Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

[_DrW]

Deraj and subgenius,

Either God is subject to the laws of the Universe or he is not. What you seem to be claiming is that there is one set of natural laws for humankind and a different set for God.

I trust you can see that this position is no different than claiming that God represents magic in the Universe.

You must be able to see that once you claim that your god is magic, instead of some advanced being who operates within natural law (as claimed by Talmage, Smith and others), then every other magical god from all of human history has as much claim to the truth as yours does. If anything is possible, then everything is possible.

DrW,

I think you are right about the magic, but what we must not forget is that never has magic been performed that did not have a rational explanation behind it, but sometimes the explanation is not commonly known.

What if there are no laws of the universe in the eyes of God, because He knows so much that any laws as we perceive them do not get in the way of anything He does? What do you think of that? possible? If he can command the atoms and particles of the universe to do His will based on the knowledge and power He has, then at what point does He no longer have a command of things? Maybe there is no point at which He has no command of things, because He knows absolutely everything. Who says that once you know everything, there are still some things that are impossible? Isn't that your position as an atheist, that the laws of the universe are such that they actually restrict despite perfect knowledge being attained?

Deraj,

What you have provided in response is a series of questions. You have provided no evidence, and no new information that supports your hypothesis (whatever it is).

When you ask, for example, "what magic does not have a rational explanation?" you are referring to illusions, not magic. Magic, as used here, is that which contravenes natural law. For example, magic can be defined as follows:

the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

If we can agree on this definition of magic (or the supernatural if you prefer), let's start there. Instead of non-specific questions about magic and what it might entail, or how it might be done, why not start with a hypothesis? We can then determine whether or not it is testable, and go from there.

Two possible hypotheses that occur to me in reading your post are as follows:

1. "Perfect and complete knowledge allows unlimited action / re-action sequences (or combinations if you wish to banish causality) in the physical world".

2. "There are at least two sets of natural laws in the universe, including one for humankind and one for the Mormon God."

If you prefer a hypothesis such as this second one, then I can claim that all gods in history can have their own set of laws as well, since there is as much evidence for them as the is for Elohim.

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Deraj...

...When you ask, for example, "what magic does not have a rational explanation?" you are referring to illusions, not magic. Magic, as used here, is that which contravenes natural law. For example, magic can be defined as follows:

the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

If we can agree on this definition of magic (or the supernatural if you prefer), let's start there. Instead of non-specific questions about magic and what it might entail, or how it might be done, why not start with a hypothesis? We can then determine whether or not it is testable, and go from there.

I was as you rightly suggest, referring to the illusion of magic.

The quoted definition suggests it is the belief that the use of such charms or spells etc, has supernatural power over natural forces, but possibly this even is still only an illusion. But to save becoming too pedantic again... we'll take a definition that says magic is actual supernatural power over natural forces, in which case God is not a magic God in my opinion, as he uses knowledge, not supernatural powers to do His will.

What you have provided in response is a series of questions. You have provided no evidence, and no new information that supports your hypothesis (whatever it is)...

...Two possible hypotheses that occur to me in reading your post are as follows:

1. "Perfect and complete knowledge allows unlimited action / re-action sequences (or combinations if you wish to banish causality) in the physical world".

2. "There are at least two sets of natural laws in the universe, including one for humankind and one for the Mormon God."

If you prefer a hypothesis such as this second one, then I can claim that all gods in history can have their own set of laws as well, since there is as much evidence for them as the is for Elohim.

The first hypothesis is about right for what I was suggesting, not the second, so... what do you think then?

[_DrW]

The first hypothesis is about right for what I was suggesting, not the second, so... what do you think then?

Do you wish to banish causality?

Do you wish to allow your god to travel faster than the local speed of light?

[Guest]

Ok, for the sake of staying on track, let us re visit the OP.
1. the premise is flawed

It's not a premise. It's a question with its own context.

2. Not being subject to the laws of nature does not necessarily conclude with a claim of omnipotence.

I can buy that. How so?

