The Kolob Theorem

[SamIam]

Sam I am, I can't parse your posts. I can guess at what you mean, but it would be just that, a guess.

Maybe you are conflating the discipline of science with scientists? Since science does not deal with issues of faith it is mute upon that subject. It is not a requirement to be a theist to become a scientist and there are some scientists who are theists of one stripe or another.

If some imaginary religion of the world teaches that men have one less rib than women and science proves it wrong, where does the fault lie?

Tony Roma's?

[shalamabobbi]

no, here..

[SamIam]

Sam I am, I can't parse your posts. I can guess at what you mean, but it would be just that, a guess.

Maybe you are conflating the discipline of science with scientists? Since science does not deal with issues of faith it is mute upon that subject. It is not a requirement to be a theist to become a scientist and there are some scientists who are theists of one stripe or another.

Points to parse from.

1.) Science, as most things is benign. We are agreed that it's disciplines and it methodologies cannot place emphasis on cause if it cannot prove the cause. However, the most significant conversation of merit about science, when discussed in a religious forum is how it affects an individual’s faith in God. Sure science can be defined according to the process, but because of the human variable it is seldom only about process.

2.) I am conflating for the point that I think that it is necessary in order to address the ramifications of the type of reasoning that builds upon the plausible deniability of the scientific case. Everyone has their personal filter and from time to time it taints the science to some degree. It is not realistic to deny the human element for the textbook definition of what science is and does.

3.) My perspective. Everything is about God. When it is obvious that God is a part of the human element of science in the discussions of individual scientist’s that would deny God, the very act of claiming science invalidates Him should indicate a subversive element exists that is not scientific. Who then is the ultimate source of that subversive element? Is the inability to prove God equally applicable to the inability to prove Satan? Of course it is but as LDS shouldn’t we be able to have that discussion and at least wonder upon the correction of a serious anti-science problem in scientific endeavor. The point being the anti – God bias has become so prominent for some of the most respected minds that it has now become the filter for creating scientific hypotheses and bad science – I’m thinking mostly of Dawkins but there is a list more.

This is the juncture that is the aspect of my thoughts. Where science fails to be scientific to a scientist but to the vast majority of the world it is perceived as a scientific endeavor by the credibility of the scientific voice that speaks. Shouldn’t science want to preserve its integrity and decry this abuse of science? That is part of what I am hinting at.

4.) I am not a scientist as you are (I guess, I’m taking Marks word on it…) and I am only a marginal intellect, but I do understand spiritual matters reasonably well. If I was a solely interested in discussions that did not consider the religious element there are a multitude of forums for that conversation. It seems, by default that in this religious forum we are speaking of subjects as they relate to LDS theology and not just the discipline independent of religious overtones.

5.) This is not just an exchange of information. I genuinely care for people’s spiritual health. In my zeal I may come off fanatical, extreme, myopic, etc but really it is just that I am passionate about the necessity of placing God first in our lives, as there is an extreme of self denial going on from virtually every venue of life. We can see living examples from individuals who have posted on this board over the years and you can actually watch their spiritual decline from a point where there was a God to the point that they have been finally consumed by a mode of thinking that did not admit God and so they converted to the science God or absence thereof. That is a very serious condition in my opinion and it is not limited to just one individual.

You as a scientist are a product of the rigors of your profession which may also simply be a natural alignment for your gift set. As such you may tend to look at life from a scientists perspective. This perspective is not conducive to believing in God. You do not appear to have put near as much emphasis on developing your faith, judging by several factors. I believe part of the reason you don’t parse me well is because practically all of your commentary on this board is rational scientific perspective when the subject will carry it and the only genuinely religious commentary is religious sarcasm or derisive of religious idiocy that does not match your scientific reality or ignoring it entirely. Most of my posting is in support of religious principles that you outright deny or raise the cynical scientists critique for its perceived absurdity. In other words the strength of your talents is not in religious exegesis and you make light of religious implications because it is not an area of true significance to you.

In my effort to overcome the limitations of language I am trying to give you as much perspective as possible as that will help in parsing my posts if you understand the perspective which underscores everything I write.

