posted
Sorry for the lag. Had some work come up.It always seems to.
I think humans have an innate need to get better at things. That can be understanding literature or walnut growing or stock trading or charity. Frustration describes a state in which one cannot realize a goal, and it irks us. I attribute this need to the fact that we're children of God, and we're hardwired to grow internally, not just physically. When progress slows or halts, people sicken and die (re: the elderly in nursing homes in front of TVs.) I don't know whether this attribution is correct, but I suspect it's not too far off.
This is a unifying thread of human activity, though - that I can say with confidence. There are forms of progress that are eventually more useful than others. Many need to be followed for long-term success. For instance, I'm in one (physical sciences) where that progress is possible - until you get older and perhaps a bit slower, and the young'uns pass you up, and your understanding progresses slower, and your career slows down... and frustration is common and often severe. Other pursuits (like child rearing) don't display the progress quite as clearly, and frustration is often felt as the child you're rearing doesn't respond quite as you'd wish... maybe for a while. If you're lucky, though, the results will be good enough that the child will continue to rear themselves after leaving the home, and you can have the satisfaction of seeing their progress and in sharing in it to some small degree.
The concept of progress and learning is central to Mormon theology. People have _speculated_ that God is still progressing in the accumulation of knowledge and power - I'm unconvinced. However, He speaks of eternal progression as a principle of eternal life - which He also equates to being like Him. I wonder what's really progressing in that sense. As I sit here and think about it, I think maybe He gets His sense of progress from His children and creations. Perhaps there are much larger goals and realms out there that we don't even know enough to imagine.
I know this - when I am not progressing in something, I'm regressing in everything.
posted
To the person who said they hoped their post didn't offend me (I don't have a good enough connection to go back and look it up) the thought never even occurred to me, no offence was taken.
At any rate, here's how I see things: I could make all sorts of claims that are irrefutable. I could say that time travel is possible. I could say that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. I could say that for no particular reason there's a green nerf ball in the middle of the Andromeda galaxy. I could say that there is a God.
The simple fact of the matter is, we don't know. For the first two, I seek proof rather than many meaningless buzz-words and vague, vague extrapolations from saying "Well, if we take the imaginary root, things could travel back in time and faster than light" or "Well, if you do this, it looks like we might have copied the atom, so the copy is probably from a parallel universe!" For the fourth one, I feel that more work must be done before we can make rash decisions.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
seems i have missed a lot in the last few weeks. regardless, i have one question?
Am i the only one here without a preconception of what god is? also more to the point am I the only non-mormon?
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
jOntar, you are not the only non-Mormon. I belong to the churches of Christ. Several other people in this thread don't sound particularly Mormon, either, though I could be wrong.
As for preconceptions about God, I suppose that depends on what you mean by a preconception. Certainly I have ideas about who God is now. Where I obtained them is not clear to me--more so than usual, as I began reading at an unusually early age and may have been reading bits of the Bible as early as three or four. Or not.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the idea of God is particularly useful without a preconception. Specifically - I would not believe in God (and didn't, for a while) if He wasn't willing to verify his existence to me. That verification having happened, the capacity to imagine other kinds of God has become useless to me. As far as understanding Him and his character, I certainly have my work cut out for me. However, I don't suffer under the ambiguities of 1) Existence doubts or 2) Not knowing where to look for sources of info.
Knowing God involves at least two steps - knowing where to look and looking. I think some people are better at naturally knowing where to look than others. I think there are others that are better at actually looking when they know where to look. There are an infinite variety of experiences that result as a combination of these and other factors such as honesty (meaning willingness to accept reality, whatever its consequences), need, etc.
So - I think that it's unlikely that one can lack a preconception regarding God, though one can vigorously avoid looking at it. Even if one manages such a feat, I question its point.
If God exists, it's a good idea to get looking for info on what and who He is. The best source for that information is God Himself, since it's pretty clear that humanity is not endowed with any consistent insight on that topic, and it's difficult to separate the value of human sources on their own merits. If that God is someone or something which cares what humans do, one must assume that He's willing to communicate with them, if only to tell them the rules.
