God; The Intelligent Designer

[thesometimesaint]

jo 1952:

Bristle Cone pines are still alive after 6000 years. The Pando Aspen trees are some 80,000 years old. While not immortal these are far older than the Young Earthers claim for the entire earth.

[David T]

I'm not sure an allowance for strategic spiritual 'promptings' 'suggestions' or 'nudges' (the seeming general standard way of God's interactions with mankind which still allow for our own choices, and letting us in many cases believe everything was 'our own idea') throughout history or even the evolving animal kingdom would necessarily alter in any way the scientific observations or explanations concerning the development of life, or negate the need to view God as having a responsible guiding organizational hand in modern life's current form.

[Rob Osborn]

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?

This reminds me of an analogy- A lot of people can look close at the mountainside with binoclulars and see the forest. Some scientists can't see it because of all the trees in the way. Then you have that special evolutionist group who just plain forget to remove the lens caps. Evolutionists are thus blind to the completely obvious and logical- perhaps they forgot to open their eyes at all.

I believe that the study of science tells us a lot about God. In fact, the more we study, the more I am convinced of his mighty works. The preciseness of all that is in nature and the universe tells me a lot about how intelligent God really is.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

I kinda like God myself. But then I don't conflate the tool with the tool user.

[cinepro]

If its use offends you, I apologize.

If two words are synonymous, why would you choose to use the one that causes offense?

[Mariner]

If two words are synonymous, why would you choose to use the one that causes offense?

That is a fair question.

Would my comments have been received in a more positive light if I had compared the religion of Paloelithic humans to Mormonism?

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

No more than if you were comparing the actions of present day Atheists with some of the less than savory Atheists of the 20th Century.

Edited November 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mariner]

Mariner:

No more than if you were comparing the actions of present day Atheists with some of the less than savory Atheists of the 20th Century.

Interesting comparison. Not sure that the analogy holds, though.

While religion and superstition are comprised of sets of unfounded beliefs in magic and/or the supernatural to which the religious adhere, atheists are defined as those who do not share those unfounded beliefs (and agnostics are not sure, or don't care, I suppose).

So, in order to fairly compare Mariner to Pol Pot, you would need to be able to reasonably assert that Mariner was a deranged, murderous maniac (which would not be possible at this time.)

To fairly compare a modern day religionist to a religious Paleolithic individual (in terms of the definitions in play here), I would only need to reasonably assert that both held unfounded beliefs and that these beliefs played a significant role in forming their worldview. In other words, I would only need to reasonably assert that they both inhabited a "demon-haunted world" (as Carl Sagan liked to describe the world of the religious).

Edited November 29, 2011 by Mariner

[LeSellers]

religion and superstition are comprised of sets of unfounded beliefs in magic and/or the supernatural to which the religious adhere

"Unfounded" is pejorative here. Our beliefs are "unfounded" only if you arbitrarily exclude personal revelation. You do so because you have not received any. The mere fact that you do not "see" what we see is not sufficient reason to deny our experience.

Love exists. You cannot measure it, cannot weigh it, cannot take its temperature. You cannot (and I suppose, do not) deny its reality because you have experienced it, but that experience was completely non-scientific. An autistic would not be able to share that experience as we (you and I) do, so, to him, "love" is no less based on unfounded in magic or the supernatural; therefore, love does not exist. And he would be totally wrong.

Lehi

[jo1952]

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?

In a nut shell, the simplest answers without need for their own threads to explain them:

1. No. The Holy Ghost is the witness on the earth. The scientific method may bring curiosity to someone seeking God. However those who believe like this board's LDS poster who claimed you must remove God from science, have already removed God from His own Creation. Additionally, the way that most people come to exercise faith in Jesus is as a result of hearing and being taught the Gospel message.

2. No. ONLY the Holy Ghost reveals truth. The scientific method, at best, generates theories which are left to various interpretations by the people who study and observe them. It is a subjective exercise. The Truth which the Holy Ghost reveals is experienced spiritually -- it is not something which can be recognized in a worldly way or method.

