Created???

[Rivendale]

Sean Carroll isn't operating on the foundational claim that allows for people to rise from the dead. Sean Carroll isn't operating in a world that allows words to appear on a piece of banded Jasper. Sean Carroll isn't operating in a world where invisible beings tamper with mind processes. Big difference.

On the other hand he has some strong differences with Eric Weinstein. Differences about fundamental realities. Yet they're both physicists. Same tools and opportunities for learning and experimentation, different outcomes.

He is unwilling or unable to change his mind in regards to something so fundamental as the state of reality. Piers Morgan, a Christian, challenged him on his unwillingness to at least give some credence to the possibility of God and all he got was some chuckles.

Sean Carroll is unwilling to look at other possibilities beyond the dogma that he has inculcated as being the 'one and only truth'. Just as close minded in certain respects as you might accuse a religious person of being. My gosh, they're dealing with quantum stuff. And the math can take them to totally different places.

And we're to trust that they have 'the truth'?

Regards,
MG

The Math didn't lead them to different conclusions they are both atheists. Eric merely is open to the idea there is a transcendent reality. He takes the Jordan Peterson religion is a useful myth. And Sean has said over and over his beliefs (or anyones) can never be proven. Ken Ham and Bill Nye show the best example of refusal to change minds. Ken claims nothing could convince him there isn't a god while Bill says one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change his entire world view. That is what religious dogma does.

[Gadianton]

On the other hand he has some strong differences with Eric Weinstein. Differences about fundamental realities. Yet they're both physicists. Same tools and opportunities for learning and experimentation, different outcomes.

Correction. Sean Carrol is a physicist, Eric Weinstein is a Joe Rogan groupie and conspiracy theorist who has a degree but never published or worked in that field. And is extremely rusty in that field, when he's risked the occasional detail. Eric is an intellectual who thinks very deeply about things, he's a good story teller, and some of his cultural observations are interesting, but his opinions about things in general are no more relevant than mine or even yours. Sean Carrol's opinions are substantially more relevant than Eric's, mine or yours. Not that I will ever believe in the multiverse.

He is unwilling or unable to change his mind in regards to something so fundamental as the state of reality. Piers Morgan, a Christian, challenged him on his unwillingness to at least give some credence to the possibility of God and all he got was some chuckles.

Piers Morgan is a shameless cretin and a know-nothing with zero credibility. He couldn't define his terminology well enough to have a serious conversation with Sean. I doubt he has any beliefs about God at all and just throws around the term to pander to his mentally bankrupt fans.

[Chap]

[...]

... Piers Morgan, a Christian, challenged him on his unwillingness to at least give some credence to the possibility of God and all he got was some chuckles.

Piers Morgan is a shameless cretin and a know-nothing with zero credibility. He couldn't define his terminology well enough to have a serious conversation with Sean. I doubt he has any beliefs about God at all and just throws around the term to pander to his mentally bankrupt fans.

Perhaps Morgan's British accent makes him sound more 'serious' to a US audience? The man is, however, a mere self-publicist and shock jock. The sort of person who, when once given a vegetarian sausage roll to try, considered it amusing to spit out the chewed fragments all over the set of a live TV show as a way of saying 'on the whole I prefer a pork sausage actually'.

All he got was 'chuckles' from his interlocutor? He got away lightly.

[Gadianton]

I'm positive the accent helps. There is also the credibility of an outsider: I've come all the way from across the pond to notice how fashionable your red hats are.

[MG 2.0]

On the other hand he has some strong differences with Eric Weinstein. Differences about fundamental realities. Yet they're both physicists. Same tools and opportunities for learning and experimentation, different outcomes.

Correction. Sean Carrol is a physicist, Eric Weinstein is a Joe Rogan groupie and conspiracy theorist who has a degree but never published or worked in that field. And is extremely rusty in that field, when he's risked the occasional detail. Eric is an intellectual who thinks very deeply about things, he's a good story teller, and some of his cultural observations are interesting, but his opinions about things in general are no more relevant than mine or even yours. Sean Carrol's opinions are substantially more relevant than Eric's, mine or yours. Not that I will ever believe in the multiverse.

He is unwilling or unable to change his mind in regards to something so fundamental as the state of reality. Piers Morgan, a Christian, challenged him on his unwillingness to at least give some credence to the possibility of God and all he got was some chuckles.

Piers Morgan is a shameless cretin and a know-nothing with zero credibility. He couldn't define his terminology well enough to have a serious conversation with Sean. I doubt he has any beliefs about God at all and just throws around the term to pander to his mentally bankrupt fans.

I won't quibble with you on your opinions on one person or the other. I think the points I made earlier still stand.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time. I had Mormon parents.

