God; The Intelligent Designer

[TAO]

Mmm.... Thesometimessaint, self-awareness is almost impossible to code into a program. A program can know it is there, but that isn't quite self-awareness... self awareness includes the thought "I" or "We" and that is really difficult to actually program.

Not to mention that then you have to talk about what 'choice' means, because there are so many different ways you could define it.

Ultimately, I guess you could say I really dislike calling computer programs 'self-aware' because they aren't of the same 'self-awareness' that we are =P. So nah, I would not say a computer is intelligent... regardless of it's state. But that's just my opinion =P.

Edited November 27, 2011 by TAO

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

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

Ps; One definition of intelligence is self awareness. If we developed a computer program that was self aware. IE Star Treks' Data would that meet your defintion of intelligence?

Why can't you just use words to describe how you mean "supernatural"? Its not that hard. Its like you are avoiding the obvious here.

To be self aware one would already have to be intelligent and capable of "caring". Now you are getting into emotions. Computer programs can't be programmed to care and be self aware. They can't feel pain nor sadness nor happiness and joy. "Choice" also comes into play here. In a computer program, it cannot be made to choose because it doesn't care nor is self aware.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Simple words.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1:: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Edited November 27, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

Mariner:

Thank you. I do try to be reasonable. Unfortunately I have my hobby horses like every one else.

BCSpace is a good guy. I see him trying to reconcil that which is intrincly very hard to do. Philosophers and scientific minded people have struggled with those ideas from before recorded time. I do much the same.

Of course BCSpace and I don't always agree. But that is to be expected in a religion as diverse as Mormonism is. I still value him as a friend(albeit an internet one), and a good member of the Church.

As long as members of the Church agree with the canonized Scripture. I believe we can have our own ideas on such things as the nature of the Creation, how old the earth is, whether chocolate is the necture of the Gods or not , and still be good faithfull members.

I think we all have more than enough to learn about God, and his creations to keep us very busy for a very long time to come. So I don't get all that bothered by some odd belief(s), and figure someday(Probably after I've past onto the next life.) God will explain it all to me to my complete and total satisfaction. My job here is to learn every thing I can in this life. If I'm wrong I believe God will gently correct me.

I'm perfectly comfortable accepting the Truth Claims of my religion, but I feel no need to accept what some, even some members of the Church, interpretations of those Truth Claims are.

I don't see any conflicts. Do we understand fully science? How about religion? I sure don't, and I don't believe that any mere mortal does. I do beileve it is fair to say that I don't see the reconcilization happening anytime soon, at least not in my life time.

Some 400 years ago they were still burning witches at the stake. If we could build a time machine and go back to that time. If we tried to explain television we'd get burned at the stake too. Einstein never did accept Quantum Mechanics, but today it is well accepted in the scientific community. Today is it String Theory or will some other theory that will get the nod. I don't know. However I am confident that someday all will be revealed either by the Truths of my religion, or the Truths of my science. It is all Truth to me.

thesometimesaint,

It is interesting that you refer to "my science" and "my religion" in your last response. This makes me a bit nervous, because it implies that you stand ready to interpret secular science when it conflicts with "your science" and re-interpret Mormonism when it conflicts with "your religion". I apologize if this seems cynical or if I am misunderstanding what you mean by using these terms. However, BCSpace engages in both activities quite often and so I have grown a bit wary.

In any case, it would appear that, in spite of your scientific training, your position on science and religion (although more eloquently described) boils down to exactly that of BCSpace, Freedom and faithful Mormons faced with the realities of science.

Being constitutionally unable to accept that there are any real conflicts between their religion and science, they choose to believe that science does not really understand the natural laws of the universe as they apply here on Earth, or that religionists do not really understand the scriptures and revelations that they have been given, or both.

If you think about it, what these folks are really saying is that that they do not understand science or they doubt their religion, or both.

Someone who is trained in physics, and who really understands the underlying math, could not justify the belief that a particle with mass could exceed the speed of light. Likewise, one trained in physics could not justify the belief that an object more dense than air could remain suspended in still air without some propulsive force acting upon it.

