Today's Lesson: Jesus lights the Sun moon and stars

[_bcspace]

Like Creationists believe the world was made in 7 literal days, but science disagrees.

The nice thing about that is the LDS Church doesn't disagree with either and tends to prefer science.

[_Chap]

I was suggestin that Christ MAY be the energy source of light (with respect to the topic at hand, I often discuss without reference to much other facts or opinions that have little relation), as of my eirlier posts before this evening. Rather than light itself (as in metaphysical deity).

If God created Christ and Christ created everything (according to LDS doctrin) then WHAT IF God were energy and Christ were some fundamental partical. That when combinding with other particals became matter. And thus, our understanding of the Bible differing to the understanding of the Author.

As I am unclear I will make an EFFORT to state when I am being serious, semi-serious and unserious in future. I hope this is clear.

An example... God created Adam in his image... if God were energy then maybe Adam were energy, but interpretation made him become man. Like Creationists believe the world was made in 7 literal days, but science disagrees. yet I think it possible that a day meant something different, perhaps a time period or a stage.

Regards,

Pirate.

Thank you for your answer.

Most theists who believe that their deity created everything that there is would have no problem in agreeing that, as the creator of everything, their deity is in some sense the source of everything. So when the sun shines, they might feel grateful to that deity and thank him/her/it in the same way that they might thank him/her/it for their food.

But when you begin to use fairly precise physics-talk and speculate whether Christ may be "the energy source of light", I do not think many theists with a scientific education will want to follow you there. In physics terms (as I am sure you know) energy is not a specific thing or kind of stuff, but a property of a physical system that can be calculated from certain physical measurements. It enters into equations such as the following, which applies to a heat engine:

(Increase in internal energy of system) = (heat entering system) - (work done by system on its surroundings)

An 'energy source of light' is simply a physical system whose internal energy decreases while it emits electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Such a system might be a collection of molecules at an appropriate temperature emitting thermal radiation, or it might be a single sodium atom with an excited electron that falls back to a lower energy state and emits a pulse of yellow light. Such things have no personality, consciousness or capacity to form intentions. If they can be Christ, then the Christ you refer to would lack almost all the properties normally ascribed to him by believers.

The same kind of objection would apply to making Christ an actual physical entity such as an elementary particle possessing such properties as mass, charge ,spin etc.. We would then be able to see Christ being accelerated in the vast particle circuit at CERN, and take pictures of him passing through (say) a bubble chamber. If he is the right kind of particle, he would have a finite decay time, after which he would split into further particles. Again, no will, consciousness or any sign of awareness or compassion. Those things are not part of the deal.

Obviously there in no law against anybody saying "Christ is the energy source of light" or "Christ is an elementary particle". But I think the only people who will find those ideas attractive are those who lack the scientific education to see how limiting that kind of statement would be.

[_JonasS]

I was suggestin that Christ MAY be the energy source of light (with respect to the topic at hand, I often discuss without reference to much other facts or opinions that have little relation), as of my eirlier posts before this evening. Rather than light itself (as in metaphysical deity).

If God created Christ and Christ created everything (according to LDS doctrin) then WHAT IF God were energy and Christ were some fundamental partical. That when combinding with other particals became matter. And thus, our understanding of the Bible differing to the understanding of the Author.

As I am unclear I will make an EFFORT to state when I am being serious, semi-serious and unserious in future. I hope this is clear.

An example... God created Adam in his image... if God were energy then maybe Adam were energy, but interpretation made him become man. Like Creationists believe the world was made in 7 literal days, but science disagrees. yet I think it possible that a day meant something different, perhaps a time period or a stage.

Regards,

Pirate.

Most theists who believe that their deity created everything that there is would have no problem in agreeing that, as the creator of everything, their deity is in some sense the source of everything. So when the sun shines, they might feel grateful to that deity and thank him/her/it in the same way that they might thank him/her/it for their food.

But when you begin to use fairly precise physics-talk and speculate whether Christ may be "the energy source of light", I do not think many theists with a scientific education will want to follow you there. In physics terms (as I am sure you know) energy is not a specific thing or kind of stuff, but a property of a physical system that can be calculated from certain physical measurements. It enters into equations such as the following, which applies to a heat engine:

(Increase in internal energy of system) = (heat entering system) - (work done by system on its surroundings)

An 'energy source of light' is simply a physical system whose internal energy decreases while it emits electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Such a system might be a collection of molecules at an appropriate temperature emitting thermal radiation, or it might be a single sodium atom with an excited electron that falls back to a lower energy state and emits a pulse of yellow light. Such things have no personality, consciousness or capacity to form intentions. If they can be Christ, then the Christ you refer to would lack almost all the properties normally ascribed to him by believers.

