Is science the friend of Mormonism?

[_Sethbag]

Of course, the Internet Mormon reply is that it wouldn't matter if every single prophet of the church since Joseph Smith had pronounced upon something like this - it's not "doctrine" unless it was voted on in Conference and printed in the Standard Works.

Bullcrap, but that's what they say. It's amazing that the more in-depth you get into the scientific questions and the pronouncements and teachings of the prophets, the more the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of God on Earth start to look like just normal human beings with their own, uninformed opinions that aren't any closer to reality than the opinions of the common people of their time and culture. So much for Revealed Religion.

[_Mr. Coffee]

I was once told that science PROVED Mormonism true. My Grandfather told me that (and this is VERIFIABLE) "god lives 1000 years to every one of our years"...Kolob this, etc.

"It explains time before Einstein was around, therfore the Book of Mormon explained the nature of god in relativistic terms."

This is all b***s*** of course. The time shift is nowhere near that, even at near relativistic speeds.

The best "God breaks the laws of physics" excuse I've heard is that "God" can move/communicate at superluminal speeds.

They never seem to be able to wrap their minds around concepts like causality or temporal paradox.

For the non-physics types, imagine that "God" is at point A which is 1 light year distant from point B. From "God" point of observation events that happen at B happens 1 year previous to "God's" frame of reference.

Remember what Vegas was mentioning about time dialation increasing the closer one gets to c (that's the speed of light) on the baryonic side of the fence (barayonic matter is any matter that exists at velocities less than c)? On the tacyonic side of c s*** gets wierd. The faster you go past light speed, not only does time speed up, but from outside observer's view, tacyonic matter/signals actually appear to travel BACKWARDS in time.

So let's say that "God" sees a disaster happen at point B, meaning he saw an event that actually took place 1 year previous relitive to point A. If "God" could communicate at superluminal velocity and send a message back to point B prior to the disaster occuring in order to warn the people at point B, he is in fact engaging a in a form of time travel. Lets say that the message from god is recieved by the people of point B and they avert the disaster...

From "God's" viewpoint at point A, the disaster at point B never took place (remember it takes light a year to get from B to A). So if the disaster is averted, then how did "God" see the disaster in order to warn the people of point B in the first place?

What we have here is a paradox. It's a violation of cuasality and one of the many reasons why FTL space travel isn't happening for a really long time. It's also an example of why religion and science do not belong in the same building. Ever.

[_grampa75]

As I was perusing another thread, I came across this comment by bcspace:

I've always considered science to be the friend of religion, at least as far as the LDS Church is concerned. What many believers do unfortunately, is confuse nonscience presented as science with actual science.

I have heard this sentiment numerous times from LDS faithful (I'm not picking on bcspace here), especially during my time at BYU. I'm wondering where the validation exists for such a statement. Where has "actual science" verified any Mormon claim? I would like examples. Conversely, where has Mormonism (the friend of science) elucidated a scientific claim? From my perspective, "actual science" has been anything but friendly to Mormonism.

Science is a belief from a premise that HAS TO BE PROVED. And even though we may find some science to be valuable, as the effects of a Red Giant and a Super Nova sun, it is still a premise that we have not, as yet, proved to be sound.

I use science in many of my studies in; for example; on how that God removed all the water off the earth at the time of Noah. This is especially interesting since there is absolutely no was of disposing of water.
grampa75

[_Runtu]

That could work, Kolob would have to be a super massive black hole though.

Thanks, VR. Now I have that song stuck in my head. LOL

[_silentkid]

Science is a belief from a premise that HAS TO BE PROVED. And even though we may find some science to be valuable, as the effects of a Red Giant and a Super Nova sun, it is still a premise that we have not, as yet, proved to be sound.

I use science in many of my studies in; for example; on how that God removed all the water off the earth at the time of Noah. This is especially interesting since there is absolutely no was of disposing of water.
grampa75

Is there any way that you could reword this so it makes sense? Thanks.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Science is a belief from a premise that HAS TO BE PROVED. And even though we may find some science to be valuable, as the effects of a Red Giant and a Super Nova sun, it is still a premise that we have not, as yet, proved to be sound.

Wow, someone failed high school... So you're saying that observable objects and events that astronomers have been eyeballing for DECADES (in some cases for CENTURIES)?

Supermassive stars don't exist, huh? Here's a size comparisson of the planets of our solar system next to the Sun and several much larger stars.

Here's the first page of a cursory Google search for "Supernova" Ignorew the third link, as it's the Sony BMG website. Go read.

I use science in many of my studies in; for example; on how that God removed all the water off the earth at the time of Noah. This is especially interesting since there is absolutely no was of disposing of water.
grampa75

Let me guess... The hypothysis you're working on so far operates under the premise that the Earth is really plat and "God" just grabbed the planet and tilted it until the excess water ran over the edge into the abyss?

[_Gazelam]

Doesent the scripture state that all of the underground water was brought to the surface? If that's the case it just went back underground.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Doesent the scripture state that all of the underground water was brought to the surface? If that's the case it just went back underground.

And these massive aquifiers that hold enough water to submerge all of the Earth's landmass are where, bright one?

[_Gazelam]

The underground water was in combination with the rain. Theres al kinds of water underneath Las Vegas, Hell the last casino I worked on had a pump working full time to keep the building from flooding.

I'm sure theres plenty more in the Northern states. These underground rivers and lakes were in conjuction with the rain.

[_moksha]

Of course, the Internet Mormon reply is that it wouldn't matter if every single prophet of the church since Joseph Smith had pronounced upon something like this - it's not "doctrine" unless it was voted on in Conference and printed in the Standard Works.

Bullcrap, but that's what they say. It's amazing that the more in-depth you get into the scientific questions and the pronouncements and teachings of the prophets, the more the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of God on Earth start to look like just normal human beings with their own, uninformed opinions that aren't any closer to reality than the opinions of the common people of their time and culture. So much for Revealed Religion.

Sounds like you prefer Mormons to have beliefs you can more readily sink your teeth into and not have to worry that they will wiggle loose.