According to the laws of QP, it is possible for a particle to exist on the "other" side of an insulator, or a "forbidden energy" region, or on the other side of the universe.
1) A particle, and 2) The odds are non-zero, but incredibly small.
For an entire planet to suddenly shift from one position to another, with no "in-between time," or for an entire planet to veer from its orbit with no measurable forces applied to change its velocity vector, you are multiplying the probability of EVERY PARTICLE in, of, and on that planet, AT THE SAME TIME, moving in the same direction, or tunnelling to the same remote point in space.
The likelihood of that, while still theoretically non-zero, is orders of magnitude SMALLER than the probability of animate life sprouting from inanimate matter, or even the probability of intelligent self-aware beings evolving from that first animate life. And--if numbers could even be put to it--I would not hesitate to guess that the probability of the universe bursting out from a quantum inconsistency in the otherwise uniform pre-universe field of space-time is orders of magnitude greater than the probability of the sun naturally stopping in the sky, or the earth suddently stopping in its rotation for an hour, and then falling right back to where it left off.
If you're willing to allow for the earth "naturally" shifting from its orbit under the nudging request of God, then you are also allowing for the distinct (and far more likely) probability that the universe as we know it flowered from nothing, that life sprung from dead primordial ooze, and that intelligent beings evolved from that first, living slime.
Do we have a deal?
BTW, what it would take for me to be convinced would be for God or one of His angels to come down, and present a miracle before me and thousands of others, with full media coverage, and with me (and others) being able to "check behind the curtain" for wires, sticks, electromagnets and the like. I would probably like to have a couple of reliable debunkers present with me, such as Penn & Teller, and the Amazing Randi.
But you know what, if one of these resurrected beings were subject to a carefully controlled & debunked "essence test," well, that would go quite a long way towards convincing me.
But, since as you and countless others have stated, God does not perform parlor tricks, nor does He need to prove himself (unproveable faith having been raised to the level of unshakeable fact), I won't be holding my breath.
Noiw, the prophets that wrote the book of Mormon...were those including Joseph Smithm and writing since he first transcribed the Golden Tablets? Or were they prior to Joseph Smith, and their writings recorded on the Tablets for Joseph Smith to transcribe?
And I hate to say this, because I have promised myself to try and show respect for all religions (with obviously varying degrees of success), but it seems just a little bit too convenient that the Tablets have disappeared. In fact, their disappearance is part of the doctrine, isn't it? So questioning the disappearance is by its very nature disrespectful of the religion? I'm hoping I'm wrong in that last assumption, but if I'm not, then I apologize for the disrespect (but how else do I raise the point?).
I feel like I've just tracked two construction boots full of dog poop onto everyone's pretty white carpet.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Nothing in your explaination of physics was new to me here. I am well aware of how infinitesimally the chance is of the earth moving of its own accord. I did, however, present the idea of particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God. Therefore, I am proposing removing the randomness from their motion under that particular circumstance.
You have a fascinating point about such a God being perfectly capable of creating all things in 6 days or less. I have actually thought of that.
But I have my own ideas about why a God who could do that instantaneously would choose instead a creation following a natural way, a way that would be consistant with the workings of the universe around us. In fact, while I believe that God may be able to move the earth in such a shocking way, I do not necessarily think that He would choose to do it. As my husband likes to chant, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
As I'm sure you've already figured out, if God liked to "throw His weight around" you would be more aware of it. But as for miracles on the scale of the Red Sea, there are tales of God's deliverance of His people in this day and age. I do not feel inclined, however, to try and use such miracles to prove anything. After all, skeptics can dismiss anything they choose to dismiss. It sounds to me that even if you were able to conduct your experiments on your terms, you would not be %100 convinced. If a time of "great signs and miracles" comes before Christ's return, so be it.
I still think that God can't make a rock so big that even He can't lift it. (I actually have doctrinal reasons behind all the things I say here. This is more than just "flippant thought".)
quote: Noiw, the prophets that wrote the book of Mormon...were those including Joseph Smithm and writing since he first transcribed the Golden Tablets? Or were they prior to Joseph Smith, and their writings recorded on the Tablets for Joseph Smith to transcribe?
The Book of Mormon is a record of civilizations on the American continent that took place from 600 BC to sometime after 400 AD, with another brief exerpt from a much earlier time the date of which is unknown. The man by the name of Mormon lived after 400 AD and compiled these writings from the large number of records kept by the people. While much history is included, it tends to focus on things Mormon felt inspired to include, things that would be most of value to our time. He died before completing it in the wars going on at the time, and his son, Moroni finished with a brief summary of the more ancient civilization and a few additional words he felt inspired to include. After doing so, he buried the record.
Moroni spoke to Joseph Smith in the early 1800's as a ressurrected being, an angel, describing the location of the plates. Joseph Smith translated them with the help of several different people as his scribes at different times. Most of them never saw the plates. A few did. After the translation, the plates were returned to Moroni.
While many were skeptical of Joseph's testimony of what was going on, many believed enough to try to relieve him of all that precious gold. There are many tales of the lengths to which he went to hide them and escape the persecutions and threats that he faced.
So while there is no remaining physical artifact for people to behold today, (though I imagine it would have been melted down and sold long before now had it been confiscated) we have the testimony of the witnesses and the words themselves. I appreciate being able to read and study this book of scripture myself, and I personally believe it to be ancient holy writ. It is not surprising at all to me that many do not.
There are many, many things I could tell you of this. There is much to tell! But I will keep it at this for now.
quote: So questioning the disappearance is by its very nature disrespectful of the religion?
I didn't think so. Sounds like a perfectly valid question to me.
quote: unproveable faith having been raised to the level of unshakeable fact
Can you explain this one to me? I am still pondering what you might have meant by it. Do you feel that my "unprovable faith" is being treated by me as "unshakable fact"? First, I like to believe that no facts are unshakable. We could all be in the Matrix for all we know. Secondly, I don't claim my faith to be anything but that: faith.
posted
I would have been more specific, but two things. First, Bev seems to be doing a pretty good job of discussing things with you. Second, and more rude of myself I fully admit, you don't sound like a person to waste my time on with the subject. Brick walls are fun to talk with for only so long.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I have to say that in the past few weeks, I have developed an enormous respect for both beverly's mind and her character (not that I had disrespect for either of them before, of course--I just didn't feel like I knew her well enough to have an opinion.) I'm incredibly glad that you're a part of this forum beverly.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Six days to make the Universe? I don't recall bringing that up.
quote:Nothing in your explaination of physics was new to me here. I am well aware of how infinitesimally the chance is of the earth moving of its own accord. I did, however, present the idea of particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God. Therefore, I am proposing removing the randomness from their motion under that particular circumstance.
quote:I guess I believe that even the tiniest of particles have a sort of will and intelligence. Just no free-will.
quote:I do believe that God follows natural law. I also believe that God can command the elements and they obey. I do not think that particles need to go contrary to natural laws in order to obey the commands of God.
"particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God"??? This makes no sense. Can you show any proof for this assumption? Do these particles have will, but not free will? What is will if not free? Can they make decisions? Do they have memory? Can they move on their own accord? This is a completely new branch of physics yo're proposing here. If it's mere conjecture on your part (or on the part of the Mormon Church) please let me know.
By "proposing to remove the randomness from their nature" you are, in point of fact, changing their nature. I thought we had agreed that God would be able to move a planet without violating the laws of physics. Proposing to change the nature of matter is, I'm afraid, a violation of the mutually agreed upon tenets.
What are we really discussing? If the earth moved on its own, out of orbit, then it would be proof of God's existence, or it wouldn't be proof of God's existence? I've lost track.
I think we're actually approaching the topic of this thread again: Science vs. Faith. Maybe we'll even get back to Evolution and Abiogenesis like we're supposed to. (I actually touched upon that one a few posts back! Points for me!)
You are manipulating the rules of science, logic, and evidence to prop up what I view as a very shaky case.
The writings of Mormon--have they been correlated with the "known" history of the time?
The golden plates--now you're focusing on their material value, how they were "threatened" because they had value as gold. I know I'm a skeptic (has anyone else here figured it out, I wonder?), but it sounds like the people who pursued Joseph Smith for his gold plates couldn't care less what was on them--only that they were gold. You won't find any "proof" of their value in that tale, I'm afraid. The "would have been melted down anyway" excuse is meaningless as proof. The fact is this: only JS and his select few ever actually "saw" the plates, and now they're gone (plates and men). If the plates never existed, the story would be the same, except for the claims of a few men. I understand that these guys are revered, but it's obviously possible that they just made the whole thing up.
WMD, anyone?
Comparing probabilities: Earth moving on its own .vs. Joeseph Smith and the Prophets making it up?
And, finally: "unproveable faith having been raised to the level of unshakeable fact"
Nothing I can say--nothing anyone can say--can stay you from your determined course. This is not just common to you. It is a response I have found to be typical with most deeply religious people. It is a faith so unshakeable that it is impossible to convince a person otherwise. The belief (unproveable, because "faith" is all that is required) has become tantamount to fact.
I know that within religious circles this is devoutly hoped for--this level of faith.
Unfortunately, outside of those circles, it's very nervous-making.
The physical world (the one we all live in) works by physical laws. Engineers and scientists spend their lives trying to figure out those laws to improve our knowledge of the world, and also our ability to manipulate it (supposedly--but not always--for the betterment of mankind).
I guess my goal is to have people look at the world (universe) from a physics POV, not from a mystical POV. Don't get me wrong--there are times when the mystical POV has value, and there are certainly times when the moral aspect of religion has helped greatly. But when faith and mysticism start addressing issues that should be purely the baliwick of the physical sciences, there are problems. Additionally, when a person's faith blinds or otherwise incapacitates them from understanding or using rational or logical thought, then the problem is compounded.
On P-Web, one of the newer members has as a part of his sig that "A liberal is someone whose mind is so open that their brains fall out." There is a similar risk to those who put their primary trust in "faith" as a way of understanding the physical world. Bev, as much as I enjoy our discussion/debate, you appear to have confused faith with proof.
posted
You're right, you didn't mention a 6 day creation. My mistake. But I do think that a God that can instantaneously move the earth could probably create all that is around us in 6 days. But we do have a great deal of evidence that it didn't happen in 6 days. God would have had to set it up to "look" as though it took millions or billions of years. And I'm not confident that such behavior is in line with what I know of the God I believe in. He is not a "deceiver".
quote: "particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God"??? This makes no sense. Can you show any proof for this assumption? Do these particles have will, but not free will? What is will if not free? Can they make decisions? Do they have memory? Can they move on their own accord? This is a completely new branch of physics yo're proposing here. If it's mere conjecture on your part (or on the part of the Mormon Church) please let me know.
Proof, no. It is my own speculation based on statements in scripture. Can they make decisions? Probably not. Only respond to command. Memory, I don't know. Move of their own accord, not in any pattern but random, so no. It is mostly a conjecture on my part, but it does have some basis in LDS scripture. If you like, I can get more specific. Just ask.
quote: By "proposing to remove the randomness from their nature" you are, in point of fact, changing their nature. I thought we had agreed that God would be able to move a planet without violating the laws of physics. Proposing to change the nature of matter is, I'm afraid, a violation of the mutually agreed upon tenets.
Let's just say I put forth a theory of my own. I don't have scientific evidence of it, but I believe that I have scriptural evidence and that carries weight with me.
quote: What are we really discussing? If the earth moved on its own, out of orbit, then it would be proof of God's existence, or it wouldn't be proof of God's existence? I've lost track.
Actually, for me proof has never been an issue. If the earth suddenly jumped out of it's orbit for no reason science could find, that doesn't mean there might not be a perfectly logical (and non-God-originating) reason for it. We are discussing why God's existance is more or less likely than His non-existance.
quote: You are manipulating the rules of science, logic, and evidence to prop up what I view as a very shaky case.
I am? I am treating scripture as valid evidence, taking it into account, and putting forth theory based on that. Discounting all scripture as delusion is less scientific than that. How often does science just ignore anomolies just because it doesn't fit in with what specific humans wish to believe about the universe? Just saying that all scripture is a result of delusion, discounting the testimony of others, especially multiple concurring testimonies, is not very scientific. To be scientific, you have to come up with valid reasons for discounting those testimonies, and you can't do that until you have studied them. So while it is very "convenient" to discount all scripture in order to argue for a "less-likely-to-include-God-universe", I will not do so myself.
quote: The writings of Mormon--have they been correlated with the "known" history of the time?
The beginning correlates to recorded history in Jerusalem, since the people of the history originated there. The things that happened on the American continent are a bit more difficult because of the dirth of other records and exact dates.
quote:You won't find any "proof" of their value in that tale, I'm afraid. The "would have been melted down anyway" excuse is meaningless as proof. The fact is this: only JS and his select few ever actually "saw" the plates, and now they're gone (plates and men). If the plates never existed, the story would be the same, except for the claims of a few men. I understand that these guys are revered, but it's obviously possible that they just made the whole thing up.
I won't find any "proof" of their value in that tale? Please explain because I don't follow. Of course the men are gone now. People die. Obviously possible that they made it up, of course. We all have thought of that, it isn't difficult. But they proclaimed their testimony to the grave dispite disassociation with the church. Can you explain that behavior?
quote: Comparing probabilities: Earth moving on its own .vs. Joeseph Smith and the Prophets making it up?
We don't have any scientific record of the earth moving in strange ways (though the scriptures do contain multiple accounts) and if you are going to propose they made it all up, you probably need to know more about what exactly they "made up" first. Being skeptical is fine, but you don't have enough evidence yet to proclaim one more likely than the other.
quote: Nothing I can say--nothing anyone can say--can stay you from your determined course.
