Does Science Have All The Answers?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Which current theory of secular science should be discarded in favor of a previously held religious (or supernatural) explanation? How often do scientists look at a "natural" theory and say "Boy, we got it wrong. We should have stayed with that theory that involves God"?

Has that ever happened?

Category error yet again.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is my thought exactly in reading this thread. Smac is using this to tell us why religion is superior to science...

That's not what I got out of the article he posted.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I genuinely don't understand the urge some people apparently feel to declare religion "better" than science.

But, by the same token, I really don't understand the urge some others feel to declare science "better" than religion.

Are hammers "better" than screwdrivers? Is chemistry "better" than history? Is painting "better" than poetry? Is north better than south?

And, by the way, the tale that many of us were raised with, about there being some sort of perpetual war between science and religion, is outdated, agenda-driven, propagandistic mythology.

Indeed, I recently read Edward J. Larson's Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, which gave a fun and insightful glimpse at this war you speak about.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dr. Peterson,

You should know better than to make statements such as contained in your last sentence above. Not only is it patently false, it makes you appear a bit out of touch.

As a professional scientist and technology manager who has worked in government and industry in the US and abroad, I can tell you that the battle between science and religion is real and as important as it ever was. The two enterprises are diametrically opposed, whether religionists wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Check out the book I just recommended. An interesting glimpse at what Prof. Peterson is on about.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I find the question of the existence of God to be generally uninteresting.

I suggest you cease frequenting religious discussion in general so as to stop researching that which is uninteresting to you generally.

[ttribe]

Indeed, I recently read Edward J. Larson's Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, which gave a fun and insightful glimpse at this war you speak about.

I served part of my mission in Dayton, TN where the Scopes trial took place. They have a "museum" of sorts devoted to the event. Interesting tidbit - all of the Bryan and pro-religion memorabilia was well cared for and clean. The Darrow and science stuff...literally falling off the walls. Made me laugh.

[Deborah]

Actually both of the examples you gave with flight had to do with observation and logical inference from those observations. Nothing like religious concepts of faith entered into the equation.

You missed the point of the example. To some, it would be a matter of observation. To another it's accepting as a matter of faith that the plane will fly, because they don't understand the mechanism. But even to the Wrights it had to be a matter of believing in the principle that kept them trying so many times to get it right. You do understand that LDS definition of faith includes a hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.

[mfbukowski]

Does it seem plausible that we, as human beings, can actually observe alternative dimensions? If not, will they ever be under the purview of science to define or explain? Maybe, but not now they are not other than through math. To use one to explain a conflict between current science and your religious view of the nature of God is reconciling the two into something that is no longer science and I think not even religion. Your view may be possible, and in the future we may find it is correct. But right now, the LDS religious view of God having a corporal body of flesh and bones conflicts with the ability of such a being to exist eternally outside of the definition of time. And the current model of the universe as we have it has matter, and thus time, meeting at a singularity we call the big bang.

I'm not ridiculing your view here. But it seems obvious that there is a conflict.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I have some serious problems with it.

If alternative dimensions cannot be observed, they are not scientific. How could one conduct an experiment which proved the existence of alternative dimensions? They are in the realm of mathematical and/or physical theory according to my understanding and their existence must be postulated to account for certain theoretical phenomena, again according to my admittedly limited understanding, but as you say, they are not observable.

But many things which are real are also in this category of "things which are real and not observable". Until a few years ago, the features of the dark side of the moon were unobservable and yet real. The existence of planets in other solar systems, until a few years ago, were real and yet not observable. Today there are probably an endless number of species in the oceans and elsewhere which are happily living their fishy, crustaceany, molluscular lives and are perfectly "real", but their very existence is unknown to us, and therefore not observable, and therefore not scientific.

So let's postulate some kind of creature living in some environment under conditions which are now unknown, perhaps some kind of insect, or even a simpler creature which has managed to live a few inches beneath the sands of Mars. I picked that example because it is a readily imaginable possibility, as opposed to some other alien creature in some other galaxy living under totally unimaginable conditions, but really both are in the same category of "real creatures, not yet known to science". Note that I am not necessarily saying that God is or is not in this category of beings, just to keep the discussion theoretical.

