I Want to Know What's Real


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Late last night I saw an amazing show called Closer to Truth wherein the host of the show interviewed world class philosophers and thinkers and even the founder of the intelligent design movement all about the teleological argument for the existence of God. While the topic was fascinating, just as fascinating was to see these great thinkers in action and note the differences between them.

It - the topic - is worth a whole discussion but something the host said in answer to why he was pursuing the topic. He responded, because I'd rather know what's real than what makes me feel good.

That resonated with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It doesn't bother me so much because I believe it is only after this life that we will get a perfect knowledge. That's how people get ulcers, worrying about things they have no control over.

And secondly, I look at this life as a test. When I take a test that says, "John had 12 apples and gave 4 to Sally and 3 to Henry and ate one on the way home. How many apples did John have when he returned home?" I don't ask if that is real or not. Or ask if those people really exist, demanding to see John and Sally and Henry in person before I answer the question, I just answer the question. In reality (haha- laugh at my own joke), none of this is real because it is a probationary state, its a test. So, when we get to be responsible for the real stuff we will be ready to handle it. It's like learning in the garden before running the farm. In the long run it won't hurt the farm if you mess up the garden only in that Father might not let that person run the farm later. Like a flight simulator, is that real? Yes, it is real, there is a flight simulator there, but you aren't really flying. If you crash the flight simulator did you really crash a plane full of people, no, but you may (if part of a test) not be able to ever fly and so the loss is real. The consequences are real.

I had a friend who dropped out of High School with that same reasoning, "when am I going to use this stuff in real life" attitude. So she didn't study, didn't take it serious and now suffers from that decision. So, this is why I don't worry about it being real or not, I still have to act like it is and if I even thought a little that it wasn't that would only hurt me in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest xforeverxmetalx

It doesn't bother me so much because I believe it is only after this life that we will get a perfect knowledge. That's how people get ulcers, worrying about things they have no control over.

And secondly, I look at this life as a test. When I take a test that says, "John had 12 apples and gave 4 to Sally and 3 to Henry and ate one on the way home. How many apples did John have when he returned home?" I don't ask if that is real or not. Or ask if those people really exist, demanding to see John and Sally and Henry in person before I answer the question, I just answer the question. In reality (haha- laugh at my own joke), none of this is real because it is a probationary state, its a test.

my reasoning... to continue with your analogy... I'd answer the question, and in the meantime wonder about whether they're real or etc. I agree life's a test, but that doesn't mean we can't wonder about stuff too. worrying is another thing, but questioning just for the sake of it is another. personally I find that when I question things, maybe a bit of doctrine [modesty for example] I search for an answer, and through that I come to a greater understanding than if I just accepted it from the beginning. not that I didn't do that btw... but you can both accept and later find out why it's that way. and as far as things we don't know yet... well we'll find out eventually.

another note: the invitation at the end of the Book of Mormon for example says to ask and receive a confirmation, not to just accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too Snow. If God isn't real. .....if Jesus and the Atonement isn't real....then why am I bending myself into the mormon pretzel?

Misshalfway, hedging our bets like Pascal, we could perhaps observe that faith alone in something that gives us comfort, a glimpse into the unknown, and a code to live by that in itself is worthwhile. Marx was spot on when he described religion as being the opiate of the people and heaven knows we could use a fix with all the pain and misery around us.

Maybe we get too caught up in needing everything to be oh so true, when our reality is laced with so many ambiguities and unknowns. When we have faith, we could be wrong - but even in being misguided we might do great things. Like the primary tenet of the way suggests, if you filter everything thing through love, could the end result be so bad?

As per that Mormon Prezel, perhaps you could become a mormon hotdog bun instead. That way you would not have to face being contorted and tied up in knots.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misshalfway, hedging our bets like Pascal, we could perhaps observe that faith alone in something that gives us comfort, a glimpse into the unknown, and a code to live by that in itself is worthwhile. Marx was spot on when he described religion as being the opiate of the people and heaven knows we could use a fix with all the pain and misery around us.

Maybe we get too caught up in needing everything to be oh so true, when our reality is laced with so many ambiguities and unknowns. When we have faith, we could be wrong - but even in being misguided we might do great things. Like the primary tenet of the way suggests, if you filter everything thing through love, could the end result be so bad?

