Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Curiosity - Did God Create The Universe?


Recommended Posts

So I watched a new series last night hosted by Steven Hawking.

http://www.atheismtv...tephen-hawking/

Basically, he comes to the conclusion that since the Universe adds up mathematically to 0, and that time stands still in a black hole (ie ceases to exist) that there is No God because there would be no need or no way for God to create nothing.

I thought maybe those of us who saw this could discuss some of his logic and reasoning.

I'll start out...

1) I found his analogy about negative energy not very compelling. He illustrated this by a farmer wanting to build a hill in his field (a flat plane) would have to dig a hole and pile the dirt next to it forming the hill. According to Mr. Hawking this demonstrated negative energy because the mass of the hole that was dug would be = to the mass of the hill that was made. So if you have a huge amount of positive energy at any given location in space there has to be an equal amount of negative energy from some where else and that this always equals zero.

His analogy focused completely on the hole and the hill, and missed the fact that there was a farmer digging the hole in the first place.

This whole discussion doesn't touch the God of Mormonism because he is a Master builder not a master magician who disappears things into thin air and then brings them back again.

again we see that if one can not find a natural (physical) justification for what is admittedly supernatural (non-physical) then it must not "exist". As if all things that exist must be physical! Seems to be a fundamental misstep by Hawking, but given that he has flip-flopped on his theories of God i see no reason to give him any special consideration for his opinion on the subject of God. At what point do we realize that "science" is not what is necessary to validate spirituality?

Link to comment

It is impossible for God to have created the universe "from something," because if there exists something, that something was part of the universe.

We create things from things that already exist all the time, like when we create a home for ourselves on a plot of land, and there's no good reason to think God can't also do something like that by making something somewhere where before there was nothing of that kind there.

The real question is, whether there is a God that didn't create the universe.

There are 2 things that need to be understood before you can give a correct answer to the question:

1) What do you mean by "create"

2) Who or what are you referring to as "God"

Well, okay, 3 things:

3) What are you referrring to as the "universe"

One of the things that distinguishes the Mormon God from the God of traditional Judeo-Christianity is that the universe does not dependent upon the Mormon God for its existence.

First of all, the idea that the "Mormon" God is not the same God as the "God of traditional Judeo-Christianity" is debatable, and the real question should be which God is the one and only true God.

Secondly, while we Mormons believe the universe existed in some form before the one and only true God created it, we Mormons still believe God created the universe... and still does.

Link to comment

It is impossible for God to have created the universe "from something," because if there exists something, that something was part of the universe.

The real question is, whether there is a God that didn't create the universe. One of the things that distinguishes the Mormon God from the God of traditional Judeo-Christianity is that the universe does not dependent upon the Mormon God for its existence. Hawking's comments only address the traditional Judeo-Christian God. However, I'm sure he'd be skeptical about the Mormon God too, considering that there is no known physical process (except maybe wormholes) by which a single God could personally rule over multiple inhabited planets, due to the inability of information to travel through space faster than the speed of light.

Ever read Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Perfect speed is faster than the speed of light. It is being there. Is it possible? I dunno. I'm not ready to limit God by anything we consider to be natural laws until we have some understanding of supernatural laws, which I don't think we do.

Link to comment
The minute we start positing non-observable extra dimensions (because we can't figure out how God works in the depths of this one) is the minute we start to slide down the Neoplatonic rabbit-hole of an untouchable, timeless, spaceless abstraction of an incorporeally impotent God.

Alas, far too many Mormons are quite willing to grab onto any number of untested and unproven scientific ideas and merge them into our theology.

Gods are not Gods because they are separated from us by a vast and unbridgeable ontological gulf, but rather because they are more loving and trustworthy than we are. Sure, they've got cool science and medicine that allows them to live forever and, like, glow in the dark and whatnot (*laugh*), but I think we're going to learn how to do that kinda stuff too, if we study things out in our minds and continue to learn more about the natural world.

I've seen quite a variance among Mormons on the concept of God, from the Mormon Transhumanist Association to Blake Ostler's concept of God. I personally lean towards a little bit to the former (though my belief that spirit matter is not currently present in the standard model separates me from many of the transhumanists).

