Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[I Have Questions]

I pointed out in a recent post of yours (page before this one) that your arguments/logic were sound. This time around I wonder if you might be claiming a ‘win’ from ignorance. One can expect a theist to provide incontrovertible evidence for God if starting from the beginning premise of neutrality.

But to then, knowing that you are, in essence, ignorant…not knowing one way or the other…if there is a God, and then claiming absolute victory, isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

Maybe this isn’t what you’re are doing? You are actually allowing wiggle room for logical/reasonable belief and/or faith?

Regards,
MG

I’m not reading malkie’s point as claiming certainty or “absolute victory.” Nor do I think he is saying “we don’t know, therefore God does not exist.”

What he seems to be saying is that “if” a god is defined as non-interventionist, then “it is what it is” really does tell us nothing either way.

But “if” a god is defined as interventionist, as the Mormon god is—through guidance of its leaders, prayers being answered, and binding himself to covenants with claimed observable outcomes—“then” continued failure to detect that intervention counts as evidence against that specific claim. It’s not ignorance, it’s expectation failure.

You have to redefine your god if you intend to counter malkie’s claim, and you seem to have done so, by changing the starting position to total neutrality and saying that absence of evidence should never count against belief—and faith should retain “wiggle room” indefinitely.

But that only works if the god under discussion is non-interventionist and isn’t expected to fulfill the outcomes listed above.

Unfortunately for MG, his church (so therefore he) believes in an interventionist God. Interventions by God can be documented, tracked, analysed, and assessed. Interventions by God can be measured. Again unfortunately, the incidents that are claimed to be interventions by God in the lives of Mormons are so random, so unpredictable, so untied to levels of faith, righteousness, innocence, etc as to render them impossible to distinguish from random chance and coincidence. So even if MG’s God is interventionist it is irrelevant, because if one cannot reliably identify the circumstances or conditions for, or result of, that intervention, it’s the same as God being non interventionist. Which in turn renders a lot of Mormonism’s claims to the level of “you can rely on the magic 8 ball for accurate guidance”.

For an interventionist God, like the one MG believes in, the believer needs to rationalise child abuse, bad things happening to good people, wrong answers, failures, why God seemingly assist in trivia like finding lost car keys, but fails to get involved in, say genocide. Of course there are no good answers, and so we get the mealy mouthed crooked lines and straight writing nonsense. Or worse, the abhorrent excuse that child abuse is necessary so that the perpetrator can repent. There’s more, but you get the gist - that there is zero observable difference between MG’s interventionist God, and a non interventionist God, or a non existent God.

[malkie]

Just to emphasize:

""It is what it is" tells us nothing about God's existence, either for or against." is true only for a god who does not "interfere" in our existence.

If the hypothetical god is claimed to have an effect on our lived reality, then "It is what it is" - meaning that we cannot detect any effect of the god's existence - is a strong argument for non-existence. As they say, it's a great, perhaps impossible, task to prove a negative, but a proponent's consistent failure to provide verifiable "for" evidence is in itself a strong negative indicator.

There may still be proponents of the luminiferous ether hypothesis, but just as the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment tells us something about whether the luminiferous ether exists, "It is what it is" tells us something about Mormon god's existence, and that something is "against", rather than being either for or against.

[insert "malkie quote here]

I pointed out in a recent post of yours (page before this one) that your arguments/logic were sound. This time around I wonder if you might be claiming a ‘win’ from ignorance. One can expect a theist to provide incontrovertible evidence for God if starting from the beginning premise of neutrality.

But to then, knowing that you are, in essence, ignorant…not knowing one way or the other…if there is a God, and then claiming absolute victory, isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

Maybe this isn’t what you’re are doing? You are actually allowing wiggle room for logical/reasonable belief and/or faith?

Regards,
MG

I’m not reading malkie’s point as claiming certainty or “absolute victory.” Nor do I think he is saying “we don’t know, therefore God does not exist.”

What he seems to be saying is that “if” a god is defined as non-interventionist, then “it is what it is” really does tell us nothing either way.

