"Robert Schneider" <rss1174@SPAMMENOT.earthlink.net> wrote in message

"AlEvan" <adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com> wrote in message
news:c3317e8d.0309300506.1a732483@posting.google.com...

Science's ability to discern beginnings is that the progression of the
Universe can be traced back to a particular point in place and of
time: Zero. We talk in terms of "15 billion years, or so, ago",
however that moment is actually physical time zero, and physical point
zero, in what science calls the Continuum of Space and Time. It is
from that precise moment that time and space begin.

We don't know that for a fact. There may or may not have been a

There are other cosmological models (the multiverse model, in

that don't make the assumption that space-time began with the Big Bang.

It is also from that precise moment that that which the science
of Physics studies begins (NOTE: I use the word "Physics" to cover
all branches stemming from that kind of scientific study-to include
Astrophysics, etc. It is the same with "Chemistry" and "Biology.").
It is over the course of time and space, and the activity of that
which the science of Physics studies, that that which the science of
Chemistry studies occurs. Finally, over the course of more time, and
more space, and more physical and chemical activity, that which the
science of Biology studies begins.
However, the time and space in which the logic of the universe is
forever set is, to us, an instant. The direction of what science will
study begins in what we would call, "an instant!" We know that this
is true because biological occurrences, chemical occurrences, and
physical occurrences can be traced back to a precise moment in time
and space when everything begins.
Furthermore, the rules (Laws) which science study's do not change
over time: What is there is there! Science does not put it there.
Science looks, finds it, and then attempts to explain what it finds by
measuring and cataloging and describing what is already there. This
is why there can even be Physical, Chemical, and Biological sciences
at all: The rules themselves do not ever change-but they do have to
be discovered, measured, and interpreted by science.

I would think that it would be more accurate to say that our

of the rules improves with increased knowledge. Newton's "Laws" turned

not to be laws at all but a good approximation of events at low

Science uses human reasoning (LOGIC) to determine the meaning of
what is seen and measured. Reasoning, itself, however, cannot be
seen or touched: It is proved to exist through in result of its
process: Do the conclusions explain the witnessed activity? Can the
activity be reproduced with the same results and conclusions?
Science, therefore, assumes reason exists. Science uses it as if
it were a real (touchable and measurable) thing. However, because it
can neither be seen nor touched, science accepts it only because the
answers it receives from its use satisfy its need for question
resolution.
Since there is a point in time and space when all things in our
universe begin, the questions reasonably arise, "How, and why, did it
get there?" However, this is the point in time and space when science
cannot reasonably explain an observed event. Science's observations
indicate that somehow, someway, something came from nothing. This is
contrary to everything else that scientific observation, measurement
and reason and logic teach us. There is no obvious resolution on the
scientific horizon that can, or will, explain everything.
A response to this conundrum is God. God is construed as the
ultimate beginning. God is also, therefore, the ultimate rule giver.
This, however, does not, in itself, deduce a "Personal God" (a God
Who cares about His creation). And, now, I'm tired, and want to go
to sleep. All this thinking gives me a headache.
AlEvan

If all things in the universe require a beginning, how and why did gods

into existence? The inclusion of gods in the universe doesn't resolve
anything. They are only redundancies.

We don't know that for a fact. There may or may not have been a

There are other cosmological models (the multiverse model, in

that don't make the assumption that space-time began with the Big Bang.

This point is moot: We cannot or don't know! Therefore, if we must
use scientific method, we go with what is observable, measurable,
and/or deductible-and not with what could be. What could be puts
scientific thinking on an equivalent plane to theological thinking.
That makes one method as right as the other. I don't think that
that's what you meant.

I would think that it would be more accurate to say that our

of the rules improves with increased knowledge. Newton's "Laws" turned

not to be laws at all but a good approximation of events at low

I don't understand where you think I went wrong. This is exactly what
I am saying. The point I was making is that they are not Newton's
Laws, or Einstein's, or Hawkins' or anyone elses. They are there!
Science finds them measures them, etc.

If all things in the universe require a beginning, how and why did gods

into existence? The inclusion of gods in the universe doesn't resolve
anything. They are only redundancies.

St. Thomas Aquinas 2nd argument for the existance of God:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world
of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no
case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found
to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to
itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not
possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes
following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause
is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any
intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on
to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes;
all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a
first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

St. Thomas Aquianas on the Simplicity of God:
Whether essence and existence are the same in God?
Objection 1. It seems that essence and existence are not the same in
God. For if it be so, then the divine being has nothing added to it.
Now being to which no addition is made is universal being which is
predicated of all things. Therefore it follows that God is being in
general which can be predicated of everything. But this is false: "For
men gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood" (Wis. 14:21).
Therefore God's existence is not His essence.

Objection 2. Further, we can know "whether" God exists as said above
(2, 2); but we cannot know "what" He is. Therefore God's existence is
not the same as His essence--that is, as His quiddity or nature.

On the contrary, Hilary says (Trin. vii): "In God existence is not an
accidental quality, but subsisting truth." Therefore what subsists in
God is His existence.

I answer that, God is not only His own essence, as shown in the
preceding article, but also His own existence. This may be shown in
several ways.

First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either
by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that
necessarily accompanies the species--as the faculty of laughing is
proper to a man--and is caused by the constituent principles of the
species), or by some exterior agent--as heat is caused in water by
fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence,
this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its
essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to
be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be
the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused.
Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must
have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God;
because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is
impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.

Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual;
for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they
are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to
essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to
potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as
shown above (1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from
existence. Therefore His essence is His existence.

Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire,
is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not
existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as
shown above (3) if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be
not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the
first being--which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and
not merely His own essence.

Reply to Objection 1. A thing that has nothing added to it can be of
two kinds. Either its essence precludes any addition; thus, for
example, it is of the essence of an irrational animal to be without
reason. Or we may understand a thing to have nothing added to it,
inasmuch as its essence does not require that anything should be added
to it; thus the genus animal is without reason, because it is not of
the essence of animal in general to have reason; but neither is it to
lack reason. And so the divine being has nothing added to it in the
first sense; whereas universal being has nothing added to it in the
second sense.

Reply to Objection 2. "To be" can mean either of two things. It may
mean the act of essence, or it may mean the composition of a
proposition effected by the mind in joining a predicate to a subject.
Taking "to be" in the first sense, we cannot understand God's
existence nor His essence; but only in the second sense. We know that
this proposition which we form about God when we say "God is," is
true; and this we know from His effects (2, 2).

That's a lot to read, but it answers the question. Have fun.
I'm going back to sleep.
Al Evan

dkl28@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote:

I think you'd have a hard time proving that, what if all things
in our universe have always existed and so far you've only been
able to track them back to the most recent bang? Also just
because we can't get to what you call time 0 today, doesn't
mean we will never be able to get there or even beyond...

We know many things today that were previously thought
unknowable by most in history, its certainly possible that
future generations will look back at our shortcomings with
equal mirth.

First of all, there is a physical shift to the red side of the
spectrum the further out astronomers search out galaxies with their
telescopes. This indicates, as far as I know, that matter is picking
up speed the further out in the universe it goes:

...This does not indicate, to me, anyway,
that there will come a time when matter will come back together and
"Bang" again.

If fact, it indicates, to me, that, over time the
universe, as we know it presently, will no longer exist.

What will be here, I don't know. Nor do I care, as I and my
family and everyone else here on earth--and anywhere else in the
universe for that matter (except for God, of course)--

If God is infinite,

You do not disprove God by positing longer and longer time spans
for creation; or positing multiple creations--or even
re-creations--since God is everywhere and every time.

Now, I'm tired again, and must rest. My noggin hurts.