cryophil

Moses 3:7 my bad 7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. 2 ne 2:22 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. Actually,I use the interpretations the prophets have given in the TPJS, Jesus the Christ, Gospel Principles, etc. These are approved sources.

Conjecture is not the same thing as hypothesis. What you raised was that the answer to my question lies in spirit matter that belongs to a realm that we cannot measure. That's conjecture and is not helpful because it cannot be used for experimentation. If you cannot observe it under controlled or at least repeatable/verifiable conditions, and you cannot find a way to negate the "conjecture" then it cannot serve as a hypothesis. So as such, it doesn't help the discussion. Interesting. I find that attitude seems quite prevalent here: that science seems to be supporting the doctrine/scriptures. However, it seems to me to be going increasingly the other way. Moses 3:8 Adam is first man--dispelled overwhelmingly by science 2 Ne 2:22 all things were kept from death until fall -- again dispelled D&C 77:6 earth's temporal (mortal) age is a few thousand years -- dispellled Alma 10:3 Lehi's family descends from Israel/manasseh -- dispelled by DNA anthropology 3 Nephi ch 8-10 destruction of dozens of cities in a few short days -- dismantled by archaeology 4 Nephi utopian society of christians spread across the land of America and live in peace for 200 years -- archaeology, anthropology, and more demolished Abraham 3:3 & Fac 2,Fig 5 Our sun is governed by and receives its light from Kolob -- demolished by astronomy as a principle Egyptian (regular and reformed) translations by Joseph Smith -- smashed by linguists D&C 89 alcohol & coffee bad -- demolished by science, when used in moderation The bible is also riddled with similar issues from science. But if you're comfortable... What about the established scientific theories which cast confirmed and daunting aspersions on the scriptures? The point of this thread was that there are already a lot of issues coming from established science, and I am seeing yet another problem for revealed word from an upcoming branch in cosmology. If you have an example of where science had to retreat something determined since the restoration, and that something was contradictory to the revealed word which was then vindicated, I would like to see it.

Yep, if you take away everything then there isn't anything. Except possibility. And as you know, in a simple example, possibility integrated over infinity is something with unity probability. The problem is, philosophers know they're losing this game, so they are trying to tell physicists that they cannot use words, math, possibility, or ___ to define nothing. So they win because they are making up the rules as we go along. Philosophy isn't winning. They;re whining. Complete conjecture. How do you go from God residing in the universe near Kolob to dimensions beyond our universe? When the word elements appear, it was understood how that was understood. God revealed 93 to Joseph, so the words are his language. What you're trying to do is move the definition now that physics is showing the problems. It's the same game.

I read it, and Albert states it without ever yielding an actual physics argument, except to get confused between quantum vacuum empty space and NO Space. He just states that by his (Albert's) definition (the confused one), Krauss version of nothing is wrong. (” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.") And Krauss' retort (I quoted) still stands. I've read the book. I read Albert. I have physics degrees. I stand with Krauss. That being said, Krauss cannot argue that this is what DID happen. Just that it's plausible. In the spirit of change, I'm no longer arguing that it DID happen (as in my strongly worded OP), but that even if you take what we do have evidence for, D&C 93 and the statements I quoted in the OP are very suspect.

Albert at first confuses (then sort of corrects himself) the existence of a model with the thing it is meant to model. Relativistic-QFT is an equation (model) used to calculate a probability density of certain states. Those actual states (physical) are not the math. They are not laws. They are stuff. Albert is not claiming that there is stuff. He's claiming that there's a model and that's something!! But the model wasn't/isn't there. Just the possibility of interaction in a probabilistic manner. When we say probabilistic manner, we mean, randomness with a normal-distribution in the limit of infinity. (that is, if things were to pop into existence, they would interact randomly and large groups of them would have interactions that fall under a modeled distribution which is a solution to Relativistic-QFT.) Lawrence clarifies something Albert must have missed. I'll quote Krauss in reference to Albert's type of question (paraphrased as--A quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing--at the least it has QFT): "That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever (which is what the book argues), I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying (a model of) quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws (random interactions) that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum...Space didn't exist in the state I'm talking about, and of course then you'll say that the laws of quantum mechanics existed, and that those are something. But I don't know what laws existed then. In fact, most of the laws of nature didn't exist before the universe was created; they were created along with the universe...The forces of nature, the definition of particles---all these things come into existence with the universe, and in a different universe, different forces and different particles might exist." Albert didn't understand Krauss' argument. His critique is invalid.