Now let's look at your statement, and I will add emphasis:

But right now, the LDS religious view of God having a corporal body of flesh and bones conflicts with the ability of such a being to exist eternally outside of the definition of time. And the current model of the universe as we have it has matter, and thus time, meeting at a singularity we call the big bang.

I am curious about how you would characterize creatures not yet discovered, I would also like to ask you about how science itself changes over time and how your theory of "reality" accounts for newly discovered creatures suddenly "blinking into" reality and therefore science.

So are such undiscovered creatures the subject of "religion" to you? Of course I know that you will not say they are, but it seems that the two simple categories you are postulating of "science" and "religion" and their opposition are just plain too simple to account for all possible phenomena.

And I promise I won't ridicule your position as you have not ridiculed his, either, even though it seems obvious there is a conflict.

So does "what is real" change to accommodate new species as they are discovered? Or were they always real? If they WERE real, does that mean that science does not, in principle, fully describe what is "real"?

And while we are talking about the Big Bang, what is the nature of theories about what happened "before" the BB? Is that "religion"?

[mfbukowski]

Don't know. I'm agnostic towards God as a whole and will not pretend to have the answers to the big broad questions.

I just think that the evidence used to say that the LDS god is actually "God" is not justifiable.

Well depending on what you are saying, I might agree. It is certainly not "scientifically justifiable", but that leaves a whole bunch of other ways in which belief in him is perfectly "justifiable".

[Luigi]

I genuinely don't understand the urge some people apparently feel to declare religion "better" than science.

But, by the same token, I really don't understand the urge some others feel to declare science "better" than religion.

Are hammers "better" than screwdrivers? Is chemistry "better" than history? Is painting "better" than poetry? Is north better than south?

And, by the way, the tale that many of us were raised with, about there being some sort of perpetual war between science and religion, is outdated, agenda-driven, propagandistic mythology.

I think there is a conflict between science and religion. Either religion is, as it claims, from God as a means of salvation or it is the end result of the evolutionary process yielded by large social groups creating social constructs that survived because of their ability to facilitate social harmony. Either our emotions are entirely from an evolved nervous system which created responses to external stimuli which enhanced survival of one's genes or our emotions are somehow created in entirety or in part from our spiritual relationship to God. Either we are dependent for our brains for our consciousness or we are conscious even without our brains in some spiritual dimension. Either life and it's diversity is the result of undirected process of complex chemical reactions or a divinely guided process for divine purposes. There are scientific conclusions which come into direct conflict with the conclusions offered by religion. There are questions both tools give answers to and keeping the conclusion offered by one inevitably means avoiding the conclusion offered by the other.

[Luigi]

You missed the point of the example. To some, it would be a matter of observation. To another it's accepting as a matter of faith that the plane will fly, because they don't understand the mechanism. But even to the Wrights it had to be a matter of believing in the principle that kept them trying so many times to get it right. You do understand that LDS definition of faith includes a hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.

It is not a matter of faith. When someone goes on their first flight they generally have thousands of observations directly or indirectly of flight as a safe and reliable means of transport. They have seen planes fly in person or on television and spoke with people who have flown, etc. When a person hopes that they obey Mormonism and will be blessed in an afterlife for it they have zero observations of that afterlife and have spoken with zero individuals who have lived Mormonism and achieved a positive outcome in the afterlife for doing so.

[Deborah]

When a person hopes that they obey Mormonism and will be blessed in an afterlife for it they have zero observations of that afterlife and have spoken with zero individuals who have lived Mormonism and achieved a positive outcome in the afterlife for doing so.

Not so. D&C 138

Also Joseph Smith's visions, other testimonies of people who have had near death experiences. You may choose to disbelieve these but to say there are zero observations is not so.

[Honorentheos]

This wasn't addressed to me, but I have some serious problems with it.

If alternative dimensions cannot be observed, they are not scientific. How could one conduct an experiment which proved the existence of alternative dimensions? They are in the realm of mathematical and/or physical theory according to my understanding and their existence must be postulated to account for certain theoretical phenomena, again according to my admittedly limited understanding, but as you say, they are not observable.

