What is Your Religion?

[Mel-o-rama]

Please don't think I'm trying to back up a Buck post, but......

Mormonism was still the null hypothesis for you as far as religion goes. It was the first one you heard about growing up. Do you deny that you were much, much more likely to end up a Mormon than a kid who didn't have Mormon parents? Like for instance me.

Even though your parents (or just father) weren't ideal Mormons, that was what you heard the most of in your impressional years. Unless you're saying that your ex/bad Mormon dad spoke about other religions and their beliefs just as often as he spoke about Mormonism....and that you went to non-Mormon churches as often as you went to Mormon churches growing up.

In other words, I think that your Mormon family has a lot to do with you ending up Mormon. Of course we'll never know, but you have to admit that the percentage of people with Mormon parents that later end up Mormon is WAY larger than the percentage of people with non-Mormon parents that later end up Mormon.

And that tells you that a person's null hypothesis regarding religion is very important. You started out hearing about Mormonism...sure your dad tried to talk you out of it, but it was still the religion that's going to feel like home since it's the first you really heard about. Your intuition is going to tell you that it's true and it's going to take a mountain of evidence to change your mind. I started out with a non-Mormon family and that was my null hypothesis, until what I see as a mountain of evidence persuaded me that it was nonsense. Maybe I'm easier to persude using analytical evidence than you. Maybe you're more stubborn than me. Everyone is different. Now I'm just rambling. Thanks for your posts I find them very interesting.
Well put-together post. Put that way, I can only agree with you.

Okay: the religion you're born is your null hypothesis, and a majority of people stick with that throughout their lives.

So, Buck ... perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you. I see now what you really meant to say. But don't make the mistake in assuming that just because someone sticks with their null hypothesis that they're not using critical thinking and that they're brainwashed.

[Buck]

I don't live on hypothesis -- I seek evidence supports -- that's being rational.

[gosuruss]

Let me try this one. I'm not sure where it fits, but it relates...

Let's say I write the numbers 1 to 1000 randomly all over a piece of paper, then I challenge you to find the number 15. You search for about a minute and can't find it. What do you do? Your choices:

#1) Keep looking and find it.
#2) Stop looking but take my word for it that it's there.
#3) Stop looking and say, "This number isn't 15. That number isn't 15. And neither is this one ... I don't believe any of these numbers is 15."

This hypothetical (if we are to analogize this situation to all of the people who have "spoke" to god) assumes that:
a) god exists
b) god speaks to humans

These assumptions (especially b) were "acceptable" back when people thought God created humans in their current form and thus created his flock to talk to. But a trillion times a trillion stars in the galaxy and the fact we evolved from single celled organisms and our extremely slow development towards the intelligent species we are today and the 13+ billion years the universe has been around strongly suggests God did not create us to have a personal relationship with us. And if there is no evidence to suggest he created us to have a relationship then it seems unlikely he would be speaking to us.

There is no evidence for a.

I argue there is no reason to assume he does speak to humans -- you're example assumes he does.

[gosuruss]

I think this is where I was going, though now I'm realizing it's not a perfect analogy. Let's say the Creator tells you, "I sent my Son down there. Can you find him?" Then you say, "There are 100 who say their your Son. How am I supposed to tell which one it is." And the Creator says, "Oh, you'll know."

So you find David Koresh, Ernest Norman, Sun Myung Moon, and all these other bozos. You know they can't be the Son. After checking 50 out of 100 possible candidates and sure that none of them is He, would you be correct in assuming that the remaining 50 cannot also be the Son?

Terrible analogy notwithstanding, there is no existing logical rule that can take you from "they all can't be right" to "none of them are right" OR from "if you have several natural explanations and several supernatural explanations" to "it has to be one of the natural explanations." You need a little bit of intuition to make these "leaps of faith" to arrive at the conclusions.

"Let's say the Creator tells you, "I sent my Son down there. Can you find him?" "

This is the problem here. He hasn't said this. This isn't apparent. Now, if this was apparent and the Creator wrote in the sky that his Son is down on earth, then we have a different situation, because we now have prior knowledge strongly suggesting a Son of God.

Absent of this, it's seems trivial to dismiss their claims. There is very strong incentive to be labeled a prophet of God. You have the respect of everyone. You can marry 6 different wives like Muhammad, including 6 year old girls. You go down in history. You can get people to do whatever you want them to, because they fear you have their eternal destination at stake because you have the ear of God. There are also delusions that make people think they are talking to someone when their mind is really just playing tricks. To me, when a random 55 year old woman says she has a personal relationship to god and she talks with him, I believe she believes that. Believing something for 55 years can often change the way you perceive experiences and can cause you to twist their reality.

[Mel-o-rama]

I don't live on hypothesis -- I seek evidence supports -- that's being rational.

And being rational = using analytical thought. Circular logic.

[gosuruss]

While I put together my response, here's the text of that article...

A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad By James A. Toronto

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Viewing Muhammad from the understanding of the restored gospel provides greater knowledge of Heavenly Father’s love for His children in all nations.20908_000_012

Recently I received a phone call from two Church members in Los Angeles who had become acquainted with a Muslim neighbor from Pakistan. When they shared with him the story of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, his response surprised them. After stating that Muslims accept no prophets after Muhammad, he said that Joseph Smith’s story shared similarities with Muhammad’s. He said, “We believe Muhammad encountered a divine messenger who informed him of his new calling as prophet. He received revelations of new scripture that contains God’s word to mankind, and he established a community of believers that developed into a major world religion.” Knowing little about Muslims and Islam * or about Muhammad, the members were unsure in their responses.

The issues raised by this experience imply a broader question that is relevant for all Latter-day Saints in view of the Church’s global presence and the increasingly pluralistic societies in which we all live: What is an appropriate Latter-day Saint attitude toward other religions’ claims of divinely inspired prophets, scriptures, visions, and miracles? The following may be helpful and is based on gospel insights I have gained over the years while studying and living in Muslim societies. Seeing Muhammad’s role in religious history from the perspective of the restored gospel provides great understanding of one of history’s most influential spiritual leaders, helps us appreciate Heavenly Father’s love for His children of all nations, and gives principles to guide us in building positive relations with friends and neighbors of other faiths.

Thoughts on Interfaith Relations
President Gordon B. Hinckley has consistently advocated dialogue and mutual respect in interfaith relations. He has admonished members of the Church to cultivate “a spirit of affirmative gratitude” for those of differing religious, political, and philosophical persuasions, adding that “we do not in any way have to compromise our theology” in the process. He gave this counsel: “Be respectful of the opinions and feelings of other people. Recognize their virtues; don’t look for their faults. Look for their strengths and their virtues, and you will find strength and virtues that will be helpful in your own life.” 1

President Hinckley’s emphasis on building interfaith understanding is rooted in fundamental gospel principles—humility, charity, respect for eternal truth, and recognition of God’s love for all mankind—taught by Jesus Christ and by ancient and modern prophets. The Savior repeatedly affirmed Heavenly Father’s boundless concern for the well-being of each of His sons and daughters, as in the parable of the lost sheep (see Luke 15). In the parable of the good Samaritan, He taught that one of the keys to true discipleship is to treat others kindly and compassionately in spite of political, racial, or religious differences (see Luke 10:25–37). He denounced intolerance and rivalry among religious groups and the tendency to extol one’s own virtues and deprecate the spiritual status of others. Addressing a parable to those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others,” Jesus condemned the pride of the Pharisee who prayed, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are” and commended the humility of the publican who implored, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (see Luke 18:9–14).

The Book of Mormon teaches that Heavenly Father “is mindful of every people, whatsoever land they may be in; … and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth” (Alma 26:37; see also 1 Ne. 1:14). Because of this love for His children of all nations, the Lord has provided spiritual light to guide and enrich their lives. Elder Orson F. Whitney (1855–1931) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed that God “is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves.” 2

Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy also spoke on this doctrine: “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.” 3

The Prophet Joseph Smith often expounded on this theme of the universality of God’s love and the related need to remain open to all available sources of divine light and knowledge. “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,’” he said, “is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” 4 The Prophet exhorted Church members to “gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them.” 5

Church leaders continually have encouraged members to foster amicable relations with people of other faiths by acknowledging the spiritual truth they possess, emphasizing the similarities in belief and lifestyle, and teaching us to disagree agreeably. Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke on this theme to members and nonmembers during an area conference in Tahiti: “Keep all the truth and all the good that you have. Do not abandon any sound or proper principle. Do not forsake any standard of the past which is good, righteous, and true. Every truth found in every church in all the world we believe. But we also say this to all men—Come and take the added light and truth that God has restored in our day. The more truth we have, the greater is our joy here and now; the more truth we receive, the greater is our reward in eternity.” 6

During October 1991 general conference, President Howard W. Hunter of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “As members of the Church of Jesus Christ, we seek to bring all truth together. We seek to enlarge the circle of love and understanding among all the peoples of the earth. Thus we strive to establish peace and happiness, not only within Christianity but among all mankind.” 7

Likewise, Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted a public statement issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in October 1992, calling upon “all people everywhere to re-commit themselves to the time-honored ideals of tolerance and mutual respect. We sincerely believe that as we acknowledge one another with consideration and compassion we will discover that we can all peacefully coexist despite our deepest differences.” He then added: “That pronouncement is a contemporary confirmation of the Prophet Joseph’s earlier entreaty for tolerance. Unitedly we may respond. Together we may stand, intolerant of transgression but tolerant of neighbors with differences they hold sacred. Our brothers and sisters throughout the world are all children of God.” 8

Latter-day Saint Interest in Muhammad
One of the noteworthy examples of the Latter-day Saint commitment to treasure up true principles and cultivate affirmative gratitude is the admiration that Church leaders have expressed over the years for the spiritual contributions of Muhammad.

As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.” 9

Latter-day Saint appreciation of Muhammad’s role in history can also be found in the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” 10

In recent years, respect for the spiritual legacy of Muhammad and for the religious values of the Islamic community has led to increasing contact and cooperation between Latter-day Saints and Muslims around the world. This is due in part to the presence of Latter-day Saint congregations in areas such as the Levant, North Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia. The Church has sought to respect Islamic laws and traditions that prohibit conversion of Muslims to other faiths by adopting a policy of nonproselyting in Islamic countries of the Middle East. Yet examples of dialogue and cooperation abound, including visits of Muslim dignitaries at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City; Muslim use of Church canning facilities to produce halal (ritually clean) food products; Church humanitarian aid and disaster relief sent to predominantly Muslim areas including Jordan, Kosovo, and Turkey; academic agreements between Brigham Young University and various educational and governmental institutions in the Islamic world; the existence of the Muslim Student Association at BYU; and expanding collaboration between the Church and Islamic organizations to safeguard traditional family values worldwide. 11 The recent initiation of the Islamic Translation Series, cosponsored by BYU and the Church, has resulted in several significant exchanges between Muslim officials and Latter-day Saint Church leaders. A Muslim ambassador to the United Nations predicted that this translation series “will play a positive role in the West’s quest for a better understanding of Islam.” 12

A cabinet minister in Egypt, aware of the common ground shared by Muslims and Latter-day Saints, once remarked to Elder Howard W. Hunter of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that “if a bridge is ever built between Christianity and Islam it must be built by the Mormon Church.” 13 The examples of Latter-day Saint–Muslim interaction mentioned above, together with the Church’s establishment in 1989 of two major centers for educational and cultural exchange in the Middle East (Jerusalem and Amman), reflect the traditional attitude of respect for Islam that Church leaders have exhibited from earliest times. These activities represent tangible evidence of Latter-day Saint commitment to promote greater understanding of the Muslim world and witness an emerging role for the Church in helping to bridge the gap that has existed historically between Muslims and Christians.


(click to view larger)

Not shown are North America and South America, whose percentage of Muslims is less than 5 percent. North America has approximately 7 million Muslims, or 2.3 percent of the population, of which 5.5 million are in the United States. South America has approximately 1 million Muslims, accounting for 2 percent of the population. (Map by Tom Child; information courtesy of Oxford University Press.)

The Life of Muhammad
Who, then, was Muhammad, and what is there in his life and teachings that has attracted the interest and admiration of Church leaders? What strength and virtues can we find in Muslim experience that, as President Hinckley has suggested, will be helpful in our own spiritual lives?

At the dawn of the 21st century, Islam is one of the largest and fastest-growing religions in the world. Muslims currently number more than one billion (almost one-fifth of the world’s population), concentrated primarily in Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, the Middle East, and North Africa, but with significant populations located in Europe and North America. Some even project that Islam will become the most populous religion in the world during the first half of this new century. The roots of this dynamic and, for some people, misunderstood religious movement can be traced back 14 centuries to the humble beginnings and founding work of Muhammad, whom Muslims consider to be the last of a long line of prophets sent by God to teach Islam to the world.

Muhammad (Arabic, “praised”) was born in 570 C.E. 14 in Mecca, a prosperous city that was a center of caravan trade and religious pilgrimage in the northwest Arabian peninsula. Orphaned in early childhood, he lived a life of poverty as a youth, working as a herdsman for his family and neighbors, an occupation that gave him ample time and solitude to contemplate the deeper questions of life. Muhammad gained a reputation in the community as a trusted arbiter and peacemaker as indicated in the following account:

“At one time the Quraish [Muhammad’s tribe] decided to rebuild the Ka’ba [sacred shrine], to reset the stones above the foundations. In one of the corners they wanted to put the black stone, but could not decide who should have the honour of placing it there. They would have quarrelled violently if [Muhammad] the young man they all admired and trusted had not come by. They asked [him] … to settle the dispute. He told them to spread a large cloak and place the black stone in the middle. They did so. Then, he asked a man from each of the four clans who were in dispute to take hold of a corner of the cloak. In this way they all shared the honour of carrying the stone.” 15

At the age of 25, Muhammad married a widow, Khadija, who was 15 years his senior and a prosperous caravan merchant. She knew of his reputation for honesty and hard work, and she made the proposal of marriage that turned out to be a successful and happy one, producing four daughters and two sons. For the next 15 years Muhammad was engaged with Khadija in running the family business and raising their family. It was during this period also that he retreated often into the solitude of the desert to pray, meditate, and worship. He had become dissatisfied with the corruption, idolatry, and social inequities that plagued Mecca; he sought for a higher truth that would provide peace, justice, and spiritual fulfillment for him and his people.

In 610 C.E., when he was 40, his spiritual seeking and preparation reached a culmination. According to Islamic history, one night while Muhammad was engaged in prayer and meditation on Mount Hira near Mecca, the angel Gabriel appeared to him to deliver a message from God (Arabic, Allah). 16 Three times the angel commanded that Muhammad “Recite! In the name of thy Lord who created, created man of a blood-clot. Recite! And thy Lord is the Most Generous, who taught by the pen—Taught man that he knew not” (Qur’an 96:1–5). 17

For a period of 22 years, from 610 C.E. to his death in 632, Muhammad received communications that he said were from Allah, by way of the angel Gabriel, and that he memorized verbatim and recited orally to his disciples. These oral recitations of Allah’s mind and will are collectively referred to as al-Qur’an (“recitation”) by Muslims. However, Muhammad’s preaching against idolatry, polytheism, female infanticide, and other religious and social corruptions met fierce opposition in Mecca. His message was rejected in this early period in Mecca, and he and his fledgling community of converts, mostly a few family members and close friends, were shunned, persecuted, and even tortured.

Then a group of men came from the town Yathrib and asked Muhammad to act as an arbiter in the squabbles which were ruining their town. Muhammad saw an opportunity to alleviate the suffering of his followers and agreed to leave Mecca. First he sent his followers, and then he himself went to the town, which would thereafter be known as Madinat an-Nabi (“City of the Prophet”), or simply Medina. This emigration (Arabic, hijra), from Mecca to Medina, took place in 622 C.E., the year commemorated as the starting point of the Muslim Hijri calendar. Muslims saw in the Hijra a fundamental turning point in the life of the prophet and in the nature of the Muslim community. From being a rejected preacher, Muhammad became a statesman, legislator, judge, educator, and military leader.

In Medina, the Muslims had freedom to establish themselves securely, develop their institutions for governance and education, and become a prosperous community, in contrast to their status in Mecca as a persecuted, marginal religious minority.

A few years after the Hijra, Muhammad was able to return to the city of Mecca, where his teachings were gradually adopted. Today Mecca is considered by Muslims to be the spiritual center of Islam and the holiest of cities, with Medina as the second and Jerusalem the third holiest cities.

In 632, at the age of 62, Muhammad died unexpectedly after a short fever. By any measure Muhammad was phenomenally successful during his career, even though his name and achievements have been the subject of controversy over the centuries in Western civilization. During the last half of the 20th century, however, non-Muslim historians have become more objective and complimentary, acknowledging that Muhammad’s achievements in both political and religious realms assure him a place as one of the most influential figures in history.

Contrary to Western civilization’s stereotype of Muhammad as a false prophet or enemy of Christians, Muslim sources portray a man of unfailing humility, kindness, good humor, generosity, and simple tastes. Though he smiled often, it is said he seldom laughed because, as one famous hadith (report of Muhammad’s sayings or actions) states, “If you knew what I know you would cry much and laugh little.” His gentle humor is evident in the following story:

“One day a little old woman came to him to ask whether old wretched women would also go to Paradise. ‘No,’ he answered, ‘there are no old women in Paradise!’ Then, looking at her grieved face, he said with a smile: ‘They will all be transformed in Paradise, for there, there is only one youthful age for all!’”

He dispensed wise and practical advice to followers. When a man asked if he needed to tie his camel up, since he already trusted in God’s help and protection, Muhammad replied: “First tether it, and then trust in God.” Some reports indicate that Muhammad’s family were poor and often hungry, only able to afford coarse bread at times. His statement, faqri fakhri, “My poverty is my pride,” reveals his joy in simple pleasures, and this saying was later adopted as a slogan by Muslim ascetics. He was especially fond of children, allowing his two young grandsons to climb on his back while he was performing prayers. A man once criticized him for kissing his grandson Hasan, saying, “I have 10 boys but have never kissed any of them.” Muhammad answered, “He who does not show mercy will not receive mercy.” 18

In his last speech in the mosque in Medina, given on the day he died, Muhammad displayed humility and magnanimity in bidding farewell to his community after more than 30 years of sacrifice on their behalf: “If there is any man whose honour I might have injured, here I am to answer for it. If I have unjustifiably inflicted bodily harm on anyone, I present myself for retribution. If I owe anything to anyone, here is my property and he may help himself to it. … Nobody should say: ‘I fear enmity and rancor of the Messenger of God.’ I nurse no grudge towards anyone. These things are repugnant to my nature and temperament. I abhor them so.” 19

With this view of Muhammad in mind, we can understand why Muslims commonly bless his name when it is mentioned in speech or writing, invoke his name in conversations, and celebrate his birthday. Pious Muslims strive to emulate his example in every aspect of life: mode of dress, style of grooming, table manners, religious rituals, and benevolence toward others.

The Teachings of Muhammad
Islamic life revolves around five basic principles that are outlined in general terms in the Qur’an and expounded in the teachings and customs (Arabic, sunna) of Muhammad. These five pillars are the witness of faith, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Some examples of Muhammad’s teachings on charitable giving and fasting will illustrate his manner of teaching and his central role in Muslim life.

The principle of almsgiving is designed to care for the poor and to foster empathy in the community of believers. The Qur’an states that charity and compassion, not mechanical observance of rituals, define one’s worthiness in God’s sight (2:177). Muhammad’s sayings clearly teach the practice of charity:

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

“Each person’s every joint must perform a charity every day the sun comes up: to act justly between two people is a charity; to help a man with his mount, lifting him onto it or hoisting up his belongings onto it is a charity; a good word is a charity; every step you take to prayers is a charity; and removing a harmful thing from the road is charity.”

“Charity extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire.”

“Smiling to another person is an act of charity.”

“He who sleeps with a full stomach knowing that his neighbor is hungry [is not a believer].” 20

Muslims view fasting as having a dual purpose: to bring about a state of humility and surrender of one’s soul to God, and to foster compassion and care for the poor in the community. Thus, fasting and almsgiving go hand in hand: denying of oneself cannot be complete without giving of oneself.

I was reminded of this principle among Muslims, and the profound influence of Muhammad’s example in their lives, while living in Cairo, Egypt, during the holy month of fasting, Ramadan. 21 My family and I were invited by a Muslim friend, Nabil, to participate in his family’s evening meal in which they broke their fast. As we entered their modest apartment in one of the most impoverished quarters of Cairo, I noticed that one of the rooms was occupied by numerous peasant women (distinguishable by their black clothing) and their children. They were all sitting on the floor with food spread out before them on a cloth, quietly waiting for the call to prayer that marks the end of fasting each day. When I asked if they were his relatives, he replied: “No, I don’t know any of them. It is our habit to invite strangers off the street who cannot afford good food to share our Ramadan meal. We do this because it was one of the customs of our prophet, Muhammad.”

I was deeply moved by my Muslim friend’s unselfishness and compassion for the poor, and humbled by his good example in practicing a principle that I had learned from the Bible years before but had rarely observed: “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; … but when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee” (Luke 14:12–14).

