Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?

[mordorbund]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

48 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Mountebank!

Fixed that for you.  (Unless there's a variation on this word I wasn't aware of.)

What are you, Canadian?

 

[mordorbund]

30 minutes ago, brlenox said:

This is an area in which I profess no expertise.  Still as I have attempted to research yours clues I am not finding anything very conclusive. Perhaps you can provide more insight or another directional clue that I can follow up on.

Very well then, I shall give you a word: singularity.

ETA: it looks like your friends have come to your aid. It is quite noble of them. As you must have done something to gain their respect, I shall let them continue to tutor you in this subject.

[Traveler]

 

I recently encountered a thought about the Eden epoch that I have never considered before.  I was discussing the Fall of Adam with another LDS person – one that I have much respect and regard.  They passed on to be a new thought – I will pass it on for discussion.  The thought was that the Fall of Adam was so important to the Plan of Salvation that if Satan had not convinced Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – That Christ would have.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 31, 2018 by Traveler

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Very well then, I shall give you a word: singularity.

ETA: it looks like your friends have come to your aid. It is quite noble of them. As you must have done something to gain their respect, I shall let them continue to tutor you in this subject.

I have observed the concept of singularity several times but it doesn't really, well at least from my uninformed level of expertise, but it doesn't really give you much of a handle of distinction to hang on too.  One document I ran into explains it this way;
 

Quote

 

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. ....

...Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.^{1, 2} According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."³ The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.  (https://www.big-bang-theory.com/ ) 

 

Perhaps this is an over simplified expectation but again I am willing to do the work if you are willing to lead.

[brlenox]

42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I very much appreciate your interest and response.  However, I want to point something out concerning science, scripture and empirical evidence.   Usually, when there is an abundance of empirical evidence – both science and interpretation of scripture will follow.  But when there is no empirical evidence – then much speculation will follow in both science and religion.  Please note that in my question that is specifically noted when empirical evidence contradicts the “popular interpretations” of scripture.  Also please note there is a fundamental difference between the general understanding of evidence and empirical evidence.

As of today – I am not aware of any empirical evidence that life exist on any other planet in the entire universe other than our own little isolated planet earth.  That is not to say that there has been no evidence just that the evidence that has been gathered so far does not meet the criteria of empirical evidence.  One of the efforts of SETI, searches for advanced civilization on the assumption that nuclear fission is the universal energy of an advancing civilization.  Controlled nuclear fission gives off distinct electrical magnetic radiation.  (BTW so does nuclear fusion).  So SETI has carefully and methodically searched the sky for electrical magnetic radiation (including radio waves) is search of a possible intelligent civilization.  Our milky way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across but much of the more dense and older areas of our galaxy are within 25,000 light years.  We have found nothing.   But then our civilization on earth has only been emitting discernible electrical magnetic radiation for just a little over 100 years.

As to conservation of mass – I would point out that the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Chinese all believed in the conservation of mass and that creation of the universe and all things initially came from a “watery abyss”.  Note that in the Pearl of Great Price that a watery deep is mentioned as something uncreated.  The most popular theory of our universe’s origins is “The Big Bang” theory.  But that is based on the idea of a singularity that went bang.   One problem with the theory is that there has never been any empirical evidence that a singularity can or ever has existed.  That is not to say that there is no evidence – but it is to say that there is no empirical evidence of a singularity. 

One problem with the science and religion conflict is addressed with empirical evidence of things.  There is much taught in science that lacks empirical evidence – likewise with religion.  In essence, it is the difference between faith (or belief) and knowledge.  It is possible to have misguided faith.  Many times, in my life I have had to “adjust” the understanding of things that I have believed and had faith in.  Alma deals with true faith as a means of eventual knowledge of truth.

As for the flood of Noah – I am convinced that the scriptural narrative is incomplete.  That is to say in scientific terms, that what we have in scripture is not the whole story of the flood.  I personally believe that we are given a scriptural narrative – not as a means to know the past but as metaphor or symbolic prophesy given to understand future things, that like the Liahona, can only be properly understood and utilized with virtue and a pure heart.

