Science vs Religion--A New Take?

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

I love these discussions, but boy you guys talk over my head sometimes. I wish there were a Doctrine for Dummies section.  

If I can help with any questions - I will be glad to respond to the best of my ability.  In threads like this - often details are glossed over because of competing interests.   Since there is a literal family of Big Bang theories that have evolved from modern man's primary understanding of physics (including string theory) -- I am often surprised when someone discounts the entirety of them all on the basis of what appears to the the shortcomings of some.  I am inclined to think someone has not completed their homework but we will not know for sure without a much more detailed discussion - which often seem most difficult.  I do not consider myself an expert in Astrophysics but I am a physicists and have been gainfully employed in the Sciences for close to 50 years.  I do not know what field @Vort is in but he seems to understand the sciences as well. 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am saying you seem to have a problem considering the relativity new scientific discoveries of the restoration that are primarily opposed by the Traditional Christian philosophies of pseudo science developed by the apostate religious community established during the Great Apostasy - and not in any way by the current administration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the 12 (although some seem to think certain individuals has spoken out on their own).  And that I am somewhat frustrated in trying to understand why based on your responses that consistently seem to favor the Traditional Christian philosophies of the Dark Ages over that of modern science of the restoration.

You seem much more concerned about a tangent of my (perhaps misstatements of your thought process) than you are in addressing the origins of our universe from an event of singularity (single event) expressed by any of  the myriad Big Bang theories and why you believe a singular initiating event of our universe is opposes the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It appears to me that the scriptural statement, "In the beginning" could indeed reference a singular initiation.  I do not think that even those (that you seem to support) of the "Intelligent Design" variety seem to oppose an event of singularity - I do not understand why you do???

 

The Traveler

My knowledge is somewhat limited in understanding this "singularity" idea. I've studied it from time to time over the years but in general I believe it to be some "first event" where all matter in the universe was in an infintesibly small point and from that point there was a big bang or expansion into what we now see in the universe. And, it appears, as far as I can tell, scientists do not agree on if this singularity even is or was for real or how it worked or anything about it. Analogous to it, is that it's on par with creation ex nihilo where suddenly, the universe sprang from basically nothing.

LDS doctrine teaches us that God's Creations span the universe. In the beginning refers generally to our solar system or birth of our system within the universe. In the PoGP we learn that God's existence is in fact inside of the universe somewhere above us as we view the night sky. So, it's not like God is on the outside looking in. And, because the matter which makes up our souls and God's souls have always existed, we didn't just come into existence some 13 billion years ago. This entirely does away with the idea of a singularity or a big bang. The fact remains that the ideas and opinions regarding this singularity have no real grounds in what is obsrvable. It's entirely built on conjecture. There is a disconnect somewhere in human thought that supposes that there must be a giant beginning to everything. It's rather ridiculous and defies all logic, all common sense. 

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is a disconnect somewhere in human thought that supposes that there must be a giant beginning to everything. It's rather ridiculous and defies all logic, all common sense. 

The first verse in my Bible reads: "In the beginning..."(Gen 1:1)  Ridiculous and illogical indeed. 

As intimated earlier, dogma on each side is the bane of our existence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

58 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The first verse in my Bible reads: "In the beginning..."(Gen 1:1)  Ridiculous and illogical indeed. 

As intimated earlier, dogma on each side is the bane of our existence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, do you honestly believe there was a point where before it there was nothing and then it happened and everything we see and interact with came from it?

[Traveler]

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

My knowledge is somewhat limited in understanding this "singularity" idea. I've studied it from time to time over the years but in general I believe it to be some "first event" where all matter in the universe was in an infintesibly small point and from that point there was a big bang or expansion into what we now see in the universe. And, it appears, as far as I can tell, scientists do not agree on if this singularity even is or was for real or how it worked or anything about it. Analogous to it, is that it's on par with creation ex nihilo where suddenly, the universe sprang from basically nothing.