I agree. This is why I said -

Does it seem plausible that we, as human beings, can actually observe alternative dimensions? If not, will they ever be under the purview of science to define or explain? Maybe, but not now they are not other than through math. To use one to explain a conflict between current science and your religious view of the nature of God is reconciling the two into something that is no longer science and I think not even religion.

I'm not sure what the issue is as I think it is important to recognize that when we define science it is best to be careful to keep this set to those theories that are postulated and supported by experimentation and/or observation and have not been disproved. Alternative dimensions are a theoretical possibility, but they are not science per se. I do not think it is scientific to use them to prove or disprove anything unless one can actually conjure up an actual fourth dimension or greater to support one's views.

So when you say this -

I am curious about how you would characterize creatures not yet discovered, I would also like to ask you about how science itself changes over time and how your theory of "reality" accounts for newly discovered creatures suddenly "blinking into" reality and therefore science.

So are such undiscovered creatures the subject of "religion" to you? Of course I know that you will not say they are, but it seems that the two simple categories you are postulating of "science" and "religion" and their opposition are just plain too simple to account for all possible phenomena.

And I promise I won't ridicule your position as you have not ridiculed his, either, even though it seems obvious there is a conflict.

So does "what is real" change to accommodate new species as they are discovered? Or were they always real? If they WERE real, does that mean that science does not, in principle, fully describe what is "real"?

And while we are talking about the Big Bang, what is the nature of theories about what happened "before" the BB? Is that "religion"?

The issue is that one can not restrain the set of things that may be real but have yet to be proven to exist. Everything one can imagine can be placed in this set and then allowed to invite their extended family to boot. You are constraining it by using a future condition when these facts will be known, but until then there is nothing to differentiate them from a dragon or a unicorn. Or the FSM for that matter.

The problem then is confusing knowledge of something with making it real. You and I both seem to have agreed in the past that if something (like the lack of freewill) has no effect on our reality or more exactly our perception of reality it really doesn't matter to us if it is real or not.

People (note I mean actual people here) postulate many things using religion, science, or last nights fantasy and suggest they are real. Science, not people, is not about this matter. It is something "other" and consists of theories that have not been disproved and can be supported through experiment. Religion, I think you would feel yourself, has to do with something more personal than all of this. It can postulate things that are not substantiated by observation but, by way of myth or other meaningful narrative, they have a real impact on a person's life.

This leaves the very real possibility open that something that a person postulates through religion can end up being in conflict with a scientific theory that has been supported by evidence. In some cases, like when man first stepped on the top of Olympus, somethings get disproved directly. What is interesting is that this has no bearing on the location of the "reality" of the religious postulate - in your mind and heart where it has found meaning.

So if a theory, untestable by current definition, gives your life meaning I would say it is part of your religion. Same with Bumberflute osericus (unless that actually is a creature. I was just making something up) Otherwise, we are Wittgensteining ourselves to death with semantics.

[Honorentheos]

Well depending on what you are saying, I might agree. It is certainly not "scientifically justifiable", but that leaves a whole bunch of other ways in which belief in him is perfectly "justifiable".

I'm ok with a belief in a God. My position in this thread is that the LDS view of a corporal God is no longer compatible with science due to our understanding of the nature of time. This expansion of our understanding came as we realized that time is not a separate entity as it was originally portrayed and used in Newtonian physics but is, instead, simply a measure of that state of relationships of matter and forces within space. This relationship is our beloved space-time. It is, as we discussed before, a measure of change.

But we are getting far a field here. The entire discussion came about because some claimed there are no conflicts between modern science and LDs theology. This is one clear example that shows this is not the case.

It doesn't mean science might learn something new and we'll get to reassess then. It just means that other statement presented in this thread is false.

Interesting to me, though, is the matter of flexibility of mind in this case. If science finds new evidence and it's understanding evolves, I think the body of science will do so to accept this revision with really little protest.

Yet I am not seeing anyone line up yet to modify their understanding of God to reject this material hypothetical being to accommodate this century-old recognition.

And I am guess most will see that as a virtue, no less.

[Honorentheos]

Not so. D&C 138

Also Joseph Smith's visions, other testimonies of people who have had near death experiences. You may choose to disbelieve these but to say there are zero observations is not so.

