SeN: "Hope for immortality" is a Useful Salve for Childhood "rape and strangulation."

[Lem]

Honorentheos! Welcome!

[honorentheos]

The god of the gaps approach to answering questions works well if one ensures the gaps stay nice and wide. It's a gig, and a gig is a gig is a gig I guess.

Given the god of Mormonism is a material being of flesh and bone whose brain is a collection of resurrected neurons, what makes the relationship of hypothetical Mormon god with space-time different from an observable human being's?

Trying to equate the relationship of the God of the universe with ours as being essentially the same is going to muddy the waters as you are suggesting.

How so? Are you claiming the god of Mormonism is not part of this universe?

It seems to me trying to argue god is somehow interacting with but outside of the universe is attempting to muddy the waters.

Unless, of course, that God is substantially disparate from us except in form. Equating bone with bone and flesh with flesh may sound good on the surface, but it breaks down as you really start to think about it, right?

Not really. If the scripture says god has a body of flesh and bone, at a minimum i ought to be assured it means god is made of material substances that function as flesh and bone in a way we ought to recognize. Otherwise why say it? And the problem is that bone or flesh have the same properties as other matter regardless of what that means when it comes to considering how space-time and matter relate.

So, perhaps you can extract from Ostler what you think applies here.

But if bone/flesh are disparate (God and man’s) but same in form, we have something else going on.

No, you have matter and matter, well, matters.

I think that as Mormons we often fall into categorical traps of equating one thing with the other. As though there are only two ways of looking at things. I suppose Mormons are not alone in doing this. Ostler suggests that we need to at least try to dig a bit deeper in looking at the embodiment of God.

Looking at God as having form doesn’t necessarily prohibit His abilities, as creator, to move through time and space and everywhere in between and forwards and backwards, does it? Why are you placing limits on God a priori?

It's not about form but substance. It's about matter. And it's not a priori, it's outlining the evidence and using that to define the problem. That is the better approach rather than starting with an assumption like god exists, playing with it a bit, then deciding since you can't figure out how to square the circle we'd best leave it alone rather than recognize that suggests the problem is with the assumption.

Is god made of matter? Mormonism says yes.

Does our understanding of space-time mean it is a mistake to separate space from time? Relativity says yes.

Does the way matter interacts with space-time fall into the descriptions of time and space as we understand them such that it makes little sense to say God is matter that interacts with space-time in ways that differ from the matter that we are made of? Well, it seems to me that one would need to argue for examples we have observed to then establish this as an argument.

[honorentheos]

Honorentheos! Welcome!

Hi Lem! Good to see you. Though with the name shortening now I have to work a little bit to get the same joy of having this riff run through my mind when I see one of your posts:

https://youtu.be/frt0ePCVpd8

[dastardly stem]

For me the only way I can begin to wrap my mind around God knowing the end from the beginning and everything in between is recognizing that this thing we call ‘time’ is really, in many ways, a creation of our finite minds. For example, after reading a couple articles such as:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... -backwards

https://www.space.com/21675-time-travel.html

One understands that we are so limited in our understandings of time and space. If the God we recognize as creator is able to move through time and space at will is He still subject to the ‘grandfather paradox’? If so, how would that dovetail with free will, etc.? So many questions and so few answers when it comes to some BIG questions. If God is ‘in and through all things’ then yes, He knows the end from the beginning and would also be able to fathom the thoughts and intentions of our hearts.

Would God go back and make it so a Hitler or a Laman and Lemuel were struck down so as not be in a position to cause so much grief and pain?

Grandfather paradox?

Is the thing we call the plan of salvation dependent on the free flow of the natural world?

Just when and where would God step in to the workings of the natural world so as not to interfere with this natural flow of events that results in YOU or in ME?

So many questions. I look for evidence that a creator is revealing himself through his works and creations and then I pay attention. And I personally believe He reveals himself throughout ‘time’ in many ways, means, and ‘disguises’ so as not to blow his cover completely. To some he reveals more of himself than others.

Knowing how little we understand about space time, however, puts me in a position where I feel somewhat comfortable letting God do what he does best.

Run the universe.

Regards,
MG

It doesn't seem to me you are being very responsive to what I said, which is fine. If you wish to turn this into a question of whether there is a god, I find your God of the gaps approach backwards. I do think honor basically defeated your line of reasoning and find his comments here to be an appropriate summary and response:

It's not about form but substance. It's about matter. And it's not a priori, it's outlining the evidence and using that to define the problem. That is the better approach rather than starting with an assumption like god exists, playing with it a bit, then deciding since you can't figure out how to square the circle we'd best leave it alone rather than recognize that suggests the problem is with the assumption.

I offered my comments and when you stepped in to respond it seemed to me you basically told me since you seem intent on believing it doesn't really matter whether there's a good or thoughtful response to why you believe. if you'll grant me some liberty your comments basically amount to saying--'I don't know what god is, and I don't know a lot of things, so it's possible god is hidden in the lot of things I don't know'.

[mentalgymnast]

Trying to equate the relationship of the God of the universe with ours as being essentially the same is going to muddy the waters as you are suggesting.

How so? Are you claiming the god of Mormonism is not part of this universe?

It seems to me trying to argue god is somehow interacting with but outside of the universe is attempting to muddy the waters.

Unless, of course, that God is substantially disparate from us except in form. Equating bone with bone and flesh with flesh may sound good on the surface, but it breaks down as you really start to think about it, right?

Not really. If the scripture says god has a body of flesh and bone, at a minimum i ought to be assured it means god is made of material substances that function as flesh and bone in a way we ought to recognize. Otherwise why say it? And the problem is that bone or flesh have the same properties as other matter regardless of what that means when it comes to considering how space-time and matter relate.

So, perhaps you can extract from Ostler what you think applies here.

But if bone/flesh are disparate (God and man’s) but same in form, we have something else going on.

No, you have matter and matter, well, matters.

I think that as Mormons we often fall into categorical traps of equating one thing with the other. As though there are only two ways of looking at things. I suppose Mormons are not alone in doing this. Ostler suggests that we need to at least try to dig a bit deeper in looking at the embodiment of God.

Looking at God as having form doesn’t necessarily prohibit His abilities, as creator, to move through time and space and everywhere in between and forwards and backwards, does it? Why are you placing limits on God a priori?

It's not about form but substance. It's about matter. And it's not a priori, it's outlining the evidence and using that to define the problem. That is the better approach rather than starting with an assumption like god exists, playing with it a bit, then deciding since you can't figure out how to square the circle we'd best leave it alone rather than recognize that suggests the problem is with the assumption.

Is god made of matter? Mormonism says yes.

Does our understanding of space-time mean it is a mistake to separate space from time? Relativity says yes.

Does the way matter interacts with space-time fall into the descriptions of time and space as we understand them such that it makes little sense to say God is matter that interacts with space-time in ways that differ from the matter that we are made of? Well, it seems to me that one would need to argue for examples we have observed to then establish this as an argument.

Since the days of Lectures on Faith, Mormons, along with just about everyone else, have been attempting to understand God and His character/being. Joseph Smith...assuming he saw God and his Son in the grove...struggled to do so. Lectures on Faith moving right on through King Follet. I’m jumping in with him, Ostler, and many others in trying to wrap my mind around the majesty of God. At the end of the day I think that we can’t. And to think of God as a six foot tall white guy with a beard does stretch credulity, I admit.

Returning to the First Vision. If it happened, then we do know that God has form. And that God is light/energy. Beyond that, it’s speculation even down to Joseph's ‘flesh and bone’ statement. Ostler attempts to explain Joseph’s statement concerning the corporeality of God by creating a word salad of sorts to do so. That I also admit.

In regards to your comments, and Stem’s, I really don’t disagree prima facie with much of what you’re saying. Pretty difficult to come up with arguments against that which on its face seems to dovetail with reality as we know it.

So at the end of the day I go with God has form. God is a being of substance (light/energy?).Why? Because that’s about as far as we/I can go from what we have through the First Vision narratives. And yes, I take them seriously, and on faith.

Also, on faith, I believe God created us and loves us and has a plan which can help us travel a path that leads us towards greater knowledge and happiness. Beyond that, it’s mostly speculation. Even among those that you might think would have more of the nitty gritty details.