The same kind of objection would apply to making Christ an actual physical entity such as an elementary particle possessing such properties as mass, charge ,spin etc.. We would then be able to see Christ being accelerated in the vast particle circuit at CERN, and take pictures of him passing through (say) a bubble chamber. If he is the right kind of particle, he would have a finite decay time, after which he would split into further particles. Again, no will, consciousness or any sign of awareness or compassion. Those things are not part of the deal.

Obviously there in no law against anybody saying "Christ is the energy source of light" or "Christ is an elementary particle". But I think the only people who will find those ideas attractive are those who lack the scientific education to see how limiting that kind of statement would be.

I see,

If one were to assume that The Creator (take away the name Christ), were the energy source of the Big Bang per say, then there would be no deity, but a metaphorical ideal of a Physical creation as opposed to a creation by a being. And so if one were to study the original documents and look for parralells[sp?] between the stories of a Physical deity and Physical concepts in itself, then perhaps we are not looking at a literal creation by God (as a being) but by God as an energy SOURCE. One that is infinite in nature.

Light must have a lot of energy if we can see light from billions of lightyears away. Also, looking at light as a spectrum (including Gamma and Radio waves) there is a good chance that there are more types of light that we haven't come across yet. Physics and Maths become very complex, more complex than deity and religion as we know it, thus can it be said that Physics should bring us closer to knowing who God really is thatn say, the Bible?

I understand what you are saying and I guess in some ways you are right and I didn't think thouroughly before splurting out random ideas. Thank you for your patience and understanding in your reply, I much apreciate that.

Thank you for your answer.

[_Sethbag]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all. And I agree with Chap's treatment of the "Christ as elementary particle" suggestion.

A lot of laughable bullshyte results when a metaphysical discussion gets vain pretenses and attempts to cross over into the scientific.

[_harmony]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all.

Perhaps it's the other way around, Seth.

[_Sethbag]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all.

Perhaps it's the other way around, Seth.

Not sure if you meant to be funny or serious, so I'll assume serious and reply as such.

What have we ever learned about the real world, the actual universe that really exists, that we got through Joseph Smith or his successors as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, which turned out actually to be true? That the sun gets its light by borrowing it from Kolob?

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all.

Perhaps it's the other way around, Seth.

You mean you don't think Physics is meant to show god anything about us at all?

Or you don't think god is meant to show Physics anything about us at all?

Or you don't think god is meant to show us anything about Physics at all?

Or you don't think we are meant to show god anything about Physics at all?

Or you don't think we are meant to show Physics anything about god at all?

[_The Nehor]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all.

Perhaps it's the other way around, Seth.

Not sure if you meant to be funny or serious, so I'll assume serious and reply as such.

What have we ever learned about the real world, the actual universe that really exists, that we got through Joseph Smith or his successors as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, which turned out actually to be true? That the sun gets its light by borrowing it from Kolob?

That one can be free of their sins by letting Christ carry the burden...that's a big one for me.

[_harmony]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all.

Perhaps it's the other way around, Seth.

Not sure if you meant to be funny or serious, so I'll assume serious and reply as such.

What have we ever learned about the real world, the actual universe that really exists, that we got through Joseph Smith or his successors as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, which turned out actually to be true? That the sun gets its light by borrowing it from Kolob?

You weren't talking about the men who claim to speak for God, so why bring them up now?

You said you don't think that physics is meant to show us anything about God at all. I think perhaps it's the other way around; that God, without any need of men as a go-between at all, has used physics to do exactly as he originally planned, and in the process, shows us a great deal about himself.

Think outside the box in which you've so efficiently placed yourself, Seth. You're so used to fighting the church, you can't see that the church is simply a manmade institution, with no more claim to godliness than any other manmade institution. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, though, or that physics is somehow not connected with the divine.

[_Tarski]

I don't think that Physics is meant to show us anything about God at all.

Perhaps it's the other way around, Seth.

Not sure if you meant to be funny or serious, so I'll assume serious and reply as such.

What have we ever learned about the real world, the actual universe that really exists, that we got through Joseph Smith or his successors as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, which turned out actually to be true? That the sun gets its light by borrowing it from Kolob?

That one can be free of their sins by letting Christ carry the burden...that's a big one for me.

You can't be free of past sins as long as it is a fact that you actually commited those sins. No magic can erase that. You did it, and whether Jesus or Joe takes the punishment doesn't change that. How could it--facts of your past are fact. Give up the magical thinking and face your past.