Link to comment
Ever read Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Perfect speed is faster than the speed of light. It is being there. Is it possible? I dunno. I'm not ready to limit God by anything we consider to be natural laws until we have some understanding of supernatural laws, which I don't think we do.

I very much believe in superluminal speeds. However, all observations indicate our mortal bodies abide by relativistic limitations. I do not yet know how to incorporate superluminal interactions with our speed-of-light-limited-bodies that do not yield the possibility of irreconcilable paradox. Ah well, working on it.

Link to comment

Alas, far too many Mormons are quite willing to grab onto any number of untested and unproven scientific ideas and merge them into our theology.

The cusp of science is fare too many people grabbing on to any number of untested and unproven scientific ideas and then merge them with their own knowledge. I think unlike so many, Latter-day Saints look for truth in all kinds of disciplines, often applying those truths and theories to what they know. We should be thrilled, and as a member I am, that we have our core doctrine and it allows us to learn without rejecting knowledge that is true.

Edited by Jeff K.
Link to comment
Mark Beesley, on 09 August 2011 - 10:16 AM, said:

Ever read Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Perfect speed is faster than the speed of light. It is being there. Is it possible? I dunno. I'm not ready to limit God by anything we consider to be natural laws until we have some understanding of supernatural laws, which I don't think we do.

I very much believe in superluminal speeds. However, all observations indicate our mortal bodies abide by relativistic limitations. I do not yet know how to incorporate superluminal interactions with our speed-of-light-limited-bodies that do not yield the possibility of irreconcilable paradox. Ah well, working on it.

Maybe we will be inculcated with tachyons. ;)

Link to comment
The cusp of science is fare too many people grabbing on to any number of untested and unproven scientific ideas and then merge them with their own knowledge. I think unlike so many, Latter-day Saints look for truth in all kinds of disciplines, often applying those truths and theories to what they know. We should be thrilled, and as a member I am, that we have our core doctrine and it allows us to learn without rejecting knowledge that is true.

What I speak of is that what is often being applied is often not truth. Still, I heartily commend the sentiment. Superluminal interactions being a great example -- an apparent truth that compels a stretching of current scientific understanding.

Maybe we will be inculcated with tachyons. ;)

Tachyons are nice theoretical creatures, but never have been observed nor are they a requirement of any of our observations. Doesn't mean they don't exist -- getting them to play nice with sub-luminal matter is quite another thing though.

Link to comment

Agh, no, back away from the cliff y'all! *grin*

The minute we start positing non-observable extra dimensions (because we can't figure out how God works in the depths of this one) is the minute we start to slide down the Neoplatonic rabbit-hole of an untouchable, timeless, spaceless abstraction of an incorporeally impotent God.

We don't need it. Mormon theology is the only one I've found which just admits up front that humans, despite all our present biological weaknesses, are the Gods. We carry the last surviving remnant of the "primitive" myths of all the tribes of the world which honored their ancestors who came from the sky bearing their Trees of Life. See D&C 130:

Gods are not Gods because they are separated from us by a vast and unbridgeable ontological gulf, but rather because they are more loving and trustworthy than we are. Sure, they've got cool science and medicine that allows them to live forever and, like, glow in the dark and whatnot (*laugh*), but I think we're going to learn how to do that kinda stuff too, if we study things out in our minds and continue to learn more about the natural world.

That stuff isn't the truly important part, tho: it's what we do with our lives that matters. It's how we act. As Joseph Smith said, "Sectarian priests cry out concerning me, and ask, 'Why is it this babbler gains so many followers, and retains them?' I answer, 'It is because I possess the principle of love. All I can offer the world is a good heart and a good hand.'"

I might lament the annoying lack of scientific detail in Genesis, but isn't the point of the book, after all, to try to establish the idea that we're all in this together? Love for our enormous human family, extended across the worlds, is the important part. What's really odd is how closely the traditional Christian and atheistic science lines up; despite their oft-professed loathing for one another, they're really operating from the same premise: in order for something to be "created", it must be created from nothing. It's an absolutist product of Alexandrian schooling that we in the Western world still haven't gotten over, two thousand years later.

