Catholics and The Big Bang Theory
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- Scientific study has produced a lot of theories about the origins of the world and how it works, but sometimes, religious types don't know or aren't interested. Here's why the Big Bang Theory is important to us as Catholic Christians.
Donate Monthly: / breakinginthehabit
One-time gifts: www.paypal.me/...
Blog: breakingintheha...
Facebook: / caseyofm
Twitter: / caseyofm
Instagram: / caseyofm
Interested in becoming a friar?
www.Beafranciscan.org
www.ofm.org/vocations
Confession : I am not Catholic and I was not raised Catholic.
One thing I always liked about Catholicism (vs denominations) is it's love of science. I wish more people knew about that. I think Christian denominations' rejection of science and scientific theory does more to turn people away from Christianity than anything. When you see a pastor standing at a pulpit wildly swinging his arms and screaming that men didn't descend from monkeys, and God literally snapped His fingers and men magically appeared, it's hard to take anything seriously. He looks fanatical. It's like listening to someone say the earth is flat and the scientists who claim otherwise are all conspiring against us. It sounds crazy...
I love the Catholic "no-nonsense" approach to both the Bible and science.
The interesting thing is, at least for me, is that I don't see much of a disconnect between science and the belief in God. I've always thought of science as a tool God has made available for us humans to discover truths. And perhaps, science is also something to describe how He made things go. So I always found it strange that some or maybe even a lot of scientists are so against the notion of the existence of God.
thats because protestants are judaizers🤣🤣
I've always loved the Catholic Church. I pray that you might consider coming on over to the very Church that Christ established. :)
@@scott6504 Who doesn't love a pedo ring?
Peace be unto you brother.
He kinda looks like the monk version of mattpat
Oh myyyy he does
Yo I've thought this forever, I thought I was alone.
Ahaha mattpat
@Ellis Francis same
YESS!
As someone coming at this from the complete opposite direction. .(I was a lifelong atheist scientist who was baptized this vigil) I definitely find this interesting
E = Mc2 ,...answers all u need to know about anything
Aw bless, it's the "I used to be an atheist" line.
You rock
hey cheers anthony. I'm in the same boat (not the scientist part, I'm a college dropout lol) but I'm also a former lifelong athiest who is trying to find the right time to enter into RCIA soon. Always comforting to see others going through the same thing.
@@orangedalmatian there is a RUclips series on rcia. . It usually starts in Aug ( since catechumens are baptized at Eastervigil). Try to visit your local parish and see if they have an rcia program. .I was catechumen 2 yes ago then director asked me to return as one of the catechists
As a Christian and fellow brother in Christ it is relief that another group of brothers in Christ except science for what it is and not reject it. I’m just sad that many of my Christian brothers and sisters constantly reject science no matter how much empirical evidence I present to them. Thank you @breaking the habit
As Wehner Heisenberg (allegedly) said:
"Your first drink from the cup of natural science will make you an atheist but God is waiting for you at the bottom of the glass"
The Glass is never empty, there is always more to explain and be explained.
Question for that (alleged) statement is... "Which God?" Sky Daddy? Spinoza's God? Krishna? Om?
@@marksmadhousemetaphysicalm2938 Irrelevant, until they can show that gods are even possible, everything else is just assumptions.
@@Balstrome1 Spinoza's God...isn't anthropomorphic...its all of nature...so, that is provable...it just lacks awareness or any unity...🤷♂️ my point is that arguing about finding God...is kind of a meaningless statement without context...I'm as much ignostic as agnostic atheist...the whole debate is pointless without being clear...
@@Balstrome1 it went right over you're head didn't it, hitchenite?
I don't know for sure about this, but I heard that Einstein said the more he studied the universe, the more he believed in a higher power. Thanks for another great video!
I have heard that as well... but I'm always skeptical. Famous people are often misquoted quite a bit, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did say that.
Einstein wasn't a religious man nor an atheist, some people describes him as a deist with no belief in any religion. Also, he wasn't a model of virtue, so we shouldn't mistify him
Jared Hall Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God. An energy in a way that didn’t concern itself with humans.
yeah ,... actually ,..you only have to study it for like 2 minutes and you will see that ,..because matter has to come from "somewhere" according to any science ,.. and our so called science right now is trying to tell us that matter came from nowhere,..they don't even say it evolved either,...
@@777RockNRollin , In the case of the Big Bang, matters came from energy, and energy came from God. God put work into energy to form matters, hence the Enstein's equation: e=mc2, where e=energy, m=mass, c=speed of light resulted in universe expansion, 2=square
Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest/physicist
And it was almost made canonical dogma or some such.
Is this guy really even a monk?
@@ApocryphalDude No, he’s a Franciscan. They're not monks!
And Albert Einstein too. Believes God exists and devoted his life on science
@@mikaelraphael4131
But Einstein doesn't believe in your God, he is a pantheist or person believes that the nature itself is God
@@universewithinyou2761 Well he is once a religious person from childhood.
I was shocked that the guy who first came up the big bang theory was a Catholic Priest
If only people researched true history.
@@alangervasis yeah
@@masotan152 The Father of Genetics is an Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel. The pioneer in both anatomy and geology, Nicolas Steno, was a Catholic bishop. There is a long history of scientists and religious people. People forget the first universities were founded by the Catholic church.
Yeah. Europe, being the most developed area in the history. You can look to other areas, where there was no Catholic Church, they were still in the Middle Ages in 1800 - 1900 (no joking), they only got out of that period when the European spread to the whole world.
A catholic priest astrophysicist*
Jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in a field. It is the smallest of all the seeds, yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants. It becomes a large bush, and the birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches." Sounds like the big bang theory. Jesus had inside information.
And yet the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds, so Jesus supposedly knew about the Big Bang, but in his omniscience didn't know what the smallest seed was.
@@vladd415 Biblical literalism? In this day and age?
Brother, when Jesus said faith moves mountains, did you take it as it *actually moving mountains*? Faith moves tectonic plates or something?
Allegories are allegories. What Jim said about resemblance to the Big Bang is also to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's fun to think about. Don't fall to literalism, it has been debunked in like the 2nd century.
