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

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

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...

...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.

Are you referring to the Transcendental Meditation Dr Tobin?

Hmm.. I think it's inevitable at this rate that we get into quantum mechanics here, so why delay the inevitable?

Newton was a very open-minded man methinks. I have respect for such people.

Since the time of Newton, we have had both Einstein and Hawking who have elaborated upon his theory of gravity, but Hawking poses a problem, which I believe is relevant to what you are saying about causality. He discusses the problem of the black hole called the 'black hole information paradox'. His paradox, which postulates that physical information may be lost forever inside a black hole, leaving any new physical form, any new matter after the event of the black hole, as being untraceable back to what it was previously.

Unfortunately, if this theory is accepted, it would be a violation of the very laws of nature! or else, certain other previously accepted theories. It may be that the theories it violates, simply need a bit of tweaking (although it's not very simple really...) so that everything fits together harmoniously. Amongst the theories in question are the theory of gravity itself, causality, unitarity and current understanding of time itself amongst other things.

So what I'm saying is, if you hold on to the theory of causality in its' present form, then you may find yourself having to abandon other theories, maybe being left behind in the scientific world. I don't know what you class yourself as.. whether you are a truth seeker or a devout follower of science-ism? If the first, then you will have no problem keeping an open mind and changing along with the rest of the scientific community. On the other hand, should you be of a similar view point as Dawkins, the very thought of God still being a possibility would be repugnant to you and your crusade would be to disprove His existence while disregarding any scientific knowledge that would counter your argument. I don't think that's you, so I assume that you would class yourself as a truth seeker.

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

Just to humour you then...

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.

Well.. as you can see, I haven't spent much time on this board. Other boards.. yes, but not this one. Is that "Silly Kolob Cosmology" or "Kolob Cosmology", described as silly by you?

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.)

Are we assuming that within the theory of causality and other theories that you accept, there is no room for the discovery of other particles besides photons (light) that may travel faster than light speed?

Are we also assuming that the speed of time itself is both constant and universal? because this is crucial to measuring speed or velocity. What about time dilation, as defined within the same special relativity theory that is referenced by the article in the link you provide above?

If the speed of light is the max attainable speed and the speed of time is constant and universal how do we account for the increasing rate of expansion of the universe and would this not impact upon your calculation of the length of time it would take for our prayers to reach Kolob (you're assuming that Kolob, being the closest star, is an insignificant distance from the throne of God, so as to not make any real difference to your calculations as well)?

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.

I hope you can see that the only limitation to what is possible exists in the mind...

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.

Therefore, perfect knowledge is indeed the answer to all your problems, even if your problem is in achieving the ability to answer prayers instantaneously or even in advance of them being prayed, from a distance as far from earth or more as is Kolob.

[Guest]

Why? Why is beating up on subgenius psychologically fascinating in anything other than the animosity that is being directed towards him?

The nature of God has been debated and discussed for millennia, and will likely be discussed for further millennia. This has been done through discussion, meditation, and in the case of Sufi Dervishes, through interpretative dance (my personal favorite). As mankind advances in knowledge, there will be attempts to reconcile previous beliefs with further scientific understanding. Subgenius is exercising his right to further this discourse through his own thoughts, I see no reason to criticize this.
Mormonism, to its credit, is certainly open to further understanding, particularly in light of scientific advances. Why is this heresy?

Subgenius represents a mindset (or worldview, if you will) born of ignorance and superstition. It is a one in which folks tend to make things up as they go along. As shown by the hundreds (probably thousands) of gods that have existed in human history, this tendency to find god in nature seems to have evolved along with the humans. Unfortunately evolved characteristics, be they physical or psychological, are not always beneficial to the species.

Subgenius demonstrates in his writings a lack of scientific understanding and failure to exercise basic critical thinking skill. logic, or even sound judgement.

If subgenius wishes to live with his fantasies, then he is more than welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. However, when someone like him comes onto a message board and presents his confused and unfounded ideas as some form of universal insight, or tries to somehow prove to others that his imaginary invisible friend actually exists and should therefore be acknowledged by all, then the nonsense needs to be challenged. Such individuals have an obligation to provide evidence for their claims if they expect to be taken seriously or even acknowledged.

As ludwigm has pointed out above, so far, subgenius has put forth nothing but assertions unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Why should these bald assertions be given any more credibility than those made by any other religion, when in fact, the claims of Mormonism are more fantastical and more readily shown to have no basis in fact than those of the Muslims, or the Christian Scientists?

In fact, on the spectrum of the fantastical, Mormonism would be near the far right end, just next to Scientology and Heaven's Gate.

[_Bhodi]

On the spectrum of the fantastical, Mormonism is at the far right end, just next to Scientology.

