Mormonisms Local God

[thesometimesaint]

When you respond, it would be helpful if you placed your response after the point you are responding to. It makes following the conversation (and responding back) much easier. Thanks!

Hmmmm. Mormons are always getting upset at people telling them what they are and what they believe, and yet here you are telling Christians that they are not monotheists. We are monotheists. There is only one God. God said so Himself. I'll take His word for it.

That's my point exactly. If you just point to a verse and say, "it's right here" it doesn't really do much persuading, because I can simply point out that it is your interpretation. It would be more helpful and persuasive if you were to offer arguments.

Ah, which brings up another issue. How can two people ask God which Church is His and come up with two different answers? Obviously one or both of us is wrong. There is more to finding truth than just asking God. We have to ask Him to help us and then we also have to do our own homework and use the gifts of reason and intellect that He created for us to us.

But you're not a Bible only believer. The unique doctrines of the LDS church are not in the Bible. I'll grant that you can point to parts of the Bible that hint upon those doctrines, just as Catholics can do with unique Catholic doctrines.

And let's not forget that the Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church

It's strange -- I feel like I'm talking to a Bible-only Protestant. There are more religious truths than just the Bible. I think we both can agree to that, even if we disagree what those truths are.

He is clearly a distinct Person, not a separate Being.

Well, you're not going to find it in LDS scripture, because the LDS church believes that God is in time and space. As far as communicating with such a being, being outside of time and space does not limit God, it frees Him to be everywhere and every when. All time is the present moment for Him. All space is the present location for Him. He is in all things and through all things. There is nowhere I can point to where God is not.

These concepts may seem new and strange to you, because your religion and theology doesn't think about such things. It also doesn't have mystics and their experiences to try to explain such things. The writings of the Catholic mystics are replete with such descriptions.

I have been asking. But I also have an intellect that I can use to try to put two and two together.

Sure, but what if I were talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the guy I grew up with who now lives in Chicago, and you are talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the president? We might be using the same name, but we are talking about two different people.

So the members can veto the prophet's proclamation of a doctrine? That's interesting... why is that? I don't remember Isaiah saying, "If you all agree with me, then a child will be born unto a virgin"

This makes sense -- we each need to seek the truth. However, whether or not we find it doesn't change the fact that something is true.

By their own admission Christians are not monotheists. The Trinity was a concept that grew out of the charge by the contemporaneous Jews that Christians worshiped more than one God. BTW The Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. It called a Godhead in the Bible. Three individual Gods.

God doesn't say that. He says that there is only one God that we are to worship.

Functionally speaking one or the other is right, or none is right. What is required is revelation from God. The Catholics hold to the Bible and sacred tradition. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't answer the question of is God talking today. The Saints proudly proclaim Yes he is, and he has restored genuine living Prophets of God in that task.

See Ephesians 4:11-14.

11 And he ^agave some, ^bapostles; and some, ^cprophets; and some, ^devangelists; and some, ^epastors and ^fteachers;

12 For the ^aperfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the ^bedifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the ^aunity of the faith, and of the ^bknowledge of the Son of God, unto a ^cperfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more ^achildren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of ^bdoctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

With over some 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone it is hard to see that unity of faith. However it is easy to see being carried about by every wind of doctrine.

The Saints have no problem with doing their homework. In fact we encourage it. There is a condemnation in our D&C for those that do nothing other than ask. We are to use our own best efforts to study it out in our own minds then ask God.

True the Saints have never claimed to be Bible only people. We do have further Scripture than just the Bible, and we rely on living Apostles, and Prophets to help guide the way. But it is a good place to start when searching for commonality with other non LDS Christians. The so called "unique beliefs" of the Saints are at least alluded to in the Bible. However it is true we do go into much more depth than the Bible does.

We commend the Catholics for helping preserve what we have of the Bible.

We love and study the Bible, along with our other Scriptures. Truth is truth no matter where you find it. We commend the Catholics for what truth they do have, and that is a great amount. However we feel that we have more truth than any other Christian sect. Plus we alone have the authority of God to act in his name. Something that was lost to the world before the first Catholics were born.

A distinction without difference.

You believe in mystics, and we believe in Prophets of God. Whom do you think is more correct?

Anything that is not in time and space has no existence. It frees something from existing. If as Christians believe we can talk to God, through prayer, he must be somewhere in order to hear, and hopefully respond to us. This amorphous non entity without body, parts, or passions is an oxymoron right out of neo-platonic philosophy. To give an earthly example There is only one President of the US at a time. But his influence can be felt around the world, and sometimes into succeeding generations.