But “if” a god is defined as interventionist, as the Mormon god is—through guidance of its leaders, prayers being answered, and binding himself to covenants with claimed observable outcomes—“then” continued failure to detect that intervention counts as evidence against that specific claim. It’s not ignorance, it’s expectation failure.

You have to redefine your god if you intend to counter malkie’s claim, and you seem to have done so, by changing the starting position to total neutrality and saying that absence of evidence should never count against belief—and faith should retain “wiggle room” indefinitely.

But that only works if the god under discussion is non-interventionist and isn’t expected to fulfill the outcomes listed above.

Thanks, Limnor. Last night, while asleep, my brain was apparently mulling MG's reply, and came up with some points almost identical to your explanation. [aside: I originally mistyped the word as "nulling" - revealing slip, eh?]

Just to clarify one point yet again - sorry if this is getting to be boring, but I'm refining my thoughts.

Simply not detecting the effects on our lived reality of an interventionist god when not looking for them is a relatively weak kind of evidence.
Completely failing to detect verifiable effects on our lived reality when actively looking for them is a somewhat stronger kind of evidence. This is especially true when the people looking include those of all types and stages of belief, from hard atheists to total believers.

That said, I still count myself as an agnostic, albeit one with a high threshold for the kind of evidence that would convince me that such a god exists. Unfortunately, (since I've opened the door to the question) I cannot think of what specific evidence this god would need to provide to convince me. However, I'm fairly confident that if the god exists, and if he/she/it really knows me, and wants me to know them, they will find a way - probably not my way, but that god's idiosyncratic tailored-to-malkie way.

Implicit in my clarification is another characteristic of the god we are talking about - Mormon version: a personal god who knows us as individuals and is involved in our individual lives. I wonder if, as he did with Pharoah, he has hardened my heart against him, because he just doesn't like the underlying eternal "intelligence". In my mind not a very productive practice, but, again, his way, not mine.

[Limnor]

That said, I still count myself as an agnostic, albeit one with a high threshold for the kind of evidence that would convince me that such a god exists. Unfortunately, (since I've opened the door to the question) I cannot think of what specific evidence this god would need to provide to convince me. However, I'm fairly confident that if the god exists, and if he/she/it really knows me, and wants me to know them, they will find a way - probably not my way, but that god's idiosyncratic tailored-to-malkie way.

I think this is actually the place where God works. Not through proofs or institutions claiming special access, but personally, through presence that shows up “in” people. If God reveals Himself, it’s through those who suffer with you, love without expectation, and accept without conditions. And I don’t think anyone can “talk you into” faith—I think only God draws people to Himself. That aligns with both Jesus and Paul—God is known by fruit and indwelling, not by proof or authority.

[MG 2.0]

I cannot think of what specific evidence this god would need to provide to convince me.

I think that is a great question/concern. Especially if God might like and/or have reasons to let the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference.

That would take a lot of creativity and know how I think. Why? Humans are pretty good taking things apart and trying to figure out what makes things tick.

Those that subscribe to Fine Tuning would look at this as a possible way to go backwards in time and see how things wouldn't have ticked except for some pretty exact 'science' that was put into play.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I cannot think of what specific evidence this god would need to provide to convince me.

I think that is a great question/concern. Especially if God might like and/or have reasons to let the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference.

Does Mormonism teach that God allows the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference? Because I seem to recall being taught something different to that. Many Presidents have pointed to the rain stopping, or the rain starting, as a direct intervention by God - are they wrong?

[malkie]

I think that is a great question/concern. Especially if God might like and/or have reasons to let the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference.

Does Mormonism teach that God allows the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference? Because I seem to recall being taught something different to that. Many Presidents have pointed to the rain stopping, or the rain starting, as a direct intervention by God - are they wrong?

Of course, we have absolutely no discernable information about what such a god might like and/or have reasons for. Hypotheticals and unsupported suppositions have to take the place of actual verifiable information.

But I think you'll agree, IHQ, that this suggestion provides a rare moment of clarity in an otherwise muddy landscape.

