Atheist Mormon Posted February 7, 2018 Author Posted February 7, 2018 On 2/1/2018 at 12:20 AM, mfbukowski said: As I said there is no way to know if it is "supernatural"- I could be talking to myself, but I never think it is. It seems purely outside me- like another entity. And the "conversation" is answers appearing from nowhere in my mind. I think up the answers but they seem to be not from me. Just to clarify. I don't want you to think that this experience of mine is necessarily so different from your personal experience when an answer to a question "occurs" to you in your mind. I do not want to give the impression that this is special in any way, just perhaps my way of seeing what might be a very ordinary exprience You sound too skeptical Bukowski, and yet you are a believer.......Go figure......
Rain Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Fine, however, what you are convinced vs what the reality is in the real world based on two different perspectives. Having said that there's nothing wrong with that. I understand why you feel that way, but my experience shows me differently. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: You sound too skeptical Bukowski, and yet you are a believer.......Go figure...... I am not at all skeptical about what I know to be true- and am a true believer. But being educated in philosophy, writing the words to explain it philosophically is the problem. Religious statements can be philosophically justifiable only if they are understood in certain philosophical ways, so every sentence should be carefully constructed which makes me seem more "skeptical" than I really am. I could just leave it at "I absolutely know these things are true" but those words are not compatible with the context which makes them true within Pragmatism. I am bridging two different language games simultaneously which is not an easy thing to do, and usually results in confusion- as we see here. 1
Alaris Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 It takes more blind faith to look at this world and all the critical variables that are essential to sustain life and to believe the scientists who say it all started unaided by an explosion than it does to look at this beautiful creation, the sun, the moon and its perfect distance and size to eclipse the sun perfectly, and the stars and have faith that there is a supreme intelligence. Alma 30 is a great study here as Alma presents the evidence of a Creator to Korihor. That said, discovering the truth and turning faith into knowledge is such a simple process. I was blessed to witness ~ 30 people baptized on my mission. Every single time a person applied Moroni's promise - every single time - they received an answer. Convincing people to look was the hard part, and what does it take? 20 minutes of your time? You could always tell on a return visit and see that light in their eyes. Alma 32 is a great study here as planting the seed only requires a desire to believe and to let that desire work in you. Witnessing their witnesses certainly increased my own knowledge. But there is always an element of doubt - even alongside that knowledge. There has to be in order for faith to function. Speaking of functions, I think of faith like a Calculus function. It's been a while since my Calculus course, but functions can look at variables that approach zero and get infinitely close without ever reaching zero. This is how I view doubt as my own faith and knowledge increase. The subsequent experiences reinforce the former and that doubt is ever shrinking as it approaches zero. The alternate explanation at this point that would explain away all my many experiences layer upon layer, line upon line would necessarily get more and more ludicrous to explain away that not only are the recent truths false but also the layers upon layers where the surface layers reinforce subterranean layers. Deep, deep, down inside many, many layers is the knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Deeper still is Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and yet deeper down is the knowledge that there is absolutely a God. However small that doubt shrinks, that element of darkness is essential for us to experience agency. For if we had no doubt whatsoever, then our condemnation would be much stronger were we to turn course into a path of sin. Yet at any point, we can take that element of doubt and nourish it just like the seed, though the fertilizer is vastly different, and ironically that doubt protects us from deeper condemnation.
Atheist Mormon Posted February 7, 2018 Author Posted February 7, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I am not at all skeptical about what I know to be true- and am a true believer. Fine, suppose you want to prove something to me, is this the way you are going to approach the situation? What part of your experiences you expect me to believe?
