posted
1) Most scientists I know wouldn't agree with this, and I certainly don't. Don't state it like its a fact.
2) Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true, even in a world devoid of anything supernatural. Brush up on Godel. Furthermore, given that we've only been exploring higher physics for the past hundred years at the outside, its completely absurd to conclude that no theory of physics will ever have conclusions about the initial conditions of the universe. Furthermore, not everything that is model-able is predictable -- you were the one who brought up chaos theory (albeit when it was completely unneeded), neh?
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Hobbes, just because we haven't been able to determine such a theory for predicting the initial conditions of the universe doesn't mean there isn't one. Maybe it's like differential equations. For each set of boundary conditions there's an answer(universe), and maybe every possible set of boundary conditions exists (a multiverse). Maybe the multiverse is just the ultimate differential equation (and to be honest here, this is pretty much what I think of the universe, with a complete enough understanding, everything that ever has and will ever exist is calculable, but that's really neither here nor there).
(I did get that right, right? Differential equations are the ones where boundary conditions are required? I haven't taken a math course in years. Crap, I'm not even sure what I just said makes any sense.)
posted
1) Fugu, I've read a decent number of things about this, I've heard a lot of people talk about. I haven't gone so far as to conduct a survey of scientests, but I have never once heard anyone say anything other than that the chances of any irregularity producing something like is incredibly remote.
2) The fact that it hasn't yet come to be isn't proof that it will either, and until it does science will remain incapable of explaining the reason the universe formed the way it did. And even then there will be a step left in that why was a universe with these rules created?
posted
Ssywak, was that your own report on Objective Morality, or one you found? I don't understand how it ties in. Not to mention the fact that it isn't really even about morality since the author points out that his definition is different than the traditional definition of morality (as I understand it to be). He says morality is basically doing good for others?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HC, it depends on what type of differntial equation you're talking about, but that may be possible. What I'm trying to say isn't that's impossible for science to ever predict from theory alone the intial conditions and constants in the universe (Hawking gives an good explenation as to why being able to do that is so important), but that science certainly can't now.
posted
Hobbes - I wondered because of the 2nd sentence in your #2. Sounds like you're saying that since we haven't been able to produce a theory that predicts the initial conditions of the universe, then it follows that they must be determined by a force external to the laws of said universe. I don't follow the reasoning behind that. I would suggest our understanding of the laws of the universe is yet incomplete, and a [more] complete understanding may lead to the ability to predict (postdict?) the initial conditions of the universe.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was proof that it will, and you are the one who stated that it won't.
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
That last sentence doesn't even remotely follow, there's a logical gulf beyond measure there.
Second, you are completely ignoring that there are good scientific reasons science could be unable to explain it without there being a God or any supernatural explanation. Science doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. For instance if, as we are resonably certain, time travel is not possible for the transport of information, then science will never know/be able to explain what was going through your head ten minutes ago -- even if there is no supernatural explanation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
OK, fair enough, right now the best of our scientists and scientific theories can only say that the intial conditions of the universe were no pre-determined by the laws of the universe itself, but either by chance or by external force. I do not deny the possibility of a new theory that accounts for intial conditions, but I feel that the assumption that we will have one is just a ludicrious.
posted
Fugu, you're making an even bigger logical jump here, you may notice that I never once even mentioned God. I'm not trying to proove his existance, I'm just shedding some light on the begining of the universe as is understood by current theories.
posted
Yeah, Vera, I believe that God uses natural laws to perform His "miracles". I do believe, though that He can do things that we can't. I believe that He can command particles to move and they obey Him. I guess I believe that even the tiniest of particles have a sort of will and intelligence. Just no free-will.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to jump into the middle of a fight between Hobbes and Fugu, especially about something that isn't really my field, but...
quote: 1) Irreuglarity in intial conditions leads to irreugularity through-out the universe, but the chances of that irregularity leading to self-aware creatures... well it requires very specific irregularity for that.
I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. I remember from biochemistry that not only do local areas of higher organization actually help increase the overall disorder, but that some very advanced work in thermodynamics (which I don't understand, so don't ask me to explain it, but it all made alot of sense when the prof was explaining it) shows that such things naturally form in large systems, and are, in fact, inevitable. It seemed to me that this suggested that life may, in fact, have been inevitable. The tendency of develop local areas of life may actually be in the very fabric of the universe.
That was one of my few near brushes with theism. :-)
But I didn't fully understand the science behind it, so I don't think too much about it on a daily basis, but it really blew my mind at the time.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most scientists I know wouldn't agree with this, and I certainly don't. Don't state it like its a fact.
