Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

[The Nehor]

There is a small but vocal group of largely Christian biblical literalists. Why? I don't know why. Such doesn't make any sense to me or my LDS Christian religion.

 

I can't take seriously any biblical literalist who is overweight like the guy in the video. God hates gluttons and therefore hates him.......literally. Therefore I can safely ignore him. Checkmate.

[mfbukowski]

Good for those all night drives fleeing leaving Utah/Idaho to go home, but not much else.

LOL!

[mfbukowski]

You may find the Mormon Transhumanist's New God Argument interesting. I'm personally not persuaded as to the tack that most take on it being a bit more orthodox in my theology than most of them are. But, it is interesting nonetheless.

Interesting, but I remain unconvinced that technology will guarantee that we will make spiritual progress.  It hasn't so far.

 

We could just end up with artificial life forms who are totally immoral jerks.

[rodheadlee]

I am not that type of scientist, and I don't play one on the television. I'm just an old retired psychiatric social worker.

 

What it essentially means is that Darwin was right that "lineages can diverge gradually over time and that the fossil record contains gaps that can greatly reduce the chances of finding fossils for certain periods or particular types of organisms". Or IOW we will probably never have all the representative fossils from every time period and from every organism. Nor it is necessary to have them for a good picture of evolution.

Thanks for the translation.

[rameumptom]

Mt Rushmore is evidence that mankind created the Old Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire. (/sarcasm)

 

Why do we attempt to limit both God and science?  Why do we attempt to use the Bible as a science text, and the writings of Dawkins and Sagan as religious texts?  Foolish mankind!  Know ye not that there are 5 different versions of the Creation in the scriptures and more than one scientist with a theory?

[mfbukowski]

The only thing I do not like about this forum is that they randomly ban you and never say why and you cant even go back to follow along to even see how the discussion is going. Some people just feel holier than thou I guess.

I feel that we both agree on more than most others think, we just have a different philosophy when it comes to science. Nothing wrong with that.

Exactly, and that doesn't matter an iota.

 

I don't see physicists or theologians lining up and plunking down grant money for the privilege of finding out what anyone on this thread thinks about anything.  

[mfbukowski]

Mt Rushmore is evidence that mankind created the Old Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire. (/sarcasm)

 

Why do we attempt to limit both God and science?  Why do we attempt to use the Bible as a science text, and the writings of Dawkins and Sagan as religious texts?  Foolish mankind!  Know ye not that there are 5 different versions of the Creation in the scriptures and more than one scientist with a theory?

I owe you about a dozen rep points for that one!

[thesometimesaint]

Mt Rushmore is evidence that mankind created the Old Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire. (/sarcasm)

 

Why do we attempt to limit both God and science?  Why do we attempt to use the Bible as a science text, and the writings of Dawkins and Sagan as religious texts?  Foolish mankind!  Know ye not that there are 5 different versions of the Creation in the scriptures and more than one scientist with a theory?

 

Science is a limited way of looking at our natural world/universe. We restrict it to just matter and energy. The supernatural(unlimited Omnipotent God), whatever its good ideas, can not be used to explain the natural.

[wenglund]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Rich Williams, my old professor, the one i took my last class from and probably the most intelligent and profound of them all.

Babysat his kids too. Brilliant wife.

Edited August 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Very good.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Exactly, and that doesn't matter an iota.

 

I don't see physicists or theologians lining up and plunking down grant money for the privilege of finding out what anyone on this thread thinks about anything.  

 

the problem is that many fellow LDS don't care what the physicists or theologians say.  

[mfbukowski]

the problem is that many fellow LDS don't care what the physicists or theologians say.  

And 90 per cent of those who care dont understand it anyway

[MormonFreeThinker]

And 90 per cent of those who care dont understand it anyway

 

they don't have to understand physics or academic theology, but at least they should take the physicist and theologians seriously. Many fellow LDS dismiss what they say just because it doesn't make sense to them. 

 

The problem is that many fellow LDS think that scientists are full of speculations about Biology and Physics, and that conclusion has caused other LDS members to have a faith crisis. 

Edited August 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Nofear]

Being fond of free will and such I watched Richard N. Williams's talk "science, Religion, and Agency". Not bad.