As per that Mormon Prezel, perhaps you could become a mormon hotdog bun instead. That way you would not have to face being contorted and tied up in knots.

:)

I hear you loud and clear, Mok. But frankly I have had my fill of spiritual opiates. I want the stuff that really satisfies. If I can get to the point where I know enough about what is real, then I can rest about all the rest of the stuff I dont' know.

Perhaps it is the love you talk about that helps one learn that they never had to bend or contort in the first place. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, it's called truth. Things as the were, as they are, and as they will be. WHen man develops or studies his way to a truth it can never be 100% confirmed because there will always be things we don't know. But, when God reveals a truth to man, not only can we have 100% complete confidence that it's true now, but that it always has been true, and that it always will be true.

That is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, it's called truth. Things as the were, as they are, and as they will be. WHen man develops or studies his way to a truth it can never be 100% confirmed because there will always be things we don't know. But, when God reveals a truth to man, not only can we have 100% complete confidence that it's true now, but that it always has been true, and that it always will be true.

That is real.

This is a great post. No matter what we learn, no matter what we know it is impossible for us to know everything. There will always be something that doesn't connect, or doesn't make sense or fit the puzzle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I have applied the scientific method of “experimenting on the words” and have found them to be true.

"Experimenting on the words" is not a scientific method. Obviously it's a religious concept having to do with faith, found in Alma.

It may "feel" scientific to you, but it is not.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be scientific. It is a spiritual process. Diminishing the process because its not the scientific process is something else.

I didn't diminish it. I just said it wasn't the scientific method changed had said it was.

Just as you say, it is a spiritual process.

Elphaba

Edited by Elphaba
I'm done editing this...this is the final version. Sorry if I created confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, it's called truth. Things as the were, as they are, and as they will be. WHen man develops or studies his way to a truth it can never be 100% confirmed because there will always be things we don't know. But, when God reveals a truth to man, not only can we have 100% complete confidence that it's true now, but that it always has been true, and that it always will be true.

That is real.

And what do you mean by "reveals a truth to man?" By that you mean what other men say to us that God told them, or do you mean something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of a statement makes it sound like those who believe in God do so in order to “feel good”. Although belief in God does make some “feel good” (some, not all, the wicked take the truth to be hard) I do not merely “believe” in God so that I can feel good. I “know” God is real because of deep spiritual experiences I have had. I have applied the scientific method of “experimenting on the words” and have found them to be true. Those who have refused to do the experiment, those who take the truth to be hard – these people seek to trivialize our knowledge of God (knowledge – not mere belief) by suggesting things like “they only believe because they can’t deal with reality.” They are the ones who cannot deal with reality, not us.

Want to know what is real?

God is real - that is what is real Snow.

1. Don't know about you but I think that there are plenty who believe in a god, not because that god is real, but because of some other reason, including feeling good. The majority of the world's religious population do not believe in your/our Christian God. We, as members of the Church, do not believe that the "San-ch'ing" are simply some other manifestation of God. Rather it is a separate deity that is specifically ruled out as deity by your ideology. Therefore the majority of the world believes in god not because it is real, but for some other reason.

2. What you describe is not the scientific method.

3. You saying the words does not mean that God is real anymore than a Doaist saying the name Pa-hsien makes them real. Ultimately you have faith in a God that hides himself and places a veil between him and our reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late last night I saw an amazing show called Closer to Truth wherein the host of the show interviewed world class philosophers and thinkers and even the founder of the intelligent design movement all about the teleological argument for the existence of God. While the topic was fascinating, just as fascinating was to see these great thinkers in action and note the differences between them.

It - the topic - is worth a whole discussion but something the host said in answer to why he was pursuing the topic. He responded, because I'd rather know what's real than what makes me feel good.

That resonated with me.

Well i would say that blessings are truely real.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many times we cannot get a correct answer because we ask the wrong question. I got stuck once in trying to figure out what was real with some colleges. For example let us consider a table. Is a table real? When we broke the discussion down into the most basic elements we began to discuss the fact that any mass is mostly empty space. If we consider a standard atom with a nucleus the size of a basket ball then the distance to the closest electron would not fit in a standard basket ball court.

