Blog

Archie wrote:

“Orderliness”, especially the supposed “orderliness of the universe”, may be little more than a product of the human mind, especially its tendency to look for patterns in events and environment. The question, “Why do electrons always behave like electrons?” is not (per se) evidence of some special orderliness, let alone an insight into supernatural creation – it merely prompts us to try to find out more about the behaviour of electrons.

The writings of holy men, the literary basis for religious belief, seek to find orderliness in a frustratingly disordered world – or even create an orderliness that isn’t there. If we consider the earliest creation story in the book of Genesis (chapter 2, verses 4 and following), we see that the God “Yahweh” planted a garden in Mesopotamia, but He hadn’t realised that the ground was too dry for plants to survive, so He had to invent a miracle (dew) to keep them alive until the rivers flooded. Then God had some mud to play with, so He made a mud-man that looked like Himself, and (rather like Frankenstein) brought this mud-man to life. He hadn’t foreseen that the man would get bored – so He then had to create animals to be Adam’s pets and companions. He hadn’t foreseen that the man would get lonely – so He felt obliged to make a woman out of one of the man’s ribs. God hadn’t foreseen that this woman would wreck everything... and so on. (Don’t take my word for this – read Genesis ch. 2 yourself.)

Some time after this first creation story was written (we call it the “Yahwist Source”), an intellectual revolution known as the “Axial Age” invented an orderliness for divine doings, that has characterised much theological thinking ever since. A new “priestly” creation story needed to be written (most of it in Genesis chapter 1) in which God (now named “Elohim”) became a well-organised planner with a six-day programme, creating a whole universe in what was, more or less, a logical order.

The interesting thing about the observable universe is not its orderliness, but its apparently unlimited potential for exuberant variety. Originally, everything in the universe could be understood as physics, but as soon as this early universe had cooled down sufficiently, “physics” turned out to have an (unexpected?) emergent quality: chemistry. Once the element carbon had been produced by giant stars, chemistry turned out to have an emergent quality, organic chemistry. As organic chemistry became (spontaneously?) more complex, it in turn had an emergent quality, biochemistry. Eventually, biochemistry produced a really unexpected emergent quality, biological life! This biological life could evolve by itself, to adapt to the challenges of the changing environment, so more layers were to follow: sociobiology, human psychology and society – and culture, technology, mythology, theology, and systems of intellectual investigation that enabled some of these humans to grasp an inkling of how the whole pyramid of emergent qualities had been (spontaneously?) constructed.

The problem of "orderliness" is that equilibrium is inherently unstable. Observing this instability, and influenced by his studies of biology, Aristotle concluded (from his “formal cause”) that the universe must be evolving, from an original state of disorder (chaos) towards an ultimate orderliness (cosmos). This was the opposite of traditional thinking, which was that the original “golden age” had degenerated through “silver” to the mess and muddle of the present day. Only in the twentieth century was it discovered that Aristotle had his evolution of the universe the wrong way round. The large-scale tendency is towards entropy. Complexity, the elaboration of order, is a transitional phase, a temporary and local reversal.

According to Richard Swinburne, “In almost any possible universe, each material object would behave in a very complicated way different from that of any other material object.” This is the sort of statement that looks as if it ought to be true, because it is so completely counterintuitive. The universe must have had a divine Creator, because, in terms of “all the possibilities”, it is almost impossible for it to be the way that it is. Almost every alternative universe that anyone could imagine would never work, or certainly could never work like the universe we’ve got.

This is an example of the “almost possible” fallacy, a subset of the “possibility fallacy”. The idea of “almost possible” ceased to make sense as soon as probability became a branch of mathematics (Laplace, 1812). How possible does something have to be before it becomes “almost possible”? And what exactly does “possible” mean? In theory, anything can be “possible”, even a direct contradiction (Example: in Trinitarian Christianity, God is a unity, a single divine Being; except that God is also not a unity, but three divine Beings). Careful scrutiny has revealed a diminishing value in this concept of “possibility” – although “impossibility” can still be useful (it’s the title of a book by John D. Barrow).