3. Only if a person knows and recognizes that God is the Creator. Once a person knows this, they will see God's hands in the Creation.

So, Calmoriah, what is the ultimate goal of the evolutionist? What is it that they want to be able to see happen through evolution?

What do you think of such teachings as this:

Romans 1:16-23 (bolded words added)

¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (yet man takes God out of science--the study of His own creation???): for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

¹⁷For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (and who is living by science? Is this a righteous method?)

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

¹⁹Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.(Personally, I do not need science to know about God or to know that God is the Creator.)

²⁰For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

²¹Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

²²Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

²³And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

It just seems to me that this is one of the things which explains why the Church has not received more from the plates:

3 Nephi 26:9-10

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

Remember that the above two verses followed these (think and ponder on this!):

3 Nephi 26:3-4

3 And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory--yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fevent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;

4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--

Why do you think we have not received more? We must be doing something wrong. Are you willing to look at the big picture of what is happening with science? Maybe, just maybe, by taking God out of science, re-writing scripture as a result, worshiping at the altar of science, etc., is an indication that even faithful members of the Church have embraced science and turned it into a worldly pursuit of the Creation making man "wise" by their own determination, rather than focusing on the Creator? Could this have something to do with why we have not received any more of what is hidden on the plates?

3 Nephi 27:33

And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

All of scripture points to a spiritual life, and a rejection of the world. We are to use the world as a training ground to learn good from evil. We are also to learn obedience to certain commandments from Father. Once someone embraces the world, they are on the path of the wide gate. Science denies the existence of anything supernatural. Yet our walk in faith is entirely a walk in the supernatural.

To me, it appears that science is a very "wide gate"; especially when man holds his own interpretations up to be counted as in agreement with man-made "peer" reviews and such -- seeking after justification for their great wisdom among other men.

Just some things to think about.

Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

"Unfounded" is pejorative here. Our beliefs are "unfounded" only if you arbitrarily exclude personal revelation. You do so because you have not received any. The mere fact that you do not "see" what we see is not sufficient reason to deny our experience.

Love exists. You cannot measure it, cannot weigh it, cannot take its temperature. You cannot (and I suppose, do not) deny its reality because you have experienced it, but that experience was completely non-scientific. An autistic would not be able to share that experience as we (you and I) do, so, to him, "love" is no less based on unfounded in magic or the supernatural; therefore, love does not exist. And he would be totally wrong.

Lehi

I'm predicting that Mariner will say that there is no physical evidence that this personal revelation is authentic, so he'll simply dismiss that part of your post. He'll probably say that since our understanding of God conflicts with his understanding of science (since he clearly knows everything there is to know about science), then there must be no God to personally reveal things, so personal revelation is proven false. Then he'll try to say something about how love can in fact be scientifically studied, without providing any real references for that claim. He'll probably talk about the fact that since people in love are observable, and he'll probably talk about the studies on the reactions that happen in a person's brain when they see a picture of their lover.

Then he'll probably make some other statement about the perceived differences between science and religion (oh, sorry, I mean "superstition") that really has nothing to do with anything. So this clearly "proves" you're wrong.

Edited November 28, 2011 by altersteve

[jo1952]

jo 1952:

Bristle Cone pines are still alive after 6000 years. The Pando Aspen trees are some 80,000 years old. While not immortal these are far older than the Young Earthers claim for the entire earth.

This is also an interpretation of what has been observed. Regardless of whatever the true age of the Pando Aspen tree, it is, as you have pointed out, mortal. The Young Earth issue is beyond the scope of the OP. It could also impact (determined by interpretation) the belief or non-belief in a world-wide flood.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

There is no mystery as to the evolutionary relationship between the cow and the whale. Whales and cows share a common ancestor in the Artiodactyla order that looked roughly like a mouse deer and lived about 50-60 million years ago.