3. Not being subject to the laws of nature but being subject to "other" laws does not exclude a claim of omnipotence.

Being subject to a law that you can't contravene automatically precludes one from being omnipotent (using the common definition taken from Merriam-Webster). So, if you would, please explain how one can be subject to a law and still be omnipotent.

4. The use of the term omnipotent is ambiguous in the context of the OP because of the inaccurate contrast being implied by "being subject to the laws of nature".

How so? The OP was very clear. Is God subject to the laws of nature, or is He Omnipotent?

If the use of the concept of the laws of nature allows for there to be supernatural laws then God is omnipotent in the broadest definition.

Well, that's what I'm asking. Is He omnipotent, or is He subject to the Laws of Nature?

It is without exception that one can state that God is NOT subject to natural law.
God is also omnipotent.

It would actually be: It is without exception that one can state that God is NOT subject to natural law, ergo God is omnipotent.

The OP is absurd except as it may be used as a point of departure.

If the OP implies the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe then yes the OP can be used as a point of departure, however I was trying to understand if God is, or is not, omnipotent. Thus far I'm reading you're of the mind that God is supranatural, thus omnipotent.

Thank you for your input Sub-Genius. So far you posited that God is supranatural and therefore omnipotent, correct?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

The first hypothesis is about right for what I was suggesting, not the second, so... what do you think then?

Do you wish to banish causality?

Do you wish to allow your god to travel faster than the local speed of light?

Causality is a theory like my hypothesis is it not? I will not suggest either way, because I do not know enough about the implications of doing away with the theory and I would suggest that no man knows enough to be certain in answering the questions you pose. Causality is based upon the supposition that we know a given effect occurs when given a certain factor. However, we do not know enough about the laws of nature to be able ascertain whether or not a particular effect will always follow a particular factor, because there are limits to our knowledge.

If you would like to suggest what you think the implications would be, then be my guest. That is why I asked you for your thoughts.

Do I wish to allow my God? Haha, the way you ask that makes it seem as though I am the one designing God and giving Him laws to live by. Thta's not how it works. To suppose that I would be able to answer how God travels the universe(s) is a wild supposition indeed.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Causality is a theory like my hypothesis is it not? I will not suggest either way, because I do not know enough about the implications of doing away with the theory and I would suggest that no man knows enough to be certain in answering the questions you pose. Causality is based upon the supposition that we know a given effect occurs when given a certain factor. However, we do not know enough about the laws of nature to be able ascertain whether or not a particular effect will always follow a particular factor, because there are limits to our knowledge.

If you would like to suggest what you think the implications would be, then be my guest. That is why I asked you for your thoughts.

Do I wish to allow my God? Haha, the way you ask that makes it seem as though I am the one designing God and giving Him laws to live by. Thta's not how it works. To suppose that I would be able to answer how God travels the universe(s) is a wild supposition indeed.

Soooo... God gets a pass then?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_DrW]

Do you wish to banish causality?

Do you wish to allow your god to travel faster than the local speed of light?

Causality is a theory like my hypothesis is it not? I will not suggest either way, because I do not know enough about the implications of doing away with the theory and I would suggest that no man knows enough to be certain in answering the questions you pose. Causality is based upon the supposition that we know a given effect occurs when given a certain factor. However, we do not know enough about the laws of nature to be able ascertain whether or not a particular effect will always follow a particular factor, because there are limits to our knowledge.

If you would like to suggest what you think the implications would be, then be my guest. That is why I asked you for your thoughts.

Do I wish to allow my God? Haha, the way you ask that makes it seem as though I am the one designing God and giving Him laws to live by. Thta's not how it works. To suppose that I would be able to answer how God travels the universe(s) is a wild supposition indeed.

Causality would not be considered a theory. Causality is at the very foundation of classical (Newtonian) mechanics (effects of a force on a material body), electromagnetics (electric and magnetic field theory) and relativity (speed of light is the same to observers in all inertial frames / equivalence of matter and energy). The classical (and spurious) Christian "first cause" argument for the existence of God would be meaningless if one were to banish causality.

