Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[shalamabobbi]

There is a distinction between "the observable universe" and "the entire universe."

The Universe can be either finite or infinite, and it is without boundary. It could be infinite in all three spatial dimensions, in which case there is obviously no boundary, or it could be finite in all three spatial dimensions but wrapped into a 3-sphere - again, no boundary. It could even be wrapped up into a 3-torus, or something even more exotic, but in each case it is finite with *no* boundary.

As for the entire Universe, given that we have no idea how big it is, we have no idea how big it was prior to inflation nor post inflation. There is a good chance it is infinite, in which case it was the same size prior and post.

(quotes from a working cosmologist on EVC forum)

While I don't believe this is what zerinius was refering to about "outside the universe" it is a common enough misconception for many that I thought the post was worth making.

So when it is said that after inflation the universe was 10cm in diameter for example, we are talking about the observable universe today and how big it would be then. Hope that helps the discussion..

Edited September 22, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[zerinus]

While I don't believe this is what zerinius was refering to about "outside the universe" . . .

I don't recall referring to "outside the universe".

[ERayR]

There is a distinction between "the observable universe" and "the entire universe."

(quotes from a working cosmologist on EVC forum)

While I don't believe this is what zerinius was refering to about "outside the universe" it is a common enough misconception for many that I thought the post was worth making.

So when it is said that after inflation the universe was 10cm in diameter for example, we are talking about the observable universe today and how big it would be then. Hope that helps the discussion..

My imagination can not get around a concept of finite with no boundaries. To me that is contradiction. To me something finite must have boundaries.

[TAO]

There is a distinction between "the observable universe" and "the entire universe."

(quotes from a working cosmologist on EVC forum)

While I don't believe this is what zerinius was refering to about "outside the universe" it is a common enough misconception for many that I thought the post was worth making.

So when it is said that after inflation the universe was 10cm in diameter for example, we are talking about the observable universe today and how big it would be then. Hope that helps the discussion..

Shammalboi, I think what 'outside of the universe' is referring to is 'outside of our partition of space'. There is no guarantee that there isn't matter or time in other partitions, and such.

Edited September 22, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

My imagination can not get around a concept of finite with no boundaries. To me that is contradiction. To me something finite must have boundaries.

Think about it this way. |x| < 3 on the set of Natural numbers. The natural numbers go on forever in both directions, but the filled in parts are restricted to between 3 and -3. Of course, you could technichally consider that rule the 'boundary'.

Now suppose it was |x| < a, where a keeps getting greater over time. What you have on a line is a line segment. What you have, on a piece of paper, is an expanding circle. What you have in a 3D model is an expanding sphere.

Edited September 22, 2012 by TAO

[shalamabobbi]

My imagination can not get around a concept of finite with no boundaries. To me that is contradiction. To me something finite must have boundaries.

If you were a 2-dimensional entity stuck to the surface of the earth, that surface to you would be finite yet without any boundaries or walls or edges.

Edited September 22, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

I don't recall referring to "outside the universe".

I think this qualifies.

I believe that God created the laws that govern the universe, including the laws of physics; and can operate outside of them if He chooses to.

Since in this viewpoint God created the laws that govern the universe and those laws include general relativity then He was operating from "outside the universe."

[ERayR]

Think about it this way. |x| < 3 on the set of Natural numbers. The natural numbers go on forever in both directions, but the filled in parts are restricted to between 3 and -3. Of course, you could technichally consider that rule the 'boundary'.

Now suppose it was |x| < a, where a keeps getting greater over time. What you have on a line is a line segment. What you have, on a piece of paper, is an expanding circle. What you have in a 3D model is an expanding sphere.

OK I see what you mean but there are still boundaries. Whatever value is assumed for the variable a becomes the boundary. True it can be an expanding boundary but it still has it's bounds. As I see it when you have limits you have boundaries. Those boundaries may never be triggered but they are still there waiting to be given a value.