[shalamabobbi]

more green eggs and ham..

1. OK, I think.

2. What is the plausible deniability of the scientific case?

Everyone has their personal filter and from time to time it taints the science to some degree.

Could you provide a specific example of what you mean by this?

It is not realistic to deny the human element for the textbook definition of what science is and does.

What grade level are you referring to?

3.

Everything is about God.

This is meta physics not science. Science is not about God. This is a category error.

as LDS shouldn’t we be able to have that discussion and at least wonder upon the correction of a serious anti-science problem in scientific endeavor.

Again I'm guessing you mean anti-God problem rather than anti-science problem here?

And what would you suggest? A requirement that all would-be scientists be baptized LDS before receiving a degree?

anti – God ... has now become the filter for creating scientific hypotheses

Really? I don't think so.

Shouldn’t science want to preserve its integrity and decry this abuse of science?

Shouldn't we get rid of the use of monetary currency since some use it to pay for hookers?

4.

subjects as they relate to LDS theology and not just the discipline independent of religious overtones.

Except that in this case the subject is independent of those overtones. What people make of the subject may not be however.

[shalamabobbi]

green eggs and ham continued..

5.

you can actually watch their spiritual decline from a point where there was a God to the point that they have been finally consumed by a mode of thinking that did not admit God and so they converted to the science God or absence thereof.

Which is why the false dichotomy doesn't work in the long run. Which is why we as a church were far better off back in the days of David O McKay and James E. Talmage before we grafted in a fundamentalist proposition from protestantism.

You as a scientist are a product of the rigors of your profession which may also simply be a natural alignment for your gift set. As such you may tend to look at life from a scientists perspective. This perspective is not conducive to believing in God.

Say what? Then why do I believe in God? Why does

believe in God.

You do not appear to have put near as much emphasis on developing your faith

They are not a self-conflicting set of activities for me. They harmonize perfectly.

I believe part of the reason you don’t parse me well is because...

I am literate.

I post mainly to science topics since I have something to contribute there. I am concerned for the well being of church members who for a large part accept pseudo-science as a support for their faith and what that does to those who by their diligence in study discover the weaknesses in that scaffolding.

I do not post many

since I don't know enough about history to know whether they are total bunk or if they are plausible. I do not wish to add to the problem of placing people's faith upon an incorrect foundation.

derisive of religious idiocy

Your words not mine but that is what passes for much of religion these days..

that does not match your scientific reality or ignoring it entirely.

Yes, because in my world reality is not self-contradictory.

Most of my posting is in support of religious principles that you outright deny

A specific example would be helpful here as I am not in the least opposed to religious principles but I may be opposed to what you may perceive or believe to be such.

you make light of religious implications because it is not an area of true significance to you.

You presume too much. False religious implications, yes. True no.

Edited September 29, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

Points to parse from.

1.) Science, as most things is benign. We are agreed that it's disciplines and it methodologies cannot place emphasis on cause if it cannot prove the cause. However, the most significant conversation of merit about science, when discussed in a religious forum is how it affects an individual’s faith in God. Sure science can be defined according to the process, but because of the human variable it is seldom only about process.

2.) I am conflating for the point that I think that it is necessary in order to address the ramifications of the type of reasoning that builds upon the plausible deniability of the scientific case. Everyone has their personal filter and from time to time it taints the science to some degree. It is not realistic to deny the human element for the textbook definition of what science is and does.

3.) My perspective. Everything is about God. When it is obvious that God is a part of the human element of science in the discussions of individual scientist’s that would deny God, the very act of claiming science invalidates Him should indicate a subversive element exists that is not scientific. Who then is the ultimate source of that subversive element? Is the inability to prove God equally applicable to the inability to prove Satan? Of course it is but as LDS shouldn’t we be able to have that discussion and at least wonder upon the correction of a serious anti-science problem in scientific endeavor. The point being the anti – God bias has become so prominent for some of the most respected minds that it has now become the filter for creating scientific hypotheses and bad science – I’m thinking mostly of Dawkins but there is a list more.