Someday we may have empirical evidence of all things taught spiritually.  There is a saying – the absents of empirical evidence is not empirical evidence of absents.  I also believe it is a great error to ignore empirical evidence – I have compared it to standing in the bright sun of noon day and declaring it night.

 

One last point.  I have traveled to many places in this world and met many people of many diverse cultures.  I have also conversed on the internet with may in diverse cultures.  It is mostly for them that I am careful with my references to G-d.  It is also a reminder to myself to be careful when posting on the internet.

 

The Traveler

 

This is instructive, thank you.  This is not something that I have put much serious study in and I only engage for the hope that I will learn something from someone more steeped in science than I have ever been. I appreciate your distinctions on empirical evidence.  Perhaps if we backed away from the life contingency, we can still observe that even the existence of inhabitable planets was not accepted until recent decades.  Nonetheless, again we run into the issue of empirical evidence that any other orb is actually proven inhabitable. 

Nonetheless, perhaps on the same force of acceptance of scientific theories without empirical evidence, which still are treated with an empirical status to the best perceptions of most non scientific individuals, we can observe that science is moving in the direction of a worlds without number  conclusion.

I agree as to the difficulty of science and religion.  The foundational premises are essentially polar opposites.  On the one hand we have an expectation of a priority of faith to believe and on the other we have an expectation of adequate proof , or empirical evidence if you will, before one should believe. Inherently the differing rules make integration of information difficult.

 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I have observed the concept of singularity several times but it doesn't really, well at least from my uninformed level of expertise, but it doesn't really give you much of a handle of distinction to hang on too.  One document I ran into explains it this way;

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One problem with the science and religion conflict is addressed with empirical evidence of things.  There is much taught in science that lacks empirical evidence – likewise with religion.  In essence, it is the difference between faith (or belief) and knowledge.  It is possible to have misguided faith.  Many times, in my life I have had to “adjust” the understanding of things that I have believed and had faith in.  Alma deals with true faith as a means of eventual knowledge of truth.

30 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I appreciate your distinctions on empirical evidence.  Perhaps if we backed away from the life contingency, we can still observe that even the existence of inhabitable planets was not accepted until recent decades.  Nonetheless, again we run into the issue of empirical evidence that any other orb is actually proven inhabitable. 

Nonetheless, perhaps on the same force of acceptance of scientific theories without empirical evidence, which still are treated with an empirical status to the best perceptions of most non scientific individuals, we can observe that science is moving in the direction of a worlds without number  conclusion.

I agree as to the difficulty of science and religion.  The foundational premises are essentially polar opposites.  On the one hand we have an expectation of a priority of faith to believe and on the other we have an expectation of adequate proof , or empirical evidence if you will, before one should believe. Inherently the differing rules make integration of information difficult.

The difficulty in understanding a singularity is very similar to the difficulty of dealing with the apparent conflict of religion and science.  The thing is that the very definitions of what is real are quite different.  Thus, the conclusions drawn from them are quite different.

We first ask the question:  What is reality?

Science Answer:  Reality is what you can measure or calculate.  If one cannot measure it or calculate it, science says it is not real.

Religion Answer: Reality is what the Lord reveals to you. 

Reconcile these definitions of reality and we can reconcile so much more.

To a scientist, nothing exists inside a singularity because there is no way to measure or calculate it.  But to a common observer, it seems as self-evident truth that it must still exist.  A tree falling in the forest still makes a sound. But that argument cannot be made in the scientific laboratory.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Guest

[mordorbund]

43 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I have observed the concept of singularity several times but it doesn't really, well at least from my uninformed level of expertise, but it doesn't really give you much of a handle of distinction to hang on too.  One document I ran into explains it this way;
 

Perhaps this is an over simplified expectation but again I am willing to do the work if you are willing to lead.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere, but you seem skittish to really grapple with these concepts. 

If you looked at the footnotes, you would see that your underlined summary is inaccurate.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/full/seri/ApJ../0152//0000036.000.html

Rather, one sentence of the underlined is incorrect. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out which one. Hopefully you will put more than 10 minutes into this time.

[Traveler]

56 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

...

