Does Science Have All The Answers?

[Deborah]

I am explaining some of the things science knows to an extremely high probability, and showing how this knowledge conflicts in many instances, with what Mormonism teaches.

"High probability" based on what we know now, not what we may discover. The whole issue of Kolob for example is moot as we don't even know for sure where it is and what is meant by the star "nearest" where God resides. Nearest in what capacity? Distance or classification of greatness? I'm with some who postulate multi dimensions which in LDS belief exists anyway as the spirit world we are told resides on this earth beyond the veil.

[Jeff K.]

Oh?

Sure. As best as it can and to the best extent our current knowledge allows. We agree.

oohhh this is a tricky one. Man I wish I had something to point to (POST 87 and 100) that Jeff K. could take the time to read, understand, and respond to that is in conflict with a key tenant of LDS belief. If only somewhere in this thread I had done so this would be so easy. The whole bleeding discussion with notHagoth7

Guess you got me.

I am sorry, the issue was so simplistic one presumed that you answered it yourself.

But I think your questioning the ability of a physical, resurrected and most critically ETERNAL God to exist within the framework of known and theoretical physics is a solid point that modern/future LDS theology with either have to ignore or adjust to as it requires a complete breakdown of many, many things to be valid. My link to the other post was to show a long discussion on this point without having to recreate it but we may need to do so anyway.

Which basically means "if science doesn't change and we know everything" ......

"Anyway, beyond this the idea of a God or gods with material bodies stands in contradiction with our current understanding of the universe. The idea of free will combined with personal, eternal identities seems problematic as well, and the notion that individual identity tied to a material form (even resurrected) can be eternal is in contradiction to our current model of how the universe works.

No, not if the mutliverse is in flux and exists.

I haven't seen science provide meaning to the universe unless you imply that no meaning is meaning. I reject the stance since science has not proven meaning, and has not gotten to the point where it can state the meaning is merely chaos.

[Honorentheos]

Science tells us how the universe works.

Agreed.

I haven't seen science provide meaning to the universe unless you imply that no meaning is meaning. I reject the stance since science has not proven meaning, and has not gotten to the point where it can state the meaning is merely chaos.

Science does not provide meaning to the purpose of the universe. You seem to misunderstand the divide between religion and science and what makes each it's own thing.

Your response to the entire discussion over the conflict between time and the existence of a physical god was - science is in flux?

You must see that right now your religion and science have a conflict don't you? Your statements above show you at least intuitively can feel this is the case even if you can't get yourself to admit it.

[notHagoth7]

But can we extend these ideas out into a view of a physical, resurrected god?

Yes. But it's too premature to comment beyond that, other than to say that if the premise I suggested has any validity, it could have something to do with Christ not wanting to be touched in the garden.

Why a need for a resurrection of a material body if it turns out this was actually an illusion?

First, even if there's any validity to this premise, I wouldn't do it the disservice of calling it an illusion, since the experience itself is quite real, and quite meaningful, regardless of precisely how it was derived, what it consists of, or what holds it together.

As to why the need for a material body:

Why the need for respawning in a video game?

Or leveling up, with new abilities, and new intriguing challenges?

I prefer not to reduce heavenly things to such base examples to illustrate a potential point, but there could be a worthwhile parallel or two there.

And all such experiences have a designer. One who can see things that the participants cannot.

Like you, what lies behind the mirror interests me as well. But I am not sure that when we take what we know now and try and fit it over the theology of JS, we find a good fit. One can make it work if one takes a sleeve here, a collar there. But the whole is not really that compatible. One can potentially run too far and ending up outside of the faith.

Well I don't think one can comprehend everything from within any single, limited perspective. I suspect one has to expand their view to embrace other true perspectives. Similar to a satellite array - to gain a broader, more comprehensive and accurate picture of what we call reality.

And similar to triangulating sensor readings from different locations, to more precisely pinpoint an origin.

And perhaps also how a satellite takes snapshots from different wavelengths, in order to stitch together a more meaningful image.

We need to take personal responsibility for our beliefs and their resulting actions. Again - Personal, individual responsibility for our views and actions. When we perpetuate myths without just cause, can we claim individual responsibility and ownership? Or is our claim to having faith a way of shrugging off that responsibility?