The observations that denser than air objects fall to Earth and particles with mass do not exceed the speed of light do not involve science that we do not understand. We understand gravity and special relativity very well at the dimensions and speeds at issue.

What is not understood is how many religious claims could ever be rationalized or interpreted so as not to be in conflict with science. There are any number of strongly held religious beliefs in Mormonism that stand in stark conflict with science, whether one chooses to believe it or not.

Something as simple as the belief that God has a body of flesh and blood and communicates or interacts over short time frames with humans here on Earth from his throne near a star with the characteristics ascribed to Kolob already violates several laws of physics and conflicts with well understood astrophysics and astronomy. The description I posted on another thread describing the history of the Earth as a published interpretation by a general authority of scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price is again in direct conflict with science.

While I am sure that many posters (myself included) appreciate your contributions to these threads wherein you defend science, given you contradictory statements about belief in religion one is left to wonder how much of what you post about science reflects a genuine belief in the underlying concepts and principles.

Assuming that you do have a good understanding of science (and I have seen nothing in your posts regarding science that would make me think otherwise) then I am really puzzled by your unwillingness to admit that there are conflicts, or to imply that these conflicts will eventually be resolved by new discoveries in science rather than in changes in the conflicting religious belief.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Mariner

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Simple words.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1:: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

I believe in a God who lives within the visible and observable universe. We just haven't found him yet. Physics and science speak of things such as wormholes and such- things we haven't witnessed or seen. They do not term wormholes as supernatural even though they are not visible or observable. The same can be said of string theory- even though it is debatebale, it includes dimensions of our universe which are not readily visible or cannot be observed. I have never seen someone refer to its existance as "supernatual" though.

So, would you deem Christ's miracales as "supernatural"? What about the angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith? Is that a "supernatural event"? I am just trying to get a better grasp of what you are trying to say.

The way I see it is that we have known laws and then we have laws which are true but yet at this time are unknown. Just because we do not know all the laws doesn't make the one we don't know to be supernatural. Take spiritual matter for existance- as LDS we know that spirits have matter and take up space. This you may term supernatural, but in reality we just haven't got to the point where we know enough about it to include them in our known laws.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

You are being too cynical. But that's OK. I can get that way too.

I'm using "my" in the sense that I own them. I'm responsible for what I accept of religion, and science. Just as we all own them. IE; Einstein never did "accept" Quatum Mechanics. He went to his death bed trying to disprove it.

BCSpace is responsible for what he posts, and I have no control over it. I'm really not into discussing other posters posting habits. I let them sink or swim on their own merits. .

I'm well aware of the realities of science and religion. I'm not so arrogant as to claim that I know everything there is to know about science, and no scientist that I know of would say that either. So I allow for new ideas, theories, that may well overturn some of what what we thought was settled. However I don't expect wholesale revisions of established science. The same can be said of the LDS religion. LDS believe that God will reveal more, and important things about his kingdom.

There is right now are ongoing experiments by CERN and others to see if the speed of light really is the cosmic speed limit. I don't expect that it will be overturned, but refusing to do the tests because of some preconceived notion isn't good science either. I'm so old that I remember when it was widely thought that no one could excellerate past 150 MPH in a quarter of a mile. Now they're doing better that 300 MPH. I believe a good rule of thumb it to is stick with what is shown, until it is shown otherwise.

No one has yet shown how the Resurrection is accomplished, but I still believe it anyway. So in that sense all of Christianity, and a great many other religions that can't be supported from the science. However I'm sure that God knows how it is done, and we all will someday. There is a rule of philosophy that just because you don't understand something it doesn't follow that no one does/can.

I have no idea where Kolob is. For all I know it is right here, If as the scientist think there are infinite number of dimensions. God could well be in another dimension As such, distances just don't have much bearing on prayer, or God. But I really don't know. I see through that glass darkly just like Paul.

I have a pretty good handle on science, not perfect but pretty good , just as I have a pretty good handle on what I believe. I make no apologies for that.

Just a long history of knowing that things change. What was once thought to be the final truth turned out just a short step forwards in the persuit of Godhood.

