In the Beginning....

[MiserereNobis]

21 hours ago, webbles said:

The bolded is very interesting to me because if we were created by God out of nothing, then we technically can not disobey Him.  At the time of creation, He knew (because of His omniscience) exactly what we would do.  He knew what "disobedience" we would perform so He got to decide what disobedience would occur by choosing which humans and angels are created.  It is similar to computer programs.  When I create a computer program, I know what it will do at the time of creation.  So if it "disobeys" me, it is only because I programmed it to disobey me.

Even when we disobey God, we are actually obeying Him.  Because He planned it that way.

To continue with your computer program analogy, what if you wrote a program for artificial intelligence? It grows beyond the bounds of what you originally programmed it for as it learns. It could then do stuff that you did not originally plan or program.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I don't think you've violated board rules; Gish Gallops seem to be tolerated. 

You asked a question and I answered it briefly and to the point, using Catholic Scholastic philosophy as simply and directly as I could.

You are confusing attributes (accidents/ appearances) with substance.  Something HAS attributes/appearance, but what it IS is its substance.

That is straightforward Aquinas.

I don't believe that paradigm is correct, but I am trying to communicate with you on your own turf.  I don't think a Catholic could answer you better.  No debate- we are so far apart that we cannot even discuss these things.  

If you find that simple point as "gish gallops", I apologize for the attempt to answer 

I wish you well in your search 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Just because it is contrary to scripture, does that make it not True? I mean, the hardest part of the Copernican revolution was that Moses in scripture described a geocentric universe. A heliocentric universe would contradict scripture. Of course, we later came to believe that Moses cosmology borrowed much from the common geocentric cosmologies of the day rather than revealing the one True cosmology. This is kind of what I was thinking of when I mentioned that Joseph Smith may have been influenced by the cosmologies present in the 19th century. In the 19th century, people believed in a steady state universe that exists eternally into the past and future. Chemistry was just beginning to get to the idea of atoms and elements and the law of conservation of matter (that matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Nuclear physics (the understanding that there are smaller pieces than atoms, and if you can manipulate those pieces, you can change one element into another) was still well in the future. Of course, any understanding of the big bang and how matter and element as we know them came to be, were way in the future for Joseph Smith.

I guess it comes down to exactly what do we think Joseph meant when he said that element is eternal and co-eternal with God? Do we expect Joseph's meaning to "concord" with our current cosmology (where something pre-existed the Big Bang, but we have no idea what matter and element and such even mean before our universe came into being)? At some point, if I cannot observe or understand or anything else what "eternal matter" looks like, then does our ex-materia theology really look different from others' ex-nihilo theology? Sure there's a theological difference, but, if I cannot make sense to myself what "eternal matter" means, then I'm not sure there is a practical difference between the two theologies.

Just some ramblings.

Good points.  I don't think scripture is intended to be a science manual.  Joseph Smith received several revelations surrounding the creation, the nature of God being flesh, and premortal existence.  how he interpreted all of this was no doubt filtered through his understanding of 19th century cosmology.  Just because Joseph understood it one way however, doesn't mean that it can't be interpreted another way.  The nature of what exactly existed matters less than the idea that we are co-eternal with God and that he is a glorified human of flesh.  The theology of an immaterial cause negates that important doctrine, because God is the cause and he is not immaterial.  

Understanding our history, points us to our potential as divine and co-eternal Gods.   The spark of eternal divinity is in us, and that understanding alone can be empowering if we let it.  Understanding that God is a glorified human is the most empowering form of humanism that exists.  

I think that is the potential practical difference - knowing that we are literal children of God, co-eternal, co-creators/organizers, with the eternal spark in us that has the potential to become as he is and in every way, one with him, I believe is the most empowering idea known to man.   The trick is to let that belief work in us, and when that happens, I believe our capacity for good will become unmatched.  It is all about the power of belief.  

 

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The universe wasn't anywhere close to suitable for material bodies until a finite time ago.

True, but do we need to limit what is suitable for material bodies to this universe?  

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

To continue with your computer program analogy, what if you wrote a program for artificial intelligence? It grows beyond the bounds of what you originally programmed it for as it learns. It could then do stuff that you did not originally plan or program.

Not to mention that knowing the future means that you cause it.

Suppose some smart guy predicts the outcome of the Ukraine war, puts it in a time capsule not to be opened for 20 years.

20 years later, it is opened.

It predicted EXACTLY the outcome.

Does  this mean he CAUSED the¹ events to happen?

Of course not!!