You don't know that. Obviously people lose their faith every day. And people are converted to faith every day. How does that happen? People say things, people seek, people search. People decide what they believe based on that. But the important thing is, it shouldn't be because someone "talked them into it", it needs to be their own decision, something that happens inside them.
Things that you say effect me just as much as things I say effect you. You could just as well turn around your statement and say that nothing I could possibly say could change your way of thinking. But I am not entirely sure that is the case either way.
quote: Unfortunately, outside of those circles, it's very nervous-making.
I must admit being somewhat amused at how threatening believers are to non-believers. Granted, there are some very small-minded believers out there as there are amongst any category of thinkers. But still.... I wish I understood it better.
quote: But when faith and mysticism start addressing issues that should be purely the baliwick of the physical sciences, there are problems.
Do tell. More specifically, tell me how LDS believers might be problematic.
quote: you appear to have confused faith with proof.
No, from what I have seen, you are the only one in this discussion who has confused faith with proof. I have never claimed my faith to be fact, and yet you claim to know "for a fact" things that you cannot know. Particles with no will. Fact or your faith? Prophets making it up. Fact or your faith? This is the crux of the issue. I want everyone to be more aware of the incredibly crucial role faith plays in their own perceptions and paradigms. Faith is not unique to religion.
BTW, as I read my previous response, I realized that I have become the pig on the Internet that we've all been warned not to wrestle with.
Bev, I'm afraid that so have you.
Occasional: I think that, at times, we can all be each other's "Brick Walls."
quote:No, from what I have seen, you are the only one in this discussion who has confused faith with proof. I have never claimed my faith to be fact, and yet you claim to know "for a fact" things that you cannot know. Particles with no will. Fact or your faith? Prophets making it up. Fact or your faith? This is the crux of the issue. I want everyone to be more aware of the incredibly crucial role faith plays in their own perceptions and paradigms. Faith is not unique to religion.
quote:Let's just say I put forth a theory of my own [particles having intelligence and will]. I don't have scientific evidence of it, but I believe that I have scriptural evidence and that carries weight with me.
First, a couple of points: I never claimed "The Prophets made it up" was a fact. I merely presented it as a possibility to consider. You, however, toss around your belief that particles have will (not "free will", but some-kind-of-will). Am I to entertain a belief in every half-thought-out, completely unsupported theory as if it were as valid as F=m*a? You provide me with little evidence (hmm...actually: NO evidence) for your theory, and start talking about it as if it had some validity. Your response of "Scriptural Evidence" being good enough for you is certainly not good enough for me. This would fall under the heading of "a mind so open that one's brains fall out."
You also discuss Moroni as if he were fact, when (in fact) he is recounted by others (unverifiable hearsay), and has left no other evidence of his existence. He may have existed, just as Christ may have existed. It should be easier to present reasonable evidence for Moroni's existence (I don't believe that he has the extensive miracle-making requirement that falls on those trying to verify the existence of Christ as the Son-of-God), but it would seem that this evidence is not available.
This has been discussed dozens of times before. I thought we all knew: There are different types of "faith"
There is Religious Faith. Religious faith is based on scripture, and on doctrine. It provides no evidence except for the ancient accounts of typically biased witnesses (in a court of law, this would be considered "hearsay"), and offers very little corroboration from remote, though contemporary sources (Roman records of Christ's miracles; archeological support of Moroni's claims on the American Indians, etc.). It prides itself on its inherent "unproveability," though it usually claims to be "the truth."
"Scriptural Evidence"? It's third party evidence, and unverifiable. Hearsay. Or, to put it another way, "were you there?"
Opposed to "Religious Faith" is Pragmatic Faith (I just made that phrase up...I think. There must a better phrase for it.) This "faith" is supported by a large backlog of scientific evidence and proof.
I have experienced the sun rising, every day, for the last 43 years. I have "faith" that it will rise tomorrow.
I have performed the derivations of Newton's laws of motion back in High School and College. I have experience in using them, enough to know that objects in motion actually do follow Newton's laws (at least in a non-relatavistic observational framework). I have "faith" that Newton's laws of motion will continue to function as I expect them to do, for non-relativistic applications.
Pragmatic faith says: "We can prove it. We have proved it. Do you want us to prove it again?"
posted
I understand that you feel this discussion has become unproductive. Several of the things I have said you have chosen not to respond to. Well, to go back to the begining, here is what kicked the whole thing off:
quote: So, is this the part that non-believers find hard to swallow? Or is it something else about God that seems unlikely?
We've had this discussion before. Tell me what God is, and I'll tell you what about Him seems so unlikely.
I'm not sure we have really stayed on topic. I told you what I believe God is. Did you tell me what about Him you find so unlikely?
To reply to your previous post:
I never expected my "particles with a will" theory to be taken as fact by you or even by others of the LDS faith. I was presenting an idea. I certainly believe it is possible, but I myself don't necessarily have "faith" in it.
I am not convinced that there are two different kinds of "faith". It doesn't take very much faith at all to believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning or that you can predict the motion of celestial bodies according to Newton's equations. These are repeatable phenomenon that happen with regularity and perfection. That they will happen repeatably does indeed appear to be fact.
But you do rely on faith everyday to dictate what you believe is the best way to go about being successful in your career, how to have a successful marriage, the best way to raise a child, or how to be happy and at peace with yourself. Faith is believing in something enough that you act on it, regardless of how much "proof" you have. That is all it is.
You have decided that you believe that there is no God and live your life quite confidently believing that to be true. That takes a certain amount of faith. Not as much as it takes to believe in God, being the path of least resistance, but it requires it nevertheless.
These more nebulous examples of faith that believers and non-believers alike experience are the result of reptition for reinforcement also. But they are more difficult to pin down, more personal, more based on our own experience, more prone to different views and perspectives. And yet these are about things that are indeed real. Human beings cannot function in society without faith.
Perhaps you have trouble believing in the possibility of the things I believe in because they seem "far out", unlike anything you have seen or experienced. But from my perspective, it doesn't seem any less likely than the universe arising spontaneously without any help at all. (Even if it were only one out of out of the first 257,308 universes) Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You have decided that you believe that there is no God and live your life quite confidently believing that to be true. That takes a certain amount of faith. Not as much as it takes to believe in God, being the path of least resistance, but it requires it nevertheless.
You make it sound so dramatic. I'm not going to attack the analogy directly, becuase it is defendable (many weird statements are), but it is poor, imo.
To my mind, the same amount of faith one uses in not believing in God is the same amount of faith ones uses in not believing that a big duck living in space wants to kill everybody on earth.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: To my mind, the same amount of faith one uses in not believing in God is the same amount of faith ones uses in not believing that a big duck living in space wants to kill everybody on earth.
Hmmmm, I disagree. The way I see it, there is more evidence for God than a big duck. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmmmm, I disagree. The way I see it, there is more evidence for God than a big duck.
