Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

mfbukowski · August 11, 2014

The issue of evolution can certainly be viewed in that fundamentalist way, but it isn't necessary to do so even for members in good faith. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable for members to view evolution as an essential precept of the gospel, though we tend to use the term "progression" instead.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

THAT is exactly the point.

mfbukowski · August 11, 2014

Edit:
It seems Joseph Smith was a materialist and was commenting against such teachings as we're advocated by Rene Descartes in 1600s Europe.

This is exactly right. That is why we do not have the same concept of truth as the sectarians who go back even farther than Descartes, all the way back to Aristotle.

We are actually post modern in our understanding of truth- which is exactly appropriate because our ideas of truth came out of Joseph's time. Postmodernism was derived from Romanticism, the view that feelings are just as important if not more important than rationality.

Now we know that "rationality" includes both faith and reason, and these cannot be separated.

changed · August 11, 2014

I believe it comes down to the existence of true free will - our ability to act, and not just react.

Sectarian ideologies seem to reject the idea of true free will, see life as merely programmable robots that are just reacting to external stimuli.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/06/do-we-have-free-will-sam-harris-says-no/

As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would
be
him:
There is no extra part of me
that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23, 2007 — that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state — I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this. The role of luck, therefore, appears decisive.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/06/do-we-have-free-will-sam-harris-says-no/#ixzz3A55QYBU6

Religious people believe there is an extra part within us. Our belief in an eternal intelligence is the only entity that allows for free will.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

What was the first cause? This can be asked of sectarians and religious people alike of course, and it is only when a first cause to blame it all on does not exist that free will can exist. We do not act because "this is just the way we were made", part of us is uncreated, so we can't blame it on how we were made - this is free will. .... of course, not all we do is done through free will, eating sleping, breathing - we are a mixture of the spiritual and the physical, of things we can control, and things we cannot.

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2014

Nonsense. Speak English.

Better yet use a dictionary.

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2014

I believe it comes down to the existence of true free will - our ability to act, and not just react.
Sectarian ideologies seem to reject the idea of true free will, see life as merely programmable robots that are just reacting to external stimuli.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/06/do-we-have-free-will-sam-harris-says-no/
Religious people believe there is an extra part within us. Our belief in an eternal intelligence is the only entity that allows for free will.
What was the first cause? This can be asked of sectarians and religious people alike of course, and it is only when a first cause to blame it all on does not exist that free will can exist. We do not act because "this is just the way we were made", part of us is uncreated, so we can't blame it on how we were made - this is free will. .... of course, not all we do is done through free will, eating sleping, breathing - we are a mixture of the spiritual and the physical, of things we can control, and things we cannot.

Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Greek word synergia συνέργεια from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together".

Nofear · August 11, 2014

I believe it comes down to the existence of true free will - our ability to act, and not just react.

Galen Strawsen, a free will philosopher agrees (though he denies true free will). He offers a very concise outline against free will:

You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
In order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do

Philosophers do all kinds of wrangling to escape the argument but I don't buy any of it. Deterministic (including quantum indeterminism), strong emergence arguments (which I don't believe in), creatio ex nihilo theologies all fail to resolve it. Mormonism, however, simply and easily escapes the argument with #3 with our concept of the portion of us which is uncreate and not ultimately responsible to any other entity (God or otherwise).

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2014

Galen Strawsen, a free will philosopher agrees (though he denies true free will). He offers a very concise outline against free will:
You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
In order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do
Philosophers do all kinds of wrangling to escape the argument but I don't buy any of it. Deterministic (including quantum indeterminism), strong emergence arguments (which I don't believe in), creatio ex nihilo theologies all fail to resolve it. Mormonism, however, simply and easily escapes the argument with #3 with our concept of the portion of us which is uncreate and not ultimately responsible to any other entity (God or otherwise).

That logic falls apart after step one.

Rob Osborn · August 11, 2014

Better yet use a dictionary.