We first ask the question:  What is reality?

Science Answer:  Reality is what you can measure or calculate.  If one cannot measure it or calculate it, science says it is not real.

Religion Answer: Reality is what the Lord reveals to you. 

....

It is my opinion that your statements are not complete. 

The Science answer: In Science if something cannot be measured (note that empirical evidence involves the senses) - that we cannot say scientifically that it is real (calculated is another matter for discussion).  That does not mean that it is not real - just that we cannot make the claim by or based on the scientific method.  If something violates empirical evidence we may conclude that it does not exist or is not real.  For example – if someone says they are holding the Easter Bunny and we do not sense anything (or something that is not Easter Bunny) – we can conclude by scientific deduction that the Easter Bunny does not exist in the space they are claiming.

Religious answer:  There is a little more to reality than just what G-d reveals.  There can be a great many things that are real that G-d has yet to reveal.   Thus, we can only conclude that what G-d has revealed is real but not necessarily complete.   But there is an additional problem with the religious answer – That is, what do we do with individuals that think G-d has revealed conflicting truths to them?  How do we discern which is the right and the other is wrong?  Especially if one believes that Satan will masquerade as G-d to misdirect humans from finding and concluding what is real.   I asked a question earlier in this thread – does G-d ever reveal something as real that conflicts with empirical evidence?  I have never encountered such a revelation from G-d but I believe Satan would do such a thing.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 31, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

As for the flood of Noah – I am convinced that the scriptural narrative is incomplete.  That is to say in scientific terms, that what we have in scripture is not the whole story of the flood.  I personally believe that we are given a scriptural narrative – not as a means to know the past but as metaphor or symbolic prophesy given to understand future things, that like the Liahona, can only be properly understood and utilized with virtue and a pure heart.

I think it is fairly complete although we may not know exactly the geologic events immediately leading up to, and, after the flood as they would have been rather catastrophic. We know that the worlds topography that existed in Noahs pre-flood world was different than what we have today. We read that-

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (2 Peter 3:6)

The flood waters are still on the earth today only that the earths crusts were upthrust from underneath the waters forming the great mountain chains we have today and valleys in the oceans sunk. This is what these scriptures refer to-

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
            7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
            8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
            9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. (Psalms 104:6-9)

A clearer reading from the new standard englush bible states vs. 8 as-

"8. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them."

[Traveler]

53 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think it is fairly complete although we may not know exactly the geologic events immediately leading up to, and, after the flood as they would have been rather catastrophic. We know that the worlds topography that existed in Noahs pre-flood world was different than what we have today. We read that-

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (2 Peter 3:6)

The flood waters are still on the earth today only that the earths crusts were upthrust from underneath the waters forming the great mountain chains we have today and valleys in the oceans sunk. This is what these scriptures refer to-

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
            7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
            8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
            9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. (Psalms 104:6-9)

A clearer reading from the new standard englush bible states vs. 8 as-

"8. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them."

 

What happened to preserve the water fauna of shallow seas, fresh water rivers and streams, and fresh water lakes.  Also happened to delicate flora that would have been destroyed by a global flood?

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Ah, now we are getting somewhere, but you seem skittish to really grapple with these concepts. 

If you looked at the footnotes, you would see that your underlined summary is inaccurate.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/full/seri/ApJ../0152//0000036.000.html

Rather, one sentence of the underlined is incorrect. I leave it as an exercise to you to figure out which one. Hopefully you will put more than 10 minutes into this time.

The general nature of your commentary makes it difficult to follow your line of thought.  You will have to elaborate further for me to determine for what cause and upon what concepts specifically I seem skittish.  Perhaps you meant squirmy or even quixotically semi-gelatinous, each convey essentially the same level of bull excrement as to be the equivalent of skittish. Nonetheless, following up on your link, I find essentially the same definition as the first one I found except that of course where Hawking is concerned there is a far greater degree of quixotically semi-gelatinous substance in his postulating surrounding the original material I posted, reviewed here: "The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.  "

Quote

 

Abstract

A recent theorem on the occurrence of space-time singularities is discussed. It is shown that observations of 3 degrees K black-body background radiation indicate that the Universe contains a singularity if the general theory of relativity holds, if the energy- momentum tensor obeys a reasonable inequality, and if causality is not violated. The possible nature of the singularity is discussed. ...