A Latter-day Saint Perspective
How, then, might Latter-day Saints regard the Muslim community? The most helpful approach is to recognize the truths and values we share with our Muslim brothers and sisters, even while politely acknowledging that theological differences exist. Certainly Latter-day Saints do not agree with Islamic teachings that deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the need for modern prophets, or the principle of eternal progression. But by being humble and open to spiritual light wherever it may be found, we benefit from the religious insights of Muslims and affirm similarities in belief such as faith, prayer, fasting, repentance, compassion, modesty, and strong families as cornerstones of individual spirituality and community life. 22

In a recent meeting with Muslim dignitaries, Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles focused on the common spiritual heritage of Mormons and Muslims. After quoting a verse from the Qur’an, he observed:

“God is the source of light in heaven and on earth. We share the belief with you. We resist the secular world. We believe with you that life has meaning and purpose. … We revere the institution of the family. … We salute you for your concern for the institution of the family. … Mutual respect, friendship, and love are precious things in today’s world. We feel those emotions for our Islamic brothers and sisters. Love never needs a visa. It crosses over all borders and links generations and cultures.” 23

The Prophet Joseph Smith, in one of his most eloquent pronouncements on tolerance and compassion, encouraged the Saints to expand their vision of the human family, to view people of other faiths and cultures as our Heavenly Father does and not according to the “narrow, contracted notions of men.” He taught that the Father will take complex personal, political, and social circumstances into account at the last day and render final judgment based on a divine, merciful perspective that surpasses our limited human understanding:

“While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of the contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, ‘according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,’ or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, ‘not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,’ those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.” 24

In response to the interfaith dilemma raised by the Church members in Los Angeles, I was grateful to state that we belong to a church that affirms the truths taught by Muhammad and other great teachers, reformers, and religious founders. We recognize the goodness reflected in the lives of those in other religious communities. While we do not compromise revealed eternal truths of the restored gospel, we never espouse an adversarial relationship with other faiths. Rather, in accordance with modern prophetic counsel, we seek to treasure up that which is virtuous and praiseworthy in other faiths and to cultivate an attitude of “affirmative gratitude” toward them. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that it is vital to respect and benefit from the spiritual light found in other religions, while seeking humbly to share the additional measure of eternal truth provided by latter-day revelation.

This is a great article about how religions can move into the 21st century and not fight with each other, and I wish more religions could act like this.

I don't doubt that muslims may perceive the story of a Joseph Smith as similar to a Muhammad.

http://www.andrsib.com/dawkins/cargo.htm

I don't doubt people on these islands if they conversed with each other would also similarly relate to how similar their stories are. Doesn't make it true. This is one of my favorite articles on religion.

[Entropy]

So why do we believe in this stuff? We all have to believe in something so that we can make decisions and remain sane. Based on your intuitive thinking, you lean more toward atheism/agnosticism, but you can't definitively prove your belief system, either. You just do believe that way. I lean more toward Mormonism. It just feels right, the same way that the nonexistence of God just feels right to you.

:yikes: re: bold

I don't need to definitively prove my "belief system" as it doesn't make any normitive claims.

[Mel-o-rama]

This hypothetical (if we are to analogize this situation to all of the people who have "spoke" to god) assumes that:
a) god exists
b) god speaks to humans

These assumptions (especially b) were "acceptable" back when people thought God created humans in their current form and thus created his flock to talk to. But a trillion times a trillion stars in the galaxy and the fact we evolved from single celled organisms and our extremely slow development towards the intelligent species we are today and the 13+ billion years the universe has been around strongly suggests God did not create us to have a personal relationship with us. And if there is no evidence to suggest he created us to have a relationship then it seems unlikely he would be speaking to us.

There is no evidence for a.
You're still falling into that circular trap. Do you still believe that this belief system of yours is based solely on analytical thinking (and no intuitive thought)?

I argue there is no reason to assume he does speak to humans -- you're example assumes he does.
If a person tells me that God is talking to them, that gives me reason to consider the possibility. That's what I'd call "probable cause." I wouldn't call it "no reason" though.

[Entropy]

I think this is where I was going, though now I'm realizing it's not a perfect analogy. Let's say the Creator tells you, "I sent my Son down there. Can you find him?" Then you say, "There are 100 who say their your Son. How am I supposed to tell which one it is." And the Creator says, "Oh, you'll know."

So you find David Koresh, Ernest Norman, Sun Myung Moon, and all these other bozos. You know they can't be the Son. After checking 50 out of 100 possible candidates and sure that none of them is He, would you be correct in assuming that the remaining 50 cannot also be the Son?

Terrible analogy notwithstanding, there is no existing logical rule that can take you from "they all can't be right" to "none of them are right" OR from "if you have several natural explanations and several supernatural explanations" to "it has to be one of the natural explanations." You need a little bit of intuition to make these "leaps of faith" to arrive at the conclusions.

I'm with the others here, you've now presumed way too much. And arguably, have assumed your desired conclusion as an axiom.

[Mel-o-rama]

"Let's say the Creator tells you, "I sent my Son down there. Can you find him?" "

This is the problem here. He hasn't said this.
But how have you come to this knowledge? Can you explain to me using only analytical thinking and avoiding circular logic? Can you prove that God hasn't talked to anyone?

[Mel-o-rama]

I'm with the others here, you've now presumed way too much. And arguably, have assumed your desired conclusion as an axiom.

Yes - I see that in my analogy, but I believe the third paragraph you quoted stands.

[Entropy]

You're still falling into that circular trap. Do you still believe that this belief system of yours is based solely on analytical thinking (and no intuitive thought)?


If a person tells me that God is talking to them, that gives me reason to consider the possibility. That's what I'd call "probable cause." I wouldn't call it "no reason" though.

What belief system do you keep trying to compare to?

The issue here is that you are willingly suspending analytical thought and allowing intuition to trump it despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing how not ignoring contrary evidence is circular logic. I'm certainly not seeing how it makes more sense to use intuitive thinking to support your own faith while ignoring the analytical side but then do the opposite concerning other faiths. It seems like using your method all faiths would be equally right. Which is fine by me, but I'm thinking that's not quite where you're coming from.

[Buck]

That's how religious people are: they live on hypothesis, and have faith in such hypothesis by making them religiously axiomatic.

[Mel-o-rama]

:yikes: re: bold

I don't need to definitively prove my "belief system" as it doesn't make any normitive claims.

Let's see...

Normative claim: "It's not good to do drugs."

A typical atheist claim: "It's not good to consider supernatural evidences in determining the state of the universe."

You may not realize it, but look and you'll find that you are not exempt. :)

[Anthemyst]

On natural vs. supernatural explanations: I guess I define a natural explanation as one which fits in with our current knowledge of what is and isn't possible. I know that's slapdash, but I think you get my meaning. Let's try another analogy: You leave a child alone in a kitchen for about ten minutes, and when you get back there are cookies missing. The child says an alien materialized in the kitchen, ate the cookies, and vanished. There is a really, really obvious alternate explanation here. A lot of your arguments over this one point sound a lot like someone claiming, "Yes, but you can't prove that an alien has never eaten a cookie with only a child witness. Even if you discover that the kid is the culprit a hundred times out of a hundred, no analytical thought can show the 101st time won't be an alien."

[Entropy]

Terrible analogy notwithstanding, there is no existing logical rule that can take you from "they all can't be right" to "none of them are right" OR from "if you have several natural explanations and several supernatural explanations" to "it has to be one of the natural explanations." You need a little bit of intuition to make these "leaps of faith" to arrive at the conclusions.

Here's the problem, there will always be a supernatural explanation for everything. They are so easy to come up with that they are essentially meaningless. They are also pretty much all as equally valid as any other. Your intuition argument can be used to assume anything as an axiom as long as it feels right in your gut. At that point people just start arguing over axioms chosen by how they feel despite the fact that evidence isn't on anyone's side. You can't even couch religious discussions in a rational setting at all then because you end up arguing whose axiom choice felt more right to them.

[Entropy]

Let's see...

Normative claim: "It's not good to do drugs."

A typical atheist claim: "It's not good to consider supernatural evidences in determining the state of the universe."

You may not realize it, but look and you'll find that you are not exempt. :)

Sorry, I meant concerning the assumptions or axioms of my "belief system", not claims thereafter. Of course everyone makes claims.

[TheGillotine]

I think that God is a natural explanation, for a couple of reasons.
1) I think the term "supernatural" is largely useless when talking about things beyond current human understanding.
2) God is the most natural thing in existence. The universe itself is manufactured.

[Mel-o-rama]

What belief system do you keep trying to compare to?
I suppose I should clarify. I'm referring to each person's individual belief system. Every "sane" person has one. That is, every time you wake up in the morning, you have a certain view of the universe and you hit the world armed with all your little null hypotheses. Throughout the day, you learn stuff. Things that you thought were true turn out to be false. Some things that you didn't know come to light. You adjust your belief system and end up with a slightly different view of the universe when you go to bed at night.

All the decisions that you and I make daily have this belief system as a backdrop. Without our belief systems, we wouldn't be able to function.

The issue here is that you are willingly suspending analytical thought and allowing intuition to trump it despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing how not ignoring contrary evidence is circular logic. I'm certainly not seeing how it makes more sense to use intuitive thinking to support your own faith while ignoring the analytical side but then do the opposite concerning other faiths. It seems like using your method all faiths would be equally right. Which is fine by me, but I'm thinking that's not quite where you're coming from.

What I'm trying to say is that I feel that I have a good sense of how far analytical thinking can go, and how far intuition can go. I do use analytical thought to analyze my own religion as far as that tool can be used. Intuition can help guide my thought processes

And I at least don't feel like I'm ignoring contrary evidence and the analytical side. For example, gosuruss brought up the "universe is old, evolution is real, where's God" argument, but I disagree that the points he brought up definitively prove that this God didn't create us. I considered the scientific evidence and I determined it to be insufficient. "Intelligent Design" is just one possible type of theory that allows for both the scientific evidence and the possibility of being created by God.

But yes - ultimately, I could see how easy it would be for different people to come up with different conclusions, and that's largely based on the intuition pieces that we're using. I'm okay with that.

[Entropy]

What I'm trying to say is that I feel that I have a good sense of how far analytical thinking can go, and how far intuition can go. I do use analytical thought to analyze my own religion as far as that tool can be used. Intuition can help guide my thought processes

And I at least don't feel like I'm ignoring contrary evidence and the analytical side. For example, gosuruss brought up the "universe is old, evolution is real, where's God" argument, but I disagree that the points he brought up definitively prove that this God didn't create us. I considered the scientific evidence and I determined it to be insufficient. "Intelligent Design" is just one possible type of theory that allows for both the scientific evidence and the possibility of being created by God.

But yes - ultimately, I could see how easy it would be for different people to come up with different conclusions, and that's largely based on the intuition pieces that we're using. I'm okay with that.

I find it hard to believe that you haven't run into any kind of evidence that runs contrary to your religion but I hesitate to get into that but would rather focus on the structure and efficacy of your argument. Maybe someone else will take up that gauntlet.

I'm not saying that you're a young earth creationist, but can you see how your arguments would work to support their beliefs? Evidence that the Earth is old? My intuition says god just made it that way. You can't argue with that. The intuition here is really just a slight altering of normative axioms that cannot be disproven by anything as long as it "feels right" to the holder. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence, analytical thought, or even other intuitive options there are. The whole discussion breaks down. That said, should young earth creationist beliefs be considered to be just as valid as anything else?

[Mel-o-rama]

On natural vs. supernatural explanations: I guess I define a natural explanation as one which fits in with our current knowledge of what is and isn't possible. I know that's slapdash, but I think you get my meaning. Let's try another analogy: You leave a child alone in a kitchen for about ten minutes, and when you get back there are cookies missing. The child says an alien materialized in the kitchen, ate the cookies, and vanished. There is a really, really obvious alternate explanation here. A lot of your arguments over this one point sound a lot like someone claiming, "Yes, but you can't prove that an alien has never eaten a cookie with only a child witness. Even if you discover that the kid is the culprit a hundred times out of a hundred, no analytical thought can show the 101st time won't be an alien."

Hmmm ... wasn't there a recent TV show where something like this happened? It turned out that the kid didn't eat the cookies afterall. Something about a man who crawled in through the window and ate the cookies and ran back out. And the kid got spanked for lying. Pretty funny.

But yes, assuming we had no way to look into the child's stomach to see if the cookies were in there, there really would be no way to prove that the child ate the cookies. As a parent, I would have to weigh a few variables. Does the child have a habit of lying? When I challenge the child, will he confess and we have a good laugh over it? But what if the child never lied and they were adamant that they didn't eat the cookies? Then I would consider the possibility that something happened. I'd doubt that it would be aliens, but something the kid thought was an alien. Maybe a swarm of mice swooped in and ate the cookies and ran?

[Anthemyst]

Hmmm ... wasn't there a recent TV show where something like this happened? It turned out that the kid didn't eat the cookies afterall. Something about a man who crawled in through the window and ate the cookies and ran back out. And the kid got spanked for lying. Pretty funny.

But yes, assuming we had no way to look into the child's stomach to see if the cookies were in there, there really would be no way to prove that the child ate the cookies. As a parent, I would have to weigh a few variables. Does the child have a habit of lying? When I challenge the child, will he confess and we have a good laugh over it? But what if the child never lied and they were adamant that they didn't eat the cookies? Then I would consider the possibility that something happened. I'd doubt that it would be aliens, but something the kid thought was an alien. Maybe a swarm of mice swooped in and ate the cookies and ran?

I think you're going to give your kids more credit than mine ever get :D

I notice that your alternative explanation is similarly "naturalistic", i.e. centuries of scientific observation confirms it is plausible, if unlikely. Similarly, if someone claimed to have spoken to God and I didn't think them to be a liar, I might suspect all maner of psychological phenomena, or deception on the part of a third party. But I know of no way a being with all the properties ascribed to God could possibly exist in our world, just like I know of no way aliens could come all the way to our planet while evading observation without some kind of massive conspiracy at play. So even if my intuition tells me, "No way that kid is lying!" I will still seek out 'natural' explanations.

[vividox]

If the religion you are born into is a null hypothesis, then my probability of type I error in high school was around 45%.

[Mel-o-rama]

I find it hard to believe that you haven't run into any kind of evidence that runs contrary to your religion but I hesitate to get into that but would rather focus on the structure and efficacy of your argument. Maybe someone else will take up that gauntlet.

I'm not saying that you're a young earth creationist, but can you see how your arguments would work to support their beliefs? Evidence that the Earth is old? My intuition says god just made it that way. You can't argue with that. The intuition here is really just a slight altering of normative axioms that cannot be disproven by anything as long as it "feels right" to the holder. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence, analytical thought, or even other intuitive options there are. The whole discussion breaks down. That said, should young earth creationist beliefs be considered to be just as valid as anything else?

I have time for one more response today... Also, I think I'm getting a little tired. These discussions are fun, but I think I get a little more goofy the longer I go. :)

Taking on your last paragraph, I would agree that it's impossible to take on the "God made it that way" argument. I don't think I ever believed in the 6000-year age of the earth, but I do remember believing that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test us. I don't believe that so much anymore. It doesn't "feel right" to me. :)

But as usual, I find that I've been leaving out details as I try to explain what I have difficulty placing into words. This whole time we've been using analytical thought to analyze how we think and understand the universe--mainly because that's how we actuaries argue with each other. Sometimes I wish I could just take my brain and stick it inside your head so that you'd understand me much more quickly. Perhaps I could do one of those timey-wimey head bump things.

What I've been leaving out: going back to gosuruss's earlier argument. I happen to have a mountain of "internal" evidence supporting the existence of God and the truthfulness of the Mormon religion in particular. Perhaps it's the null hypothesis I was born into, but for me, Occam's Razor points toward there being a God. There is a lot of intuition involved, but there is also a lot of analytical thought that processes these evidences and derives a conclusion. If God were to not exist, then I would have a whole bunch of questions. "Why did this happen in my life? What really happened on XXXX? What are we doing here again? Etc."

It's not just picking a set of intuitive axioms and sticking with them. It's more like analyzing the sum of thousands of different experiences and letting intuition and logic work in harmony to put all the pieces together.

When we talk analytically like we have been doing these last couple of days, it's nearly impossible for me to communicate the sum of these experiences. Left to analytical devices alone, I am doomed to fail in convincing any atheists that God exists. Likewise, left to analytical devices alone, you atheists struggle to convince me that God doesn't exist.

I'll be back tomorrow ...

[Anthemyst]

If God were to not exist, then I would have a whole bunch of questions. "Why did this happen in my life? What really happened on XXXX? What are we doing here again? Etc."

That's funny, I found that rejecting my initial assumption of God's existence cleared up a lot of questions, like "Why are babies sometimes born with their hearts on the outside?". That makes much more sense in a godless universe where life isn't perfect, it's merely just good enough to continue from generation to generation. No perfect Creator intentionally designed that baby to die and break its parents' hearts, it's just a sad thing that happened for no reason. What are we doing here? Nothing in particular. Our existence isn't part of a higher plan or purpose, it's just a messy statistical inevitability. Why did this or that happen in my life? Just the luck of the draw. Some people's life circumstances are better than others, I don't need to take it personally or dwell on it. I get that some people consider suffering to be too terrible to contemplate without believing suffering is secretly a great thing, but I consider the alternative-that there is an all-powerful Creator who intentionally designed a world where suffering was unavoidable- to be much worse.

[vividox]

That's funny, I found that rejecting my initial assumption of God's existence cleared up a lot of questions, like "Why are babies sometimes born with their hearts on the outside?". That makes much more sense in a godless universe where life isn't perfect, it's merely just good enough to continue from generation to generation. No perfect Creator intentionally designed that baby to die and break its parents' hearts, it's just a sad thing that happened for no reason. What are we doing here? Nothing in particular. Our existence isn't part of a higher plan or purpose, it's just a messy statistical inevitability. Why did this or that happen in my life? Just the luck of the draw. Some people's life circumstances are better than others, I don't need to take it personally or dwell on it.

:iatp:

Thought about posting something like this, but I'm glad I held out: you said it a lot better than I could have.

[lovmath]

That's funny, I found that rejecting my initial assumption of God's existence cleared up a lot of questions, like "Why are babies sometimes born with their hearts on the outside?". That makes much more sense in a godless universe where life isn't perfect, it's merely just good enough to continue from generation to generation. No perfect Creator intentionally designed that baby to die and break its parents' hearts, it's just a sad thing that happened for no reason. What are we doing here? Nothing in particular. Our existence isn't part of a higher plan or purpose, it's just a messy statistical inevitability. Why did this or that happen in my life? Just the luck of the draw. Some people's life circumstances are better than others, I don't need to take it personally or dwell on it. I get that some people consider suffering to be too terrible to contemplate without believing suffering is secretly a great thing, but I consider the alternative-that there is an all-powerful Creator who intentionally designed a world where suffering was unavoidable- to be much worse.

What if that baby, if born perfect tortured millions

[Entropy]

What I've been leaving out: going back to gosuruss's earlier argument. I happen to have a mountain of "internal" evidence supporting the existence of God and the truthfulness of the Mormon religion in particular. Perhaps it's the null hypothesis I was born into, but for me, Occam's Razor points toward there being a God. There is a lot of intuition involved, but there is also a lot of analytical thought that processes these evidences and derives a conclusion. If God were to not exist, then I would have a whole bunch of questions. "Why did this happen in my life? What really happened on XXXX? What are we doing here again? Etc."

I would imagine that it's mostly the null hypothesis. Occam's razor should be used to come up with the simplest explanation, not the one that causes the least upheaval in one's life due to their preconceived notions or intuition. I get that it would take a lot of work to take god out of the picture, but could that not be directly related to the amount of work done to fit it in in the first place (ETA: Anthemyst touches on this imo)? I don't see how Occam's razor could ever be used in support of god's existence as it doesn't add any explanatory power, or rather, it adds an arbitrarily infinite amount rendering it essentially useless.

From wiki: Bertrand Russell offers a particular version of Occam's Razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

The way I read this and using our current terminology: "Whenever possible, substitute analytic thinking for intuition". That is, assume it was mice that stole the cookie, not aliens. Or put another way, if someone is saying god is talking to him, it's because he's crazy or has other incentive to say so, not because god is actually talking to him.

[Entropy]

What if that baby, if born perfect tortured millions

Stop. Just, stop.

[Anthemyst]

What if that baby, if born perfect tortured millions

Why would God allow such a baby to be conceived in the first place? Why allow the fertilized egg to implant in the mother's womb, when so many fertilized eggs don't? The only difference between the baby dying at birth and my alternative scenario is the suffering of the parents. This suggests that their suffering was the point, not preventing genocide. It breaks my heart to hear about couples that have baby after baby that dies at birth, and they believe so sincerely in God and so strongly that He must have sent them these precious little angels for a reason even if it was a short existence of nothing but suffering. In my world, this couple just has a sad genetic disorder and they should consider adopting a child or something. Nobody's doing this to them. There isn't a sadistic creator that keeps giving them babies and then immediately killing them.

I'm sorry though, I don't want to derail the conversation, because the Problem of Suffering is not what we were talking about and obviously it could take up its own fifty-page thread here. I just wanted to respond to the different-from-mine notion that removing God from the equation makes things more complicated.

[vividox]

I don't see how Occam's razor could ever be used in support of god's existence as it doesn't add any explanatory power, or rather, it adds an arbitrarily infinite amount rendering it essentially useless.

:iatp: Again.

[Anitha Desai]

That's funny, I found that rejecting my initial assumption of God's existence cleared up a lot of questions, like "Why are babies sometimes born with their hearts on the outside?". That makes much more sense in a godless universe where life isn't perfect, it's merely just good enough to continue from generation to generation. No perfect Creator intentionally designed that baby to die and break its parents' hearts, it's just a sad thing that happened for no reason. What are we doing here? Nothing in particular. Our existence isn't part of a higher plan or purpose, it's just a messy statistical inevitability. Why did this or that happen in my life? Just the luck of the draw. Some people's life circumstances are better than others, I don't need to take it personally or dwell on it. I get that some people consider suffering to be too terrible to contemplate without believing suffering is secretly a great thing, but I consider the alternative-that there is an all-powerful Creator who intentionally designed a world where suffering was unavoidable- to be much worse.

:iatp:
Very well said. More or less my own thoughts. You really need to get out of Max. and my heads! ;-)

[TheGillotine]

What if that baby, if born perfect tortured millions

If that's the case, then why didn't God make Hitler be born with some horrific disease that would kill him soon after birth?

Are you willing to tell every mother of a stillborn child "it's not that bad, what if your baby had grown up to torture millions of people?"


