God Probably Created The Forces Of Nature

[MormonFreeThinker]

There are three possibilities

1. God created the laws and constants of physics 

2. God did not create the laws and constants of physics, but did alter them (organized them). 

3. God did not create the laws and constants of physics, they are eternal and cannot be altered, but God uses unknown forces of nature. 

 

Two possibilities about life

1. God fined tuned the universe for life, and abiogenesis was the result of natural processes. 

2. God fined tuned life for the universe. 

 

All physicists, including the secular physicists, agree that the parameters of physics and cosmology are fine tuned for the precise form of life we find on Earth, or life as we know it. 

 

That is good evidence that God did create the laws of physics, and a Mormon astrophysics is very open about the theory that our known universe was created. 

See http://bystudyandfaith.org/?p=402

 

Fine Tuning of the universe 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

There are three possibilities

1. God created the laws and constants of physics 

2. God did not create the laws and constants of physics, but did alter them (organized them). 

3. God did not create the laws and constants of physics, they are eternal and cannot be altered, but God uses unknown forces of nature. 

 

Two possibilities about life

1. God fined tuned the universe for life, and abiogenesis was the result of natural processes. 

2. God fined tuned life for the universe. 

 

All physicists, including the secular physicists, agree that the parameters of physics and cosmology are fine tuned for the precise form of life we find on Earth, or life as we know it. 

 

That is good evidence that God did create the laws of physics, and a Mormon astrophysics is very open about the theory that our known universe was created. 

See http://bystudyandfaith.org/?p=402

 

Fine Tuning of the universe 

 

So far we have only one example to go by. Our own planet. Whether fined tune or not fine tuned how would we know any differently?

[Ahab]

Oh, I thougt maybe this thread would be about whether or not God can create the forces of nature on a planet, like the power of wind and water and gravity we associate with weather, or if he can only find a find a planet that already has the right mix of gravity, wind, and water. And maybe also about whether or not God is limited to finding solar systems with the right kind of planet for his purposes instead of being able to move planets or even form planets in a particular place with the right mix of gravity, wind, and water.

Anyway, I don't want to derail your thread if you didn't intend to get into those issues.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, I thougt maybe this thread would be about whether or not God can create the forces of nature on a planet, like the power of wind and water and gravity we associate with weather, or if he can only find a find a planet that already has the right mix of gravity, wind, and water. And maybe also about whether or not God is limited to finding solar systems with the right kind of planet for his purposes instead of being able to move planets or even form planets in a particular place with the right mix of gravity, wind, and water.

Anyway, I don't want to derail your thread if you didn't intend to get into those issues.

 

I tend to think the laws precede God. But it would be highly speculative of me to say much beyond that.

[Palerider]

Saw a program with Steven Hawkings recently where he stated that he could not believe in God because time began with the Big Bang and that since God could not exist outside of time, he therefore cannot exist.

 

I thought, "How odd" that someone would think that God is constrained by the limits of time. That is the very thing that the scriptures teach; that God is "Eternal" and outside the bounds of time.

 

We are limited in our temporal existence by the "discoverable" laws of nature and physics. I believe that in order for a being to exist beyond the effects of time, that there is a set of physical laws (created by God) that do not adhere to the laws of physics we understand in this sphere of existence.

 

All natural/physical law by virtue of the character of God is created to adhere to the attributes of His character. Therefore it is not a question of whether God is subject to or amenable to the law he has created. It is the natural outflow of His character. The law reflects it's creator's attributes.   

[thesometimesaint]

Saw a program with Steven Hawkings recently where he stated that he could not believe in God because time began with the Big Bang and that since God could not exist outside of time, he therefore cannot exist.

 

I thought, "How odd" that someone would think that God is constrained by the limits of time. That is the very thing that the scriptures teach; that God is "Eternal" and outside the bounds of time.

 

We are limited in our temporal existence by the "discoverable" laws of nature and physics. I believe that in order for a being to exist beyond the effects of time, that there is a set of physical laws (created by God) that do not adhere to the laws of physics we understand in this sphere of existence.

 

All natural/physical law by virtue of the character of God is created to adhere to the attributes of His character. Therefore it is not a question of whether God is subject to or amenable to the law he has created. It is the natural outflow of His character. The law reflects it's creator's attributes.   

 

My purely speculative idea is ours is just one of an infinite number of universe's, a Multiverse, going back an infinite amount of time.

[Ahab]

I tend to think the laws precede God. But it would be highly speculative of me to say much beyond that.

It makes more sense to think of both as eternal, rather than thinking there is something that can precede God.

The question goes simply toward trying to understand how God is able to do what he does.

[Ahab]

Saw a program with Steven Hawkings recently where he stated that he could not believe in God because time began with the Big Bang and that since God could not exist outside of time, he therefore cannot exist.

