• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1012157; said:
I can certainly understand your suspicion regarding the possibilities of multiple universe as a human construction. However, I think perhaps you're not giving the idea sufficient credit. That is to say, this isnt some construct I've pulled out of the air to explain my beliefs, but instead a scientific theory of reality which MAY indeed be true. Now, objectively, I cannot say if it's true. I can subjectively look at the theory, it's predicted consequences, and compare it with what I observe around me and see if it fits.
Click to expand...

Is your use of "universe" synonymous with "dimension" or completely separate? I've read that there may be as many as ten dimensions which sort of coincides with what you've written here.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1012171; said:
Is your use of "universe" synonymous with "dimension" or completely separate? I've read that there may be as many as ten dimensions which sort of coincides with what you've written here.
Click to expand...
I probably should be more careful with the terms I use, since I sometimes use "universe" to mean "multiverse" (or Metaverse) and sometime to means our own observable universe. In my way of thinking a dimension would be - to our lone observable universe - the elements of construction of that universe. That said, dimensions, in my way of thinking, can't necessarily be isolated apart from their universe. That is to mean, the dimension of Time doesn't "exist" in some ether out there waiting for a universe to influence.... in that respect, I'd say it is synonymous with the term "universe."

Does that help?
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1012157; said:
Well, I doubt you believe Jesus is a plant, but I appreciate the metaphor. I would observe this understanding is in line with the way I think about the world - ie chaotically, or as I've said by understanding the behavior of one thing, we can appreciate the behavior of another thing, to the extent that they are similar (The universe is composed of smaller iterations of itself). So, the question becomes are the two things being compared sufficiently similar.

Here, they are not, at least not in terms of resurrection. I would accept this as some argument in favor of "everlasting life" perhaps (In the sense of a soul being different than a body), but here's why I think your idea breaks down in terms of resurrection.

The essential factor which is missing from your description of plants dying and then coming back to life is that the plan did not, in fact, die. Again, I appreciate the metaphor as it describes your concept, but it's not comparable. If it were the case that Jesus still had a heartbeat (that is, his "Core" did not die) when he was buried for 3 days, then your comparison comes to be more on point.

I think we can agree that without a death, resurrection is impossible as a matter of definition. Plants do not resurrect when they are indeed dead. If I kill a hosta in my flowerbed, it does not ever return. If I cut it down to the ground, it does.. but I didn't kill it.. I left it's "heart" beating.. it's root system. Thus, despite a possible outward appearance of death later resurrecting, there is still no offer of proof on the matter upon which to base reason.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statements as I think you missed what I was saying. Let me try again. I specifically chose words that avoided the mistake of saying the plant died. Instead I said the outer shell of the seed dies and I said the perennials "die back". In applying this observation to the concept of human resurrection, I was trying to say that the core of life does continue, but that the core is one's spirit, not anything of physical attribute (i.e. heart, brain, etc.). What the plant shows us is that despite the outward appearance of death, if the core remains in tact, then new life/ressurection can occur. Hence, our shell dies or our physical attributes die back, but a new physical life can spring forth because the core (i.e. the spirit) remains in tact.

I can certainly understand your suspicion regarding the possibilities of multiple universe as a human construction. However, I think perhaps you're not giving the idea sufficient credit. That is to say, this isnt some construct I've pulled out of the air to explain my beliefs, but instead a scientific theory of reality which MAY indeed be true. Now, objectively, I cannot say if it's true. I can subjectively look at the theory, it's predicted consequences, and compare it with what I observe around me and see if it fits. To simplify, I have no idea if what is acutally holding me to this earth is indeed gravity. I've never seen gravity, I can't hold it in my hand. But, the idea of it is sensible, and gravity being real doesn't seem to violate other "rules." There are possibly other solutions to the question of "Why do we not fall off the earth" which might very well work as well, but the answer of gravity works quite well.

Anyway, again, this isn't some construct I've made up to explain anything that I couldn't explain. It's not a "makeshift" answer to a question I felt was too hard. It's an idea, a theory, with sound support in reason which is offered to explain the nature of reality. It explains how we can have quarks, and it explains how we can have black holes.... It is possible (likely?) and I cannot defeat it with observation (though, I ceartainly leave room for that occuring at someone elses hand). It fits well with my conception of reality as dynamic and not linear....
Click to expand...