Edited November 27, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

That well COULD be the case. I just have no idea where God and Heaven are.

Right now Wormholes are nothing more than a theorical construct. That would make them even less than the Supernatural. They MAY exist, they MAY not. It would be kinda cool if they did however.

[Mariner]

Rob Osborn,

If you are equating the concept of God with wormholes (special cases of black holes) and string theory, then you are demonstrating a very poor understanding of the math and science involved.

Black holes and worm holes were predicted mathematically as a consequence of general relativity. String theory is an active area in theoretical physics because it has the potential to address a number of issues including the harmonization of relativistic and quantum mechanics, and providing a more fundamental understanding of gravity.

In case you are not aware, there are now any number of direct astronomical observations confirming the presence of black holes, including the massive specimen at the center of our galaxy. Nobody is claiming that wormholes actually exist.

What is claimed is that there are several mathematical models for such wormholes that are consistent with general relativity and that it is therefore possible that they do exist. As for string theory, given the energy required for any direct observation, it is a virtual certainty that individual strings will never be directly observed.

However, other phenomena or experimental outcomes that would be consistent with string theory are being discussed and sought. For example, failure to close the energy balances on proton-proton interactions in the LHC at CERN may be interpreted as supporting the concept that sufficient energy was generated for some of the collision products to escape from the brane on which the LHC is located. This is directly pridicted by M Theory, and offsrping of string theory.

Unlike the concept of God, these scientific ideas and models are not based on unfounded beliefs generated in the minds of superstitious Paleolithic humans a few thousand years ago.

Until you understand and recognize the difference between scientifically and mathematically supported concepts and superstition, you are not going to be very convincing to anyone but yourself and folks who are sufficiently uninformed about science to believe as you do.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

They may well have had a paleolithic understanding of God and the universe. But I you assure God does not.

Edited November 27, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[altersteve]

Until you understand and recognize the difference between scientifically and mathematically supported concepts and superstition, you are not going to be very convincing to anyone but yourself and folks who are sufficiently uninformed about science to believe as you do.

And until you understand and recognize the difference between LDS doctrine and mere superstition, you are not going to be able to be very convincing to anyone but yourself and folks who are sufficiently uninformed about the gospel to believe as you do.

See how that works?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn,

If you are equating the concept of God with wormholes (special cases of black holes) and string theory, then you are demonstrating a very poor understanding of the math and science involved.

Black holes and worm holes were predicted mathematically as a consequence of general relativity. String theory is an active area in theoretical physics because it has the potential to address a number of issues including the harmonization of relativistic and quantum mechanics, and providing a more fundamental understanding of gravity.

In case you are not aware, there are now any number of direct astronomical observations confirming the presence of black holes, including the massive specimen at the center of our galaxy. Nobody is claiming that wormholes actually exist.

What is claimed is that there are several mathematical models for such wormholes that are consistent with general relativity and that it is therefore possible that they do exist. As for string theory, given the energy required for any direct observation, it is a virtual certainty that individual strings will never be directly observed.

However, other phenomena or experimental outcomes that would be consistent with string theory are being discussed and sought. For example, failure to close the energy balances on proton-proton interactions in the LHC at CERN may be interpreted as supporting the concept that sufficient energy was generated for some of the collision products to escape from the brane on which the LHC is located. This is directly pridicted by M Theory, and offsrping of string theory.

Unlike the concept of God, these scientific ideas and models are not based on unfounded beliefs generated in the minds of superstitious Paleolithic humans a few thousand years ago.

Until you understand and recognize the difference between scientifically and mathematically supported concepts and superstition, you are not going to be very convincing to anyone but yourself and folks who are sufficiently uninformed about science to believe as you do.

Perhaps you didn't understand the angle I was coming from in my discussion with another poster. I brought up string theory and worm holes as a platform to see if that would be deemed "supernatural". I never was trying to equate God with those concepts or theories I was just trying to better understand the definition of how someone else used the word "supernatural.

Hope that cleared things up.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

That well COULD be the case. I just have no idea where God and Heaven are.

