Who is God: LDS and NAE versions

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, e v e said:

The authority card is really not necessary here. it’s an old card, this is an anonymous forum, and often the ones demanding it have also given zero credential. And why should anyone do so? On a religious forum? 

it's a reaction when there's disagreement.

Eve, you're of course entitled to your views.  But do they do contrast significantly to LDS Christian views of the Gospel.   So the challenge for all is to try to disagree politely.  

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, e v e said:

The authority card is really not necessary here.

On the contrary, if a person is speaking of things of a specialized nature, it's perfectly reasonable and even necessary to find out about that person's background in those specialized things. Otherwise, you risk having a bunch of crackpots debating issues about which they don't understand even the first principles.

[e v e]

Deleted. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, e v e said:

Kant at the start of  pure reason intimates aspects of a problem inherent to space time in relation to a consciousness, such we see in Leibniz’ principles of identity or contradiction, their perceived view of the impossibility, which later schoepenhauer concluded from kant, of competing physics (multiple gods). This being akin to a search for a unified model. Thus Kant’s amphiboly, mentioned in previous post. It’s interesting to see Leibniz’ view of  time-space  in relation to this, since my teaching focus being metaphysics. For example, in relation to indiscernibles. If in fact states could impress upon monads (monads being the will which constitutes a transcendental consciousness) then monads are not are not absolutes as such and would not ge transcendental. Something plato posed about God in Phaedo - immutability, and utter encapsulation from being affected from the outside (similar to something leibniz poses). But thinking now of a macro monad such as, this universe or specific gods - they warred and indeed could harm each other though at a human pount of view, gods appear immutable. Leibniz would exclude the idea of absolute time/space as the context of things in themselves (a god, a transcendental consciousness) and attribute absoluteness to the monad (the transcendental consciousness, in Kant)  wigh extension (matter) being a monad’s own emanation and allowing at the same time for endless monads, even petit monads. in that they are windowless - blind - yet expressive of their ‘attribute’, and it’s type of awareness and nature. But materiality as a physics never reaches the thing, or affects its nature, all physics being but a product of a will (a god) and its type of willing. This touches on the problem of competing physics at the core of monotheism, regarding the question of the nature or uniqueness of a monad... since for leibniz the context of space time is dictated by the monad (consciousness) and not by absolute time and space, this its relativity.

Im not giving my own view here but snippets from Leibniz. The interaction with kaku can be extrapolated by the problem of competeing things in themselves (gods, wills). kaku sees no need of monotheism here. Leibniz does. I could go on for many pages but that’s an opening response. I have no doubt multiple deities exist, but unlike kaku who avoids the god context in discussion of monotheism of physics, and sees it merely in mechanical terms (if i recall properly) that’s the area I would think was more interesting. Ksnt concludes war results. Leibniz concludes all the monads are harmonized by God - occasionalism, allowing for multiple things in themselves (wills) in a hierarchy), very platonic of him. 

Even more fascinating. I will respond minutely, but first I wonder what you think of the following paper and whether you find the author's arguments convincing.

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

[e v e]

 

Deleted. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[e v e]

Deleted

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[e v e]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

it's a reaction when there's disagreement.

Eve, you're of course entitled to your views.  But do they do contrast significantly to LDS Christian views of the Gospel.   So the challenge for all is to try to disagree politely.  

I understand Jane. At least Vort and I are managing (today, maybe, sort of) to talk rather than disagree. 

[e v e]

deleted. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[e v e]

Deleted

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[e v e]

Deleted

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[e v e]

Deleted. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, e v e said:

I need to stop vort, because if i go into althusser,  lacan, et. al., the op of this thread gets hijacked. I don’t know where this line of discussion would  go within these forums? Start a thread? I think that cosmology and religion and philosophy are very much related though..but this might not be the thread for that.

No problem. Your responses have answer my questions quite thoroughly, and have pretty much obviated the need for me to do a detailed dissection of your previous post.

I expect I will not contribute any more to this thread.

[e v e]

I deleted all my replies not related to the op. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by e v e