 

I agree (and have a long time now) that true agency requires us to be  1) uncreate, 2) must have some aspect of us which is indeterministic (and not merely random) and 3) we must have information

 

I also agree that we do not use utilitarian ethics (rather we are deontological in our ethics). However, I might diverge in believing that our omniscient diety uses utilitarian ethics.

 

 

Fun question at the end: "Who's laboratory must close if there is a God?"

[Ahab]

Fun question at the end: "Who's laboratory must close if there is a God?"

Rephrased: Whose laboratory will close if there is a supreme kind of being among all of the various kinds of beings that exist?

Rephrased again: Who will believe someone else who says the most intelligent kind of being has been found, and our kind is it?

Rephrased again: How long will some people be able to keep looking for a more intelligent species than our kind without realizing there isn't one?

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

the problem is that many fellow LDS don't care what the physicists or theologians say.  

 

This is only a problem for lonely physicists and theologians.

[Nofear]

This is only a problem for lonely physicists and theologians.

Don't worry, as a physicist I'll say with the collective "we" that "we" aren't too worried what you think either.

 

Though, in all seriousness, I found discussion board interaction much more palatable (science topics or otherwise) when I don't expect the other posters to change their mind (albeit there have been a few instances of that occurring).

[mfbukowski]

Being fond of free will and such I watched Richard N. Williams's talk "science, Religion, and Agency". Not bad.

 

I agree (and have a long time now) that true agency requires us to be  1) uncreate, 2) must have some aspect of us which is indeterministic (and not merely random) and 3) we must have information

 

I also agree that we do not use utilitarian ethics (rather we are deontological in our ethics). However, I might diverge in believing that our omniscient diety uses utilitarian ethics.

 

 

Fun question at the end: "Who's laboratory must close if there is a God?"

Amoebae move toward food and away from painful stimuli- does that mean they have agency and therefore are uncreated, have information, and have some aspect which is indeterministic?  Maybe the answer is yes- or no.   Actually no maybes about it- it is one or the other or not. 

 

I'm just playin'.

 

I think we get ourselves all messed up with these high-fallutin' words that we think mean something when really they mean anything we want them to mean.

 

That means they serve what we want of them and can be made into anything we wish.

[Stone holm]

Mt Rushmore is evidence that mankind created the Old Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire. (/sarcasm)

 

Why do we attempt to limit both God and science?  Why do we attempt to use the Bible as a science text, and the writings of Dawkins and Sagan as religious texts?  Foolish mankind!  Know ye not that there are 5 different versions of the Creation in the scriptures and more than one scientist with a theory?

Well man did unsuccessfully attempt to keep his face from falling. It went kaboom a few years back despite cables intended to keep the icon in place...poor NH libertarians.

[Rob Osborn]

God is the ultimate scientist. He is the author of the creation, the founder of our existence. So, why must we dismiss him in favor of the secular left?

[thesometimesaint]

God is the ultimate scientist. He is the author of the creation, the founder of our existence. So, why must we dismiss him in favor of the secular left?

 

Because science can not posit any God, a scientific literate one or not. Because the facts have a well-known liberal bias.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Because science can not posit any God

 

I disagree, perhaps one day scientists find conclusive scientific evidence for the existence of God, scientists should simply follow the evidence. For now, in my opinion the fine tuning argument is the strongest intellectual argument for the existence of a Creator, but I know that argument doesn't prove his existence, the argument may be right or wrong.  

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree, perhaps one day scientists find conclusive scientific evidence for the existence of God, scientists should simply follow the evidence. For now, in my opinion the fine tuning argument is the strongest intellectual argument for the existence of a Creator, but I know that argument doesn't prove his existence. 

 

 

Which God would that be? They may someday find that God, thus eliminate all need for faith, but I'm not hopeful. Which evidence would that be? Does God need a Starship? I don't know as the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it. With everything out there that can kill us I don't believe it is fine tuned for us. To me the "fine tuning" argument is just a rehash of the Watchmakers Analogy. In science we can't "prove"  anything correct. What we can do is prove a claim as false(at least in theory). Personally I believe in God. But can't use science to prove or disprove him.