“Yonder Is Matter Unorganized”; Why Joseph Was A Visionary.

[Rob Bowman]

saint,

You wrote:

Neither one is entirely correct. The elements, as in the Periodic Table of Elements, are not eternal, but most do last for a very long time. At some point in the far distant future all the suns will use all the hydrogen, and helium, they have, and finally made iron. That sun will last seconds. This universe will then experience heat death. Then about 100 trillion trillion trillion years from now even the protons that all matter is made of will dissolve into the nothingness. Then the Gods will once again say "Let there be light", and it willl be.

Well, to state the obvious, we have quite different conceptions of the divine and creation.

[erichard]

Richard,

You wrote:

Your claim here leads to the incongruous conclusion that the atheists and pantheists who believe that the stuff of the cosmos is eternal have been listening to the Holy Ghost, while the theists who believe in creation ex nihilo have been shutting their ears to the Holy Ghost.

Remember the parable of the repentant publican? (Luke 18:9-14)

The only real "sin" before God is rebellion against truth.

The publican was a sinner, but knew it and was trying to find it within himself to repent.

The pharisee was doing a lot of good things, and was glad he was not a bad sinner. But his rebellion against truth was worse than the acts of the publican.

Rob, even though non-believers sometimes accept truths they hear, that does not mean they themselves were listening to the Holy Ghost. The fact that they rebel against the teachings of Christ surely will weigh heavy against them in the day their eternal souls are judged.

I do believe in Priestcraft. That it exists all over the place. People get caught up in it and they place themselves where the Holy Ghost cannot teach them new things, even when they have a lot of truth.

How can I be more humble and more like a child to receive more truth?

Richard

[mfbukowski]

Bernard,

You wrote:

The God of the Bible is the only deity in the history of world religions whose description matches the scientific evidence. That is, the scientific evidence shows that the universe has an omniscient, purposeful, transcendent Creator who was able to bring the universe into existence at a specific beginning (i.e., God is eternal but his creation is temporal). This evidence excludes pantheistic and polytheistic religions and proves that theism is true. The Bible teaches theism, and Judaism and Christianity are the two ancient religions that accept the biblical view of God and creation (Islam accepts more or less the same view, which it derived from them).

Now, if you wish to present a serious argument in favor of a different deity as the maker of the world, have at it.

Interesting.

Where is anything like this found in the Bible?

Before the Big Bang

Maverick cosmologists contend that what we think of as the moment of creation was simply part of an infinite cycle of titanic collisions between our universe and a parallel world...

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.

http://discovermagaz.../2004/feb/cover

Golly, that sounds a lot like what is implied in the King Follette Discourse to me.

According to your logic, I suppose that proves the Mormon view.

Or perhaps the Hindu. I wonder when you will learn that science does not prove, or disprove, religion.

Edited November 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I may well have a far different ideas about the Divine, and Creation than you, and probably a great many LDS too

That the elements are not eternal is established fact. That at some time in far distant future this and every other sun will exhaust, use up, its hydrogen and helium is established fact. That protons have a very long life but they are not eternal is established fact. That the Gods will at some vey far distant point will say "Let there be light", and it will be is religious conjecture on my part. Nothing at all that I have posted contradicts science(Brane Theory) so it is a good as conjecture as anyone elses, and does no viloence to God.

In any event even if true, those events are far into the future that I won't lose any sleep over it.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

We're not talking about just any singularity, but about the singularity from which the entire space-time-matter-energy universe originated -- the "mother of all singularities," if you will. The Big Bang is not analogous to a black hole singularity.

Read some of the books I have referenced; they will show that the Big Bang model has been a great boon to theism, not to atheism.

The mathematical description of the "Big Bang" singularity and the "black hole" singularity is identical. The assumption of a the Big Bang singularity does not mathematically require, presuppose, or necessitate that there was no time, space, or matter before or outside of it. The Big Bang singularity (like any other black hole singularity) presupposes and necessitates the existence, or pre-existence, of an infinitely compressed gravitational field in space-time, in which a very large quantity of mass and energy was already compressed. You don't start with a singularity and end up with energy, matter, and mass. You start with energy, matter, space, time, and mass before you can end up with a singularity.