A good example of why controls and repeatable experiments are important to science.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure what the issue is as I think it is important to recognize that when we define science it is best to be careful to keep this set to those theories that are postulated and supported by experimentation and/or observation and have not been disproved.

Those last 5 words are the key. Agreed.

But I am not sure you want to leave it at that. Alma 32 argues that you can "experiment" by living the gospel and grow to knowledge. And certainly, as has been shown here before (on that original Cosmological Argument thread you quoted and linked to earlier)the existence of God cannot be disproved, and also I would strongly argue that his effects can be "observed", as I was trying to show in my earlier post about the Spirit.

The problem then is confusing knowledge of something with making it real. You and I both seem to have agreed in the past that if something (like the lack of freewill) has no effect on our reality or more exactly our perception of reality it really doesn't matter to us if it is real or not.

Close, but not exactly. I would argue not that "it doesn't matter if it is real or not", but that in fact it isn't real. If you can't experience it or it doesn't make a difference in your life, it doesn't exist.

People (note I mean actual people here) postulate many things using religion, science, or last nights fantasy and suggest they are real. Science, not people, is not about this matter. It is something "other" and consists of theories that have not been disproved and can be supported through experiment. Religion, I think you would feel yourself, has to do with something more personal than all of this. It can postulate things that are not substantiated by observation but, by way of myth or other meaningful narrative, they have a real impact on a person's life.

I think you are confusing "objectively verifiable" which is the same to me as "socially verifiable" with what is "subjectively" or "personally" verifiable. The fact that I am hungry or love my wife or believe in God is only verifiable subjectively -- I am the only one who can know these things are true. And even hallucinations are "real" in some sense as a "real" state of mind, or as a cause of an action. Imagine a person murdering another because he hallucinated that the person was Satan. Would we say that the "cause" of the murder was the state of mind of the individual? (Not Guilty by reason of Insanity) Of course we would!

The difference between "subjectively" and "objectively" verifiable is really just the linguistic convention of "grammatical person" in action in the world.

This leaves the very real possibility open that something that a person postulates through religion can end up being in conflict with a scientific theory that has been supported by evidence.

Not any more true than the assertion that there is a conflict between the statements "I see a red car" and "They see a red car".

Scientific statements are second and third third person, and religious ones are first person, that's all. One speaks about what I experience while the others speak of shared experiences.

In some cases, like when man first stepped on the top of Olympus, somethings get disproved directly. What is interesting is that this has no bearing on the location of the "reality" of the religious postulate - in your mind and heart where it has found meaning.

Nope. I am certain that the first person who stepped on the top of Mt. Olympus said "The gods have made themselves invisible", and he was right. I am not sure what that last sentence means, but it is possible we agree on that one.

So if a theory, untestable by current definition, gives your life meaning I would say it is part of your religion. Same with Bumberflute osericus (unless that actually is a creature. I was just making something up) Otherwise, we are Wittgensteining ourselves to death with semantics.

Almost. I think no one would believe anything that was totally "untestable". But the Alma 32 type of test is only testable to me personally, subjectively. But that doesn't make it any less "real" or "true".

And as far as "Wittgensteining ourselves to death", we may be on the road, but after all Wittgenstein could, and did, write whole books on just this issue, so I don't think we're ready to fall over yet after a few posts!

[handys003]

LOL! Science can only take as far as they can agree with each other. I just came across an article that slaps the face of physics.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/091102-sl-lu.html

Breaking curve balls are an illusion!

You can all check out my comments after the article. However my point is scientists are not Gods who have all the answers and never will.

[Honorentheos]

Those last 5 words are the key. Agreed.

...And certainly, as has been shown here before (on that original Cosmological Argument thread you quoted and linked to earlier)the existence of God cannot be disproved, and also I would strongly argue that his effects can be "observed", as I was trying to show in my earlier post about the Spirit.

...

The difference between "subjectively" and "objectively" verifiable is really just the linguistic convention of "grammatical person" in action in the world.

Not any more true than the assertion that there is a conflict between the statements "I see a red car" and "They see a red car".

Scientific statements are second and third third person, and religious ones are first person, that's all. One speaks about what I experience while the others speak of shared experiences.