LDS doctrine teaches us that God's Creations span the universe. In the beginning refers generally to our solar system or birth of our system within the universe. In the PoGP we learn that God's existence is in fact inside of the universe somewhere above us as we view the night sky. So, it's not like God is on the outside looking in. And, because the matter which makes up our souls and God's souls have always existed, we didn't just come into existence some 13 billion years ago. This entirely does away with the idea of a singularity or a big bang. The fact remains that the ideas and opinions regarding this singularity have no real grounds in what is obsrvable. It's entirely built on conjecture. There is a disconnect somewhere in human thought that supposes that there must be a giant beginning to everything. It's rather ridiculous and defies all logic, all common sense. 

There is evidence (note that I said evidence rather than proof) that there are things outside our universe affecting this universe.   Such evidence is displayed in "Quantum Coupling", "Quantum Entanglements", "Quantum Anomalies"  and in what is thought or called "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy" and "Dark Radiation".  The concept of singularity came about through the discovery of our expanding universe.  It is not just expanding - the expansion is uniform.  A reversing of a uniform expansion takes the universe to one place where the expansion began - which is what we call singularity.

We know that both G-d and mankind have always existed - but we do not know is if such existence has always been within our physical space time platform - or instead of saying platform - would we say "kingdoms" "principalities" and "powers".  We also know there is a difference between a physical being, a spiritual being as well as a mortal being and a "eternal" being that is both physical and spiritual.  What we do not know is if our physical dimensional space time is the whole of what is both physical and spiritual.  In short, we do not know if this "universe" - dimensional space time is all that exist.  I think you go beyond common sense to assume such.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, do you honestly believe there was a point where before it there was nothing and then it happened and everything we see and interact with came from it?

I will ask - do you believe that our dimensional space time has always existed in the state in which we now experience it?  That such is not an possible divine invention or ordering of "things"?  How does this opposing singularity sit with your insistence in "Intelligent Design". 

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

On 11/24/2018 at 10:14 AM, Rob Osborn said:

the scientific theory of Intelligent Design

Oxymoron.

On 11/24/2018 at 10:14 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Now watch as someone comes in and says ID isn't science!

But of course, just as a claim that our religion is not Christianity would be met with a denial. Falsehoods should be identified as such.

Serious questions: Do you know what "science" means in 21st-century western culture? Do you recognize that specifying your belief and then cherry-picking traits that you believe buttress your idea and exemplify a scientific attitude is not scientific? Do you see that that is the case, even if you think your belief is a revealed truth? Even if it in fact IS a revealed truth?

On 11/24/2018 at 10:14 AM, Rob Osborn said:

That's why dogmatism exists

Sadly, I must agree.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Oxymoron.

But of course, just as a claim that our religion is not Christianity would be met with a denial. Falsehoods should be identified as such.

Serious questions: Do you know what "science" means in 21st-century western culture? Do you recognize that specifying your belief and then cherry-picking traits that you believe buttress your idea and exemplify a scientific attitude is not scientific? Do you see that that is the case, even if you think your belief is a revealed truth? Even if it in fact IS a revealed truth?

Sadly, I must agree.

Thus why dogmatism continues...

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I will ask - do you believe that our dimensional space time has always existed in the state in which we now experience it?  That such is not an possible divine invention or ordering of "things"?  How does this opposing singularity sit with your insistence in "Intelligent Design". 

 

The Traveler

Intelligent design merely states that intelligence is preceded by intelligence. You do not get intelligent specified information from nothing or from nonintelligent processes.

Space-time is interesting in that we don't know what or if it's possible to be outside of it. As far as we know, all that we see in the universe is part of space-time. Even according to our knowledge of doctrine, God himself is inside of space-time. The only thing we know is that time is not the same in all parts of the universe.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is evidence (note that I said evidence rather than proof) that there are things outside our universe affecting this universe.   Such evidence is displayed in "Quantum Coupling", "Quantum Entanglements", "Quantum Anomalies"  and in what is thought or called "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy" and "Dark Radiation".  The concept of singularity came about through the discovery of our expanding universe.  It is not just expanding - the expansion is uniform.  A reversing of a uniform expansion takes the universe to one place where the expansion began - which is what we call singularity.