Was this in response to me? Forgive me. I never mean to put my faith forth as fact. Sometimes I forget. It's just, I believe it so strongly myself it is easy to forget.
quote: Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true
Exactly!
Let me say that I believe *very strongly* that it is impossible for science to observe all of reality as it is.
posted
When I was a kid I always kinda felt like gravity was an expression of the will of God, or something like that. I haven't really thought about it since.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A typical scientific way of determining approximate stastical probability of something that can not be reproduced is looking at the time it took to form. Life formed soon after it was possible, while whatever the possibilities of creating a place for life specifically are, if we just count reproducing patterns then yes, life is a likely phenomena in any system. Intelligent life took billions of years to form, as I said, I've never heard a single person say that intelligent life was a likely outcome.
posted
Re; the necessary initial conditions, first review the anthropic principles, then consider the multiple universe theories, then consider the repetitive big bang theories (each with new laws of physics), then notice your own statement:
quote:but I have never once heard anyone say anything other than that the chances of any irregularity producing something like is incredibly remote.
We're not talking about it necessarily producing something like this, we're talking about it producing something/someplace which could sustain life. Heck, we're not even certain the laws of physics are constant in the universe, and if it turns out they vary, that certainly suggests it may be relatively easy for an exploding universe to result in life . Heck, we aren't even certain the universe has a beginning.
Actually, I find your points here somewhat amusing, as its my understanding that in the LDS belief system God doesn't get to set the laws of the universe, at least not some of them. Those are still left as "just how it is".
And again, even if science can't explain the initial laws of physics, ever, that says nothing scientifically about whether or not they are due to supernatural imposition.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all walk by faith in this life whether we realize it or not. We just differ on what we have faith *in*.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, I find your points here somewhat amusing, as its my understanding that in the LDS belief system God doesn't get to set the laws of the universe, at least not some of them. Those are still left as "just how it is".
And again, even if science can't explain the initial laws of physics, ever, that says nothing scientifically about whether or not they are due to supernatural imposition.
And again Fugu you seem to think I'm trying to proove a lack in science or a proof of the Divine, I'm doing niether one. I haven't mentioned God except to say that I hadn't mentioned Him.
quote:We're not talking about it necessarily producing something like this, we're talking about it producing something/someplace which could sustain life
Well I was pretty specific, I was talking about forming this kind of life.
posted
Oh, on the natural laws of nature and miracles. Quantum theory tells us that it is possible for my computer screen to wink out of existance and appear in Antarctica. Or the other side of the galaxy. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
Now imagine that these particles each have a tiny bit of will. Not free will, but enough will to obey God.
Seems to leave some room for the tweaking of a Divine Being.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes the universe unique is the irregularities in the original data, what caused the universe to take on such a form that after 10-20 billion years (using the widest interpretation of the Hubble constant I know) it produced self-aware creatures? Irregularity is in no way a product of the laws of the universe, and thus no scientific evidence as of yet can be gathered to provide even the slightest explanation of why we are here.
First, as already pointed out, irregularity is a product of the laws of the universe, so your thus just falls out completely. Second, you certainly implied an argument for a guiding intelligence in your questions, particularly given the overall argument.
As for the "life, but not intelligent life" bit, I again suggest the anthropic principle It happened, so it happened, even if its terribly unlikely. What caused it? who knows, but we can be absolutely certain it happened, and so if there's even a possibility it was naturally caused the probability of it happening is pretty much irrelevant.
Beverly -- it wasn't a reply to you, but your input is always welcome Don't worry, its been scientifically proven that no axiomatic system is complete. This strongly suggests that there are areas (of the physical sciences) no scientific theory can explain.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, please understand I'm not proving that there was something divine in the creation of the Universe, I know what the Anthropic Principle is, I know what it means, it really has nothing to do with the what I'm talking about, because it doesn't give a reason, it says that there was some reason, and now it's happened however likely or unlikely. Just because I am a Thiest doesn't mean that everytime I enter a discussion about creation I'll be intent on proving I'm right, sometimes I just like discussing the science of it.
quote:First, as already pointed out, irregularity is a product of the laws of the universe, so your thus just falls out completely. Second, you certainly implied an argument for a guiding intelligence in your questions, particularly given the overall argument.
