Why not atheism?

[wenglund]

A verse from one of my favorite hymns, Be Still My Soul:

It is one of my favorite hymns as well, in part because the tune is borrowed from the

homeland of a good portion of my ancestry (Finlandia).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Honorentheos]

That is interesting given that I, as a certified "chapel LDS" and arm-chair philosopher, share MfB's notion of "intelligences", and this without having read a single work of Kleon Skousen (though I lived for nearly a decade in the same general neighborhood), and have relied only for my understanding of the term, on the LDS scriptures and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then we are safe in calling this view prophetic?

[mfbukowski]

Tarski

First let me say I really do appreciate the time it took to respond, and I appreciate your response itself. Obviously we are still talking at cross-purposes, but we are getting closer I think at least to understanding each other if not in agreeing with each other.

I would suggest that a better course, should we want to continue this, which is admittedly questionable, would be to keep the answers short and to the point, and that way avoid writing long responses which go off track in the first sentence. It would enable us to also keep each point separate, enabling better analysis of the arguments.

1) Here is what I asked for: "Tell me clearly what the appeal to design or the complexity of life can do to provide evidence of a God that Mormons can accept--one consistent with traditional interpretation of the King Follet discourses and the resulting common beliefs in Mormonism. I am addressing those that believe God was once a man who had his own God etc. How are they served by appealing to complexity and apparent design? How???"

I never advocated such a position, but I think there is only one way to reconcile them, and that would be to assert the metaphysical position that "evolution" (ie: planned increasing complexity using directed, designed forces including what may appear to be "natural selection") repeats itself in every world in which this is designed to occur. In other words, God starts with the "end in mind" and that end is re-creating his own image through evolution perhaps even in what appears to be a Darwinian sense. The purpose of this is to promote faith- so that there can be no scientific proof of God's existence, which serves the purpose of the plan of salvation.

Note that I just dreamed this up as a possible solution five minutes ago because you asked me to do so. I haven't advocated such a position and don't know that I would. But I think that position fills the bill. I know you will ask how all this got started. A classic religious answer to these kind of questions might be "it's a mystery". Catholics get away with that one all the time. But I think this is an explanation that fits and might even be advocated by some. Really all this is is the argument for ID multiplied backward in time, thinking that this world does "what has been done in other worlds". It would not a great leap of faith for anyone who believes the classical KFD position and also in ID

2) Here is what you mysteriously think I asked for: "Please explain how there can be a mammal God without there having been a designer God above our God.

I do not claim Mormons are forced into a original super-God. I merely claim the following:

3) My claim: Appeal to notions complexity/design are said to provide evidence for God. However, they specifically are thought to provide evidence for a ddesigner of life etc! Such a God who would be the designer of even the human form does not fit well with the most common version of Mormon theology (what you called the classical picture).

Please focus on just the claim for a minute!

I just did.

The "designer God" is the Father, who directs the descent - or better yet- the ascent of species. I am avoiding "evolution" because of the natural selection issue you seem to include with the word.

I'd like to point out that the word "evolution" was chosen by Darwin because it meant "gradual change over time" and he specifically spoke of "evolution through natural selection" and now you guys have attached the rest of the phrase to the words meaning, imo, improperly. But I will just use the phrase "ascent of species" to describe the notion of increasing complexity and directed change from now on.

It's kind of like co-opting "Christian" to exclude Mormons by definition, but such is life.

But anyway, I think that it is important to point out that for Whitehead, complexity does not require a designer, but I think that is not the question you are asking. But the reason that his view is important is that it gives us a way out of the "mystery" I suggested earlier.

So perhaps you are right in a sense- there is a conflict with a God who essentially would have to design himself thorough increasing complexity, by combining intelligent design and the KFD but I think there are many ways around the issue and certainly Whitehead provides, imo, the most interesting possibility.

No, there is not direct evidence for it yet, but there are in a sense clues that he may be onto something, and that evidence might be the measurement problem in particle physics and the fact that the observed and the observer are nearly the same thing when dealing with sub-atomic particles. The whole Heisenberg- Bohr Copenhagen thing I think validly brings consciousness into what is "real" by blurring the distinction between what is real and what is observed.

So the notion that consciousness affects what is "real" I think is indisputable. I know you Tarski are familiar with this idea but I will include a starting wikipedia reference for those who are not.

All this gives some credence to Whitehead imo. I will post this and return with the reference in a few minutes

Edit:

This was an interesting quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse

Main article: Quantum mind/body problem

In his monumental treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schr

[Tarski]

I just did.