We know that both G-d and mankind have always existed - but we do not know is if such existence has always been within our physical space time platform - or instead of saying platform - would we say "kingdoms" "principalities" and "powers".  We also know there is a difference between a physical being, a spiritual being as well as a mortal being and a "eternal" being that is both physical and spiritual.  What we do not know is if our physical dimensional space time is the whole of what is both physical and spiritual.  In short, we do not know if this "universe" - dimensional space time is all that exist.  I think you go beyond common sense to assume such.

 

The Traveler

There is no way to prove something of actual matter exists outside of our universe. We certainly do not understand our own universe and all the laws that apply. According to our doctrine, spirit is matter, just finer. 

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Intelligent design merely states that intelligence is preceded by intelligence.

No. It does not. Here is something very like the definition I have heard Intelligent Design advocates use:

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Surely you see the difference, Rob.

"Intelligent Design" is not scientific. Period. It puts forward an untestable assertion and then invites others to disprove it. Note the "untestable" part, which might be better worded as "unfalsifiable". In order for a physical hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Otherwise, it is at best metaphysics. This may be many things—perhaps even true—but it ain't science.

If you still insist that "Intelligent Design" is science, please answer this: What test might conceivably be done under carefully observed, reproducible conditions which would disprove Intelligent Design? In principle, I mean. Give me some conceptually real test, however expensive or improbable, which, if successful, would prove that Intelligent Design is false.

What? You can't? Then Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis of any sort.

In the most literal understanding of the phrase "intelligent design", all faithful Latter-day Saints believe it. Obviously. Duh. We believe God is intelligent and that he designed and created the entire universe, ourselves included. We also believe in revelation, prophets, and the existence of God, but none of those beliefs is scientific. If we claim they are, we are either lying or abysmally ignorant of the rudiments of science. The same is true with "Intelligent Design".

[Rob Osborn]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

No. It does not. Here is something very like the definition I have heard Intelligent Design advocates use:

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Surely you see the difference, Rob.

"Intelligent Design" is not scientific. Period. It puts forward an untestable assertion and then invites others to disprove it. Note the "untestable" part, which might be better worded as "unfalsifiable". In order for a physical hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Otherwise, it is at best metaphysics. This may be many things—perhaps even true—but it ain't science.

If you still insist that "Intelligent Design" is science, please answer this: What test might conceivably be done under carefully observed, reproducible conditions which would disprove Intelligent Design? In principle, I mean. Give me some conceptually real test, however expensive or improbable, which, if successful, would prove that Intelligent Design is false.

What? You can't? Then Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis of any sort.

In the most literal understanding of the phrase "intelligent design", all faithful Latter-day Saints believe it. Obviously. Duh. We believe God is intelligent and that he designed and created the entire universe, ourselves included. We also believe in revelation, prophets, and the existence of God, but none of those beliefs is scientific. If we claim they are, we are either lying or abysmally ignorant of the rudiments of science. The same is true with "Intelligent Design".

Thus why dogmatism exists. I'm not gonna debate something you don't understand

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thus why dogmatism exists. I'm not gonna debate something you don't understand

K

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is no way to prove something of actual matter exists outside of our universe. We certainly do not understand our own universe and all the laws that apply. According to our doctrine, spirit is matter, just finer. 

Just because you think something does not mean it is so.  Likewise just because you do not think or comprehend something does not mean that it is not so.  I am inclined to think and believe that whatever is truth (and light) - that it can be discovered and known.  I would go forward with this thought as part of my faith in G-d as a being that knows such things many (such as yourself) think impossible.  And there is something else - that is that both you are I exist in the image and likeness of G-d - which means to me - that if G-d can know something; so also can we - Thus what you say now is impossible simply is not true and what is not true is the very definition of a lie.  But this concept does not at all (or even come close) mean that if something is not known at a particular place or time that it is unknowable and therefore does not exist or matter.

