quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: There's also a difference between "having scientific proof" of God's existence and "having his existence constantly in your face so that you can't possibly deny his existence or do anything contrary to his will." I believe the latter would consitute tyranny, but not the former.
Along the same lines, I put a lot of trust in scientific proof too, but I don't think it's the be all and end all of knowledge.
I would go along with that, afr. Probably better said although it is a question of degree. My original statement was in a thread where we were discussing scientific proof, hence the phrasing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand how that might impinge on agency any more than the commonly-cited claim that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon with an open mind will sense the Truth.
One big difference between those two is that we don't believe all you have to do is read the Book of Mormon -- the oft-cited claim includes the stipulation that you have to pray with faith in Christ in order to get that assurance concerning the Book of Mormon.
If you've done that, you've already exercised a lot of agency to get to that point.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the proposition listed in the title is related to another one that I have heard expressed more often: That human beings were separated from God by the Fall and, since then, most have been unable to fully experience God without losing ourselves (a term I don't intend to define) in some way. One possible reason for the Incarnation was to allow God to bridge this gap for us and allow us to voluntarily accept God without losing ourselves.
According to this line of thinking, most people being brought into the direct presence of God would despair or become subsumed in God.
If the "scientific proof" mentioned in the title proposition were not proof that some creator exists, or proof that some super-powerful being can do cool tricks which we don't understand, but rather proof and explanation of the entire nature of God, and "tyrant" meant "would make meaningless the free will of humans," then I could see the statement being a summary of the line of reasoning I outlined above. But it's a long way from there to here, so I'm not sure that's what people mean by it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If the "scientific proof" mentioned in the title proposition were not proof that some creator exists, or proof that some super-powerful being can do cool tricks which we don't understand, but rather proof and explanation of the entire nature of God, and "tyrant" meant "would make meaningless the free will of humans," then I could see the statement being a summary of the line of reasoning I outlined above. But it's a long way from there to here, so I'm not sure that's what people mean by it.
Thanks, Dagnonee. That is pretty close to what I meant.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
First, I most firmly do not believe that the existence of God is somehow anathemic to scientific observation and proof. I see no reason why the existence of God cannot be substantiated by scientific observation; it all depends on the conclusions drawn. I see plenty of evidence for God's existence when I learn what we know about biological processes, for instance--how orderly and purposeful they are.
Having said that, I would tend to be skeptical of anyone saying they had scientifically proved the existence of God, as I would be wary of any God they postulated out of this proof. Mostly I would be skeptical of the need for God to be proved scientifically--there are other, better ways to arrive at a sure knowledge of his existence and nature.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you sure? If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government? I strongly suspect you'd be much more free to criticize if you didn't realize that fact. And thus, knowing certain facts can make you less free.
No, I would not be any less free. I would still have the same choices I had before. I could choose to do what I'd do before having that knowledge. But there'd be unjust and instant consequences.
Or are people who choose to die for causes not exercising their freewill in the face of just such a threat?
And I think that's an overly-constructed analogy anyway, don't you? We're not talking about a sniper ready to pop you at a word. We're talking about a simple thing. If there was some sort of empirical proof of God's existence, would that mean you were any less free to decide how you'd react to that?
As I (and starLisa, somewhat thoughtlessly) pointed out, there are accounts in the Bible (regardless of whether they are factual. I'm sure there are similar accounts in numerous religious works where there are those who refuse to obey despite direct command) of beings who know of God's existence and yet do not acknowledge it or refuse to accept his authority.
I acknowledge the government's existence. That does not mean I am not free to decide whether or not I accept it's authority over me (and of course, I will often suffer the consequences of that, too). My freewill in regard to deciding if the government exists no longer exists, true. But my freewill regarding how I choose to accept that government remains.
But the more I think about it, the more it becomes clear to me that the sentiment being expressed is that with the question being open, there is more 'wiggle room', more opportunity for mercy for people who weren't sure.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that mere existence is a poor standard to use for choosing a deity to worship. For my money, you're better off following the teachings of a benevolent deity that doesn't exist than those of a malevolent one that does exist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that mere existence is a poor standard to use for choosing a deity to worship. For my money, you're better off following the teachings of a benevolent deity that doesn't exist than those of a malevolent one that does exist.