This is the juncture that is the aspect of my thoughts. Where science fails to be scientific to a scientist but to the vast majority of the world it is perceived as a scientific endeavor by the credibility of the scientific voice that speaks. Shouldn’t science want to preserve its integrity and decry this abuse of science? That is part of what I am hinting at.

4.) I am not a scientist as you are (I guess, I’m taking Marks word on it…) and I am only a marginal intellect, but I do understand spiritual matters reasonably well. If I was a solely interested in discussions that did not consider the religious element there are a multitude of forums for that conversation. It seems, by default that in this religious forum we are speaking of subjects as they relate to LDS theology and not just the discipline independent of religious overtones.

5.) This is not just an exchange of information. I genuinely care for people’s spiritual health. In my zeal I may come off fanatical, extreme, myopic, etc but really it is just that I am passionate about the necessity of placing God first in our lives, as there is an extreme of self denial going on from virtually every venue of life. We can see living examples from individuals who have posted on this board over the years and you can actually watch their spiritual decline from a point where there was a God to the point that they have been finally consumed by a mode of thinking that did not admit God and so they converted to the science God or absence thereof. That is a very serious condition in my opinion and it is not limited to just one individual.

You as a scientist are a product of the rigors of your profession which may also simply be a natural alignment for your gift set. As such you may tend to look at life from a scientists perspective. This perspective is not conducive to believing in God. You do not appear to have put near as much emphasis on developing your faith, judging by several factors. I believe part of the reason you don’t parse me well is because practically all of your commentary on this board is rational scientific perspective when the subject will carry it and the only genuinely religious commentary is religious sarcasm or derisive of religious idiocy that does not match your scientific reality or ignoring it entirely. Most of my posting is in support of religious principles that you outright deny or raise the cynical scientists critique for its perceived absurdity. In other words the strength of your talents is not in religious exegesis and you make light of religious implications because it is not an area of true significance to you.

In my effort to overcome the limitations of language I am trying to give you as much perspective as possible as that will help in parsing my posts if you understand the perspective which underscores everything I write.

But do you realize that ever aspect of what you post is totally conditioned by your Neoplatonic underpinnings? The way you speak the way you think is totally Platonic. You are programmed that way by your culture.

One cannot even determine what "cause" means without Aristotelian logic- and the entire notion of "First Cause" is dependent on that whole idea.

Hume effectively showed how that concept is a total confusion- way back in the 18th century.

I don't mean to be hard on you- you are obviously an incredibly intelligent guy to even be thinking the way you do. All I am trying to do is to show you that others have thought similar thoughts before- many times and there have been various responses to them. There is a context for all of this, of which you do not seem to be aware.

And that is fine as well. None of us know everything, and it requires some humility to post here and a willingness to be taught. But what I think is not fine is that you will not even examine the possibility that there is another way to look at all this

And you persist, I think, in thinking that those who do not share your particular understanding are in some way Godless and do not put God at the center of their lives. I wish you could follow me around for one day- virtually everything I do centers on my faith; and even when I am doing routine chores etc, I am thinking about these issues.

My perspective. Everything is about God

Welcome to the club.

5.) This is not just an exchange of information. I genuinely care for people’s spiritual health. In my zeal I may come off fanatical, extreme, myopic, etc but really it is just that I am passionate about the necessity of placing God first in our lives, as there is an extreme of self denial going on from virtually every venue of life.

Welcome to the club.

And most of the problem is based in the idea that science has something to do with God and can prove his existence by the silly logic of notions like "First Cause".

When one uses ancient arguments one does not glean credibility, and in fact it presents a primitive image to those who recognize those arguments for what they are. I have no problem with the faith of young earth creationists- for all I know frankly God could have organized the universe in 6 days and made it look like he did it over billions of years. That is entirely possible.

But there are other possibilities as well and since we cannot know what method he used, we had better at least be able to argue and understand the most sophisticated arguments out there so we do not look like country bumpkins

After all, the world will tell you, as it does in the Broadway musical, that "Mormons just BELIEVE" the most crazy sounding silliness.

