On knowledge, observation, and differing modes

[The Midnight]

I'm not on board with your logic leap to he created the universe to he created the laws to he is not bound by the laws.

Which part exactly that you're not on board with?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Which part exactly that you're not on board with?

The part where he created the laws... and the part where he doesn't have to follow the laws.

I'm not following the logic jump... I don't think because he created the universe then naturally he has to have created the laws.

 

[The Midnight]

The part where he created the laws... and the part where he doesn't have to follow the laws.

I'm not following the logic jump... I don't think because he created the universe then naturally he has to have created the laws.

If he had created the Universe, the space, the Suns, the Earth, etc, what is it about the laws that he can't create?

 

[green]

Clearly if he created the universe (which is governed by these "Laws"), then it follows that he must have also created these laws, which in effect means that he operates "outside" of these laws and is not bound by them.

Wrong. If he created these laws, then only by following them perfectly, could anything work. You cannot operate outside of any law. This is magic ********.

 

[green]

If you "create" a law, then don't follow it, it isn't a law.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[PearlWatson]

If you "create" a law, then don't follow it, it isn't a law.

It just doesn't work that way.

It does for congress.
They make laws they ain't subject to, but the rest of us are.
In effect they are above the law.
I think there are different degrees of laws...heavenly vs. earthly
but I've also made your same point that just because we don't know the law behind it doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[babe]

It does for congress.
They make laws they ain't subject to, but the rest of us are.
In effect they are above the law.
I think there are different degrees of laws...heavenly vs. earthly
but I've also made your same point that just because we don't know the law behind it doesn't mean there isn't one.

The problem, generally, with statism in all its monstrous permutations, is that the honchos are lawless ******** who'll throw everybody in prison on a whim just to make a naked display of their raw impunity. Look at Obama and his "Affordable Care Act". Wink at him, slip him a mil, and he'll wink back and make you exempt. And he hired 16000 new revenue agents to round up the po' folk and make'm pay their tax for it.

 

[babe]

Wrong. If he created these laws, then only by following them perfectly, could anything work. You cannot operate outside of any law. This is magic ********.

This is a fundamental difference of Mormonism and the traditional Christians following from Constantine. The fundamental assertion of the Trinity, and the almightiness and sovereign power of "God", is that He is the creator of everything including the laws which govern the Universe. Mormons place even God in the web of eternity, say "intelligence", "spirit" and "physical matter" have always existed or "cannot be created or made", and God only uses His understanding and obedience to existing principles to organize and propagate his domain. In early Mormonism, it was stated that man is in an endless or eternal process of advancement, following a pattern that has been followed before through endless cycles. . . .

Jesus was in the Mormon camp of philosophy, teaching that his doctrine was not his own, but was the doctrine of his father, and he set an example of following the pattern. Jesus did not claim to be the originator of the Gospel. the Creator of the world, or the initiator of "law". He specifically claimed to be subject to His Father, obedient to the will or law of His Father, and taught personal discipline based on principle. . . . saying that if we will follow him in that, that we will become like Him and His Father.

 

[One Brow]

If you "create" a law, then don't follow it, it isn't a law.

It just doesn't work that way.

This is for everyone talking about following natural laws:

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know how objects in nature typically behave, when we can simplify this sufficiently, we create a type of description called a law.

A putative supernatural being would not need to act like a natural thing, and therefore would not need to follow natural laws, but there own descriptions of how supernatural things behave (supernatural laws?).

 

[One Brow]

Back to the topic.

As a starter, I have been using observation to describe a relationship where the interaction between the observer and the observed is more limited. When you start talking about observing yourself, any experiments run into difficulties with self-fulfilling prophecies, as well as that humans are notoriously bad judges of their own intentions.

I'll use this as a similar example.
Let's just say somebody has been not feeling well every once in a while, and it is a particular feeling with particular symptoms for them. After quite a few experiences they notice that it generally happens about an hour after they have eaten, but it is not regular.They write down some of the symptoms, that they are unusually tired, have an upset stomach, and sometimes get a rash on their arms. They start to pay more attention to what they eat, and see if there is a correlation between what they eat and how they feel. They start to look into the ingredients of the foods they ate before the instances of not feeling well. They may notice that there is a particular food or food group that is consistently in the foods they eat when they feel this way. They might test their theory by eating some of what they think it is alone, and with nothing else to interfere and see if it truly is tied to this food. They may even go to their doctor and be tested to see if they have allergies to these foods, or consult their doctor to see what they know about something like this.

In the same way the person in this example has experimented with their feelings to find some answers to how they feel at certain times, so can a person experiment with their feelings in regards to activities that are spiritual in nature.

I have no issue with calling your example observation, but note that determining how you feel physically is more reliable than determining how you feel spiritually, and even then you also suggest getting external evidence from a more neutral source is important. Relying just on feeling better or worse can help you find real issues, but it can't tell the difference between what works, what is a placebo, and what is a coincidence.

While you mention it is a non-physical experiment, I say it is both physical and spiritual. There has to be a physical portion to it as we are both physical and spiritual beings.