In short - I am thinking that you should not try to debate things you do not understand.  @Vort is a good guy and sometimes it is hard to get things out of him because he is the type that seldom plays the best cards in his hand and he does not always play (post on the forum) to win.  He is not necessarily the dogmatic type in that way.  He is the kind of person to discuss things with - especially when his opinion is different.  It is very difficult to learn (learning being an attribute of intelligence) when someone insists on only discussing things with those that completely agree with them.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 27, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Just because you think something does not mean it is so.  Likewise just because you do not think or comprehend something does not mean that it is not so.  I am inclined to think and believe that whatever is truth (and light) - that it can be discovered and known.  I would go forward with this thought as part of my faith in G-d as a being that knows such things many (such as yourself) think impossible.  And there is something else - that is that both you are I exist in the image and likeness of G-d - which means to me - that if G-d can know something; so also can we - Thus what you say now is impossible simply is not true and what is not true is the very definition of a lie.  But this concept does not at all (or even come close) mean that if something is not known at a particular place or time that it is unknowable and therefore does not exist or matter.

In short - I am thinking that you should not try to debate things you do not understand.  @Vort is a good guy and sometimes it is hard to get things out of him because he is the type that seldom plays the best cards in his hand and he does not always play (post on the forum) to win.  He is not necessarily the dogmatic type in that way.  He is the kind of person to discuss things with - especially when his opinion is different.  It is very difficult to learn (learning being an attribute of intelligence) when someone insists on only discussing things with those that completely agree with them.

 

The Traveler

When the discussion turns to speaking of things "outside" the universe, that should be the clue to everyone that we dont understand what we are talking about- no one of us knows about things outside of our universe.

Im not going to debate ID theory with Vort or anyone who do not recognize the scientific value of the theory. Its obvious to me that they are just spreading the same dogmatic agenda that prevails and truly havent researched it from reputable scientists. Its not worth the back and forth. 

[Traveler]

21 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

When the discussion turns to speaking of things "outside" the universe, that should be the clue to everyone that we dont understand what we are talking about- no one of us knows about things outside of our universe.

Im not going to debate ID theory with Vort or anyone who do not recognize the scientific value of the theory. Its obvious to me that they are just spreading the same dogmatic agenda that prevails and truly havent researched it from reputable scientists. Its not worth the back and forth. 

One of the perhaps great lessons in life is that though there is a great difference between what individuals cannot do (impossible) and what they will not do - the result is the same.  Those that will not seek for truth are no better off than those that cannot.  Some believe those that will not; are worse off than those that cannot.  But lets move beyond this conundrum and reason some things about our universe.

First - The universe is much bigger that we thought it was just a hundred years ago - It is also much bigger than what was thought when the Big Bang theories began affecting our human paradigm of the universe and our origins.  The problem is that the universe is so big (too big) - as much as we like to think we understand we should be more humble.   Even our Milky Way Galaxy is bigger than we thought - by at least 50% and that discovery is within the last 5 years.  Not only is our universe expanding - our galaxy is growing.  It is growing so fast it is becoming unstable.   Our solar system is also much larger than we thought.  None of this can be explained (held together) by the force of gravity alone.

Second.  The universe is much more violent that we ever imagined.   We have thought that things are quite stable - but they are not.  Our universe is in a state of constant change - change that dispels enormous amounts of energy.  The energy affects stellar neighbors causing constant change (disruption) in their evolution.

Third.  Life is much more rare that previously thought.  Intelligent life (at least to our modern human level) does not seem to exist anywhere else beyond the confines of our little earth.  Civilizations that consume energy to do things like what modern man does - has not shown up anywhere.  Not only are we broadcasting radio waves but our use of nuclear energy is like a giant beacon broadcasting in all directions - that intelligent life exist here.  But there is no such beacons anywhere else depicting intelligent, controlled and ordered use of energy.

Lets be real - religion has not contributed a single notion to the paradigm of understanding for thousands of years.  And should a religious person contribute a new notion - what has religion done?  It has excommunicated them and damned them to hell - not just spiritually but physically as well.  Unique to this religious landscape is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The theology of the Latter-days Saints has been the concept of new revelation - not just of religious rites and ordinances - but of science and understanding the world and universe around us.  How is the established religious community accepted the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Modern materialism and torn apart almost all the old notions traditional religions have held on to for thousands of years.  Traditional religions have tried to restore some senses of spiritual morality but their failure to appreciate the advances of science has greatly limited their capabilities.  There is a proclivity in religion to think of such grand things as our universe in terms of the impossible.  G-d, for traditional religion is often (perhaps without exception) defined as the impossible - that does unexplained magical things.   Not by intelligence or ordered by logic but according to whim unrelated to principle or cause always brings effect.  That humans are incapable of understanding G-d or his methods and works.  Therefore if anyone discovers how something is done and explains it with intelligence ordered by logic and based upon principles and laws in terms of human understanding - it is denounced as an an effort to disprove G-d.  And so it is thought that if there is an intelligent logical order to the universe - there is no need for the All Powerful G-d void or limitations of logic, order, principles or universal laws.

