bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: What evidence of something 6000 years ago would you accept? It's not like there's direct observation from that time. Just theory based on data analysis. You're neglecting to think about testimony from prophets who lived back then and wrote about what they saw and knew had happened? I hope someone's unbelief isn't contagious.
JLHPROF Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Teancum said: And no the resurrection of Christ has not been proven empirically. To you. Others have felt the prints of the nails, felt his hands upon their head, and witnessed the resurrected Christ.
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 4 hours ago, bOObOO said: You will have proof that your spirit will live on after you die, when your spirit has separated from your other body. I could show you that proof right now if our Father would allow me or someone else to kill you, but he hasn't allowed that, and likely will not. And I think you seeing your own spirit after you die is probably the only proof you will accept. If you saw someone else's spirit you might think that was an alien being, or someone dressed in a costume, or hokus pokus. You could imagine a lot of what ifs. Once you see you for yourself after you die though you will then have scientific evidence which you will see for yourself. In other words you're claim to having proof is actually wishful thinking with nothing to support it
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 2 hours ago, bOObOO said: The issue is simpler than you seem to realize. Our belief is that all people on this planet descended from 2 people, a man and a woman. Science demands that both a man and a woman are required to reproduce children, and the man and woman in this case are who we refer to as Adam and Eve. Even if there were other men and women living at the time when our species began to reproduce on this planet, the first man and woman to reproduce are who we refer to as Adam and Eve and the first child that resulted from their reproduction was a boy who we refer to as Abel. And then they reproduced another child, and then another one, and another, and another, etc, and later when some of their children grew old enough they also began to reproduce themselves as a man and woman together are wont to do. Get a handle on that now and then you can ask some questions if you want to. So you're admitting that two of the critical doctrines surrounding the Fall are in fact not true. Human's did have the ability to procreated before the fall and there was physical death before the fall. Given this admission, why should we believe that the other doctrinal claim surrounding the fall actually took place, that of a spiritual death? 1
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yes we can prove that humans have not descended from two people 8000 or so years ago. We can prove that death and precreation have existed from billions of years before and alleged fall. We can prove that species have evolved including humans. You can try to perpetuate your myth by boxing it in to some small garden of Eden and that somehow the laws of nature were suspended for a time but that is not what scriptures teach nor LDS leaders. And no the resurrection of Christ has not been proven empirically. If I believe in God and life after death and you do not, and if there is no God, we both lose when we die. However, if there is a God, you still lose and I gain everything. Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. From the guy who is known for presenting what is now called Pascal's wager, an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that human beings bet with their lives that God either exists or does not. https://www.azquotes.com/author/11361-Blaise_Pascal
Teancum Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 22 hours ago, mgy401 said: And again: The idea of an afterlife is unscientific. The idea of being raised from the dead is unscientific. The idea of angelic beings is unscientific. The idea of healings is unscientific. The idea of a deep, fundamental change in human nature wrought by submitting to the will of someone who died two millennia ago, is unscientific. If we’re waiting for “science” (as defined in the twenty-first century, or the nineteenth century, or the seventeenth century, or whatever other definition of “science” you prefer) to confirm every whit of Mormonism—per our own doctrine that’s only going to come when we hear Jesus Himself saying “welcome to the Terrestrial Kingdom”. Correct. And likely as simply myths as much as the Greek Gods or the gods of the druids.