In order to prove the existence of a singularity we must make some assumption about the nature of the energy-momentum tensor, as otherwise we are not putting any physics into the problem. However, we have little knowledge of the behavior of matter under extreme conditions, and therefore our assumption should be of a very general kind. The assumption we shall make will be: at each point the energy-momentum tensor T_ab of each kind of matter present obeys... (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1968ApJ...152...25H/0000025.000.html)

 

Since we have so "little knowledge" / empirical evidence "of the behavior of matter under extreme conditions", what are the chances, regardless of how general the assumptions, that they are even in the ball park and will require no further revisions. The essence is he doesn't know but he has some assumptions that I am going to put in this pretty box, wrapped in this gorgeous paper and topped off with this lovely pink bow hoping of course to deflect from the simple reality that I don't know. As to what sentence is incorrect in the above according to the theories of conservation of matter the first part is definitely suspect. If it is not that then you are going to have to gently guide me along with perhaps just a bit more substance.

As it sits though if we distill this down it is educated guessing that should never be granted manifest sustainment as truth but should be characterized as no more concrete than the Genesis account of the creation. They are both partial renditions which provide little obvious clarity.

Edited January 31, 2018 by brlenox

[mordorbund]

51 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The general nature of your commentary makes it difficult to follow your line of thought.  You will have to elaborate further for me to determine for what cause and upon what concepts specifically I seem skittish.  Perhaps you meant squirmy or even quixotically semi-gelatinous, each convey essentially the same level of bull excrement as to be the equivalent of skittish.

Should you wish to remain ignorant this is a great way to proceed. I considered you to be one well-equipped for study and searching. But instead I find myself surrounded by simpletons who do not care to pay the price for knowledge; posers who claim their desert of stupor a garden of profundity; pretenders who lack a single, royal drop of rational ability. 

I have made the mistake of trying to guide initiates up the mountain of knowledge. Instead they protest "but, but, this other slope I was on goes downhill". Yes, and you may slide down it to insensibility if that is your desire. I offer a glorious view from the summit! Ah well, in such an environment as this, it may be best for me to stay silent while the emperor parades unclothed.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Should you wish to remain ignorant this is a great way to proceed. I considered you to be one well-equipped for study and searching. But instead I find myself surrounded by simpletons who do not care to pay the price for knowledge; posers who claim their desert of stupor a garden of profundity; pretenders who lack a single, royal drop of rational ability. 

I have made the mistake of trying to guide initiates up the mountain of knowledge. Instead they protest "but, but, this other slope I was on goes downhill". Yes, and you may slide down it to insensibility if that is your desire. I offer a glorious view from the summit! Ah well, in such an environment as this, it may be best for me to stay silent while the emperor parades unclothed.

The challenge as I see it is that I am kind of running a one legged race here.  I have no idea yet what you, the proclaimed expert, find compelling.  Nor have you actually made any observations of merit of what I have sent out so far. Although, I will pay you a profound compliment.  Few are so capable of insinuative insult and suggestive deprecations with the superior crafting of verbal convolutions as you have manifest.  I have quite delighted in it and have only restrained my superior talent for the cause that I did not want to initiate a witty repartee prior to determining if you were going to actually engage in sharing your superior knowledge in this particular venue.  I genuinely invite you to do so and am sincerely seeking to grasp something of merit from your communications.

Equally revealing is the hypocrisy.  Had I have written any one of the posts with the obvious tone and condemnations that you have sent my way I should have expected @zil to rain down corrections and accusations on me for my poor interaction skills.  All you got was a spelling correction, which I choose to overlook, as I usually do, finding it a bit petty running around and correcting everyone's spelling issues - unless there is some fun to be had... However, that just makes this all the more fun. I love to see true colors.

