In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God.

So says the book of John, and so (in their own way) say physicists, postulating from the movement of the Galaxies that there was a 'big bang' approximately 14 billion years ago.

Here's the question I have a hard time wrapping by head around. What caused the beginning to begin? If you're a physicist, what caused that big bang?

It seems to me what is being described is the beginning of causality, because everything that happens after that in the physical universe is cause and effect.

But if we live in an infinite universe, which is composed of a fabric of space/time, how can space be infinite and time NOT be infinite? How can time have a beginning? And it it DID begin, what CAUSED it to begin? And it CAUSALITY began with the beginning, what existed before, and why did causality begin? Did God exist in a non-causal universe prior to the big bang (or the 'beginning')?

Sorry if this question has been asked before, I'm new to this forum...

A collision between two branes (String Theory).



Smaller and larger infinities. For example, a number line. How many real numbers between any two numbers on a number line? Infinity.

So, between those two numbers, there is an infinity. But outside those two numbers there is a larger infinity than the one between them. Thus it can be said that God has always been God (between the two numbers on the number line) and at the same time, there was a point previous in which God was not God (to the left of the first of the two numbers on the number line).

Usually, you make my brain hurt in a bad way. This time, you made it hurt . . . in a good way.

It sounds like you are interested broadly in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Whether or not you think it is a proof for the existence of God, the debate around the topic addresses the questions you are asking.

Actually, that's wrong BC. The size of an infinity is related to its cardinality. All segments of the real number line have the same cardinality, meaning that they're all the same size. However, any segment of the real number line has a larger cardinality than the primes, natural numbers, integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers. This is because the real number line is infinitely dense with no gaps, whereas the rational numbers are infinitely dense but with gaps.

It's complicated. But, I hope this helps.

Can we find a way to make this thread relevant to Mormonism in some way?

If not, I wonder why the OP is on this forum.

Actually, I was right because in my example cardinality is not a factor as I mentioned only real numbers and therefore all my infinities are the same type though of course with different numbers of elements in the set (smaller and larger). But such does help to understand mathematics yes.



Has plenty to do with it. Mormons postulate a God that at one time was not a God and yet has always existed. What does that mean? It relates to the universe because when was God a God relative to that? Also, the universe is bigger than we can see which is only an expanding view (at the speed of light) limited by how old the universe is. It could be much much bigger and currently, we would never know it.

Well. You know. Since matter doesn't really exist, and everything is relegated to forces (different forces assuming different characteristics which give rise to the illusion of matter) the Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to have a causality any different than when matter pops into or out of existence. IOW, the forces that be can simply cease to be or coalesce into a form which give the impression of a beginning when in reality it's the product of forces acting upon one another.

Not only is there an infinite Universe, but there are probably an infinite number of universes the nature of which is hard to fathom within our limited time and physical space.

Scale is truly relative. When we look at the universe we're in awe because it appears to be large. That's only because we're a force sub-component of its framework. That said, if we were to remove ourselves from this narrative the universe can be viewed as large or small, chaotic or ordered, depending on our observation of it.

Causality is a given. Everything has causality. It doesn't mean there is a deliberate causality behind it. Causality just happens. Whether or not we can ascertain the causality of how the forces ultimately came to be that created our reality will be determined, but assigned causality to a divine intelligence is tantamount to assigning a tornado to the Butterfly Effect. It's plausible, but ultimately as unreliable as any other explanation without scientific proof.

IOW, assigning the causality of a tornado in Western Kansas to the butterfly wing flaps of a Malaysian butterfly is as silly as assigning the creation of this universe to a god because there's no proof that either occurred.

- VRDRC

Bcspace, what you said was:


That is not right, because it is possible to mathematically prove there are just as many real numbers between those two numbers as there are real numbers outside those two numbers. I know it doesn't intuitively make sense, but it is true. It is possible to come up with a one-two-one correspondence between real numbers between those two numbers, and between real numbers outside those two numbers, and to use up all numbers outside those two numbers first, before using up all the real numbers between the two numbers. Let me know if you want me to show you how to do it.

Nope. Still wrong. Let me put it a different way.

The interval [0, 1] and the interval [-inf, +inf] have the same number of elements. They both have the same number of elements as the interval [0, 2], [-inf, 0], [-1, 1], or any other segment of the real number line.

+1

Even if God, or the gods, or a giant unicorn, caused the Big Bang, so what? How does that have anything to do with our lives on planet Earth? Also, what does that have to do with Mormonism -- or Christianity, or Islam -- being a true religion?

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE
[/url]

Not sure why the URL is not working. Never mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, everyone, but as I understand it the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is still unknown. Nobody knows how big the universe is.


I'm not sure that I completely agree with Dr. Hawking, but I seem to remember reading in his book A Brief History of Time that space-time is curved, in such a way that asking what happened before the Big Bang might be as meaningless as asking what portion of the Earth exists north of the North Pole. Due to the curvature of the Earth nothing is further north than the North Pole, and due to the curvature of space-time, it may just be possible that nothing happened prior to the Big Bang.

Who knows? Prior to the big bang was a singularity. Our math falls apart.

But if it is curved space time you are after.... go study Einstien-Rosen bridges

Kevin and keith, we are not discussing pure mathematics such as Cardinal arithmetic but Physics in accordance with the Bekenstein bound and the laws of Thermodynamics which have real application. Plus, there is no assumption of "bijective" (injective and surjective) mapping between sets since we are dealing with time.

You should delete the {CR} before the "[ /url]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE

1. So, you're an ultrafinitist. Good to know. Theoretically though, shouldn't the knowledge and power of God extend to systems that can't be realized in this physical universe? Also, the upper limit on information on entropy (if it exists), is something that is incalculable (see Busy Beaver number) by a Turing machine. So, how does god know the value of this upper limit to entropy (i.e. that he knows everything)? Doesn't his calculation of this limit imply access to computing power beyond that physically available in a given universe? What about the properties of a collection of subsets of this universe?

2. Why would there be no assumption of a bijective mapping between sets (i.e. one point in the life of God vs. the entire span of God's existence) in the case of God? I really don't see how the assumption of time would change this, so maybe you can explain it to me.

3. The observation was about the properties of the real number line in general, not about a hypothetical God and his hypothetical omniscience in particular. I have already argued in several threads how I think that the omnipotence of God is a theoretically impossible thing, but I guess it's hard to pin down since there is a) no evidence for (or really against) the existence of god(s) in the universe and b) there is no practical way to test the power, perception, and eternity of these god(s).

Thank you one and all for your replies. As Equality said "You've made my brain hurt in a good way."

You've given me much to think about here. For those who complained that this was in the wrong forum, I apologize. You are correct in stating that this does not strictly relate to Mormon Doctrine, My feeling was that because this was in the nature of "where did I come from" and "how did the universe come into being" it was both a theological and cosmological question.

But I thank everyone for their answers. Some great ideas to chew on.

“The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking. I've never seen anybody really find the answer. They think they have, so they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.”
― Ken Kesey

Even if we forgive your misunderstandings about cardinality and mathematical notions of infinity, your final statement is still silly. If you use this logic to explain why God was always God, then it is equally true that I was always an adult and the apple on my desk was always a ripe apple (Since it has been ripe between time t1 and now and that is an infinite amount of time points). lol
You are engaging in your usual silly word play just as with your Garden of Eden stuff- maybe even sillier this time.