Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[supersnail]

Scientific apologetics, like apologetics in general, is aimed at pointing out holes in reasons for disbelief. Belief isn't based mainly on scientific apologetics, though. To suggest that God must be proved by available scientific theories and empirical data, or he doesn't exist, is to misunderstand what kind of god God is: a real one, not an idol.

For reasons that can be obtained from the philosophy of science itself (besides multiple causation, I have alluded to underdetermination, and holism is also relevant), no scientific theory can be appropriately used to rule out even a naturalistic influential God. Does that mean the claims of Mormonism are necessarily true from an assumedly objective standpoint? No, but it does suggest that Mormonism and science aren't incompatible.

That isn't quite what the non-overlapping magisteria view (NOMA), associated with Stephen Jay Gould, states, but like NOMA, it is a very reasonable position, and I would argue that it is already accepted in practice by many Christians. If atheists would put more effort into actually increasing knowledge of scientific theories and spend less time attacking religion, there would be less misunderstanding. Obviously, anti-theists and certain creationists are in conflict, but science and religion aren't.

There is no question that Dawkins is scientifically literate. But what he says about religion isn't supported by any scientific theory or scientific theories in general. His claims about religion and science are meta-scientific and inherently involve philosophical questions that are more complicated than Dawkins often portrays.

Edited August 8, 2012 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

Scientific apologetics, like apologetics in general, is aimed at pointing out holes in reasons for disbelief. Belief isn't based mainly on scientific apologetics, though. To suggest that God must be proved by available scientific theories and empirical data, or he doesn't exist, is to misunderstand what kind of god God is: a real one, not an idol.

For reasons that can be obtained from the philosophy of science itself (I have alluded to underdetermination, and holism is also relevant), no scientific theory can be appropriately used to rule out even a naturalistic influential God. Does that mean the claims of Mormonism are necessarily true from an assumedly objective standpoint? No, but it does suggest that Mormonism and science aren't incompatible.

That isn't quite what the non-overlapping magisteria view (NOMA), associated with Stephen Jay Gould, states, but like NOMA, it is a very reasonable position, and I would argue that it is already accepted in practice by many Christians. If atheists would put more effort into actually increasing knowledge of scientific theories and spend less time attacking religion, there would be less misunderstanding. Obviously, anti-theists and certain creationists are in conflict, but science and religion aren't.

There is no question that Dawkins is scientifically literate. But what he says about religion isn't supported by any scientific theory or scientific theories in general. His claims about religion and science are meta-scientific and inherently involve philosophical questions that are more complicated than Dawkins often portrays.

Agreed.

Another aspect of this is that there are major logical problems in a physicalist approach which claim the equivalence of statements about brainstates observed in third person language with first person statements about what is being experienced.

Science has shown for example that happily married couples various portions of the brain associated with pleasure and feelings of attachment and calmness "light up". One might make the claim from this data that this "proves that love is that definable brainstate" (ie: in principle one could define the exact areas stimulated and the exact hormonal and or electrical changes associated with love).

Indeed we may one day be able to chart those areas with precision and know exactly what is happening in the brain in those moments.

But is that the same as the experience of "love"? Not by a long shot!

As Nagel points out in the article in my siggy, there will always be something left out of the description of the experience if one is restricted to descriptions of brain states. In fact, as I posted earlier, even the most precise definition of the brainstate associated with the sound of a trumpet does not in fact describe the sound of a trumpet.

Logically as well, a third person statement or proposition cannot be made logically equivalent to a first person statement when that statement describes an experience.

When Bukowski says "I am in love" that statement can never be made logically equivalent to a statement like "Bukowski's xyz cortex is generating hormone abc which is also stimulating zone cde. One is a first person statement and the other is a third person statement and they each are made from different points of view.

Additionally I think there is a problem with causation. One might be tempted to say that the brainstate "causes" the experience or that even the experience "causes" the brainstate- either statement is equally problematic.

