Spirit Matter

[Guest Ronal2dduff]

[justinc]

The D&C doesn't teach that the Spirit is physical

Ill try make it really really simple.

"All spirit is matter" D&C 131:7

Matter: "physical substance in general" - Oxford Online Dictionaries

Spirit=matter

matter=physical

Thus, spirit=physical

the other passages do not support your claim either.

Are you going to give reasons to support this assertion?

Incorrect, I am not contending against a mind without a body, I am contending against an "immaterial un-embodied mind" let us not confuse the two.

We were spirits, "all spirit is matter," (as you are fixated with) which did not have a body. As already discussed we were intelligences that exist of elements which are eternal.

As discussed in my first response to you, Ether Chapter 3, specifies the "spirit body" of Jehovah before he took a tabernacle of flesh.

Again, I contend against an "immaterial un-embodied mind" not a "mind existing apart from the body."

Woops, I messed this one up. If forgot that you believe the mind is material.

This is an interesting statement coming from a Christian who accepts the private and personal experiences of a record more than 2000 years old.

Thus it appears you already "confirm" and do not "deny" these experiences which were claimed in private, or do you believe Moses had many witnesses on Mt. Sinai? When Jacob wrestled with an angel, a private experience, were you there or anybody else?

Yet, again, you "confirm" these stories as truth, which happened in private. The resurrection and Christ meeting with his twelve apostles, in a house, was this private? It would appear God works within the private experiences of his disciples and servants.

I actually struggle to accept alot of the things in the biblical records. I believe the resurrection but this is supported by historical evidences. I would prefer to drop this particular topic for another time if that's alright.

[justinc]

It is my opinion that evolution is an observable process of life. Brother McConkie is entitled to his human opinions as are you and I.

Interesting how you reference other theologians as 'kicking and screaming' yet when Brother McConkie is wrong its a gentle 'human opinion'.

There is no indication that any living human currently in existence was created in any other process or method. Those that do not believe man is created by evolution simply are out of touch with reality and refuse to see what is obvious before their very eyes. If you personally believe that Adam was created through another process or method than you were created; I would be interested where you acquired such a notion.

To be honest I take a very agnostic approach as to the origin of man - that is to say, I don't know what happened. But I don't see Genesis as a literal historical record of entirety actual events.

The idea that space time is a static thing and was created from nothing sometime ago is a medieval concept that has been proven false.

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." - Stephen Hawking

"in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." - William Lane Craig

Material is another state of power or energy - Are you saying that G-d had no access to any already existing power before creation? That is absurd.

Word Games. God did not have power in any material-physical sense. God did and does have power in the sense of 'the ability or capacity to do something'.

With each integer (or counting) number you referenced there are between each and infinite number (∞) of rational numbers as well as an infinite number or irrational numbers.

It is my position that an actually infinite number of things can not exist. Potentially they can in the sense that one can potentially count forever. But that infinity will never be actualized since at any given moment I can only give you a finite number.

Accepting the notion of an actual infinity would lead to strange conclusions. Imagine I had two infinities. If in one of them I took away all the even numbers both infinities would still contain the exact same amount of numbers.

∞ - 1 = ∞

∞ - 7 = ∞

Regardless of the quantity of the number I take away we are still left with the same number, ∞.

If we apply this to the real world we are left with bizarre conclusions. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms full of an infinite number of guests. If I want to check in all they have to do is move the guest from room 1 into room 2, room 2 into room 3, 3 into 4, 4 into 5, off to infinity - now there is a spare room. This is bizarre since when I arrived all the rooms were full.

Set theory doesn't undermine this argument either. "developments in modern mathematics merely show that if you adopt certain axioms and rules, then you can talk about actually infinite collections in a consistent way, without contradicting yourself. All this accomplishes is showing how to set up a certain universe of discourse for talking consistently about actual infinities. But it does absolutely nothing to show that such mathematical entities really exist or that an actually infinite number of things can really exist." - Craig, William Lane (2010-03-01). On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 1444-1447). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.

Thus mathematician David Hilbert concludes "The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea"

Your premiss and logic fails the example (G-d) that we can both agree upon as something that has always existed.

The question is whether or not God 'has always existed' in time. My position is that God is timeless and therefore has not endured an infinite number of moments. The notion that God in his material body had endured an infinite number of moments is problematic.

[Magen_Avot]

[Anddenex]

Ill try make it really really simple.

"All spirit is matter" D&C 131:7

Matter: "physical substance in general" - Oxford Online Dictionaries

Spirit=matter

matter=physical

Thus, spirit=physical

Are you going to give reasons to support this assertion?

Your fixation with one verse is where the difficulty lies. What you have provided is an interpretation from your worldview, not a factual interpretation of the scripture.

Let's review other verses again, "For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth." (Source)

We know and understand "natural" as in the "natural man" is an enemy to God. The natural man is the man of flesh, in other words a physical being, not a spiritual being.

Now let's review the statement, per your interpretation, "For I...created [ALL] things...spiritually, before they were [physically]."

In your worldview, or as you would say, "I'll make it really simple," the verse should read, "For I...created all things...[physically], before they were [physically]."

Your worldview interpretation of scripture is redundant. The Lord created us physically, before we were physical? Doh!

There is an obvious difference between what is defined as spiritual elements (matter), and what is considered physical matter.

As long as you remain fixed within your "simple" understanding, then you will continue to interpret the D&C incorrectly.

Are you going to give reasons to support this assertion?

I would encourage you to read articles from FAIR Defending Mormonism, which provide a more educated and in depth responses to the scriptures you provide.

I actually struggle to accept alot of the things in the biblical records. I believe the resurrection but this is supported by historical evidences. I would prefer to drop this particular topic for another time if that's alright.

Sure. However, please point me to any "historical evidences" which are not private interpretations regarding history specifying the resurrection actually happened.

When I speak "historical evidence" science should be able to back up your claim.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

Interesting how you reference other theologians as 'kicking and screaming' yet when Brother McConkie is wrong its a gentle 'human opinion'.

To be honest I take a very agnostic approach as to the origin of man - that is to say, I don't know what happened. But I don't see Genesis as a literal historical record of entirety actual events.

