The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[Nathair/|\]

?

Meditate on it for a while, you'll get it.

[mfbukowski]

Well... I see what you are saying, but I would think that applies more to "good" than "true". I don't doubt the "goodness" of the church and all the benefits is can provide for the people in it. I think it's great. If I am looking for what works for me then I think Alma 32 does a fine job. But the church asks more than that.

If it's about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored God's true church and restored God's exclusive priesthood authority on the earth, then that goes beyond simple "working for me."

Perhaps the process outlined in Alma 32 just accounts for what's good and works for you, but I always that it was a process for finding out what's true and in a lot of case (restoration of the gospel) what is true for everyone, period.

You thought you could make scientific discoveries about string theory through Alma 32?

I'm afraid you were mistaken. But it works for everything important in life. You thought that you could show Joseph Smith to be a prophet scientifically? Or that the priesthood was scientifically provable?

The restoration of the gospel IS true for everyone- but not scientifically so! Come on! You knew you could not prove that scientifically didn't you?

The truths it provides ARE true for everyone- to have a happy life!

[Jeff K.]

If we can't distinguish between him (and/or his influence) from a mere "natural" event, then, why add God in the formula?

Natural events are ultimately unpredictable since we cannot know with absolute certainty things will happen (dare we call it faith) but we presume so, and often, when we understand the variables well, we can indeed generally predict an outcome. The process of science is long and laborious and has taken thousands and thousands of years to develop. Technically science is also much simpler than God's intervention, and so it can also take significantly longer to learn. And yet you want God to be as simple and as "predictable" as science.

If quantum physics which originally did not have any way of being measured, were held to the same standard, it would long ago have been rejected.

Because we cannot measure clearly God's influence, it is hard to show the prediction, but then it is hard to predict absolutely the formation of a tornado, or a strike of lightening.

From our stand point of understanding, at a certain level God's direct influence is less predictable because we do not control or know all of the variables, nor do we have instruments outside of the spirit which are sensitive enough to capture that information. But then, we cannot presume to know all of the variables for much of science, and there are natural processes for which we do not have instruments sufficiently sensitive to measure (soemthing like tachyons for instance). If both natural influences and God's influence work within the natural realm and both are not entirely predictable, then does that mean we reject both?

[elguanteloko]

I'll answer for clarification's sake.

"Nothing more?" that is your characterization, not mine. An understanding of our place in the universe is about the most important understanding we can attain in life.

Sure. Feeling good and resolving cognitive dissonances is important. Too bad we don't always choose what is best.

God's power can work miracles, but they cannot be proven scientifically or else they would not be called "miracles". Miracles are "unexplained phenomena" in a scientific sense.

They aren't just "unexplained", they are completely unwarranted.

They are the disappearance of cancer when it should be there- when it was there last week, for example, and is now gone. I have seen many of these. Many have been attested to on this thread.

No, Neptune's power caused the cancer to disappear, NOT God. You just have to accept it on faith, mf.

God has a body, but that cannot be proven scientifically. It is a belief accepted on faith. I thought you understood that.

Sure.

And "just stuff you accept about your feelings" is how you have made every important decision in your life, including becoming an atheist. To do so you have to deny "just stuff you accept about your feelings".

You cannot fall in love or be happy without "accepting stuff about your feelings".

You cannot make decisions to post here or to go have a sandwich or never come back again without "accepting stuff about your feelings"

You cannot decide to take one graduate program or another without "accepting stuff about your feelings", or make any subjective choices at all without "accepting stuff about your feelings"

"Accepting stuff about your feelings" is what keeps you, literally, out of the nut house. Those who cannot "accept stuff about their feelings" have unhappy lives, and keep therapists in business.

This is BS since we weren't talking about feelings that make you warm and able to sleep at night but about actually justifiable claims about physical existence and physical events people call miracles.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

Now that I think about it (and please show me that I'm wrong) I've expressly said many times to you that I was speaking of a physical God and God's influence on physical stuff (the God of Mormonism)... and now you tell me you were speaking of nothing of this but of a mere idea that serves to give your life "meaning" and make you feel good?

Unless you correct me, mf, I am going to have to think rather badly of you. If this is the case, though, and I hope it isn't, you would seem to me to be the most dishonest MADB user I've ever seen.

Read all the posts. You are totally distorting my position. Again, you have no understanding of the philosophy I thought you understood. I am shocked. I thought you were a philosophy student.

[elguanteloko]

Natural events are ultimately unpredictable since we cannot know with absolute certainty things will happen (dare we call it faith) but we presume so, and often, when we understand the variables well, we can indeed generally predict an outcome. The process of science is long and laborious and has taken thousands and thousands of years to develop. Technically science is also much simpler than God's intervention, and so it can also take significantly longer to learn. And yet you want God to be as simple and as "predictable" as science.

If quantum physics which originally did not have any way of being measured, were held to the same standard, it would long ago have been rejected.

Because we cannot measure clearly God's influence, it is hard to show the prediction, but then it is hard to predict absolutely the formation of a tornado, or a strike of lightening.

From our stand point of understanding, at a certain level God's direct influence is less predictable because we do not control or know all of the variables, nor do we have instruments outside of the spirit which are sensitive enough to capture that information. But then, we cannot presume to know all of the variables for much of science, and there are natural processes for which we do not have instruments sufficiently sensitive to measure (soemthing like tachyons for instance). If both natural influences and God's influence work within the natural realm and both are not entirely predictable, then does that mean we reject both?

No wonder you still don't get it with such a poor understanding of what science is and how it works. I explained we are NOT talking about "absolute certainty" at all. That's a silly idea of yours.

[Mudcat]

How long do mods take to close a thread? I want it closed.

I'm mad I took someone seriously who didn't deserved it.

You have to send them notification first. If one is on board, usually not to long.

If there are open questions, they might wait for responses first. That is just based on my general observations.

[Kenngo1969]

Sorry, I won't do it. I have little respect for people like him. I don't look for "vindication". Others have written to me and I would never display their stuff but I won't respect mf.

You know, that whole "respect" thing is kinda supposed to be, like, um, a two-way street. I think one can tell a lot about a person by who holds him in high esteem and ... well ... who doesn't. I can't speak for MFBukowski, obviously. Some people don't hold me in very high esteem, and I kind of feel bad about that; others don't hold me in high esteem ... and I wear that as if it were a badge of honor.

I know we've never met in real life, but from your cyber-persona, you seem like kind of a weird cat, throwing condescension all over the place and demanding respect in return.

Whatever blows your skirt up, I suppose.

[mfbukowski]

mf, did I interpret you correctly or not?

I cannot see into your brain- that is the whole point.

You are seeing what I said through confirmation bias.

[Jeff K.]

This is BS since we weren't talking about feelings that make you warm and able to sleep at night but about actually justifiable claims about physical existence and physical events people call miracles.

Feelings, all of them are simply different methods of judging the environment we are in. Fear, heat, cold, love, happiness. All of these are part who we are and the sensors of our environment. To deny that is to shut down sensors, which in effect would mean that we tune out or turn off something within us that measures our environment and ironically claim it makes our understanding of the environemnt more complete?

it doesn't work that way.

[Nemesis]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Well this thread went down hill pretty fast. Closed at OP request.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff