Did Jesus visit all the spirit worlds in three days?

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Jeez Ahab! Stop trying to argue with philosophers about philosophy. Be like me: just accept that you're not going to "get it", and drive on. That's what I do.

In this case and many others like it it is the philosophers who are not getting it right.  And yes I know they say that we are the ones who don't get it but don't believe it just because they say it as if every time they say something what they are saying is true.

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Ahab said:

A posited reality outside of human sense perception concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses... as if any such thing exists.

Yes Rorty points that out in the very short statement in my siggy.

There is no way to verify our sense experiences because we cannot get "outside" of our sense experiences to see how our experiences relate to that alleged reality.

We are watching a stream of consciousness movie of our sense perceptions.   How do we know if it is a "movie" or "real"?

Metaphysics is useless because we can never know if whatever we postulate as "real" cannot be verified.  And then we are stuck with stemelbowism.

God cannot exist under your hypothesis- that is the bottom line.   We can't see him so we cant know he exists.   Yet I perceive him as existing.  I believe that humans actually have rights which I cannot veryify scientifically.

My perceptions are the only things I can know.  And perceive God in my heart, when I receive messages which give me advice, and when I follow those messages, they work and can be life changing.

I can't believe I am still doing this.   It is just so frustrating.  I don't know why any believer would fight against the only possible argument for the existence of God that is rational and coherent with all religions while demolishing all forms of atheism.

Why would any believer reject the only rational argument they have?   To me it is idiocy.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

In this case and many others like it it is the philosophers who are not getting it right.  And yes I know they say that we are the ones who don't get it but don't believe it just because they say it as if every time they say something what they are saying is true.

Oh my.

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." 

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my.

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." 

Well, that seems obvious. Reality is REAL. Our perceptions and descriptions of it frequently are not.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, that seems obvious. Reality is REAL. Our perceptions and descriptions of it frequently are not.

Yep- and that's all it says.  Think of the implications of the idea that we cannot describe "reality" through our descriptions and our perceptions might also lead us astray

Yet what is "in our heads" is all we have to go on!   We cannot see the world as it is- we see it through a mirror darkly- it shows us only what we think!!  That is why it is a mirror!!  

So we must test to see if it works by taking action.

And then we have mirages, and assertions about God.

Should we not crawl toward the lake that might NOT be "real" when we are dying of thirst and that puddle half a mile away might be a mirage?

Who is NOT dying of spiritual thirst in this hard hard world?

We must try the description and see if it "produces fruit".   Forget about the description OR the perception. Alma 32.   If we can't drink the perception, it can't be true in the sense that the perception or description has deceived us

It is all testable by action.

And Moroni 10 - same thing.   Does God answer your prayer or not?   What better proof is there than that the belief changes your life?

Alma 32:

Quote

 

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; ....

 

And so the process of perfection grows by TESTING the sweetness of the paradigm.

Still though, all we have are paradigms of what works.   What's really out there?  Do we need to know the physics of gravity to build a house?

All we know is how to support a wall so that IT WORKS to hold up the house.

THAT is our mental state if we KNOW how to support the wall- it is what works!!  Still how to build a wall and support a house is "in our heads" until we test it and get the desired results.

But we might write the description incorrectly.

And obviously speaking about God gets a little difficult but we can still know WHAT WORKS as the only test of truth!

It's all very simple.

Edited November 20, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes Rorty points that out in the very short statement in my siggy.

There is no way to verify our sense experiences because we cannot get "outside" of our sense experiences to see how our experiences relate to that alleged reality.

We are watching a stream of consciousness movie of our sense perceptions.   How do we know if it is a "movie" or "real"?

Metaphysics is useless because we can never know if whatever we postulate as "real" cannot be verified.  And then we are stuck with stemelbowism.

God cannot exist under your hypothesis- that is the bottom line.   We can't see him so we cant know he exists.   Yet I perceive him as existing.  I believe that humans actually have rights which I cannot veryify scientifically.

My perceptions are the only things I can know.  And perceive God in my heart, when I receive messages which give me advice, and when I follow those messages, they work and can be life changing.