There are some texts that claim God exists, yes. At the same time as there are texts that claim Three Thousand Spirits rule the world, or that Raa is the sun lord, or that in the year one thousand aliens came and trashed the planet.
Unfortuantly, a few texts do not a compelling arguement make.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not convinced that there are two different kinds of "faith". It doesn't take very much faith at all to believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning or that you can predict the motion of celestial bodies according to Newton's equations. These are repeatable phenomenon that happen with regularity and perfection. That they will happen repeatably does indeed appear to be fact.
(I added the bold font---not the word "not", that's yours)
And please compare that minimal level of faith to the substantially larger amount of faith required to "believe" in God as "fact".
Sometimes, you can see the sometimes, you can see the difference you can smell the difference sometimes
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my mind, the same amount of faith one uses in not believing in God is the same amount of faith ones uses in not believing that a big duck living in space wants to kill everybody on earth.
You'll regret that comment when The Drake of Heaven descends from the skies in His flaming glory and lets forth the Quack of Doom, infidel!
Phanto, if all I had was the Bible, I might be more tempted to agree with you. But for me, it is far more than that. And they are not things I personally feel I can discount.
I am not trying to compare the apparent evidence of the rising of the sun to the apparent evidence of God, because, as I said, that really doesn't take much faith at all. I am trying to compare it to the other things that I mentioned, the things that we as humans believe without repeated scientific experiment.
And I also add to that that I believe God will reveal Himself to those who have made an effort to know Him and grow close to Him. While I believe that God requires faith and trust from us, I also believe that He rewards that trust and faith, gradually replacing faith with knowledge. I believe that there are those whose knowledge of God is every bit as sure as their knowledge of the rising of the sun.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It prides itself on its inherent "unproveability," though it usually claims to be "the truth."
Ssywak, this is something I have not seen or heard of except from atheists, agnostics, and very rarely a pro-faith mystic. Most of us are not mystics, and do not pride ourselves on the unproveability (supposed or otherwise) of our beliefs.
That said, very few historical events are proveable in a scientific sense, as history is not repeatable. Try duplicating the Civil War sometime.
quote:"Scriptural Evidence"? It's third party evidence, and unverifiable. Hearsay. Or, to put it another way, "were you there?"
You say (earlier) that hearsay is not admissible evidence in court. You're right, and there's good reason for it. But the fact is that in our everyday lives we trust hearsay all the time--depending, of course, on how reliable we think the source is. If I tell you that Eddie says OSC has written another despicably conservative essay and it'll be on the site in a couple of days, that's hearsay (and just where did Eddie get it from, anyway?). But Eddie is usually a trustworthy guy, and we know that's the sort of thing Scott does, so in practice I doubt you would tell me, "That's hearsay! I don't believe it!"
Moreover (and I should get someone to confirm--Dag, you out there?), I believe there are certain kinds of evidence that, even though they are the same kind of phenomenon as hearsay, are admissible in court because bringing in the third party is impossible but the source is credible. The "dying declaration" is one such, I believe, on the grounds that a dying person can expect to gain nothing by lying.
quote:Opposed to "Religious Faith" is Pragmatic Faith (I just made that phrase up...I think. There must a better phrase for it.) This "faith" is supported by a large backlog of scientific evidence and proof.
I have experienced the sun rising, every day, for the last 43 years. I have "faith" that it will rise tomorrow.
I could get into Kant and Hume here, but I assume you have probably read them, at least in some digested form. I will refrain.
quote:I have performed the derivations of Newton's laws of motion back in High School and College. I have experience in using them, enough to know that objects in motion actually do follow Newton's laws (at least in a non-relatavistic observational framework). I have "faith" that Newton's laws of motion will continue to function as I expect them to do, for non-relativistic applications.
Have you performed the same derivations of relativity? Electromagnetic phenomena? Chemical reactions of phosphorus? Have you gone out and dissected owls, chimps, and ambystomatid salamanders to check their anatomy against the books? Taken collections of rabbit species to verify their geographical distribution?
Some of us have verified some of the data we read in our scientific texts. None of us have verified all of it, and some of us have verified none of it. Yet we feel quite secure in believing it (despite past experience assuring us that a fraction will prove to be wrong, eventually--Mercury does not always keep one face to the sun as I read when a small child). Such data is, in effect, hearsay--scientist X says phenomena Y behaves in manner Z--and there is no way that one person can personally check it all.
Should we call belief in science texts "religious faith"?
posted
That's right, Bokonon-- they have. But not you.
I'm not sure you're seeing the point here--unless you are doing it yourself, you're still relying on information given to you by someone else.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I can sense the idea of "Evolution" off in the distance, getting ready to come back to the thread where we all know it belongs!
Mabus,
Are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue, or are you unaware of the illogic of your claims?
quote:
quote:It prides itself on its inherent "unproveability," though it usually claims to be "the truth."
Ssywak, this is something I have not seen or heard of except from atheists, agnostics, and very rarely a pro-faith mystic. Most of us are not mystics, and do not pride ourselves on the unproveability (supposed or otherwise) of our beliefs.
That said, very few historical events are proveable in a scientific sense, as history is not repeatable. Try duplicating the Civil War sometime.
I can go to Gettysburgh and, in the dark of night, dig up plenty of evidence of the Civil War. Hundreds, if not thousands, have unearthed archeological evidence of the war; ther are photographs, ther are multiple, cross-substantiated eye-witness accounts, histories, etc.
I know you'll complain about the veracity of these "histories." We'll get back to that later.
Regarding the unproveability vs. truth issue. We must travel in very different circles. I am always coming accross "The Bible is the Truth"-type references: on television, on the Internet, and in personal (f2f) discussions. Even Bev refers to her stuff as if she believes it to be true (Moroni wrote this. Jesus said that. Maybe I'm being too picky. But maybe what she means is "Jesus is purported to have said that"?)
But, if you want, I'll acquiesce: Unless its substantiated by extensive and reliable eyewitnesses, archeological evidence, references from other historical accounts, etc., then I'll accept it all as being not true.
And regarding the "pride" aspect...every theological discussion I've had here eventually devolves into some derivative of "but you can't prove it--you're not supposed to prove it--it's about faith. God wants us to have faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't have or need faith."
(And now, I admit that I need to put in more info...but I've got to log out!)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even Bev refers to her stuff as if she believes it to be true (Moroni wrote this. Jesus said that. Maybe I'm being too picky. But maybe what she means is "Jesus is purported to have said that"?)
Might I point out that you asked the question as though it were a fact and I answered in kind. I try to condition all my statements as "I believe" or "if we assume this to be true" and every so often a statement gets by me without it. Maybe it just gets old after awhile. I do think about Moroni as being a real person who lived and not a fictional character. It is not surprising I would talk of him that way.
quote: But, if you want, I'll acquiesce: Unless its substantiated by extensive and reliable eyewitnesses, archeological evidence, references from other historical accounts, etc., then I'll accept it all as being not true.