Anyway, were this reversed, as it was in the atonement OP, I would be attempting to guide you with well reasoned support commentary and copious examples to illustrate my perspective.  Thus moving you along through the subject matter in discussion.  I can't help but feel that perhaps the tone you are using is in fact some form of illustrative mimicry but I profess I am genuinely flattered if that is the case and except for the lofty attitude of presenting your material with the appropriate air of superiority in the actual crafting of the insightful dissemination of information, you have done a fair job. We will see if you can excel in this venue as soon as you present some actual material.

Anyway, back to the message at hand, if you do possess superior understanding in this matter, I am as good a student as I am a teacher and I do truly wish to glean from your insight if you have compelling material to discuss.  To that ends I leave you with another observation from a third party source as to another of the issues with jumping behind a big bang model of the universe. In it's way I am only reinforcing the principle that you extolled earlier when you stated: "You can't just freeze scientific progress and knowledge in the 19th century - you must come at it with fisticuffs of Reason, wrestling, grappling, and pummeling your way to a true understanding of what is being said with these sophisticated models."  Have you done the same? or is this simply accusatory hyperbole for my sake?

Quote

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."⁴

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.⁵ Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.⁶Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvйn, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

As I favor Halton Arp's plasma model as far superior to big bang, (yes I have put far more than ten minutes into this research, in fact several months, however according to singularity compression models perhaps it was only the equivalent of 10 minutes under intense pressure. Although can time have a singularity? ) I do so precisely because it embraces realities beyond 19th century big bang models and in my grappling and wrestling I find it a much more appealing solution. However, compare notes, show me your compelling wisdom, for now I am all ears.

Edited January 31, 2018 by brlenox

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

What happened to preserve the water fauna of shallow seas, fresh water rivers and streams, and fresh water lakes.  Also happened to delicate flora that would have been destroyed by a global flood?

 

The Traveler

Well, fresh water rivers and streams, lakes were reintroduced by rain and snow after the flood after the uplift of the land. Noah only had to preserve land animals. We can assume that although much of the waters had debris the water creatures and plants survived. 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, fresh water rivers and streams, lakes were reintroduced by rain and snow after the flood after the uplift of the land. Noah only had to preserve land animals. We can assume that although much of the waters had debris the water creatures and plants survived. 

 

You do realize that as soon as you used the word “assume” that you are admitting (though not directly intended) that the scripture account of the Flood is incomplete and contradicts empirical evidence.  My point is not to discredit scripture but to point out that scripture is not intended to be an accurate historical account of our planet earth.  I would suggest that rather than a historical account scriptures are a witness of Christ and thus is not historically complete by divine intent.  What I am also suggesting is that the account of the flood is more prophetic than historic and that by looking backwards in scripture for historic answers you will miss the divine purpose of why the epoch was preserved for our day.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

You do realize that as soon as you used the word “assume” that you are admitting (though not directly intended) that the scripture account of the Flood is incomplete and contradicts empirical evidence.  My point is not to discredit scripture but to point out that scripture is not intended to be an accurate historical account of our planet earth.  I would suggest that rather than a historical account scriptures are a witness of Christ and thus is not historically complete by divine intent.  What I am also suggesting is that the account of the flood is more prophetic than historic and that by looking backwards in scripture for historic answers you will miss the divine purpose of why the epoch was preserved for our day.

 

The Traveler

Perhaps Christ doesnt really exist. Maybe Christ never was part of history.

You keep saying this "empirical" thing. There is no empirucal evidence against a worldwide flood.

[JohnsonJones]

I am a Historian which is normally something of a craft more than a hard science.  As such, my understanding of the Big Bang may be flawed...but here it is.

Originally, there was a balance of matter, between matter and anti-matter.  These items dwelt together...but where they existed our laws were not applicable.  There was no time, there was no space...

As such, we can say it was something infinitesimally small.  Ironically, that means we could also say it was infinitesimally large.  There was no measurement to measure it as we understand it. 

Then, for a reason we do not know why (but some scientists have hypothesized about it, which I might go into below), the matter and anti-matter collided with each other.  They basically obliterated themselves out.  In an instant, which is shorter than any measurement as there was no time to measure it...they collided and suddenly our universe was born.  Exploding outwards from a single point of existence, our existence suddenly came forth.  Suddenly where there was no time and space, there was time and space.  Space started small, but as it exploded outwards, it increased in size, and time changed accordingly as space changed.  They are connected and hence as one changed, the other changed.