I can't believe I am still doing this.   It is just so frustrating.  I don't know why any believer would fight against the only possible argument for the existence of God that is rational and coherent with all religions while demolishing all forms of atheism.

Why would any believer reject the only rational argument they have?   To me it is idiocy.

I think we often misunderstand each other, or at least I know you often misunderstand me and my position in relation to reality.  I'm starting to think that maybe what I disagree with is metaphysics, and instead I believe that everything is physics.

Just as all things are matter, even including our emotions which are a part of us, and there is no such thing as super natural, I think maybe there also is no such thing as metaphysics except maybe only what we imagine it to be.

And yes I was saying that maybe what we imagine is real since we are in reality imagining what we imagine.  And now I will shut up before I confuse myself.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my.

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." 

That Rorty quote is very weak as stated and needs a lot of revision to clear up whatever he is talking about.  Very poor sentence structure doesn't help very much to convey what truth is.  And it is better to say what truth is rather than what it is not.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

That Rorty quote is very weak as stated and needs a lot of revision to clear up whatever he is talking about.  Very poor sentence structure doesn't help very much to convey what truth is.  And it is better to say what truth is rather than what it is not.

I see it as a perfect description. but stated in a perectly logical matter.

All we know are perceptions and how we experience things.   If we experience God as in Alma 32, then He is "real" for us, just as Alma says.

If we do not experience perceive Him, then that person may say that truthfully- that he has not experienced God.

Fine.   Some get it some don't.

No one can define "truth" except the way Alma does-- and that includes the way Kuhn defines what we know by what works pragmatically. 

A kind of pragmatic truth is all we can expect, so we might differ about what is "true".

Duh!  I don't think that would be a newsflash that people disagree about what is true!

On the other hand discussions about "truth" are useless because we all define it differently.

THIS is the only rational way I have seen to discuss God- some have experienced Him, others have not.  Religious wars are not a wise course of action.

Arguing about someone else's perceptions and experiences simply leads to conflict that cannot be resolved by reason, because genuine discussions of what is "true" are possible because we disagree on definitions or interpretations of language.

And thus discussions about God's existence or details of His nature etc are a waste of time.   It is as rational to believe in God as it is to believe that murder is wrong.

Is a fetus a human being?  It is pointless to argue back and forth about that.   Either you know that in your bones or you do not.  Do people have human rights?  Either you know that in your bones or you do not.   No amount of discussion will change anyone's mind

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

Quote

 

If we hadn't tried to use visual perception as a model for knowledge, we wouldn't have been saddled with the problem of inside versus outside, Rorty said. "This would have been all to the good because we wouldn't have had most of the problems of modern philosophy—or half the problems of ancient philosophy."

As he talked, Rorty gently paced at the front of the room and spoke with the precision and clarity that have earned him praise as an "ultra-lucid" philosopher.

Both metaphysics and epistemology could have been avoided had we thought of knowledge as a social skill, he said. "The only question about the nature of the mind is the question, 'How did human beings acquire an ability that no other organism has; namely, the ability to use language?'"

 

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm quite familiar with this. I love Hawking; he was a brilliant physicist. But the ultimate arbiter of the ultimate cosmology he is not.

And the godless proposition is really just a bad argument for the most part.

I cheerfully admit that God is not falsifiable. So what? The absence of God is likewise not falsifiable. You and Hawking prefer that it's all random chance, with no Cause. Your preferences however do not constitute a law of the universe.

Oh do not mistake me, I have not quite adopted the Hawking idea that there was no cause.  Who knows what might have happened before the Big Bang?  He might be on to something in suggesting nothing really need to have happened before--I mean we're talking quantum arena size here.  But it could be along the lines that I've heard Sean Carroll postulate in that the Big Bang or what might have caused it, is the central point extending time back infinitely to a previous universe.  But, since I brought up Sean Carroll I'd side with him in declaring the God arguments are just really bad arguments all around.  I'd side with both Carroll and Hawking in suggesting there really is not room for God in what we're learning in science.  And lets face it those are two prominent names, but most involved on their level of thinking, on their level of science agree with them.  The few that magically think God is there, do so at the perile of having to hold to really bad arguments.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/19/2020 at 11:05 AM, stemelbow said:

Ok.  Thanks, Rodheadlee.

