Mormonism and the creation of the universe

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

So, has anyone else been following NOVA, The Fabric of the Cosmos? Watched the last episode, "Universe or Multiverse" just last night and couldn't help thinking that a Multiverse and multiple Big Bangs, etc., seems to be in keeping with what I was taught was Mormon doctrine in my youth.

[Blackmarch]

Hello,

I'm a Christian (non-denominational), but have some questions about Mormonism in general.

I believe as a Christian (and according to Scripture) that the world was created out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) by God, which when viewed with contemporary science with the Big Bang Cosmological model, makes sense.

Is it true that Mormons believe that God created the world out of pre-existing material? I seem to get contradictory answers when viewing the Book of Mormon, so what is it that Mormons believe?

Thank you.

Actually the creation of the universe is not talked about in the scriptures at all so we dont have anying that directly teaches about the existence of the universe itself. All things that exist within the universe have come about by e hand of our Creator.

However in specific regards to the earth, we believe that this world was created out of materials here.

I think you will find the whole spectrum of belief on the creation of the universe in LDS circles.

Persopnally I do not believe that the universe was created without some sort of precedent, whether pre existant matter, quantum phasing, or having a couple dimensions collide or other theory

[bytor2112]

Well....I can't accept the Bible because I have never heard a donkey talk...ever.

[annewandering]

Well....I can't accept the Bible because I have never heard a donkey talk...ever.

I have heard a donkey talk. Very loudly in fact. He never spoke very good english but he sure got his points across!

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Well....I can't accept the Bible because I have never heard a donkey talk...ever.

Bible doesn't say donkey. As for what the Bible does say, I've heard many of them talk, sometimes continuously on some TV news channels (one named after another animal mentioned in the Bible).

[volgadon]

Bible doesn't say donkey. As for what the Bible does say, I've heard many of them talk, sometimes continuously on some TV news channels (one named after another animal mentioned in the Bible).

One that ruins vineyards?

[annewandering]

One that ruins vineyards?

I am guessing foxes? But that does show my bias doesnt it. lol.

[Dravin]

Mod: Guys, the partisan sniping really isn't needed.

[Snow]

Mod: Guys, the partisan sniping really isn't needed.

Needed - no, appreciated, yes.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Snow

[Traveler]

There are major problems when we try to understand the creation. I thought I would add to this mix; the most recent dilemma. About 20 years ago the Hubble telescope was turned towards one of the more relatively vacant areas of space to a faint distant star barely visible to the human eye. As it turns out this dim light was not a star at all. It was not even a galaxy. What it turned out to be was a large collection of galaxies - at that point it was the largest structure ever discovered. We called it a super cluster and it was larger than anyone thought that the universe was just 100 years ago.

Part of the problem with the Big Bang theory is that the universe is just too big for such a single event. But our newly discovered super cluster created a major problem for astrophysics. Rather than traveling away from us as part of an expanding universe this entire structure is traveling towards us at a rate of about 25,000 miles per second. In terms of the size of the universe that is not a whole lot but for something that big - something else was causing it to go the wrong direction and it would have to be even more massive than the super cluster to make such an event occur. Not just bigger - but a lot bigger. Since the super cluster is moving towards us, whatever it was that was causing this to happen, had to be between us and the super cluster. But there was no matter that we could see - either giving off light or blocking light from through it. Scientist called it - “The Great Attractor”.

This discovery opened the door to a major breakthrough in understanding our universe and it creation. Since the discovery of The Great Attractor we have learned that whatever this strange stuff is it is all over the entire universe. We have also given it a new name - Dark Matter. We still do not know what this Dark Matter is but be careful how you interpret and envision this stuff incorrectly. It is not really dark - we just call it dark because it neither gives off light nor prevents light from passing through or reflecting off of it. But it does affect light with its enormous pull of gravity. We call this gravitational lensing.

With the latest finding we can compare our universe to a giant thing. What we think of as matter, energy and light seems to be the muscle and tissue and Dark Matter seems to behave like the skeletal part of our universe that gives, defines and maintains structure. It now seems that 2/3 to ¾ of the mass of our universe is this strange stuff we now call Dark Matter.