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Understanding that God is a glorified human is the most empowering form of humanism that exists.  

Love it love it love it!!!!

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

True, but do we need to limit what is suitable for material bodies to this universe?  

I'm not a multiverse fan (at least not Level III or Level IV, but not so much Level II either, Level I I have no problem with what so ever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels). I'm content to speculate within the constraints of our universe.

But your comment also allows that. Obviously having an anthropomorphic form made of physical matter when no planets (or even stars) were around would be a problem. While I don't know for certain, I suspect the spirit worlds that would be needed for spirit bodies to occupy would have a roughly similar timeline to physical worlds. But, I have no model of how spirit matter works. The best I can do is give you models that don't work.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

I strongly disagree with you conveniently omitting the very first part of Wikipedia's definition:

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments."

How generous of you to invite me not to engage with him, while you, above the fray, distort the notion.

 

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I strongly disagree with you conveniently omitting the very first part of Wikipedia's definition:

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments."

Out of curiosity, how did you get to the Wiki page which contains this quote - the one that you copy / pasted into this response?

Did you have to open a new tab / window and perform a search to locate the entry?

Or did you just click on the hyperlink that I provided in my previous post which takes you there directly?

How tricksy of me to "conveniently omit" the information in this manner.

 

Quote

How generous of you to invite me not to engage with him, while you, above the fray, distort the notion.

And how, pray tell, did I "distort the notion?"

Maybe I'm missing some kind of subtle nuance here, but it certainly appears to me (at least from my layman's perspective) that accusing someone of "providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments" is just a slightly nicer way of accusing someone of tossing out a multitude of "specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies."

Only none of that is what actually happened. Mark's reply was completely on-point. Now, maybe you don't have enough training in philosophy to recognize it, but that's not really his fault, is it?

Oh, and as for me being "above the fray," maybe you should mosey on back to Page 1 of this thread and take note of who was the first person to respond to you here (and who continued to respond to you - at least, until the uncomfortable subject of the problem of evil came up and you bowed out).

 

[mfbukowski]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:28 PM, pogi said:

I tend to agree.  The concept of "oneness" ironically requires a multitude.  

I am not totally convinced about social trinitarianism, but there is definitely something to it.

"The social trinitarianism is a Christian interpretation of the Trinity as consisting of three persons in a loving relationship, which reflects a model for human relationships.^[1]

The teaching emphasizes that God is an inherently social being.^[2] "

"Social trinitarianism - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trinitarianism#:~:text=The social trinitarianism is a,is an inherently social being.

The word "God" means the loving unity of 3 beings as "Congress" refers to a group of hundreds that defines these folks as one body, in agreement or not

I see clearly that "God is love", referring to the love of 3 members of a group AS a group makes perfect sense.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I'm not a multiverse fan (at least not Level III or Level IV, but not so much Level II either, Level I I have no problem with what so ever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels). I'm content to speculate within the constraints of our universe.

But your comment also allows that. Obviously having an anthropomorphic form made of physical matter when no planets (or even stars) were around would be a problem. While I don't know for certain, I suspect the spirit worlds that would be needed for spirit bodies to occupy would have a roughly similar timeline to physical worlds. But, I have no model of how spirit matter works. The best I can do is give you models that don't work.

 

I personally feel like the constraints of our universe are too narrow and restrictive theologically, and actually more complicated and impossible for me to imagine than a multiverse.   Even without my theology though, the idea of a single idiosyncratic universe just seems too problematic.  

I agree with this:

Quote

 

[A]n entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler... (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all... A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.^[53][68]

— Max Tegmark

 

This idea is my preferred model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology

The idea that we are one of possible many universes inside a larger parent universe or multiverse seems more plausible to me.   I just can't wrap my head around the idea of this singular self-dependent "subatomic ball" called the "singularity" which existed in and of itself, independently and in the midst of nothingness. 

Theologically, it posses lots of problems too.    

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not totally convinced about social trinitarianism, but there is definitely something to it.

Just curious, what about social trinitarianism gives you reservations? 

Are there alternative models to trinitarianism and social trinitarianism? 

At the basic foundational core God requires at least 2 - husband and wife.  

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Just curious, what about social trinitarianism gives you reservations? 

Are there alternative models to trinitarianism and social trinitarianism? 

At the basic foundational core God requires at least 2 - husband and wife.  

 

I guess I have just not hashed out why LDS scholars have not - it seems- spoken about it more, nor have I throughly examined corners and under the carpets and dinner tables of the paradigm, looking for errant crumbs. 