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." - Stephen Hawking

"in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." - William Lane Craig

Word Games. God did not have power in any material-physical sense. God did and does have power in the sense of 'the ability or capacity to do something'.

It is my position that an actually infinite number of things can not exist. Potentially they can in the sense that one can potentially count forever. But that infinity will never be actualized since at any given moment I can only give you a finite number.

Accepting the notion of an actual infinity would lead to strange conclusions. Imagine I had two infinities. If in one of them I took away all the even numbers both infinities would still contain the exact same amount of numbers.

∞ - 1 = ∞

∞ - 7 = ∞

Regardless of the quantity of the number I take away we are still left with the same number, ∞.

If we apply this to the real world we are left with bizarre conclusions. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms full of an infinite number of guests. If I want to check in all they have to do is move the guest from room 1 into room 2, room 2 into room 3, 3 into 4, 4 into 5, off to infinity - now there is a spare room. This is bizarre since when I arrived all the rooms were full.

Set theory doesn't undermine this argument either. "developments in modern mathematics merely show that if you adopt certain axioms and rules, then you can talk about actually infinite collections in a consistent way, without contradicting yourself. All this accomplishes is showing how to set up a certain universe of discourse for talking consistently about actual infinities. But it does absolutely nothing to show that such mathematical entities really exist or that an actually infinite number of things can really exist." - Craig, William Lane (2010-03-01). On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 1444-1447). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.

Thus mathematician David Hilbert concludes "The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea"

The question is whether or not God 'has always existed' in time. My position is that God is timeless and therefore has not endured an infinite number of moments. The notion that God in his material body had endured an infinite number of moments is problematic.

I see your problem - you are using principles that apply to one set from another set. Infinity is not a number as you are trying to use it. Your application to a infinite hotel with infinite guests is a misuse of logic. Your infinite hotel even when full will still have infinite vacancies. Moving guest around does not change anything. If you need - we can go into number theory and even discuss the various kinds or values of infinity (since all infinities are not equal). Part of the answer to your implied logic dilemma comes from your own logic - adding or subtracting any amount of finite number to infinity does not change that value of infinity - thus add another guest to a full hotel does not change the infinite vacancies or infinite guests nor the room available or full.

This is a very common error that occurs with both advanced and novice mathematicians. Not all mathematical logical operations are transitive. The logic of the binary operation of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of infinity is not transitive. Do not feel bad any university mathematical texts is riddled with such errors.

As to your assumption that G-d did not have any experience or knowledge concerning time prior to what Genesis defines as the "Beginning" I see as a gross misunderstanding of G-d and time. I do not know why a Christian would even go there?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I see your problem - you are using principles that apply to one set from another set. Infinity is not a number as you are trying to use it. Your application to a infinite hotel with infinite guests is a misuse of logic. Your infinite hotel even when full will still have infinite vacancies. Moving guest around does not change anything. If you need - we can go into number theory and even discuss the various kinds or values of infinity (since all infinities are not equal). Part of the answer to your implied logic dilemma comes from your own logic - adding or subtracting any amount of finite number to infinity does not change that value of infinity - thus add another guest to a full hotel does not change the infinite vacancies or infinite guests nor the room available or full.

This is a very common error that occurs with both advanced and novice mathematicians. Not all mathematical logical operations are transitive. The logic of the binary operation of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of infinity is not transitive. Do not feel bad any university mathematical texts is riddled with such errors.

As to your assumption that G-d did not have any experience or knowledge concerning time prior to what Genesis defines as the "Beginning" I see as a gross misunderstanding of G-d and time. I do not know why a Christian would even go there?

The Traveler

Ahah!

Why can't you take this same reasoning and apply it to principles pertaining to this realm, earthly, mortal state versus the eternal realms - "not all .... logical operations are transitive."

The laws of nature may be "one set" and the laws of celestial realms another set. Like you said, "I see your problem - you are using principles that apply to one set from another set." There is nothing that says we can take laws pertaining to coarse matter and apply it to fine matter even if they can be together in one whole set of truths, like the word "mathematics" containing all the sets. Looking to the sky to find Kolob may not be any more successful than the tower of Babel. We are told pretty clearly that we are separated from God while in this existence.

[Traveler]

Ahah!

Why can't you take this same reasoning and apply it to principles pertaining to this realm, earthly, mortal state versus the eternal realms - "not all .... logical operations are transitive."

The laws of nature may be "one set" and the laws of celestial realms another set. Like you said, "I see your problem - you are using principles that apply to one set from another set." There is nothing that says we can take laws pertaining to coarse matter and apply it to fine matter even if they can be together in one whole set of truths, like the word "mathematics" containing all the sets. Looking to the sky to find Kolob may not be any more successful than the tower of Babel. We are told pretty clearly that we are separated from God while in this existence.

All very good points but we have very well defined conditions for all uses of infinity. Thus we can experiment and see if or when transitivity applies. But we do not have well defined definitions or access to the eternal model. So if we say a particular principle applies or does not apply - we cannot demonstrate how that application takes place.

My assumption is that what we learn concerning our empirical (fallen) experience has application beyond the grave - unless we are specifically instructed otherwise by revelation. If not then all bets (including so called spiritual) are off - so I hold to the statement by Paul in scripture - Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

All very good points but we have very well defined conditions for all uses of infinity. Thus we can experiment and see if or when transitivity applies. But we do not have well defined definitions or access to the eternal model. So if we say a particular principle applies or does not apply - we cannot demonstrate how that application takes place.

My assumption is that what we learn concerning our empirical (fallen) experience has application beyond the grave - unless we are specifically instructed otherwise by revelation. If not then all bets (including so called spiritual) are off - so I hold to the statement by Paul in scripture - Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.

The Traveler

Somehow you switched from physical laws being applicable to the eternal realm to lessons learned. I wasn't talking about lessons learned.

The lack of "access to the eternal model" is a reflection of the lack of transitivity. If all I have is a hammer then all I can do is work with nails, if I come across a screw, well then I am just .....