So how does this relate to creation? Well the main thing is that the universe is not static. Our universe is in constant state of change. But more than change our universe is in a constant state of creation. 500 years ago most Christian religions got off the scientific train to discovery and have made fun of the ever increasing advances. Their criticism is made in almost complete ignorance. When science passed through the station of evolution - traditional Christianity committed intellectual suicide. Because ex nihilo requires nothing - we have a problem - what is nothing? In essence we cannot evoke nothing as a concept without having to deal with what is called a quantum anomaly. But quantum anomalies are unstable. In comparison the universe is quite stable. However, as stable as it is over short time space, our universe is rapidly changing. This changing appears to be headed towards a direction of what we relate to as death. In death it is not that we cease to exist but that matter that was us goes thorough changes until it becomes matter of a dying universe - or as the scriptures say - dust - or as modern science says - star dust. Hmmmmm. If we define star dust as the dust spoken of in scripture and we identify that as the nothing referenced in creation ex nihilo - We finally have completed the cycle of the knowledge and have a glimpse into eternity. It is also interesting to note that in the ancient manuscript of the Book of Enoch - the prophet Enoch was told that all matter is created in stars and that when manner become corrupt it is cleansed (made clean) in stars.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Hello,

I'm a Christian (non-denominational), but have some questions about Mormonism in general.

I believe as a Christian (and according to Scripture) that the world was created out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) by God, which when viewed with contemporary science with the Big Bang Cosmological model, makes sense.

Is it true that Mormons believe that God created the world out of pre-existing material? I seem to get contradictory answers when viewing the Book of Mormon, so what is it that Mormons believe?

Thank you.

Hmmmm - The Bible is reliable through archaeology?

1. What DNA research can you reference that indicates that the genetic divergence of mankind can be traced to a single male source and female source as recent as 6,000 years ago?

2. What research can you reference that indicates that the entire earth was covered with water somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago?

3. What research do you have that indicates that trees on earth providing fruit before there was a sun or moon in our solar system?

But to your question - Thor Heyerdahl proved that ancients had technology to cross the seas and that there is evidence of Mediterranean civilizations. He also put forth the theory that the reason that civilization suddenly appeared in ancient America’s was because of migrations - which coincide to time periods given in the Book of Mormon.

I would also point out that less than 1% of ancient ruins have been excavated and very few if any that coincide to the time periods addressed in the Book of Mormon. In other words you are making assumptions that the absents of proof is the proof of absents - and then making such an assumption without any consideration of what proof is absent. It is like saying, “I have never been to China nor have I ever talked to anyone that has been to China - therefore I do not believe that any such place exists.

The Traveler

[doss]

Hi traveler,

how did I miss this post??? here are my answers:

As a scientist, physicist and engineer there are a number of things that have been glossed over in this thread. The Big Bang did not come from nothing - the latest theory was that the Big Bang was caused by a collapse of an 11 dimensional space universe.

I've heard of this and the problem is that it does not avert the beginning: You still need to deal with a finite past time. Doesn't matter if there were 11 or 22000000000^10 universes. Same goes for multiverses, etc. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading scientists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannnot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary [see Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Another theory that is on the table and gaining popularity is that our universe is caused by one or more collisions between two or more universes of various dimensions - this is sometimes referred to as creation by expansion.

See above comment. Indeed, physicists have proposed scores of alternative models to the Big Bang over the decades, and those that do not have an absolute beginning have been repeatedly shown to be unworkable. The only viable nonstandard models are those that involve an absolute beginning to the universe. That beginning may or may not involve a beginning point. But theories (such as Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" proposal) that do not have a pointlike beginning still have a finite past.

The truth is that modern science does not know how the universe was created but for over 200 years there is not a scientific theory in modern times that believes that our universe came from nothing. Whoever is advertising that science supports the “from nothing” concept is completely uninformed and is practicing false pseudo science. I strongly suggest that their religious views be doubted as well.

It seems like the history of modern cosmology can be seen as a series of failed attempts after one another to avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the BB model. To the layman this is akin to something of " You See! Science is on a constant turnover and keeps contradicting itself!" But, what this shows is that the failed theories only serves to confirm the prediction of the standard Big Bang model--that the universe began to exist at some finite point in the past! Matter and energy has not existed eternally. Three big observational "proofs" for the Big Bang are: Red Shift (Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources [generally more than a few million light years away] show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase of their distance from Earth. Thanks to a Mr. Hubble for observing this), Microwave radiation observed in the 1960s, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Anciently the most prevalent concept of creation was that all things were created from a watery abyss. This ancient thought was prevalent in most if not all civilizations of the ancient world from Egypt to India and China. Furthermore, a careful reading of Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 indicates that at the very beginning of creation that G-d “moved upon the face of the deep” and upon the face of the waters. And then G-d said “Let there be light”. Clearly the scriptures do not contradict science - but many Christian religions do - and in that they error. Again, my advice is not to trust religions that say science proves something that it does not and that the scripture say something that they do not.