This is why I stated that the concept of multiverses is part of the mythology of evolutionary naturalism (and obviously other paradigms as well since you are not a naturalist). The "theory" is a human construction within a particular paradigm to explain how reality works. Although you did not create it in order to solve an unworkable answer, the concept did originate from others who did need to solve unworkable answers within their paradigm. Basic assumptions that limit the naturalist's views of reality caused certain observations of the universe to be unexplainable. Hence, there was a need to create a solution to the unexplainable. Despite the lack of actual observation of a second universe, nevermind infinite numbers of them, the possibility of them helped to explain the unexplainable within a particular paradigm while leaving its most fundamental assumptions unchallenged. Hence, it became part of the mythology, or story, of explaining reality; but when compared to another paradigm without making judgements not based within either paradigm, it serves as an identical function to the causal plane of Hinduism, the dream time of aboriginal australians, or purgatory of Catholicism.

And, of course, more importantly, it makes G-d that much more intense. Master of infinite universes is to me much more impressive than merely master of one. Even short of that, the real question is - does this theory - M-Theory - establish that G-d cannot be? Answer: No. Even you would have to conceed from your paradigm that it cannot thereby be wrong and should be considered
Click to expand...

I never have understood this conclusion. Why would multiple universes make G-d more "intense" or "impressive" than one universe. In each instance, there is an equal acknowledgement that G-d is the creator of all. The difference only lies in the complexity of the creation, if in fact an infinite number of infinities is more complex than a single infinity, not in the complexity or any other adjective of the creator.

As you state, my paradigm allows for the possibility of multiple universes, sense I believe G-d has the ability to create them. Thus your conception of G-d is no more dynamic than mine simply because I hold He only created one. As for your comment that it cannot be wrong to consider the possibility of a multiverse if it is a possibilty, well, that is tricky as my paradigm certainly holds it is irrelevant since the only thing I hold to be of divine revelation (i.e. Bible) speaks neither against it or for it. If G-d did not reveal it to us through His prophets or Spirit, then I would argue at this point in time it is irrelevant. Hence, I guess I could say it is wrong, but only in the sense of it being as "chasing the wind".

I can appreciate, I think, how God's acting at any point in time in an apparently "miraculous" way can all be part of the master plan to begin with. But, I am left with serious concerns as to why miracles used to apparently happen with such frequency and yet, I've never seen one. A sensible explaination for that is that miracles have never occurred, it's just that man didn't understand what happened rationally.
Click to expand...

Have you really never seen or miracle or were you simply unable to perceive them? Does your paradigm cause you to seek only certain types of explanations of events that prevent you from finding/observing the "miraculous"? Or perhaps everything you observe is miraculous and thus you do not experience what other do, who do not see all things as miraculous.

Even by saying that past claims of miracles were simply events man could not explaing "rationally" shows that your paradigm prevents even the possiblity of you ever seeing them. Events within objective reality must fit within what your paradigm considers "rational", which in turn limits your interpretation as it doesn't acknowledge that what you consider rational and irrational are completely subjective. I know you acknowledge that your paradigm/perspective is subjective, but in this instance I don't see you applying that acknowledgement.

Maybe, but you're going a little too far in your example. The water did not behave in "magical" ways... it behaved only in accord with the rules of physics. But, in as much as I'm in a bit of a hurry here, I can conceed that God might act in a way that appears magic to us, but would not be violative of "the rules" As I said above, there may be multiple workable solutions to the "why don't we fall off the earth" problem... We can subjectively choose to believe whatever makes sense to us.
Click to expand...

The water behaved in accord with the rules of physics that we know, hence it did not appear to behave in "magical" ways. But to anyone who did not know those rule, it would appear as "magic". In the same way, G-d interacting in his creation in unique and singular ways is not behaving in "magical" ways. It only appears as such to us because we don't know all of the rules.

Objectively, however, did magic occur? We don't know. It depends on if you're a elf or a hobbit, I guess.
Click to expand...