I think that that view of the church is damaging and I am dedicated to fighting that view. If you aren't, that is your business.

[mfbukowski]

5.

Which is why the false dichotomy doesn't work in the long run. Which is why we as a church were far better off back in the days of David O McKay and James E. Talmage before we grafted in a fundamentalist proposition from protestantism.

Say what? Then why do I believe in God? Why does

believe in God.

They are not a self-conflicting set of activities for me. They harmonize perfectly.

I am literate.

I post mainly to science topics since I have something to contribute there. I am concerned for the well being of church members who for a large part accept pseudo-science as a support for their faith and what that does to those who by their diligence in study discover the weaknesses in that scaffolding.

I do not post many

since I don't know enough about history to know whether they are total bunk or if they are plausible. I do not wish to add to the problem of placing people's faith upon an incorrect foundation.

Your words not mine but that is what passes for much of religion these days..

Yes, because in my world reality is not self-contradictory.

A specific example would be helpful here as I am not in the least opposed to religious principles but I may be opposed to what you may perceive or believe to be such.

You presume too much. False religious implications, yes. True no.

[SamIam]

But do you realize that ever aspect of what you post is totally conditioned by your Neoplatonic underpinnings? The way you speak the way you think is totally Platonic. You are programmed that way by your culture.

One cannot even determine what "cause" means without Aristotelian logic- and the entire notion of "First Cause" is dependent on that whole idea.

I don't mean to be hard on you- you are obviously an incredibly intelligent guy to even be thinking the way you do. All I am trying to do is to show you that others have thought similar thoughts before- many times and there have been various responses to them. There is a context for all of this, of which you do not seem to be aware.

This is an interesting observation. I have only a knowledge of Plato and have never studied his works in depth enough to comment without researching it out. My approach is an ongoing process evolving from my study and application of prinicples of scripture including related material from Judaism. I am not near so broadly read as you imply here. I do not read philosophy and care very little for it except as it is presented in scripture. Line upon line one does learn what cause is and while I do not have a fullness I do have a spiritually derived understanding of it.

Whatever others have thought this before should not to imply that I borrowed my understandings from others. What you see is my own ramblings, my own piecing together of quotes, scriptures and such that are spiritually meaningful. That I should share perspectives with others is very meaningful in that I believe that truth can be found from many venues but God is the source of it all. So I hope to speak to things that are known by others as well as myself. .

I am not sure what you mean by context so I guess I am unaware.

When one uses ancient arguments one does not glean credibility, and in fact it presents a primitive image to those who recognize those arguments for what they are. I have no problem with the faith of young earth creationists- for all I know frankly God could have organized the universe in 6 days and made it look like he did it over billions of years. That is entirely possible.

We're back to hoping you remember old conversations and I know that is difficult but I am not a young earth creationist. It is not about 7 creative cycles or billions years for me, it is about perspective. What we measure as billions of years is a reasonable possibility that somehow has to be made to conform to God's perspective of creative periods. This can be done by attempting to think through paradigms of eternal versus mortal and how time is accounted for from the different perspectives. However the greater point of reference for me is to speak of it in the terms the Father uses as whatever marriage takes place between the two perspectives it is his that is the most significant. I maintain that continuity of thought by typically using his terms and not the terms of science that may or may not be in line.

But there are other possibilities as well and since we cannot know what method he used, we had better at least be able to argue and understand the most sophisticated arguments out there so we do not look like country bumpkins

After all, the world will tell you, as it does in the Broadway musical, that "Mormons just BELIEVE" the most crazy sounding silliness.

I think that that view of the church is damaging and I am dedicated to fighting that view. If you aren't, that is your business.

Still, not that your fight is without merit, I do not believe in a priority of appealing to sophisticated arguments. Therein is the problem with the constant focus on the difficulties of understanding for the weaknesses of language. This has become sophistic sounding to the point of confusion. Instead there are principles in scripture that imply it will be just the opposite in many cases.