You've pointed out that irregularity is a product of the laws of the universe, so I proceeded to point out that it may dictate irregularity but not irreguarity that producces intelligent life.
quote:for the "life, but not intelligent life" bit, I again suggest the anthropic principle It happened, so it happened, even if its terribly unlikely. What caused it? who knows, but we can be absolutely certain it happened, and so if there's even a possibility it was naturally caused the probability of it happening is pretty much irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? I'm not proofing anything, I was just trying to have a disucussion.
quote:Second, you certainly implied an argument for a guiding intelligence in your questions, particularly given the overall argument.
The closest I came was mentioning "external forces", other than that I just pointed out what science doesn't know, which has been said several times in this thread by those who agree with you is what scientists do and why their so trustworthy.
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Can you back this up? Why does the first sentence imply the second?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Well I know of no comprhensive list of unified theories, but I'm convinced that the physcists here will back me up. If you want a primary source on this one it's from A Breif History of Time.
It implies the second one because these theories include physical constants in them, and are applied to the data, but both the constants and the data have to be determined experimentally, there is no mechanism in the rules themselves for determining either.
posted
Hobbes: science can explain why there are irregularities, and that certain irregularities possibly/likely lead to life.
While it can come up with all sorts of detailed analysis of the possible and probably irregularities, it will likely never dictate irregularity that produces life. Frankly, life is probably not a necessary outcome of the possible irregularities of universe creation. So I doubt science will ever "dictate . . . irreguarity that producces intelligent life" as thats probably not necessary at all. Why should scientific theories have to dictate irregularity that leads to life? Its certainly not necessary for any scientific theory to dictate it given what we know of the universe today, why do you think it is?
And no, your statement is not a paraphrase of Hawking's. He didn't say that something else determined such constants or that they were in any way external, merely that he felt any theory which did not dictate them was inadequate. Furthermore, much modern research on possible details of universe creation focuses on that, simply, the properties of the universe may arise from pure happenstance -- that is, it may be possible to arise at a theory which dictates the possible values, but not the exact values simply because no exact values are physically necessary.
quote:Hobbes: science can explain why there are irregularities, and that certain irregularities lead to life.
Certainly never questioned that.
quote:While it can come up with all sorts of detailed analysis of the possible and probably irregularities, it will likely never dictate irregularity that produces life. Frankly, life is probably not a necessary outcome of the possible irregularities of universe creation. So I doubt science will ever "dictate . . . irreguarity that producces intelligent life" as thats probably not necessary at all. Why should scientific theories have to dictate irregularity that leads to life? Its certainly not necessary for any scientific theory to dictate it given what we know of the universe today, why do you think it is?
Well it better if it's going to dictate the orginal irregularities of the universe, since obviously they did lead to live. Remember the Anthropic Principle? The only other option is that it doesn't dictate the irregularities (the current theories) which was my entire point in the first place.
quote: And no, your statement is not a paraphrase of Hawking's. He didn't say that something else determined such constants or that they were in any way external, merely that he felt any theory which did not dictate them was inadequate.
Well actually he did, you just leaving out the first half of his statment. He did indeed say that any theories that did not dictate constants was inadequate, only he prefaced that by saying that no current theories do. It was one of his pet peeves with physic's current "Unified Theories". And since these theories are the current estimaations of the rules of the universe I think we can safely say that at this point, the known rules of the universe don't do that right? I mean if A is B and A doesn't do C, then B doesn't do C. And if the rules don't dictate this then it is external to the rules.
quote:simply, the properties of the universe may arise from pure happenstance -- that is, it may be possible to arise at a theory which dictates the possible values, but not the exact values simply because no exact values are physically necessary.
Well I have no idea what you mean by necessary, but the rest of that is exactly what I said in my first post, as of right now, and possibly in the future, the intial conditions wont be dependent on the rules of the universe, and thus will be external to them.
Fugu, I don't know why you're arguing with me, we agree on all this, and if you're worried about me trying to turn this into some sort of logical case for an All Mighty Creator I would hope that my previous posts have disuaded you from that opinion.
[EDIT: And just for AK, I've not used spell check on this post. ]
posted
Hobbes, science is not certain. If the creation of the universe did not certainly lead to life, scientific theories need not dictate that it must. We know only that it did lead to life, not that it must have. Your logic is in significant error. In fact, given the uncertainty principle and the vast variances it almost certainly makes possible in the early universe, I would be frankly amazed if it were certain life would come into existence from the beginning.
You're right, my memory of Hawking in A Brief History was flawed. He just speculates, stating that it may or may not be possible to determine such numbers from theory. One notable speculation that is absent in your speculation, however, is that they could just happen to vary -- very different from your either or of defined by theory or externally determined, and a point I've been trying to make.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify: constants can happen within the laws of physics, under some sort of general guidelines, without being specifically dictated, and still not being external.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hobbes, science is not certain. If the creation of the universe did not certainly lead to life, scientific theories need not dictate that it must. We know only that it did lead to life, not that it must have. Your logic is in significant error. In fact, given the uncertainty principle and the vast variances it almost certainly makes possible in the early universe, I would be frankly amazed if it were certain life would come into existence from the beginning.
Once again, that is my point, science currently doesn't, and very likely, will not tell us the begining intial conditions.
quote:You're right, my memory of Hawking in A Brief History was flawed. He just speculates, stating that it may or may not be possible to determine such numbers from theory. One notable speculation that is absent in your speculation, however, is that they could just happen to vary -- very different from your either or of defined by theory or externally determined, and a point I've been trying to make.
This is true, it's possible that if we do discover the true unified theory that it may not specify rules that dictate constants, and if so, it may place limits on those constants, and most likely will not dictate, though may dictate or dictate ranges for intial conditions. I admit that I don't know the unified theory, I mean if I did you think I'd be here right now? I'm really pretty sure you agree with me Fugu, and I'm most unclear as to why you're arguing with me on a point where you're consitantly taking the same side of the issue as I am.
posted
No, no, you're still missing the first point. Its not that they're not necessarily given (thought that's possible as well), its that the results of them aren't certain. Why do you insist that any complete theory must dictate that intelligent life must evolve, for instance?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Which explicitly contradicts the idea that the initial conditions could be bound without being determined.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, out of the first 257,308 universes, 195,023 collapsed immediately upon forming because their constants weren't agreeable to each other. Of the remaining universes, only 21,345 of them actually supported any sort of life at all, and of those, only 497 supported self-aware life.
Does that work for anybody? Works for me.
Bev,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I went home, had a great date with my wife, picked up the kids from a Murder-Mystery dinner, and inly now am I ignoring them again to come here to Hatrack (and answer your e-mail).
quote: I believe in a perfect God. I believe that this perfect God values free will a great deal. I believe this God gives the universe its freedom to be chaotic and do what it wishes--except where His will requires otherwise.
Yes, I do believe in a "nudging" God rather than a "controlling" God. And yet, I believe because He is perfect, He is never out of control. If anything disobeys Him, it is to its own detriment, not God's.
To explain further, I believe that the elements *always* obey God. Without fail. Only we, his children, can choose to go against God's will.
First: a "perfect being" is a fictional conceit. What exactly do you mean "God is perfect"? Since nothing we know here on earth is "perfect," I am having a hard time understanding what a "perfect being" would be.
Second: The elements obey God? Are you saying that the elements will act contrary to the known laws of physics if God wills it to be so? Please provide an example. Or, does God spend his (infinite) time moving the elements (quarks, gluons, Clark Bars, etc.) to meet the criteria of the known physical laws (does God make sure that the planets stay in their orbits? Or has he established the laws of physics? I know you will say "No" to that second question--so are you then saying that God can cause a planet to leave and then return to its orbit if He so chooses?)
Third: A "nudging" God? Interesting concept. How does he "nudge"? How do we separate His "nudges" from random chance (if a cat runs across my path, and I go left instead of right, and therefore don't take the Staten Island ferry the day it smaches into the pier, is that a "nudge"? Why didn't God nudge the eleven people who died that day? Please tell their families that God didn't need to nudge them, or that they were too blind to see the nudge.)
And on that note, I promise to return tomorrow. Now I go spend time with my family.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, no problem about being gone, I certainly am not going to criticize you for being a wonderful husband and taking your wife out!
quote: First: a "perfect being" is a fictional conceit. What exactly do you mean "God is perfect"? Since nothing we know here on earth is "perfect," I am having a hard time understanding what a "perfect being" would be.
Perfect is an easy word to throw around lightly. I believe that God is the perfect judge, that He does not make mistakes and that He is able to balance the unbalanced. I believe that if there is anything to be known, He knows it. I believe that He adheres to the underlying laws of reality by choice and does so without wavering. He can be trusted implicitly to follow through on the things He has said He will do.
quote: Second: The elements obey God? Are you saying that the elements will act contrary to the known laws of physics if God wills it to be so? Please provide an example. Or, does God spend his (infinite) time moving the elements (quarks, gluons, Clark Bars, etc.) to meet the criteria of the known physical laws (does God make sure that the planets stay in their orbits? Or has he established the laws of physics? I know you will say "No" to that second question--so are you then saying that God can cause a planet to leave and then return to its orbit if He so chooses?)