[Rob Osborn]

Something I have never been able to figure out is the fact that we have never seen the edge of the universe- if it even exists or if there even is an edge. And yet, we extrapolate from the extremely small view we do have of the universe and make grand conclusions that it "all" started and came from a big bang. Its ironic to me that the more powerful our telescopes get, the farther and farther we can see out into space from our vantgae point. From all we can tell so far is that it just keeps going on and on and on forever.

So, if the big bang is true, we should be able to see the edge of the universe shouldn't we at some point? So, what happens if we find out that there is no end to the universe? What if we got to a point of seeing deep into space where we should see the edge of the universe and instead just see more endless universe beyond that point? Would that invalidate the big bang theory?

[Rob Bowman]

Rob,

You wrote:

Something I have never been able to figure out is the fact that we have never seen the edge of the universe- if it even exists or if there even is an edge. And yet, we extrapolate from the extremely small view we do have of the universe and make grand conclusions that it "all" started and came from a big bang. Its ironic to me that the more powerful our telescopes get, the farther and farther we can see out into space from our vantgae point. From all we can tell so far is that it just keeps going on and on and on forever.

So, if the big bang is true, we should be able to see the edge of the universe shouldn't we at some point? So, what happens if we find out that there is no end to the universe? What if we got to a point of seeing deep into space where we should see the edge of the universe and instead just see more endless universe beyond that point? Would that invalidate the big bang theory?

We shouldn't, we won't, and no. The outermost or farthest parts of the universe are expanding away from us so fast that we will never be able to see them, at least in any natural or technological sense of seeing. However, what we do see is that in all directions the universe is expanding, analogous to a balloon expanding in which the outer skin (not "edge") of the balloon is expanding faster than space deeper inside the balloon. (There is no "skin" of the universe, either; it's an analogy.) This information, along with other information such as the cosmic background radiation, has convinced the majority of astronomers and cosmologists that the universe had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago.

If the big bang model is correct, as our technologies for seeing distant objects improve we should find that we are approaching asymptotically a limit to the age of objects that we are able to observe. (This is a more accurate statement of the limits predicted than distance, because again the most distant objects are understood to be moving away from us so fast that we will never be able to observe them.) Assuming that the figure of 13.7 billion years holds (there is nothing sacred or essential about that precise figure), we should not be able to view objects that appear to be 20 billion or even 15 billion years old. (At present, the oldest observable phenomena are about 13 billion years old.) On the other hand, if the theory that the universe is infinitely old is true, one would expect that we could eventually detect objects that are 100 billion or even a trillion years old.

[Rivers]

This is all very interesting. Is there anything in Mormon theology that contradicts the Big Bang theory? I know that Joseph Smith taught that intelligence has no beginning or end but did he ever say anything about ordinary matter having no beginning?

I ask because the big bang theory is used by christian apologists, like William Lane Craig, to prove the existence of God. The argument is that there must have been a first cause that caused the big bang and that God is that first cause. Is it reasonable for mormons to use that same argument?

[Bernard Gui]

The God of the Bible is the only deity in the history of world religions whose description matches the scientific evidence. That is, the scientific evidence shows that the universe has an omniscient, purposeful, transcendent Creator who was able to bring the universe into existence at a specific beginning (i.e., God is eternal but his creation is temporal). This evidence excludes pantheistic and polytheistic religions and proves that theism is true. The Bible teaches theism, and Judaism and Christianity are the two ancient religions that accept the biblical view of God and creation (Islam accepts more or less the same view, which it derived from them).

Now, if you wish to present a serious argument in favor of a different deity as the maker of the world, have at it.

Are you really thinking you just presented a serious argument? You used the Bible to prove your point! That is circular reasoning. You also make the unwarranted assumption that the cause of creation must be the God of some major human religion. Appealing to the authority of bible-bound creationists again makes your argument circular and smacks of special pleading.

It is risky to hang your hat on the rack of current scientific theory. That is a mistake made by many in the past. Supposing one day the Big Bang theory is replaced by one based on further discoveries. That spells doom for the God of Christianity and Judaism, no? But wait...they have proven resilient to such enormous scientific upheaval in the past.

It does not follow from scientific evidence that there must be only one God. There is nothing to preclude multiple transcendent Gods working in complete harmony. The LDS concept of God meets your criteria just fine.