Ether 12:26

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying:

Fools mock

, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

Matthew 5: 11

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

The essence of this to me is that it really isn't about how I say it so much as the intent of the person that listens. The Lord is not painting this response from men as the result of views of the church that are damaging but instead as a result of their rebelliousness. Damaging would be if I capitulated on my testimony in favor of presentation. If others are of a certain heart and mind they will attempt to understand and we shall progress form there. If they are of an entirely different state of mind, the quality of my presentation will not prevent their mocking and persecution.

And you persist, I think, in thinking that those who do not share your particular understanding are in some way Godless and do not put God at the center of their lives. I wish you could follow me around for one day- virtually everything I do centers on my faith; and even when I am doing routine chores etc,

You are prone to over exaggerating my words for some reason. Not that I am without a sense of how my manner of speaking may come off as condemnatory but I constantly try to make allowances to clarify my points. I am burdened with a sense of candor and directness that comes off as challenging. I acquired that years ago when I realized people hear things the way they want to hear them as opposed to how I said them unless you limit that potential. My technique, though perhaps poor is to not be as tactful as most might see as necessary. I do not consider you Godless but it is clear we have a different level of priority. This is perhaps hidden in the degree of the sense of urgency I believe we manifest in our conversations about coming unto Christ and leading others to him or finding a happy place in the world where I can combat appearing as a "country bumpkin." Nonetheless, I believe us to be on the same path with the ultimate desire of figuring it out just in different places.

Nonetheless, I am measuring your words against understandings in scripture and prophetic utterance. For instance you let stand S-bobbi's use of President McKay's quotes on evolutions and science even though he was pulling from them a sense of confirmation for his stand that was not present. Sometimes, you do the same presenting one side of the argument as if the theological side is to be ignored. Sometimes you imply that the venue is so different that they do not apply. I'm not going to dig up examples but simply that this is what I evaluate to be a conflict in allegiance. You are very focused on philosophical reasoning. Interestingly, your background education has become your focus of definition in your life. You have continued a field of learning even into your mature years that deals with that foundation. Is that just a comfortable bias based on early decisions in your life for a preferred topic of interest or is philosophy really a required approach?

I really have abandoned most of my sense of priority on what I learned in the institutions of men;up to and including the strictures of engagement to be taken seriously by intellectual requirement. I write okay and try to put it together okay but I find that some intellects appreciate my commentary and some do not. It is more about how they perceive my stand for God than than how they perceive my stand according to the rules of intellectual engagement.

[shalamabobbi]

Interestingly, your background education has become your focus of definition in your life. You have continued a field of learning even into your mature years that deals with that foundation. Is that just a comfortable bias based on early decisions in your life for a preferred topic of interest or is philosophy really a required approach?

Actually for mfbukowski I believe it was instrumental in leading to his conversion.

Hey mfbukowski, if you watched the video I posted on Moses I thought the mention of natives greeting with masonic handshakes was interesting, but the horse hoof mentioned is really the hoof of a Tapir..

[SamIam]

1. OK, I think.

2. What is the plausible deniability of the scientific case?

It is as you state that it makes perfect sense to exclude God from being an influencing factor in the scientific process because the process has eliminated the potential to include him.

This to me is not necessarily so. Many scientists have operated from a belief in some aspect of divine influence and accepted such as a part of their work. Even Georges Lemaître, as a secular Catholic priest, who originated the idea of Big Bang before Hubble, created a theory that was consistent with his view of God. Is it surprising that creation ex-nihilo should have been an acceptable feature of a Catholic paradigm? Do you think that in his day the physics provided that starting point or was it his religion?

Now, however, especially in recent history we have begun denying God entry into the realm of science by its process priori. Again, you can exercise the principles of science and still try to find continuity with cause and effect that does not specifically exclude him. As well, I am convinced that if God is the focus in your life an LDS scientist could not conceive of principles that appeared to completely contradict LDS theology. Hence if creation ex-nihilo is not a big enough point to question, a terminal ending of this universe in a big freeze should at least cause a pause before agreement of it as a valid probability.

Could you provide a specific example of what you mean by this?

That was my purpose for introducing Dawkin’s and Hawking into the discussion.

