Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[malkie]

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Fine tuning eh? The very constants of the universe much like the complexity of the human eye bear witness to Jesus Christ.

Sounds like God draws with straight lines to me. Wouldn't you agree, MG, that God draws with straight lines?

I'm more inclined to accept the anthropic principle, or survivorship bias, as an explanation. And thinking a bit more about the analog computer visual model, I wonder if all we need is The Buddha with an abacus on which there is one bead per column, and lots of columns, on which the position of the bead represents the value of the corresponding constant. That kind of combination is about as parsimonious as I can think of.

I hate to disagree with you, Dean R, but would god not be more inclined to draw with geodesics rather than straight lines?

[Limnor]

You don’t know who God is because the universe is orderly. You only know who God is if God reveals Himself.

[Limnor]

Maybe putting it another way… When we talk about the possibility of designed universe and fine tuning, does the recognition that a higher power having possibly designed the universe depend on revelation of that designer? And could that designer be recognized when revealed—would we know what to look for to recognize? What if the revelator reveals something inconsistent? Does that mean the one who is being revealed can only be seen through that revelator’s eyes?

Bundle of questions, but curious about others’ thoughts.

[Limnor]

Second bundle of questions…

I’m genuinely curious how people here experienced the “burning bosom” language when they believed. For those who had something they took as confirmation at the time, did that experience fade? Was it reinterpreted later? Was there a realization that the words were rote or was it real to you? Did it become more about loyalty than personal experience?

Feel free to blast away at me if these are too personal of questions, but I’m genuinely curious. When you guys talk to MG, sometimes there seems to be an unstated understanding that something isn’t quite right and I’ve been wondering if that means you know how he is playing because you were once in those shoes.

[MG 2.0]

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Fine tuning eh? The very constants of the universe much like the complexity of the human eye bear witness to Jesus Christ.

Sounds like God draws with straight lines to me. Wouldn't you agree, MG, that God draws with straight lines?

There was a lot of chaos before Alma viewed the starry heavens. Didn't happen in the blink of an eye.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You don’t know who God is because the universe is orderly. You only know who God is if God reveals Himself.

I would tend to agree. Although I would point out that the universe, even through its had a very chaotic history (crooked lines), ends up as a pretty great place for humans on this pale blue dot.

One might at least consider that it might not all be random. Does that point to a God of order? Would that kind of God set a plan in motion?

At the very least, this should not be out of the question.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

You don’t know who God is because the universe is orderly. You only know who God is if God reveals Himself.

I would tend to agree. Although I would point out that the universe, even through its had a very chaotic history (crooked lines), ends up as a pretty great place for humans on this pale blue dot.

One might at least consider that it might not all be random. Does that point to a God of order? Would that kind of God set a plan in motion?

At the very least, this should not be out of the question.

Regards,
MG

I never ruled God out. I’m just separating plausibility from recognition.

Have you been following along?

[malkie]

Maybe putting it another way… When we talk about the possibility of designed universe and fine tuning, does the recognition that a higher power having possibly designed the universe depend on revelation of that designer? And could that designer be recognized when revealed—would we know what to look for to recognize? What if the revelator reveals something inconsistent? Does that mean the one who is being revealed can only be seen through that revelator’s eyes?

Bundle of questions, but curious about others’ thoughts.

Supposedly, Mormon god knows each of us very well. So before looking at these questions, I'd like to know if he wants to reveal himself to us, and if he is able to do so, in a way that we would recognize, understand, and accept. None of this beating around the bushes, hints, insistence on putting third party "authorities" in charge of the message - just give it to us straight and in an unequivocal way.

It seems that during the War in Heaven, in the "pre-existence", we had full disclosure, and were allowed to make a clearcut binary** decision - Jesus' plan, or Satan's plan - based on an understanding of the choice, the competing options, and the inevitable consequences. But not so now. Yes, I know that the official answer includes the idea that we were sent here with incomplete knowledge and information in order to develop faith, but clearly that is not working for all of us.

[**: Or perhaps not completely binary: although now disavowed, one popular "explanation" of the black exclusion doctrine was that those who were on the fence were to be sent to earth with the disadvantage of being born into a black body. At various times there have been general authorities of the church who have held these views.]

[Marcus]

Second bundle of questions…

I’m genuinely curious how people here experienced the “burning bosom” language when they believed. For those who had something they took as confirmation at the time, did that experience fade? Was it reinterpreted later? Was there a realization that the words were rote or was it real to you? Did it become more about loyalty than personal experience?

Feel free to blast away at me if these are too personal of questions, but I’m genuinely curious. When you guys talk to MG, sometimes there seems to be an unstated understanding that something isn’t quite right and I’ve been wondering if that means you know how he is playing because you were once in those shoes.

I'll give it a shot. Ask yourself, why would a person come to a place for literally decades, a place mostly comprised of people who have left his religion, and repeatedly post passive aggressive insults, bigotry and stereotyping? Regardless of the topic, he eventually works the discussion around to telling those people that they are, as a group, less worthy, less righteous, less 'good' than he is.

If he really felt this way, he could just be content in that knowledge, without reaching out. Many of us grew up with that inbred training, but, thankfully, thought our way out of it. I do think he has also realized, like many here, that those 'burnings in the bosom' feelings are internally generated, and come from being born into and trying to fit in to an established way of life, not from any supernatural power outside himself, but, he cannot leave the comfort of his cocoon.

Mg has subtly admitted multiple times that he is comfortable staying in because his family is in. How else do you push down that realization that you are wrong to believe your 'in-group' is the only special and important group than by repeatedly attacking the 'out-group'? And he has a very unique situation here. Shades allows his bigotry and stereotyping under the guise of free speech. There is literally no other online community he could visit and attack the way he attacks the community here, because other communities value free speech AND community. Shades sees his attacks as part of the entertainment, so, mentalgymnast comes here, the only place that will allow his repeated and offensive stereotyping and bigotry. Not even Mormon-related subreddits allow this any more, as requirements of civility are paramount.

I've mentioned this before, but DrW's thread is still the best source for an explanation that the source of spiritual feelings is simply internal to our brains and not evidence of anything supernatural.

[Gadianton]

I'm more inclined to accept the anthropic principle, or survivorship bias, as an explanation. And thinking a bit more about the analog computer visual model, I wonder if all we need is The Buddha with an abacus on which there is one bead per column, and lots of columns, on which the position of the bead represents the value of the corresponding constant. That kind of combination is about as parsimonious as I can think of.

I hate to disagree with you, Dean R, but would god not be more inclined to draw with geodesics rather than straight lines?

I have some issues with the anthropic principle but aside from that, my post was really about the way that Mormonism (and others) present themselves, and it's always in "straight lines". I'm not saying Alma's argument is convincing, but it is a strait-line argument.

MG's fine tuning is straight line.