Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
43 minutes ago, Colirio said:
1. Time exists. We are subject to it.
2. God the Father did not create the Earth alone. Who else helped? Again, when God deals with man, He speaks and associates to their understanding.
EDIT: To help clarify what I mean, Elder Maxwell said:
"Both space and time are real, not just illusions, but God created them both and is not bound by either. Besides, we mortals make our decisions within our framework of understanding, not God's."(Neal A. Maxwell, Plain and Precious Things, p. 57.)
I now counter your question:
Why do you suppose we refer to being married in the temple as being "sealed for TIME and all eternity?"
I would counter back that "time" can and does have different meanings in context. For instance, why is it that the scriptures says that during the millennium time will be no more but in the same verse it says the earth shall exist for a thousand years during that period? Also, why does it speak of the reckonibg of "Gods time" if it doesnt supposedly exist for him?
All this shows me that "time has several different meanings deoending upon context.
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
To clarify: The point of my "riddle" is that the question itself is meaningless. It's like saying, "Can God divide by zero?" or "Can God cause that a person exist at a certain point in space at a certain moment, and simultaneously cause that the person not exist at that point in time and space?" These are not questions about God's abilities; they are word games, illustrating that we can string together verbal symbols in a correct syntax and still get nonsense.
As for Rob's point: He is wrong, because he does not comprehend the nature of God, nor the nature of knowledge, nor even (or especially) the nature of agency. But he is also deeply convinced by his own arguments, a self-satisfied position that most people just cannot get past. As long as Rob is not teaching his heretical ideas as LDS doctrine, it makes little difference. Rob believes a wrong thing. So do we all.
Funny thing is, all my understanding is backed by scripture and all the known laws of physics. You guys make God out to be some strange hypothetical science fiction entity.
-
1 hour ago, Colirio said:
Rob, again, the scriptures do not agree with you.
God's references to time are to help us, as mortals with limited understanding, be able to comprehend.
Alma clearly defines it:
Alma 40:8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.
So, if time is only measured to man why did it take God six days to create the earth.
-
18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Yes, and I have told you that it only is a problem with creatio ex nihilo teaching. Which pretty much is another evidence of the truth of the restored gospel.
That has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
-
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Yes. God works within God's laws. For example, God cannot sin. Because sinning is against God's laws. Now, we know this because it has been revealed to us what Sin means.
Now, as shown throughout the previous pages, you and some of us here have a different understanding of what that reckoning of time means. What eternity means. Etc. etc. Sin - there's no question what that means. At least not within this thread. Therefore, all it is we're doing here, is debating within our limited understanding of what Time means to which we try to plug God into. And as I've tried to express my own understanding of it, we are characters in a comic book. We are working through our passage of time through the story. God is outside of the comic book and he can flip pages forward and backward through the story as it is laid out right there infront of Him which makes it all Present to Him. Now, whether he progresses forward or backward within HIS own time - being in his own comicbook - we don't know. That's part of that thing in our Articles of Faith - there are things which have not been revealed pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Well, I dont agree that our future is already set in stone as you say with God. It creates too many problems of which we have already discussed.
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
Rob, we can't agree when it comes to putting limits on God. In God, everything is possible. @Vort's "favorite" riddle is to ask if God is so powerful that He can create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it. God works with the laws of nature so that if there is such a thing as something with infinite mass and that it can be lifted, then God can create a rock with infinite mass and still be able to lift it. But that's impossible, people exclaim. The limit is in man's understanding of the laws of nature. We've advanced so far as a human species in our understanding of God's creation but we haven't yet advanced so far as to define something with infinite mass and another thing of infinite strength that can lift it.
Btw,
We have hashed this out already but there is no such thing as the possibility of a rock with infinite weight nor of a person with infinite strength. We may give God the attribute of infinite, but its just a way of saying he is unlimited. The more proper understanding would be to say that God could create a rock that no matter how heavy it ended up he would have the strength to lift it. One cannot create (finish something with defined parameters) something with either a size or weight of infinity, that is against law to do such and is an oxymoron anyway.
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
Rob, we can't agree when it comes to putting limits on God. In God, everything is possible. @Vort's "favorite" riddle is to ask if God is so powerful that He can create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it. God works with the laws of nature so that if there is such a thing as something with infinite mass and that it can be lifted, then God can create a rock with infinite mass and still be able to lift it. But that's impossible, people exclaim. The limit is in man's understanding of the laws of nature. We've advanced so far as a human species in our understanding of God's creation but we haven't yet advanced so far as to define something with infinite mass and another thing of infinite strength that can lift it. That's our limitation, not God's.