I never doubted your ability to put two and two together. What we disagree on is highly complex theological and philosophical ideas about the nature and substance of God and his children, us.

That is why I referred to him as President of the US. TTBOMK There has been only one President of the US named William Jefferson Clinton. If you know of another former President of the US named William Jefferson Clinton please let me know.

No we can not veto it. Our sustaining only effects what we are bound by oath to follow. IE; Individually we can believe that Jesus is 6'2" and has eyes of blue. There is no revelation on the subject. So it is permissible under our theology to believe it. Say IF there were to come a revelation that Jesus fit that description, and it was sustained by all. Then that is what we are bound to. Not likely to happen but it is there.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God. So in the absence of further revelation on the subject it is a non issue for the Saints to "vote" on something we already believe.

That is all I have asked of you. To keep and open mind to further light and truth.

[mfbukowski]

For bedtime reading I prefer something I can hold in my hands, if only because a computer screen tends to keep me awake...though I have found out lately reading old Pearls Before Swine and other comics online makes me sleepy after an hour or so.

These days, if I want to read the Catechism I just go to the Vatican site...it's even bookmarked.

If you are having trouble sleeping I would suggest you stay away from computer screens before bed, especially ones which are blue-toned like this one. This is not a very good article, but if you research it, you will find that there have been studies showing that blue light arouses the system and can cause wakefulness. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2744917/

I recently saw a piece which I cannot now find which spoke about a night club which increased their revenue significantly by installing blue lighting, and found that everyone suddenly perked up and stayed later after the blue lights were installed.

I think the theory is that we have evolved to wake up to the morning's blue sky and so blue light stimulates hormones which result in a state of heightened awareness.

I may have messed this up because I am just finding out about it, but you might want to check it out!

Edit:

Here's another better article about it:

Block blue light

Your body has two systems that govern sleep. The first is a sleep homeostat – essentially a gauge that rises as you stay awake and drops while you sleep. Counter-balancing this is the circadian system, which provides an ‘alerting signal’ that oscillates between wakefulness and tiredness, regardless of how long you’ve been awake.

But this alerting signal can keep us awake late at night, and it can even delay the restorative, deep portion of sleep. It can also be influenced by differences in the intensity of light, so with a bit of DIY work, you can attempt to mould this cycle around the pattern of your day.

“Any light suppresses the hormone melatonin, which peaks during the night to make you feel sleepy,” says Dr Simon Archer, a chronobiologist at Surrey Sleep Research Centre. “But it’s actually blue-light receptors in the eye that are responsible for doing that, so light enriched with red will help you fall asleep faster, whereas light enriched with blue will coax you into wakefulness in the morning.” So the ideal bedroom would make use of lights infused with red to wind your circadian system down during the evening, and a blue light that gradually gets brighter to kick start it again in the morning. Time to stock up on those coloured bulbs.

http://sciencefocus....ct-nights-sleep

I guess sunsets are supposed to put us to sleep and blue skies are supposed to wake us up!

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Wasn't intending to make a point, lol. Those were real questions, not rhetorical ones. I wanted to hear an explanation of what contemplating himself meant because it doesn't make sense to me at this point. I assumed it might make sense to someone else though.

It's just an idea from some intermediary other than those we refer to as God. They think God contemplated himself because what else could he possibly do? There wouldn't be anything else for him to see or think about, because he would have been all that there was. Just him, out in nowhere, without any moments in time. It's all just a silly idea that some people confuse with intelligent thoughts.

I agree with you that we can't understand what "outside of space and time" means though we can say what it doesn't mean..."time" or "space". I have to invent a term to describe it...."nonmoment" and can't use terms like "began" to refer to such contemplative experience. It was very frustrating figuring out to to phrase the question to avoid using inappropriate assumptions, Perhaps there is some analogy that can be made that may approximate the meaning...at least as someone else chooses to interpret the phrase.

You can't make sense out of nonsense, no matter how hard you may try.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab

[Calm]

If you are having trouble sleeping I would suggest you stay away from computer screens before bed, especially ones which are blue-toned like this one. This is not a very good article, but if you research it, you will find that there have been studies showing that blue light arouses the system and can cause wakefulness. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2744917/

I know it is absolutely stupid for me to get on the computer at night if I am actually intending to sleep at all. But then I never claimed not to be addicted......I got into the habit prior to being diagnosed when I could not actually sleep at night and was lucky to get a couple of hours during the day. Now I should know better because while there are still allnighters, they are less common and would be a lot less common if i stayed off the computer.

