Predestination And Foreordination. Does Science Preclude Either?

[BCSpace]

LDS doctrine and science don't conflict.

I am going to begin by challenging my own underlined claim above vis a vis this topic and maybe some of you can come up with some answers that confirm or deny it.

According to science, our usual notions of the past, present, and future may all be an illusion and in reality, all three exist simultaneously. The science behind this is explained here in layman's terms in this fascinating video recently aired (or re-aired) on PBS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp3_cPRQSh0

The end portion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDkuo90lPGI

So according to science, are we necessarily predestined? The answer may be contained in the video presentation itself ("arrow" of time), or maybe not.

A secondary topic could perhaps be God using the understanding of what space-time is to aid the property of being all knowing.

Edited November 17, 2011 by BCSpace

[Mariner]

BCSpace,

Stating that these ideas are "science" or implying that science says that multiverses exist is not quite accurate. What we have are a number of possible mathematical models for multiverses that appear to be explanatory. Until one or more of these can be shown to be predictive of the outcomes of new observations, or otherwise verified by observation or experimentation, these are theories.

To say that science says that past , present and future exist simultaneously is also a stretch.

While the various multiverse models are no doubt interesting topics for speculation, they should not be accorded any more validity than they actually have in terms of the science involved.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Mariner

[Nofear]

To say that science says that past , present and future exist simultaneously is also a stretch.

In Special and General Relativity, technically all time is co-existent just as all spatial dimensions are co-existent. So, in some sense it could be said that they exist simultaneously. But, I and perhaps most scientists do not really believe that is an accurate picture of reality. That said, humanity has no fundamental understanding of time at all. Time is truly a great mystery. (Good layman's introduction Do You Know What Time It Is? by Brian Cox.)

While the various multiverse models are no doubt interesting topics for speculation, they should not be accorded any more validity than they actually have in terms of the science involved.

Amen. Additionally, I think multiverses are problematic to our theology. It makes all kinds of things from the Atonement to uncreate intelligences to immortality quite sticky.

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear:

I like Brian Cox.

I don't know how a Mutlverse would have much impact on the Atonement.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, I quite loathe the idea of predestination of any sort, be it labeled "theological" or "scientific". Our concept of Foreordination is not interchangeable with Calvinism, and to know "the" future negates any hope of free will. It's very dangerous (and, I've found, a temptation far too commonly succumbed to) for us theists to desperately latch onto speculative multiverses to explain things about our own universe that we don't currently understand, but it's just Neoplatonism (positing a realm outside of time where God resides) dressed up in contemporary terminology.

True religion and true science don't conflict, but we have to find the truth before it can make us free.

[Freedom]

The following video, "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" is my favorite explanation of these concepts.

[Nofear]

I don't know how a Mutlverse would have much impact on the Atonement.

Another time, perhaps. Partly depends on which multiverse model one is proposing.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Nofear

[Mariner]

True religion and true science don't conflict, but we have to find the truth before it can make us free.

Does this mean that you would define a "true religion" as one that does not conflict with science?

[LeSellers]

Does this mean that you would define a "true religion" as one that does not conflict with science?

As long as it's "true science": exactly.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Truth is truth no matter where we find it.

[KevinG]

I checked the archives and found this interesting post from 1619:

Comets in fixed orbits inside the Celestial Dome. Does Science Preclude Either?

[BCSpace]

Stating that these ideas are "science" or implying that science says that multiverses exist is not quite accurate. What we have are a number of possible mathematical models for multiverses that appear to be explanatory. Until one or more of these can be shown to be predictive of the outcomes of new observations, or otherwise verified by observation or experimentation, these are theories.

Not even that. String Theory is not really a theory because it can't be tested so it's really just a philosophy at the moment.

To say that science says that past , present and future exist simultaneously is also a stretch.

Doesn't seem to be the case. Time dilation has been tested and the laws of physics presented in the video still seem to be sound. Understanding their ramifications though is another thing entirely. Here is a possible avenue by which we (and therefore God) can see the past and the future. Hence the question of Foreordination and Predestination and what can science tell us about it.

The following video, "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" is my favorite explanation of these concepts.

Ah yes. I like that one.

[Mariner]

As long as it's "true science": exactly.

Lehi

Can you define one independently of the other?

Since true science is relatively easy to define independent of religion, I would like to hear a definition of true religion independent of science.

[KevinG]

Can you define one independently of the other?

Since true science is relatively easy to define independent of religion, I would like to hear a definition of true religion independent of science.

Cold fusion at the University of Utah.

[Mariner]

Cold fusion at the University of Utah.

Okay. That was more of an example than a definition, but it was funny and to the point (sort of).

I would say that cold fusion at the University of Utah was religion posing as science.

[etana]

LDS doctrine and science don't conflict.

I am going to begin by challenging my own underlined claim above vis a vis this topic and maybe some of you can come up with some answers that confirm or deny it.

According to science, our usual notions of the past, present, and future may all be an illusion and in reality, all three exist simultaneously. The science behind this is explained here in layman's terms in this fascinating video recently aired (or re-aired) on PBS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp3_cPRQSh0

The end portion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDkuo90lPGI

So according to science, are we necessarily predestined? The answer may be contained in the video presentation itself ("arrow" of time), or maybe not.

A secondary topic could perhaps be God using the understanding of what space-time is to aid the property of being all knowing.

It's a great series and is available online at PBS for anyopne who missed the first episode.

There is a lot of speculation but, for me, the take-away is that our assumptions about space and time based on our limited experiential intuition are not as sound as they might seem. one example (that i think you pointed out in another post) is that time itself is not the same for all observers or in all places.

careful though, some folks get a little testy when their intuitive assumptions are shaken.

[Freedom]

Can you define one independently of the other?

Since true science is relatively easy to define independent of religion, I would like to hear a definition of true religion independent of science.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at but true religion, to me, is line upon line so our understanding of it evolves in the same way that our understanding of science evolves. Scientific discovery is, in my opinion, inspiration from God so it is similar to revelation that guides the church. God reveals more information about his creation to man and we must adapt our interpretation of the scriptures to match. I cannot think of anything found in our scriptures that contradict science. We interpreted them based on what was known at the time and as more is discovered, we find how our interpretation of the data may have been incorrect. Or am I missing what you are getting at?

[Rob Osborn]

If we can understand that no one, including God, is outside the arrow of time, then we can realize that whatever happens in the future is still yet to happen. We cannot reverse time, nor can we fastforward it. We may get on a different plane of how time is perceived and played out but the one thing we cannot stop is the ever present arrow of time. Time itself is the measurement of sequenced events- cause and reaction.

[Mariner]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at but true religion, to me, is line upon line so our understanding of it evolves in the same way that our understanding of science evolves. Scientific discovery is, in my opinion, inspiration from God so it is similar to revelation that guides the church. God reveals more information about his creation to man and we must adapt our interpretation of the scriptures to match. I cannot think of anything found in our scriptures that contradict science. We interpreted them based on what was known at the time and as more is discovered, we find how our interpretation of the data may have been incorrect. Or am I missing what you are getting at?

Setting aside the idea of "true religion" for a moment and referring to Christianity and Mormonism; these religions are in substantial and fundamental conflict with science. How can you possibly claim that they are not?

In Mormonism, we have a anthropomorphic deity with a physical body who violates the laws of gravity and special relativity, and civilizations numbering in the millions that disappear without a trace, leaving other civilizations in their place in the archeological and genetic record. In the various forms of Christianity we have a Deity that exists outside of time and space, a 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood, and a biological bottleneck in human and animal genetics at the time of Noah, none of which actually exist or happened.

How can you say that any of this is not in direct and fundamental conflict with science?

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Prayer travels faster than light.

Neutrinos may well travel faster than light.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/18/new-test-finds-that-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light/

[The Nehor]

Science doesn't preclude either but you appear to be using unproven theories as the basis and not science.

[T-Shirt]

Mariner:

Prayer travels faster than light.

Neutrinos may well travel faster than light.

http://www.rawstory....ter-than-light/

This was cute:

The bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve neutrinos in here!"

So, this neutrino walks into a bar.

T-Shirt

Edited November 18, 2011 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

So, for a minute, let's say that this new report on the speed of neutrinos is accurate. That being the case, if I understand it correctly, if a person at the opposite end from which the neutrinos were fired, was able to see the firing of the neutrinos, he would see the neutrinos arrive before they were actually fired.

Now, suppose that God has the ability to launch creation at a speed faster than light. Theoretically, this would allow Him to see the final outcome before creation was actually launched. This would allow Him to do two very significant things. First, he could predict outcome with precision, without interfering with anyone's agency. And, secondly, knowing the outcome before hand, He would be able to enter into the realm of this creation and do all that He could to change the outcome through His influence. Therefore, any prophecies of the future would be accurate, with the caveat that the future could be different than prophesied if God is successful in changing the outcome through His influence.

That certainly solves the problem, for me anyway, of reconciling the concept of God's foreknowledge with man's agency.

Just thinking out loud.

T-Shirt

[The Nehor]

So, for a minute, let's say that this new report on the speed of neutrinos is accurate. That being the case, if I understand it correctly, if a person at the opposite end from which the neutrinos were fired, was able to see the firing of the neutrinos, he would see the neutrinos arrive before they were actually fired.

Now, suppose that God has the ability to launch creation at a speed faster than light. Theoretically, this would allow Him to see the final outcome before creation was actually launched. This would allow Him to do two very significant things. First, he could predict outcome with precision, without interfering with anyone's agency. And, secondly, knowing the outcome before hand, He would be able to enter into the realm of this creation and do all that He could to change the outcome through His influence. Therefore, any prophecies of the future would be accurate, with the caveat that the future could be different than prophesied if God is successful in changing the outcome through His influence.

About as wacky as my old crazy idea that since on a quantum level observation changes reality God could observe chaos and create a world in six days that is much older then six days old.

Not sure if that is a compliment but it was meant as such.

[Freedom]

Setting aside the idea of "true religion" for a moment and referring to Christianity and Mormonism; these religions are in substantial and fundamental conflict with science. How can you possibly claim that they are not?

In Mormonism, we have a anthropomorphic deity with a physical body who violates the laws of gravity and special relativity, and civilizations numbering in the millions that disappear without a trace, leaving other civilizations in their place in the archeological and genetic record. In the various forms of Christianity we have a Deity that exists outside of time and space, a 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood, and a biological bottleneck in human and animal genetics at the time of Noah, none of which actually exist or happened.

How can you say that any of this is not in direct and fundamental conflict with science?

I think you are arguing from a number of false premises. I do not know of any examples where gravity is challenged in the scriptures. We have a God ascending into heaven, and an angel hovering above the ground, but these are no more violations of gravity than a hot air balloon. If gravity is never to be counteracted, why are there so many legitimate scientists trying to counter it? And if gravity is a scientific certainty, do tell me what causes it because it is a mystery to the scientific community. Or perhaps all the scientists that are studying it are all ignorant evangelical Christians that are too blind to see the truth.

I also do not know what civilization you are referring to that disappeared without a trace. Clearly there is evidence of a grand civilization in central america. The church has never argued that the civilization disappeared. You have fabricated this claim. I have no idea what you mean by a genetic record either. The Book of Mormon never provided any DNA details so such a criticism is rather bazaar. And exactly what is this 'other' civilization that has been left in its place? What can you tell me of the language, religion, culture, political structure and other features of the society that existed 2,000 years ago?

As for your problems with the flood, the 6000 year old earth and a deity that exists outside of time and space, these concerns have been responded to so many times you should them memorized by now. the mormon church does not have as its doctrine that the entire planet was covered in water, nor do they have a doctrine that the earth is 6,000 years old. There is also no doctrine that I am ware of that states God exists outside of time and space.

The nature of time is debated by many scientists. The notion of multiple dimensions is not a creation of mormonism, it is a creation of renown scientists. So if you have a problem with these concepts, you are the one that is in direct conflict with science. We have no scientific proof of how time and space function so there is no conflict with what we know of God. I do believe, however, there is significant evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years old and there is no conflict between this evidence and the doctrines of the church.