You always try those little tricks. Why not just admit the truth. You tried to refute ID with a video showing a person using ID to try to prove ID wrong. You still have to show how something like DNA as a language comes about in nature in some random process. Good luck!

The Nehor · August 11, 2014

Nonsense. Speak English.

That was written at a level any High School student should understand.

Nofear · August 11, 2014

That logic falls apart after step one.

Okalie dokalie. I've now revisited all opinion on the matter based on your casual assertion.

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2014

You always try those little tricks. Why not just admit the truth. You tried to refute ID with a video showing a person using ID to try to prove ID wrong. You still have to show how something like DNA as a language comes about in nature in some random process. Good luck!

Evolution is not random. It is descent with modification.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

thesometimesaint · August 11, 2014

In psychology B.F. Skinner promoted a deterministic causation model for behaviors. At a simplistic level it is accurate. OTOH I used the William Glasser's Choice Theory.

SEE http://www.wglasser.com/the-glasser-approach/choice-theory

Rob Osborn · August 11, 2014

Evolution is not random. It is descent with modification.
SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

So then, how did the complex system of DNA as an intelligent design become manifest in this supposed natural selection environment that in turn supposedly formulated the process we call life?

Perhaps more important is the big question of how is it possible that the random mixing of chemicals in an environment lead to specified intelligent information?

Edited August 11, 2014 by Rob Osborn

Rob Osborn · August 11, 2014

And that is the Crux of the issue at hand. How do theistic evolutionists reconcile the need and importance of God and then applying that need into actions in nature that cause life to come into existence? I hear a lot of evolutionists here say they belive in the Creator but then refuse to place the Creator into the mix because doing so is how Intelligent Design is defined. So, in reality, its either one believes in godless evolution or in intelligent design. You cannot have it both ways.

Rob Osborn · August 11, 2014

Ask yourself this one question, it thus defines all-

Is God and his intelligent designs required for life to come into existence or can life, all on its own, arise in the universe void of any intelligent plan to bring it to pass?

If God is required then you must believe in Intelligent Design.

The Nehor · August 11, 2014

Ask yourself this one question, it thus defines all-
Is God and his intelligent designs required for life to come into existence or can life, all on its own, arise in the universe void of any intelligent plan to bring it to pass?
If God is required then you must believe in Intelligent Design.

You are conflating words to force a conclusion.

The definition you give Intelligent Design here is that God somehow shaped the Universe in some way whether directly or indirectly. I expect all LDS believe in Intelligent Design in this sense. I know I do.

Yet you want to force the conclusion that Intelligent Design happens as Creationists argue for it (ie generally anti-evolution, 7 day creation, no death before Fall, etc).

You are trying to be tricky. You failed. This is the equivalent of pointing out that everyone should choose the right when making a decision (a proposition most would agree with) to try to get your opponents to concede that turning left is inherently wrong and one should not be an ambi-turner.

Rob Osborn · August 11, 2014

You are conflating words to force a conclusion.

The definition you give Intelligent Design here is that God somehow shaped the Universe in some way whether directly or indirectly. I expect all LDS believe in Intelligent Design in this sense. I know I do.

Yet you want to force the conclusion that Intelligent Design happens as Creationists argue for it (ie generally anti-evolution, 7 day creation, no death before Fall, etc).

You are trying to be tricky. You failed. This is the equivalent of pointing out that everyone should choose the right when making a decision (a proposition most would agree with) to try to get your opponents to concede that turning left is inherently wrong and one should not be an ambi-turner.

Not so at all, you miss the point. All intelligent design proposes is that the design we see in nature- that specified intelligent information in the form of life, etc, is not a random act brought on by events that were unguided random processes. Intelligent design still supports evolution, just not unguided evolution. Intelligent design proposes as its main principle that the complex life we see is not the end result of unguided random processes but rather the result of an intelligent design put into effect by an intelligent agent or other intelligent process.