The "designer God" is the Father, who directs the descent - or better yet- the ascent of species. I am avoiding "evolution" because of the natural selection issue you seem to include with the word.

Did what? Appeal to complexity and apparent desgin as evidence for a Mormon God? (what I asked for--are you really reading #3?)

How so??

It seems that your "designer God" does not design anything! To direct the production of a idea/blueprint/pattern (such as the human form) that already exists is not what I would call design and the director of such a copycat production is not a designer. Neither is procreation design. He did not produce the template or design or blueprint. Some designer God!

What is apparent design and complexity evidence for in your theology? Per darwin we don't need God and in your scheme God did no designing so apparent design is not evidence of his existence.

(one wonders how evolution, directed or otherwise, can be the cause of my anthropomorphic form while procreation of my spirit body seems to also fulfill that role.)

When we look at the human body we are tempted to say that this wonderful machine could have only been created (creatively and originally conceived, designed and only secondarily perhaps built or produced) by a God-like intelligence.

But we both agree this is not so.

Does the "blueprint" of the human body show God-like originality of conception and God-like sophistication of conscious intelligent design? If so, then it is perhaps evidence of such a God--one that isn't your God or the KF God.

We should join forces in pointing out to Mormons that the classical Mormon God (and even your evo-God) is not the intelligent original source of the design of life structures--especially the human form. In fact, there need not be such a designer. For you there is only a production manager that makes sure that the already existing plan is carried out (in a way that strangely makes it appear that natural selection is happening). In particular, the magnificience of the human body is not due to the originality or creative intelligence of Elohim.

So I askl once again, what is complexity or apparent design evidence of if anything? Does it go any way toward defeating atheism as I keep hearing?

[Mansquatch]

1.Why not atheism?

Atheism pretends to have access to knowledge and evidence that God does not exist. As though someone found a murder weapon or a strand of hair somewhere which closed the case. Agnostics are much more respectable in their admittance that they just don't know.

2.What evidence, aside from subjective experience, do you find compelling and persuasive that God exists?

If I could, your honor, call the attention of the court to the witnesses at the stand. Witness testimony is always allowed in our society for finding the truth. When a witness is willing to tell that truth even under threat of death it becomes more solid. Another thing to consider is that you do not ask someone to the stand to say, "I did not witness the murder, therefore there was no murder." You ask someone who was there and saw it. I believe the witnesses and find it to be among the strongest evidence when I have the words of those who saw first-hand that God lives.

[mfbukowski]

Did what? Appeal to complexity and apparent desgin as evidence for a Mormon God? (what I asked for--are you really reading #3?)

How so??

It seems that your "designer God" does not design anything! To direct the production of a idea/blueprint/pattern (such as the human form) that already exists is not what I would call design and the director of such a copycat production is not a designer. Neither is procreation design. He did not produce the template or design or blueprint. Some designer God!

What is apparent design and complexity evidence for in your theology? Per darwin we don't need God and in your scheme God did no designing so apparent design is not evidence of his existence.

This is pretty unbelievable. You are still arguing against positions I do not hold. But your point is an interesting one because this means, (and I think you are correct) that one could be that God directed the ascent of species in a Mormon sense (ie replicating "What has been done in other worlds" WITHOUT being a "designer". So for us, directed "evolution" understood as the ascent of species does not commit us to "Intelligent Design".

Which to me is just fine because I never felt it was scientific and just confused the issue. Science cannot prove the existence of God.

So I askl once again, what is complexity or apparent design evidence of if anything? Does it go any way toward defeating atheism as I keep hearing?

Well if I had ever advocated it, I might know, but I haven't. I have never used that argument to prove God. I don't think it does. God cannot be proven by evidence- to believe so commits a category error imo. You are confusing third person and first person statements if you believe that. But that is more than I needed to say and may just confuse the issue.

Go ahead and quote what I said that gave you that impression and I will explain what I meant, if you feel like it.

Edit: Clarification- I see what I said that is confusing you. It was the part about God replicating what has been done on other worlds -- You challenged me to come up with an argument and I did, but I have not advocated that ever before. Sorry for the confusion. I agree with you that all that does is make God a "replicator" and not a "designer"

[mfbukowski]

I never advocated such a position, but I think there is only one way to reconcile them, and that would be to assert the metaphysical position that "evolution" (ie: planned increasing complexity using directed, designed forces including what may appear to be "natural selection") repeats itself in every world in which this is designed to occur. In other words, God starts with the "end in mind" and that end is re-creating his own image through evolution perhaps even in what appears to be a Darwinian sense. The purpose of this is to promote faith- so that there can be no scientific proof of God's existence, which serves the purpose of the plan of salvation.