Actually, Tolkien provides the answer, but you have to read The Silmarillion where you are given the objective reality of Middle Earth. No "magic" occurred as it is revealed that Eru Iluvatar (i.e. god in Tolkien's mythology) created the elves with natural abilities to interact and shape nature in ways beyond human understanding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1012268; said:
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statements as I think you missed what I was saying. Let me try again. I specifically chose words that avoided the mistake of saying the plant died. Instead I said the outer shell of the seed dies and I said the perennials "die back". In applying this observation to the concept of human resurrection, I was trying to say that the core of life does continue, but that the core is one's spirit, not anything of physical attribute (i.e. heart, brain, etc.). What the plant shows us is that despite the outward appearance of death, if the core remains in tact, then new life/ressurection can occur. Hence, our shell dies or our physical attributes die back, but a new physical life can spring forth because the core (i.e. the spirit) remains in tact.
Click to expand...

Well, like I say, I understand your metaphor and it's sensible as a tool, I was trying to express how I think about it as a chaotic example. In any case, in strict terms of your metaphor it would also predict (or at least suggest) that there should be reincarnation, right? How do you feel about re-incarnation? If that sounds "accusatory" I don't mean it so, but I think I remember you believing such a concept is pure fancy. If I'm wrong, apology in advance.

In any case, your shell of life/soul example is not something which I object to as I freely admit that the source of LIFE is one's soul and not one's body. I had hoped my view was clear that I do not reject resurrection as a construct, but instead something that occurs in this reality. My objection to Jesus' resurrection is that the Bible is a work of fiction on this point. That arguement, however, is not one I seek to explore at the moment, but we surely can if you desire.

This is why I stated that the concept of multiverses is part of the mythology of evolutionary naturalism (and obviously other paradigms as well since you are not a naturalist). The "theory" is a human construction within a particular paradigm to explain how reality works. Although you did not create it in order to solve an unworkable answer, the concept did originate from others who did need to solve unworkable answers within their paradigm. Basic assumptions that limit the naturalist's views of reality caused certain observations of the universe to be unexplainable. Hence, there was a need to create a solution to the unexplainable. Despite the lack of actual observation of a second universe, nevermind infinite numbers of them, the possibility of them helped to explain the unexplainable within a particular paradigm while leaving its most fundamental assumptions unchallenged. Hence, it became part of the mythology, or story, of explaining reality; but when compared to another paradigm without making judgements not based within either paradigm, it serves as an identical function to the causal plane of Hinduism, the dream time of aboriginal australians, or purgatory of Catholicism.
Click to expand...

As well it should, right? The entire point being that subjective reality MAY or MAY NOT describe Objective reality. I look at man's "purpose" indeed God's purpose as in part the understanding of what IS (objective reality) You know, we have discussed the idea that God is "infinity + 1" (as I call it, I think you call it Everything and more, or something like that) If we can pretend for the moment that God appreciates the reality that IS objective truth, and man can only ever "know" truth subjectively, can't we say that the paradigm works? Infinite ways to appreciate the infinte... seems to me self evident.

I never have understood this conclusion. Why would multiple universes make G-d more "intense" or "impressive" than one universe. In each instance, there is an equal acknowledgement that G-d is the creator of all. The difference only lies in the complexity of the creation, if in fact an infinite number of infinities is more complex than a single infinity, not in the complexity or any other adjective of the creator.
Click to expand...

In terms of "absolute value" there is admittedly no variance. However, I would suggest that this universe does not allow for EVERYTHING, it only allows for those things which occur.... A Metaverse means I have choosen both A and B, and that God can appreciate the consequences of each, whereas if this is it, I can only choose A OR B, and God cannot appreciate the reality of my choosing A if I opted for B... understand the consequence, sure. APPRECIATE? No. I think an "ALL" this and that God would appreciate EVERYTHING, not just some things. I need to clarify... when I say "allows" I don't mean whether or not any event is possible, as I would conceed that any particular event is possible, even if not realized. the point I'm getting to is ALL GODS THOUGHTS ARE REALIZED EVENTS somewhere. Or, God cannot "think" without doing... We are the Mind of God... or everything that IS must be GOD... indeed, we agree, there is nothing else. make sense?

As you state, my paradigm allows for the possibility of multiple universes, sense I believe G-d has the ability to create them. Thus your conception of G-d is no more dynamic than mine simply because I hold He only created one. As for your comment that it cannot be wrong to consider the possibility of a multiverse if it is a possibilty, well, that is tricky as my paradigm certainly holds it is irrelevant since the only thing I hold to be of divine revelation (i.e. Bible) speaks neither against it or for it. If G-d did not reveal it to us through His prophets or Spirit, then I would argue at this point in time it is irrelevant. Hence, I guess I could say it is wrong, but only in the sense of it being as "chasing the wind".
Click to expand...