Oh please. If the mystery is gone then show me where I can find the nucleotide by nucleotide mutation trail that leads from the mouse deer to the whale. If you can't provide that then how about the DNA of the mouse deer before the transition to whale? If you can't give me that information then show me where I can find the fossils that show the transition. I want to see just 10% of the transition fossils. You should be able to calculate how many steps it took from mouse to whale. Just show me 10% of them in fossil form. If however you can't give me any of the things I ask for you may want to reconsider your statement that there is "no mystery".

[Mariner]

"Unfounded" is pejorative here. Our beliefs are "unfounded" only if you arbitrarily exclude personal revelation. You do so because you have not received any. The mere fact that you do not "see" what we see is not sufficient reason to deny our experience.

Love exists. You cannot measure it, cannot weigh it, cannot take its temperature. You cannot (and I suppose, do not) deny its reality because you have experienced it, but that experience was completely non-scientific. An autistic would not be able to share that experience as we (you and I) do, so, to him, "love" is no less based on unfounded in magic or the supernatural; therefore, love does not exist. And he would be totally wrong.

Lehi

I strongly disagree that the term "unfounded" or "unfounded belief" is pejorative. Faith is unfounded belief by definition:

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof / belief that is not based on proof (that is unfounded belief)

And this is not some obscure, little known, or archaic definition. Any number of instances of faith defined directly and specifically as unfounded belief can be found in the literature.

Love is an emotion, or rather a complex set of emotions, that can include everything from respect and empathy to lust. Faith is the same thing. It arises from a conditioned emotional response to specific stimuli. These stimuli often include religious ritual, prayer and meditation or reading of prescribed scriptures.

No matter how nonsensical these scriptures or scriptural narratives really are, they make sense to the properly prepared devotee and give rise to faith. If you don't agree with this, please consider for a moment the faith of the Scientologist in Xenu and the Thetans. Even though I was LDS for several decades, LDS scriptures make about as much sense to me now as the foundational narrative of Scientology would make to you.

Bottom lines is, emotional responses do not constitute evidence, and they certainly do no constitute proof. Beliefs based on emotional responses are therefore unfounded. That is why such beliefs are both require and constitute faith.

[altersteve]

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof / belief that is not based on proof (that is unfounded belief)

Like Lehi said, there is proof for our beliefs. It's just not the kind of proof that can be shared or studied in a science lab. Only God can give it to you.

[Franktalk]

Bristle Cone pines are still alive after 6000 years. The Pando Aspen trees are some 80,000 years old. While not immortal these are far older than the Young Earthers claim for the entire earth.

You know I age 5000 years every time I read one of your posts. So just maybe time is relative in some cases.

[Mariner]

Like Lehi said, there is proof for our beliefs. It's just not the kind of proof that can be shared or studied in a science lab. Only God can give it to you.

Your argument here is circular to say the least. You are stating that only God can provide proof of God. Although nobody has any credible evidence of God's existence, an existence which you admit must be taken on faith, you then claim that this God exists because you choose to believe that he exists, based on faith.

Not really much of an argument, is it?

[altersteve]

Your argument here is circular to say the least. You are stating that only God can provide proof of God. Although nobody has any credible evidence of God's existence, an existence which you admit must be taken on faith, you then claim that this God exists because you choose to believe that he exists, based on faith.

Not really much of an argument, is it?

Yes, only God can give undeniable proof that He exists, in the same way that only I can give undeniable proof that I exist, or that only you can give undeniable proof that you exist.

Edited November 29, 2011 by altersteve

[Freedom]

Your argument here is circular to say the least.