Suppose you are walking down a trail and suddenly from nowhere in front of you is a grizzly bear on it's hind legs ready to attack.

Without a doubt, hormones are surging and a host of reactions are occurring in your body and you are experiencing something we call "fright".

But did the hormones cause the feeling or did the feeling cause the hormones or did the grizzly bear cause both?

And is the bear attacking because he is hungry or because you startled him? What is going on there? What is the "cause" of all this activity? Did the cause start with my decision to go for a walk, or with my parents allowing me to be born? Why not their grandparents?

In such a case it is clear, at least to me, that it really doesn't matter much which one we pick- what is happening is a dynamic reaction between physical and phenomenological events and how we describe them really depends on what our purposes are.

The way a scientist might describe what is happening would be very different from the way a novelist describes it, and in fact it would vary from person to person, each noticing different details according to their personal proclivities. An animal psychologist would describe it differently than a chemist would, and a writer for a hunting magazine would describe it differently than a poet, who would describe it differently than a 17th century Native American.

But which account would be the "right one"? Which would "correspond to reality" better?

It all depends on our point of view and what we want to do with that description.

Edited August 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith:

I have no problem with God using evolution as the method of creation.

True we do sidestep the issue, but I don't believe it is due to life coming from elsewhere. That just puts the issue further back in time. According to Scripture God took some dirt of this earth and made man out of that. I view that Scripture as poetic license. We're actually much closer to ancient sea water.

Yes, and some even say that sea water flows in our veins. According to the Brethren, going further than mere poetic license, the Creation story of Adam & Eve is figurative and elemental -- used for dramatic effect.

In the not too distant past there was a significant controversy, and lots of hard feelings at BYU on the issue of Evolution. By the time I went and Bro. Oaks was President of the school. He had pretty much put a lid on most of it. Though there will probably always be some disagreements between the Religion Dept, and the Biology Dept.

Yes, the Brethren have also had to step in and make it clear that this is not an area of legitimate controversy. Part of the problem was lack of sophistication in Religious Education at BYU (there is not actually a Department)., which was regrettable. However, the current Dean of Religious Education has a B.S. in botany and a PhD in Archaeobotany. He also speaks Hebrew (I have heard him do so) and has an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies.

[Alvino]

Scientific apologetics, like apologetics in general, is aimed at pointing out holes in reasons for disbelief. Belief isn't based mainly on scientific apologetics, though. To suggest that God must be proved by available scientific theories and empirical data, or he doesn't exist, is to misunderstand what kind of god God is: a real one, not an idol.

OK, look at the reasons people give you for believing in God. The reasons they give are most of the time about feelings they had that they believe were caused by a heavenly beings or they think the complexity of the universe and the world make it rather clear that there was a Creator, etc. If these reasons are seriously put into doubt, do you think people can still believe in the Christian God or in the Mormon God? I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt it. If good reasons (not "proof", that's naive) are not necessary for God to exist (there could exist a completely unknown God), it is at least necessary for people to believe in Him.

By the way, the biggest Christian Church in the world, the Catholic Church, believes we can reason from created beings to God's existence with certainty through reason alone. Brave position, don't you think?

For reasons that can be obtained from the philosophy of science itself (I have alluded to underdetermination, and holism is also relevant), no scientific theory can be appropriately used to rule out even a naturalistic influential God.

Only very uneducated people on the subject attempt to. For example, trying to measure the effect of Mormon blessings in the sick would be a pretty easy thing to do, but if God did decide to act in only a few cases where the patients would get cured, this influence is too small for it to be of any statistical significance. What we can do is to say that God's influence has been very negligible give the size of the population and make the case against God totally weak or implausible. Please raise your level of conversation here and stop thinking that people like me want to PROVE (as in Mathematics) that God doesn't exist with science. That's just too naive to be of any interest.

