DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
But how do you distinguish between revelation from god and the ideas of men? I've asked this question to members before and all answers I receive reek of confirmation bias.
That's been my biggest question since I came to this forum and the main reason I am not a member.
-
the ideas of men are all we have really.
I agree completely
-
Here in the states, there are many professors and colleges that will not accept Wikipedia as a source for papers and essays. My daughter had a high school teacher that would not allow it to be used as well. Mainly for the fact that many things that are on wikipedia have been found to be inaccurate. You have to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.
... you should take any source with a grain of salt. Many "facts" in traditional encyclopedias and journals have been found to be innaccurate as well and some studies even show that to be the case more often than the information in wikipedia.
-
To me, I look at the earth and all of its elements and possibilities and then man's ability to create and to harness and produce using these resources as a reflection of man's divine heritage.
I believe part of what makes God is his ability to create and organize and that this sphere is given to us to stretch our creative capacities. It is like God has said "Here is an earth. Go see what you can do with it. When you come back home, I'll show you even greater stuff or even give you opportunities to try your hand at what I do."
If we are indeed children of God, why wouldn't we have creative capability and why wouldn't God give us space to try?
To me, I look at God being made in man's own image rather than the other way around
We often give human traits to things. For example, my wife often states that her computer is mad at her. It's called anthropomorphism.
-
Snowflakes are not evolving - a snowflake is no more complex and intricate today than they were 12 billion years ago. Because of my background and training in math and physics I consider myself knowledgably and capable of using Chaos theory to model complex systems. I am aware that Chaos theory utilizes probabilities within ranges based on parameters within defined ratios to predict possible outcomes of complex systems. Even in Chaos theory a parameter(s) must change beyond defined ratios before the probable outputs can be redefined. Since the parameters of a snowflake are very limited within the range of the crystallization of water there will never be evolution of snowflakes thus Chaos Theory is incapable of telling us anymore about a snowflake than what we already know.
Since Chaos theory deals with initial parameters within defined ranges the outcomes are given as probabilities. I contend that if you can know all the parameters precisely enough you could predict the outcome exactly – even in a snowflake.
The Traveler
The snow flake comment and my chaos theory question were not really related. In fact I assumed you had probably studied chaos theory more in depth that I have, I was just confirming that assumption. I brought up the snow flake because many people say that order and organization require intlligence guiding it. I submit that snowflakes are orderly and organized but have no intelligence guiding their creation.
Think of a fractal; beautiful and infinitely complex patterns arise from initial parameters and a simple equation. That is how I think of the universe. Infinite complexity exploded from initial coditions and relatively simple rules governing them. Not to say that is the only way of looking at things, but to say that your way of looking at a "designed" universe is the only logical conclusion is a bit of a stretch.
-
Since Chaos theory deals with initial parameters within defined ranges the outcomes are given as probabilities. I contend that if you can know all the parameters precisely enough you could predict the outcome exactly – even in a snowflake.
The Traveler
I agree with that completely. In fact I further contend that if you knew the initial parameters of the universe and the rules that governed matter well enough you would be able to predict the outcome right down to us typing to each other right now.
-
My personal view is that God does indeed direct all of creation.
He has not left His creation to go elsewhere.
He is "not asleep at the switch."
Thanks for clarifying :)
-
I am a Catholic. I and my Church have no problem with evolution- that is God directed.
The signs of archeology/biology/geology point-in my opinion- point to an evolutionary process.
Where the difference lies-is in leaving God out of the equation.
-Carol
God directed or God created? Do you think that God still meddles with or guides the process? or do you just think that He is the one that set it all up?
-
The point is that complexity comes from order not chaos. Chaos produces singularity over time. I have never found an exception. I think it is kind of humorous that anyone that has ever attempted to produce anything complex would have any other opinion and think it logical.
As you may already know, I make software for a living. I know better than most, that humans can indeed make incredibly complex things, but the things that we can make are orders of magnitude less complex than living creatures. At some point you reach the limit of what can be created by directly designing something and you need some sort of automated process to evaluate what works and what doesn't. To me, that is exactly what evolution is and it makes quite a bit of sense to me that no one being could simply "design" all the complexity we see today, it looks far more like the work of an automated system.