Think before you post.

[gosuruss]

We don’t know exactly how long homo-sapiens have existed as a species. Richard Dawkins thinks it might be as much as 250,000 years; Francis Collins, the man responsible for the Human Genome Project thinks it may be as little as 100,000 years. Either way it’s a flash of a second in evolutionary time. I’ll take the lower estimate that our species has been around on the planet for 100,000 years. As a monotheist, or at least someone who believes in an Abrahamic religion, you have to believe something like this:… for about the first 96,000 years, homo-sapiens were born, a great number dying in child birth, often taking the mother with them, not living more than 25 or 30 years at the most and then probably dying of their teeth (if they were lucky) or the other needless mammalian things that show us that we bare the stamp, as Darwin put it, of our lowly origin, where we were designed to live on the Savanna where we escaped from: the appendix we don’t need any more and innumerable other short comings in our design; terrible disease, suffering, misery, malnutrition, and fear. Where do the earthquakes come from? Why is there an eclipse? What are the shooting stars doing? And awful cults of sacrifice to try and ward off what are, in fact, natural events. And war, and rape, and the kidnap or other peoples and the enslavement of them. All of this goes on and on, gradually inching up to the point where they can brew beer - a breakthrough in my view - domesticate animals, seperate one kind of corn from another so they can farm etc. Slow progress but terrible struggle, sacrifice, pain, misery, and above all fear and ignorance. So, for the first 96,000 or so years, heaven watches this with complete indifference. “Oh there they go again! That whole civilisation has just died out.” “They’re raping each other again.” “They think that the other tribe has poisoned their wells and so they’re going to kill all their children.” Then 4,000 years ago, at the most, heaven decides it’s time to intervene. And the revelation must be personal and so we’ll pick the most barbaric, illiterate, superstitious people we can find, in the most stoney area of bronze-age Palestine. We won’t appear to the Chinese where they can already read. We won’t appear in the Indus Valley where they are already well civilised and far advanced, no… we’ll appear to this brutal, enslaved, hopeless, superstitious crowd and we will force them to cut their way through all of their neighbours with slaughter and genocide and racism and settle in the only part of the middle east where there is no oil. Oh, and all subsquent revelations must appear in the same district.
Christopher Hitchens (Debate)

[gosuruss]

You'd also have to believe God created a light source for us that causes skin cancer. And since humans live on land, he decided to make the earth 70% water. And that instead of providing fresh water for us to drink all over the world, 97% of it is saline!

[TheGillotine]

One thing I like to point out at moments like these is that I think there's too much emphasis on humanity as we are, (or humanity as we were in more conservative religious sects). Why do we think our current time is so special? I, for one, think that it's more likely the really amazing human experience has yet to come.

This strikes on both sides to some extent. It harms religious arguments in that there is a focus on doctrine formed in the past. It also somewhat harms some atheistic arguments, such as the problem of evil. Evil is temporary. The problems of today will be overcome, and the humanity that emerges from this den of poverty, war, and strife will be shaped by our struggle. Who are we to say what struggles are unnecessary?

[Buck]

People who did not reject the God-assumptions did not use their heads to think -- they are hanging there to their faith -- the only thing keeps religion/God around is faith.

[TheGillotine]

People who did not reject the God-assumptions did not use their heads to think -- they are hanging there to their faith -- the only thing keeps religion/God around is faith.

Ever hear of Albert Einstein? Isaac Newton? Michio Kaku?

Morons.

[Vorian Atreides]

You'd also have to believe God created a light source for us that causes skin cancer. And since humans live on land, he decided to make the earth 70% water. And that instead of providing fresh water for us to drink all over the world, 97% of it is saline!
How does a situation that you don't like make an argument for the non-existance of a Creator?

[Vorian Atreides]

Ever hear of Albert Einstein? Isaac Newton? Michio Kaku?

Morons.
And don't get involved in a land war in Asia? Or battle wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line?

Are you a Sicilian defending land in China?

[Baby, ByeBye]

How does a situation that you don't like make an argument for the non-existance of a Creator?

you're forgetting about the fact that god is supposed to be nice and omnipotent and supposedly created everything.
otherwise I'd agree with you

[Baby, ByeBye]

Ever hear of Albert Einstein? Isaac Newton? Michio Kaku?

Morons.

einstein wasn't religious. newton was a tard. AND IS THAT JAPANESE I'M SEEING

[Vorian Atreides]

you're forgetting about the fact that god is supposed to be nice and omnipotent and supposedly created everything.
otherwise I'd agree with you
Sez who?

I see nothing in the Bible that makes this claim (to the extent that "nice" is defined by mankind).

[Vorian Atreides]

einstein wasn't religious. newton was a tard. AND IS THAT JAPANESE I'M SEEING
Einstein wasn't explicitly religious to the point of joining a church or synogogue; but he also held the belief of the existence of a deity.

[Sentinel]

I like this new The Gillotine that stands up proudly for monotheism. Baby steps. baby steps.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Einstein wasn't explicitly religious to the point of joining a church or synogogue; but he also held the belief of the existence of a deity.

that is blatantly false

[Baby, ByeBye]

Sez who?

I see nothing in the Bible that makes this claim (to the extent that "nice" is defined by mankind).

oh nevermind. I guess you don't believe that. I was referring to the other christians that do believe it

[lovmath]

I believe in God and passed all actuarial exams on first try....that says something......living proof

[TheGillotine]

einstein wasn't religious. newton was a tard. AND IS THAT JAPANESE I'M SEEING

Einstein believed in God. Something like the God of Spinoza, but God nonetheless. Newton was a genius, and took religion very seriously. Michio Kaku is one of the most distinguished physicists alive, and believes in God.

I like this new The Gillotine that stands up proudly for monotheism. Baby steps. baby steps.

If anything, I'm regressing, not progressing, and at the end of the month I'm going to explain why every argument I make this month fails.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Einstein believed in God. Something like the God of Spinoza, but God nonetheless. Newton was a genius, and took religion very seriously. Michio Kaku is one of the most distinguished physicists alive, and believes in God.


:shake:

[TheGillotine]

:shake:

You're going to have to face the fact that there are very smart people who believe that God exists. And most of them spend a great deal of time using their powerful minds thinking about God. And I'd say many of those have heard every argument against the existence of God that you have. You can't ignore the fact that they exist, you can't dismiss them as idiots, as not caring, or as not knowing what you know. So, how are you going to deal with that fact?

[Baby, ByeBye]

You're going to have to face the fact that there are very smart people who believe that God exists. And most of them spend a great deal of time using their powerful minds thinking about God. And I'd say many of those have heard every argument against the existence of God that you have. You can't ignore the fact that they exist, you can't dismiss them as idiots, as not caring, or as not knowing what you know. So, how are you going to deal with that fact?



Oh, I don't doubt that many great minds believe in a God. There are many reasons they do so, many are attributable to their cultural background, some to their childhood indoctrination, and maybe some do have convincing arguments for the existence of god that none of us have ever heard (why are they waiting on sharing these lovely discoveries).
Nonetheless, it is the case that as of right now (until they share these wonderful discoveries of theirs, so to speak), there are no convincing arguments coming from these "brilliant minds".
But I wasn't even shaking my head about that.
Simply pointing out the fallacy that you think Eistein believed in a god, in the context you were addressing.

Here's a brilliant mind for you who reasons why he believes in god:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise

Excellent reason. I'm sure others would love to share theirs as well. But I guess they're waiting for the right time.

[TheGillotine]

Oh, I don't doubt that many great minds believe in a God. There are many reasons they do so, many are attributable to their cultural background, some to their childhood indoctrination, and maybe some do have convincing arguments for the existence of god and none of us have ever heard.
Nonetheless, it is the case that as of right now (until they share these wonderful discoveries of theirs, so to speak), there are no convincing arguments coming from these "brilliant minds".
But I wasn't even shaking my head about that.
Simply pointing out the fallacy that you think Eistein believed in a god, in the context you were addressing.

Here's a brilliant mind for you who reasons why he believes in god:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise

Excellent reason. I'm sure others would love to share theirs as well. But I guess they're waiting for the right time.

I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss their beliefs like you do. Perhaps you're not thinking about it the right way? Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions where you need to focus your eyes just right to see the hidden image. Everyone's telling you it's there, but you just can't see it. Is it their fault they can't properly communicate how they see what they see?

Maybe this is something that has to be lived to be learned.

And don't confuse this with willing ignorance. We're talking about what is believed without scientific evidence, not denying what scientific evidence indicates.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss their beliefs like you do. Perhaps you're not thinking about it the right way? Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions where you need to focus your eyes just right to see the hidden image. Everyone's telling you it's there, but you just can't see it. Is it their fault they can't properly communicate how they see what they see?

Maybe this is something that has to be lived to be learned.

And don't confuse this with willing ignorance. We're talking about what is believed without scientific evidence, not denying what scientific evidence indicates.

Unless they explicitly explain why they believe in god. there's no point for us to speculate. They could be believing in a god because they're too lazy to abandon it, or maybe they do have a genuinely sophisticated reason, none of that is relevant unless they share. We can only reason with the "reasons for believing in God" that's been thrown out by people, mostly christians. So far, none of those reasons make enough sense.

[TheGillotine]

Unless they explicitly explain why they believe in god. there's no point for us to speculate. They could be believing in a god because they're too lazy to abandon it, or maybe they do have a genuinely sophisticated reason, none of that is relevant unless they share. We can only reason with the "reasons for believing in God" that's been thrown out by people, mostly christians. So far, none of those reasons make enough sense.

Have you read Newton's religious writings? Einstein's?

Here's a collection of Einstein's writings on the subject.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

[Buck]

A person being brilliant does not automatically mean that person is brilliant about everything. Religion is specifically designed to numb the brain with something called "faith". Many brilliant people use narcotics. It should be understandable brilliant people can be hooked on religion too.

Once the effect of "faith" takes over a person's brain, that person goes into a delusional state.

With that said, if you are religious, be very cautious when you give out any sort of opinions -- you could be speaking of "faith".

[Baby, ByeBye]

Have you read Newton's religious writings? Einstein's?

Here's a collection of Einstein's writings on the subject.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

No, I don't know about Newton's religious writings. Do feel free to share if he actually has any good arguments for his beliefs.


And yes, I have read Einstein's writings.

[TheGillotine]

A person being brilliant does not automatically mean that person is brilliant about everything. Religion is specifically designed to numb the brain with something called "faith". Many brilliant people use narcotics. It should be understandable brilliant people can be hooked on religion too.

Once the effect of "faith" takes over a person's brain, that person goes into a delusional state.

With that said, if you are religious, be very cautious when you give out any sort of opinions -- you could be speaking of "faith".

You're more dogmatic than most religious people I know. And I think dogma is more dangerous than faith.

[TheGillotine]

No, I don't know about Newton's religious writings. Do feel free to share if he actually has any good arguments for his beliefs.


And yes, I have read Einstein's writings.

There's more to life than argument. In fact, there's more to knowledge than that which can be argued.

[Baby, ByeBye]

There's more to life than argument. In fact, there's more to knowledge than that which can be argued.


:notworth:
you officially sound like a christian now. See you should've done this all along. Talk in the vaguest terms possible, and resort to some metaphysically obscure, seemingly wise quote.

[TheGillotine]

:notworth:
you officially sound like a christian now. See you should've done this all along. Talk in the vaguest terms possible, and resort to some metaphysically obscure, seemingly wise quote.

[break character]Yeah, that's sort of the key, isn't it?[/break character]

[Sentinel]

If anything, I'm regressing, not progressing, and at the end of the month I'm going to explain why every argument I make this month fails.

At the end of month we're going to be singing hymns in the same Baptist Church. That's a good thing whatever you call it.

Now onto Buck.

[Baby, ByeBye]

3000!

[TheGillotine]

At the end of month we're going to be singing hymns in the same Baptist Church. That's a good thing whatever you call it.

Now onto Buck.

[breaking character]It would take a very solid argument or a major change in epistemological priorities for me to revert to some form of Deism. It would literally take a miracle for me to revert to Bible-believing Christianity. And if I do, I'm going to be Methodist, not Baptist.[/breaking character]

[Sentinel]

EDIT: to baby buy byhe

wow...you have no life....

sorry,...that was mean...congratulations on the spammin

[Buck]

Poll result so far: atheists 63, Christians 53.

I think Christian posters here helped lot of people renouncing their own religious faith.

Discussions on religion on Internet is a good thing.

[lovmath]

Poll result so far: atheists 63, Christians 53.

I think Christian posters here helped lot of people renouncing their own religious faith.

Discussions on religion on Internet is a good thing.

I blame the Athiests' parents for not taking them to church.

[Baby, ByeBye]

EDIT: to baby buy byhe

wow...you have no life....

sorry,...that was mean...congratulations on the spammin

wait what? plus, my pc/day is not nearly as high as glassjaws. and his is over several years

[Mel-o-rama]

Poll result so far: atheists 63, Christians 53.

I think Christian posters here helped lot of people renouncing their own religious faith.

Discussions on religion on Internet is a good thing.

Yeah - I noticed an uptick in the atheist count since I started expounding a couple of days ago. :)

[Mel-o-rama]

At the end of month we're going to be singing hymns in the same Mormon Church. That's a good thing whatever you call it.

Now onto Buck.

IFYQ. Heh heh!

[oirg]

A person being brilliant does not automatically mean that person is brilliant about everything. Religion is specifically designed to numb the brain with something called "faith". Many brilliant people use narcotics. It should be understandable brilliant people can be hooked on religion too.

Once the effect of "faith" takes over a person's brain, that person goes into a delusional state.

With that said, if you are religious, be very cautious when you give out any sort of opinions -- you could be speaking of "faith".

Some smart people also have very high opinions of their own self-worth - "it's not likely that I exist by chance, I'm here for a greater purpose".

[Mel-o-rama]

Okay - I have to admit I'm momentarily derailed. Gillo supporting religious thought? (Must be opposite month for him.) And the topic we were discussing seems to have died down.

I'm about to go into a meeting. Any outstanding questions for me before I go back and try to figure out where I left off?

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I blame the Athiests' parents for not taking them to church.

:wave:I went to church every Sunday for more than 30 years.

I actually think you are right. Because my parents took me to church regularly, it took 30 years before I finally became an athiest.

[Buck]

There, a good example -- someone went to church regularly for 30 years ... then he saw posts of religion discussions on AO from Christians like Mel-O-Rama, that turned him into an atheist.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Okay - I have to admit I'm momentarily derailed. Gillo supporting religious thought? (Must be opposite month for him.) And the topic we were discussing seems to have died down.

I'm about to go into a meeting. Any outstanding questions for me before I go back and try to figure out where I left off?

Why do you think that most people stay in the religion they were born into?

Do you think that your reasons for staying Mormon are any different than a Catholic who stays Catholic or a Muslim who stays Muslim?

[Anthemyst]

Why do you think that most people stay in the religion they were born into?

Do you think that your reasons for staying Mormon are any different than a Catholic who stays Catholic or a Muslim who stays Muslim?

:iatp: in that it is more interesting to me than the Was Einstein Religious discussion.

[TheGillotine]

:wave:I went to church every Sunday for more than 30 years.

I actually think you are right. Because my parents took me to church regularly, it took 30 years before I finally became an athiest.

For some, maybe. For me, the sermons were so repetitive that I ended up going on long trains of thought during the service. Certain trains of thought can really cripple a person's faith.

There, a good example -- someone went to church regularly for 30 years ... then he saw posts of religion discussions on AO from Christians like Mel-O-Rama, that turned him into an atheist.

Mel's posts aren't going to deconvert anyone - he doesn't say anything insulting or give a really explicit defense of Christianity. Your posts don't deconvert anyone, because... well, quite frankly your "arguments" incoherent.
I'm tempted to say some of the more idiotic theists on here contribute to deconversion, but I think it's more likely that intelligent theists just discount them as idiots, not representing their beliefs.

Now, IMO what really causes deconversion on the internet is when you have a theist really trying to defend his religion (the more effective he is, the better) and then you have the gallery of atheists deconstructing his every argument. So the theist in the audience sees the apologetic argument, and agrees with it wholeheartedly. Then he sees the counterargument, and has to admit that reasoning is bad. Repeat enough times, and the theist gets in the habit of looking for holes in apologetic arguments. From there, it's easy to look down and see your position doesn't have the foundation you thought it did.

[gosuruss]

Have you read Newton's religious writings? Einstein's?

Here's a collection of Einstein's writings on the subject.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

Einstein isn't really religious.

Atheists never really have much quarrel with deism. It's the personal god, the revelations, the rules, the rewards, the punishments, the heaven, the hell, that we have quarrel with. Einstein quite clearly rejects all that. In some sense einstein basically calls the natural laws of the universe god. That's a far cry from what we are arguing here, so to put him even 1 foot in Mels camp would be, I think, not right.

[gosuruss]

I disagree. I think, that like all claims, the claim that one is privy to communication with God should be weighed against the evidence. The fact that in the past, people have been proven wrong about this does not mean that all people making this claim should be disbelieved as long as you can come up with some possible (albeit absurd) other explanation.

I thought about this more.. I'm using a kind of bayesian logic here. I am saying we know people are delusional about this and that makes his claim less credible (of course there is no real evidence anyway..) You disagree and say every claim should be weighed against the evidence. I agree, if we had some evidence, I would love to weigh the claim against it. We don't, yet we still have people believing in it. This bayesian logic is to try and even further discredit this claim if the lack of evidence is not enough. What i mean is this.. if no one had ever claimed to speak to god in the history of mankind, that people weren't delusional, and didn't hear things, I think Joseph Smith's claim should be taken a bit more seriously. But the fact we know members of the human species lie or are deluded about these sorts of things gives us a reasonable explanation of the events. In the other case, if no one had ever claimed, that is not as reasonable. Further, I think you are basically weighing two scenarios. 1) God talked to this man, and the words in his book are divine. 2) God didn't talk to this man, and he was deluded and wrote what he felt god should be like. When evaluating which scenario fits the evidence, a prior distribution showing the capability of humans to lie, to deceive, to be deluded should be taken into account and can support your view.

If we know people lie, deceive, and are deluded frequently, given that a man does lie, deceive, and are deluded, is he likely to lie about speaking to God? Yes, people do this all of the time. So given the lack of evidence and given the frequency of liars/delusional individuals in society, given the incentives to be seen as a man of god, and given the history of people pretending to know god, it is a very easy conclusion to accept Joseph Smith did not speak to god.

Now, if someone told me they spoke to god, then I would ask for evidence of it and not immediately discount it. But where are these golden plates lol? Would that even be real evidence? Telling prophecies and writing about "moral truths" is the playbook to win over the hearts and minds of credulous men. Jesus did it, Muhammad did it, and Joseph Smith did it. He was just following the blueprint.

[Mel-o-rama]

Why do you think that most people stay in the religion they were born into?

Do you think that your reasons for staying Mormon are any different than a Catholic who stays Catholic or a Muslim who stays Muslim?

I believe this is simply sticking with one's null hypothesis. I'm okay with that.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I believe this is simply sticking with one's null hypothesis. I'm okay with that.

Tsk tsk.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I believe this is simply sticking with one's null hypothesis. I'm okay with that.

So you don't try to convert people to Mormonism? Would it be better for a person to stick with their Methodist null hypothesis or change to Mormonism?

[Mel-o-rama]

That's funny, I found that rejecting my initial assumption of God's existence cleared up a lot of questions, like "Why are babies sometimes born with their hearts on the outside?". That makes much more sense in a godless universe where life isn't perfect, it's merely just good enough to continue from generation to generation. No perfect Creator intentionally designed that baby to die and break its parents' hearts, it's just a sad thing that happened for no reason. What are we doing here? Nothing in particular. Our existence isn't part of a higher plan or purpose, it's just a messy statistical inevitability. Why did this or that happen in my life? Just the luck of the draw. Some people's life circumstances are better than others, I don't need to take it personally or dwell on it. I get that some people consider suffering to be too terrible to contemplate without believing suffering is secretly a great thing, but I consider the alternative-that there is an all-powerful Creator who intentionally designed a world where suffering was unavoidable- to be much worse.

This is the one main argument that turned the ultra-religious Darwin to atheism (the idea of a perfect God allowing so much suffering). My quick response to the suffering problem is that I can see how suffering plays a role in life--how it can build character, make one stronger, etc. The existence of suffering itself, however, is nowhere near an analytical proof that a loving God doesn't exist. It is indeed, however, an intuitive proof and an understandable one: "It doesn't feel right that God allows suffering." But this is an issue I've thought about considerably, and in fact it is the central theme of my first completed novel (still in revision mode). Mormon doctrine even has a little to say about suffering, but I'll save that for later.

Getting back to my earlier comment (and obliquely answering Entropy's Occam's Razor posts): I was a little unclear about the "internal" evidences I've seen. This includes little "miracles" that I've experienced. If there is no God, then I can only credit those miracles to a string of unlikely coincidences. In the case of my internal belief system, Occam's Razor tells me: "Okay which is more likely? There is a God watching over you and your friends and is the cause of all those miracles? Or you just experienced a random, yet unrealistically predictable set of coincidences?"

Do you see what I'm trying to say? Based on my internal belief system--considering what I've seen and experienced, it just makes a lot more sense to me that God exists.

But gosuruss and others are looking for something that someone can write down and settle the issue once and for all definitively in such a manner that everyone that reads can't argue or tear apart. It's just not going to happen. We all have our different internal belief systems--our own experiences and evidences--our individual Occam's Razor leanings.

When a person types out some axioms that seem to be self-evident, there will always be someone else with a conflicting internal belief system that will say to himself, "It's not really that self-evident, because it doesn't account for X, Y, and Z, which I can clearly see." Then the second person may type out X, Y, and Z, and the first person will say, "I don't think that's self-evident," and so on.