I thought, "How odd" that someone would think that God is constrained by the limits of time. That is the very thing that the scriptures teach; that God is "Eternal" and outside the bounds of time.

We are limited in our temporal existence by the "discoverable" laws of nature and physics. I believe that in order for a being to exist beyond the effects of time, that there is a set of physical laws (created by God) that do not adhere to the laws of physics we understand in this sphere of existence.

All natural/physical law by virtue of the character of God is created to adhere to the attributes of His character. Therefore it is not a question of whether God is subject to or amenable to the law he has created. It is the natural outflow of His character. The law reflects it's creator's attributes.

The silliness is in thinking time is limited to only 13.2 billion years, as if time itself is not eternal.

[Bikeemikey]

The silliness is in thinking time is limited to only 13.2 billion years, as if time itself is not eternal.

How exactly is that silly?

[Bikeemikey]

It makes more sense to think of both as eternal, rather than thinking there is something that can precede God.

God may be eternal, but that would be in the same way I am eternal.

Based on LDS theology it would not be accurate to state that God as "God" is eternal. Rather the being that became god is eternal.

If any human ever becomes a god said being would be both god and eternal, they would not have eternally been god.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Porter_Rockwell]

One possibility not mentioned in the original post is that there is no God. All of the further 'scientific' arguments are corollary only if the assumed 'metaphysical' theory of God. One doesn't naturally flow from the other. That's illogical.

[mfbukowski]

The problem is that we still see the world in terms of Cartesian Dualism- that data and inquiry actually tell us something about the world "out there" when in fact, what they tell us is about what we are ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.

 

We take the data and arrange it into models according to our understanding and then wonder why all the models reflect back to us our own understanding.

We then get statements like these:

 

Without the electron there would be no people around to ask the question.

 

No, without people around to ask the question, there would be no "electrons" as WE UNDERSTAND THEM, and we cannot escape the way we understand them, because it is our brains which put together the theory/model in the first place.
 

If you change the laws of physics even a little bit the laws as we know them would not exist

 

Of course they wouldn't- BECAUSE THE LAW IS BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING.

 

THAT is precisely the key to understanding the logic here.  He is begging the question.

 

The key is "THE LAW AS WE KNOW IT".  Without our understanding of what we create as a model of "The Laws of the Universe" our understanding would not exist.

 

Of course not!!

 

If the Laws of physics=laws as we know them, when we change them, we no longer know them, so of course they "cease to exist" IN OUR UNDERSTANDING of them.  We would make up some other "law" that worked according to our now changed understanding instead, thereby "explaining" the change.

 

Richard Rorty, who are all tired of hearing about, wrote a book called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" discussing these points

 

What we understand only really gives us data about our understanding, and is a mirror of our own inquiry!

 

Susskind understand this, but puts it the other way around, oddly.  He thinks there might be places in the universe where the laws as we know them do not exist.

 

What he doesn't see here is that all he is talking about is how we UNDERSTAND the laws, not "what really is there".

 

Ultimately we cannot get beyond our own human understanding to anything "really out there"

 

For me, this is just another continuation of that great error I always talk about.  I hope this "clicks" for someone.
 

 

Rorty's central thesis is that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Willard Van Orman Quine, Wilfrid Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty spends much of the book explaining how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

 

So the highly condensed answer in a metaphysical way of seeing it is yes, the Man of Holiness organized matter in a way we could understand for his children, and when we look at it, we see God's face, a Human face, looking back at us.

Edited May 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

How exactly is that silly?

That time began a limited amount of time ago?

That there was no time before that time, as in no moment before that?

Pffftt! If you can't see how ridiculously silly that idea is I don't know of any way to help you see that.

Just take my word for it. It's silly.

[thesometimesaint]

It makes more sense to think of both as eternal, rather than thinking there is something that can precede God.

The question goes simply toward trying to understand how God is able to do what he does.

We believe God uses the laws that he established. It becomes a bit of a quandary for any events before the Bib Bang. We just don't have enough information yet.

[Bikeemikey]

That time began a limited amount of time ago?

That there was no time before that time, as in no moment before that?

Pffftt! If you can't see how ridiculously silly that idea is I don't know of any way to help you see that.

Just take my word for it. It's silly.

But that is the reality of human concept of time. It wasn't there before it could start... Silly or not that is the reality of the word.

[Bikeemikey]

We believe God uses the laws that he established. It becomes a bit of a quandary for any events before the Bib Bang. We just don't have enough information yet.

We believe god uses laws, whether or not they are all established by him is also a mystery.

[thesometimesaint]

We believe god uses laws, whether or not they are all established by him is also a mystery.

 

A logical postulate is that because God is eternal. He made those laws. It gets real convoluted when we posit that we too are eternal.

[Ahab]

God may be eternal, but that would be in the same way I am eternal.