Does that mean the claims of Mormonism are necessarily true from an assumedly objective standpoint? No, but it does suggest that Mormonism and science aren't incompatible.

That isn't quite what the non-overlapping magisteria view (NOMA), associated with Stephen Jay Gould, states, but like NOMA, it is a very reasonable position, and I would argue that it is already accepted in practice by many Christians. If atheists would put more effort into actually increasing knowledge of scientific theories and spend less time attacking religion, there would be less misunderstanding. Obviously, anti-theists and certain creationists are in conflict, but science and religion aren't.

Going to heaven and bodily resurrection, are these doctrines part of science or part of religion or neither? It doesn't seem to be a part of science (although what we know about biology and physics make it VERY implausible that someone would have resurrected 2000 years ago). It also doesn't seem to be a part of what you call "religion" here because these things are not strictly about ultimate meaning.

You see, think of the difference between philosophy and religion with regards to approaches to "the meaning of life" and "moral value". It isn't like religion is, under Gould's NOMA, reduced to philosophy. This is because religion offers a bunch of statements like "God loves you" or "God has a body of flesh and bones" or "God works miracles" or "The Priesthood can cure the sick", etc.

All this to say that if you want a peace treatise between religion and science of the type you talk about, then it seems like you would leave a LOT of religious beliefs behind (which I would be glad to say is good). The type of "religion" you think isn't in conflict with science is very very little of what constitutes most religions.

There is no question that Dawkins is scientifically literate. But what he says about religion isn't supported by any scientific theory or scientific theories in general. His claims about religion and science are meta-scientific and inherently involve philosophical questions that are more complicated than Dawkins often portrays.

I agree but I still do think there is plenty of value in people like Dawkins of Hitchens in that they get their hands dirty in addressing the popular masses when philosophers and theologians are too quick to forget what the pious in the street actually believes. They focus more on the very bad social consequences of religious beliefs. I see what they do as performing an integral part in the transformation of society from an angle crude enough to wake the pious out of their "dogmatic slumber".

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

I wasn't using the word Dept. in any formal way. But like in a Department store. One store, many different areas, for different products.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

You seem to have this really deep need to want to think we came from some kind of lower being, instead of our kind of being just always being in existence, along with all other kinds of beings, while we are the superior kind. I like my ideas better, and I think my ideas are more consistent with revelations God has given, but I know you are free to think whatever you want to think.

In science, what we see is evidence that some kinds of beings have some things in common with some other kinds of beings. I see no evidence that proves one kind of being gave rise to another kind. One theory I've seen, which is similar to your theory I think, is that God used his DNA (or whatever we would call it) to create all other kinds of beings, with even the lowest form of life getting at least something from God's essence.

I realize that there are different ways of creating things, though, so it's not necessary that God be the ultimate origin of all kinds of life in existence, but I still think God has at least something to do with how everything is and in a way there's a connection between all that exists everywhere. For creatures not capable of transporting themselves through space there needs to be someone or something to get them from place to place if they're really going to be fruitful and multiply without any limits in the universe among their own kind.

I have no problem with God being the father of my spirit, and my earthly parents being the parents of my physical body. At least on this earth there is absolutely no evidence that man has always been here. You want to disprove evolution? It is easy to do so, and you don't have to rely on the Supernatural to do so. All it takes is a shovel, and an accurate means of recording what you dig up. Are you up to the challenge? Now just go dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your find.

Did God just say the equivalent of alakazam and everything was created some 6000 years ago? If you find such a belief necessary for you to believe in God. Then the science of biology really isn't going to be of much use to you. However if God used a logical process to achieve a logical end. Then science works, and God remains God instead of some master magician trying to deceive children.

As I have no idea as to what Gods' DNA would look like, anything is possible. However as we have no examples of non Gods that are immortal, and without the need to do mortal functions. It is rather impossible prove using science.