For example, atheists like to say: "If you want to determine if God exists, you have to start from scratch. You can only draw conclusions from what is observable. Now prove to me that God exists." But they don't realize that their axioms already assume the non-existence of God (the circular logic). Thus my inability to prove God's existence while using these rules does not in and of itself constitute a definitive proof that God doesn't exist.

I get the well-written analogies of aliens eating cookies and flying spaghetti monsters (in other threads). Why in the world would anyone believe in those things when other more "reasonable" or "natural" possible explanations exist? And yes, this would also apply to our considering the existence of God if we were in a situation where none of us had even considered the concept. But we live in a world where a super-majority of the world believes in some kind of god. There are umpteen different religions, and each one has this consistent idea of a higher power. That makes for one huge "official" null hypothesis, and it would be a mistake to ignore it.

[Mel-o-rama]

So you don't try to convert people to Mormonism? Would it be better for a person to stick with their Methodist null hypothesis or change to Mormonism?

Oh, I'd be thrilled if everyone converted to Mormonism. I'd do the Snoopy dance.

And of course I'll try to convert people to Mormonism, but this consists mainly of providing information and having interesting discussions. If the person doesn't convert (happens most of the time), I'm not going to shake my fists and tell them they're going to hell. I realize they're just sticking with their null hypothesis.

But people do convert as they consider alternative hypotheses (I've seen that happen as well). That just means the person decided not to stick with his null hypothesis because he found something better.

That's okay, too.

[TheGillotine]

Do you see what I'm trying to say? Based on my internal belief system--considering what I've seen and experienced, it just makes a lot more sense to me that God exists.


Could you elaborate more on this point?

[Anthemyst]

This is the one main argument that turned the ultra-religious Darwin to atheism (the idea of a perfect God allowing so much suffering). My quick response to the suffering problem is that I can see how suffering plays a role in life--how it can build character, make one stronger, etc. The existence of suffering itself, however, is nowhere near an analytical proof that a loving God doesn't exist. It is indeed, however, an intuitive proof and an understandable one: "It doesn't feel right that God allows suffering." But this is an issue I've thought about considerably, and in fact it is the central theme of my first completed novel (still in revision mode). Mormon doctrine even has a little to say about suffering, but I'll save that for later.

I used to have this attitude about suffering, but then I found out about child sex slavery. Not really sure what kind of character that's supposed to build.

But I totally agree, the problem of suffering says basically nothing one way or the other about the existence of an all-powerful Creator. At most it contradicts the idea of an all-loving one, but that's a relatively new idea actually, and also beside the point.

Getting back to my earlier comment (and obliquely answering Entropy's Occam's Razor posts): I was a little unclear about the "internal" evidences I've seen. This includes little "miracles" that I've experienced. If there is no God, then I can only credit those miracles to a string of unlikely coincidences. In the case of my internal belief system, Occam's Razor tells me: "Okay which is more likely? There is a God watching over you and your friends and is the cause of all those miracles? Or you just experienced a random, yet unrealistically predictable set of coincidences?"

Do you see what I'm trying to say? Based on my internal belief system--considering what I've seen and experienced, it just makes a lot more sense to me that God exists. I think I do see what you're saying, but I'd be interested to hear what you consider a "miracle". Unlikely coincidences lining up in a favorable way is a statistical certainty, as are unlikely coincidences lining up in a particularly unfavorable way. It kind of bugs me when God only gets credit for the former.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Oh, I'd be thrilled if everyone converted to Mormonism. I'd do the Snoopy dance.

And of course I'll try to convert people to Mormonism, but this consists mainly of providing information and having interesting discussions. If the person doesn't convert (happens most of the time), I'm not going to shake my fists and tell them they're going to hell. I realize they're just sticking with their null hypothesis.

But people do convert as they consider alternative hypotheses (I've seen that happen as well). That just means the person decided not to stick with his null hypothesis because he found something better.

That's okay, too.

I guess what I really want to know is what does God want? Does God want people to change their null hypothesis and convert to Mormonism?

[Mel-o-rama]

I thought about this more.. I'm using a kind of bayesian logic here. I am saying we know people are delusional about this and that makes his claim less credible (of course there is no real evidence anyway..) You disagree and say every claim should be weighed against the evidence. I agree, if we had some evidence, I would love to weigh the claim against it. We don't, yet we still have people believing in it. This bayesian logic is to try and even further discredit this claim if the lack of evidence is not enough. What i mean is this.. if no one had ever claimed to speak to god in the history of mankind, that people weren't delusional, and didn't hear things, I think Joseph Smith's claim should be taken a bit more seriously. But the fact we know members of the human species lie or are deluded about these sorts of things gives us a reasonable explanation of the events. In the other case, if no one had ever claimed, that is not as reasonable. Further, I think you are basically weighing two scenarios. 1) God talked to this man, and the words in his book are divine. 2) God didn't talk to this man, and he was deluded and wrote what he felt god should be like. When evaluating which scenario fits the evidence, a prior distribution showing the capability of humans to lie, to deceive, to be deluded should be taken into account and can support your view.

If we know people lie, deceive, and are deluded frequently, given that a man does lie, deceive, and are deluded, is he likely to lie about speaking to God? Yes, people do this all of the time. So given the lack of evidence and given the frequency of liars/delusional individuals in society, given the incentives to be seen as a man of god, and given the history of people pretending to know god, it is a very easy conclusion to accept Joseph Smith did not speak to god.

Now, if someone told me they spoke to god, then I would ask for evidence of it and not immediately discount it. But where are these golden plates lol? Would that even be real evidence? Telling prophecies and writing about "moral truths" is the playbook to win over the hearts and minds of credulous men. Jesus did it, Muhammad did it, and Joseph Smith did it. He was just following the blueprint.

This is an interesting approach. I like it. Though you can't definitively prove something did or didn't happen, you can assign probabilities based on similar observations. But then it becomes a question of how complex to make the model.

One nitpick, first: If no one had ever claimed to talk with God prior to Joseph Smith, I think that would make it harder to believe Joseph Smith's claim. "Who is this God thing you keep referring to, Joseph?" If no one claimed this gift, then there are simply no observations and no model to use.

If one were to apply a very simple model (back in our reality, here), one would look at the list of people claiming to speak with God, and would see that a majority of them exhibit deceitful behaviors. Then this model would conclude with high probability that one who claims to talk with God is a deceitful person (implying that no one actually talked with God, further implying that God may not even exist).

But if you were to add variables and refine the model, you'd find that only a subset of the individuals would have a high probability of being deceitful, while others do not. Or in plainer English, the more you look into the life of Joseph Smith (or Jesus or Moses, etc.), the more you realize he (they) is different than the other ones on that list.

And one last thing specific to the golden plates you mentioned. You may have heard of the written testimony of the "eight" witnesses and the "three" witnesses. What's interesting about the "three" witnesses is that all three of them left the church. Oliver came back, but the other two couldn't get over certain issues. Yet they went to their deathbeds swearing that they really did see the golden plates--swearing that that part was real.

I only mention this to point out that every now and then, if you look, you can find evidences like this that are actually "admissable in court." Yet they are often ignored by those who don't want to see it. :)

[gosuruss]

This is an interesting approach. I like it. Though you can't definitively prove something did or didn't happen, you can assign probabilities based on similar observations. But then it becomes a question of how complex to make the model.

One nitpick, first: If no one had ever claimed to talk with God prior to Joseph Smith, I think that would make it harder to believe Joseph Smith's claim. "Who is this God thing you keep referring to, Joseph?" If no one claimed this gift, then there are simply no observations and no model to use.

If one were to apply a very simple model (back in our reality, here), one would look at the list of people claiming to speak with God, and would see that a majority of them exhibit deceitful behaviors. Then this model would conclude with high probability that one who claims to talk with God is a deceitful person (implying that no one actually talked with God, further implying that God may not even exist).

But if you were to add variables and refine the model, you'd find that only a subset of the individuals would have a high probability of being deceitful, while others do not. Or in plainer English, the more you look into the life of Joseph Smith (or Jesus or Moses, etc.), the more you realize he (they) is different than the other ones on that list.

And one last thing specific to the golden plates you mentioned. You may have heard of the written testimony of the "eight" witnesses and the "three" witnesses. What's interesting about the "three" witnesses is that all three of them left the church. Oliver came back, but the other two couldn't get over certain issues. Yet they went to their deathbeds swearing that they really did see the golden plates--swearing that that part was real.

I only mention this to point out that every now and then, if you look, you can find evidences like this that are actually "admissable in court." Yet they are often ignored by those who don't want to see it. :)


Suppose you presented Joseph Smith and the golden plates right here for me to observe and ask questions. My views on this would not change. Golden plates with some egyptian on there? God speaks egyptian? God's method of communication is to bury golden plates in the ground and speak to one person so he can translate it into a book that will reach maybe 20M out of 7B people in less than 200 years? How does that make any logical sense. You are asserting the omnisicient god wanted to communicate with humans while also asserting he chose the most inefficient way to do so. It's inconsistent, incoherent, and there are far better explanations.

[Mel-o-rama]

I used to have this attitude about suffering, but then I found out about child sex slavery. Not really sure what kind of character that's supposed to build.

But I totally agree, the problem of suffering says basically nothing one way or the other about the existence of an all-powerful Creator. At most it contradicts the idea of an all-loving one, but that's a relatively new idea actually, and also beside the point.
Yes - I see what you said that this could be an interesting discussion. Perhaps later...

I think I do see what you're saying, but I'd be interested to hear what you consider a "miracle". Unlikely coincidences lining up in a favorable way is a statistical certainty, as are unlikely coincidences lining up in a particularly unfavorable way. It kind of bugs me when God only gets credit for the former.

These "miracles" come in different varieties. Some of them are "I pray for something and God provides." These are interesting in that I'm kind of predicting the outcome of certain events beforehand. And yes - sometimes it doesn't work - such as praying for one of my short stories to get picked up by a major sci-fi magazine, but on the most part I seem to have a high success rate. Either I'm a pretty good prognosticator, or there's some God up there answering my prayers.

And then there are the serendipitous "miracles." A lot of these seemed to happen when I was on my mission trip in Korea (when God is supposed to be providing extra watch). Like this one time I had one of those crazy Utah Mormons with me in the city. We were walking down the sidewalk, and all of a sudden, he stopped, turned to me, and said some crazy out-of-the-blue spiritual junk, going so far as to irritate me for having to come to a stop to talk about it. But at that exact moment, a bike went whizzing by perpendicular to our path. Had we not stopped, we would have been hit. And get this ... since the Utah Mormon was facing me, he had no idea the bike even existed and he just went on with his crazy talk. It was like a scene out of that one Pink Panther movie where the boss tried to have Cousteau killed.

[Mel-o-rama]

Suppose you presented Joseph Smith and the golden plates right here for me to observe and ask questions. My views on this would not change. Golden plates with some egyptian on there? God speaks egyptian? God's method of communication is to bury golden plates in the ground and speak to one person so he can translate it into a book that will reach maybe 20M out of 7B people in less than 200 years? How does that make any logical sense. You are asserting the omnisicient god wanted to communicate with humans while also asserting he chose the most inefficient way to do so. It's inconsistent, incoherent, and there are far better explanations.

It's only inconsistent and incoherent because you have already assumed it to be. "It doesn't make sense because I don't understand it" is just more of that circular logic rearing its head.

Why did the golden plates have those strange symbols (reformed egyptian)? There's a simple answer for that. Why were the plates buried? An answer for that, too. Why is this translated into a book that touches only 20M out of 7B? There's an answer for that, too. (For now I'm just saying the answers exist just in an attempt to keep things general so that our arguments will apply to the other religions.)

It all makes sense to me. It is all consistent. Thus there exists at least one frame of reference in which this religion is consistent and coherent.

And if it's efficiency we're concerned about, we can go to any occurrence in history and tear apart what happened. We can critique their decisions and actions in hindsight and spout off all day how we could have done things better. While what we say may be true, does it prove that those events didn't actually happen?

[gosuruss]

It's only inconsistent and incoherent because you have already assumed it to be. "It doesn't make sense because I don't understand it" is just more of that circular logic rearing its head.

Why did the golden plates have those strange symbols (reformed egyptian)? There's a simple answer for that. Why were the plates buried? An answer for that, too. Why is this translated into a book that touches only 20M out of 7B? There's an answer for that, too. (For now I'm just saying the answers exist just in an attempt to keep things general so that our arguments will apply to the other religions.)

It all makes sense to me. It is all consistent. Thus there exists at least one frame of reference in which this religion is consistent and coherent.

And if it's efficiency we're concerned about, we can go to any occurrence in history and tear apart what happened. We can critique their decisions and actions in hindsight and spout off all day how we could have done things better. While what we say may be true, does it prove that those events didn't actually happen?

It makes sense to you? God would attempt to communicate with an english speaking human by writing reformed egyptian on golden plates. Can you explain how that makes sense? You can't just say it does. You need to explain why. This is not an axiom, so you can't just say it does. It's a complex idea.

Suppose I will give you: God exists, and God wants to communicate with humans. Explain how this makes sense as a form of communication.

We aren't talking about efficiency of human beings. We are talking about efficiency of an omniscient God who wants to communicate a message, a message, that gets continually ignored because it has manifested itself in a religion where people wear magic underwear. Not very omniscient, or omnefficient, i should say.

I am not assuming it to be. I stated very clearly why I am reasoning it doesn't make sense. You could say... actually, it does make sense -- here's why. I don't doubt you have "answers" for them. But if you provide them, I'm confident I can explain why those are bad answers.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

It's only inconsistent and incoherent because you have already assumed it to be. "It doesn't make sense because I don't understand it" is just more of that circular logic rearing its head.

Why did the golden plates have those strange symbols (reformed egyptian)? There's a simple answer for that. Why were the plates buried? An answer for that, too. Why is this translated into a book that touches only 20M out of 7B? There's an answer for that, too. (For now I'm just saying the answers exist just in an attempt to keep things general so that our arguments will apply to the other religions.)

It all makes sense to me. It is all consistent. Thus there exists at least one frame of reference in which this religion is consistent and coherent.

And if it's efficiency we're concerned about, we can go to any occurrence in history and tear apart what happened. We can critique their decisions and actions in hindsight and spout off all day how we could have done things better. While what we say may be true, does it prove that those events didn't actually happen?

It's not our efficiency that is in question. It is God's. If God wants everyone to be Mormon, there is a much better way to go about it. If God doesn't want everyone to be Mormon, why not? Why would God deny all of these people to have the fullness of the everlasting gospel in their lives?

[gosuruss]

Yes - I see what you said that this could be an interesting discussion. Perhaps later...



These "miracles" come in different varieties. Some of them are "I pray for something and God provides." These are interesting in that I'm kind of predicting the outcome of certain events beforehand. And yes - sometimes it doesn't work - such as praying for one of my short stories to get picked up by a major sci-fi magazine, but on the most part I seem to have a high success rate. Either I'm a pretty good prognosticator, or there's some God up there answering my prayers.

And then there are the serendipitous "miracles." A lot of these seemed to happen when I was on my mission trip in Korea (when God is supposed to be providing extra watch). Like this one time I had one of those crazy Utah Mormons with me in the city. We were walking down the sidewalk, and all of a sudden, he stopped, turned to me, and said some crazy out-of-the-blue spiritual junk, going so far as to irritate me for having to come to a stop to talk about it. But at that exact moment, a bike went whizzing by perpendicular to our path. Had we not stopped, we would have been hit. And get this ... since the Utah Mormon was facing me, he had no idea the bike even existed and he just went on with his crazy talk. It was like a scene out of that one Pink Panther movie where the boss tried to have Cousteau killed.

Now we are on a topic I enjoy. You think God answers your prayers. 16,000 children starve to death, daily. Think about how much they have begged and suffered and prayed to God. Now, if you are going to tell me God reveals himself in every culture, they ain't praying to the wrong God either. God is hearing their prayers and continually ignores them.

To sit here and say that God may (but didn't THIS time) physically alter another humans brain chemistry to get a magazine to say "yes" to your Sci Fi story so you can improve your own self image but ignore 16,000 starving children and their parents desperate pleas on a daily basis has to be the greatest case of narcissism I have ever seen. It is logically inconceivable of a benevolent God and it really shows a lack of perspective of the world. This is why all of those internal intuitions are really meaningless in this discussion.

Let me guess, you are going to say it is our job to feed them. But if God is willing to help you get your Sci Fi story published (or something similar), why isn't he willing to help these children? Can you reason honestly about why you deserve this help and they haven't? You can't sufficiently answer this last question without revealing a very ugly hand -- but I'd love to see you try.

[gosuruss]

And then there are the serendipitous "miracles." A lot of these seemed to happen when I was on my mission trip in Korea (when God is supposed to be providing extra watch). Like this one time I had one of those crazy Utah Mormons with me in the city. We were walking down the sidewalk, and all of a sudden, he stopped, turned to me, and said some crazy out-of-the-blue spiritual junk, going so far as to irritate me for having to come to a stop to talk about it. But at that exact moment, a bike went whizzing by perpendicular to our path. Had we not stopped, we would have been hit. And get this ... since the Utah Mormon was facing me, he had no idea the bike even existed and he just went on with his crazy talk. It was like a scene out of that one Pink Panther movie where the boss tried to have Cousteau killed.

That's not a miracle. If the bike was whizzing as fast as you say, then he may have heard it approaching rapidly (and maybe your ears suck) -- this may have triggered his delusional episode. If you didn't hear it, and he was talking long enough to start to irritate you with spiritual junk, you probably wouldn't have been hit in its path. Furthermore, the bike may have changed it's course if he saw you, or used the breaks, or he sped up because he didn't see anyone.

Also, for such delusional people, it isn't so crazy for them to have a mental breakdown once in a while. Could have been a coincidence. Sounds like an unstable guy, i'd be wary.

[gosuruss]

Suppose you presented Joseph Smith and the golden plates right here for me to observe and ask questions. My views on this would not change. Golden plates with some egyptian on there? God speaks egyptian? God's method of communication is to bury golden plates in the ground and speak to one person so he can translate it into a book that will reach maybe 20M out of 7B people in less than 200 years? How does that make any logical sense. You are asserting the omnisicient god wanted to communicate with humans while also asserting he chose the most inefficient way to do so. It's inconsistent, incoherent, and there are far better explanations.

The alternative, which I omitted, is of course the only way to spread God's message that isn't really God is from these origins. Slowly, through word of mouth, through printing books, through gaining followers, etc and it is bound to be inefficient given the competitive market of religions out there.

[vividox]

These "miracles" come in different varieties. Some of them are "I pray for something and God provides." These are interesting in that I'm kind of predicting the outcome of certain events beforehand. And yes - sometimes it doesn't work - such as praying for one of my short stories to get picked up by a major sci-fi magazine, but on the most part I seem to have a high success rate. Either I'm a pretty good prognosticator, or there's some God up there answering my prayers.
My mother always told me "work like it depends on you and pray like it depends on God."

A big chunk of prayers are asking for something you are working toward, "Lord, please let me pass this exam". Then you go study for 300 hours and pass. This isn't prognostication or even religious, this is simple cause and effect. However, it seems as though a prayer was "answered" by a higher power to a religious person.

I know I'm generalizing a specific subset of prayers here, but I've found that most of what I prayed for was within my own realm of influence and I was the one making it happen, not God. If you truly want something, you are going to work toward it. It just so happens that if you are a religious person, you are also going to pray for it too.

[oirg]

Nobody has ever sincerely prayed for a quadriplegiac to get up from their wheelchair, or for a soldier with a leg blown off to regrow it.

[ditkaworshipper]

When I was religious, I would pray for things to happen, and through praying to God, I would figure out what I needed to do. Now that I'm not religious, I meditate on things, and through objective analysis, I figure out what I need to do. The only difference in the process is that I am no longer seeing it as an appeal to a higher authority, but my own intuition and thought.

Prayer is a cathartic mechanism for many people to clear their thoughts. However, I have substituted sports to apply to the same purpose. Rather than going to church, I turn on a soccer game. I actually get the same effect: white noise that I can half tune out while getting the gist of it, but what's really going on is that I'm organizing my own thoughts in the background.

Prayer is a useful mechanism imo, but I think its effects are so powerful because of its ability to calm an individual and tap into intuition, not because of a higher authority listening and reacting.

[Mel-o-rama]

It makes sense to you? God would attempt to communicate with an english speaking human by writing reformed egyptian on golden plates. Can you explain how that makes sense? You can't just say it does. You need to explain why. This is not an axiom, so you can't just say it does. It's a complex idea. I see you don't like to take "yes" for an answer. :) Well, I'm telling you. As much as the absence of God makes sense to you, the whole Mormon/Jesus story makes sense to me. We both considered the evidences presented to us. We both used analytical thought processes to evaluate different aspects. And we come to our own conclusions. I've already asked the questions you bring up, and I've already worked out the answers. So, does it make sense to me? I'll say it again: yes.

Why do I need to explain it to you? Perhaps if I were trying to convince you to see the Mormon way, I would, but right now I'm trying to discuss and compare thought processes. I'm trying to tell you "there exists" and you want to see all the juicy details. I just wonder why you doubt that I see a consistent and coherent picture.

To doubt me on this is to imply that you're "doing it right" and I'm not. You're saying, "If you believe in X, there must be something wrong with your thought processes." Or said differently, "I don't understand it, so you're wrong." The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I say, because you've already decided that you'll shoot it down.

In fact, what was it you said when we started this exchange? Something like: Let me ask you a series of questions and I guarantee that your arguments will fall apart.

If you don't mind me saying, this sounds a little narcisstic on your ability to strike down what I'm about to write (even though you really have no idea what I'll write).

Suppose I will give you: God exists, and God wants to communicate with humans. Explain how this makes sense as a form of communication.

We aren't talking about efficiency of human beings. We are talking about efficiency of an omniscient God who wants to communicate a message, a message, that gets continually ignored because it has manifested itself in a religion where people wear magic underwear. Not very omniscient, or omnefficient, i should say.