I do believe that God follows natural law. I also believe that God can command the elements and they obey. I do not think that particles need to go contrary to natural laws in order to obey the commands of God. There is a certain amount of randomness in their motions. Particles move in such a way that defies our current understanding and is different than anything we observe at our size-level. Assuming these particles do have some will of their own, it is not that strange to think that if God commanded this planet to remove from it's orbit, it would be done. Perhaps even mankind will discover such power someday a la "Star Trek Technology".
I do think that the laws we see may have either been set into motion by God (via the Big Bang) to fit a reality that goes beyond even this physical universe, or they are simply the same laws that occur naturally no matter what.
quote: Third: A "nudging" God? Interesting concept. How does he "nudge"? How do we separate His "nudges" from random chance (if a cat runs across my path, and I go left instead of right, and therefore don't take the Staten Island ferry the day it smaches into the pier, is that a "nudge"? Why didn't God nudge the eleven people who died that day? Please tell their families that God didn't need to nudge them, or that they were too blind to see the nudge.)
We cannot discern the difference. It is not God's intention that we discern. But it does allow Him to ensure that His purposes are fulfilled. Let us treat this like the laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov. They have a heirarchy and structure, the first overriding the second and the second overriding the third.
First: He allows us our free will. He will not under any circumstances remove that or violate it. We are always free to choose.
Second: He responds to faith. The greater the faith, the greater the response. Faith is not about "getting what you want" like a spoiled child demanding candy, it is about trusting God and seeking to align yourself with His purposes. He will intervene (as long as His first purpose is still being served) when there is faith and the amount of intervention tends to (and is perhaps always) proportional to the faith involved.
For instance: I believe that God intervened to help save me from my awful situation described in my recent landmark because of the faith and faithfulness of those who loved me (particularly my parents) rather than on my own merits. I could have denied that intervention and help, but I believe an extra effort was made on their behalf rather than mine. God may have had His own purposes in mind also, but I do believe that their faith had an effect on how things happened.
I cannot prove this to you, but I tell you that I believe it with my whole soul. To me it was a miracle. To anyone else, it is only coincidence.
I find it interesting to note that you bring death into it. As though death is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If you believe in no afterlife, I can understand. But for those of us who do, me continuing on that terribly destructive path would have been far worse than death. Perhaps even to a non-believer's perspective it would have been worse than death.
We could perhaps put a third purpose of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39) The first two purposes would have priority and thus govern how this third purpose is brought about.
posted
I want to second that last comment. For a person of faith, and to God, death is simply a bumb in the road.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He can be trusted implicitly to follow through on the things He has said He will do.
quote:I don't think God wants to be proven
This seems to be a "common thread" in the description of "God." He does not want to be proven--proof would somehow ruin faith, or the need for faith (why God should require "faith" and eschew "knowledge" is an interesting quandary).
But if God does not want to be "proven," then how do we know what "He has said He will do"?
If you knew God told you He'd do something, then His existence would be proven. That's no good for God, apparently. By your own restrictions, then, any belief that God has promised to do anything must be subjective at best. Being subjective, it can therefore easily be denied or altered when it alteration finds.
"I have prayed to God, and he has told me that the little girl who fell into the well will be saved"
Of course, since God denies proof, my belief that God has told me anything cannot be a "true" belief, or I would have proof. This is starting to sound like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
But then the little girl dies in the well.
Has God failed to "follow through on the things He has said He will do"? I would say yes. What would you say? Having an abiding belief in God, I would bet that you'd say that I misunderstood what God said to me, or that I was hopeful but incorrect in my belief that God had spoken to me at all.
You can't lose. You posit an entity that--by definition--denies proof, and then you can go and call it anything you want. You can attribute any aspects to it at all. And, the moment one of those attributes fails to materialize, you can claim that it's all part of that entity's aspect of remaining unproveable. Not only does your unproveable entity get to continue "existing", but the attribute that failed to materialize remains, somehow, valid.
That's the first contradiction. Do you get it?
quote:I do believe that God follows natural law. I also believe that God can command the elements and they obey. I do not think that particles need to go contrary to natural laws in order to obey the commands of God. There is a certain amount of randomness in their motions. Particles move in such a way that defies our current understanding and is different than anything we observe at our size-level. Assuming these particles do have some will of their own, it is not that strange to think that if God commanded this planet to remove from it's orbit, it would be done. Perhaps even mankind will discover such power someday a la "Star Trek Technology".
The "God follows natural law" comes close to the "make a rock so big..." issue. I don't know what to make of that logical inconsistency!
