How do you personally spiritually reconcile the following conundrum?

[Rosebud]

I think the responses here show an unfamiliarity/fear of the subject. I am not a scientific person. I have trouble with simple math, and like Wuap, I see the sands of the sea line as a metaphor. That said, a while back I read an article in Dialogue, written by an LDS scientist that discusses these issues. I didn't understand it beyond a basic level, so I can't critique it, and I don't remember if he was a physicist or not, but the ideas are interesting and it was interesting to see the parallels between Mormon theology and what I understood to be quantum physics. I think the guy's name was Bailey and the Dialogue issue was an old one, pre 1995 for certain. Perhaps I'll find it. It might be a means to add clarity to the discussion, which I feel has merit.

So don't go baggin' on clackymack just because you didn't/can't understand what he's talking about. He's not that far out there, there have been others who have written about this.

I agree.

Clacky.... you're touching on some very interesting topics, but your thread is missing information. It seems to me that you're more interested in a philosophical debate than a scientific one. That's cool. Someone asked if you have a source for the assertion that Christ was sacrificed on the most evil of the many planets God created. I've personally heard this doctrine quite a few times, but I'm not sure to whom we actually attribute it.

You have to be careful in interpreting modern physics concepts. Many of them are very tempting to think about in a non-mathematical way and expansive way--we're often talking about the universe and its origins or fundamental make-up, after all. However, it's very easy to get sloppy in doing this and apply concepts far outside their intended use. This happens to relativity all the time.

Agreed.... and I'm guessing that pretty much everyone here knows that you're a good person to defer to on topics like this. (I'm trying not to be intimidated.)



Clack.... I think it's cool to mull ideas like these around in your head and I don't see any reason to be afraid of them. This is an internet discussion for crying out loud, it's not like you're trying to collect converts or get people to invest in a pyramid scheme. If you read up on the science a bit first, it will be even more fun because your thinking will have more basis in fact.

So in the spirit of putting a little more information out there in case anyone is interested, this is a great website:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

I love the elegance of M-theory, and considering that thousands of the world's top physicists are racing to be the first to find the "God-particle" it makes sense to me that open-minded religious people would be interested in discussing it. I definitely don't think this board is a good place to do so, though, without placing some hard facts on the table first.

[LA Ute]

Back to the original question.

How does a logical Latter-Day Saint come to grips that there is a million-bazillion to one chance that the earth we live on is the only place evil enough to kill the Son of God, thus, jump starting the Infinite Atonement that encompasses the whole universe?

I've put forth an attempt at a theory, and like usual (in on line forums) the good people keep quiet, while the rabble rouser's throw tomatoes.

I don't see the conundrum. (A "paradoxical, insoluble or difficult problem; a dilemma.")

There's a built-in (and totally speculative) assumption, which makes the discussion hypothetical. As such, this does not even qualify as a mystery. I'm prepared to be convinced that this is a worthwhile discussion.

In other words, "Bah! Humbug!"

[clackamascoug]

I don't see the conundrum. (A "paradoxical, insoluble or difficult problem; a dilemma.")

There's a built-in (and totally speculative) assumption, which makes the discussion hypothetical. As such, this does not even qualify as a mystery. I'm prepared to be convinced that this is a worthwhile discussion.

In other words, "Bah! Humbug!"

There was this movie called "Dumb & Dumber." When the main character (Jim Carey) was confronted with the odds that his chances of scoring with the gorgeous female lead, were 1 million to one, he responds "So I have a Chance."

The reason this works as humor is because everyone knows that the odds of 1,000,000 to one are a nice girls way of saying NO WAY.

To help you see the conundrum, (A "paradoxical, insoluble or difficult problem; a dilemma.") You have to comprehend the facts as presented.

1. The Lord says he has created worlds without end. Because we can't comprehend worlds without end, he tacks on the sands of the sea metaphor as a way of helping us see the largeness of the number. When you look at the sands of the sea, you now can closer comprehend just what the Lord means when "Worlds without End" is mentioned. The number has no end.

2. Infinity to 1 is the same as statistical zero.

3. The odds then that the Lord was crucified on this globe then are a statistical zero. Yet we know that he WAS crucified, and Atoned for our sins. So there must be another logical explanation other than statistical zero.