The idea that spiritual things are obtained spiritually and physical things are obtained physically and one doesn't understand the other very well is a reflection of its lack of transitivity. It isn't possible to "access the eternal model" through physical means, not only because there is no access but because it is not possible. That is a law, that is a truth. To suppose that it could be possible is a lie. Even if I had a super powerful telescope or scientific equipment from this world, I couldn't see God's throne or His realm anymore than the best hammer in the world could screw in a screw. That is not to say that they are in opposition, they are simply different systems that have different properties.

If that were not true then there would be no reason for God to have a physical body and a spirit body. If it was one system and one set we could have skipped this portion of our development because we wouldn't need a duplicate body that follows the same "laws of nature" our spirit body does. Do we really know why we need a body to be like God? Not really, but that is one of our core beliefs. If God has spirit matter and physical matter to be God then spirit is not the same as physical as there would be no added value to have a physical body. We are told the body is in the image of the spirit. If it is not in the form or shape that they differ than how is one different than the other? Their properties are different. What we don't have access to is to understand why the spirit alone cannot be like God. In other words, what does the body have that the spirit doesn't. Spirit - Body = the non-transitivity qualities of the spiritual realm. And Body - Spirit = the non-transitivity qualities of the physical realm. And body does not equal spirit in all of its qualities.

[Traveler]

Somehow you switched from physical laws being applicable to the eternal realm to lessons learned. I wasn't talking about lessons learned.

The lack of "access to the eternal model" is a reflection of the lack of transitivity. If all I have is a hammer then all I can do is work with nails, if I come across a screw, well then I am just .....

The idea that spiritual things are obtained spiritually and physical things are obtained physically and one doesn't understand the other very well is a reflection of its lack of transitivity. It isn't possible to "access the eternal model" through physical means, not only because there is no access but because it is not possible. That is a law, that is a truth. To suppose that it could be possible is a lie. Even if I had a super powerful telescope or scientific equipment from this world, I couldn't see God's throne or His realm anymore than the best hammer in the world could screw in a screw. That is not to say that they are in opposition, they are simply different systems that have different properties.

If that were not true then there would be no reason for God to have a physical body and a spirit body. If it was one system and one set we could have skipped this portion of our development because we wouldn't need a duplicate body that follows the same "laws of nature" our spirit body does. Do we really know why we need a body to be like God? Not really, but that is one of our core beliefs. If God has spirit matter and physical matter to be God then spirit is not the same as physical as there would be no added value to have a physical body. We are told the body is in the image of the spirit. If it is not in the form or shape that they differ than how is one different than the other? Their properties are different. What we don't have access to is to understand why the spirit alone cannot be like God. In other words, what does the body have that the spirit doesn't. Spirit - Body = the non-transitivity qualities of the spiritual realm. And Body - Spirit = the non-transitivity qualities of the physical realm. And body does not equal spirit in all of its qualities.

When we talk about sets that are are not transitive there are principles and laws that define such sets - likewise with sets where transitivity occurs. If I were to guess - I would say spiritual things are transitive - based on Abraham chapter 3. There we learn that whenever there are two spirits one will be "greater" than the other. Thus the problem is not understanding what you and I may call spiritual transitivity but in being able to quantify which spirit is greater than another. All we know concerning such things is that G-d is greater than them all or the greatest of all.

With non-transitive sets of infinite things there are no relationships like what we are given in Abraham Chapter 3. There infinity + 1 is not greater than infinity - 1. That is why transitivity does not exist with infinite sets. We also know there is a direct correlation to things spiritual very similar to things empirical (note that I have expanded the idea from physical to that which is empirical). This is because of how I interpret D&C 130:21. This implies what is defined in mathematics as a "direct" relationship. Sets that vary with direct relationships of necessity must be transitive.

Now I do concede that perhaps it is possible that things spiritual are not related to such understanding. But that leaves us to wonder why G-d would use symbols deceptively - which is my understanding of a the essence of a lie. However, as always, I am willing to consider other possibilities - but not as serious without some compelling (logical - meaning rhetorical) or demonstrable (empirical) based on the principles and laws I have access to.

Because I believe G-d operates on principles and laws I try to understand the principles and laws in use concerning whatever is being addressed. In this manner when I have disagreement with someone concerning some point; I first attempt to determine if their opinion differs because of principle and law or because of a undisciplined opinion or prejudice. I realize this sounds cold and hard but I have yet to experience any truth (exception) that is secured by any other method than through rigorous disciplined application of principles and laws - if you have a better example - I would love to consider it.

The Traveler

[justinc]

I don't disagree with this, but I don't necessarily agree with it either. I don't know that everything that is self-existing must have some utility to it (which is how I'm reading this). Be that as it may, it's not the one I take issue with.

What the first premise argues is that everything demands an explanation for its existence. In the end, an explanation will either be in the necessity of its own nature or the explanation will be in some transcendent cause.

I would think, building on premise 1, that if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is either an external cause or the necessity of its own nature. Why can't the universe be eternal? Hawking kicked around the idea that it was in a cycle of expanding and collapsing.

This premise is not about length of existence but rather the explanation for existence. Either the universe just exists necessarily or it has some external cause. I am arguing that the universe doesn't exist necessarily, thus must have an external cause.

The problem with the universe existing of necessity is that, according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny fundamental particles that cannot be further broken down. The universe is just the collection of all these particles arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: Couldn’t a different collection of fundamental particles have existed instead of this one? Does each and every one of these particles exist necessarily? Notice what the one cannot say at this point. One cannot say that the elementary particles are just configurations of matter which that could have been different, but that the matter of which the particles are composed exists necessarily. One can’t say this, because elementary particles aren’t composed of anything. They just are the basic units of matter. So if a particular particle doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist. Now it seems obvious that a different collection of fundamental particles could have existed instead of the collection that does exist. But if that were the case, then a different universe would have existed. To see the point, think about your desk. Could your desk have been made of ice? Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and shape. Rather I’m asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been made of ice. The answer seems to be obviously, no. The ice desk would be a different desk, not the same desk. Similarly, a universe made up of different particles, even if they were identically arranged as in this universe, would be a different universe. It follows, then, that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

Further, if the explanation is an external cause, that cause may be an unembodied mind, or perhaps an unobservable mind, or perhaps a mindless ecology, or perhaps a donkey composed of elements from another universe.

