BOOK OF MORMON

[Peter Ahlstrom]

mtlhddoc2, I think Eleaneth is speaking from his own experience, and you can't really tell him he will find something contrary to his own experience.

Here's an example. Steve Mirsky on the Scientific American podcast often talks about people who believe in Creationism (as defined by what's taught at the Creation Museum) as if he and his guests and his listeners all know beyond any doubt that the Creationists are all a bunch of idiots. And that condescending, smug, self-surety really bugged my wife, Karen. She doesn't believe in Creationism as it's taught by that Museum—she believes God created the Earth but that Genesis is largely symbolic—but the way Mirsky takes that attitude and extends it to anybody who believes any religion, as he does occasionally, got to be too much for her so she stopped listening to the podcast. She doesn't believe that he would define himself as an evangelical atheist, but that's how she would define him because that's how he comes off whenever he mentions religion.

Karen has heard multiple interviews with scientists who self-identify as religious or Christian and the interviewer is surprised by that and asks them how they can justify it. (Scientific American podcast, general NPR podcasts, Science Friday podcasts.) Most of the scientists when asked that question say religion answers different questions than science and where there is overlap there's simply not enough information in the scriptural record to flat-out contradict a scientific explanation. A lot of the questions that people argue religion vs. science about, there's not enough information to make a statement of fact on either side. The problem is that many people take an "expert" opinion, especially an old expert opinion, as fact and feel personally threatened when somebody else offers a different opinion. This is true on both sides, whether the question is something like dinosaur bones or early Christian theology.

[The Jade Knight]

I think Ookla brings up some good examples.

I also think, mtlh, that logic has little to do with tolerance—a great number of Logicians and logic-obsessed philosophers throughout history have been plenty intolerant.  At the same time, a great many individuals who accepted religion via non-logical means (blind trust, divine intervention, etc.) are quite tolerant (take Mother Theresa, for example).

[darxbane]

Not only that, but your conclusion that there is definitely no Higher Power can not be logical, as it is impossible to provide evidence to support it.  The existince of the universe, in which all the immensely complicated rules and laws must all work together perfectly to maintain, is unexplainable.  How did these laws come about?  Why are the tolerances of living things so narrow?  Unless you know something the rest of us don't, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss any possibility completely.  There is evidence out there of beyond life existence which hasn't been refuted.  Are you choosing to deny this evidence because you don't believe it?  Do you believe black holes exist?  If you do, you believe that those who say it exists are right, unless of course you have seen one yourself.  How about this nugget?  Evolution, by its very definition, is a design of nature.  Moreover, it requires the choice of keeping the good genetic mutations and allowing the bad ones to die out.  It is not random, it is a process, and a pretty intelligent one, at that.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Not only that, but your conclusion that there is definitely no Higher Power can not be logical, as it is impossible to provide evidence to support it.

Not that I disagree with you, but in logic the burden of proof lies with the person who says something exists, not with the one who says something doesn't exist. It's nigh impossible to prove a negative.

The problem with spiritual evidence is that it's an entirely personal thing. You can tell someone else that you have had a spiritual experience, but you cannot share the actual spirit you felt with that person. The only way for them to understand where you're coming from is to have a similar experience themselves. In this way, spiritual evidence does not work the same way that scientific evidence works. Scientific experiments are more or less easily repeatable by others because the starting conditions can be specifically controlled. The starting conditions for a spiritual experiment are your whole life up to this point, and that is something that you just can't recreate for someone else.

I cannot think badly of someone who hasn't had the type of spiritual experience I have had, because I have no idea whether their life has brought them to a point in which they are ready to start the experiment.

[darxbane]

That's true, but I am not trying to prove God's existence, I am merely pointing out that, unless irrefutable proof is available, he can't throw out Absolutes.  If he would have said that it was highly unlikely that God exists, then I could accept the logic of that argument, as the evidence is highly interpretational, empirically speaking (wow, I sound like Poindexter).  However, because he is so certain, I would like to see the proof that eliminates entirely the possibility that a higher intelligence is responsible for the incredibly complex, yet perfectly structured, laws of nature and the universe.  If he cannot provide this proof then LOGICALLY he must accept the possibility that he is wrong. 

[mtlhddoc2]

I do accept the possibility that I am wrong. Logically though, I cannot prove, or disprove the existence of "god". But like has been said, I do not have to prove that there is not a god. I look at things logically, and while I do not have a definitive explanation on how the universe came about, I cannot, using logic, conclude the existence of an invisible, sentient, omnipotent, onmiscient being. Therefore, I come to a conclusion that the hypothesis that this being exists is untrue. but there is always room for the unlikely possibilty, should I discover evidence in that nature. So in conclusion, I can say, with absolute certainly due to complete lack of physical and logical, nay, even anecdotal evidence, that there is no higher power.

