shalamabobbi Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I was going to say something, but was too chicken to participate.I clucked in disapproval at this post.I went to KFC..
shalamabobbi Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Just one question for Ahab. Keepin' it simple.Ring Specieshttp://en.wikipedia....ki/Ring_speciesThe species at the ends of the ring are two distinct species(cannot interbreed). So we have two species where at some point in the past there was only one species. Does this not violate your view of these forms of life simply existing forever?Or do you subscribe to the idea that the entire ring with their peculiar adaptations to their niche environments on planet earth has existed from all eternity?
Calm Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Clearly and unfortunately, which is why you and Ahab and zerinus have nowhere to go to determine what is LDS doctrine and what is not...Save God....and isn't anything that brings us to seek out God first and foremost a blessing, not a misfortune?
Calm Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 If it had a beginning it would have to end.This is not true for everything. The set of natural numbers begins at either 1 or 0 depending on how it is defined, but never ends.
Nemesis Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Ahab stop questioning the faithfulness of others. You are out of the thread.Nemesis
Stargazer Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I haven't followed this thread all the way through, and my time is limited, so I can't, really.But I just wanted to say that when as a youth I believed in a steady-state Universe that had always been there, it seemed like atheism was easier to believe in, so to speak. Now that we know how old the Universe is, and know that at the moment it was created it was smaller than an electron, it seems to me now to be absolutely impossible to believe in atheism. Others feel differently, of course, and I understand.But, when it comes to turtles all the way down, in this universe at least eventually we run out of turtles. Like about 15 billion years ago.But what about outside of this universe? It is completely undefined, and science and physics can say nothing about it. That, I believe, is where you will find the Father. And His Father? I don't know and I don't care.
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I once thought maybe God made chickens from a part of his own DNA or something like that, wiith all forms of life coming from some part of his actual being, but later I saw that they are another form of life (intelligence) apart from him and our kind of being. They too have seeds within themselves to perpetuate their own kind of being, just as every other kind of life does.Great! So we now have chicken Gods and frog Gods every species of Gods imaginable. LOL! Have you tried working as a script writer for Hollywood?
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Doh!I guess there will always be some people who think God can make something from nothing, or a chicken without any eggs.Just because they believe that doesn't mean it's true, though.Yeah, and just because some people believe in the infinite regression of Chickens and Eggs, that does not make it true either. Not sure which is crazier, making something out of nothing, or infinite regression of Chickens and Eggs (or shall we say, Chicken-Gods and Egg-Gods---LOL!
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Ahab, the god you seem to be describing is bound by physical laws.The God I believe in is not bound by natural laws. LDS scripture teaches that He created all things "by the power of his Spitit," which is not the same thing as by natural laws.Do you believe in miracles? The God I believe in could easily create a chicken without an egg, or create matter were there was none before, if He so desired.I believe in miracles. God is omnipotent; but that does not mean that He can do anything. He could not have created Himself for example. He could not make a stone so heavy that He could not lift it Himself.
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Interesting. So for LDS, a miracle is just an event which cannot be currently explained? This actually helps me understand much. Then again, is this official doctrine? Ah, that bugger of a question Our scripture teaches that God creates all that He does by the "power of His Spirit," which must include His miracles; but how that is done is not revealed. I don't believe we can call it "by natural law".
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Yes, but do you know what miracles are? The fact that God can do things we can't do now doesn't mean he's operating outside the parameters of physics.I believe that God created the laws that govern the universe, including the laws of physics; and can operate outside of them if He chooses to.
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Clearly and unfortunately, which is why you and Ahab and zerinus have nowhere to go to determine what is LDS doctrine and what is not...We certainly do---or at least, I do. We call it the standard works.
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I haven't followed this thread all the way through, and my time is limited, so I can't, really.But I just wanted to say that when as a youth I believed in a steady-state Universe that had always been there, it seemed like atheism was easier to believe in, so to speak. Now that we know how old the Universe is, and know that at the moment it was created it was smaller than an electron, it seems to me now to be absolutely impossible to believe in atheism. Others feel differently, of course, and I understand.I don't believe God created the universe out of a Big Bang.
Bernard Gui Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I was already aware of that.Have it your way, then.
mfbukowski Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Have it your way, then.Why does that phrase make me want a cheeseburger?
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Have it your way, then.Does that mean you agree with what I said?
The Nehor Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) This is not true for everything. The set of natural numbers begins at either 1 or 0 depending on how it is defined, but never ends.I meant this statement only in relation to things literally beginning and ending, not in a figurative sense. Numbers do not begin or end. They just are. Edited September 22, 2012 by The Nehor
thesometimesaint Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I don't believe God created the universe out of a Big Bang.In science the Big Bang is a well accepted fact. You can believe that you can jump out of an high altitude plane without a parachute and that the angels will gently glide you down to earth. I wouldn't count on it, but you are entitled to believe it.