And it's honestly just kinda silly. The word "create" just means "to make, bring forth, produce, beget." It's related to crescere, which is to "arise, come forth, spring up, grow, thrive, swell, increase in numbers or strength," from the Proto-Indo-European base ker-, meaning "to grow", as in the name of Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, or creare, "to bring forth, create, produce;" or the Greek kouros, "boy," or kore, "girl". We "create" our own children by following natural laws, initiating a process in which we cooperate in a complex symbiosis with other material to form new tabernacles for spirits. Yet as D&C 77 points out, all beasts have intrinsic spiritual element as well; and section 88 says that these sparks of light are present in all things. Spirit is merely more "refined" and "pure" matter, which we will see when we learn how to look with better eyes. Though it's seen as somehow "primitive" in the anthropology department, we're essentially animists; everything is alive.

D&C 93:

Brother Joseph taught that man exists that he might have joy, and that the great principle of happiness lies in having a body, which was calculated to engender sympathy in mankind for their brethren. So where did our Father God's body come from? Interestingly enough, Smith also taught in the King Follett Discourse (I know, it's not doctrine, but I love it anyway) that our God, among all the Gods, was once a Man like us, who did not have the power to create Himself. Additionally, Alma 42:13 states that “the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.” This implies to me external Laws which God must obey.

If there is one thing that separates the LDS religion from most other philosophies, it is that we believe the Intelligence of Man (whatever that is) is a necessary aspect of the universe. We are not contingent. We are causes, not effects, which is the reason we can be held responsible for our actions. Everything we do is a choice. Like God, the most primal aspect of Men and Women are uncreated, and yet we've also been placed within the sustaining ecosystem of a living planet which retains a clear progression of fossil and genetic evidence that makes it clear that evolution has occurred in our current bodies, since we recapitulate it with every fertilized embryo. Science is just more careful and accurate magic; God knows how to work with life, to make vineyards which He can watch over to produce the fruit of apotheosis for His children.

There are materials and laws which just kinda exist. No one made 'em. It's an eternal round; very Zen. But as little sparks of Light, we are free to act by using those preexisting kingdoms of laws to move ourselves, make patterns of ourselves, cause joy to blossom in each other's beautifully intricate bodies by loving one another. It is all good! Mormonism is so awesome because it's actually the "highest" form of Humanism. I'm pretty sure we're the last major religion to believe in anthropomorphic Gods, when the rest of the world has fallen into the philosophical trap of thinking there is something evil about "mere" matter and physicality, and something more philosophically respectable about self-contradictory "higher" planes and dimensions and non-physical paradoxical abstractions.

"Mere" matter? It's existence! It's real! We can touch it! We can hug our friends and siblings and parents and children. :)

Dude, if you wrote a book, I would read it!

Of course, I'd still check with God, our Father, to see if what you said was true, but you are still already one of my favorite people to hear from.

Keep it coming!

Link to comment

Jeff K., on 09 August 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

The cusp of science is fare too many people grabbing on to any number of untested and unproven scientific ideas and then merge them with their own knowledge. I think unlike so many, Latter-day Saints look for truth in all kinds of disciplines, often applying those truths and theories to what they know. We should be thrilled, and as a member I am, that we have our core doctrine and it allows us to learn without rejecting knowledge that is true.

What I speak of is that what is often being applied is often not truth. Still, I heartily commend the sentiment. Superluminal interactions being a great example -- an apparent truth that compels a stretching of current scientific understanding.

Well I look at different truths (some being greater than others) to be the equivalent of gravitons (another interesting unobserved phenom) where the lesser truths or theories eventually falling off as the greater truths catch on.

Link to comment
Mormonism is so awesome because it's actually the "highest" form of Humanism. I'm pretty sure we're the last major religion to believe in anthropomorphic Gods, when the rest of the world has fallen into the philosophical trap of thinking there is something evil about "mere" matter and physicality, and something more philosophically respectable about self-contradictory "higher" planes and dimensions and non-physical paradoxical abstractions.

"Mere" matter? It's existence! It's real! We can touch it! We can hug our friends and siblings and parents and children. :)

Dang, dude, You're good! Beautifully written. I stumble around in ponderous language trying to say the same thing- and there it is- pure and simple!

Link to comment
.. no known physical process (except maybe wormholes) by which a single God could personally rule over multiple inhabited planets, due to the inability of information to travel through space faster than the speed of light.