The creation, arrival of man and fall are at the center of the Plan. For as in Adam all men die, all are made alive ....etc. The Atonement relies on very specific factors that are claimed to have happened at creation and the fall. If those things are just metaphors, then is the atonement likewise?

Yes, the co-eternal part would be uncaused/uncreated. So how do judge someone differently eons later than you would when in the most primitive form (intelligences)? Because EVERYTHING that happens upon the first moment time begins is determined based on environment and that uncaused makeup/form. Any form or makeup added there after is strictly a combination of what is the original plus environment. And not one of us is responsible for the environment we begin with. Plus not one of us chose our original self (whether caused or uncaused). So since we don't chose our original self (agent or not) and we don't choose our original environments, where did choice come from again? What would that matter anyway? If God wanted to reveal what came from him, he can. If not, we just accept it as factual because it works (whatever the source). That's a nice opinion, but there's not a sliver of evidence for that. Either way, it really doesn't matter. God will what he will, and when he doesn't, it's all on us. Which is why, since God never reveals evidence of himself, it is on us, using science. That's science. Measure the well-being that actions bring to humanity. Observation which fits a moral hypothesis. I think that is the best way too. I don't see how it even requires defining God. LOL. Thanks, that's a great laugh.

"Trust me" is exactly what experimentation is trying to avoid. The problem is, you have no objective means to validate that someone else who's not only had your pre-convert and post-convert experiences hasn't had another experience beyond yours and "knows" yours is false. You can't validate it. This experiment by supernatural means is epistemically flat. It's also perhaps a little arrogant(?) to presume that you know for a fact that your experience beats out all those across the globe that feel their spiritual experiences are earth-shattering, life-changing events that testify of their wiccan, new-age, islamic or hindu beliefs in complete contradiction to LDS doctrinal and authority claims.

Ok, going along with that, if choices arise out of years of experience, then we are masters to previous events, which weren't choices. It regresses all the way back. At the beginning, we were inexperienced. We were material (whether you believe genetic/biological or "intelligences eternal matter"). How did that first choice arise if it takes experience? The problem you face here is first cause and source. There is no easy way out of it. Talking about co-eternalness and intelligences don't solve it. If everything we do is based on what was accumulated from before (far back and right before), then nothing we do at present is truly choice. Now, that being said, all neuroscience is doing is confirming what is intuitively obvious. Personally, I don't think there is determinism or free will. There is "control".

How do you fit and explain the heart chakras that others have had which testify that Hinduism is truth? How do you fit the work on moral elevation by oxytocin production which causes a swelling and burning in the chest, but has nothing to do with religious or other truth?

Neuroscience has shown a lot of evidence that there is no free will. Intent and decision is not, apparently, a conscious exercise. Read up on Libet and then the latest studies on fMRI imaging of "intent" experiments. Get up to speed on your science if you're going to make claims about it.

True. Most people wouldn't know how to do it. But God has encouraged it in the Old Testament. Jesus committed it in 3 Nephi by destroying more than a dozen ancient American cities. As for atheism killing... it is dogma, religious or secular dogma, that is behind killing. Either way, it still shows that theological division causes problems.

You misunderstand what you think you read. Science concluded nothing. It showed observables, which as evidence support certain claims. Science never closes the door on anything and concludes, "case closed". The dynamics of science, with experment as the arbiter, is the best system we have to gaining facts that are practical and useful.

It's clear that you only have a basic understanding of physics.

If you consider anecdotal coincidences that may appear supernatural as evidence, but then are willing to say that science is weak in giving us answers, you're not thinking at all like an engineer. Telling me you believe that they are unobtainable through your senses is not evidence. You are saying that your faith (in a supernatural power/event) is evidenced by something you believe is supernatural. That's not evidence. That's more belief. If you want to muddy the doctrinal waters by claiming we are all the same, you have to show why we LDS have a unique claim on authority. You can't have it both ways--we are the one-and-only church with priesthood authority, but everyone has equal truth and access to God. That's what you seem to be doing. I claimed in the OP that religious philosophies are divided. I stand by that. Just look at the wars between the Hindus and Muslims. And Muslims and Christians. Buddhist too. The Kalachakra Tantra, as I understand it, is a holy war doctrine.