This Sunday, 7 June

[Guest]

So there's a God. But the God of the Universe isn't the Mormon god.

AmyJo, why do you think so?

Intellectualizing is good and fine. Yet nowhere in any of your discourse do you say why you believe that Joseph Smith's Bible (Book of Mormon,) work of fiction that it is, or the Mormon cult has you reconciled to there being a God or not.

It makes no sense to go from what the Book of Mormon says to the assumption that there is a God, or to go from "the Mormon cult" to the assumption that there is a God; rather, one has to start with one's discovery that there is a God, or, alternately, with one's faith that there is a God, and then go on to conclude whether or not the Book of Mormon and/or "the Mormon cult" are divinely endorsed.

And if God is real, but the Book of Mormon is a farce, why not be authentic to God's word as its spoken in the Bible, by prophets of old (who haven't been exposed as false prophets, while it's more than evident and transparent that Smith was a wolf among sheep?)

AmyJo, why in the world should I believe that the Bible is any less a farce than the Book of Mormon is?

[_Res Ipsa]

If I defined God to be the beertender at my favorite pub, I guess I could stand in front of a room full of people and say I know he exists. Well, mostly.

[_KevinSim]

If I defined God to be the beertender at my favorite pub, I guess I could stand in front of a room full of people and say I know he exists. Well, mostly.

Now, see, Rene Descartes' point is that if the demon he postulated was actually deceiving you into believing that there is a "beertender at my favorite pub," then said beertender might not exist, which would prevent you from knowing he exists.

[_KevinSim]

So what I got out of that verbose post, KS, is that you believe, that you know, that God exists.

Good for you. A lot of words to say essentially nothing.

On the contrary; I believe that saying I know God exists is everything.

[_KevinSim]

Kevin, it seems to me you've made a number of unjustified assumptions, including:

1. You can tell when the entity you perceive as "you" has made a free will choice; and
2. A deterministic universe cannot produce a non-deterministic entity.

Both of these are huge assumptions.

Why do you think these are huge assumptions? It looks to me more like they're self-evident.

Maybe you feel better now that you can parrot everyone else when bearing your testimony.

I'm not going to "parrot everyone else"; I've never heard anyone bear their testimony from the idea of free will before.

I guess feeling better about yourself may justify just plain making stuff up.

What have I made up?

[_KevinSim]

Wouldn't it be more honest to say you feel the odds are now in favor of there being a God in your view?

Part of what Rene Descartes and his modern supporters have said is that if there is no God in control of the universe, then really nobody knows anything. In order for the word know to have any meaning, in Descartes' viewpoint we need for there to be a God.

Even if those odds are self-generated? Where did the 5 out of 6 thing come from?

Admittedly, I kind of grabbed "the 5 out of 6 thing" out of thin air; I said it was a very rough figure; but I don't expect to be off by much.

Also, how do you know that we aren't determining the universe in some way in reverse?

Are you saying you don't believe in cause and effect? Where the cause has to come sooner (in time) than the effect?

That this predisposition to belief in some external identity is an anthropomorphizing of a natural phenomena that is veiled to us due to our biologically evolved way of perceiving space-time?

That's where the 4 out of 5 figure comes in. I'm allowing 1 chance in 5 that my anthropomorphizing is in error. Do you think that's wrong?

I'm thinking the odds are at least 5 out of 6 that, whatever is going on in the universe, we haven't peeked behind the curtain sufficiently yet to make even warm guesses.

So many people make it sound like there are such huge differences between what humans understand and how the universe has to function on such a large scale. It sounds like you're saying that if the postulated being with free will exists, we can't predict that s/he will be able to communicate with us pitiful humans, or perhaps that s/he will want to communicate with us, or something like that. I'll grant you that on many subjects the being will be beyond our current grasp, but when it comes to answering questions we ask her/him, I'm pretty sure even as advanced a being as the rumored deity is will understand how to give us those answers.

But I'm also thinking the odds are much more than 99 out of 100 that whatever is behind the curtain, it isn't a deified proto-human who commanded Joseph Smith to cheat on his wife behind her back.