But nothing is faster than the speed of thought. Experientially, I can be at the Eiffel tower and in my living room simultaneously while traveling through time to boot. The only things which inhibit it sometimes are the flaws in this now older hunk of meat in my head, and the fact that I am not always in tune.

And I have also "perceived" that someone needed me independent of the "speed of information" because that information was by the Spirit. That can even reach into the future.

Link to comment
But nothing is faster than the speed of thought. Experientially, I can be at the Eiffel tower and in my living room simultaneously while traveling through time to boot. The only things which inhibit it sometimes are the flaws in this now older hunk of meat in my head, and the fact that I am not always in tune.

Discover Magazine: What is the Speed of Thought

We Mormons tend to be material dualists (spirit matter and physical matter). But, the interaction between the spirit mind and the physical mind is far from clear (heck, philosophers, neuro scientists, etc. still don't understand the physical mind). We know that mental activities of our physical are most distinctly not the fastest thing in the universe, not anywhere close to it. If the spirit matter "brain" operates in a similar fashion, even with my belief that spirit matter interactions are super-luminal, I very much suspect mental activities of the spirit mind will too not be anywhere near the fastest thing. But, we don't have any good model of the spirit body much less the spirit mind so I personally can't say either way with any great degree of confidence.

Link to comment
We Mormons tend to be material dualists (spirit matter and physical matter). But, the interaction between the spirit mind and the physical mind is far from clear (heck, philosophers, neuro scientists, etc. still don't understand the physical mind). We know that mental activities of our physical are most distinctly not the fastest thing in the universe, not anywhere close to it. If the spirit matter "brain" operates in a similar fashion, even with my belief that spirit matter interactions are super-luminal, I very much suspect mental activities of the spirit mind will too not be anywhere near the fastest thing. But, we don't have any good model of the spirit body much less the spirit mind so I personally can't say either way with any great degree of confidence.

As I (a thorough non-physicist) see this, our spirits are matter with trivial (or non-existent) mass. Mass is what makes the speed of light the limit. No mass, not limit. (Oversimplified, but, as I said, I'm not a physicist, and physicists are not looking at "trivial-mass matter" anyway.)

Lehi

Link to comment
As I (a thorough non-physicist) see this, our spirits are matter with trivial (or non-existent) mass. Mass is what makes the speed of light the limit. No mass, not limit. (Oversimplified, but, as I said, I'm not a physicist, and physicists are not looking at "trivial-mass matter" anyway.)

While it's perhaps not mass that defines the speed limit of our (physical) universe it is correct to say that any physical particle with mass is and must be sub-luminal. On the other hand, any particle without mass is not sub-luminal but must travel at the speed of light and can do no less (or more).

As for spirit matter, it will be much more complicated than simply a question of mass...

PS: particle physicists are looking at trivial mass particles. The question of neutrino mass is a large one. Heck, one of the big questions is whether or not there is a particle that defines mass, the Higgs particle. I personally nay say the effort but its quite possible the Higgs boson has had more money spent looking for it than any other scientific objective. But that's just a guess.

Link to comment

Discover Magazine: What is the Speed of Thought

We Mormons tend to be material dualists (spirit matter and physical matter). But, the interaction between the spirit mind and the physical mind is far from clear (heck, philosophers, neuro scientists, etc. still don't understand the physical mind). We know that mental activities of our physical are most distinctly not the fastest thing in the universe, not anywhere close to it. If the spirit matter "brain" operates in a similar fashion, even with my belief that spirit matter interactions are super-luminal, I very much suspect mental activities of the spirit mind will too not be anywhere near the fastest thing. But, we don't have any good model of the spirit body much less the spirit mind so I personally can't say either way with any great degree of confidence.

I am not a real Harry Potter fan, but my kids make me see the movies, and there was one line in the newest one when Harry asks if "all this is real, or is it in my head?" The head wizard guy answers "Of course it is all in your head- but that doesn't mean it's not real".

When you think about it, everything happens "in somebody's head"- some of it happens in a lot of people's heads, and we call that "objective" because we can reproduce the experiences, and some of it happens only in our heads- we call that "subjective". But the bottom line is that everything we know and feel and do and think and speak about is all "human experience" and it all happens "in people's heads", some of which is communicated to others via language and some of which is not.

