Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.
After that I think the theists in the debate blow it and don't follow up, but stick to their pre-planned arguments and miss the opportunity right under their noses!
Hitchens is a noted atheist and Positivist who believes that any statement is "nonsense" if it cannot be verified through objective evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
He is known for "Hitchens Razor" which virtually defines positivism itself
And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.
At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word.
So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?
(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)
So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?
Does that mean that all moral atheists are tacit theists- not because of their moral behavior but the EXPERIENCE of making moral choices seems to come from an inside "voice"?
What IS that "voice"?
Where is his evidence for the existence of such a "Being/ Daemon/ Spirit
I brought this up in another thread but I thought it deserved its own so as not to hijack the other thread-
I admit readily that this "Other" outside ourselves can deliver wisdom and all we need for a meaningful life to us, and I use the word "revelation" to describe what I personally hear from that "voice"
I know the church likes to slice and dice this into "The Holy Ghost" and the "Light of Christ" and the "Second Comforter" (perhaps) but I find it hard to define them all that closely from experience.
I KNOW (ie am totally psychologically certain) that such a phenomenon exists and has been a benefit to my life. I call this Other in my consciousness "God".
At some point it all gets pretty undefinable and I don't see much point in trying to slice and dice it further.
So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?
What's the pragmatic difference?
If it is a distinction without a difference in our lives is it even a valid distinction?
By Bernard Gui
On a discussion of the inability of science to prove the non-existence of God, one of the participants gave a learned discourse that showed mathematically that the Christian Trinity (3 Gods in 1) is false:
1 + 1 + 1 = 3 not 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.
On the way home tonight from guest conducting my arrangement of "The Teddy Bears' Picnic" for string orchestra and kazoos at Lincoln High School in Tacoma, a brilliant flash of insight
came suddenly into my mind.
What if God does not increase Gods by adding more of himself, but by multiplying himself!
1 X 1 X 1 = 1
Not only that, but if God has eternal increase, there still is only 1 God.
1 to the 100th power is only 1. There can be as many Mormon Gods as we wish, but there still is only 1.
Ridiculous, you say. Ah, but what if God increases by dividing himself into other Gods. The same holds true:
1 / 1 / 1 = 1 and 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / ..... X still = 1
So, by the unimpeachable power of mathematics both the Trinitarian God and the Mormon God are proven to be true.
By Bernard Gui
Believers are challenged by non-believers to give scientific proof that God exists, as if there were some sort of experiment that could be devised that consistently forces God to reveal Himself to whomever tries it. Such an experiment would have to preserve the agency of man. An experiment does exist, but it sets certain conditions that must be met in order for it to succeed. It is described in the parable of the seed in Alma 32:
But can this experiment satisfy the demands of non-believers? The conditions for this experiment to succeed are specified by the missionary Ammon in Alma 26:
Can a person test God without having a sincere and transparent intent to be willing to repent and accept all that follows from discovering God's existence? Is this an experiment non-believers are willing to perform? If not, would someone propose such an experiment that would be acceptable? (Cutting off a head or leg and having God restore it has already been spoken for).
The visions of Mary at Fatima are well documented and are accepted as "real" by the Catholic Church.
I wish I could post the entire article here to kick off the thread, but I won't. I will let you click the link yourself.
But these are well documented miracles and they also included prophecies which arguably have come to pass.
I have never seen much from the LDS community about this, other than the belief that somehow these must be "of Satan" and left unexplained.
My point of view is that frankly I have no problem accepting that they were from God, or alternatively that there is some kind of natural explanation. God teaches us all using the ways that work best to reach each of us, and perhaps this is what the Catholic Church needed to bring it closer to Christ. I make no pretense at knowing the answer, but I think many LDS are unaware that these events even happened, so I figured it was worth a thread. I really have already said about as much as I think I have to say on the topic- I was just wondering what others thought who perhaps did not know about these visions and miracles.
Now that I've had some sleep and have had a chance to think about the subject, I'm still not entirely sure I understand it. I'm going to work with it as best I can and leave it to you to correct my misunderstandings. I've also decided to start a new topic because I fear the thread we were on would get derailed. My references to the deflationary theory of truth comes from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
At first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything that needs to be refuted before going on with the conversation. In that conversation, all the parties seemed to have enough common ground about with truth is in order to have a conversation on the questions asked. There would be no point in reinventing the wheel there.
Moving away from the relative discussion into a discussion what what truth is, my first reaction is that it is irrelevant whether truth is a property. The statements "Caracas is the capital of Venezuela" and "The earth revolves around the sun" are both true, and insofar as it goes, that is enough. It doesn't really matter whether they have a shared explanation for why they are true. Both statements correspond with "facts" (note the quote marks) and that would seem to be enough.