The Mormon Cosmological argument

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by huckelberry »

Rivendale wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:36 pm




Spencer W Kimball likes to to emphasize becoming a "superman" in his book Miracle of Forgiveness. Which indicates at that time Mormon prophets thought grueling obedience was the only way to procure the skills of godhood. And Mormonism is still about obedience and living a code of life that imitates a god. Essentially the phrase "endure to the end" is still a priority for godhood.
Rivendale, I have some memory of the ideas of obedience and enduring even though I shut off contact with the church when David O Mckay was still president.There were other ideas about learning back then as well. I have heard of this book you mention but I have yet to hear anything good about it. It sounds flaky to me . Does it offer explanation and understanding or just commands?
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by Rivendale »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:58 am
Rivendale wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:36 pm




Spencer W Kimball likes to to emphasize becoming a "superman" in his book Miracle of Forgiveness. Which indicates at that time Mormon prophets thought grueling obedience was the only way to procure the skills of godhood. And Mormonism is still about obedience and living a code of life that imitates a god. Essentially the phrase "endure to the end" is still a priority for godhood.
Rivendale, I have some memory of the ideas of obedience and enduring even though I shut off contact with the church when David O Mckay was still president.There were other ideas about learning back then as well. I have heard of this book you mention but I have yet to hear anything good about it. It sounds flaky to me . Does it offer explanation and understanding or just commands?
It is like any other scripture. People find what they want in it. But yes it is flaky. Which shows how prophets are just elements of their times and "hope" their advice is taken. Yet years later....they are ignored and in some cases despised.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by Physics Guy »

As a technical point that is actually crucial, the Big Bang is in some ways like the North Pole singularity but in other ways not.

The North Pole singularity is a coordinate singularity. As the old riddle about shooting a polar bear says, from the North Pole all directions are due South; but that's a linguistic problem in the concept of South, rather than a fact about spherical geometry.

If you want to talk consistently about directions, and you're on a sphere, then you can't avoid having north and south poles, where directions are funny. That is a fact about spherical geometry. Exactly where the poles are, though, is merely a convention of language. One could just as well adopt the convention of East and West Poles, like Winnie-the-Pooh.

The Big Bang is worse than that. Things really blow up at that special moment in time (for example, the Kretschmann scalar). It's not just a matter of labelling.

So one shouldn't go overboard in saying that asking "What is before the Big Bang?" is just like asking "what is north of the North Pole?". It's not just a meaningless question. It really is a problem for physics. It's a problem that could plausibly be resolved in some future theory, but in current theory it stands as a serious problem.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by Rivendale »

Physics Guy wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:02 pm
As a technical point that is actually crucial, the Big Bang is in some ways like the North Pole singularity but in other ways not.

The North Pole singularity is a coordinate singularity. As the old riddle about shooting a polar bear says, from the North Pole all directions are due South; but that's a linguistic problem in the concept of South, rather than a fact about spherical geometry.

If you want to talk consistently about directions, and you're on a sphere, then you can't avoid having north and south poles, where directions are funny. That is a fact about spherical geometry. Exactly where the poles are, though, is merely a convention of language. One could just as well adopt the convention of East and West Poles, like Winnie-the-Pooh.

The Big Bang is worse than that. Things really blow up at that special moment in time (for example, the Kretschmann scalar). It's not just a matter of labelling.

So one shouldn't go overboard in saying that asking "What is before the Big Bang?" is just like asking "what is north of the North Pole?". It's not just a meaningless question. It really is a problem for physics. It's a problem that could plausibly be resolved in some future theory, but in current theory it stands as a serious problem.

I have been using the north pole analogy for years. I just get the traditional philosophical jargon that loops back on itself.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by doubtingthomas »

drumdude wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:21 pm
How can Harry Potter fly around on a broomstick?
It wouldn't be hard to come up with some creative explanation.

It is not possible to explain how someone can live outside of time. Makes no sense.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by drumdude »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:54 am
drumdude wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:21 pm
How can Harry Potter fly around on a broomstick?
It wouldn't be hard to come up with some creative explanation.

It is not possible to explain how someone can live outside of time. Makes no sense.
God is not someone, as defined by non-Mormon Christians. God as a someone is a modern Mormon theological invention. While God can present as a person (Muslims however don't even believe this), he is not limited to it like he is within Mormon thought.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by doubtingthomas »

drumdude wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:20 am

God is not someone, as defined by non-Mormon Christians.
Is God The Thing?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by huckelberry »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:49 pm
drumdude wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:20 am

God is not someone, as defined by non-Mormon Christians.
Is God The Thing?
huh? then a vague memory of a movie , google helps:
"Is The Thing 1982 a remake?
The 1982 film was actually a remake of 1951's The Thing from Another World (Fresh at 89%), which was itself adapted from the 1938 novella “Who Goes There?” We also have to fit in the 2011 movie also called The Thing (Rotten at 35%), which was actually a prequel to the 1982 film.Jan 31, 2020"

I may have seen the 51 version but not when it first came out. Wouldn't discussing Eric Clapton be at least somewhat closer to the subject matter.

I find the phrase "God is not someone" to be so ambiguous that I would not know whose understanding would accept or not accept such a phrase. What would be the boundaries for the category , a someone? Is it to refer only to homo sapiens? biological creatures with human similarity? Perhaps it could refer to something which addresses and understands you as a someone?
Last edited by huckelberry on Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by doubtingthomas »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:20 pm
huh? then a vague memory of a movie , google helps:
One of the best horror movies according to WatchMojo, IGN, Rotten Tomatoes, and others. It's a classic.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: The Mormon Cosmological argument

Post by drumdude »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:20 pm
doubtingthomas wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:49 pm


Is God The Thing?
huh? then a vague memory of a movie , google helps:
"Is The Thing 1982 a remake?
The 1982 film was actually a remake of 1951's The Thing from Another World (Fresh at 89%), which was itself adapted from the 1938 novella “Who Goes There?” We also have to fit in the 2011 movie also called The Thing (Rotten at 35%), which was actually a prequel to the 1982 film.Jan 31, 2020"

I may have seen the 51 version but not when it first came out. Wouldn't discussing Eric Clapton be at least somewhat closer to the subject matter.

I find the phrase "God is not someone" to be so ambiguous that I would not know whose understanding would accept or not accept such a phrase. What would be the boundaries for the category , a someone? Is it to refer only to homo sapiens? biological creatures with human similarity?
Just keep in mind that God (is claimed to have) created the Universe, including the idea of someone itself. Mormonism doesn't accept that, the Universe created their god.

In a venn diagram, put everything that ever has existed into one circle, and draw a larger circle around that to place God. We by definition cannot know anything about what is inside that larger circle, all we can know is what exists inside our smaller more limited circle.
Post Reply