In fact, considering current speculations on the multiverse and multiple universes, there never was a beginning of time, space, or matter, and the LDS concept is a much better fit than the limited creedal deity of the Big Bang creationists.

Bernard

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[zerinus]

This is all very interesting. Is there anything in Mormon theology that contradicts the Big Bang theory?

I suppose in a way yes. LDS scripture implies an ordered and intelligent creation, not a haphazard, disordered, “chance” creation. The Big Bang theory is built on the idea of chance. It is not meant to promote creation by intelligent design. In Mormonism God is fully in charge in every aspect of creation, and nothing is left to chance. Here are some verses for you to consider:

Moses 1:

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

Abraham 3:

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.

This is not the kind of creation that can come about as a result of the Big Bang theory. It shows God being actively engaged in every detail of the creation process. The Big Bang theory is an atheistic concept. It has no affinity whatsoever with intelligent design. It is the sign of the desperation of the ex-nihilo creationists that they have latched on to this thing as their proof of the existence of God.

I know that Joseph Smith taught that intelligence has no beginning or end but did he ever say anything about ordinary matter having no beginning?

The D&C implies that matter also had no beginning.

I ask because the big bang theory is used by christian apologists, like William Lane Craig, to prove the existence of God. The argument is that there must have been a first cause that caused the big bang and that God is that first cause.

Again, that is the sign of their ignorance and desperation. The Big Bang theory neither proves God, nor supports the idea of a First Cause.

Is it reasonable for mormons to use that same argument?

No!

Edited November 27, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Are you really thinking you just presented a serious argument?

Of course. Your question is unwarranted and insulting.

You wrote:

You used the Bible to prove your point! That is circular reasoning.

You seem to have forgotten your own question, which was on what basis do I believe that the God of the Bible is the God who created the world. The Bible has to be mentioned somewhere in my answer! Doing so is not circular reasoning, and the way I referenced the Bible in my answer was not circular reasoning.

You wrote:

You also make the unwarranted assumption that the cause of creation must be the God of some major human religion.

If you want to bring in a minor human religion, go ahead, and if you think you know something about religions on some other planet, I'm sure that would be interesting as well. But there's no point in talking in pure hypotheticals here.

You wrote:

Appealing to the authority of bible-bound creationists again makes your argument circular and smacks of special pleading.

I made no such appeal, and therefore your criticism here is groundless.

You wrote:

It is risky to hang your hat on the rack of current scientific theory. That is a mistake made by many in the past. Supposing one day the Big Bang theory is replaced by one based on further discoveries. That spells doom for the God of Christianity and Judaism, no? But wait...they have proven resilient to such enormous scientific upheaval in the past.

I'm not hanging my hat on the Big Bang theory. I'm simply pointing out that the theory, which has impressive empirical evidence, supports or agrees with theism and poses serious difficulties to other views of the divine, such as pantheism (and especially atheism). If a better theory comes along, we will want to think through its implications for our view of God and the world, just as we should be doing now with regard to the best theory available to us in the present.

You wrote:

It does not follow from scientific evidence that there must be only one God. There is nothing to preclude multiple transcendent Gods working in complete harmony. The LDS concept of God meets your criteria just fine.

In fact, considering current speculations on the multiverse and multiple universes, there never was a beginning of time, space, or matter, and the LDS concept is a much better fit than the limited creedal deity of the Big Bang creationists.

The operative word in your comment here is speculative. That is exactly what all the multiverse and many-worlds ideas are. They are transparently motivated by the desire to avoid the obvious implication of the Big Bang.

Previously, you characterized the Big Bang theory as atheistic. Now you are tarring it as creationist. It cannot be both!

One problem with your suggestion that the multiple Gods of the LDS religion might be responsible for creation is that as conventionally understood in LDS teaching, the LDS Gods are not "transcendent" in the necessary sense. That is, they are not beings that transcend space, time, and matter. Rather, they are exalted beings that are intrinsically and essentially embodied (occupying specific, localized space) in matter (albeit of a finer nature than the matter of the physical world) and experience reality in a temporally linear fashion just as we do. Another problem is that LDS theology, again as usually understood, denies that the Gods created the space-time universe, teaching instead that they organized the elements to form the world in its present state.