What a shame you have had to get familiar with this stuff. I was learning it in my teens....like I mentioned elsewhere, this is a genetic disorder and I cannot remember ever not having sleep problems, though at the age of 8 or younger you don't really think of them as problems, just that you are different than everyone else in the world for being awake at midnight. I took great comfort in the light from the firestation in the distance as I could assume that meant someone else out there was also awake.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

It's just an idea from some intermediary other than those we refer to as God. They think God contemplated himself because what else could he possibly do? There wouldn't be anything else for him to see or think about, because he would have been all that there was. Just him, out in nowhere, without any moments in time. It's all just a silly idea that some people confuse with intelligent thoughts.

You know, it's one thing to disagree with someone's religious beliefs. It's another to be so flippant and condescending. As a Mormon, I would have thought you'd be more sensitive, since Mormons are on the receiving end of such things regularly (i.e.: "How could anyone be so stupid as to believe that some farmboy used stones to translate a golden book... etc, etc").

There have been and are MANY MANY intelligent people who conceive of God this way.

Perhaps you could just say that you disagree, or that it doesn't seem to make sense to you, and then you wouldn't be insulting people to whom such a belief is a dear.

+ PAX

Edited September 11, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[Ahab]

I know it is absolutely stupid for me to get on the computer at night if I am actually intending to sleep at all. But then I never claimed not to be addicted......I got into the habit prior to being diagnosed when I could not actually sleep at night and was lucky to get a couple of hours during the day. Now I should know better because while there are still allnighters, they are less common and would be a lot less common if i stayed off the computer.

What a shame you have had to get familiar with this stuff. I was learning it in my teens....like I mentioned elsewhere, this is a genetic disorder and I cannot remember ever not having sleep problems, though at the age of 8 or younger you don't really think of them as problems, just that you are different than everyone else in the world for being awake at midnight. I took great comfort in the light from the firestation in the distance as I could assume that meant someone else out there was also awake.

Do you take naps during the day? It's usual for me to go to bed after midnight and wake up at 6am. I don't even try to go to sleep any earlier, because I'm wide awake. Even when I "sleep in" on the weekends, sometimes, I have to try to go back to sleep, and I usually wake up about every 15 minutes until whever I get up later. I do take naps during the day, though, at least sometimes. I'd just rather be awake doing stuff other than sleeping.

[Ahab]

You know, it's one thing to disagree with someone's religious beliefs. It's another to be so flippant and condescending. As a Mormon, I would have thought you'd be more sensitive, since Mormons are on the receiving end of such things regularly (i.e.: "How could anyone be so stupid as to believe that some farmboy used stones to translate a golden book... etc, etc").

Perhaps you could just say that you disagree, or that it doesn't seem to make sense to you, and then you wouldn't be insulting people to whom such a belief is a dear.

+ PAX

I'm not saying you're stupid, or less than intelligent. I'm not saying anything about your character, at all. I'm just commenting on your ideas, In themselves. I'm sure you'd rather hear nothing but praise from me for all of your ideas, but when I see something that doesn't make any sense, I feel it's my duty to say so, especially when I have better ideas to offer instead of anything that refutes what common sense says.

And why should I say those ideas just don't "seem" to make sense? It's not just that they don't seem to, they actually don't.

Common sense tells anyone that if someone or something really exists, it exists both somewhere and at some point in time.

What you say directly refutes what common sense says, though, when you say God does not exist somewhere and yet you say God really exists. Why don't you just embrace the reality that your ideas about "where" God lives just don't make sense, instead of expecting me to see or say that what you say agrees with what common sense is saying?

It's not that difficult for anyone to see what is really going on here, you know. Some people just don't make any sense sometimes while thinking they do, and then they expect to be treated like someone who is making some sense? Why should that be?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab

[Calm]

Do you take naps during the day?.....

These days I sleep when I am sleepy, day or night. I really don't have any other choice, my meds are not that good.

While the typical sleep requirement is 8 to 10 hours a day for adults, there are some that function just fine on as little as 4 and others that need more than 10. If you feel good, have enough energy and are clear of thought and have no other complicating health issues, sleep however works for you in my view. If you are waking up every 15 minutes, chances are the quality of sleep you are getting may end up making you feel worse rather than better.

There are tests to determine if you are sleep deprived, usually measuring how fast you go to sleep but if you have issues with going to sleep in the first place these aren't that handy. For me, speed of sleep onset depends on the time of day I try to sleep, early evening I can usually go to sleep much faster than late evening and night time.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

Common sense tells anyone that if someone or something really exists, it exists both somewhere and at some point in time.