To illustrate the difference between possibility and probability, let us consider a phenomenon that has an extremely low probability: the existence of an individual, a real person, called Richard. The existence of Richard must be possible, because his contribution appears in “Closer to Truth”. But if we go back to a point in time a few years before Richard’s birth, it becomes overwhelmingly improbable that he will ever exist. And his existence cannot be said to be “a decision in the hands of God”, because many people use contraception these days. Richard’s mum and dad have to meet, be attracted to each other, be able to cohabit, decide to cohabit, decide to start a family, and do something about it on a particular day. If the slightest little thing goes “wrong” with this sequence, there will be no Richard! Ever! (This idea is amusingly examined in the movie, “Back to the Future”.) Then, on the occasion when Richard might possibly be conceived, a sperm has to reach the egg, and it has to be the “right” sperm! Or no Richard! The likelihood that any particular individual will ever be born is in the ball-park of one chance in many billions. And we only went back one generation.

“Orderliness” implies a degree of predictability. But everything in the universe is profoundly unpredictable, from the behaviour of subatomic particles, through next month’s weather, to the planetary “three body problem”. The probability that our universe would ever exist in the form that it actually exists in at this moment is vanishingly small. But what about “possibility”? – sorry, there is no mathematics of the possible. As Stephen Jay Gould liked to point out, if we go back just a few million years, the likelihood that there would ever be a species “Homo sapiens” becomes very remote. So what are the implications? Here is one option: If God does not control everything, every atom, every quantum of energy, every quantum of time, He doesn’t really control anything.

Posted 7:05 PM / February 17, 2012

jam2001 wrote:

Oneman wrote that the universe was created at the big bang but there is no evidencet the author of this event survived the bang. Reasoning of this type is incomplete. It is like saying that there can be nothing in a closet because the door is closed. Noone can reasonably argue from cause and effect, going back in time and then just stop when reason knows it should continue. Simply because science cannot see before the big bang is not a limitation on reality, it is a limitation on science. God is as reasonable a cause for the big bang as any.
Stating where the seat of consciousness is believed to be in the brain, is a nominal fallacy. It is offered as if it answers what consciousness is but that is false.

Posted 12:03 PM / February 13, 2012

oneman wrote:

The universe was smoothly distributed during the big bang and very very slight variations in the initial order of the universe led to the universe we see around us.

If one wanted to argue that a god was responsible for those slight deviations it does not in any way show that such a god survived the big bang.

So there may have been a god responsible for us being here but no evidence what so ever that such a god still exists. Recent claims of god hood show that god sacrifices self for others.

Life is delayed entrophy and what delays the entrophy is the incomplete dissipation of information aquired by the organic life form.

In the microtubles we find caged electrons which do not form electron clouds as they have no proton center but instead form cyclotrons which are the seat of consciousness.

Posted 8:53 AM / February 03, 2012

jam2001 wrote:

To my knowledge the best evidence for design to the universe is the concept or law of entropy. Entropy is a foundation of thermodynamics. Entropy states that there are some immutable laws to chemistry and physics. From these laws we see that hot will flow towards cold and vice versa. We also see that even the smallest particles will someday decay or change into something else. We think we understand this tendency of all matter and energy to move along these lines and therefor intuit an arrow for time.
The arrow we see with entropy seems to tend away from order towards disorder but that is from a human perspective. That perspective is always changing as our awareness and knowledge of our universe increases. If we see entropy as moving towards disorder we assume that one day the entire universe will one day run out of energy and expire.
If that is true, entropy should point towards greater order in the past even if we cannot see it. But who has not wished if I knew then what I know now. Meaning that the same order that exists now was present then but could not be understood. This perspective validates the entropy of the past as possibly containing far more energy than we see even now.
Therefor it is very possible that the flow of the universe is from some far greater awareness towards a more easily understandable awareness until it is as plain as day to even a dullard.

Posted 12:47 PM / January 30, 2012

neinthalmann wrote:

By the way, the perspective below is an UNBREAKABLE ARGUMENT and I would challenge anyone to try ..

.. thanks, Nein Thalman (truth seeker)

.