My conception of God may not be more dynamic. My conception of reality is. I can "prove" that reality isn't linear. If it were, I could use a simple equation to predict with 100% accuracy where my car will be at X speed over A time.... Of course, in practice, all I have predicted is APPROXIMATELY where I'll be, as it turns out I am in some different place, even if I miss by only a hair. The linear math isn't "wrong" it just didn't consider all the real world variables.

Your conception of divine revelation, to me, is unacceptable. I suppose it has something to do with our respective belief's in Jesus' purpose too, in a way. I need no go between between myself and God. I can approach Him without a nod to Jesus. You, on the other hand, believe that one must come to the Father through the Son. It stands to reason then, that you would seek an EXTERNAL source to provide direction (Bible) whereas I would not require the same. I must admit, Bgrad, I cannot understand how you can believe in an infinite God who cannot (or does not) allow us to appreciate him alone.... I do not "get" how God would be hidden from me, if he is truly EVERYWHERE. To me, and I dont mean this to be insulting, your God lives only in the pages of the Bible and to the extent that those pages are wrong, your God is dead.... actually, never lived... My God lives because the universe.. multiverse... is here. God speaks to me because I can SEE reality. Not because I can read. My idea of God would be as readily apparent to a Dolphin as He is to the Pope. Should not ALL God's creatures enjoy the benefit of God? Or is He just for us?

Have you really never seen or miracle or were you simply unable to perceive them? Does your paradigm cause you to seek only certain types of explanations of events that prevent you from finding/observing the "miraculous"?
Click to expand...

I have seen many unexplained things. Not one of them was a miracle. I defy you to find me one thing in the universe that is not natural. Maybe we have different operational definitions of miracle.

Even by saying that past claims of miracles were simply events man could not explaing "rationally" shows that your paradigm prevents even the possiblity of you ever seeing them. Events within objective reality must fit within what your paradigm considers "rational", which in turn limits your interpretation as it doesn't acknowledge that what you consider rational and irrational are completely subjective. I know you acknowledge that your paradigm/perspective is subjective, but in this instance I don't see you applying that acknowledgement.
Click to expand...

Not so. My paradigm only requires that I accept that which I am surrounded by (Reality) Time and time again.. without fail, actually, the "miraculous" or unexplained is indeed revealed to be perfectly explainable... perfectly natural. The glory of God isn't his ability to hide the ball.. quite the contrary, it is that WE SHOULD SEE IT FOR IT'S WHOLE.

The water behaved in accord with the rules of physics that we know, hence it did not appear to behave in "magical" ways. But to anyone who did not know those rule, it would appear as "magic". In the same way, G-d interacting in his creation in unique and singular ways is not behaving in "magical" ways. It only appears as such to us because we don't know all of the rules.
Click to expand...
So, where is the miracle exactly?

Actually, Tolkien provides the answer, but you have to read The Silmarillion where you are given the objective reality of Middle Earth. No "magic" occurred as it is revealed that Eru Iluvatar (i.e. god in Tolkien's mythology) created the elves with natural abilities to interact and shape nature in ways beyond human understanding.
Click to expand...

Having not read it, I can't really comment. I would observe however, that I might just as soon come to grand conclusions about life and philosophy by considering the movie Star Wars. And actually, to be fair, I am perfectly willing to learn lessons about the nature of the universe from works of fiction.. in fact, what else could there possibly be to do with it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
BKB,

As I am thinking about our discussion of miracles, magic, and reality I came to the conclusion that we are not really focusing on where the center of our disagrement is. Therefore, I would like to use the story of G-d bringing forth water from a rock as a point of analysis that might help us clarify our stances.

In Exodus 17, Moses is commanded by G-d to strike a rock with a staff in order to bring forth water for the Israelites. 40 years later, in Numbers 20, Moses is commanded by G-d to speak to a rock in order to bring forth water. However, Moses hits the rock and nothing happens. He then hits the rock a second time and water comes forth. However, since he did not follow G-d's command to speak to the rock, he is punished by not being allowed to enter into the Promised Land.

I am assuming we agree that if water comes forth from a rock as the result of G-d willing it to do so, then we would have a miracle. Our disagreement is that you see this as making G-d into a "magical" being, while I see it as simply G-d following the laws of nature He established. Is this correct?

However,when we compare the instances of Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, I would argue that G-d is disassociating what He wills from the concept of "magic". The staff with which Moses struck both rocks was also the staff he used to turn the Nile river to blood and split the Red Sea. It would be very easy for observers of these events to assume that the staff itself or perhaps Moses had "magical" abilities. This being the case, it detracts from what is really occuring: G-d willed these events to occur. Hence the same miracle of bringing forth water from a rock was suppose to be performed through different means so as to highlight that it was His will that causes it to occur (I don't want to get into why G-d still allowed the water to come forth upon the second striking of the rock in Num 20, as that is beyond our conversation here).

If the events were attributed to the staff or to Moses, then I would agree that we are dealing with a "magical" explanation since we are attributing power, or ability, to an object or a person that they do not have in reality. They are breaking the laws of physics as you would likely say, though I would prefer to state it as they are being attributed that which is unnatural to their inherint nature. However, since the cause of the water coming forth from the rocks was G-d, then I don't see this event as being "magical" since it would be completely within the power, ability, nature (whatever you want to call it) of G-d. After all, I contend that G-d has revealed to us that by His command all of creation (i.e. reality) came into existence. If this act is evidence to the nature of G-d, then causing water to come from a rock fits specificially within the natural abilities of G-d. It may still appear as "magical" to men, but that would only be the case if man was trying to restrain G-d's actions/will to the same limitations he/she experiences by the laws of physics (i.e. his/her inherint nature). In other words, it is an attempt to bring G-d down to the level of man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, first I guess we'd have to agree that these events even happened. I would argue that the events did not happen literally, as I'm sure comes as little surprise. An example regarding Water and Blood (well, more like a theory).... An example of water from rock being natrural. I watched a show on the Science channel about a month ago which produced water from a rock by crushing it (the show was about going to Mars and using Mars itself once we get there). Man often "tells stories" embellishing things as they go....

Assuming we agree that they happened as literally described, I guess I don't see where the disconnect is at all. An event is either natural or it is not. If it is not natural, it is a miracle. I have zero evidence of this universe ever allowing an unnautral event occur. Even if God were to will a frog out of thin air, it would be natural.... and I would seek to understand how it's possible. Thus my belief that the fingerprint, if you will, of G-d is everywhere... you can't fail to see it, if you look.

If you ask me, I think our fundemental misunderstanding stems more from an assumption I'm making about what you mean when you say you're a Biblical Literalist. That assumption being that you think G-d did these things as described... that marching around cities blowing trumpets caused the walls to fall... That there was an actual worldwide flood (incidentally, did you see the Ark Logistics thread?) and Noah did all those things he's alleged to have done.... This world you live in..... to me, it sounds as if it might change at any moment for no reason at all. that one day, you could easily find yourself waking up to blue sunshine and a yellow sky, if that be G-d's will for whatever reason.

These things don't happen in my world, and if it did, there must be a natural explanation. The irony of it is, of course, I too believe G-d is in control of all these things. You, I would say, see Him as a micromanager... physically operating in a world which apparently is too damn stupid to get it without Him pressing the issue. (Calling in to question His ability to create intelligence) I see Him as ..... well.... he just IS... And whatever that IS cannot be avoided.

In any case, why did G-d apparently close up shop about 2000 years ago? For such an active participant in man's relationship with reality, He doesn't seem to be very helpful anymore. I mean, I suspect a storm of fire and brimstone could put an end to the Iraq War pretty quick.... On the other hand, Pharoh seemed to surprise G-d with his refusal to let Israel go.... why the bloody river... why frogs... locusts.... why not cut to the chace and kill all the 1st born and get on with it. Why not make it even easier than all that and just kill pharoh... or close him in a big glass box or something, and let Israel go while he screams and yells to no one inside his glass coffin. I mean...

Explainations.... I require them.. you do not. And that's fine. Neither approach is superior to teh other. The point, of course, is that because we are trapped by our subjective nature, neither of us could be right or wrong, while we are both right and wrong at the same time. Reality is, I think, all these things.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top