I suppose someone might propose that a plurality of truly transcendent Gods, each possessing the infinite attributes of deity in orthodox theology (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnitemporality, etc.), worked together in perfect harmony to create the universe. I happen to think that the idea of a plurality of such Gods is incoherent, but the philosophical argument for this conclusion is subtle and complex. (My authority for rejecting the idea, of course, is not philosophy but the Bible.) On the other hand, philosophically there is no reason to posit a multiplicity of such Gods: if one exists, he could surely do the job. (Yes, that's an application of Ockham's razor.) So even if we cannot prove that such a multiplicity or plurality of Gods exists, that one God is the sole Creator of the universe is still the best explanation--and it happens to agree with the Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

There is no edge to the universe.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

[altersteve]

So even if we cannot prove that such a multiplicity or plurality of Gods exists, that one God is the sole Creator of the universe is still the best explanation--and it happens to agree with the Bible.

This implies that Latter-day Saints believe that God is not the sole Creator of the universe. Why would you suggest that? Also, looking forward to your response to my last 2 posts.

[thesometimesaint]

Altersteve:

Jesus is the creator under the direction of God the Father.

[altersteve]

Altersteve:

Jesus is the creator under the direction of God the Father.

So I've heard.

Edited November 27, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Hi again. You wrote:

While we're on this subject, though, what was God doing all that time? Just lounging around until He got bored and decided to make something appear out of nowhere? Or do you believe God has been creating other universes prior to this one?

There was no "prior," in my understanding, because time as we know it had a beginning a finite period of time ago when the universe came into existence. If this is correct, there was no time prior to the creation of the universe; rather, God's existence is eternal in the sense that it transcends time.

There is an alternative view advocated by some Christians that God's eternity means that his existence is infinitely old, so that God was indeed existing for a very long time -- for an infinite amount of time -- before he made the universe. Your question would be pertinent to this view, but not to the classical Christian view that I hold, explained above.

You wrote:

You're right, not the best way to put it. That was more of a sarcastic question than anything, sorry for being unclear. But still, there was never "nothing," at any time. There was always something. Like you said, there was a pre-existing "singularity," which is something. The Big Bang theory states that this "gravitational singularity" was a very hot, dense, chaotic, unorganized mass of energy, which expanded rapidly and over time became what our universe is now, and that it is still expanding (i.e., God organized this chaos and is still organizing it with every world that comes into existence; and you also said that energy once came into existence, which is false because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form). In other words, it was the Big Bang that God made happen; He did not make the singularity come into existence. It had always been there in some form. The idea that there was "nothing" at one point doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and would be false anyway because if God has existed for eternity, then there was "something," because clearly God is a "something."

Your reasoning here depends largely on the mistaken assumption that God's existence is a linear everlastingness in which God's existence extends backwards in time infinitely. That is not the classical Christian view. The singularity of the Big Bang is not something that "preexisted" the Big Bang but is the initial moment and condition of the universe, the beginning of the Big Bang. Your statement leads to the paradoxical if not nonsensical conclusion that the singularity existed as such for endless periods of time and then somehow gave way to the expanding universe. The singularity that initiated the Big Bang was not a stable condition!

The law of conservation of energy assumes a closed system in which the universe exists and has a certain total amount of energy in it; such an assumption works for ordinary processes of nature (the burning "life-cycle" of stars, for example) but is inapplicable to such issues as the beginning of the universe itself. That is, what the law of conservation of matter and energy (to be more precise) says is that no immanent process within the universe can increase or decrease the total amount of matter and energy; this tells us nothing about what an external, transcendent Creator might be able to do.

You wrote:

Furthermore, some believe in the Big Bounce theory, which is that a previous universe collapsed (this is known as the Big Crunch) into a black hole singularity, which then "exploded" (i.e., the Big Bang; I know the term "exploded" is inaccurate, but I use it because it's the only word I can think of) and became our universe. This, of course, is 100% consistent with the LDS view.

This is known as the oscillating universe theory, and right now the evidence appears stacked against it. The idea is that the universe expands, slows down, stops, and then reverses, collapsing on itself and creating a perfect "bounce" that starts the expansion and collapse process over again, ad infinitum. Precise measurements of the cosmic background radiation support a different conclusion: that the universe will keep expanding outward and never reverse into a collapse.