Posted 2:03 PM / November 02, 2011

neinthalmann wrote:

There is no easier nor convincing "argument" for perspective on I.D. than realizing it is 100% based on GENESIS by those that are locked into biblical creation, am I wrong?

THE SOLUTION: The bible CLAIMS all mankind to be genetically united to the date 292 years before Abram.

This "biblical DNA dating system" then can be called: 292 B.A - The Genetic Unity of All Mankind...

...and I am thinking of writing a book on this perspective for truth.

This "single claim" is all that we need address to become "Closer to the Truth"... all other arguments and perspectives are not essential for the argument; DNA discoveries alone have saved the day if you look to 292 B.A as the claim of the genetic unity of biblical man.

For more on this argument, I'd like you to read a public article I wrote on facebook and give feedback. Just Google "nein thalmann facebook" and read the first article on the wall currently titled "Intelligent Design on Trial - Discussion".

I've thought about creating a website called "292beforeAbraham.com" because Genesis self-documents the "exact" biblical date of the "annihilation of ALL MANKIND" in Gen 11:10-26.

If you do the math, the flood occurs 292 years "before Abram? (Abraham's birth), and Abraham speaks of Pharaoh so is during the age of Egypt.

Because Jesus mentions Noah, and because DNA PROVES "all mankind does not come from Noah", but indigenous peoples exist genetically around the globe, we know for sure the bible tale is untrue.

But Jesus "believed" it, so the loss of credibility imputes to Jesus as a diety, for how can a diety believe a MYTH?

For me this reset my belief system and I had to start over knowing that the foundations of the bible are not scripture for why would God push a myth on us like this?

Please freely engage in this topic for it sets the stage for "Closer to Truth" and is why I joined in...

.

Posted 1:54 PM / November 02, 2011

rbristowjohnson wrote:

The possibility of the Multiverse (I don't think it's meaningful to use that word in plural, but they used to say that about "universes") alongside the Weak Anthropic Principle (which nearly everyone agrees with since it's essentially a tautology) provides a very plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe we live in that makes it possible to live in it. Miriam-Webster defines the WAP as "conditions observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." Who can argue with that.

Originally the AP was used as an explanation for why the universe is about 10 billion years old and not 10 million or 100 billion. The universe gets to be all of those ages at different times, and it's only in this Golden Age or Goldilocks ("just right") age that we get to be here to ask "why is the Universe about 13.7 years old?". The AP turns the question around to ask: "At what age will our Universe be most conducive to life able to ponder such questions?" and the answer is about 10 billion years.

So with a zillion universes to choose from, some, a few, with fundamental constants and initial conditions that allow for matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, and life to exist and far more universe that are not so fine-tuned that the go utterly unnoticed. It's like a repeated experiment where we draw (and replace) a card from a deck and only the Ace of Spades is the "live-giving" card. We draw a card, it's the Ace of Spades, we say "look, it's the life-giving card, boy are we lucky that this was the card that was drawn." Like the age of the universe, if the whole reality (the Multiverse) gets to try out a zillion different experiments of universes with different fundamental constants and/or initial conditions, and eventually it will *have* to draw out one with the life-giving card and only in such a universe will there be anyone around like us to ask the question, "How can we be so lucky to draw this Ace of Spades and be around to see it?" The other universes, no one will be around to ask.

But, like the God-measuring device (that, if the meter reads 5 or above, indicates the existence of God, and below that means God likely does not exist), there will never be a device to measure other universes. That's what "observable universe" means. Then it's a matter of faith to believe in the existence of universes other than what we live in and observe.

So perhaps other universes exist and we happen to live in one of the few life-conducive universes, Doesn't mean that God cannot be behind that (as the Terminal node in the infinite regress of "who made that?"). But the Universe out there is pretty big and it's all that we can ever, ever know exists. Maybe it's the only one out there, and if that is the case, consider how it is that we have the Life-giving card (in that all of these fundamental constants have to be just so for us to be here). It's like an experiment that you have just *one* chance to shuffle the deck and draw *one* card and it better be the Ace of Spades, because if it isn't, no one will be around to see it.