Think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, can’t cause any effects. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what Christians have traditionally understood God to be. The donkey wont do since it cant be composed of elements and not exist in space at the same time.

Additionally, you're hooked up on if spirit is matter, then it must hold all the same properties of matter of which we're already aware. I don't think this necessarily holds true either. The Prophet both described is as "finer", which lends credence to your idea of having a microscope that has a resolution for finer things, but he also described it as "purer", and I don't know many scientists ready to build a machine to view purer things. What does that mean? how do you do that? are the properties of purer matter the same as observable matter?

One other verse for your consideration, the same Prophet seemingly drew a distinction between the matter of spirit bodies and the matter of physical bodies here: Doctrine and Covenants 93:33Â*

Both yourself and Anddenex believe that Joseph Smith differentiated between Spirit and Physical. But what I see when I read is that Smith rather differentiated between Phyisical-Spirit and Physical-Flesh&Bone.

This is evident from D&C 131:7 where it says "all spirit is matter". Matter by definition is "physical" (Oxford Online Dictionaries) Thus D&C 131:7 basically says "all spirit is [physical]".

Also Parley P. Pratt when speaking on Intelligences notes: "They are made of the element which we call spirit, which is as much an element of material existence, as earth, air, electricity, or any other tangible substance recognized by man; but so subtle, so refined is its nature, that it is not tangible to our gross organs."

and in passing, regarding your philosophical musings of the chair and the body - your analogy fails if the physical body is not also replacing the purer matter of your spirit every 7 years.

Agreed, if such Spirit matter exists. The point was to do with the brain etc. Of course I accept that I cannot falsify Spirit matter which can never be detected.

[justinc]

What you have provided is an interpretation from your worldview, not a factual interpretation of the scripture.

This has nothing to do with my worldview. I could be a Latter-day Saint and still come to this conclusion, its simple. I don't understand how you cant see it.

"All spirit is matter" (D&C 131:7). Matter by definition is Physical, thus we may paraphrase "All spirit is [physical]".

Let's review other verses again, "For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth." (Source)

We know and understand "natural" as in the "natural man" is an enemy to God. The natural man is the man of flesh, in other words a physical being, not a spiritual being.

Now let's review the statement, per your interpretation, "For I...created [ALL] things...spiritually, before they were [physically]."

In your worldview, or as you would say, "I'll make it really simple," the verse should read, "For I...created all things...[physically], before they were [physically]."

Your worldview interpretation of scripture is redundant. The Lord created us physically, before we were physical? Doh!

There is an obvious difference between what is defined as spiritual elements (matter), and what is considered physical matter.

You point to Moses 3:5 which says "For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth."

And then you insert Physical in the place of 'naturally' which I don't believe is warranted. Building on D&C 131 here we read that God created all things spoken of in the passage, first as Physical-Spirit Matter (more fine and pure) and latter they were created as Physical-Matter (what we would consider normal matter).

If you disagree you need to show somehow that the 'spirit matter' of D&C 131 is not physical. But that's impossible since matter by definition is physical.

please point me to any "historical evidences" which are not private interpretations regarding history specifying the resurrection actually happened.

When I speak "historical evidence" science should be able to back up your claim.

I don't want to go off on this topic, but let me say afew things. Science will not prove the resurrection, if anything, science will show that people don't rise from the dead naturally (which is why I would claim it was a supernatural event). If we are to consider the resurrection we must do so on historical grounds since we cant repeat the event. There are historical facts we may agree on surrounding the resurrection. There are Agnostics, Atheists and Jews who will agree that historically the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus after his death. A good place to start if you are interested would be Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig, they have written extensively on the resurrection. 20/20 did a short doco on the resurrection and basically conclude that everyone hallucinated. The hallucination theory is the most widely held by those who arent Christians today. There are problems with this however. I don't know how groups of people can all hallucinate the same thing at once. The gospel narratives are clear that they ate with Jesus and touched his wounds etc after his death.

[justinc]

I see your problem - you are using principles that apply to one set from another set. Infinity is not a number as you are trying to use it. Your application to a infinite hotel with infinite guests is a misuse of logic. Your infinite hotel even when full will still have infinite vacancies. Moving guest around does not change anything. If you need - we can go into number theory and even discuss the various kinds or values of infinity (since all infinities are not equal). Part of the answer to your implied logic dilemma comes from your own logic - adding or subtracting any amount of finite number to infinity does not change that value of infinity - thus add another guest to a full hotel does not change the infinite vacancies or infinite guests nor the room available or full.

This is a very common error that occurs with both advanced and novice mathematicians. Not all mathematical logical operations are transitive. The logic of the binary operation of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of infinity is not transitive. Do not feel bad any university mathematical texts is riddled with such errors.

As to your assumption that G-d did not have any experience or knowledge concerning time prior to what Genesis defines as the "Beginning" I see as a gross misunderstanding of G-d and time. I do not know why a Christian would even go there?

The Traveler

Well, I obviously don't know as much as you do in Mathematics etc. But I read and listen to those who do. BBC recently did a doco on Infinity and basically say it leads to absurdities etc.

I would not deny that God had no knowledge of time prior to Creation. Rather I would say that God existed apart from time. I am aware that in LDS theology God is still acquiring knowledge (Was it JS or BY who taught this?). Of course since in the LDS worldview there is infinite knowledge God will never know all there is to know. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Seminarysnoozer]

When we talk about sets that are are not transitive there are principles and laws that define such sets - likewise with sets where transitivity occurs. If I were to guess - I would say spiritual things are transitive - based on Abraham chapter 3. There we learn that whenever there are two spirits one will be "greater" than the other. Thus the problem is not understanding what you and I may call spiritual transitivity but in being able to quantify which spirit is greater than another. All we know concerning such things is that G-d is greater than them all or the greatest of all.

With non-transitive sets of infinite things there are no relationships like what we are given in Abraham Chapter 3. There infinity + 1 is not greater than infinity - 1. That is why transitivity does not exist with infinite sets. We also know there is a direct correlation to things spiritual very similar to things empirical (note that I have expanded the idea from physical to that which is empirical). This is because of how I interpret D&C 130:21. This implies what is defined in mathematics as a "direct" relationship. Sets that vary with direct relationships of necessity must be transitive.