I'm not sure I follow you here. But I would like to. Please feel free to elaborate.

[Honorentheos]

I'm with some who postulate multi dimensions which in LDS belief exists anyway as the spirit world we are told resides on this earth beyond the veil.

Perhaps you could explain how this might work. I'm curious what sources you've read about the nature of these multiple dimensions. In what you imply, I think you are more likely referring to an alternative but connected similar universe to our own rather than a dimensional expression that is tied to ours. Either way, some science being added to this discussion would go far in showing there is no conflict.

[notHagoth7]

I haven't seen science provide meaning to the universe unless you imply that no meaning is meaning. I reject the stance since science has not proven meaning, and has not gotten to the point where it can state the meaning is merely chaos.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

From what I've seen, traditional scientists don't see their role as providing that kind of meaning.

They generally leave such things to other human pursuits (philosophy/metaphysics/religion)

[Honorentheos]

Yes. But it's too premature to comment beyond that, other than to say that if the premise I suggested has any validity, it could have something to do with Christ not wanting to be touched in the garden.

First, even if there's any validity to this premise, I wouldn't do it the disservice of calling it an illusion, since the experience itself is quite real, and quite meaningful, regardless of precisely how it was derived, what it consists of, or what holds it together.

As to why the need for a material body:

Why the need for respawning in a video game?

Or leveling up, with new abilities, and new intriguing challenges?

I prefer not to reduce heavenly things to such base examples to illustrate a potential point, but there could be a worthwhile parallel or two there.

And all such experiences have a designer. One who can see things that the participants cannot.

At some level, I think we have to ask if these hypothesis are a result of wanting them to be true or if they must be true? or if they actually can't be true but we don't have the evidence for the theory well-defined enough to exclude the ideas they oppose?

I'm not sure I follow you here. But I would like to. Please feel free to elaborate.

I think that saying one accepts something that presents a conflict with other evidence one can see and even accept should require the individual to acknowledge that they may be acting immorally in a universal sense. To have evidence that something way be right but not accept it because it conflicts with a mythical, unprovable view seems to be an absconding of responsibility because some former belief is given precedent over the current evidence. When this faith then produces actions, one has to take responsibility for those actions as if they were their own and fully as if the basis of faith did not exist. I mean, internally when someone is making a decision based on this faith and struggling with it's moral consequences.

It becomes a modification of the argument against free will - unsubstantiated faith can give the individual refuge from internal struggle against a difficult moral argument. And I think effect is itself immoral.

[Honorentheos]

From what I've seen, traditional scientists doesn't see their role as providing that kind of meaning.

They generally leave such things to other human pursuits (philosophy/metaphysics/religion)

Exactly correct as a discipline. The individual scientist certain ventures into this realm on occasions but most are good about restraining the urge to overstep their bounds.

[notHagoth7]

Although these questions weren't directed at me, but if I may....

Perhaps you could explain how this might work.

It might be analogous to TV/radio broadcasts.

They all exist in the same space - just in different frequencies. (Some prefer the term phase.)

With TV/radio, one has to learn how to change the channel to acquire different programming.

I'm curious what sources you've read about the nature of these multiple dimensions.

I've read several sources, but have more recently been exploring Celtic accounts which claim to have frequently punched through to such dimensions.

(And other instances where other dimensions have punched through to this one.)

There appears to be a considerable overlap between a group's belief in such things, and in members of that group being able to achieve/experience it.

(If one chooses to believe that such experiences were based in some form of reality.)

Some people's view of Jacob's ladder implies a similar array of realities.

In what you imply, I think you are more likely referring to an alternative but connected similar universe to our own rather than a dimensional expression that is tied to ours.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I don't understand the distinction.

[mfbukowski]

This battle involves nothing less than the rational against the irrational, and reality against delusion. With the intrusion of fundamentalist religions into politics and from there to science policy, the skirmish lines are becoming more numerous and well defined each day.

Oh my

Can't you see the contradiction here? One of the things which keeps physicists awake at night is what is describing the nature of reality.

Yet you seem to know what precisely reality is!! Your post here seems to be a waste of your precious time. Clearly you should be answering the physicists questions. They should be bowing to your brilliance.

