Cobalt-70 Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Bolded [energy, force, mass] are all properties of Matter. All of the others exist merely in the mind of those who hold the concepts. The very definition of an Abstraction.I'm as much a materialist as any other Mormon, or as any physicist, but it goes way to far to suggest that matter is the only thing that is "real." Energy is not, strictly speaking, a property of matter. Matter may have energy, of course, but things like light, magnetic fields, electrical fields, gravitational fields, and even empty space can have energy as well.Force is an abstraction, and cannot be directly measured. We define force as the first derivative of momentum, but momentum is not strictly a property of matter, either. Light, for example, has no mass, but it still has momentum, and electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields can also have momentum.
ebeddoulos Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Yes and no.If it were the case (which it is not) that I were worshiping something that is actually nothing, then I would be worshiping nothing. However, that would still not be atheism, because atheism is the belief that there is no God, not the worship of something that happens not to exist. For example, Shiva does not exist, but Hindus who worship Shiva are not atheists. If someone were to engage in the foolish worship of the Void, they would be worshiping nothing real, but they would not be atheists.See, that wasn't so tough.I’m sorry, Rob. It really must be tough on you since it took you that loooong to compose yet anooooother strawman fallacy. I’ll try not to be so tough on you in the future. In the mean time, if you wouldn't mind, would you be so kind as to compose an appropriate response to those same questions but this time make it something with some actual substance and without a fallacy built into it? I would greatly appreciate it.Nice talkin' with you ya.
Zakuska Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Oh, brother, those two are not the same thing! All that is required to be a Theist is that you believe in God. Whether you get the fact that God exists right or wrong doesn't take away the fact that you believe and are, therefore, a theist. If those two were the same then everything that is true of one will be true of the other one, but that isn't the case since to believe in God (Theism) you can't believe there is no God (Atheism); otherwise is a contradiction (you believe and don't believe in God in the same sense at the same time).Please, Zak, read more carefully this time because it is astonishing that you don't get this.BINGO! You have identified the paradox of their claim perfectly.LDS do not have this Problem because we do beleive in a God who is actually Physical and exists.
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Athiest - beleiving God does not exist. (Correct?)Rob and others - Beleving in a non-existant God.A=BNo it doesn't. Your structure does not match and is not logical. Atheism is not believing in God. It is a lack of a belief. It is not believing in something that is not. Zak, why in the world are you making this argument? Honestly it is making you look like a bigot or at least a rigid dogmatic arrogant .....I better stop. Since I don't believe you are any of these things, I have to wonder why you are doing this. If you think you are demonstrating a double standard, you are not clear or correct enough to have effectively done so and instead are just coming across as having a very strange standard of your own. If your reason is you think it's fun to push people's buttons like this, please reconsider, because I for one am not enjoying it.How one would actually define and structure the 'equation' you claim above:A=x, where x is a belief in God, Atheism would be not x or not A.B=not y, where y is God, meaning God is not or does not exist.A belief in the Trinity---if one assumes their God does not exist....which is totally wrong anyway since it is only their conception of God that is inaccurate-----could be described then as x (not y), where x is the function and "not y" is the variable to be evaluated. It is not an equivalency between A and B or x and y or not x and not y.
Rob Bowman Posted September 23, 2011 Author Posted September 23, 2011 Ahab,"Mormons commonly" means "it is common for (some) Mormons"; it does not mean "every Mormon does this on a regular basis."I'm sure there are some critics of the LDS religion who make serious mistakes you can criticize. I've made some serious mistakes from time to time myself. But this is not one of them. You're just straining at a gnat here.
elguanteloko Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) BINGO! You have identified the paradox of their claim perfectly. That is a contradiction in what YOU are presenting here, not theirs since they don't claim, "[The Orthodox Christian] God doesn't exist". You've reached a new low, Zak. Edited September 23, 2011 by elguanteloko
Zakuska Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 We wouldn't expect something else, would we?Something else than what?Brother, you need to sharpen that logic. The properties of matter are as real as matter itself but they must be conceptualized to be understood (everything must be conceptualized to be understood). From nothing in this can you conclude that, therefore, God is only an abstraction or that the properties of matter are only concepts with nothing corresponding to them in reality.Once again, Zak, even if one grants everything you have been saying about God being only a concept (which is absurd, btw) that would never make Orthodox Christians Atheists anymore than believing in something you don't know to be false makes you a non-believer of that thing. To be an atheist you either have to not believe in God or believe there is no God. Believing in a false God does NOT and will never make you an atheist.