Right now Wormholes are nothing more than a theorical construct. That would make them even less than the Supernatural. They MAY exist, they MAY not. It would be kinda cool if they did however.

The reaon I ask is because I get accused from time to time on making appeals with the supernatural when it comes to intelligent design theory. ID theory gets labeled a lot as making the appeal towards the supernatural as a way to discredit the theory outright from the get-go. The whole God-of-the-gaps is such an appeal that is for the most part a grand mischaracterisation of ID theory. But, there is no part of ID theory that makes any appeal to the supernatural. Just wanted to make that clear.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Mariner]

And until you understand and recognize the difference between LDS doctrine and mere superstition, you are not going to be able to be very convincing to anyone but yourself and folks who are sufficiently uninformed about the gospel to believe as you do.

See how that works?

Actually, if one looks up the definition of the word, one finds that there really is little, if any, difference between LDS doctrine and superstition (five definitions for which are provided below).

Which of the following definitions of superstition do not apply to Mormonism or to Mormon doctrine and teachings? (I have provided examples of how each definition each applies to Mormon doctrine in blue immediately below each definition.)

su·per·sti·tion

noun

1.

a

belief

or notion,

not

based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance,

occurrence,

proceeding, or the like.

Mormon leaders such as BKP preach over and over that the "mantle" (superstitions regarding the priesthood) supersede in importance the intellect (reason, logic and knowledge).

2. a

system

or collection of such beliefs.

The Mormon Church has a well correlated set of lesson manuals and teaching aids that are meant to promulgate the set of its beliefs, many of which it readily admits must be accepted by faith since no supporting evidence exists.

3. a custom or

act

based on such a belief.

The sacrament and other rituals are clearly based on such beliefs.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

The Mormon church induces an irrational fear of losing ones standing in the Church, family, or heavenly reward, through actions that the Church labels are sins, including the use of alcohol, or tobacco, failure to pay tithes to the Church, and any number of other infractions not recognized as illegal or immoral by society or even other Christian churches.

5. any blindly accepted belief or

notion

Pretty much all of the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church are offered without physical evidence or proof. Some have proven untenable over the years and have been rescinded. The fact that the Church strongly discourages the viewing or study of materials that in any way contradict the official LDS narrative of Church history should be an indication of the fact that members were and are encouraged to follow blindly

.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

Mormon leaders such as BKP preach over and over that the "mantle" (superstitions regarding the priesthood) supersede in importance the intellect (reason, logic and knowledge).

CFR that Mormon leaders preach that faith is more important than reason. Because that's not what the scriptures say. The Church has repeatedly stressed the importance of reason, logic, knowledge, and education.

a system or collection of such beliefs.

The Mormon Church has a well correlated set of lesson manuals and teaching aids that are meant to promulgate the set of its beliefs, many of which it readily admits must be accepted by faith since no supporting evidence exists.

I believe that supporting evidence does exist. And by the way, there is no such thing as the "Mormon Church." Use the Church's actual name please.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

The sacrament and other rituals are clearly based on such beliefs.

Fine.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

The Mormon church induces an irrational fear of losing ones standing in the Church, family, or heavenly reward, through actions that the Church labels are sins, including the use of alcohol, or tobacco, failure to pay tithes to the Church, and any number of other infractions not recognized as illegal or immoral by society or even other Christian churches.

I have never seen the Church attempt to instill any sort of fear in its members. And, once again, it's not called the "Mormon Church."

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion

Pretty much all of the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church are offered without physical evidence or proof. Some have proven untenable over the years and have been rescinded. The fact that the Church strongly discourages the viewing or study of materials that in any way contradict the official LDS narrative of Church history should be an indication of the fact that members were and are encouraged to follow blindly.

Not "all" of the Church's claims have been offered without physical evidence. I believe that there is substantial evidence to support the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Book of Abraham, etc. Does that mean they're true? Of course not. But there is evidence. The only difference between you and I is that I don't believe the evidence for these things is conclusive. You believe that the evidence against them is conclusive. A witness from God is clearly required to believe the gospel, but that doesn't mean scholarship and physical evidence cannot strengthen one's testimony. Furthermore, I have never heard the Church say anything about how we should not study materials "that in any way contradict the official LDS narrative of Church history." The fact that materials such as Rough Stone Rolling and other such works are sold at Deseret Book and other LDS bookstores is proof that your claim here is false. Your claim is further proven false by the existence of the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the many other works written by LDS historians, published by the Church itself. What the Church "strongly discourages" is the study of dishonest scholarship.