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Fine, suppose you want to prove something to me, is this the way you are going to approach the situation? What part of your experiences you expect me to believe? It is foolish to think anyone can "prove" anything. I don't expect you to believe anything. It makes no sense for you to believe MY experiences, there is no way for you to do that. That's like asking me if you see the same thing when I see the color red, or if anything feels the same to you as it does to me. Ridiculous idea.If you see "red" differently than I do or find that sugar tastes bitter then there is nothing I can do to say that will convince you that to me it is sweet. If one of us is colorblind you will have no udnderstanding of the color you cannot see- or I cannot see. IF you are reasonable, all I expect anyone to do is follow what is generally accepted views on what is philosophically justifiable according to a theory of justification. I am using a pragmatic theory of justification. You ask a technical question, you get a technical answer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY Essentially any theory which accomplishes its purpose is justifiable in this area. If a tool works as a hammer, it IS a hammer for all practical (pragmatic) purposes. If a belief gives you meaning, in my book it is a "religion" So for people who believe that one should be willing to "die for their country" and that gives their lives meaning and they are actually willing to die for their country, to me that is a "religion" It is a belief in your life that gives your life meaning and which you "know" to be true, even though others might debate it. You can have absolute certainty without "proof" that that is the "right" way to live and that belief would be justified simply because it does in fact give your life a purpose. That is exactly how one justifies religious belief also and is a standard accepted by atheist philosophers to classify the belief as "true" for that individual. The proof of its goodness is in eating the pudding. Edited February 7, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 5 hours ago, Rain said: I understand why you feel that way, but my experience shows me differently. Exactly the point I make above as well. Just underlining that fact for atheist M
Teancum Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Alaris said: It takes more blind faith to look at this world and all the critical variables that are essential to sustain life and to believe the scientists who say it all started unaided by an explosion than it does to look at this beautiful creation, the sun, the moon and its perfect distance and size to eclipse the sun perfectly, and the stars and have faith that there is a supreme intelligence. Alma 30 is a great study here as Alma presents the evidence of a Creator to Korihor. No. No....not really. If one spends time studying science, evolution, etc. It really does not take much if any faith to believe the scientific conclusions that at least we have today. This is just a typical red herring to try to impose faith on science which really fails when discussed and is teased out. Religious people say this so they can feel good about their faith that has little to no evidence for their creation claims.
Alaris Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Teancum said: No. No....not really. If one spends time studying science, evolution, etc. It really does not take much if any faith to believe the scientific conclusions that at least we have today. This is just a typical red herring to try to impose faith on science which really fails when discussed and is teased out. Religious people say this so they can feel good about their faith that has little to no evidence for their creation claims. Belief is at the core of faith. Faith is a dirty word to the faithless ... shocker! Faith is a bit more than belief as it is a system and I made reference to that system and how it reinforces knowledge but doesn't ever completely rid the doubt. Doubt is an essential element in the faith equation. Studying science still requires belief. You either believe the study or you don't. So if you'd like to use the term "belief" and suspension of disbelief to put this in secular terms, the suspension of disbelief is far, far larger when choosing to believe what science says about a creator-less creation. The suspension of disbelief required to believe the beauty of order came from an explosion is far, far larger than the suspension of disbelief required that there is a God who hides himself and knowledge of him behind ... you guessed it ... faith. The suspension of disbelief required that DNA wrote itself intelligently through trial and error is far greater than the suspension of disbelief required that there is a designer behind the design. Simple.
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: No. No....not really. If one spends time studying science, evolution, etc. It really does not take much if any faith to believe the scientific conclusions that at least we have today. This is just a typical red herring to try to impose faith on science which really fails when discussed and is teased out. Religious people say this so they can feel good about their faith that has little to no evidence for their creation claims. You are uneducated in these matters, sorry There are many atheist philosophers who see religion as being as justifiable as science. Read some Rorty or Thomas Nagel or Dworkin We have been over this numerous times, and I can't continue. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/ Edited February 7, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
Teancum Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You are uneducated in these matters, sorry There are many atheist philosophers who see religion as being as justifiable as science. Read some Rorty or Thomas Nagel or Dworkin We have been over this numerous times, and I can't continue. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/ Perhaps. And perhaps you are not as bright and as educated on these issues as you think you are.
Teancum Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 51 minutes ago, Alaris said: Belief is at the core of faith. Faith is a dirty word to the faithless ... shocker! Faith is a bit more than belief as it is a system and I made reference to that system and how it reinforces knowledge but doesn't ever completely rid the doubt. Doubt is an essential element in the faith equation. Studying science still requires belief. You either believe the study or you don't. So if you'd like to use the term "belief" and suspension of disbelief to put this in secular terms, the suspension of disbelief is far, far larger when choosing to believe what science says about a creator-less creation. The suspension of disbelief required to believe the beauty of order came from an explosion is far, far larger than the suspension of disbelief required that there is a God who hides himself and knowledge of him behind ... you guessed it ... faith. The suspension of disbelief required that DNA wrote itself intelligently through trial and error is far greater than the suspension of disbelief required that there is a designer behind the design. Simple. I suggest you start studying the issues of faith and science with the book by Jerry Coyne called Faith vs Fact. Science is not faith based. I used to argue this as you do until I spent some time really understanding how science works.