Like any idea you want. God has given me no such revelations. A long time ago I had the idea that I could walk right through solid brick walls, but as I kept hitting my nose on the bricks. I had to give up the idea that I could walk through bricks. However I have no problem with God being able to do so. Supernatural events really are beyond the ability of science for a Natural explanation.

True but irrelevant to the Supernatural. That is not what evolution says. All that evolution says is that when all living(at least those with more than one cell) organisms reproduce there are slight variations. That these variations accumulate over time in isolated populations. That given enough time those living organism will be unable to reproduce with the parent population.

I have no way of knowing what that "essence" is. Let alone what evidence of that "essence" would look like.

Sure God COULD have done it anyway he liked. But there is no evidence that he did so. Further it seems to me a waste of time and resources to transport creatures(living and dead including us) from a distant planet, outside of our solar systems, when everything he needed was already here in abundance.

Edited August 8, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[shalamabobbi]

What I find interesting about this board is the variation in understanding about LDS views. I wasn't aware of the latitude that existed within the church previously.

My understanding was that God the father had a father and so did not always have a physical body. That we all began without a physical body and that God was the most intelligent of all.

I know that some believe in infinite regression and make the remark that we simply can't comprehend this reality here in mortality. But then what right do we have to criticize the belief in a trinity if that is the case?

Anyhow as a convert I missed the infinite regression teaching. Didn't get it at church, institute, or know your religion. Would someone kindly correct this hole in my education with a reference please. My first CFR. Also has this infinite regression been the subject of any threads? If so could someone point me to one. Thanks.

[thesometimesaint]

We have no doctrine as to infinite regression of Gods. However it is a logical conclusion given the King Follett Discourse

[shalamabobbi]

We have no doctrine as to infinite regression of Gods. However it is a logical conclusion given the King Follett Discourse

Ok, I'll have re-read that. Thanks.

[Ahab]

Sure God COULD have done it anyway he liked. But there is no evidence that he did so.

What kind of evidence do you expect to find concerning the "origin of species" if all kinds of beings have always existed, somewhere, and what God does is help them to be fruitful and multiply?

Further it seems to me a waste of time and resources to transport creatures(living and dead including us) from a distant planet, outside of our solar systems, when everything he needed was already here in abundance.

Uh, are you forgetting the fact that this planet was void before God filled this planet with all kinds of creatures?

There is no evidence to suggest that all things have always been here. Where did you come up with that theory?

[Ahab]

What I find interesting about this board is the variation in understanding about LDS views. I wasn't aware of the latitude that existed within the church previously.

Heh, you're barely scratching the surface here, bud. And I hope you also realize that many anti-Mormons think they understand LDS views.

My understanding was that God the father had a father and so did not always have a physical body.That we all began without a physical body and that God was the most intelligent of all.

If by "physical" you're referring to a body beyond a spirit body, then yes that is right, but also realize a spirit body is composed of matter so in that sense it is also physical. And yes God, as a kind of being, is more intelligent than all other kinds of beings.

I know that some believe in infinite regression and make the remark that we simply can't comprehend this reality here in mortality. But then what right do we have to criticize the belief in a trinity if that is the case?

We can be critical without being rude, and it's good to critique all issues when we're looking everywhere for the truth.

And by the way, The Trinity isn't all that hard to understand, and neither is an infinite regression of any kind of being. For the latter all you need to do is get it out of your head that at some point there was ever a first of a kind, generally speaking. On this planet there was a first, but not in the universe.

Anyhow as a convert I missed the infinite regression teaching. Didn't get it at church, institute, or know your religion. Would someone kindly correct this hole in my education with a reference please. My first CFR. Also has this infinite regression been the subject of any threads? If so could someone point me to one. Thanks.

Search for a thread using the key words "King Follett". Some say it's not doctrine, but the Holy Spirit can tell you it is true.

[Calm]

What I find interesting about this board is the variation in understanding about LDS views. I wasn't aware of the latitude that existed within the church previously.