ERayR Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 In science the Big Bang is a well accepted fact. guess You can believe that you can jump out of an high altitude plane without a parachute and that the angels will gently glide you down to earth. I wouldn't count on it, but you are entitled to believe it.
TAO Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Thesometimessaint, the Big Bang is a well supported hypothesis, not a fact. It's the best hypothesis we have for the moment. But we have very little idea what existed before, most of the guesses about it are complete theorywork.In addition, I think Zenirus's statement was fine. After all, we have no idea what is outside of this universe (though it makes sense to believe there is stuff out there). For all we know, God's work could be bigger than the universe we are in (or it might not be).In any case, I am pretty confident that time has always existed. Why? Because time is change, and you can't change something from an unchanging state to a changing state without already having a changing state, if you know what I mean. A place with no change couldn't persay... 'get started', I think. Then again, I am totally guessing here. But yeah... I don't think the Big Bang started time... perhaps a partition of a larger piece of time, but I tend to doubt it started all forms of time that ever existed. Edited September 22, 2012 by TAO
Bernard Gui Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Why does that phrase make me want a cheeseburger? My friend Howard went into a Burger King and asked if he could have a Big Mac his way.
Bernard Gui Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Does that mean you agree with what I said?Not necessarily. I was taken aback by your facile dismissal of an official declaration of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12. Edited September 22, 2012 by Bernard Gui
thesometimesaint Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 TAO:Thesometimessaint, the Big Bang is a well supported hypothesis, not a fact. It's the best hypothesis we have for the moment. But we have very little idea what existed before, most of the guesses about it are complete theorywork.In addition, I think Zenirus's statement was fine. After all, we have no idea what is outside of this universe (though it makes sense to believe there is stuff out there). For all we know, God's work could be bigger than the universe we are in (or it might not be).In any case, I am pretty confident that time has always existed. Why? Because time is change, and you can't change something from an unchanging state to a changing state without already having a changing state, if you know what I mean. A place with no change couldn't persay... 'get started', I think. Then again, I am totally guessing here. But yeah... I don't think the Big Bang started time... perhaps a partition of a larger piece of time, but I tend to doubt it started all forms of time that ever existed.The Big Bang is a Theory that fits all the known facts.We have no idea as to what, if anything, came before the Big Bang. It is an oxymoronic statement to claim that there was a time before time existed.Guesses aren't theories, and theories aren't guesses. In order to establish a theory experiments are conducted to provide evidence. No evidence no theory. At a certain point all the known evidence points to a conclusion based on that evidence. If evidence is produced that the previous evidence can't support. The Theory must be modified or rejected. As to the Big Bang Theory we have no evidence that points to a different theory.According to Brigham Young "I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth," he remarked "for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for the truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood".Time is understood as not just of change, but as the logical sequence of events. No events, no time. IF there was a time before time we have no way of measuring or knowing anything about it. It truly is an oxymoron. I'm fine with my belief in God, and his abilities. In science we can not impose the Supernatural; pertaining to God, on the Natural; existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.I don't know if the Big Bang started all time, but we can say that it started time in our universe. That borders on the Supernatural, and a different discussion entirely.
ERayR Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 TAO:The Big Bang is a Theory that fits all the known facts.We have no idea as to what, if anything, came before the Big Bang. It is an oxymoronic statement to claim that there was a time before time existed.Guesses aren't theories, and theories aren't guesses. In order to establish a theory experiments are conducted to provide evidence. No evidence no theory. At a certain point all the known evidence points to a conclusion based on that evidence. If evidence is produced that the previous evidence can't support. The Theory must be modified or rejected. As to the Big Bang Theory we have no evidence that points to a different theory.According to Brigham Young "I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth," he remarked "for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for the truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood".Time is understood as not just of change, but as the logical sequence of events. No events, no time. IF there was a time before time we have no way of measuring or knowing anything about it. It truly is an oxymoron. I'm fine with my belief in God, and his abilities. In science we can not impose the Supernatural; pertaining to God, on the Natural; existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.I don't know if the Big Bang started all time, but we can say that it started time in our universe. That borders on the Supernatural, and a different discussion entirely.I am willing to let the sciences do what they do and to enjoy the fruits of their labors. To give credit where due and respect their work. What I am not able to do is to accept all pronouncements as irrevocable facts, especially in the areas of creation. Theories are guesses. Informed guesses but guesses all the same. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted but I do not believe it is universally accepted. I don't know enough physics to argue the science but I have a few personal philosophical issues that keep me from becoming a blind follower of the concept. I don't look at it as an issue that affects my eternal salvation at this time so I am content to be a big bang agnostic.
zerinus Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Not necessarily. I was taken aback by your facile dismissal of an official declaration of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.What answer do you have to the scriptures I had cited showing Jesus as the creator of our spirits? Edited September 22, 2012 by zerinus
Recommended Posts