Zakuska Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I'm as much a materialist as any other Mormon, or as any physicist, but it goes way to far to suggest that matter is the only thing that is "real."Energy is not, strictly speaking, a property of matter. Matter may have energy, of course, but things like light, magnetic fields, electrical fields, gravitational fields, and even empty space can have energy as well.Force is an abstraction, and cannot be directly measured. We define force as the first derivative of momentum, but momentum is not strictly a property of matter, either. Light, for example, has no mass, but it still has momentum, and electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields can also have momentum.Even "Energy" is matter.In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. Heating a gas may ionize (reduce the number of electrons in) its molecules or atoms, thus turning it into a plasma, which contains charged particles: positive ions and negative electrons. Ionization can be induced by other means, such as strong electromagnetic field applied with a laser or microwave generator, and is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, if present.[1]
Vance Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Energy is not, strictly speaking, a property of matter.Yes, it is. And the (internal) energy of the matter is measured by its temperature. Sorry but temperature (a measure of its internal energy) is a property of matter.
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) BINGO! You have identified the paradox of their claim perfectly.LDS do not have this Problem because we do beleive in a God who is actually Physical and exists.It is not a paradox to believe in something that does not exist. It is not a paradox to believe that something has a different quality than it really does.You are creating a paradox in your own mind by insisting that something "immaterial" does not actually exist. You believe that antimatter exists, do you not? Is this belief a paradox? If not then it is no more of a paradox for something "immaterial" to exist, as "immaterial" is simply defined as something that has different attributes than something that is material, the "not" of non/immaterial is not the "not" of existence. Immaterial is not equivalent to "nothing".If JS was reported accurately as saying “That which is without body or parts is nothing" then he was wrong. And it would have been better for the Teachings manual to have simply reported the second sentence, "There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones”.People generally get into trouble when they start critiquing others' religious beliefs, as they tend to leave off nuances, make different assumptions and thus argue against strawmen, etc. I think it is unfortunate when our leaders venture into this area and I am very grateful that they don't often do it these days. Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) "Mormons commonly" means "it is common for (some) Mormons"Define "common"I have heard more evangelicals claim that they could go out and sin all they want because they are saved than you have quotes that may suggest that "some Mormons believe orthodox Christians are atheists". So should I start making the claim that it is common for Evangelicals to believe they can sin all they want? Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah
Zakuska Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) No it doesn't. Your structure does not match and is not logical. Atheism is not believing in God. It is a lack of a belief. It is not believing in something that is not. Zak, why in the world are you making this argument? Honestly it is making you look like a bigot or at least a rigid dogmatic arrogant .....I better stop. Since I don't believe you are any of these things, I have to wonder why you are doing this. If you think you are demonstrating a double standard, you are not clear or correct enough to have effectively done so and instead are just coming across as having a very strange standard of your own. If your reason is you think it's fun to push people's buttons like this, please reconsider, because I for one am not enjoying it.So since Joseph Smith made this same argument according to Robs OP... does that make him a bigot or a "rigid dogmatic arrogant..." ? Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) dup Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) So since Joseph Smith made this same argument according to Robs OP... does that make him a bigot or a "rigid dogmatic arrogant..." ?It would make him appear like one, if he meant it like you meant it and continued to do so in the face of correction. However I don't read his point the same way I am reading yours. He is saying they are mistaken in what they worship, he is not saying they are not worshipping at all which is what you are saying when you claim that devout believers in the Trinity are atheists. Your conclusion makes absolutely no logical sense at all.Do trinitarians pray? Do they attend mass or other religious meeting where they gather together to praise God? Do they make offerings, do good works in God's name, etc? If so, then they worship and if they worship, they are not atheists.You really shouldn't assume that Mr. Bowman's interpretation is correct and if you interpreted it that way yourself, you need to take a step back and look at it again. Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah
Vance Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 but things like light, magnetic fields, electrical fields, gravitational fields, Since we don't really know what these things actually are, you can't say that they are not matter. and even empty space can have energy as well.Nope. If it truly is "empty" then there is no energy there. Force is an abstraction, and cannot be directly measured.Tell that to your bathroom scales. We define force as the first derivative of momentum, but momentum is not strictly a property of matter, either.Moment is a property of matter. It is the mass of the matter multiplied by the velocity of the matter. Both of those (mass, velocity) are properties of matter. Light, for example, has no mass, but it still has momentum, If it has no mass then it has no momentum BY DEFINITION! and electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields can also have momentum.Nope. By definition momentum is mass X velocity. If either one is zero then momentum = zero.