But to me, it sure seems to fit exactly and perfectly into our somewhat wanting "Godhead Explanation" slot !!

Think of a circle made in the temple as a divine dance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis#:~:text="Perichoresis" is derived from the,sides of the same coin"

 

Richard Rohr - The Divine Dance [ Video Introduction ] - The Englewood Review of Books" https://englewoodreview.org/richard-rohr-the-divine-dance-video-introduction/

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by mfbukowski
Post now finished

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I personally feel like the constraints of our universe are too narrow and restrictive theologically, and actually more complicated and impossible for me to imagine than a multiverse.   Even without my theology though, the idea of a single idiosyncratic universe just seems too problematic. 

 

Well, as it stands even with what we do see, we don't have any real idea what ~95% of the universe we do see is. I think it is safe to say we can both agree that until we understand spirit matter, whatever understanding we have of the universe will be woefully incomplete.

[Stargazer]

On 3/26/2022 at 9:32 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Quote

You will find this in LDS scripture. In the Pearl of Great Price, specifically the Book of Abraham, which is a revelation to Abraham, we find the Lord telling Abraham:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. (Abraham 3:18)

The usual Latter-day Saint terminology is that we existed eternally as intelligences, until God organized us into spirits. Who knows what this means? Nobody. But I trust that it is true, as far as language goes. 

If this notion of eternally existing intelligences is embedded in the notion of the creation accounts in Genesis and John 1 are only accounts of the creation of this earth, etc., and that there is an infinite, ultimate existence that is God's that goes beyond these intelligences, then there could still be important compatibilities in the LDS and Catholic creation accounts. If not, that is, if these intelligences are as eternal as God is, then I think we've identified a fundamental incompatibility in views, so to speak.

The LDS and Catholic creation accounts intersect in Genesis. We share the same information there. But the origin story of the universe as contained therein is very terse. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)

The origin story of Adam and Even is also very terse: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen. 1:27)

That's it. That's all. Nothing more is revealed here. Is there a shred of an answer to the question of creatio ex nihilo here? Nope. It happens that there is a hint suggesting that Adam and Eve may have somehow pre-existed their physical incarnation in Jeremiah 1:5, for when the Lord speaks to Jeremiah, He says:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

That's equivocal, of course. One might say that with infinite foreknowledge God would have known what Jeremiah was going to do before he was created, and that the verse doesn't necessarily mean that Jeremiah's spirit or soul was created before his body was conceived. But it likewise doesn't exclude it. Another hint is when Jesus found a man who had been born blind, and the following exchange took place:

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (John 9:1-3)

Here the disciples make the assumption that the man existed before his birth, and in such a state of being that he might have sinned at that time. And Jesus replies that his blindness was not a result of his pre-birth sins, if any. Why not disabuse the disciples of their assumption of the existence of a pre-existence while he's at it? Perhaps because there is a pre-existence.

When we discuss the issue of abortion, the topic "When does life begin?" comes up. At conception, at quickening, at viability, or at birth? You can pick and choose, but the question of "When does the soul or spirit begin its existence" never seems to come up. And maybe it should. 

You say that the LDS and RCC beliefs may be incompatible when it comes to the question of the co-eternality of God and Man. Yet we have the same Bible! Where does it say in the Bible that the human spirit comes into existence at the same time as the human body? There's hints in the Bible that the coming into existence of the spirit is earlier. If the RCC view is that a man's spirit comes into existence at his conception, from whence does that view originate? Because there's nothing cogent in the Bible. Perhaps one of the patristic fathers had that opinion? And if he did, where did he get it from?

 

On 3/26/2022 at 9:32 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Quote

"In the beginning" as found in the Bible (as well as the Pearl of Great Price) pertains only to this earth. This is explained to Moses here, where he is told that what the Lord tells him pertains only to the earth that Moses dwells on. Because there are many other earths, populated with more of God's children.

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. (Moses 1:33-35)
 

Okay, so are the infinite intelligences only infinite within the "account of this earth?" This is an important aspect, to me. 

 

No. 

Again, we don't believe in creation from nothing. 

 

On 3/26/2022 at 9:32 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Quote

"In the beginning" as found in the Bible (as well as the Pearl of Great Price) pertains only to this earth. This is explained to Moses here, where he is told that what the Lord tells him pertains only to the earth that Moses dwells on. Because there are many other earths, populated with more of God's children.

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. (Moses 1:33-35)
 

Okay, so are the infinite intelligences only infinite within the "account of this earth?" This is an important aspect, to me. 

