If we go to a planetarium in just about any part of the world, we will be given a spectacular show of the night sky, and there is a good chance that we will be told about the “early universe”, and how it arose from some cataclysmic event called the Big Bang.
Just to clarify, are you saying that Lemaitre did not believe in creatio ex nihilo because he thought the primeval atom had the same mass as the existing Universe and was therefore not ‘nothing’? If so, how did he reconcile his ‘creatio ex materio’ with belief in the Bible? Thanks.
No, I am saying that when discussing science, he ensured he never talked about creatio ex nihilo. Given that he was a priest, and ultimately became President of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and creatio ex nihilo is dogma of the Roman church, I fail to see how he could not have believed therein.
His position was discordist, in the sense that he did not use "scientific truths" to buttress religious discourse. Pius XII, in his 1951 speech «Un'ora», did the opposite.
Thanks! The history of the Big Bang theory made me laugh.
It might interest you that the email for this post got marked as spam by the widely used rspamd software. It gives these reasons:
RBL_SENDERSCORE (2 points): Substack uses "Mailgun Techonogy Inc" to send mail. Mailgun used IP 161.38.194.182 to send this substack mail and that IP is marked as suspect by senderscore.org
While I laugh at the 'Bing Bang' theory too, I found myself agreeing with Lemaitre’s 1931 quote, where he says that ‘IF this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.’
For me, Lemaitre implies two creations (as does Genesis) that first the universe was created (out of nothing) but it was ‘without form, and void’, but then there was a second creation (fiat lux) that created our universe (of space and time) out of chaos (the formless void) and into an ordered, growing and purposeful universe.
No, this is not correct. When Lemaître wrote about "before the beginning of space and time", he was referring to the state of the primeval atom. If there was only one atom, how could one talk of space (between what?) or time (repeated ticks of what?).
I have another serious quandary. If Lemaitre said ‘we could conceive the beginning of the universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of the universe’, is he presupposing that the mass of the unique atom (before the Bing Bang) is the same as the total mass of the universe after the Bing Bang?
For me, that would presuppose that there is NOT any subsequent creation of new matter, that the universe is NOT growing, and that would presuppose a finite universe.
But what if the universe is not finite, then the universe would be growing, and creating new matter as it grows. If it is creating new matter, could we say, that it was creating the new matter out of nothing, or could we say, that it must be creating the new matter out of something that was not matter?
Good to understand Lemaitre’s perspective.
Just to clarify, are you saying that Lemaitre did not believe in creatio ex nihilo because he thought the primeval atom had the same mass as the existing Universe and was therefore not ‘nothing’? If so, how did he reconcile his ‘creatio ex materio’ with belief in the Bible? Thanks.
No, I am saying that when discussing science, he ensured he never talked about creatio ex nihilo. Given that he was a priest, and ultimately became President of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and creatio ex nihilo is dogma of the Roman church, I fail to see how he could not have believed therein.
His position was discordist, in the sense that he did not use "scientific truths" to buttress religious discourse. Pius XII, in his 1951 speech «Un'ora», did the opposite.
Thanks for the clarification. It seems his 'discordant' stance continues to persist among supporters of the Big Bang theory to this day.
Thanks! The history of the Big Bang theory made me laugh.
It might interest you that the email for this post got marked as spam by the widely used rspamd software. It gives these reasons:
RBL_SENDERSCORE (2 points): Substack uses "Mailgun Techonogy Inc" to send mail. Mailgun used IP 161.38.194.182 to send this substack mail and that IP is marked as suspect by senderscore.org
PHISHING (1.1 points): The vatican.va and vaticanobservatory.org in the mail redirect to substack instead
PHISH_EMOTION (1 point): Message with subject trying to address user's emotion
SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION (1 point): Subject ends with a question
Thanks for the information about being labelled spam.
Another excellent post, John.
While I laugh at the 'Bing Bang' theory too, I found myself agreeing with Lemaitre’s 1931 quote, where he says that ‘IF this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.’
For me, Lemaitre implies two creations (as does Genesis) that first the universe was created (out of nothing) but it was ‘without form, and void’, but then there was a second creation (fiat lux) that created our universe (of space and time) out of chaos (the formless void) and into an ordered, growing and purposeful universe.
Does that make me a follower of Lemaitre or not?
Encore!
No, this is not correct. When Lemaître wrote about "before the beginning of space and time", he was referring to the state of the primeval atom. If there was only one atom, how could one talk of space (between what?) or time (repeated ticks of what?).
I have another serious quandary. If Lemaitre said ‘we could conceive the beginning of the universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of the universe’, is he presupposing that the mass of the unique atom (before the Bing Bang) is the same as the total mass of the universe after the Bing Bang?
For me, that would presuppose that there is NOT any subsequent creation of new matter, that the universe is NOT growing, and that would presuppose a finite universe.
But what if the universe is not finite, then the universe would be growing, and creating new matter as it grows. If it is creating new matter, could we say, that it was creating the new matter out of nothing, or could we say, that it must be creating the new matter out of something that was not matter?
As I wrote in my previous post, Lemaître believed in a finite universe, and explicitly opposed Blaise Pascal on this matter.
https://johnplaice.substack.com/p/supposedly-20th-century-science-liberated