urroner Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 If you have a vague enough definition of God, it is impossible to refute his existence.Really, it would be nice if people who believed in God proved his existence, rather than the other way around. My lack of belief would be instantly cured by a direct message from Him.With a direct message, would you then have faith or would you have knowledge?
Deborah Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 But, on the other hand, someone brought up a standard argument against the existence of God, to wit: God is perfect, and obviously His designs would necessarily be perfect as well; however, our bodies are imperfectly designed; therefore there can be no God. This reminds me of The Matrix where Agent Smith tells Morpheus that they originally created a perfect world for the humans but for some reason they had a hard time with it and it didn't work and so they brought in an imperfect world. Another scenario of a perfect world where humans are "kept" rather than allowed to grow is H.G. Well's The Time Machine. The Eloi live perfect little lives, all provided for them by the Morlocks, who have an ulterior motive. Of course because they are so well kept they have no motivation or ability to move outside their little world. It would seem people need challenges. I love to watch little children as they overcome obstacles, like the little kid who pulls drawers out to climb up to get the cookies. God's plan was to allow us to meet challenges, to make choices, to overcome obstacles and to grow, all which cannot happen in that perfect world everyone would like to see. Of course when LDS talk about perfection we are talking about something more than having everything provided for our childlike selves. We are talking about having grown up and learned to have the ability to continue expanding and learning. We are talking about having chosen to live in harmony with the Universe and therefore having power to eventually control the elements as our Heavenly Father does. If we did not have choices we would remain like the childlike Eloi and never progress and never go outside our bounds and never know what love is or what we are capable of.
Deborah Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 My lack of belief would be instantly cured by a direct message from Him.Really? Like the people at the time of Noah who mocked the direct messenger and were drowned in the flood? Or Lot's wife who apparently didn't heed the direct messenger and turned back? You, btw, can receive a direct message from God. Many have. However, unless you are willing to listen it won't do much good.
Log Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) While this is an interesting argument against the ID theory, ID is not consistent with LDS theology.Double sigh. You are incorrect, as usual, and I would appreciate it if you would cease making this baseless, and profoundly misleading, claim."Patterned after the old one..." Edited July 4, 2011 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Log:LDS do not believe that God created the earth out of nothing.
erichard Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 If you have a vague enough definition of God, it is impossible to refute his existence.Really, it would be nice if people who believed in God proved his existence, rather than the other way around. My lack of belief would be instantly cured by a direct message from Him.Hi caudicus,In the Mormon world view there is nothing in Heaven that was not first on a earth. God the Father is a resurrected being. Angels are resurrected beings. Jesus lived on earth and now he is a resurrected being.To a Mormon the Greek philosophical immaterial God that has blank check total magical powers does not exist. What exists is what you are experiencing here on earth-- eternal elements and intelligences. Except that it can be perfected, and will be perfected in the resurrection.If you can believe we "somehow" came into being in this world, how hard is it to believe the same "how" after this world will bring us into being in a more perfected world?If one sees Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Nephi, Joseph Smith, etc (assume they existed) and gets a message from them, then they have a direct message from God. Well, they have a message from a "Son of God", soon to become like their Father, anyway.If we all are eternal beings in eternal progression, does it not make sense that we should get a message from someone at our own level of progression? Richard 1
Log Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Log:LDS do not believe that God created the earth out of nothing.And this relates to design theory ... how, exactly? Can you please point out where design theory entails creation from nothing? Feel free to reference any material from The Design Inference, by William A. Dembski, which outlines the actual theory, then show how it is incompatible with LDS theology (whatever that is). Indeed, one can show that design theory is, on its face, logically incompatible with creatio ex nihilo. You (plural) never read the books, but are proceeding on evolutionist/popular media mischaracterizations of design theory; such behavior is unbecoming Mormons, who ought to know better, because we certainly don't like it when it's done to us. It smacks of intellectual laziness and arrogance. Edited July 4, 2011 by Log
cdowis Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Double sigh. Sounds like you may have a serious a medical condition. Go see a doctor. You are incorrect, as usual, and I would appreciate it if you would cease making this baseless, and profoundly misleading, claim.If you don't like what I have to say then give a reasoned argument against it. I would really appreciate it, stop demonstrating your ignorance of LDS doctrine, and telling me what I can or cannot say in this forum. If you got something to say, let's hear it, or use the ignore button. Edited July 4, 2011 by cdowis
Log Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I said it in the post above yours (#82). If you cannot reference in The Design Inference (which is the standard work on design theory) where the theory requires or implies anything contrary to LDS theology (whatever that is) then I expect you to withdraw your claim.This is a formal CFR. Edited July 4, 2011 by Log
cdowis Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) And this relates to design theory ... how, exactly? Can you please point out where design theory entails creation from nothing? Feel free to reference any material from The Design Inference, by William A. Dembski, which outlines the actual theory, then show how it is incompatible with LDS theology (whatever that is). Indeed, one can show that design theory is, on its face, logically incompatible with creatio ex nihilo. You (plural) never read the books, but are proceeding on evolutionist/popular media mischaracterizations of design theory; such behavior is unbecoming Mormons, who ought to know better, because we certainly don't like it when it's done to us. It smacks of intellectual laziness and arrogance.Are you familiar with the statements on creation from Brigham Young? You will find him more educated on LDS doctrine than Dembski. I cannot talk about temple content, but it appears that you have never been there. Or you were asleep.I am sick of people arrogently telling us what we believe when they are ignorant of our doctrines. Nothing personal, dude, but do your homework instead of watching TV. Edited July 4, 2011 by cdowis
Log Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Are you familiar with the statements on creation from Brigham Young? You will find him more educated on LDS doctrine than Dembski. I cannot talk about temple content, but it appears that you have never been there. Or you were asleep.I am sick of people arrogently telling us what we believe when they have no clue what they are talking about. Nothing personal, but find out what you talking about.This is your response to my CFR?Speaking of being asleep... "patterned after the old one..." - just in case you missed it the first time around. If the point still escapes you, please PM me and I will explain it in detail. Edited July 4, 2011 by Log
cdowis Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 I can see there is no common ground for a discussion.Please put me on ignore, and I will do the same.
