OT: The Theology Thread

[BagBoy]

Rare as we are, there *are* those who believe that science and God are absolutely intertwined. I have no proof for God. I have my personal convictions and beliefs, but no tangible proof. My "proof" lies in science, and even that is tremulous at best.

 

I was riding the bus one day to work back in the mid-90s. Bus driver was listening to some NPR station. The hot topic of the day was how someone had just discovered that eggs are contain 1/3 the amount of cholesterol that they originally thought. No, I don't know who "they" are, but whoever constitutes that group, they determined that you can eat 3 times the amount of eggs before clogging your arteries. Or something like that.

 

My point is this: science discovers new things all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. Would it surprise anyone to learn that we are not the only inhabitants of this universe? or even this galaxy? Probably not, but we have no definitive proof that aliens exist ... just a list of exo-planets that keeps growing and growing. Someday, we'll have that proof, and it will come through study and patience. Do we have proof that GOd exists? No, and I highly doubt that any amount of study and patience will change that. Religion is faith-based for a reason.

 

I dunno. I don't have a problem with either. I love them both. Science fascinates me. So does the concept of God.

Understood and agreed. My problem with religion is not that we can't prove god exists, but rather the inflexible, toxic dogma of the righteous.

[PromoTheRobot]

So the universe came before God?

"God" in Mormonism is more like a regional manager. He's only god of the immediate vicinity, kind of like Bruce Almighty.

[X. Benedict]

what was there before God?

 

If God is eternal by definition, then this is a syntax error.

 

What was before no beginning and no end?

 

And now I'm converted to zen.

[darksabre]

 

"God" in Mormonism is more like a regional manager. He's only god of the immediate vicinity, kind of like Bruce Almighty.

 

:lol:

 

I like that explanation.

 

So could the Mormon God be beholden to a greater God?

 

 

 

If God is eternal by definition, then this is a syntax error.

 

What was before no beginning and no end?

 

And now I'm converted to zen.

 

This is kinda my stance. I think the mysteries of the universe extend well beyond something so simple as "god". And then I just kinda stare blankly at a wall like a computer from the 90s waiting to connect to AOL.

[frissonic]

Thank you for the short-version of the Mormon concept of God, it's very interesting. After rolling it around in my head for awhile, I have (probably the big) question: are there a finite number of natural laws, and if we as humans learn all of them (and how to manipulate matter according to each), do we become gods ourselves?

Interesting question, Matt. I don't have a solid answer for you, but I can tell you what I believe:

 

I believe that there are a finite number of natural laws, but "finite" doesn't necessarily mean "small number." That finite number could be in the hundreds of thousands. Or more. Or less, of course. But think about how many natural laws you know, understand, and can use to do something. I know about gravity because when I drop a sledgehammer on my foot, I swear. Ask my wife. I also know that the moon is a gravitational force that causes tides, but it is slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. That's about all I know of gravity. And I know next to nothing about thermal dynamics.

 

I'm 42, soon to be 43. I haven't devoted my life to studying natural laws, so maybe I'm behind the curve, but someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great edge on, say, astrophysics, as would Sagan or Hawking. BUT what would they know about biology or chemistry compared to a world-renowned expert? Probably not a lot.

 

So yah, there's probably a finite number of natural laws, but who knows how many? And who knows how many we haven't even contemplated yet?!

 

Now ... as for once we learn them, do we become gods ourselves? Short answer: yes. Long answer: ... yes, but how long will that take? someone asked which came first: God? or the universe? my answer would be God, but then that begs the question, where did *HE* come from? and did someone create Him? And 'round and 'round we go on the eternal version of chicken and egg.

[darksabre]

 

Interesting question, Matt. I don't have a solid answer for you, but I can tell you what I believe:

 

I believe that there are a finite number of natural laws, but "finite" doesn't necessarily mean "small number." That finite number could be in the hundreds of thousands. Or more. Or less, of course. But think about how many natural laws you know, understand, and can use to do something. I know about gravity because when I drop a sledgehammer on my foot, I swear. Ask my wife. I also know that the moon is a gravitational force that causes tides, but it is slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. That's about all I know of gravity. And I know next to nothing about thermal dynamics.

 

I'm 42, soon to be 43. I haven't devoted my life to studying natural laws, so maybe I'm behind the curve, but someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great edge on, say, astrophysics, as would Sagan or Hawking. BUT what would they know about biology or chemistry compared to a world-renowned expert? Probably not a lot.