Big Bang is a theory but the term "theory" in science carries a lot more weight than the colloquial use would imply. Interestingly, Catholicism also accepts the theory of evolution.
Catholicism has never been against evolution. We are not biblical literalists. That's mostly a Christian fundamentalist thing.
That I think was the clearest explanation of the Big Bang Theory I ever heard. I don't think science and religion are at odds with each other since, as Br. Casey suggested, each is concerned with a different set of questions which do not overlap. It is only when one of these disciplines starts to stray beyond its area of competency that there appears to be a conflict between the two but it is a pseudo conflict, because it has intruded into an area in which it has nothing to say.
Exactly. It's tough to contradict each other when they're talking about different things! Also I always go back to what John Paul II said: "Truth cannot contradict truth." If science says something that we know to be true, why would we resist accepting it for any reason? Are we afraid that something found in nature could take our faith away?
@@BreakingInTheHabit how about earth age brother? Genesis is 6 days and dates the earth what? 6500-10000 years depending on the calculation. But science says billions of years.
There was a study where they tried to radiocarbon date rocks around the world they knew the age of. Every single one was 30 - 50 years and they all came back with over 2000 years old. Makes things a little more tricky yes?
We are totally at odds sorry ,.. Science is saying everything that exists in the Universe came from nothing and science does not support that,..
Koding Krusader
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible or they use the Old Earth Creationist 6,000 or 7,000 year old viewpoint. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one and the only one there was but that’s just inaccurate .
The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).
Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36-37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293-4).
Theophilus of Antioch
“On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).
“All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written” (ibid., 3:28-29).
Irenaeus
“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).
Clement of Alexandria
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]
Origen
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
“The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days” (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).
“And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world” (Against Celsus 6:60 [A.D. 248]).
Lactantius
“Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’” (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).
Augustine
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19-20 [A.D. 408]).
“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).
“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).
“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (ibid., 5:2).
“For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).
“We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it” (ibid., 11:7).
“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).
Victorinus
“God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing” (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).
Cyprian
“The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).
777RockNRollin Science actually doesn’t say “the universe came from nothing” any reasonable and objective scientist would say “I don’t friggin know”
I appreciate this so much. You mentioned the non-overlapping magisteria. It was the first thing discussed in my evolutionary biology class in college. Our Catholic faith is so rich with the fullness of truth, scientifically and theologically.
If god existed, it wold be subject to scientific examination like anything else. No one has ever detected such a thing, however.
@@helenaconstantine Ah yes. If there is an all-powerful deity who created the universe and everything in it, it can be measured by the instruments of man. I'm pretty sure there's a Star Trek episode that makes fun of that
"Little knowledge of science takes you away from God, deeper knowledge takes you closer to Him"
First big fail: theory's never become laws.
When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
The big bang only deals with the expansion of the universe.
NOT how it started.
In philosophy it is the other way around. That is why the they make this silly mistake when they are trying to act as authorities for the public.
Frankie and Benjy Mouse . Theory: supposition put forward to explain something,it is speculation;exposition of general principles as distinct from practice and execution. Law:a rule established by authority. Legal science;established usage;a rule,principle or maxim of science. Learn the English language before commenting on what is established scientific fact!
@@commonsensibility2051 in natural sciences a theory is not a speculation.
@@commonsensibility2051 BS.
Learn what a SCIENTIFFIC THEORY is, what a law of nature is.
Came here to say the same thing. An understandable mistake, though, even my intro chemistry teacher in college was under the same misconception, it's quite pervasive outside of science.
For a more authoritative dissemination of the intersection of science and faith (specifically Catholicism) coming from a Catholic and theoretical physicist, read Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.
“It is the business of science to explain physical reality. It is the business of religion to place humanityvwithin the context of that explanation” (Bene Gesserit Training Manual)
Religion, too, can be a weapon
DUNE reference?!?!?!
Thanks, Brother. I am a teacher in a catholic high school. I frequently come into conversations with students who have been taught (not so much by any one individual, but almost the entire society's group think) that religion and science are incompatible. They are taught that belief in religion would require a rejection of scientific truths. They are also taught that choosing religion over science puts them into a box reserved for idiots, ignorance and backwardness. Of course, there is no legitimate reason for people to feel this way in the Catholic Tradition: The Church has a long and evidenced tradition of encouraging science and learning.
gridcaster, if the same God who wrote the Bible also created the universe, then there cannot be conflict between the two of them because they have the same author.
Conflict arises between man-made theoretical science and man-made biblical interpretations.
Empirical science and the Bible are in harmony.
@@daryla7825 The bible wasn't written by God, the bible has authors
@@jeffjeff6160 The authors of the Bible were inspired by God.
From my understanding, Genesis was wrote not to tell us the creation story but to tell us we were created by GOD. The writers back then had to use a simple words to explain their people about God. For sure they won't say like, " God combined 2 hydrogen with 1 oxygen to create water, because nobody would have understand them. So they came up with the whole Genesis creation theory which is simple enough for the people to understand they were created by supernatural devine 1 true God
This is also how I think about Genesis 1
My only real issue with this is you said it's why it's still a theory and not a law. Theories never become laws, that's not how things work
To add to that, if I take Newtonian gravity, it's only an approximation - it predicted the orbit of Neptune but couldn't explain Mercury. For some reason it still got known as a law of universal gravitation and it described a force simply caused by the existence of mass. Then Einstein gave us a theory of general relativity and it explains Mercury's orbit perfectly, it's a better description of gravity and describes a curved spacetime; gravity is now only an "apparent" force that is actually a measurable effect of spacetime curvature. And we get better measurable predictions from the theory of general relativity than the law of universal gravitation.
@@anthonylittle2396 I mean a law is more just a statement than anything. Laws tend to say this is that, theories are more all encompassing. It's all the parts of our understanding, including the laws that govern said theory. A theory is much stronger than any law
Finally, a non-hostile, mature, and fair critique. Thank you
Hey shout out to me! Wonderful! Thanks Brother Casey!
Great explanation, I would appreciate it if you did a video that answers if there truly is salvation outside the Catholic church (like Christian churches) and if so why do we have to live this demanding Catholic faith and just be normal Christians. Love!
It's a good question. I'll see what I can do in the spring.
ChurchMilitant.TV has an excellent video on RUclips answering this question.