If not, well, why think about it? Ideas like "God is a subconscious race mind" or "God is a life force that flows throught the universe" or "God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do" require no change in anything one does, and are just unsubstantiated and unprovable creation myths. They class with all the sorts of speculation that give trivial results - no effect means sure, they could be right, but who cares? Who can tell? My feeling is such things are intellectual bellybutton-lint hunts. If one wants to ask questions like "Why life? Why the Universe?", one should take paths which offer answers. Otherwise, you're wasting perfectly good time that could have been used posting on Hatrack or something.
Alden
btw - it is my feeling that a majority of the people in this thread aren't Mormon. Just so happens that the biggest loudmouth here is. Posts: 90 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stradling, I wonder why ideas of God as a force, or non-conscious entity flowing through the universe are irrelevant and useless. Maybe they are meaningless words that allow SOME people to say, "Yeah, I believe in God." and then go back to not caring about the things of spirit anymore. (Things of spirit here being used to define anything that falls into line with a bettering of oneself.) But, I am unable at this time to judge which ones do this, and which ones believe God to be less a being and more of a Tao-like force, and then use this belief to understand acts of kindness, morality, and self-improvement as a way of acknowledging something higher in this universe. Take some Jews, for example. There are many who do not believe God to be a person. They believe He is a force, a spirit, a drive to do good, and to better the world through little acts of creation. Maybe it seems silly, or pointless, but if it makes someone want to do good,and gives them some semblance of meaning, then what's wrong with that?
Also, here's a quote that troubles me: "Ideas like "God is a subconscious race mind" or "God is a life force that flows throught the universe" or "God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do" require no change in anything one does, and are just unsubstantiated and unprovable creation myths. They class with all the sorts of speculation that give trivial results - no effect means sure, they could be right, but who cares? Who can tell?" Are there any creation myths that are substantiated and provable. Certainly none I've read. And, we've seen that some Jews will still follow the law, even when believing that "God is a life force that flows throught the universe." (You could argue here that tradition plays a part. And, I'll be forced to admit you're right.) And, everything you've said about these beliefs can go for any other religion, exception being "God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do." Though, I'd wager that thought can wander into Christianity from time to time. (Not that I'm bashing Christianity! I'm not, I promise. I'm only saying, being absolved of guilt sometimes makes us wonder what else we can get away with.) So, I agree with you Stradling, but then I disagree. These can be useless ideas that serve no purpose, but what form of spirituality can't?
posted
Thanks for the well-thought-out comments. I'll agree fully with you that even the low-commitment ideas of God are fully beneficial to those who believe in them, and make them better people. I was addressing the usefulness of exploring God's nature when there are no observables - when God is disinterested in humanity in specific or in general.
quote:A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -Stephen Crane
I'll contend that the God described in Christian canon is an interactive God that has stated to humanity through intermediaries repeatedly that He is available for consultation and has specific interest in the conduct of His children (us). There are observables one can test, and the creation myth is in fact provable (on an individual basis) with Him. I think He's also capable of making His proofs in a general way, and will do so in the appropriate course of time.
So, in summary - I feel that speculation as to the nature of God without appeal to Him is pointless, in that there is no useful results to be generated. One has the whole cosmos and all its effects, known or unknown, to reference if one doesn't have a starting point. For that reason, I'm grateful for the (supported) preconceptions I have about God.
posted
"There are observables one can test, and the creation myth is in fact provable (on an individual basis) with Him."
Which observables, exactly? Many people have told me, for example, that God is willing to talk to you if you open your heart; the majority of these people are clearly wrong, if only because the majority of them do not actually agree about what God was telling them -- which implies that either God is lying to them, or they're not all talking to God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you people lean very heavily toward science on this side of the Hatrack community. I can’t argue the existence of God through science. What can I say - I’m a woman, blame it on my Venus nature. Why I believe in God? Mostly it is a feeling or recognition connected to an event. These are some of the events:
Having a horrible earache when I was five, lying in bed in agony, being told to tough it out, saying a child’s innocent prayer, and having the pain abate.