I'll provide this answer for now: There could be reasons why God chose a less effective way. For example, when you train a colleague at work, it would be more efficient to go ahead and do the work yourself, but spending an extra few hours building up another person results in bigger returns in the long run.

I am not assuming it to be. I stated very clearly why I am reasoning it doesn't make sense. You could say... actually, it does make sense -- here's why. I don't doubt you have "answers" for them. But if you provide them, I'm confident I can explain why those are bad answers.

Oh look - there it is again. I wonder if I should even try. :) I get it. You've worked it all out and everyone else is wrong.

[Klaymen]

Now we are on a topic I enjoy. You think God answers your prayers. 16,000 children starve to death, daily. Think about how much they have begged and suffered and prayed to God. Now, if you are going to tell me God reveals himself in every culture, they ain't praying to the wrong God either. God is hearing their prayers and continually ignores them.

One alternative, then, is that does not God "hear" all prayers.
Consider II Chr. 7:13-15:

13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.

Now I can't speak to the situations of all 16,000 children. But could it be that many live in a family or a land that has gone against God almighty, and that he has turned away from them as a result? In how many instances of rebellion or idolatry did God send plague, disease, or war? He is a God capable of great love to those who follow him, and severe punishment for those who do not. This flies in the face of the God you would imagine whose main purpose would be to prevent suffering on this earth.


It is logically inconceivable of a benevolent God and it really shows a lack of perspective of the world. This is why all of those internal intuitions are really meaningless in this discussion ... You can't sufficiently answer this last question without revealing a very ugly hand -- but I'd love to see you try.

Why is it illogical? God goes over and over this in the Bible. It is unplesant, not illogical. We live in a sinful, fallen place. Nobody will be able to explain why specific individual suffering exists, but when did God ever say there wouldn't be any on this earth? He didn't.

H0: God allows suffering to exist.

[Mel-o-rama]

I guess what I really want to know is what does God want? Does God want people to change their null hypothesis and convert to Mormonism?

I suppose God (assuming Mormonism is correct) would want as many people to convert to Mormonism. But our doctrine implies that God values each person's personal development. That is, we all have to figure it out on our own. Sure God could open up a window and say, "Hey dudes down there! Mormonism. :tup !" But wouldn't that be "Satan's plan"? Wouldn't everyone then be coerced to join the Mormon church?

(Indirectly answering gosuruss too.)

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I suppose God (assuming Mormonism is correct) would want as many people to convert to Mormonism. But our doctrine implies that God values each person's personal development. That is, we all have to figure it out on our own. Sure God could open up a window and say, "Hey dudes down there! Mormonism. :tup !" But wouldn't that be "Satan's plan"? Wouldn't everyone then be coerced to join the Mormon church?

(Indirectly answering gosuruss too.)

Well, nearly everyone born into Mormon households are pretty much coerced to become Mormon. So, Mormon families are part of Satan's plan?

Of kids born to Mormon families, what is the percentage that end up Mormon?70%?
Of kids born to non-Mormon families, what is the percentage that end up Mormon? >1%?

Does that seem like everyone has the same chance to "figure it out on their own"?

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I suppose God (assuming Mormonism is correct) would want as many people to convert to Mormonism. But our doctrine implies that God values each person's personal development. That is, we all have to figure it out on our own. Sure God could open up a window and say, "Hey dudes down there! Mormonism. :tup !" But wouldn't that be "Satan's plan"? Wouldn't everyone then be coerced to join the Mormon church?

(Indirectly answering gosuruss too.)

You are inconsistent in what you are saying. You said earlier that God performs miracles all the time, but now you are saying if God performs a miracle then that doesn't allow free will. Which is it?

[Quasi]

You are inconsistent in what you are saying. You said earlier that God performs miracles all the time, but now you are saying if God performs a miracle then that doesn't allow free will. Which is it?

Plus there is a lot of ground between what Mel thinks was done (tell only Joseph Smith 1,800 years after Jesus)......and a giant head appearing in the sky telling every human on earth that Mormonism is correct. For instance, why not appoint 1 Joseph Smith on every continent? Or have Jesus give the full story initially? Or have Jesus give the full story initially and through his God magic let him travel to tell a few people on each continent?

There would still be free will, everyone would have to decide if they believe their country/continent's Joseph Smith. There would still be atheists who think one Joseph Smith somehow heard about another version of him and copied. But the message would be spread much quicker with fewer misunderstandings and resultant wars.

[TheGillotine]

I suppose God (assuming Mormonism is correct) would want as many people to convert to Mormonism. But our doctrine implies that God values each person's personal development. That is, we all have to figure it out on our own. Sure God could open up a window and say, "Hey dudes down there! Mormonism. :tup !" But wouldn't that be "Satan's plan"? Wouldn't everyone then be coerced to join the Mormon church?

(Indirectly answering gosuruss too.)

Sort of breaking character here:

Why would global divine revelation be coercive? It seem to me that such a thing would be necessary for an informed decision. Consider being on a jury in a trial. When more evidence is presented, this does not, I think, diminish the choice the jurists make - it informs the choice.

On the other hand, the threat of Hell does involve coercion.

I see you don't like to take "yes" for an answer. :) Well, I'm telling you. As much as the absence of God makes sense to you, the whole Mormon/Jesus story makes sense to me. We both considered the evidences presented to us. We both used analytical thought processes to evaluate different aspects. And we come to our own conclusions. I've already asked the questions you bring up, and I've already worked out the answers. So, does it make sense to me? I'll say it again: yes.

Why do I need to explain it to you? Perhaps if I were trying to convince you to see the Mormon way, I would, but right now I'm trying to discuss and compare thought processes. I'm trying to tell you "there exists" and you want to see all the juicy details. I just wonder why you doubt that I see a consistent and coherent picture.

To doubt me on this is to imply that you're "doing it right" and I'm not. You're saying, "If you believe in X, there must be something wrong with your thought processes." Or said differently, "I don't understand it, so you're wrong." The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I say, because you've already decided that you'll shoot it down.

In fact, what was it you said when we started this exchange? Something like: Let me ask you a series of questions and I guarantee that your arguments will fall apart.

If you don't mind me saying, this sounds a little narcisstic on your ability to strike down what I'm about to write (even though you really have no idea what I'll write).



I'll provide this answer for now: There could be reasons why God chose a less effective way. For example, when you train a colleague at work, it would be more efficient to go ahead and do the work yourself, but spending an extra few hours building up another person results in bigger returns in the long run.



Oh look - there it is again. I wonder if I should even try. :) I get it. You've worked it all out and everyone else is wrong.

To analogize again - imagine you and Gosuruss are looking at this painting (The Ambassadors - Hans Holbein):

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/12/22/1324572138036/The-Ambassadors-by-Hans-H-008.jpg

You mention to Gosuruss that the skull in the painting is creepy. Gosuruss looks closely at the painting and says "there's no skull in this picture". You say "Yes there is, I see it right there."

Now, you're at a museum and can't walk any closer than 10 feet to the painting, so it's hard to tell where exactly you're pointing. It may seem like Gosuruss, in insisting that you explain exactly where the skull is, is being arrogant, and there may be some of that, but I think most of it is an incredulity and curiosity as to what exactly you're seeing that he's missing.

(edit - changed painting)

[Anthemyst]

Sort of breaking character here:

[break character]

[breaking character]

For some, maybe. For me, the sermons were so repetitive that I ended up going on long trains of thought during the service. Certain trains of thought can really cripple a person's faith...

You're not very good at staying in character, you know.

[TheGillotine]

You're not very good at staying in character, you know.

Sorry, this is harder than it looks. In my defense, I haven't made any overt attacks on religion :P

[The Borg]

One alternative, then, is that does not God "hear" all prayers.
Consider II Chr. 7:13-15:


Now I can't speak to the situations of all 16,000 children. But could it be that many live in a family or a land that has gone against God almighty, and that he has turned away from them as a result? In how many instances of rebellion or idolatry did God send plague, disease, or war? He is a God capable of great love to those who follow him, and severe punishment for those who do not. This flies in the face of the God you would imagine whose main purpose would be to prevent suffering on this earth.

What you cited is in the context of the Mosiac covenant, which is a performance based agreement with and only with Israel. When Israel was obedient => blessings, when they were disobedient => curses. I don't think this means God doesn't hear prayer, and furthermore, I don't think this applies today to any people group or land.

[Quasi]

What you cited is in the context of the Mosiac covenant, which is a performance based agreement with and only with Israel. When Israel was obedient => blessings, when they were disobedient => curses. I don't think this means God doesn't hear prayer, and furthermore, I don't think this applies today to any people group or land.

Does it make sense to anyone for God to punish people (including young children) for things their parents/grandparents/countrymen did? If the gov't decided to do that would you think it was fair/right/moral?

[gosuruss]

I suppose God (assuming Mormonism is correct) would want as many people to convert to Mormonism. But our doctrine implies that God values each person's personal development. That is, we all have to figure it out on our own. Sure God could open up a window and say, "Hey dudes down there! Mormonism. :tup !" But wouldn't that be "Satan's plan"? Wouldn't everyone then be coerced to join the Mormon church?

(Indirectly answering gosuruss too.)

90+% of people aren't even given a chance. Even you would argue just being a mormon is not indicative of your personal development. So that personal development occurs after you learn about Mormonism and you put its virtues into play. So why withhold the gate to personal development in the first place?

It's really hard for me to conclude that god wants everyone to be Mormon if he concluded this 180 years ago and the revelation has reached less than 1 person out of 100. But I suppose your intuition on this says it makes sense

[Mel-o-rama]

You're not very good at staying in character, you know.

Yeah - I like opposite Gillotine as much as I like regular Gillotine. Hmmm ... I'm tempted to go one month as an atheist. What do y'all say? I could start in June?

[Vorian Atreides]

Sorry, this is harder than it looks. In my defense, I haven't made any overt attacks on religion :P
So you're saying that they're all covert attacks?

[Quasi]

Yeah - I like opposite Gillotine as much as I like regular Gillotine. Hmmm ... I'm tempted to go one month as an atheist. What do y'all say? I could start in June?

I think you were supposed to do that sort of experimenting back in college. Might be risky at this point. How good of a sense of humor does the Mormon God have?

You could do a lesser change and argue as a Catholic for a month.

[Buck]

What about dinosaurs? What does Bible have to say about them?

- Any "convenant" with dinos?
- did dinos repent? Rapture?
- sins, hell apply to dinos?
- any other god-breathed truths about dinos?

[Anthemyst]

What about dinosaurs? What does Bible have to say about them?

- Any "convenant" with dinos?
- did dinos repent? Rapture?
- sins, hell apply to dinos?
- any other god-breathed truths about dinos?

Seriously? Just...seriously?

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Seriously? Just...seriously?

Yup. That's why he's one of 2 people I have on ignore. He adds nothing to any discussion. I think if we all just ignore him he might go away.

[Mel-o-rama]

You mention to Gosuruss that the skull in the painting is creepy. Gosuruss looks closely at the painting and says "there's no skull in this picture". You say "Yes there is, I see it right there."

Now, you're at a museum and can't walk any closer than 10 feet to the painting, so it's hard to tell where exactly you're pointing. It may seem like Gosuruss, in insisting that you explain exactly where the skull is, is being arrogant, and there may be some of that, but I think most of it is an incredulity and curiosity as to what exactly you're seeing that he's missing.

Okay - I just gotta know. Is there really a skull in there? I can't find it!

In the situation you describe, it would be incorrect to call gosuruss arrogant.

But if he were to say, "There's no skull there. Go ahead and try to show me where it is. I'm confident that I'll prove you wrong and that it isn't a skull." Then that would be arrogant.

BTW, I do see a giraffe in that picture.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Yup. That's why he's one of 2 people I have on ignore. He adds nothing to any discussion. I think if we all just ignore him he might go away.

I fan never ignore that signature puppy face if his.

[Mel-o-rama]

Yup. That's why he's one of 2 people I have on ignore. He adds nothing to any discussion. I think if we all just ignore him he might go away.

Every once in a while he hits gold. :)

[Baby, ByeBye]

Okay - I just gotta know. Is there really a skull in there? I can't find it!

In the situation you describe, it would be incorrect to call gosuruss arrogant.

But if he were to say, "There's no skull there. Go ahead and try to show me where it is. I'm confident that I'll prove you wrong and that it isn't a skull." Then that would be arrogant.

BTW, I do see a giraffe in that picture.

The skull is that stretcged thing on the floor. It's stretched diagonally.

[Anthemyst]

BTW, I do see a giraffe in that picture.

You idiot ;)

[TheGillotine]

Okay - I just gotta know. Is there really a skull in there? I can't find it!

In the situation you describe, it would be incorrect to call gosuruss arrogant.

But if he were to say, "There's no skull there. Go ahead and try to show me where it is. I'm confident that I'll prove you wrong and that it isn't a skull." Then that would be arrogant.

BTW, I do see a giraffe in that picture.

Yep. You gotta look at it from the right angle.

I like this analogy in particular, because when told about the skull you tend to look for it as if it were hidden in a certain way, but it's different than you'd initially expect.


But I really want to know your opinion about informed decisions w/ regard to religion.

[vividox]

The skull is a lot easier to see if you are looking at the picture at an angle, which you could very easily do in a museum.

[gosuruss]

Okay - I just gotta know. Is there really a skull in there? I can't find it!

In the situation you describe, it would be incorrect to call gosuruss arrogant.

But if he were to say, "There's no skull there. Go ahead and try to show me where it is. I'm confident that I'll prove you wrong and that it isn't a skull." Then that would be arrogant.

BTW, I do see a giraffe in that picture.

Hey, atleast i'm not the one proud enough to think God weighed whether or not my Sci Fi short story should be accepted to a magazine while he declined to help some poor child starving to death with parasitic worm living in his eyeball.

[Mel-o-rama]

Why would global divine revelation be coercive? It seem to me that such a thing would be necessary for an informed decision. Consider being on a jury in a trial. When more evidence is presented, this does not, I think, diminish the choice the jurists make - it informs the choice.

On the other hand, the threat of Hell does involve coercion.
I think full disclosure would be coercive if we were also allowed to "sin." If God told us Mormonism is true, then we'd all give up beer and start wearing holy underwear. And if anyone gets out of line ... oooohhh. Any "sin" would then be open rebellion against God. Plus we would all know about that Big Brother in the Sky keeping an eye over us.

And do we really need to be informed in every aspect of our lives? One doesn't need to understand the Theory of Gravity to follow it. (Though I like to joke about how people must have gotten around before Newton invented gravity.) One doesn't need to know calculus to do most daily tasks. Yet that knowledge is there for the taking.

My personal belief (which you've already heard from me) is that God created our environment where anyone can accept whatever level of Truth they are ready to accept. We were all created and placed on this earth to be tested to see how we act in a place where there isn't full disclosure. In other words, how would we act as atheists? Given full Free Will, would we be kind or cruel? Would we indulge ourselves or remain pure? Then God gave us religion to let us know the full Truth if we so desire.

And as I have said about the Mormon religion (and I believe this strongly) ... if one doesn't have a chance to become a Mormon, they will be judged according to their knowledge they did gain and things will be taken care of in the next life. Like gosuruss, I would have a very difficult time believing in a religion that condemns everyone else outside that religion to "hell."

[Mel-o-rama]

You idiot ;)

Said that just for you. ;)

[gosuruss]

I see you don't like to take "yes" for an answer. :) Well, I'm telling you. As much as the absence of God makes sense to you, the whole Mormon/Jesus story makes sense to me. We both considered the evidences presented to us. We both used analytical thought processes to evaluate different aspects. And we come to our own conclusions. I've already asked the questions you bring up, and I've already worked out the answers. So, does it make sense to me? I'll say it again: yes.

Why do I need to explain it to you? Perhaps if I were trying to convince you to see the Mormon way, I would, but right now I'm trying to discuss and compare thought processes. I'm trying to tell you "there exists" and you want to see all the juicy details. I just wonder why you doubt that I see a consistent and coherent picture.

To doubt me on this is to imply that you're "doing it right" and I'm not. You're saying, "If you believe in X, there must be something wrong with your thought processes." Or said differently, "I don't understand it, so you're wrong." The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I say, because you've already decided that you'll shoot it down.

In fact, what was it you said when we started this exchange? Something like: Let me ask you a series of questions and I guarantee that your arguments will fall apart.

If you don't mind me saying, this sounds a little narcisstic on your ability to strike down what I'm about to write (even though you really have no idea what I'll write).



I'll provide this answer for now: There could be reasons why God chose a less effective way. For example, when you train a colleague at work, it would be more efficient to go ahead and do the work yourself, but spending an extra few hours building up another person results in bigger returns in the long run.



Oh look - there it is again. I wonder if I should even try. :) I get it. You've worked it all out and everyone else is wrong.

You don't need to explain it to me. You accepted the heroic challenge of defending your views. Defending your views means explaining why you think it makes sense. Not, that it just makes sense. Now, I see you have no interest in truly defending them, but only reiterating what you believe.

I've seen and read a lot about this, and there aren't very many new (or old) compelling arguments for why we should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet or Jesus was the son of god. I told you I would keep asking questions and we would get to the bottom of it. Typically, people retreat when they get uncomfortable and we don't really get to the bottom of it.

It's not even about choosing the most effective way, like someone else said, a moderately efficient way would have been much better.

Mormonism, the religion with eternal truth, spread the same way that you would expect a persuasive religion created purely by humans.

[Mel-o-rama]

The skull is that stretcged thing on the floor. It's stretched diagonally.

Oh, now I see it.

See, gosuruss? I told you!

[The Borg]

Does it make sense to anyone for God to punish people (including young children) for things their parents/grandparents/countrymen did? If the gov't decided to do that would you think it was fair/right/moral?

My point was dispensational, in light of that, I don't understand what you're asking.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Yup. That's why he's one of 2 people I have on ignore. He adds nothing to any discussion. I think if we all just ignore him he might go away.
A lot of people did this with God. It worked for them.

[Vorian Atreides]

A lot of people did this with God. It worked for them.
So far.

[gosuruss]

Oh, now I see it.

See, gosuruss? I told you!

Do you see how explaining works now? :P

[Mel-o-rama]

You don't need to explain it to me. You accepted the heroic challenge of defending your views. Defending your views means explaining why you think it makes sense. Not, that it just makes sense. Now, I see you have no interest in truly defending them, but only reiterating what you believe.

Did I say I have no interest in defending my views? If you're really interested then we can go that route. I'm just trying to stick to the main topic and keep things general. Once we dive fully into the Mormon religion, I'm just afraid we'll lose all the other Christians.

But then again it sounds like you already have everything wrapped up:
I've seen and read a lot about this, and there aren't very many new (or old) compelling arguments for why we should believe Joseph Smith was a prophet or Jesus was the son of god.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I think full disclosure would be coercive if we were also allowed to "sin." If God told us Mormonism is true, then we'd all give up beer and start wearing holy underwear. And if anyone gets out of line ... oooohhh. Any "sin" would then be open rebellion against God. Plus we would all know about that Big Brother in the Sky keeping an eye over us.

And do we really need to be informed in every aspect of our lives? One doesn't need to understand the Theory of Gravity to follow it. (Though I like to joke about how people must have gotten around before Newton invented gravity.) One doesn't need to know calculus to do most daily tasks. Yet that knowledge is there for the taking.

My personal belief (which you've already heard from me) is that God created our environment where anyone can accept whatever level of Truth they are ready to accept. We were all created and placed on this earth to be tested to see how we act in a place where there isn't full disclosure. In other words, how would we act as atheists? Given full Free Will, would we be kind or cruel? Would we indulge ourselves or remain pure? Then God gave us religion to let us know the full Truth if we so desire.

And as I have said about the Mormon religion (and I believe this strongly) ... if one doesn't have a chance to become a Mormon, they will be judged according to their knowledge they did gain and things will be taken care of in the next life. Like gosuruss, I would have a very difficult time believing in a religion that condemns everyone else outside that religion to "hell."

In summary:

Mormonism is too hard for 99% of the world so it's better that they don't know that it's true.

People born to Mormon parents are way, way, way more likely to be ready to accept The Truth.

Everyone will have a chance to become Mormon so it doesn't matter who is Mormon in this life. (Shhhhhh, don't tell the missionaries.)

[TheGillotine]

I think full disclosure would be coercive if we were also allowed to "sin." If God told us Mormonism is true, then we'd all give up beer and start wearing holy underwear. And if anyone gets out of line ... oooohhh. Any "sin" would then be open rebellion against God. Plus we would all know about that Big Brother in the Sky keeping an eye over us.


But isn't that what God wants us to do? Doesn't he want us to give up beer and wear holy underwear? And if Big Brother is in the Sky keeping an eye over us, wouldn't that be something we'd like to know?

For that matter consider the many theists who do not accept Mormonism. They already believe that Big Brother is in the sky, as you say. But God has not given them the information necessary to make an informed decision about which religion to follow.

And do we really need to be informed in every aspect of our lives? One doesn't need to understand the Theory of Gravity to follow it. (Though I like to joke about how people must have gotten around before Newton invented gravity.) One doesn't need to know calculus to do most daily tasks. Yet that knowledge is there for the taking.


I don't think gravity or calculus are analogous. This is information that most theological ideologies believe will be the basis for judgment. If someone is to be judged on this basis, then they need that information.

My personal belief (which you've already heard from me) is that God created our environment where anyone can accept whatever level of Truth they are ready to accept. We were all created and placed on this earth to be tested to see how we act in a place where there isn't full disclosure. In other words, how would we act as atheists? Given full Free Will, would we be kind or cruel? Would we indulge ourselves or remain pure? Then God gave us religion to let us know the full Truth if we so desire.


Only thing I feel I should point out here is that I don't think it's about "being ready to accept a level of Truth".