Note that I just dreamed this up as a possible solution five minutes ago because you asked me to do so. I haven't advocated such a position and don't know that I would. But I think that position fills the bill. I know you will ask how all this got started. A classic religious answer to these kind of questions might be "it's a mystery". Catholics get away with that one all the time. But I think this is an explanation that fits and might even be advocated by some. Really all this is is the argument for ID multiplied backward in time, thinking that this world does "what has been done in other worlds". It would not a great leap of faith for anyone who believes the classical KFD position and also in ID

Note I said I had not advocated it before and it was an argument quickly created on your challenge. If that confused you, I apologize I agree it does not work.

[Tarski]

Well if I had ever advocated it, I might know, but I haven't.

Great! See? That was my only point and apparently you don't even disagree! So why did you jump in with all this other stuff? Why keep claiming I didn't understand you? I always did and still do. I understood your posts fine but I kept point out that your posts just didn't constradict the main point of my original post.

My only point was that Mormons who hold to the classical King Follet style theology should not invoke the wonderful desgin and complexity of the universe as evidence for God (because doing so can only be seen as attempting to provide evidence for an original designer). I elaborated just so they could see why I say this and what one might end up with if one finds a designer god thrown in their lap.

[wenglund]

My only point was that Mormons who hold to the classical King Follet style theology should not invoke the wonderful desgin and complexity of the universe as evidence for God (because doing so can only be seen as attempting to provide evidence for an original designer)

My point is that Mormon's can invoke design and complexity as evidence for God as long as they don't ascribe to the presuppositions that the principles that apply to the creation of the physical/temporal universe necessarily apply to the spiritual/eternal universe--including, in relation to the KFD, whether there was a first God. Their reasonable argument in relation to the finite and known need not be logically forced on their belief in the infinite and relatively unknown.

It is not wholly unlike suggesting that Newtonian principles of physics need not apply at the quantum level.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

My point is that Mormon's can invoke design and complexity as evidence for God as long as they don't ascribe to the presuppositions that the principles that apply to the creation of the physical/temporal universe necessarily apply to the spiritual/eternal universe--including, in relation to the KFD, whether there was a first God. Their reasonable argument in relation to the finite and known need not be logically forced on their belief in the infinite and relatively unknown.

It is not wholly unlike suggesting that Newtonian principles of physics need not apply at the quantum level.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

OK I'll bite.

1) What presuppositions?

2) Now that you have identified the precise presuppositions, please explain how dropping those presupposition allows one to construe complexity as evidence of God.

It seems to me that either God designed the human form, or he did not. On the face of it, it would seem that if there was always Gods with human form then no one of the Gods could have designed that form.

Mfbukowski just drops the idea that God designed things. Fine. But this doesn't address the question I am interested in which surprisingly you seem to understand better than him: Is there a way to keep both classical Mormon theology and also the idea that God conceived and designed (originally and creatively) the structures of life including the very human form?

It would be quite a trick and if it could be done it seems that the straightforward meanings of certain key words would have to be modified beyond recognition. God would have to be in some sense temporally prior to the whole linear chain of Gods of which he is himself a part.

Maybe some fancy topological contortions together with closed timelike worldlines could pull it off. (But now I am just helping you and thats no fair--tell me your own scheme).

Please don't just drop the idea of God doing the designing (like Mfbukoski did). We all agree this can be done but it renders mute the usual evidential way complexity/apparent design is invoked which is what I want to see preserved.

Show me how the classical (K-Follet) Mormon God could be the true designer rather than a copycat production manager or simply a procreator.

[wenglund]

OK I'll bite.

1) What presuppositions?

2) Now that you have identified the precise presuppositions, please explain how dropping those presupposition allows one to construe complexity as evidence of God.

See my previous responses to you, including the post to which you are here responding.

It seems to me that either God designed the human form, or he did not. On the face of it, it would seem that if there was always Gods with human form then no one of the Gods could have designed that form.

To me, design has to do with complexities far beyond just "form". One may rightly be considered a designer even if one doesn't design the general form. For those LDS who use the design argument, then just as they may reasonably argue that there are different designers for different makes and models of cars, yet all cars have the same general form, they may reasonably argue that God is the designer of our physical universe, and this even if they may presume that God didn't design the general human form.

