God Is An Atheist

[tana]

According to LDS doctrine, God is a spaceman. He finds himself bound to physical laws of motion. He did not/can not create Ex nihilo, matter, yet his physical body is made of this matter.

Further, his/our spirit is also made of matter. *more fine matter*.

He/LDS theory advocates for exactly that which it fights against.....Materialism.

The materialist/naturalist holds that consciousness is illusion, an emergent property of the mindless interaction of particles.

To say that the spirit is also made of matter, is simply adding a step to the materialist's point of view. If the spirit is made of matter then its consciousness is a product of more mindless interaction of particles.

Perhaps there is an essence that enters the spirit body that hails from the *intelligence realm* of LDS theory. Does this essence have substance, measurable mechanical particles also, or is it undefinable?

It seems to me that the only way for the idealist/spiritualist to break out of the box of materialism.....is to not attach laws of motion/cause and effect to essence of awareness.

Curt

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There are those of us who find the "spaceman" God to be far more logically satisfying than the God defined by Greek philosophy imported into Christianity. There's nothing wrong with materialism, and plenty of us Mormons are very proud that our religion has no conflict with science; the idea of "immaterial matter" is a contradiction in terms. See my thread Towards Naturalistic Deities for a discussion of this and related ideas.

[tana]

Hey J. I can see that I am seriously outclassed by your knowledge in the philosophical arts. That looks like an incredible thread.

I haven't posted on here for quite a while now, but when I did, it was most often an attempt at thought experiment aimed at locating the essence of awareness, existence.....the soul.

This being another attempt, I would like to refer back to the OP and ask you if you think the essence of *Individual awareness* that enters the spirit body from the intelligence realm, is it made of *substance* also?

[CV75]

It seems to me that the only way for the idealist/spiritualist to break out of the box of materialism.....is to not attach laws of motion/cause and effect to essence of awareness.

I believe the same entity can be perceived and act as material or as immaterial, or “finer”, or “rougher” versions of either; possessing a “mind” or not (whether borrowed or inherent), depending on the interacting realms and bounds within which it operates and according to the agency that it and its objectively and subjectively interacting counterparts possess. Matter and mind would appear mutually exclusive to those observers and subjects (which are sometimes manifest in the same entity in both roles) that do not or cannot relate to each other. In some realms a rock would appear immaterial and in others a spirit would appear rock-solid.

[Mudcat]

There are those of us who find the "spaceman" God to be far more logically satisfying than the God defined by Greek philosophy imported into Christianity. There's nothing wrong with materialism, and plenty of us Mormons are very proud that our religion has no conflict with science; the idea of "immaterial matter" is a contradiction in terms. See my thread Towards Naturalistic Deities for a discussion of this and related ideas.

Bold mine. Yes it is a contradiction in terms. Have you heard this posited from non-LDS Christians?

I do think the notion of "unobservable matter" is also a contradiction of terms.

[tana]

I believe the same entity can be perceived and act as material or as immaterial,

Hey CV, good to see you again!

As long as the tail isn't wagging the dog I'm happy, because if everything conceivable in existence exists because it has substance, I believe you seriously limit yourself to causation up, materialism. You run up against the wall of locating, or even conceiving of a �first cause�.

You are bound by the mechanics of cause and effect. Awareness is simply an emergent property of particles pushing and pulling on each other in mindless, intelligence-less laws of motion. You are applying �Newtonian Physics� to all of existence.

If you rely on substance interacting in mindless cause and effect mechanics, you can never have an original thought, as every thought must be preceded by another to cause the next. There can never be a point where you affect an effect without a cause, and the entire course of all existence could conceivably be plotted and determined.

[tana]

Bold mine. Yes it is a contradiction in terms. Have you heard this posited from non-LDS Christians?

Hey Mudcat, good to see you again too!

I think your advocating for an existence that at its essence is not ruled by cause and effect?

[Mudcat]

Hey Mudcat, good to see you again too!

I think your advocating for an existence that at its essence is not ruled by cause and effect?

Hi Tana,

Hope your doing well.

That is a pretty deep question you asked. I believe God is not ruled or subject to cause and effect.. rather the other way round, if that is what you mean.

As to us specifically, I dunno. I think for those that choose to follow Him, there comes a point where we get to step outside of time and into eternity. I dunno if that means atemporal or simply an eternal in time experience.

If he is not bound by time, I don't imagine we could be either, if we are to be in His presence. However it works out, I am looking forward to it.

Regards,

Mudcat

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

The vast major of matter in this universe is unobserved.

See Dark Matter

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dark_matter.html

[KevinG]

Blogito ergo Sum

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

The vast major of matter in this universe is unobserved.

See Dark Matter

http://imagine.gsfc....ark_matter.html

If it was unobservable then how was it discovered that it existed?

Edited March 2, 2012 by Mudcat

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

The same way we observe an electron. No one has ever observed directly an electron but we know they exist by the effects that they have. With dark matter we're just starting to have the technology necessary to measure its effects.

[KevinG]

If it was unobservable then how was it discovered that it existed?

Unobservant scientists?

[KevinG]

I'm waiting for the first lawsuit filed when an experimental physicist uses quantum mechanics to look at a co-workers soul.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

The same way we observe an electron. No one has ever observed directly an electron <snip>

I am just going to stop there.

[Buzzard]

If it was unobservable then how was it discovered that it existed?

Im no cosmologist, but my understanding is that dark matter and dark energy must exist to make the mathematical equations that explain the physics of the universe balance. In other words, if there is no dark matter/energy, then we could not possibly exist.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind. I think the OP needs some understanding of what we really believe

Edited March 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If it was unobservable then how was it discovered that it existed?

I love it!

[mfbukowski]

Im no cosmologist, but my understanding is that dark matter and dark energy must exist to make the mathematical equations that explain the physics of the universe balance. In other words, if there is no dark matter/energy, then we could not possibly exist.

Golly that's scary.

Would it hurt?

[thesometimesaint]

Death isn't painful, but getting there is.

[Nofear]

Im no cosmologist, but my understanding is that dark matter and dark energy must exist to make the mathematical equations that explain the physics of the universe balance. In other words, if there is no dark matter/energy, then we could not possibly exist.

Dark matter has evidence for it in a few basic observations:

• rotation curves of galaxies -- the luminous matter is inadequate to explain them, adding dark matter can "fix" it
  
• galactic clusters -- the mass of the luminous matter is inadequate to keep the clusters bound, adding dark matter can "fix" it
  
• gravitational lensing in quasars -- in many cases the luminous matter is unable to create the amount of observed lensing, adding dark matter can "fix" it
  

Dark energy has evidence in fewer basic observations:

• acceleration of distant galaxies -- matter simply cannot explain it (dark or otherwise)
  
• curvature of universe is observed to be flat -- not enough matter (dark or otherwise) for that to occur
  

These are the biggies. Some smaller evidences running around. But the concordance of these basic models turns out to be pretty remarkable. Their (mostly) self-consistency lends strong credence to the hypotheses. That's not to say alternative proposals aren't being worked upon by cosmologists. Far from it. The community of cosmologists are always working on crazy new ideas to "explain" things. But dark matter and dark energy by far have the most strength and staying power at present.

[Nofear]

The materialist/naturalist holds that consciousness is illusion, an emergent property of the mindless interaction of particles.

Some conceptions of naturalistic materialism hold this. Many do not. Those that hold to (strong) emergence would say that consciousness is not an illusion. Some of those that deny (strong) emergence claim consciousness is an illusion. Anyway, your comments imply some confusion on what naturalistic materialism really implies.

To say that the spirit is also made of matter, is simply adding a step to the materialist's point of view. If the spirit is made of matter then its consciousness is a product of more mindless interaction of particles.

Perhaps there is an essence that enters the spirit body that hails from the *intelligence realm* of LDS theory. Does this essence have substance, measurable mechanical particles also, or is it undefinable?

Being a naturalistic materialist myself, I quite willingly concede, nay demand, that spirit matter has to have different mechanical properties than that of physical matter. I even go beyond most Mormons and suggest that intelligent matter is distinct from physical or spirit matter. We have no functional model of either spirit or intelligent matter. Without a theory we cannot make an observation of it (for it is theory which determines the observables).

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I have no problem with God being a "space man". We worship him because he is the Father of our spirits and, in some sense not fully clear, the progenitor of our race. He has achieved far and above what we have, and he knows what is needed to bring us lasting happiness and peace. He loves me, he cares about me. Whether he is material or immaterial, bound by laws or not bound, is irrelevant to why I worship him and seek to be like him.

[CV75]

As long as the tail isn't wagging the dog I'm happy, because if everything conceivable in existence exists because it has substance, I believe you seriously limit yourself to causation up, materialism. You run up against the wall of locating, or even conceiving of a �first cause�.

"Everything exists" means that "mind" and "mindlesseness", "material" and "immaterial" are just how we happen to experience and define "everything" for our working purposes. And since I exist, I get to choose for myself whether I am material or immaterial, or a mind or not; I still do what I do (who is stopping me?).

[mfbukowski]

Some conceptions of naturalistic materialism hold this. Many do not. Those that hold to (strong) emergence would say that consciousness is not an illusion. Some of those that deny (strong) emergence claim consciousness is an illusion. Anyway, your comments imply some confusion on what naturalistic materialism really implies.

Being a naturalistic materialist myself, I quite willingly concede, nay demand, that spirit matter has to have different mechanical properties than that of physical matter. I even go beyond most Mormons and suggest that intelligent matter is distinct from physical or spirit matter. We have no functional model of either spirit or intelligent matter. Without a theory we cannot make an observation of it (for it is theory which determines the observables).

We certainly agree on the naturalistic materialism view but I of course have no clue what you are talking about half the time from a scientific view. Leave me to my philosophy and I will be fine.

But my understanding of dark matter is that it is non-light reactive and therefore "dark"- and that it would be nearly just as correct to call it "invisible matter".

Is that about right?