The problem is not what is real but how accurate is our understanding and perception. Especially in the debates over the “realness” of G-d; the better question is not whether or not G-d exist but how accurate are our perceptions. In relationship to accurate perceptions – especially about G-d I would suggest for consideration two concepts. The first is replication error and the second is the facility or inaccuracy of single source. Both these concepts are closely related. One is the use of one source to obtain information. What I would suggest is; that there is a high likelihood that our concepts of G-d are incorrect if the Bible is our only means to gather useable data to define G-d and establish our perceptions. The second is what I call replication error. That is processing the data through the same replication process or that our validation is the same when new data is available to process.

For example: the person that refuses to apply what we know about evolution towards understanding G-d as a creator is very likely to miss understanding important things about G-d. Not because evolution has necessary data but because of their attitude of not being about to honestly consider possibilities of expanding their understanding.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at the flip side:

Let's just say that God is not real, hypothetically ... what do you have to gain by knowing that? Absolutely nothing! Because if there is no God, then everything we do here in this existence turns to nothing, your life has no meaning, my life has no meaning ... there is nothing to gain by even thinking that way. What would you do differently if you knew for sure that God did not exist? No matter what you tell me ... travel the world ... be more sexually active .... go out like Bonnie and Clyde ... or just not work so hard to be good, whatever .... it wouldn't matter because in the end, there would be nothing and it made no difference at all. So what is the point of wondering such things, it serves no purpose at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at the flip side:

Let's just say that God is not real, hypothetically ... what do you have to gain by knowing that? Absolutely nothing! Because if there is no God, then everything we do here in this existence turns to nothing, your life has no meaning, my life has no meaning ... there is nothing to gain by even thinking that way. What would you do differently if you knew for sure that God did not exist? No matter what you tell me ... travel the world ... be more sexually active .... go out like Bonnie and Clyde ... or just not work so hard to be good, whatever .... it wouldn't matter because in the end, there would be nothing and it made no difference at all. So what is the point of wondering such things, it serves no purpose at all.

I would look in to developing a science that allows a unification of time periods and would allow us to resurrect those long dead by replacing their dying bodies with inert, decomposing clones.

Then, with the proper development of rejuvenation technology, we could bring people back from the dead and allow them to live their lives fully and develop themselves to the point that they would want. In effect, I would allow people to choose to exalt themselves and pretty much run things as it runs now.

So yes: I would want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we just have a thread on this idea exactly?

I don't know, I was just responding to posts in this thread about wanting to know if it is real. My point is that there is no value in knowing if God is real or not for most of us, unless one is of the select chosen to be a witness. And that is something God has to choose, we don't have power to suggest that God makes any one of us a witness. We can ask for truth, which is all Joseph Smith asked for, he didn't ask to see God. For the rest of us, we have to operate under faith. My point is that if the hypothesis of God not being real is true, by discovering that, you have not gained anything, in fact, you have just lost everything. So, what is the reason to even consider that? And if you knew all, that would be like getting the answer sheet to a test, then the test is invalid. Why would you want to disrupt Gods plan by negating the test? .... in other words, it is not true that it would help to know if God is real or not for most of us. If you have your calling and election made sure ... go for it, otherwise its a wasted effort. This is synonymous to asking for a sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the "there is no God line of thinking." If there is no God and humans are just here by chance. Don't you think given millions of years humans would advance to the point of becoming gods. And if so they would master everything needed to become a GOd including time and space. Thus there would have to be a God. Anyway just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus is displayed the following truths

1. Man's knowledge is far from complete or perfect

2. We cannot even agree upon the answers we think we might have found so far

3. The universe continues on in order and regularity despite our ignorance

Anyone still wanna think we've got a good handle on the universe? IMHO if there isn't a God controlling the universe, then I have no interest in knowing anything at all. In that situation it would be far more frustrating for me to have a small, limited knowledge rather than no knowledge at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have applied the scientific method of “experimenting on the words” and have found them to be true.

Assuming those are organic words, it might be good to soak them in an acetone solution then suction filter the remainder before running a spectral analysis.

I have been told that after Descartes, the understanding of what is knowledge and what is belief depends on both our ingenuities in devising valid word tests. Failing this we must rely on faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share