Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[_Maksutov]

Ed,
The second to the last entry in the following table is the subject of interest here.

There is no end to the continued multiplication of resurrected beings in Mormondom (alternate spellings are forbidden in the celestial). But let's look at a simpler example of the same problem. A bacterium has a typical mass of 1x10^-12 grams. Binary fission typically takes about 20 minutes. I will assume for the sake of argument that the Eddington number is the estimated number of grams in the universe. In reality it is the estimated number of protons. So now the deck is stacked highly in your favor.

We start with a single bacterium weighing in at 1x10^-12 grams. After 20 minutes we have two weighing in at 2x10^-12 grams. After the next 20 minutes we have 4 weighing in at 4x10^-12 grams. After an hour we have 8 weighing in at 8x10^-12 grams. After 2 hours we have 64 weighing in at 6.4x10^-11 grams. After 3 hours we have 512 weighing in at 5.1x10^-10 grams. After 24 hours we have 4.7x10^21 weighing in at 4.7x10^9 grams. After 2 days we have 2.2x10^43 weighing in at 2.2x10^31 grams. After 3 days we have 1.1x10^65 weighing in at 1.1x10^53 grams. After 4 days we 5.0x10^86 weighing in at 5.0x10^74 grams. After 5 days we have exceeded the Eddington number and have more grams of bacteria than there are protons in the universe. That's less than a week.

I am sorry if you see this as an attempt to construct a straw man. That speaks volumes about your level of education perhaps but does nothing to substantiate your assertion that it is a straw man. Humans weigh much more than a bacterium. Each cycle of new gods receiving their exaltation provides matter not just for their bodies but for the planets they must reside on. The problem of running out of "stuff" is very acute indeed and results from the alleged geometric growth that goes on unhindered. No matter how much stuff there actually is, it is doomed to be completely consumed.

I believe that Gods colonize new Universes in the Multiverse as much as they colonize new worlds.

If so then matter is not eternal but instead comes to exist when it previously did not exist.

For a better example we take 10^90 and multiply by the mass of a proton to get a mass of 1.67x10^63 kilograms.
We take the 144,000 mentioned in the Revelation of John and let that be the number of new gods produced with each new cycle.
If we raise that number to the power of 8 and multiply by the mass of this earth we already exceed the mass of the known universe.

Spotlight, don't you know about Mormon Physics and Mormon Math? Correct answers are determined by abdominal temperature of the perceptor. No devil in the details then.

[_Themis]

Spotlight, don't you know about Mormon Physics and Mormon Math? Correct answers are determined by abdominal temperature of the perceptor. No devil in the details then.

And that is why people like Ed will always ignore my questions about the subject. They don't have good answers to how they know certain sensations mean what the think they mean. Just to be clear for some who always get this wrong, sensations mean any kind of experience one gets other then maybe thoughts, although they could also fall into that category. Sensations then can be any experience detected or produced by the brain.

[_Philo Sofee]

This thread is huge and incredible, so forgive me if I missed something said along these lines however, I simply must ask Ed a serious question....
EdGoble said:

Who was resurrected before JC? Nobody.

Then, uh... how did the Father of Jesus get *his* body first?!

[_Philo Sofee]

EdGoble said:

There is no irrationality in faith when there is something of great magnitude and weight and value at stake, where there is too much risk to not commit to be faithful.

Sure there is. Whatever one assumes or imagines is at stake is irrelevant to whether something is rational or not. I'm not trying to be difficult here Ed, I am trying to be rational. One's own subjective thinking on what is at stake has nothing to do with whether one's faith in that stake is rational or not.

[_Philo Sofee]

Exiled asked, properly I might add:
B

ut don't Mormons believe in an infinite amount of space and matter to overcome this problem?

If they do, it is without any actual evidence. If that is the best they can do to reconcile theology it fails. We are justified with whatever evidence we have, of having what beliefs we have about reality. And even that is subject to change, of course. One can invent multiple scenarios inventing all kinds of fantastic things to attempt to rationalize a belief, but that would have precious little to do with what is real as far as we know it now. And we are always justified in going with what we know now and changing later, when evidence shows us we are wrong. This theology cannot do, so they bring all sorts of ad hoc explanations and outright inventions about that have nothing to do with what is real. It is why theology fails. One is not allowed to simply invent anything and pretend it's real and get offended when others call them on it for the lack of evidence the invention has. Unfortunately, I think Ed is in this position. And it is not rational. It's pure, unadulterated speculation which ignores what we really know based on evidence. All in the name of trying to save Mormonism. Reality is not about what we wish were so, it is about what is, based on the evidence showing us what it is. Testimony can't change that. We are always rational to go with the evidence, whether it supports a belief we have or not. We are not free to invent evidence to attempt to make theology rational. Widtsoe tried and failed at it miserably, as did McConkie, Gee, Peterson and the entire cadre of apologists following their footsteps and now our own friend EdGoble.