The value of science is not so much in theories of things such as how the universe came about - the real value of science is in engineering - creating new medical procedures, advanced means of transportation, better ways to feed the masses and so on and so on.  Traditional religions have failed at every turn and despite the religious calls to be more loving compassion and kindness - but what do the religious do as soon as there is the lightest hint of disagreement?  What is the standard behavior of such religious thinkers?  They withdraw from any meaningful conversation of logic and blame those wishing to engage for being close minded and not recognizing their centuries old contributions.

 

The Traveler

 

One more thing - no one will win an argument by saying the science is flawed, corrupt and useless and then by the use of Science prove that science is worthless and wrong and that there is scientific proof that they are right. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

One of the perhaps great lessons in life is that though there is a great difference between what individuals cannot do (impossible) and what they will not do - the result is the same.  Those that will not seek for truth are no better off than those that cannot.  Some believe those that will not; are worse off than those that cannot.  But lets move beyond this conundrum and reason some things about our universe.

First - The universe is much bigger that we thought it was just a hundred years ago - It is also much bigger than what was thought when the Big Bang theories began affecting our human paradigm of the universe and our origins.  The problem is that the universe is so big (too big) - as much as we like to think we understand we should be more humble.   Even our Milky Way Galaxy is bigger than we thought - by at least 50% and that discovery is within the last 5 years.  Not only is our universe expanding - our galaxy is growing.  It is growing so fast it is becoming unstable.   Our solar system is also much larger than we thought.  None of this can be explained (held together) by the force of gravity alone.

Second.  The universe is much more violent that we ever imagined.   We have thought that things are quite stable - but they are not.  Our universe is in a state of constant change - change that dispels enormous amounts of energy.  The energy affects stellar neighbors causing constant change (disruption) in their evolution.

Third.  Life is much more rare that previously thought.  Intelligent life (at least to our modern human level) does not seem to exist anywhere else beyond the confines of our little earth.  Civilizations that consume energy to do things like what modern man does - has not shown up anywhere.  Not only are we broadcasting radio waves but our use of nuclear energy is like a giant beacon broadcasting in all directions - that intelligent life exist here.  But there is no such beacons anywhere else depicting intelligent, controlled and ordered use of energy.

Lets be real - religion has not contributed a single notion to the paradigm of understanding for thousands of years.  And should a religious person contribute a new notion - what has religion done?  It has excommunicated them and damned them to hell - not just spiritually but physically as well.  Unique to this religious landscape is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The theology of the Latter-days Saints has been the concept of new revelation - not just of religious rites and ordinances - but of science and understanding the world and universe around us.  How is the established religious community accepted the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Modern materialism and torn apart almost all the old notions traditional religions have held on to for thousands of years.  Traditional religions have tried to restore some senses of spiritual morality but their failure to appreciate the advances of science has greatly limited their capabilities.  There is a proclivity in religion to think of such grand things as our universe in terms of the impossible.  G-d, for traditional religion is often (perhaps without exception) defined as the impossible - that does unexplained magical things.   Not by intelligence or ordered by logic but according to whim unrelated to principle or cause always brings effect.  That humans are incapable of understanding G-d or his methods and works.  Therefore if anyone discovers how something is done and explains it with intelligence ordered by logic and based upon principles and laws in terms of human understanding - it is denounced as an an effort to disprove G-d.  And so it is thought that if there is an intelligent logical order to the universe - there is no need for the All Powerful G-d void or limitations of logic, order, principles or universal laws.

The value of science is not so much in theories of things such as how the universe came about - the real value of science is in engineering - creating new medical procedures, advanced means of transportation, better ways to feed the masses and so on and so on.  Traditional religions have failed at every turn and despite the religious calls to be more loving compassion and kindness - but what do the religious do as soon as there is the lightest hint of disagreement?  What is the standard behavior of such religious thinkers?  They withdraw from any meaningful conversation of logic and blame those wishing to engage for being close minded and not recognizing their centuries old contributions.

 

The Traveler

 

One more thing - no one will win an argument by saying the science is flawed, corrupt and useless and then by the use of Science prove that science is worthless and wrong and that there is scientific proof that they are right. 

Let me just say that you are spot on in where science has and continues to have the greatest value- that of technology and engineering. That said, they do themselves a great disfavor and cause many to doubt them when they delve into subjects and theories that deal with what cannot be observed or "why"  or "how" life exists. I dont need nor care for science in trying to tell me how or why life came about. Its obvious enough that they just completely lack the ability to know these kinds of things. Expanding from life on this planet, I also dont put much faith in their ability to assume and teach things about the universe of which, from scientific observation, they really know nothing about on a grand scale. To make sweeping statements about the state of the entire universe, its age, its expansion, etc, isnt really honest. We have no idea whatsoever the actual size of the universe, how much energy exists, etc. I find it rather intriguing, if not downright amusing, that whenever we have major advances in technology for viewing and understanding space we just find we were wrong before in our understanding and when enough of those new acknowledgements add up, our entire scientific paradigm changes. Call it what you will, but its not science when we make assumptions about something we cannot even comprehend. I find the deep space pictures rather intriguing because it kind of shows us that man and his understanding is nothing! We keep trying answer the why and how of the universe from mans knowledge and perspective. The problem with that is its always finite, always limited. And science dont want to pair up with the best brains of religion and philosophy to help solve some of the enigma.

Many years ago I became very interested in space and general relativity. I read books about it and researched things out myself. I wasnt getting really anywhere. There just werent adequate scientific explanations for the rational of the why and how of the universe. One night I had a dream. In the dream I was in school in heaven before I came here to mortality. In the class I was in Jesus was teaching us about physics and planetary motion. Then, it was appointed my time to come down to mortality. Jesus said basically to me that because of the veil my understanding of these things would not be with me in mortality and that besides, mans understanding of the universe and the how and why of it is too distorted for the real truth to be known. Nevertheless, He did pronounce a blessing upon me that not all of my knowledge of the universe would be witheld from me, that I would retain or access certain parts of it.

After that dream my understanding of space and time changed a lot. I also  came to the realization or rememberence that to God, all things are numbered, that He himself is in linear time and that everything in the universe effects everything else. God has an unlimited playing field (space) to bring to pass his works. We need to stop viewing space as a mere linear space-time continuum that had a start and a a possible end. God brings into and out of planets ti bring to pass his works. The medium of space itself is contained or within the realm or law of the spiritual finer matter. We speak of "dimensions" when in reality there is only one. Our instrumentation though only works within that set of parameters. 

Theres just so much that limits our understanding because we fail to recognize that there isnt an end to space. There isnt no edge, no beginning or end. It has always existed. Thats of course problematic for our material minds to comprehend. So to is it hard for us to understand that the reason Gods glory increases is because he is actually creating or aligning and organizing more energy. There is no end to energy, its not finite. And, energy is directly linked to knowledge.

[Traveler]

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me just say that you are spot on in where science has and continues to have the greatest value- that of technology and engineering. That said, they do themselves a great disfavor and cause many to doubt them when they delve into subjects and theories that deal with what cannot be observed or "why"  or "how" life exists. I dont need nor care for science in trying to tell me how or why life came about. Its obvious enough that they just completely lack the ability to know these kinds of things. Expanding from life on this planet, I also dont put much faith in their ability to assume and teach things about the universe of which, from scientific observation, they really know nothing about on a grand scale. To make sweeping statements about the state of the entire universe, its age, its expansion, etc, isnt really honest. We have no idea whatsoever the actual size of the universe, how much energy exists, etc. I find it rather intriguing, if not downright amusing, that whenever we have major advances in technology for viewing and understanding space we just find we were wrong before in our understanding and when enough of those new acknowledgements add up, our entire scientific paradigm changes. Call it what you will, but its not science when we make assumptions about something we cannot even comprehend. I find the deep space pictures rather intriguing because it kind of shows us that man and his understanding is nothing! We keep trying answer the why and how of the universe from mans knowledge and perspective. The problem with that is its always finite, always limited. And science dont want to pair up with the best brains of religion and philosophy to help solve some of the enigma.

Many years ago I became very interested in space and general relativity. I read books about it and researched things out myself. I wasnt getting really anywhere. There just werent adequate scientific explanations for the rational of the why and how of the universe. One night I had a dream. In the dream I was in school in heaven before I came here to mortality. In the class I was in Jesus was teaching us about physics and planetary motion. Then, it was appointed my time to come down to mortality. Jesus said basically to me that because of the veil my understanding of these things would not be with me in mortality and that besides, mans understanding of the universe and the how and why of it is too distorted for the real truth to be known. Nevertheless, He did pronounce a blessing upon me that not all of my knowledge of the universe would be witheld from me, that I would retain or access certain parts of it.

After that dream my understanding of space and time changed a lot. I also  came to the realization or rememberence that to God, all things are numbered, that He himself is in linear time and that everything in the universe effects everything else. God has an unlimited playing field (space) to bring to pass his works. We need to stop viewing space as a mere linear space-time continuum that had a start and a a possible end. God brings into and out of planets ti bring to pass his works. The medium of space itself is contained or within the realm or law of the spiritual finer matter. We speak of "dimensions" when in reality there is only one. Our instrumentation though only works within that set of parameters. 

Theres just so much that limits our understanding because we fail to recognize that there isnt an end to space. There isnt no edge, no beginning or end. It has always existed. Thats of course problematic for our material minds to comprehend. So to is it hard for us to understand that the reason Gods glory increases is because he is actually creating or aligning and organizing more energy. There is no end to energy, its not finite. And, energy is directly linked to knowledge.

Thank you for your response.  There is something interesting in the scriptures about dreams in Genesis 41:

Quote

32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God

Historically it seems to me that the religious brains - outside of priesthood authority, are corrupted and have always clashed with truth regardless if it relates to spiritual or physical things.  I would also point to a rather interesting or odd thing from scripture.  If we read Abraham chapter 3 - were are given through revelation a view of the cosmos and the expanse of the "creations" of G-d.  What is very interesting about the verses of Abraham is that terms and concepts familiar to that ancient scientist and engineers of ancient Egypt (that believe all the universe is connected through ratios) are used to describe the cosmos the cosmos ratios.  Now if we read the Doctrine and Covenants Section 88 we read in revelation a more modern descriptions of basically the same stuff.  But this time the descriptions are very Newtonian - which matches exactly the scientific and engineering notions of the mid 19th century in which Joseph Smith lived.

One thing I have touched upon - which you have not addressed is that the restoration is not just about religious things but rather a "restoration of all things".  This would mean that just as the Reformation was a preparation for the restoration of "Gospel" truths - so also was the Reformation a preparation for the restoration of scientific principles.  If this is not true then the prophesy of a restoration of "All Things" would be a lie.

Just as the revelations that the traditional religious creeds were an abomination as dawn of new light of the restoration brings new light to divine covenants - so also will new light affect scientific advancement of our understanding of the Cosmos  -  all according to prophesy.   And so I wonder, especially concerning the children of the covenant, that seem confused about how the restoration has advanced the science of our physical understandings as well as religious thoughts of our time.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for your response.  There is something interesting in the scriptures about dreams in Genesis 41:

Historically it seems to me that the religious brains - outside of priesthood authority, are corrupted and have always clashed with truth regardless if it relates to spiritual or physical things.  I would also point to a rather interesting or odd thing from scripture.  If we read Abraham chapter 3 - were are given through revelation a view of the cosmos and the expanse of the "creations" of G-d.  What is very interesting about the verses of Abraham is that terms and concepts familiar to that ancient scientist and engineers of ancient Egypt (that believe all the universe is connected through ratios) are used to describe the cosmos the cosmos ratios.  Now if we read the Doctrine and Covenants Section 88 we read in revelation a more modern descriptions of basically the same stuff.  But this time the descriptions are very Newtonian - which matches exactly the scientific and engineering notions of the mid 19th century in which Joseph Smith lived.