My understanding was that God the father had a father and so did not always have a physical body. That we all began without a physical body and that God was the most intelligent of all.

I know that some believe in infinite regression and make the remark that we simply can't comprehend this reality here in mortality. But then what right do we have to criticize the belief in a trinity if that is the case?

Anyhow as a convert I missed the infinite regression teaching. Didn't get it at church, institute, or know your religion. Would someone kindly correct this hole in my education with a reference please. My first CFR. Also has this infinite regression been the subject of any threads? If so could someone point me to one. Thanks.

Perhaps this will help: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Infinite_regress_of_Gods

And found a discussion as well:

This one touches on it a bit:

Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[shalamabobbi]

And by the way, The Trinity isn't all that hard to understand, and neither is an infinite regression of any kind of being. For the latter all you need to do is get it out of your head that at some point there was ever a first of a kind, generally speaking. On this planet there was a first, but not in the universe.

Um.. yeah.. except that this universe definitely had a beginning. Stars burn out. The result of that is the consumption of lighter elements and the creation of more middle weight elements. Radioactive elements created in supernovas etc disintegrate to middle weight elements. Once this conversion of matter is finished the universe is too. At least there is no more fuel for stars.

It's not like rainwater on earth with a complete cycle to create more.

Or are you of the mindset that God picks them apart again in secret in some dark corner of space-time?

And if we are not accepting evolution we have a contradiction. For now we must compress all the diversity of the genome (just talking humans here) into what? 4,000 years (going with Noah and a global flood). That is super evolution far beyond what is possible by any naturalistic mechanism.

Or are you postulating that God comes down and changes the DNA from parent to child rather in an abrupt fashion that would make the accepted evolutionary rate look like stasis?

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

What kind of evidence do you expect to find concerning the "origin of species" if all kinds of beings have always existed, somewhere, and what God does is help them to be fruitful and multiply?

Uh, are you forgetting the fact that this planet was void before God filled this planet with all kinds of creatures?

There is no evidence to suggest that all things have always been here. Where did you come up with that theory?

What type of evidence would I expect to find if all creatures have always existed? I would expect to find their remains evenly distributed in the various layers of the dirt. They are not. So I can only surmise that they have not always existed, at least in the physical world.

That any creature that is not immortal must reproduce for that specie to survive. But I have no problem with God knowing that and acting accordingly.

There is no world in this solar system that can support life as we know it. So it seems a waste of time and resources to transport creatures, both living and dead, to a planet that has all the resources already present.

Void of what, structure, mass? Those things had to come from somewhere. The very Iron in your blood that allows you to breath the oxygen you need to live, both came from long ago exploded stars. They weren't transported here from another planet. Void of life? Never doubted that for a moment. I just don't believe in a God who must transport creatures, both living and dead to my planet for life to exist.

There are only three options on the table.

1. God used evolution to create every living thing.

2. God transported every living thing from another planet.

3. Every living thing was already here.

So let's look at all three premises.

1. God used evolution to create every living thing. Works within science, though science by definition can not impose any God, and is compatible with LDS Theology.

2. God transported every living thing from another planet. Not supportable by science or by LDS Theology

3. Every living thing was already here. There is no physical evidence for such a statement, and plenty against, and can not be supported by LDS Theology.

Edited August 8, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

What type of evidence would I expect to find if all creatures have always existed? I would expect to find their remains evenly distributed in the various layers of the dirt. They are not. So I can only surmise that they have not always existed, at least in the physical world.

Whatever you find on this planet doesn't tell you much if anything about what is on other planets, so even if all creatures have always existed you might not find any evidence of them on this planet. Like when this planet was void, for example. And when they were brought here they were brought here in staggered stages, rather than all at once, so you still wouldn't find them evenly distributed.

That any creature that is not immortal must reproduce for that specie to survive. But I have no problem with God knowing that and acting accordingly.