This is why we call it the big Bang.  We then had very small particles of matter...not even protons or atoms...but sub-atomic energy.  Eventually we had x-rays and other items which eventually came together to form matter as we understand it.  There is a huge amount of space, with the surviving matter in between (and in theory, surviving anti-matter? as well?). 

Over time, this matter under the forces of gravity attracted other matter and combined into stars...and larger pieces of matter.  Most of it was hydrogen, and so as hydrogen combined, and got massive enough, stars were formed which under their pressures and energies created other elements such as helium, iron, and so forth.

These eventually exploded, and this denser and heavier matter was attracted via gravity and planets were formed.

And here we are. 

Hence, the Big Bang didn't come out of non-existent material, but all the material in the universe we have currently was with in it.

Some theories say that the universe is still expanding and that there is a LOT of hydrogen (and other matter which we cannot see, as it is not giving off light or reflecting it) out there that holds it together. 

Others say that it is, or eventually will contract, and will continue to contract until finally it all combines down again to where it is a single point in the universe...and then nothing where time and space do not exist...and then the entire process repeats itself.  That this is a continuous process of expansion and contraction.

I have never heard of any Big Bang theory that says that it was ex-nihilo...in fact, it is the exact opposite, that all matter previously existed and will continue to exist in our universe.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Some theories say that the universe is still expanding and that there is a LOT of hydrogen (and other matter which we cannot see, as it is not giving off light or reflecting it) out there that holds it together. 

Others say that it is, or eventually will contract, and will continue to contract until finally it all combines down again to where it is a single point in the universe...and then nothing where time and space do not exist...and then the entire process repeats itself.  That this is a continuous process of expansion and contraction.

I have never heard of any Big Bang theory that says that it was ex-nihilo...in fact, it is the exact opposite, that all matter previously existed and will continue to exist in our universe.

The latest theories I've read about are not only confirming that the universe is expanding, but that it appears to be accelerating.  This makes no sense based on the standard models of motion that we've been applying.  So, the theory is that this acceleration is a sign of anti-gravity at work.

The Big Bang is easily described as either or both (ex-nihilo or eternal matter).  You just need to look at it from both perspectives to understand what is probably going on.  However, all that we do know and are discovering doesn't actually reveal much about the validity of the Big Bang (for or against).  And since the Church has no official position on it, religion doesn't tell us if it is true or no either.

[mordorbund]

On 1/30/2018 at 6:41 PM, brlenox said:

LDS theology cannot abide creation ex-nihilo which is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory.

The big bang theory doesn't start with nothing. It starts with everything packed into a singularity. Lemaitre compares it to something like the "universe atom" to aid the layman in understanding. Hawking and others have modified it (there's a paper from the 70's where he shows that the big bang singularity is not the sole origin of the universe, and he played around with the idea that the universe cycles through expanding and collapsing), but in all of these there's not an instance of starting with nothing.

Ex nihilo is not the foundation of the big bang theory.

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

The big bang theory doesn't start with nothing. It starts with everything packed into a singularity. Lemaitre compares it to something like the "universe atom" to aid the layman in understanding. Hawking and others have modified it (there's a paper from the 70's where he shows that the big bang singularity is not the sole origin of the universe, and he played around with the idea that the universe cycles through expanding and collapsing), but in all of these there's not an instance of starting with nothing.

Ex nihilo is not the foundation of the big bang theory.

I will agree that it is outside of current assumptions. Lemaitre called his original theory "the hypothesis of the primeval atom." Thank you for your input.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Perhaps Christ doesnt really exist. Maybe Christ never was part of history.

You keep saying this "empirical" thing. There is no empirucal evidence against a worldwide flood.