I just want to state that my beliefs are not without such evidence. Though perhaps not enough to be considered "proof" by you.
quote: "but you can't prove it--you're not supposed to prove it--it's about faith. God wants us to have faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't have or need faith."
Devolves? Um, it started out that way. I was more asking *you* to defend *your* position that God is unlikely to exist.
posted
The point, Mabus, is that I believe you could verify any scientific principle if you wanted to. It may take some study and some money, but you could do it. And, more likely than not, your findings will agree with those previously reported. On the other hand, I believe I could devote my life to verifying the findings in any holy book but never find anything and never convince myself of anything.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly: Could you give me a summary of the points that you made? Also, perhaps, pointers to the posts where I can find that info?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, some key points of the discussion actually took place in email between ssywak and I. Would you like me to include that? Also, is there any particular kind info that you wish included?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
What more do you want than that there is no reliable proof that He does exist?
We have a few books. Most of them contradict each other.
We have your statements:
quote:What I believe God is: I believe that He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal just as we do (3). I believe that He is eternal (1) in the sense that he lives "outside" time, at least, outside "our" time. (2)
quote:For even God follows the natural laws of the universe. He did not create them. Gods and the universe have always existed (1). (Not the universe in the scientific sense of what was started at "The Big Bang", but the universe of existance beyond that.) (2)
Only those who were valiant in their faith and therefore their obedience to God's laws will have proven themselves worthy--trustworthy, for receiving the responsibility, the power, the glory, of becoming Gods themselves, Creators in their own right. (5) Creating worlds, filling them with their children, allowing them to learn and grow and perhaps reach their full potential someday also.
God *is* loving. He is perfectly just and merciful (4).
quote:If there is a God (as I believe) and He is intelligent and aware of us, He could easily prove His existence, right? So if He exists and is intelligent and aware, then He must choose not to. I accept fully that I cannot prove any of my beliefs to be true. And yet I believe them. Enough to live by what I believe. And I feel that great things have come to me because of that. I guess that is faith."
(from your e-mails to me)
God has always existed (1). God exists "outside of time" (2). God is a human being who was once mortal (3).
On its face: FALSE. Premise Rejected. God cannot both be a "human being" and have existed before human beings existed. Human beings are a recognized species, with specific traits. One of those traits is that we live "within the boundaries of time." Another trait is that we did not coexist with, let's say, the dinosaurs (please, oh, please--bring up Paluxy!). So, regardless of when the first proto-humans walked erect on this earth, there was nothing human at all 14 billion years ago. Therfore God = Human = Eternal (both directions) = FALSE!
Also, to "have been" mortal, and then to not be mortal is never to have been mortal at all. It's like a kid dancing on the edge of a precipice, but with a hidden safety line. Big Deal.
God is "perfectly just and merciful" (4)
You're going to have to redefine "perfectly" here. Maybe He is perfectly just & merciful in the afterlife (assuming...), but certainly not here on earth. I, personally, would assume that "perfectly" means "perfectly" everywhere, and everywhen. Otherwise, it's somewhat less than perfect, isn't it?
The whole "Becoming Gods themselves" routine (5)
Obviously, this can never be proven on earth. I'm not going to attempt to dis-prove it, because it would be fruitless. I'll chalk it up to another one of your conjectures (yes, I know that it is "supported by LDS Church Doctrine," and therefore you believe it), but still somewhere along the line of "subatomic particles have intelligence and will." If I spent one minute of my life trying to dis-prive every cocamamie conjecture that came along ("Invisible Pink Unicorns" immediately spring to mind), I'd never get anything done. But, by all means--go ahead and believe what you want.
I note your " I accept fully that I cannot prove any of my beliefs to be true." And on that note, I'll stop.
Oh, and THANKS, BtL. I definitely appreciate the help here.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: On its face: FALSE. Premise Rejected. God cannot both be a "human being" and have existed before human beings existed. Human beings are a recognized species, with specific traits. One of those traits is that we live "within the boundaries of time." Another trait is that we did not coexist with, let's say, the dinosaurs (please, oh, please--bring up Paluxy!). So, regardless of when the first proto-humans walked erect on this earth, there was nothing human at all 14 billion years ago. Therfore God = Human = Eternal (both directions) = FALSE!
False? As in it is a fact that it is false? Or is this another instance of your belief being put forth as fact? In order to say that God cannot be a human being before humans lived on this earth, you have to be able to prove that humans are unique to planet earth. How exactly do you propose to do that?
As for the "outside of time" bit, I said "outside our time". It is possible for someone to be existing in a different time frame of reference. Einstein said so.
When did I say we coexisted with dinosaurs? When I said God was once a man, I wasn't talking about on this planet. I am, however, putting forth the idea of human life on numberless worlds with no begining and no end.
I am baffled at how you have so completely misunderstood what I said. *shakes head* How can we have a conversation if you are not interested in understanding what I have already said?
quote:You're going to have to redefine "perfectly" here. Maybe He is perfectly just & merciful in the afterlife (assuming...), but certainly not here on earth. I, personally, would assume that "perfectly" means "perfectly" everywhere, and everywhen. Otherwise, it's somewhat less than perfect, isn't it?
Uhhhhhh, you lost me here. Are you saying that you don't see evidence of perfect mercy right now? Did I not already say that God views our free will as sacred and not to be tampered with?
I don't see any particular need to respond to your last comments.
quote: Phanto, if all I had was the Bible, I might be more tempted to agree with you. But for me, it is far more than that. And they are not things I personally feel I can discount.
Bev:
I'd like in as much detail as you like, in point by point form, those things. Let me know .
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I said God was once a man, I wasn't talking about on this planet.
(italics mine to make you look a little more more foolish)
Trick 1: Redefine "human beings" to include alien life forms.
BTW, I never said that you said humans "on earth" coexisted with dinosaurs. I put it up as a straw man, and quickly knocked it down.
Trick 2: Redefine "outside of our time" to somehow invoke Einstein's theory of relativity.
Einstein spoke of time appearing to stretch out differently for different people, depending on their refrerence frame. He never spoke of "infinite length" timelines being totally disconnected from each other. He may have spoken of discrete spans of time being unconnected, such as: a 5 year span in 63e6 BCE is not the same 5 years from 1995-2000. Wait a tick! If you get to the right place in the universe, IT IS! Nevermind. I'm right again (sorry), and you're just desperately making things up as you go.
quote:When I said God was once a man, I wasn't talking about on this planet. I am, however, putting forth the idea of human life on numberless worlds with no begining and no end
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have known.
NOT.
Please feel free to put forth as many ideas as you want. It's like throwing spaghetti against a wall until a strand sticks, eh?
(Not the best analogy I could come up with, but it's better than the one about underwear)
quote:I am baffled at how you have so completely misunderstood what I said. *shakes head* How can we have a conversation if you are not interested in understanding what I have already said?
Equally sad how you fail to understand what you say. More so how you change what you say in some desperate need to...jeez, I don't really know what it is you're shooting for here, Bev.
quote:Are you saying that you don't see evidence of perfect mercy right now?
Um....no. Not in the least. Read Hume. Something about "nasty, brutish and short" (like my first boyfriend).
posted
If you look at what I said and read very carefully, you will understand what I have been trying to say. I am not makin' stuff up on the fly, I am explaining what you didn't understand in the first place. I don't understand why you feel the need to be rude about it.
I am willing to talk to you as long as you are trying to listen to what I am actually saying and understand it. I don't think that is happening anymore.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Phanto: A list of points I have made along this discussion, including things from the email to ssywak. Be warned, it is very long:
I believe in Evolution. I also believe in the Creation. I believe that God probably used evolution to make what we see today. It has never been an issue for me.
I am not trying to prove the existance of God. I don't think God wants to be proven, personally. I can see where someone can imagine a universe with no God. I just don't understand the statement that a universe with no God makes more sense than a universe with a God.
I believe in a perfect God. I believe that this perfect God values free will a great deal. I believe this God gives the universe its freedom to be chaotic and do what it wishes--except where His will requires otherwise.
Yes, I do believe in a "nudging" God rather than a "controlling" God. And yet, I believe because He is perfect, He is never out of control. If anything disobeys Him, it is to its own detriment, not God's.
To explain further, I believe that the elements *always* obey God. Without fail. Only we, his children, can choose to go against God's will. (Edit to add that I believe the animals have a certain amount of free will, but they are not given the laws from God that we have and therefore are not responsible for following what they have not been given.)
...we must recognize that we cannot perceive all of reality through science. We can only observe and continually revise our theories.
...disproving God isn't going to happen either. The universe will always stretch beyond the bounds of what we can perceive as mortals.
Miracles are not for the purpose of proving God. They only serve to strengthen the faith of those who already have put forth faith of their own. If God wanted to be proven, He would have done so. It's not like it's difficult. Or, of course, you can believe He doesn't exist.
Miracles are not for the purpose of proving God. They only serve to strengthen the faith of those who already have put forth faith of their own. If God wanted to be proven, He would have done so. It's not like it's difficult. Or, of course, you can believe He doesn't exist.
Miracles to me are any time that God intervenes in the natural flow of chaos in response to His purposes or the faith of another when it is in alignment with His purposes. It would be pretty much impossible to prove most of these. But I do believe there are times when God chooses to "make bare His arm" as the scripture says. But He has to have pretty good reason for it, because it has the potential to destroy the opportunity of others to develop faith. But I think God is pretty good at figuring out how not to work against His own purposes.
I believe that God uses natural laws to perform His "miracles". I do believe, though that He can do things that we can't. I believe that He can command particles to move and they obey Him. I guess I believe that even the tiniest of particles have a sort of will and intelligence. Just no free-will.
Quantum theory tells us that it is possible for my computer screen to wink out of existance and appear in Antarctica. Or the other side of the galaxy. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
Now imagine that these particles each have a tiny bit of will. Not free will, but enough will to obey God.
Seems to leave some room for the tweaking of a Divine Being.
(The following is from the email)
I believe that He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal just as we do (Edit for ssywak: But not on this earth.) I believe that He is eternal in the sense that he lives "outside" time, at least, outside "our" time.
We lived before we were born as His spirit children. While we were His literal offspring, there is a spark within us that has always existed. Without it, we would have no free will. We progressed as far as we could in those circumstances. He had a plan for us in which we might be able to become like Him. Firstly, He had a physical body, something we as spirits did not have. Having a body allowed Him to experience and interact with the universe in a way we were not yet capable of. He also had, through His experiences as a mortal and His obedience to His Father, knowledge and wisdom that we could never have without passing through it and experiencing it for ourselves.
So you see, we believe that "God" is a concept that does not just cover one being. We only deal with the one, and that is all that matters for us. But we believe that we may become as He is now and that God's purpose is for as many as are willing to reach this state, exaltation to Godhood. God is a multitude, a family, eternal both in time and in number. (Edit for ssywak: But not all on this planet) Constantly growing. Not some conglomerate consciousness, but a host of individual minds in unity of purpose, wisdom, and love.
We are here to learn. We are here to experience opposition. Good and bad, hot and cold, pain and pleasure, light and darkness. Unfortunately, experiencing these things fully, we become "tainted" by our own wrong choices. Since we are left to our own free will, and our bodies bring us an animal side, we often act selfishly and hurt others. We are prideful, trusting in our own knowledge, reluctant to put our trust in a God who we cannot see, feel, hear. We can only experience the echos of His reality, His truth imprinted in the laws of the universe around us. We each have a piece of the divine within us, a sense of right and wrong. But we can ignore it also. We can lie to ourselves. And the more we do it, the easier it is to keep doing it. God wants to know what we will do when we are away from Him, alone, unknowing, having forgotten the glorious beings we once were. Will we listen to the quiet influence of that light within? Or will we rebell against it?
Of course, the atonement of Christ is a crucial and central part of this plan also. As I said, we will become tainted by our "sins" here, our hurting of others, our selfishness, and our rebellion against the light within us. God is perfect and cannot abide such behavior in ones who would be given all the power He has. And it is more than behavior. When we sin, we change, we are not as we were before. It is only through faith in Christ's atonement that this process can be reversed. If you want to know more of my thoughts specifically on the atonement of Christ and it's necessity, I will explain then.
Some it this life will choose to have faith in God, even though they have no memory of having existed under His care. Something inside them responds to Him, beyond just "believing what their mommies tell them". Others find they cannot put forth that faith into the darkness, trusting something so subtle. God is pleased with those who are able to have faith in Him without proof, but He is patient with those who do not. He can wait. He has all of eternity. He knows that when we die we will have some added understanding that at the very least, there is more to existance than what we could perceive during our mortal lives.
After death, our memory of our former existance will not return to us right away. But we will be aware of how our actions effected others, of the pain that we caused and the ways that we rebelled against goodness. It will be unbearable for us. Unless---we have faith in Christ's atonement and have done the things required of us to be blessed by it. It is our choice.
There will be plenty of "missionary work" going on in the afterlife. Plenty of people that knew nothing of Christ during this life or who did not have faith in Him despite knowing. They will be given a chance to accept Him then. They will be given every chance they need. Some will accept quickly, eagerly. Some will resist. Some will resist for thousands of years. Some will reject beyond all hope of reclaim. Each will be rewarded according to how much faith he or she put forth in trusting the goodness of God, not by some arbitrary act of God, but as a natural consequence of how the universe works. For even God follows the natural laws of the universe. He did not create them. Gods and the universe have always existed. (Not the universe in the scientific sense of what was started at "The Big Bang", but the universe of existance beyond that.)