-
I have always enjoyed conversation with you DS. Thank you for reading my posts. When we consider initial conditions for the universe and how it continues to operate we must realize that such conditions are complex. Any scientific analysis of complex systems based on contributing or controlling parameters indicate that at some point there must be ordered complexity. Even with computers with simple binary code complex systems can be modeled but only by ordering the complexity through programming. If a complex software program is working (producing anything worthwhile or useful) I find it much simpler to assume that someone produced and debugged it. I have a really hard time believing the computer just happened to have the complex program as an initial condition.
The Traveler
Take for example a snow flake. No one is guiding or controlling its formation and yet we see incredibly intricate unique patterns of snow flakes all over the place. Also, out of curiousity have you read much about Chaos Theory?
-
Your question: Who created the creator? So you claim that there was no cause to creation and no caused to that cause? But there must be a cause to creation because things exist. Then what was the cause of that cause and so on and so on. We are no better off – unless you can prove that something exists without a cause and without anything to precede it. Something without a cause makes no sense to me – in a roundabout way it appears that you agree but I am not sure. And so the term random is used but what stopped cause and inserted randomness? We are back to a cause even when we consider randomness. Why do we want to make an exception to everything we experience – that is that all things have a cause?
I was merely pointing out that whether you think the initial conditions of the universe simply exist or that some creator simply exists, either way at some point you have to concede that something simply exists and we have no idea why. What I don't understand and what I don't think you answered is: What exactly makes it more logical to you to assume that there is a creator that simply exists (without a creator of his own) rather than the universe simply existing in an initial state ready to explode into all the complexity we see today?
There are areas within our solar system that are less extreme than some places on earth that harbor life – but there is no life beyond earth. So we have a conflict. Life on earth is the default and no life the extreme exception – but life anywhere else but earth there is no life as the default and no exceptions. It does not make sense that there is life on earth
Perhaps in order for life to form the conditions cannot be too extreme, but once life has taken root so to speak, it can branch out into even the most extreme conditions? Makes sense to me. You say that we have found no life outside of earth with "no exceptions", but considering the infinitecimal percent of the universe that we have access to, I don't think that really means much at all when it comes to determining how common or uncommon life is.
Your realization that humans are different than other primates but not really different is interesting. Why human pass on massive amounts of knowledge and no other primates have done so despite all the same environmental pressures and much longer time breaks down the theory that something acted on humans that does not act the same on other primates. The only logical conclusion is that humans are different because something different (unique to humans) caused it. This is made more interesting because it also appears that you believe that unless humans change (stop communicating massive amounts of knowledge that makes us different so we become more like other primates?) then the intelligence that separates us from other primates and gives us advantage is not really an advantage and we will become extinct – To be honest I do not see this logic; it seems to be rather illogical (quoting Spock).
My point was that while yes, by virtue of our genes we do have larger brains and greater capacity for processing information than other primates, it is not such a monumental difference as you seem to have been implying. Without the tools and knowledge that have been honed for thousands of years passed on to us, we would behave very similarly to other primates. Given the same environmental pressures, different species can evolve quite differently based on the genetic mutations specific to their population. That is the nature of an imperfect system to transcribe DNA. I'm not sure what you are going on about me thinking we would become extinct or what you are inferring I believe, but to be honest, the last half of that paragraph made little to no sense to me and I would appreciate it if you could clarify a bit.
-
If the world were made up of ones and twos only what would the world be like?
That depends on a lot of things, like what God people unquestionably believe in and what doctrine they follow. I will assume you are meaning some type of Christian faith, but just because people believe something doesn't meant they practice what they preach. In fact very few Christians I know act even remotely "Christ-like".
If the world were made up of sixs and sevens only what would the world be like?
I don't think there would be much difference in our country. While the majority of the country is Christian, I would be suprised if the majority of the country actually went to church on a regular basis or lets their religion significantly effect their life. I guess the biggest changes would be in countries literally ruled by religious belief where people are regularly stoned and female circumcisions are performed and whatnot.
Right now we have the whole spectrum and the world is surviving (IMO) but it does seem headed for doom as revelations are starting to come true.
People have been claiming the end of times are near and the signs of the apocalypse are upon us since the beginning of religion. Until something actually happens, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.