Wait, why did you gloss over Genesis 1:1? As stated in a previous thread here, Genesis 1:1 fits perfectly with the absolute beginning over the universe. From the absolute beginning, we then get to verse 2. Agree with you on the rest of your comment with the exception about "many Christian religions" contradicting science. As shown, I believe that the Christian view of creation (God created the universe out of nothing) is more plausible scientifically, theologically, and philosophically. Note: This is only ONE argument I'm making for orthodox Christianity. Other arguments against Mormonism would be the historical and archaeological reliability of the Hebrew Bible, the Trinity, the translation/papyri problem with the Book of Abraham, and Mormon over reliance on inner feelings [since Mormons and I both have feelings that our beliefs are true, external evidence is the only test.]

Edited November 27, 2011 by doss

[annewandering]

If God is Alpha and Omega with no beginning and no end how does the universe have a beginning?

[doss]

If God is Alpha and Omega with no beginning and no end how does the universe have a beginning?

Christians believe God is not made of physical properties or parts. In layman terms, we believe God is like an abstract number---existing out of its own necessity. God is the transcendent cause of the universe. Since he's like a conscious thought, he "willed" the world into creation.

When we discuss "the universe", we are talking about all physical space and matter. All physical space, energy and matter require an absolute beginning. At some finite time in the past, God created the universe. Shown in Genesis 1:1, science, and philosophy (e.g. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist")

Does that answer your question?

Edited November 27, 2011 by doss

[annewandering]

Christians believe God is not made of physical properties or parts. In layman terms, we believe God is like an abstract number---existing out of its own necessity. God is the transcendent cause of the universe. Since he's like a conscious thought, he "willed" the world into creation.

When we discuss "the universe", we are talking about all physical space and matter.

Does that answer your question?

Not from an LDS point of view but from the protestant yes thats an interesting explanation. :)

When I say the Universe I also mean all matter. Of course that doesnt seem to be the common meaning anymore which frankly annoys me.

[doss]

Not from an LDS point of view but from the protestant yes thats an interesting explanation. :)

When I say the Universe I also mean all matter. Of course that doesnt seem to be the common meaning anymore which frankly annoys me.

Often, an atheist would say something like this:

"Ok, I agree with your premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. But, if God exists, then who created God?!"

And the atheist thinks he has a slam dunk rebuttal.

But, do numbers need to be created? What about sentence propositions? Some things exist out of their own necessity and don't need to be "created". But, remember, if TIME AND MATTER began at the Big Bang, then something that created that lies OUTSIDE of Time. This being has to be all powerful and transcendent.

[bytor2112]

Christians believe God is not made of physical properties or parts. In layman terms, we believe God is like an abstract number---existing out of its own necessity. God is the transcendent cause of the universe. Since he's like a conscious thought, he "willed" the world into creation.

When we discuss "the universe", we are talking about all physical space and matter. All physical space, energy and matter require an absolute beginning. At some finite time in the past, God created the universe. Shown in Genesis 1:1, science, and philosophy (e.g. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist")

Does that answer your question?

Not all Christians believe that. In fact you are commenting on a website of Christians that do not believe that........

[Snow]

Christians believe God is not made of physical properties or parts. In layman terms, we believe God is like an abstract number---existing out of its own necessity. God is the transcendent cause of the universe. Since he's like a conscious thought, he "willed" the world into creation.

You mean "SOME" Christians believe that.

I am curious as to your point. Do you mean to imply that because some Christians believe that, it must be true?

[Snow]

Hi traveler,

how did I miss this post??? here are my answers:

I've heard of this and the problem is that it does not avert the beginning: You still need to deal with a finite past time. Doesn't matter if there were 11 or 22000000000^10 universes. Same goes for multiverses, etc. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading scientists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannnot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary [see Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Most of that is simply cut and paste out from another message board ( Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe Debunking William Lane Craig ) so I wonder if you even understand what it is your are posting... but, do you really claim that the scientists in question "PROVED" that any universe... cannot be infinite in the past... ?

That would be a neat trick indeed since no other universe beyond this one has been proven to even exist.

[Traveler]

Hi traveler,

how did I miss this post??? here are my answers:

I've heard of this and the problem is that it does not avert the beginning: You still need to deal with a finite past time. Doesn't matter if there were 11 or 22000000000^10 universes. Same goes for multiverses, etc. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading scientists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannnot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary [see Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

See above comment. Indeed, physicists have proposed scores of alternative models to the Big Bang over the decades, and those that do not have an absolute beginning have been repeatedly shown to be unworkable. The only viable nonstandard models are those that involve an absolute beginning to the universe. That beginning may or may not involve a beginning point. But theories (such as Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" proposal) that do not have a pointlike beginning still have a finite past.