3. This is metaphysics not science. Science is not about God. This is a category error.

From your scientific priority perspective you are correct. However from my perspective and sometimes from Mark's, these are terms that men have created to make things understandable to them they may not be equally understood by others as necessarily consistent.

If you had accepted my statement at face value Everything is about God – then this verse would have been adequate support to sustain my perspective which is why I drew up the outline to help you parse my perspective from.

Moses 6:63

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

This is one of those clues that illustrates the difference in our paradigm and supports Marks perspective about the difficulties of language. However, it is not so complex as Mark makes out. You only had to be interested in what I said enough to develop a train of thought that would try to see it from my perspective and the word distinctions could have been overcome. Had you of “heard” me based on the thousands of words of this thread you would have known somewhat of what I meant.

Again I'm guessing you mean anti-God problem rather than anti-science problem here?

And what would you suggest? A requirement that all would-be scientists be baptized LDS before receiving a degree?

You are correct I did mean anti-God – my apologies…I guess you are paying a little bit of attention…

Really? I don't think so.

If you follow Dawkin’s much it is clear that this has devolved into his great focus. Less so much the focus of his work, but clearly a consistent point for him to make in his disdain for a concept of the mystical is what Hawkins also posits from time to time. Heck even Bill Nye the Science guy is in on public denunciations of religion of late.

Shouldn't we get rid of the use of monetary currency since some use it to pay for hookers?

Careful there … Hawkins won’t like you at all if you keep talking like that…

My point is that if you were balanced in your perspective that science cannot deal with an attitude in support of God, that scientists who shared this perspective would also be offended by science being twisted to deny God. Science isn’t Burger King - Having it your way should not be tolerated for or against as a point of integrity.

[mfbukowski]

Actually for mfbukowski I believe it was instrumental in leading to his conversion.

Hey mfbukowski, if you watched the video I posted on Moses I thought the mention of natives greeting with masonic handshakes was interesting, but the horse hoof mentioned is really the hoof of a Tapir..

Yes in fact I would not be Mormon if I did not understand the underlying American Philosophy which allowed for the Restoration to even be possible. I believe there is a reason God restored the gospel when he did- he understood that the philosophical climate was ripe for us to take the gospel to all the earth, but we are still hampered by the Neoplatonic and anti-science nonsense one sees here. Mormons do not know what they have- and you see that in that recent New York Times article by that non-member philosopher. He is where I was 30 or so years ago. He has a lot to learn, but he is on the road, thanks to James Faulconer who actually "gets" this stuff, and has for a long time. (He is the student "Jim" mentioned in the article)

Heidegger comes from a similar perspective to Rorty- in fact Rorty talks about him a lot. Both understand the subjective and the importance of linguistic context.

There is no way I would have believed in golden plates and all of the rest of it if I did not have a good theory about the validity of spiritual experience before God decided to whap me with a whopper of an experience- for reasons I will never understand.

That is what sam is not understanding. Not everyone will buy into his version of the gospel and yet he is convinced his is the only way to see it and also the only way to say what he wants to say. He does not understand seeing a different perspective of the same "truth" at all.

I didn't really have a chance to look at the video- thanks- I will check it out!

Edited September 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sam- we are just coming from such different places I don't think it is worth the effort to try to communicate.

I wish you well!

[SamIam]

Sam- we are just coming from such different places I don't think it is worth the effort to try to communicate.

I wish you well!

A fond adieu from me as well.

[shalamabobbi]

Response to post # 160 SamIam

Lemaître was a pioneer in applying Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. As a scientist he formulated a theory that was consistent with the facts. Though Einstein was not on board initially he appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past. A point you seem to continue to miss.

I harp on this because your incorrect understanding of BB is a roadblock to you. Science has nothing at all to do with Burger King as you put it. It has everything to do with a model that accounts for all the facts in unison - nothing more, nothing less. Oh yes, and in as concise a way as possible which takes us to that ultimate reality problem Mark likes to mention.

Dawkin's atheism is not science. It is his personal belief. Rejecting science on that basis is rather like rejecting the radio announcer's report of who's winning the football game because he happens to be a Buddhist/Muslim/Atheist/Evangelical. Ok I'll agree in rejecting the report if we can prove he is an Evangelical..