Sure. I know it's a simple explanation for a complicated process. 

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Oh do not mistake me, I have not quite adopted the Hawking idea that there was no cause.  Who knows what might have happened before the Big Bang?  He might be on to something in suggesting nothing really need to have happened before--I mean we're talking quantum arena size here.  But it could be along the lines that I've heard Sean Carroll postulate in that the Big Bang or what might have caused it, is the central point extending time back infinitely to a previous universe.  But, since I brought up Sean Carroll I'd side with him in declaring the God arguments are just really bad arguments all around.  I'd side with both Carroll and Hawking in suggesting there really is not room for God in what we're learning in science.  And lets face it those are two prominent names, but most involved on their level of thinking, on their level of science agree with them.  The few that magically think God is there, do so at the perile of having to hold to really bad arguments.

What they are calling "bad arguments", are they "bad" because they don't like them, or that the arguments are relying upon non-falsifiable hypotheses? 

I say that it may be both. They may not like the idea that there is a God, or a Creator, and they certainly don't like arguments that are non-falsifiable. What scientist would? Non-falsifiable hypotheses are totally outside the bounds of the scientific method. 

The God hypothesis is indeed non-falsifiable. Nobody can devise an experiment or a mathematical treatment that either proves or disproves God.   In his last book, "Brief Answers to Big Questions", Hawking makes it very clear how he feels about the question, but never gives even the shadow of a method to answer the question definitively one way or the other. That's at least because there can be no such method.

Hawking was brilliant, there's no question about it. And it was the wonderful first chapter of his "Brief Answers..." that led me to my big breakthrough. When you write "there really is not room for God in what we're learning in science" you are perhaps unconsciously echoing Hawking when he wrote "[w]e have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in." Leaving aside the apparent abandonment of causality inherent in that first sentence there, we have the wonderful breakthrough of there not being time for a creator to have existed in. I say breakthrough because it actually confirmed for me something that I had thought of years ago, that God does not live in this universe which he created, and is thus outside of both space and time, as we perceive it.  I've written it before in this thread, and perhaps you have not read it, but for the Cause to exist IN the universe, it would have needed to cause itself, or in other words, for the Creator to have existed IN the creation, he would have needed to create himself! Which is absurd, and this this actually coincides with "spontaneously created out of nothing" -- something else that Hawking said he believed -- but a God that exists outside of our space-time, having caused our space-time, is completely inscrutable to science. As I wrote above, there can be no experiment, not mathematical construct, which can touch Him. But that doesn't mean that He isn't there, and didn't cause what we see boundlessly around us every day.

But just because God cannot be touched by experimental protocol or observation (using the tools of science), does not mean that there aren't other tools available (tools which I believe you reject). Fasting and prayer, for example, are such tools. Listening to the Spirit is another.  There are things which I have learned through such means that could not have been taught me using a telescope, radio antenna, laboratory glassware, or any other physical means. 

A question for you.  Do you want for there not to be a God?  Do you find it especially refreshing or relieving to no longer believe?

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Who knows what might have happened before the Big Bang?  He might be on to something in suggesting nothing really need to have happened before--I mean we're talking quantum arena size here.  But it could be along the lines that I've heard Sean Carroll postulate in that the Big Bang or what might have caused it, is the central point extending time back infinitely to a previous universe.

I had to address this separately, so as not to interrupt the flow of my previous post.

In all of the hypothesizing about multiverses, and "before the Big Bang", and "previous universes" -- which I might point out are non-falsifiable! -- it is unnecessarily limiting to speak of previous and future universes, because these universes need not be serial constructs. There could be an infinitude of parallel universes.

What about the question of "What does our Universe exist inside of?" Does it exist inside a plenum of nothingness, or is there a higher level of existence inside of which our universe exists, which one might call the Überverse? This might be the place where God dwells, perhaps. Anyway, how many subuniverses could exist inside this Überverse? It seems to me that there could be a virtual infinitude of them. All of them existing "simultaneously" within the Überverse. And when the question is asked, "What is outside the universe?" this is an answer.  And this Überverse might have its own equivalent of space-time, from which any given subuniverse, from Big Bang to Big Freeze, from its time 0 to its time infinite, is perfectly perceptible from the Übertime and Überspace of the Überverse. I've said before that God sees our subuniverse as one, as if it were laid out from end to end and from time to time, perfectly perceptible at all places and times.