4. Maybe he was crucified on all of his planets. That would truly make it an Infinite Atonement. But modern Prophets have said that this is the only Planet evil enough to Kill the Savior of Mankind.

5. Maybe One Planet exists in infinitesimal different dimensions. Christ would only be Sacrificed on one Planet, but it would count as infinitesimal amount of times, because the different dimensions would actually be more than the sands of the seas. We already believe that the spirit world is here around us, but in a different dimension, so why the difficulty of upping that number to the sands of the sea.

If your hypothetical assumption (curious as to why you omitted it) is that the Atonement is fictional and there is no need, then I can't debate the variation of color with a blind man.

[creekster]

There was this movie called "Dumb & Dumber." When the main character (Jim Carey) was confronted with the odds that his chances of scoring with the gorgeous female lead, were 1 million to one, he responds "So I have a Chance."

The reason this works as humor is because everyone knows that the odds of 1,000,000 to one are a nice girls way of saying NO WAY.

To help you see the conundrum, (A "paradoxical, insoluble or difficult problem; a dilemma.") You have to comprehend the facts as presented.

1. The Lord says he has created worlds without end. Because we can't comprehend worlds without end, he tacks on the sands of the sea metaphor as a way of helping us see the largeness of the number. When you look at the sands of the sea, you now can closer comprehend just what the Lord means when "Worlds without End" is mentioned. The number has no end.

2. Infinity to 1 is the same as statistical zero.

3. The odds then that the Lord was crucified on this globe then are a statistical zero. Yet we know that he WAS crucified, and Atoned for our sins. So there must be another logical explanation other than statistical zero.

4. Maybe he was crucified on all of his planets. That would truly make it an Infinite Atonement. But modern Prophets have said that this is the only Planet evil enough to Kill the Savior of Mankind.

5. Maybe One Planet exists in infinitesimal different dimensions. Christ would only be Sacrificed on one Planet, but it would count as infinitesimal amount of times, because the different dimensions would actually be more than the sands of the seas. We already believe that the spirit world is here around us, but in a different dimension, so why the difficulty of upping that number to the sands of the sea.

If your hypothetical assumption (curious as to why you omitted it) is that the Atonement is fictional and there is no need, then I can't debate the variation of color with a blind man.

What authority is there for your assertions in Number 4?

[LA Ute]

But modern Prophets have said that this is the only Planet evil enough to Kill the Savior of Mankind. . . . If your hypothetical assumption (curious as to why you omitted it) is that the Atonement is fictional and there is no need, then I can't debate the variation of color with a blind man.

I am a believer, so that wasn't what I saw as the assumption. It's the bolded language. Are you taking that as doctrine? Can you give me some links?

[EDIT: I didn't see that creekster had already asked the same question.]

[clackamascoug]

The Evil Planet theory is a sidebar to the conundrum, not a focal point. If anything the Evil Planet theory is just sleight of hand in an ill attempt to divert the attention from the infinity to one odds.

Roll Call: How many people have heard that this Earth is the only Earth evil enough to kill the savior?

BTW... the Modern Prophet was Bruce R. I hate to pin every weird thing on him.

[creekster]

The Evil Planet theory is a sidebar to the conundrum, not a focal point. If anything the Evil Planet theory is just sleight of hand in an ill attempt to divert the attention from the infinity to one odds.

Roll Call: How many people have heard that this Earth is the only Earth evil enough to kill the savior?

BTW... the Modern Prophet was Bruce R. I hate to pin every weird thing on him.

I have heard it and I reacll reading it in Mormon Doctrine and thinking it was an odd idea. It seems like some sort of doctronal hairshirt. I sure appreciate you letting me know it isn't a focal point however. Did I say it was?

[Babs]

This thread gets weirder and weirder. I'm eagerly anticipating the incorporation of wormholes and abductions into the discussion.

[ERCougar]

Here's the problem with your infinity-to-one odds idea: ex post facto "odds" mean nothing. You could just as easily rule out your existence or likelihood by continually adding on your characteristics, until the likelihood of combining all of those into one person becomes infinitesimally small.

We're only looking at one universe. It's all we know. Why not say that it's impossible for it to be any other way?