smac97 Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Quote Quite so. We none of us can prove or disprove these things. Yes we can prove that humans have not descended from two people 8000 or so years ago. That's the only scenario? 1 minute ago, Teancum said: We can prove that death and precreation have existed from billions of years before and alleged fall. How does that disprove the absence of death and procreation in the Garden? 1 minute ago, Teancum said: We can prove that species have evolved including humans. You know the Church's educational institutions teach human evolution, right? Is it possible that there are ways to reconcile evolution with the biblical narrative? 1 minute ago, Teancum said: You can try to perpetuate your myth Gotta love the weaponization of "myth." 1 minute ago, Teancum said: by boxing it in to some small garden of Eden I encourage you to read the Bible, and to study what the Church teaches about the Garden of Eden. I further encourage you to consider what the narrative has to say about what happened after Adam and Eve ate the fruit. They left the Garden and went . . . where? And was there a difference between A) the Garden, and B) where they went after they left it? See, e.g., these resources (the references to the "lone and dreary world" are perhaps noteworthy). 1 minute ago, Teancum said: and that somehow the laws of nature were suspended for a time but that is not what scriptures teach nor LDS leaders. I get that you are skeptical of these things. But I think part of that skepticism is based on erroneous assumptions, misunderstandings and ignorance. Belief in God ultimately takes us to some pretty fantastic places. I admit that. But atheism also has its share of unlikely suppositions. 1 minute ago, Teancum said: And no the resurrection of Christ has not been proven empirically. Um, isn't that kind of a big deal? Do you insist on empirical proof of the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Why or why not? I'm genuinely curious. Thanks, -Smac
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: It depends in what sense you use the word "descended." If you mean that all of mankind emerged from those two ancestors and no others, then I believe you would be correct. However, if by "all humans descended from" you merely mean that all humans are descendants of a particular person, or that particular person is in every person's ancestral tree, then it's actually very likely that one or more individuals in the most recent few thousand years are the progenitors of every human being on earth. See this article in Letters to Nature and this study from Yale. It is certainly plausible (and in fact probable) that the most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived within the past few thousand years. While I accept your assertion that all human beings alive today would in fact most likely be the descendants of any human you lived a few thousand years ago, such as Charlemagne, there is no, zip, zero, zilch evidence that all humanity descended from 2 individuals some 6,000 years ago in fact just the opposite, evidence supports that we descended from a hereditary Eve and a hereditary Adam, but that these symbolic parents live thousands of years apart from each other in completely different eras of time.
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: So you're admitting that two of the critical doctrines surrounding the Fall are in fact not true. No. You did not get that idea from me. 3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Human's did have the ability to procreated before the fall and there was physical death before the fall. Yes, but on this planet? I don't think so. On other planets, though, yes. Our species has lived and procreated and died and been resurrected on other planets with no beginning or end to all of it, and there never will be an end to it in an eternal perspective. Each planet goes through each phase at different times, though. Once upon a time nobody lived on this planet. Then 2 of us came here, a man and a woman, and soon after all of us came as their children. Just remember, it always takes a man and a woman. 3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Given this admission, why should we believe that the other doctrinal claim surrounding the fall actually took place, that of a spiritual death? You misunderstood something somewhere, or for some other reason are saying something which isn't true now.
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 41 minutes ago, bOObOO said: The math alone is enough to make someone's mouth open wide to say Wow! Especially with most of us coming from Noah's family line who survived on the ark. That means most of us billions or maybe even trillions came during the last 5,000 years. eta: figuring about 1,000 years between Adam becoming mortal and the flood in Noah's day
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: In other words you're claim to having proof is actually wishful thinking with nothing to support it LOL. Yes, those are definitely some other words than the words I gave you. Neat trick. What other words can you turn my words into that have no resemblance to the words I have used.
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Someone needs to bring chips then unless you have other plans in which case I like where you are going with this. Note: It is the believers that are organizing this hedonistic party and not the questioners . Just saying
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Note: It is the believers that are organizing this hedonistic party and not the questioners . Just saying Yeah. Questioners. Inquisitors. Not much difference. Not all believers have been invited to the party, though. And not all want to come.