So, let us assume that your god operates in a "cause and effect" universe.

We immediately encounter the problem of superluminal travel of physical bodies or information. If you allow your god to travel and/or communicate at faster than light (FTL) speeds, in order to get his work done, he is going to require magical (supernatural) powers.

If you have spent much time on this board, you will be familiar with all of the problems with Joseph Smith's silly "Kolob Cosmology" as described in the PoGP.

Here is the problem with your hypothesis, if one allows their god to communicate or travel faster than the local speed of light, then causality can be violated. That is, if superluminal communication is allowed, then it is possible for God to receive a prayer before it is actually prayed. In this case, since causality would be violated, god would lose control of his universe. Effects would (could) come before their causes.

If you think I am kidding here, look it up. Here is an easily understood graphical explanation of why superluminal communication can violate causality:
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html)

So, your god has a problem. If he wants information (e.g. prayers to Kolob - wherever that is) or matter (such as the Angel Moroni) to travel faster than light then he losses causality and with it, one would presume, control of his universe.

If he is content with subluminal travel speeds for material and information, then things slow down a lot. Round trip time for a prayer from Earth to Kolob and an answer back from the Throne of God will take no less than eight years. (Not what busy Mormons in a hurry want to hear.)

I hope you can see from this that God can't have it both ways. That is, it is simply not possible for the Mormon anthropomorphic god to exhibit the characteristics ascribed to him by Joseph Smith and Mormon leaders since.

Now, if you want to go all Tobin on me and start talking about quantum mechanical spooky action at a distance as a possible means for god to operate, we can do that, but the outcome will be no better for the Mormon God.

It doesn't matter how much knowledge your god has, or how perfect that knowledge might be, natural laws still represent constraints. In another post, I will give some examples of how an increase in knowledge allows humankind to operate more effectively and efficiently within the constraints of the the laws of the universe, and why it is unlikely that anyone out there, God included, is breaking those laws.
____________________

ETA: The problem with FTL has been discussed on this board a great deal. Chap, for example, has also described the violation of causality associated with FTL travel or communication. Believers on the board can come up with no reasonable response to this fatal problem. As subgenius has done on this thread, they mainly end up claiming that God is supernatural and not subject to the laws of nature. In other words, they simply invoke magic. As I have referenced above, their claim is in direct opposition to principles taught by leaders of the Church.

[_subgenius]

It is without exception that one can state that God is NOT subject to natural law.

subgenius,

There you go again. You should really look this stuff up before you write it down.

Joseph F. Smith in "Man and his Origins" (1954, pp 484) wrote that every miracle performed by Jesus was "done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law."

Elder Talmage made the same claim in "Jesus the Christ", wherein he said that "miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law".

Of course, I understand how you feel that you may know more about modern Mormon doctrine than these two deceased Church leaders. After all, Mormon doctrine seems to change at a fairly constant rate. Still, the statements of these Church leaders, deceased or not, would appear to Trump you claim that God is NOT subject to natural law.

Perhaps you are in the wrong Church.

Neither of your references contradict my statement. Neither of your references demonstrate that God is subject to anything, let alone natural law.

You really should read both my post and your references again, except this time for comprehension.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Neither of your references contradict my statement. Neither of your references demonstrate that God is subject to anything, let alone natural law.

You really should read both my post and your references again, except this time for comprehension.

Well, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? God can fit whatever notion or paradigm you decide to create for Him. That said, you've stated that God is suprantural, no?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_redi2ride]

GOD does not see our physical world the way we do. why would we question this. We feel accomplished and are celebrated when we make a yummy dish of food. By Our puny knowledge of the world around us it would seem so. I have seen things in the natural healing world that would seem like magic to most people. The way those people understand our world it is common sense to them. So to answer that question with any intelligence at all one would have to be able to see the physical world through the same perspective GOD does. This is where Faith is needed. Understand you, in this life will never even begin to understand some of these mysteries.