 

So yah, there's probably a finite number of natural laws, but who knows how many? And who knows how many we haven't even contemplated yet?!

 

Now ... as for once we learn them, do we become gods ourselves? Short answer: yes. Long answer: ... yes, but how long will that take? someone asked which came first: God? or the universe? my answer would be God, but then that begs the question, where did *HE* come from? and did someone create Him? And 'round and 'round we go on the eternal version of chicken and egg.

 

And how do we know our current version of God isn't some dumb hillbilly God compared to his God? Godception?

[frissonic]

:lol:

 

I like that explanation.

 

So could the Mormon God be beholden to a greater God?

 

 

that's literally *the* question, in my book. and to that end, i have absolutely no idea. and while i find it interesting to question and wonder about, i don't particularly need to know the answer right now. while i'd like to know the answer, i'm content with just knowing that *a* God exists, He created all this, and someday there'll be answers to everything.

 

and i fully admit that all who believe in religion and afterlife and such could be dead wrong (unavoidable pun, right?) because i have no tangible proof ... but i have my experiences, i have my beliefs, and i have my hope that this is not the end, but barely the beginning. i look at it as kind of a reverse of the one-year calendar concept presented in cosmos: if the entire history of the universe were condensed into one year, we are literally at December 31st, 11:59:59.7 pm or something like that. my existence is the opposite of that: January 1, 0:0:0.3 am.

 

if anyone wants to discuss where God might live, i have some severely wild, out-there theories. ;)

[darksabre]

 

 

that's literally *the* question, in my book. and to that end, i have absolutely no idea. and while i find it interesting to question and wonder about, i don't particularly need to know the answer right now. while i'd like to know the answer, i'm content with just knowing that *a* God exists, He created all this, and someday there'll be answers to everything.

 

and i fully admit that all who believe in religion and afterlife and such could be dead wrong (unavoidable pun, right?) because i have no tangible proof ... but i have my experiences, i have my beliefs, and i have my hope that this is not the end, but barely the beginning. i look at it as kind of a reverse of the one-year calendar concept presented in cosmos: if the entire history of the universe were condensed into one year, we are literally at December 31st, 11:59:59.7 pm or something like that. my existence is the opposite of that: January 1, 0:0:0.3 am.

 

if anyone wants to discuss where God might live, i have some severely wild, out-there theories. ;)

 

Would he live outside the temporal bounds of the known universe?

[biodork]

I am pleasantly surprised by how much I'm enjoying this thread. Kudos to all who are participating in the manner intended by the OP, and keep it coming. Interesting stuff all around.

[Stoner]

bio with the backhanded peepee slap! (say it in the voice of Marv Albert)

[...]

Understood and agreed. My problem with religion is not that we can't prove god exists, but rather the inflexible, toxic dogma of the righteous.

 

Science is rather dogmatic and self-righteous, you're correct.

[biodork]

bio with the backhanded peepee slap! (say it in the voice of Marv Albert)

 

:blink: Not intended as backhanded anything... I meant it as a genuine compliment!

[Stoner]

:blink: Not intended as backhanded anything... I meant it as a genuine compliment!

 

Oh, OK. I thought you were pointing out that some were not participating as intended.

[biodork]

Oh, OK. I thought you were pointing out that some were not participating as intended.

 

Well in retrospect I may have spoken too quickly, but I really did just intend to compliment people because this thread has the potential to be a train wreck.

[...]

 

 

Would he live outside the temporal bounds of the known universe?

 

"God" would neither be he or she. "God" would also not live or even exist as those concepts are understood. "God" either is or is not.

 

I would recommend to anyone seriously contemplating the nature of existence and the possibility (probability) of (a) "g/God" to pretty much toss out all symbolism and linear thinking.

 

A LSD or mushroom trip, or two or three, is highly advisable.

[darksabre]

 

 

"God" would neither be he or she. "God" would also not live or even exist as those concepts are understood. "God" either is or is not.

 

I would recommend to anyone seriously contemplating the nature of existence and the possibility (probability) of (a) "g/God" to pretty much toss out all symbolism and linear thinking.

 

A LSD or mushroom trip, or two or three, is highly advisable.