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Perhaps. And perhaps you are not as bright and as educated on these issues as you think you are. LOL but you will never know either way, will you?
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Teancum said: I suggest you start studying the issues of faith and science with the book by Jerry Coyne called Faith vs Fact. Science is not faith based. I used to argue this as you do until I spent some time really understanding how science works./ Coyne is a flippin BIOLOGIST and has no understanding of theories of truth. Of course evolution is true. What does that have to do with religion? Next time you need heart surgery go to a chiropractor. Or better yet how about a geologist? He might even be called a "doctor" if he has a Phd! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/book-by-biologist-jerry-coyne-goes-too-far-in-denouncing-religion-defending-science/ Edited February 8, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) duplicate Edited February 8, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Teancum said: I suggest you start studying the issues of faith and science with the book by Jerry Coyne called Faith vs Fact. Science is not faith based. I used to argue this as you do until I spent some time really understanding how science works. The problem is that religion is not about facts like whether or not evolution is "true" or how or when the earth was created. Did you get that? Science does not deal with what is important to humanity- it is deliberately valueless. It cannot tell you that murder is wrong or even that global warming is "wrong"- just the facts about HOW things work Religion should not even try to ask those questions and those who think it does are mistaken. Religion is about questions of WHY things are as the are, the purpose of our own lives and possibly even the purpose of the earth. But we have been there and done all that 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You may have heard of the great physicist, Michio Kaku. He introduced the type IV. You need to read up on that. and someone introduced type five, but the Kardashev scale only has type 0, I, II, and III. Robert, I doubt Michio Kaku believes type III and IV civilizations are common. As for a type IV, there is no possibility a type IV civilization exists in our Milky Way galaxy, we would have detected them by now. If there is a type IV civilization in the universe, it would in a dark place from our perspective. Some speculate a type IV is located in the Booted void which 700 million light-years from Earth. 21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Once again you are arguing from ignorance. Just in case you don't know what that means (since you keep on making that empty claim), it refers to presentism in your estimates of likelihood. You are applying current knowledge of physics to beings who have already left that far behind. Robert, to make an educated guess we have to apply our current knowledge. How would you make an educated guess? To summarize my argument Robert: based on our current knowledge it is highly unlikely type II and III civilizations exists anywhere near us, therefore it is unlikely a god-like civilization created our planet. A god-like type II and III civilization wouldn't need to travel thousands or millions of light years to create planets. Edited February 8, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
Robert F. Smith Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: and someone introduced type five, but the Kardashev scale only has type 0, I, II, and III. Robert, I doubt Michio Kaku believes type III and IV civilizations are common. We should probably allow Kaku to speak for himself, which he does often and very well. In any case, you have yet to describe in detail how you compute "common." 11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: As for a type IV, there is no possibility a type IV civilization exists in our Milky Way galaxy, we would have detected them by now. If there is a type IV civilization in the universe, it would in a dark place from our perspective. Some speculate a type IV is located in the Booted void which 700 million light-years from Earth. Robert, to make an educated guess we have to apply our current knowledge. How would you make an educated guess? It might be rather foolish to make "an educated guess," seeing as how (1) you and I are not physicists, and that (2) we are wholly ignorant of 96% of the constituent, basic elements of the universe -- Dark Energy & Dark Matter. Yokels like modern-day Earthlings (that's us, Sam) ought to be very cautious about passing facile judgment on what is possible. 11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: To summarize my argument Robert: based on our current knowledge it is highly unlikely type II and III civilizations exists anywhere near us, therefore it is unlikely a god-like civilization created our planet. A god-like type II and III civilization wouldn't need to travel thousands or millions of light years to create planets. We have no credible reason to believe that any godlike beings ever had to travel thousands or millions of lightyears to go anywhere to do anything. That is an expression of handcart ignorance by a people who have never seen a NASA space shuttle, even though there was only a century between the handcart and the space shuttle. Presentists like you constantly make that same mistake. It is a classic fallacy. Moreover, your statement here is contrary to fact, in that you accept the argument from design, yet reject any belief that godlike beings created Earth and Earthlife. Will the real Samuel please stand up?