So I wasn't talking about the speed of neural transfer through synapses, I was talking about the speed of thought in terms of human experience. We can think about being somewhere and "be there" experientially - I mean, when we are having them, how "real" are dreams? It seems that we are there.

But what if, for God, his mental activity actually "creates reality"? All of creation can be seen as being "organized" by humans, if all of reality IS in fact, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, human experience.

And after all, God IS a human.

What if his experience creates what we call "objective reality"? I imagine that this might be actually possible if we were all linked by an unknown mental/physical force called "consciousness" or as we term it "The Spirit" or "The Light of Christ".

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Add in that we don't have any idea as to what Dark Matter is, it all becomes interesting to say the least.

Yeah, approximately 95% of the universe is something that we have no friggin' idea what it is (~20% dark matter, ~75% dark energy) -- we only know what it is doing to the ~5% of stuff we do understand. Fun times!

Link to comment

I am not a real Harry Potter fan, but my kids make me see the movies, and there was one line in the newest one when Harry asks if "all this is real, or is it in my head?" The head wizard guy answers "Of course it is all in your head- but that doesn't mean it's not real".

When you think about it, everything happens "in somebody's head"- some of it happens in a lot of people's heads, and we call that "objective" because we can reproduce the experiences, and some of it happens only in our heads- we call that "subjective". But the bottom line is that everything we know and feel and do and think and speak about is all "human experience" and it all happens "in people's heads", some of which is communicated to others via language and some of which is not.

So I wasn't talking about the speed of neural transfer through synapses, I was talking about the speed of thought in terms of human experience. We can think about being somewhere and "be there" experientially - I mean, when we are having them, how "real" are dreams? It seems that we are there.

But what if, for God, his mental activity actually "creates reality"? All of creation can be seen as being "organized" by humans, if all of reality IS in fact, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, human experience.

And after all, God IS a human.

What if his experience creates what we call "objective reality"? I imagine that this might be actually possible if we were all linked by an unknown mental/physical force called "consciousness" or as we term it "The Spirit" or "The Light of Christ".

To think that some people have said that I have had some strange thoughts, or that I don't communicate my thoughts very well.

Oh well.

Anyway, you still just might want to reconsider calling our Father a human, though, mski.

To me that's like considering an itty bitty baby caterpillar to be a full grown butterfly before the transformation happens.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

To me that's like considering an itty bitty baby caterpillar to be a full grown butterfly before the transformation happens.

Yes, and remember abortion is wrong because a fertilized egg is a "human being" too.

Quite a transformation, huh?

Though he is perhaps infinitely above us, I think it is important to emphasize the "Father" part of your statement. He IS our Father.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Yes, and remember abortion is wrong because a fertilized egg is a "human being" too.

Quite a transformation, huh?

Though he is perhaps infinitely above us, I think it is important to emphasize the "Father" part of your statement. He IS our Father.

Well, he's not "infinitely" above us because if he was we would never be able to become as he is now, speaking of his nature.

I really don't have any contention about what you're saying, though, although I think you might be able to say it a little bit better for those a little less initiated.

Yes, he IS our Father, and Yes, we are literally his children, and Yes it is possible to become exactly like him even though we will never be the same person he is.

Link to comment
We What if his experience creates what we call "objective reality"? I imagine that this might be actually possible if we were all linked by an unknown mental/physical force called "consciousness" or as we term it "The Spirit" or "The Light of Christ".

I imagine you recall our philosophical differences. I've adopted the view that reality has an ontological reality independent of human experience and even what we call experience has foundation in material reality. I'm of the opinion that your approach inevitably leads down the rabbit hole of solipsism. /shrug I don't hold it against you. :P

So I wasn't talking about the speed of neural transfer through synapses, I was talking about the speed of thought in terms of human experience.

I know. As mentioned above, there are philosophical differences 'twixt you and I. These lead to very different conclusions on the matter (given that my response approaches the topic from a different foundation it remains unchanged). The only real point of consequence is I object to treating thought as the fastest thing in the universe as an obvious truth or fact. That's all. :)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...