So, somehow, with that single experiment, the Ace of Spades got drawn and we see it and say, "nice that the life-giving card was drawn and we get to exist and think about it." Seems to me likely that the deck was stacked.

Posted 11:51 PM / June 29, 2011

gerry1 wrote:

Kuhn letter May 23, 2011 June 18, 2011

Closer to Truth (May 19, 2011 (5:46am)):
Re: Religion vs. Science

As usual, your “science vs. religion” program this morning (4;30 AM, PBSWORLD, So. Calif., Time/Warner cable, demonstrates the value of great TV programming. I am a long time viewer. Kudos to Robert Lawrence Kuhn (“kühn” in German means “courageous”) and the entire CLOSER TO TRUTH team. I also appreciate Kuhn’s historic/analytic “courage” in discussing diverse scientific, atheistic, agnostic, and religious notions (emphasizing/analyzing traditional Christian views despite his own personal Jewish background). As a retired trial lawyer, I also agree that “religion has the burden of proof” in this important conflict.

I value Kuhn’s concluding summary this morning of the “4 possibles” - - 1) conflict, 2) separate worlds, 3) interaction, 4) integration,” and Kuhn’s fear of “premature integration” of science and religion. May I respectfully suggest that one Christian religion more than any other allows a “full integration” of science and religion. That is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereinafter “LDS” or “Mormon”). Contrary to most dualistic religions, LDS theology is monistic materialism - - or, perhaps more accurately, “dualistic materialism.” The key concept in LDS theology is that “spirit” is also matter, although not the same kind of matter we experience daily here and now. The LDS scripture states:

“6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. 7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified [[i.e. in our bodily resurrection]] we shall see that it is all matter.”
Doctrine & Covenants 131:6-8 (May 17, 1843).

“29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. . . . 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God . . . .”
Doctrine & Covenants 93:29-35 (May 6, 1833).

An early LDS apostle, Parley P. Pratt in his essay “MATERIALITY” (New York , 1845) put it this way:

“The elementary principles of the material universe are eternal; they never originated from nonentity and they never can be annihilated. . . . The Atheist has no God. The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define the difference? . . . What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. He is in the form of man, and is in fact of the same species, and is a moddle [model], or standard of perfection to which man is destined to attain; he being the great father and head of the whole family. . . . What are Spirits? They are material organizations, intelligences, possessing body and parts in the likeness of the temporal body; but not composed of flesh and bones, but of some substance less tangable [tangible] to our gross senses in our present life; but tangable to those in the same element as themselves. In short they are men in embryo. . . .”1/
. . . What are men? They are the offspring of God the Father and brothers of Jesus Christ.
They were once intelligent spirits in the presence of God, and were with him before the earth was formed. They are now in disguise as it were in order to pass through the several changes, and the experience necessary to constitute them perfect beings. They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree, as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ, and to posses immortal flesh and bones, in which they will eat, drink, converse, reason, love, walk, sing, play on musical instruments, go on missions from planet to planet, or from system to system: being Gods, or sons of God, endowed with the same powers, attributes, and capabilites that their heavenly father and Jesus Christ possess . . . .”
Quoted in Benjamin E. Park and Jordan T. Watkins, “The Riches of Mormon Materialism: Parley P. Pratt’s ‘MATERIALITY’ and Early Mormon Theology,” MORMON HISTORICAL STUDIES (vol 11, no. 2, Fall, 2010) 159, 164-166.
See also Gospel of Thomas, Logion (29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty." (108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him." Cf. John 10:34 (KJV) "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"; Gen 1:27 (KJV) "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them"; Psalms 82:6 (KJV) “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”

LDS theology “prides” itself on being scientific as well as spiritual, both of which deal with real material objects. This is material monism with no traditional materialist pantheistic, atheistic, communistic, nor nihilistic assumptions. Consciousness is materially present in both our pre-mortal spiritual (material) bodies and our earthly mortal bodies. Individual free will is implicit in both spheres of existence. The universe [or merely solar system?] was created by God (with pre-existing matter) for the teaching and benefit of (earthly) mankind - - a place to send his numerous literal genetic spirit/material children to advance through mortal/material experience. More LDS scripture (June, 1830):

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.
28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.
29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.
41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men-among as many as shall believe.
42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)
Moses 1:27-42.

