tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post3439866765383416716..comments2024-03-26T19:23:49.755-07:00Comments on Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Contending For The Faith---Part 7Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-52495359245105789492022-09-30T00:39:23.997-07:002022-09-30T00:39:23.997-07:00Most Catholics, even many trads, don't know th...Most Catholics, even many trads, don't know that both true science as well as authoritative Church teaching from the beginning, tell us that Genesis 1-11 are literally true. See www.kolbecenter.org and also the little known 1970 presentation, “Cataclysm from Space, 2800 B.C: The Cause of the Biblical Flood,” introduced by the late great G Edward Griffin. Hint: rain didn't cause the flood, it was concurrent with the flood. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oor7Cl0rN7I&t=3s darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05804266789850373989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-3093635515468433532022-09-23T01:57:03.880-07:002022-09-23T01:57:03.880-07:00O good- thankyou. I look forward to it. I am pleas...O good- thankyou. I look forward to it. I am pleased to have played this minor role in your series!GreenRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09703647327071511076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-7565192865990280712022-09-18T20:40:34.245-07:002022-09-18T20:40:34.245-07:00Don't understand why one single valid Bishop n...Don't understand why one single valid Bishop never confirmed for Fr.DePauw before they began dying off quickly in late 80's? Why and what were they so scared of and made them so weary of helping his chapel?<br />Were they aware post 1969 invalidated Holy Orders and their Holy Orders were last of traditional Roman Rite?<br />Those last of the mohicans Bishops were an odd bunch <br />-Andrew Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-40773041594970556432022-09-18T15:46:02.609-07:002022-09-18T15:46:02.609-07:00GreenR,
I did so much on this I'm making it a ...GreenR,<br />I did so much on this I'm making it a post for Monday, October 3--the next in this series!! Watch for it!!<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-80254606683264411302022-09-17T03:55:58.117-07:002022-09-17T03:55:58.117-07:001. Is current Priest at Ave Maria chapel validily ...1. Is current Priest at Ave Maria chapel validily or Novus Ordo Ordained?<br />2. Bp.Zendejas is known to Confirm at chapels not associated w the Resistance-SSPX.<br />3. God willed it not to happen, hypothetically imagine if Bp.Thuc could've moved to the Bishop's house @Ave Maria chapel in 1973 till his death in 1984?<br />Recently realized without Bp.Thuc & his subsequent Consecrations Ordinations,the Apostolic Holy Week and pre-51 Missal may have completely disappeared from the World.Not for nothing,CMRI offer the 1958 Missal. 1 day,only Blessed Lord Jesus Christ knows when,the clandestine muddled mysterious life of Bp.Thuc 1969-1974 will be revealed,cleared of all lies half truths & distortions and Thuc will be rightfully appreciated as a loyal son of the Church.<br />-Andrew Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-59375078243975697002022-09-15T21:23:15.751-07:002022-09-15T21:23:15.751-07:00Pawel,
I agree that if Vatican II had not happened...Pawel,<br />I agree that if Vatican II had not happened, we would have better apologetics aided by new scientific discoveries, the likes of which would really take atheists down. Sadly, we have the V2 sect and Modernist "feelings"<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-24234243277187400112022-09-15T15:04:21.394-07:002022-09-15T15:04:21.394-07:00Introibo,
Great post. I love reading traditional ...Introibo, <br />Great post. I love reading traditional Catholic scholastic apologetics supplemented with new discoveries of natural sciences. If there had been no unfortunate Vatican II Catholic theologians and philosophers would certainly have supplemented the traditional textbooks with new scientific discoveries, which would have been a tough nut to crack on atheistic scientists. <br />Today, unfortunately, Novus Ordo theologians and philosophers (with exceptions like Dr. Edward Feser et consortes) are people who hate realistic Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. I myself in Poland have listened to appearances by Fr. Michael Heller (b. 1936, ordained 1959), philosopher, Novus Ordo theologian, physicist-cosmologist - he is truly a powerful modernist mind. He burns with some truly irrational disgust for Aristotle, St. Thomas and preconciliar neoscholasticism. Analyzing his statements, a conservative Novus Ordo priest and theologian said they constituted apostasy. <br />It's really sad how Vatican II destroyed Catholicism in the hearts and minds of the people. We, on the other hand, by God's grace, must become more and more perfect in our understanding of God's revealed Catholic truth. <br /><br />God Bless,<br />PawełAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-41879297635842348242022-09-13T20:57:05.486-07:002022-09-13T20:57:05.486-07:00Dapouf,
Thank you, my friend! As for infinity, wha...Dapouf,<br />Thank you, my friend! As for infinity, what I really wanted to discuss (but refrained from doing so as the post would be too long) was the work of Dr. David Hilbert, the great mathematician. Look up "Hilbert's Hotel" for a thought experiment which will blow your mind!<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-52621304442405580492022-09-13T02:07:44.886-07:002022-09-13T02:07:44.886-07:00This text, broken into pieces as it was too long, ...This text, broken into pieces as it was too long, is from a chapter of the book "I Have Spoken to You from Heaven", by Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Centre. This is why it begins with "As I mentioned earlier..". <br />Thankyou God Bless GreenRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09703647327071511076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-27543085498903995852022-09-12T11:00:17.918-07:002022-09-12T11:00:17.918-07:00Mr. Robbins,