Common sense also tells us that something cannot be two different things at the same time, yet quantum physics tells us that light is a particle and a wave. Common sense tells us that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line yet general relativity tells us that it is actually curved. Common sense tells us that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees yet non-Euclidean geometry tells us that the total angle is always less than 180. Common sense tells us that time "flows" the same for everything yet special relativity tells us that the faster you travel the slower you experience time. Common sense tells us that when two events occur at the same time, they are actually occuring at the same time, yet relativity tells us that simultaneous events only occur because of our perspective based on our speed. Common sense tells us... common sense tells us... common sense tells us much about the world around us, much about "reality," that is just plain false.

An appeal to common sense when dealing with an issue as deep, complex, and mysterious as the ineffable nature of God is missing something, much more than appealing to common sense misses something when dealing with the complexities of modern physics.

What you say directly refutes what common sense says, though, when you say God does not exist somewhere and yet you say God really exists. Why don't you just embrace the reality that your ideas about "where" God lives just don't make sense, instead of expecting me to see or say that what you say agrees with what common sense is saying?

They do make sense, once one has studied and thought and contemplated and talked and studied some more, much like the ideas of modern-day physics make sense the more one tries to understand them.

Ah, I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I just couldn't help myself

[Ahab]

Common sense also tells us that something cannot be two different things at the same time...

What???!!!???

Sheesh, where did you come up with that one? Lots of things are more than one thing, and at the same time.

, yet quantum physics tells us that light is a particle and a wave.

That's only one of the many examples in reality of things that are more than one thing.

Common sense tells us that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line yet general relativity tells us that it is actually curved.

It's still shorter to follow a straight line after you allow for the curve of space, though.

Common sense tells us that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees yet non-Euclidean geometry tells us that the total angle is always less than 180.

Can you use common sense to understand why that would be, though? If it's real (or true) then there is some common sense to explain it.

I have yet to see you do that while saying God is not somewhere and yet he still exists... where? If he exists, he does exist somewhere.

Common sense tells us that time "flows" the same for everything yet special relativity tells us that the faster you travel the slower you experience time.

Slow is still a measure of time, regardless of which way you are going.

Common sense tells us that when two events occur at the same time, they are actually occuring at the same time, yet relativity tells us that simultaneous events only occur because of our perspective based on our speed.

That's a partial explanation of why simultaneous events occur, not a refutation that they are occurring.

Common sense tells us... common sense tells us... common sense tells us much about the world around us, much about "reality," that is just plain false.

True, but everything true can be understood using some common sense, even though things that are false can also make sense.

An appeal to common sense when dealing with an issue as deep, complex, and mysterious as the ineffable nature of God is missing something,

At least it's not missing an appeal to common sense, though.

Sheesh. What a world it would be if common sense wasn't regarded as something important.

They do make sense, once one has studied and thought and contemplated and talked and studied some more, much like the ideas of modern-day physics make sense the more one tries to understand them.

Is this where you're going to try to tell me I haven't thought about it enough to understand it?

Can you at least tell me that I should use some common sense when trying to understand what you're saying?

If you understand it as well as you should before you would believe it, then you should be able to explain it and while using some common sense.

So. try again now:

If God exists, and there a "where" where he is, why can't that "place" where he is be regarded as a "place" with some space that is in it?

Come on now. Give it your best shot, and I'll pay attention.

Ah, I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I just couldn't help myself

Yeah, I know, I have that affect on some people because of some of the things I will tell them.

[thesometimesaint]

Quantum Mechanics makes hash of a lot of conventional physics. It screws with cause and effect. Further a lot depends on how far down that rabbit hole you want to go. But in the everyday world where we actually live it isn't all that important.

Actually light is a electromagnetic wave that acts like a particle under some conditions.

Only in plane geometry(As in two dimensional) is a straight line the shortest distance between two points. A simple ball and a length of string is all this is necessary to prove it.

That's was what I tried to tell my trig teacher. She didn't believe me.

To the larger point. Common Sense isn't very common. IE; We know that atoms are largely empty space, but I don't worry about falling through that empty space when I get up in the morning.

OTOH we are required by God the KNOW the one true God and his Son Jesus the Christ whom he hath sent. We really can't just throw up our hands and claim it is a mystery never to be solved. That is what I believe happened with the formulation of the Creeds. You can come this far and no further.

If God exists outside of time and space there is nothing he can do to effect time and space. And yes I have studied and thought and contemplated and talked and studied some more. It is oxymoronic.

