Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_spotlight]

And again I was rather explicit that argument is not logical. i.e. the conclusions don't follow from the premises. So you were already answered.

Ok I'll use this response I guess. You are the master at communicating through a glass darkly.

If to return to the hypothetical an angel is pretty much like a human being, why do I need to retest?

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. In other words just because I think I am seeing an angel doesn't mean I am in the same sense or way I normally see my neighbor. The existence of angels raises very many fundamental questions that are not raised by the existence of another mortal. Consider the manner of existence in terms of utilizing sources of energy. How can angels continue to exist sans a continuing source of energy or In other words have an ability to not die? What if they refuse to eat? How can they continue to perform bodily functions that require energy? Even thinking requires the consumption of energy. Free energy is the equivalent of free mass, something from nothing, creation ex nihilo, another no no for LDS doctrine.

So one would need to do extensive testing before accepting an experience of seeing an angel. It would be wrong not to question the experience. The problem is especially acute if this kind of experience is personal.

[_ClarkGoble]

In other words just because I think I am seeing an angel doesn't mean I am in the same sense or way I normally see my neighbor. The existence of angels raises very many fundamental questions that are not raised by the existence of another mortal.

Certainly it raises secondary questions, but phenomenally the encounter is the same as any regular encounters I have. (Here assuming for sake of argument the Mormon conception of angels as material being fairly similar to humans in some sense)

Consider the manner of existence in terms of utilizing sources of energy. How can angels continue to exist sans a continuing source of energy or In other words have an ability to not die? What if they refuse to eat? How can they continue to perform bodily functions that require energy? Even thinking requires the consumption of energy. Free energy is the equivalent of free mass, something from nothing, creation ex nihilo, another no no for LDS doctrine.

None of those would be necessary to answer from the encounter though. After all all I could reasonably know is contained in the nature of the encounter which most likely wouldn't include such questions of energy. (For the record I'm not sure why you think there has to be energy from nowhere - nothing in LDS conceptions of angels demands that)

So one would need to do extensive testing before accepting an experience of seeing an angel. It would be wrong not to question the experience. The problem is especially acute if this kind of experience is personal.

If I see a being floating in the air do some reasonable basic tests, am reasonably sure I'm not mentally ill then why should I question the experience?

I don't know how the experience justifies all my beliefs about angels since of course that content isn't necessarily established in the experience.

All I'm really saying it that our standard empirical way of judging still holds. I'm not saying that merely because I see an angel that even in theory all my metaphysical beliefs are proved. Far from it. After all it could easily be that there are real angels but that my beliefs regarding the nature of angels are wrong. (Say it turns out hypothetically that angels aren't like Mormon conceptions but are more akin to the conception of Thomas Aquinas)

[_spotlight]

In other words just because I think I am seeing an angel doesn't mean I am in the same sense or way I normally see my neighbor. The existence of angels raises very many fundamental questions that are not raised by the existence of another mortal.
The greater the claim, the greater the need for evidence to back the claim.

Certainly it raises secondary questions, but phenomenally the encounter is the same as any regular encounters I have. (Here assuming for sake of argument the Mormon conception of angels as material being fairly similar to humans in some sense)

Well don't forget to ask to shake their hand.
Here you are not only unconcerned about subjecting the claim to any testing in the instance of it being a first hand experience, but you are unconcerned about testing the claim when it comes to you as a secondhand experience.

None of those would be necessary to answer from the encounter though.

If you would like to verify the encounter is what you are interpreting it to be, it might be important.

After all, all I could reasonably know is contained in the nature of the encounter which most likely wouldn't include such questions of energy. (For the record I'm not sure why you think there has to be energy from nowhere - nothing in LDS conceptions of angels demands that)

Are LDS conceptions of angels something other than resurrected beings now? Can a resurrected being die? It takes energy to move matter about, you know walking, talking and other forms of muscle movements. If not a hair of our heads is lost we do get our muscles back don't we? We get our cells back. They are designed to store and harvest energy in the form of ATP, etc. Makes a lot of sense for a brief mortal existence but not so much for an immortal existence that doesn't require any use of energy to function or to remain alive. How does this resurrected realm function when energy is constantly degraded with each use leading inexorably towards a heat death of the universe? Most physicists would see this as a contradiction sufficient to disprove the whole possibility of a resurrected realm. But you seem to be unconcerned about it in the least.

If I see a being floating in the air do some reasonable basic tests, am reasonably sure I'm not mentally ill then why should I question the experience?