Mariner,

You are the master of circular arguments so you should should know. I have proof that God lives but it is a proof that an atheist cannot understand so there is no need to justify or prove it. By the same token, I have no need to prove why I trust certain people or why I enjoy certain foods. Regardless, science does not disprove the existence of God, it only attempts to interpret the data that is currently available. Scientists often get it quite wrong but only the discovery of more data can correct the error. Nevertheless, science is the vehicle God has given us to understand his creations. Your position is, I believe, that if you cannot view it with empirical data it does not exist. I am certainly glad the scientific community does not adhere to this dogma.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

It is all relative to an eternal being.

[Mariner]

Mariner,

You are the master of circular arguments so you should should know. I have proof that God lives but it is a proof that an atheist cannot understand so there is no need to justify or prove it. By the same token, I have no need to prove why I trust certain people or why I enjoy certain foods. Regardless, science does not disprove the existence of God, it only attempts to interpret the data that is currently available. Scientists often get it quite wrong but only the discovery of more data can correct the error. Nevertheless, science is the vehicle God has given us to understand his creations.

Freedom,

If you perceive my arguments here as circular, then I would suggest that you either don't understand the term or the argument. It is also clear that you have an extremely limited and biased perception when it comes to the issue of science vs. religion. Here are a few basic principles that you might want to keep in mind when approaching the issue:

- Science is based on fact and evidence.

- Science, through application of the scientific method, is the only valid and proven means of understanding the world and gaining useful knowledge about it.

- Progress in science is based on observation, experimentation, hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing.

- If a hypothesis is not directly falsifiable, or at a minimum, does not have a valid mathematical model to support it, then it cannot be considered as a scientific hypothesis or tested for validity.

- Science does not deal with the supernatural, or more accurately, it does not deal with people's belief in the supernatural or in magic.

- Science works toward consensus through the process of continued research and the open and free questioning and criticism of previous work and beliefs. Thus, there is universal agreement on the basic principles of science.

- Religion is based on faith.

- Religion asks its adherents to accept as fact all kind of claims for which there is little or no relevant evidence.

- Religion does not work toward consensus.

- Religions are numerous and contradictory and religionists from different traditions can often agree on very little.

- Religion, historically and in general, promotes tribalism and ignorance and is at the root of much of the conflict in the world.

Your position is, I believe, that if you cannot view it with empirical data it does not exist. I am certainly glad the scientific community does not adhere to this dogma.

Your assertion here that science does not "adhere to this dogma" (of requiring empirical evidence) again demonstrates a severe lack of understanding. The word empirical, when applied to data or information, indicates that such data or information resulted from the process of observation and experimentation. Science is based on observation and experimentation.

If you believe that work at the cutting edge of science such as string theory or M Theory, or concepts of dark energy or matter, are exception to this approach, you would be mistaken. String theory and M Theory have a credible and hard won basis in mathematics, and scientists are working on the design of confirming experiments. While strings will never be observed directly, M Theory in general predicts outcomes to certain experiments in high energy particle physics that might be doable. The concepts of dark matter and dark energy arose from multiple measurements and observations.

[Storm Rider]

Freedom,

If you perceive my arguments here as circular, then I would suggest that you either don't understand the term or the argument. It is also clear that you have an extremely limited and biased perception when it comes to the issue of science vs. religion. Here are a few basic principles that you might want to keep in mind when approaching the issue:

- Science is based on fact and evidence.

- Science, through application of the scientific method, is the only valid and proven means of understanding the world and gaining useful knowledge about it.

- Progress in science is based on observation, experimentation, hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing.

- If a hypothesis is not directly falsifiable, or at a minimum, does not have a valid mathematical model to support it, then it cannot be considered as a scientific hypothesis or tested for validity.

- Science does not deal with the supernatural, or more accurately, it does not deal with people's belief in the supernatural or in magic.

- Science works toward consensus through the process of continued research and the open and free questioning and criticism of previous work and beliefs. Thus, there is universal agreement on the basic principles of science.

- Religion is based on faith.

- Religion asks its adherents to accept as fact all kind of claims for which there is little or no relevant evidence.

- Religion does not work toward consensus.

- Religions are numerous and contradictory and religionists from different traditions can often agree on very little.