But this might lead one to recall what Bernard Shaw's conversation partner said, when he asked the lady what the turtle stood on: "It's turtles all the way down."

Oh, you better believe that having a spontaneously generated universe out of nothing can be a comfort, because what about them turtles? One can get a headache trying to imagine all this.

You might find Anton Petrov's YouTube channel of interest. He talks about this kind of thing occasionally, but its mostly science news and it is very very interesting:

Antov Petrov: What da Math?

 

[Stargazer]

On 11/19/2020 at 6:35 PM, rodheadlee said:

A designer and a builder is the best explanation to me. I personally believe the universe is eternal or at least the elements that supply the building blocks are eternal and that a designer took those elements and built things in the universe like earth and the life found on it. Just like I would take a pile of lumber and build a house. The elements are there, land trees to make lumber, water and so forth. It takes a designer and a builder to create a home. In the real world no home builds itself. Unless you want to live in a cave and haul your water to it.

The problem with that is that in the currently accepted model of the universe, i.e. the Big Band hypothesis, the universe expands and as it expands matter gets more and more diffuse, and in a few septillion years from now -- give or take a few sestillion years -- matter will be so diffuse and so far apart that no stars will be visible from other stars. And eventually the whole system runs out of primordial hydrogen, and all energy exchange ceases, and the whole shebang is one big, dark, deep freeze. Never to warm up again.  

Thus, being eternal is nothing. For an eternal darkness is rather boring.

But God has certainly designed a way out of this. I have confidence in Him.

[rodheadlee]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The problem with that is that in the currently accepted model of the universe, i.e. the Big Band hypothesis, the universe expands and as it expands matter gets more and more diffuse, and in a few septillion years from now -- give or take a few sestillion years -- matter will be so diffuse and so far apart that no stars will be visible from other stars. And eventually the whole system runs out of primordial hydrogen, and all energy exchange ceases, and the whole shebang is one big, dark, deep freeze. Never to warm up again.  

Thus, being eternal is nothing. For an eternal darkness is rather boring.

But God has certainly designed a way out of this. I have confidence in Him.

I'm thinking that the currently accepted model is probably wrong. That's based on nothing but my own Revelations and intuition.

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm thinking that the currently accepted model is probably wrong. That's based on nothing but my own Revelations and intuition.

Which part of it do you feel is wrong?

[rodheadlee]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Which part of it do you feel is wrong?

I think there is only one universe and it is infinite. I also think our perception of the redshift is wrong and our universe is eternal. I really don't have the education to explain it but I've read a lot of articles on it.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/19/2020 at 4:46 PM, Ahab said:

I'm starting to think that maybe what I disagree with is metaphysics, and instead I believe that everything is physics.

 

Well yes, I agree with you about "metaphysics".   There is no way to verify it or claim any statements about it all can be verified or even have any truth value whatsoever.   And yet science is now based on metaphysics of what we THINK we see, but we do not see reality- only our perceptions of what we allegedly "see"

So you are saying that reality is a bunch of equations like e=mc squared?  THAT is what "reality is physics" says to me.

I would say physics is more man-made "descriptions" which can be true or false.  Reality is not true or false, only statements are.  

Unless you believe in true chairs and canyons and pandas.   I kind of like beanies in this season.  (NOT!)  

"True" is not about things, it is about our perceptions and descriptions of things.   Words are not reality - reality is direct experience.  

It is the "yellow" in the  emoji and in my avatar.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm thinking that the currently accepted model is probably wrong. That's based on nothing but my own Revelations and intuition.

Which is everything that we all have as well!

That currently accepted model is about as accurate as the Adam and Eve story.   If taken literally fegitaboutit.  If taken as a description of the place of humans in the universe, it is an eternal truth.   We are broken and we get what we have created for ourselves- a broken world.

