False by Incredulity, according to atheists such as Penn Jillette

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If we do in fact have a core of eternal "intelligence" (nous or entelchy), then we could indeed have free choice based on our noetic capacity, rather than just a physical, natural brain which is mechanistically determined in every way.  However, both atheists and normative Judeo-Christians deny that we have any such eternal nature.

They do not determine what is actually true, though, do they. Only what they believe is true.

[The Nehor]

On number 1 the idea that morality is mercenary does not really work I like this quote by C.S. Lewis:

“We are afraid that Heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.”

On number 2 I laugh at the idea that someone would leave the Church based on charity being mercenary and because of ritual underwear. I struggle to imagine the mind of someone who would pick those as their top two concerns. They just do not fit together.

Edited December 11, 2019 by The Nehor

[Ahab]

On 12/9/2019 at 7:37 PM, nuclearfuels said:

So I heard some LDS people started reading Jillette's writings and left the Church / faith.

Looked into Jillette a bit but not much.

As I try and advocate reason and logic however rarely the opportunity presents itself, I'm seeking feedback on my response to such atheists who:

1. claim morality can not and does not exist if you are behaving in a reward/punishment, carrot/stick framework.

2. question the validity of the Garment.

1. morality is a word and this word (as defined in what we call a dictionary) refers to principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.  To go further, the word principle is a word that refers to a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.  So whether or not you believe it or accept it, brother Jillette, good and evil exist even if you do not care or do not want to have your beliefs categorized within this framework.

2. think symbolism, like a wedding ring or a school ring or a Superbowl ring.  Something people wear to remind them of something they want to remember and associate with something that is important in their lives.  It is a valid symbol for them even if it isn't for you.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but all those beliefs and actions are themselves predetermined and purely mechanical, everyone going thru the motions as though we really do have free choice.  A mass delusion, if you will.  Game theory reigns supreme.

No, Chantal Bax I think has refuted that

Pragmatically it doesn't really matter much to me whether or not someone thinks that I really can't go to lunch when I want to. 

It's hard to argue that reality is all an illusion.

That's when defining reality as our experience makes the difference, and makes Joseph's Vision real as anything else too.

The law presumes pragmatism. Arguing determinism in a trial would not be too effective I think.

"Your honor because none of us can do other than what we do my client is innocent."

Good luck with that one.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If Foucalt is right, then the "death of man" could be of even more consequence than the "death of God."  Could that be an existential threat?

Yes it could and that is why it has been such an important issue in Philosophy for so long now. The basis for Marxism for example is the idea that to change psychology one must first change the culture, which programs us all, and that makes the individual an irrelevant cog in cultural /historical events.

That is why it is so important not to accept the Cartesian idea of reality, and with it the Cartesian idea of Truth as correspondence to reality.

That view takes it as a given that reality is not what we see, or experience, and presupposes dualism. And with it, out goes the idea that a vision or religion and belief in what is unseen can be real.

But of course we can and do actually experience religious feelings

Cartesianism on the other hand raises an unsolvable epistemological problem: the gap between what we experience and reality. Only what is scientifically verified can be real. 

But that is an insufficient description of reality precisely because of eliminates the subjective from our experience.. Reality includes emotions and what we feel. Clearly emotional motivations undergird everything we do and see and experience.

But if reality includes all that we experience, we do experience visions, and so in some sense Visions must be real. And so we have William James arguing for the reality of religious experience in " Varieties"

That's why Rorty and Pragmatism is so adamant about abolishing the reality appearance distinction, because accepting that there is a difference between reality and what we experience leads to problems like this one about determinism.

In ordinary experience we do not question the idea that we can jump in the car and go to the store anytime we want to. We never worry about the idea that such a trip to the store could be determined and therefore we have no choice about doing it or not doing it. It never crosses our mind. And it shouldn't.

It is irrelevant in our lives as lived.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

They do not determine what is actually true, though, do they. Only what they believe is true.

Yes,  but for them the sovereignty of God is absolute, thus leaving us no choice.  It is not we who choose God, but God who chooses us.  Our final place in Hell or Heaven is foreordained and predetermined.