I am certain that the first person who stepped on the top of Mt. Olympus said "The gods have made themselves invisible", and he was right.

I'll attempt to be brief as I don't have much time this morning.

We've agreed that science is not capable of proving God's existance nor is it capable of disproving God's existence. At least, when it comes to the general concept of God. However, there comes a point when evidence becomes significant enough against a particular concept of God that to continue to believe that concept is valid is, well, I would call it delusional. The example with the "invisible Olympians" is a good case.

However, science is, at its purest, a first person account by definition. You have to have controls and you have to have a repeatable experiment for a theory to stand. Not everyone repeats the experiment and we take things like this on faith, which is a good point, but it is a first person business. You don't have to repeat the calculations followed by the wind-tunnel tests to feel comfortable that a plane will fly using Deborah's analogy. You see it flying, get the idea of the concepts, and hope your pilots had enough sleep the night before. Interesting that the human factor in that is the one that could let you down. Keep that in mind.

Personal religious experience is first person, but the grounding theology and narrative are based on things that you could not prove to yourself. You can not go to the grove and see if the first vision occurred when as how the 1838 account says it did. You can't go into the temple and see JFS's vision of the dead with him. You can't go back into time and see if the resurrection actually happened or if the supposed authors were writing first-person accounts of the life of Christ, or any number of things. Trusting in the principals that make the plane fly may be like having faith in the existence of this other we are calling "God", but trusting in religion is like trusting that the pilots have had enough sleep.

Think about what you presented as evidence to me. Is there anything, anything in that narrative that requires that the LDS god be real? or is it possible you are using the LDS narrative to give it meaning? and if you had a different "God Narrative" you could still find meaning in these events?

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has to vet which "God hypothesis" is most likely (and some choose the "none of the above" category) and make choices as to which they think are right. I know there are ways of suggesting that others just have a lesser view of the same God, but this is not completely accurate given the breadth and scope of god narratives out in the world. It just isn't reasonable. A person can believe it, but it is either out of lack of information or just being unreasonable.

I'm not presenting anything here as evidence that "God does not exist". It is simply a way of showing that there is a conflict between the LDS concept of a physical God that is eternal and modern physics. That's about it.

Personally, I throw in all the other evidence when I consider this (the origins of Christianity and the Hebrew faiths, the evolving first vision, evolving theology, polygamy, BoM, BoA, those three condeming words - Brigham freakin' Young, etc., etc.) and just see another piece. Not a victory or some sort of "Gotcha!" moment. It's just what it is. I'm sure you do the same from your view and end up supporting the LDS God narrative with your other "tangential".

But neither your nor my other views change the scientific definition of time, nor how a material God would be impossible if this same God were considered eternal. And that is the key point here.

Are there things/phenomena that make me thing that God is a possibility? Absolutely. Do they prove God? No. In fact, they really confound the mystery to me in that what so many see as evidence of God seems to give proof to the idea that "God is not a respecter of persons". It almost seems, in my mind, the religion can become a way of taking a natural "something" and manipulating it in ways both for social good and ill. But they are not the source, nor the pure interpretor of this thing that seems to be the potential concept we could call "God".

I think your version of God, if it is defined by the LDS narrative, is a myth that gives meaning to your life. And in that sense there is not much I could say for or against it that will change your view of it.

But that doesn't mean it isn't in conflict with the nature of time. It just it.

[Honorentheos]

LOL! Science can only take as far as they can agree with each other. I just came across an article that slaps the face of physics.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/091102-sl-lu.html

Breaking curve balls are an illusion!

You can all check out my comments after the article. However my point is scientists are not Gods who have all the answers and never will.

Interesting article. Not sure where you are going with this. Unless your idea of God includes the necessary existance of an actual "break" on a curve ball in which case I am guessing you are a Yankee's fan.

Edit to add - had some time and went back to read your comments. I think it would help you to go read the additional information. His point is not that there is no deflection in the curve of the ball. His point is that what some percieve as a sudden "break" is the result of an optical illusion.

Science - not for those with ADD.

[Luigi]

Not so. D&C 138

Also Joseph Smith's visions, other testimonies of people who have had near death experiences. You may choose to disbelieve these but to say there are zero observations is not so.