Now I do concede that perhaps it is possible that things spiritual are not related to such understanding. But that leaves us to wonder why G-d would use symbols deceptively - which is my understanding of a the essence of a lie. However, as always, I am willing to consider other possibilities - but not as serious without some compelling (logical - meaning rhetorical) or demonstrable (empirical) based on the principles and laws I have access to.

Because I believe G-d operates on principles and laws I try to understand the principles and laws in use concerning whatever is being addressed. In this manner when I have disagreement with someone concerning some point; I first attempt to determine if their opinion differs because of principle and law or because of a undisciplined opinion or prejudice. I realize this sounds cold and hard but I have yet to experience any truth (exception) that is secured by any other method than through rigorous disciplined application of principles and laws - if you have a better example - I would love to consider it.

The Traveler

I didn't think we were talking about law verses no law or principle verses no principle. Again, we were talking about the separation of laws and principles that exist here verses there. Even in the scripture you quoted it is referring to a law decreed in heaven upon which all blessings are predicated. It isn't a law decreed on earth. It gives no specifics as to how this is done. There is no empirical evidence, for example, that through the grace of Our Savior we will be resurrected. Where is your empirical evidence for that, based in the science of the world. You can't find it because it is based in a law decreed in heaven. It is a heavenly, spiritual law. Not one found here. There is a separation of the laws. Man cannot resurrect him self. Based in worldly laws and science man would never be able to lift himself up again. If you have a better example - I would love to consider it.

What law of science allowed Jesus to know of our sins, all those people before and after him? What law or principle of the world allowed him to do that? Spirit bodies work different than physical bodies. They may be similar and there are differences because if similarity or symbolic teaching is all we needed then we would not have to come here. We could have had all the similarities and symbolic teaching expressed in our spirit bodies without being here. Symbolic teaching is the first estate test. We all passed that already. Now we are facing the test of action. I am not sure why you would want to regress to a test of knowledge when we have all graduated from that kind of test already. The application of all the principles and laws, we have already been exposed to, at least in a symbolic way (book learning). A test of character is what we face now. And, likewise, we would not need a physical body after this life if similarity or symbolism is sufficient.

Are there laws and principles that are brought about by having a body that were not at play while in the spirit alone? This is a very important question as to the purpose of this life and our gospel that is overlooked or taken for granted. What about the principle of fasting? Did Christ not say that the spirit is willing but the body is weak? How is that if they follow the same laws?

[Traveler]

Well, I obviously don't know as much as you do in Mathematics etc. But I read and listen to those who do. BBC recently did a doco on Infinity and basically say it leads to absurdities etc.

I would not deny that God had no knowledge of time prior to Creation. Rather I would say that God existed apart from time. I am aware that in LDS theology God is still acquiring knowledge (Was it JS or BY who taught this?). Of course since in the LDS worldview there is infinite knowledge God will never know all there is to know. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Just a couple of points - First: concerning the nature of G-d. I do not believe that the LDS notion is that G-d is learning - the doctrine is that he is "progressing" - and in considerations of recent concepts of the "hive mind" and the concepts taught in scripture concerning man becoming one with G-d - I believe that I can demonstrate with rational thinking that as the children of men become one with G-d demonstrates that a type of progression can take place; even for a "all knowing" G-d.

The second point has to do with G-d and time. We know by relativity that time does not behave linearly even in our universe where space time is well defined. My point in addressing G-d as having knowledge of time is equating knowledge to experience. We know that Jesus is the demonstration of G-d to man and that Jesus was an actual being experiencing space time. Since we have an undisputable example of G-d in space time - if we intend to assert the notion that G-d is not accustomed to or common to some definition of time experience I believe that a credible example outside of relativity expressions ought to be forthcoming.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

This has nothing to do with my worldview. I could be a Latter-day Saint and still come to this conclusion, its simple. I don't understand how you cant see it.

"All spirit is matter" (D&C 131:7). Matter by definition is Physical, thus we may paraphrase "All spirit is [physical]".

This has everything to do with your worldview, not sure why you would seek to deny it. I understand what you are implying; however your implication is incorrect.

You point to Moses 3:5 which says "For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth."

And then you insert Physical in the place of 'naturally' which I don't believe is warranted. Building on D&C 131 here we read that God created all things spoken of in the passage, first as Physical-Spirit Matter (more fine and pure) and latter they were created as Physical-Matter (what we would consider normal matter).

I find it very interesting when someone who isn't a member of the Church seeks to tell a member of the Church what is warranted and what isn't warranted; in addition to, a non-member who has shown he doesn't understand.

Mosiah 3: 19, "The natural man is an enemy to God..." The natural man is the result of the fall of Adam and Eve. The natural man, is a physical man, the flesh.

All things were created spiritually (spirit matter), before they were naturally (flesh, body, physical). In light of your definition, spirit matter is physical, then the scripture would read, all things were created physically, before they were created physically.

The problem is your fixation with one verse. If you don't care to understand, then be honest and say you don't care...

If you disagree you need to show somehow that the 'spirit matter' of D&C 131 is not physical. But that's impossible since matter by definition is physical.

I already have, and Mordorbund has also. It is only impossible within your limited knowledge and understanding; as such, providing any more evidence will ultimately bring the discussion back to your elementary fixation, "All spirit is matter" (D&C 131:7), as you continue to ignore other scriptures.

I don't want to go off on this topic, but let me say afew things. Science will not prove the resurrection, if anything, science will show that people don't rise from the dead naturally (which is why I would claim it was a supernatural event). If we are to consider the resurrection we must do so on historical grounds since we cant repeat the event. There are historical facts we may agree on surrounding the resurrection. There are Agnostics, Atheists and Jews who will agree that historically the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus after his death. A good place to start if you are interested would be Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig, they have written extensively on the resurrection. 20/20 did a short doco on the resurrection and basically conclude that everyone hallucinated. The hallucination theory is the most widely held by those who arent Christians today. There are problems with this however. I don't know how groups of people can all hallucinate the same thing at once. The gospel narratives are clear that they ate with Jesus and touched his wounds etc after his death.