Because what we've discovered in physics since the 1830's contradicts that possibility. Energy conservation wasn't discovered until the 1840's and a decent model of gravitation until Einstein. Looking ahead toward combining QM with GR will not change what we know from GR in its present form. GR reverts back to the same results obtained from classical mechanics in most situations. Only in certain areas is it necessary to use GR as for example to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury or to obtain the accuracy in the GPS system of satellites.

I don't know how the experience justifies all my beliefs about angels since of course that content isn't necessarily established in the experience.

All I'm really saying it that our standard empirical way of judging still holds. I'm not saying that merely because I see an angel that even in theory all my metaphysical beliefs are proved. Far from it. After all it could easily be that there are real angels but that my beliefs regarding the nature of angels are wrong. (Say it turns out hypothetically that angels aren't like Mormon conceptions but are more akin to the conception of Thomas Aquinas)

I read some of Thomas Aquinas and am not finding any model given that explains anything he believed or thought upon the subject. Please proffer a link if you feel this is that important to understand your point. Again we've learned a lot that contradicts the possibility since 1830 much less since the time of Thomas Aquinas. Think of the movie with Jodie Foster, Contact. Even though she sees her father she says to herself "That's not possible." Why do you suppose that would be her reaction? Because it contradicts knowledge we've gained as a species in the last century or two.

[_huckelberry]

Aquinas and angels,
Summa Theologica book one questions 50 through 64 , Treatise on the Angels.

They are incorporeal and thus would have no involvement with the laws of physics.

[_Fence Sitter]

If I see a being floating in the air do some reasonable basic tests, am reasonably sure I'm not mentally ill then why should I question the experience?

If I may interject one thing here. It is quite common for the mentally ill, especially in cases of schizophrenia, to experience religious delusions. Commonly, people with schizophrenia have anosognosia or “lack of insight.” This means the person is unaware that he has the illness, which can make treating or working with him much more challenging.

So it is quite common for a mentally ill person to be unaware he is mentally ill and to have religious delusions. That is one reason why you should question the experience.

[_spotlight]

Aquinas and angels,
Summa Theologica book one questions 50 through 64 , Treatise on the Angels.

They are incorporeal and thus would have no involvement with the laws of physics.

Thanks huckleberry. The issue I raise is where is a model that defines what this "word salad" means? How is something there and not there at the same time? What is it that distinguishes between an incorporeal thing and a nothing?

Next point for ClarkGobel is that Joseph Smith taught that all spirit is matter, just more refined, so "incorporeal" doesn't fit within LDS theology.

[_huckelberry]

Aquinas and angels,
Summa Theologica book one questions 50 through 64 , Treatise on the Angels.

They are incorporeal and thus would have no involvement with the laws of physics.

Thanks huckleberry. The issue I raise is where is a model that defines what this "word salad" means? How is something there and not there at the same time? What is it that distinguishes between an incorporeal thing and a nothing?

Next point for ClarkGobel is that Joseph Smith taught that all spirit is matter, just more refined, so "incorporeal" doesn't fit within LDS theology.

Hi Spotlight. You are certainly correct that Aquinas thought is well outside of LDS views. ClarkGobel was mentioning it as an alternative I think.

How the idea of incorporeal angels fits into a whole cosmology is a large part of Book One (500 plus pages smallish type). On Angels goes on quite a ways as a way of reviewing the transition between ,reality, fundamentally the mind of God, and creation. It has been over couple decades since I read it so I am unable to jump into a detailed discussion. I admit to not having been really sold on the system.

My residual question was more wondering how one draws a line distinguishing between corporeal and nothing in his system.

I was left with my own private not quite orthodox wondering whether the presence of nothing in relation to creation illuminates a form or limitation to Gods potential action in creation. I do not know if that is a residual for me from LDS thought or a simpler sense that the world is too disorderly not to suggest that a creator God, if there is one, is struggling with the process.

This may be wandering off topic, sorry.

[_The CCC]

Though Ya'll might like this.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/creatio ... nd-giants/

[_spotlight]

Though Ya'll might like this.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/creatio ... nd-giants/

Ham is the director of Answers in Genesis, a fundamentalist Christian sect who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that humans, dinosaurs and apparently giants coexisted rather than being separated by millions of years.

Wait, what? So the only thing silly about giants is the idea that they co-existed with modern humans within the past 6,000 years?

[_huckelberry]

Though Ya'll might like this.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/creatio ... nd-giants/

Ham is the director of Answers in Genesis, a fundamentalist Christian sect who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that humans, dinosaurs and apparently giants coexisted rather than being separated by millions of years.

Wait, what? So the only thing silly about giants is the idea that they co-existed with modern humans within the past 6,000 years?

It moves closer to a starwars fantasy world which could increase ticket sales. Perhaps they need simulated light guns to shoot down mechanical pterodactyls.