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.

Genocide and murder are not rare. And are tolerated as part of some governments. War is pronounced moral. Capital punishment, abortion, de facto slavery are practiced in third world countries. These are not moral. Slavery and death penalties and war have been supported by Western religions.

The problem with this experiment is that it tells us the outcome and yet provides no epistemic validation for knowing if the outcome is what is claimed here. In other words...Why do we trust that this method is the right one? I don't know. I used to, but I am not so sure (see below) - How do you know that these experiences (feelings) are not from inside of you? They most definitely are. the question is, how can I know the trigger is from an external (essential) source? - Does the Holy Ghost testify and point as truthful doctrines which contradict Mormonism? For example, polytheism & paganism? Yes. The Hindus practice Chakra meditation, one of which is centered in the heart. I've seen descriptions of that where a Hindu describes the experience as, "A feeling of peace seemed to flow into me with a sense of togetherness...I felt very peaceful from inside and also felt heat.” (see Siddhaloka - Abode of Siddhas ) And this description among many many that show the "burning of the bosom" is actually more intense among some Hindu practioners. " Often there is heat focused in this area when the chakra is awakening. This may feel like a warm, glowing sensation or a feeling of incandescence, with the chest blazing hot as a furnace." "for example I feel my heart chakra (on average) a foot extending out from my chest (front and back) and about the size of a basketball. " "I have had a warming sensation in the middle of my chest for the past two days. " (See Warm Sensation, Heart Chakra? - ChakraTribe - tribe.net ) Other cultures and religious systems have these same experiences and signs and miracles. Just like the Momrons, the Hindus have the Chakras, some of which have manifestations of elation, lifting and pure knowledge while meditating. For example, during mediation/mantra recitation (prayer), a flame is felt inside of the heart (part of the heart chakra), from which the mantra rings out; and this cooperates with the brow and crown (mind) chakras for realizing the "Clear Light". Islam has the "hajj experience" and islamic transformation that are essentially just as strong or more than the mormon burning, as exampled by those who feel so emboldened as to commit suicide for their testimony. Other Christian churches have spiritual manifestations in feelings, tongues and miracles. When Alma talks about a swelling in your breast, it is like the heart chakra, and mood elevation as describe by Prof J. Haidt, who has seen evidence for a link to oxytocin production in the chest. In other words, this swelling could be triggered for any "seed" and is not useful to help us discern truth. In the end, it is still divisive.

You're both giving examples of my point--religious camps are divided about what constitutes moral truths. And "changed" what do you mean by basic morals? Human sacrifice & cannibalism have been practiced by many many cultures, some even to date. Abortion is not seen as murder or wrong in many cultures. The divisions about some of the most grevious morals are striking in modern civilizations. Hence the genocides in Africa and much more. And changed, regarding your points that science aren't perfect or know everything--I concede that. However, its method provides unity. Its methods provide technology (which are further validation of the theories). Its methods have provided real answers to questions which we thought only religion could answer, but now know was wrong. At many points, previous religious teaching gives way to science fact. 200 years ago, Western theologies believed in a young earth, in a static universe, in absolute time, in creation of man as separate from the animals. These kinds of claims are an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. And the current claims seem to be getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.

Cosmologists (those who study such things) are pretty much agreed. There was complete nothingness. Not even space-time geometery, not energy, not matter of any kind at any size. Nothing. "Strings" (of now-called membrane theory) are theoretical. There's never been any observation of them. However, even the theory, if I understand it (it's not my specialty) does not predict them before the big bang. Rather, they erupt trillionths of trillionths of seconds (~10^-35s) after the big bang moment.

In D&C 93 it says: 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; Joseph Smith taught: "[elements] may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had not beginning, and can have no end." (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, 1844) Brigham Young taught: "God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law of which the worlds were, are, or will exist." (JD 14:116) But physics is clearly showing now that at "just before" the big bang there were no elements. Not even sub-atomic, not even sub-sub nuclear particles. Not light, energy, matter of any kind. It was completely nothing. Cosmologists tout that in fact, not only did everything arise from nothing, it did it by spontaneous self-generation. ("A universe from nothing" Lawrence Krauss) Does this mean that the original ex-nihilo Christian teaching is now correct?