I don't see how an oscillating universe model supports LDS theology. According to the oscillating universe model, the universe is not organized by a deity or group of deities, but is naturally self-perpetuating through an infinite series of expansions and collapses. Each "big bang" is not a divine act of cosmic organization but a natural bounce in an endless series of bounces.

You wrote:

It seems to me that you're forcing science in order for to it fit with your traditional interpretation of the Bible (and I don't think the Bible supports the ex nihilo view, anyway). It doesn't work that way.

Actually, if you'll read books such as Jastrow's God and the Astronomers, you'll find that this is not the case. Jastrow was an agnostic, and as he reports, several leading scientists mounted stiff resistance to the Big Bang model precisely because they saw it as providing support to the traditional Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo. The evidence forced many of them to admit that some sort of God exists, even if not the God who acted to redeem us in Christ.

You wrote:

Besides, I love the idea that God is a God who creates order out of chaos. Just as He organized something as enormous and amazing as this universe from a chaotic mass of unorganized energy (which, you recall, cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form), He also organizes our lives from something chaotic into something orderly and beautiful. It's perfectly consistent with His nature, and it's very comforting to me.

Well, I don't choose my doctrines based on my subjective feelings about them. I try to consider the evidence and go where it leads, even if it makes me uncomfortable, as it sometimes has.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Once again, Rob, Joseph never said God was once a man who progressed and became God. He said God the Father lived on an earth, just as Jesus Christ Himself did. Jesus received the power to law down His life and take it back up again from His Father. His Father also had this power. This is what Joseph taught. Reading the infamous "I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see" quote in context of the entire King Follett sermon shows this, and it must be read in this context. Because Joseph clearly compared the Father's mortality to the Son's, not to ours. He did so for a reason. The Father was mortal like His Son was, and gave the power to enter into mortality to His Son so that He (Jesus) could atone for the sins of mankind. Just as Jesus has been God eternally, therefore, so has the Father; He simply hasn't always been exactly as He is now. He once did not have a physical body, and He too progressed in the same way Jesus Christ has. He "became God" in a sense, but that doesn't mean He was once not God. And this is not a contradiction. His very nature has always been the nature of God, just as Christ's nature has always been. And that, ultimately, was the teaching of the King Follett discourse, and I think it's beautiful. To interpret the discourse in any other way distorts Joseph's meaning.

And also, just to add, even if God the Father had a Father, that doesn't mean He was once not God. Christ has a Father too, but Christ has still been God eternally. I think that's the idea that needs to be understood here.

Joseph Smith explicitly says in the KFD, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...." Other Mormons in this forum have expressly contradicted your interpretation. The comparison that Joseph makes between the Father and Christ is that the Father lived on an earth the same as Christ did; this doesn't tell us that the Father was already a God before he lived on his earth. You say that he "became God" in a sense, but in another sense he was always God; but this doesn't explain Joseph's dismissive language about people imagining and supposing that God had been God from all eternity, or his claim that he would refute that idea.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

This implies that Latter-day Saints believe that God is not the sole Creator of the universe. Why would you suggest that?

I was responding to Bernard Gui, who has been vigorously arguing in this very thread for a plurality of Gods as the makers of the universe. The Book of Abraham explicitly credits a plurality of Gods with organizing the universe. The idea that one God alone made the universe is apparently not LDS doctrine.

[altersteve]

There was no "prior," in my understanding, because time as we know it had a beginning a finite period of time ago when the universe came into existence. If this is correct, there was no time prior to the creation of the universe; rather, God's existence is eternal in the sense that it transcends time.

There is an alternative view advocated by some Christians that God's eternity means that his existence is infinitely old, so that God was indeed existing for a very long time -- for an infinite amount of time -- before he made the universe. Your question would be pertinent to this view, but not to the classical Christian view that I hold, explained above.

I understand this view, but I don't believe it is supported by the Bible, and science does not have a firm answer on this. Some believe that there was a time "before" the Big Bang, and others do not. It is one of those instances where our religious beliefs -- what God has revealed to us -- will affect how we view scientific data rather than the other way around. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

I have to point out, though, that you said that time as we know it had a beginning. That's exactly right. Time, as we know it, had a beginning. But even before then, there was some sort of "time" concept. It's just something we can't comprehend, because it's the Lord's time.