 

No. 

Quote

Quote

I don't know about other Latter-day Saints, but to me the universe does have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space. As modern humans with our modern understanding of cosmology and astrophysics, our universe originated in what we call the Big Bang, and that is when time began. At least for our universe, for our immediate purposes. 

Where is God in all this? He is outside of the Universe, and commanded it come into being, about 13.5 billion years ago.

Physicist Stephen Hawking wrote this in his final book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions":

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science."

"As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Here the otherwise brilliant and gifted Stephen Hawking gets the cart before the horse. God cannot have been in the Big Bang. For the simple reason that in order to have been in the Creation, He would have had to have created Himself. Which is an absurdity.

In a sense, however, Hawking is correct. There was no time for a cause to exist in, so in order to have created the singularity that became this Universe, God had to have been standing outside of it, as it were.

Other LDS may believe otherwise, but to me the Universe was called into existence by God, and though we do not know the origin of all the material in the Universe, nor indeed the origin of our own persons/spirits, we are eternal (referring back to Abr. 3:18)
 

Very interesting. From my perspective, God as a being is beyond the material universe for deep theological reasons, some of which are foundational to the Incarnation, wherein Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

I agree that God is a being beyond the material universe. Like I said, God had to have created the material universe while standing outside of it, otherwise it would have been a matter of God creating Himself simultaneously with the universe.

On another topic entirely...

In order to reply to your post efficiently, I had to recreated it, to include my quotes, because you answered the individual segments within my quotation itself -- and made my reply problematic. There is a way to break quotes up so that one can respond to the segments individually without mixing one's text with the quoted text in a difficult to see fashion. Please see my Social Hall post that features a video explaining how this is done.

A Brief "How To" for Quoting and Answering Here

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 3/28/2022 at 4:34 PM, pogi said:

Just to clarify, are you suggesting the doctrine of creation ex-nihlo here?

An immaterial cause is contrary to our scripture:

D&C 93:3

Yes, I know it is contrary, and I wasn't suggesting creatio ex nihilo. Terms of art can be confusing, because what one person means is not necessarily what another understands. What is outside our universe is a mystery to us. It's not nothing, but it's not not nothing. I can't describe what I cannot conceive.

I think you got your citation mixed up. D&C 93:3 has nothing to do with immateriality. Perhaps you meant D&C 131:7 ?

On 3/28/2022 at 4:34 PM, pogi said:

Joseph Smith expounded on that idea:

 The Contributor, vol. 4, p. 257 (Joseph Smith, April 1844 sermon).

This is according to mankind's perspective and measure, but Hawking denies that the "singularity" was nothing.

I used Hawking's words. He wasn't saying that the singularity was nothing, but

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science."

Take that any way you want to, but I wasn't paraphrasing him, I was quoting him.

On 3/28/2022 at 4:34 PM, pogi said:

The "singularity" was not nothing.  On the contrary is was everything, and it was reorganized into what we experience today. 

Whatever it was that became the singularity and then became this universe must have pre-existed the universe (see DC 131:7 above).

On 3/28/2022 at 4:34 PM, pogi said:

I also tend to believe that God existed outside the "singularity" but was coeternal with it. 

 

No argument from me about that.

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Nofear said:

As posted earlier in this thread, the current understanding of the Big Bang Theory requires initial conditions that are not a singularity. At some finite point in the past, about 13.8 billion years, our observable universe was compressed to a very hot, very dense (but finite in both temperature and density) region of space order a meter or two in diameter. How it got there is a topic of speculation for which inflationary models have the most traction.

My personal interpretation of LDS theology is rather strictly materialistic and I do not invoke immaterial causes. But, it does invoke things that defy deterministic physics -- namely intelligent "matter". I put "matter" in quotes because we don't know enough about intelligences to know if they correspond to anything like what physical or even spirit matter is like. Where I tend to get into trouble with other latter-day saints' own theological interpretations is that even if I extend our fundamental existence into the infinite past, our and God's existence as spirit and physical bodies only has a finite existence. They don't like that. The universe wasn't anywhere close to suitable for material bodies until a finite time ago.

You can have tons of funs trying to explain this to those whose vision ends at the walls of their mind.

My wife tells me she doesn't even want to hear about questions such: Why does God exist? Where does God come from? And so on.

Think about it too deeply and you can get in trouble. It is said that the famous mathematician Georg Cantor was driven temporarily insane in 1884 and confined to a mental sanatorium for a few months as a result of his efforts trying to understand Infinity. 