I also know, from your e-mail to me, that the Mormon God did not create the Universe, but was created at the same time as the Universe. Therefore (I will assume), His powers are great, but limited.
Of course, it begs the question that scientists are currently being accused of begging: what happened before and during the creation of the Universe? What was the "prime mover"?
Secondly, you claim (in the e-mail) that "He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal" So God, created at the same time of the universe, has hair, gonads, teeth and an anus. Perhaps a belly button, but I'll leave that question for those much smarter than I. If He is human, then He must have those things. But if he is "eternal in the sense that he lives 'outside' time," and was born before the earth or any planets existed (having been created at the same time as the Universe), then how/why/what would He eat? Does this "perfect" being excrete? Does it even make any sense? Another contradiction / inconsistency.
You also call upon [reverb]quantum uncertainty[/reverb] to allow for God to move a planet out of its defined orbit through His intent, and yet violate no physical laws.
You don't understand quantum physics too well, do you?
Let's recap, then: You have told me what you think God is (more in your e-mail than here on this forum, but still...). And I think, for the most part, I get it. I don't have the belief--the faith--but I can certainly understand your belief, and discuss the points as well as the next religious guy or gal. I also understand physics and a decent smattering of the physical laws--and in ways which I do not believe you do. You do, as do I, have the required "faith" in the laws of physics--that the sun will come up, tomorrow, and all that. But I also have the working knowledge.
Steve: Working knowledge of God, strong knowledge of physics; belief in physics, but no belief in God.
Bev: Working knowledge of God, poor knowledge of physics; belief in physics, belief in God.
I was going to give you "Strong" knowledge in God, but you yourself state that God is impossible to know, because he defies proof (rational analysis). You certainly feel God, though.
The only time we can truly "know" Him, then, is when we are dead (on of many reasons I bring death into the discussion). But, conveniently, no one can report back. And if they could, then...what? Does that provide the definite proof that God does not want to exist (and if God does not want it to exist, can it exist? And God still be perfect?) Or will you also reject claims of "the tunnel of light", and psychics, and all the rest of the paranormal spectrum?
Or will you claim, as have so many before you, that I am manipulating your words. That your words do not mean what they say? That they are misty reflections of the beautiful reality of God? Either your words have value, or they don't. Especially since so many are "the words of God," one expects a certain level of--shall we say--"perfection"?
quote: But if God does not want to be "proven," then how do we know what "He has said He will do"?
You can't know. (At least at first, I will explain further below.) You have to have faith, trust. But since God is trustworthy, He follows through on His part. The nature of these things tend to be more intangible than your example of the girl in the well. As I mentioned before, many of the things that matter so very much to us are actually not important in the big picture. The things that do matter are the things that are not so easily measured. You can call it "convenient" or you can call it "the way things are".
quote: That's the first contradiction. Do you get it?
I don't see it so much as a contradiction as I see it as unprovable. I am not attempting to prove anything. I never will attempt to prove anything on this matter. But I will attempt to explain how I think that a universe with such a God is *not* less likely than a universe without. That is the only point I will try to make here. I am not proving, I am creating possibilities, uncertainties. The fact that I happen to have faith in it for reasons of my own is another matter entirely.
quote: The "God follows natural law" comes close to the "make a rock so big..." issue. I don't know what to make of that logical inconsistency!
I don't follow you here. My point is God *can't* make a rock so big He can't lift it. He would have to be illogical in order to do so. God is logical. If we do not understand Him it is not because He is illogical but because our minds are not yet able to wrap themselves around the logical, natural concepts.
quote: but was created at the same time as the Universe
My point was that both the natural universe (this extends beyond our perception of our own universe) is eternal as is God. (Or a race of Gods.) No beginning, no end, no limit in number. We already know the human brain cannot wrap its mind around the concept of infinity, we don't even try. That doesn't mean we can't put infinity into equations and make it work. God is eternal because there has always been Gods. The universe is eternal because there was never a time when there was no creation. No actual beginning, no actual end. Eternal in both directions, even if our particular Heavenly Father had a moment of spiritual birth (eternal intelligence to spirit body, spirit body to mortal body, eventually to exaltation.) It actually makes sense as long as you ignore the fact that we can't understand infinity.
quote: Secondly, you claim (in the e-mail) that "He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal" So God, created at the same time of the universe, has hair, gonads, teeth and an anus. Perhaps a belly button, but I'll leave that question for those much smarter than I. If He is human, then He must have those things. But if he is "eternal in the sense that he lives 'outside' time," and was born before the earth or any planets existed (having been created at the same time as the Universe), then how/why/what would He eat? Does this "perfect" being excrete? Does it even make any sense? Another contradiction / inconsistency.
