hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2018 Posted September 7, 2018 14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You didn't read the article did you? I am interested in the truth. I've never cared much about what other people believe, I see that as matter unorganized to be used to create our own individual worlds. I have never been disillusion because I was never illusioned in the first place as Sterling mcmurrin has said. I just read it, I responded first though. Its a really cool exchange, thanks for sharing. I love that they were talking about these same concepts. What did the article say about how I should engage on topics like Mormon authority or the relevance of the evidence we use to evaluate things? I think I identify more with Einstein on that I want to say that I believe some truth exists independent of humans at some level. I think I've even made that comment before.
mfbukowski Posted September 7, 2018 Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) On 9/7/2018 at 12:02 PM, hope_for_things said: I just read it, I responded first though. Its a really cool exchange, thanks for sharing. I love that they were talking about these same concepts. What did the article say about how I should engage on topics like Mormon authority or the relevance of the evidence we use to evaluate things? I think I identify more with Einstein on that I want to say that I believe some truth exists independent of humans at some level. I think I've even made that comment before. The article implies that that is wrong thinking, at least from Tagore's view I do not hold your view so I cannot help you with the answer. Edited September 9, 2018 by mfbukowski
Robert Rosskopf Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Let me start by saying that truth has an explanatory aspect. The best explanations are the ones that explain most of the known facts. A fact is something that can be readily seen, using "seen" in the broader sense where it can include different types of perception. Perceptions are largely associative; that is to say that our perception of sound, light, flavor, heat and granularity (touch) aren't binary or digital, but analog in nature. Our perceptions have limited ranges in the real world, and we seek to augment them through machines. The telescope, the microscope, and the hearing aid directly augment our ability to see and hear, but other devices, like the voltimeter, allow us to see things that aren't even part of the visible spectrum of light. More and more we are figuring out how to see the unseen world. The question arises whether we are the first to ponder such things, or whether other races, either here or elsewhere in the universe, have long ago pondered these same things. It seems logical to believe that something has always existed. That may sound more like philosophy than science, but I see it as self-evident. Nothing comes from nothing, as Maria sings in the Sound of Music. It is illogical in the extreme to suggest that nothing existed until God created it, implying that he was all alone in a universe devoid of matter, for an infinity of years, before suddenly deciding to make a universe. Such a view doesn't pass the test of truth. It doesn't really explain anything. One definition of "generation" is the point when something has been created. I don't completely discount the possibility that the known cosmos had a point of generation, but it must carry the caveat that other generations have occurred and more have yet to occur. So I take it on faith that we are not the first, and that untold generations precede us. I also submit that many of these civilizations may now view us as a primitive culture, if they have the ability to study us. According to the Judeo-Christian religion, God is that individual who created the earth, and planted man in the Garden of Eden. In the oldest books, his name is always plural; Genesis should read as the Book of Moses; "In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth..." The idea is clear that the earth was created by intelligent beings, that it was terraformed, and prepared for mankind. The apostle John explained that the earth was not created by God alone. Speaking of Jesus, he said that "without him was not anything created that was created" (John 1). John would not have put it this way unless he believed that the earth was created by more than just Jesus alone. At this point, I see no conflict between religion and reason. It isn't hard to believe that the earth was terraformed. It isn't hard to believe that other societies have preceded us. It isn't hard to believe that we might call such beings angels or gods. Like the Hebrews, the ancient Chinese also believed in heavenly beings or gods. They would refer to them collectively as "Heaven". The Greeks and Romans also believed in a pantheon of gods, as did the Aztec and the Maya. All of these traditions may have become fanciful and exaggerated over time, but they all share the same core beliefs that there are heavenly beings that take an interest in mankind. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is built on the foundation of revelation. Revelation is the communication of truth from God. We often fail to see that it isn't just God who gives revelation; revelation can come from his Son, or the Holy Ghost, or an angel or a prophet. God may be the one in charge, but he has a whole organization of intelligent beings behind him, each with their own responsibilities or stewardships. Perhaps I should speak as the Chinese, and just say that revelation is communication from heaven. I see nothing illogical in any of this. The Judeo/Christian religion is very logical at its foundation. These ideas do explain a great deal. They pass the test of truth.
Recommended Posts