Speculation re. the "how" of miracles


Recommended Posts

 

The following three sentences come from an article in the current online edition of New Scientist. The full article can be read here. The article is about a proposed experiment for testing whether the human mind is made of the same matter as everything else, or something different.

"Such a finding would stir up debate about the existence of free will. It could be that even if physics dictated the material world, the human mind not being made of that same matter would mean that we could overcome physics with free will. “It wouldn’t settle the question, but it would certainly have a strong bearing on the issue of free will,” says Hardy."

If it did turn out that free will could overcome physics, could that constitute at least part of the explanation of how God does things that we call miracles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

 

The following three sentences come from an article in the current online edition of New Scientist. The full article can be read here. The article is about a proposed experiment for testing whether the human mind is made of the same matter as everything else, or something different.

"Such a finding would stir up debate about the existence of free will. It could be that even if physics dictated the material world, the human mind not being made of that same matter would mean that we could overcome physics with free will. “It wouldn’t settle the question, but it would certainly have a strong bearing on the issue of free will,” says Hardy."

If it did turn out that free will could overcome physics, could that constitute at least part of the explanation of how God does things that we call miracles?

Not really. The miracles we see are done within laws of physics, just an increased knowledge of how things work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not really. The miracles we see are done within laws of physics, just an increased knowledge of how things work.

I agree. And I think the articles contains hints, and points towards, what that increased knowledge might be. I think we are not maximising our time in mortality if we are not trying to learn, here and now, what that increased knowledge might be and how we should go about seeking it. I can't see any reason why we should wait for exaltation before starting that particular journey. 

I think the article is suggesting that the laws of physics govern matter as we know it, but if the mind if made up of a different kind of matter, then it might be subject to different laws, and potentially these laws might be more powerful, or able to override the laws of physics which govern ordinary matter.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I agree. And I think the articles contains hints, and points towards, what that increased knowledge might be. I think we are not maximising our time in mortality if we are not trying to learn, here and now, what that increased knowledge might be and how we should go about seeking it. I can't see any reason why we should wait for exaltation before starting that particular journey. 

Just as long as we dont try to be God I am all for advancing technology. I worry however that science endeavors, in general, are driven by atheistic ideals and their worldview is a bit warped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Just as long as we dont try to be God I am all for advancing technology. I worry however that science endeavors, in general, are driven by atheistic ideals and their worldview is a bit warped.

The main purpose of our pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal existence is to become as much like God as we can and eventually, to be gods. We should all be working on that all the time.

As to what drives scientific endeavours, I think that might be an issue for those doing the science. It's up to the rest of us to decide how to use the outcomes of science and to decide what our motives are. Even if science were driven wholly by evil motives, and all the scientists have a warped world view that is no reason to discard its outcomes although if that was the case it would be wise to exercise some prudence and judgement as to what to use and how to use it. The motives of the producer (the scientist) should not solely determine how something (the outcomes of the science) is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

The main purpose of our pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal existence is to become as much like God as we can and eventually, to be gods. We should all be working on that all the time.

As to what drives scientific endeavours, I think that might be an issue for those doing the science. It's up to the rest of us to decide how to use the outcomes of science and to decide what our motives are. Even if science were driven wholly by evil motives, and all the scientists have a warped world view that is no reason to discard its outcomes although if that was the case it would be wise to exercise some prudence and judgement as to what to use and how to use it. The motives of the producer (the scientist) should not solely determine how something (the outcomes of the science) is used.

Yes, we should be working on how to be gods. But that is done through the priesthood, faith and obedience. If we want to create universes it will be through those principles. The entire heavens are maintained and governed through the priesthood. 

If we want to find the real truth of scientific things the answer lies in Christ and his teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." - D+C130:20-21

AND 

"God has all power because He is in perfect harmony with all law" - D+C Institute Manual (connected to D+C 88:34).

There is a law and even G-d follows it. He cannot break the laws of nature and of exaltation. Anything that appears so is just that. It appears to break it but we simply do not understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists can explain how gravity works, but not what causes it. They can only measure what they observe in the material world. The answer is simple. The Spirit of the Lord governs all "natural laws." His Spirit upholds all laws. What prevents you from suddenly floating off the ground and into space or what prevents you from coming apart at every molecule? It is God's Spirit that governs these laws. When He grants to you further light and knowledge, according to your faith, you, too, will be able to defy the laws of gravity and all natural laws. You will be able to speak and move a mountain as the bro of Jared did, or cause an ax head to float to the surface of the water after falling in as Elisha did. And maybe one day in the distant eternal future, like Jehova did, by faith, you will say, "let there be light." And there will be light. And scientists in that future will try to understand and measure the observable material world that you created for them and call it physics in a weak attempt to understand it all. 

If you can get through this discourse by Orson Pratt, it will shed more light: http://jod.mrm.org/2/334

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2017 at 10:08 PM, askandanswer said:

If it did turn out that free will could overcome physics, could that constitute at least part of the explanation of how God does things that we call miracles?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2017 at 1:30 PM, Jojo Bags said:

Joseph Smith taught that our mind is actually our spirit.