Only those who were valiant in their faith and therefore their obedience to God's laws will have proven themselves worthy--trustworthy, for receiving the responsibility, the power, the glory, of becoming Gods themselves, Creators in their own right. Creating worlds, filling them with their children, allowing them to learn and grow and perhaps reach their full potential someday also.
God *is* loving. He is perfectly just and merciful. We will not doubt that when the time comes that we behold Him fully. No one will need to tell us, we will see for ourselves.
I believe these things were revealed to modern-day prophets in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ, to help the educated and inquisitive minds of this day accept God and believe. These are things that have been known on the earth before now, but the information was lost when the people fell away into apostacy. These ideas come from God, and when men try to understand them through their own earthly logic, these things become easily twisted into half-truths and confusion. These things are taught as doctrine in the LDS church. We also believe there is still much that God will yet reveal to us if we will exercise our faith in Him and prepare ourselves to accept it. The windows of heaven are always open to those who seek to know God, and He still has so much to share with us.
(end of email exerpt)
I believe that God is the perfect judge, that He does not make mistakes and that He is able to balance the unbalanced. I believe that if there is anything to be known, He knows it. I believe that He adheres to the underlying laws of reality by choice and does so without wavering. He can be trusted implicitly to follow through on the things He has said He will do.
(quote from ssywak) Third: A "nudging" God? Interesting concept. How does he "nudge"? How do we separate His "nudges" from random chance (if a cat runs across my path, and I go left instead of right, and therefore don't take the Staten Island ferry the day it smaches into the pier, is that a "nudge"? Why didn't God nudge the eleven people who died that day? Please tell their families that God didn't need to nudge them, or that they were too blind to see the nudge.) (end quote)
We cannot discern the difference. It is not God's intention that we discern. But it does allow Him to ensure that His purposes are fulfilled. Let us treat this like the laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov. They have a heirarchy and structure, the first overriding the second and the second overriding the third.
First: He allows us our free will. He will not under any circumstances remove that or violate it. We are always free to choose.
Second: He responds to faith. The greater the faith, the greater the response. Faith is not about "getting what you want" like a spoiled child demanding candy, it is about trusting God and seeking to align yourself with His purposes. He will intervene (as long as His first purpose is still being served) when there is faith and the amount of intervention tends to (and is perhaps always) proportional to the faith involved.
For instance: I believe that God intervened to help save me from my awful situation described in my recent landmark because of the faith and faithfulness of those who loved me (particularly my parents) rather than on my own merits. I could have denied that intervention and help, but I believe an extra effort was made on their behalf rather than mine. God may have had His own purposes in mind also, but I do believe that their faith had an effect on how things happened.
I cannot prove this to you, but I tell you that I believe it with my whole soul. To me it was a miracle. To anyone else, it is only coincidence.
I find it interesting to note that you bring death into it. As though death is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If you believe in no afterlife, I can understand. But for those of us who do, me continuing on that terribly destructive path would have been far worse than death. Perhaps even to a non-believer's perspective it would have been worse than death.
We could perhaps put a third purpose of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39) The first two purposes would have priority and thus govern how this third purpose is brought about.
(end of quote exerpts)
The rest was more response to ssywak's questions which may or may not be specific questions that you are interested in.
quote:Some of us look at our existance as pretty strong proof. See my above comment. As my husband said, it is not our only evidence, otherwise we would have let go of our faith a long time ago.
I was hoping for an expounding on what this evidence is.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First post back from the honeymoon, and I decided to do it in this thread. I must still be delirious.
quote:The point, Mabus, is that I believe you could verify any scientific principle if you wanted to. It may take some study and some money, but you could do it. And, more likely than not, your findings will agree with those previously reported. On the other hand, I believe I could devote my life to verifying the findings in any holy book but never find anything and never convince myself of anything.
This is why I've never put much stock in science v. religion arguments. If the two are coming into conflict, then it means one or both are acting outside their appropriate bounds.
Science does not tell you anything about morality, right or wrong, or how one should live one's life. Knowing that humans evolved from "lower" life forms does not tell us anything about how human beings should treat each other. Similarly, science can tell us nothing about a Creator who is posited to be outside the laws of science. It cannot tell us such a being does or does not exist, nor can it tell us how that being exerts power in the natural world. Science can make our understunding of the natural world more complete than that which can be inferred from religious beliefs alone.
On the flip side, religion can never trump science. If a group of people believe that gravity exerts a force proportional to the distance between two objects, rather than the square of the distance, the strength of their belief will not make their rocket ships fly correctly. If God chooses to make their ships fly anyway, this doesn't disprove science, it means there has been a miracle. If God changes the laws of physics to match their beliefs, the same techniques of science that discovered Newtonian mechanics will work to discover the new laws.
ssywak has stated what would make him believe in God, but I don't think it actually would make him believe. His stated belief-inducing event could be accomplished by aliens using sufficiently advanced science that no amount of human inspection could uncover. Another way to say this is that his condition of sufficient opportunity to look for wires and the man behind the curtain could never be satisfied, because we could never be sure there isn't some scientific discovery that would allow us to perceive the "trick." The means of proof he accepts are simply not amenable to the facts to be proven.
The benefits of the scientific method are numerous, when applied to their proper sphere. As I've said before, science can tell us what results our actions are likely to achieve, but it cannot tell us which results we should desire. It can tell us how to transplant organs, but it cannot tell us whether it is morally correct to harvest organs from one human being to save 20 lives.
When God told Noah to build an ark, Noah used the science and engineering principles of the time to do so. When we're told to feed the hungry, it would behoove us to listen to biologists to figure out the best way to do it.
Science and religion are simply not incompatible.
Dagonee P.S., I have enjoyed the back and forth between Beverly and ssywak very much.
posted
So have I, Dag. The only other person on this forum that I've ever seen display the degree of even handed equanimity that bev has would be CT. Her approach to this has pretty much been the embodiment of what is best in Hatrack, I think.
quote:ssywak has stated what would make him believe in God, but I don't think it actually would make him believe. His stated belief-inducing event could be accomplished by aliens using sufficiently advanced science that no amount of human inspection could uncover. Another way to say this is that his condition of sufficient opportunity to look for wires and the man behind the curtain could never be satisfied, because we could never be sure there isn't some scientific discovery that would allow us to perceive the "trick." The means of proof he accepts are simply not amenable to the facts to be proven.
Very good point, and well said.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to make one thing clear - I didn't write that part as a knock on ssywak. It's meant to be further commentary about the difference between science and religion. And it's not meant to be an accusation that he's not being truthful, but that the objections he's making about religion are simply not answerable through scientific analysis.
I would have edited it, but it got quoted too fast.
Evidence, eh? Alright. I spoke of this a bit with ssywak, about the concept of multiple witnesses. There are those who testify of seeing the golden plates (upon which the original words of the Book of Mormon were written) and an angel and proclaiming such on to their very deathbeds dispite no longer being associated with the church at all for other reasons. There are the testimonies of Joseph himself that he also took to his grave (he was murdered.) There are the testimonies of those who were with him during heavenly visitations and visions who also took their testimonies to the grave.