Edited September 11, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

Ah, I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I just couldn't help myself

The lure of the board is irresistible. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

[MiserereNobis]

What???!!!???

Sheesh, where did you come up with that one? Lots of things are more than one thing, and at the same time.

That's only one of the many examples in reality of things that are more than one thing.

It's still shorter to follow a straight line after you allow for the curve of space, though.

Can you use common sense to understand why that would be, though? If it's real (or true) then there is some common sense to explain it.

I have yet to see you do that while saying God is not somewhere and yet he still exists... where? If he exists, he does exist somewhere.

Slow is still a measure of time, regardless of which way you are going.

That's a partial explanation of why simultaneous events occur, not a refutation that they are occurring.

It appears that you are trying to refute me by saying that modern physics is common-sensical. I have a really hard time buying that. Common sense certainly does not tell me that something can be both a particle and wave at the same -- two things that have mutally exclusive properties, such as the fact that you can't split a particle but you can split a wave. Physicists themselves readily say how non-common-sensical physics is. Dr. Brian Greene said himself that it takes physicists about 4-5 years to be unlearn their everyday experiences and become comfortable in the realm of relativity.

Everyday reality simple does not match up to the experience of physics in the micro- or macro-realms. They do not follow our common sense, our common understanding, nor or common experience.

True, but everything true can be understood using some common sense

Ah, yes, which is why we often use analogies and models that appeal to our common sense to explain that which defies common sense. This is very common to do in both physics and theology.

Sheesh. What a world it would be if common sense wasn't regarded as something important.

I didn't say it wasn't important, I'm just saying that there are some things common sense can't understand and can't be used as tool for understanding. For example, math is important, but it's not very useful to try writing a literary analysis essay using only math.

Is this where you're going to try to tell me I haven't thought about it enough to understand it?

I have no idea if haven't though about it enough to understand it. I don't know how much time you've spent on the subject, nor how many experts you've read or consulted. I could point you some directions, if you'd like. They don't even have to be Catholic books. Heck, they don't even have to be Christian books. The idea of a being existing outside of time and space is found in other religions, too, such as Hinduism and many tribal religions. Philosophers have thought long and hard about the ideas as well.

So. try again now:

If God exists, and there a "where" where he is, why can't that "place" where he is be regarded as a "place" with some space that is in it?

Come on now. Give it your best shot, and I'll pay attention.

The problem is that you are asking the same question and I have only the same answer to give. You are assuming that existence requires a "where." You are getting stuck in language ("common sense") that is based on our everyday experience. We have to use language in creative ways to understand something beyond time and place because our language has no real concepts for it, just like we have to use models for things in physics because our experience gives us no basis for understanding. Physicists are lucky that they have mathematics as a language to describe things that are really undescribable. Theology often uses paradox to do the same. Thus the famous statement that God is a circle is center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Obviously that statement, taken at face value, is a logical contradiction, a paradox. But it is meant to be taken figuratively, to try to point beyond itself to something that cannot be stated in language.

Mystics always agree that the mystical experience is ineffable and cannot be explained in language, only hinted at, and that often paradox is the best way to go about it. Some of the greatest Catholic mystics (St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing) say things like: "God is a darkness so bright that He blinds us until we can see." Yes, that is a paradox, but somewhere within the paradox are the seeds of a truth that must be intuitively grasped.

So, there is no "where" where God is. His center is everywhere and his circumference is nowhere. He is transcendent, beyond space, and immanent, in space. He is not bound by space nor time, but He is the creator of both, the ruler of both, the sustainer of both. He existed before time and place.

Would you like some recommendations on standard/classic books to read on this subject?

Yeah, I know, I have that affect on some people because of some of the things I will tell them.

Well, honestly, this is a subject that has intrigued me for years and years, so I enjoy discussing it. However, some subjects are better suited for discussion over a beer, errr coffee, errr Pepsi, errr glass of water (heh) than over the internet.

[Calm]

Lots of things are more than one thing, and at the same time.

I suspect what was meant was that something cannot be two contradictory things at the same time.

add-on: I see that I was right.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Actually light is a electromagnetic wave that acts like a particle under some conditions.

The light has to come from somewhere which is made of some particles. The light that comes from the sun, for example. Waves and particles.

Only in plane geometry(As in two dimensional) is a straight line the shortest distance between two points. A simple ball and a length of string is all this is necessary to prove it.

I'm not sure if I'm visualing what you're talking about. How can a ball and string show the shorterst distance isn't between 2 points?

That's was what I tried to tell my trig teacher. She didn't believe me.