[Lightbearer]

Why does this subject always engender such contraversy? To me it is rather simple. God the Father had a Father and a Mother (as do we) it may offend the sensibilities of some faint hearted so-called Saints but that is the great secret. It is a beautiful doctrine, it is so logical. Of course Anti-Mormons revile such an idea as blasphemous much as the Jews who killed Christ. He being a man made himself God! That is the beauty of Mormonism, where we are a race of Gods, without beginning of days or end of years. There never was a "first God" and while this idea is incomprehensible to some, it is a lot less incomprehensible than the so-called traditional Christian God who is unknowable and unseen, and cannot even be understood. At least as far as we are concerned God the Father is our God and we can become one with Him, as He did with His Father. I think the following LDS Hymn sheds some light on this concept:

( If You Could Hie to Kolob, no. 284)

"1 If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,

“No man has found ‘pure space,’

Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue;

There is no end to might;

There is no end to wisdom;

There is no end to light.

There is no end to union;

There is no end to youth;

There is no end to priesthood;

There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory;

There is no end to love;

There is no end to being;

There is no death above.

There is no end to glory;

There is no end to love;

There is no end to being;

There is no death above."

Text: William W. Phelps, 1792–1872

This sums up my feelings on the subject, while it is true that we "don't know much about it" we do know that this is the case, that Our Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ make it possible for all who will obey them to become one with them.

[The Nehor]

This sums up my feelings on the subject, while it is true that we "don't know much about it" we do know that this is the case, that Our Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ make it possible for all who will obey them to become one with them.

I would say "one of them" but otherwise agree.

[Lightbearer]

I would say "one of them" but otherwise agree.

Correct, one of them is a more exact phrase.

[MiserereNobis]

Why does this subject always engender such contraversy? To me it is rather simple. God the Father had a Father and a Mother (as do we) it may offend the sensibilities of some faint hearted so-called Saints but that is the great secret.

As a non-Mormon, I agree with you. Your doctrine on this is unique and is internally logically with your other doctrines, so why not declare it openly and without hesitation? I think you would take the wind out of the sails of the critics. But it seems that Mormons want very hard to be thought of as traditional Christians. Perhaps that desire is getting in the way.

Of course Anti-Mormons revile such an idea as blasphemous much as the Jews who killed Christ. He being a man made himself God!

Well, you don't have to be "anti-Mormon" to think that idea is blasphemous. You just have to be a non-Mormon and a traditional Christian

[ERayR]

Why does this subject always engender such contraversy? To me it is rather simple. God the Father had a Father and a Mother (as do we) it may offend the sensibilities of some faint hearted so-called Saints but that is the great secret. It is a beautiful doctrine, it is so logical. Of course Anti-Mormons revile such an idea as blasphemous much as the Jews who killed Christ. He being a man made himself God! That is the beauty of Mormonism, where we are a race of Gods, without beginning of days or end of years. There never was a "first God" and while this idea is incomprehensible to some, it is a lot less incomprehensible than the so-called traditional Christian God who is unknowable and unseen, and cannot even be understood. At least as far as we are concerned God the Father is our God and we can become one with Him, as He did with His Father. I think the following LDS Hymn sheds some light on this concept:

This sums up my feelings on the subject, while it is true that we "don't know much about it" we do know that this is the case, that Our Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ make it possible for all who will obey them to become one with them.

Hey I am with you. I think this all most religious zeal that some approach the concept of gradual ascendance gets in the way.

[The Nehor]

As a non-Mormon, I agree with you. Your doctrine on this is unique and is internally logically with your other doctrines, so why not declare it openly and without hesitation? I think you would take the wind out of the sails of the critics. But it seems that Mormons want very hard to be thought of as traditional Christians. Perhaps that desire is getting in the way.

Well, you don't have to be "anti-Mormon" to think that idea is blasphemous. You just have to be a non-Mormon and a traditional Christian

I do not think it is an attempt to be mainstream that causes us not to speak often of this. I do think an emphasis on it is dangerous if spoken of too frequently. It becomes vulgar. I attended a Sunday School class where the instructor started every class by emphasizing that everyone is a God in embryo. There was a kind of pride attached to it and some of those attending treated it flippantly. There are times to discuss and teach this doctrine but it should be treated with respect and awe.