Log Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 I can see there is no common ground for a discussion.Please put me on ignore, and I will do the same.I issued a CFR. It is against board rules to not answer it. Please show how anything in The Design Inference, by William A. Dembski, which is the standard reference on design theory, or, if you prefer, Intelligent Design Theory, contradicts any aspect of LDS theology (whatever that is). If you cannot demonstrate that design theory contradicts LDS theology (whatever that is), then I expect you to retract your claim and refrain from repeating it.
Hestia Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Cdowis and Log stop your bickering and answer CFR's. Log you may want to post a specific quote you feel reflects what ID is as a starting ground for requesting a CFR disagreeing. I suggest another thread be started on this subject as it is a derailment at this point.
thesometimesaint Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
Log Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_DesignBecause, forsooth, the editors, writers, and moderators of the articles on Wikipedia are free from bias and bigotry, and always refrain from polemics and logical errors when writing. Wikipedia is self-correcting, and always trends towards truth. Imagine someone makes a false claim about Mormonism, say, that the Book of Mormon teaches that Mary had sex with Heavenly Father. When pressed to justify this claim with references to the Book of Mormon, which book is easily available, the person responds not with reference to the Book of Mormon, but to some online anti-cult website, and utterly refuses to pick up the Book of Mormon under any circumstances. What would one say about such an one? Edited July 5, 2011 by Log 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Except that you forgot to mention that He did not design anything. All things are created using pre-existent templates. There is no designing in the creation process.(BTW, that is why Satan's plan was unacceptable -- it would not have worked.)While this is an interesting argument against the ID theory, ID is not consistent with LDS theology.Yes, but what does that do to the watch I'm wearing if ID theory is false?
cdowis Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Yes, but what does that do to the watch I'm wearing if ID theory is false?ID is not "false" anymore than evolution is false. Like Freudian psychology, they both give us useful constructs, and actual truths until something better comes along. They put us on the right path.I see some interesting ideas in panspermia and even chaos theory that may eventually bring us to that better theory. But it won't happen as long as evolution and ID are locked in a wrestling match over religion.ID can't even explain the mechanism of creation (poof is the unspoken method, of course), while evolution is completely inadequate to explain certain observable phenomena -- the fact that humans have both male and female counterparts that cannot reproduce without the other presents enormous difficulties. Ask about the first man, the first woman, and the evolutionists go into apoplexy. They have "faith" that evolution will eventually resolved those sorts of questions.The LDS creation is rather dark and mirky but is the only theoretical basis that has any hope of resolving those issues. The only one which can answer that age-old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg."The fact that the Creator has a body like our body has enormous implications for the creation process. Edited July 5, 2011 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Log:I have no responsibility to give you sources that you like.
Jeff K. Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 ID is a relatively nascent field of study. It seems we aren't reserving judgement on the issue so much as taking a dogmatic approach that the idea simply cannot exist. I think it more prudent to encourage the research but to be able to critique that research (versus dogmatically rejecting the idea), which, I believe is what science aspires to do in all things.
thesometimesaint Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 cdowis:ALL science is tentative until we discover a bettter explanation. The problem is that there is no way to validate any portion of ID and it conflicts with what we know from science. http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html
Log Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) ID can't even explain the mechanism of creation (poof is the unspoken method, of course),CFR that "poof is the unspoken method, of course"."ID can't even explain the mechanism of creation" is a profoundly misleading characterization of ID. CFR that ID proposes to explain any mechanisms of creation - for any phenomenon whatsoever. Edited July 5, 2011 by Log
Log Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Log:I have no responsibility to give you sources that you like.When you make any claim about ID - such as "ID conflicts with what we know from science" - then yes, you do have a responsibility to back it up from the primary literature, which is easily available. Otherwise, you're a critic who refuses to do his own homework, like many anti-mormons hereabouts.CFR that ID conflicts with what we know from science. Edited July 5, 2011 by Log
shalamabobbi Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Yes, but what does that do to the watch I'm wearing if ID theory is false?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3NfiMciD8
Log Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3NfiMciD8Does this video, in your mind, actually refute Dembski's work? Have you read Dembski, or, for that matter, Michael Behe? Edited July 5, 2011 by Log
Recommended Posts