 

Well that is part of how I'm phrasing it. I think for a God to exist within the bounds of the universe he/she/it would have to manifest some physical form. Allowing God to exist outside those bounds takes away the need for any definition.

[X. Benedict]

Well that is part of how I'm phrasing it. I think for a God to exist within the bounds of the universe he/she/it would have to manifest some physical form. Allowing God to exist outside those bounds takes away the need for any definition.

 

This is almost the word for word the early position of St. Augustine, if I remember. He struggled for years with the idea of an incorporeal Christian God, before being converted to the position that God exists outside time and space.

[...]

You are making up the confines within which this character of yours, "God", would exist. You have to get out of the habit of putting things in packages.

 

"God" would be time, would be all matter and all space and all things otherwise. "God" would be the intangibles and all thought and all silence.

 

"God" would not be some freaky entity in some dimension somewhere...those are what normally are referred to as "God" by common religions, but even those gods had a "God" if you're familiar enough with the literature and/or tales.

Edited December 2, 2014 by sizzlemeister

[darksabre]

You are making up the confines within which this character of yours, "God", would exist. You have to get out of the habit of putting things in packages.

 

"God" would be time, would be all matter and all space and all things otherwise. "God" would be the intangibles and all thought and all silence.

 

"God" would not be some freaky entity in some dimension somewhere...those are what normally are referred to as "God" by common religions, but even those gods had a "God" if you're familiar enough with the literature and/or tales.

 

Can we call it something other than God then? Because God implies something sentient while your definition denounces sentience.

[frissonic]

Well that is part of how I'm phrasing it. I think for a God to exist within the bounds of the universe he/she/it would have to manifest some physical form. Allowing God to exist outside those bounds takes away the need for any definition.

If you accept the bible as being accurate and true (and i realize that for some on here, that's not going to happen, and i understand that), there's a verse in the new testament that, when i first read it, jumped out at me like a mack truck and knocked me for a loop.

 

Read St. John 5. The whole chapter talks about how Jesus healed some guy on the sabbath. This guy couldn't walk. The Jews all had a hissy fit and wanted to kill Jesus. They confronted him in the temple.

 

Then we get to verse 19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

Verse 20 goes on: For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

 

If Christ can do nothing but what he sees God doing, and Jesus has a body even after his resurrection and perfection, then it stands to reason that God also has a body. So whether God has a body or not is one for scriptural debate, but that's my go-to stance when someone argues that God is some ethereal misty blob.

[darksabre]

 

If you accept the bible as being accurate and true (and i realize that for some on here, that's not going to happen, and i understand that), there's a verse in the new testament that, when i first read it, jumped out at me like a mack truck and knocked me for a loop.

 

Read St. John 5. The whole chapter talks about how Jesus healed some guy on the sabbath. This guy couldn't walk. The Jews all had a hissy fit and wanted to kill Jesus. They confronted him in the temple.

 

Then we get to verse 19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

Verse 20 goes on: For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

 

If Christ can do nothing but what he sees God doing, and Jesus has a body even after his resurrection and perfection, then it stands to reason that God also has a body. So whether God has a body or not is one for scriptural debate, but that's my go-to stance when someone argues that God is some ethereal misty blob.

 

This takes God in a different direction. He becomes a role model rather than some omniscient being, no?

[X. Benedict]

If you accept the bible as being accurate and true (and i realize that for some on here, that's not going to happen, and i understand that), there's a verse in the new testament that, when i first read it, jumped out at me like a mack truck and knocked me for a loop.

 

Read St. John 5. The whole chapter talks about how Jesus healed some guy on the sabbath. This guy couldn't walk. The Jews all had a hissy fit and wanted to kill Jesus. They confronted him in the temple.

 

Then we get to verse 19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

Verse 20 goes on: For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

 

If Christ can do nothing but what he sees God doing, and Jesus has a body even after his resurrection and perfection, then it stands to reason that God also has a body. So whether God has a body or not is one for scriptural debate, but that's my go-to stance when someone argues that God is some ethereal misty blob.

 

I'm actually quite blown away by this. Do Mormons believe in God the Father as a physical being?

[...]

 

 

Can we call it something other than God then? Because God implies something sentient while your definition denounces sentience.

 

No it doesn't.

[darksabre]

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

So time is sentient?

[frissonic]

I'm actually quite blown away by this. Do Mormons believe in God the Father as a physical being?

Yup.