The same thing here. WE ARE limited in our understanding of time. So, to set the same limitations on God just because we can't comprehend it is doing God an injustice. The proof you ask of Traveler, therefore, is irrelevant. Whether there is proof or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is... we cannot claim that we know everything there is to know about this thing called Time, therefore, we cannot hold God to the same limitations.
If we both agree that God works within laws then we must therefore also both agree that God cannot possibly do something outside of those laws he works within. This then means that all things being possible with God is indeed true as long as the understanding is modified to mean "within Gods laws, all things are possible".
Because we know that God too has his own reckoning of time and that it takes time, as defined by reckoning and sequencial events, then it is obvious that part of Gods laws that he works with is the reality that God too has a past, where things happened, a present, which state he is currently in, and a future of which has yet to unfold.
-
10 minutes ago, Colirio said:
Open minded?
I took your answer to me that you simply intended to debate the matter.
The truth is, Rob, I personally have no need to debate the answer. I have already felt the Spirit bear witness that the words of Elder Maxwell, the scriptures, and the Savior are true.
The only reason I wanted to help you, or anyone else understand is because the logical conclusion of your reasoning is that God could potentially be wrong in His assertions. It completely undermines the confidence we, as His sons and daughters, could have in His words to us.
Once again, Elder Maxwell:
"When we understand that all things are present before His eyes and that He knows all things past, present, and future, then we can trust ourselves to Him as we clearly could not to a less than omniscient god who is off somewhere in the firmament doing further research." (Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, pp. 36-37.)
As long as we agree that the actual past is in a literal past, having already happened, the present is currently happening and the actual future has not yet come to pass for God, then we can agree.
-
58 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
We agree, but that's also a way to make yourself feel better.
If someone says to me, "Gator, you swear too much." And I say "Yes, but you do too." I'm saying that to make myself feel better and remind them that they aren't perfect either. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the person leveling the accusation against me might be right. I feel like I'm in fifth grade again when people say "Pot calling kettle! I win! Ha ha ha!" And I hear it all. the. time.
Just saying that the accuser is guilty of something doesn't mean that you aren't. It's of way of trying to excuse your own actions.
And your point?
We both agree were not well open minded. Thats a no brainer.
-
10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
You might very well be open minded and willing to change your mind, Perhaps the question you need to ask yourself is "Why do people think I am not open minded? Am I behaving in a certain way that makes people think that?"
Its funny that those who think that are usually the very ones who also arent open minded on the very same subject. Its kinda a two way street.
-
This just happens to be one of my dearest topics and it just may be a lil "harder" to change my opinion.
-
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
This isn't the impression I got of you, Rob.
I am strongly opinionated its true. But I have changed opinions on things frim time to time.
-
Just now, Traveler said:
My question - what will you do if proof is provided? Alter your view of G-d?
The Traveler
Im never completely settled on anything. I am always open to new ideas.
-
You arent speaking of the double slit or the delayed choice experiments are you?
-
3 minutes ago, Traveler said:
To quote a infamous politician – “What difference would it make?”
The Traveler
I mean you either can show proof or not. Its up to you.
-
9 hours ago, Traveler said:
I do not disagree with what you are trying to say but in the quantum weirdness of particle physics we know that A and B must always happen in a certain way to cause C but then we will occasionally observe C occur in our space time before A and B. However, when that happens; A and B will always occur later in the manner that will cause C and C will not reoccur.
The Traveler
I believe you see the illusion of what appears to be the future happening in the present but in reality its just a misunderstanding of phsics. Can you provide proof to what you are saying?
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
Your stance has been absolutely demonstrated, at the quantum level, to be at best incomplete and at worse false if I understand you correctly. If you were more open to things, perhaps difficult to comprehend for a two-dimensional mind, we could go much deeper with this subject. Are you at least willing to accept that time is not linear (meaning constant) meaning that time varies significantly when subjected to various force fields. And that time is not continuous and thus cannot be an actual dimension of continuous space?
Be very thoughtful with your answer – based on your previous statements the above could be “trick” questions.
The Traveler
Okay. Im going to use different language.
I believe in cause and effect where "A" happens which then effects and causes "B" to happen and then when we get to event "C" we can say that events A,B already happened, C is currently happening and D,E,F,... are yet to happen. Its in the process that the past has already happened, the present, which was a cause of past events, is currently happening and the future is yet to happen but will play out acvording to events now happening.