One thing I have touched upon - which you have not addressed is that the restoration is not just about religious things but rather a "restoration of all things".  This would mean that just as the Reformation was a preparation for the restoration of "Gospel" truths - so also was the Reformation a preparation for the restoration of scientific principles.  If this is not true then the prophesy of a restoration of "All Things" would be a lie.

Just as the revelations that the traditional religious creeds were an abomination as dawn of new light of the restoration brings new light to divine covenants - so also will new light affect scientific advancement of our understanding of the Cosmos  -  all according to prophesy.   And so I wonder, especially concerning the children of the covenant, that seem confused about how the restoration has advanced the science of our physical understandings as well as religious thoughts of our time.

 

The Traveler

I'm a firm believer that pretty much all our scientific advancements are driven by God and His revelatory processes. But, like all things, it carries with it all the baggage of worldly aspirations. Much of evolutionary theory that deals with life's origins are that baggage I'm talking about. We don't need it, belief in it has brought absolutely no new advances in technology or a better understanding of the universe or nature. I think it's actually hampered advancements.

I once prayed for many days to see an atom. After months, when I was falling asleep, a vision opened up and I saw an atom. I was amazed at the detail workings of the lattice work on the nucleus. It wasn't anything like I pictured. I drew a picture of it somewhere.  God reveals these truths of nature and the universe to us as we are diligent. Our feeble technology just has no way to see much of it. I believe God wants us to know all these mysteries but he also wants it guarded too. Why? Because the actual power of the priesthood holds the keys of all knowledge. Not only that but the order to laws in physics and nature are all governed off of actual priesthood authority. Could you imagine trying to convince secular society that everything we see in nature and the universe is because of priesthood authority and power? That's why dogmatism will continue, and, why God will not reveal his truth to secular society to be mocked.

 

[wenglund]

On 11/26/2018 at 2:50 PM, Rob Osborn said:

So, do you honestly believe there was a point where before it there was nothing and then it happened and everything we see and interact with came from it?

I believe Gen. 1:1

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

I believe Gen. 1:1

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's not saying much. In Moses it has more detail. God speaks of the creation relating to this heaven and this Earth, not the whole universe. 

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm a firm believer that pretty much all our scientific advancements are driven by God and His revelatory processes. But, like all things, it carries with it all the baggage of worldly aspirations. Much of evolutionary theory that deals with life's origins are that baggage I'm talking about. We don't need it, belief in it has brought absolutely no new advances in technology or a better understanding of the universe or nature. I think it's actually hampered advancements.

I once prayed for many days to see an atom. After months, when I was falling asleep, a vision opened up and I saw an atom. I was amazed at the detail workings of the lattice work on the nucleus. It wasn't anything like I pictured. I drew a picture of it somewhere.  God reveals these truths of nature and the universe to us as we are diligent. Our feeble technology just has no way to see much of it. I believe God wants us to know all these mysteries but he also wants it guarded too. Why? Because the actual power of the priesthood holds the keys of all knowledge. Not only that but the order to laws in physics and nature are all governed off of actual priesthood authority. Could you imagine trying to convince secular society that everything we see in nature and the universe is because of priesthood authority and power? That's why dogmatism will continue, and, why God will not reveal his truth to secular society to be mocked.

 

What have you done with this knowledge?  Has any one collaborated it?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What have you done with this knowledge?  Has any one collaborated it?

 

The Traveler

What's there to collaborate? A spiritual witness vs. secular understanding? Secularism is our new God.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

What's there to collaborate? A spiritual witness vs. secular understanding? Secularism is our new God.

My question was not intended to be limited to secular collaboration.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not saying much. In Moses it has more detail. God speaks of the creation relating to this heaven and this Earth, not the whole universe. 

It says that there was a beginning,  contrary to your dogmatic claim.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-