Your reasoning here depends largely on the mistaken assumption that God's existence is a linear everlastingness in which God's existence extends backwards in time infinitely. That is not the classical Christian view. The singularity of the Big Bang is not something that "preexisted" the Big Bang but is the initial moment and condition of the universe, the beginning of the Big Bang. Your statement leads to the paradoxical if not nonsensical conclusion that the singularity existed as such for endless periods of time and then somehow gave way to the expanding universe. The singularity that initiated the Big Bang was not a stable condition!

I never claimed that the singularity itself existed "for endless periods of time," only that something did; nor did I try to suggest that the singularity was a "stable condition."

The law of conservation of energy assumes a closed system in which the universe exists and has a certain total amount of energy in it; such an assumption works for ordinary processes of nature (the burning "life-cycle" of stars, for example) but is inapplicable to such issues as the beginning of the universe itself. That is, what the law of conservation of matter and energy (to be more precise) says is that no immanent process within the universe can increase or decrease the total amount of matter and energy; this tells us nothing about what an external, transcendent Creator might be able to do.

I agree that the laws of this universe do not, and cannot, explain what God might be able to do, but I also believe that such laws are eternal and universal, as both the gospel and science clearly state.

This is known as the oscillating universe theory, and right now the evidence appears stacked against it. The idea is that the universe expands, slows down, stops, and then reverses, collapsing on itself and creating a perfect "bounce" that starts the expansion and collapse process over again, ad infinitum. Precise measurements of the cosmic background radiation support a different conclusion: that the universe will keep expanding outward and never reverse into a collapse.

I don't see how an oscillating universe model supports LDS theology. According to the oscillating universe model, the universe is not organized by a deity or group of deities, but is naturally self-perpetuating through an infinite series of expansions and collapses. Each "big bang" is not a divine act of cosmic organization but a natural bounce in an endless series of bounces.

I'm not talking about an "oscillating universe theory," I'm talking about the idea that God created this universe from the "remains," if you will, from a previous one. And no one knows whether or not this universe will "reverse into a collapse." Some believe it will, some believe it won't. Once again, our religious beliefs will affect which scientific interpretations we will accept.

Actually, if you'll read books such as Jastrow's God and the Astronomers, you'll find that this is not the case. Jastrow was an agnostic, and as he reports, several leading scientists mounted stiff resistance to the Big Bang model precisely because they saw it as providing support to the traditional Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo. The evidence forced many of them to admit that some sort of God exists, even if not the God who acted to redeem us in Christ.

Again, the Bible does not support the ex nihilo idea. As Joseph Smith correctly pointed out, the Hebrew word for "create" does not mean "create from nothing."

Well, I don't choose my doctrines based on my subjective feelings about them. I try to consider the evidence and go where it leads, even if it makes me uncomfortable, as it sometimes has.

Neither do I; I never said I believe this because of what I "feel" about it. I don't believe in anything based on what I feel, nor do I believe in anything based on evidence. I only believe in something based on what God reveals to me.

Joseph Smith explicitly says in the KFD, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...." Other Mormons in this forum have expressly contradicted your interpretation. The comparison that Joseph makes between the Father and Christ is that the Father lived on an earth the same as Christ did; this doesn't tell us that the Father was already a God before he lived on his earth. You say that he "became God" in a sense, but in another sense he was always God; but this doesn't explain Joseph's dismissive language about people imagining and supposing that God had been God from all eternity, or his claim that he would refute that idea.

Read what he said, Rob:

"I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, 'As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.' To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it."

Only God has the ability to "lay down his body and take it up again." Clearly, Joseph was saying that the Father was still God during His mortality. And I don't care what other Mormons on this forum say. I care about what Joseph Smith said and did not say, and he did not say that Heavenly Father was once not God. The parts where it seem as if he did are taken out of context from the rest of the sermon. To interpret the sermon as such is to completely misconstrue his intent.

I was responding to Bernard Gui, who has been vigorously arguing in this very thread for a plurality of Gods as the makers of the universe. The Book of Abraham explicitly credits a plurality of Gods with organizing the universe. The idea that one God alone made the universe is apparently not LDS doctrine.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that we don't believe that God created the universe. I didn't pay much attention to the "sole" part. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction between the Book of Abraham and other scriptures where it says that "God," rather than "the Gods," created the universe.