I respectfully suggest the above to be the correct “non-premature integration” Kuhn properly seeks. It is non-premature because delivered by direct divine revelation to Joseph Smith in the 1830's long before modern astronomy/cosmology discovered hard scientific data supporting the above.

Such a historic “integration” between science and religion also exists in the New Testament (also in the Old = Hebrew Bible, but it is clearer in the New) with observational evidence of many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical resurrection after his death. The pertinent references are briefly discussed at Wikipedia “resurrection,” demonstrating diversified Christianities’ agreed central thesis of Jesus’ post-mortal physical resurrection after his public crucifixion, death and burial.

Carl Sagan’s oft-repeated “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a clear scientific and legal overstatement. Eyewitnesses (apparently many of them) of Jesus’ resurrection2/ from the tomb (stronger evidence than a mere “empty tomb” itself) are fully acceptable in a court of law. Indeed, when fully cross-examined for accuracy, eyewitness evidence is often the “best” evidence available throughout history before modern audio and video recording, etc. It generally remains so even today.

I respectfully suggest that LDS direct revelation and New Testament eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical3/ resurrection “prove” the eternity of unified human materiality and spirit. But LDS Christian theology demonstrates distinct novelties7/ apart from modern traditional Christian theologies. Each Mormon novelty must be explored independently, but their consistent “material” trend supplies evidence for Kuhn’s “Non-premature integration” of science and religion. For such novel Mormon Christian examples (to name but a few) I recite the following:

1) HUMAN MATERIAL PRE-EXISTENCE BEFORE MORTAL BIRTH HERE ON EARTH. See Gospel of Thomas, Jesus Logia (19.1) - - “Jesus said, ‘Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being . . .’”; (49) Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return"; (50) Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose'"; (83) Jesus said, "The images are manifest to man, but the light in them remains concealed in the image of the light of the father. He will become manifest, but his image will remain concealed by his light." (84) Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!" (111.3) Jesus said, ". . . "Whoever finds himself is superior to the world . . . ."
All the above Thomas, and below, = Lambdin translation from Coptic, Nag Hammadi Library); cf. also Jer. 1:5 (KJV) “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

2) MULTIPLE GODS FOR MULTIPLE WORLDS. Moses 1:33, above; Pratt, above; Thomas Logion 2, below; Logion (30) Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him." Cf. Psalm 82:1 (Douay-Rheims Bible) “ . . . God hath stood in the congregation of gods: and being in the midst of them he judgeth gods”; 1 Cor. 8:5 (New International Version - UK) “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), . . . 7 But not everyone knows this.” Ex. 15:11 (Young's Literal Translation) “Who is like Thee among the gods, O Jehovah?” Ps. 82:6 (KJV) “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”
See also newly discovered (2008) “Dark Flow.”

3) HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IS UNCREATED. Doctrine & Covenants 93, above. This makes humans at their core “co-eternal” with God (and His wife, our Heavenly Mother, little mentioned in official scripture, but more often in ancient apocrypha). In our natural individual human procession from pre-mortal existence (material spirits born in Heaven), to mortal birth here on earth (unifying our material pre-mortal spiritual bodies with our material earthly bodies), to death (“splitting” of our continuing pre-mortal material spirits from our deceased mortal material bodies), to our continuing post-mortal fully cognitive material spiritual existence, to our eventual resurrection to eternal unified material life (reuniting our pre-mortal spiritual bodies to our material resurrected body), to our final judgment by God based upon our individual advancement (or not) in this unified process, we exist as material beings. “Procession” is not necessarily “progress” because at each stage our individual differences in our free will choices of almost infinite variety will retard, not advance, those persons whose choices have been morally “unintelligent.” The goal of human life is to learn to become like our Heavenly Father (and Mother). This is the Great Plan of Salvation wherein “. . . the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:7 (KJV). Great was our pre-mortal joy in being allowed to come to earth and be born of mortal parents. 6/
4) HUMAN BEINGS ARE LITERAL, GENETIC CHILDREN OF GOD. Gospel of Thomas, Jesus Sayings, above; Logion (3.4) “. . . When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." Moses 1:40 above; Thomas (50) above; Acts 17:29 (KJV) “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device”; see 1 John 3:2, below.