You are quite lucky then, having found a white whale so easily. Imagine if Mormonism did not exist, and you had to find another outlet for anger and derision? If being Mormon and believing in Mormonism shields the Muslims and Christian Scientists from your derision, I think that is a nice act of charity. I never looked at it that way, but it is a nice thought.

[Guest]

Therefore, perfect knowledge is indeed the answer to all your problems, even if your problem is in achieving the ability to answer prayers instantaneously or even in advance of them being prayed, from a distance as far from earth or more as is Kolob.

Most of the long post from which this the above passage was copied has been snipped for brevity.

My response to your long post above is simple. Anyone who:

1. - makes reference to the "speed of time";
2. - does not know that the "Hawking paradox" has been resolved (Hawking was wrong about information loss in Black Holes and has admitted as much - that's how science works);
3. - states a belief that superluminal particles will be discovered (these are against the law, especially if they come equipped with a rest mass);
4. - and still claims, without evidence, that perfect knowledge allows one to violate natural law,

might wish to read up on the relevant science a bit before further participation in the present discussion.

[_DrW]

On the spectrum of the fantastical, Mormonism is at the far right end, just next to Scientology.

You are quite lucky then, having found a white whale so easily. Imagine if Mormonism did not exist, and you had to find another outlet for anger and derision? If being Mormon and believing in Mormonism shields the Muslims and Christian Scientists from your derision, I think that is a nice act of charity. I never looked at it that way, but it is a nice thought.

I would not characterize my response as stemming from anger. Think of it as an attempt, on an insignificant and personal level, to bring the smallest bit of rationality to the those who base their unfounded beliefs on feelings instead of facts and hold these beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If you have not yet viewed video linked below, as recommended on another thread, I would strongly urge you to do so. It may help.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksVbHxLRvY

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think this is the existential dilemma for Mormon apologists. They have to become heretics in order to defend the very thing they're trying to save. In other words, they reject what they embrace.

It makes for a psychologically fascinating picture.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Why? Why is beating up on subgenius psychologically fascinating in anything other than the animosity that is being directed towards him?

The nature of God has been debated and discussed for millennia, and will likely be discussed for further millennia. This has been done through discussion, meditation, and in the case of Sufi Dervishes, through interpretative dance (my personal favorite). As mankind advances in knowledge, there will be attempts to reconcile previous beliefs with further scientific understanding. Subgenius is exercising his right to further this discourse through his own thoughts, I see no reason to criticize this.
Mormonism, to its credit, is certainly open to further understanding, particularly in light of scientific advances. Why is this heresy?

Did I name names? I'm focusing on Mormon apologists in general. Debating the nature of deity is fine, but rejecting the fundamental truth claims of Mormonism, to include rejecting the prophecies and doctrines of its prophets and apostles as a Mormon is heresy.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You are quite lucky then, having found a white whale so easily.

This is actually a fantastic analogy for rationalism vs irrationalism. Captain Ahab, the rationalist, is obsessed with chasing down and destroying the white whale, the irrationalist. Eventually, the behemoth wins killing Captain Ahab in the process, which could've been avoided had Captain Ahab simply disengaged the irrational by being rational himself. Alas, this was not to be. This is an apt description over the course of human history. Irrationalists have won, and will continue to win because its in our nature to be irrational, and they tend to breed more.

I suppose the best course of action is for the rational to continue to push ahead through the slough, making progress, despite being surrounded by the darkness of irrationals and their superstitious raison d'etre.

"Let the whale swim away, Captain, lest he be the death of you and your crew.", said Ishmael, resting a hand on the weathered man's shoulder.

"Aye, Ishmael. Tell Starbuck he is no longer considered mutinous, but I recognize now the voice of reason was his. I've let my injury blind me, and thus I became as ignorant to the world as I imagine Moby Dick to me.", Ahab said softly, his voice quivering a bit.

He eased up out of his Captain's chair, the wooden leg knocking in a soft cadence as he walked to the door, opening it to the soft breeze of a salty sea air. Captain Ahab, as is his ungainly manner limped over to the mast, where what seems years ago he nailed his silver coin, breathing, staring at the coin, lost in in thought, as he reaches up and plucks the coin from the wood.

The crew had gathered around, staring at their Captain, bewildered.

Captain Ahab holds the coin above his head, and shouts to the heavens, "I claim this prize! For I've killed Moby Dick, you see! The whale never resided in the sea, my crew, my brothers! For he has always been in my heart..." his voice trailing a bit.

"I've held all of you captive to my obsession! Well, I can tell you know, the whale is dead. I've killed 'im. And we can go home now. Back to our wives, and children. You can tell them Captain Ahab got what he was looking for. Captain Ahab got his whale..."