Not necessarily. If a species consisted of only two of each kind and those two were immortal, that species could continue to survive indefinitely even if those two never produced any offspring.

There is no world in this solar system that can support life as we know it. So it seems a waste of time and resources to transport creatures, both living and dead, to a planet that has all the resources already present.

This planet couldn't support life as we know it until God made it fit for what he later put on it, in stages. What makes you think it would be a waste of time and resources to bring creatures and plant life here once it was ready and could support all that life?

... and if God could make this planet fit for life and bring life to it, what makes you think he couldn't take some from here and put them on another planet, like he brought life here from another planet?

Void of what, structure, mass? Those things had to come from somewhere.

Void of life, as I understand it, and yes that life did come from somewhere and they were brought here by "kind".

The very Iron in your blood that allows you to breath the oxygen you need to live, both came from long ago exploded stars. They weren't transported here from another planet.

I believe God started out with either a single chunk or mulitple chunks of mass, probably composed of many kinds of matter, and at that time this planet was void of all life, as we know it. Who are you to say the planet wasn't part of some other planet, or combined from other chunks of mass, which was transported to this part of space by God?

Void of life? Never doubted that for a moment. I just don't believe in a God who must transport creatures, both living and dead to my planet for life to exist.

He doesn't have to do that for life to exist. If nothing else life could exist on one planet and continue to live on that one planet forever, or as long as that planet remained and could support their existence. I think he thinks it's nice to have a variety of life on a planet, though, and if that life isn't here, there is nothing to stop him from bringing life to it after making it a fit place for them to live.

There are only three options on the table.

1. God used evolution to create every living thing.

2. God transported every living thing from another planet.

3. Every living thing was already here.

Let's look at all three premises.

Okay, and then we can just ask God and believe what he says.

1. God used evolution to create every living thing. Works within science, though science by definition can not impose any God, and is compatible with LDS Theology.

It depends on what version of evolution you are thinking about, I suppose. God tells us there was no death on this planet before the "fall" of Adam and Eve, and when they "fell" that was a step down, in terms of the type of various kinds of life here, rather than a step up.

2. God transported every living thing from another planet. Not supportable by science or by LDS Theology.

Think again, bud. There is nothing in LDS theology to contradict the idea, and if it can't be ruled out, then it is supported.

3. Every living thing was already here. There is no physical evidence for such a statement, and plenty against, and can not be supported by LDS Theology.

Well, it's a good thing neither of us accepts that one. We both agree here.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Ahab

[shalamabobbi]

Perhaps this will help: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Infinite_regress_of_Gods

And found a discussion as well:

This one touches on it a bit:

Thanks Cal,

post 61 by Walker was interesting on the first thread..

Pretty much as I remembered it. Lightbearer's position was what I took to be the "official" doctrine of the church growing up. But that is possible without an infinite regression in the same way creatures can reproduce after their kind without it being in conflict with evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

Whatever you find on this planet doesn't tell you much if anything about what is on other planets, so even if all creatures have always existed you might not find any evidence of them on this planet. Like when this planet was void, for example. And when they were brought here they were brought here in staggered stages, rather than all at once, so you still wouldn't find them evenly distributed.

Not necessarily. If a species consisted of only two of each kind and those two were immortal, that species could continue to survive indefinitely even if those two never produced any offspring.

This planet couldn't support life as we know it until God made it fit for what he later put on it, in stages. What makes you think it would be a waste of time and resources to bring creatures and plant life here once it was ready and could support all that life?

... and if God could make this planet fit for life and bring life to it, what makes you think he couldn't take some from here and put them on another planet, like he brought life here from another planet?

Void of life, as I understand it, and yes that life did come from somewhere and they were brought here by "kind".

I believe God started out with either a single chunk or mulitple chunks of mass, probably composed of many kinds of matter, and at that time this planet was void of all life, as we know it. Who are you to say the planet wasn't part of some other planet, or combined from other chunks of mass, which was transported to this part of space by God?