I thoroughly enjoy William Lane Craig especially his argument of morality in proving the existence of God. I loved watching his debate with Hitchens.

This is a first for me, agnostic and atheist who agree that the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus after his death.

Any atheist and agnostic I have met simply says they were hallucinating. I would agree, however, what they experienced was personal in the same note as the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer and showing them the gold plates.

We have the same historic evidence the bible provides, we know the place, at least the area. We know the individuals all of which didn't deny what they had seen and witnessed.

The reason why I bring up experiences is due to the simple fact, if Joseph Smith experienced what he experienced -- seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ, your interpretation of an un-embodied mind is completely broken, dashed to pieces.

[Traveler]

I didn't think we were talking about law verses no law or principle verses no principle. Again, we were talking about the separation of laws and principles that exist here verses there. Even in the scripture you quoted it is referring to a law decreed in heaven upon which all blessings are predicated. It isn't a law decreed on earth. It gives no specifics as to how this is done. There is no empirical evidence, for example, that through the grace of Our Savior we will be resurrected. Where is your empirical evidence for that, based in the science of the world. You can't find it because it is based in a law decreed in heaven. It is a heavenly, spiritual law. Not one found here. There is a separation of the laws. Man cannot resurrect him self. Based in worldly laws and science man would never be able to lift himself up again. If you have a better example - I would love to consider it.

I read through your response sever times and I am not sure what you are trying to say. What spiritual law of heaven does not apply to man on earth? And what physical law do we know does not apply to physical counterparts of heaven? It appears to me that any "spiritual" law applies to spirits in heaven or earth - likewise I know of no evidence that the physical laws or thing that govern the physical are different? What is the separation and what is the difference?

Just because we have not discovered something does not mean that we cannot ever discover it. In fact all things discovered were unknown prior to being discovered. I cannot think of even a single exception?

As to the separation you speak between that what is physical to that which is spiritual - why do you think that the principles and laws pertaining to spirits are different for spirits in heaven as to spirits on earth? Based on what understanding to which you have assess have you drawn the conclusion that man or spirit be able to lift himself up again based on their being in heaven or on earth?

What law of science allowed Jesus to know of our sins, all those people before and after him? What law or principle of the world allowed him to do that? Spirit bodies work different than physical bodies. They may be similar and there are differences because if similarity or symbolic teaching is all we needed then we would not have to come here. We could have had all the similarities and symbolic teaching expressed in our spirit bodies without being here. Symbolic teaching is the first estate test. We all passed that already. Now we are facing the test of action. I am not sure why you would want to regress to a test of knowledge when we have all graduated from that kind of test already. The application of all the principles and laws, we have already been exposed to, at least in a symbolic way (book learning). A test of character is what we face now. And, likewise, we would not need a physical body after this life if similarity or symbolism is sufficient.

What law of science prevents Jesus from knowing of our sins before or after him? In fact there are principles if quantum mechanics that allow "things" of the future to be known - strange as that may seem.

As to knowledge - I thought that to gain knowledge was our purpose in a mortal physical experience. Specifically to obtain knowledge of good and evil?

Are there laws and principles that are brought about by having a body that were not at play while in the spirit alone? This is a very important question as to the purpose of this life and our gospel that is overlooked or taken for granted. What about the principle of fasting? Did Christ not say that the spirit is willing but the body is weak? How is that if they follow the same laws?

I think I agree but I am not sure what you are saying? In physics there are different laws and principles that apply for the state of matter or the state of energy. For example there are different specific laws that apply for energy being transmitted by particles or waves but in essence the actual principle is the same. And the relationship between the two states of mass and energy is also well defined.

As to your specific question about the spirit being strong or weak and the physical body being strong or weak. The principle by which a physical body is made strong is through a diet of wholesome physical foods and through physical exercise. The principle appears to be the same for that which is spiritual - that spiritual strength comes from a diet of wholesome spiritual food and spiritual exercise. How is it that you see the principle to be essentially different?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I don't want to go off on this topic, but let me say afew things. Science will not prove the resurrection, if anything, science will show that people don't rise from the dead naturally (which is why I would claim it was a supernatural event). If we are to consider the resurrection we must do so on historical grounds since we cant repeat the event. There are historical facts we may agree on surrounding the resurrection. There are Agnostics, Atheists and Jews who will agree that historically the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus after his death. A good place to start if you are interested would be Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig, they have written extensively on the resurrection. 20/20 did a short doco on the resurrection and basically conclude that everyone hallucinated. The hallucination theory is the most widely held by those who arent Christians today. There are problems with this however. I don't know how groups of people can all hallucinate the same thing at once. The gospel narratives are clear that they ate with Jesus and touched his wounds etc after his death.

Someone not antiquated with the scientific laws of electromagnetic radiation may think it "supernatural" for a persons image and voice to be instantly and simultaneously heard and seen around the entire world.

The main problem I see with such thinking or a worship of the supernatural or a G-d of the gaps (things unknown) is that as mankind learns and becomes enlightened the gaps (things unknown) are diminished and in some cases disappear or cease to exist - leaving such a worshiper of the "supernatural" with nothing or at least a diminished G-d to worship.

It is my belief that as a person learns and becomes enlightened with truth and knowledge - that they will become much more appreciative of the true and living G-d and much more likely to worship such a true and living G-d and less likely to worship a false G-d based in the understanding of the unknown or supernatural.

The Traveler

Edited May 16, 2013 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Just because we have not discovered something does not mean that we cannot ever discover it. In fact all things discovered were unknown prior to being discovered. I cannot think of even a single exception?

As to the separation you speak between that what is physical to that which is spiritual - why do you think that the principles and laws pertaining to spirits are different for spirits in heaven as to spirits on earth? Based on what understanding to which you have assess have you drawn the conclusion that man or spirit be able to lift himself up again based on their being in heaven or on earth?

I never said anything about the separation of spirits in heaven verses on earth. Let me try to bring it back to what the original topic was - spirit matter verses other matter - physical or course matter.

I don't think there is a difference in the laws pertaining to spirits wherever they may be. But there clearly is a difference between body and spirit.