Or, they may presume that there are multiple designer of the general "form" (original and otherwise). Regarding our universe, those LDS who use the design argument may reasonably contend that whether the same general forms exist in other physical universes or even to some respects in the spiritual universe, then just as a human artist can rightly be said to have designed his human sculptures (including the form), they may rightly view God as the designer of this universe.

Finally, while you may reasonably view the design issue in binary terms (e.g. "either God designed the human form, or he did not"), LDS who use the design argument in relation to the physical universe to which they belong, aren't necessarily forced by logic to assume that the design argument applies to the spiritual universe. For them, because of the important difference between the physical and the spiritual, the finite and the infinite, the known and the unknown, they can reasonably argue one way or the other, or argue otherwise, or even leave open the design argument in relations to heaven.

In short, there are multiple ways in which an LDS can argue for design without it adversely impacting their "classic" beliefs about God.

Is there a way to keep both classical Mormon theology and also the idea that God conceived and designed (originally and creatively) the structures of life including the very human form?

Yes, see above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Great! See? That was my only point and apparently you don't even disagree! So why did you jump in with all this other stuff? Why keep claiming I didn't understand you? I always did and still do. I understood your posts fine but I kept point out that your posts just didn't constradict the main point of my original post.

My only point was that Mormons who hold to the classical King Follet style theology should not invoke the wonderful desgin and complexity of the universe as evidence for God (because doing so can only be seen as attempting to provide evidence for an original designer). I elaborated just so they could see why I say this and what one might end up with if one finds a designer god thrown in their lap.

Well you kept thinking I was talking about natural selection every time I used the word "evolution" - so you were jumping in with a lot of "other stuff" too!

So there!

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski just drops the idea that God designed things. Fine. But this doesn't address the question I am interested in which surprisingly you seem to understand better than him: Is there a way to keep both classical Mormon theology and also the idea that God conceived and designed (originally and creatively) the structures of life including the very human form?

It would be quite a trick and if it could be done it seems that the straightforward meanings of certain key words would have to be modified beyond recognition. God would have to be in some sense temporally prior to the whole linear chain of Gods of which he is himself a part.

Maybe some fancy topological contortions together with closed timelike worldlines could pull it off. (But now I am just helping you and thats no fair--tell me your own scheme).

Please don't just drop the idea of God doing the designing (like Mfbukoski did). We all agree this can be done but it renders mute the usual evidential way complexity/apparent design is invoked which is what I want to see preserved.

Show me how the classical (K-Follet) Mormon God could be the true designer rather than a copycat production manager or simply a procreator.

Well this is definitely taking it too far. I never said that "God didn't design things".

Specifically what I said was that complexity doesn't logically necessitate a designer.

I further said, in essence, that a being with a physical body could not "design" himself. I think that that would stretch the meaning of the word "design" beyond what makes sense.

And because I think that "design" is incompatible with the KFD doesn't mean that either the KFD OR "design" is false, and remember that the KFD is not now considered doctrinal. So God could be a "Designer", or KFD could be true, or there could be some kind of "higher order" spiritual way of seeing this as Wade is suggesting which makes either theory insufficient, as quantum mechanics makes Newtonian physics not "false" but more like "inadequate" for higher order explanations.

So saying that "God didn't design things" is, well very inadequate to describe my position.

[mfbukowski]

It would be quite a trick and if it could be done it seems that the straightforward meanings of certain key words would have to be modified beyond recognition. God would have to be in some sense temporally prior to the whole linear chain of Gods of which he is himself a part.

Maybe some fancy topological contortions together with closed timelike worldlines could pull it off. (But now I am just helping you and thats no fair--tell me your own scheme).

It's not particularly that you are "helping" but here you have come up with essentially, structurally, the same kind of solution to your own problem Wade did.

Do you know the "Liar's Pardox"? It's solution involves taking the argument to another level- an argument ABOUT the argument to solve the original argument.

Wade proposes (I think) a "higher order" explanation which proposes a meta-argument and you also propose making a "Super God" temporarily prior to the "linear chain of Gods".

Structurally both your arguments do the same thing- propose stepping out of the problematic context and taking it to another level- a context which discusses the problem context- to solve the problem.

That's why I agree with Wade- there are a whole host of other ways of explaining it through this means- and as even in the "Liars Paradox" that solution applies to a whole host of logical problems.

This is also what I did with an interpretation of Whitehead which would propose the evolution of gods themselves by the universe's self-organization.

So perhaps ironically the three of us came up with the same strategy to solve the problem. I guess that was just the intelligence of the universe creating itself again!