And just to try to drive us ALL insane, I present the Hilbert Hotel:

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Stargazer

[Nofear]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

:snip:

I showed my 8 year old son that video some weeks ago. He wasn't quite able to follow the diagonalization proof (they don't exactly cover rational vs irrational numbers in 4th grade), but it's sufficient for him to know that there are different size infinities.

 

A timely article that goes into some of the things discussed in this thread from a scientific point of view:
Where did the Universe come from?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I know it is contrary, and I wasn't suggesting creatio ex nihilo. Terms of art can be confusing, because what one person means is not necessarily what another understands. What is outside our universe is a mystery to us. It's not nothing, but it's not not nothing. I can't describe what I cannot conceive.

I think you got your citation mixed up. D&C 93:3 has nothing to do with immateriality. Perhaps you meant D&C 131:7 ?

I used Hawking's words. He wasn't saying that the singularity was nothing, but

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science."

Take that any way you want to, but I wasn't paraphrasing him, I was quoting him.

Whatever it was that became the singularity and then became this universe must have pre-existed the universe (see DC 131:7 above).

No argument from me about that.

What does an "immaterial cause" mean if not creation ex-nihlo?

I did mix up my citation, I left a 3 out.  The passage I was quoting is D&C 93:33

Quote

33 For man is ^aspirit. The elements are ^beternal, and ^cspirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

I know that it was a direct quote from Hawking that you used, I just thought it helpful to put it in context to help us understand what he meant.   

Quote

Whatever it was that became the singularity and then became this universe must have pre-existed the universe (see DC 131:7 above).

Agreed.  It is eternal stuff that is "organized and reorganized (Joseph Smith)" with no beginning and "cannot be destroyed (Joseph Smith)". 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

What does an "immaterial cause" mean if not creation ex-nihlo?

I was thinking in terms of just before the singularity, or whatever it was, appeared, there was nothing material "there".  And then suddenly, "there" it was. Inside of the material nothingness it is all immaterial. Before it was "there", there was the Null set. 

I don't know. I wasn't there at the time.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I did mix up my citation, I left a 3 out.  The passage I was quoting is D&C 93:33

Understood!

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I know that it was a direct quote from Hawking that you used, I just thought it helpful to put it in context to help us understand what he meant.   

I am not sure that Hawking knew what he was talking about. Yes, there were words. They meant something. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Agreed.  It is eternal stuff that is "organized and reorganized (Joseph Smith)" with no beginning and "cannot be destroyed (Joseph Smith)". 

You can really start going down the rabbit hole when you sincerely try to imagine this. In our mortal state, we see beginnings and endings, but when we try to imagine something that had no beginning and no end -- well, it's literally beyond our capability. 

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You can really start going down the rabbit hole when you sincerely try to imagine this. In our mortal state, we see beginnings and endings, but when we try to imagine something that had no beginning and no end -- well, it's literally beyond our capability. 

For me personally, it makes a lot more sense than saying "suddenly there it was" in regards to a particle that was unimaginably dense and contained the building blocks of all that exists in the universe. 

Suddenly there it was?  Something (literally everything, actually) from a "null set" of nothingness?  If that is not creation ex-nihlo, I don't know what is.  In terms of physics, eternal existence of matter/energy makes a lot more sense than "poof" the building blocks of all that exists appearing out of nothing and from nothing and of nothing.  

Edited March 29, 2022 by pogi

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You can really start going down the rabbit hole when you sincerely try to imagine this. In our mortal state, we see beginnings and endings, but when we try to imagine something that had no beginning and no end -- well, it's literally beyond our capability. 

Heck, we can do that without going to infinities. Just the number of stars in our own galaxy is so much larger a number than our brain is physically capable of processing (not enough neurons). Again, that's just our Milky Way. The number of galaxies is likewise not processable, much less the stars of all those galaxies. We can write down the numbers and pretend we comprehend. Weee, I can write big number down!

Edited March 29, 2022 by Nofear

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You can really start going down the rabbit hole when you sincerely try to imagine this. In our mortal state, we see beginnings and endings, but when we try to imagine something that had no beginning and no end -- well, it's literally beyond our capability. 

And eternity also seems to be something other than just an endless continuation of time. I tried to describe a theory about this once but realized that the idea required at least three new verb tenses to describe and gave up.

I was also probably on the edge of or swimming in the abyss of madness.

Edited March 29, 2022 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Where does God come from?

I think Buffalo 

Edited March 29, 2022 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think Buffalo 

But definitely not Albany.