I think you have a hard time with the concept that there are two kinds of learning - spiritual and the learning of man. To you it is the same, and that is unfortunate. If I can't break beyond that then it is hard to speak of the separation. Until you can grasp the concept that it is possible for a man to learn something without involving the spirit then we are left with only one set.

2 Nephi 33 " 1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught."

As in verse 2, there are men who cannot be influenced by the spirit. This does not mean that they cannot learn earthly truths. Could the men in verse 2 learn mathematics or the theory of gravity? Sure! But to learn of the spirit requires a spirit to spirit communication. Clearly, there are two systems at play here. By saying no, there is only one, then you reject those that are learned of men only as if they learned by the spirit.

Elder Bednar taught this principle and asked what it means to learn by the spirit; "How is faith as the principle of action in all intelligent beings related to gospel learning? And what does it mean to seek learning by faith?

In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of agency—the capacity and power of independent action. Endowed with agency, we are agents, and we primarily are to act and not only to be acted upon—especially as we seek to obtain and apply spiritual knowledge.

Learning by faith and from experience are two of the central features of the Father’s plan of happiness. The Savior preserved moral agency through the Atonement and made it possible for us to act and to learn by faith. Lucifer’s rebellion against the plan sought to destroy the agency of man, and his intent was that we as learners would only be acted upon."

Let me ask you to ponder the difference between "spiritual knowledge" versus any other kind of knowledge. Why would Elder Bednar separate it as "spiritual" knowledge? Why not say all knowledge then? ... because there is a difference. So, let me just start with the idea that there is a difference.

And here it is, Elder Bednar's description of the difference; "The learning I am describing reaches far beyond mere cognitive comprehension and the retaining and recalling of information. The type of learning to which I am referring causes us to put off the natural man (see Mosiah 3:19), to change our hearts (see Mosiah 5:2), to be converted unto the Lord, and to never fall away (see Alma 23:6). Learning by faith requires both “the heart and a willing mind” (D&C 64:34). Learning by faith is the result of the Holy Ghost carrying the power of the word of God both unto and into the heart. Learning by faith cannot be transferred from an instructor to a student through a lecture, a demonstration, or an experiential exercise; rather, a student must exercise faith and act in order to obtain the knowledge for himself or herself."

Why are we asked to forsake the world? D&C 53:2 " 2 Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world." Why forsake the world if all the truth lie in the world, as you suggest? Because the truth is supernatural, it is obtained by putting off the natural man or by forsaking the world. That is the test we face, do we turn to worldly knowledge or spiritual knowledge. But if one cannot separate the two then one takes a natural course, which is what Elder Bednar says "a mere cognitive comprehension and the retaining and recalling of information".

[justinc]

Mosiah 3: 19, "The natural man is an enemy to God..." The natural man is the result of the fall of Adam and Eve. The natural man, is a physical man, the flesh.

All things were created spiritually (spirit matter), before they were naturally (flesh, body, physical). In light of your definition, spirit matter is physical, then the scripture would read, all things were created physically, before they were created physically.

In light of oxfords definition of what matter actually is, the verse would read more like "all things were created more fine and pure-physically, before they were created normal matter-physically."

I thoroughly enjoy William Lane Craig especially his argument of morality in proving the existence of God. I loved watching his debate with Hitchens.

You should read his book Reasonable Faith, it's worth it. I found Hitchen's wasn't interacting with Craig s arguments enough.

Irrelevant - but here's how I argue the moral argument:

This is how I usually put it. Imagine that only a Jew and a Nazi exist. The Jew believes that murder is wrong, the Nazi believes it is right to kill the Jew. If the Nazi kills the Jew is it right or is it wrong? Since the Jew is dead, the Nazi has the only perspective, namely that it was right to murder the Jew. If God exists then the Nazi is wrong since God is the foundation we can turn to as the ultimate objective source of morality.

This is a first for me, agnostic and atheist who agree that the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus after his death.

Any atheist and agnostic I have met simply says they were hallucinating.

Woops, that's what I meant by 'disciples experienced appearances' eg. hallucination.

I would agree, however, what they experienced was personal in the same note as the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer and showing them the gold plates.

I don't know that the evidence for the resurrection is analogous with the Gold Plate narrative. Didn't they claim to see the plates with "spiritual eyes"? On your view these wouldn't be their physical eyes since you see spiritual and physical as different. So in what sense did they actually see the plates and Moroni?

[Traveler]

I never said anything about the separation of spirits in heaven verses on earth. Let me try to bring it back to what the original topic was - spirit matter verses other matter - physical or course matter.

I don't think there is a difference in the laws pertaining to spirits wherever they may be. But there clearly is a difference between body and spirit.

I think you have a hard time with the concept that there are two kinds of learning - spiritual and the learning of man. To you it is the same, and that is unfortunate. If I can't break beyond that then it is hard to speak of the separation. Until you can grasp the concept that it is possible for a man to learn something without involving the spirit then we are left with only one set.

2 Nephi 33 " 1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught."

As in verse 2, there are men who cannot be influenced by the spirit. This does not mean that they cannot learn earthly truths. Could the men in verse 2 learn mathematics or the theory of gravity? Sure! But to learn of the spirit requires a spirit to spirit communication. Clearly, there are two systems at play here. By saying no, there is only one, then you reject those that are learned of men only as if they learned by the spirit.

Elder Bednar taught this principle and asked what it means to learn by the spirit; "How is faith as the principle of action in all intelligent beings related to gospel learning? And what does it mean to seek learning by faith?

In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of agency—the capacity and power of independent action. Endowed with agency, we are agents, and we primarily are to act and not only to be acted upon—especially as we seek to obtain and apply spiritual knowledge.

Learning by faith and from experience are two of the central features of the Father’s plan of happiness. The Savior preserved moral agency through the Atonement and made it possible for us to act and to learn by faith. Lucifer’s rebellion against the plan sought to destroy the agency of man, and his intent was that we as learners would only be acted upon."

Let me ask you to ponder the difference between "spiritual knowledge" versus any other kind of knowledge. Why would Elder Bednar separate it as "spiritual" knowledge? Why not say all knowledge then? ... because there is a difference. So, let me just start with the idea that there is a difference.