Watching a baby born and take it first breath.
Learning about the workings of a single human cell and it's complexity.
Realizing that all the planets in the solar system line up on the same plane.
I just can’t comprehend complex systems coming about thru random means. The plainness of the nose on my face screams, “This was made.” And as a mother, I wonder why the clothes just don’t come out of the dryer folded, if order is the natural outcome of life.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I am emotionally obliterated by it.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself absorbed in the broad heavy-handed brushstrokes that brought that emotion to the surface.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself puzzling out the geometries and symmetries of the clouds and the haystacks.
Sometimes I forget the painting altogether and wonder at what he was living through at the time he painted the piece I'm looking at.
I don't know what he knew. I see aspects of his creations that resonate with me and others that seem alien. But, I do like trying to understand them from as many viewpoints as possible.
quote:"There are observables one can test, and the creation myth is in fact provable (on an individual basis) with Him."
Which observables, exactly? Many people have told me, for example, that God is willing to talk to you if you open your heart; the majority of these people are clearly wrong, if only because the majority of them do not actually agree about what God was telling them -- which implies that either God is lying to them, or they're not all talking to God.
In my experience, you have to ask God before He asnwers, maybe they were just asking the wrong question.
quote:"God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do" require no change in anything one does
This is a personal pet peeve. I was at a youth group a while back (I think April) and we broke up into groups (this was all highschoolers, I was in the Senior guy group). We were discussing what burdens we were shouldering (things like over eating, under eating and onanism) and someone said that they knew that what they did was OK because Christ would forgive them no matter what, but they decided to stop since they had to live with the people around them. It's rather frustrating when people use Christ to pretend they have no responsibiity for their future.
quote:Which observables, exactly? Many people have told me, for example, that God is willing to talk to you if you open your heart; the majority of these people are clearly wrong, if only because the majority of them do not actually agree about what God was telling them -- which implies that either God is lying to them, or they're not all talking to God.
Well, Tom, I can't decide how to address this with you. I can't fathom how a fearless critic with 11553 posts to his name on Hatrack River, of all places, could have avoided getting a coherent answer to such a simple question, if only from a Mormon standpoint. I'm fairly sure it's been discussed.
But hey, once more can't hurt. Remember, folks, I'm going to do this from a strong theistic standpoint, with assumptions that God participates in the human experience on a daily basis.
Points are as follows:
1. God is the loving father of the human race in some useful sense. 2. God is capable of individual communication with all human beings. 3. God has strong motivation not to reveal Himself unambiguously under arbitrary circumstances for the good of the individual - the person must be at a point in testing and instruction that the information will do good rather than harm to the individual's progress. 4. Human beings are at present in a period of instruction and testing. Or trials. (Those words carry subtle connotations that throw them off the meaning I seek.)
If God is working according to (1), (2) and (4), He is not likely to leave people without communication and information. This is deeply simplifying the issue, but I can't write a dissertation here. There has to be a flow of info. However, too much specific information in inappropriate circumstances invalidates (3). So God seeks out individuals who are capable of receiving the necessary detailed information without violating whatever strictures (3) places on His communication with man. These individuals then spread the detailed information to their neighbors and community. The listeners are then free to conditionally accept or reject the message. Integral to the message is the instruction: Ask if this is true. Those who accept the data ask, and get some level of confirmation. For more details, look at Alma Chapter 32 in the Book of Mormon. These confirmations pile up as the listener asks more questions and solves more problems. The successful listener inevitably converts over to an instructor,receiving detailed information, and the cycle expands. Individuals recieve proof that God exists - but their capacity to communicate that result is limited, to prevent problems with (3).