At the end of the day and during many of these ‘God’ conversations it always circles back around to whether or not Joseph was telling the truth. If he wasn’t, then speculation is all there is. If he was, then speculation is fun (God inside or outside the universe,etc.).

Period.

And I’d be the first to agree that on its face some of the views that leaders of the LDS church have in regards to God are a bit difficult to explain critically. But we’re all free to speculate, right?

I enjoy reading your speculations and ‘proofs’ for the ‘nonexistent Christian God’. I may have already suggested this site to you, I don’t know for sure.

https://www.closertotruth.com/

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

Since the days of Lectures on Faith, Mormons, along with just about everyone else, have been attempting to understand God and His character/being. Joseph Smith...assuming he saw God and his Son in the grove...struggled to do so.

Another "Victory for Satan"

[Lem]

Honorentheos! Welcome!

Hi Lem! Good to see you. Though with the name shortening now I have to work a little bit to get the same joy of having this riff run through my mind when I see one of your posts:

https://youtu.be/frt0ePCVpd8

That is an awesome gif!! Yes, I shortened the name but it's still all me. Glad you're here.

[dastardly stem]

Since the days of Lectures on Faith, Mormons, along with just about everyone else, have been attempting to understand God and His character/being. Joseph Smith...assuming he saw God and his Son in the grove...struggled to do so. Lectures on Faith moving right on through King Follet. I’m jumping in with him, Ostler, and many others in trying to wrap my mind around the majesty of God. At the end of the day I think that we can’t. And to think of God as a six foot tall white guy with a beard does stretch credulity, I admit.

Returning to the First Vision. If it happened, then we do know that God has form. And that God is light/energy. Beyond that, it’s speculation even down to Joseph's ‘flesh and bone’ statement. Ostler attempts to explain Joseph’s statement concerning the corporeality of God by creating a word salad of sorts to do so. That I also admit.

In regards to your comments, and Stem’s, I really don’t disagree prima facie with much of what you’re saying. Pretty difficult to come up with arguments against that which on its face seems to dovetail with reality as we know it.

So at the end of the day I go with God has form. God is a being of substance (light/energy?).Why? Because that’s about as far as we/I can go from what we have through the First Vision narratives. And yes, I take them seriously, and on faith.

Also, on faith, I believe God created us and loves us and has a plan which can help us travel a path that leads us towards greater knowledge and happiness. Beyond that, it’s mostly speculation. Even among those that you might think would have more of the nitty gritty details.

At the end of the day and during many of these ‘God’ conversations it always circles back around to whether or not Joseph was telling the truth. If he wasn’t, then speculation is all there is. If he was, then speculation is fun (God inside or outside the universe,etc.).

Period.

And I’d be the first to agree that on its face some of the views that leaders of the LDS church have in regards to God are a bit difficult to explain critically. But we’re all free to speculate, right?

I enjoy reading your speculations and ‘proofs’ for the ‘nonexistent Christian God’. I may have already suggested this site to you, I don’t know for sure.

https://www.closertotruth.com/

Regards,
MG

There is absolutely, as I see it, nothing in this conversation dependent on whether Joseph told the truth or not. You keep jumping out in left field, it seems to me, and then follow it with something about how you don't know stuff so God must be found in that which we don't know, as if that's some sort of useful explanation. Honor pointed out that Mormonism posits that God is material so to jump in and out of God being material and then immaterial is contradiction and inconsistent. Its the result of one's attempt to assume a god, then trying to find space for the possibility for god. It basically saying God is everything, anything and yet nothing.

[honorentheos]

It basically saying God is everything, anything and yet nothing.

+1

dastardly stem rep points total: 1

everyone else: 0

[mentalgymnast]

...to jump in and out of God being material and then immaterial is contradiction and inconsistent. Its the result of one's attempt to assume a god, then trying to find space for the possibility for god. It basically saying God is everything, anything and yet nothing.

To the best of my recollection I didn’t argue that God is material AND immaterial. My views would be more closely aligned with that which is taught in the D&C Section 130.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

Ostler’s views, which I referred to, would seem to align themselves with this.

Regards,
MG