And here it is, Elder Bednar's description of the difference; "The learning I am describing reaches far beyond mere cognitive comprehension and the retaining and recalling of information. The type of learning to which I am referring causes us to put off the natural man (see Mosiah 3:19), to change our hearts (see Mosiah 5:2), to be converted unto the Lord, and to never fall away (see Alma 23:6). Learning by faith requires both “the heart and a willing mind” (D&C 64:34). Learning by faith is the result of the Holy Ghost carrying the power of the word of God both unto and into the heart. Learning by faith cannot be transferred from an instructor to a student through a lecture, a demonstration, or an experiential exercise; rather, a student must exercise faith and act in order to obtain the knowledge for himself or herself."

Why are we asked to forsake the world? D&C 53:2 " 2 Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world." Why forsake the world if all the truth lie in the world, as you suggest? Because the truth is supernatural, it is obtained by putting off the natural man or by forsaking the world. That is the test we face, do we turn to worldly knowledge or spiritual knowledge. But if one cannot separate the two then one takes a natural course, which is what Elder Bednar says "a mere cognitive comprehension and the retaining and recalling of information".

I do not believe that any truth can come to man except through G-d (Holy Ghost) -- if it come by any other means there is in it a lie.

All truth comes through the Holy Ghost (G-d). Again what ever someone learns except through the Holy Ghost is a lie.

See Moroni 10:5 and Moses 6:52

I am trying very hard to get the just of your thought but I believe that the principle for the discovery of truth, as I understand, is seeking and searching and then it comes through the Holy Ghost - What I do not see is the great difference you speak of between that which is physical and that which is spiritual. The principles of obtaining truth look the same to me???

The Traveler

[justinc]

Someone not antiquated with the scientific laws of electromagnetic radiation may think it "supernatural" for a persons image and voice to be instantly and simultaneously heard and seen around the entire world.

The main problem I see with such thinking or a worship of the supernatural or a G-d of the gaps (things unknown) is that as mankind learns and becomes enlightened the gaps (things unknown) are diminished and in some cases disappear or cease to exist - leaving such a worshiper of the "supernatural" with nothing or at least a diminished G-d to worship.

It is my belief that as a person learns and becomes enlightened with truth and knowledge - that they will become much more appreciative of the true and living G-d and much more likely to worship such a true and living G-d and less likely to worship a false G-d based in the understanding of the unknown or supernatural.

The Traveler

It seems there is diversity of thought among both Latter-day Saints and Christians on this issue of the Study of Nature (Science) and the Supernatural. If the Study of Nature could prove that people aren't naturally raised from the dead after three days would that falsify the resurrection in your view? I find it easier to believe in a God who created natural law and can tweak it where he see's fit.

[Traveler]

....

I don't know that the evidence for the resurrection is analogous with the Gold Plate narrative. Didn't they claim to see the plates with "spiritual eyes"? On your view these wouldn't be their physical eyes since you see spiritual and physical as different. So in what sense did they actually see the plates and Moroni?

Let me understand exactly what you are saying - are you making a claim that no one actually saw or sensed the resurrected Jesus with their physical eyes or physical senses? But perhaps only by some transcendental spiritual trance?

If so then I understand why you intend to make such distinction.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

In light of oxfords definition of what matter actually is, the verse would read more like "all things were created more fine and pure-physically, before they were created normal matter-physically."

I understand how you would define such, however, as Mordorbund shared we don't know if the physical and spiritual share the same properties. It is unknown.

Oxford, provides a definition from their understanding of nature and the universe. The "more fine and pure-physically" in relation to "normal matter-physically" appears redundant still, both are physical within your interpretation, no matter the adjective which modifies the noun -- it is still physical; thus, the scripture still reads, according to your view in relation to the oxford dictionary "created all thing [physically] before they were [physically]."

The interpretation, verifies there is a difference between what is spirit and what is temporal, natural, or physical.

You should read his book Reasonable Faith, it's worth it. I found Hitchen's wasn't interacting with Craig s arguments enough.

Irrelevant - but here's how I argue the moral argument:

This is how I usually put it. Imagine that only a Jew and a Nazi exist. The Jew believes that murder is wrong, the Nazi believes it is right to kill the Jew. If the Nazi kills the Jew is it right or is it wrong? Since the Jew is dead, the Nazi has the only perspective, namely that it was right to murder the Jew. If God exists then the Nazi is wrong since God is the foundation we can turn to as the ultimate objective source of morality.

This is why I agree with William Lane Craig and his postulates regarding the need for a creator in relation to morals, otherwise morality is subjective, and there truly is no right or wrong.

I will need to place the book on my reading list.

I don't know that the evidence for the resurrection is analogous with the Gold Plate narrative. Didn't they claim to see the plates with "spiritual eyes"? On your view these wouldn't be their physical eyes since you see spiritual and physical as different. So in what sense did they actually see the plates and Moroni?

I should have been more precise, my emphasis was upon the actual visit from Moroni, not necessarily the gold plates.

In light of "spiritual eyes" I recommend Fair.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

It seems there is diversity of thought among both Latter-day Saints and Christians on this issue of the Study of Nature (Science) and the Supernatural. If the Study of Nature could prove that people aren't naturally raised from the dead after three days would that falsify the resurrection in your view? I find it easier to believe in a God who created natural law and can tweak it where he see's fit.

I am concerned that you think G-d must tweak his own principles and laws that he created in order to accomplish his purposes. I stated this before - that I believe such modus operandi and methods would define a hypocrite; not hardly a G-d - especially a G-d worthy of worship. How do you define a hypocrite?

A magician is all about deception and illusion. The G-d I worship is a G-d of truth and not illusion. If you see such a difference - you should be quite concerned. Just because someone may not understand something does not mean there is no natural truth to it. Just that they do not understand it. But in ever case, for myself - whatever I have not understand and what I thought supernatural - when I understood the "truth" of it, I discovered it to not be supernatural. There is nothing I have come to understand that I have said, "Hmmmmm the more I understand of this the more supernatural it is!"

In my experience - those that understand truth find simplicity in that truth - it is the misunderstanding, deception and illusion (untruth) that is so complicated or seem supernatural.

The Traveler