I am inclined to agree with this line of thinking, but do you have a source for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-5-20 at 2:48 PM, Rob Osborn said:

. But that is done through the priesthood, faith and obedience. If we want to create universes it will be through those principles. The entire heavens are maintained and governed through the priesthood. 

If we want to find the real truth of scientific things the answer lies in Christ and his teachings.

The means by which we will create universes is best expressed in 121:36.

36  That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

Now what we need to do is figure out what is it about righteousness that will enable us to control the powers of heaven, which powers, I believe, are those that will enable us to create. How is it that righteousness is able to bring about changes in the physical world, what are the processes and mechanisms by which this happens?

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Now what we need to do is figure out what is it about righteousness that will enable us to control the powers of heaven

It would help if one knew and understood the powers of heaven.  Then one would have a better understanding of how righteousness is related to them.  I for one, do not have a good comprehension of what they are and how they work.  

But we do have ways of experiencing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 10:19 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Just as long as we dont try to be God I am all for advancing technology. I worry however that science endeavors, in general, are driven by atheistic ideals and their worldview is a bit warped.

 

I believe trying to be G-d is the essence of religion or at least as I understand our LDS religion. 

I would also proport that the influence of devout LDS is more reflected in the scientific community than the religious community.  As both a High Priest (LDS) and a scientist (industrial automation/artificial intelligence) it is my experience (and I believe the historical record agrees) that the traditional Christian religious community has been far more resistance to advancements in empirical truths than the scientific community has been resistance to possible spiritual involvements in the creation and continuation of our vast universe.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe trying to be G-d is the essence of religion or at least as I understand our LDS religion. 

I would also proport that the influence of devout LDS is more reflected in the scientific community than the religious community.  As both a High Priest (LDS) and a scientist (industrial automation/artificial intelligence) it is my experience (and I believe the historical record agrees) that the traditional Christian religious community has been far more resistance to advancements in empirical truths than the scientific community has been resistance to possible spiritual involvements in the creation and continuation of our vast universe.

 

The Traveler

Guess it depends on how you define "empiracal truths"?  Sure, semiconducter technology, lithion ion, etc- those are indeed empirical truths and Christians all support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that the "powers of heaven" does not refer to abilities but rather beings such as angels, Seraphs, Gods, etc. We find clues alluding to these "powers" throughout scripture, which mentions powers of heaven, powers of earth and powers of hell.

Quote

3 Nephi 20:22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.

Quote

3 Nephi 28:7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

These "powers" of heaven seem to connote glorified beings. There are also powers of earth and hell. One might be familiar with the term "superpowers," which indicates very powerful nations. Anciently, Assyria was a superpower because of its military might. Today, the US could easily be considered a superpower with all its armed forces (powers). 

Quote

3 Nephi 28:39 Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place at the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them, insomuch that Satan could have no power over them, that he could not tempt them; and they were sanctified in the flesh, that they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them.

The above passage implies that the three Nephites had more power (ability/capacity) that no "power" of earth could hold them. And by their words could they smite indeed. Then there are the powers of hell, too.

Quote

3 Nephi 9:2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!

Quote

Alma 48:

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

With all this mind, we go back to the scripture:

Quote

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

The rights of the priesthood (the right to use the authority associated with) the powers of heaven (angles, Seraphs, Gods, etc) are both inseparably connected. Heaven is a place where righteous (just) beings dwell and associate with one another, never through compulsory means. In other words, there is no unrighteous dominion. Here on earth, we, in our fallen unredeemed state are unrighteous and have the natural tendency to exercise authority upon one another (I am your father/bishop/presiding authority and you will do what I say). Now consider why Jesus told his disciples that He could, if He chose, to send down twelve legions of angels to save Him from death, but He refrained. And why would they do so if He commanded it? I will leave that to you to ponder. Therefore, if you wish to have such association with the "powers of heaven" as Moses and Enoch and Nephi and others did, it must be upon the principles of righteousness. That is why priesthood (like neighborhood, brotherhood, etc) is an association with said powers and why they grieve when one attempts to handle (control) them unrighteously.

Quote

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson...

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

There cannot be any degree of unrighteous dominion. We ought never to seek to exalt ourselves or gratify our pride, vain ambition, exercise any control over one another. 

Quote

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile

A good example of this is Nephi in the book of Helaman. The Lord granted to Nephi power to seal on earth and to smite. And though Nephi had the authority to do so, throughout his ministry and efforts to suffer all their buffetings, he eventually pleaded with the Lord to send a famine to persuade the people to repent. Nephi was gentle and meek, showing love unfeigned to the degree that he pleaded with the Lord to send a famine to persuade the people to repent rather than be destroyed by one another. And rather than smiting them himself, Nephi deferred instead to the Lord to do the smiting. And it was done exactly as Nephi petitioned. At no point in time throughout this ministry did Nephi coerce, compel, or even attempt to control the people, even when he was given authority to do so. Such is the meekness, humility and longsuffering of one who possesses the rights this priesthood, or in other words, the association with the "powers" of heaven. 

Edited by skalenfehl
forgot one scripture; typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Guess it depends on how you define "empiracal truths"?  Sure, semiconducter technology, lithion ion, etc- those are indeed empirical truths and Christians all support them.