Now, the cycle almost inevitably breaks down over generation issues and active opposition. There are other sources (Satan) trying to disrupt the cycle with disinformation, distraction, and corrupted data. Correct ideas remain, but the cycle might be broken in several ways. The authority (verifiability) structure that God sets up can be destroyed or corrupted; corrupted truths set up contradictions in the logical structure of the information. One primary point of attack is the instruction to ask God for confirmation - without that, the information becomes hearsay, and can mutate extremely quickly. However, in compensation, human beings are capable of individual communication with God at some level even when completely ignorant of his character. He confirms truth, no matter how small, to those who ask. Often, they don't even know they're asking. However, truth is never really lost completely from humanity - it's just difficult to discriminate the purest truths from those that have been modified and corrupted.
So - religious people tell you to open your heart and God will speak to you, as He has to them. What you're not taking into account is that they're not on Gigabit ethernet with Him - they're tooling around with a 2800 baud modem, for the most part, getting yes/no answers - basic conscience input. By far, most of the doctrine you'll see is rehashed and corrupted stuff that's been floating around forever, and that has been adapted into a sort of framework, and people are trying to fit the answers they have from God into that structure. You'll inevitably see contradiction. And yet, God isn't lying. Nor are the people involved.
Of course, God is also capable of restarting the cycle and instituting direct connections with high bandwidth and good data integrity checks. People who have been working with small connections can come in and have uncluttered information to put into their framework. The first thing that happens is that they are told to start with the verification cycle - know for yourself - and are encouraged to absorb as fast a possible. This process makes it possible for God to increase the amount of direct communication available to the people in question, and each individual soon becomes a high-rate channel as well. The point, as Moses said, is for everyone to have Gigabit ethernet: "would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets".
Now, of course, I know for myself that the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a prophet. You don't. You can, if you want, but it's your option - the observables are there for you, assuming you really wish to look. That doesn't mean that all Baptists are going to hell - it means that is they wish to hook in to the same nformation source, they have a very easy time and comparatively little to relearn. <extend argument to all religions>
Heck, you can go get a concrete example - anyone'll give you a Book of Mormon. There is no way to explain it without appealing to something outside human capabilities. This isn't opening up for a "truth of the Book of Mormon" argument here - this is a simple statement of fact from one who has studied it extensively. If anyone wants to discuss that further, let's open another thread. The point here is served by saying that there are concrete places to look - if you will do so. The experiment is repeatable. Therefore, it is an observable - just not one that one can present to Joe Six-Pack in a scientific outreach presentation. It comes only through individual channels. Only. See (3).
OK. Let the demolition derby begin. *sigh* I may be out of touch for a couple of days, but I'll try to take part in the free-for-all I anticipate from this one.
posted
Tom, I admire the fact that you can ask logical questions amid all this "I know god exists, and you could too if you just tried and knew where to look." talk.
I, on the other hand, will merely take this opportunity to use my new favorite smilie.
Seriously, though...if there is a god, he must be getting pretty bored up there. I mean, back in the day, he had some pretty important stuff to say, and he wasn't afraid to say it. "Look at me, I'm a burning bush. Don't kill people, or you'll burn in hell!"
Nowadays, he's whispering to some old guy in his bedroom. "Yeah, um, so I don't think you guys should be drinking coffee down there."
Talk about overmanaging.
I'll bet his solitare game is amazing, though.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I am emotionally obliterated by it.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself absorbed in the broad heavy-handed brushstrokes that brought that emotion to the surface.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself puzzling out the geometries and symmetries of the clouds and the haystacks.
Sometimes I forget the painting altogether and wonder at what he was living through at the time he painted the piece I'm looking at.
I don't know what he knew. I see aspects of his creations that resonate with me and others that seem alien. But, I do like trying to understand them from as many viewpoints as possible.
mike
This has to be the best Flish post I've ever seen. And I totally understood it. Bonus.
Eddie - If you're still in the PNW, Mr. Apparently Has PC Access Again, give me a call. I want to make your last visit here up to you by NOT being a huge and ridiculous goober. If you know what I mean. Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you don't wanna look in the box, you don't hafta. Just don't make dumb comments about what's in the box. It makes you look... underinformed. Logic has nothing to do with Tom's post - he oversimplifies the system, then proves it wrong. It's called a straw man.
