What's new
By:

LDS General Conference 2012

kennykyle said:
I just think the idea of a being living in a far distant place, judging, helping, causing, teaching guiding, etc.... is just a little hard for me to grasp. But so is the idea that there is a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 to the 1,000,000,000 th power that this all happened by chance is also far fetched. I'm a good person, I sincerely try to not be a dick, if there is a god isn't that all that he would want anyways?
Click to expand...

My thought on that has always been, if you are a good person, and God exists, he will reward you. If you are a good person and God doesn't exist, you are still a good person.
 
In some ways, I believe our life now is Heaven. This world and what it has to offer is truly amazing and we should cherish that. But maybe that's just the employed caucasian in me.
 
Wait, Conference isn't just an extension of Spring Break? Oh ****, I'm screwed!

Bronco70 said:
I'm also a little disappointed every time a GA says something to widen the gap between religion and science. I would love, at the end of it all, if God got up on front of everybody and said, "Yeah, the Big Bang. Pretty much correct. That's how I did it."
Click to expand...

I love this.
 
In short, I was flabbergasted that he said what he said. I find it easier to believe that an All Powerful God would use math and science (and time) to make everything "click" versus pointing a finger and "ZAP!" everything into existence. Opinions are what they are, and everyone is entitled to theirs and I can respect that. What I had a hard time with was Nelson's use of the pulpit to pass his opinion off as a fact or something that the LDS church supports and preaches. My mother (who knows more about science, cosmology, and the universe than all of us (minus Colton) combined), said it best:

Math, is the language of the universe. The Big Bang is a mathematical hypothesis, with scientific evidence that makes it seem feasible. If the Ultimate Mathematician deemed the best way to create a universe, was using this language (the big bang), so be it. An explosion in a printing shop could produce a dictionary if the Ultimate Mathematician were at the switch. (But it would be a pretty weird formula). I think Bother Nelson's intent was that the universe wasn't happenstance, but rather a calculated event. He seems to have used a rather unfortunate choice of words.
Hey, he's human like the rest of us and (and probably more Christ-like than I am), and as you said, entitled to his opinion. An important note: another conference speaker reminded us that some of the things said at conference were the speakers' opinions.
Click to expand...

Anyhow, I have enjoyed reading your responses. I was pleasantly surprised by a few. (Bronco) Some, not so much. (Spazz)
 
The comments in this thread remind me of a graduate class on general relativity that I took. Our teacher was an Asian professor; I have no idea if he was religious or not. I think he said something very profound, though. After a lecture involving what the universe was like millions of years ago, a student asked something like, "How do we know that the universe even existed then?" The teacher replied, "For all *I* know, personally, the universe didn't even exist more than *60* years ago." His point was that we can only make judgments based on our observations. And to him, from his personal experience it sure seems like the universe likely existed 61 years ago. Or else God created it in such a way to make it REALLY seem like the universe existed 61 years ago. In the exact same fashion, perhaps the universe didn't exist millions of years ago. Perhaps the universe didn't come from a big bang. But if so, God certainly created it in such a way to make it really seem like it did. And that's reason enough for me to take the big bang seriously.
 
colton said:
The comments in this thread remind me of a graduate class on general relativity that I took. Our teacher was an Asian professor; I have no idea if he was religious or not. I think he said something very profound, though. After a lecture involving what the universe was like millions of years ago, a student asked something like, "How do we know that the universe even existed then?" The teacher replied, "For all *I* know, personally, the universe didn't even exist more than *60* years ago." His point was that we can only make judgments based on our observations. And to him, from his personal experience it sure seems like the universe likely existed 61 years ago. Or else God created it in such a way to make it REALLY seem like the universe existed 61 years ago. In the exact same fashion, perhaps the universe didn't exist millions of years ago. Perhaps the universe didn't come from a big bang. But if so, God certainly created it in such a way to make it really seem like it did. And that's reason enough for me to take the big bang seriously.
Click to expand...

If you'd change the stupid rep settings, I'd +19 your ***.
 
colton said:
The comments in this thread remind me of a graduate class on general relativity that I took. Our teacher was an Asian professor; I have no idea if he was religious or not. I think he said something very profound, though. After a lecture involving what the universe was like millions of years ago, a student asked something like, "How do we know that the universe even existed then?" The teacher replied, "For all *I* know, personally, the universe didn't even exist more than *60* years ago." His point was that we can only make judgments based on our observations. And to him, from his personal experience it sure seems like the universe likely existed 61 years ago. Or else God created it in such a way to make it REALLY seem like the universe existed 61 years ago. In the exact same fashion, perhaps the universe didn't exist millions of years ago. Perhaps the universe didn't come from a big bang. But if so, God certainly created it in such a way to make it really seem like it did. And that's reason enough for me to take the big bang seriously.
Click to expand...

A little further reading of contemporary physics/universe generalists trying to develop a "theory of everything" would reveal significant problems with the big bang model, just as there are problems with our general theory of space/time, and mass/gravity where we are already aware of some anomalies that do challenge the fundamentals of what we have thought we knew.

Still, whatever new theory emerges into popularity, it is my general advice to consider it more of a bookmark in our process towards understanding rather than an ultimate and absolute comprehension of "everything".

My "religious" experiences, anecdotal though they may be, just lead me to hold a lot of things open for further information. There seems to be more to it than "meets the eye", or all the other instruments of investigation we have so far.

That said, I don't see any reason why God would just explain it all to some shepherds living in a desert thousands of years ago, and ask us not to investigate further. Our minds and language pretty well preclude understanding anything beyond our experience and observation, and just being told by authority is an inferior "education", and an unworthy waste of human wonder. We all tell our kids simplified versions of complex things for starters, but hopefully we encourage thinking, and questioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top