed in a paper to my instructor, and kept changing it as he reviewed it: he would never be able to say anything definitive about my paper, i.e. no science. While it is conceptually not impossible to reconcile modern science with faith, the fact is that modern science lacks a lot of science. What you need is people well trained in logic and philosophy, and the Catholic Faith, to do science; then you'll have real results. Modern scientists use a lot of phantasy and imagination, and abuse of their status as reasonable, truthful, people (besides, being atheists, they're not bound to the 8th Commandment). Ditto!

@mrwater5772

Жыл бұрын

Philosophy is a atrocious method of finding truth. You are very ignorant.

Of course you can reconcile the two, if they both have a Catholic link. But a religious Catholic is ultimately a believer of God the Father, Son & Spirit ... and ... the Word of God, especially Genesis. You're a Christian first ... and a Catholic second. So you actually should be reconciling the Big Bang that was proposed by a Christian who believed in a "long" Creation .... with .... the literal 6 day Creation which most Christians believe.. Genesis is clear that it was a 6 day creation, not 14.7 billion years. Followers of any Christian religion, should not adjust what God's word says ... to be consistent or "reconcile" with the the latest scientific hypothesis or theory that is clearly of the "Old Earth" & "Evolution of Life" paradigm. The Big Bang actually does support the ... 6 day creation of the Heavens & the Earth, and of all Life .. and you need this very important fact from the Creation: Adam was created to live for ever, never grow old, never ... decay. There were no Laws of Physics .. during Creation. There is no Time as we know it, in the Spirit realm. When we die, we go straight to judgement day in the future. This is why Jesus said we must be always ready for his return, as we do not know the day or time ..... we will die. Knowing there is no speed of light ... during creation ... when God in Genesis 1, from the formless Earth all alone in the vast darkness of space, says "Let there be light," what was that source of light that suddenly shone like a star? Yes. The Big Bang was the Light as God began the creation of the Universe billions of light years(distance) from Earth that would take 4 days for the expanding Universe to reach & pass Earth. God then slowed or stopped the expansion of the Universe ... to fix the stars in the sky ... and then he personally created the Sun & Moon and planets of the Solar System. The Universe was created over 4 days. The formless Earth was created instantly ... and placed alone in the in the vast blackness of space ... which had no laws of physica. The Laws of Physics came into existence ... when Adam & Eve sinned. Remember Adam was created to live for ever, never grow old, never decay, never die. God told Adam that if he eats from the tree of Knowledge then he, and therefore all of Creation will decay and die. The Catholic religion needs to stop allowing man's contradictory beliefs and so-called "facts" to question the credibility of God's Word on key historical events like the origin of the Universe, Earth and all life. The Universe was created in 4 days. The Earth is around 6 000 years old. And science actually fully supports the Supernatural creation of the Universe and all life ... by something very powerful with intellect. The Function & Machine Categories along with the Big Bang ... are the definitive proofs of the Creation. The Universe & everything in it has a function or purpose. A machine is a physical function, that requires specific ENERGY, MATTER, TIME & SPACE in order to exist and to function. All machines are UNNATURALLY made & made to function. Nature & natural processes over any period of time ... can never make a simple mechanical machine like a wheel, hammer, nail, lever, nut, bolt ... and can not make them function. Man can unaturally make a machine ... that unnaturally makes a machine. But the human body is a complete machine composed of trillions upon trillions of machines. The first machine in the universe, must be SUPERNATURALLY made The Universe & everything in it, has a function or purpose ... and must be SUPERNATURALLY made. God created the Laws of physics that governed the Scientific method. Science is completely God friendly. And God has made the proof of his existence simple ... once you understand everything has a function or purpose.

Please re-read Genesis 1 and compare it to what you are saying in this video. TBB is utterly incompatible with Genesis. You have to completely disregard Genesis to claim otherwise. First, the Earth was created, covered by waters. Then the light. Then the plants. Only later the Sun and the moon, and the stars.

@Paul-qr7hu

2 жыл бұрын

Listen properly. 1:55