DigitalShadow

I would say roughly 1 x 10^28 If I felt like putting more time into it I could look up the percent of each element the human body contains and use their molar masses to get a much better approximation. What is your point?

I would say that is a distinct possibility and that could be how other churches are started, but what about all the faithful followers that have nothing to gain and honestly want to know the truth?

I really don't see see how any of those things denote a creator. The planets and their movement denote a set of rules that matter follows, but to say that denotes a creator does not follow. This leads to the discussion I've had with many people that goes something like this: Them: Look at everything around you? How did all that come about without a creator? You can't have organization without something more complex organizing it. Me: Then who created the creator? Them: God just IS. Me: But you just said that there always has to be something more complex organizing it which would mean that the creator would have to have a creator and his creator would have to have a creator and so on... Them: At some point you just have to accept that something just IS. Me: My point exactly, why can't the set of rules governing the universe just BE. Adding another layer by saying there is a creator doesn't help any. Them: Then how did life on this planet begin? There's a 1 in (insert huge number here) chance that the conditions would be right and the first life would come together. Me: And how many planets do you think there are? It is true that life could be highly improbable to form on any given planet, but if you take into account how many planets exist, it becomes highly likely that life would exist on at least one planet of those countless planets in the universe. Them: I still know there is a creator and nothing can change that. Me: We'll just agree to disagree then.

I honestly don't care about drinking alcohol, I don't even drink. My point is simply that many different men claim to have rules from God, and obviously not all of them are right. I'm going to wait for God to tell me personally which set of rules (if any) are from Him.

That is between me and God. :) Until I am tired of waiting, I figure that He can contact me whenever so I don't really see the need to wait very long. I am extremely grateful that I exist, but beyond that I don't see what God had to do with it. I tell Him to feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I can tell you that I want it more than many people who have already "received" their answer. I can honestly say no to that. The only thing that would change in my life is that I would be baptized and accepted better by my community and in-laws. If anything life would be easier if I converted, I already live my life according to the moral teachings of the church and more recently the Word of Wisdom out of respect to my wife. I could just as easily ask you if you are secretly only interested in my conversion so that it validates your own beliefs that God talks to everyone who honestly seeks His wisdom, but it wouldn't get us anywhere so lets leave that line of questioning out. Yes, I tell Him that frequently. I haven't received any insight or guidance from Him yet. If He wants my unquestioning belief and faith, the He can adequately explain His actions to me. From my experience, I haven't. You are correct. No, I think we are making progress, just very slowly. Are you trying to imply with this little quiz that I'm not listening? On the ones that are practical yes. I've been trying to work in a fast into my schedule and I'm still discussing things with my wife. Possibly this upcoming weekend.

Yes, the words of men state that HE has an opinion on alcohol consumption, but He has yet to inform me of His true opinion on the subject yet since as we know the words of men don't always accurately represent God's intent.

So you are saying that God would not speak to someone who drinks alcohol or smokes (I don't do either of those), even if they have never been told those are wrong? I asked God just now if he found alcohol consumption to be offensive to Him. He didn't bother to reply so I guess He has no opinion on that.

So you contend that God gives truth to people in segments and what they do with it is up to them? I don't know that I agree with that given what I've seen, but I do thank you because that is the only direct answer to the question I've seen in the responding posts so far. So, going on the assumption that God communicates with us through thoughts and feelings in bits and pieces what makes people so sure that THEIR church is true? I'm sure it was more than just a hint that led you to have faith, isn't it reasonable to assume that other people who have such strong faith in a different religion got more than just a hint that it was the right path for them? I do accept your theory as a possibility, but from my point of view, it isn't supported by the high level of inconsistency between messages people claim are from the divine.

What I'm saying is that there are many people honestly trying to communicate with God and honestly thinking the response they received was from God. Given that scenario, why wouldn't God simply lead them to the "correct" church or at least point them in the right direction? I'm not sure I entirely understand your reply. Are you implying that "Satan" is who leads people to false churches, and if so, how do you know Satan didn't lead you to your church posing as God? You can say that you just "know" the church is true, but that is what everyone else says about their presumably "false" churches.