[_Maksutov]

I am moved to honor Ed's sincerity and intelligence even if I can't endorse his logic or conclusions. This is a struggle that more Mormons will encounter. I'm often impatient with it but it also deserves compassion. It's an existential crisis for many people.

[_Philo Sofee]

I am moved to honor Ed's sincerity and intelligence even if I can't endorse his logic or conclusions. This is a struggle that more Mormons will encounter. I'm often impatient with it but it also deserves compassion. It's an existential crisis for many people.

I agree entirely. Ed is making a valiant effort. The evidence, if he goes with it, will do the truckload for him without his having to resort to spiritual vagaries for a supposed reality check.

[_EdGoble]

I am sorry if you see this as an attempt to construct a straw man. That speaks volumes about your level of education perhaps but does nothing to substantiate your assertion that it is a straw man.

Actually, I am a well educated Senior Software Engineer, with analytical skills to suit my profession, not just some manual labor worker, so I suggest you just stop pretending like you are the only one with a brain here. Just because you too are analytical doesn't mean that one must conclude what you conclude.

[Guest]

This thread is huge and incredible, so forgive me if I missed something said along these lines however, I simply must ask Ed a serious question....
EdGoble said:

Who was resurrected before JC? Nobody.

Then, uh... how did the Father of Jesus get *his* body first?!

Here we go again. Yawn. If our world's biology was created primarily via Evolution (i.e. directed), speculatively, then the body of the Father belongs to a race of humans from that world who have bodies ultimately created similarly through a directed evolutionary process on his world. And then in the resurrection, as Brigham Young indicated in the Adam God discourses, it was by his Savior or Elder Brother that provided him with a resurrection. But it would seem, speculatively, that each immediate family of Gods has a Savior provided to effect an atonement and resurrection for that particular immediate family, so that each person is dependent on his own firstborn spirit brother, that is, as Brigham Young says, if the firstborn does not rebel against the Father of said immediate family of Gods. If he does rebel, then some other elder brother, perhaps the second born takes over as the Only Begotten of said Father God.

What is this? Are we playing a game of can we come up with some conundrum that Ed's speculation can't come up with a good enough speculative answer for?

[_EdGoble]

Exiled asked, properly I might add:
B

ut don't Mormons believe in an infinite amount of space and matter to overcome this problem?

If they do, it is without any actual evidence. If that is the best they can do to reconcile theology it fails. We are justified with whatever evidence we have, of having what beliefs we have about reality. And even that is subject to change, of course. One can invent multiple scenarios inventing all kinds of fantastic things to attempt to rationalize a belief, but that would have precious little to do with what is real as far as we know it now. And we are always justified in going with what we know now and changing later, when evidence shows us we are wrong. This theology cannot do, so they bring all sorts of ad hoc explanations and outright inventions about that have nothing to do with what is real. It is why theology fails. One is not allowed to simply invent anything and pretend it's real and get offended when others call them on it for the lack of evidence the invention has. Unfortunately, I think Ed is in this position. And it is not rational. It's pure, unadulterated speculation which ignores what we really know based on evidence. All in the name of trying to save Mormonism. Reality is not about what we wish were so, it is about what is, based on the evidence showing us what it is. Testimony can't change that. We are always rational to go with the evidence, whether it supports a belief we have or not. We are not free to invent evidence to attempt to make theology rational. Widtsoe tried and failed at it miserably, as did McConkie, Gee, Peterson and the entire cadre of apologists following their footsteps and now our own friend EdGoble.

Oh, I can assure you that there is a HUGE chasm between myself and said persons. I follow no one in lockstep. I exist entirely independent of any other creature, and own my own eclectic positions based on what I deem is the best position on a given subject, a trait that actually follows in the intellectual footsteps of Bruce Lee, who was a martial arts philosopher, not a theologian of any sort.