I kind of thought Tom was trolling (mildly), but decided to give a good answer. I'm sure you're trolling, so I won't even address the absurdity of your other comments.
posted
Interesting logic, Stradling. As a member of the church of Christ, I should conclude that God does not exist.... Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not familiar with the details of the Church of Christ liturgy. Why?
Aside - I assert that all people have some connection to God. Even sans logic, the conclusion that God lives is a natural one in the literal sense.
I'm just showing that it's possible to produce a consistent system that answers Tom's objection. No proof was offered - and no proof of nonexistence can be extracted. If your givens (God talks to man, etc) are different, the structure I offered clearly doesn't work. No surprise there. Careful drawing conclusions.
quote: ...assumes the primacy of the Bible as a source for understanding the Good News and as a foundation for all statements of faith. It recognizes that the Bible, though written in specific historical times and places, still speaks to us in our present condition. It declares that the study of the scriptures is not limited by past interpretations, but it is pursued with the expectation of new insights and God's help for living today.
from the United Church of Christ web site - there are a few other flavors I found, but I assume this has something to do with what you believe. Is this the issue to which you refer?
Perhaps, because you're a newbie, you assume that I have NOT asked.
Hobbes here asked, and got an answer, and I believe he joined up.
Me, I asked -- and DIDN'T get a reply. So I'm not a member of your club.
Now, the traditional religious response to that -- from almost ALL religions that encourage this kind of inquiry -- is that I didn't ask in the right way. The problem here is that the "right way" is generally said to involve opening one's mind up so far that ANYTHING would seem true, with enough repetition; the process suggested for hearing the voice of God is, interestingly enough, IDENTICAL to the process used in brainwashing.
So, well aware that I'm fully capable of brainwashing myself into believing something, I asked as honestly as I know how -- of a number of religions, mind you, including Mormonism -- and got no response. I'm certainly able to KEEP asking, but I'm confident in my ability to eventually convince myself of ANY untruth if I harp on it over and over, and deny any skeptical sense of inquiry.
So, since I got no PERSONAL answer, I look at those people I know who claim to have received answers. As I've said, there is no consensus among those I know who claim to have heard from God as to what God wants, what RELIGION He prefers, or how He wants them to behave. Many of these people sin more frequently, in more traditional ways, than I do; many of them are no happier, no more satisfied, and certainly no more consistent. In other words, I see no universal indication that these people consistently benefit from their communion with a higher power -- and no consistent messages to suggest that this communication is in fact occurring.
To speak in parables for a moment, it's as if I sent seven people into a room to ask someone for math advice, and all seven people come out doing the problem differently -- and five of them actually get the wrong answer. Which advice is correct? Did ANY of them talk to the math guy? What, then, do I do when I go into the room myself to talk to the guy, and find it empty -- only to be told, by all seven people, that the guy will appear if I KEEP re-entering the room, close my eyes hard enough, and really believe in him?
Your "observables," Stradling, don't meet much of a decent standard. They're entirely subjective, entirely personal, and entirely unreproducible in a controlled situation. You can say that, in your personal experience, you've felt the presence of God and therefore believe; I respect that (as, for example, I respect Hobbes' decision) -- but to say that this method is one that's available to everyone is, quite frankly, a slap in the face to people who have sincerely searched for your God and come up with different answers.
To speak in parables for a moment, it's as if I sent seven people into a room to ask someone for math advice, and all seven people come out doing the problem differently -- and five of them actually get the wrong answer. Which advice is correct? Did ANY of them talk to the math guy? What, then, do I do when I go into the room myself to talk to the guy, and find it empty -- only to be told, by all seven people, that the guy will appear if I KEEP re-entering the room, close my eyes hard enough, and really believe in him?
Thanks for that. Really. I found it to be thought-provoking.
I would just ask you to think about one thing, and I am not criticizing your fascinating analogy. Maybe the five people who got the anwer wrong got a whole lot closer than they otherwise would have?
Does that make sense at all? I am not explaining it well. You mentioned that some of your "believer" friends sin more often and in more traditional ways than you do. Maybe.
But the point is (IMHO) NOT that they are better than EVERYONE else because of their belief, but that THEY are better than THEY otherwise would have been, if they did not believe. Try not to judge them too harshly.
Frisco: "Yeah, um, so I don't think you guys should be drinking coffee down there."
On its face, the the LDS Word of Wisdom may seem like an insignificant thing, but you have to look at it in the context of our society.
This society does all kinds of things to the human body that aren't good for it: illicit drugs, improperly-used prescription drugs, plastic surgery, steroids, ephedra, anorexia, etc.
I think when He gave us this law of health it was to help us have a greater appreciation for the health of our bodies, so that we would have a healthy attitude, and a respect for our bodies and the miracles that they are.
Sure, a little coffee is no big deal. But the underlying healthy attitude which the entire law engenders is a big deal. Earlier societies had to spend day and night just producing enough healthy food to survive. In our luxury, we have too much free time to "experiment," and some of those experiments aren't that good for us. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Perhaps, because you're a newbie, you assume that I have NOT asked."
Well, I've certainly been put in MY place.
Yeah, I know I haven't followed the million myraid arguments here back and forth over religion and politics. They get mired so easily. I've been lurking for a while, and seem to remember you mentioning your result earlier. However, I'll never claim to be a Hatrack guru. Truly, I have no time to become one.
Because I couldn't (and still don't) know your personal religious history and experiences, I could make only one statement I thought safe - you don't know the things I know. You know something else. I really am capable of accepting the fact that there are different ideas out there in the world. I'm certainly not capable of troubleshooting your spiritual life and connection to God. Nor do I desire to do so.
There is danger in parables. Case in point - the seven walk into the room with a math problem... and come out with different answers/techniques. I have been the man in the room, and will tell you that 2 out of 7 is a pretty good success rate among undergraduates, these days. 'Course, I'm just being facetious. That's not the REAL problem with the parable.
I don't think you can map the problem of different people in different religions into an example of one door into one room. That's why I wrote that whole pile of stuff above. I know that not everyone you talk to is asking in the way and about the things I mentioned. In the same way, multiple doors don't really do the trick, either.
Simple-minded repetition of the question is, as you correctly point out, brainwashing, and that's not a good basis upon which to build a worldview. I definitely don't recommend it. Nor do I recommend closing one's eyes and wishing real hard. It is a good idea to check "office hours". By which I mean, look for good reasons it didn't work.
If you're capable of judging consistency by human behavior, I have some problems I need you to work out for me, 'cause you're extracting useful info from one of the most chaotic and multifariate systems imaginable. In the same sense that I know nothing of your internal state other than the tiny trickle of info that words convey, you know nothing of these others, really, of their contentment or consistency as related to their communication with God. If you make religious decisions based primarily on your observation of the people who practice it, you're using suspect data. The life of the best kind of religious person is, at most, a beacon, giving you some idea of where to go to find the thing they have.
My observables have to meet a few rigorous standards. They must be solid enough to help me make decisions with confidence that appear ludicrous to those who don't know what I know. Not only do I risk myself, but my spouse and children. I's say they're as solid as they can be made to be. I'll never publish them in Physical Review - but I will live by them.
As far as a "controlled situation" - who ever heard of one of those? No such animal. The simplest experiments we do are BARELY under controlled circumstances - and that's because we choose the problems so as to be able to ignore a thousand sources of error. In something as complex as a human being, there is no such thing. I said they were personal and inaccessible to others. I think I even gave a possible reason for it. However, I DID observe them - and the data are recorded. I'm fairly sure you'll see them eventually, one way or another.
Slap in the face? Only if you want to take it that way. I'd say it's a hand on the shoulder and a gesture in the right direction. I admire sincere searchers enough to share what I have with them, even knowing that I will inevitably take some slaps myself before the day is through. Life is rough. I hope that you and anyone else who felt a slap will accept my apology. I don't aim to demean - I'm just pointing out something I've been shown.
William - I envy your gentle tone, and think your point is well-taken.