Alaris Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The problem is that religion is not about facts like whether or not evolution is "true" or how or when the earth was created. Did you get that? Science does not deal with what is important to humanity- it is deliberately valueless. It cannot tell you that murder is wrong or even that global warming is "wrong"- just the facts about HOW things work Religion should not even try to ask those questions and those who think it does are mistaken. Religion is about questions of WHY things are as the are, the purpose of our own lives and possibly even the purpose of the earth. But we have been there and done all that This is an extremely interesting and valuable point. I made a similar point on another lds discussion site recently but about the end times. So many focus on when things happen, where, and how. But the really important question to ask to give the best understanding of the end times is why things happen the way they do. I do not want to derail but this is a great way to single out the devil's tactics and surely reinforces the saying: the devil is in the details!
Brother Bear Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Teancum said: I suggest you start studying the issues of faith and science with the book by Jerry Coyne called Faith vs Fact. Science is not faith based. I used to argue this as you do until I spent some time really understanding how science works. How would you define “faith” when you say that “science is not faith based?” When you say “science” is not faith-based, are you saying that statements like “we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees” are fact- not faith-based? Also, how did you learn about things like evolutionary biology, planetary motion, plate tectonics, etc? Edited February 8, 2018 by Brother Bear 2
Alaris Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 14 hours ago, Brother Bear said: How would you define “faith” when you say that “science is not faith based?” When you say “science” is not faith-based, are you saying that statements like “we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees” are fact- not faith-based? Also, how did you learn about things like evolutionary biology, planetary motion, plate tectonics, etc? Isn't one of the conundrums of science the scientific method itself which consists of hypotheses and data that support the hypotheses that don't ever actually convert a hypothesis into fact? The hypotheses are constantly changes as new data comes to light and as scientist present new hypotheses to explain existing data. This then creates another conundrum of popularity, where there are popular, accepted hypotheses and rejected hypotheses that threaten the status of established scientists, grants, etc. The large and spacious building of the science world is vast and by its very nature provides a great deal of friction (science word I thank you) and resistance to unpopular hypotheses that may actually be true (another bad word in science land.) Then atheists take this large mess and use the word "fact" as though there is no other conclusion based of facts because science. I'm sorry, the word you're looking for is "data" rather than "fact." The data supports a creator. DNA, order, conscience, the testimony system. Even bearing testimony strengthens testimony! This is true. God's faith system is brilliant as it allows for those who do not wish to look to have their agency intact and use all the data around them any which way they want. They can scoff and condescend the faithful all life long, but the faithful have looked. They have exercised faith and have received witnesses where faith becomes knowledge. This system itself is brilliant and is yet another evidence of God ironically. Quote Ether 12:6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 14 hours ago, Alaris said: This is an extremely interesting and valuable point. I made a similar point on another lds discussion site recently but about the end times. So many focus on when things happen, where, and how. But the really important question to ask to give the best understanding of the end times is why things happen the way they do. I do not want to derail but this is a great way to single out the devil's tactics and surely reinforces the saying: the devil is in the details! What I find interesting is that even educated atheists understand that the subjects are different and that the goal of "religion" even without God is to find purpose in life and not the discovery of scientific "facts" This was an atheist's statement a short term before he died, and making this point was his life's work. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, Alaris said: Isn't one of the conundrums of science the scientific method itself which consists of hypotheses and data that support the hypotheses that don't ever actually convert a hypothesis into fact? The hypotheses are constantly changes as new data comes to light and as scientist present new hypotheses to explain existing data. This then creates another conundrum of popularity, where there are popular, accepted hypotheses and rejected hypotheses that threaten the status of established scientists, grants, etc. The large and spacious building of the science world is vast and by its very nature provides a great deal of friction (science word I thank you) and resistance to unpopular hypotheses that may actually be true (another bad word in science land.) Then atheists take this large mess and use the word "fact" as though there is no other conclusion based of facts because science. I'm sorry, the word you're looking