I agree. And I'm grateful that those aren't our choices.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that mere existence is a poor standard to use for choosing a deity to worship. For my money, you're better off following the teachings of a benevolent deity that doesn't exist than those of a malevolent one that does exist.
Which is why I'd be wary of any God "scientifically proven" to exist.
Added: However, faith that your God actually exists, however you go about gaining that faith, adds a lot of oomph to your devotion.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government?
What, if you're not SURE there's a sniper, is the consequence of criticizing the government?
To elaborate: why is it worse to disobey God if you know you're disobeying Him?
Wasn't intending to be. It was a figure of speech. As the remainder of the post should have made clear.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a difference between reading the Bible and believing that it is literal truth.
I think your analogy with the keyboard is flawed in that your keyboard (I assume) isn't (among other things) the creator of the world, all-knowing, all powerful and so forth.
Um... would it be different if it was an Invisible Pink Keyboard (may its keys never stick)?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: edit: and when are you going to come listen to Irish music with me? I'm singing in Evanston tonight - though you (unlike poor, single me, sigh ) probably have Valentine's Day plans.
Where in Evanston?
Actually, we don't really do the whole Valentine's thing. Saints and all, you know. But as fate would have it, the shirt I'm wearing today is red. I didn't even make the connection until someone at work asked me if I'd worn it because it's Valentine's Day. At which point my cheeks matched my shirt for a moment.
Our plans involve putting Tova to bed and probably sacking out early ourselves. Havah's been sick for the past couple of days.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Where in Evanston?
Actually, we don't really do the whole Valentine's thing. Saints and all, you know. But as fate would have it, the shirt I'm wearing today is red. I didn't even make the connection until someone at work asked me if I'd worn it because it's Valentine's Day. At which point my cheeks matched my shirt for a moment.
Our plans involve putting Tova to bed and probably sacking out early ourselves. Havah's been sick for the past couple of days.
Ah, of course. Whoops!
I sing at Celtic Knot on the occasional Tuesday. More in the late spring and summer. October through mid-April (Easter) I usually have Church stuff on Tuesday nights.
Hope Havah is better soon and that you don't catch it!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I think the proposition listed in the title is related to another one that I have heard expressed more often: That human beings were separated from God by the Fall and, since then, most have been unable to fully experience God without losing ourselves (a term I don't intend to define) in some way. One possible reason for the Incarnation was to allow God to bridge this gap for us and allow us to voluntarily accept God without losing ourselves.
Hang on, though : Didn't Adam and Eve have free will before the Fall? They certainly did have direct experience of your god, right? Yet they also dis-obeyed, rather badly in fact. Incidentally, why the 4000-year break between fall and incarnation? Your god is supposed to be outside of time; was he, perchance, a little careless about precisely when he fixed that break? I mean, I know it's easy to do, I myself should be doing my taxes rather than posting on Hatcrack. But still.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Didn't Adam and Eve have free will before the Fall? They certainly did have direct experience of your god, right?
Yes to both questions. The separation occurred because of the Fall. The line of reasoning goes that the inability of most humans to directly experience God's presence and maintain their personhood is one of the consequences of the Fall.
quote:Yet they also dis-obeyed, rather badly in fact.
Well, yes, this is evidence they had free will.
quote:Incidentally, why the 4000-year break between fall and incarnation?
Because there were other humanity needed to experience first.
quote:Your god is supposed to be outside of time
Which is why the 4,000 year gap is meaningless.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those last two things seem to contradict each other. If there was a good reason for the gap, then it was hardly meaningless, was it? Just out of curiosity, what were the 'other things' that needed to be done first? It does seem to me that the experience of a pagan in China, 3000BCE, doesn't do me much good unless he wrote it down.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes to both questions. The separation occurred because of the Fall. The line of reasoning goes that the inability of most humans to directly experience God's presence and maintain their personhood is one of the consequences of the Fall.