5) THE BIBLE IS PARTIALLY DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE . Moses 1:41, above; Thomas Logion (39.1,.2) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to.” (102) Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat."

6) GOD IS COMPLETELY ANTHROPOMORPHIC. More correctly, mankind is fully theomorpic in embryo. Whether we achieve full development of our true God-like embryonic natures is entirely up to us in our individual decision-making. Moses 1:39, above; Pratt, above; Gospel of Thomas, Logia (3.4), (19.1 ), (49), (50), (83), (84), (111.3), all above, Jer. 1:5, Moses 1:40, above, Acts 17:29, above. This is what it means to be a “person.”

7) GOD, A RESURRECTED PERSON, ACTS BEFORE AND IN THE WORLD MATERIALLY. Pratt, above; Thomas, above. God knows “the end from the beginning” ( Isaiah 46:10 ) because he has himself successfully already experienced it all in mortal time. And it is all physical/mental, material/mental.

8) GOD REFUSES TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF OTHER WORLDS. Moses 1:35-40, above. Probably this is so because such worlds involve “Gods other” than our own Heavenly Father. Obviously, direct revelation from (or about) these “other” irrelevant (to our own salvation/exaltation) worlds/Gods is precluded by our God.

9) THE UNIVERSE IS SELF-RENEWING. Moses 1:38, above. So also the multiverse?

10) GOD’S PURPOSE IN CREATING THE UNIVERSE/EARTH IS THE PREPARATION, TESTING, AND INSTRUCTION OF MANKIND FOR THEIR OWN RESURRECTION INTO GODHOOD - - THEOSIS, THE “GODIFYING” OF MAN - - THOUGH FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT. Moses 1;39, above; Thomas, Logion (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." (2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." (58) Jesus said, "Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life." (23) Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one." Cf. 1 John 3:2 (Amplified Bible) "Beloved, we are [even here and] now God's children; it is not yet disclosed (made clear) what we shall be [hereafter], but we know that when He comes and is manifested we shall [as God's children] resemble and be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He [really] is." 2 Peter 1:4 (KJV) “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust”; Matt. 7:14 (KJV) “Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

11) THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS IS NOT AT ALL GNOSTIC. “Gnostic” human pre-existence “imprisons” the pre-mortal human (non-material) spirit into an evil, material, mortal body here on earth. Contrariwise, the mortal body in Thomas is plainly good, not evil - - no imprisonment, no desire to avoid materiality. See: GospelThomas.Com: “Stevan Davies writes: ‘Koester and Patterson's often-published perspective on sayings 49 and 50 is plain wrong. They believe that one may justly infer that these sayings especially, but others as well, derive from the thought world of those Gnostics who 'believed that both their origin and their destiny lay in the supreme deity who dwells in a heavenly place removed from the evil world, the creation of a rebellious angel or demiurge...' and that saying 50 speaks of 'the simple memorization of passwords' to be delivered to archons so as to enable Thomasine Christians to ascend from the confines of this world when the time comes . . . These ideas apply to the Apocryphon of John but not to the Gospel of Thomas in whole or in part. Thomas urges individuals to seek and find the kingdom of God spread upon the earth now (sayings 3, 113). Those who come from the light come from light here now (sayings 24, 77). The light of the beginning is here now (saying 18) and Thomas's references to the beginning are consistent with first-century exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2. Thomas nowhere refers to any demiurge or to any rebellious angel or any place for the kingdom apart from this world). Thomas knows nothing of archons to whom passwords are to be delivered, nor does Thomas mention any ascent by anyone to anywhere." If genuinely written by Thomas or his followers about 50 AD (early dating), then its deletion from historical inclusion into the Biblical canon is error.