Edited November 28, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

This is all very interesting. Is there anything in Mormon theology that contradicts the Big Bang theory? I know that Joseph Smith taught that intelligence has no beginning or end but did he ever say anything about ordinary matter having no beginning?

I ask because the big bang theory is used by christian apologists, like William Lane Craig, to prove the existence of God. The argument is that there must have been a first cause that caused the big bang and that God is that first cause. Is it reasonable for mormons to use that same argument?

I would encourage you to read the previous posts in the thread.

The entire question is not the big bang, but what happened before the big bang. Current science seems to indicate there could have been universes without number both now in other dimensions and "before" the big bang, which seems to me to be consistent with the idea that each universe might have its own God, a notion consistent with the King Follette Discourse.

So yes, LDS theology not only is consistent with the big bang, but in my opinion, it is consistent with other scientific cosmological theories which traditional Christianity cannot possibly explain.

[mfbukowski]

If the big bang model is correct...

You are expending a lot of energy here telling us about Craig and the Big Bang, insisting that the Bible requires "evidence" other than the spirit to verify its truth, and yet you are not even sure if the model is "correct".

If the theory is not "correct" you have a lot on the line.

And ultimately, it does not account for what happened before the big bang, which is the real issue.

[mfbukowski]

We live in interesting times, when a Biblical fundamentalist tries to teach us about modern physical theories about cosmology, thinking they prove a fundamentalist view of the Bible.

Interesting indeed

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

There comes a point where it is difficult to know how to make further progress. You are apparently able to believe both that God has always been God and that God at some point in time became God. You are also apparently able to believe that only one God created the world and that a plurality of Gods created the world. I am not able to hold simultaneously such blatantly contradictory beliefs. My mind inevitably must choose one and either outright reject the other or shoehorn the other to make it fit, if I feel I must do something with it. My guess is that you shoehorn the one to fit the other. Thus you probably don't really believe that God became God or that one God alone made the world; these statements must be shoehorned into the system of doctrine you have chosen to accept in which God has always been God and a plurality of Gods made the world. But I would only be guessing. Either way, I find it difficult to see a way forward, as long as we disagree about how to handle such contradictory affirmations.

[altersteve]

Steve,

There comes a point where it is difficult to know how to make further progress. You are apparently able to believe both that God has always been God and that God at some point in time became God. You are also apparently able to believe that only one God created the world and that a plurality of Gods created the world. I am not able to hold simultaneously such blatantly contradictory beliefs. My mind inevitably must choose one and either outright reject the other or shoehorn the other to make it fit, if I feel I must do something with it. My guess is that you shoehorn the one to fit the other. Thus you probably don't really believe that God became God or that one God alone made the world; these statements must be shoehorned into the system of doctrine you have chosen to accept in which God has always been God and a plurality of Gods made the world. But I would only be guessing. Either way, I find it difficult to see a way forward, as long as we disagree about how to handle such contradictory affirmations.

I already explained how I believe God "became God" (the Creator, Supreme Ruler, and Sustainer of the universe) in some sense, while still having eternally been God in another sense. And when the Book of Abraham refers to "the Gods," it is referring to the Father and the Son, who can also be referred to as "one God." They're not contradictory. Jesus Christ created the world, but He is one with His Father, so saying that God created the world is perfectly accurate. It is also appropriate to say that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ created the world. And it is equally accurate to say that Heavenly Father created the world. There's no contradiction or "shoehorning" at all.

Edited November 28, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

I already explained how I believe God "became God" (the Creator, Supreme Ruler, and Sustainer of the universe) in some sense, while still having eternally been God in another sense. And when the Book of Abraham refers to "the Gods," it is referring to the Father and the Son, who can also be referred to as "one God." They're not contradictory. Jesus Christ created the world, but He is one with His Father, so saying that God created the world is perfectly accurate. It is also appropriate to say that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ created the world. And it is equally accurate to say that Heavenly Father created the world. There's no contradiction or "shoehorning" at all.

Those who are not familiar with the notion that meaning is derived from context do not understand ways in which "in one sense" things might be one way and yet "in another sense" they might be a different way, and find such notions threatening.

Ambiguity tolerance is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.

Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education. In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity,^[1] risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle,^[2] orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.^[3]

Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience'.

The converse, ambiguity intolerance,^[4][5] which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950,^[6] was defined in 1975 as a “tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_tolerance