[clackamascoug]

Here's the problem with your infinity-to-one odds idea: ex post facto "odds" mean nothing. You could just as easily rule out your existence or likelihood by continually adding on your characteristics, until the likelihood of combining all of those into one person becomes infinitesimally small.

We're only looking at one universe. It's all we know. Why not say that it's impossible for it to be any other way?

Hey very cool. You used my own logic to prove I don't exist. I was hoping to enjoy Christmas, but now I'll be spinning in my chair chanting mantra.

Way to go!!

[Rosebud]

This thread gets weirder and weirder. I'm eagerly anticipating the incorporation of wormholes and abductions into the discussion.

IMO, this thread is no weirder than 1000 other threads in this place. (And frankly, wormholes and abductions would liven things up a bit.) Besides, I don't think clacky is trying to defend people who turn quantum mechanics into crazy religious philosophies. He put in a disclaimer. But that's just it.... everybody has to fill posts with disclaimers in order to not get jumped on around here. Clacky's question is different, but it isn't pointless.

Einstein was a great physicist because he was also a great philosopher. He was creative. He wasn't afraid of asking questions and getting the answers wrong. For crying out loud, he was a weirdo who made his big breakthrough while wondering what he'd see if he were riding on a beam of light. Scientifically-minded people who don't dare think outside of the box become nothing more than followers in their fields. The craziness I see with reading too much into quantum mechanics and M-theory happens when people who like to philosophize can't think scientifically. IMO, the best scientists are philosophers and the best philosophers are scientists. The great physicists are some of my favorite people because of their abilities to do both. The most progress has been made when intelligent people have had the courage to synthesize the two. Fear of the unknown is lame.

Anyway... enough of that rant.

****

Here's the problem I see with the offhand disqualification of Clacky's conundrum:

Probability can only be used to predict the likelihood that something will happen in the future. Therefore, talking about the probability that I will be born a woman and will join CUF in my 30s is ridiculous at this point.

But that's just it, we can't say that there are definitely as many worlds as the sands in the sea metaphor implies that there are (although the hubble telescope may end up being pretty convincing), we can't say that this is definitely the most wicked of all God's created worlds, and we can't establish that God's only begotten son in the flesh suffered an infinite atonement here that covered the people born onto the other planets (or whatever it is that Brucey says). Unless we consider these three things to be established facts, it is valid to have a probability discussion as to whether there is much of a likelihood that all three would happen.

The way I resolve your conundrum, Clacky, is to realize that it only exists if 1) the facts the way they have been presented are true AND 2) the facts the way they have been presented aren't true. If the facts are true, then I can't worry about probabilities anymore. If the facts aren't true, then mulling over the impossibility of them happening probably isn't worth my time. Since the existence of the conundrum is only based on simultaneously believing that they both are and aren't true, I can resolve the conundrum by choosing whether or not to believe in them.

Perhaps, then, this is only a conundrum for those who are undecided about their own faith.

[clackamascoug]

As far as I'm concerned, ER checkmated me. I spent the night imploding trying to find an alternate dimension, and failed. So good job ER.

Thanks to all who at least tried to entertain this mind boggling concept. I'm relatively new here, and I appreciate the hospitality.

Anybody up for a conversation on alternative energy sources?

[Viking]

You are right. You are not as smart as 3/4 of board participants.

[All-American]

My little thoughts.

I don't necessarily see anything "wrong" with the argument, but it is well beyond the realm of what we need to worry about. For whatever reason, Mormonism has insisted, almost from the very beginning, that 1. there are other inhabited worlds, and 2. we need not be too concerned about them. This is all interesting conjecture, but it doesn't really lead me to want to be more kind to my neighbors, or be a better person. It heightens my awareness of the grandeur of God and his creations. That's probably all we really need to worry about.

[LA Ute]

As far as I'm concerned, ER checkmated me. I spent the night imploding trying to find an alternate dimension, and failed. So good job ER.

Thanks to all who at least tried to entertain this mind boggling concept. I'm relatively new here, and I appreciate the hospitality.

Anybody up for a conversation on alternative energy sources?

It was an interesting thread. Keep it up! Don't be worried by any weird responses you get here - it takes a while to get used to this board. Welcome.