I do not know the answers to some of these questions, but I will tell you this. According to LDS doctrine we do know that the mortal body and the ressurrected body have one important difference: blood. The mortal body has blood, the ressurrected does not. It has some other "essesnce" in it's place, I assume. There may be other fundamental differences as well. I personally do not worry that the fact that I do not know does not mean that there is not a sensible answer. If I do not know, it is because God has chosen not to say. I do, however, believe that a ressurrected body is capable of eating because of two accounts of the ressurrected Christ eating food. Also, we believe that exalted ressurrected bodies procreate. I am actually mildly amused at the disgust people tend to have, even the non-believers, at the idea of a God with gonads! We choose to rejoice at the prospect of keeping our gonads for eternity.
quote: You don't understand quantum physics too well, do you?
I concede that I am not an expert on physics. Feel free to educate me on whatever point I have misrepresented. From what I understand, particles move with a certain amount of randomness. We cannot know exactly where they are at any given time unless we give up knowing their velocity and visa versa. There is an equation that predicts where a certain particle will be at any given time. The probability of it being in a neighboring galaxy is extremely slight, but possible. Particles wink out of existance and another reappears somewhere else. Man speculates that he may one day be able to transport matter from one position to another almost instantaneously if not instantaneously. Then why couldn't God do so? That doesn't make sense that man could learn to do something that God cannot do!
quote: God is impossible to know, because he defies proof (rational analysis).
No, God *is* possible to know, but only inasmuch as He reveals Himself. He has not personally revealed His fullness to me, but I honestly believe that He has done so to certain individuals that He has called as prophets and I honestly believe their testimony of it.
quote: The only time we can truly "know" Him, then, is when we are dead
Again, not necessarily. I only said this is true of those who exercise no faith in Him.
quote: ). But, conveniently, no one can report back.
This does not concern me since I believe the living have reported back.
quote: Or will you also reject claims of "the tunnel of light", and psychics, and all the rest of the paranormal spectrum?
Do you speak of me denying other anomalous phenomenon? I do not deny them.
quote: Or will you claim, as have so many before you, that I am manipulating your words.
I don't believe I have claimed that here or ever. I have, however, tried to clarify where you may have misunderstood my words.
I understand that a lot of these are new concepts for you. The LDS understanding of God is probably nothing like anything you have encountered before. We reject the creed of a God without parts or passions, and few Christians would reject that ancient creed. Therefore, it will take some time for you and I to understand one another fully.
posted
In light of some of the discussion here, I think Eve and the Parthenon is interesting. Can't say that I agree with the author's viewpoints on Adam, Eve, Salvation and the more theological observations. Other information relating to relationships is very tantilizing.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, we have two books and a few people. The Bible, Doctrine Covenants, and the statement of a few men who claim to have seen God and Angels on a regular basis. Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all of you are approaching the issue from the wrong direction. The first question to ask is -- why?
Why should you believe in God? Ignore all the wonderful explanations of how God can really exist, how free will really does exist. Instead ask why you should make that leap of faith in the first place.
After all, if someone walked up to you on the street and said the following:
"You must worship the bunny." "Why?" "It loves you. And if you don't you'll burn in hell."
Your next response is very unlikely to be "yes."
But, oddly enough, if the same conversation happens many times over your childhood, it becomes so ingrained in you that you never think to wonder about it.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "You must worship the bunny." "Why?" "It loves you. And if you don't you'll burn in hell."
Your next response is very unlikely to be "yes."
You know, that *does* sound remarkably similar to the way a lot of people go about sharing their beliefs. I know *I* wouldn't find it convincing.
But that is what I find interesting. Non-believers seem to think that that is all the evidence believers have. Many of those who *do* only have that much evidence are now non-believers.
I think the answer to that question of "why" is many and varied. For some of us it has a great deal to do with multiple "spiritual" experiences time and time again with great consistency. I know that it is always possible that this is all a big huge deception, but that "possibility" has remained in the background in the face of the evidence I do have.
quote: All this talk of "God with Gonads" (after all, you can't spell "Gonads" without G-O-D), makes me wonder: WWJD?
You know, this is one of the reasons that the possibility of Christ being married doesn't really bother LDS. We don't have any evidence to know for sure one way or the other though.
As Occasional said, it is more evidence than "just one book".