A child falls down a well. Actually, for this discussion, let us include all the cases where children fall down wells, or are struck by stray bullets, or are kidnapped, molested by priests or popular pop rock musicians, etc.
Parents pray, people pray, the country prays for the child's safe rescue.
Some of the children are rescued. Most are not.
Now, go to another country, where they pray to a different god. What are the statistics for that country?
Now, go to another country, where they don't pray to any god. What are the statistics for that country?
I put it to you that there will be no difference whatsoever in the statistics of how many are rescued, or how many are killed or otherwise destroyed by their experiences.
Typical religious responses I expect to hear to deflate my premise:
1) We do not (or, better yet: can not) understand how God works.
2) Maybe God answered the prayers in a way we did not expect.
3) God loved [child's name here] so much, that He took him/her to heaven to be with Him.
4) God cannot be tested
Follow up question: If we do not or can not understand how God works, and the world's response to situations does not apparently change with respect to how much "God" is invoked, then what difference does the supposed existence of God make in any practical sense?
For every one person who thanks God for helping him win the lottery, there are 6.75 million people who did not win the lottery. For every person who can claim that God saved their child's life, there are thousands who can just as legitimately claim that "God did nothing to save my now-dead child". Unless, of course, you want to change the rules, and redefine what "save" is (or, if you're Bill Clinton, what "is" is).
posted
"I'll never publish them in Physical Review - but I will live by them."
Then you understand, of course, that these are not reproducible "observables" that can, in any logical argument, actually be CALLED "observables." There's no control. There's no reproducibility. There's no quality of reliable prediction.
The most we can say about this, as an "observable," is the following: under certain conditions, one specific person had been led to believe that he had communicated with God.
This is a great observable -- and to that one specific person, of course, it might be all the evidence he needs. But it's lousy as a recruiting tool, or as the basis of any logical argument with people who don't already accept the premise.
Call me a troll, Stradling, but you obviously understood my opinion on god. We even use the same word.
I am, as you put it, underinformed. But only because there isn't exactly a wealth of verifiable information on god. None, to be exact. I am not, however, ignorant of the opinions of others. I've also put a lot of my own time and effort into looking for god, but found nothing. Do I wish he were out there? Absolutely.
"I don't believe in god." "Well, you obviously didn't look." "Oh, but I did." "Probably in the wrong place, then." "Where's the right place?" "Who knows?" "Where did you look?" "Oh, I prayed." "But I did that." "Probably not the right way. Try again."
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To believe or not to believe, that is the question.
Well, there you have it. The existance of God is really a matter of belief, there is no way to prove its existance one way or another. I happen not to believe in God, I'm an aetheist.
The one thing I do know exists is religion, and most are adament that their way is the only way and that if you do not believe in that religion's particular God then you are doomed. I can't subscribe to that logic.
Zealots frighten me because they have blinders on and will deny anyway of thinking but their own.
I found "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown presents a very interesting theory on Catholicism.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DOG, I thought that's what I was taught at college and I went out on the internet and found this: The orbits of the planets are all more or less in the same plane (called the ecliptic and defined by the plane of the Earth's orbit). The ecliptic is inclined only 7 degrees from the plane of the Sun's equator. Pluto's orbit deviates the most from the plane of the ecliptic with an inclination of 17 degrees.
posted
Er...wrong "Church of Christ", Stradling. Perhaps I should've said "churches of Christ", but I dunno if that'd have given you the right answer or not.
The churches of Christ operate, essentially, on the basis that God's silence is normal--that there has been no new communication from him in roughly 1900 years. From what I can tell, most of us seem to simply assume that your conclusion from points 1, 2, & 4 is invalid for some reason; a few consider 3 to be a universal condition--no one is at such a point in their lives nor will be until radical change (the end of the world) occurs. Few people have given it much thought, any more than most of the Mormons I have met were prepared to look at it from our perspective; it seems to be a blind spot.