And as I have said about the Mormon religion (and I believe this strongly) ... if one doesn't have a chance to become a Mormon, they will be judged according to their knowledge they did gain and things will be taken care of in the next life. Like gosuruss, I would have a very difficult time believing in a religion that condemns everyone else outside that religion to "hell."

But we've had the chance to become Mormons, haven't we? ;)

In fact, I've recently finished reading the Book of Mormon. Right now I'm trying to do some mental acrobatics so I can try praying sincerely in order to give the Book of Mormon Challenge a proper go. It's not easy convincing yourself that God exists in order to ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true.

[Mel-o-rama]

Now we are on a topic I enjoy. You think God answers your prayers. 16,000 children starve to death, daily. Think about how much they have begged and suffered and prayed to God. Now, if you are going to tell me God reveals himself in every culture, they ain't praying to the wrong God either. God is hearing their prayers and continually ignores them.

To sit here and say that God may (but didn't THIS time) physically alter another humans brain chemistry to get a magazine to say "yes" to your Sci Fi story so you can improve your own self image but ignore 16,000 starving children and their parents desperate pleas on a daily basis has to be the greatest case of narcissism I have ever seen. It is logically inconceivable of a benevolent God and it really shows a lack of perspective of the world. This is why all of those internal intuitions are really meaningless in this discussion.

Let me guess, you are going to say it is our job to feed them. But if God is willing to help you get your Sci Fi story published (or something similar), why isn't he willing to help these children? Can you reason honestly about why you deserve this help and they haven't? You can't sufficiently answer this last question without revealing a very ugly hand -- but I'd love to see you try.
First off, I think it is a very unfair comparison to compare my desire to get published with children starving in the world. You accuse me of being narcissistic, but what do you want me to do about it? Do you want me to give up my desires, sell everything I have, and go over there to China to feed those kids? Why don't you give up your career and aspirations and go feed those kids if you're so concerned about it?

All I said was that I see evidence of God touching my life, and you turn this into some big "Mel is evil" thing. I do whatever I can to make this world a better place. I give to charities and I would appreciate it if you would stop applying such shiver-worthy attributes to me without reason.

As for the starving children ... I don't know every single reason as to why God allows all that. I just know that he allows suffering. And since you mentioned it ... yes, ultimately the reason why they're starving is because we humans created that situation. And it should be up to us to resolve it. To go along with an earlier answer of mine, if we're down here on the earth to be tested, then those who were in a position to help those children failed that test and will be punished accordingly. (Assuming there is a God ... that is.)

[Mel-o-rama]

But we've had the chance to become Mormons, haven't we? ;)

In fact, I've recently finished reading the Book of Mormon. Right now I'm trying to do some mental acrobatics so I can try praying sincerely in order to give the Book of Mormon Challenge a proper go. It's not easy convincing yourself that God exists in order to ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true.
Oh - I see what's up with you now. Good luck with that! Let us know how it goes.

[Mel-o-rama]

But isn't that what God wants us to do? Doesn't he want us to give up beer and wear holy underwear? And if Big Brother is in the Sky keeping an eye over us, wouldn't that be something we'd like to know?

For that matter consider the many theists who do not accept Mormonism. They already believe that Big Brother is in the sky, as you say. But God has not given them the information necessary to make an informed decision about which religion to follow.
Another thing I left out ... If Mormonism (or generic Christianity) is true then having faith is very important to God. Once you have full knowledge, then faith is no longer necessary. If God hides his presence, then we all must exercise faith to believe in him. And faith is defined as "having hope in things unseen."

If God were to reveal himself, then the opportunity for us to exercise faith is gone. So even though I'd expect God would want us all to know the truth about him, it has to be through faith and on our own terms.

[Baby, ByeBye]

First off, I think it is a very unfair comparison to compare my desire to get published with children starving in the world. You accuse me of being narcissistic, but what do you want me to do about it? Do you want me to give up my desires, sell everything I have, and go over there to China to feed those kids? Why don't you give up your career and aspirations and go feed those kids if you're so concerned about it?

All I said was that I see evidence of God touching my life, and you turn this into some big "Mel is evil" thing. I do whatever I can to make this world a better place. I give to charities and I would appreciate it if you would stop applying such shiver-worthy attributes to me without reason.

As for the starving children ... I don't know every single reason as to why God allows all that. I just know that he allows suffering. And since you mentioned it ... yes, ultimately the reason why they're starving is because we humans created that situation. And it should be up to us to resolve it. To go along with an earlier answer of mine, if we're down here on the earth to be tested, then those who were in a position to help those children failed that test and will be punished accordingly. (Assuming there is a God ... that is.)

I would think saying God does things in your favor in the most insignificant ways, and then turn around and say that God allows grotesquely evil things to happen in the world because "you don't know why, all you know is that God allows evil" is pretty narcissistic.

[TheGillotine]

And behold, I will now make your point with your own scriptures!



13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh arepentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and bendureth to the end the same shall be saved.

14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much amore cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are cnot seen, which are true.

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.

24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—

25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

[Anthemyst]

I would think saying God does things in your favor in the most insignificant ways, and then turn around and say that God allows grotesquely evil things to happen in the world because "you don't know why, all you know is that God allows evil" is pretty narcissistic.

I wouldn't say it's narcissistic, (partly because that's mean and I was given to understand we were going to try and keep things from devolving into personal attacks) but it does strike me as kind of cognitive dissonance-y. I get that it's an extremely extremely common way of approaching things, but it definitely strikes me as off. "Things went slightly better than I expected in my already charmed first world existence, that doesn't make sense without God existing" doesn't seem to work side-by-side with "Well, God's ways are very mysterious, it is impossible for us to comprehend why He does what He does."

[FoxNews]

FoxNews worships the god of Fair and Balanced

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Yeah - I like opposite Gillotine as much as I like regular Gillotine. Hmmm ... I'm tempted to go one month as an atheist. What do y'all say? I could start in June?
I am intrigued enough to offer you the use of the Atheist Man ID for that month if you wish.

[gosuruss]

I wouldn't say it's narcissistic, (partly because that's mean and I was given to understand we were going to try and keep things from devolving into personal attacks) but it does strike me as kind of cognitive dissonance-y. I get that it's an extremely extremely common way of approaching things, but it definitely strikes me as off. "Things went slightly better than I expected in my already charmed first world existence, that doesn't make sense without God existing" doesn't seem to work side-by-side with "Well, God's ways are very mysterious, it is impossible for us to comprehend why He does what He does."

Very well said

[gosuruss]

And behold, I will now make your point with your own scriptures!





It's funny though. The first thing to get published was the sworn testimony of the three witnesses saying they saw an angel.

To a lot of people, this like seemed credible evidence. Three respected men all seeing an angel? What are the chances... Not much faith required!

Of course, religion has to provide some supernatural evidence. In mormonism, it's the three witnesses. In Christianity, it's the miracles. Of course faith wasn't so important for those alive during the time when Jesus was just using his powers left and right and coming back to life. It is now, though!

[Buck]

Religion discussion threads on this forum definitely played a very positive role -- the poll result shows there are more people declared themselves as atheists than anything else. This could be the result of dissuasive effect from the Christian religious posters, or it could be the result of persuasive effect from the atheist posters, or both.

[TheGillotine]

If internet forum debates determine your religious views, then you're very shallow, IMO.

[Buck]

If internet forum debates determine your religious views, then you're very shallow, IMO.

Not like you said -- internet discussions give people a chance to see and think about the differences -- if you go to the same church all your life, see the same group of people, wouldn't you be the same brainwashed, no-critical-thinking type person?

[Buck]

Religion, in certain sense, is like a dictatorship regime -- coercive, mind-controlling ... internet brought mind liberty and brought down regimes in Arab nations, of course it can destroy religious coercive regime.

[Vorian Atreides]

Sort of like how Lenin ruled the U.S.S.R.

[TheGillotine]

Not like you said -- internet discussions give people a chance to see and think about the differences -- if you go to the same church all your life, see the same group of people, wouldn't you be the same brainwashed, no-critical-thinking type person?

Right, these debates are made to appeal to that sect of people whose only activities in life are church and the AO.

[V1per41]

Religion, in certain sense, is like a dictatorship regime -- coercive, mind-controlling ... internet brought mind liberty and brought down regimes in Arab nations, of course it can destroy religious coercive regime.

A famous science youtuber once said "The internet is where religions come to die"

With the amount of information so readily available, it's very easy to see why religious belief is in such a decline.

[Klaymen]

Does it make sense to anyone for God to punish people (including young children) for things their parents/grandparents/countrymen did? If the gov't decided to do that would you think it was fair/right/moral?
I don't think it makes sense to be limited to 60mph on my drive home. So I drive 69, and take a chance that no cop is going to pull me over. Driving 9 over on the highway hasn't gotten me a ticket yet. If I ever get pulled over, the cop is not going to listen to my opinion that it doesn't make sense to have a 60mph speed limit. Other people in authority have been entrusted with that decision, and I have to live with it.

[Sentinel]

A famous science youtuber once said "The internet is where religions come to die"

With the amount of information so readily available, it's very easy to see why religious belief is in such a decline.

Why is credit card debt and education debt and national debt on the rise? The flourish of education and information? :lol:

[TheGillotine]

I don't think it makes sense to be limited to 60mph on my drive home. So I drive 69, and take a chance that no cop is going to pull me over. Driving 9 over on the highway hasn't gotten me a ticket yet. If I ever get pulled over, the cop is not going to listen to my opinion that it doesn't make sense to have a 60mph speed limit. Other people in authority have been entrusted with that decision, and I have to live with it.

I suspect that you consider the 'imposition'* of a speed limit to be reasonable.

*Imposition in the sense of the limit being determined by elected legislators.
Let's say the legislators make a dumb rule; like the speed limit is 2 mph on mondays, Wednesdays and Friday's and 37 mph during February and full moons and no speed limit on the other days.

Do you roll over and live with the dumb decision or lobby to have it changed to something more reasonable?

Can't believe you actually took the time to create that analogy fail in order to justify the actions of the evil god that you imagine who would punish innocent third parties for the crimes of others.

Imaginary gods and their (very real) followers be crazy, amirite?

Better analogy: Let's say if you get pulled over for speeding, the cop drags your kids out of the car and beats them to death with a club. Still fair?

[Noddy]

I don't think it makes sense to be limited to 60mph on my drive home. So I drive 69, and take a chance that no cop is going to pull me over. Driving 9 over on the highway hasn't gotten me a ticket yet. If I ever get pulled over, the cop is not going to listen to my opinion that it doesn't make sense to have a 60mph speed limit. Other people in authority have been entrusted with that decision, and I have to live with it.

I suspect that you consider the 'imposition'* of a speed limit to be reasonable.

*Imposition in the sense of the limit being determined by elected legislators.
Let's say the legislators make a dumb rule; like the speed limit is 2 mph on mondays, Wednesdays and Friday's and 37 mph during February and full moons and no speed limit on the other days.

Do you roll over and live with the dumb decision or lobby to have it changed to something more reasonable?

Can't believe you actually took the time to create that analogy fail in order to justify the actions of the evil god that you imagine who would punish innocent third parties for the crimes of others.

Imaginary gods and their (very real) followers be crazy, amirite?

[Noddy]

There's this invention called books that have worked very well over the centuries, probably better than the internet in some ways.

Yes, and over the centuries books have been used by the masses to share their ideas because everyone had a printing press (and means of distribution).

[gosuruss]

I don't think it makes sense to be limited to 60mph on my drive home. So I drive 69, and take a chance that no cop is going to pull me over. Driving 9 over on the highway hasn't gotten me a ticket yet. If I ever get pulled over, the cop is not going to listen to my opinion that it doesn't make sense to have a 60mph speed limit. Other people in authority have been entrusted with that decision, and I have to live with it.

Full submission. I really hope you don't kill your kids if they curse you.

[Buck]

There's this invention called books that have worked very well over the centuries, probably better than the internet in some ways.

A problem with book is, only the rich, the government ... the mind controlling party has control over it; while Internet provides full freedom of speech to all.

[TheGillotine]

A problem with book is, only the rich, the government ... the mind controlling party has control over it; while Internet provides full freedom of speech to all.

So basically books are for intelligent people and the internet is for non-intelligent people? And this is supposed to spread intelligence how?

[Noddy]

So basically books are for intelligent people and the internet is for non-intelligent people? And this is supposed to spread intelligence how?

Strawman.

Bloody annoying. Were you feeling there was a shortage of god botherers making dumb posts based on what they actually believe?

[Klaymen]

I suspect that you consider the 'imposition'* of a speed limit to be reasonable.

We're talking about rebelling against an almighty, omnipotent, eternal God. Evidently He thinks the punishment (multigenerational effects) is appropriate. Get caught speeding, pay a fine. Kill someone, spend life in jail, Anger God, the penalty could be pretty stiff because perhaps we have no recognition or appreciation of the severity of this trespass?

[gosuruss]

We're talking about rebelling against an almighty, omnipotent, eternal God. Evidently He thinks the punishment (multigenerational effects) is appropriate. Get caught speeding, pay a fine. Kill someone, spend life in jail, Anger God, the penalty could be pretty stiff because perhaps we have no recognition or appreciation of the severity of this trespass?

I sense... fear, in this one. "I encourage you out of your demon haunted world.. you only have so brief a moment in the sun." - Noddy

[gosuruss]

If internet forum debates determine your religious views, then you're very shallow, IMO.

Internet forum debates are awesome. Don't care what you say. What is politically incorrect to say in most environments doesn't matter here. That's important.

Sure, reading persuasive books are good. But there is nothing better than a personalized version of that.. which can be a debate. You will often find religious people saying they don't believe what an atheist is arguing against. This debate allows you to state quite clearly what you do believe so there are very little misunderstandings about that.

[Mel-o-rama]

I am intrigued enough to offer you the use of the Atheist Man ID for that month if you wish.

I think I'll take you up on that offer. I didn't realize that was a "take turn" ID. But count me in for June.

[Mel-o-rama]

I wouldn't say it's narcissistic, (partly because that's mean and I was given to understand we were going to try and keep things from devolving into personal attacks) but it does strike me as kind of cognitive dissonance-y. I get that it's an extremely extremely common way of approaching things, but it definitely strikes me as off. "Things went slightly better than I expected in my already charmed first world existence, that doesn't make sense without God existing" doesn't seem to work side-by-side with "Well, God's ways are very mysterious, it is impossible for us to comprehend why He does what He does."

I mostly agree. But note that this is more of an intuitive argument than an analytical argument. But you already know that. I'm just trying to let other people see this as well.

My main goal this week has been to demonstrate that theists use critical thinking as much as atheists do, and that atheists depend on intuition as much as we theists do.

The starving children argument is a logical non sequitor. If I personally had something to do with those children, then yes, I could see myself as being narcissistic. But I don't. In fact, I have children, and they're not starving. I'm taking care of them. If anyone is being narcissistic, it would be God. He's the one who's deciding to answer my prayers for the glory he gets from me. And the fact that I believe God is answering my prayers doesn't make me the narcissistic one.

But ignoring the narcissistic comment made back then, I do see the real point of the argument, and it is one of those things that concerns me and challenges my faith. And I do use analytical thought to consider these concerns, and weigh evidences, etc. I don't simply ignore these ideas.

While we're on the subject, here's a funny story from last night. I was driving to my son's concert at the local college. I thought I'd be 10 minutes early but all the parking spaces were taken. So, I'm driving slowly through the parking lot along with all these other parents. And I was thinking about our discussions from yesterday. Despite the image I gave of myself yesterday, I'm not really one to pray for every single little thing to happen. (I do pray to get published, but not much else.) So I looked up and said, "Hey God. Do you think you could help me out here? I don't want to miss the concert." I went past one or two aisles, and I got this impression to turn left. I said, "What the hey." I turned and there wasn't a single open spot. But when I turned around and came back up, someone was getting into their car. Nobody else was around to claim the spot. It was mine. After I parked I had a good laugh. A funny coincidence!

[Noddy]

We're talking about rebelling against an almighty, omnipotent, eternal God. Evidently He thinks the punishment (multigenerational effects) is appropriate. Get caught speeding, pay a fine. Kill someone, spend life in jail, Anger God, the penalty could be pretty stiff because perhaps we have no recognition or appreciation of the severity of this trespass?

Baaaaa. /mindless sheep

( also like how you completely ingnored the salient points )

Do you think godbots are more predisposed to mindless sheepery than non-godbots?

[Quasi]

I don't think it makes sense to be limited to 60mph on my drive home. So I drive 69, and take a chance that no cop is going to pull me over. Driving 9 over on the highway hasn't gotten me a ticket yet. If I ever get pulled over, the cop is not going to listen to my opinion that it doesn't make sense to have a 60mph speed limit. Other people in authority have been entrusted with that decision, and I have to live with it.

One of the worst analogies I have ever read. I was talking about punishing someone other than the one that broke the law. What if a cop pulled you over driving 59mph in the 60mph zone and tortured you to death because your great-great-great-grandfather once stole someone's goat? Would that make sense and be something you'd just have to live with? Would you be willing to live in a country that allowed laws like that? Would you think a country with laws like that was fair/just/moral much less loving? Yet some people think God lets children starve or be raped or whatever because of what others in the children's country/race/religion have done.

Defend that. Defend an all powerful God punishing the descendants of a sinner. Most religious people today wouldn't even try but someone in this thread threw it out there as a possible explanation for God allowing suffering. That was the post I was referencing in my earlier post.

[gosuruss]

One of the worst analogies I have ever read. I was talking about punishing someone other than the one that broke the law. What if a cop pulled you over driving 59mph in the 60mph zone and tortured you to death because your great-great-great-grandfather once stole someone's goat? Would that make sense and be something you'd just have to live with? Would you be willing to live in a country that allowed laws like that? Would you think a country with laws like that was fair/just/moral much less loving? Yet some people think God lets children starve or be raped or whatever because of what others in the children's country/race/religion have done.

Defend that. Defend an all powerful God punishing the descendants of a sinner. Most religious people today wouldn't even try but someone in this thread threw it out there as a possible explanation for God allowing suffering. That was the post I was referencing in my earlier post.

Descendants have the sinners genes.

Checkmate.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I mostly agree. But note that this is more of an intuitive argument than an analytical argument. But you already know that. I'm just trying to let other people see this as well.

My main goal this week has been to demonstrate that theists use critical thinking as much as atheists do, and that atheists depend on intuition as much as we theists do.

The starving children argument is a logical non sequitor. If I personally had something to do with those children, then yes, I could see myself as being narcissistic. But I don't. In fact, I have children, and they're not starving. I'm taking care of them. If anyone is being narcissistic, it would be God. He's the one who's deciding to answer my prayers for the glory he gets from me. And the fact that I believe God is answering my prayers doesn't make me the narcissistic one.

But ignoring the narcissistic comment made back then, I do see the real point of the argument, and it is one of those things that concerns me and challenges my faith. And I do use analytical thought to consider these concerns, and weigh evidences, etc. I don't simply ignore these ideas.

While we're on the subject, here's a funny story from last night. I was driving to my son's concert at the local college. I thought I'd be 10 minutes early but all the parking spaces were taken. So, I'm driving slowly through the parking lot along with all these other parents. And I was thinking about our discussions from yesterday. Despite the image I gave of myself yesterday, I'm not really one to pray for every single little thing to happen. (I do pray to get published, but not much else.) So I looked up and said, "Hey God. Do you think you could help me out here? I don't want to miss the concert." I went past one or two aisles, and I got this impression to turn left. I said, "What the hey." I turned and there wasn't a single open spot. But when I turned around and came back up, someone was getting into their car. Nobody else was around to claim the spot. It was mine. After I parked I had a good laugh. A funny coincidence!

You know how atheists get parking spaces?

...
... Wait for it





Oh yeah, exactly the same way.

[Buck]

Religion is all about humans telling God's stories -- God worshipers themselves don't know what God is, what God said ... nonetheless they have faith in religious institution staff member's words as "God-breathed truths".

[TheGillotine]

Have you gotten your ideas of religion from Hammurabi? Not all religions beat people to death for any minor infraction.

The person I was responding to was arguing that children in godless countries deserve to starve to death because the adults in the country "turned away from god".
See:

Now I can't speak to the situations of all 16,000 children. But could it be that many live in a family or a land that has gone against God almighty, and that he has turned away from them as a result? In how many instances of rebellion or idolatry did God send plague, disease, or war? He is a God capable of great love to those who follow him, and severe punishment for those who do not. This flies in the face of the God you would imagine whose main purpose would be to prevent suffering on this earth.

We're talking about rebelling against an almighty, omnipotent, eternal God. Evidently He thinks the punishment (multigenerational effects) is appropriate. Get caught speeding, pay a fine. Kill someone, spend life in jail, Anger God, the penalty could be pretty stiff because perhaps we have no recognition or appreciation of the severity of this trespass?

It's not about the harshness of the punishment (although I'd argue that any sort of punishment for incredulity is ridiculous). It's that you're punishing innocent people for a crime they didn't commit. It would be like having a mass murderer be found guilty in a court of law, and then the Judge ordering that the entire courtroom be burnt alive. It's arguments like these that convince me that certain religions eliminate a person's conception of what is just or moral.

And by the way, I'm arguing this position as a theist, because I don't think you need to be an atheist to see that multi-generational punishment is unjust.

[Baby, ByeBye]

We're talking about rebelling against an almighty, omnipotent, eternal God. Evidently He thinks the punishment (multigenerational effects) is appropriate. Get caught speeding, pay a fine. Kill someone, spend life in jail, Anger God, the penalty could be pretty stiff because perhaps we have no recognition or appreciation of the severity of this trespass?

Evidently?
The only thing that is evident is that this is your own interpretation. When you run into a moral model that concludes something atrocious, you don't say "oh, clearly this is hoe it should he and I'm just too dumb to understand it"

[Klaymen]

I say Evidently, because like you I am human and often fail to understand God's actions and decisions; and for following Him anyway I will certain be compared to some ill-fated lemming. I'm merely postulating that God's forgiveness and punishment likely transcends the human expectations and limitations. He is able to perfectly and completely forgive wrong done against Him, while humans sometimes hold on to grudges.