I wonder - do you subscribe to Fine Tuning? Unfortunately, I let my subscription lapse

[Limnor]

Does Mormonism teach that God allows the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference? Because I seem to recall being taught something different to that. Many Presidents have pointed to the rain stopping, or the rain starting, as a direct intervention by God - are they wrong?

Of course, we have absolutely no discernable information about what such a god might like and/or have reasons for. Hypotheticals and unsupported suppositions have to take the place of actual verifiable information.

But I think you'll agree, IHQ, that this suggestion provides a rare moment of clarity in an otherwise muddy landscape.

I wonder - do you subscribe to Fine Tuning? Unfortunately, I let my subscription lapse

It took a while for me to understand the “fine tuning” argument, but I think I get it—it’s what you do when there is no “creatio ex nihilo.” But to follow malkie’s question about God revealing Himself, and how you might recognize God if He did reveal Himself, it doesn’t really work to say “well you see God arranged things perfectly.”

[malkie]

Of course, we have absolutely no discernable information about what such a god might like and/or have reasons for. Hypotheticals and unsupported suppositions have to take the place of actual verifiable information.

But I think you'll agree, IHQ, that this suggestion provides a rare moment of clarity in an otherwise muddy landscape.

I wonder - do you subscribe to Fine Tuning? Unfortunately, I let my subscription lapse

It took a while for me to understand the “fine tuning” argument, but I think I get it—it’s what you do when there is no “creatio ex nihilo.” But to follow malkie’s question about God revealing Himself, and how you might recognize God if He did reveal Himself, it doesn’t really work to say “well you see God arranged things perfectly.”

I think of the universe as being controlled by a giant analog computer, with innumerable patch cords, knobs, and sliders. Some of the knobs & sliders are independent, and some are related through "functions". They represent the fundamental "constants" of the universe, like c, G, ℏ.

Prospective god, in his incarnation as a postdoc, is setting up his universe study for his Godhood Thesis. Through a combination of study, skill, and sheer luck, he hits on a combination of settings that allows carbon-based life to not just exist but to flourish on our little planet. Any slight deviation, perhaps from a bump on the table, or a fluctuation in the power supply, and - poof - we're history.

In the Mormon version, god is following a recipe that his daddy gave him, passed down through an infinite progression of prior gods, and definitely not the product of chance.

[Reminds me of an assignment my eldest son had from school just after his mother & I separated: ask you mother for a family recipe that you can cook during Home Ec. I wrote down my recipe for something or another, and added the annotation: Passed down from father to son for one generation. Well, at least the teacher smiled.]

[Res Ipsa]

Does Mormonism teach that God allows the world to operate naturalistically without any noticeable interference? Because I seem to recall being taught something different to that. Many Presidents have pointed to the rain stopping, or the rain starting, as a direct intervention by God - are they wrong?

Of course, we have absolutely no discernable information about what such a god might like and/or have reasons for. Hypotheticals and unsupported suppositions have to take the place of actual verifiable information.

But I think you'll agree, IHQ, that this suggestion provides a rare moment of clarity in an otherwise muddy landscape.

I wonder - do you subscribe to Fine Tuning? Unfortunately, I let my subscription lapse

I do, but only for pianos.

[MG 2.0]

Of course, we have absolutely no discernable information about what such a god might like and/or have reasons for. Hypotheticals and unsupported suppositions have to take the place of actual verifiable information.

But I think you'll agree, IHQ, that this suggestion provides a rare moment of clarity in an otherwise muddy landscape.

I wonder - do you subscribe to Fine Tuning? Unfortunately, I let my subscription lapse

It took a while for me to understand the “fine tuning” argument, but I think I get it—it’s what you do when there is no “creatio ex nihilo.” But to follow malkie’s question about God revealing Himself, and how you might recognize God if He did reveal Himself, it doesn’t really work to say “well you see God arranged things perfectly.”

The Fine Tuning argument might be seen as setting the stage...pointing to a universe that is intelligible and purposeful...while recognition of God’s revelation(s) happens in the arena of personal and communal encounters.

And one size doesn't fit all.

The fact that the universe doesn't seem to be random opens the door to the possibility of a God who has laid out a multifaceted plan.

It opens the door. One then either decides to walk through it or close it.

Regards,
MG