And I mean scary excellent. I would love to see how a Protestant would respond to it. Unfortunately they have closed comments. So who knows.
Please note a scientific theory will never become a scientific law.
Yes it can
@@TheHiddenChronicle-b9l It can't scientific laws and scientific theories are two different things and one will never become the other.
@@TheHiddenChronicle-b9l IT can't, you seem to have this idea that there is some sort of progression of hypothesis to theory to law. Theories and Laws are different ways of expressing something in science, a Law is merely a explanation that forms an equation that allows you to predict a result based upon certain start criteria within accepted constraints. A theory on the other hand is an explanation that includes a descriptive mechanism. In short a law explains what a result is, a theory explains WHY a result is. Theories overall have wider application that laws as they have a descriptive mechanism. A good example of this is the Ideal Gas Law vs the Kinetic Theory of Gasses, both of them can be used for the exact same purpose in the case of ideal gasses, however the kinetic theory of gasses explains both HOW the Ideal Gas Law works and also gives results even with dealing with NON-IDEAL gasses.
@@tekcomputers I'm afraid you are incorrect. For example, Newton's laws are merely just theories because they haven't been disproven yet, but eventually even those laws which seem to be undisputable, will be disproven and disregarded.
@@TheHiddenChronicle-b9l Sorry to respond to such an old comment, but Newton's laws were disproven a century ago, by Einstein. They'll never be disregarded because the things they get wrong only make a negligible difference for the vast majority of human uses. The extra precision of the more accurate version simply isn't needed most of the time and would thus waste effort and brainpower.
100 creationists didn't like the video
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'm not religious, but I love these strong logical takes, if any religion is true, I believe yours is the best candidate.
If you take a look at some real theology - not caricatures or b- stardized fundamentalist versions- with an open mind, you can see a lot of logical thought going into it even if you're not a believer. Ideas of the divine can get VERY abstract.
For someone like me, "religion" is largely a matter of putting names and rituals to the spiritual feelings that the "spiritual but not religious" and even some atheists have. Doing so gives, I think, an organizational framework to what can otherwise be rather nebulous.
I'm not sure about the Catholic Church but the Episcopal Church's official position is that the Bible is NOT a science textbook and none of it is to be read as science. They have a document - complete with citations and bibliography - called A Catechism of Creation which may be of interest.
As St. Bonaventure said, the Trinity is reflected in all of nature. This too is true of the Big Bang. God did not set up a deceptive creation meant to trick us. Rather creation points imperfectly but definitely toward its Creator.
2:40: "Before I get in trouble for trying to explain matters of which I have absolutely no business talking about"
Too late: at 1:41 you missed the difference between a "theory" and a "law". A theory doesn't become a law when it gets enough evidence or explanatory power; theories contain multiple laws. For example, the general theory of relativity implies the law of conservation of energy.
Although I still object to the second half of what you said; you definitely have business talking about this. You understand it fairly well and explain it well, even if you missed that detail. And if you didn't understand it, talking about things is the best way to learn. Everyone is allowed to talk about anything.
Yea but he also has the responsibility to not misinform specially when it’s such a mathematical thing. He just felt safer leaving it to the experts.
Another great video!
Sadly, even when they finally come-around and accept what should have long been accepted,
the massive issues of religion and also christianity in specific are not gone.
This channel like to sugarcoat and sweettalk it all and basically proclaim science and religion can co-exist peacefully, but you have to understand: Thats mostly a marketing-ploy BY one side: the losing side, the religious side. They tried hard to be against science and it did NOT work out. Oh no, it did not.
Peoplesaying science and religion doesn't mix, yet we use science to prove that an event, for anexample a healing, is a miracle
jewish kabbalah describes a creation eerily similar to the big bang theory. they say there was a boundless force called ain sof, which was condensed into a very fine point, which shined into the nothingness around it which eventually evolved into everything. it can be described with the tetragrammaton (yod he vav he). the yod is the small point the ain sof was made into, the he is the nothingness around it, the vav is their interaction, and the final he is the growth thereof. yes I have videos on kabbalah please watch them lol
Not being a person of faith, I disagree with the last comment in this video, that's expected.
One thing I disagreed with that I'd like the poster to maybe consider is that, while the example of a scientist and a person of faith watching the same sunset was made to be an exaggeration for the purpose of illustrating a point...I think it's not the best example. As a (someday) physicist and agnostic/athiest... most assume I have no sense of spirituality, that feeling of being connected with things, or that I can't appreciate, for example, the feeling of awe of seeing a beautiful sunset. Actually, I was rather hoping that, in the spirit of the video which seems to be trying to promote harmony, less discord between religion and the sciences in people's minds while retaining a clear distinction between them, that the presenter would instead say, while the two, the scientist and the catholic may look at the sunset and fundamentally believe different stories regarding how it came to be...they both can feel an awe at the fact that it is, and that they're both there to appreciate it.
Just a thought, but I thought it would make for a more harmonious message.
Could you please do a video on evolution and creation?
I have thought about doing that. Maybe in the spring. In essence, though, the principle will remain the same: the Catholic Church does not deny anything that is understood through proper methods of knowing.
Breaking In The Habit Evolution is a heresy.
Watch Sensus Fidelium on the Big Bang and evolution.
@@BreakingInTheHabit
What do you mean by proper methods of knowing? There is only one way to know the truth of a thing of reality, and that is the Scientific Method. If you disagree, show me a better method and lets test it out.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Before you do, you need to find out what evolution is and what scientific theories of the origin of the universe are. in this video you confused abiogenesis and the big bang which betrays absolute ignorance of the subjects. It's like you started talking about the Latin original of Aristotle.
@@Balstrome1 I've asked so many people for this supposed other method but have never been given an answer.
God created the creation without pre existing material, while the big-bang stated God created with pre existing materials. That is the different. God creates just by will it, not by change it from something into another thing.
I agree this is bs there pushing. Their going against the Bible smh.
For a monk he's got a really strong understanding of science and does a wonderful job of explaining. But he isn't right about "laws" and "theory" in science, and I find that frustrating.
Sadly, even when they finally come-around and accept what should have long been accepted,
the massive issues of religion and also christianity in specific are not gone.
