Predestination And Foreordination. Does Science Preclude Either?

[mfbukowski]

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

Unfortunately, unless it is conscious, it didn't have much of a choice.

[LeSellers]

Stephen Hawking [said], "The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

Unfortunately, unless it is conscious, it didn't have much of a choice.

I suspect Hawking took that into consideration.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I suspect Hawking took that into consideration.

Lehi

Well there is no doubt that the universe is conscious.

We are, after all, part of it.

[Mariner]

Again, you have completely failed to respond to my question which leads me to believe you have no answer. You simply cannot explain it. And you continue to cling to misconceptions about our doctrine. You seem incapable of logical thought making it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. You know nothing of the Olmecs but you continue to pretend that should be a concern. You know nothing of the 'hundreds' of jewish scientists so you dismiss my quotes because of when they were given. You do not understand what religion is and you prove this by contradicting your own definition, then you go on a tangent about faith and superstition as if this proves your point that religion attempts to explain the world around us. Please read about Einstein. he did believe in God, just not a personal god as I do. You are trying to hide behind semantics. His god was as supernatural as my God. I will give you one more chance but I will give you an easier question because it appears that the previous one gave you a bit of a scare.

Please explain what the current debate is about the Olmec language, what is known of their DNA, and the LDS doctrine that contradicts this research. Please refer to LDS.org for the parameters of what the Church considers sources of doctrine. You need not address the research from Russian geneticists.

Freedom,

When you can show me a credible, published non-LDS scientist who will state that based on evidence, he or she believes that the Book of Mormon explains the Olmec civilization, I would be happy to have look. If you do not have such evidence, then you do not have a case, and you are wasting your time and my time.

Without such physical evidence, the very existence of the Olmecs in their place in time and space contradicts the Book of Mormon narrative (provided that one accepts LGT Mesoamerica). Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until it is published in the peer reviewed mainstream literature (and it never is) information about the Olmecs by LDS scholars, or anything that appears on LDS.org, would have pretty much zero credibility with me, or with mainstream science for that matter. Surely you have seen the letters from the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian regarding the fact that the Book of Mormon is of no use or value whatsoever in the study of ancient Mesoamerica.

[Freedom]

Freedom,

When you can show me a credible, published non-LDS scientist who will state that based on evidence, he or she believes that the Book of Mormon explains the Olmec civilization, I would be happy to have look. If you do not have such evidence, then you do not have a case, and you are wasting your time and my time.

Without such physical evidence, the very existence of the Olmecs in their place in time and space contradicts the Book of Mormon narrative (provided that one accepts LGT Mesoamerica). Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until it is published in the peer reviewed mainstream literature (and it never is) information about the Olmecs by LDS scholars, or anything that appears on LDS.org, would have pretty much zero credibility with me, or with mainstream science for that matter. Surely you have seen the letters from the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian regarding the fact that the Book of Mormon is of no use or value whatsoever in the study of ancient Mesoamerica.

Yes, thanks for confirming that you do not know what you are talking about. You have read some anti-mormon material that tells you the history of the olmecs contradict the Book of Mormon narrative but you have no idea why. This has been typical of your approach. You try to make it sound like you have some academic credibility but in fact you consistently fail to come up with any evidence for your opinions. In fact, the only quote you gave to support your opinions was a quote you made up yourself. We will forgive you for the quote you gave from the dictionary that actually contracted your position. To give you a hand, it is not that the Book of Mormon contradicts the history of Latin America, but rather that we do not have the original texts to determine their place in history, For that matter, we have virtually no written record of the Olmecs, and the writings that we have are considered by many non-lds scholars to be something other than writing. What the experts say about the Olmecs is conjecture because all they have are artifacts. Without a written record there is no story. The Book of Mormon is a story so there is nothing available to support or contradict it at this point. Nevertheless, the history of the Olmecs closely match what is recorded in the Book of Mormon but without a written record, we will never know their history. Nevertheless, we do not know where the events of the Book of Mormon took place so matching some of the people to the Olmecs is purely academic exercise. A type of exercise you should try some time.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. I'm done here.

[Mariner]

Well, it was fun while it lasted. I'm done here.

Have a good weekend if you live in Canada and a good Thanksgiving if you live in the US.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

As a Mormon defending flying beings of flesh and bone, Kolob cosmology, lost civilizations, reformed Egyptian, golden books, obviously fraudulent "translations" of extant papyri and all the rest of it, you need to understand that you are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are therefore the one who needs to provide the extraordinary proof.

We don't "need" to provide any proof at all.

And we won't. We acknowledge that the evidence we find is not conclusive. The only type of proof that is conclusive is a witness from God. Until you receive such a witness, you won't believe any of this. That's just the way it works. Go ahead, deny the authenticity of such a witness. But because you clearly either a) have not received it or b) have forgotten it completely, you are no position to deny it. You're stuck.

You can think you've won this discussion just because many of us are deciding not to talk to you anymore, but the fact of the matter is that we already know that we've won, so we have no need to continue this hopeless conversation.

I'm done here too.

Edited November 24, 2011 by altersteve

[Mariner]

We don't "need" to provide any proof at all.

I'm done here too.

Have a good Thanksgiving.