Zakuska Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Yes, if he meant it like you meant it and continued to do so in the face of correction. However I don't read his point the same way I am reading yours. He is saying they are mistaken in what they worship, he is not saying they are not worshipping at all which is what you are saying when you claim that devout believers in the Trinity are atheists. Your conclusion makes absolutely no logical sense at all.You really shouldn't assume that Mr. Bowman's interpretation is correct and if you interpreted it that way yourself, you take a step back and look at it again.Are you reading the same thread I am?I have continualy said they worship an immaterial God which for all intents and purposes is equivalent to Worshiping a void vacume of abstract ideas. I have never said they don't worship at all.They worship what they know not. Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska
Vance Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Which is enough to show that one isn't an atheist. If you simply believe that a God exists, whatever form this God takes, then you aren't an atheist. If he believes in a personal God whose nature isn't fully understood (and I can tell you the Mormon God's nature isn't understood either) then he isn't an Atheist....EXACTLY what I said! I mean, how hard is this to get, Vance?I got it right away. See my first post in this thread.Of course if you can't distinguish between worshiping "something" that in concept cannot exist (or is an obvious abstraction)and NOT worshiping at all, then you are in sad shape.Bowman took a little while.
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 The issue here is "what" they believe in, and in this case they say they believe in a God who has no form or substance.....Just in case someone hasn't mentioned this yet....Where is it stated that God as defined by the Trinity (Nicene Creed) has no substance?In fact, is it not stated that the Father, Son and Spirit share one "substance"?
Vance Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 "Mormons commonly" means "it is common for (some) Mormons"; it does not mean "every Mormon does this on a regular basis."No, that isn't what it means at all and you know it. You are simply trying to back track to save face.Commonly: Adverb: Very often; frequently. 1. usually; ordinarily he was commonly known as Joe1.usually; generally; ordinarily. You EXAGGERATED and now it is coming back to bite you.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Well it is something... a void or a vaccume a black whole. really.Which is why Christians championing the Big bang as God creating ex nihilo is so absurd because even the big bang is said to have started with a very dense point of something and not nothing.Most cosmologists imagine a big bang in which matter, space, and energy were created from nothing, at least with respect to the universe we can observe. According to this view, it started out as a fluctuation in nothingness that created a region of extremely low entropy (disorder). This region expanded dramatically to create space, while at the same time filling that space with matter and energy. The amount of "positive" matter and energy created in the universe exactly cancelled the amount of "negative" energy which went into the expansion of empty space. That is the best model we have consistent with modern physics, but it still has a lot of problems and unexplained questions.But just to be clear, this is still not quite the ex nihilo creation of classical Christianity. This physical description of the big bang does not require the will of a God as a prerequisite to the existence of the universe. Also, quantum mechanics probably does not leave open the possibility of the existence of an omniscient God.
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) I'm only responding to the claim that OCs are atheists. Any Christian (even Mormons) can say they believe in God by faith although they don't understand him or the things of the spiritual so as to defend them using reason. The believer has the right to stop at any point and leave what doesn't make sense now to "We will understand later on" or "This is a statement of faith only".I don't agree with you on many things I've seen you discuss on the board, but this is precisely right. There are many things LDS must take on faith, to insist that others who do so are irrational or their religious belief system is inferior solely on that cause is hypocritical even if they take on faith other aspects than we do. Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah 1
Vance Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Most cosmologists imagine a big bang in which matter, space, and energy were created from nothing, at least with respect to the universe we can observe.Then which ever one of them wrote the article for wikipedia got it wrong. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on. Or maybe it is just you that got it wrong.
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Are you reading the same thread I am?I have continualy said they worship an immaterial God which for all intents and purposes is equivalent to Worshiping a void vacume of abstract ideas. I have never said they don't worship at all.They worship what they know not.Then they are not atheists because atheists do not worship.
Calm Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Most cosmologists imagine a big bang in which matter, space, and energy were created from nothing, at least with respect to the universe we can observe.I wouldn't label what matter, space and energy were created from as "nothing" but rather as "undefined". There is a difference.
zerinus Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 "Mormons commonly" means "it is common for (some) Mormons"; it does not mean "every Mormon does this on a regular basis."No it doesn't. Here are some definitions of "commonly" I found on the Internet:Usually, as a rule, routinely, frequently, generally, more often than not, ordinarily, regularly, for the most part, Widespread, prevalent."Mormons commonly" means, "Mormons ... [substitute any of the above]".
Recommended Posts