MG,

What other religions (out of thousands) were also subjected to a rigorous, thorough and "lengthy investigation process over a long period of time" by you?

*Bump for MG*

[MG 2.0]

MG,

What other religions (out of thousands) were also subjected to a rigorous, thorough and "lengthy investigation process over a long period of time" by you?

*Bump for MG*

Of course I am much more familiar with the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church. Duh, I was BIC. How could I not be?

That being said, I've been around long enough and been curious enough to spend a fair amount of time looking at other world religions and philosophies. Am I an expert on any one of them? Of course not. And neither are you, I would suspect.

I've seen enough, heard enough, and learned enough to see that the CorJCofLDS stands out among world religions as being most likely to be the vehicle by which God has restored lost truths and God given authority, and given additional truth and light which provides the path to salvation/exaltation in the Kingdom of God.

I've not seen anything else that even approaches the 'completeness' of what I see/experience in the doctrines and theology in the LDS Church. And I've not seen anyone here over the years offer up a viable alternative that I think covers all the bases.

Your mileage may vary. I don't fault you for that. As I'm sure you don't fault those that are thinking, rational, and honest members of the church.

Notice I used the word "honest". Are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow man? Those on this board?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

stands out among world religions as being most likely to be the vehicle by which God has restored lost truths and God given authority, and given additional truth and light which provides the path to salvation/exaltation in the Kingdom of God.

You're so duped that you can't even create a believable backstory to present as your unbiased search for the truth. Lost truths, lost authority, and exaltation are ideas pretty much unique to Mormonism. Nobody provides a competing answer to find lost truths and authority and to provide for exaltation, because nobody believes that truths and authority are lost, or that people can and should be exalted, or that exaltation is even a coherent idea. It's like declaring I've studied all the worlds religions and I'm going with Scientology, because they are the most likely vehicle to achieve an Operating Thetan level of eight.

Cultists have a really difficult time escaping the circularity of their thoughts, even when they are desperately trying to make it look like they are being objective. You can't even bring yourself to say that you like the idea of exaltation as compared with other ideas about the afterlife, you just assume exaltation is the target everyone is aiming for but fails to deliver on.

[Chap]

I've seen enough, heard enough, and learned enough to see that the CorJCofLDS stands out among world religions as being most likely to be the vehicle by which God has restored lost truths and God given authority, and given additional truth and light which provides the path to salvation/exaltation in the Kingdom of God.

I've not seen anything else that even approaches the 'completeness' of what I see/experience in the doctrines and theology in the LDS Church. And I've not seen anyone here over the years offer up a viable alternative that I think covers all the bases.

Uh-huh ... As an alternative, there is the point of view of that ExMo poster on this board who used to have this in his sig line:

"I'll let you into a little secret: Mormonism is not only not true, its obviously not true."

[MG 2.0]

stands out among world religions as being most likely to be the vehicle by which God has restored lost truths and God given authority, and given additional truth and light which provides the path to salvation/exaltation in the Kingdom of God.

You're so duped that you can't even create a believable backstory to present as your unbiased search for the truth. Lost truths, lost authority, and exaltation are ideas pretty much unique to Mormonism. Nobody provides a competing answer to find lost truths and authority and to provide for exaltation, because nobody believes that truths and authority are lost, or that people can and should be exalted, or that exaltation is even a coherent idea. It's like declaring I've studied all the worlds religions and I'm going with Scientology, because they are the most likely vehicle to achieve an Operating Thetan level of eight.

Cultists have a really difficult time escaping the circularity of their thoughts, even when they are desperately trying to make it look like they are being objective. You can't even bring yourself to say that you like the idea of exaltation as compared with other ideas about the afterlife, you just assume exaltation is the target everyone is aiming for but fails to deliver on.

In looking at the world as it is I think it becomes rather obvious...very quickly...that exaltation is not for everyone. That's even assuming that it is a thing. It's not a matter of "delivering on" anything. The Book of Mormon clearly says that we are here to act and not be acted upon.

The world is full of variety. One wouldn't expect Mormonism to be the "target everyone is aiming for".

Your Scientology comparison is just that, a comparison. Even a world where Mormonism was true one would find Scientology in the mix. It's easy to lump everything into one 'pile of cults'. And for a critic it is very difficult to make a separation. That's why we keep seeing it over and over and over again.

But one can try to point out the separation. It's really of little use to try and do that among those that are dogmatic in their OWN worldview.

The dead giveaway for me that you're lumping everyone, including those that are baptized and active members of the CofJCofLDS, into a giant ball of "dupes' is when you call me one.

Ain't gonna fall for that.

Regards,
MG