Big Bang

[boulder257]

We don't believe in a being who would break his own rules- that is the entire point.  I agree with you that he created them- but he does not break his own commandments, or he would cease to be who he is- God.

 

The creator of laws does not break them.  We even see that when a judge or other human official gets arrested- or when a president gets impeached for breaking the law.

 

It's a pretty basic principle.

 

God has voluntarily limited himself to the laws he has created.  It's called "self-determination", like when you go on a diet or decide not to eat red meat.  But God does not cheat.

 

I beg to differ. We are not talking about God contradicting His very being, but instead contradicting the laws of physics, that He created. He certainly had the ability to hold the universe in a singularity, without the laws of physics and then institute a big bang that brought on the laws of physics. I agree that God doesn't contradict Himself in His nature, but He certainly can in terms of His natural laws.

[ERayR]

I beg to differ. We are not talking about God contradicting His very being, but instead contradicting the laws of physics, that He created. He certainly had the ability to hold the universe in a singularity, without the laws of physics and then institute a big bang that brought on the laws of physics. I agree that God doesn't contradict Himself in His nature, but He certainly can in terms of His natural laws.

 

What do you think God looks like anyway?  A great big containment cage?

[boulder257]

What do you think God looks like anyway?  A great big containment cage?

 

What about my post gives you that impression?

[thesometimesaint]

What?

 

Liken it to a timeline starting at point 0 and ending at point 100. We are presently at point ten. We can count back to point less than one, but never past point 0

Edited August 28, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[boulder257]

Liken it to a timeline starting at point 0 and ending at point 100. We are presently at point ten. We can count back to point less than one, but never past point 0

 

It's actually amazing how close we can get to zero, but yet we still have that pesky singularity, or zero as you refer to it in your astute metaphor, that we have yet to understand/explain.

[ERayR]

Liken it to a timeline starting at point 0 and ending at point 100. We are presently at point ten. We can count back to point less than one, but never past point 0

 

 

What has that got to do with creating new neighborhoods as more spirits move up.  Intelligences don't have a point 0 on a timeline.  The problem is you seem to think there is a point 0 for everything.

Edited August 28, 2013 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

I beg to differ. We are not talking about God contradicting His very being, but instead contradicting the laws of physics, that He created. He certainly had the ability to hold the universe in a singularity, without the laws of physics and then institute a big bang that brought on the laws of physics. I agree that God doesn't contradict Himself in His nature, but He certainly can in terms of His natural laws.

Semantics.

 

Of course he didn't leave it as a "singularity", if our feeble attempt to characterize it is even remotely "true".  That's not the point.

 

And all one has to postulate is that there are a few "laws of physics"that we perhaps do not know about, we cavemen who would find television "wiitchcraft".

 

You say God breaks rules, I don't.  Whatever.

 

I just think he's got rules we don't know about.

Edited August 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It's actually amazing how close we can get to zero, but yet we still have that pesky singularity, or zero as you refer to it in your astute metaphor, that we have yet to understand/explain.

It's all metaphors, all the way down. no matter what you do anyway.  You can never get to "reality" because it's all a feeble attempt to represent it.

 

But unfortunately language is all we have, and only sentences (metaphors) can be "true" or "false".  I never met a zero in my life.

 

Changing the metaphors will change the way you think and your life.

[SamIam]

I never met a zero in my life.

 

0 this is Mark.

 

Mark this is 0.

 

Now you two go on outside and play.

Edited August 28, 2013 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

0 this is Mark.

 

Mark this is 0.

 

Now you two go on outside and play.

[boulder257]

Semantics.

 

Of course he didn't leave it as a "singularity", if our feeble attempt to characterize it is even remotely "true".  That's not the point.

 

And all one has to postulate is that there are a few "laws of physics"that we perhaps do not know about, we cavemen who would find television "wiitchcraft".

 

You say God breaks rules, I don't.  Whatever.

 

I just think he's got rules we don't know about.

 

I can definitely agree with the bolded. I think that goes without saying.

[Questing Beast]

Making a circle a square? Giving a being free will and controlling them? Microwaving a burrito so hot not even He can eat it?

Yes and no, to any and all. Mutually exclusive yeses and nos too, including self annihilation and all that we can imagine that that implies. Yet, existence is inarguable.

 

The faith comes in when we assert (as many do, here and elsewhere) that God does not change the rules. "He" can but doesn't and won't. Believing that is an act of faith....

[Questing Beast]

What do you think God looks like anyway?  A great big containment cage?

"Existence" has no "looks like" anything. Look around ourselves at the perceivable world of humans, and we see "God" manifesting. Look at ourselves first, because that is the closest to seeing "God" that any of us will ever get. The thoughts we have are human thoughts, not "God's thoughts". But to us "God Is" a human, the perfect glorified man and woman....

[boulder257]

"Existence" has no "looks like" anything. Look around ourselves at the perceivable world of humans, and we see "God" manifesting. Look at ourselves first, because that is the closest to seeing "God" that any of us will ever get. The thoughts we have are human thoughts, not "God's thoughts". But to us "God Is" a human, the perfect glorified man and woman....

 

I'm still waiting on him to respond to what in my post made him ask that question and haven't received a response.

[Ahab]

"Existence" has no "looks like" anything. Look around ourselves at the perceivable world of humans, and we see "God" manifesting. Look at ourselves first, because that is the closest to seeing "God" that any of us will ever get. The thoughts we have are human thoughts, not "God's thoughts". But to us "God Is" a human, the perfect glorified man and woman....

Existence is what is.  And the universe is the one place where everything in existence is. 

 

For example, a dog is something that exists, and it existence in the universe, and a dog exists in many shapes and sizes.

 

The reason we look like God is because we are the same kind of being he is.  And God also exists in many shapes and sizes.