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes,  but for them the sovereignty of God is absolute, thus leaving us no choice.

Obviously they disagree with that sentiment.  If they didn't have any choice they would always do what God wants them to do.  Clearly they can choose to disregard the will of who you say they regard as a sovereign God.

Quote

It is not we who choose God, but God who chooses us.  Our final place in Hell or Heaven is foreordained and predetermined.

... based on our behavior and choices, correct.  We can choose our beliefs and actions but we can not choose to avoid the consequences of our choices.

Btw, before we go on much further on this issue I'd like you to acknowledge that you could go on forever arguing with a sinner without ever being able to convince him that he is sinning, or that choosing to commit sin is evil. We can tell what we know God has told us but we can't convince them that God told us what he has told us.  God is the one who has to do that.  To them all we are saying is hearsay, in that regard.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Obviously they disagree with that sentiment.  If they didn't have any choice they would always do what God wants them to do.  Clearly they can choose to disregard the will of who you say they regard as a sovereign God.

... based on our behavior and choices, correct.  We can choose our beliefs and actions but we can not choose to avoid the consequences of our choices.

Btw, before we go on much further on this issue I'd like you to acknowledge that you could go on forever arguing with a sinner without ever being able to convince him that he is sinning, or that choosing to commit sin is evil. We can tell what we know God has told us but we can't convince them that God told us what he has told us.  God is the one who has to do that.  To them all we are saying is hearsay, in that regard.

You are missing the point:

We're not talking about Mormons, Ahab.  We're talking about mainstream Judeo-Christians who long ago accepted the absurd notion of a God who is omnipotent, who is the Creator of everything, which includes evil.  His sovereignty is absolute, which means that all good and all bad were authored by Him and that there can be no free choice of any kind.  LDS theology rejects that silly and irresponsible theology, and opts for actual freedom of choice.  Our God is finite and gracious.  We are coeternal with Him.  Any evil is our choice, not His.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are missing the point:

We're not talking about Mormons, Ahab.  We're talking about mainstream Judeo-Christians who long ago accepted the absurd notion of a God who is omnipotent, who is the Creator of everything, which includes evil.  His sovereignty is absolute, which means that all good and all bad were authored by Him and that there can be no free choice of any kind.  LDS theology rejects that silly and irresponsible theology, and opts for actual freedom of choice.  Our God is finite and gracious.  We are coeternal with Him.  Any evil is our choice, not His.

I don't know how you can say this, especially when Joseph had no choice but to live polygamy. And all that happened to those in the Bible, that God killed women and children along with men. Even in the BoM God kills his children, he didn't give them freedom to choose. That's why I don't believe in most scriptures that make God almost evil, IMO.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Even in the BoM God kills his children, he didn't give them freedom to choose.

Freedom to choose means just that, they can make a choice. They aren’t the equivalents of robots that are programmed to only respond one way to one input or animals that can only respond by instinct.

That freedom does not mean they are free from fallout from their choices. When people choose wisely, good things happen to them or others.  When people choose badly, bad things happen****.  Choice is meaningful when consequences are tied to it.  Choice without consequences is daydreaming.

How meaningful would a choice to go on a diet for fitness be if people lost weight and became fit by winning a lottery, having nothing to do with what they ate or took care of themselves.

Don't confuse the consequences with the choice. 

In the examples where God kills or allows to be killed, those deaths don’t exist separately from past behaviour any more than someone on death row.  

Now you may disagree that what people did deserved the consequences of destruction, but we don’t know the history in any real detail if actual historical events and if some were more constructed myths created by those trying to explain how God interacts with mankind, the few details may reflect more the authors’ understanding of choice and consequences rather than God’s. 

****not saying that is the only reason bad or good things happen to each other and the external consequences may not be obvious until much later.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know how you can say this, especially when Joseph had no choice but to live polygamy. And all that happened to those in the Bible, that God killed women and children along with men. Even in the BoM God kills his children, he didn't give them freedom to choose. That's why I don't believe in most scriptures that make God almost evil, IMO.