Here's a handy primer for your consideration:

http://en.wikipedia..../Nuclear_fusion

http://www.energyres...grond/historie/

Before the discovery of fusion eternal universes were all the rage. But when we discovered that they were fueled that changed the picture rather dramatically.

Again Newton's laws did not prevent the precession of the perihelion of Mercury or the bending of massless light by a massive body anymore than GR without being unified with QM prevents something other than a singularity or the colliding of branes.

[SamIam]

Which is why the false dichotomy doesn't work in the long run. Which is why we as a church were far better off back in the days of David O McKay and James E. Talmage before we grafted in a fundamentalist proposition from Protestantism.

You are admitting to a change in church process that I have not identified. I’m not sure what you mean.

Say what? Then why do I believe in God? Why does

believe in God.

This is one of those transitional points. If you could just grasp what I am saying on this point you would understand the entire discussion from my perspective so much better.

It is not do you believe in God but to what degree does your belief permit you to pick and choose what you believe of God. I’m sure you believe in God and I am content that all is as it should be in that we are all at different levels on the path. However the path is marked by different degrees of commitment and your methodologies in application of religious tenants cause me to believe you do not respect them as you do the scientific tenants. Bottom line and to be very candid… I have observed individuals who did not notice they were not strengthening the spiritual side of their being as they were their intellectual. My concern is that as you pointed out This “is why the false dichotomy doesn't work in the long run.” In the long run all of my effort in discussion with you has been concern. It is obvious your development is lop-sided and you heavily favor the scientific over the spiritual. I simply hope you will break a cycle that has been observed in others several times in my life. I am convinced that God can save anybody even…even…dare I say it…even a scientist. See sometimes I can’t resist a little jab myself once in a while…

I believe part of the reason you don’t parse me well is because...

I am literate.

Well you do draw a chuckle out of me here and there. You really can’t help yourself can you? Alas, as is noted sometimes I can’t pass up a good jab as well…

I post mainly to science topics since I have something to contribute there. I am concerned for the well being of church members who for a large part accept pseudo-science as a support for their faith and what that does to those who by their diligence in study discover the weaknesses in that scaffolding.

I do not post many

since I don't know enough about history to know whether they are total bunk or if they are plausible. I do not wish to add to the problem of placing people's faith upon an incorrect foundation.

I hope you are not catching me in your wildly tossed net as one who opts for pseudo-science. Science is not a foundation of my faith. Although, I enjoy thinking through possible correlations.

derisive of religious idiocy

Your words not mine but that is what passes for much of religion these days..

I knew you would be able to concede agreement on that point…

Most of my posting is in support of religious principles that you outright deny

A specific example would be helpful here as I am not in the least opposed to religious principles but I may be opposed to what you may perceive or believe to be such.

I have given you several but the key one which you failed entirely to give even a hint of comprehending was concerning the “I said nothing about Father” which I have since removed. Granted my understanding was a spiritual gift and came with a compelling conversion of comprehension of how this was understood by the Lord. It is something I understand with precision and I am bold enough to say I know what I said to be perfectly correct. I thought you might could open up a little and at least respond to some aspect of the implications of what I was saying but you did not. So I am guessing you did not understand the significance. Still it was not without merit that you responded so. I learned again, what I have learned a few times in the past. Tailored for this conversation…You can lead a scientist to spiritual truths but you can’t expect him to understand them without a slide rule.

You presume too much. False religious implications, yes. True no.

See previous paragraph…On that one point I presume nothing. I do know what I taught and on a very few occasions, always before one on one, I have shared that little understanding with people whose eyes were opened and their vision made clear and they had a Big Bang moment of their own. You did not and that was also my mistake perhaps for the forum we are engaged in.

As a recommended precursor to understanding truth I recommend you to Moroni 7. Powerful material if you are listening.

While I appreciate you at least got to a point of general civility, I fear it is probably time for you and I to cease this tireless process We have this dead horse long enough. Best of Luck and when all else fails remember E=mc² .