 

But not so much imbedded microchips, evolution, astronomy, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering (Including cloning), stem cell research, the solar system (imprisonment of Galileo for his publication of how to calculate the tides), various elements of quantum physics and just about anything empirical that conflicts with someone interpretation of ancient scripture (from languages they cannot even read).

History is full of wars based in religious disagreements but I am not aware of a single war fought between scientific communities disagreeing over interpretations of empirical data.  Even on this LDS forum I seldom see disputations over things empirical but I see lots of “religious” disputations even though Jesus commanded not to create disputations over doctrine – not even when you are right and those you disagree with are wrong (as per the example of disputations over the name of the church).   And yes – I myself have greater difficulty (resistance) expressing various religious notions than I have scientific principles –I seldom, if ever have problems (resistance) expressing my scientific views – except by someone that is ignorant of the particular science and is upset because they think it to interfer with some religious notion they have.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

But not so much imbedded microchips, evolution, astronomy, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering (Including cloning), stem cell research, the solar system (imprisonment of Galileo for his publication of how to calculate the tides), various elements of quantum physics and just about anything empirical that conflicts with someone interpretation of ancient scripture (from languages they cannot even read).

History is full of wars based in religious disagreements but I am not aware of a single war fought between scientific communities disagreeing over interpretations of empirical data.  Even on this LDS forum I seldom see disputations over things empirical but I see lots of “religious” disputations even though Jesus commanded not to create disputations over doctrine – not even when you are right and those you disagree with are wrong (as per the example of disputations over the name of the church).   And yes – I myself have greater difficulty (resistance) expressing various religious notions than I have scientific principles –I seldom, if ever have problems (resistance) expressing my scientific views – except by someone that is ignorant of the particular science and is upset because they think it to interfer with some religious notion they have.

 

The Traveler

The only problem I have is with the secular sciences- those (such as evolution from a common ancestor) that are pushing a particular agenda or have so much disdain for godliness that they stop at no expense to ensure their voice is the only relevant voice in the public eye. My belief is that atheism and its subtle ways are at work. 

I love the true empirical sciences though and I think most Christians readily embrace them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The only problem I have is with the secular sciences- those (such as evolution from a common ancestor) that are pushing a particular agenda or have so much disdain for godliness that they stop at no expense to ensure their voice is the only relevant voice in the public eye. My belief is that atheism and its subtle ways are at work. 

I love the true empirical sciences though and I think most Christians readily embrace them. 

 

I do not disagree with you – but it does seem that the religious community is far more interested in pushing an agenda than the scientific community.  I believe this is mostly because in the scientific community one will lose prestige when changing a point of view (not being first or a leader) but changing a point of view in the religious community is seen as a threat to fundamental belief – resulting in an excommunication or something similar.

When Darwin (a very religious person) suggested in passing (not really that much of an agenda as research suggestion) that humans may have ape ancestors – he was excommunicated (either literally or figuratively) by almost every Christian sect there is.  In general I find that Christians will not consider research (especially willing to research on their own) any empirical study that they think will threaten their religious agendas and interpretations of scripture.

Pick almost any thread in this forum – the most interest (posting) is in how to define religious notions and speculations.  In essence – the pushing of a relative unfounded religious speculation – often regardless of any empirical evidence or solid logic that some consider heresy.   Or as my late mission president would say – truth goes out the window when personal preference is threatened.

As a side note – I have used evolution (common ancestry) as a means to prove the existence of G-d to atheists.  With rare exception, they are more willing to accept the argument that those in religious circles that evolution disproves G-d.  It is my observation it does not disprove G-d – just a kind of G-d that many in religious circles insist is G-d – but a G-d I do not believe exists.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

I do not disagree with you – but it does seem that the religious community is far more interested in pushing an agenda than the scientific community.  I believe this is mostly because in the scientific community one will lose prestige when changing a point of view (not being first or a leader) but changing a point of view in the religious community is seen as a threat to fundamental belief – resulting in an excommunication or something similar.

When Darwin (a very religious person) suggested in passing (not really that much of an agenda as research suggestion) that humans may have ape ancestors – he was excommunicated (either literally or figuratively) by almost every Christian sect there is.  In general I find that Christians will not consider research (especially willing to research on their own) any empirical study that they think will threaten their religious agendas and interpretations of scripture.

Pick almost any thread in this forum – the most interest (posting) is in how to define religious notions and speculations.  In essence – the pushing of a relative unfounded religious speculation – often regardless of any empirical evidence or solid logic that some consider heresy.   Or as my late mission president would say – truth goes out the window when personal preference is threatened.

As a side note – I have used evolution (common ancestry) as a means to prove the existence of G-d to atheists.  With rare exception, they are more willing to accept the argument that those in religious circles that evolution disproves G-d.  It is my observation it does not disprove G-d – just a kind of G-d that many in religious circles insist is G-d – but a G-d I do not believe exists.

 

The Traveler

Evolution from a common ancestor requires an imagination and a lot of faith. Its not empirical as scientists think; its more like a religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share