When you refer to LDS doctrine as mere "superstition," do you have any idea how insulting that is? It's like calling the Church a "cult." It's downright offensive, no matter how accurate you may think the term is.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

You are being too cynical. But that's OK. I can get that way too.

I'm using "my" in the sense that I own them. I'm responsible for what I accept of religion, and science. Just as we all own them. IE; Einstein never did "accept" Quatum Mechanics. He went to his death bed trying to disprove it.

BCSpace is responsible for what he posts, and I have no control over it. I'm really not into discussing other posters posting habits. I let them sink or swim on their own merits. .

I'm well aware of the realities of science and religion. I'm not so arrogant as to claim that I know everything there is to know about science, and no scientist that I know of would say that either. So I allow for new ideas, theories, that may well overturn some of what what we thought was settled. However I don't expect wholesale revisions of established science. The same can be said of the LDS religion. LDS believe that God will reveal more, and important things about his kingdom.

There is right now are ongoing experiments by CERN and others to see if the speed of light really is the cosmic speed limit. I don't expect that it will be overturned, but refusing to do the tests because of some preconceived notion isn't good science either. I'm so old that I remember when it was widely thought that no one could excellerate past 150 MPH in a quarter of a mile. Now they're doing better that 300 MPH. I believe a good rule of thumb it to is stick with what is shown, until it is shown otherwise.

No one has yet shown how the Resurrection is accomplished, but I still believe it anyway. So in that sense all of Christianity, and a great many other religions that can't be supported from the science. However I'm sure that God knows how it is done, and we all will someday. There is a rule of philosophy that just because you don't understand something it doesn't follow that no one does/can.

I have no idea where Kolob is. For all I know it is right here, If as the scientist think there are infinite number of dimensions. God could well be in another dimension As such, distances just don't have much bearing on prayer, or God. But I really don't know. I see through that glass darkly just like Paul.

I have a pretty good handle on science, not perfect but pretty good , just as I have a pretty good handle on what I believe. I make no apologies for that.

Just a long history of knowing that things change. What was once thought to be the final truth turned out just a short step forwards in the persuit of Godhood.

thesometimesaint,

If you place the observation of superluminal speed for mass-carrying particles on par with the observation of a new dragster record in the quarter mile, then you don't appreciate the science involved, sorry.

Special relativity is science, and it puts a limit on the local speed of light, or anything else, for that matter at 3.0 exp 10 cm/s. There is an elegant mathematical proof of this, the equations for which can be derived by several routes and from several valid sets of starting assumptions. Both special and general relativity stand confirmed many thousands (if not millions) of times over.

So the folks at CERN do need to check out their data, and they do need to understand why they are having problems with their measurements in order to maintain their credibility in other areas. When all this is sorted out and checked with confirming or disconfirming experimentation and observations what they will not find (and you can take this to the bank), is that mass carrying neutrinos can attain a group velocity that is faster than that of light in a vacuum.

On the other hand, there are no physical laws that limit the acceleration or speed of a dragster unless that dragster begins to approach 3.0 exp 10 cm/s. There are all kinds of practical problems in speeding up dragsters including available energy and power, strength or materials human ability to stand high accelerations, etc. But until one approaches the speed of light, it is at least theoretically possible to attain ever higher speeds and accelerations. Superluminal dragsters are not possible.

When you say that you expect a wholesale revision of science (and remember that we are talking mainly about physics here), you are not demonstrating a very deep understanding of some of the fundamentals. Most physicists would say that they expect physics to be refined not revised. Even if we eventually do decide that strings underlie physical reality, or that we have half a dozen hidden dimensions, or do eventually better characterize and understand dark matter or dark energy, physics here on Earth will not change much. Gravity will still operate exactly as it did in the time of Newton, as will light (Newton's other fascination). We will still be using the same equations to launch satellites and send probes to distant planets and asteroids and to make GPS work.