Using imagination is not a refutatio...Mr. Robbins,<br /><br />Using imagination is not a refutation of or difficulty for metaphysical arguments, it is a sign of stupidity. The empirical sciences stand upon just that: empiricism. Didn't they ever mention the scientific method back in 4th grade science class? Two of the criteria (I guess can be combined into one) for theories are *testability and falsifiability*. Modern scientist-atheists "using their imaginations" in response to metaphysical arguments only demonstrates two things: their utter lack of knowledge of philosophy and how their very own discipline operates, and 2. their ill-will and obstinacy in atheism.<br /><br />These people aren't worth using metaphysical with in the first place and they should be called out for what they are: ignorant fools.<br /><br />God bless,<br />DapoufDapoufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654393813329669624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-73514741453831547572022-09-12T10:25:34.181-07:002022-09-12T10:25:34.181-07:00(2/2) Overall, I thought this was a great post and...(2/2) Overall, I thought this was a great post and very fun to read, though I still prefer St. Thomas' Five Ways (I've only got a good grasp of the first three, so far). I think they're clearer in terminology and more succinct, even if it takes more background knowledge and time to thoroughly understand. Less accessible to people? Definitely. Though I don't think accessibility should be considered when proving the existence of God. I do think, however, that the Cosmological Argument, as you have presented it (I've seen some horrible presentations) is well suited to most people, especially those that don't have the time to study philosophy. Well done.<br /><br />Hopefully I didn't botch anything too badly in my comments.<br /><br />God bless,<br />DapoufDapoufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654393813329669624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-18970910595757940712022-09-12T10:25:24.427-07:002022-09-12T10:25:24.427-07:00(1/2) Hi Introibo,
Very engaging and interesting ...(1/2) Hi Introibo,<br /><br />Very engaging and interesting post. I wish to comment on some things (in my limited capacity, of course).<br /><br /><br />I think the other thing worth mentioning on the notion of the universe being the necessary Being is that there is a difference between BRINGING a thing (being) into existence (becoming) and that thing REMAINING in existence (be-ing). Who would posit that a being, once it has become (been brought into existence), would continue to be (exist) of its own accord? People overlook the fact that a being existing one moment does not guarantee that it will exist the next. With what I've noted above, I think it's also easier to shut down the objection that the universe is eternal, since a necessary Being is simply that Being on which the be of others continually depends. Thus, it’s one thing for the atheist to posit that the uncaused Cause is the universe, which would mean that the ultimate cause of the BECOME of everything is the universe. However, it’s quite another thing to posit that the universe is the necessary Being, which continually sustains us in existence (acts on our be, since we as we are, we could just as easily not be). In my opinion, it is more readily seen how this latter proposition is absurd.<br /><br /><br />"Second, if you take all the whole counting numbers {1,2,3...}; mathematicians say it's infinite. Now, consider the set of all even whole counting numbers {2,4,6...}; mathematicians say this is also infinite when it only contains half the numbers of the first set."<br />I have not yet taken set theory, and I think that infinities don't exist in the real (I’m not exactly sure how the eternity of Heaven, for example, works, so I’m hesitant to outright say actual infinities are impossible), but I can't say I'm too fond of this objection, since if we're considering infinities, they are unbounded (since infinity really just means unbounded). Thus, the notion of “half of something unbounded” doesn’t really make sense. Moreover, the set of the even naturals could be produced by multiplying the set of naturals by 2 instead of "removing the odds" from the set of naturals (which seems to be what your reasoning suggests):<br />2N = 2*{1, 2, 3, ...} = {2, 4, 6, …}. With this I think it's easier to see why it could make sense that these infinities have the same cardinality (“size”) (and it wouldn't make much sense to say 2N has half as many elements as N). In practice perhaps, but if we're conceding an unbounded number of elements for the sake of argument, I don't think this objection works.