- Religion, historically and in general, promotes tribalism and ignorance and is at the root of much of the conflict in the world.

Your assertion here that science does not "adhere to this dogma" (of requiring empirical evidence) again demonstrates a severe lack of understanding. The word empirical, when applied to data or information, indicates that such data or information resulted from the process of observation and experimentation. Science is based on observation and experimentation.

If you believe that work at the cutting edge of science such as string theory or M Theory, or concepts of dark energy or matter, are exception to this approach, you would be mistaken. String theory and M Theory have a credible and hard won basis in mathematics, and scientists are working on the design of confirming experiments. While strings will never be observed directly, M Theory in general predicts outcomes to certain experiments in high energy particle physics that might be doable. The concepts of dark matter and dark energy arose from multiple measurements and observations.

If I am not mistaken, the great bastion of reason known as science gave us such illustrious "theories" as spontaneous generation. Today we can look back on those days and laugh at how silly those scientiets were. Today, scientists have postulated so many different things but still know so very little; yet you would have me believe that "science" knows the facts? Exactly where do you gain any confidence that science really knows what it is talking about? What do we "know" today that in 100 years we look back on with humor at how stupid our scientists were?

I am sorry to tell you this, but the confidence that you so blithely put in science is every bit as demanding of faith as faith in God demands. As for me, I will taking that burning presence of the Holy Spirit every day over some twit telling me they actually understand the human genome, dark matter, black holes, the common cold, is wine good for you, or any of the other things scientists try to discuss today. You figure out the common cold and help me to never suffer from allergies and then we will talk; until then, please have the decency and honesty to admit, science does not ???? from shineola any better than a religious man does.

[Mariner]

Yes, only God can give undeniable proof that He exists, in the same way that only I can give undeniable proof that I exist, or that only you can give undeniable proof that you exist.

Assuming that you and I are real humans, then our existence could be verified in any number of ways, most of which would not require our participation. For example, I have been photographed, fingerprinted, 3D face mapped (by IR laser), and DNA profiled (or fingerprinted). If one were to assert that I existed and were present, say at a local steakhouse, it would be possible to match my photograph, fingerprints, 3D face scan and DNA profile to prove their claim. Same with you had your existence been similarly documented.

The existence of God, on the other hand, could not be verified without out his participation. And since the claims made about the attributes and nature of God are extraordinary to say the least, then extraordinary proof could reasonably be required.

[altersteve]

Assuming that you and I are real humans, then our existence could be verified in any number of ways, most of which would not require our participation. For example, I have been photographed, fingerprinted, 3D face mapped (by IR laser), and DNA profiled (or fingerprinted). If one were to assert that I existed and were present, say at a local steakhouse, it would be possible to match my photograph, fingerprints, 3D face scan and DNA profile to prove their claim. Same with you had your existence been similarly documented.

All of those things are forged. I deny that photograph is really of you, that those fingerprints are really yours, that the face map is an accurate depiction of what you look like, and the DNA profile is your DNA at all. There's no way anyone can prove to me otherwise. Now what? All you can do is prove it to me yourself. I can deny that you're really you unless you meet me in person and shake my hand, so that I know for sure that I'm not seeing things. Otherwise I'm just going to believe that the government is just creating these photographs, fingerprints, 3D face maps, and DNA profiles as part of some conspiracy.

You're the only one who can give undeniable proof to anyone that you are who you say you are. Same with God.

Once again, we do have proof that God exists, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His Church, that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are authentic translations of ancient texts, etc. It's just not the type of proof that you will accept, simply because you can't understand it. Because of that, we feel no need to prove it to you or give you any sort of understanding. That's the Holy Ghost's job.

Edited November 29, 2011 by altersteve

[thesometimesaint]

altersteve:

I had a dream once that I was a butterfly. Now I'm puzzled. Am I a man dreaming of being a butterfly or am I a butterfly dreaming of being a man?