The Kolob Theorem

[volgadon]

My favourite bit is where in the same sentence the author states that God's creations are too numerous to count and that there are about 55 billion of them in each galaxy.....

[mledbetter]

Incidentally, there is a star named Qlb, aka Kochab. It is 126 light years away. In the time of Abraham, this star appeared to people on Earth to orbit very close to the celestial north pole, or the one spot in the sky that did not appear to move when viewed from Earth and around which all bodies in the sky appeared rotate. The celestial north pole is also the spot of sky to which the pyramid shafts that conduct Pharaoh's soul to heaven were pointed. The Egyptians of Abraham's time apparently beleived that since everything appeared to orbit this spot of sky that was where the throne of God was. Qlb is the star's ancient Arabic name. If indeed this is the star that Abraham called Kolob then it is a galactic neighbor. Sagitarius A by contrast is 20,000 light years away.

Due to procession of the Earth's spin the celestial north pole has shifted a bit so that now it points to very near Polaris.

Hmm...galaxies devouring other galaxies. Sounds like warring gods, or else the universe needs some traffic lights.

[sandude]

I don't see any reason whatsoever to assume that it is anything else except a black hole, one very much like what we can see at the center of any other galaxy oriented such that we can observe its center. I think its safe to say we know what it is because it could not be something else.

Black Holes are unobservable. They are the construct scientists have used to explain the behavior of galaxies. Newton and Einstein's theories describe a universe where gravity is the engine that runs all orbital mechanics. If this is true then there has to be something incredibly massive at the center of each galaxy in order to explain what we can observe. Black Holes fit the bill nicely, or do they? There is at least one competing view on the issue of galactic engines. The electrical force is much more powerful than the gravitational force and there is a growing number of dissident scientists who feel that the galactic engine is electrical in nature.

[DrW]

For the first time in known history I think I actually agree with most of what you say. I will not specify what I disagree about because that will derail the thread, but it has to do with the speed of light.

Incidentally, I know he is a rogue, but what do you think of Rupert Sheldrake? I would be interested in what you think about his evidence for knowing about when people are looking at you. I am in a hurry, or I would supply a link, but the subject is extremely "googleable". Maybe another thread would be appropriate.

There are many many things that science cannot in principle prove, but this guy has put himself into a scientific framework to argue theology. Not a great position to put yourself into. He appears to make the same mistake that scientists do when they think they can disprove religion. As I have said however, I have not read the book so I am going on total hearsay.

I agree that we probably have an "historical" event here. However, considering the subject of the thread, I would be surprised if there were not at least a few faithful Mormons who would be willing to state that they did not agree with the main claims in this amateurish and silly book.

Just because one is on the "faithful" side of the fence does not mean that they need rush to the defense of every outlandish statement made, or position taken, by others on the same side.

As you state, science cannot disprove religion. What it can do, and has done, is show that the vast majority of truth claims, upon which most monotheistic religions are based, are invalid where testable. By bayesian probability and any other rational criteria, these truth claims also have an exceeding small probability of being valid when not directly testable.

The demonstration of invalid truth claims is particularly straightforward for religions such as Scientology, Christian Science, and Mormonism which grew out of the ideas of one individual (L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy ) or a small group of individuals (Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery) in modern times. When considered in light of the "all true or all false" pronouncements by more than one Mormon prophet, the invalidity of even one Mormon truth claim is fatal.

When it comes to velocity of light speed limit, I will point out that special relativity is, and has been, an extremely successful scientific theory with remarkable predictive power. Of course one is free to believe pretty much anything they wish.

However, if you are ever in a situation where there are real world consequences to your bet as to whether or not any material object or information can travel faster than the speed of light, I would hope you would not bet against special relativity. That is a bet that nobody has won yet, and the chances of your being the first would be vanishingly small.

With regard to Rupert Sheldrake and his seven experiments, especially his idea that people can sense when they are being stared at, I have to consider the weight of evidence and conclude that there are no strong, reproducible results to support his claims.

[Gillebre]

I think the author was referring to the number of God's creations down to an exact number. We cannot possibly hope to count each star, each comet, each particle of dust floating around that all constitute the creations of God within the Milky Way. We can make an estimate, such as '55 billion', as you said, but I think that number is very, very far off. However, what we cannot determine is that there are exactly 55,430,569,827 creations in the Milky Way. Or the universe. That is what the author meant, I think.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that we probably have an "historical" event here. However, considering the subject of the thread, I would be surprised if there were not at least a few faithful Mormons who would be willing to state that they did not agree with the main claims in this amateurish and silly book.

Just because one is on the "faithful" side of the fence does not mean that they need rush to the defense of every outlandish statement made, or position taken, by others on the same side.

As you state, science cannot disprove religion. What it can do, and has done, is show that the vast majority of truth claims, upon which most monotheistic religions are based, are invalid where testable and by bayesian probability and other criteria, have an exceeding small probability of being valid when not directly testable.