It seems like the history of modern cosmology can be seen as a series of failed attempts after one another to avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the BB model. To the layman this is akin to something of " You See! Science is on a constant turnover and keeps contradicting itself!" But, what this shows is that the failed theories only serves to confirm the prediction of the standard Big Bang model--that the universe began to exist at some finite point in the past! Matter and energy has not existed eternally. Three big observational "proofs" for the Big Bang are: Red Shift (Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources [generally more than a few million light years away] show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase of their distance from Earth. Thanks to a Mr. Hubble for observing this), Microwave radiation observed in the 1960s, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Wait, why did you gloss over Genesis 1:1? As stated in a previous thread here, Genesis 1:1 fits perfectly with the absolute beginning over the universe. From the absolute beginning, we then get to verse 2. Agree with you on the rest of your comment with the exception about "many Christian religions" contradicting science. As shown, I believe that the Christian view of creation (God created the universe out of nothing) is more plausible scientifically, theologically, and philosophically. Note: This is only ONE argument I'm making for orthodox Christianity. Other arguments against Mormonism would be the historical and archaeological reliability of the Hebrew Bible, the Trinity, the translation/papyri problem with the Book of Abraham, and Mormon over reliance on inner feelings [since Mormons and I both have feelings that our beliefs are true, external evidence is the only test.]

Where oh where to begin? Let’s start with Genesis chapter one. The first verse actually fits perfectly with ancient Egyptian Colophons. The fact the Moses was a prince of Egypt educated to the highest levels in Egyptian culture - the fact that he would write following exactly ancient Egyptian writing methods should not be a surprise. As it turns out Genesis chapter 1 follows precisely one of the simplest of ancient Egyptian colophon. That is the open statement is given as prolog and then the following statements give credence. Thus chapter 1 verse 1 is in essence a summary of the explanations that follow. So chapter one is the general statement and what follows is the details. In other words the symbolic proof that G-d was the creator of the heavens and earth – which was done beginning with water – not nothing.

My personal concern is that those early Christians that studied the scriptures after Rome had decimated the religious cultures of the Christian and Jews – determined that creation was from nothing (ex nihilo) also just as assuredly determined that the earth was flat and that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the earth. If we think science has botched theories and made mistakes – it is nothing like the mistakes made in the early developing Christian religious community and theology.

But let us move into a more comprehensive analysis of the Genesis creation. Take a close look at chapter one verses 11 and 12. If we follow the assumption that Genesis is not an Egyptian Colophon but an accurate temporal explanation of creation suitable to science – please explain to me how it is that plants are yielding seeds and trees are producing fruit prior to the creation of the sun and moon that follow later in verses 16 and 17. To claim any kind of scientific support (or as you so clearly stated – external evidence or test) for a notion - one must be able to demonstrate plausibility. Good luck with that one.

The Traveler

Edited November 27, 2011 by Traveler

[Justice]

I've heard of this and the problem is that it does not avert the beginning: You still need to deal with a finite past time. Doesn't matter if there were 11 or 22000000000^10 universes. Same goes for multiverses, etc. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading scientists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannnot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary [see Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Trinitarians can't believe that there was ever a creation before this one, or that would mean that man already existed elsewhere prior to man on this earth. God creates and when His purposes for His creations are met He recreates using the existing matter. This has been done for eternity.

Scientists have their hands tied when it comes to trying to make modern Christians blend their views with what they discover. The two will never be able to find common ground because the Christians interpret the Bible in a way it was never intended to be understood.

[Justice]

Thus chapter 1 verse 1 is in essence a summary of the explanations that follow. So chapter [i think you meant verse] one is the general statement and what follows is the details. In other words the symbolic proof that G-d was the creator of the heavens and earth – which was done beginning with water - not nothing.

Which so aptly fits with the literal translation of the Hebrew text:

Genesis

1:1 In the beginning of God`s preparing the heavens and the earth --

1:2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

Parallel Hebrew Old Testament

[doss]

Most of that is simply cut and paste out from another message board ( Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe Debunking William Lane Craig ) so I wonder if you even understand what it is your are posting... but, do you really claim that the scientists in question "PROVED" that any universe... cannot be infinite in the past... ?

That would be a neat trick indeed since no other universe beyond this one has been proven to even exist.

Snow, if I didn't understand the quote I would not have posted it. See here: Reasonable Faith: Q & A with William Lane Craig #198 - Current Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe

Way too technical for me to overlay in this post. The basic gist is this: any universe that comes into existence must have a finite past, as the experiment proved. What scientists and atheists are doing is bumbling around trying to come up with explanations as to how to avoid the singularity/beginning of the universe.

[Vort]

Way too technical for me to overlay in this post. The basic gist is this: any universe that comes into existence must have a finite past, as the experiment proved.

The experiment "proved" no such thing. By claiming it did, you betray the fact that you really don't understand what's going on. (Or that you are intentionally misrepresenting things -- but I choose to believe you are honest and simply misguided rather than lying.)

[doss]

OK Vort, we agree to disagree (read the link at least, please).