12) Darwin is no objection to LDS “theosis” above, but is limited solely to the “mortal” phase of the process. LDS human “pre-existence” correctly places complexity, not evolutionary simplicity, at the beginning of the world and of persons.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HAS ANYBODY EVER NOMINATED KUHN FOR THE TEMPLETON PRIZE? WHY NOT?

ENDNOTES:

1/ LDS Christians teach that all humans pre-existed individually (as material spirits) with our material (resurrected) Heavenly Father BEFORE our mortal (also material) birth into mortality here on earth below.

2/ They did not witness the actual act of resurrection itself, but saw Jesus fully (and physically) alive after his death and entombment, leading to a clear inference of physical resurrection.3/ See 1 Cor 15:6, note 5 below.

3/ “Doubting Thomas” saw, heard, and touched Jesus’ physical resurrected body after the latter’s death and entombment, providing sensory/empirical evidence of Jesus’ physical resurrection from the dead. This despite the apparent ability of Jesus’ resurrected PHYSICAL body to pass through “normal” earthly matter, e.g. the physical walls/floor/ceiling of the enclosed room in which Jesus suddenly appeared. Cf. John 20:26.

4/ Physical resurrection is the lot of all human beings after death, whether they want it or not, to continue their life everlasting (for good, average or bad) in a “resurrected physical body” unencumbered by death, pain, accident, etc. Their happiness, or not, thereafter is determined by each individual’s Final Judgment from God himself according to this “standard model” (forgive the pun) of “theosis.”

5/ Physical resurrection of all persons after death - - of which we have precious little objective information and no technical scientific / chemical / atomic authentication at all - - involves differing substantive physical resurrected bodies, i.e. different resurrected substances. 1 Cor. 15 :41(KJV) “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resuection of the dead . . . .” Unfortunately, these resurrection physical substances cannot be SCIENTIFICALLY analyzed nor verified until after a person’s death and resurrection. Fortunately, we do have hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical resurrection. 1 Cor 15:6 (KJV) “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

6/ This means that the so-called Genesis “Fall of man (Adam and Eve)” into mortality was a natural and necessary stage in mankind’s procession through God’s “plan of salvation” and, therefore, a great blessing. Traditional modern Christianities mistakenly term this “Fall” a great mistake for mankind. But without it there would have been no human eternal progression, nor a cosmic need for a savior Jesus at all.

7/ LDS revealed systematic “novelty” apart from modern traditional Christianities (of various kinds) lends credence to the LDS claim to be the “restored” original church of Jesus Himself. Especially is this so if the early dating of Thomas, above, be true, and the Bible have been shown to be modernly incomplete. A general “apostasy” from Jesus’ church and original teachings occurred after his resurrection, and was complete by the second century. 2 Thess. 2:3 (NASB) "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." Cf. Wikipedia, “The Great Apostasy.” “Restoration” of Jesus’ original church and teachings occurred in 1830's New York via direct revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr. a farm boy with little formal education. Such Christian “restoration” novelties highlight the errors inherent in our modern diverse Christianities.

Gerry L. Ensley
Los Alamitos CA.

Posted 2:59 AM / June 18, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

On the idea of a changing God.

Envision that it is not the system of God that changes, but that we shift our position. Probably one of the easiest ways to resolve this complaint is to notice how soldiers from different waring nations pray to God to favour their side.

Now notice how a Southern General during the civil war prayed for God to grant him favour basing his plea upon how wonderful the system of slavery was for God's greatest people. What was he "Granted"?

God did not move, the freedom of choices made by the 'parts' simply moved them into a given position.

We are the ones moving.

RE

Posted 4:21 PM / January 15, 2011

Michaelgorby wrote:

What do you guys think of the argument from first cause? It seems rather weak in my opinion to imply that if everything in the natural world requires a cause or a beginning, then that must also apply to a supernatural being.

If this force we call "god" existed before the big bang and the laws of physics as we know them, then this force existed before the dimension of time came to be. Perhaps it is within time itself that objects require a first cause or a beginning, and without the presence of time there is no concept or need for a beginning.

I am anxious to hear you thoughts.

I am anxious to hear your thoughts in response to my proposition.