Oops, I forgot this part. Your assertion is, then, that Adam and Eve would be capable of free will even with direct proof of god (or did their nature also change after the fall?) but most people wouldn't? By the way, does the Catholic church have a doctrine on whether they were accepted into Heaven after their deaths?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's acutally not an assertion. It's a line of reasoning about which I haven't made a decision.
quote:is, then, that Adam and Eve would be capable of free will even with direct proof of god (or did their nature also change after the fall?) but most people wouldn't?
All of us would have been so capable had the Fall not occurred. Since then, few are so capable.
And it's not direct proof that would pose the problem; it's direct experience of the presence of God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Your assertion is, then, that Adam and Eve would be capable of free will even with direct proof of god (or did their nature also change after the fall?) but most people wouldn't?
Perhaps they were different from everyone else in this regard which is why they were chosen to be the first. Not my belief, but I'm just saying.
My belief is that their nature changed.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A person's freewill is not impinged by the facts.
Are you sure? If you knew that there was a sniper aiming at your head, ready to kill you the instant you do anything to criticize the government, would you still feel free to critize the government? I strongly suspect you'd be much more free to criticize if you didn't realize that fact. And thus, knowing certain facts can make you less free.
Being afraid of doing something (or of the consequences) is not the same as not having the ability to do something. The choice is still there.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Where in Evanston?
Actually, we don't really do the whole Valentine's thing. Saints and all, you know. But as fate would have it, the shirt I'm wearing today is red. I didn't even make the connection until someone at work asked me if I'd worn it because it's Valentine's Day. At which point my cheeks matched my shirt for a moment.
Our plans involve putting Tova to bed and probably sacking out early ourselves. Havah's been sick for the past couple of days.
Ah, of course. Whoops!
I sing at Celtic Knot on the occasional Tuesday. More in the late spring and summer. October through mid-April (Easter) I usually have Church stuff on Tuesday nights.
Hope Havah is better soon and that you don't catch it!
Thanks. So far, I've mostly caught a severe case of exhaustion. I looked Celtic Knot up, and I know the area. I'm usually about a block away from there every week or two, but usually on Wednesdays. I probably won't be able to go tonight, but definitely let me know when you're singing there next.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will. I am always very careful walking by Comix Revolution lest I get sucked in and lost forever.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would constitute a scientific proof that God exists? How would it be replicable?
Would He have to show Himself on demand for anyone who asked?
Would He have to touch them so that they would know that He was real?
Would even that be proof enough? Or would He need to be ever present through all ages so that each person would have tangible proof of his existence?
Or are miracles like pillars of fire and burning bushes sufficient proof? It seems that there has never been a dearth of such forms of proof, yet those are not scientific evidence that God exists.
Unless we lived in a sphere with God, where he were to us as tangible as we are to one another, I can't see why or how He would scientifically PROVE His existence.
Yet, the Fall separates us physically and spiritually from God. There are those who God has chosen to show Himself to. I believe that it is because He knows who could handle it, yet even those people had to be changed in order to stand His presence.
My only comment on the mercy of God in this case is that IF scientific proof means that He has to show Himself personally to anyone who asks, even if it means their obliteration, then He would be as cruel as any parent who gives their child anything they want on demand without consideration of what is actually best for the child.
Once we lived in a sphere with God and knew His existence. It didn't prevent us from making choices. It didn't prevent us from chosing evil. So, what was the point in the Fall and this sphere where we aren't able to prove the existence of God? 1. To gain a physical body and experience mortality so that we could know sorrow to appreciate joy. We couldn't have these imperfect bodies in the presence of God. We couldn't have stood it.
2. The journey to know God through faith developes character and characteristics that eventually enable us to become like God.
3. The delay between action and consequence gives us a chance to reflect, change ourselves.(again developing character)
This was longer than intended and didn't exactly address the issue at hand. They are my beliefs based on my understanding of the nature of our existence. Obviously, if you understand our existence differently you can argue these points any number of ways.