-
I do not understand why anyone would think that random chaos is a better explanation of things than a sophisticated creator. Perhaps they cannot imagine the possibility of anything smarter that themselves.
And who created the creator? If everything sophisticated needs an even more sophisticated creator, how did the first one come into being? Did the first one naturally assume that he must have been created as well by your logic? How do you know that we aren't the first ones? I do not understand why anyone would think that an infinite chain of creators is a somehow more logical explaination than life emerging from the interactions of matter.
One thing I find rather interesting – we only find life on earth and so far nowhere else. The question then is this – Why life on earth. Is life unique or is life not unique.
Given that our solar system is the only area we can even check for life and even that is difficult and there are many billions of solar systems in our galaxy and many billions of galaxies we can only see in the distance, I don't think we can really determine anything about the uniqueness of life in the universe. For all we know, ever other solar system could have its own civilization, or we could be unique throughout the universe (IMHO very unlikely).
Another question concerns human intelligence. Life has been around millions of years why all of a sudden has human life taken hold in such a recent short time frame.
Humans really aren't inherently that much smarter than other primates, it's just that we've developed the communication skills to pass on massive amounts of knowledge to our offspring which caused exponential growth of technology and allowed us to thrive all over the world.
The newness of humans in the temporal landscape leaves us with the question – are we the end of something or are we the beginning of something or are we in the middle of something. The answer may be that it depends on how we are willing and able to view ourselves. This also defines how we understand and reference G-d. In that we think of him just beginning, just ending or just in the process of what he does.
It is my opinion that we are in the middle of something – and just because we are unable to see what came before and what will be after we make assumptions. Some think randomness and some think of an unknowable, un-seeable (or measurable) and un-understandable G-d. I think we have all that is needed to figure out that we belong and fit into what has gone on before, what is happening now and what will continue to be.
Personally I think we simply are. Whether we end it all depends on whether as a species we pull our heads out of our collective rear ends and stop killing each other over outdated territorial instincts and unbounded greed.
-
From what I've seen in my (admittedly limited) experience in Utah, there is far more religious intolerance here, particularly with family members. Obviously there is the potential for it in all locations with all religions, but I have never personally experienced such religious intolerance until coming here and perhaps that is disproportionally coloring my view of things.
I still don't fully understand the disappointement (which can be very emotionally damaging to a child) that parents have for children who have religious differences with them. From my conversations with LDS members, free agency is meant to be respected and people must follow the church of their own free will. Being guilted into belief that they don't agree with by parents who project an attitude (implicitly or explicitly) of "well you can leave the church but I will think that I failed as a parent... it's completely your choice though!" does not sound like respecting free agency to me.
-
My parents were (and still are to some extent) Universalist Unitarian. They have loose beliefs in God, but even as I was little they would allow me to make my own decisions on the matter. In my early teens I decided to stop going to church all together and my parents were perfectly fine with it. The idea that parents would impose religion on their kids is logically understandable, but extremely foreign to me and the friends I knew growing up.
Coming to Utah has been a culture shock in many ways, but the most shocking to me is how parents interact with their kids regarding religion. From the blatant prejudice I had to overcome to win over my wife's immediate family (since I am *gasp* not a member!) to some of the extremely strained family situations of the friends my wife had in high school, it is all very foreign to me and somewhat disturbing.
-
How would you react if your child did not want to be a part of the church? Living in Utah, I know many parents who would (and have) disown their children for leaving the church. Why? Once they are old enough to make their own decisions, is it not their own choice what religion fits them best?
Obviously parents want the best for their children and if they truly believe their religion is the one true religion, of course they would want their child to share that belief and reap the benifets in the afterlife. I have seen this tendency in other religions as well, but never before have I seen it to the extent that it exists in Utah with Mormons. I can't for the life of me understand why any parent would be willing to cut off all relations with their child rather than accept their choice to not be a part of their church and love them regardless. Could someone enlighten me?
-
I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins' religious commentary, but I really like what he had to say about the range of religious belief. He broke it down into a "spectrum of probabilities". I think that this is a much better way of defining peoples' stances on religion than just saying that those who aren't 100% certain are agnostic. We are all agnostic to some degree, yes, but most people in the world see a higher probability one way or the other in regards to God's existence. It is for that reason that we use terms like theist and atheist to define our views despite a lack of absolute certainty of our position.