"Almost evil," Tacenda?  Not sure how that works.  Joseph did not have to live polygamy.  He always had free choice.  We all do.  Of course, mainstream Christians don't believe that we have free choice.  Their theology doesn't allow them to make any free choices.  Just the other day in New Zealand, a lot of foolish people thought it would be wonderful to visit an active volcano.  They even took children.  They didn't think that anything could go wrong.  Should we blame God for human foolishness?  Anyhow, our spirits are eternal.  An earthly death is meaningless.

[mfbukowski]

Oops. Error 

Edited December 12, 2019 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just the other day in New Zealand, a lot of foolish people thought it would be wonderful to visit an active volcano.  They even took children.  They didn't think that anything could go wrong.  Should we blame God for human foolishness?  Anyhow, our spirits are eternal.  An earthly death is meaningless.

I understand your point, but perhaps a better analogy could be used.  To call these people who lost their lives "foolish people" who still have family and loved one's who are currently mourning and grieving, seems a tad insensitive and too fresh.  The fact is, there is inherent risk in just about anything we do.  Taking risks doesn't necessarily make one foolish.  I'd say your risk of death or bodily harm is greater from driving your car everyday than from taking a random short tour of white island volcano once in your life.   Around 40,000 people died in car crashes in 2018 and around 4.5 million were seriously injured in the US.  Odds of dying in a car crash in your life-time is 1 in 114 - odds of being seriously injured are much much higher.  Despite it being an extremely popular tourist destination, the last deaths on white island volcano were in 1914.  10 sulfur miners died.  Just putting things in perspective and giving respect to those who lost their lives and their families.     

Edited December 12, 2019 by pogi

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anyhow, our spirits are eternal.  An earthly death is meaningless.

Considering who wept at the tomb of Lazarus I find that attitude a little too high-minded. Death matters.

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are missing the point:

We're not talking about Mormons, Ahab.  We're talking about mainstream Judeo-Christians who long ago accepted the absurd notion of a God who is omnipotent, who is the Creator of everything, which includes evil.  His sovereignty is absolute, which means that all good and all bad were authored by Him and that there can be no free choice of any kind.  LDS theology rejects that silly and irresponsible theology, and opts for actual freedom of choice.  Our God is finite and gracious.  We are coeternal with Him.  Any evil is our choice, not His.

I'm just correcting the false ideas I see where I see them.  They have some false ideas about God and I'm trying to let them know which ones those are.  Where they are missing the truth.  That is my point when I say something to correct any false ideas that I see.

And what are you talking about, our God is finite.  Finite in what way?  Our kind of being, which we call God, is infinite.  No beginning and no end.  If you're talking about a specific person who is God, such as our Father, he is infinite too because he never had a beginning and never will have an end.  So what do you mean when you say God is finite.  That's a false idea, too, as I see it, unless by that you mean something that I am not thinking about.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Ahab

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Considering who wept at the tomb of Lazarus I find that attitude a little too high-minded. Death matters.

Death is a separation, and the person who dies continues to go on living. We usually feel sad because they have gone on beyond the veil while we are still stuck here on this miserable planet, without them.  Or at least it feels miserable, to some extent, without their companionship. We usually feel sad and weep because we miss them and want to be with them again but can't be without killing ourselves which we usually feel we should not do at that time.

I think Jesus had something else going on in his mind when he cried on that occasion, though.  He was the resurrection and the life, standing right there with that Mary and her sister, and they seemed to act as if there was no way Jesus could bring their brother back.  They said something like: "If you had been here our brother would not have died".  Well, maybe not, but he was there then at that time and he could still bring their brother back to them.  They didn't seem to get that, though.  As well as they knew him, they still didn't quit comprehend who he was or what he could do.  I think that was sad for Jesus to see that.  Hardly anyone understood him, then, if anyone did, other than our Father and some angels in heaven.

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just the other day in New Zealand, a lot of foolish people thought it would be wonderful to visit an active volcano.  They even took children.  They didn't think that anything could go wrong.  Should we blame God for human foolishness? 