The other danger are those who make this their central study. This breeds arrogance of another kind. They forget that the true meat of the gospel are to be found in faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the holy ghost, hope, and charity. I think these are many of the ones in Lehi's vision who wandered into strange paths and were lost.

[mfbukowski]

My friend Howard went into a Burger King and asked if he could have a Big Mac his way.

That is hilarious!

[mfbukowski]

There is a distinction between "the observable universe" and "the entire universe."

Now THAT is one we should talk about.

I don't believe it.

[Calm]

I meant this statement only in relation to things literally beginning and ending, not in a figurative sense. Numbers do not begin or end. They just are.

I can see this, but I don't know how you could prove it true for all cases.

[Calm]

As a non-Mormon, I agree with you. Your doctrine on this is unique and is internally logically with your other doctrines, so why not declare it openly and without hesitation? I think you would take the wind out of the sails of the critics. But it seems that Mormons want very hard to be thought of as traditional Christians. Perhaps that desire is getting in the way.

Perhaps for some. For many though, it is a desire to avoid presenting speculation as revelation.

[shalamabobbi]

Now THAT is one we should talk about.

I don't believe it.

I understand constructivism and I agree with it in principle. I also accept an exterior reality that I grant we can never experience directly but nevertheless accounts for all that constructing that we do.

Think of a planet existing like earth around some distant star but far enough away that for now we have no technology to detect it. I'll grant that you could believe that. That is all the distinction that is being made between the observable universe and the entire universe.

I'm not talking about hidden dimensions where God may be hiding. I am referring to the fact that there is only so much of the potentially infinite universe that we can perceive due to speed of light travel time and the universe having a beginning.

[mfbukowski]

I understand constructivism and I agree with it in principle. I also accept an exterior reality that I grant we can never experience directly but nevertheless accounts for all that constructing that we do.

Think of a planet existing like earth around some distant star but far enough away that for now we have no technology to detect it. I'll grant that you could believe that. That is all the distinction that is being made between the observable universe and the entire universe.

I'm not talking about hidden dimensions where God may be hiding. I am referring to the fact that there is only so much of the potentially infinite universe that we can perceive due to speed of light travel time and the universe having a beginning.

Ok I get what you're saying but I wouldn't push it too far.

Astronomy is a good example of this whole point and is why I brought it up precisely because of the vast distances- no astronomer thinks that what they are seeing is "really there right now" because whatever they are observing might have had some catastrophe hundreds or thousands of years ago which no one would have any way of knowing about.

The problem is understanding that the computer in front of you is no more "really there" than that distant star- and that all you have of what is "really there" is your perception that it IS "really there".

So of course I would just say forget about worrying about some world beyond observation just as we don't worry about whether or not some star we are observing went supernova 10,000 years ago.

What you see is what you get, and is all we have to talk about, so why postulate anything beyond that?

[MiserereNobis]

What you see is what you get, and is all we have to talk about, so why postulate anything beyond that?

Cuz it's fun!

[zerinus]

I think this qualifies.

It doesn't actually. One does not follow from the other.

Since in this viewpoint God created the laws that govern the universe and those laws include general relativity then He was operating from "outside the universe."

I don't agree. I don't see why that should be.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Did you learn anything new? Sometimes God will tell me something when I do that.

How stupid I am...a lesson often learned.

[mfbukowski]

I understand constructivism and I agree with it in principle. I also accept an exterior reality that I grant we can never experience directly but nevertheless accounts for all that constructing that we do.

The problem is that you cannot even talk about it "accounting for the constructing we do" because that is a contradiction in constructivism. I just quoted this on another thread- it's a line from Richard Rorty.

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say

that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are

elements of human languages, and that human languages are human

creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human

mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is

out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the

world can be true or false. The world on its own - unaided by the

describing activities of human beings - cannot.

I mean you might talk poetically about things you cannot see- just know that you are now in the realm of faith and religion.

[mfbukowski]

Cuz it's fun!

Works for me! But I would rather do other stuff for fun!