<br /><br />Also, I think we're generalizing too much with the actual infinities aspect, because as far as considering infinite regresses goes, a fundamental distinction between these and, say, the set of natural numbers, is that in the former each member depends on the one before it and *there is no starting point*, whereas in the set of natural numbers, this is not the case (you could consider, say, 0 as the starting point from which each other element can succeed). Thus, an infinite regress would not explain the set since if each member depends on the last and there is no first, the set could not have become in the first place, but this reasoning could not apply to the set of natural numbers (even if we took the set Z, of integers, we could still consider 0 as the starting point but then building the set would take two steps: one of adding, the other of subtracting), which can’t really be said to regress infinitely, even though the set itself is infinite (unbounded).Dapoufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654393813329669624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-23741989399247155462022-09-12T04:28:48.652-07:002022-09-12T04:28:48.652-07:00Sorry Introibo, not a very satisfactory way of upl...Sorry Introibo, not a very satisfactory way of uploading it: I have it as a word file (Kolbe centre piece)- if there is a way of sending it to you in that form, let me know- <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-64560937630777615392022-09-12T04:24:24.231-07:002022-09-12T04:24:24.231-07:00t is noteworthy that Pope Pius XII observed that t...t is noteworthy that Pope Pius XII observed that the hypothesis that the human body originated from previously existing and living matter was based entirely on “already discovered indications”—in other words, on pieces of physical evidence—and on deductions from that evidence, and not on anything in “the sources of divine revelation.” Moreover, although Pope Pius XII charged “exegetes” with the task of determining in precisely what sense the first eleven chapters of Genesis are history, he insisted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “a kind of history” and that they contain a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people. He also upheld the constant teaching of the Church that these chapters are “free from all error” (DZ, 2329). Therefore, the PBC decrees and Humani Generis leave the very heavy burden of proof where it has always been—on those who question the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-3, as interpreted consistently by the Popes, Councils, and Fathers of the Church. <br />It is also noteworthy, that even after the Pontifical Biblical Commission allowed free discussion among exegetes concerning the meaning of yom in Genesis One, St. Pius X ordered pastors to teach the faithful from the Roman Catechism. Indeed, the Catechism of Trent remained the most approved catechetical resource for Catholics during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The fact that these pontiffs expected the faithful to be taught the faith of the Roman Catechism of Trent even as they allowed discussion among Catholic scholars of the claims of evolutionary cosmology and biology proves that, in their official statements, the burden of proof rested not on the defenders of the traditional doctrine of six day creation, but upon the advocates for theistic evolution or progressive creation. In the light of all of the evidence presented in this book, the advocates for a non-literal interpretation of yom in Genesis 1 have failed to provide any compelling evidence to support their hypothesis that yom does not mean a 24-hour day. Therefore, there is no longer any reason why the Magisterium should not now rule definitively in favor of yom in Genesis 1 as a 24-hour day. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-73901216600994851532022-09-12T04:24:09.692-07:002022-09-12T04:24:09.692-07:00The importance of this point can hardly be overemp...The importance of this point can hardly be overemphasized. Rightly understood, this doctrine—explicit in the writings of the Fathers and implicit in the PBC decrees—that the creation period has come to an end renders it absolutely impossible for natural science to discover anything certain about the creation week and the origin of the things created during that period. To repeat, this is because the Holy Fathers and the PBC unite in teaching that the creation period is over, that God is no longer creating new kinds of creatures, and that therefore creation cannot be observed. It is axiomatic that human science cannot arrive at certain knowledge of an order of things—in this case, the order of creation—that it cannot observe. This being the case, it is quite impossible for natural scientists to prove that the improper sense of “dies”—as a measure of the creation period—is the only reasonable interpretation of the word. <br />It may be objected that this plain meaning of the PBC decree in regard to “dies” cannot be binding any longer since almost no one remembers it, understands its actual meaning, or acts as if it were in force. But this would not be the first time that the plain sense of a magisterial decree was all but obliterated from the memory of the Church leadership for an extended period of time. In 325, the Council of Nicea defined that Jesus was “God from God, very God from very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father,” but less than a half-century later, as St. Jerome observed, “the whole world groaned to find itself Arian” and nine out of ten bishops could be found in communion with those who taught that Jesus was a creature—in direct contradiction to the Nicene formula.