First of all those are NEAR death experiences, not death experiences. Second these experiences are generally conflicting in details such as what God is seen and I have never heard of any near death experiences where Mormonism has been specifically endorsed within the experience. Using near death experiences also discounts the overwhelming number of people who experience nothing and/or an impending sense of oblivion. One recent story from the Deseret News I just read, for example, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705340334/aposMiracleapos-man-grateful-for-life-after-brush-with-death.html, told of a man who died three times and had no recollection of anything happening during his experience.

As to the visions of Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith let's consider a parallel example to the flight example. Let's say that when the Wright brothers conducted their flight experiment they made the claim that they had been successful but had no other witnesses to the event or let's even say they had a handful of close associates but no more. They produced no photographs and insisted they could not ever publicly demonstrate their flight ability because of the nature of their machine. It could only be done without observers from the ground and those who wanted to experience their flight would be taken on a one-way flight to a privately owned paradisiacal island. No one can ever come back from the island. A few people have gone to the launch pad, seen the machine that supposedly takes the passengers to the island but no one who has taken the trip has ever returned to tell about the island or the flight except the Wright brothers who own the company that charters the flights. The Wright brothers in all their other personal and business dealings are also known to be of the utmost honesty and integrity. The Wright brothers of course insist they have personally been to the island and seen the clients arrive happily thanking them for the relatively insignificant price of the exhilirating experience of flight and looking forward to living in the ideal setting of the island with all the comforts one could imagine. Now if that was the nature of 'observation' backing flight I personally would not be betting my life on it no matter how appealing the alleged outcome might be.

[thesometimesaint]

Luigi:

Your example falls apart in that JS and Mormonism expect that each of us can duplicate the First Vision.

[Luigi]

Luigi:

Your example falls apart in that JS and Mormonism expect that each of us can duplicate the First Vision.

Duplicate the First Vision? I had never heard that description but if you are talking about spiritual experiences I suppose I could add a spiritual component to it. I suppose the Wright brothers in the example could claim to also believe in a form of supernatural communication between human beings in which individuals who have not gone to the island can feel the positive experiences of those on the island via this supernatural communication method. If the Wright brothers demonstrated enough honesty and intergrity and other respects and a legitimate kindness and generosity it is likely individuals would experience very positive emotions as the Wright brothers provided a detailed description of their friends enjoying the flight and the island and could take that as confirmation of the legitimacy of their claims.

[thesometimesaint]

Luigi:

Goodness or similar attributes have little to no bearing on whether science works. That is one of the great paradoxes of science. It works for bad men as well as the good. However as any good parent will tell you modeling behavior is the best way for their children to copy. JS did that in the grove. As members of the Church we too can have our own grove experience.

[Luigi]

Luigi:

Goodness or similar attributes have little to no bearing on whether science works. That is one of the great paradoxes of science. It works for bad men as well as the good. However as any good parent will tell you modeling behavior is the best way for their children to copy. JS did that in the grove. As members of the Church we too can have our own grove experience.

I don't think many would dispute the ability of someone to have a profound spiritual experience by praying to God for an answer. We only dispute as to the source of that spiritual experience.

[mfbukowski]

Been busy- finally got around to responding

However, science is, at its purest, a first person account by definition. You have to have controls and you have to have a repeatable experiment for a theory to stand. Not everyone repeats the experiment and we take things like this on faith, which is a good point, but it is a first person business. You don't have to repeat the calculations followed by the wind-tunnel tests to feel comfortable that a plane will fly using Deborah's analogy. You see it flying, get the idea of the concepts, and hope your pilots had enough sleep the night before. Interesting that the human factor in that is the one that could let you down. Keep that in mind.

I am really not getting what you are saying about statements of science being in the "first person". Can you see the difference in the verification process between verifying "I am hungry" as being "true" and "The moon is (whatever many) miles from earth" ? Or in "I love you" and "water weighs (whatever) pounds per gallon"? The only way the subjective statements can be verified is by first person testimony. The fact that we might be able to personally verify scientific statements through our own observations doesn't affect the fact that you CANNOT verify my statement that I love my wife, though this statement is true.

