The Experience of God

[Gadianton]

I don’t see a contradiction at all. Can you conceive of a God as described here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... ity_of_God

If not, then He is beyond your understanding if He is indeed a corporal God who can exist in and outside of space and time

But the Fair link didn't address the point. The Fair link concerns itself with Bible references -- newsflash, the Bible is false, who cares if it says God is a spirit? I don't -- and also with mundane problems like moving through walls.

Matter is contingent upon the Big Bang. God is made of matter. God can't both be made of "flesh and bone" and be outside space and time to cause the Big Bang that creates the matter, planets, fauna, and everything leading up to flesh and bone for man to be created.

Granted, that's a physical contradiction, not a logical contradiction, but the post you responded to was made by physicsguy, not philosophyguy.

It's not a logical contradiction for God to be made of flesh and bone and be outside of the universe to create it and thus, all the matter that he himself happens to be made of instantiates in this bubble-verse, verses the myriad of other universes that have totally different rules. However, it's also not a logical contradiction that a pig lives outside the universe and took a giant crap which created everything we experience in this world including Mormonism.

Ultimately, MG, you are a Big Tent thinker. You believe that lots of crazy stuff is all compatible and other people can't comprehend your level intellectual achievement -- we are all fundamentalists who can't comprehend the big tent. But you aren't a Big Tent thinker because you really believe in a Big Tent. You believe in a Big Tent because it allows for your extraordinarily narrow and ignorant micro beliefs to be valid along with a whole other load of horse crap.

It's kind of like how UFO conferences have evolved into platforms that allow for every other kind of other pseudoscience to have its say. Stupid person A only cares about A beliefs, but realizes that he's behind the 8 ball and his chances are better to promote A beliefs if he lends an ear to stupid person B, who only cares about B beliefs. Together with C, D, and E, they build the kind of big tent you're okay with.

[Gadianton]

Having infinite intelligence and working memory presumably means not having to choose which channel to watch. God can follow all the microbes in the universe, and for that matter all the moons. For all I know God likes to chill by watching all the stray hydrogen atoms drifting through the intergalactic void—every single one of them, all at once, with a negligible fraction of divine attention.

Funny enough, Hugh Nibley made a similar argument. He once said that the big limitation of man is that no matter how smart you are, you can only think about one thing at a time. God, he said, can think about many things at the same time. True parallel processing, I guess, but wow, what does that mean? Is God is really one person?

Anyway, aside from that, I get you're playing devil's advocate, but isn't this arguing from ignorance? We don't know all the crazy things that some insanely out-there deity can do, so ... maybe he can do them?

Why should I believe in this kind of deity vs. MG's God of flesh and bone that co-existed with the metaverse that created this bubble-verse where stars spit out planets and carbon that ultimate organized into -- flesh and blood. Oh yeah, flesh and blood that if obedient to a certain list of stipulates, might become flesh and bone?

[dastardly stem]

Why would [a transcendent God] have interest in us? Why not find interest in unfound microbes on the moons of Jupiter if they are there? If he's interested in us, is he interested in virus' too?

Having infinite intelligence and working memory presumably means not having to choose which channel to watch. God can follow all the microbes in the universe, and for that matter all the moons. For all I know God likes to chill by watching all the stray hydrogen atoms drifting through the intergalactic void—every single one of them, all at once, with a negligible fraction of divine attention.

We’ll yes, and the point is doesn’t that militate against the notion that god specifically cares about people? If he liked watching AIDS infect people in the 80s or the black plague and finds no preference between people and disease, then the only reason why people assume he cares about people is their hope that he cares about people.

Of course this all makes the notion of god seem silly.

[Dr Exiled]

I can't rule out a god existing but I can't rule out Carl Sagan's dragon in his garage or my magic penny that has the secrets to the universe, supposedly. As long as I have a desire to believe the power of the magic penny it will shine forth in these dark times. However, maybe the magic lies in a different, most sacred [insert object or concept here]? Who knows?

What lies beyond death? I don't know but will find out eventually as everyone will. If there is a god, then because we can't see this god, how can the guesses about this god's attributes or commandments make any difference? Surely an invisible god cannot punish those who want to see what's behind door no. 2 prior to committing? We have to treat the religionists' supposed inspiration as merely guesses. They have no idea what they are talking about and it has to be considered either disillusion or lying.

[Rivendale]

Oh yeah, flesh and blood that if obedient to a certain list of stipulates, might become flesh and bone?

It seems that we are just mammalian versions of Skinner's pigeons.

In lecture demonstrations, he would place a pigeon into a Skinner box and by the end of the lecture would have created a “superstitious” pigeon that produced apparently random behaviors

Something like this is seen in Pentecostal churches worldwide. But it seems to have evolved over time to manifest behaviors that do not seem so outlandish. Language also seems to have developed to preserve this behavior. Things like too sacred to share. The interesting aspect about this is the behaviors or thought processes are self reinforcing. People really do attribute the internal feelings to an outside force just as hikers seem to have really experienced the third man effect.

he Third Man Factor is an extraordinary account of how people at the very edge of death often sense an unseen presence beside them who encourages them to make one final effort to survive. This incorporeal being offers a feeling of hope, protection, and guidance, and leaves the person convinced he or she is not alone.

.

An example is found here.

Ernest Shackleton’s epic tale of survival after the sinking of his ship the Endurance in Antarctic waters is well known, but less known is what he and two of his companions experienced after they made their way by open boat, above, to South Georgia Island and trekked across to a whaling station to find salvation. Each of the three felt the presence of someone with them: “During that long and racking march of thirty-six hours over the unnamed mountains and glaciers of South Georgia,” wrote Shackleton in his memoir, “it seemed to me often that we were four, not three.”

Thomas Riskas does an excellent job showing where these internal feelings may originate in his book deconstructing Mormonism. Fascinating that believers push back on looking at the evidence with as little as bias as possible. In fact it is heretical.

I did ask Riskas where he suggested that I myself should begin,
in experimenting with dropping my "beliefs" -- and he appeared
unable to answer. I suspect he would do better engaging a
recent convert, who had never been to the Temple nor finished
reading 1st Nephi. That, or perhaps Bro. Shirts...

Kerry Muhlestein recommends this method for understanding the world. Something a Skinner pigeon would recommend.

[dastardly stem]

I had a dream last night that answered my question why Don, the Mormon, recommended this book. I thought he was being straight up with me, but it seems like he figured an atheist reading this book would see the positive of Mormon thoughts on God.

My dream had me dressed up in old school war gear, leather helmet and armor, sword and shield. I was fighting off bacterial meningitis. No matter how many adept swipes (it was MY dream after all) I took at the enemy I couldn't kill him. He still went on wreaking havoc and causing all sorts of destruction. The sword sliced into him like cutting jello but the slice would immediately heal up and he couldn't be hurt. In the midst of my battles it hit me. Let me illustrate by writing up a checklist, of sorts.

Comparing Mormon God, with Hart's God and the traditional Christian God:

Is it reasonable to say God cares about, or has a vested interest in humanity:

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope
Tradtional Christian God (TGC): Check.

Is God all-powerful--meaning he is capable of doing anything and has no restrictions, outside say, logical impossibilities:

Mormon God: Nope
Hart's God: Check
TGC: Check

(I'm counting this as a positive in Mormon God's favor since this essentially means all evils might not be caused by him)

Is God impassible (Unable to be impacted or affected by others or events):

Mormon God: Nope
Hart's God: Kind of (he for some reason, argues against impassibility, but I couldn't make much sense of his points>)
TGC: Check

(another positive for Mormon God. An impassible God amounts to a God without concern, hope, purpose etc--a bit of a contradiction for the TGC God, it seems.)

Is God explainable (as in understandable by human minds):

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope, unless we think "nothing" is explainable.
TGC: Not really, but we'll say kind of

Is God the cause of the universe (basically, what I'd consider an illogical thought--we wouldn't know what causing the universe would be):

Mormon God: Nope
Hart's God: Check
TGC: Check

Is there room to improve our understanding of what God wants:

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope
TGC: Check

Does God want us to learn and understand what's true:

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope
TGC: Check

Is God ever possibly smelly:

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope
TGC: Nope--unless in his incarnated person--which only happened once, arguably.

(speaks to God being something that is relatable to humans, I'd say.)

Why did my dream take my thoughts here? The enemy in my dream was impossible to defeat. I could have blown him up and he could have just reassembled. He was something we can not fathom. Much like Hart's God (and most would say much like the TGC God). It's just a something, but not really a something. Its just there, but not really there. Mormon God once lived a life like us in some distant galaxy, we'll say, in a distant time. That makes him relatable. Mormon God once had to struggle to understand existence, just like us. Mormon God therefore has a reason to care about us, even if the signs point to he doesn't care that much (I'd question whether TGC has a reason to care at all too, but Christians typically think he does, so I gave him a check). Mormon God isn't the cause of evils and misfortunes. he simply couldn't stop them if he tried, except for somehow every once in a while he's allowed a miracle or two (which certainly moves him into the direction of we don't really understand him).

It made sense why Don recommended the book. He wanted to point out that Hart's God amounts to nothingness and the Mormon God should be considered the winner in every comparison.

@Don Bradley Am I close?

[huckelberry]

Comparing Mormon God, with Hart's God and the traditional Christian God:

Is it reasonable to say God cares about, or has a vested interest in humanity:

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope
Tradtional Christian God (TGC): Check.

Is God all-powerful--meaning he is capable of doing anything and has no restrictions, outside say, logical impossibilities:

Mormon God: Nope
Hart's God: Check
TGC: Check

(I'm counting this as a positive in Mormon God's favor since this essentially means all evils might not be caused by him)

Is God impassible (Unable to be impacted or affected by others or events):

Mormon God: Nope
Hart's God: Kind of (he for some reason, argues against impassibility, but I couldn't make much sense of his points>)
TGC: Check

(another positive for Mormon God. An impassible God amounts to a God without concern, hope, purpose etc--a bit of a contradiction for the TGC God, it seems.)

.......Does God want us to learn and understand what's true:

Mormon God: Check
Hart's God: Nope
TGC: Check

......
Why did my dream take my thoughts here? The enemy in my dream was impossible to defeat. I could have blown him up and he could have just reassembled. He was something we can not fathom. Much like Hart's God (and most would say much like the TGC God). It's just a something, but not really a something. Its just there, but not really there. Mormon God once lived a life like us in some distant galaxy, we'll say, in a distant time. That makes him relatable. Mormon God once had to struggle to understand existence, just like us. Mormon God therefore has a reason to care about us, even if the signs point to he doesn't care that much (I'd question whether TGC has a reason to care at all too, but Christians typically think he does, so I gave him a check). Mormon God isn't the cause of evils and misfortunes. he simply couldn't stop them if he tried, except for somehow every once in a while he's allowed a miracle or two (which certainly moves him into the direction of we don't really understand him).

It made sense why Don recommended the book. He wanted to point out that Hart's God amounts to nothingness and the Mormon God should be considered the winner in every comparison.

@Don Bradley Am I close?

Stem, Is there reason you would think the non Mormon deity would not care about people other than you were taught that by Mormons?

Perhaps but I am asking if you could clarify. It is as if you think a creator would naturally not care for what is created.

My questioning is obviously limit by not having read Hart. He is a Christian theologian and you treat him as an alternative to Christian thinking and do not see any way you have clarified why. To speak of God as not a thing is not some strange alternative to Christian thinking but is a way of speaking found rather widely. I am not sure if Mormon training is preventing you from catching the point or if Hart is too convoluted.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, Is there reason you would think the non Mormon deity would not care about people other than you were taught that by Mormons?

yes. And I think it's implied from your next line:

Perhaps but I am asking if you could clarify. It is as if you think a creator would naturally not care for what is created.

For Mormons God cares for his people because his people are his species and he traveled the paths they travel. he knows their plight. For others God is wholly different from humans and created all things--well that's typical as it seems for the Christian God. His care for humans might only be equivalent for his care for viruses or dark matter. Earlier in the thread PG suggested a God put forth by Hart or the traditional Christian approach can appreciate all things simultaneously--humans, disease, large growing kelp, carbon dioxide and that humans get poisoned by it (not that that couldn't be true of the Mormon god too...which I'd imagine Mormons would say it is). The difference is there'd be no reason to think God cares more for humans than for the diseases which at various times and places rapidly transmit and kill people. Iif we do accept a non-Mormon God do we assume God loves us more than he loves any other something out there because we are the ones who think about these things? It doesn't feel like there is any reason at all to think God would care, other than we really want him to. Does he not care about ebola or T-rex's? If not, why not? Mormons give themselves outs on these because God couldn't stop T-rex's and ebola...and even if he can intervene he can only do so minimally.

My questioning is obviously limit by not having read Hart. He is a Christian theologian and you treat him as an alternative to Christian thinking and do not see any way you have clarified why. To speak of God as not a thing is not some strange alternative to Christian thinking but is a way of speaking found rather widely. I am not sure if Mormon training is preventing you from catching the point or if Hart is too convoluted.