This channel like to sugarcoat and sweettalk it all and basically proclaim science and religion can co-exist peacefully, but you have to understand: Thats mostly a marketing-ploy BY one side: the losing side, the religious side. They tried hard to be against science and it did NOT work out. Oh no, it did not.
Yes. I read my old comment about his understanding of science but realized I’ve changed my point of view. I stopped listening to this channel when I began to see that the good brother will never admit that the church is wrong about anything. Sugarcoating is a mild description.
@@slevinchannel7589 When was the Catholic Church ever against science? Such ignorance smh
@@slevinchannel7589 To be pride I should've been talking about myself. I wasn't.
Try again.
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble-Lemaître law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
This video explains things clearly and perfectly
Like Trump's perfect phone call?
Science cannot answer WHY questions but neither can theologians; everyone's guessing.
Why did matter form on its own ?? ; Answer; it didn't ,..thats science 101 ,..lol
Catholic Cosmism will be expanded here with Paul's statement with three heavens (2nd Corinthians 12:2, meaning lower heaven is the seen physical universe with other planets and various life-forms). Then we go back to Genesis with one verse in particular when Adam was banished from Eden. Eden is not on this physical Earth but another heaven/dimension/alternative Earth. This physical Earth is not the same place Adam is from. It is covered by angelic wings covering the entrance of alternative Earth/Eden (Genesis chapter 3). Catholic books tie-in Catholic Cosmism: 2nd Esdras chs.4-7. Therefore, without the Catholic books, we will not fully understand the other biblical sources and expand into Catholic Cosmism.
How about this question. Did God create anything or anyone before He created the Heavens and the earth? Is our universe and Heaven and hell Gods first creation? And are we His last?
There is a difference in opinion amongst the church fathers. Some said (mostly in the east) that the angels were created before the physical universe was created. Others said that the angels were created simultaneously with the universe. Both are legitimate positions to hold to.
God didn't create hell.
God is continuously creating and sustaining the universe.
If God didn't create hell then who did? If everything was created by God then surely that includes hell. Maybe it wasn't hell when He first created it. He may have just chosen it as a place to punish people who reject Him.
Hell was created when Satan rebelled against God.
@@Powerranger-le4up my old pastor told me that hell was never originally intended for human habitation.
To me, everything was created by God, via the big bang.
Penn and Teller created the Universe in a Big Magic Hat!
Thank you father, this is so true. Also, what is the truth on whether the earth is flat or round biblically? it would be great if you made a video on this.
Great explanation that tied a few things together for me.
It was a poor explanation. Maybe you should try for a better one.
@@Balstrome1
It is easy to claim things. Add some context
You want context? See my comment below.
Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. That means you too, PAL
@@jjhiggs6613 And as I said to someone else. I promise that on that day I will give God a chance to explain himself.
Can Catholics watch tbbt? If so, then how should we approach it? I'm a fan of tbbt but quit watching it cause I want to repent. I love the characters, but not quite sure about watching a show like tbbt.
How do you know how my Father created earth if you weren't there?
Ah the good old "It's just a theory" argument.
Watch the rest of the video man. I wish there was a counter to show when someone commented during the video. Then deleted all comments made before 75% completion
@@keeganparkhurst But that's the really sticking point. And no amount of disclaimer at the end will fix the fact that the video lead people to have the wrong definition of "theory".
@@DigGil3 It's only the sticking point for you because you want it to be. Also, he doesn't use a "disclaimer" to say that BBT is true. It's the meat of the video. This is like that kid who read the first 3 chapters of a books and did a book report
@@keeganparkhurst I'm just tired of the spreading of misunderstanding on the place and goal of science. That's why the statement about theories irks me. The fact that science can't tell anything before the Big Bang isn't really a limitation as much as it is an honest position. The Big Bang itself is just an extrapolation of the fact that space seems to be expanding, scientist are open to the idea that the BBT is wrong, if better evidence comes up.
The problem with religion is that it tries to explain everything even if it has to make up stuff. It doesn't stop to say "I don't know". Religion should stick as an institution to maintain communities and culture, not to answer about the natural world.
@@DigGil3 I agree religious people usually overstep their bounds. It took me forever to convince my ex that evolution does not inherently contradict the Bible. I'm religious, but I'm also knee-deep in research. It's been pretty easy to just keep both separate. Both have their bounds, and should stay in their own lanes. Science shouldn't answer "How do we treat each other ethically", and religion shouldn't answer "how did life transition from single-celled organisms to multicellular organisms".
I also agree that religious people, especially Christians, have to admit they don't know as much as they think they do. The Bible is purposefully written in a way that makes it impossible to fully grasp God's nature. It's just not possible for our puny understanding of the world. But admitting you don't know something is weakness now. Sorry you have to deal with these jerks. I swear, some of us don't try to deny science with religion
When you say "a theory and not a law" you don't know what a theory is. A theory is a set of principle that describe a phenomena. A law is a statement that is true, in a restrained circumstance. If you let go of an object it will fall down, is a law. If you talk about objects on Earth. The theory of gravity describes how gravity works, on a macroscopic level, for all planets, everywhere in the universe. Learn the definition of words before you try to use them in a sentence.
im cool with both,just let it be,Believing in God while accepting science,yep that's me
What about galaxies older than the universe that existed before the big bang. If there was a previous universe does that still prove God. Religion describes God as.infinite/eternal and there was a single point when the universe was created but then there wasn't. An infinite regress of the universe is like an infinite regress of who created God but it's so strange to ask the latter. If science explains infinite regress of the universe is that going to be religion's explanation too?
God (I think of him as an object with zero dimensions, no time, no space) in fact a pure Subject. His awareness of himself is an object but also a Subject.
Science is preoccupied with objects (which can be measured) whereas an object with no dimension is immesureable has no place in science. The big bang theory is occupied with the smallest measure but definitely doesn't consider the possibility that the object they are trying to measure is a Subject! (a thinking being)
If you want to believe, believe. But, don't equate your religion (out of many religions in the world) with science.
No, the while Catholic idea is that God created, so his world must not contradict him. And if science and religion contradict each other, we are either incorrectly interpreting God or incorrectly executing our science.