P.S. I see another post from you out there but I'll not answer so much as to say...I do not reject science. I have said that and illustrated where it has to be aligned beneath correct principles...but I love science. If it will help pick some science organization and I will donate 5.00 dollars to the cause in your name. Well...unless is has to do with Big Bang, or Darwinism, or these people here.

Edited September 30, 2012 by SamIam

[shalamabobbi]

You are admitting to a change in church process that I have not identified. I’m not sure what you mean.

I meant the uber-literal take on genesis pushed by Joseph Fielding Smith that caused David O McKay to be upset with him.

It is obvious your development is lop-sided and you heavily favor the scientific over the spiritual. I simply hope you will break a cycle that has been observed in others several times in my life. I am convinced that God can save anybody even…even…dare I say it…even a scientist. See sometimes I can’t resist a little jab myself once in a while…

What is obvious to me is your development is nop-sided. (the p is silent here)

I got your reference to the temple. So you are equating yielding to temptation with acceptance of scientifically demonstrable facts. Nice.

James E. Talmage, you lop-sided apostate, what say you? Will God spoon feed us knowledge by His Holy Spirit upon every subject under the sun when we take no thought save to ask?

What? What's that you say? D&C 9:7-8. Oh right! I apologize for disturbing you. I should have remembered to read my scriptures..

[SamIam]

I got your reference to the temple. So you are equating yielding to temptation with acceptance of scientifically demonstrable facts. Nice.

Well validation is always nice - If that is somehow related to what you got out of my temple point, then I can only say you did miss it entirely. Beyond entirely...best of luck on the day job.

And you have been removed from the thread for repeating your temple point.

[mfbukowski]

… I have observed individuals who did not notice they were not strengthening the spiritual side of their being as they were their intellectual. My concern is that as you pointed out This “is why the false dichotomy doesn't work in the long run.” In the long run all of my effort in discussion with you has been concern. It is obvious your development is lop-sided and you heavily favor the scientific over the spiritual. I simply hope you will break a cycle that has been observed in others several times in my life. I am convinced that God can save anybody even…even…dare I say it…even a scientist. See sometimes I can’t resist a little jab myself once in a while…

So now you suddenly understand the difference between science and spirituality, faith and intellect.

Honestly your smugness and arrogance and anti-intellectualism knows no bounds. Commenting on worthiness and raising oneself above others spiritually is usually grounds for banning around here. It really is uncalled for.

Your tone belies your insistence on how advanced you are spiritually. Christ would never speak this way. I'm tired of it.

Edited September 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

So now you suddenly understand the difference between science and spirituality, faith and intellect.

Honestly your smugness and arrogance and anti-intellectualism knows no bounds. Commenting on worthiness and raising oneself above others spiritually is usually grounds for banning around here. It really is uncalled for.

Your tone belies your insistence on how advanced you are spiritually. Christ would never speak this way. I'm tired of it.

You are intent on misreading me. That is unfortunate...I apologize if you mistook my intent but how does "not strengthening their spiritual side" equate to worthiness? You once commented that maybe you had been here too long. A week off might calm you down a bit.

My comments were in no way reflective of any aspect of worthiness nor is is kind of you to impugn what was never stated. I am understanding your challenge with language and comprehending what others say more and more each moment.

Best of luck

[SamIam]

http://www.energyres...grond/historie/

Interesting link - Thank you

[mfbukowski]

A week off might calm you down a bit.

Indeed.

I am glad you are willing to do that.

[SamIam]

Indeed.

I am glad you are willing to do that.

Ahh hah. You are a master of the turn of phrase...I concede.

[shalamabobbi]

Interesting link - Thank you

You're very welcome SamIam. If it was the Tokamak that caught your interest here's a brief youtube history that's kinda cool

tokamak in a nutshell

If understanding fusion was of interest here is another video that will help in understanding why stars eventually have to die when we run out of lighter elements.

binding energy

[media=]

I hope this explains why an eternal steady state universe is not possible.

Your last name wouldn't happen to start with the letter Z by any chance? No, that would be too bizarre..

Edited September 30, 2012 by shalamabobbi