 

My oh my.  How to answer your post without appearing condescending???   Obviously, you do not understand what empirical evidence means.  I have tried desperately to enlighten you that empirical evidence involves the senses – that it is tangible stuff that humans can use their senses to realize.  Empirical evidence is evidence everyone with senses can enjoy.  It is not subjective or something to be logically proven – it is.  For example, a table is a physical thing that we can see and touch.  It is empirical evidence of itself.  So, if someone was to say there is a table in a room then there must be empirical evidence of that table in that room – then all anyone has to do is go to the room and observe the table there.  Now if the table is there then there is an empirical evidence that the table exist.  We can say there is empirical evidence that the table exist.  If there is not a table in the room we cannot say there is empirical evidence that there is not a table in the room.  Nothing empirical exist of something that does not exit.

Perhaps you are starting to finally see a little problem.  If someone goes to the room and does not encounter the table – they may say they did not encounter any empirical evidence of a table.  There may be no empirical evidence that there is no table but there is not empirical evidence that there is no table.   There is no such thing as an empirical negative evidence.  There is no such possibility as empirical evidence that something does not exist or did not happen.

I am aware that I have some communication problems – Mostly these are problems where I think people understand things I believe to be so simple that I do not have to keep explaining it.  But in the case between you and me – I get the idea that you are very close to incapable of understanding very simple things that I did not think were so necessary to be explained to you.   So, at the risk of sounding and being condescending – there is no such thing or possibility as empirical evidence of something that did not happen.  When you make the statement “There is no empirical evidence against a worldwide flood”. I am 100% convinced you have no idea what you are saying or how ridiculously absurd your statement appears to me.   Sorry but I do not know how else to respond.

 

The Traveler

[MrShorty]

I don't know if it will add anything to the current phase of discussion, but I followed an interesting thought train in this thread (scattered ideas from about post 10 to post 25 https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/61190-what-is-the-scope-of-gods-creation/). Yes, our theology is pretty staunchly "ex materia" and canonized statements in the D&C talk about "element [being] eternal". The thought train touched a little on what "element"/"matter" might really mean, what "eternal" might mean, and kind of ended up with the idea that the raw materials God used to create this universe might be so foreign to this universe as to be completely unobservable and indescribable from within this sphere. At that point, there might be no observable difference from the universe's point of view between "ex materia" and "ex nihilo".

 

[Melisa]

To me this last question you pose isn't such a mystery as the order defines man's very existence. There would be no point in ending with a focus on those who followed satan for example, as they go on to achieve absolutely nothing.

[Rob Osborn]

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

My oh my.  How to answer your post without appearing condescending???   Obviously, you do not understand what empirical evidence means.  I have tried desperately to enlighten you that empirical evidence involves the senses – that it is tangible stuff that humans can use their senses to realize.  Empirical evidence is evidence everyone with senses can enjoy.  It is not subjective or something to be logically proven – it is.  For example, a table is a physical thing that we can see and touch.  It is empirical evidence of itself.  So, if someone was to say there is a table in a room then there must be empirical evidence of that table in that room – then all anyone has to do is go to the room and observe the table there.  Now if the table is there then there is an empirical evidence that the table exist.  We can say there is empirical evidence that the table exist.  If there is not a table in the room we cannot say there is empirical evidence that there is not a table in the room.  Nothing empirical exist of something that does not exit.

Perhaps you are starting to finally see a little problem.  If someone goes to the room and does not encounter the table – they may say they did not encounter any empirical evidence of a table.  There may be no empirical evidence that there is no table but there is not empirical evidence that there is no table.   There is no such thing as an empirical negative evidence.  There is no such possibility as empirical evidence that something does not exist or did not happen.

I am aware that I have some communication problems – Mostly these are problems where I think people understand things I believe to be so simple that I do not have to keep explaining it.  But in the case between you and me – I get the idea that you are very close to incapable of understanding very simple things that I did not think were so necessary to be explained to you.   So, at the risk of sounding and being condescending – there is no such thing or possibility as empirical evidence of something that did not happen.  When you make the statement “There is no empirical evidence against a worldwide flood”. I am 100% convinced you have no idea what you are saying or how ridiculously absurd your statement appears to me.   Sorry but I do not know how else to respond.

 

The Traveler

Thanks for the diatribe. Im done conversating with lower intelligences. Good day.