Honestly, I dont buy the theory of relativity either. It is unfounded, and unlikely. It should not even be called a theory, a hypothesis maybe, but not a theory.

Many scientists DO believe in God. Maybe they have had this "spiritual" awakening some of you have mentioned. That is fine for them. But please, do not try and use "logic" or "science" to prove the existence of God. Say what it is, a personal, spiritual thing. I do not deny you, or anyone else that.

[The Jade Knight]

Complete lack of anecdotal evidence?  Have you been living in a bubble all your life?  Or perhaps you've misunderstood what "anecdotal evidence" is?  (And others may find ample evidence, physical and logical… a matter of differing interpretations, perhaps, of the same phenomena.)

I'd like to remind us all to stay civil, and not be too beligerent about own our varied particular beliefs:

Mtlhddoc2, you have faith in what you've read suggesting there is no God.  Many others here have faith in what they've read or experienced suggesting there is a God.  Ultimately, objectively, we cannot in this small forum reach a definitive conclusion as to who is right—it's a matter of faith one way or the other.

Oh, and have you read William James?  If you have not, I recommend him.  He uses logic to discuss God (but not to dispute or prove his existence per se, just to make some assertions about how we should approach the topic).

Oh, and Mtlhddoc2:  I'm intensely curious, do you reject Special Relativity, General Relativity, or both?  And what makes you think it (or them) are "unfounded and unlikely"

[darxbane]

OK.  So basically you are saying that you have not actually ruled out any possibility?  Because some of your earlier posts contradict that.  Logic is a funny thing sometimes.  Since we are emotional beings, and influenced by those emotions, it is nearly impossible to be purely logical.  Besides, it sounds more to me that you have decided God doesn't exist, and only acknowledge evidence to support that belief.  At the very least, you haven't tried to hard to research the possibility.  That being said, is there one theory of the creation of the universe that is more provable than others?   All we can really prove logically is that the universe exists, and that we are in it.  Why we even exist, much less achieved sentience, is a mystery.  Seeing as we are the most intelligent living thing we know of, and nature is still more complex than we are able to understand or properly imitate, you can form a logical assumption that something smarter than us created it.  It is no more or less likely than complete and total randomness.

[mtlhddoc2]

darx: It is actually the opposite. I have read the christian Bible, the torah, the Koran and interned at a Hassidic Rabinnical college for a while.

You can never rule anything out, but in my experiences and what I can logically see, there is no higher power. Belittling me because of it only strengthens my point of view since your arguments against me are based on your emotions and your theology. you cannot be objective about it, even though, if you bothered to read 99% of my posts on the subject, I can.

[Reaves]

mthlddoc, what exactly in darx's post did you think was belittling you?

Belittling me because of it only strengthens my point of view since your arguments against me are based on your emotions and your theology. you cannot be objective about it, even though, if you bothered to read 99% of my posts on the subject, I can.

I think we already established agnosticism as an acting religion, based on the belief that we cannot know anything about whether there is a higher power(s). Assuming you are human, you also experience emotion. What special quality makes you think you can make the statement that 99% of your posts are completely objective?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

If you base things off your own experience and what you can see, that is the very definition of subjectivity.

Not that I have a problem with it. Of course you must form your own opinions based on your own experiences.

[mtlhddoc2]

mthlddoc, what exactly in darx's post did you think was belittling you?

Belittling me because of it only strengthens my point of view since your arguments against me are based on your emotions and your theology. you cannot be objective about it, even though, if you bothered to read 99% of my posts on the subject, I can.

I think we already established agnosticism as an acting religion, based on the belief that we cannot know anything about whether there is a higher power(s). Assuming you are human, you also experience emotion. What special quality makes you think you can make the statement that 99% of your posts are completely objective?

but i am not agnostic, I am an athiest.

I do experience emotion, of course. But I approach religion in an objective manner, all my arguments I propose from a logic standpoint. I never try and dissuade anyone from being religious. the only times i get "emotional" is when baseless attacks are hurled towards me for my belief. Would the people who have attacked me attack a jewish person based on their belief that Jesus was just another Jew?

[Reaves]

EDIT: post deleted. I think we've already been over this.

[Renoard]

Goodness, too bad someone didn't predict the depths this thread would descend to and suggest it should be locked in.  Someone posting in the first 5 posts for instance. . .

[The Jade Knight]

It stayed pretty reasonable for a while.

Anyway, because certain members of this thread are feeling attacked and are getting all emotional, we're going to lock this.