But surely something new will be understood in the next sextillion billion years....  

Other models will be created that work better, but they will still all be about our perceptions.  Unless we do not create them.  Who knows the aliens may teach us what THEY perceive.

Who knows, maybe by then we will then be what we call "gods"....   

But it will still be descriptions of perceptions- ours plus aliens.  It can't be anything else unless we are gods.   Big G?  That's beyond my pay grade. 

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

On 11/13/2020 at 10:21 PM, JAHS said:

Because Jesus is the savior of all inhabitants of all the planets can one logically assume that during the three days between
His death and resurrection He somehow visited all the spirit worlds of all those other planets and organized His missionary forces? (Possibly D&C 88:41-61)
Or was it only our spirit world?

No, but He does use designees, so  everywhere He needs to be (rather, every place that needs Him) gets Him. And "gets" Him.

 

[mfbukowski]

Divine investiture is a principle whereby God delegates authority to others to represent him in certain situations.  This is probably a key aspect to this discussion.  The article is by Robert Millet

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/ministry-father-son#_edn28

Edited November 21, 2020 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Divine investiture is a principle whereby God delegates authority to others to represent him in certain situations.  This is probably a key aspect to this discussion.  The article is by Robert Millet

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/ministry-father-son#_edn28

In an attempt to bring this back to the original OP, could this mean that Jesus did not visit every planet's spirit world, but commissioned other spirits to do that in His place somehow?
This is a difficult subject trying to link the events of our planet to similar events that also had to happen on all the other planets that had their own spirit worlds. It would be much easier if ours was the only planet in the universe.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

In an attempt to bring this back to the original OP, could this mean that Jesus did not visit every planet's spirit world, but commissioned other spirits to do that in His place somehow?

Yes, that is what I had in mind, as one way we can make up a story about it.

Quote

 

This is a difficult subject trying to link the events of our planet to similar events that also had to happen on all the other planets that had their own spirit worlds. It would be much easier if ours was the only planet in the universe.

 

 Well quite honestly, I think it is folly to try to figure out some of this stuff and a waste of time.  

We are here to live by faith and accept that God is God- and postulate that from the beginning and that our intelligence is like an ant compared to his.

You are asking a group of ants to explain what is beyond quantum mechanics, and they rub their antennae together and cannot come up with how the universe works.  All they know is perceive the chemicals in the trail and follow it until it leads to food, then go get all the others to follow the path they have laid down.

That's about all we can do is believe based on our own religious experience and then follow the path to the spiritual food- follow those who have gone before and figured out where to find it, and don't worry about what we could not possibly understand with our ant brains.

I am reminded of a great song by Jefferson Airplane - from my youth, several hundred years ago.

As ants, we are always looking for stability and solid answers for where to find spiritual food but all we get is enough of a whiff of the smell to find the trail.  And yet WE are the crowning glory of God's creation.   We want unchanging truth, but all we get is one paradigm, one theory, one fable and story at a time to test until we sniff out a path that is at least satisfactory

Quote

 

"Crown of Creation"- Jefferson Airplane

You are the crown of creation
You are the crown of creation
And you've got no place to go

Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for
In the only way that it's granted
In a place among the fossils of our time

 

Life is change

How it differs from the rocks

I've seen their ways too often for my liking.

New worlds to gain!

My life is to survive, and be alive

for you.

 

Ants simply don't have the capacity to understand Quantum Mechanics

We can only know what we are capable of knowing.

So we dream up stories of beings beyond us and how they create and maintain planets?  Uh huh.....   sure.....  good idea....

 

Yet God speaks to my ant heart and tells me to follow the path, and so I do.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As ants, we are always looking for stability and solid answers for where to find spiritual food but all we get is enough of a whiff of the smell to find the trail.

I like to think of myself  more as a caterpillar (probably not much smarter than an ant) and when I die, I am resurrected into a butterfly that can see and know a lot more than I could before.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I like to think of myself  more as a caterpillar (probably not much smarter than an ant) and when I die, I am resurrected into a butterfly that can see and know a lot more than I could before.

Yes- that works for me just as well- maybe better for certain things