In fact, a lot of people are surprised after learning of all the "wacked out" things that LDS believe that when they go and read The Book of Mormon, it is pretty darn basic. A lot of these "advanced" ideas come from a variety of different sources. The Pearl of Great Price is a book of scripture that contains a lot of them. The Doctrine and Covenants contains multiple visions and revelations received by modern-day prophets.
quote: And I do apologize about my earlier "pre-emptive" statements. So hard, sometimes, to have a conversation spread out over multiple Internet sessions...
No problem. I have enjoyed talking to you about this. I honestly want to understand your thoughts, reactions, whatnot. Don't be afraid of offending me, unless you are *trying* to be offensive and disrespectful to me as a person. I am not afraid of curiosity and questions. If I don't know the answer, I will tell you so.
I should have been more specific. And so, by the way, should you.
Ooh, Ooh! Two books! I'm so sorry...How many different people were involved in writing these two Books of Mormon, then? Or, I should be more specific, in transcribing them.
What is it, if not blood, running through the veins of the resurrected? Are the angels you refer to also resurrected, or are they something different? I know in the Christian faiths, they are specifically not the resurrected. What is running through their veins is of no interest to me for this particular discussion.
Has this non-blood-substance been analysed? Or, at least, can some of its properties be stated so that I can feel comfortable (at a minimum) that the people examining this non-blood-like-substance actually knew what they were doing?
Sorry, I said "doing" again.
By the way, there's a building near me just full of people who claim to have seen God and angels on a regular basis. There's a lot of heavy-gauge wire over all the glass, for some strange reason. Not to say that all people who see God and angels on a regular basis are mad. But most are.
With regard for my inherent disregard of common authors. If you will note, in science, premises typicaly need to be supported by multiple, independent authors performing multiple, independent experiments. If Charles Darwin, for instance was the SOLE AUTHOR of EVERY book about evolution, I don't think I'd buy it any more than the modern evangelicals would. It's why the concept of "Cold Fusion" was initially rejected. You were saying about your two books, then...
posted
So... you sound skeptical. That's fine, I don't mind you being skeptical.
You are interested in specific information about the authorship of these works of scripture. First of all, on a technicality, there is only one "Book of Mormon." Either it is what it claims to be or it isn't. If it is what it claims to be, it is a compilation of writings of different prophets over a period of time. The main compiler is named Mormon, thus the title of the book and the "nickname" for the LDS church. No other book goes by that name.
The Pearl of Great Price, again if you take it for what it claims to be, is in part a record from Abraham and a record from Moses. It also includes a brief account of Joseph Smith's first visions and an alternate translation of a selection from the New Testament book of Matthew received by revelation.
The Doctrine and Covenants is mostly revelations received through Joseph Smith (several of which involved a second witness present), and a few from prophets after him. The words of prophets since have been recorded, but are not included in these books. Many of their words are studied in church meetings.
As for your suggestion that the authors were delusional, I guess that is the problem with seeing angels. If I said I had seen and angel and I told you, you would think I was delusional, would you not? If you saw an angel you might start wondering if you were delusional.
Your question on angels being ressurrected beings: Yes and no. Some are ressurrected beings, some are "translated" beings (not ressurrected, but corporeal not having died--their mortal body having had it's life extended) some are spirits. And what if a ressurrected being did submit to an "essence" test? Would that convince you? Or would you be skeptical yet?
If they were delusional, I would expect there to be evidence of their delusion. You could also assume that they were lying to deceive and manipulate. Maybe a combination of the two? I certainly believe there have been such men, such men that others have had complete faith in.
God believes in having multiple witnesses, two or more. In fact, we believe that is one of the important purposes of The Book of Mormon. It is a second witness in addition to the Bible. (I'm sure you are well aware of the growing skepticism with which people view the Bible.) While the average person was not allowed to view the gold plates from which The Book of Mormon were translated, 11 witnesses were allowed to view and handle them under specific circumstances. In one of those circumstances, an angel was told to be present. While some of these witnesses later "fell away" from the church, breaking off all contact with it, to my knowledge they all kept to their testimony to their graves.
I don't know what you are trying to get out of me. I have already said that I am not trying to prove this to you. I do not expect what I have said to convince you. I am, however, trying to answer your questions. I know this is a lot to accept, a lot to digest.
Consider this: What would it take for you to be convinced? Would anything *really* convince you? Perhaps the only thing that could even begin would be to find yourself dead and yet existing. I'm sure there are those who would be skeptical even then. (Thinking of the stories of alternate realities/perceptions.)
You mentioned my physics being off, were you going to explain more about that?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm really pretty sure you agree with me Fugu, and I'm most unclear as to why you're arguing with me on a point where you're consitantly taking the same side of the issue as I am. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