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 16 minutes ago, bOObOO said: If I believe in God and life after death and you do not, and if there is no God, we both lose when we die. However, if there is a God, you still lose and I gain everything. Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. From the guy who is known for presenting what is now called Pascal's wager, an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that human beings bet with their lives that God either exists or does not. https://www.azquotes.com/author/11361-Blaise_Pascal ONLY if your God it the correct one. But if one of these gods are the correct god you're still screwed. Absolute Spirit, Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Inclusiveness or simply The Absolute (Religion 2.0) Allah Anima Mundi (World Soul, Gaia, Universal Soul) (Religion 1.5) Atman Brahma Buddha Causal (Religion 2.0) Causeless Cause Christ Christ Consciousness Cosmic Christ Consciousness (Religion 1.5) Conscious Universe (Religion 2.0) Divine Divine Feminine, Kali, Oya, Pele, Mary, Shakti, Black Madonna or any of the other many names for Goddess embodying Absolute Divinity in a female manifestation.) Divine Mother Divine Mystery Divine Presence Divine Providence Ein Sof Eshwara Ever Present Origin (Religion 1.5) Evolution (Religion 2.0) Evolutionary Spirit (Religion 2.0) Evolution Spirituality (Religion 2.0) God Godde Goddess God/Buddha Great Consciousness (Religion 1.5) Great I Am Great Interconnectedness (Religion 2.0) Great Mother Great Mystery (Great Mystery is the name used most often with in Religion 2.0 and Open Source Spirituality for describing Ultimate Reality.) Great Spirit Great Union (Religion 2.0) Great Unity (Religion 2.0) Great Unfolding (Religion 2.0) Great Radiance (Religion 2.0) Great Relationship (Religion 2.0) Higher Power Highest Essence Highest Self Holy Spirit I am Who am (a non qualitative personal Divinity) Infinite Consciousness (Religion 1.5) Infinite Essence (Religion 2.0) Infinite Mystery (Religion 2.0) Infinite one Infinite oneness (Religion 2.0) Infinite Source Infinite Spirit Infinite Wholeness (Religion 2.0) Integrative Consciousness (Religion 1.5) Integrative Spirit Kosmos Krishna Larger Self Love Mother Universe Nameless One Nondual Awareness OM Original Essence (Religion 2.0) Original Organizing Principle (Religion 2.0) Pre Big Bang Reality (Religion 2.0) Post Big Bang Reality (Religion 2.0) Shakti Shiva The Cosmos (Religion 2.0) The Great Oneness (Religion 2.0) The Source The Eternal Now The Everything and the Nothing The Evolutionary Absolute (Religion 2.0) The Evolutionary Process Itself at Universe Scale (Religion 2.0) The Evolutionary Union (Religion 2.0) The Flow of Life or Life Force (Chi, Elan Vital, Prana) The Infinite The Good The Great Spirit The Tao The Great Unified Field (Religion 2.0) The Force The Tripartite Absolute, (a term used for the combined Personal, Evolutionary and Impersonal absolutes of God (Religion 1.5) The Absolute Trinity or TriUnity (Religion 1.5) The Supreme The Union (Religion 2.0) The Unity (Religion 2.0) The Universe Itself (Religion 2.0) The Universal One (Religion 2.0) The Ultimate (Religion 2.0) The Universe or Living Universe (Religion 2.0) The Universal or Universe Source, Spirit or Soul Total Reality (Religion 2.0) Total Pre and Post Big Bang Reality (Religion 2.0) Total Universe Reality (Religion 2.0) The Wholeness of the Universe (Religion 2.0) Ultimate Concern Ultimate Reality Ultimate Universe Reality (Religion 2.0) Ultimate Truth Ultimate Unity or Oneness (Religion 2.0) Ultimate Wholeness (Religion 2.0) Universe Consciousness Universe Entity Universal Life Universal Oneness Vishu Wakan Taka
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 14 minutes ago, bOObOO said: No. You did not get that idea from me. Yes, but on this planet? I don't think so. On other planets, though, yes. Our species has lived and procreated and died and been resurrected on other planets with no beginning or end to all of it, and there never will be an end to it in an eternal perspective. Each planet goes through each phase at different times, though. Once upon a time nobody lived on this planet. Then 2 of us came here, a man and a woman, and soon after all of us came as their children. Just remember, it always takes a man and a woman. You misunderstood something somewhere, or for some other reason are saying something which isn't true now. Rather early in the discussion to pull out the magical planet card isn't it? 1
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: ONLY if your God it the correct one. But if one of these gods are the correct god you're still screwed. Where or from Whom are you getting your information? My God goes by many if not most of those names, so apparently I will be a winner, and you will be,,, time will tell.