Rob Osborn · August 11, 2014

I find it interesting that God and Jesus Christ can in fact be defined as "intelligent designers" and that in our religious beliefs we believe it was the very act and design of God for the reason that this planet and all life exist upon it. But, then for a LDS to then deny intelligent design and yet still believe in the creation by God, that is a contradiction of mass proportions.

The Nehor · August 11, 2014

Not so at all, you miss the point. All intelligent design proposes is that the design we see in nature- that specified intelligent information in the form of life, etc, is not a random act brought on by events that were unguided random processes. Intelligent design still supports evolution, just not unguided evolution. Intelligent design proposes as its main principle that the complex life we see is not the end result of unguided random processes but rather the result of an intelligent design put into effect by an intelligent agent or other intelligent process.

So suppose God set up the Big Bang in such a way that, knowing the future, He could expect life to form and humanity to eventually evolve without any further intervention beyond waiting for normal physical laws to sort out the problem. Would that be Intelligent Design or random processes?

cdowis · August 11, 2014

So suppose God set up the Big Bang in such a way that, knowing the future, He could expect life to form and humanity to eventually evolve without any further intervention beyond waiting for normal physical laws to sort out the problem. Would that be Intelligent Design or random processes?

LDS doctrine does not support that scenario, so I would call it a hypothetical.

cdowis · August 11, 2014

I find it interesting that God and Jesus Christ can in fact be defined as "intelligent designers" and that in our religious beliefs we believe it was the very act and design of God for the reason that this planet and all life exist upon it. But, then for a LDS to then deny intelligent design and yet still believe in the creation by God, that is a contradiction of mass proportions.

As an LDS, I deny Intelligent designer.

God did not design anything, but was the intelligent organizer because the designs have existed for eternity. There is neither a first chicken nor egg, they are co=existent. For every chicken there was an egg, and for every egg there was a chicken.

Edited August 11, 2014 by cdowis

The Nehor · August 11, 2014

LDS doctrine does not support that scenario, so I would call it a hypothetical.

I think that LDS doctrine could support such a scenario. I personally do not believe it is the correct one but I know faithful LDS who do.

Zakuska · August 11, 2014

That one is easy in math. There is an infinite number of decimals in an infinite number line.
The Watchmakers Analogy is a logical fallacy. It came about by Evolution.
SEE Synthesis of DNA in Lab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis

And yet there still was an outside cause. A "user" who engineered the result.

Zakuska · August 12, 2014

As an LDS, I deny Intelligent designer.
God did not design anything, but was the intelligent organizer because the designs have existed for eternity. There is neither a first chicken nor egg, they are co=existent. For every chicken there was an egg, and for every egg there was a chicken.

while I agree in spirit I have to disagree on technicalities. Some eggs are rotten and never form into a chick, Even though everything to form a chick was in place.

MormonFreeThinker · August 12, 2014

I expect all LDS believe in Intelligent Design in this sense. I know I do.

I believe in Intelligent Design, the scriptures talk about the creation of man, plants, and animals.

The Scriptures do not talk about the creation of bacteria and abiogenesis.

"So suppose God set up the Big Bang in such a way that, knowing the future"

For the fine tuning argument to work, abiogenesis had to be a natural event.

Edited August 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

Sign In

Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

Recommended Posts

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

changed

thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

Nofear

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

The Nehor

Nofear

thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

Rob Osborn

Rob Osborn

The Nehor

Rob Osborn

Rob Osborn

The Nehor

cdowis

cdowis

The Nehor

Zakuska

Zakuska

MormonFreeThinker

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

New FREE BYU Book on LDS and Evolution

Useful comments from Ben Spackman 1 2 3

What convinces y’all that Mormonism is true?

Eternal Gender: Why? (a part II, more focused thread) 1 2 3 4 5

Christopher Hitchens Caught Affirming Spiritual Experience as Valid 1 2 3 4 6

Activity

Browse