I myself would put myself in the 6 category, as does Dawkins. We don't know for sure that God does not exist, but we believe that it's much more likely that he doesn't exist than that he does, which is what distinguishes us from agnostics. Anywho, that's just my two cents on the distinction between atheism and agnosticism.
I would probably put myself at a 6 as well. I don't know anyone that would put themselves at a 7, but that is the position that people immediately assume you have if you tell them you are an atheist, which is why I usally say I am agnostic to simplify things. I'm glad you posted the spectrum though. I thought about bringing up 'strong' and 'weak' atheism, but I think the spectrum probably better demonstrates the variety of viewpoints among non-believers.
-
DS,
I don't know you very well -- I know you took a break from the boards for a while and maybe I haven't read enough of your posts -- but I was wondering what you believe.
When I professed to be Agnostic (for many years) I liked that term because I wasn't willing to state emphatically that there wasn't a God.
(curious about your thinking) How does someone come to know for sure there is no God? Is it in any way the same way someone might come to know there is a God?
(Just kind of thinking out loud) I know we are getting a ways off my OP but maybe not.
Common use of the term 'atheist' refers to one who is certain that God does not exist, however most atheists I know define the word as simply not believing in God which would make them 'agnostic' by most people's use of the word. There is a BIG difference between stating with certainty that something does not exist and simply not believing in something though. For example, I don't believe that Bigfoot exists, but I also don't believe that it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. Given strong evidence that Bigfoot does exist, I would welcome the discovery of the new species. I feel basically the same way about God, call it whatever you like but 'agnostic' seems to fit best with most people's definitions which is why I usually tell people I am agnostic if they ask.
There are people that are 100% certain that God does not exist but to me that is just as arrogant as claiming to be 100% certain that God does exist since I don't believe there is any way to tell for certain. There are a variety of people that are completely convinced that their version of God really exists and have personal experiences that back this up, yet no emperical evidence. I've seen many people convinced solely on feelings and their subjective experience that their religion is the one true religion. The problem with this is that not all of them can be right since there are a number of conflicting views of the nature and will of God, so I conclude that feelings alone are an unreliable source of determining truth. In short, that is why I am agnostic.
-
I am not LDS but I have talked to my share of missionaries and have lived in Utah for the last few years, so here is what I've gathered from the culture around me:
When are you suppose to go on your mission ( age range ??)From what I've heard, you can go on a mission any time, but most people seem to do it after high school but before college
Are the missions encouraged by the Church??Yes, however it is supposed to be thought of as a priveledge rather than requirement. Unfortunately I have heard of some people being all but disowned by their parents for chosing not to go on a mission and there is somewhat of a cultural prejudice against people who haven't gone on a mission. (i.e. *whisper* I wouldn't trust my kids with him, he didn't even go on a mission! *whisper*)
Are they paid for by the Church ??I know a lot of people who save up for their mission, so I think a significant portion at least is out of your own pocket. I'm sure other people who have gone on a mission will provide more details.
Are you going on your mission as a group of LDS?? ( or solo )I think you are usually paired with a companion who you have not met before hand.
Who picks your destination ?? ( do you have any say in where you might like to go )Presumably God does (via the mission director I think).
What exactly, are you suppose to do on your mission??Share the gospel and bring people to the church. Investigators will make appointments with missionaries and go through lessons.
Where do you live?? Do you try and get a job on mission ??Getting a job is a no-no on your mission, though you are encouraged to offer help to investigators and serve to the community. I'm not sure where you live.
Do you report to anyone while on mission??As far as I can tell there is something like a chain of command.
Where does your " money to live on " come from??From the church and what you have saved up to go on your mission I presume.
Can you say " NO " to a mission??I think you have to be "called" for a mission and at that point you probably could say no, but family and friends may be very unhappy with you.
Is a completed mission one of the criteria to be Temple worthy??Not sure, but I know you have to go through a process and not everyone is deemed "worthy" to go on a mission.
Edit: misread the question, thought you were asking if being temple worthy was a requirement to go on a mission
Any other info to try and help people like me ( Non LDS ) get a better understanding would be greatly appreciated.:)Thanks and God bless,
Carl
I don't have all the answers, but I thought you might want an opinion from another (mostly) unbiased outsider to get a feel for what missions are. I hope that helps a little.