He drops the coin, and limps back to his cabin. The door quietly shuts behind him.

And the Pequod reversed course for home.

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Subgenius demonstrates in his writings a lack of scientific understanding and failure to exercise basic critical thinking skill. logic, or even sound judgement.

DrW demonstrates in his writings a superiority complex and a lack of respect for those who he perceives as not having as much knowledge as him in certain fields of study.

If subgenius wishes to live with his fantasies, then he is more than welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. However, when someone like him comes onto a message board and presents his confused and unfounded ideas as some form of universal insight, or tries to somehow prove to others that his imaginary invisible friend actually exists and should therefore be acknowledged by all, then the nonsense needs to be challenged. Such individuals have an obligation to provide evidence for their claims if they expect to be taken seriously or even acknowledged.

The way you put it DrW, it sounds as though subgenius has invaded your space by participating on this board, when in fact you are clearly here, so that you can seek out what you see as deluded Mormons and save them from their erring ways. Why else would you be here on MormonDiscussions.com?

Why should these bald assertions be given any more credibility than those made by any other religion, when in fact, the claims of Mormonism are more fantastical and more readily shown to have no basis in fact than those of the Muslims, or the Christian Scientists?

Yeah, I read that in some scientific journal a while back. The results of the study were that there is a strong correlation between claims of Mormonism, fantasy and having no factual basis... sure

In fact, on the spectrum of the fantastical, Mormonism would be near the far right end, just next to Scientology and Heaven's Gate.

Is that a fact? Really? I would love to see this spectrum you talk about! It's a shame that I had not heard about this earlier, I may have paid more attention to Scientology and Heaven's Gate, if I had known they were the two religions that had the most in common with ours

Methinks your zeal and devotion to the cause of science-ism is leading you to get a tad bit carried away here, portraying your opinions as if they were fact... you who are supposed to be rational!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Meh. Nevermind.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Therefore, perfect knowledge is indeed the answer to all your problems, even if your problem is in achieving the ability to answer prayers instantaneously or even in advance of them being prayed, from a distance as far from earth or more as is Kolob.

Most of the long post from which this the above passage was copied has been snipped for brevity.

My response to your long post above is simple. Anyone who:

1. - makes reference to the "speed of time"...

might wish to read up on the relevant science a bit before further participation in the present discussion.

Your response here is nothing less than pedantic really, though this is to be expected.
Are you suggesting that "speed of time" as a variable, is inaccurate in describing "a slowing of time..." (Merriam-Wester's definition of time dilation)?
To what extent do you think time dilation affects your calculations of actual time passed from the point of view of the voice for the prayer before that prayer is heard in Kolob (if we are assuming as you do, that God's throne is actually positioned close enough to that star that any additional time spent is insignificant)??

Anyone who:

2. - does not know that the "Hawking paradox" has been resolved (Hawking was wrong about information loss in Black Holes and has admitted as much - that's how science works)...

...might wish to read up on the relevant science a bit before further participation in the present discussion.

I read a bit more Yeah, you're right. He changed his mind, but it's worth noting that the jury is still out. Others have more recently pursued proving that information is lost in black holes. Obviously neither side has proven their point yet. It is worth keeping an open mind about.

Anyone who:

3. - states a belief that superluminal particles will be discovered (these are against the law, especially if they come equipped with a rest mass)...

...might wish to read up on the relevant science a bit before further participation in the present discussion

If it is such an absolute impossibility, then why would it make any difference whether it was equipped with a rest mass or not? I could understand why it would make a difference if there was still a vague possibility in some circumstances. Therefore, your statement implies that it is indeed possible for superluminal particles to be discovered. I'll take that as your answer to my question, unless you have something more to add.

Anyone who:

4. - and still claims, without evidence, that perfect knowledge allows one to violate natural law,

might wish to read up on the relevant science a bit before further participation in the present discussion.

Did I say that perfect knowledge allows one to violate natural law? I can see why you thought I did.. as I was responding to your argument that God is restrained by natural laws and cannot break them. No, I said that perfect knowledge allows one to do anything... this mainly because the current perceived constraints of natural law change all the time as theories are adapted, scrapped, revised and replaced.

Your present understanding of science is so vastly limited, even if you have a far greater understanding on the particular subject than the average person. What I'm saying is that you are so far from possessing a prfect knowledge on the subject that a being who had perfect knowledge would likely be able to pull your arguments to pieces, just like you have been able to point out error in some of my own points, due to my lesser understanding on the subject. In short... you should not make a conclusion on something so ultimate as the existence of God, based on your current understanding of the workings of the universe(s), that is, without accepting that there exists in any viewpoint the necessity for the principle of faith.