Sure, computers will get faster and more powerful, sensors and detectors will become more selective and specific and, well sensitive, nanotechnology will develop and so will other technologies that we have perhaps not yet even invented, but these are tools. They help us understand and refine physics, they are not physics.

They will not allow us to travel at superluminal speeds or to revise or break other laws of nature. They will help us to refine our understanding or these laws. Can you see the difference?

Can you see that if religion and science are to be reconciled, then it is up to religion to make the necessary changes so that reconciliation can be accomplished?

As it has been for the last 400 years or so, science is moving ahead and religion must either move to catch up or find itself in ever more and deeper conflict with science.

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

In response to your CFR about the attitude of the Church and Church leaders to intellectuals and intellectual pursuits, please see Elder Boyd K. Packer's address as linked below:

“The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect”

In many talks and publications, the LDS General Authorities warn against intellectualism and against putting trust in the learned.

Again, Boyd K, Packer's "Some things that are true are not very useful." comment comes to mind here.

As to the use of the term superstition in describing religious doctrine, just because it is not all that complimentary does not mean that it does not apply or that it is not justified.

Some on this board strongly object to the term "magic" when used to describe claimed supernatural aspects of Mormon doctrine. Yet Richard Bushman, an active Mormon and Joseph Smith biographer, found that magic was indeed important in the foundation of the LDS Church and described his findings in detail in Rough Stone Rolling.

Superstition is in no way unique to the LDS Church. You will find it used in the definition of, and as synonymous with, religion in several dictionaries, as one of the definitions I found illustrates. If you don't think that the two terms are closely related (and even synonymous in some uses), just try a Google search using the two words together as search terms.

If its use offends you, I apologize.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

Mariner, Elder Packer was not saying that reason is not important, only that faith is more important. He was therefore not saying that we should believe blindly. Again, the Church has repeatedly stressed the importance of education and knowledge, and the scriptures are quite clear that pondering (i.e., using reason and logic) is what we should do before we pray, about anything. The Lord commands us to reason with Him, to seek after knowledge of both spiritual and temporal things, and to obtain as much education as possible. He gave us a brain, so we're expected to use it.

Your implication that the Church wishes that its members believe blindly, and that it suggests this by downsizing the importance of using one's own intellect, is false.

[Mariner]

Mariner, Elder Packer was not saying that reason is not important, only that faith is more important. He was therefore not saying that we should believe blindly. Again, the Church has repeatedly stressed the importance of education and knowledge, and the scriptures are quite clear that pondering (i.e., using reason and logic) is what we should do before we pray, about anything. The Lord commands us to reason with Him, to seek after knowledge of both spiritual and temporal things, and to obtain as much education as possible. He gave us a brain, so we're expected to use it.

Your implication that the Church wishes that its members believe blindly, and that it suggests this by downsizing the importance of using one's own intellect, is false.

Altersteve,

The first sentence of your response in Post #117 is a good definition of superstition. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, or unfounded belief.

To state that one should consider faith (unfounded belief) to be more important than reason or logic (evidence based belief) pretty much constitutes a statement claiming the primacy of superstition over reason. And this is from both you and a General Authority of the Church.

Instead of considering it as derogatory (especially when you readily and frankly provide it as an explanation), perhaps you should consider owning superstition in the same way that Richard Bushman decided to own magic in Rough Stone Rolling.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

Altersteve,

The first sentence of your response in Post #117 is a good definition of superstition. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, or unfounded belief. To state that one should consider unfounded belief more important than evidence based belief (reason) is pretty much by definition a statement of the primacy of superstition over reason. And this is from a General Authority of the Church.

I like how you're gradually changing your position here. I don't think you even realize you're doing it.

[Mariner]

I like how you're gradually changing your position here. I don't think you even realize you're doing it.

You are correct. I was not aware that I was changing my position. If you have a different view of where I stand after Post #118 than you had before Post #118, perhaps it is because you are looking from a different position.