Sure, punishing future generations for other sins seems excessive to humans. So what? How can we possibly know what seems reasonable to God?

H0: God's forgiveness and justice mimics that of humans.
Rejected.

[Noddy]

...
Sure, punishing future generations for other sins seems excessive to humans. So what? How can we possibly know what seems reasonable to God?

H0: God's forgiveness and justice mimics that of humans.
Rejected.

ah, so we are now to ignore the inconvenient biblical passage that states that god created humans in his own image and likeness?

[TheGillotine]

I say Evidently, because like you I am human and often fail to understand God's actions and decisions; and for following Him anyway I will certain be compared to some ill-fated lemming. I'm merely postulating that God's forgiveness and punishment likely transcends the human expectations and limitations. He is able to perfectly and completely forgive wrong done against Him, while humans sometimes hold on to grudges.

Sure, punishing future generations for other sins seems excessive to humans. So what? How can we possibly know what seems reasonable to God?

H0: God's forgiveness and justice mimics that of humans.
Rejected.

Again, it's not excessive to punish innocent people for other people's crimes, it's unjust by *any* definition of justice.

[Noddy]

Again, it's not excessive to punish innocent people for other people's crimes, it's unjust by *any* definition of justice.

unless those crimes are against an infinitely good, loving and all powerful being.






duh

[TheGillotine]

Again, it's not excessive to punish innocent people for other people's crimes, it's unjust by *any* definition of justice.

To make my point - if you're going to claim that it is just to punish people for crimes they didn't commit, then what is the meaning of a crime? To your god, it makes no difference whether you rebel against him or follow him devoutly. You are as likely to be punished for murdering someone as you are to be punished for giving to charity. All sense of justice, fairness, and morality goes out the window when you call it justice to lay down punishment on the innocent.

[Noddy]

To make my point - if you're going to claim that it is just to punish people for crimes they didn't commit, then what is the meaning of a crime? To your god, it makes no difference whether you rebel against him or follow him devoutly. You are as likely to be punished for murdering someone as you are to be punished for giving to charity. All sense of justice, fairness, and morality goes out the window when you call it justice to lay down punishment on the innocent.

:lalala:

[The Borg]

Again, it's not excessive to punish innocent people for other people's crimes, it's unjust by *any* definition of justice.

Which is why Christ died for you.

[TheGillotine]

Which is why Christ died for you.

... To battle the injustice of his evil father? That actually sounds like a more interesting story.

[actuary_pilot]

To make my point - if you're going to claim that it is just to punish people for crimes they didn't commit, then what is the meaning of a crime? To your god, it makes no difference whether you rebel against him or follow him devoutly. You are as likely to be punished for murdering someone as you are to be punished for giving to charity. All sense of justice, fairness, and morality goes out the window when you call it justice to lay down punishment on the innocent.


I have to go with Gillotine on this one. God does not punish innocent children because adults in the country do bad things - in fact that would mean the children are getting it twice - in a sense, since many of the bad things done by the adults are done to the children.

[actuary_pilot]

Its unfortunate that God gets the blame for when things go wrong - when the finger actually points to mankind...

Ecclesiastes 8:9
All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.

God even gets the blame for catastrophic events - often which are called "acts of God".

[Klaymen]

ah, so we are now to ignore the inconvenient biblical passage that states that god created humans in his own image and likeness?

No, I'm not ignoring that.

[The Borg]

The multi-generational curses & blessings (don't forget the blessings were included as well!) is a stipulation of the Mosiac covenant, and Israel agreed to it. Furthermore, it doesn't apply today to any people group. So, measuring today whether God is just or unjust by way of this one stipulation from antiquity inwhich the only other party involved (Israel) agreed to it doesn't seem to be a convincing method in either case (just or unjust).

It seems more appropriate to measure if indeed the agreement was actually carried out, and there's plenty of historical texts showing that the blessings and curses were both carried out. That would suggest that God is just, in that, He did what He said He would do.

[gosuruss]

Let's say God, if he existed, decided to let a kid starve to death because of prior actions of that child's ancestors.

Why are we not allowed to judge or question god's actions? Just because he's stronger than us and smarter than us? Or that he created us? Why couldn't there be an evil god?

I think I could quite clearly say it's immoral. If you don't want that child to exist, divinely intervene into a miscarriage or something. Why exert suffering on a poor child?

[TheGillotine]

Its unfortunate that God gets the blame for when things go wrong - when the finger actually points to mankind...

Ecclesiastes 8:9
All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.

God even gets the blame for catastrophic events - often which are called "acts of God".

How exactly are you excusing God from natural disasters? Does he not have control over the weather?

The multi-generational curses & blessings (don't forget the blessings were included as well!) is a stipulation of the Mosiac covenant, and Israel agreed to it. Furthermore, it doesn't apply today to any people group. So, measuring today whether God is just or unjust by way of this one stipulation from antiquity inwhich the only other party involved (Israel) agreed to it doesn't seem to be a convincing method in either case (just or unjust).

It seems more appropriate to measure if indeed the agreement was actually carried out, and there's plenty of historical texts showing that the blessings and curses were both carried out. That would suggest that God is just, in that, He did what He said He would do.

I'd like to see some of these historical texts describing "curses". And just how does a "curse" work anyways?

And does "Israel" agreeing to something mean that it's just to punish innocent children for crimes they never committed? Would it be just for me to buy someone's children to use as slaves? After all, the parents agreed to it, right?

Still arguing as a theist here. The God I believe in isn't a sorcerer dealing out curses, and doesn't enter into "deal-with-the-devil"-type pacts wherein innocent children are cursed for their parents short-sightedness.

[actuary_pilot]

How exactly are you excusing God from natural disasters? Does he not have control over the weather?



Just because God has the ability to control the weather doesn't mean that he does all the time.

[Entropy]

Its unfortunate that God gets the blame/credit for when things go wrong/right - when the finger actually points to mankind...

IFYP

[TheGillotine]

Just because God has the ability to control the weather doesn't mean that he does all the time.

Alright, so it would basically be like me driving a car, seeing a kid in the middle of the road, and then taking my hands off the steering wheel while the car runs him over.

[Entropy]

How can we possibly know what seems reasonable to God?

I love the always convenient "god works in mysterious ways" argument.

For how often people like to pretend they understand god, it's always hilarious when they resort to this.

[The Borg]

Let's say God, if he existed, decided to let a kid starve to death because of prior actions of that child's ancestors.

Why are we not allowed to judge or question god's actions? Just because he's stronger than us and smarter than us? Or that he created us? Why couldn't there be an evil god?

I think I could quite clearly say it's immoral. If you don't want that child to exist, divinely intervene into a miscarriage or something. Why exert suffering on a poor child?

Christianity is a bit unique with regards to suffering, because it doesn't flee from it. Rather it embraces it and scandulously turns it into something good. The point being that Christ freely laid down His innocent life via suffering to the point of death, and turned it into amazing grace.

[actuary_pilot]

Alright, so it would basically be like me driving a car, seeing a kid in the middle of the road, and then taking my hands off the steering wheel while the car runs him over.

God has been on trial for many years. The issue is whether he has the right to rule over mankind and whether man can do better. His defense is to let mankind rule themselves for a period of time before he steps in and fixes everything - even for the billions of innocent people who have been hurt in the process.


Kind of like a math class. There is a rebellious kid in the class who states that the teacher is not correct (assuming that the student is just trying to be rebellious and cause trouble in the classroom). The teacher could expel the student from the classroom. But it wouldn't eliminate the problem permanently. Other kids may wonder if the rebellious student is right. So instead he invites the rebellious student to the front of the classroom and invites him to demonstrate how he would solve the problem.

[actuary_pilot]

By the way it isn't God driving the car - it is mankind.

[Entropy]

God has been on trial for many years. The issue is whether he has the right to rule over mankind and whether man can do better. His defense is to let mankind rule themselves for a period of time before he steps in and fixes everything - even for the billions of innocent people who have been hurt in the process.

This sounds really nice until you realize that god is supposedly perfect and it'd be impossible to do better than perfect. Also, humanity was kind of set up for failure it seems, especially regarding original sin.

[Entropy]

By the way it isn't God driving the car - it is mankind.

Will you at least admit that god put the kid in the middle of the road to test you?

[The Borg]

I'd like to see some of these historical texts describing "curses". And just how does a "curse" work anyways?

Read the OT.

And does "Israel" agreeing to something mean that it's just to punish innocent children for crimes they never committed? Would it be just for me to buy someone's children to use as slaves? After all, the parents agreed to it, right?

I think measuring just or unjust in this manner is inconclusive.

Still arguing as a theist here.
I can't tell a difference.

The God I believe in isn't a sorcerer dealing out curses, and doesn't enter into "deal-with-the-devil"-type pacts wherein innocent children are cursed for their parents short-sightedness.
Okay. Did you have a question here?

[actuary_pilot]

Will you at least admit that god put the kid in the middle of the road to test you?

nope.

[actuary_pilot]

This sounds really nice until you realize that god is supposedly perfect and it'd be impossible to do better than perfect. Also, humanity was kind of set up for failure it seems, especially regarding original sin.

I happen to believe that an evil spirit exists - Satan. And he has been accusing God of being unfair and unjust since humanities creation. He never questioned God's power. The only way for God to answer the charges brought against him was to allow time to show that only God has the right to rule over mankind (that is man cannot do it correctly himself). In the near future he will show his power, and eliminate wickedness. He will start with religion since it has misrepresented him and brought reproach on his name.

[actuary_pilot]

This sounds really nice until you realize that god is supposedly perfect and it'd be impossible to do better than perfect. Also, humanity was kind of set up for failure it seems, especially regarding original sin.

As far as the original sin man was not set up for failure. He was given a perfect home, a perfect life, the rules were spelled out to him. When man broke the rules it wasn't a mistake it was an open rebellion. They joined Satan in an open rebellion against God. The only just response that God could give was to allow time for them to try to prove their claims that they could do better.

[Entropy]

I happen to believe that an evil spirit exists - Satan. And he has been accusing God of being unfair and unjust since humanities creation. He never questioned God's power. The only way for God to answer the charges brought against him was to allow time to show that only God has the right to rule over mankind (that is man cannot do it correctly himself). In the near future he will show his power, and eliminate wickedness. He will start with religion since it has misrepresented him and brought reproach on his name.

Cool story. What do you mean by "near future"?

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I don't care if you think that God isn't intervening. What I find troubling is people who think that God gave them $20, helped them make the winning basket, or led them to a parking spot.

Even if God is intervening to miraculously heal children of well to do people in the USA, that means that He is intentionally NOT intervening to help starving AIDS babies in Africa.

[Entropy]

As far as the original sin man was not set up for failure. He was given a perfect home, a perfect life, the rules were spelled out to him. When man broke the rules it wasn't a mistake it was an open rebellion. They joined Satan in an open rebellion against God. The only just response that God could give was to allow time for them to try to prove their claims that they could do better.

If it was so perfect, what was the need for rules in the first place? Also, his response sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, especially since he knows the outcome.

Horrible analogy time:
This would be like if you left a cookie out on the counter just to taunt your young child (say 2yo) and told them not to eat it or else just to test them to see if they would eat it... knowing that there was some homeless dude (read: the devil) that you let hang around the house that would try their best to convince them to eat it. Then when they did, instead of just hitting the reset button or allowing them to continue on in their comfortable living growing up in your house, you kicked them out to live with some homeless dude who you just know is going to give them beer and turn them gay. Oh, and you know before hand all of this will happen because you're god.

Why won't you think of the children?

[Entropy]

I don't care if you think that God isn't intervening. What I find troubling is people who think that God gave them $20, helped them make the winning basket, or led them to a parking spot.

Even if God is intervening to miraculously heal children of well to do people in the USA, that means that He is intentionally NOT intervening to help starving AIDS babies in Africa.

They're just not ready to recieve his help yet.

[actuary_pilot]

If it was so perfect, what was the need for rules in the first place? Also, his response sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, especially since he knows the outcome.

Horrible analogy time:
This would be like if you left a cookie out on the counter just to taunt your young child (say 2yo) and told them not to eat it or else just to test them to see if they would eat it... knowing that there was some homeless dude (read: the devil) that you let hang around the house that would try their best to convince them to eat it. Then when they did, instead of just hitting the reset button or allowing them to continue on in their comfortable living growing up in your house, you kicked them out to live with some homeless dude who you just know is going to give them beer and turn them gay. Oh, and you know before hand all of this will happen because you're god.

Why won't you think of the children?


We are not talking about children - two perfect adults. They had the choice of every tree in the garden except one. There was nothing special about it - it was just another tree with a name - "the tree of knowledge of good and bad". It was a fair test since they had every thing they needed ( and everythign they could enjoy). Yet they chose to follow Satan. The issues that were raised were extremely important - if he just started over God would be admitting that he was wrong, and that he made a mistake. He did allow them to live out their lives so the punishment wasn't cruel or unusual. He never set up a burning hell fire to punish people as many religions teach - he sentenced them to death. He told them before they sinned what the result would be.

A better analogy might be a father who tells his son before he leaves home - not to get involved with the wrong people - with criminals. But the son doesn't listen - and joins a gang and gets killed.

(I took out the word falsly after religions - because the religions do teach it and that was not what i was trying to say - i was trying to say that the teaching is false)

[actuary_pilot]

I don't believe in predestination - God chose not to know the choice that Adam and Eve would have- otherwise they wouldn't have free will.

But he gave them free will.

[Entropy]

We are not talking about children - two perfect adults. They had the choice of every tree in the garden except one. There was nothing special about it - it was just another tree with a name - "the tree of knowledge of good and bad". It was a fair test since they had every thing they needed ( and everythign they could enjoy). Yet they chose to follow Satan. The issues that were raised were extremely important - if he just started over God would be admitting that he was wrong, and that he made a mistake. He did allow them to live out their lives so the punishment wasn't cruel or unusual. He never set up a burning hell fire to punish people as many religions teach - he sentenced them to death. He told them before they sinned what the result would be.

A better analogy might be a father who tells his son before he leaves home - not to get involved with the wrong people - with criminals. But the son doesn't listen - and joins a gang and gets killed.

(I took out the word falsly after religions - because the religions do teach it and that was not what i was trying to say - i was trying to say that the teaching is false)

Honest question: what's the difference between "child" and "adult" in the garden of eden?

"There was nothing special about it" other than god singled it out as a test of their faith.

The rest doesn't make any sense. If god didn't want it to play out that way, he wouldn't have tested them in the first place. Taking away eternity in heaven to make them live with the devil isn't cruel or unusual? No hellfire, but death? Why is death so bad if you just get to go to heaven again?

If they lived in a perfect world and had everything they needed and everything they could enjoy, it makes no sense that they would choose to rebel in the first place. Put another way, a "perfect" place wouldn't include tests.

[Entropy]

I don't believe in predestination - God chose not to know the choice that Adam and Eve would have- otherwise they wouldn't have free will.

But he gave them free will.

Free will isn't compatible with perfection imo, but that might be too much of a tangent. Seems to me like it immediately leads to a contradiction, or that all choices are equally perfect, in which case adam and eve didn't make a mistake.

So he's omnipotent, but he self-lobotomized this small section of his metabrain?

[actuary_pilot]

Honest question: what's the difference between "child" and "adult" in the garden of eden?

"There was nothing special about it" other than god singled it out as a test of their faith.

The rest doesn't make any sense. If god didn't want it to play out that way, he wouldn't have tested them in the first place. Taking away eternity in heaven to make them live with the devil isn't cruel or unusual? No hellfire, but death? Why is death so bad if you just get to go to heaven again?

If they lived in a perfect world and had everything they needed and everything they could enjoy, it makes no sense that they would choose to rebel in the first place. Put another way, a "perfect" place wouldn't include tests.


They were mature adults.

It wouldn't be a test if God knew the outcome. He didn't. He gave them the ability to choose but he let them know what the outcome from their choice would be.

They were never given the opportunity to have an eternity in heaven. Their eternity would have been in a paradise on earth. At death a person doesn't go to "heaven again" - in the first place when you die you are dead - the Bible teaches that the dead are not conscious - they are gone - no feeling, no thoughts - nothing -

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

Keep in mind that it was only Satan that suggested they would "become like God" - so Eve could have been a little amibtious - wanting to have more than she had. She may have interpreted from what Satan said that she might go to Heaven. But God never told man that he would go to heaven. His home was on the eartn. In any case they chose to rebel. I don't see any reason why a perfect place wouldn't include any tests especially such an easy test - don't eat from one tree. The tree did have a good purpose - it did give man a boundry. Man chose to break that boundry.

[actuary_pilot]

Free will isn't compatible with perfection imo, but that might be too much of a tangent. Seems to me like it immediately leads to a contradiction, or that all choices are equally perfect, in which case adam and eve didn't make a mistake.

So he's omnipotent, but he self-lobotomized this small section of his metabrain?

I don't believe that Adam and Eve made a mistake. What they did was on purpose.

[gosuruss]

I don't believe that Adam and Eve made a mistake. What they did was on purpose.

Adam and Eve were created as man and woman. They were alive for how long before they bit off the apple? A few weeks?

A lot of times we think about developing from a child to an adult as physical and mental. But a lot of it is about experience. You don't touch a hot stove as an adult, as a kid, you don't know any better. If you took someone out of rural africa and stuck them in a kitchen, i don't think they would automatically know not to touch the stove.

Calling it free will when god designed the humans, supplied their experiences, and knew the curious nature of humans is really a stretch.

[Entropy]

They were mature adults.

It wouldn't be a test if God knew the outcome. He didn't. He gave them the ability to choose but he let them know what the outcome from their choice would be.

They were never given the opportunity to have an eternity in heaven. Their eternity would have been in a paradise on earth. At death a person doesn't go to "heaven again" - in the first place when you die you are dead - the Bible teaches that the dead are not conscious - they are gone - no feeling, no thoughts - nothing -

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

Keep in mind that it was only Satan that suggested they would "become like God" - so Eve could have been a little amibtious - wanting to have more than she had. She may have interpreted from what Satan said that she might go to Heaven. But God never told man that he would go to heaven. His home was on the eartn. In any case they chose to rebel. I don't see any reason why a perfect place wouldn't include any tests especially such an easy test - don't eat from one tree. The tree did have a good purpose - it did give man a boundry. Man chose to break that boundry.

You didn't answer the question: "what is the difference between 'child' and 'adult'?"

I am not understanding the difference between a "perfect existence in paradise on earth with everything you could ever want" and "heaven". Can you explain how those are different?

Perfect places shouldn't have boundaries and tests with negative consequences. I'm thinking you either don't know what the word means or you (or the bible) are subversively using hyperbole to prove a point.

[Entropy]

I don't believe that Adam and Eve made a mistake. What they did was on purpose.

You didn't really address the point. Am I supposed to believe not only that it's possible for an omnipotent god to give himself a small lobotomy, but that he actually did it? Are there any other ways in which god is not omnipotent/omniscient or just where free will is concerned?

ETA: I'd still like to know what you meant by "near future" regarding god showing his power and eliminating wickedness etc...

[actuary_pilot]

Adam and Eve were created as man and woman. They were alive for how long before they bit off the apple? A few weeks?

A lot of times we think about developing from a child to an adult as physical and mental. But a lot of it is about experience. You don't touch a hot stove as an adult, as a kid, you don't know any better. If you took someone out of rural africa and stuck them in a kitchen, i don't think they would automatically know not to touch the stove.

Calling it free will when god designed the humans, supplied their experiences, and knew the curious nature of humans is really a stretch.

Except he told them. He communicated directly with them and told them. He gave them everything they needed and desired, and they turned on him.

We don't know how long it was - the Bible doesn't say.

[Entropy]

Except he told them. He communicated directly with them and told them. He gave them everything they needed and desired, and they turned on him.

I can't buy into this. All of these absolutes keep getting thrown around. It is impossible for me to understand what it would be like to have everything I need and desire. It is even more impossible for me to believe that someone would or could actually throw that away. I can only conclude that they didn't actually have everything they wanted otherwise they wouldn't have sought it out in the first place. Desire had to play a role. Then for you to keep calling it "not a mistake" makes no sense at all either. Again, it feels like subversive hyperbole to get people to believe.

[actuary_pilot]

I can't buy into this. All of these absolutes keep getting thrown around. It is impossible for me to understand what it would be like to have everything I need and desire. It is even more impossible for me to believe that someone would or could actually throw that away. I can only conclude that they didn't actually have everything they wanted otherwise they wouldn't have sought it out in the first place. Desire had to play a role. Then for you to keep calling it "not a mistake" makes no sense at all either. Again, it feels like subversive hyperbole to get people to believe.


That was probably wrong choice of words - because they obviously desired the fruit. But they had a choice of every other fruit. So that was a small desire that they were denied. They did have everything they needed and a lot of what they wanted.

I'm not sure what you meant by subversive hyperbole, but since God created them perfect (with free will) it could not have been a mistake - it was a rebellion.

[Entropy]

That was probably wrong choice of words - because they obviously desired the fruit. But they had a choice of every other fruit. So that was a small desire that they were denied. They did have everything they needed and a lot of what they wanted.

I'm not sure what you meant by subversive hyperbole, but since God created them perfect (with free will) it could not have been a mistake - it was a rebellion.

Being created with even a small desire that cannot be satisfied without punishment is not perfect.

I propose that they didn't, or even couldn't, understand what the consequences were. How could they even comprehend the concepts of "punishment" or "evil" if they lived in a perfect world etc? This is also why I would like clarification of "child" vs. "adult" in that setting, as I would think they would be like children in most ways.

[Baby, ByeBye]

That was probably wrong choice of words - because they obviously desired the fruit. But they had a choice of every other fruit. So that was a small desire that they were denied. They did have everything they needed and a lot of what they wanted.