Or both...hah. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, or if you are asking anything. Hart throws me for a loop. He certainly claims he is arguing for a Christian God. But it's not a creator God, as Christians like to say. His is not a God whom William Craig (carrot insert Lane in the middle there if you prefer the pretentious) argues is the one who created all of what we see as nature, apparently. If something created everything, Hart points out a few times, then that isnt' really God...that's like a lesser god or something, that he calls a demiurge--an idea held long ago about a character lower than God whom god has make all of material nature (Plato ran down those lines, I believe, and that was picked up later by others). But, Christians typically, I'd think, would reject another god guy creating everything. Hart says, in this book, he wants to explain to atheists why atheism is wrong, but he seems to spend as much time trying to explain why the traditional Christian God isn't right either and then getting fussy with atheists for responding to Christians about their claims to God.

[Physics Guy]

I get you're playing devil's advocate, but isn't this arguing from ignorance? We don't know all the crazy things that some insanely out-there deity can do, so ... maybe he can do them?

Why should I believe in this kind of deity vs. MG's God of flesh and bone that co-existed with the metaverse that created this bubble-verse where stars spit out planets and carbon that ultimate organized into -- flesh and blood.

I think I must be playing God's advocate. There is that counterpart role in the Catholic canonisation procedure.

But no, I'm not trying to make out that it's somehow obvious that this kind of ultimately intelligent God really exists. I believe it, but not in the sense that I think it's certain. I've just lost interest in the other possibility. It doesn't seem worth considering much.

All I'm trying to say right now is that I've often heard the idea that a transcendent God couldn't possibly have any interest in us puny humans, and I just don't think this idea makes sense. I'm interested in atoms, which are an awful lot simpler than me, so maybe a God could be interested in me. I think that it's an absolute measure of how limited human intelligence really is, that we can't concentrate on more than a few things at once. If you're going to take the concept of a transcendent God at all seriously, you can't just assume that such a God would have our kind of mental limits.

There's lots of room for superhuman intellects below the transcendent level, too. I'm not really interested in the possibility of flesh-and-bone "Gods", though, who are in fact much less than the ultimate, transcendent kind of God who determines reality. Superhuman aliens could certainly exist—they probably do, somewhere; maybe even mind-bogglingly superhuman aliens, with brains powered by millions of suns. If we ever meet any aliens like that, then I guess that will be important, but until then, Mehh.

What seems like an analogy to me: I'm not very interested in the possibility that there might exist some kind of elementary particle with spin 7/2. That's a hypothesis within an established framework, and within that established framework, it's a weird and far-fetched hypothesis, for which there is no evidence of the kind that the established framework defines. Even if there actually is such a particle, it can't be very important, or we would already have noticed it by now. If you ask instead, though, about whether the axioms of quantum mechanics could be approximate statements valid in certain regimes, within a larger structure, then I'm quite interested, because that's a discussion about the framework itself. It's a difficult discussion because one is groping blindly for concepts, and most of the ideas that one tries to frame are likely to be nonsense, but it seems worthwhile to me nonetheless.

[MG 2.0]

Iif we do accept a non-Mormon God do we assume God loves us more than he loves any other something out there because we are the ones who think about these things? It doesn't feel like there is any reason at all to think God would care, other than we really want him to. Does he not care about ebola or T-rex's? If not, why not? Mormons give themselves outs on these because God couldn't stop T-rex's and ebola...and even if he can intervene he can only do so minimally.

Why would God want to stop T-Rex’s from existing? Ebola? Well, that’s another matter.

Anyway, the more I read these discussions about what God either is or isn’t I come back to the concept of God the Father in Mormon Doctrine as we have it in our day and time. To answer your question, He(a father) would care for humans more than an Ebola virus because we are literally His Spirit children. As far as thinking about T-Rex, Ebola, and all the other nasty things out there I would ask, “What if they weren’t?”

LDS thinking prescribes an opposition in ALL things. And that there is a long range and cosmic purpose behind that opposition/fallen world. From what we see and experience, I don’t see that ‘explanation for being’ unreasonable when held up against the alternatives.

You’re just going to keep running around in circles along with Gadianton and the other folks. I don’t think there is any way on God’s green earth you’ll EVER be able to figure out ‘god’ without that being/entity reveling himself/itself to you.

Mormonism has a firm answer to those questions that you guys run around looking for answers to. It’s right in front of your face.

You want proofs. Just not the kind that might be those that are readily available but also a bit difficult to wrap your mind around. Corporal God. A God who is part of a larger system/plan. A God who evolved. A God who exists inside and outside of our framework of measuring ‘reality’.

Heavy stuff. Good luck figuring it all out. In the meantime IF God has revealed Himself through ancient and modern prophets…you’re missing out.

Agency, isn’t it a wonderful thing? And to be so smart that you think you might just be able to grasp it all without an all powerful being helping you to doing so?

Silly humans. The hubris of it all.

Regards,
MG