[altersteve]

Sorry, no, I'm not.

[cdowis]

Rob Osborn:

Simple words.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1:: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;

This definition has some logical difficulties.

Is quantum mechanics supernatural (ignoring the requirement that anything relating to God is supernatural)? Can God also interact in the visible observable universe, such as eating bread and fish? Was that act a supernatural event?

Normally supernatural relates to things which God alone can do, such as turning water into wine or calming a storm with only a spoken word.

[jo1952]

I would like to add what I believe to be the LDS evolutionary scientists POV as I see it-

LDS scientists who believe in evolution believe in a God, even a Creator. They believe though that God is not scientifically discernable through any testing or found evidence. All they see, through their scientific lenses, are the footprints of nature. If pressed on the subject about the role of God in the creation, they can't or don't want to place God- the Creator, at any scientifically discernable location or point. He (God) must remain indiscernable, at least from a scientific standpoint. Because of this fact, they then must try to reconcile how the Creator even fits into this theory they hold which has no place for Him. I often think, they must believe He actually did something to stir the pot ages and eons ago just as long as it was far enough back, that scientists can't trace it to be scintifically discernable. They are trutly afraid that at some point God does become discernable scientifically and in so doing, they may lose their theory and so to combat this they wage war against anyone who would attempt to unravel the mystery and seek to find the scientifically discernable link. Their number one opponent and arch enemy is thus- anyone who would propose such a thing as nature actually having a signature of a Higher intelligence. Imagine that?

They must also fight this ongoing battle to defeat the philosophy that all roads eventually lead back to God. I see it as a war they must battle therefore with themselves- a terrible battle for identity versus ones faith. On the one hand they want to believe that God is manifest in all things, but on the other work to wage war on all those who seek to establish that road of truth back to God. Why is it that they are so afraid that We might actually find out that there actually is a discernable God? What would there be to lose? LDS evolution believing scientists have found themselves cornered with the obvious paradox- place an actual intelligent Creator into a theory that has no room for God.

I have been astonished to read some of the things said on this board by LDS who believe in evolution and who place God outside of their scientific work. I have read comments like: "Science cannot include God" (yet they are very into following the scientific theories with vigor and excitement...all while knowing God has not been included. The most baffling comment I have come across on this board was made by an individual who made the claim that he worships at the altar of science. If I am not mistaken, isn't this idolatry??

Paul wrote about this very phenomena as did Peter. Even Jesus alludes to it while He is visiting with the Nephites. In fact in 3 Nephi 26:8-10, I would offer that since the general members of the Church who have received these things to try their faith, have not received any further writings, that we have not done such a great job. Albeit, I do believe that individuals can and do receive personal revelation which is not made privy to the general Church membership. I would not be surprised if this is some of the same information and teachings which are on the plates which are currently being withheld from us. For if a person is ready, Father will grant unto them what they are ready to receive; however, just as in days past, we are not allowed to write down or discuss such revelations unless prompted to do so by the Holy Ghost.

As an aside, with all of the theorized improvements (or at least the interpreted improvements) in the species, why is it that all of evolution has not not been able to make man, or any living creature, immortal? The way evolution is worshipped, you would think that it would have progressed to the point where physical death was no longer the end result of whatever great advances or strides have been observed. Or is man excitedly standing by waiting for the day they can claim that evolution has the power to create and sustain life eternally? Ultimately, isn't this the real dream of the evolutionist? As such, isn't that a dangerous quest for anyone who believes in God? I mean, it seems to take over and usurp God's ability to create physical life and death. What then is the purpose of the Atonement?? What of the purpose of life and why we are here to begin with?

Best regards,

jo

[Calm]

Jo, do you believe that God can be found using the scientific method? Do you believe his actions can be measured using the scientific method? Do you believe that science can tell us anything about what God is?

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

I'm just using the dictionary definition.

Can a God interact in our visable physical universe? That is a religious question not a scientiffic one. None the less, yes I believe that the God(s) do interact. However outside of the Scriptures, Testimonials, and personal religious experience I'd be hard pressed to show a physical example.