Personal religious experience is first person, but the grounding theology and narrative are based on things that you could not prove to yourself. You can not go to the grove and see if the first vision occurred when as how the 1838 account says it did. You can't go into the temple and see JFS's vision of the dead with him. You can't go back into time and see if the resurrection actually happened or if the supposed authors were writing first-person accounts of the life of Christ, or any number of things. Trusting in the principals that make the plane fly may be like having faith in the existence of this other we are calling "God", but trusting in religion is like trusting that the pilots have had enough sleep.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

Think about what you presented as evidence to me. Is there anything, anything in that narrative that requires that the LDS god be real? or is it possible you are using the LDS narrative to give it meaning? and if you had a different "God Narrative" you could still find meaning in these events?

I don't recall presenting any "evidence" about God being real. I do recall asking you about experiences I have had with the spirit, which you could not explain.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has to vet which "God hypothesis" is most likely (and some choose the "none of the above" category) and make choices as to which they think are right. I know there are ways of suggesting that others just have a lesser view of the same God, but this is not completely accurate given the breadth and scope of god narratives out in the world. It just isn't reasonable. A person can believe it, but it is either out of lack of information or just being unreasonable.

I am not sure what you are saying. Everyone makes their own decisions about God and or gods, including money power and fame. Some decisions work and some don't. It's like anything else in life. I could have decided I wanted to be a professional football player, but it wouldn't have worked. I tried being a Catholic, but it didn't work, neither did being an atheist or Buddhist etc. Being a Mormon works fine. I don't think everyone has to have the same path, but I think eventually everyone will see that there is one path that works better than all the others. Kind of like "all roads lead to Rome", but make that Salt Lake.

I'm not presenting anything here as evidence that "God does not exist". It is simply a way of showing that there is a conflict between the LDS concept of a physical God that is eternal and modern physics. That's about it.

But I don't think there is a conflict and you haven't shown me why there is. I think God is "supernatural". It's like saying that it's impossible that we will ever visit another star system. That remains to be seen. Or that nothing can go faster than light. We shall see. Things change. The "laws" of physics are now actually different than they were in Newton's time. The "laws" do not exist outside of our perception and understanding of them. Pluto is no longer a "planet", but a few years ago, it was. A species which is unknown today, when discovered, could throw the "laws" of taxonomy out the window. There is no "law", no "external world" outside our perceptions of it. There is no "logic" outside our perceptions of math and language.

But neither your nor my other views change the scientific definition of time, nor how a material God would be impossible if this same God were considered eternal. And that is the key point here.

But that definition and all the "laws" could and will change tomorrow. It is not a persuasive argument imo.

Are there things/phenomena that make me thing that God is a possibility? Absolutely. Do they prove God? No. In fact, they really confound the mystery to me in that what so many see as evidence of God seems to give proof to the idea that "God is not a respecter of persons". It almost seems, in my mind, the religion can become a way of taking a natural "something" and manipulating it in ways both for social good and ill. But they are not the source, nor the pure interpretor of this thing that seems to be the potential concept we could call "God".

But it isn't religion's fault that people abuse it. People do all kinds of things using all kinds of excuses. Our favorite German dictator from WWII did unspeakable things in the name of "science" but we don't condemn science for it.

I think your version of God, if it is defined by the LDS narrative, is a myth that gives meaning to your life. And in that sense there is not much I could say for or against it that will change your view of it.

At last! We agree!

But that doesn't mean it isn't in conflict with the nature of time. It just it. (is)-edit by mb.

Ooops, that agreement didn't last long. First, I am not sure it is in fact even in conflict with all existing theories of time, much less all to yet be put forth. But even if it was, God is not limited by our scientific understanding which cannot in principle ever be complete.

Since time IS change, it is hard to imagine the laws themselves ceasing to change in an evolving universe. But I don't have to believe that- it is you who are saying that the laws do not change.

Suppose you were making your argument 1000 years ago about the nature of sending pictures through the air. Would you argue that it was impossible to do so and in conflict with the laws of the universe because it was not possible at the time the argument was made?

Same thing with God. Because he is now outside what we know as the "laws of the universe" it is silly to say those laws will not change to allow us to understand him.