Never said anything about Joseph Smith. I suggest that if you ever get to the point where you accept that the being with free will has to have existed, and if you then accept that that being currently exists and is ready to answer your questions, perhaps you will want to ask that being whether or not s/he is a "deified proto-human who commanded Joseph Smith to cheat on his wife behind her back."

[_honorentheos]

Wouldn't it be more honest to say you feel the odds are now in favor of there being a God in your view?

Part of what Rene Descartes and his modern supporters have said is that if there is no God in control of the universe, then really nobody knows anything. In order for the word know to have any meaning, in Descartes' viewpoint we need for there to be a God.

I'm ok with that were it to turn out to be true that we don't know. It still leaves viable the question of how to act in a universe where knowing is an illusion.

Also, how do you know that we aren't determining the universe in some way in reverse?

Are you saying you don't believe in cause and effect? Where the cause has to come sooner (in time) than the effect?

At certain scales in the universe as we are exploring it currently, it appears that that is the case. At least at the quantum level there have been experiments that suggest space-time at the scale of relativity is not the playground the universe is constrained to play in. Certainly there is much we don't know regarding how much the observation of the universe defines the universe we experience and that this can affect what we think of as the past. But that's all science fiction. Or something.

That this predisposition to belief in some external identity is an anthropomorphizing of a natural phenomena that is veiled to us due to our biologically evolved way of perceiving space-time?

That's where the 4 out of 5 figure comes in. I'm allowing 1 chance in 5 that my anthropomorphizing is in error. Do you think that's wrong?

I'm thinking the odds are at least 5 out of 6 that, whatever is going on in the universe, we haven't peeked behind the curtain sufficiently yet to make even warm guesses.

So many people make it sound like there are such huge differences between what humans understand and how the universe has to function on such a large scale. It sounds like you're saying that if the postulated being with free will exists, we can't predict that s/he will be able to communicate with us pitiful humans, or perhaps that s/he will want to communicate with us, or something like that. I'll grant you that on many subjects the being will be beyond our current grasp, but when it comes to answering questions we ask her/him, I'm pretty sure even as advanced a being as the rumored deity is will understand how to give us those answers.

Perhaps you'll notice that you defining whatever is believed to be non-deterministic in the universe as a being is an act of anthropomorphizing the observed actions within the universe? When we do so, are we that different than our ancestors who believed in thunder gods and rulers of the virtues of humankind? I'm not so sure we aren't. Actually, I'm inclined to believe we are very much guilty of the same thing. It's just a way of attempting to frame the unknown in terms we might understand but which are by their nature subjectively reflective of the condition of being a human being.

But I'm also thinking the odds are much more than 99 out of 100 that whatever is behind the curtain, it isn't a deified proto-human who commanded Joseph Smith to cheat on his wife behind her back.

Never said anything about Joseph Smith. I suggest that if you ever get to the point where you accept that the being with free will has to have existed, and if you then accept that that being currently exists and is ready to answer your questions, perhaps you will want to ask that being whether or not s/he is a "deified proto-human who commanded Joseph Smith to cheat on his wife behind her back."

I'm no more inclined to believe there is a being in this as there was one behind thunder or the actions of the waves of the oceans in the time of Homer.

[_canpakes]

Where, in that entire article that I posted, did I say anything about the form of God?

You haven't, just that many people do. And does not LDS doctrine make some very specific claims in that regard?

What did I say that was dishonest?

I'm referring to Bro. Black's comment there, and any others that assert knowledge that God definitively exists.

[_moksha]

This Sunday in Fast and Testimony Meeting I'm going to get up and bear my testimony, and declare my intent to rejoin the ranks of the people who say they know there is a God.

Good for you Kevin. It is no fun having people treat you like a pariah just because you were being intellectually honest with yourself. Just remember, when it Rome or Sodom, do as the natives do.

[_Enzo the Baker]

This Sunday in Fast and Testimony Meeting I'm going to get up and bear my testimony, and declare my intent to rejoin the ranks of the people who say they know there is a God.

Good for you Kevin. It is no fun having people treat you like a pariah just because you were being intellectually honest with yourself. Just remember, when it Rome or Sodom, do as the natives do.

Good advice from Moshka, Kevin, but I'd stay away from Jonestown.