<br />When, in 1948, Cardinal Suhard attempted to get the PBC to renounce its earlier rulings on Genesis, he was rebuffed and told that the PBC did not wish to issue “new decrees on these questions” (Denz, 2302). Consequently, the next magisterial document dealing explicitly with the historical events recounted in Genesis 1-3, Humani Generis, must be understood in the context of the 1909 PBC rulings. It is in this context—and ONLY in this context—that Pope Pius XII’s permission to inquire “into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” can and must be understood. In view of the Vatican’s refusal to change its 1909 decrees on Genesis One, Catholics are still bound by them. Pope Pius XII himself in Humani Generis condemned those who transgress legitimate <br />freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking (DZ, 2327)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-43144911320383380062022-09-12T04:23:12.923-07:002022-09-12T04:23:12.923-07:00The PBC’s answer to Question V allows that some ex...The PBC’s answer to Question V allows that some expressions in Genesis may be understood improperly when “reason prohibits holding the proper sense” or “necessity forces its abandonment.” However, according to the answer to Question VI, interpretations should be made “with the Holy Fathers and the Church herself leading the way.” <br />The PBC’s answer to Question VIII establishes that the word “dies” in the distinction of the six days of Genesis Chapter One may be understood in the proper sense as a natural day or in the improper sense as “a certain space of time.” <br />Answers IV and V taken together tell us that some expressions may be understood improperly when “reason prohibits holding the proper sense” or “necessity requires.” These are very strict conditions indeed! According to these criteria, the word “dies” in Genesis One may be understood improperly as a certain space of time IF and only IF reason dictates or necessity requires. In short, the Magisterium is not treating the proper and improper senses of “dies” as equals. On the contrary, the Magisterium lays the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who would challenge the proper sense. It is they who must prove that reason dictates or necessity requires that “dies” be interpreted as a “certain space of time” and not as a natural day. <br />It follows that the “free discussion among exegetes” allowed by answer VIII is permitted for the purpose of allowing the advocates of the improper sense to demonstrate that the improper sense of “dies” in Genesis One is the only reasonable interpretation. But “free discussion”—being of its very nature an exchange of views—also means that attempts to defend the improper sense as the only reasonable interpretation must be subjected to critical review by other exegetes in full knowledge that failure to PROVE that the improper sense of “dies” is the only reasonable interpretation of the word in Genesis One ipso facto establishes “natural day” as the preferred interpretation. Moreover, since the answer to Question VI teaches that the interpretation of Genesis should be made “with the Holy Fathers and the Church leading the way,” the burden of proof falls entirely upon those who question the consensus of the Fathers on the interpretation of any part of Genesis 1-11. <br />In this connection, there is an important—and rarely noticed—link between the patristic consensus on Genesis One and the PBC’s decree on the possible interpretation of “dies” as “a certain space of time.” According to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the Sabbath rest of the Lord after the six days of creation marked the end of the creation period. Consequently, apart from the creation of each human soul at the moment of conception—which is not the creation of a new nature but of a new individual with the same nature as Adam—creation ceased after the sixth day of creation. Now “a certain space of time” is by definition a limited period. Therefore, the PBC decree establishes as a fact that the creation period—whether it was six natural days or a longer period (although, as we have shown, the latter interpretation is scarcely tenable)—is over. It is logically impossible, therefore, to learn anything about the events of creation week by observing present-day natural processes. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-63491495791341602162022-09-12T04:22:46.206-07:002022-09-12T04:22:46.206-07:00 1) “The creation of all things wrought by God ... 1) “The creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time”<br /><br />Comment: <br />This passage upholds the Lateran IV doctrine that all things were created by God “in the beginning of time.” This in and of itself contradicts the conjecture that the days of Genesis could represent longer periods of time than a natural day.<br />2) “The special creation of man”<br /><br />Comment: This excludes any process in the formation of man and requires that the creation of man was immediate and instantaneous. <br /><br />3) “The formation of the first woman from the first man”<br /><br />Comment: This, too, excludes any process in the formation of the first woman and requires that the creation of Eve was immediate and instantaneous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-64554621128210209932022-09-12T04:21:33.681-07:002022-09-12T04:21:33.681-07:00From Pope Leo XIII to Pope Pius XII
As mentioned e...From Pope Leo XIII to Pope Pius XII<br />As mentioned earlier in connection with attempts to reinterpret the dogmatic decree on creation of Lateran IV and Vatican I, in the nineteenth century many Catholic intellectuals believed the claims of Lyellian geology and Darwinian biology and concluded that God could not have created the heavens, the earth, the seas and all they contain in natural six days. But the Magisterium reacted strongly against this trend. In the face of efforts to legalize divorce in many once-Catholic countries, Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Arcanum to defend the special creation of Adam and Eve as the foundation of the Church’s teaching on holy matrimony. He told the bishops:<br />We record what is to all known and cannot be denied by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom he miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.1<br /><br />When leading Catholic Scripture scholars openly defied Pope Leo’s teaching, he realized the need for an orthodox biblical commission. In 1902 he established the PBC as an arm of the Magisterium. In 1906, the PBC reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that