Humans crave meaning and a set of mores to abide by together. Hopefully in peace. Some here have said say that science can only say what possibilities are there, not which are moral or correct or good. It's said that these can only come from theology (and ultimately God). However, Western, Eastern and other theologies/traditions have many disagreements and do not merge. They differ greatly about what morals/commandments/rules are. There is no unified religious tradition. Science has a unified front. There are not Eastern biology and Western biology. There is biology. There is physics. Classes in Asia teach chemistry principles the same as do Western chemistry. Science has universality. Science produces. Religion bickers. In theology there is little dialogue between its different traditions, perhaps from time to time; but not a merger. As humanity we do not have a single unified moral tradition. While the history of scientific and mathematical discoveries are scattered all across the globe, yet, there aren’t different parallel scientific traditions. As humanity we have a single history and a single tradition of science. Every basic biology class on the globe will teach the same principles. Not the case if you are taking a basic philosophy class. There is in science an aspect of universality that we don’t find in theology. But so what? We can't get morals from science, you may say. To say that science has nothing of value to give to the understanding and production of morals & ethics belies this fundamental universality. If religious traditions are so arguable as to produce major rifts, then how can it possibly produce a coherent relative set of morals let alone an absolute sense of morality? The scientific method is a codification of a specific technique of handling and processing information. Morality is also about information. Science is also an integrity of process that we as a society hold sacrosanct. It produces understanding of our world, and remains consistent from one experimenter to another. We don’t end up with five different interpretations on the basic principles of physics. We have a universal set. Yes, there are some aspects of science which disagree, but experiment is the final arbiter. The disagreements in religious philosophy are fragmented camps, which no one sees as unifying anytime soon. Why not? Because, unlike science where disagreements only exist until the final evidence is in, philosophy is always beholden to individual views of non-reality within reality. Religious leaders, priest, prophets, preachers, etc are venerated in congregations, camps, per individual taste for their doctrine and sermon. In science, we expect scientists to earn respect. Religious leaders from what I can tell have no expectation of accountability in this way. Scientists subject themselves and their work to repeated scrutiny. And only after their observations, analysis and conclusions have been repeatedly tested by others, can any scientist expect to be taken seriously. Imagine if we what we do for physics, we did for moral information. Imagine if we could have a moral theory that is not based upon the opinion and camp of a given philosopher. The scientific method gives us the hope of something we have never had. It gives us the hope of someday finding a moral theory that is the same for all of humanity, rather than a fragmented set of morals varying from civilization to civilization.

True, I did argue with a narrow defition of my version of a loving god. That isn't helpful. The second paragraph gets at the heart of it, in which I stated that by dictating to me that my questions and doubts can be answered by defining God in a certain way is doing the same thing you called me on. I suppose we both did it. And neither of us helps the matter. I agree that we need a set of congruent principles. And you provided a strawman in saying that science cannot prove anything beyond doubt. It never claimed to. But it still has the power to yield evidence that is equally accessible to all. The evidence claimed in the scriptures is subjective to the person. First of all, the spiritual confirmation is found to validate beliefs which are intolerant and contradictory to each other. Second, no matter how skilled at spirituality, not everyone has equal access according to LDS doctrine. Joseph Smith got a vision because it was needed. Everyone else must trust it. Only a select few might get something akin to it. God is a respector of persons, in this manner. Science doesn't discriminate like that. You get the knowledge, have the means, you get the answers like anyone else, and can use them to provide technology that benefits all that want it. Listen to your statements: God is not known through physical means, but is through the spirit, which is manifested in clearly physical (neurological) ways. If you insist that testimony is had empirically through conscious experience, then you cannot tell us that the method is non-physical. The red herring is that. All I am trying to do is clarify this so that I can really truly understand what is the means to know truth. What you don't like is that I dare question the assumption that the spirit is the truth meter. Unfortunately, that doesn't bear out with the evidence I've seen the world over and that I have experienced personally. I wish it were. Truly I do. I wish there was a clear cut answer to this without the subjectivity that the method is plagued with. But there doesn't appear to be a clear answer and that troubles me. How can God leave us with such a faulty method to access him? Previously I was told to repent. I decided that this was an anomalous disparage of me. Now I see it is probably generally felt. And with that accusation that my motives are suspect, I bid you all goodbye from this thread. I really don't need to be accused of being insincere. I haven't questioned the motive or determination of others here about their desire to have the truth. I've only questioned if the methods we've been taught will really take us there. But to get an implied ad-hominem attack on my sincerity just says it's pointless to try to have a reasonable discussion in this subject. Thanks all.

I have a hard time believing that an all-loving God is so choosey and that Joseph Smith had more faith than the rest of us. Reading about his life in Rough Stone Rolling, I get the impression he had a lot of serious character flaws. But then, most of us have our bad areas. The other issue is, you just made several claims about what God wants, how God operates, and so forth in order to answer a doubt about the nature of God. That's very circular. Your argument against my epistemic concern is to give me more claims that cannot be validated properly. Doesn't help in the least. Science is validated because the scientific method is founded on the concept of validation, verification and confirmation by empirical means. Science never made claims about good or evil. It makes claims about observables, facts and organization of those into theories. When I find religion making promises that its metaphysical claims can be empirically verified (as in Alma 32 or Moroni 10), then I have to apply a method that parallels the scientific method. That means objective analysis. My analysis tells me this experiment can be used to confirm most any belief. That's problematic for the claim that "the truth of all things" can be found by the Holy Ghost confirmation method. It just isn't born out by observation the world over. The dilemma can be summarized as this: Metaphysical/spiritual claims (by definition) do not provide empirical means to validate them. Attempts to validate metaphysical claims by empirical means through spiritual experience in practice has resulted in all claims finding validation. That dilutes the claims because logically they cannot all be true. Furthermore, epistemic analysis of the spiritual confirmation shows that there are no external means to validate the ethical claims on the divinity and goodness of the source.

I think it only makes sense that if God is going to appear to Joseph Smith after a simple prayer to know the truth, he do the same for all of us. Yes, to validate it is God, not Frank, we have more issues. That was the point of my OP. Even if all of us get the same vision (why isn't it called a visitation?) then we still cannot verify that it isn't a trick. In the end, the epistemic dilemma regarding ethical monotheism is a huge burden.

Given the First Vision (if true) is a critical event--Hinckley stated that it was where it all rested upon--If I could get the same standard of evidence for the first vision that I have for any critical science theory (evolution, gravity, QM, DNA) then I would be ecstatic!