@@oaf1575 Are you saying that if science says that all life on earth evolved from single-celled organisms over many millions of years and the Bible says God created us as we are, that science must be wrong because of your faith?
@@MisterItchy No, I completely believe in evolution and so does the Roman Catholic Church. The story of creation and noahs ark for example is called didactic fiction, fictional stories meant to convey a meaning.
@@oaf1575 Interesting. The guy in this video doesn't quite seem to understand the scientific principles about which he is speaking, yet says they mesh with the Bible's teachings.
@@MisterItchy Yeah that is fair to say, but in short the idea is that Catholics must accept science because it makes no sense that God would make science disprove himself. We dont belive in that "he does it to test us" bs. Nice speaking with you.
ok :) no mistakes ( but I'm not an astrophysicist, for me it was the part of theoretical physics only), and you mentioned Lemaitre despite that he was a SJ :)
The moment you said "remains a theory and not a law of physics"... that's the moment I shut off this video. You were so honest in other videos that your dishonesty here came as quite a shock.
A Scientific Theory isn't "promoted" to a law. They are two distinct classifications, though a Theory is often comprised of laws. The Theory of Gravitation comprises a few laws one of which is Newtons Law of Gravity which is only accurate in weak gravity fields. Other examples such as the laws of Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, and Genetic Drift that comprise the Theory of Evolution, and are the mechanism of its predictive power
You've perpetuated a very common misinterpretation of theory and law that many uneducated people falsely believe to be true. You're educated. Your other videos show that you have a high degree of skill in researching your topics, and your monologues have shown a high degree of honesty. It's hard for me to see you making such a significant error except as a breach of honesty.
Besides a minor nuance in language (essentially the probably is that I said "remains," implying that it could eventually be promoted) is there anything wrong with my explanation or other details?
I'm sorry, there IS NO SUCH THING as "promoting" a theory into law. That's like saying a shoe can be "promoted" into a car. They are two completely different things. But it seems that now you're simply lying to me out of ignorance and a desire to seem erudite.
" is there anything wrong with my explanation or other details?"
- Seriously, I stopped watching the video after your assertion of "theory promotion" which is absurd. I will, however, watch the rest to answer your question.
Do you realize that we can see the Big Bang? Visible with the naked eye, the Andromeda Galaxy, located in the center of the Andromeda Constellation, is roughly 2 Million light years away. And so when we look at it we're seeing the Andromeda Galaxy as it was two million years in the past because it took the light emanating from the galaxy two million years to get here.
Given this, we can ask ourselves "How far away do we have to look in order to see the beginning of the universe?". And the answer is: About 46 Billion Light years away. More than fifty years ago the Cosmic Microwave Background was finally discovered (it had been predicted to exist in 1948). This is the after glow of the Big Bang. So you really can't say that the Big Bang is an "un-promoted theory" any more than you can claim that the planet Neptune is a theory... WE CAN SEE THEM BOTH!
I love your channel. I adore your insights into Catholicism. And I appreciate you as a Minor Brother. And... for the most part I appreciate your honesty. But you're not being honest about this. Please take some time to learn about these concepts (Scientific Theory, Scientific Law, Big Bang Theory) and regain your honesty. I'm not writing this to be mean. I'm writing this because you're better than these misapprehensions.
Big Bang Theory is inconclusive? According to whom?
I know that trying to reconcile science with Catholic Catechesis is pretty much impossible, and I give you credit for making the attempt, but you said it correctly around 2:40... "you'll get into trouble for trying to explain matters which..." ... You're not really trained to comment on (paraphrased). Refraining from commenting on science, I think, is your best bet. You're not a Jesuit ( and even they often have no idea what they're talking about)...
But you're an excellent Franciscan Friar! :-)
Don't be so harsh, he is not a scientist, he did his best to explain the theory and he succeed in most parts. I would like to see scientists making half of that effort to explain theology.
Exmech2, ten years ago when I argued with atheist scientist regarding the big bang and evolution, they were fanatical about their theories. Nowadays I have noticed that they are not.
When I bring up the big bang theory, they refuse to get into a debate claiming that it is one of a number of theories and we can't know for certain. The same with evolution.
It's getting quite disappointing. So it's rather refreshing to find someone holding the torch aloft for a theory that is in conflict with observable scientific facts.
as per the scriptures God is light. if God is light then whey did God create light?
They haven't seen the Big Crunch yet. Don't get too excited!
As an agnostic, I find science and religion equally unhelpful in explaining time.
"There will always be questions only a well-developed faith can answer." If it's the correct answer, who cares?
First few seconds of the vid: i think im in the wrong channel..oh wait
Disappointing your smarter then using the young earth: theory and not a law argument. Theories are the higher concept in science. Gravity, the globe, germs, atoms are all theories. A law is just a simple description of an observed fact theories explain what cause them. Newton's laws describe gravity but it's the theory of relativity that explains what causes the attraction that law describes.
While it is refreshing to see a video _not_ claim well-established scientific facts are wrong because they contradict scripture for a change, it still can't help but confirm that _trying_ to accurately represent science through a religious perspective _still_ makes the accuracy go right out the window...
I like how you said science and theology are non overlapping. It also seems to me that neither could ever be concise because that would limit our free will. Very interesting. Thank you.
Science may not bite Religion per se in itself BUT Logic SURE DOES.
HENCE why atheist-channel have so much to talk/ask/question.
@@slevinchannel7589 logic and reasoning follow philosophical hypothesis. I always welcome conversation because if there’s something as important as this, I would expect there to be conversation and I wouldnt want a false belief. Thank you
@@josephpio159 Mate, we live in a world with non-subjective logic though aka objective logic. The world follows rules and therefore real logic and objective truth are things that obviously do exist.
The universe provides endless evidence for the Big Band Theory; there is no evidence for the existence of God. You create him on faith alone.
The universe provides endless evidence for the Big Bang Theory; there is no evidence for the existence of beauty. You create it on faith alone.
The idea of God as being contained in the physical world, being subject to empirical study, is not reflected in Catholic teaching. God is by definition conceptually outside of the physical world, i.e. metaphysical, similar to the existence of beauty, morality, mathematics, etc. All are concepts outside physical reality that have their own unique and reasonable foundation, but are not subject to empirical tests despite having some correlation with the physical reality. You may consider yourself a strict empiricist and therefore find such untestable concepts useless, but I would venture to guess that this leads to some glaring inconsistencies in your beliefs. Most thinking humans are not strict empiricists.