It's worth mentioning at this point that we emerged slightly earlier than you in the 1800s, having the experience of the Great Awakenings. The norm at the time was that you expected God to reveal himself to you in an ecstatic/mystic manner, and if he didn't it must be that you were a reprobate, doomed to damnation. The Restorers were, for the most part, people who had struggled for such a revelation for years without receiving one.
And yes, I am aware that you are not employing rigorous logic meant to prove to people that God exists. I just found that following your reasoning led me to odd conclusions if I applied it to my belief system.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I know that Pluto's orbit deviates from the ecliptic by about 17°.
What level of deviation from the ecliptic is sufficient proof for the non-existence of God?
Would you still believe in God if Pluto deviated from the ecliptic at 18°? Maybe 19°? Maybe you're a devout person, and would require at least 25° deviation before you'd entertain any doubts?
And what about Kuiper Objects, eh!?! They're all over the place! Kuiper, objects, then! Proof of the non-existence of God! Finally, we're in agreement!
posted
I believe in G-d, but a different form than most. My idea of G-d is that G-d is all that is good, all that is wise. There is no G-d of fire, G-d is embodied in the fire. When the world moves, that is G-d moving us. G-d is nothing and everything. G-d flows freely throughout our world, for G-d created it. G-d is embodied in ki, or greater, divine, everything above us. G-d is embodied by chikara, or strength, energy, power.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little too cheeky, Ellen. He reads kind of like a program designed to troll the forums and make obnoxious comments. In fact...I'm not sure I believe there is a DOG.
Okay, so I'm joking. Don't take that too seriously, please, DOG. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah DOG, I bow to the Budda in you (as Ben Stein would say), and I see that your nick is no accident.
However, for those of us who do not believe in God, then no arguement exists that will convince us that there is one (or several if that's your desire), just as believers will not be swayed by our logic. That does not mean that personal experience will not be effective (in either direction).
Of course there are any number of natural phenomena that cannot be explained with todays knowledge, but that does not mean a natural, physical explanation does not exist, it just has not been found.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DOG, as I said, I was making a joke--one that I had assumed your alias was intended to invite. If not, I apologize.
Far from being offended by your bluntness I find it refreshing. Most people nowadays feel they must be PC and refrain from anything that might irritate people--even I am overly willing to tread lightly, sometimes. But I was raised in the "strictest school" of the debating tradition of the churches of Christ, and at least in theory I agree with Alexander Campbell: "Insofar as a man is intelligent and beneficial [trans: benevolent] he will be controversial [trans: prone to debate]." (Unfortunately Campbell had a fondness for Latin-derived verbiage which sometimes renders him opaque.) Sometimes to serve truth one must be less than kind.
Glad you liked that one post. That's just sort of a distillation of thoughts at the moment.
Alden,
Regarding your longer post above, my initial reaction is "that's one hell of a construct you're building there, mister", but as someone semi-like-minded, as far as I can tell, I appreciate the effort.
posted
Yes, us neurotics can examine life too much, but the other side of the coin are those who at best dismiss and at worst attack anyone or anything that dares diverge from their idea of a perfect life.
As matter fact I have not joined Tom, but I see it as a quite likely event in my future.
As for what I said about the question, let's take this example. Say Mormons are right, and The Book of Mormon is true. If someone asks God if Christ lives, if the bible is true, then of course they'll still get a "yes" (or whatever, not sure I'd describe the answer quite as a simple yes ), and yet that doesn't change that The Book of Mormon is true. I realize that this doesn't cover all cases of people claiming influnce from God, but that's kind of the tract my mind was on when I made that stament.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
It's rather frustrating when people use Christ to pretend they have no responsibiity for their future. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
People who have been working with small connections can come in and have uncluttered information to put into their framework. The first thing that happens is that they are told to start with the verification cycle - know for yourself - and are encouraged to absorb as fast a possible. This process makes it possible for God to increase the amount of direct communication available to the people in question, and each individual soon becomes a high-rate channel as well. The point, as ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
Okay, so I'm joking. Don't take that too seriously, please, DOG. ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Yes. A Joke. I get it.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