-
What if you don't want to believe or you don't want religion to be right about God ? What if you fight against it and even tantrum against truth trying to make it untrue....only to find out that there is a God and you can't deny it? What then?
Is this person delusional or believing lies or blinded by the adrenal glands?
There are days when I think it would be much easier NOT to know what I know about God.
That is indeed another possibility. My intent is not to convince anyone they are wrong, but simply help people understand other points of view and provide another perspective.
There are also days when I think it would be much easier to unquestioningly believe in God like so many other people. People are usually tempted by the seemingly greener grass on the other side.
-
This statement is why I asked the question about Atheists and Agnostics. Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make with the above statement. (You were addressing my question, 'why have faith?'
No offense taken -- I am just curious -- and I appreciate your response.
What I meant by that statement is that I think many people have faith because the alternative (not having faith) is unpleasant to them. Religions present something that people want to believe in whether they are true or not. In my opintion, that is how the first religions came to be; a definite answer whether it is right or wrong is far more comforting than simply saying "I don't know."
I think there are a lot of misunderstandings of atheist/agnostic viewpoints so I am more than happy to answer any questions :)
-
(Out of curiosity)What do Atheists and Agnostics believe in?
There is no atheist or agnostic doctrine or set of beliefs. The only thing that atheists have in common is their lack of belief in God. Your question is like asking someone who doesn't like ice cream what their favorite flavor of ice cream is... it just doesn't make sense.
Is there alternative unpleasant? Where is judgment and accountability in this?
Very few people are atheist or agnostic because there is a natural need for there to be a greater judgement and accountability that religions provide with punishments/rewards after we die.
My son was in a rehab program where they used the '12 Step' system -- a counselor was asked why they had to pray to a God they didn't think existed. The counselor asked them to picture a time they were driving around under the influence, maybe had drugs or open containers in the car and suddenly see a police car pull up behind them. You know you're going to jail if they pull you over -- what's usually the first thing out of your mouth, when your heart starts racing -- "Oh God, help me get out of this one." Or just plain, "O God."
That's who you pray to.
Most people have that reaction because they are raised to believe there is a God and even if they don't personally think there is a God, they are willing to latch on to any hope in an emergency. In serious panic situations, I honestly don't think of God, I simply think "oh crap" and try to think of how I am going to get myself out of this situation, rather than hoping some higher power magically saves me.
So if all religion is man-made (and I'm not saying it's not) is God man-made?
If religion is man-made, then yes the concept of God is man-made as well.
Why the visceral feeling to pray when we're in a bad situation?
Adrenaline? Endorphins being released in response? Also personal experiences seem to vary since I don't really feel anything when I pray no matter what the situation. Feelings come and go for a variety of reasons, assuming it is God or a higher power is a bit of a stretch. Sort of like people who see a UFO (an object in the sky that they can't identify) and immediately assume it is of extra terrestrial origin rather than a number of other far more likely possibilities. Why? because they already want to believe and it is simple confirmation bias.
In any case, no offense is meant. You seem genuinely curious so I answered as honest and straightforward as possible with my personal opinion.
-
So i was wondering something about dating?
This new girl came to my work and she is cute in all but she inst a member she has a baby and she smokes. I was wondering if it was a bad thing to date someone like that.If their was any chance for turning those things around. I am a guy that will ignore a girl that smokes someone who has children already and not married. so ya i was just wondering?
Don't date her if you're expecting her to convert. Date her if you truly want to get to know her and see if you are compatible (religious differences aside).
I'm not LDS but my wife is, so you can take my opinion for whatever you feel it is worth :)
-
You marry who you date. Some people do convert due to dating. Some drag their partners down.
You left out a possibility. Some people happily coexist with different religious philosophies :)
One Global Faith -- Is It Possible?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I agree that there is an event horizon, beyond which we can know nothing about the universe or even speculate how those initial conditions came to be. Simply assuming it was some creator does not make sense to me though. From what I've seen intelligence itself is a fluke. We cannot recreate it so I see no reason to assume that it takes some other intelligence to create intelligence since we've never seen an instance of that either.