Curiosity - Did God Create The Universe?

[mfbukowski]

I imagine you recall our philosophical differences. I've adopted the view that reality has an ontological reality independent of human experience and even what we call experience has foundation in material reality. I'm of the opinion that your approach inevitably leads down the rabbit hole of solipsism. /shrug I don't hold it against you.

Nah

If I was a solipsist, I'd make you agree with me.

Pragmatists and linguistic constructivists are about as far from solipsism as you can get. The entire notion is that reality is created socially. If you ever saw me trying to fix my car, you would know that I could never even dream something that complicated in my worst nightmare!

The problem of course is how do you know anything about "material reality" without experiencing it? Good luck on that one!

Edited August 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, he's not "infinitely" above us because if he was we would never be able to become as he is now, speaking of his nature.

See how you are? There you go again, limiting God.

(just kidding....!)

Edited August 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

Pragmatists and linguistic constructivists are about as far from solipsism as you can get. The entire notion is that reality is created socially. If you ever saw me trying to fix my car, you would know that I could never even dream something that complicated in my worst nightmare!

The problem of course is how do you know anything about "material reality" without experiencing it? Good luck on that one!

My apologies. I had interpreted your "creates what we call 'objective reality'" in a more phenomenalist sense. But it appears reality is being used in two different ways -- the reality that exists and the reality that mentally exists. And if I infer your position correctly, since the objective reality is never obtainable apart from the mental reality, from a pragmatic perspective, it is redundant to speak of two different realities.

[mfbukowski]

My apologies. I had interpreted your "creates what we call 'objective reality'" in a more phenomenalist sense. But it appears reality is being used in two different ways -- the reality that exists and the reality that mentally exists. And if I infer your position correctly, since the objective reality is never obtainable apart from the mental reality, from a pragmatic perspective, it is redundant to speak of two different realities.

BINGO!

Maybe if I just told people that, it would make it clearer from the start! My problem is that I have been thinking this way for 40 years and I forget that my vocabulary is not everyone's vocabulary. I need a good "translator"!

It's not really that it's being used in two different ways- seeing it that way makes reality two different realities- but there is "actually" only one- human experience- on one hand what only I experience (and you, etc) and that we call "subjective", but what we all experience together we call "objective".

When you have a pain or are hungry or are having a spiritual experience- those are private- I cannot verify that you are feeling any of those things. Yet of course, they are "real".

But when we both experience a bright red Mercedes Benz and anyone else around experiences the same thing- those are "objective", shared, linguistic experiences we can and do talk about.

"All" science is, is a systematically cataloged chronicle of what humans have experienced and recipes for anyone to have the same experience. "When I do a,b,c, then z happens"

But there is nothing beyond some experience someone is having or has had that we can get "down to" beyond experience. Thinking that way eliminates the entire world of any epistemological arguments about what is "out there" and how we experience what is "out there" or "know if it is true" in a sense of correspondence to what is "out there".

It's all just subjective or objective.

Edited August 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

It's not really that it's being used in two different ways- seeing it that way makes reality two different realities- but there is "actually" only one- human experience- on one hand what only I experience (and you, etc) and that we call "subjective", but what we all experience together we call "objective".

When you have a pain or are hungry or are having a spiritual experience- those are private- I cannot verify that you are feeling any of those things. Yet of course, they are "real".

But when we both experience a bright red Mercedes Benz and anyone else around experiences the same thing- those are "objective", shared, linguistic experiences we can and do talk about.

"All" science is, is a systematically cataloged chronicle of what humans have experienced and recipes for anyone to have the same experience. "When I do a,b,c, then z happens"

A thousand years ago, we watched the sun move from east to west. In your view, is that objective, real?

We can perhaps agree on the visual description but may disagree on what we actually see-- the sun moving around the earth, for example. Once we put into words, we are adding something subjective that does not actually exist in "the real world".

I see that happening all the time in science, where interpretation of data becomes the reality. "Science says... we know from scientific observation...." Sounds alot like the believer who says, "The Bible says...."

I see this, for example, in the conclusion from "scientific study" that there was no first man or woman. Well, common sense tells me that it is science that has failed.

Anyway, just a few meaningless musings.

[mfbukowski]

A thousand years ago, we watched the sun move from east to west. In your view, is that objective, real?

We can perhaps agree on the visual description but may disagree on what we actually see-- the sun moving around the earth, for example. Once we put into words, we are adding something subjective that does not actually exist in "the real world".

I see that happening all the time in science, where interpretation of data becomes the reality. "Science says... we know from scientific observation...." Sounds alot like the believer who says, "The Bible says...."

I see this, for example, in the conclusion from "scientific study" that there was no first man or woman. Well, common sense tells me that it is science that has failed.

Anyway, just a few meaningless musings.

Well it still does move from east to west, we just have verified with other experiences- telescopic observations etc a better explanation- theory, or model- for that experience of it moving from east to west- and all those experiences now cohere better with all the data- experiences- which call into doubt the sun "actually" going around the earth. Experience upon experience gave us conflicting data until finally Kepler and Copernicus and Galileo came up with a new model which made all the different objective experiences cohere in a new model, but that model is still "just" an explanation- an interpretation- of all those combined experiences.

I see it as a scientific paradigm which "works better" than previous scientific paradigms; ie: it explains all the data (human experiences and observations) better than anything we have to date. Kuhn goes into great detail on all of that.

When we think of other scientific paradigms- theories which were later "disproven"- like for example the existence of aether or bloodletting as a cure for disease- these too were once "state of the art", but further data- experiences- showed them not to work in many cases. So science "discovers" what works best in dealing with the world.

Is Quantum Mechanics "true"? No more or less than those theories were. It is a model which works in certain ways and not in others.

But I certainly agree - the whole thing is you have to choose the right model to solve the right problem- the models are just tools which work to solve some actual problem. Science strives to get things done in the world- the space program over the last 50 years is a good example- there were many "spinoffs" from that program which were very useful discoveries, but the actual "problem" being worked on was putting a man on the moon for political and propaganda value, as well as I am sure, some scientific purposes as well. But science solves problems about how the world works and what solutions work best in dealing with the world.

The Bible is similar but has a different purpose- its objective is to explain our place in the universe and give our lives meaning.

You don't use a pipe wrench for repairing arteries, nor do you ask science to explain the meaning of life or how to redeem you from bad things you have done in your life.

Totally different problems require totally different models and totally different tools.

The confusion arises when we see the Bible as being a scientific textbook- it is not and never was! It explains our guilt at sin and how we are redeemed from that guilt and has nothing to do with "how things work".

Edited August 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Getting back a little closer to the main question in the OP, how do you propose we determine which tool or whose experience we should use as a tool to figure out if God created the universe, or if it created itself, or if it has always existed in the same form it is now or if it has somehow changed throughout time? Or how do we even figure out what "it" is?

The path I have chosen is to ask God, himself, since he has connections that go back forever, and all of them are in agreement that it has always existed, as all matter does, even though they "create" the universe by making changes to it which then makes it a new creation each and every time it goes through a change.

The idea of "creation ex nilo" is old and outdated and it never was right to begin with, because from nothing all you can get is nothing, and this universe has always had God to work with it.

[David T]

I really like this new video on LDS.org, with a NASA adviser , which I feel is highly relevant to this.

He acknowledges that from science we can learn important things about "when" and "how", but not "who" and "why". He also makes clear we should view the testimony of science as an additional witness of God's work which compliments the scriptural record, and that both are essential and important aspects of understanding God. I'm actually quite impressed to see this on LDS.org.

[Ahab]

I really like this new video on LDS.org, with a NASA adviser , which I feel is highly relevant to this.

He acknowledges that from science we can learn important things about "when" and "how", but not "who" and "why". He also makes clear we should view the testimony of science as an additional witness of God's work which compliments the scriptural record, and that both are essential and important aspects of understanding God. I'm actually quite impressed to see this on LDS.org.

All well and good as long as we realize the "testimony of science" isn't always in agreement with the testimony of all individual scientists, and it all comes down to "who" we choose to believe.

[mfbukowski]

Getting back a little closer to the main question in the OP, how do you propose we determine which tool or whose experience we should use as a tool to figure out if God created the universe, or if it created itself, or if it has always existed in the same form it is now or if it has somehow changed throughout time? Or how do we even figure out what "it" is?

The path I have chosen is to ask God, himself, since he has connections that go back forever, and all of them are in agreement that it has always existed, as all matter does, even though they "create" the universe by making changes to it which then makes it a new creation each and every time it goes through a change.

The idea of "creation ex nilo" is old and outdated and it never was right to begin with, because from nothing all you can get is nothing, and this universe has always had God to work with it.

That works for me.

[Maidservant]

HI everyone,

I am a Catholic who came across this forum and just had to say...thank you. I am a big believer in the "what if" of multiple religious beliefs and absolutely adore the kindness and family values that Mormons represent. God Bless each and every one of you.

Stephen Hawkings, I am sort of astonished that you missed so many other facts in your dissertation and conclusion. What about other dimensions? You yourself have postulated on the apparent existence of such. We, the faithful are often challanged by solid arguments from brilliant men but we ,the chosen, know in our heart and soul what awaits us in the next vibration of life.

Welcome .

[Maidservant]

Now there is the idea that the universe is only a 2 dimensional hologram. Pretty cool stuff.

Yea. Wherever Heavenly Father is at, what he is doing, how he lives (and those with him) -- THAT is Reality (or expanded reality from our experiences). It follows that what we have here on planet earth . . . either mechanically and/or by any other means (speed of light?) is CORDONED OFF from the rest of the REAL universe where God lives and plays . . . this place, this plane was not just created, it was BUILT for the purpose we are using it for . . . progression, in a word. (I used the word "real" a lot, but obviously, mortal life is also real. We just have blinders on for a lot of things. Love D & C Section 101, can't recall which verse, where God talks about removing the veil from HIS tabernacle so that we can have sight. Also the prophecies about the earth and scrolling (???)).

just admits up front that humans, despite all our present biological weaknesses, are the Gods

I always love coming here and finding myself not the only person thinking and believing certain things that I think have been revealed to me, but that otherwise freak me out because I feel alone in them. Thanks for being plain . . . and joyful . . . about this knowledge .

And it's honestly just kinda silly. The word "create" just means "to make, bring forth, produce, beget." It's related to crescere, which is to "arise, come forth, spring up, grow, thrive, swell, increase in numbers or strength," from the Proto-Indo-European base ker-, meaning "to grow", as in the name of Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, or creare, "to bring forth, create, produce;" or the Greek kouros, "boy," or kore, "girl".

In Spanish, crear means to believe, also. So to believe and to create are connected as well.

external Laws which God must obey. . . . There are materials and laws which just kinda exist. No one made 'em.

This is a place where our understanding would part. At present, I subscribe to the understanding that there is nothing external to Being. Being is first, and the source of anything. All properties and laws arise simultaneously or subsequently to intelligence or being . . . properties and laws and materials are not precursors to Being.

"Mere" matter? It's existence! It's real! We can touch it! We can hug our friends and siblings and parents and children.

Yep . Matter may be the most sacred thing there is.

I very much believe in superluminal speeds. However, all observations indicate our mortal bodies abide by relativistic limitations. I do not yet know how to incorporate superluminal interactions with our speed-of-light-limited-bodies that do not yield the possibility of irreconcilable paradox. Ah well, working on it.

Let me know when you have the consumer version at the cost-co price.

[mfbukowski]

Yep . Matter may be the most sacred thing there is.

I try to write in a less mystical style now because no one seemed to understand what I was saying, but I think you will like this- I wrote it a few years back:

....“eternal progression” implies that God through the advancement of his creation, is always changing, and directing the transformation of the universe through his creations and his children.

This divinely directed transformational change causes the development of living things to “swim upstream” against entropy, and is evident in the ever more complex development of his creatures over time.

Another way of saying this, is that the history of the universe manifests God’s directing hand in moving from “matter unorganized” to the creation of “God-stuff”; one example of this process can be seen in the formation of humanity. Paul in the New Testament speaks of “bodies celestial” as the manifestation of our greatest human potential. These bodies with this mature potential were formed from matter which was once “unorganized”, and which matter is, following the resurrection, transformed into celestialized human bodies. We believe that the earth itself will one day undergo such a transformation.

In human lives, this transformation is manifest in the maxim “the natural man is an enemy to God”, representing the beginning of our spiritual journey. As we move forward on this journey, we seek to transform our lives from the carnal “state of nature” (“matter unorganized”) to a celestial state, by the grace of the transforming and healing power of Jesus Christ, “after all we can do”.

This view can be understood on many levels from a spiritual understanding of the origin of species and how the vast panorama of life relates to eschatology, to using concrete methods and techniques to enable us to transform our habits to “come unto Christ.”

This view implies that God adds to his glory through his creation, and in a real sense, by creating his creations, is in some sense re-creating himself.

This is also manifest in LDS ordinances in a symbolic way. As we become “one flesh” as members of the body of Christ and “one flesh” in the state of celestial marriage, we again participate in our father’s creative process of becoming like him physically as well as spiritually.

[etana]

Agh, no, back away from the cliff y'all! *grin*

The minute we start positing non-observable extra dimensions (because we can't figure out how God works in the depths of this one) is the minute we start to slide down the Neoplatonic rabbit-hole of an untouchable, timeless, spaceless abstraction of an incorporeally impotent God.

We don't need it. Mormon theology is the only one I've found which just admits up front that humans, despite all our present biological weaknesses, are the Gods. We carry the last surviving remnant of the "primitive" myths of all the tribes of the world which honored their ancestors who came from the sky bearing their Trees of Life. See D&C 130:

Gods are not Gods because they are separated from us by a vast and unbridgeable ontological gulf, but rather because they are more loving and trustworthy than we are. Sure, they've got cool science and medicine that allows them to live forever and, like, glow in the dark and whatnot (*laugh*), but I think we're going to learn how to do that kinda stuff too, if we study things out in our minds and continue to learn more about the natural world.

This is all a bit like a blind martian trying to describe an elephant based solely on smell or a couple of fleas discussing how a just god could allow the daily tragic deaths caused by the foamy floods in their hair forest. There are questions about the nature of God and his relationship to us that we don't even know to ask. I think that describing him as a scientist with glow-in-the dark skin simply because that is all we can imagine ourselves being does him a disservice and borders on irreverence.

That stuff isn't the truly important part, tho: it's what we do with our lives that matters. It's how we act. As Joseph Smith said, "Sectarian priests cry out concerning me, and ask, 'Why is it this babbler gains so many followers, and retains them?' I answer, 'It is because I possess the principle of love. All I can offer the world is a good heart and a good hand.'"

This I absolutely agree with.

[Maidservant]

mfbukowski, I did like it, thanks!

I had a little maxim I used for myself for a little while. It went like this: Possession x Eternity = Identity. (I.e. the entire universe and/or multi-metaverse IS the body of God, or the clothing of God [=same thing]).