I don't believe you either, right now, but if you'll explain it while using some common sense I will try.

To the larger point. Common Sense isn't very common. IE; We know that atoms are largely empty space, but I don't worry about falling through that empty space when I get up in the morning.

That's because I know the particles in the floor are enough to support me.

OTOH we are required by God the KNOW the one true God and his Son Jesus the Christ whom he hath sent. We really can't just through up our hands and claim it is a mystery never to be solved. That is what I believe happened with the formulation of the Creeds. You can come this far and no further.

I can't even come as far in their direction as some of them have now gone. I think they went the wrong way and without using some common sense.

If God exists outside of time and space there is nothing he can do to effect time and space.

I can't even remotely consider the idea of him existing in some place outside of time or space. Where would that be, and when? Sounds like nowhere and at no time to me. As if he were just as idea in their own imaginations. I can see how some kind of God could be nowhere at any time, just not any real God that really exists in reality.

And yes I have studied and thought and contemplated and talked and studied some more. It is oxymoronic.

Agreed.

[Calm]

It appears that you are trying to refute me by saying that modern physics is common-sensical. I have a really hard time buying that.

I suspect if it was commonsensical it wouldn't need such complicated mathematics to describe it.

[MiserereNobis]

Quantum Mechanics makes hash of a lot of conventional physics. It screws with cause and effect. Further a lot depends on how far down that rabbit hole you want to go. But in the everyday world where we actually live it isn't all that important.

True, it doesn't affect us directly, but as we go down that rabbit hole we realize that our common sense and our common perception of reality based on our day-to-day experiences cannot help us understand what is going on very well at all. That was my point.

Actually light is a electromagnetic wave that acts like a particle under some conditions.

Hmmm, I'm not sure physics agrees with you here, unless you mean it is a probability wave, which seems to be the best model that physics can come up with to describe the fact that photons, electrons, etc, act like waves when we treat them like waves or act like particles when we treat them like particles.

Only in plane geometry(As in two dimensional) is a straight line the shortest distance between two points. A simple ball and a length of string is all this is necessary to prove it.

Sure, but our everyday experience of distance *appears* to be plane, so we all just assume, based on common sense, that the shortest distance is a straight line. As an aside, the definition of a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, so a line that appears to be curved can actually be considered straight if it is the shortest distance between the two points. That is how you can have "straight" parallel lines that approach each other and yet never intersect.

An excellent example of how language and common every day experience can make things seem non-sensical that are actually true.

That's was what I tried to tell my trig teacher. She didn't believe me.

Ha! Those math teachers

OTOH we are required by God the KNOW the one true God and his Son Jesus the Christ whom he hath sent. We really can't just throw up our hands and claim it is a mystery never to be solved.

Catholicism does not claim that the we will never understand the mystery of God. When we are in the Beatific Vision in Heaven we will know and love Him. However, His mystery is too great for us to understand know. It's all about humility -- we have to be humble enough to realize that our miniscule minds cannot fully comprehend a Being who is ontologically different from us and so far beyond us.

Surely Mormons don't believe that you can completely understand the nature of your god? We don't even understand all that much, comparatively speaking, in the natural world. How could we fully understand the nature of the architect of the universe?

That is what I believe happened with the formulation of the Creeds. You can come this far and no further.

The Creeds are the starting point, the signposts, the map. They let us know where to search and contemplate.

If God exists outside of time and space there is nothing he can do to effect time and space. And yes I have studied and thought and contemplated and talked and studied some more. It is oxymoronic.

Yes, it is meant to be oxymoronic and paradoxical. See my post above about paradox and theology and mystical experience.

[MiserereNobis]

The light has to come from somewhere which is made of some particles. The light that comes from the sun, for example. Waves and particles.

No, light comes from a "packet of energy" (a quantum) being released. That quantum acts just like a particle AND just like a wave, depending on how one looks at it. It is two contradictory things at the same time, and what it is appears to be determined by how we look at it. It really is mindboggling and incredibly counter-intuitive.

I think they went the wrong way and without using some common sense.

If physicists had stuck to common sense, then we'd never have modern physics.

I can't even remotely consider the idea of him existing in some place outside of time or space. Where would that be, and when?

It is nonsensical to ask where and when a being is who exists outside of time and space. You're asking for answer that cannot be given. You're dividing by 0.

I can see how some kind of God could be nowhere at any time, just not any real God that really exists in reality.

You've assumed that to exist you must be somwhere and somewhen. You have appealed to common sense as the evidence for this assumption. I am trying to show that common sense is not always right -- in fact, when things get deep and complicated, such as in modern physics, it is often wrong. I am trying to show that your assumption, based on common sense, is therefore weak.