The demonstration of invalid truth claims is particularly straightforward for religions such as Scientology, Christian Science, and Mormonism which grew out of the ideas of one individual (L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy ) or a small group of individuals (Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery) in modern times. When considered in light of the "all true or all false" pronouncements by more than one Mormon prophet, the invalidity of even one Mormon truth claim is fatal.

When it comes to velocity of light speed limit, I will point out that special relativity is, and has been, an extremely successful scientific theory with remarkable predictive power. Of course one is free to believe pretty much anything they wish.

However, if you are ever in a situation where there are real world consequences to your bet as to whether or not any material object or information can travel faster than the speed of light, I would hope you would not bet against special relativity. That is a bet that nobody has won yet, and the chances of your being the first would be vanishingly small.

With regard to Rupert Sheldrake and his seven experiments, especially his idea that people can sense when they are being stared at, I have to consider the weight of evidence and conclude that there is no strong, reproducible results to support his claims.

Well since we have been through all this before except for the Sheldrake part, I feel comfortable again in our usual positions of agreeing to disagree. I still think your correspondence theory of truth and falsifability is epistemologically naive, and I think there has been quite a bit of independent verification of Sheldrake's point. But all of that is on one hand from a previous day, and on the other, for another day. I don't anticipate violating the speed of light in my lifetime.

But I find Sheldrake interesting because though he is an atheist, his positions on many things are very in line with LDS thought anyway. Just as the anthropic principle is usually seen as atheistic, from an LDS pov, it can be seen as anything but. Here Sheldrake talks about constants in the universe as leading to the errors of theism:

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Since the laws of nature depend on the individual characters of the things constituting nature, as the things change, then consequently the laws will change. Thus the modern evolutionary view of the physical universe should conceive of the laws of nature as evolving concurrently with the things constituting the environment. Thus the conception of the Universe as evolving subject to fixed eternal laws should be abandoned.

I prefer to drop the metaphor of 'law' altogether, with its outmoded image of God as a kind of law-giving emperor, as well as an omnipotent and universal law-enforcement agency. Instead, I have suggested that the regularities of nature may be more like habits. According to the hypothesis of morphic resonance, a kind of cumulative memory is inherent in nature. Rather than being governed by an eternal mathematical mind, nature is shaped by habits, subject to natural selection. And some habits are more fundamental than others; for example, the habits of hydrogen atoms are very ancient and widespread, found throughout the universe, while the habits of hyenas are not. Gravitational and electromagnetic fields, atoms, galaxies and stars are governed by archaic habits, dating back to the earliest periods in the history of the universe. From this point of view the 'fundamental constants' are quantitative aspects of deep-seated habits. They may have changed at first, but as they became increasingly fixed through repetition, the constants may have settled down to more or less stable values. In this respect the habit hypothesis agrees with the conventional assumption of constancy, though for very different reasons.

It just shows how a few changes in one's assumptions can lead to conclusions which might be the opposite of what is intended. So for Sheldrake, your belief in constants might show you to be one of those weak- minded theists.

[mfbukowski]

One follow up for any TBM lurkers, to make my position clear. I think that Sheldrake's position is consistent with the LDS view Eternal Progression. A God who is unchanging cannot interact with his children-- to make it extremely brief. So though Sheldrake might not realize it, though his position on constants is perhaps incompatible with the classic creedal God, it is very compatible with a God who eternally progresses. Just to clarify.

[ed2276]

I agree, your majesty! But unfortunately I think that we only get one life in one of those universes.

In my universe I am still the lowly peasant exploited by the royals and the year is 1789. Off with his head!

[DrW]

<snip> The electrical force is much more powerful than the gravitational force and there is a growing number of dissident scientists who feel that the galactic engine is electrical in nature.

Not to quibble, but you mean electromagnetic instead of electrical, do you not?

There is a big difference. I would think it unlikely that purely electrical fields constitute a galactic engine. Purely electrical fields must be generated by electrical charges not in motion with respect to one another. If they are in relative motion then one has electromagnetic fields.

(Okay, I'm quibbling.)

[sandude]

(Okay, I'm quibbling.)

You are correct to quibble. I should have used electromagnetic in my post.

[Nofear]

Re-reading this, I am wondering what makes option A more observable than option B, theologically or otherwise? I am not seeing your point.

I didn't speak to the observability of A so much as deny that we have any observation to indicate anything like option B. In option A, we see our universe. We know it is there. We know God is there. The question is whether or not our little itty bitty universe is big enough for a society of exalted beings who organize and create worlds. Your opinion is that it is not big enough and so must reach into very fanciful and unproven scientific speculation. Perfectly fine. My opinion is that our itty bitty universe is big enough (our visible universe is mind-incapable-of-conceiving / unimaginably big). Occam's razor leads me to preference (that, and bubble universes version of multiverse have theological problems with immortality and annihilation).