I talked about having read and studied The Book of Mormon and being convinced that it is indeed an ancient record rather than a work of fiction by an 1800's writer. There are small pieces of evidence here and there supporting the idea of this specific civilization existing on this continent, but when it has been discussed before in detail, it has not been agreeable to our mods.
There are the writings of The Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. All of these books of scripture fit in beautifully with the Bible (in my opinion) to create a more complete image of the reality beyond what our mortal senses see.
I have done my best to live the principles of the gospel as I understand them and feel I have been greatly blessed for doing so, though in intangible ways. I believe that the teachings I have received are from God because of where they lead me and the harmony that they have when put together.
And yes, I have had miracles touch my life. Perhaps not to the grand scale of the parting of the Red Sea, but things that strengthen my faith. And there is the feelings in my heart about all of this.
I am well aware that none of the things I have stated here are sufficient evidence for the mind that will only accept things upon repeatable, consistent, empiracle evidence. Some people require more than others to believe in something as intangible as God is to us in this life. That really doesn't bother me. The only thing that bothers me is those who are dishonest in their own hearts, those who would rather be "right" than seek truth. If they have sought it here (the LDS faith) and not found it, I have no argument with them. But I wish to invite everyone to at least be aware of these things, to learn about them. That is why I am so willing to share feelings that I hold precious even at the possibility of ridicule.
But one thing I refuse to accept is the foolish belief that based on the present evidence the universe is less likely to have a God than it is to have a God. In my mind, such a belief comes from cynicism, from losing faith in humanity and life, from disillusionment. I wish more people were honest and upfront that that is the source of their belief, not scientific evidence.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I didn't take it as a knock on Steve. I actually have an enormous amount of respect for him, despite the fact that he can get snarky when he's talking about something that's important to him. I don't really see how that could have been construed as an attack on him, but honestly it's a little too late for me to be up, given what time I got up this morning, and what time I'll be getting up tomorrow, but maybe it will be clear tomorrow.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Married life is great, rivka. I keep looking over at Eve and thinking, "How on Earth did I get so lucky." I'll make a thread with all the sappy details and pictures soon, but I'll just say here that when I saw her walking down the aisle I thought my heart was going to burst, I was so happy.
Thanks, Bev!
And Noemon, I didn't think you took it that way, but I reread it and realized it would be easy to interpret it as my calling him a liar, so I thought I'd clarify.
posted
That's a fair enough arguement. Why it won't work for me personally is because of the following:
a) I have not experienced any such miracles b) Even if I did, it would be no clear indication of anything c) And I don't take the scraps of evidence as being compelling enough. - Why don't I?
Well, you have to take my problem from the start. Which is why should I believe your theory.
"Believe in the Duck." "Why?" "Because otherwise you'll burn in hell otherwise. The Duck loves you, you see, and if you don't love it, then you are denying its power." "Ummm...no thanks." "Wait! We have several books. Oh, and several people over there also believe in the Duck and have seen it themselves." "No thanks." "Wait! Look at this book! It has some historical truth--no one can disagree that there are some subtle refrences that are true!"
And the answer still is..."no thanks."
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Though I might take some issues with the way you worded the last line since I have never uttered anything like "no one can disagree". People can disagree with anything they want to.
Second: You picked a heck of a topic to come back to.
Third: Thanks. I didn't see the "knock," anyhow.
Fourth: You may be right. There may be no proof sufficient to make me believe in a being that is defined as defying all known science (and by "known," I mean "known by human beings--regardless of what planet they're from")
quote:Science does not tell you anything about morality, right or wrong, or how one should live one's life
Since your comparing religion to science, I am reading into your paragraph the implication that religion and faith are required for morality. I may be wrong. But my interpretation of your paragraph is right or wrong: They aren't. Religion and faith...required for morality.
In fact, as you continue your paragraph, and move into the next, you do not make any further implications of any link between morality and religion. I may have read too much into it.
But, OK. I know that morality can and does exist independent of religion. Religion can help develop moral codes, but it can also lead to violations of those same moral codes, such as (mis)leading its followers into believing that they are not bound to hold to those moral codes when people outside their own "group" are involved.
And I apologize for the snarkiness. That's why, when I'm saner, I stay out of these arguments. If you look back--I gave Bev the chance! I told her I shouldn't get involved! But did she listen? Oh, no...!
quote: So, based on that, and based on what else you said--why do we need religion again? Why do we need God?
Many agnostics and athiests believe that we don't. Though, I know some have a lot of respect for the positive effects that organized religion can have on a society.
For those who believe in these religions, many believe that "God knows best" and that if we try to abandon God and find our own code of morality, we will stumble in spite of our efforts.
quote: And I apologize for the snarkiness. That's why, when I'm saner, I stay out of these arguments. If you look back--I gave Bev the chance! I told her I shouldn't get involved! But did she listen? Oh, no...!
Um, are you suggesting that your snarkiness is my fault?
posted
(Bev, sorry: you quoted me correctly, but I just edited that line out because I felt it was "too snarky")
But I do agree with its sentiments, regardless.
You've also opened up the next issue: what horrors have been wrought in the name of religion? Intifadas, jihads, crusades, holy wars, the massacres that your own religion is guilty of. The holocaust.
I wonder, some times, if the world wouldn't have been better off developing a pragmatic morality (no, not like the Greek morality of letting babies die on the sides of mountains--some left-wing, liberal, tree-hugging, everybody-gets-a-certificate sort of morality!) and never had religion at all.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know you didn't state it, but your quote implies that religion and faith are required for morality. They aren't.
I don't think that religion and faith are required for morality in the abstract. I happen to believe that even in non-believers, morality is derived in a real sense from God, but I know you disagree with that.
quote:In fact, as you continue your paragraph, and move into the next, you do not make any further implications of any link between morality and religion.
Again, that is fine by me. I know that morality can and does exist independent of religion. Religion can help develop moral codes, but it can also lead to violations of those same moral codes, such as (mis)leading its followers into believing that they are not bound to hold to those moral codes when people outside their own "group" are involved.
You can substitute moral reasoning for religion if you wish; it doesn't really change my view on the matter. Anything that takes you from "X causes Y" to "therefore we should do X" is something other than science, although science is the necessary base for the premise. That's really my whole point.
quote:So, based on that, and based on what else you said--why do we need religion again? Why do we need God?
If I thought religion was just about morality, I might come up with a long answer for this. But in my beliefs, which are fairly irreconcilable with yours, religion is ultimately about fact. If God exists, and created humans in such a way that to be truly fulfilled and happy we require a relationship with Him, then religion is far more important than anything else. If humans have the possibility for an eternity of joyful bliss, then the means of achieving this are pretty important to us.
None of this is meant to convince you, but rather to explain the underpinnings of my own faith.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