[Calm]

Surely Mormons don't believe that you can completely understand the nature of your god? We don't even understand all that much, comparatively speaking, in the natural world. How could we fully understand the nature of the architect of the universe?

You might have missed what I said in an earlier post in regards to this specific question:

This is not to give the impression that LDS believe we can know it all in the here and now, some things will have to wait until we have grown past our mortal understandings. (see my signature; also, I am not saying mfb was implying anything else, I was just adding a little more content to what he was saying for clarity's sake).

Do Catholics believe that the mysteries of God will ever be understood by men postresurrection?

BTW, thanks for answering my question even if you missed it before.

I do not believe we will fully know the nature of God until we become one with him as it promised in the Atonement (which I am certain I have also said once before today, but it is easier to simply rewrite it than to go looking for it).

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

You might have missed what I said in an earlier post in regards to this specific question:

I do not believe we will fully know the nature of God until we become one with him as it promised in the Atonement (which I am certain I have also said once before today, but it is easier to simply rewrite it than to go looking for it).

Ah, yes, I missed it. Sorry. I seem to be having multiple conversations at once on this thread

[Calm]

It is easy to do, especially if someone replies while you are composing your own reply which is then placed at the bottom and it appears to whatever that is keeping track of what you have 'read' and what you haven't that you have read them when you might not. I almost always try to go back to what I was responding to and reading on from there to cover posts that I might have missed.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

It appears that you are trying to refute me by saying that modern physics is common-sensical.

Yes. Once you understand it, you can use commnon sense to explain it. If you couldn't, it wouldn't make sense and therefore wouldn't be true.

I have a really hard time buying that.

It's free for the taking. You don't have to buy it.

Common sense certainly does not tell me that something can be both a particle and wave at the same -- two things that have mutally exclusive properties, such as the fact that you can't split a particle but you can split a wave.

Wow, where do you get these ideas?

Any particle can be split, somehow, even if only into half of what it was before it was split. A particle is something real, you know. How can you imagine something real which can't be split into pieces?

Physicists themselves readily say how non-common-sensical physics is.

Sillly physicists. If it didn't make sense then it would be nothing but a bunch of silliness.

Dr. Brian Greene said himself that it takes physicists about 4-5 years to be unlearn their everyday experiences and become comfortable in the realm of relativity.

All you have to do is use some imagination without thinking about whether or not it is true first.

I'm pretty good at using my imagination. I just think it's important ot realize there's a difference between reality and imagination.

Everyday reality simply does not match up to the experience of physics in the micro- or macro-realms. They do not follow our common sense, our common understanding, nor or common experience.

Perhaps they should consider some of that non-sensical stuff to be just imagination rather than reality. That would make at least a little bit of sense.

Ah, yes, which is why we often use analogies and models that appeal to our common sense to explain that which defies common sense. This is very common to do in both physics and theology.

So one point for me on this point? Show your approval at the ballot box, please.

I didn't say it wasn't important, I'm just saying that there are some things common sense can't understand and can't be used as tool for understanding.

Like nonsense, for example? I already know I can't use common sense to understand that.

For example, math is important, but it's not very useful to try writing a literary analysis essay using only math.

Right. That wouldn't be using some common sense.

I have no idea if haven't though about it enough to understand it. I don't know how much time you've spent on the subject, nor how many experts you've read or consulted. I could point you some directions, if you'd like. They don't even have to be Catholic books. Heck, they don't even have to be Christian books. The idea of a being existing outside of time and space is found in other religions, too, such as Hinduism and many tribal religions. Philosophers have thought long and hard about the ideas as well.

When I want to understand the truth about something I find it works best for me to look for an explanation that uses some common sense and then ask God if it's true. He's already told me that's he's out there somewhere, though, both now and in the past, and that he'll also be somewhere out there in the future, so I don't expect him to refute what he's already told me.

The problem is that you are asking the same question and I have only the same answer to give. You are assuming that existence requires a "where."

Yes, otherwise "where" would it be? If something is real, it must exist in reality, and all of reality is made up of some place.

You are getting stuck in language ("common sense") that is based on our everyday experience.

I'm not the one who is stuck, from my perspective. You're the one saying God exists and yet that he doesn't exist somewhere. That doesn't make sense.

We have to use language in creative ways to understand something beyond time and place because our language has no real concepts for it, just like we have to use models for things in physics because our experience gives us no basis for understanding.