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: Rather early in the discussion to pull out the magical planet card isn't it? It is magical, isn't it. Never too early to pull it out.
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 (edited) 30 minutes ago, smac97 said: That's the only scenario? How does that disprove the absence of death and procreation in the Garden? You know the Church's educational institutions teach human evolution, right? Is it possible that there are ways to reconcile evolution with the biblical narrative? Gotta love the weaponization of "myth." I encourage you to read the Bible, and to study what the Church teaches about the Garden of Eden. I further encourage you to consider what the narrative has to say about what happened after Adam and Eve ate the fruit. They left the Garden and went . . . where? And was there a difference between A) the Garden, and B) where they went after they left it? See, e.g., these resources (the references to the "lone and dreary world" are perhaps noteworthy). I get that you are skeptical of these things. But I think part of that skepticism is based on erroneous assumptions, misunderstandings and ignorance. Belief in God ultimately takes us to some pretty fantastic places. I admit that. But atheism also has its share of unlikely suppositions. Um, isn't that kind of a big deal? Do you insist on empirical proof of the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Why or why not? I'm genuinely curious. Thanks, -Smac I noticed that you never acknowledged my scriptural reference for proving LDS doctrine that there was no procreation prior to the fall. PS: I'm ok with your acknowledgement that either the scriptures are wrong or your admission that you were wrong. Edited August 17, 2021 by Fair Dinkum
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 Vishu will be so happy to know this.
Fair Dinkum Posted August 17, 2021 Author Posted August 17, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bOObOO said: It is magical, isn't it. Never too early to pull it out. Resorting to magic to explain and support ones position is generally seen to be a sign of desperation Edited August 17, 2021 by Fair Dinkum
Teancum Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 12 hours ago, teddyaware said: Good for you! You’ve just proven to yourself existence is some kind of weird, highly improbable cosmic accident, and that life is ephemeral, futile and ultimately meaningless. Now go and do whatever you please because there is no punishment for so-called ungodly behavior. You are now free from all restraint and the master of this great secret! Enjoy yourself! No. He has not proven what you state. But science has. Yes our existence is part of a cosmic event, not really an accident. And no, it is not go and do whatever you please. Humans are moral creatures and can have morals and ethics without an imaginary God being. Your immature argument is typical of fundamentalist religious folk. Apparently you need the threat of being punished and beaten by an imaginary God being to restrain yourself from all sorts of horrible behavior. That reflect poorly on you. Those mature enough to move beyond an imaginary god in the sky that threatens us if we do not behave well can do just fine with being decent humans. This is why ultimately religion is evil. 1
smac97 Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: I noticed that you never acknowledged my scriptural reference for proving LDS doctrine that there was no procreation prior to the fall. I guess I missed that. Are you referencing 2 Nephi 2:23? "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." Are you saying that this scripture requires us to believe that there was no procreation anywhere on the earth at all (as opposed to no procreation as to Adam and Eve)? Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 15 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Note: It is the believers that are organizing this hedonistic party and not the questioners . Just saying Fine. Now you are uninvited.
bOObOO Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: Vishu will be so happy to know this. FYI,. my God is a kind of being consisting of multiple persons who are each that kind of being that I refer to as God. Some of those persons are good, and some of those persons are evil. And yes Vishu is happy to know he is God.
smac97 Posted August 17, 2021 Posted August 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: Resorting to magic to explain and support ones position is generally seen to be a sign of desperation Disparaging sincere religious beliefs by calling them "magic" is generally seen to be a sign of incivility and contempt. Do you insist that Christians everyone have a comprehensive and empirically testable explanation for Jesus turning water to wine, multiplying the loaves and fishes, walking on water, raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus, etc.? What about His bodily resurrection? Do you insist on a specific and detailed explanation for that? If not, why not? Thanks, -Smac 2
Recommended Posts