Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_spotlight]

Yes and that does not purport to be where Genesis came from in my opinion.

That's nice. You reject god's revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith on the book of Genesis. It's cool, so do I.

Nor does it give a God's eye view.

Really? Not a particle of it escaped his view perceiving it by the spirit is not a god's eye view?

by the way - you missed the verse rather relevant for the Noah story too. 1:29. "And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof." Has implications for the earth being flooded since it treats "earth" as a localized land.

But its not relevant to the Noah story if its not where Genesis came from per your opinion Clark. Please be consistent.

If the flood is a local flood then the promise god makes not to repeat the flood has been broken.
And why do you start with the conclusion and bend the evidence to keep the conclusion? Shouldn't the conclusion follow from the evidence? Can we learn nothing from those fundamentalists you disdain?

[_spotlight]

I think our knowledge of that sort of cosmological possibility is pretty lacking until we get a fully working theory of quantum gravity.

Why is that? Neither GR nor QM allows for FTL transfer of information. Why should that change when a theory is found that combines them?

[_Fence Sitter]

First let me say upfront I don't know. However if one buys the idea of an infinite past then that requires first a multiverse and then communication between branes (or their equivalent). The implication of this combined with GR would imply such things were done simultaneously with a type of foreknowledge. (Here assuming a four dimensional block universe) So no faster than light communication necessary. Rather you'd have something like a ridiculously complex hamiltonian that would encapsulate all information flow between universes that collapses to a four dimensional block universe. Effectively in this model everyone is free (in a certain sense - but not in the sense of libertarian free will) but the choice happens all at once as the universe forms and then we're experiencing those choices.

Now there are reasons to argue against such a model. And clearly we're being pretty speculative here. The main argument against this comes from Blake Ostler who wants there to be a type of punishment in justice due to various readings of key passages on judgment. However if there is foreknowledge or a block universe then the type of free will Blake thinks is logically necessary for that kind of punishment to be just is impossible. Blake somewhat unconvincing to me adopts presentist models of GR and SR. These actually are defensible (to a degree) and there's a fair bit of literature for them although they go against a more natural reading of GR. Typically they adopt a neo-Lorentzian view of SR & GR that I find completely unpersuasive. Personally I'm also skeptical of Blake's view of punishment for various reasons, primarily because I think the Mormon conception of salvation ends up being closer to what determinists in the literature suggest should be the alternative to punishment. (More or less a hospital model) Blake wants to maintain intuitions of just deserts as punishment. I'm fine with there being punishment but I see it more in functional terms rather than reward/punishment as moral deserts terms. That is I see God providing us with options and is trying to maximize our happiness/flourishing in some sense and not everyone would be happiest being like him. (Or put more accurately they can't be like him, don't want to be like him, and he can't force them to be like him)

But there's so little data I'm not sure we can really say. Further I think our knowledge of that sort of cosmological possibility is pretty lacking until we get a fully working theory of quantum gravity. (I'm skeptical of string theory as the solution)

Let me rephrase and maybe eliminate some of the wiggle room here.
Given your current understanding of physical laws, is God able to travel with his physical body at faster than light speed and or survive with that body, the transition between one universe and another? Speculation of what may be possible pretty much also allows for a God who may have just performed the actions in scripture just as described without having to reinterpret them, in my view. The God of gaps is capable of anything one wants to imagine.

To me a positive answer to this question would probably be even more difficult for most physicists to accept or even consider than a visitation by an angel to Joseph Smith with plates. And yes I realize that this is your field but to suggest there is the possibility of FTL movement by bringing in multiverses and time travel is just bizarre in my uninformed opinion.

[_spotlight]

Let me rephrase and maybe eliminate some of the wiggle room here.
Is God able to travel with his physical body at faster than light speed and or survive with that body, the transition between one universe and another?

To me a positive answer to this question would probably be even more difficult for most physicists to accept or even consider than a visitation by an angel to Joseph Smith with plates. And yes I realize that this is your field but to suggest there is the possibility of FTL movement by bringing in multiverses and time travel is just bizarre in my uninformed opinion.

Don't eliminate the wiggle room. That's where he's living for the moment. You don't want him out on the street do you?

He brings up yet another departure from core LDS doctrine here by ignoring D&C 93:33. Matter begins to exist as the result of the collision of branes in the Ekpyrotic model of the universe. So matter is not eternal if that model were valid. But matter is not eternal in the standard BB model either. And it pops into and out of existence before our very eyes in agreement with QM. Why this piece of LDS doctrine can be discarded without harm or foul while he dances about to protect some other aspect of the faith might make an for an interesting study in the psychology of cognitive dissonance.

Let us not bring up the eventual heat death of the universe. That doesn't fit well with LDS doctrine either.

[_ClarkGoble]

He brings up yet another departure from core LDS doctrine here by ignoring D&C 93:33. Matter begins to exist as the result of the collision of branes in the Ekpyrotic model of the universe.

I confess I don't see the problem although I should note your comment rests on an equivocation fallacy. (Assuming the meaning of the term "matter" in D&C 93 is the same as the technical meaning of the term in physics) Again it is quite interesting to me how few here seem to want to appreciate hermeneutic issues and instead tend to read everything from a fundamentalist style ignoring completely different ways of reading scripture (as well as noting the standard uncontroversial standard that texts must be read in terms of their context).

Anyway if you think there's a contradiction here please make it explicit by noting your premises, logic and (if appealing to texts) defending your exegesis.

[_ClarkGoble]

, is God able to travel with his physical body at faster than light speed and or survive with that body, the transition between one universe and another?

Almost by definition travel between universes wouldn't necessarily be FTL.

If you're asking if within our universe God could with his body travel faster than light I don't think so. But again without a complete set of physical laws which we don't have yet I'll fully confess I don't know.

I think our knowledge of that sort of cosmological possibility is pretty lacking until we get a fully working theory of quantum gravity.

Why is that? Neither GR nor QM allows for FTL transfer of information. Why should that change when a theory is found that combines them?

Because we don't know the fundamental structure of the universe. Exotic things that physicists have speculated but that are almost certainly wrong on, such as wormholes, really are hard to talk about without a working theory of quantum gravity. Given that lack (which is not at all a God of the gaps) I'll simply say that for the class of phenomena we experience God would be bound by the same law we are. Move outside that area and I just express ignorance as I think anyone informed on the issues would. I don't know if dark matter is real or just an artifact of our theories being incorrect. It's still a lively debate in the physics community with the MOND like proponent surprisingly coming back every few years. (I'm deeply skeptical of MOND but constantly surprised at the ingenuity of modified Newtonian approaches to attempt to explain the data - although their persistence is probably helped by the failure of all other attempts to explain the data thus far)

[_Themis]

Don't eliminate the wiggle room. That's where he's living for the moment. You don't want him out on the street do you?

It's where he starts and finishes. He approaches it all with the conclusions in hand and an unwillingness to change it. It's the opposite of how science is done, or how one seeks the truth.

[_ClarkGoble]

It's where he starts and finishes. He approaches it all with the conclusions in hand and an unwillingness to change it. It's the opposite of how science is done, or how one seeks the truth.

I don't think that is accurate (assuming you were speaking of me). I'm more than willing to change my views and do so at a reasonable rate. Indeed the whole value of venues like this one to me is to help me question my assumptions. It's just that most people here inexplicably wish to argue from a fundamentalist viewpoint. Which I confess I still can't figure the attraction of. It's doubly odd since I don't quite see how making appeals to such a worldview could change the mind of anyone except a pretty narrow class of members. After all fundamentalists simply will reject science and that line of questioning. So at best it's a place for fundamentalists who ceased being fundamentalists but in a fundamentalist way didn't want to examine any of the other options. C'est la vie I guess. I'll give it a while longer.

It's not that I'm wiggling but simply that since I already reject the premises of your argument (fundamentalism) you're are rarely arguing with any claim I'm making.

[Guest]

Yes and that does not purport to be where Genesis came from in my opinion.

That's nice. You reject god's revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith on the book of Genesis. It's cool, so do I.

No, I'm just pointing out that chapter 1 doesn't claim to be what you claim it to be. Again this is pretty uncontroversial. I'm surprised you're raising it. There's nothing in the chapter that makes all of Genesis a single revelation given during the events of Moses 1.

Nor does it give a God's eye view.

Really? Not a particle of it escaped his view perceiving it by the spirit is not a god's eye view?

A few points. First off this is a common saying in semetic languages. Thus again one should read it in the purported context (even if you don't agree with that context) if you're going to critique that context. i.e. consider the linguistic use rather than reading it the way a fundamentalist would. Second if he saw the whole planet by the spirit from ala a satillite image that still wouldn't imply a God's eye view which is a claim about understanding and knowledge of the parts, how they fit together not to mention in your claims about temporal knowledge (i.e. knowledge across centuries of activity)

But its not relevant to the Noah story if its not where Genesis came from per your opinion Clark. Please be consistent.

But you were making the claim. The verse thus undermines the way you were attempting to use it. Beyond that though if one is doing systematic theology of a sort that meaning of 'earth' is evocative of how 'earth' is used elsewhere. i.e. it undermines certain quasi-fundamentalist type readings of Genesis 7. Or at least readings that assumes a stronger unity of rhetoric, which I suspect is a premise of most readings you're apt to appeal towards.

If the flood is a local flood then the promise god makes not to repeat the flood has been broken.

Why do you think that? I confess I don't see that. If it was a local flood and an other local flood of that type didn't happen again then isn't God's promise fulfilled?

And why do you start with the conclusion and bend the evidence to keep the conclusion? Shouldn't the conclusion follow from the evidence? Can we learn nothing from those fundamentalists you disdain?

I honestly can't follow what you're arguing here. Could you make your argument more explicit please?

[_Fence Sitter]

Almost by definition travel between universes wouldn't necessarily be FTL.

I didn't mean to imply it was, more I was asking if you thought any physical body, even a divine one would be able to survive such a journey.

If you're asking if within our universe God could with his body travel faster than light I don't think so. But again without a complete set of physical laws which we don't have yet I'll fully confess I don't know.

Well if He isn't capable of doing so, as we understand the laws of physics, how is He the God of worlds without ends? Even if this is the only universe, he simply could not travel to all those worlds given distance, time and speed limitations. Additionally if I understand the concept of expansion correctly, would some of those worlds be traveling away from him at FTL speed? Are those worlds now on their own?