God and physics

[cion]

A spirit is the essence of a person, and I see no conflict with truth and the idea that God, as well as each one of us, is a spirit tabernacled with a body.

What is the significance of the doctrine of God having a body of flesh and bones if the wonders of God's spirit are so encompassing?

[Lamanite]

What is the significance of the doctrine of God having a body of flesh and bones if the wonders of God's spirit are so encompassing?

One could consider that some Big Bang proponents assert there was a finite point in time when the universe was infinitely small, hot, and dense. In such an infinitely small, hot, and dense place, a corporeal God with physical attributes like man's could not have existed.

You could start manipulating other dimensional arguments but it would be a tenuous argument at best.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[cion]

One could consider that some Big Bang proponents assert there was a finite point in time when the universe was infinitely small, hot, and dense. In such an infinitely small, hot, and dense place, a corporeal God with physical attributes like man's could not have existed.

You could start manipulating other dimensional arguments but it would be a tenuous argument at best.

But that is going the opposite direction. You are going to small space as an argument for no body. God could be somewhere else and not inside that little space so the argument is tenuous like you say. What I'm questioning is that God seems to expand into everything, making it hard to see how a body like ours would fit that situation.

[Ahab]

What is the significance of the doctrine of God having a body of flesh and bones if the wonders of God's spirit are so encompassing?

Do you mean to ask: Does God's body of flesh and bone limit the wonders of his spirit?

If so, the answer is no.

[Ahab]

What I'm questioning is that God seems to expand into everything, making it hard to see how a body like ours would fit that situation.

Rather than say God's body is like ours, it's better to think that our body is like God's, and our Savior's, although not as perfected and glorious as his/their body is.

One doesn't need to believe God doesn't have a body to be able to imagine how wonderful God is.

[cion]

Do you mean to ask: Does God's body of flesh and bone limit the wonders of his spirit?

If so, the answer is no.

Well, I don't really mean that. I mean to ask why is the doctrine of God having a body even mentioned at all? What good does that doctrine do?

Is it so we can imagine ourselves becoming like him? Would you consider that the only reason?

[CV75]

Do you mean to ask: Does God's body of flesh and bone limit the wonders of his spirit?

If so, the answer is no.

I would add that the His physical body is an essential component to His Spirit being so wonderful, and His wonderful Spirit being an essential component of His eternally exalted and glorious body. The two are inseparably connected (D&C 93:33), physically and spiritually.

Also, all we experience is the result of a relatively small subset of laws that God experiences; we simply don't possess His wherewithal. What we have law-wise (even spiritual law) is what He has set in place for our benefit in this temporal and physical world to get us to progress further than this world.

[Lamanite]

But that is going the opposite direction. You are going to small space as an argument for no body. God could be somewhere else and not inside that little space so the argument is tenuous like you say. What I'm questioning is that God seems to expand into everything, making it hard to see how a body like ours would fit that situation.

God cannot exist in zero space. If he doesn't exist in the point of singularity then he doesn't exist.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

Well, I don't really mean that. I mean to ask why is the doctrine of God having a body even mentioned at all? What good does that doctrine do?

Is it so we can imagine ourselves becoming like him? Would you consider that the only reason?

Hopefully I'm not intruding. The doctrine of God having a body is mentioned because it is the way things really are, in a way that I mentioned in my previous post--the body and the spirit, inseparably connected allow the full experience of all laws.

[Ahab]

I mean to ask why is the doctrine of God having a body even mentioned at all? What good does that doctrine do?

I think we mention it mainly to counter the ideas of some other people who want people to believe God doesn't have a body, or parts, or passions, or things of that nature. That he is everywhere while being nowhere in particular. In other words, to try to straighten people out when they show they don't really understand the true nature of God, as a being, in a form that has substance.

Is it so we can imagine ourselves becoming like him? Would you consider that the only reason?

No, not the only reason. I think it's also to help us to know how much we are already like him even though we aren't as perfect, and perfectly good, as he is.

p.s. And, yes, he really is a he, literally. Our Father in heaven is a "he".

[Ahab]

Hopefully I'm not intruding. The doctrine of God having a body is mentioned because it is the way things really are, in a way that I mentioned in my previous post--the body and the spirit, inseparably connected allow the full experience of all laws.

My, how polite you are. Thank you for being so considerate. And, no, you were not intruding.

Even if you didn't agree with me you would still not be intruding, but I like that we both agree.

[cion]

Hopefully I'm not intruding. The doctrine of God having a body is mentioned because it is the way things really are, in a way that I mentioned in my previous post--the body and the spirit, inseparably connected allow the full experience of all laws.

OK. Thanks.

[cion]

I think we mention it mainly to counter the ideas of some other people who want people to believe God doesn't have a body, or parts, or passions, or things of that nature. That he is everywhere while being nowhere in particular. In other words, to try to straighten people out when they show they don't really understand the true nature of God, as a being, in a form that has substance.

Great. Thank you.

[handys003]

Hi,

Could someone tell me whether or not God has control over the laws of physics or must he abide by them? Did he create them? I understand the laws to be absolute and unchanging -- and eternal, I would think. I also understand Joseph Smith taught that matter is eternal and God organized (and possibly continues to organize) this matter so that we can enjoy the beauty we see and feel around us. So while this matter is being organized, does God allow the laws of physics to take control or does God somehow drive the ship at the lower level that man has still not figured out (see reference below of items yet to be figured out)? How much "standing by and watching" does he do? Could he ever be considered part of the science itself? As if it is part of God? Could God somehow encompass life around us?

Every time I read this: "God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice" I think about my physics question. This is similar in nature: God did not create justice but follows it. Obviously, justice is not a part of God.

I really appreciate any thoughts you might have.

http://en.wikipedia....lems_in_physics

You are new to the board so I'll give my standard Aloha e komo mai usually reserved for the intro forum.

Now have you read the King Follet discourse by JS? Basically summation of 2 important parts. Man is now that God once was. Man may become what God is now. Also there is no beginning and no end. That means the universe is not Ex Nihilo. IMO others will assert a different way. It was made from matter of another universe of time and space and injected into this void of universe of time and space. Multi - universe theory with Big Bang. All matter is organized based on the physics but came from the same matter of HF world. Think of my perspective as HF himself a scientist creating this universe out of the material he had at hand. Therefore in essence he must conform to the laws of his worlds physics. As his father before him and so on and so on thus no beginning and no end. If you think about it too much about the on and on part your head will go spinning. Just know that he answers to the physical laws of his universe as we to ours.

[CV75]

Just know that he answers to the physical laws of his universe as we to ours.

I imagine there being no segregation or differentiation between physical and spiritual laws where He is / lives /is concerned; this is accomplished by Him for our benefit in this world so we can expand from what we were able to experience by the limitations of of our personal dimension of matter while in His presence.

[Nofear]

If there be two things that exist and they can interact then there must necessarily be "laws" that govern those (possible) interactions.

If those two things have always existed (a tenet of Mormonism) then the interactions must necessarily must also have always existed.

Consequently, there must be "laws" that God did not make.

Whether or not the laws that we see which govern our temporal/physical existence, or a part of them, are among those self-existent "laws" has not been spelled out, in my opinion, by Mormonism.

[CV75]

If there be two things that exist and they can interact then there must necessarily be "laws" that govern those (possible) interactions.

If those two things have always existed (a tenet of Mormonism) then the interactions must necessarily must also have always existed.

Consequently, there must be "laws" that God did not make.

Whether or not the laws that we see which govern our temporal/physical existence, or a part of them, are among those self-existent "laws" has not been spelled out, in my opinion, by Mormonism.

I'm thinking that the self-existent laws are God Himself, as follows: From D&C 88, He dispenses all laws to mankind (verse 13). Some are laws of mortality (42), and some are laws of immortality (21-24, 36). He can do this because He is the law, the light of truth itself (verse 6); the law is God, the light of truth Himself. He is the very law that He obeys (Hebrews 6:13). As His heirs, it would seem that we share a common heritage of light and truth with Him that under His tutelage we can also choose to fully honor, and know, realize and become (or not). This second estate is part of that process. The kingdom we inherit in the resurrection is the result of that process. The thing or the law that was never made, which God and we are part of, is discussed in D&C 93 but apparently from the limited perspective of focusing on our "generation" and not God's.

[cion]

I'm thinking that the self-existent laws are God Himself, as follows: From D&C 88, He dispenses all laws to mankind (verse 13). Some are laws of mortality (42), and some are laws of immortality (21-24, 36). He can do this because He is the law, the light of truth itself (verse 6); the law is God, the light of truth Himself. He is the very law that He obeys (Hebrews 6:13).

"... I have kept my Father

[Lamanite]

"... I have kept my Father

[Nofear]

I'm thinking that the self-existent laws are God Himself...

I suppose one could say that. I personally neither see nor feel any need to make such an identity.

[Nofear]

I remain puzzled as to how a God with a body like mine, or vice versa, could fit into an infinitely dense and hot moment in time without space enough to fit in???

1) How do we reconcile God being self-existent with this puzzle?

2) How do we reconcile man being self-existent with this puzzle?

I answer 2) in the following way: My physical (and spirit) body has only existed for a finite time. Yet, a component of me is uncreate, self-existent. This component, being uncreate, must necessarily be simple (not able to be reduced to component parts) -- that is to say, it can't be destroyed no matter how hot or dense its environment (any more than an electron is).

I know if offends the presuppositions of many and so my opinion here will be viewed as somewhat heretical, but I answer 1) in precisely the same way I answer 2).

[erichard]

I understand that God has not been God forever. There was a beginning to his Godhood. If this is the case, the underlying laws of life are greater than God assuming these laws are absolute and eternal. I can't fathom how God (as I have been taught to understand) and these laws can be one as Ahab suggested.

I want to believe that God is all encompassing through our lives. I want to think he is the architect of the absolutes. To me, that is a God.

Hi Cion,

I will respond to you according to my Mormon, but not LDS, faith.

Our Father and God is a finite person, who overcame all things on a previous earth and gained His exaltation with his wife or wives. They are in a state of Eternal progression.

However, they are in perfect unity with all other beings who likewise have gained their exaltation. Thus "God" is an INFINITE family union of exalted beings that has always existed. The One Infinite GOD has always existed. It eternally has all power, all truth, all knowledge, etc.

Dealing with one finite member is the same as dealing with the full One Infinite GOD. They are in perfect unity.

As you know, the elements are eternal. And the intelligences that are given bodies are also eternal. The creation of GOD is to organized elements and intelligences from chaos into order, not to create things "out of nothing".

Our understanding of this, even with our "advanced physics" is most certainly a child's understanding. So we are not capable of really discussing it in a technical way.

GOD has power over all powers that exist in the universe. Thus GOD has "all power". But GOD does not have powers that do not exist! For instance, the power to create things "out of nothing" does not exist, and even GOD does not have this imaginary power.

Richard

[CV75]

"... I have kept my Father

[Lamanite]

1) How do we reconcile God being self-existent with this puzzle?

2) How do we reconcile man being self-existent with this puzzle?

I answer 2) in the following way: My physical (and spirit) body has only existed for a finite time. Yet, a component of me is uncreate, self-existent. This component, being uncreate, must necessarily be simple (not able to be reduced to component parts) -- that is to say, it can't be destroyed no matter how hot or dense its environment (any more than an electron is).

I know if offends the presuppositions of many and so my opinion here will be viewed as somewhat heretical, but I answer 1) in precisely the same way I answer 2).

I don't agree but I think it's brilliant creative thinking!!!

Big UP!

Lamanite