@@danielmichael3610 Every astronomer knows that the universe is the source of great beauty. Take a look for yourself.
@@polanco187 now that I wholeheartedly agree with, being in the field of astrophysics myself (not quite astronomy, but astro-particle physics). But I'm wondering whether you missed the point I was making.
@@danielmichael3610 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a former math and physics student in college I find beauty in the development of quantum mechanics..
@@polanco187 I'm not disputing the beauty of quantum mechanics, nor the concept of beauty itself. My original statement was a simile, taking your statement and applying it to something else (beauty) that we would both agree is clearly "real" but not empirically verifiable.
I won't go around telling people theres no evidence for the Catholic concept of God, just like I wouldn't go around telling people there is no empirical evidence for beauty. If I were to do so, I would demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of what those concepts mean. Catholics are not fundamentalists, we don't believe in an invisible, bearded, magical sky daddy that grants you wishes if you ask nicely enough.
Well religion does not rule out science and vice versa. It's just perspectives .....
In modern times God seems to be revealing himself in recent scientific discoveries. As if knowing that is the best way to reach modern mankind. The Cambrian explosion, DNA, micro biology. Again and again. Although it drives atheists nutty, it is a great surprise that studying science has the side effect of strengthening ones faith.
God would be reveal, if one could show a place in anything where he actually did a thing. Care to point out where God did a thing. You have the whole history of the whole universe to choose from. Go ahead, pick one thing and show us exactly which part of it's creation and or maintaince requires a god to do god magic to allow it to be.
Balstrome1 since i mentioned a couple in my comment i think your question is not serious. Just bait to dismiss without any real thought whatever is presented. If you were really curious or at all open minded you would have no trouble finding many examples.
So I am curious now. Maybe give an example of something you would find compelling.
I know some theologians believe God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. This could actually be possible! A thought came across my mind: What if during His creation, God positioned all celestial objects and designed them to move in "such a way", which would "lead someone to PROPOSE" that the age is 13.7 billion years, if scientists TRIED to calculate it using astrophysical laws? Yet the real time God created the universe might be something totally different (i.e. 6000 years ago). Just a thought...🤔
Oh, so God is deceitful now? Good to know.
Gavron88 No, quite the contrary. It’s just not necessary for astrophysicists to calculate when the Big Bang happened (since God had power over physical laws). After all, the Big Bang just a theory. My point it that people should not dismiss scripture, just because science says something else.
@@GenXer82 "just a theory" - Learn what "scientific theory" is before commenting, alright?
@@przemog88 I know what "scientific theory" is. And I have the RIGHT to comment whatever I want, ALRIGHT?? (1st Amendment)
@@GenXer82 "I know what "scientific theory" is." - If you knew you would never use a term such as "just a theory", so don't lie.
"(1st Amendment)" - Freedom of speech is not freedom of lying. As a Christian aren't you ashamed to constantly breaking 9th commandment?
great video!
Read Job and it’s amazing how science is explain simply. That the earth is a sphere and it hangs in space, and how the stars tingle as if they are musical symphony.
There were some errors in your video, i assume that these are errors of ignorance because you are a man of faith and not a man of science and not of bad intentions.
1: you are mistaking abiogenesis with big bang.
2:you are mistaking quantum mechanics with inflation theory
3:you are mistaking the definiton of scientific theory and law. Theories are true to the best of our ability to disprove them. Laws describe how things we observe occur. Theories mostly describe why.
4:Big bounce hypothesis is not part of the big bag theory. And notice the use of hypothesis and theory.
5:the idea of mass that contains everything and nothing at the same time - is a complete ignorance of singularity or big bang theory.
6:Except George Lemaitre in his personal letters that while he took these as a confirmation of his faith, he did not took them as proof of god, he wrote letters to pope directly to explain this.
7:No theory of science will ever be conclusive.. It will always be upgraded, fine tuned, re calculated in more accurate ways.
You should know the difference between a law and theory! You use the word "theory" in the wrong way...
improbable at most
When did theology ever tell us anything useful that we could not find out through science? Is it likely theologians will discover more about the origins of our universe than science? This 'non-overlapping magesteria' NOM sounds clever but really iy is only there to try and stop science from scrutinizing religion. After all, if there is a god and that god acts in our world, surely we could detect that happen and doing so would show that a god exists. Is it the risk that the answer would be negative that creates the need for things like NOM? After all, prayer has never been shown to actually work.....
Science doesn't scrutinize religion man. Again, theologians ask the "why questions" of the origins of the universe. Science does not attempt to answer these questions; it's not equipped for it! Don't think I am some religious nut, I am knee-deep in scientific research, but I would never try to answer "Why do we exist" or "How should we treat one another" or "How should society be structured" with science. Every attempt at answering similar questions "scientifically" has been disastrous (social Darwinism, eugenics). I'm telling you, they are just separate fields. It's people like you and conservative religious folks that create this conflict. Some of us can do scientific work and pray at night
This is absurd nonsense. There are a multitude of things that science isn't equipped to comment on, most importantly: morality. At most it informs morality if that morality is contingent on an empirical fact. Genocide, for instance, is completely consistent with science, not because science is immoral, but because science is amoral. That isn't to say that moral philosophy must come from theism, there are reasonably coherent secular moral philosophies as well. But whenever science is used in a moral context, it is only useful after a priori moral judgements have been made.
2:36 Second. Law. Of. Thermodynamics.
1:24 The temperature of different parts is a big problem for the big bang theory. There is relative thermal consistency within the vacuum of space, with fluctuations of a few microkelvin. Only problem is, this also remains true even for parts of the universe that have never been in thermal contact with each other.
"Why it remains a theory and not a law..."
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Is this what you are being taught about science in seminary or your own interpretation about it?
This is wrong on so many levels that it is embarrasing.