Yes, that's right so far.

Based on LDS theology it would not be accurate to state that God as "God" is eternal. Rather the being that became god is eternal.

No, that's not a correct understanding of our theology. God, our Father, wasn't always our Father because there was a time when we were not his children, and that's mostly because he wasn't always married or didn't even know the woman who is now our Mother who together with him created us as his (and her) children, but the kind of being we call God has always been the kind of being God is, and has always been, and always will be. And the person who became our Father has always been the same kind of being he is.

If any human ever becomes a god said being would be both god and eternal, they would not have eternally been god.

Every human is already the same kind of being God is, and eternal. It's just that most of us on this planet who are his children are not as perfect as he is, yet, if we ever will be.

And that's about all I can say to you at this point while you still accept the theory of evolution as if it is true.

[Bikeemikey]

A logical postulate is that because God is eternal. He made those laws. It gets real convoluted when we posit that we too are eternal.

That's an issue to take up with the D&C then. D&C 93:29

 

 

 

 29 Man was also in the ^abeginning with God. ^bIntelligence, or the^clight of ^dtruth, was not ^ecreated or made, neither indeed can be.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng#28

Edited May 4, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

But that is the reality of human concept of time. It wasn't there before it could start... Silly or not that is the reality of the word.

No, because I'm human and my concept of time is that there never was a time when time, itself, began. There has always been the past, present, and future. Time is eternal, with no beginning to it, generally, and also with no end to it. There has always been a moment before any event, and there will always come a moment after any event.

So don't lump all of us into that subset of people who are human and accept that silliness you speak of.

[thesometimesaint]

That's an issue to take up with the D&C then. D&C 93:29

 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng#28

 

Was there a time before God was God? The KFD seems to suggest that. However the KFD has never been accepted as doctrine by the Church. Can light and truth self organize into a Spirit body that made God? I don't know. As I said it gets convoluted.

[Bikeemikey]

No, that's not a correct understanding of our theology. God, our Father, wasn't always our Father because there was a time when we were not his children, and that's mostly because he wasn't always married or didn't even know the woman who is now our Mother who together with him created us as his (and her) children, but the kind of being we call God has always been the kind of being God is, and has always been, and always will be. And the person who became our Father has always been the same kind of being he is.

 

Thats exactly what I said. Hence the second use of God in quotations. It was using God as a title, not a being. Just as one day current human beings may become God's (as a title) we are however currently not Gods, as a title. Likewise, LDS theology allows that God may not always have been a "God", using God as a title. 

 

It makes more sense to think of both as eternal, rather than thinking there is something that can precede God.

The question goes simply toward trying to understand how God is able to do what he does.

 

My comments were in response to your post quoted above... You are commenting on Time and God as both being eternal. While this is accurate it diminishes the cosmological significance when you add God and humanity are equally eternal, that is there is no difference in the nature of being of God and human... which is what you also stated below. It is important to distinguish between the eternal existence of God (and humans) as beings, and their existence as the kind of being that fits the title of ".God"

 

 

Every human is already the same kind of being God is, and eternal. It's just that most of us on this planet who are his children are not as perfect as he is, yet, if we ever will be.

And that's about all I can say to you at this point while you still accept the theory of evolution as if it is true.

 

My acceptance or non-acceptance of evolution has never in the past impacted the capacity for expression of those around me... I am shocked that it is doing so now.

 

I don't know much about evolution and have no serious thoughts on the subject... except to state that currently it is the massively dominant theory as proposed by scientists and I see no reason to be opposed to it as I don't see it impacting my religious beliefs and it appears to have the support of the scientific community.

[Bikeemikey]

No, because I'm human and my concept of time is that there never was a time when time, itself, began. There has always been the past, present, and future. Time is eternal, with no beginning to it, generally, and also with no end to it. There has always been a moment before any event, and there will always come a moment after any event.

So don't lump all of us into that subset of people who are human and accept that silliness you speak of.

 

OK.

[Bikeemikey]

Was there a time before God was God? The KFD seems to suggest that. However the KFD has never been accepted as doctrine by the Church. Can light and truth self organize into a Spirit body that made God? I don't know. As I said it gets convoluted.

 

Don't get me wrong... i also think it was highly convoluted... All D&C states is that we existed in the beginning with God and were neither created or made, nor indeed can we be.

 

See my previous posts for my agreement with the idea that God may have always existed, not not always existed as God.

[thesometimesaint]

Don't get me wrong... i also think it was highly convoluted... All D&C states is that we existed in the beginning with God and were neither created or made, nor indeed can we be.

 

See my previous posts for my agreement with the idea that God may have always existed, not not always existed as God.

 

I accept D&C as doctrine. I don't know how it all works out. Just one one the long list of questions I have for God to answer.