It can relate to prayer, scripture study, helping a neighbor, giving to the poor, service, pretty much any activity you can test.
The results that are easiest to tie to the activity is what you mentioned, good feelings or bad feelings. There are other possible results, but in my opinion they are more difficult to tie to an activity at times, at least on the spiritual side. Keep in mind there can also be physical results.

Also of note, a true experiment means having an open mind and heart to whatever the true result is. If you only go through the motions and really want the experiment to fail, or the opposite really want it to succeed, are you really performing an experiment? Are you really open to what is going on or are you only going to see what you want to see. This cuts both ways, and most of the time only the person performing the experiment will really know where they stand.

This part was very general. I don't have any disagreements with it, except that the person performing the experiment is often unaware of where they really stand. I want to note that it does make observation of the result very problematic indeed. You're not observing, you're reacting. Reacting is a good thing much of the time, and I'm not downplaying it, but it is not observation.

I personally don't think asking/looking for a sign like that is part of an experiment. Maybe that's the religion in me, where I've learned that sign seeking does not lead to anything good.

We agree here.

Basically the test of the Lord is to do what he has asked you to do, and see how it works out. That is the faith part. Test it out by doing it willingly to see if it is good.

I have tested the law of tithing. Mathematically it doesn't make sense that if I give 10% of my increase to the Lord, or His Church as I see it, that I will end up doing better than if I take that 10% and do what I want with it. I have tried it both ways, and I've had enough experiences in my life where I have always had what I need for myself and my family when I faithfully pay a full tithe even in the times that I add up my income and my expenses and there is no way my income will cover it... yet it does. I have also had the experience to know I've had some of my lowest and most difficult times financially and in other ways when I have not. Others may call it a coincidence, but for myself I know it was directly tied.

I have done the same testing to many other principles of the gospel. I still have testing to do on other principles I have not brought myself to test. Do I believe they are true based on what others have said that I trust, yes. Do I know it for myself yet, no. When I get around to testing it for myself then I will know and be better for knowing one way or the other.

Back when I was in high school, the theater director would tell us, 'When you are working the hardest on plays, your grades should go up, not down'. At the time, I didn't understand it, but now I do. Pressures create stress, and the stress can force us to organize and prioritize in order to relieve it. In addition, my understanding of you is that tithing brings you in closer accord to your vision of who you want to be. Naturally, when we act in ways that are closer to our visions of our ideal selves, we receive comfort from the result. However, I would not qualify this comfort as an observation.

 

[PearlWatson]

I found this essay regarding Classical mechanics(materialism) vs. Quantum mechanics, God, and miracles:

To begin, let's consider a few assertions of the traditional materialistic worldview. Of course, materialists who are aware of quantum mechanics may have slightly different views, but I suspect that these assertions will resonate with many modern materialists:

1. The laws of physics state that miracles are impossible. For instance, Jesus could not have turned water into wine because that would have violated numerous physical laws (conservation of energy, conservation of mass, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc...)

2. Even if God exists, He could not be a God who intervenes in the natural world because he would have to violate the physical laws that he supposedly created.

3. Consciousness or subjective mental experiences are a collective property of brains (just as wetness is a collective property of water molecules). There is no such thing as a "mind" or "consciousness" separate from physical constituents.

4. The universe does not contain "hidden" or "unknowable" realities that are fundamentally inaccessible to science and reason.

There are of course other major components of a materialist worldview, but I think that most materialists would generally agree with these four statements. By the end of this essay I hope to show you that, if you believe quantum mechanics, assertions 1 and 2 and 4 are simply false. Statement 3 can still be retained, but only at an extremely high cost. Based on these statements, I think it is clear what motivated Danish physicist and father of quantum mechanics Niels Bohr to remark "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it."

So where does quantum mechanics leave us with regard to physical laws? Certainly with a feeling of vague discomfort. A physicist who is being honest with you will have to admit that the most iron-clad laws of physics now no longer deal with certainties, but only probabilities. We have to conclude that miracles are not impossible. Furthermore, when and if God chooses to intervene in the natural world, he can do so without in any way violating the laws of nature as we currently understand them. Lest you think I am exaggerating, let me close this section with a quote from physicist Alvaro de Rujula of Cern who was in charge of writing a safety report for the recently constructed Large Hadron Collider. When asked whether there was a possibility that the collider could produce a world-ending black hole, he answered that calculations showed that this was incredibly unlikely, but that it was impossible to be certain: "the random nature of quantum physics means that there is always a minuscule, but nonzero, chance of anything occurring, including that the new collider could spit out man-eating dragons.' (Dennis Overbye, "Gauging a Collider's Odds of Creating a Black Hole", NYTimes, 4/15/08)

https://www.shenvi.org/Essays/QuantumMechanics.htm

 

[One Brow]

I found this essay regarding Classical mechanics(materialism) vs. Quantum mechanics, God, and miracles:

Even though I am a materialist, I hope it is clear from post #22 that I do not agree with those points.