Well, Michael, scientific theories are never 100% secure. They can change and that's how science progress. But that doesn't mean he's denying evolution, which has a huge amount of evidence, and of course he's not saying we should be creationists. Even if evolution theory as we know it happened to change tomorrow, mixing up science and religion would be stupid.
in a full duration of 6 minutes and 28 seconds, that's the only thing that you noticed, a terminology error. that is sad.
@@charliemaduro5908 it is more than a terminology error.
@@michaelanderson4849 Theories and laws are pretty much the same thing. The father just mixed up concepts, thinking that laws are 100% secure while theories give supposed explanations, that's not the case, laws and theories can change as there is more understanding and data about phenomena. The father is not denying science, nobody with reason does, you can watch the rest of the video.
@@carmofantasmapiu5575 He chosed to put himself in the position of a teacher to others. By doing so he should know and understand whatever it is he teaches. I pointed out a blatant error in his teaching. Nothing more, nothing less. Consideting they spend years studying philosophy instead of science he should stick to explaining philosophy to his sheep. Leave science to others.
Nice video 🇮🇳 i am catholic Christian 🙏✝️❤️ i love catholic Christianity ❤️
:43 LMAO. OK i guess this is why i refer to the show as The Nerd Circle.
Jesuits were the ones opposing Galileo who was a rival theologian (aka math-guy).
Not soup.
Quantum mechanics says nothing about the speed of the expansion.
1:38 Theories are higher than laws. Law is what. Theory is how. Newton's law of universal gravitation is what while Einstein's theory of relativity is how. Theories CANNOT become law. Theories explain the what, so the explanation of the what cannot become the what. Also, all laws are man made. They are our descriptions of our observations.
The big bang theory is our explanation of our observations of the expansion of our local universe.
1:56 That is a claim that must be demonstrated. Our maths and understanding of physics is incomplete. Our failings in this regard does not mean that the fundamental forces were non-existent.
There are no similarities. Big Bang theory is not a magician reciting a magic incantation that poofed everything into existence from nothing. Literal magic.
3:21 Yea, Magic. I am done with this absurd nonsense.
You have no clue what you are talking about in regards to science. Faith is not a reliable way to understand anything but it is very reliable to get you into trouble.
There is a video titled Big Bang: Exploding The Myth with Dr Terry Mortenson. At a certain timestamp of that video, you will see a graph of the expansion of the universe. There is a low line labeled "limit of direct observation" and another line about as twice as high labeled "limit of inderect observation". Logically concluding, if it's above the limit of both direct and indirect observation, than it isn't based on any observation at all.
The days of creation are analogy for the order in which everything was created
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This is analogy for space
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
This is analogy for energy and time
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Here materia was created
Physicist bang his head on the table after hearing friar butcher physics.
PS: Rabbi's do it too.
A Catholic speak on The Big Bang.
Why?
Isn't that like; a physicist speaks on The Catholic Church?
Catholics are concerned with all knowledge. It was a Catholic priest who first developed the Big Bang theory, and an Augustinian Friar who is considered the “father of genetics.”
@@BreakingInTheHabit So you are a research physicist, specifically a cosmologist?
Here's the big question; would you let a non-religious physicist define what Catholicism is and what it entails?
No? Then why are you talking about The Big Bang theory and cosmology (and getting it wrong)?
@@Steelmage99 This is silly, science isn't done in a vacuum. Any field of study will have intersections with other fields of study. Among other things, physics intersects with politics, philosophy, and theology. There is absolutely no issue with a theologian discussing how science influences his theology.
I work in astroparticle physics and, despite some minor inaccuracies that are getting blown way out of proportion in the comment section, this video is perfectly reasonable from a scientific point of view.
Just because the scientific theory describing the history of the Universe's expansion breaks down when the fundamental forces merge as time approaches 0 does not give you license to insert your imaginary friend into the picture. Classic god of the gaps argument and a fail of major proportions. Try again.
All i know it is scirnce it is something wich proves it self religion it is just sbout talking in wich you csn be pro and contrary ... all i know everything has to have a beginning thwt mean if Good exists he has to be from a certain point ... if Good he is all powerful... answer me one question... can Good creat a peace of rock big and heavy enough him srlf hi can't lifted ? If yes and he can't lifted hi is not overall powerful ... If no he can't created hi is not overall powerful... se religion it is something based on talking in which it is pro and contrary... but science it is something can put proves on table...
You don't know your science. Please take the time to learn more.
Sorry, I know this video is old but I must say that compared to your other videos, it is pretty weak. While I understand the points you're trying to make, your shortcomings in scientific literacy greatly distract from them and I believe most people who are not believers but educated in science matters will just disregard any points you make (as it's made clear by several other comments). It'd be advisable to revisit this topic with a scientist as a guest that can provide better explanations (and preferably one that's not a Christian so that you can showcase your points).
2:19 Actually, science CAN prove that there was a single exact beginning of the universe. It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Are you going to provide the funding for the energy budget for a particle accelerator big enough to reach that scale?
@@Balstrome1 How is this relevant to my comment?
To demonstrate that exact moment, you would need more energy that is actually possible for the infinite universe to have. If we are going to test for that, funding will be one of the major problems for this experiment. It is possible to do it on paper, but to show it, we will need a few more coins to do that.
@@Balstrome1 The universe is not infinite in its volume, mass, or age. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all the energy in a given system eventually becomes unusable. If the universe was infinitely old, than all the energy in the universe would have become unusable centillions of years ago.
For a thing to be finite, it has to have a boundary, where it is not there. And something else is in that place that it would be if it was infinite.
There is nothing to suggest that there is any sort of such boundary. Which means we could travel in a perfectly straight line forever and never come to a stop. That is a workable definition of infinite. This seems to be possible within our universe, meaning out universe is infinite.
2nd Law of TD deals with closed systems, which is seems that the universe is not, looking at dark energy. My point is converting all the matter in the universe into energy would still not be enough to create the conditions for the big bang. It would come close, but never actually be enough. You would need more to be able to do this, hence funding for such a project would be a problem.
Right on
This video is a pretty good explanation of the Big Bang : Science, Religion, and the Big Bang also you have Non Catholics that simply use the word for create to justify their position video search: Us Crazy Christians Am i a creator like God
by faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command so that what is seen was not made of what was visible
Hebrews 11:3
scripture rules out both evolution and the big bang
How do you know that when God commanded the universe into existence that the Big Bang didn’t happen.