[ERayR]

I'm still waiting on him to respond to what in my post made him ask that question and haven't received a response.

 

Wait no more impatient one.

 

From your post #151 "He certainly had the ability to hold the universe in a singularity, without the laws of physics and then institute a big bang that brought on the laws of physics".

[boulder257]

Wait no more impatient one.

 

From your post #151 "He certainly had the ability to hold the universe in a singularity, without the laws of physics and then institute a big bang that brought on the laws of physics".

 

Hah, I appreciate the humor. Not trying to be impatient it's just a character flaw of mine.

 

I see God as the creator of everything. Therefore, He has the ability to exist prior to the big bang. He then would have "held" for lack of a better term the universe in a point of singularity before the big bang. Even if He held it in existence for a millionth of a second, he created it. I guess my choice of word (hold) was not the best choice, which led to your comment.

[cdowis]

Unless you believe in an all powerful almighty creator. With that in mind he is not bound by the laws of physics because He, Himself, created them.

 

Huh?  I believe in a Divinity that follows natural laws.  But has a perfect knowledge on how to use those laws, many of which are unknown to us.  Like showing a television to a caveman.

 

Are you familiar, for example, with quantum mechanics, spooky interaction at a distance.  That sort of stuff.  The spirit world is distinct from our known physical universe, so I would see movement in that realm would be instantaneous, again using natural laws.

[boulder257]

Huh?  I believe in a Divinity that follows natural laws.  But has a perfect knowledge on how to use those laws, many of which are unknown to us.  Like showing a television to a caveman.

 

Are you familiar, for example, with quantum mechanics, spooky interaction at a distance.  That sort of stuff.  The spirit world is distinct from our known physical universe, so I would see movement in that realm would be instantaneous, again using natural laws.

 

I am confused why you don't understand my comment. My argument is that those laws of physics may not have existed before He created this Universe. Thus, he created the Universe with those principles and laws of physics in place. He didn't have to give us gravity, but he did. He didn't have to make the speed of light equal what it does, but he did. I am familiar with quantum mechanics and I don't see why they can't be created by God.

Edited August 29, 2013 by boulder257

[Questing Beast]

This notion that laws always existed - and that god came along, noticed them all, learned each eternally existing law until he knows them perfectly, then went ahead with creation according to those eternally existing laws - implies that the laws transcend god himself. So GtF is "more intelligent than they (we) all", so what? If GtF and all the "gods" before him are merely part of always existing matter and the eternally existing laws governing the same, I see no reason why infinitely, eternally existing matter cannot include a greater god than GtF, he just doesn't know about that god yet. You cannot have a member of a limitless existence transcending that existence, he is stuck as part of it. That's the GtF of JS. And I don't worship that concept, it is too small....

[Brian 2.0]

This notion that laws always existed - and that god came along, noticed them all, learned each eternally existing law until he knows them perfectly, then went ahead with creation according to those eternally existing laws - implies that the laws transcend god himself. So GtF is "more intelligent than they (we) all", so what? If GtF and all the "gods" before him are merely part of always existing matter and the eternally existing laws governing the same, I see no reason why infinitely, eternally existing matter cannot include a greater god than GtF, he just doesn't know about that god yet. You cannot have a member of a limitless existence transcending that existence, he is stuck as part of it. That's the GtF of JS. And I don't worship that concept, it is too small....

 

This idea came up a lot in a recent Mormon Matters podcast regarding "Is Mormonism's God Worth of Worship".  One of the guests was arguing that if GtF is subject to these higher laws and if he violated them "would cease to be God" then really the focus of our worship should not be on GtF but upon those higher laws themselves... because they are what is "unchanging".   Almost like worshiping nature instead of God.

 

You may have listened to it, but your post reminds me a lot of the discussion there so I thought I'd pass it along.

 

http://mormonmatters.org/2013/08/17/182-183-is-mormonisms-god-worthy-of-worship/

[boulder257]

This idea came up a lot in a recent Mormon Matters podcast regarding "Is Mormonism's God Worth of Worship".  One of the guests was arguing that if GtF is subject to these higher laws and if he violated them "would cease to be God" then really the focus of our worship should not be on GtF but upon those higher laws themselves... because they are what is "unchanging".   Almost like worshiping nature instead of God.

 

You may have listened to it, but your post reminds me a lot of the discussion there so I thought I'd pass it along.

 

http://mormonmatters.org/2013/08/17/182-183-is-mormonisms-god-worthy-of-worship/

 

Exactly. It is God that is immutable, not the laws that He Himself put into place.

[Brian 2.0]

On the podcast they debate God vs god.  Big G or little g.

 

The arguement goes that if GtF became god by following the laws of progressing to become what he is, then he is a little g god.  He isn't the creator of all including the laws of nature.  He an intelligence that has figured things out and he's just trying to help us figure things out too.  This concept of god is what a lot of Mormons believe, and it's kind of cool, but it's not the God with a big G that a lot of other religions believe.  It's interesting to think about because you start to understand why other religions may reject the Mormon concept of God, because it is quite different from their concept of Him.

[Sleeper Cell]

I am familiar with quantum mechanics and I don't see why they can't be created by God.

 

Because God does not throw dice.

 

 

And a merciful God would not have subjected me to …

[mfbukowski]

Exactly. It is God that is immutable, not the laws that He Himself put into place.

im·mu·ta·ble

iˈmyo͞otəbəl/

adjective

adjective: immutable

1.

unchanging over time or unable to be changed.

"an immutable fact"

synonyms: fixed, set, rigid, inflexible, permanent, established, carved in stone;

 

 

If he never changes, how can he respond to our prayers?

 

That is going from state 1- God before our prayer, to state 2- God after hearing our prayer and responding.

 

Going from state 1 to state 2 is a change.