He doesn't have to do that for life to exist. If nothing else life could exist on one planet and continue to live on that one planet forever, or as long as that planet remained and could support their existence. I think he thinks it's nice to have a variety of life on a planet, though, and if that life isn't here, there is nothing to stop him from bringing life to it after making it a fit place for them to live.

Okay, and then we can just ask God and believe what he says.

It depends on what version of evolution you are thinking about, I suppose. God tells us there was no death on this planet before the "fall" of Adam and Eve, and when they "fell" that was a step down, in terms of the type of various kinds of life here, rather than a step up.

Think again, bud. There is nothing in LDS theology to contradict the idea, and if it can't be ruled out, then it is supported.

Well, it's a good thing neither of us accepts that one. We both agree here.

So God for whatever reason saw fit to make this earth with exclusive nonstandard means? Mountains that just form because God said let there be mountains. Rivers just form because God said let there be rivers. What type of deceiving magician do you believe in?

What void? So when did this staged transport happen? Has it stopped? Why is there no evidence for that transport?

Please give me a non supernatural example of an immortal non reproducing creature that lives on this planet.

Please give me an non supernatural example of that transport.

Please give me an non supernatural example of that transport.

Separate creationism has been disproved.

So God destroyed other planets. transported the remains here, arranged all the evidence that shows a gradual evolution. Just so he could appear as a deceiving magician. That some God you believe in.

[zerinus]

2. God transported every living thing from another planet. Not supportable by science or by LDS Theology.

Think again, bud. There is nothing in LDS theology to contradict the idea, and if it can't be ruled out, then it is supported.

If that be true, it raises a question about man. Was man also transported from another world or planet, or did God created him in one piece here on earth? Depending on how that question is answered, it raises further serious theological questions.

[mfbukowski]

What I find interesting about this board is the variation in understanding about LDS views. I wasn't aware of the latitude that existed within the church previously.

My understanding was that God the father had a father and so did not always have a physical body. That we all began without a physical body and that God was the most intelligent of all.

I know that some believe in infinite regression and make the remark that we simply can't comprehend this reality here in mortality. But then what right do we have to criticize the belief in a trinity if that is the case?

Anyhow as a convert I missed the infinite regression teaching. Didn't get it at church, institute, or know your religion. Would someone kindly correct this hole in my education with a reference please. My first CFR. Also has this infinite regression been the subject of any threads? If so could someone point me to one. Thanks.

Lorenzo Snow's couplet-

"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

[Ahab]

So God for whatever reason saw fit to make this earth with exclusive nonstandard means?

I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase. Exclusive nonstandard means? What would be the standard means, do you think? And what do you mean by exclusive? The idea that he "let it be" may mean he didn't do anything to hinder what might occur on it's own, by the forces and powers within something itself. It doesn't necessarily mean there was already a lower kind of life on this planet that everything else evolved from, though, and it also doesn't mean he didn't bring some kind of life to this planet.

Mountains that just form because God said let there be mountains.

Mountains that form because there are forces within a planet that cause the plates in the planet to rise, and he let that happen. Who knows, maybe the planet didn't have a core or magnetic energy and he did do something to create a core within our planet, but it's also possible that it was already within the chunk of mass he used to form or reshape our planet.

Rivers just form because God said let there be rivers.

Ugh. Do I really need to explain why rivers form from melting snow or rain? Who knows, he may have stopped snow from accumulating, or water from evaporating and then fall as rain, or maybe there was no water here to begin with and he had to do something to create water molecules on this planet, but whatever was happening, he could have stopped it, but instead he may have just let it be.

What type of deceiving magician do you believe in?

Heh, the type that seems to want me to try to figure things out on my own, at least a little bit, before he tells me or confirms the truth to me.

What void?

I already told you I think he was referring to this planet having no life before he started creating. I thought you understood and accepted that already.