Then scripture is wrong, evolution is an observable process.
Please do a video on evolution
I did: ruclips.net/video/XXM5Qk_XsXk/видео.html
In the case of the Big Bang, matters of the universe came from energy, and energy came from God. God put work into energy to form matters, hence the Enstein's equation: e=mc2, where e=energy, m=mass, c=speed of light resulted in universe expansion, 2=square
You have made an interesting point. Jewish mystical literature defines creation in somewhat similar terms. Creation occurred from an overflow of God’s own power
@rent a shill, the evidence is in the math.
@@Think-About-It Evidence for a god is in the math????
WOW.......
Just WOW.
@@boterlettersukkel , not only in math, but including math.
@@Think-About-It So.. somewhere is an equasions that end with.... ...... = god...
SHOW ME!!!!!
The 'Big Bang Theory' In what did the universe explode and in what is expanding into?
Into a even greater universe
1. Nobody is saying that the universe "exploded";
2. It expands into nothingness.
Science is not ultimate It cannot explain anything about the universe
That doesn't mean that you should just make up something to fill in the gaps though.
@@charlestownsend9280 But you need to acknowledge the limitations of science.
@@Jin-dc7gl scientists do but that doesn't mean that what it can't explain can be filled with magic and whatever fairytales you like. Also although science is limited (mainly by technology and what we can perceive and detect) it's still the only good method we have for finding truth, many religious people have claimed that there are other ways of finding truth but when asked they never tell me the method (mainly cause the method is probably blind faith, feelings or books writtenby people who thought that the earth was flat).
@@charlestownsend9280 As of now science is the best way for discovering truth in the physical realm.
But there are many truths outside of the physical world.
Can science help to discover them?
@@Jin-dc7gl "But there are many truths outside of the physical world." - Any example of these "truths outside physical world"?
Boomski.
so moses was the first one to mention big bang
get back to school. this is load of nonsense... and verifiable lies.
Can you tell what the lie was, so I can be better
@@bijoythewimp2854 For starters he don't know what scientific theory is by implying that it can become scientific law. Next is mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis hyphothesis, two completely different and unrelated things. Add to that that he claims that BB is about "creation of the Universe" which is not. Even by reading wikipedia you can know enough to not make mistakes like that.
@@przemog88 thanks
Great explanation and examination of these subjects.
Thank you Father
Sidereal year. Fixed stars. Fixed heavens.
Fixed mesopotamic astronomy, then...
Everything moves.
The northstar is not constant. It moves.
Observed, documented and tested.
2000 years ago polaris was Thuban
designation Alpha Draconis (α Draconis, abbreviated Alpha Dra, α Dra), is a star (or star system) in the constellation of Draco. A relatively inconspicuous star in the night sky of the Northern Hemisphere, it is historically significant as having been the north pole star from the 4th to 2nd millennium BC.
Precession and Nutation
The Earth's axis precesses: the motion of its rotation axis is similar to that of a top spinning with its axis tilted.
The precession is in response to torques principally by the Sun and Moon. The spinning Earth responds to these
torques in the manner of a gyroscope. The result is a slow westward movement of the equinoxes and solstices. This
westward motion of the equinoxes along the ecliptic is called precession of the equinoxes.
The precession has a period of about 25,800 years. There are also a series of short period motions of
the Earth's axis of rotation called nutation. The nutations are all quite small.
The largest nutation has an amplitude of 0.'2 and a period of 18.6 years. The next largest nutation has an amplitude of
just 0.'01 and a period of 0.5 years.
The sidereal hour angle is measured from the vernal equinox, and declination from the celestial equator, so the
coordinates of celestial bodies change because of precession. The total motion with respect to the ecliptic, called
general precession, is about 50."29 per year. It may be divided into two components with respect to the celestial
equator: precession in right ascension (about 46."12 per year) measured along the celestial equator, and precession
in declination (about 20."04 per year) measured perpendicular to the celestial equator. The annual change in the
coordinates of any given star, due to precession alone, depends upon its position on the celestial sphere.
Since precession changes the direction of Earth's pole, Polaris will not always be Earth's “Pole Star”. Currently,
the north celestial pole is moving closer to Polaris because of precession. It will pass at a distance of approximately 28'
about the year 2102. Afterward, the polar distance will increase, and eventually other stars, in their turn, will become
the Pole Star.
Apparent Motion due to Movement of other Celestial Bodies
Each celestial body makes its own contribution to its apparent motion:
The Moon revolves about the Earth each month, rising in the west and setting in the east. Its orbital plane is slightly
inclined to the ecliptic (see Section 1319), and is continuously changing in response to perturbations in its motion,
primarily by the Sun.
The planets revolve about the Sun (technically, the solar system barycenter, which is within the sun's interior).
The inferior planets, Mercury and Venus, appear to move eastward and westward relative to the Sun. The period for
Mercury's motion is 116 days and the period for Venus is 584 days. The superior planets make an
apparent revolution around the Earth, from west to east. The periods for their motion varies from 780 to 367 days,
depending on the planet.
The stars revolve about the galactic center. As they move about the galactic center, the stars, including the Sun,
move with respect to one another. The component of their motion across the line of sight is called proper motion. The
maximum observed proper motion is that of Barnard's Star, which is moving at the rate of 10.3 seconds of arc per year.
Barnard's Star is a tenth-magnitude star, not visible to the unaided eye. Rigil Kentaurus has the greatest proper motion
of the 57 stars listed on the daily pages of the almanacs, about 3.7 seconds per year. Arcturus has the greatest proper
motion of the navigational stars in the Northern Hemisphere, 2.3 seconds per year. Over the course of a few
years, proper motions are very small; they can be ignored when reducing celestial navigation sights. A few thousand
years of proper motion is sufficient to materially alter the look of some familiar constellations.
In the beginning God created Singularity and God said, "Let the singularity expand" and that is the birth of our universe.
The universe was dark, then God said, "Let there be light" then the light came out in the hands of God and traveled 186,000 miles a second
What does light consist?
*Energy*
*Mass and Speed* and that the birth of Einstein's Famous equation *E = mc²*
I just made this up sorry hehehe