Still, there is no official or unofficial stance on the matter so we are free to speculate in whatever way one wishes. I'm choosing what I believe to be the more conservative speculation.

[mfbukowski]

Still, there is no official or unofficial stance on the matter so we are free to speculate in whatever way one wishes. I'm choosing what I believe to be the more conservative speculation.

Fair enough, and so am I. I just can't imagine that out of all the possibilities, it has only happened once. But as we both have pointed out, it is all speculation anyway!

[Alan]

I'm joining this discussion late so apologies in advance.

I read this book a couple of months ago. I thought it was quite poor and I confess to being thoroughly disappointed. It is flawed in one of it's main assumptions IMO, and that invalidates the rest of the theorum. Like many members of the church the author assumes that God the Father is just like us. He lives on a planet somewhere in space etc. I reject this idea. We try to make God like us, when in fact he wants to make us like him. I therefore reject the idea that he exists in time and space as we do. He may choose to visit time and space and spend time (for want of a better word) here, but he is not dependent on it in the way we are.

I found the authors attempt to affix a time ie. a number of years (i think it was a few billion), to equal eternity, to be utterly ridiculous.

To me the author of this book has minimised God and this is a mistake. God is big and beyond our ability to understand right now. I find the idea that God lives on a planet in the middle of our galaxy almost laughable. Kolob is not where God resides. The scriptures simply state that it is near to his throne. So all we really know is that he has a throne and Kolob is near it. The throne is not Kolob and the throne is not on Kolob.

I also reject the theory that each galaxy has it's own God. God is the creator (through the Son) of all. I also reject the notion that God the Father has a father. This is nonsense to me. I believe that the person we address in prayer is the Father of all. When we are exalted and have offspring they will not pray to us IMO. They will pray to the same being we pray to. In fact, I suspect that our immediate father is Adam. God the Father is actually our great, great ......and so on, grandfather.

Alan

[mfbukowski]

To me the author of this book has minimised God and this is a mistake. God is big and beyond our ability to understand right now. I find the idea that God lives on a planet in the middle of our galaxy almost laughable. Kolob is not where God resides. The scriptures simply state that it is near to his throne. So all we really know is that he has a throne and Kolob is near it. The throne is not Kolob and the throne is not on Kolob.

I also reject the theory that each galaxy has it's own God. God is the creator (through the Son) of all. I also reject the notion that God the Father has a father. This is nonsense to me. I believe that the person we address in prayer is the Father of all. When we are exalted and have offspring they will not pray to us IMO. They will pray to the same being we pray to. In fact, I suspect that our immediate father is Adam. God the Father is actually our great, great ......and so on, grandfather.

Now we're talkin'! An interesting theory!

[Brade]

I'm joining this discussion late so apologies in advance.

I read this book a couple of months ago. I thought it was quite poor and I confess to being thoroughly disappointed. It is flawed in one of it's main assumptions IMO, and that invalidates the rest of the theorum. Like many members of the church the author assumes that God the Father is just like us. He lives on a planet somewhere in space etc. I reject this idea. We try to make God like us, when in fact he wants to make us like him. I therefore reject the idea that he exists in time and space as we do. He may choose to visit time and space and spend time (for want of a better word) here, but he is not dependent on it in the way we are.

I found the authors attempt to affix a time ie. a number of years (i think it was a few billion), to equal eternity, to be utterly ridiculous.

To me the author of this book has minimised God and this is a mistake. God is big and beyond our ability to understand right now. I find the idea that God lives on a planet in the middle of our galaxy almost laughable. Kolob is not where God resides. The scriptures simply state that it is near to his throne. So all we really know is that he has a throne and Kolob is near it. The throne is not Kolob and the throne is not on Kolob.

I also reject the theory that each galaxy has it's own God. God is the creator (through the Son) of all. I also reject the notion that God the Father has a father. This is nonsense to me. I believe that the person we address in prayer is the Father of all. When we are exalted and have offspring they will not pray to us IMO. They will pray to the same being we pray to. In fact, I suspect that our immediate father is Adam. God the Father is actually our great, great ......and so on, grandfather.

Alan

I also read through this book a few months ago, as much as I could tolerate, and found myself questioning quite a lot of the book's arguments. Unlike you, however, I don't think the book goes far enough in humanizing God. My own belief is that God is very much like us, and we're very much like him with the exception of our weak moral character. I'm inclined to think that God's (our spiritual father) domain is small and relatively local. But, hey, that's just me.

Also, I've heard lots of Mormons claim that most Mormons humanize God too much. My experience is quite the opposite. I think most Mormons believe something closer to the traditional Christian doctrine of God than they care to admit. Of course, I live in the "mission field" so maybe that has something to do with it...

[volgadon]

ASctually, the flawed main assumption is that the hypocephalus can be used as a modern star chart.