I ask this question honestly, it was brought up in another thread of mine but I do think it deserves its own thread. It has been proposed that free agency is the cause, but I know for a fact that there are people who are not a part of the church but honestly seeking a relationship with God. If God communicates to us with thoughts and feelings, when someone is honestly an humbly seeking Him, why do they not always get a response? Worse yet, why do some get conflicting responses? How would it violate free agency to simply guide someone who is honestly seeking a relationship with God? There are many truly faithful people that believe they have communicated with God and that their church is true. I would have no problem believing that they did in fact communicate with God if it weren't for the fact that there are so many different churches all with faithful people knowing their particular church is true. It is clear that these people honestly want a relationship with God, why didn't God send them to the "correct" church instead of allowing them to believe in a false church? I ask this because I see many of my fellow man who are utterly convinced that God talks to them and nothing can convince them otherwise. Obviously not all of them can be right since they are from different churches with sometimes drastically different messages, so I am understandably cautious before diving head first into the deep end of "faith." Before I am accused of "blaming" God for the situation, I would like to say that I am not "blaming" God for anything. I am only seeking to understand the process of communicating with God because I am obviously missing something since He doesn't talk to me at all.

I contributed more than anyone to this thread being derailed because it led to so many side discussions that I was genuinely interested in, but I think that now I will split those discussions so that other people might join in and we can keep focus on a particular topic per thread.

I think I might make those threads. This one has become quite derailed, but I still want to discuss the ideas that were brought up here. Those two questions seems to be the biggest obsticles in my acceptance of any Gospel, so I will investigate them further seperately.

Actually my complaint is "Why doesn't He at least make himself known to me and why does He allow so many other people to be misled in His name?"

I don't know, religion seeks the answer to that question and I have not committed to any particular religion yet.

I think a more accurate analogy for science vs. religion would be that science seeks the answers to questions while religion simply provides them. In science you take numerous factors into account when trying to answer a question and perform countless experiments to explore hypothesis that were made. Even then you only have a working theory that can be changed or thrown out when new evidence comes to light. In religion an answer is given and you either take it or don't follow that particular religion. For some, the never-ending search for better versions of the truth is appealing, for others the unquestionable certainty of "knowing" the answers is appealing. To each his own.

No, what I am saying is that there are many people like me who earnestly want a relationship with God, some hear God saying Church X is the true church, some hear God saying Chruch Y is the true church and some don't hear God at all. That is what continues to perplex me about the whole idea of a loving God that is capable of talking to those who earnestly want to know Him. I am not implying it is any kind of "joke", I am merely pointing out the inconsistancy (as perceived from MY viewpoint) since EVERY religion has people like you who have experienced these wonderful feelings claiming they couldn't be from anyone but God but with a different message. You are essentially saying that all those other people are suffering from some delusion, but it is not possible that it is happening to you. I can only speak for certain from my perspective in which I know I have a sincere desire and am getting nothing, but I have known other people who claim to be in my situation as well. But he presumably doesn't for a good majority of the population who are not LDS. But when people really and truly want to know God, but have never heard of the Gospel, why doesn't God just point them in the right direction in life rather than wait for the spirit world. I don't see how it would violate free agency to direct someone's search in the correct path. You can say that His intentions are beyond are comprehension and that might be enough for you and many other people, but that explaination just doesn't work for me no matter how many times I hear it. Not necessarily. My wife shows me that she loves me through her actions, and she showed me her love with her actions long before I committed to a marry her, is that so much to ask from God? If these events were from God and He knows exactly what it would take to get people interested in the church, why would He only do it for some people and not all? I've already taken up these complaints with God, still waiting on a response :)

I think you are misunderstanding the scope of science. Science is not meant to be a religion or provide the answers to EVERYTHING, it only seeks to let us better understand the world around us.

I do appreciate your continuing patience with me. I think I understand what you are saying about free agency, but the problem I have is that God won't talk to me when even when I am actively seeking a relationship with Him and it wouldn't violate my free agency. If I am His beloved child, why not give me even the slightest response when I earnestly want a relationship with him? Why must He wait until I have already completely convinced myself that He exists and His voice is indistinguishable from a delusion brought on by my intense NEED for a response. Another problem I have with "the way it works" is that so many other people earnestly seeking a relationship with God are told by Him that this church is false and their church is true. Why would God let that happen? Why not just talk to these people earnestly seeking Him and straighten them out? Why let them be misled in His name? Have they all just tricked themself into thinking God talks to them, and if so, what makes you so sure that you have not suffered the same fate?