[notHagoth7]

Your response to the entire discussion over the conflict between time and the existence of a physical god...

Again, that's only a conflict:

A ) If it is true that the speed of light is the galactic speed limit (a premise which already seems to be drawn into question by Entanglement)

B ) And if God is light years away.

And even if both of the above were true, it would only be a conflict:

C ) If an all-powerful God couldn't fold the fabric of space/time and promptly step into our reality (or draw us into His).

[mfbukowski]

Are you saying he can?

Old Thread on this Topic

Starting on this post and moving forward will save some discussion.

Howdy!

Yep, that was a goodie! I really enjoyed that discussion. Good to see you here-- looks like all the old regulars on this question!

But to me as to others, the real issue is "what is reality"? But I am just catching up, see you soon when I finish reading!

[Honorentheos]

Again, that's only a conflict:

A ) If it is true that the speed of light is the galactic speed limit (a premise which already seems to be drawn into question by Entanglement)

B ) And if God is light years away.

And even if both of the above were true, it would only be a conflict:

C ) If an all-powerful God couldn't fold the fabric of space/time and promptly step into our reality (or draw us into His).

Actually the speed of light is not part of the issue. So A and B do not matter to the broader discussion. The article I linked to earlier in post 100 gives a sort of overview of the issue if not very expansive or even that scientific. The short answer is that time is not its own thing but simple how we describe changes in relationships. If those changes occur instantly or very slowly, it doesn't really matter.

And again, one also is accepting a quantum god using this defense. Not very orderly, which doesn't seem very LDS either.

As to C - I guess once one says God can do anything including change the laws of nature or the observable universe anything becomes possible. But at that time can one honestly say there is no conflict with science and religion? And if so, would it matter to you if anything science observes and tries to explain is in conflict as this becomes a inconsequential?

Irresponsible as far a choices go, I think, but inconsequential.

[Honorentheos]

Howdy!

Yep, that was a goodie! I really enjoyed that discussion. Good to see you here-- looks like all the old regulars on this question!

Good to see you, too. That was a treat wasn't it? Mudcat can really get an interesting discussion going.

But to me as to others, the real issue is "what is reality"? But I am just catching up, see you soon when I finish reading!

Exactly. What is reality? And if we can't understand it, does it really matter if there is a difference in how we perceive it and what it actually is? I think you and I have been down this road and agreed.

The problem, IMO, is that religion and even theoretical science get too far out there to deserve to be used as pragmatic defenses for everyday actions. One needs an internal moral compass that is drawn to something independent of human institutions. Church's, for me, and their religious narratives become magnets and can help us build up the strength of the compass but they can also screw up our ability to read true north. But the only way we can tell which is happening is if we have to rely on the narrative to dismiss what the scientific observations are saying may be so.

But we'll see where we end up.

See you in the morning!

[Honorentheos]

Although these questions weren't directed at me, but if I may....

It might be analogous to TV/radio broadcasts.

They all exist in the same space - just in different frequencies. (Some prefer the term phase.)

With TV/radio, one has to learn how to change the channel to acquire different programming.

Not a bad analogy in itself. I would say this points to the nature of our understanding being limited to the ability of our sensory receptors being able to perceive things in limited ranges. The challenge, as we will get to below, is that this does not move things out of a dimension and into another.

I don't understand the distinction.

The issue with the description I think most people have in mind here is that it basically is taking things as we perceive them and just changing the location. The general setting would, if we could observe it, would be recognizable with similar traits and characteristics.

I suspect you have read the book, Flatland, and could conceive of how challenging it would be for a two-dimensional object to even conceive of a third dimensional world. To do so in the book, the main character, which I think was a triangle, had to be brought up into the third dimension.

No problem, you say? This is in character with how you view the difference between God's universe and the dimension we are in?

Square the square. What's it "look" like? Define this other dimension. Want to take it to the string theory extreme? Try imagining a ninth dimension. Dimensions are not doors through which 3D entities just walk. They are complete changes to things in a way that would be as impossible for us to comprehend as it is for a flat object to even conceive of our world.

Is it possible that the physical God lives in one or all of these dimensions? It's possible. But again it changes the very character of God in a way that we can not conceive. You...can...not...conceive...of...it!

It turns religion into poetry and symbols, which is alright. But it does not maintain the pedestrian view of God as exalted 'man' other than as a cube is an exalted square (and how many squares are in a cube? infinite...), of a continued individual identity as we know it, or anything that is recognizable to us. It means that even if you are right, you are wrong. Because as people with human limitations we simply can't get it right.

Like dogs trying to learn calculus.

So turning to other dimensions is not the droid...er - answer you are looking for.

[notHagoth7]

Actually the speed of light is not part of the issue.

According to Arc, it was very much part of the issue.

The short answer is that time is not its own thing but simple how we describe changes in relationships. If those changes occur instantly or very slowly, it doesn't really matter.

Or, that time itself fits into a broader view of relativity. (It passes differently depending on one's perspective/vantage point.)

For example, a realm where the number of dimensions differs from the number of dimensions we experience might perceive the passage of time here from a completely different vantage point.

And again, one also is accepting a quantum god using this defense.

A defensive stance? Hardly. I much prefer offense.

Not very orderly, which doesn't seem very LDS either.

Perhaps with good reason. It's only disorderly if you view quantum physics as messy or disorderly. (I know Einstein hated certain elements of quantum theory, but I'm not bound to his view of order.)

As to C - I guess once one says God can do anything including change the laws of nature or the observable universe anything becomes possible.

Theoretical physics posits that wormholes (and even creating wormholes) are within the laws of nature. So I'm not waxing fantastical here. If the theories are valid, what I've said is little different from the Wright brothers' theories before they actually took flight.

But at that time can one honestly say there is no conflict with science and religion?

I don't believe I've argued that to be the case in this thread.

Lag time. Because religions tend to respond more conservatively to scientific advances, there have frequently been conflicts between science and religions.

Faith, however, is more nimble, and can comprehend and absorb truth from whatever source (including science), with much less dissonance/hang time.

If you'll go back and examine my posts, you'll see that what I said was that there is no conflict between scientific truths and a living faith.

That doesn't mean, however, that there will not be conflict between scientific theory and such a faith.

Or between science and religion.

And if so, would it matter to you if anything science observes and tries to explain is in conflict...

It would matter to me. Why wouldn't it? (I like to understand things, even if it strains the brain cells for a few late nights.)

Irresponsible as far a choices go, I think, but inconsequential.

?? Cynicism? If so, why?

[mfbukowski]

It turns religion into poetry and symbols, which is alright. But it does not maintain the pedestrian view of God as exalted 'man' other than as a cube is an exalted square (and how many squares are in a cube? infinite...), of a continued individual identity as we know it, or anything that is recognizable to us. It means that even if you are right, you are wrong. Because as people with human limitations we simply can't get it right.

Like dogs trying to learn calculus.

So turning to other dimensions is not the droid...er - answer you are looking for.

Ah yes, but as we have said, there are many kinds of "reality" to be explored and most of the most interesting and important ones have nothing to do with science at all.

Explain to me the science of loving your grandchildren and if loving them is more or less important than quantum theory.

Poetry has its place, and much of what Shakespeare says is "true". Prove that with science! And it doesn't mean for one second that being right is in any way "wrong".

[notHagoth7]

Not a bad analogy in itself. I would say this points to the nature of our understanding being limited to the ability of our sensory receptors being able to perceive things in limited ranges. The challenge, as we will get to below, is that this does not move things out of a dimension and into another.

That assumes movement is necessary.

For example, as one possibility, if we occupy parallel space, the equivalent of one's own frequency/phase could be altered. And one would be in another realm. No "movement" would be necessary.

The issue with the description I think most people have in mind here is that it basically is taking things as we perceive them and just changing the location. The general setting would, if we could observe it, would be recognizable with similar traits and characteristics.

That is how a number of professed observers have basically described it.

I suspect you have read the book, Flatland, and could conceive of how challenging it would be for a two-dimensional object to even conceive of a third dimensional world. To do so in the book, the main character, which I think was a triangle, had to be brought up into the third dimension.

I haven't read the book, but I'm familiar with the premise.

No problem, you say? This is in character with how you view the difference between God's universe and the dimension we are in?

Not necessarily. I suspect our perception is dwarved by his in many ways. But the model you propose may more aptly describe dimensions experienced by beings parallel to us. I suspect some of them are parallel/similar enough that people might even shift between such dimensions and back, without realizing they spent those last three days elsewhere.

Square the square. What's it "look" like? Define this other dimension.

Does the above help?

Want to take it to the string theory extreme? Try imagining a ninth dimension. Dimensions are not doors through which 3D entities just walk. They are complete changes to things in a way that would be as impossible for us to comprehend as it is for a flat object to even conceive of our world.

I'm not arguing for a ninth-dimensional world of parallel realities. See above.

Is it possible that the physical God lives in one or all of these dimensions? It's possible. But again it changes the very character of God in a way that we can not conceive. You...can...not...conceive...of...it!

True. I could only conceive certain manifestations of Him - manifestations that align sufficiently with this reality.

Why does that become an issue? With Him being God, he knows full well what our cognitive/perceptual limitations are, and meets us on our level, or gives us the boost needed to comprehend enough of His.

It turns religion into poetry and symbols, which is alright. But it does not maintain the pedestrian view of God as exalted 'man' other than as a cube is an exalted square (and how many squares are in a cube? infinite...), of a continued individual identity as we know it, or anything that is recognizable to us.

We don't know what exalted means. Other than it being a higher order than what we know and experience here. So I don't see the conflict/concern. ? But I don't view the idea of God being an exalted man as pedestrian...not in the least.

Christ was a man, and was exalted - and I don't see that as pedestrian either.

It means that even if you are right, you are wrong.

Any generality, even if it is right, is partially wrong. I'm comfortable with that.

Like dogs trying to learn calculus.

You're implying we shouldn't try? We should ignore science, revert to our primitive nature, and howl at the moon?

Nah. This realm is one of His creations. So our attempts to understand and appreciate it increase our respect for Him.

But mebbe some see that as the same thing as howling at the moon. If so, to each their own.

So turning to other dimensions is not the droid...er - answer you are looking for.

It's my answer. And it suits me just fine.

If you don't like it, go find your own.

[mfbukowski]

I had an experience recently.

I had to make a decision of great consequence to a member of my family's life. I had to choose a rest home for my mother.

Choice A made perfect sense. The match was perfect with her condition. The home would provide nearly exactly the kind of care she would need. The location was good. It was affordable with her insurance. Clearly this was the logical choice.

Choice B was not as good, though it had some advantages. It was small and she would get more individual attention. But she would not necessarily get as good medical care because the other place had better trained people, and more of them. It was more expensive, and would take more of my time to administer some details which would already be automatically handled at the other place.

I decided to pray about it, and got the very distinct impression that choice B was the correct one.

But it made no sense. It was illogical. It wasn't as good a place. But I could make the decision only once and could not go back because once she was transferred, I could not go back to choice A- they would not accept her because her insurance would no longer cover as much.

I chose B despite the fact that it was an "illogical" choice.

I transferred her to place B.

I mentioned to the proprietor that I was often busy evenings with church responsibilities and might not be able to visit then.

She asked me what church I belonged to. This is a hard question in my area because we have a lot of Evangelicals who are sometimes hostile to Mormons.

I gulped and said "COJCLDS".

She said "Welcome to the family, brother!" and reached out and hugged me. - she was a member!

Additionally, she is a member of an adjoining ward, and we have many friends and acquaintances in common.

She is treating my mom as if she was a member of her own family, and not as just another patient.

Choice B was the best choice after all, though I had no possible way of knowing that except by the "spirit".

If it only happened once, there would be doubt.

But this happens to me probably two or three times a month. If I ignore logic and go with the spirit, it works every time.

Why is that?

[Honorentheos]

According to Arc, it was very much part of the issue.

What Arc is arguing and what I am arguing are two different things.

Or, that time itself fits into a broader view of relativity. (It passes differently depending on one's perspective/vantage point.)

Sounds like relativity. Good so far.

For example, a realm where the number of dimensions differs from the number of dimensions we experience might perceive the passage of time here from a completely different vantage point.

Ok. So this is where we really need to stop and assess where you just ended up. Does it seem plausible that we, as human beings, can actually observe alternative dimensions? If not, will they ever be under the purview of science to define or explain? Maybe, but not now they are not other than through math. To use one to explain a conflict between current science and your religious view of the nature of God is reconciling the two into something that is no longer science and I think not even religion. Your view may be possible, and in the future we may find it is correct. But right now, the LDS religious view of God having a corporal body of flesh and bones conflicts with the ability of such a being to exist eternally outside of the definition of time. And the current model of the universe as we have it has matter, and thus time, meeting at a singularity we call the big bang.

I'm not ridiculing your view here. But it seems obvious that there is a conflict.

And I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to just take at face value.

Perhaps with good reason. It's only disorderly if you view quantum physics as messy or disorderly. (I know Einstein hated certain elements of quantum theory, but I'm not bound to his view of order.)

Honestly, my view of QM is that almost everyone does not get it, as Richard Feynman once famously implied. By that I mean to the lay person what we think is quantum mechanics is almost certainly not QM as it fully is, but a caricature of it. And this is also not to bag on you. I don't have anything other than this myself. The percentage of human beings who actual GET QM are amazingly small because it is very complex, takes a bit of complex math to actually understand, and isn't the sort of the thing that lends itself to big scale (classical) analogies that maintain enough accuracy to really capture them. We most likely have the analogies that are used to explain them in our minds but these are not actually QM, just the symbols for it that are used to get one's mind into the complexity of it all. Even the people who use it everyday have a ways to go before we can say we actually understand QM as a full science the same way we understand the old classical physics.

Theoretical physics posits that wormholes (and even creating wormholes) are within the laws of nature. So I'm not waxing fantastical here. If the theories are valid, what I've said is little different from the Wright brothers' theories before they actually took flight.

Now we're into sci fi which is no longer science. Are theoretical wormholes possible? Sure, the math suggests so. But we're no longer talking about religion and science anymore but a hybrid of the two into fantasy and what may be possible. It is not putting the handcuffs on science to ask that you show the experiment that has upheld this mathematical possibility before we accept it as valid. It's where one HAS TO draw the line between what is science and the rest of this stuff we lump into the human experience. The edge that is scientific knowledge is advanced by this process and what is allowed in has to be vetted.

This is why the issue with time and the physical God comes up. The nature of time under relativity is not just a little theory anymore. Relativity has almost a century of experimentation which results have upheld the theory with some minor modifications. It's not on the same level as wormholes or postulated additional dimensions. Same with the big bang. Nothing has been able to disprove it and the more evidence we collect the more accurate this theory seems to be. Is there more to the picture? Absolutely there has to be. But a corporal God is not upheld in the current understanding.

So when you say -

If you'll go back and examine my posts, you'll see that what I said was that there is no conflict between scientific truths and a living faith.

That doesn't mean, however, that there will not be conflict between scientific theory and such a faith.

Or between science and religion.

I would say that a living faith is probably fine but the base theology underlying that living faith is very suspect.

Could there be a God out there somewhere somehow? Sure, nothing has disproved this.

Can that God be both eternal and have a body of flesh and bone? Not under the current model of the universe.

Could this model be revise? Sure, and in fact it will have to be as it is only a partial model. There is a lot it doesn't explain.

But I think it will almost certainly require a rethinking of that God may be and the physical, exalted human God of LDS theology is not likely it. It certainly isn't it based on the current knowledge we have.

Truthfully, the view of the trinity is much easier to reconcile with science than is the LDS god. And the Buddhist/Taoist 'Tao' is even more reconcilable. The door between religion and science is open. The challenge is that most people are not willing, as individuals, to reassess their view of God or their underlying theology.

Faith isn't flexible. It just bends everything else into conformity to itself. The flexibility of faith is an illusion.

[Honorentheos]

We need to talk a bit more about dimensions since it seems we are still talking about two different things.

Imagine you are a square on a flat sheet of paper. You can move in two-dimensions (along the x- and y-axis) and see only from this vantage point. You are, simply, a two-dimensional being.

Imagine that a triangle moves towards you. What do you see? A triangle as we 3D beings see it? Not from the 2D perspective you have. The triangle would be a line, or 1D. You may, and we will assume you have, developed the ability to interpret 2D info from this 1D view and can perceive that the line you see also has angles and is composed of more than one line. But you can't jump off of the paper and see a triangle. In fact, it is highly unlikely that you, as a 2D being, could accurately even conceive of what a 2D triangle actually may be.

Now you and I are out here in 3D space and are 3D beings. From our perspective we can look down on this sheet of paper and see both the square and the triangle as 2D elements in a way neither of them can see themselves. Suppose we go visit them?

Imagine you, as the 2D square, are suddenly presented with something in front of you that is you and I from the 3D world. What would we look like? Not flat versions of ourselves (that would still require the ability to actually see 2D planes from a 3D view) but rather as 1D lines with rather odd properties. As different parts of our 3D selves intersected with this 2D plane, the poor square would be doing his best to define it and later explain it. But try as he might, he won't actually be able to get it. He can't conceive of the 3D view of his 2D world, let alone what a 3D world would actually look like.

Even if he figures it all out that there is a 3D being out there intersecting with his 2D world, his descriptions of it will be inaccurate in any real sense to us 3D beings in that it can not describe the being that visited in any way other than in the 1D/2D world he is part of. His language and capacities are not up to the task.

This is not that different from us. You and I do not see the world in 3D. We have binocular vision that takes two 2D images and our brains then interpret the 3D world out of it. But to really, really see in 3D, we would need to be able to step "UP", not outside, but into a totally different axis than the x-, y-, and z- of our 3D world. We would need a 4D perspective. I don't think we even comprehend 3D any more than the square comprehends its own shape from a 3D view. (and do not mistake the "time" dimension as the fourth dimension. Spatial dimensions differ from time. If you haven't read the whole of my post 100, it is explained a bit there, but we can get into it more if you wish)

Is god a 4D being? Maybe. But again this doesn't mean anything to LDS or any other theology because what ever it was that intersected with our 3D "plane" that we are calling "God" could not be the whole of it nor should we even pretend to accurately "get it". Like a dog's brain is simply not physically capable of processes that allow it to perform calculus, we can not understand this God that lives in a 4D plane.

So when LDS use these to try and get around the issues of corporal Gods and time, all I can say is that you don't "get" dimensions. You're only imagining an alternative universe and tacking it onto our own.

Interestingly, it is very possible, even likely that the universe is not a simple 3D universe. It is possible that the big bang is something like an ink well being spilled onto a piece of paper and the ink/paper of this universe is all we can perceive of reality given our D senses. To think the universe is only 3D is probably like people thinking the earth was the center of the universe 4 centuries ago. It's all a derivative of our tendency to see the universe as anthropocentric.

[Honorentheos]

Why is that?

Don't know. I'm agnostic towards God as a whole and will not pretend to have the answers to the big broad questions.

I just think that the evidence used to say that the LDS god is actually "God" is not justifiable.

[Luigi]

Key words: God doesn't operate on faith. Man, however, is not God and does indeed have to operate on faith until his knowledge is complete. Science is the tool by which God operates. But that science is so far beyond what we understand here that we must exercise faith to even begin to apply science.

For example, the Wright brothers had faith that they should be able to recreate the ability to fly as they observed in the birds. As a result of their faith they developed the science which allowed them to do this. Now to a person not versed in the science of aviation, I take it on faith that when I get on a plane it will fly because someone was able to figure out the science to make it happen.

Any scientific revelation begins as a seed of faith that something can be done or something exists according to a natural law. It then is up to that person to prove his theory or to find the laws of math or physics to make it happen. Once he does that he no longer acts on faith because he has knowledge of that thing he has created or proved.

Actually both of the examples you gave with flight had to do with observation and logical inference from those observations. Nothing like religious concepts of faith entered into the equation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Religion can't answer any of those questions either, except to say "Because God did it or wants it that way", which really isn't an answer at all.

In a fascinating thread all this fellow can do is fart in the direction of religion. That's odd.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Because religious explanations of how the universe works have so often been shown, through scientific inquiry, to be wrong.

This presupposes that religion is meant to give scientific answers to non-religious questions, which is fallacious.