How is it possible that there is no beginning

[Ahab]

Actually the idea that there never has been an ultimate beginning of all things is the only idea that makes sense in the big picture. No beginning to our kind of being because each one of us came from our parents and it works that way for all other kinds of beings as well. There never has been any kind of being that just popped into existence from out of nowhere or nothing. Life perpetuates itself as living beings perpetuate their own kind of being.  It is happening around us all the time and anyone who knows what to look for can see it.  What amazes me is how many people can't see or envision what to me appears to be obvious and instead of seeing things as they really are some people make up things they don't see happening.  Each moment that passes is a glimpse at eternity.

 

 

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The plasma universe model is not all that mysterious, and doesn't need "hypothetical" particles.

I will add that you can read about the plasma model for the universe in Eric Lerner's book: The Big Bang Never Happened. This book outlines some of the problems of the Big Bang model we aren't normally told, and gives alternative models which have been presented by plasma cosmologists. In these models the universe has no beginning. Some of the problems with the big bang model are that there are known universes which are currently moving too slowly to be where they are at if the big bang really happened like they thought it did. So they try to think up ways to explain this phenomena in the big bang model - usually, something slowed down these universes. Then we get into problems presented by introducing dark matter into the cosmology of the universe which could partially explain the slowing of these universes, and the problems it presents for the model. Recently two cosmological phycisists came up with a new constant - other than the Bose-Einstein constant - which seems to resolve these difficulties, but if used then they predict the universe had no beginning. Their paper can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0753

Edited December 13, 2015 by RevTestament

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The plasma universe model is not all that mysterious, and doesn't need "hypothetical" particles.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I had a fine morning reading about that model.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The plasma universe model is not all that mysterious, and doesn't need "hypothetical" particles.

The standard plasma universe model is not the one discussed in the article I was responding to. The plasma universe has its own problems.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I will add that you can read about the plasma model for the universe in Eric Lerner's book: The Big Bang Never Happened. This book outlines some of the problems of the Big Bang model we aren't normally told, and gives alternative models which have been presented by plasma cosmologists. In these models the universe has no beginning. Some of the problems with the big bang model are that there are known universes which are currently moving too slowly to be where they are at if the big bang really happened like they thought it did. So they try to think up ways to explain this phenomena in the big bang model - usually, something slowed down these universes. Then we get into problems presented by introducing dark matter into the cosmology of the universe which could partially explain the slowing of these universes, and the problems it presents for the model. Recently two cosmological phycisists came up with a new constant - other than the Bose-Einstein constant - which seems to resolve these difficulties, but if used then they predict the universe had no beginning. Their paper can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0753

Be very wary of pop science books. This is general advice not specific to this book but I am guessing it applies.

[Maidservant]

While it is strange to contemplate no beginning, I do at least find it less strange than imagining at some point a being popped into existence out of nothing.  At least with an infinite progression of beginnings, there is always something/someone we are coming from.  (Let that sink in.)

Not to mention, that each of us is eternal and never had beginning nor will have end.  So it may be said that we had father(s) and mother(s) in some ways (some 'rounds') but in another way it may be said that we never did.  We have always been our own selves and are--what? progressing? playing around? exploring? enjoying? learning? experiencing?

[Freedom]

To say there is no time in the eternities is like saying, in my opinion, there is no 2nd dimension in a three dimensional world. How we perceive time is how a one dimensional creature perceives the third dimension. The contradictions and conflicts that we perceive in this reality will disappear in the next, and what we understand about our reality will change as we see it for what it really is. I do not enjoy time very much as it is currently perceived. All the waiting and enduring. The thought of existing for year after year for eternity with the same drudgery is not appealing. Once you know everything and have experienced everything, I see living forever as we currently perceive time as a punishment I do not want to endure.  I am expecting a far more wonderful reality. 

[Kaleb Webb]

Circles have no beginning and no end. Maybe it's something like that. 

[strappinglad]

8 hours ago, Kaleb Webb said:

Circles have no beginning and no end. Maybe it's something like that. 

While they are being made they do. 

[Gray]

We can identify a beginning to both time and space at the moment of the Big Bang. Of course, that doesn't account for the possibility of a multiverse of universes, which could indeed be past eternal. Or maybe what's eternal is the endless chain of 'verses, multiverse → metaverse → xenoverse → hyperverse → omniverse, etc.

On the other hand, you could say this universe always existed because there was no "before" the Big Bang, because there was no time, and "before" is a temporal concept. So "always" is finite anyway.

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Gray

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, Kaleb Webb said:

Circles have no beginning and no end. Maybe it's something like that.