Here is the most condensed article I've found on it, but it does provide references for the specific ERVs that we have in common with chimps so I'm sure you could look them up if you want the science behind it. Also a quick google search reveails many detailed scientific articles describing various studies done using ERVs. If you are interested in the subject I suggest reading up on it or asking a biologist (I'm just a software developer with an interest in science :))

It is my understanding that it has been done on various hominoids and confirmed we have a common ancestor. We know the placement of the ERV is arbitrary because you can find multiple instances of the same retrovirus in different places throughout the same genome, that and the fact that the same retrovirus can appear in different places in different organisms that were infected seperately.

Yes you opened a huge can of worms, and I'm glad you did. I love a good scientific debate :) I apologize for casually dismissing this argument, the concept sounds interesting and I will definitely look into it more. From what I can tell at the moment, the theory of evolution does appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. I will however say that if we throw out every theory (especially theories that have a lot of supporting evidence) that appears to violate an esablished principle, we would miss out on a lot of discovery. You are correct, not many people consider a virus "alive" as it is little more than a peice of genetic material with a coating, so I was using the term "resurrecting" very loosely. I can see where my statement could be misleading. You are missing one piece of information that I failed to mention in my last post. When a retrovirus embeds itself into the DNA of a cell it infects, it does so at an arbitrary location. So if chimpanzees and humans (or any two given species) acquired an ERV from the same retrovirus at around the same time, it would show up in different places in their genome. Many retroviruses have multiple copies and fragments of themselves embedded in our genome, so the placement is also important in determining ancestry. It is a fairly rare event for a retrovirus to become an endogenous retrovirus and for that to get propogated into the gene pool of a given species, but once it does it is essentially a "genetic fossil." Our DNA contains so many of them because it includes every time this has happened throughout the history of our ancestry.

We agree on what matters and agree to disagree on certain philosophies, there's no reason it can't be civil and even enjoyable to discuss how and why our beliefs differ. She trusts her emotions and feelings and I trust my logic and reasoning. In a strange way I think we balance each other out. My viewpoint does not put her at odds with her belief. I have never asked her to do anything that would go against her beliefs and I have always been truthful about my own beliefs. She married me knowing I may never convert and I married her knowing she may always try to convert me, so we both keep an open mind and see what happens. Her parents hated me at first, but that was when all they knew of me was that I'm a faithless heathan. After getting to know me better, her dad gave his blessing and welcomed me into the family. We were married by my wife's best friend's dad who happens to be a Bishop. I'm not saying that it works out for everyone, I can only speak for myself and I can say that it is working out just fine for me.

Interesting theory, but I don't believe you've examined all the evidence. While comparing the laws of thermodynamics to biological processes may sound like a compelling argument, it has no basis in science and you might as well be trying to explain why oranges don't exist because they are nothing like apples. You concede that it is possible for all the varieties of dog that exist now to have a single progenitor, but you still don't think it is possible for an isolated population of dogs to form another species altogether given enough time. Why not? Given millions of years, why is it so impossible to you that a species could adapt to their environment so much that it is no longer recognizable and can no longer breed with animals only related by ancestor? You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into the cell it infects. Sometimes, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor. Furthermore, scientists have even reconstructed an extinct virus from fragments of it in our DNA and essentially brought it back to life. Read more here if you are interested. I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that takes this evidence into account other than evolution. If you have one, I would love to hear it. I'm not saying this is "proof" of evolution but there are very few in the scientific community (especially biologists and anthropologists) who doubt that speciation through evolutionary processes is possible.

I don't think there is. My parents taught me to discern what is true for myself, whether that be science, religion, or what have you. I try to keep an open mind at all times. Edit: I don't think there's anything I've done wrong morally that would prevent me from receiving an answer if that is what you were asking. I like my job, I love my wife, we have fun on the weekends, no major problems between us, I'm pretty satisfied with what all I've been given in life.

Off and on for a year and a half.