Posted 9:50 AM / January 13, 2011

ecmprint wrote:

As a theist, I am not a big fan of arguing from design. The simple reason is that at the most basic level it has that aforementioned 3000 year history of being badly argued. Often it collapses, not by its own merit, but under the weight of history of badly worded and poorly understood apologetics.

However, I do find it fun to talk with other theists about it. One thing that always comes up is the strange similarity between the newly evolving understanding of the photon and its transitional wave and particle type properties. Especially since understandings of the microverse are helping us understand the qualities of particles as waves and the quantum possibilities of those waves being both here and somewhere else visavis entanglement.

I find it a terrible fun conversation when we then, albeit poetically start with this statement. And then God SAID let their be LIGHT. An interesting conversation to launch from there about the nature of matter as components of sound and light, I would think.

Thank you for your article.

Posted 7:24 AM / January 11, 2011

Nephologic wrote:

I'll try again:

This type of argument fails because it assumes a correspondence between appearances and reality--i.e., the fact that the Universe is complex and orderly and therefore appears to be designed is evidence that it was designed. It doesn't take long to figure out that this is bad induction. The natural sciences have taught us that in an overwhelming majority of cases, the way we apprehend reality has very little, if anything, in common with reality. White light doesn't appear to be combinatorial in nature, the Earth doesn't appear to revolve around the sun, and everything material in existence doesn't appear to be made of atoms, even though all these things are the case.

Additionally, I'm not so sure that a mindbogglingly massive void punctuated by the occasional slightly-less-mindbogglingly massive cloud of hydrogen containing one (so far as we know) little speck capable of supporting life counts as "the appearance of design". If the Universe was designed, it was designed not to look like it was designed, which makes God pretty sadistic if he's created a pit of suffering for people who refuse to worship him (his words, not mine).

It's pure vanity to believe that the Universe was designed with us in mind, and purely stupid when one looks beyond the Earth's atmosphere, where any of us for whom it was designed would instantly die. If that's design, it's incompetent design, which is hardly fitting for the omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything. Maybe we should insist that our religions become more honest and worship an incompetent God, but it would be far simpler to just discard a hypothesis which has ceased to fill its explanatory function. It would be simpler, except that the phlogiston and the aether never told us we were better than everyone else and promised us eternal life. But these are psychological problems to overcome in accepting the non-existence of God, and have no bearing on the truth.

Posted 5:34 PM / January 06, 2011

Nephologic wrote:

What happened to my comment?

Posted 5:04 PM / January 06, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Your case for demonstration of simple proof, I feel is well taken. Each of us have a connection to the 'whole'. We are from light, became flesh (gravities of matter-energy) and going to transform back to light in a symmetry of conserving energy.

Each iota of every thought, word and deed is a 'fact' that is embedded. Your upper case Soul-Self exists as part of the whole and your lower case soul-self is a copy of yourself.

I came to understand 'randomness' as a carrier of acausal orderdness, a sort of 'hanging together' that makes sense unless for those poor suckers who were intent to be evil when they transport (die) {just fantasizing if I were on the celestial jury}.

Some of us mortals already have the answer. For me, its like a magnet. You get grooved into some gift of nature and grace and you simply act out the anthropomorphic theological drama by simply behaving ourselves.

There is beauty in minimal and simplicity. Doesn't the Scriptours say something about that wisdom of God can make the wise man seem foolish? Complexities can ensnare, but I think that proof of an almighty Supreme Being has the answers round the bend for man's intellectual strives.

Sorry about being so deep.

RE

Posted 8:02 PM / December 28, 2010

miloco wrote:

I don't know if God exists, but I would argue that a god could exist. However, I ask , "why not". If a universe (or multiverse) can originate from nothing or have always existed, then why not anything else including a god?

I don't know that I would consider God perfect. First, what was his (or it's) purpose for creating people or living creatures of any sort? Was he lonely? Bored? If so, how long did it take for him to reach that realization? Then what took him so long to do something about it? That is just for starters. If there is a God, judging by some of his creations, let alone humans, he has real issues.

Posted 12:50 AM / December 26, 2010