Poor taste.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Death is a separation, and the person who dies continues to go on living. We usually feel sad because they have gone on beyond the veil while we are still stuck here on this miserable planet, without them.  Or at least it feels miserable, to some extent, without their companionship. We usually feel sad and weep because we miss them and want to be with them again but can't be without killing ourselves which we usually feel we should not do at that time.

I think Jesus had something else going on in his mind when he cried on that occasion, though.  He was the resurrection and the life, standing right there with that Mary and her sister, and they seemed to act as if there was no way Jesus could bring their brother back.  They said something like: "If you had been here our brother would not have died".  Well, maybe not, but he was there then at that time and he could still bring their brother back to them.  They didn't seem to get that, though.  As well as they knew him, they still didn't quit comprehend who he was or what he could do.  I think that was sad for Jesus to see that.  Hardly anyone understood him, then, if anyone did, other than our Father and some angels in heaven.

That is some shoddy reporting of that story.

You unfairly characterize Martha who did say that Lazarus would not have died if Jesus were there but immediately after said that even after death she knew that whatever Jesus asked of God would be done. Jesus told Martha her brother would rise again and Martha affirmed that she did believe in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus then taught Martha that He was the resurrection and the life and asked her if she believed. Mary came later and also affirmed her faith in His power. Then Jesus wept at the tomb. He wept at death, even death about to be reversed. Death is not part of our nature. It is the great enemy and an evil. Fortunately it is also now a beaten enemy and the atonement of Christ turned it partially into a merciful release from this vale of tears instead of the degradation and damnation it should have naturally led to.

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is some shoddy reporting of that story.

You unfairly characterize Martha who did say that Lazarus would not have died if Jesus were there but immediately after said that even after death she knew that whatever Jesus asked of God would be done. Jesus told Martha her brother would rise again and Martha affirmed that she did believe in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus then taught Martha that He was the resurrection and the life and asked her if she believed. Mary came later and also affirmed her faith in His power. Then Jesus wept at the tomb. He wept at death, even death about to be reversed. Death is not part of our nature. It is the great enemy and an evil. Fortunately it is also now a beaten enemy and the atonement of Christ turned it partially into a merciful release from this vale of tears instead of the degradation and damnation it should have naturally led to.

Good thing you are around to add more to the story.  My point was that Jesus was right there and yet neither Martha nor Mary thought Jesus could resurrect Lazarus then, at that time. They didn't say anything to indicate that they thought they could ask Jesus to bring Lazarus back then, that HE had the power to do that.  They believed in "A" resurrection, as a future event "at the last day", but they didn't say anything to indicate that they believe HE was the resurrection and that HE could do it that day.  From what they said they seemed to think Jesus could have kept Lazarus from getting so sick that he died, but I think they were surprised when they saw Jesus bring Lazarus back on that day.  I don't think they were expecting that, or that they had thought he could do that.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Poor taste.

Human foolishness costs lives.  There was no reason why tourists needed to go see that volcano.  New Zealand authorities had been warned of the danger and did nothing.  That is criminal negligence.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm just correcting the false ideas I see where I see them.  They have some false ideas about God and I'm trying to let them know which ones those are.  Where they are missing the truth.  That is my point when I say something to correct any false ideas that I see.

And what are you talking about, our God is finite.  Finite in what way?  Our kind of being, which we call God, is infinite.  No beginning and no end.  If you're talking about a specific person who is God, such as our Father, he is infinite too because he never had a beginning and never will have an end.  So what do you mean when you say God is finite.  That's a false idea, too, as I see it, unless by that you mean something that I am not thinking about.

All of us are eternal, Ahab.  Not just God, but all of us have no beginning and no end.  We are coeternal with God.  He was once a man just like us, and we are his literal children.  God is finite just as all of us are.  We are all subject to natural law.  Indeed, God could not be God if He ignored natural law.  That is the key takeaway from Lehi's Law of Opposites.  Satan ignored the rules and lost his place in Heaven.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering who wept at the tomb of Lazarus I find that attitude a little too high-minded. Death matters.

Humans are very emotional and death matters a great deal to most of them, but not always.  We had a great funeral about a week ago here of a great man whom everyone loved.  It was celebratory, something like an Irish wake, but Mormon style.  His children and friends got up and told some great stories, with plenty of jokes.  We ended up looking at it sub specie aeternitatis.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I understand your point, but perhaps a better analogy could be used.  To call these people who lost their lives "foolish people" who still have family and loved one's who are currently mourning and grieving, seems a tad insensitive and too fresh.  The fact is, there is inherent risk in just about anything we do.  Taking risks doesn't necessarily make one foolish.  I'd say your risk of death or bodily harm is greater from driving your car everyday than from taking a random short tour of white island volcano once in your life.   Around 40,000 people died in car crashes in 2018 and around 4.5 million were seriously injured in the US.  Odds of dying in a car crash in your life-time is 1 in 114 - odds of being seriously injured are much much higher.  Despite it being an extremely popular tourist destination, the last deaths on white island volcano were in 1914.  10 sulfur miners died.  Just putting things in perspective and giving respect to those who lost their lives and their families.     

The New Zealand gov't knew of heightened volcanic activity, but did nothing:

Quote

Beginning several months ago, researchers at GeoNet, an organization founded in 2001 that monitors activity at all of New Zealand’s volcanoes, observed an uptick in activity at White Island. The scientists reported “small, muddy, geyser-like explosions” in the volcano’s active crater, but kept their alert to Level 1, their lowest designation which signals minor volcanic unrest.

On Nov. 18, that warning was raised to Level 2 after GeoNet recorded stronger volcanic tremors at White Island and an increase in toxic sulfur dioxide coming from the volcano. Level 2 is categorized as “moderate to heightened volcanic unrest,” but tour companies typically stick to a business-as-usual approach under this designation, according to Richard Arculus, a volcanologist at the Australian National University.   https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/why-new-zealand-s-deadly-volcano-eruption-took-people-surprise-n1100076 .

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All of us are eternal, Ahab.  Not just God, but all of us have no beginning and no end.  We are coeternal with God.  He was once a man just like us, and we are his literal children.  God is finite just as all of us are.  We are all subject to natural law.  Indeed, God could not be God if He ignored natural law.  That is the key takeaway from Lehi's Law of Opposites.  Satan ignored the rules and lost his place in Heaven.

You said we are finite and I asked you to explain what you meant while I said in response that we are eternal.  Now you are saying we are eternal but you're still saying we're finite so I'm now asking you again to explain that.  In what way do you think we are finite? 

I''m still going to say that we are eternal and I don't agree that we are finite.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Good thing you are around to add more to the story.  My point was that Jesus was right there and yet neither Martha nor Mary thought Jesus could resurrect Lazarus then, at that time. They didn't say anything to indicate that they thought they could ask Jesus to bring Lazarus back then, that HE had the power to do that.

Your point is wrong.

Martha: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.”

Martha acknowledged God would “even now” do what Jesus asked which is akin to her asking.. When Jesus said he would rise Martha acknowledged that he would rise at the Last Day. Jesus spoke of the Resurrection and asked her if she believed. She affirmed she did, tacitly acknowledging the miracle may not happen and she will still have faith. In a later scene Jesus called Lazarus forth. Knowing that Jesus generally only did miracles for people based on the faith of themselves or on the faith of others on their behalf it is not a stretch to imagine that Lazarus rose because Martha and later Mary passed the test of faith that God could work the miracle but stood fast that even if their request for their brother was not granted their faith would endure. Compare to the episode of Daniel’s friends and the fiery furnace.

Then the miracle came.....at what would appear to be great cost. Before this Jesus was a target of persecution and attempts to discredit him. With the miracle of Lazarus rising being seen by so many those in power decided the time for half measures was passed and Jesus must die. I wonder how much Martha, Mary, and Lazarus knew of that and perhaps wondered if that miracle was worth the death of the messiah during the faith trying time after the crucifixion and before the Resurrection. No surprise that Jesus made the decision to come to Mary first who may have blamed herself to some degree for what happened during those dark days.

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by The Nehor