Also, if you open up the definition of God to include an unknown and potentially unknowable "something" outside of current scientific knowledge or theory that was behind the creation of our universe, I am very, very open to that possibilty. I don't preclude the concept of something beyond human comprehension being a creator of our cosmos in some manner. There's infinite amounts of information beyond human knowledge and likely comprehension out there.
Where you and I likely will not agree is on the concept of a creator God as described in the Bible existing. If you think there is evidence for that, this seems to be the venue to share it.
It’s the bias towards the non acceptance of a creator God that I am referring to. Why is that bias so strong?
Let me ask this question. What would it mean for you, personally, if there was a creator God?
Regards,
MG
If there were a creator God and all else is as we observe it? It would mean the religions of the world are abusing people's belief in such by making claims unsupported or outright contradicted by evidence.
So, back to the evidence which was my original ask of you.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
If there were a creator God and all else is as we observe it? It would mean the religions of the world are abusing people's belief in such by making claims unsupported or outright contradicted by evidence.
And one could make the argument that this was exactly what the state of the world was at the time of Joseph Smith.
Exhibit 1: The Nature of God.
Evidence to the contrary in regards to the fact that people’s beliefs were being abused?
The First Vision
Yes, one must decide whether or not in this particular instance we have a witness who is telling the the truth the best way he knows how.
I don't preclude the concept of something beyond human comprehension being a creator of our cosmos in some manner.
If something is beyond human comprehension, then perhaps it would be wiser to stop attempting to say anything about it? Else we are likely to end up talking nonsense. No - not just likely to end up talking nonsense - we are certain to talk nonsense right from the get-go, because (since the entity in question is by definition incomprehensible) it is impossible to say anything meaningful about it ... of course, the nonsense will be uttered in hushed and reverent tones ...
Or else we shall really be talking about something that is not the supposed incomprehensible universe-creator, but something much more like the usual humanoid (and hence all too comprehensible) deities that have preoccupied and plagued the human race for millennia past. That's what usually happens, if memory serves.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
So, back to the evidence which was my original ask of you.
You and I both know that there isn’t evidence that I can hand you on a silver platter. Up thread I provided a link that provide information on the Fine Tuned Universe. For me, this is about as close as it comes to evidence of a creator God.
Yes, one must decide whether or not in this particular instance we have a witness who is telling the the truth the best way he knows how.
Regards,
MG
As evidence for the existance of God, I'd say the first vision is problematic at best, and damaging at worst. The multiple versions correspond with an evolving view of the characteristics and identify of the godhead reflected in LDS materials that begin with the 1830 Book of Mormon through the Lectures on Faith to the Nauvoo period.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
So, back to the evidence which was my original ask of you.
You and I both know that there isn’t evidence that I can hand you on a silver platter.
I can easily point out evidence that you seem to dodge or say fails to overcome your faith that to me is clearly contradicting your position. I asked for an example of the same from your perspective. You said the category that fits is evidence for a creator God. I asked for example. And you say there isn't one that I won't reject.
I just pointed out, briefly, the issues I see with th first vision. My belief you will reject that doesn't prevent me from pointing it out in outline what it is and why it's problematic for your position.
That seems like a light lift that you could manage. Right?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Yes, one must decide whether or not in this particular instance we have a witness who is telling the the truth the best way he knows how.
Regards,
MG
As evidence for the existance of God, I'd say the first vision is problematic at best, and damaging at worst. The multiple versions correspond with an evolving view of the characteristics and identify of the godhead reflected in LDS materials that begin with the 1830 Book of Mormon through the Lectures on Faith to the Nauvoo period.
Of course I realize that. But at it’s core I think there is enough reason to think that Joseph had a numinous experience that was a bit above his pay grade at the time.
If true, then ultimately we have a world in which the notions of an incorporeal God or of many gods have been disabused.
Regards,
MG
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So, back to the evidence which was my original ask of you.
You and I both know that there isn’t evidence that I can hand you on a silver platter. Up thread I provided a link that provide information on the Fine Tuned Universe. For me, this is about as close as it comes to evidence of a creator God.
So honor, how do get past the Fine Tuning Argument? How...at least with a straight face...can you chalk up the universe to mere chance? Fine tuning, at the very least, opens up the possibility of divine intelligence.
So honor, how do get past the Fine Tuning Argument? How...at least with a straight face...can you chalk up the universe to mere chance? Fine tuning, at the very least, opens up the possibility of divine intelligence.
Or at least it doesn’t close the door.
Regards,
MG
If you weren't such a lazy Mormon brainwashed troll regurgitating the same old arguments ad nauseum, a quick Google search will find not only articles, books, but also and You Tube videos giving you years of reading and watching and learning evidence of why the argument is invalid. Even 4 year olds can do this......
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
You and I both know that there isn’t evidence that I can hand you on a silver platter. Up thread I provided a link that provide information on the Fine Tuned Universe. For me, this is about as close as it comes to evidence of a creator God.
So honor, how do get past the Fine Tuning Argument? How...at least with a straight face...can you chalk up the universe to mere chance? Fine tuning, at the very least, opens up the possibility of divine intelligence.
Or at least it doesn’t close the door.
Regards,
MG
How about giving me your summary of why it's an issue that is ignored rather than addressed? Linking to a podcast, a book, or a long source is not what I brought up. You think it's a tough issue, please spell out why. I'm curious how you view it given that we've done this before.