Posts: 240 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm been a member of the LDS Church for 21 years. I've served callings as both a missionary and a teacher, and tried my best to pay attention to the teachings of the scriptures and the church leaders.
What you attribute as sometjing you've "heard very often from Mormons" I have -never- heard before you wrote it down in this thread.
And I've heard -lots- of statements about proofs of the existence or non-existence of God.
Taking statements by two members on this board, and building it up as some sort of major LDS doctrine or belief...well, that doesn't work.
They have opinions. So does every other member. That doesn't make their opinion doctrine, or even one widely shared.
I feel you're making an unfair blanket statement.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the kneejerk Mormons here need to step off.
Let's look at Puffy's quote. Let's see if we can pick out the relevant bits. I'll highlight them.
quote:What you attribute as sometjing you've "heard very often from Mormons" I have -never- heard before you wrote it down in this thread.
And I've heard -lots- of statements about proofs of the existence or non-existence of God.
Taking statements by two members on this board, and building it up as some sort of major LDS doctrine or belief...well, that doesn't work.
I believe your question -- if it WAS a question, and not just a flailing if well-intentioned "clarification" -- contains the seeds of its own answer.
If you felt that I was implying that this was some sort of official Mormon doctrine, I'm sorry for somehow giving you the wrong idea. In fact, as I understand Mormon doctrine, this very idea is specifically contraindicated by other points of doctrine. However, that doesn't change the fact that I've heard this same idea very frequently from Mormons (and, coming up in second place, Catholics (as has been observed here)).
I think it boils down to any given individual's understanding of the role of agency (and the impact evidence has upon it).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Adam and Eve (and, perhaps Moses) had direct, clear evidence that God existed (for the sake of our discussion). Prima facie evidence, I would say, would be considered scientific, eh?
And Adam and Eve, even though they knew, directly, that God existed--and, specifically, what he wanted them NOT to do--they were still able to exercise free will (whatever that is).
I don't see the problem, then, with God providing direct evidence of his existence.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that in order to be scientific evidence it had to be repeatable.
If you do consider it scientific evidence, then to you God has been proved by science. Find your nearest church.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Adam and Eve issue, from a real point of view, is only hearsay (not "heresy," mind you--"hearsay")
I was presenting it as a hypothetical, since many people who believe in God, and who believe that he should not reveal himself (for whatever reason), may also believe in Adam and Eve either as real people, or (at least) as representations of critically important lessons. Putting that all together leads to what I thought would be a valid question:
If A is true, and if A then B, then B is true.
I proposed that "A" was true, for the sake of the discussion. And even if "A" is false (as I believe it is), at least the approach gives us a way to pursue the logic of the issue.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And many of those have given reasons why Adam and Eve were in a different situation. *shrug*
Actually, I think they have asserted that they were in a different situation. There is a subtle difference between this, and giving actual reasons.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, I think they have asserted that they were in a different situation. There is a subtle difference between this, and giving actual reasons.
OK. Whatever.
The actual reasons, were they given, would be just as disbelieved by you as the foundational premise that God exists, so why does this make a difference?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: I was presenting it as a hypothetical, since many people who believe in God, and who believe that he should not reveal himself (for whatever reason), may also believe in Adam and Eve either as real people, or (at least) as representations of critically important lessons.
I don't think anyone has said that God should not reveal Himself ever. I think the focus of the discussion has been the nature of revelations: scientific or otherwise. I cannot think of any scriptural examples of God revealing himself in a scientific way. Adam & Eve or Moses would not count as scientific for a number of reasons.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, "enforced" belief is a reason I don't like theocracies. I think in some ways it cheapens a true believer's faith. I also tend to think people rebel against things they are forced to do, so it would actually detract from God.
Similiar to God providing scientific proof. What value is belief in God, when it requires no faith at all?
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would say that it has value to me, and to God.
To you, I would say it has no value. But since I don't really value your opinion, it's kind of a moot point.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think Christians believe God's provability has any connection to tyrany. And if they do, I don't see how the belief could be based on Christian doctrine.
I personally believe God has his reasons for "hiding" now. But avoiding tyrancy is hardly one of them.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