 

Yes something like that, in the sense that there have always been circles or what we call circles, rather than a first circle that came from out of nowhere and nothing that began the beginning of when circles came into existence.  And in the sense that there never will be an end to all circles either.  And also no beginning or end to lines, or squares or dots or triangles.  And no first man that was the very first man in all of existence.  Or first ape, or bear, or dog, or cat, or chicken,  or worm, or bug, or bush, or tree, or me.  I have always been in some form in someplace somewhere even when I wasn't yet born as a child of my parents and was only a part of one of them in eternity. 

Some people just need to unlearn or rise above some of what they have been taught.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Ahab

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, Maidservant said:

While it is strange to contemplate no beginning, I do at least find it less strange than imagining at some point a being popped into existence out of nothing.  At least with an infinite progression of beginnings, there is always something/someone we are coming from.  (Let that sink in.)

Not to mention, that each of us is eternal and never had beginning nor will have end.  So it may be said that we had father(s) and mother(s) in some ways (some 'rounds') but in another way it may be said that we never did.  We have always been our own selves and are--what? progressing? playing around? exploring? enjoying? learning? experiencing?

...reproducing ourselves?

I can't imagine anything better than reproducing my wife into countless other versions of herself while I do all that I can to help her to do that, understanding that she can't do it all by herself.

[Nofear]

1. The Big Bang Theory is the only theory currently which accounts for observed phenomena. It does so remarkably well.

2. The Big Bang Theory technically does not require an extrapolation back to a singularity. It only requires that we start from some really, really, really hot and really, really, really dense state.

Some physicists do extrapolate back to t=0 and a single point (e.g. Hawking) but many others look for a way out (quantum gravity is hoped to remove the need of a singularity and another extension of the Big Bang Theory that purports to avoid a singularity was publicized well on this site not a year ago).

For my own part, I believe the Big Bang Theory but I also find Creatio Ex Nihilo philosophically repugnant and even morally bankrupt. How do I reconcile the two positions? Let's start with a really, really hot and dense state and then extend that situation back asymptotically into the infinite past. While it does require an extension of what we understand today this position avoids the quandary of turtles all the way down (instead we would have the stuff that makes turtles all the way down but turtles organize eventually).

 

[Cold Steel]

I've always been skeptical that we live in but a single universe. We used to think there was only one galaxy, but then we found we had been a bit short-sighted. Perhaps there are trillions of universes. Perhaps the time and space in which we exist is a workshop, where the contents are all temporal. The brethren used to tell us that the eternal was normal and that it was the temporal that was unnatural. Yet everywhere we look, we see entropy. Who knows? But if we have trillions of universes, it would help explain why our universe appears to be spherical. That probably shouldn't be if space was truly limitless in all directions. 

Also, those atheistic scientists -- the ones who can't believe what they don't see -- seem to put a lot of stock in dark matter, which can't be seen, felt, measured or detected. But its effects can be seen everywhere. (It seems the one thing dark matter has that God has

I've always been skeptical that we live in but a single universe. We used to think there was only one galaxy, but then we found we had been a bit short-sighted. Perhaps there are trillions of universes. Perhaps the time and space in which we exist is a workshop, where the contents are all temporal. The brethren used to tell us that the eternal was normal and that it was the temporal that was unnatural. Yet everywhere we look, we see entropy. Who knows? But if we have trillions of universes, it would help explain why our universe appears to be spherical. That probably shouldn't be if space was truly limitless in all directions. 

Also, those atheistic scientists -- the ones who can't believe what they don't see -- seem to put a lot of stock in dark matter, which can't be seen, felt, measured or detected. But its effects can be seen everywhere. (It seems the one thing dark matter has that God doesn't is that it's omnipresent; and the one thing God has that dark matter doesn't is intelligence. But whatever the truth is, the one thing that has made me a bit cynical about science is the number of times in my sixty-something years of life that I've heard or read breaking news stories about science being spectacularly wrong about something that would cause "textbooks to be rewritten." (In fact, I threw away my beloved college textbook on astronomy years later when I pulled it out for a re-read and discovered it was obsolete. 

And religion is similar in many ways. We sometimes forget that prophets, no matter how great, are going through the same process we are. Some latter-day saints today believe our prophets today don't receive revelation the way earlier prophets did; that they don't enjoy the same gifts

n't is that it's omnipresent; and the one thing God has that dark matter doesn't is intelligence. But whatever the truth is, the one thing that has made me a bit cynical about science is the number of times in my sixty-something years of life that I've read breaking news stories about science being spectacularly wrong about something that would cause "textbooks to be rewritten." (In fact, I threw away my beloved college textbook on astronomy years later when I pulled it out for a re-read and discovered it was obsolete.)