Hope that cleared things up.
-
On 3/10/2017 at 10:10 AM, Traveler said:
I see "the problem". You think that just because you see time as an ordered sequence - you cannot understand or comprehend that from another platform (different space-time dimension) that is not at all what is happening. @Colirio quotes Elder Neal A. Maxwell implying that G-d see the future as now. The scientific concept is a little deeper in that one would not just see but experience the future as now. It is not that difficult to think it possible to experience the past as we do the now but it is very difficult for some to understand the possibility that even the future can be experienced as now.
I would add on other interesting scripture in Isaiah 46:10. Not only does G-d know all things from the beginning to the end but he foretells (prophesies or lets man know) or as it is said in Amos 3:7 – that G-d does not do anything unless he informs his prophets first.
The Traveler
Only the present can exist as a physical place and reality. Seeing into the past or future does not mean it exists as a real physical place in the present, but more like a movie. With the future, I believe that movie changes all the time based off of peoples choices in the present. Thus why the Lord gives either this/either that revelations based off of what actually unfolds as events and decisions play out.
-
8 hours ago, Traveler said:
Special Relativity has been demonstrated and confirmed. You may want to Goodgle Special Relativity. Quoting Wikipedia:
I would point out if you do much study into SR you will discover that time will appear the same in all occurrences of space time depending on one’s frame of reference. Even if you could look upon non-linear time you will still perceive it in your reference space-time frame as linear.
It is reasonable that G-d deals with us in ways we can understand. There would be no reason for G-d to give us an example that is inconsistent with our standing and understanding.
The Traveler
Yeah, its what we call the reckoning of ones time in the scriptures. Time may pass at diffetent rates but whether one is fast and another slow, it all rolls forward together.
-
As for revelation, there too many instances where God gives a prophecy that is conditional with an "if this then that but if not that then this". Speaking of our day, the Lord prophecied that if we, the gentiles, do not show compassion to the American Indian remnants after we scattered them then he shall cause them to tread us down but if we do repent and show compassion we will be blessed above all nations. Why do you suppose God would give a revelation/prophecy that hinges either on one hand or the other wholly dependent on what we would choose at that future day? Could it possibly be that this is because God can see the possibility of futures but not actually see the exact path as if it were set in stone? The scriptures seem to testify to this reality.
-
19 minutes ago, Traveler said:
We already know from Special Relativity that time is not linear but only appears so in certain “closed” instances. At the quantum level, we know time is not continuous – which means that time is not even an actual dimension of our empirical universe and that there are places in our universe where time does not exist – Or at least as near as we are able to recognize – time does not exist.
This concept of time defined by modern science is very difficult for many in the general population to understand but these new concepts play out very well for understanding some of the concepts of time presented in the Book of Abraham. One could also argue that being “outside” of time would be indistinguishable as a different reckoning of time from a time based platform of space time.
In addition, the very concept of a “prophet” is someone that “sees” into the future and knows of things that will come to pass (both what can and what will) – that cannot be seen or understood by other mortals (including me).
The Traveler
Theoretical physics aside, it has never been shown that time is not linear throughout space.
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
The point is actually, that God USES time. For him to do so requires that he is outside time. Hence, prophecies is possible, revealing future events to Moses and Abraham is possible, having a Bible written thousands of years ago that tells of the apostasy and then the restoration in the future is possible, inspiring Nephi to write a spiritual summary of Lehi's records in preparation for the loss of the book of Lehi in the time of the restoration is possible, having revealed to us what happens in the millenia that will occur far into the future is possible... all of these linear-time-independent activities are possible under God.
God is not outside of time. Why do the scriptures speak of Gods reckoning of time?
-
15 minutes ago, mordorbund said:
What if time has 2 axes? one for us and one for God?
Different reckonings.
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
I do not think the term "days" (as understood in modern dictionaries) as translated from the ancient Hebrew is a complete and unambiguous way to interoperate divine things. I believe the term “creation” as referenced in scripture is unique to and specificially part of the Plan of Salvation. Applying that notion of the Plan of Salvation as a direct mapping to the scientific definations for the origins of our empirical universe is at best speculation. Or I could say the mingling of scripture with the philosophies of men
The Traveler
The point was to show that even God, the mightiest of all, is not outside of linear time- he too works in the present with the past in back of him having already happened and the future in front of him still waiting to unfold.
Equality: is it overrated?
in General Discussion
Posted
Good grief folks. Everybody done havin their micro-aggressions yet?