I'm not sure what you meant by subversive hyperbole, but since God created them perfect (with free will) it could not have been a mistake - it was a rebellion.

There's no reason to believe that free will is more perfect than not

[Mel-o-rama]

I don't care if you think that God isn't intervening. What I find troubling is people who think that God gave them $20, helped them make the winning basket, or led them to a parking spot.

Even if God is intervening to miraculously heal children of well to do people in the USA, that means that He is intentionally NOT intervening to help starving AIDS babies in Africa.

I'm still thinking about the whole starving child thing. (I'm also slammed at work again.) "Why do people suffer" is a hard thing to discuss without offending lots of people, regardless of what you believe.

Some random points here:

* First off, why do we assume that God isn't helping the starving/AIDS children? Why do we think that God isn't touching their lives? We well-to-do people look at them and it's so easy for us to think, "Those poor children - always hungry and at death's door. If I were them, I'd be lousy all the time." I also wonder if those kids look at the well-to-do people and say, "I wish I were one of them. If I had an endless supply of food, I'd be happy forever." Well, we know that we aren't always happy. Is it too much to believe that even the hungriest child doesn't have some moments of happiness?
* Being led to a parking space, or making the winning basket, etc. are "small" miracles that don't really mean anything much. Feeding hungry kids in an area where hunger is the norm would be a "large" miracle. God would be unable to intervene too much without encroaching on our free will.
* Aren't some of the hungry children being fed and are being delivered from their former situations? Wouldn't each of these be considered to be a "miracle"?
* What if God is using more broad strokes to take care of these children - such as inspiring good people to take action - to open doors so that people can reach these children and feed them?
* In the grand scheme (that is, considering the next life), these hungry children would be taken care of in the long run, and those that caused their situations would be in a worse position.

I just think there's a lot more to the question of "why does God let people suffer?" If you consider more variables, then it starts to make more sense.

[Entropy]

I'm baffled as to why you cling to praying for a parking space and getting it being a miracle. It is telling though. Like, you actually prayed for that and you actually think god heard you and made it happen.

Wow. Just, wow.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I'm still thinking about the whole starving child thing. (I'm also slammed at work again.) "Why do people suffer" is a hard thing to discuss without offending lots of people, regardless of what you believe.

Some random points here:

* First off, why do we assume that God isn't helping the starving/AIDS children? Why do we think that God isn't touching their lives? We well-to-do people look at them and it's so easy for us to think, "Those poor children - always hungry and at death's door. If I were them, I'd be lousy all the time." I also wonder if those kids look at the well-to-do people and say, "I wish I were one of them. If I had an endless supply of food, I'd be happy forever." Well, we know that we aren't always happy. Is it too much to believe that even the hungriest child doesn't have some moments of happiness?
* Being led to a parking space, or making the winning basket, etc. are "small" miracles that don't really mean anything much. Feeding hungry kids in an area where hunger is the norm would be a "large" miracle. God would be unable to intervene too much without encroaching on our free will.
* Aren't some of the hungry children being fed and are being delivered from their former situations? Wouldn't each of these be considered to be a "miracle"?
* What if God is using more broad strokes to take care of these children - such as inspiring good people to take action - to open doors so that people can reach these children and feed them?
* In the grand scheme (that is, considering the next life), these hungry children would be taken care of in the long run, and those that caused their situations would be in a worse position.

I just think there's a lot more to the question of "why does God let people suffer?" If you consider more variables, then it starts to make more sense.

Children being fed is a "miracle"? OK, I think your definition of miracle is different than mine. In my definition, I think of a miracle as God intervening with the natural order of the world. If your definition of miracle is everything good that happens in the world, then i don't think we are even on the same page.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

You have mentioned free will several times, but miracles and free will can never coexist. Big or small, it doesn't matter, if God is intervening, then He is denying free will every time.

For example, if God opens up a parking space for you, then He is messing with your free will to get angry at not having a parking space or your free will to learn patience.

[Mel-o-rama]

I'm baffled as to why you cling to praying for a parking space and getting it being a miracle. It is telling though. Like, you actually prayed for that and you actually think god heard you and made it happen.

Wow. Just, wow.

Did I actually claim it was a miracle to me? I said it was a "funny story" that happened to me yesterday. I just thought it was a funny coincidence considering what we had been discussing. Eesh.

[Mel-o-rama]

Children being fed is a "miracle"? OK, I think your definition of miracle is different than mine. In my definition, I think of a miracle as God intervening with the natural order of the world. If your definition of miracle is everything good that happens in the world, then i don't think we are even on the same page.

What I really think is that what I originally intended to say is much different than what I actually did say, which led to this tangent. That ever happen to you?

It kind of sucks, because then you have to play clean up at the same time you try to get back to topic. :)

[Baby, ByeBye]

What I really think is that what I originally intended to say is much different than what I actually did say, which led to this tangent. That ever happen to you?

It kind of sucks, because then you have to play clean up at the same time you try to get back to topic. :)

so what did you intend to say

[Baby, ByeBye]

Did I actually claim it was a miracle to me? I said it was a "funny story" that happened to me yesterday. I just thought it was a funny coincidence considering what we had been discussing. Eesh.

where do you draw the line?

[Entropy]

Did I actually claim it was a miracle to me? I said it was a "funny story" that happened to me yesterday. I just thought it was a funny coincidence considering what we had been discussing. Eesh.
Yes.
* Being led to a parking space, or making the winning basket, etc. are "small" miracles that don't really mean anything much. Feeding hungry kids in an area where hunger is the norm would be a "large" miracle. God would be unable to intervene too much without encroaching on our free will.

Plus I would bet money that alot of these "small miracles" are definitely included in all the work you've done insinuating a personal god into your belief system. Work that would seem very difficult to undo (see previous Occam's Razor discussion) if you would be forced to reject your null hypothesis.

It makes me picture a bunch of tangled threads of different sizes; the big heavy ones are maybe the easiest to undo not because of how big they are but because of how straightforward it is to follow the line through the tangle, the small threads on the other hand are way more numerous and difficult to discern from each other. Or maybe like cleaning up rocks vs. sand?

[Entropy]

Honestly though, you're the one who actually prayed for it. What are we supposed to think? That you don't think god would have a hand in it? That you were just praying for funsies?

[Mel-o-rama]

You have mentioned free will several times, but miracles and free will can never coexist. Big or small, it doesn't matter, if God is intervening, then He is denying free will every time.

For example, if God opens up a parking space for you, then He is messing with your free will to get angry at not having a parking space or your free will to learn patience.

Though I understand your point, I think this is another example of using too simple a model to judge a more complex situation. For example, if opening a parking spot is indeed a miracle, then most of the time, God is slacking in that department. Perhaps God did indeed open up that parking spot last night (and the one this morning - I better not mention that one) just so he could have a good laugh with me. But all those other times I don't get a spot? I'm still getting that lesson of learning patience. In either case, I don't see my free will being infringed upon.

Then there are the cases where one asks God, "Hey could you do this for me?" and the miracle occurs. Didn't the person have free will when he asked God? In that case, if God provides, it isn't infringing on that person's free will.

[Mel-o-rama]

Honestly though, you're the one who actually prayed for it. What are we supposed to think? That you don't think god would have a hand in it? That you were just praying for funsies?

I happen to believe God has a sense of humor. If you saw my face, you'd understand.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Though I understand your point, I think this is another example of using too simple a model to judge a more complex situation. For example, if opening a parking spot is indeed a miracle, then most of the time, God is slacking in that department. Perhaps God did indeed open up that parking spot last night (and the one this morning - I better not mention that one) just so he could have a good laugh with me. But all those other times I don't get a spot? I'm still getting that lesson of learning patience. In either case, I don't see my free will being infringed upon.

Then there are the cases where one asks God, "Hey could you do this for me?" and the miracle occurs. Didn't the person have free will when he asked God? In that case, if God provides, it isn't infringing on that person's free will.

what...the....f


Are you serious?

[actuary_pilot]

Being created with even a small desire that cannot be satisfied without punishment is not perfect.

I propose that they didn't, or even couldn't, understand what the consequences were. How could they even comprehend the concepts of "punishment" or "evil" if they lived in a perfect world etc? This is also why I would like clarification of "child" vs. "adult" in that setting, as I would think they would be like children in most ways.

I could see where being created with a need and not being supplied is not perfect. But I don't see where being created with the ability to desire that isn't fulfilled isn't perfect.

Each individual has the ability to desire something - but desires are formed from within us by each individual himself. Some people misuse that ability. Just like some people use a screwdrivever for a hammer - it wasn't designed for that purpose and if someone used it for that it is a misuse. That doesn't make the screwdriver imperfect.

[Mel-o-rama]

so what did you intend to say

It started with my Occam's Razor comments. See below for more...

Plus I would bet money that alot of these "small miracles" are definitely included in all the work you've done insinuating a personal god into your belief system. Work that would seem very difficult to undo (see previous Occam's Razor discussion) if you would be forced to reject your null hypothesis.

It makes me picture a bunch of tangled threads of different sizes; the big heavy ones are maybe the easiest to undo not because of how big they are but because of how straightforward it is to follow the line through the tangle, the small threads on the other hand are way more numerous and difficult to discern from each other. Or maybe like cleaning up rocks vs. sand?

I'd have to admit that the "small" miracles actually contribute next to nothing in my evidences. They're like icing on the cake. I'm not sure how I got stuck talking on those. Maybe because it's so hard to talk about the "big" miracles like the one story I told recently about my kid's fever going away when we prayed. Those mean more to me.

Also, it's not just miracles. There are other evidences, such as witnessing how different people act; how people fare when they leave the church; or how they fare when they come to the church. There's the whole "burning bosom" thing, which I'd be happy to talk about. There's a whole bunch of things I've seen that wouldn't make sense if God didn't exist. And I've been trying like the dickens to find a better consistent alternative.

[Mel-o-rama]

what...the....f


Are you serious?
Yes - in that instance I was serious. You may have to help me where your confusion lies. I never know how to respond to these "what the heck" or "???" posts that don't elaborate, as I have to guess what the issue is.

The part you bolded is simple decision and consequence. If I desire my friend to get better from his sickness and pray for a speedy recovery and if God intervenes and heals my friend within the hour, how is this infringing on my free will? Or on my friend's free will? You'll have to help me out, here.

[TheGillotine]

By the way it isn't God driving the car - it is mankind.

Humans control earthquakes?

Read the OT.


Read the Eddas. Do you believe everything that happened there? Mythological text =/= historical text.


I happen to believe that an evil spirit exists - Satan. And he has been accusing God of being unfair and unjust since humanities creation. He never questioned God's power. The only way for God to answer the charges brought against him was to allow time to show that only God has the right to rule over mankind (that is man cannot do it correctly himself). In the near future he will show his power, and eliminate wickedness. He will start with religion since it has misrepresented him and brought reproach on his name.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-38Or80_CcWg/T2GKmR2YIBI/AAAAAAAAJwE/K2jN2vtuex8/s1600/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg

I've come to a conclusion about the God I'm defending, and now I have a pretty good idea of what He's like.
Problems with your post:
1) God would not be so petty as to be obsessed with "ruling over mankind". Do you think a perfect being has any need to rule over people? And why can't he establish his right through reasoning?
2) "In the near future"?? Like what, no generation shall come to pass? 2000 years from now?
3) When has God ruled over mankind? Like during his semi-direct rule over the Israelites, when slavery was legal and ridiculous punishments were enacted for non-crimes? Now, modern society has plenty of problems, but I think we're doing a lot better than we were 3000 years ago, when we were "under God's rule". Sounds like we've just about shown God up on his challenge.
4) Satan, seriously?

[TheGillotine]

Yes - in that instance I was serious. You may have to help me where your confusion lies. I never know how to respond to these "what the heck" or "???" posts that don't elaborate, as I have to guess what the issue is.

The part you bolded is simple decision and consequence. If I desire my friend to get better from his sickness and pray for a speedy recovery and if God intervenes and heals my friend within the hour, how is this infringing on my free will? Or on my friend's free will? You'll have to help me out, here.

Not really responding to this post or exclusively to you, but how exactly do you suppose God causes these miracles? I mean, when he heals someone, does he like conjure up a host of white blood cells and teleport them into the person's body? And if God heals people, why doesn't he ever heal people in a miraculous or noticeable way, as in to heal the limbs of amputees? I mean if he can miraculously cure cancer, I don't see how they are different.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Mel, you seem to be making 2 arguments that seem incompatible to me:

1) There is so much evidence for God.
2) If there were evidence for God, that would infringe on our free will.

Can you clear it up for me?

[Uncle Ted]

For example, if God opens up a parking space for you, then He is messing with your free will to get angry at not having a parking space or your free will to learn patience.:squintyeyes: Your free will to learn patience? I...don't think you're using that term correctly.

[Buck]

"God created atheists"

[Baby, ByeBye]

Yes - in that instance I was serious. You may have to help me where your confusion lies. I never know how to respond to these "what the heck" or "???" posts that don't elaborate, as I have to guess what the issue is.

The part you bolded is simple decision and consequence. If I desire my friend to get better from his sickness and pray for a speedy recovery and if God intervenes and heals my friend within the hour, how is this infringing on my free will? Or on my friend's free will? You'll have to help me out, here.

Sorry, I got impatient there. I was just reading and watching you guys circling around the same topic...and then you posted something like that, and I felt that all that discussion has just gone wasted.

Let me explain why determinism cannot coexist with miracles (in the supernatural sense, not "Hey I prayed that I aced the test and after studying for 30 hours I did ace the test" sense)

You say God does not correct evil or stop wars or whatever because he doesn't want to mess with "free will". And let's say, in a universe where God does not mess with free will, there will be an eventual "conclusion" to the universe. One end. One path of history.

Certainly, if you interject miracles into this universe, this grand "conclusion" will be different, otherwise what would be the point? However minor this change would be, the universe would be different somehow (I'd say re butterfly effect but that's not really even that important).


Now, you say that if you wish you could find a parking space faster, and God did grant you a parking space right then a now, that somehow doesn't mess with "free will". Well of course it does. How does God give you a free parking space out of nowhere? Either that space was already there, or He had to make it appear. But he can't just make a car disappear, that would be "too obvious". He had to rush someone into the car and hush him to leave. Oh wait, he had to force someone to leave. That's messing with free will. But let's not even talk about that person, let's just focus on you. Say, you got the parking space faster, you got your groceries done earlier, and you went to pick up your kids earlier, but this got you into an accident. Or say, you actually got to the school earlier and you actually had to wait for your kids to get out of school, and that made you impatient and eventually led to you arguing with your kids. Yadi yada. Whatever the case is, this "universe" is no longer the same as when if God did not intervene. Determinism has been altered.

Now, this is under the assumption that there's one path of history to the universe if God never intervened. Perhaps that's too intuitive for you. Let's say the grand "conclusion" actually has a distribution, in which each "end scenario" is assigned a certain probability.
Well, same difference, every intervention by God will shift this distribution by a little bit.

"How do you know that?" you say, "Maybe all the little changes will balance out and the end distribution would be the same". Well, maybe, but then what the hell was the point of all these "miracles" then? You can't say to please certain individuals, because that would be a shift in the distribution if they weren't going to be happy already.


The part you bolded is simple decision and consequence. If I desire my friend to get better from his sickness and pray for a speedy recovery and if God intervenes and heals my friend within the hour, how is this infringing on my free will? Or on my friend's free will? You'll have to help me out, here.

Now look at this bit. If your friend was meant to die because had God not healed him, he would've had a complication that the doctors didn't expect (sorry that's harsh), and somehow you "saved him" by praying, his "fate" would have been altered. How is this different from God wiping out all evil in the world? He's "fixing things".
But then you say, God didn't do it willingly, it's because you prayed for it. Well that isn't even relevant. People pray for world peace all the time. And either he chooses not to respond (which isn't what you guys are saying), or he doesn't want to mess with free will (which IS what you guys are saying). So why on earth would he heal your friend or your son just because you "prayed for it", the comparison is parallel, it's messing with free will.

Anyway, hopefully that clarifies things a bit.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

In order for God to perform a miracle whereby a parking space becomes vacant which would otherwise be occupied, he would have to infringe upon the free will of the person driving the car that would have parked it there, wouldn't he?

[actuary_pilot]

Humans control earthquakes?


Read the Eddas. Do you believe everything that happened there? Mythological text =/= historical text.



No - but humans build cities in areas where earthquakes are prevalent. These are hardly acts of God.


I don't know what the Eddas are.

Humans control earthquakes?

I've come to a conclusion about the God I'm defending, and now I have a pretty good idea of what He's like.
Problems with your post:
1) God would not be so petty as to be obsessed with "ruling over mankind". Do you think a perfect being has any need to rule over people? And why can't he establish his right through reasoning?
2) "In the near future"?? Like what, no generation shall come to pass? 2000 years from now?
3) When has God ruled over mankind? Like during his semi-direct rule over the Israelites, when slavery was legal and ridiculous punishments were enacted for non-crimes? Now, modern society has plenty of problems, but I think we're doing a lot better than we were 3000 years ago, when we were "under God's rule". Sounds like we've just about shown God up on his challenge.
4) Satan, seriously?

[/QUOTE]

1. He isn't obsessed with ruling over mankind - if he was he wouldn't have turned the control over to humans and Satan to allow them to try to prove thier point. Man is obsessed with ruling over himself. However his name, his reputation , and his right to rule is very important. If you had children, and someone came up and told you children that you were an unjust parent, that you lied , and then tried to corrupt your children, how would you feel? Do you think it would be an important issue?

2. I believe that we are living in the last days. I obviously don't know when Armageddon which is the final war between God and Satan (and wicked men) will be. The Bible says that even Jesus doesn't - only God knows.

3. The laws that God had for the Israelites were good for them. The protected them from diseases. Also Slaves were released after 7 years or the Jubilee year which ever came first. There were laws to protect slaves. In many cases slaves held positions of great trust and honor. It wasn't the same as the slaves in the south in the 1800s.

4. If a person believes in God why is it so hard to believe Satan exists - the Bible depicts him as a real person who talked to God to accuse Job, and who tempted Jesus. It says that he was created as a perfect angel and he made himself Satan by desiring to have the worship that belongs to God.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

2. I believe that we are living in the last days.
So has every generation since Jesus first mentioned the concept. Funny how that happens.

[actuary_pilot]

Perfect places shouldn't have boundaries and tests with negative consequences. I'm thinking you either don't know what the word means or you (or the bible) are subversively using hyperbole to prove a point.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perfect

per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5.
a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
9. Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
10. Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
11. Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.

I didn't see anything in here that restricts perfection to being without boundries. In order to have a perfect drive in an automobile - does that mean that there can be no speed limit?

I don't see where you are coming from.

[actuary_pilot]

You didn't answer the question: "what is the difference between 'child' and 'adult'?"

.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
b. A product or result of something specified: "Times Square is a child of the 20th century" (Richard F. Shepard).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adult

a·dult (-dlt, dlt)
n.
1. One who has attained maturity or legal age.
2. Biology A fully grown, mature organism.
adj.
1. Fully developed and mature.

Adam was created as an adult.

[actuary_pilot]

I am not understanding the difference between a "perfect existence in paradise on earth with everything you could ever want" and "heaven". Can you explain how those are different?




In the context of what I said, heaven is the place where God and the angels live (spirit creatures). Earth is the place where physical creatures live. God's purpose for man was to live on earth. This was the home he gave them. He never gave Adam and Eve the option to go to heaven.

The one restriction he gave them was to not eat of one tree. It didn't say that the tree was special - it may have even been the same kind of tree as other trees in the garden or it may not have been. In any case the could eat from any other tree that they wanted to only that one he restricted.

[actuary_pilot]

You didn't really address the point. Am I supposed to believe not only that it's possible for an omnipotent god to give himself a small lobotomy, but that he actually did it? Are there any other ways in which god is not omnipotent/omniscient or just where free will is concerned?

ETA: I'd still like to know what you meant by "near future" regarding god showing his power and eliminating wickedness etc...

How would you give a spirit a lobotomy? If God can do anything - surely he has the power to know everything or choose to restrict his own knowledge of the future. He chooses to restrict knowing the future in order for man to have free will. Otherwise you aren't choosing to write the things you are writing - God is making you write it. I don't believe that. I believe that what you are saying - you are choosing to say on your own.

[actuary_pilot]

I can't buy into this. All of these absolutes keep getting thrown around. It is impossible for me to understand what it would be like to have everything I need and desire. It is even more impossible for me to believe that someone would or could actually throw that away. I can only conclude that they didn't actually have everything they wanted otherwise they wouldn't have sought it out in the first place. Desire had to play a role. Then for you to keep calling it "not a mistake" makes no sense at all either. Again, it feels like subversive hyperbole to get people to believe.


In order for man to have enjoyment he had to create them with the capacity to desire. Since he created man with a free will - man chooses what he will desire. And he gave man many options to satisfy desires. But to Adam and Eve he only said don't eat fruit from one tree. They had hundreds of other trees that they could satisfy their desire with. Some people misuse their free will, and they misuse thier desire for something that it wasn't made for.


For example Satan wanted worship. That only belongs to God - so he misused his desire. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God and live by their own rules. That was not their perogative. They misued their desire.

A screw driver is made to turn screws, and for that it is perfect. But if you use it as a hammer and the handle breaks on it - then it is not being used for what it was made - it is being misused.

Just because God made something - doesn't mean that God intended them to use it for a bad purpose.

He gave man something he didn't even give to the angels - the ability to have sex and have children and get married. This was a very loving and precious gift he gave to the first humans and all humans.

Luke 22:30 - "for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven"

[Baby, ByeBye]

In order for man to have enjoyment he had to create them with the capacity to desire.

...


I see where your problem is. False premise. The "enjoyment" feeling you get from your "desires" is simply a chemical reaction in your brain. God can easily conjure up that feeling without implanting any need for "desires" or "free will".