And religion is similar in many ways. We sometimes forget that prophets, no matter how great, are going through the same process we are. Some latter-day saints today believe our prophets today don't receive revelation the way earlier prophets did; that they don't enjoy the same gifts or have angelic ministrations the way they did anciently. But to me that's absurd. Regardless of what they see or hear, there's a lot that's held back from all of us, because I think there are a lot of prophets among us who don't sit on the leadership pews at Conference. One thing both the religious and scientific don't need, and that's an overabundance of confidence and arrogance. In Brigham Young's day, neither group knew enough to know what we don't know. 

So where did it all begin? Where did everything come from? If everything in this universe came from a big bang, energy and matter could have resulted, but not life. Nothing could have lived in that heat, light and pressure. So life and intelligence either had to begin spontaneously or it had to come from outside.  

[ERayR]

On 12/13/2015 at 0:38 AM, kryoung1983 said:

Yeah but that wouldn't be as much fun! lol. I like thinking about eternity. I find it interesting that we are told not to look into the mysteries, but Joseph Smith talked more about the mysteries then anyone. He was the one that said we should seek to see what the prophets saw, and to know what they knew. 

I have never been told not to look into the mysteries.  What we have been told is not to "dwell" on them.  Big difference.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2015 at 11:38 PM, kryoung1983 said:

Yeah but that wouldn't be as much fun! lol. I like thinking about eternity. I find it interesting that we are told not to look into the mysteries, but Joseph Smith talked more about the mysteries then anyone. He was the one that said we should seek to see what the prophets saw, and to know what they knew. 

Joseph Smith (and the Book of Mormon) encouraged the faithful to continue seeking deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God.

It is only subsequent, and current, administrations that have advised against doing so.

Just another change in the teachings of the LDS Church.

Or should I say "clarification"?

 

[ERayR]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Joseph Smith (and the Book of Mormon) encouraged the faithful to continue seeking deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God.

It is only subsequent, and current, administrations that have advised against doing so.

Just another change in the teachings of the LDS Church.

Or should I say "clarification"?

 

See Above.

[kryoung1983]

This is responding to a poster from the first page but yes it seems that with the atonement that the effects happen prior to the cause. I find this interesting. Can the atonement's effects influence the past, and not just the present and the future? 

[The Nehor]

On December 16, 2015 at 6:55 PM, consiglieri said:

Joseph Smith (and the Book of Mormon) encouraged the faithful to continue seeking deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God.

It is only subsequent, and current, administrations that have advised against doing so.

Just another change in the teachings of the LDS Church.

Or should I say "clarification"?

 

No, they advise against a monomania with the mysteries (wise) and those who try to preach and teach about them. As was taught in the Book of Alma many have the mysteries of God revealed to them but they are commanded to share only that part of the gospel imparted generally. Only those with Priesthood keys can expand on that.

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, they advise against a monomania with the mysteries (wise) and those who try to preach and teach about them. As was taught in the Book of Alma many have the mysteries of God revealed to them but they are commanded to share only that part of the gospel imparted generally. Only those with Priesthood keys can expand on that.

I'm not sure Alma always followed this advice:

 

Quote

 

Alma 40:3

3 Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection.

 

 

 

[Ahab]

Yes it is true that those who have the mysteries "unfolded" to their view are not commanded to unfold or share their understanding with others.  We are commanded to share only "that part of the gospel imparted generally" with others.

So others should be thankful that those who unfold mysteries are willing to do more than they are commanded to do instead of being slothful servants who do only what they are commanded to do.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I'm not sure Alma always followed this advice:

 

 

 

Alma was a prophet and authorized to expand on what is taught or to share it with individuals as inspired to do so. Part of the fun of having Priesthood keys.

[ERayR]

On 12/14/2015 at 11:11 AM, Gray said:

We can identify a beginning to both time and space at the moment of the Big Bang. Of course, that doesn't account for the possibility of a multiverse of universes, which could indeed be past eternal. Or maybe what's eternal is the endless chain of 'verses, multiverse → metaverse → xenoverse → hyperverse → omniverse, etc.

On the other hand, you could say this universe always existed because there was no "before" the Big Bang, because there was no time, and "before" is a temporal concept. So "always" is finite anyway.

 

What was before the big bang?

[consiglieri]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

So others should be thankful that those who unfold mysteries are willing to do more than they are commanded to do instead of being slothful servants who do only what they are commanded to do.

You're welcome.

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Alma was a prophet and authorized to expand on what is taught or to share it with individuals as inspired to do so. Part of the fun of having Priesthood keys.

I also am so authorized.

It's a great feeling!