Do you realize that some things in physics are just in someone's imagination, without any corresponding point in reality? They come up with all sorts of possibilities that maybe somehow are true, and yet they don't consider every option they can think of as true. It's just foder until they can come up with the option that is true, possibly from among one of their possibilities they have thought of, and possibly from some other possibility they havne't even thought about yet. They do try, though. They don't want to leave out any possibility for research because maybe that one will be the truth.

It's just a bunch of guys and gals trying to keep themselves busy trying to discover the truth, mainly. Plus a lot of them just enjoy doing that sort of thing.

Physicists are lucky that they have mathematics as a language to describe things that are really undescribable.

Yes, but a lot of mathematics is just "imaginary" and not real, either. The fact that they can think of something logical doesn't mean that it's true.

Theology often uses paradox to do the same. Thus the famous statement that God is a circle is center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Obviously that statement, taken at face value, is a logical contradiction, a paradox. But it is meant to be taken figuratively, to try to point beyond itself to something that cannot be stated in language.

I try to avoid using nonsense to understand God and where he might be. Why use ideas that don't make any sense?

Mystics always agree that the mystical experience is ineffable and cannot be explained in language, only hinted at, and that often paradox is the best way to go about it. Some of the greatest Catholic mystics (St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing) say things like: "God is a darkness so bright that He blinds us until we can see." Yes, that is a paradox, but somewhere within the paradox are the seeds of a truth that must be intuitively grasped.

I would try to use better words to try to make the same point, words that can be easily understood while using some common sense, otherwise I would expect people to have trouble understanding what I am saying.

So, there is no "where" where God is. His center is everywhere and his circumference is nowhere. He is transcendent, beyond space, and immanent, in space. He is not bound by space nor time, but He is the creator of both, the ruler of both, the sustainer of both. He existed before time and place.

Try to use better words to explain yourself. You're not helping anyone by saying he is nowhere and yet he is "in space". If he really is in space, then he is somewhere in space, even if you don't know which particular part of space he is in.

[Calm]

Once you understand it, you can use commnon sense to explain it. If you couldn't, it wouldn't make sense and therefore wouldn't be true.

If you can actually manage to do this, you have it made. I can't think of an university that wouldn't want you to come in and lecture to its students.

[Ahab]

No, light comes from a "packet of energy" (a quantum) being released. That quantum acts just like a particle AND just like a wave, depending on how one looks at it. It is two contradictory things at the same time, and what it is appears to be determined by how we look at it. It really is mindboggling and incredibly counter-intuitive.

I used the sun, in our solar system, as an example of light which is both a bunch of particles and waves.

You seem to be saying, No, the sun is not a source of light, and the particules in the sun don't count as a light source. Rather, the light we see from the sun comes from a packet of energy being released.

Wel, here I am to say that without the particles that the sun is made of there would be light for you to see in those packets of energy. Thus, the light source we call the sun is both a collection of particles as well as a collection of waves. it isn't one or the other. It is both.

If physicists had stuck to common sense, then we'd never have modern physics.

Heh, you really should be a comedian.

It is nonsensical to ask where and when a being is who exists outside of time and space. You're asking for answer that cannot be given. You're dividing by 0.

You're the one presupposing, it seems to me. You're the one offering the argument that a being can exist without existing somewhere. What evidence do you see of that in all of reality? Pointing to evidence you can see of God's existence would not be enough. Your mission, if you have chosen to accept it, is to show how God or any other kind of being can exist without existing somewhere. Good luck with that one.

You've assumed that to exist you must be somwhere and somewhen.

No, I've told you repeatedly that is not an assumption. I'm basing that on what God tels me, plus what I can see of all beings I have seen in reality. I've never seen any kind of being in existence that doesn't exist somewhere and somewhen. You're the one with no evidence for the kind of being you are defining as God, and you expect me to believe that stuff because you are saying so? Not only do you have no evidence, but you never will, because if I were to see God that would immediately refute your testimony. I would be seeing him somewhere, and somewhen, in time and space.

You have appealed to common sense as the evidence for this assumption. I am trying to show that common sense is not always right -- in fact, when things get deep and complicated, such as in modern physics, it is often wrong. I am trying to show that your assumption, based on common sense, is therefore weak.

I thought you agreed that all truth can be understood while using some common sense, even if only in an analogy.

Apparently I was wrong about that, as well as some other things I once believed about you.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

If you can actually manage to do this, you have it made. I can't think of an university that wouldn't want you to come in and lecture to its students.

Maybe you better give me a test run. Can you think of something I understand that I wouldn't be able to explain using some common sense?