So when did this staged transport happen?

"In the beginning", referring to the beginning of this planet before he started creating on it.

Has it stopped?

Have you seen any shuttle crafts bring creatures to this planet, or maybe some kind of worm hole bringing them here? I havn't, but I'm not necessarily ruling out they still come here.

Why is there no evidence for that transport?

Maybe we don't need to know now? I don't know. That doesn't mean there was never a transport, though.

Please give me a non supernatural example of an immortal non reproducing creature that lives on this planet.

You're just playing with me now, just for fun, huh.

How about Adam and Eve... wait, nope, they ate that fruit so they're not living here anymore. That doesn't mean there weren't here before, though.

Please give me an non supernatural example of that transport.

What makes a transport supernatural? Are you talking about a transport like God would have created? What would make that supernatural? The fact that God made it, or caused it to be made? Is that all it takes to make something supernatural, in your perspective?

Please give me an non supernatural example of that transport.

Did you realize you typed that twice?

Separate creationism has been disproved.

What does that mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

So God destroyed other planets, transported the remains here, arranged all the evidence that shows a gradual evolution. Just so he could appear as a deceiving magician. That some God you believe in.

Planets get destroyed all the time, but there's nothing to prove God destroys them. There are plenty of pieces floating around out there in space, and I think he just uses what is out there, maybe because nobody else is using it.

... and you're the one superimposing your ideas about some kind of evolution of life. I think you're just reading the evidence wrong.

[mfbukowski]

If that be true, it raises a question about man. Was man also transported from another world or planet, or did God created him in one piece here on earth? Depending on how that question is answered, it raises further serious theological questions.

I have noticed multiple times that you do not seem familiar with the endowment. Adam is the only being created from the "dust of the earth" in that account.

[Ahab]

If that be true, it raises a question about man. Was man also transported from another world or planet, or did God created him in one piece here on earth? Depending on how that question is answered, it raises further serious theological questions.

Serious, yes, but there's nothing wrong with being serious, and I'm thankful we've already been told those answers.

[zerinus]

Serious, yes, but there's nothing wrong with being serious, and I'm thankful we've already been told those answers.

It doesn't answer my question though. Was Adam also transported from another planet, or did God create him in one piece here on earth?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Technically speaking, Kerry, no human senses are objective. They are all personal.

At any rate, there is more evidence for spiritual sensibility in humans than there is for, say, string theory--for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, even though it may be true.

Interesting as usual Bill, the problem here as I see it is this "spirituality" that has evidence has absolutely none as it is claimed coming from God. Neuroscience has demonstrated that all the "spirituality" is in our own brains. Postulating a God for such naturalistic occurrences is entirely subjective with not one iota of evidence either for GOd, or for God being the reason for said "spirituality." All the experiences of spirituality can be explained using Occam's Razor as naturalistic occurrences in our brains. THIS in fact most certainly does have an enormous amount of evidences of expermentation and validation and justification. Science, thanks to its advances, now certainly does have the ability to literally test the efficacy of prayer (the actual tests that have been properly scientific have shown prayer fails miserably, no surprise), and that said "spiritual feelings" certainly can now be tested scientifically. Everything claimed as coming from God from somewhere now has obvious natural explanations with no ad hoc arguments having to be added on for apologetic purposes which fail in light of actual scientific verification today.

[Ahab]

It doesn't answer my question though. Was Adam also transported from another planet, or did God create him in one piece here on earth?

I'm tired of always being the one to stick up my hand around here. Pick on somebody else for a change.

Er, wait, no, I'll go ahead and answer. It's probably just easier this way.

He was transported, or he transported himself, from another planet, in his spirit body, entering the "other" body created for him by his (and our) Father in the garden of Eden. I say "other" because I can't say mortal, because his "other" body was an immortal body, unlike ours when we do that, which is mortal.

Don't ya know? We're all aliens from another planet.