for is "data" rather than "fact." The data supports a creator. DNA, order, conscience, the testimony system. Even bearing testimony strengthens testimony! This is true. God's faith system is brilliant as it allows for those who do not wish to look to have their agency intact and use all the data around them any which way they want. They can scoff and condescend the faithful all life long, but the faithful have looked. They have exercised faith and have received witnesses where faith becomes knowledge. This system itself is brilliant and is yet another evidence of God ironically. The so called "Is-Ought" distinction has been recognized for over 300 years and is till seen as a "real" distinction. Again this is another case where science - the study of what "is" and how it works- is different and totally separate from inquiry in to "why" things work or questions of morality. I ain't blowin' smoke- this stuff has been around for hundreds of years and all of it helps religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem And then you have the uninformed who think that somehow facts of evolution prove that God does not exist. The reality to those who are informed in such matters is that what "is" or "how" it works has nothing to do with "why" it exists or the importance to humanity of the phenomenon, or its value, or moral worth. Is murder wrong? Why? Science has no answers for these kind of questions yet even atheists understand that sometimes killing people is necessary and other times it is a crime. How do they know that? From research and experiment? From tested hypotheses? Of course not. And atheists will vehemently argue that they are moral people - and of course they are. But if only scientific principles can be "true" then how do they know what is true about morals? And yet some argue that the bible is a volume about science, or that the Book of Mormon has to be a book about history. Go figure.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted February 9, 2018 Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) On 2/8/2018 at 4:21 AM, Robert F. Smith said: It might be rather foolish to make "an educated guess," seeing as how (1) you and I are not physicists, and that (2) we are wholly ignorant of 96% of the constituent, basic elements of the universe -- Dark Energy & Dark Matter. It's possible Dark Energy & Dark Matter don't exists, cosmologist André Maeder has a new theory that doesn't need a mysterious Dark Energy and Dark Matter. But even if Dark Energy & Matter do exists, it wouldn't mean we are ignorant about the Universe. Dark Energy can simply be a fifth force, and Dark Matter can end up being a bunch of neutrinos. On 2/8/2018 at 4:21 AM, Robert F. Smith said: We have no credible reason to believe that any godlike beings ever had to travel thousands or millions of lightyears to go anywhere to do anything. That is an expression of handcart ignorance by a people who have never seen a NASA space shuttle, even though there was only a century between the handcart and the space shuttle. Presentists like you constantly make that same mistake. It is a classic fallacy. Okay Robert, do you have a credible reason to believe advance aliens travel thousands or millions of light years to make planets near a isolated star? What would be more likely (1) Advance aliens make planets near them (2) They travel thousands or millions of miles to make a single planet on a loner star. Yes number two is possible, but I think number one would be more likely. Edited February 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
Robert F. Smith Posted February 9, 2018 Posted February 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: It's possible Dark Energy & Dark Matter don't exists, cosmologist André Maeder has a new theory that doesn't need a mysterious Dark Energy and Dark Matter. But even if Dark Energy & Matter do exists, it wouldn't mean we are ignorant about the Universe. Dark Energy can simply be a fifth force, and Dark Matter can end up being a bunch of neutrinos. Once again you engage in silly speculation about what constitutes 96% of the universe (which we can't see or touch), thus making your ignorance the measure of reality. Most physicists do not know what Dark Energy & Dark Matter are, and you and I are not physicists. What makes you think that your comments are in any way meaningful on this question? You need some humility, Sam. 6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Okay Robert, do you have a credible reason to believe advance aliens travel thousands or millions of light years to make planets near a isolated star? What would be more likely (1) Advance aliens make planets near them (2) They travel thousands or millions of miles to make a single planet on a loner star. Yes number two is possible, but I think number one would be more likely. I already addressed that, and you have refused to reply: Quote We have no credible reason to believe that any godlike beings ever had to travel thousands or millions of lightyears to go anywhere to do anything. That is an expression of handcart ignorance by a people who have never seen a NASA space shuttle, even though there was only a century between the handcart and the space shuttle. Presentists like you constantly make that same mistake. It is a classic fallacy. What have I said here that you do not comprehend? You just keep repeating yourself, as though these "godlike beings" lived in the stone age, with no form of high technology. Why do you insist that these "godlike beings" are yokels? For you, apparently, presentism has become a religion, a comforting dogma.
Recommended Posts