Curiosity - Did God Create The Universe?

[Zakuska]

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.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mark Beesley]

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 demonstrated 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.

Hawking has some cool theories, but he treats them as indisputable facts. For example, he uses the example of matter/energy spontaneously appearing on the subatomic level, and projects that to the universe to theorize that it could have spontaneously appeared at the time of the Big Bang. The theory, however, is based on the assumption that the matter/energy actually is appearing spontaneously because science has not yet been able to explain it any other way. It can't explain it any other way because science is still limited to postulating and testing theories in a 3 dimensional universe. Science has no means or methodology for testing theories that might include a 4th, 5th, or 6th dimension. The appearance of Moroni at the bedside of Joseph Smith and the appearnce of the Savior post-resurrection in the closed, locked room are examples of events that suggest that God exists outside the 3 dimensions we are bound to.

Sorry Stephen, try again.

[Zakuska]

Hawking has some cool theories, but he treats them as indisputable facts. For example, he uses the example of matter/energy spontaneously appearing on the subatomic level, and projects that to the universe to theorize that it could have spontaneously appeared at the time of the Big Bang. The theory, however, is based on the assumption that the matter/energy actually is appearing spontaneously because science has not yet been able to explain it any other way. It can't explain it any other way because science is still limited to postulating and testing theories in a 3 dimensional universe. Science has no means or methodology for testing theories that might include a 4th, 5th, or 6th dimension. The appearance of Moroni at the bedside of Joseph Smith and the appearnce of the Savior post-resurrection in the closed, locked room are examples of events that suggest that God exists outside the 3 dimensions we are bound to.

Sorry Stephen, try again.

Thank you for bringing that up Mark. The Quatum Mechanics thing got me too. I grew up in science learning Newtons Laws and I just find it amazing that Sciencetist can throw their sacred laws that "never change" under the bus so easily. There is no way (as of yet) for Sciencetists to observe another dimension. So these protons that "pop into existance" could just as easily be poping onto the other side of the veil.

[Nathair/|\]

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 demonstrated 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.

Minor point of fact: Magic can't do that. It can sometimes move things or transform them, but it can't do anything that nature can't do.

[altersteve]

I find it amusing how few atheists consider the possibility of a God who created the universe from something.

[Ahab]

I find it amusing how few atheists consider the possibility of a God who created the universe from something.

I find it amusing how few atheists consider the idea that God is simply the most supreme life form in all of existence, whatever that form of life happens to be.

I mean, come on! How hard is it to see the fact that one of them/us has to be the most intelligent one that there is?

Maybe if they focused more on figuring out what "God" is they would then be able to figure out the "how" of how they actually do it.

Creation doesn't have to be from out of nothing for it to still be a creation, you know.

[Zakuska]

Minor point of fact: Magic can't do that. It can sometimes move things or transform them, but it can't do anything that nature can't do.

True. However it creates the illusion of that. Which kind of Illustrates Marks point about other dimensions.

[Nofear]

Edit: duplicate of below

Edited August 8, 2011 by Nofear

[Nofear]

Thank you for bringing that up Mark. The Quatum Mechanics thing got me too. I grew up in science learning Newtons Laws and I just find it amazing that Sciencetist can throw their sacred laws that "never change" under the bus so easily. There is no way (as of yet) for Sciencetists to observe another dimension. So these protons that "pop into existance" could just as easily be poping onto the other side of the veil.

It's not that Newton's Laws were thrown under the bus, but rather, quite simply, that Newtonian Mechanics observationally fails at a fundamental level to describe reality. Newtonian Mechanics, cannot, even in principle reproduce certain observations. Rather, they seem to be an approximation that is "good enough" in most cases, but not all.

That said, one has to be cautious about any reliance on virtual particles and negative energy for ontological reality. Virtual particles, for example, are one way to interpret certain mathematical objects in quantum field theory (a distinctly non-Newtonian theory which does exceptionally well at describing physical reality). But it is also not a necessary interpretation of the theory. That is to say, nothing in quantum field theory requires virtual particles have actual ontological existence. (For more reading I recommend: Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts by H. Nikolic.)

PS: I also take a similar stance on multiple dimensions. There are no observations, either in physics or Mormon theology, that require extra dimensions. One can certainly develop theories (either for physics or theology) which have extra dimensions. Since no observation requires them, I personally consider that an extravagant and unnecessary step.

[Nofear]

Basically, he comes to the conclusion that since the Universe adds up mathematically to 0...

I personally reject this premise. Hence, I can easily reject Hawking's argument. Though I must concede that the alternatives to this premise are very sticky things philosophically.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Nofear

[Zakuska]

Could a Mod please fix my herendous spelling mistakes in the thread title.

<Blush>

[CARPE DIEM]

Is there a Moderator that can fix the Go back to God? Thank you!

[LeSellers]

Is there a Moderator that can fix the Go back to God? Thank you!

Try the "Contact Us" link in the heading area of the page (any page).

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

@Zakuska:

...yeah, I don't think he 'demonstrated' what he thinks is a fact about the world by merely an analogy. "Illustrated" makes more sense.

[BCSpace]

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.

Precisely.

[Jeff K.]

Hawking has some cool theories, but he treats them as indisputable facts. For example, he uses the example of matter/energy spontaneously appearing on the subatomic level, and projects that to the universe to theorize that it could have spontaneously appeared at the time of the Big Bang. The theory, however, is based on the assumption that the matter/energy actually is appearing spontaneously because science has not yet been able to explain it any other way. It can't explain it any other way because science is still limited to postulating and testing theories in a 3 dimensional universe. Science has no means or methodology for testing theories that might include a 4th, 5th, or 6th dimension. The appearance of Moroni at the bedside of Joseph Smith and the appearnce of the Savior post-resurrection in the closed, locked room are examples of events that suggest that God exists outside the 3 dimensions we are bound to.

Sorry Stephen, try again.

One of the panel members also made this salient point regarding Hawking... "He comes close to asking the question "but who created the rules of physics... before backing off and never approaching the issue again".

[Keithroy]

HI everyone,

I am a Catholic who came across this forum and just had to say...thank you. I am a big believer in the "what if" of multiple religious beliefs and absolutely adore the kindness and family values that Mormons represent. God Bless each and every one of you.

Stephen Hawkings, I am sort of astonished that you missed so many other facts in your dissertation and conclusion. What about other dimensions? You yourself have postulated on the apparent existence of such. We, the faithful are often challanged by solid arguments from brilliant men but we ,the chosen, know in our heart and soul what awaits us in the next vibration of life.

[Cobalt-70]

I find it amusing how few atheists consider the possibility of a God who created the universe from something.

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.

[mfbukowski]

.. 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.

"Known" of course being the operative word.

[urroner]

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.

Suppose the "Mormon God" isn't simply a three spatial dimension being, rather, He is a higher spatial dimension being. How would that change the equation of personally ruling over multiple inhabited planets?

[etana]

Now there is the idea that the universe is only a 2 dimensional hologram. Pretty cool stuff.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/how-an-argument-with-hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram.ars

[Franktalk]

I tend to believe in God space. It is a medium that God lives in of which we know nothing. This medium acts as a spirit being and does the will of God or whoever He gives power to. Now did the Father assemble God space from existing intelligences? I sure don't know. I think of God space as eternal just like spirits. And I think of the known universe as a sub part of God space. Basically a dumbed down separate reality that is in essence part of a greater reality. So one could look at the universe as created or just changed in form. Both would be correct views depending on perspective.

Many places in scripture God seems to refer to stars and other objects as a spirit. The rules we see around us as nature are just rules that God spoke to the spirit of the universe. The universe knows God and does His will. Clearly in the Book of Job it describes God setting the bounds of nature / universe.

Hawkings just looks at the universe without seeing past it. Those who do not see beyond the eyes can not explain those things that come from a spiritual source.

[Nofear]

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

Mormons don't understand "create" in terms of creatio ex nihilo. Instead, he organized the material to be suitable for our habitation where before there was chaos. That is, he created the universe we live in.

[Jeff K.]

Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition

James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas

Fairwiki

I think the question remains open as to process.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Jeff K.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

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:

"When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."

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:

"[The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.] Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. [Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.] All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples."

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.

Edited August 9, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith