God Is An Atheist

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm. Define "religious". Perhaps you've forgotten, but I am an advocate for a consciousness based existence, and some form of yet to be defined *oneness* theory.

Sorry I guess I missed that. It's that dang old solipsism kicking in again "Religious experience" would be what the experiencer defines as "religious". Not a great definition but I don't think we can do better. It would include visions and revelations and other experiences perceived as coming from "outside" the self, attributed to a higher power.

But not a Deity based existence. Since there is only one existence,

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

and since science explains that all things *matter* are one continuous field, it would seem to follow that all things consciousness are one continuous field also.

Hmmm. I see some possible definitional problems there. If there are multiple "things" why is it necessary to postulate that they are in "one" field- not sure how that works linguistically. I can see different fields of interaction- in fact arguably what humans ARE are fields of interaction- that is one current way of seeing it, but it is the "one" part I am having trouble with- without getting too metaphysically out there (which of course we arguably already are)

My understanding is that LDS theory puts forward that consciousness/awareness is made up of matter/substance.

I think that over-defines it- it is much more vague than that. I wouldn't want to restrict it to a "substance" metaphysics. One might just as accurately say that for LDS all "matter is energy" or something- just that it is some kind of continuum of ...... whatever. No difference between spirit and matter except one of degree, whatever it is.

It seems to me that for this to work, entities/deities would have to separate off into isolated spheres to themselves, surrounded by some *moat* of non-existence to keep them isolated

Sort of, but remember all we have is our perceptions of this energy/matter/stuff and how our minds organize it. So yes, we see chairs and tables as isolated things in interaction. So if you want to see the thing or the interaction, that is up to how we look at it.

Eternally existing in a virtual, virtual,virtual reality. (depending on the # of bodies they are nested in)

I dunno. If you want to say that- it is what you say it is because there IS nothing but language.

Eternally solipsistic.

Nah. Because there is no such thing as a solipsistic language. I sure didn't invent this stupid English - somebody else must have!

[mfbukowski]

I feel like we are on the same page CV, are we not?

I am usually on the same page as CV- maybe we are too?

[CV75]

I feel like we are on the same page CV, are we not?

Let’s agree to agree!

With respect to D&C 131:8, only our bodies have to have a level of purity to see that spirit is matter. This tells me that the body has to be quickened or resurrected to a certain degree of glory in order to see this finer matter, and that evidently our spirits don’t have to be pure at all to see it. The more quickened and glorified the body, the more and finer it can see. So both what we can see (matter / existence) and what we cannot see (the immaterial / nothingness), that are real, are the same homogenous stuff, not broken down at all.

Edited March 3, 2012 by CV75

[LeSellers]

Since, as Einstein helped us see, matter is the same thing as energy, or, put in other terms, matter and energy are the same thing on different scales (e=mc², where "c²" is only a constant that alters the scale but changes nothing more about the relationship between energy and matter), it seems that Joseph's statement about "spiritual matter" ("matter ... more fine or pure") is completely consistent with physics.

Materialists are really "energists". Given that we Saints understand spirit to be matter, too, distinguishing between "materialism" and "immaterialism" is a waste of time and effort and wholly without meaning.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Unfortuneately JS didn't define what he meant by "matter only finer". JS world was one of solid atoms. Einsteins universe was one of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now we talk about even smaller particles of quarks, leptons, antileptons, monopoles, a host of other particles, along with dark matter, and dark energy. There may be "finer" particles, and forces out there, but I have no idea as to what they may be.

[tana]

Since, as Einstein helped us see, matter is the same thing as energy, or, put in other terms, matter and energy are the same thing on different scales (e=mc², where "c²" is only a constant that alters the scale but changes nothing more about the relationship between energy and matter), it seems that Joseph's statement about "spiritual matter" ("matter ... more fine or pure") is completely consistent with physics.

Materialists are really "energists". Given that we Saints understand spirit to be matter, too, distinguishing between "materialism" and "immaterialism" is a waste of time and effort and wholly without meaning.

Lehi

Lehi, thanks for the input.

My understanding is that the materialist-naturalist posits that there is no soul. There is no eternal essence that continues after the physical body cashes in. They would go on to explain that this *sense of self* we have is also illusion, a projection of the brain. All caused by the mindless interaction of non-sentient particles.

The spiritualist/idealist says phooey, mind is primary, mind creates matter, matter is illusion.

But it appears to me that LDS theory has unwittingly joined forces with the materialist, by making mind a product of matter, by claiming spirit has substance.

If *the spirit/soul/consciousness/essence of awareness/I am that I am* has/is/is composed of substance, it must be a product of that substance.

If you were to say that *awareness* is made of/is equal to *one single* machinery-less particle, then I would say fine. But I don't think you are? I think LDS theory is saying the spirit is assembled from many particles. Anything assembled, can be disassembled. Then what? What becomes of the spirit when disassembled or before assembly?

Does this just refer to the spirit body only? I've asked this before in this thread but it was unanswered. Is the essence that enters the spirit body from the "intelligence realm" made of substance also?

I understand that there is no doctrine on whether entities were organized into aware beings, or this was just a pool of unorganized intelligence matter.

To me, it doesn't seem to matter whether each piece/particle of intelligence matter is sentient in and of itself, (but not constituting an entity) or a mindless point in space, to create a unique pattern from smaller pieces and then call it an entity is making it a product of that pattern....which could be disassembled.

To say that we also were in the beginning with god because our pieces were is to me not the intended meaning of the verse.

[altersteve]

Does this just refer to the spirit body only? I've asked this before in this thread but it was unanswered. Is the essence that enters the spirit body from the "intelligence realm" made of substance also?

It may be that it was unanswered because nobody knows. It's a good question, but God hasn't revealed the answer to it yet.

[mfbukowski]

Let’s agree to agree!

With respect to D&C 131:8, only our bodies have to have a level of purity to see that spirit is matter. This tells me that the body has to be quickened or resurrected to a certain degree of glory in order to see this finer matter, and that evidently our spirits don’t have to be pure at all to see it. The more quickened and glorified the body, the more and finer it can see. So both what we can see (matter / existence) and what we cannot see (the immaterial / nothingness), that are real, are the same homogenous stuff, not broken down at all.

The Oath and Covenant describes a "renewing of the body" through righteous living, and there is also this:

89:18

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, ^ashall receive ^bhealth in their navel and marrow to their bones;

I have always thought about that as a partial resurrection.

Judging by the mean age of the leadership, there HAS to be something to that.

Edited March 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

There certainly is!

Edited March 5, 2012 by CV75

[KevinG]

Do you know anything about string theory?

No, but my cat is an expert.

[tana]

How about a compromise then.....A wave is a phenomenon that carries energy thru a medium. A wave does not carry matter. A wave cannot move thru a vacuum.

The news media refers to the various institutions (newspaper offices, television stations, radio stations, etc.) within our society that carry the news from one location to another. The news moves through the media. The media doesn't make the news and the media isn't the same as the news. The news media is merely the thing that carries the news from its source to various locations. Without the news media, news would still exist, we just wouldn't be aware of it

Perhaps the essence of awareness is the wave, the news is the acquired knowledge the awareness is aware of and the spirit body is the media.

[mfbukowski]

No, but my cat is an expert.

LOL

If I said that to my daughter she would say "Daddy- you are just plain BAD!"

[mfbukowski]

How about a compromise then.....A wave is a phenomenon that carries energy thru a medium. A wave does not carry matter. A wave cannot move thru a vacuum.

The news media refers to the various institutions (newspaper offices, television stations, radio stations, etc.) within our society that carry the news from one location to another. The news moves through the media. The media doesn't make the news and the media isn't the same as the news. The news media is merely the thing that carries the news from its source to various locations. Without the news media, news would still exist, we just wouldn't be aware of it

Perhaps the essence of awareness is the wave, the news is the acquired knowledge the awareness is aware of and the spirit body is the media.

Pretty much disagree.

The characterization of whether or not light is a wave or a particle depends on how the question is asked and the data being sought.

Without question, things would happen in the world without the media reporting them, but it would not be what we call "news"

And pretty clearly the media do in fact create the news out of "matter unorganized" by selecting what to report and how to report it. There is no such thing as an objective "reporter" and any news reporter will tell you that.

In the old days they at least tried to be objective- no more.

But anyway, objectivity is only possible really in science because that is the business of science. More accurately, science is our standard for defining the term "objective".

At least in cases where science is NOT objective- inadequate sample size, ambiguous results, etc someone will dispute the results precisely because that individually does not think the results ARE in fact "objective".

Edit: I post this all the time so I don't know if you have seen this- but here is the string theory originator saying that ultimate reality cannot be described:

http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[tana]

Dangit MFB, I think you've gotten yer threads mixed up again. In the "Watercraft" thread things took a turn from literal to metaphor...I tried to do the same thing here referring to media and news metaphorically.....and you took it literal.

I will look at that site when I have a disire to focus attention....as it looks like that is what it might take. Thanks for the link.

[mfbukowski]

Dangit MFB, I think you've gotten yer threads mixed up again.

, Again? I just post what I think about a given post and reply to it- what thread I am on is irrelevant to me- at least that is the way I think it is.

In the "Watercraft" thread things took a turn from literal to metaphor...I tried to do the same thing here referring to media and news metaphorically.....and you took it literal.

You mean you were speaking metaphorically when you spoke of the media? I am totally confused.

I will look at that site when I have a disire to focus attention....as it looks like that is what it might take. Thanks for the link.

I hope you do- I would like to hear your reaction to it. It's Scientific American- not horribly technical! Even I understood it I think!

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[tana]

From a book I read the other day;

One day in the jungle a native fellow finds a working radio, being a clever fellow he knows there isn't a little man inside, and proceeds to dissect the radio to understand what makes it work. Over the course of a few years he figures out everything there is to know about how the circuitry of a radio works.....but he can never figure out why. He has no concept as to the idea that there is an outside signal being picked up by the mechanical unintelligent circuitry.

The wave is the radio signal, animator, the universal awareness. It emanates from everywhere, it is existence. It gives us the understanding to arrange particles as symbols and construct a reality in our minds.

This works for me as it explains many things; brain injury, senility, the lights are on but nobodies home, people unable to pick up a clear signal. I think one could possible look at this paradigm to include all Flora and fauna....I know, very *new age-ish*....but it's sometimes interesting to think about.

[mfbukowski]

From a book I read the other day;

One day in the jungle a native fellow finds a working radio, being a clever fellow he knows there isn't a little man inside, and proceeds to dissect the radio to understand what makes it work. Over the course of a few years he figures out everything there is to know about how the circuitry of a radio works.....but he can never figure out why. He has no concept as to the idea that there is an outside signal being picked up by the mechanical unintelligent circuitry.

The wave is the radio signal, animator, the universal awareness. It emanates from everywhere, it is existence. It gives us the understanding to arrange particles as symbols and construct a reality in our minds.

This works for me as it explains many things; brain injury, senility, the lights are on but nobodies home, people unable to pick up a clear signal. I think one could possible look at this paradigm to include all Flora and fauna....I know, very *new age-ish*....but it's sometimes interesting to think about.

No, that's a pretty good image I think, and we often hear that analogy in conference talks etc!

http://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-church-history/lesson-7-joseph-smith-translates-the-gold-plates?lang=eng&query=radio+spirit

Edited March 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

One day in the jungle a native fellow finds a working radio, being a clever fellow he knows there isn't a little man inside, and proceeds to dissect the radio to understand what makes it work. Over the course of a few years he figures out everything there is to know about how the circuitry of a radio works.....but he can never figure out why. He has no concept as to the idea that there is an outside signal being picked up by the mechanical unintelligent circuitry.

I like the analogy too. While a like the resonance component (such as the one linked by mfbukowski) I don't fully understand the mechanics behind being "in tune" (just the behaviors necessary to be in tune). I don't understand it for many of the same reasons the man didn't understand the radio. He quite simply lacked the necessary understanding of electromagnetic theory to begin to comprehend the radio (if he did, he'd know it was capable and indeed receiving outside signals). Without a basic theory, the radio would always remain untintelligible. Similarly, our physical body is able to communicate with our spirit body. We are in the process of reverse engineering the physical body and the physical brain but we have no understanding whatsoever how the physical body receives spiritual communications. We are in utter lack of a theory about spirit matter. Anyway, that's why I like the analogy.

[mfbukowski]

I like the analogy too. While a like the resonance component (such as the one linked by mfbukowski) I don't fully understand the mechanics behind being "in tune" (just the behaviors necessary to be in tune). I don't understand it for many of the same reasons the man didn't understand the radio. He quite simply lacked the necessary understanding of electromagnetic theory to begin to comprehend the radio (if he did, he'd know it was capable and indeed receiving outside signals). Without a basic theory, the radio would always remain untintelligible. Similarly, our physical body is able to communicate with our spirit body. We are in the process of reverse engineering the physical body and the physical brain but we have no understanding whatsoever how the physical body receives spiritual communications. We are in utter lack of a theory about spirit matter. Anyway, that's why I like the analogy.

I got a ham license not too long ago and a whole new world opened up. My wife laughs at me now because I am always pointing out antennas that I never saw before and telling her what frequency they were probably for according to whether or not there are radials, or if it is a yagi antenna etc. She of course couldn't care less!

So now I am in tune to radio. That analogy works on a couple of levels!

[LeSellers]

I got a ham license not too long ago and a whole new world opened up.

My new (additional) calling is Stake Preparedness Specialist. I'm hoping to have to break down and get a license, too.

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I do not have one already: I spent 21+ years in the USmerican Army Signal Corps, and have forgotten (literally) more about antennae and electricity than our grandson and daughter-in-law (who have their licenses) know now, but it's like the weapons thing: I don't own a pistol or rifle (shotgun, neither), but always qualified expert on the firing range. Just lazy, I guess; lazy and cheap.

Anyway, the Church has a disaster control Ham network, and I need to monitor it Sunday nights. So this (wannabe) radio Ham, performing ham, and ham eater will be doing Ham for the foreseeable future.

Lehi

Edited March 8, 2012 by LeSellers

[mfbukowski]

My new (additional) calling is Stake Preparedness Specialist. I'm hoping to have to break down and get a license, too. I;m a bit embarrassed to admit I do not have one already: I spent 21+ years in the USmerican Army Signal Corps, and have forgotten (literally) more about antennae and electricity than our grandson and daughter-in-law (who have their licenses) know now, but it's like the weapons thing: I don't own a pistol or rifle (shotgun, neither), but always qualified expert on the firing range. Just lazy, I guess; lazy and cheap. Anyway, the Church has a disaster control Ham network, and I need to monitor it Sunday nights. So this (wannabe) radio Ham, performing ham, and ham eater will be doing Ham for the foreseeable future. Lehi

The test is no big deal for the lowest license- the hardest part is putting in the time in class. No morse code is required any more- and you sit in a class which basically explains the test answers so they make some sense to you- then you do a few review exams online and take the test.

Then you spend a couple of hundred bucks and get a mobile radio- I would not recommend a hand held due to power restrictions- you need at least 50 watts (handhelds are typically 5) to make sure that you can get in touch if you happen to be in a fairly remote area or especially in Utah, if you are in a valley, to be able to "hit" a distant repeater. It's all line of sight- 50 watts in a decent location will give you a range of easily 25 to 35 miles- if you are on a mountain top- it could be quite a bit farther.

Then you get to program the radio- I recommend you get some software that will let you plug the thing into your computer- that makes it a lot easier.

It's a good feeling to know that if it all goes down you will still be self-sufficient in emergency communications. We are just too dang dependent on electronics and especially the internet. At least you can get on your radio and yell for help. And today, you can even get your radio to connect to a VOIP telephone if the internet is just out in your area. Theoretically you don't even need a cell phone- just your radio. It's a little tricky to set up, but it is very commonly used

And with a higher license class you can go to HF which will put you in direct contact over a radius of like 400 miles. Without HF, or a repeater network, you are at the mercy of atmospheric conditions to bounce your signals off the ionosphere.

And then there are repeater networks- you get hooked into one of those and you can talk with someone hundreds of miles away using your handheld if you are close to a good repeater.

Anyway, it's pretty cool. But really it is kind of an obsolete technology in non-emergency situations. A lot of guys get all impressed because they spoke to someone in Japan- that really doesn't make so much sense to me when all I have to do is dial my cell phone and do the same!

But in a real emergency it will be the only game in town!

[tana]

I'm curious what you guys think about the "space time fabric". Did it exist before the big bang, and matter expanded into it?

As an overview from an amateur....The moon, for example orbits the earth not because the earth exhibits a pulling force, but because the earth is warping the space time fabric and the moon is caught in it.

Stretch a piece of cloth/fabric in a hoop 10' in diameter, place a bowling ball in the middle and it creates a sag in the middle, roll another ball toward the middle and it changes course as it hits this depression and start to circle the bowling ball. Not because of gravity? Because of some type of friction of the space time fabric? Does anybody have a better grasp of this?

If one removed all the matter from the universe, the fabric would still exist, the fundamental forces would still exist, you just wouldn't be able to measure them.

Anyway, the space time fabric is not made of substance. What is it? MFB, Nofear, Tao, CV....Bueller, anybody?

Perhaps the fabric is the I am awareness, the forces are thoughts and matter is manifestation of the actions.

Edited March 10, 2012 by tana

[Gillebre]

My new (additional) calling is Stake Preparedness Specialist. I'm hoping to have to break down and get a license, too.

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I do not have one already: I spent 21+ years in the USmerican Army Signal Corps, and have forgotten (literally) more about antennae and electricity than our grandson and daughter-in-law (who have their licenses) know now, but it's like the weapons thing: I don't own a pistol or rifle (shotgun, neither), but always qualified expert on the firing range. Just lazy, I guess; lazy and cheap.

Anyway, the Church has a disaster control Ham network, and I need to monitor it Sunday nights. So this (wannabe) radio Ham, performing ham, and ham eater will be doing Ham for the foreseeable future.

Lehi

i'm not sure what the calling is officially known as, but my father was called as the Ward Emergency Preparedness guy. Apparently, it's a calling he's wanted his whole life. lol.

we don't have a ham radio, but i'm glad to know the church has a network for communication in emergencies.

[mfbukowski]

Anyway, the space time fabric is not made of substance. What is it? MFB, Nofear, Tao....Bueller, anybody?

Perhaps the fabric is the I am awareness, the forces are thoughts and matter is manifestation of the actions.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it is made of words. Math in this context is "words" too.

It is made up of the description which works the best to describe the data.

Unfortunately I am not the one to write that description. That's another way to say:

I know it's not a very satisfying answer, but it will always be true. But what might be interesting is the idea that everything we speak about is made up of words. You could say that reality IS words- descriptions of experience.

[Xander]

There's nothing wrong with materialism, and plenty of us Mormons are very proud that our religion has no conflict with science

Evolution is science, and reconciling this with Mormonism's "God is a man" doctrine is becoming more of a problem. According to Evolution, we're still evolving. Ten thousand years from now humans could very well look different from how we appear today. So why does God appear just as humans do at this stage of our evolution? If he created us in his image, then why didn't he appear to Joseph Smith as a hunched over Cro-Magnon? It was "in the beginning" that he created man in his image, right?