Moses was the author/redactor of the first five books of the Pentateuch. On November 18, 1907, in the Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae,” Pope St. Pius X declared that no one could contest the rulings of the PBC without “grave sin.” Then, in 1909, the commissioners published replies to eight questions concerning the first three chapters of Genesis. <br />The PBC’s answers to several questions establish certain truths unequivocally. <br />As noted above, its reply to Question I established that the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis cannot be called into question, and its reply to Question II established that Genesis contains “stories of events which really happened, which correspond with historical reality and objective truth,” not “legends, historical in part and fictitious in part.” <br />Question III asked whether “in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question when it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters [Genesis 1-3], which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man . . .—Reply: In the negative.”2<br />This reply establishes that the literal and historical truth of the following facts cannot be called into question:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-16885443806086847752022-09-12T04:09:37.168-07:002022-09-12T04:09:37.168-07:00Here, here, Introibo, Dr. Droleskey is indeed a ve...Here, here, Introibo, Dr. Droleskey is indeed a very good man, and his website is of the highest quality. Here is a link to today’s entry which is so important to understand given all the attention on Great Britain and the death of HMQ Elizabeth II. <br /><br /> http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/jorge-mario-bergoglio-would-have-urged-catholics-dialogue-diocletian-part-threeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-53790935897009354042022-09-12T04:09:18.902-07:002022-09-12T04:09:18.902-07:00@anon1:32
Feel free to send it on. I'll respon...@anon1:32<br />Feel free to send it on. I'll respond either here or on next month's "Contending For The Faith" post, depending on the length of what you send.<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-64089524747319091852022-09-12T01:32:40.004-07:002022-09-12T01:32:40.004-07:00Hello Introibo!
I have forwarded your position to...Hello Introibo!<br /><br />I have forwarded your position to the Kolbe Centre and they have sent me a thorough reply:- if you would be interested in seeing it?<br />I'll append it to this message.<br />It is from the book "I Have Spoken to You from Heaven" by Hugh Owen. <br /><br />Laudetur IC!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-24018912525838182452022-09-11T19:54:17.166-07:002022-09-11T19:54:17.166-07:00Simon,
Very true!
God Bless,
---IntroiboSimon,<br />Very true!<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-92121563240155068512022-09-11T16:04:56.093-07:002022-09-11T16:04:56.093-07:00Thank you for the kind words, and for the prayers!...Thank you for the kind words, and for the prayers! <br />-S.T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-36733862878182577232022-09-11T14:04:03.782-07:002022-09-11T14:04:03.782-07:00We can't know what's going on outside the ...We can't know what's going on outside the confines of the visible universe, so this multiverse hypothesis sounds like science-fiction to me. And if it is true, why would there be universes in which life would be impossible due to a lack of fine-tuning of the physical constants and others, like ours, where life could be possible? But it's a hypothesis that sounds good to atheist scientists because it saves them from having to wonder about the origin of all things.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187291090939527229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-74438325358622572742022-09-11T13:07:32.799-07:002022-09-11T13:07:32.799-07:00CE,
Even conceding a "multiverse," it do...CE,<br />Even conceding a "multiverse," it doesn't matter.<br /><br /> As Vilenkin says, and I quote (this is from 2012), “There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” He says, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”<br />(See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A where Vilenkin concludes, “there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”)<br /><br />See also, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/what-is-the-multiverse from this year:<br /><br />"Even though certain features of the universe seem to require the existence of a multiverse, nothing has been directly observed that suggests it actually exists. So far, the evidence supporting the idea of a multiverse is purely theoretical, and in some cases, philosophical.<br /><br />Some experts argue that it may be a grand cosmic coincidence that the big bang forged a perfectly balanced universe that is just right for our existence. Other scientists think it is more likely that any number of physical universes exist, and that we simply inhabit the one that has the right characteristics for our survival.<br /><br />An infinite number of alternate little pocket universes, or bubbles universes, some of which have different physics or different fundamental constants, is an attractive idea, Kakalios says. “That’s why some people take these ideas kind of seriously, because it helps address certain philosophical issues,” he says.<br /><br />Scientists argue about whether the multiverse is even an empirically testable theory; some would say no, given that by definition a multiverse is independent from our own universe and impossible to access. But perhaps we just haven’t figured out the right test."<br /><br />Translation: "Science of the gaps."<br /><br />---IntroiboIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com