A case for strong atheism

[Vanhin]

The following just prompted me to add a few thoughts.

Excellent point. To meet it, I need to elaborate on the argument I gave in my OP. The law of identity says that a thing is what it is. A thing's nature is the part of its identity that governs how it acts, or doesn't act. A tree's nature is the part of its identity that makes it grow from a seed and bloom flowers or whatever. Likewise, it is the part of its identity that makes it not bloom theologians or sprout wings and fly away into the horizon. So a thing's nature is just part of its identity. Nature, then, is just existence viewed from a specific perspective, as a system of entities interacting according to their natures.

I am still convinced that our understanding of God must have some effect on how you argue this matter with us, despite what Bluejay has been saying. Mormonism asserts that mortal men are but seedlings and God a fully grown Oak. Our concept of God is so vastly different than the concept of other Christians, that many of them deny that we are Christians because of it. Our doctrine is heretical - that God is an exalted Man, and that we can become like him.

Supernaturalism is the belief that some thing does not have a nature, i.e., that it does not act or not act, that it is just in some undefined and indeterminate state between the two, i.e., that it has no identity. So naturalism is a corollary of the law of identity.

Latter-day saint eye witnesses to God describe him as a Person, who is a resurrected Man, with a tangible body.

For example, Joseph Smith described two personages who appeared to him in a pillar of light, who spoke to him as one man speaks to another. One of the Persons introduced the other as his Son, who then addressed Joseph. Here is a depiction of the type of God we believe in.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Roundearth. I hope all is well with you! :)

So your hypothesis is that the soul is composed of bosons. Interesting. If bosons are a form of matter that can occupy the same space as other matter, then we resolve a bushel of problems associated with the soul: what it's composed of (I mean, all photons are made of bosons, so there's plenty of material), and how it doesn't displace the rest of the matter in our bodies. We even resolve the old problem of how the soul interacts with the body: it's just bosons switching from an immaterial to a material form. Maybe they go into an immaterial form to "think," and a material form to act and receive information.

This is clearly a straw man. I'll try to place some assertions you've made in context so that the true issue can be demonstrated. I've numbered the quotes for easier reference.

You presented the following problems with the idea of spirit:

1.

First, the spirit. Science has found no evidence that there is a spirit. Science has found nothing that a spirit could plausibly be composed of, and it is hard to conceive of what a substance that could compose a spirit would be like. There's also the question of how an immaterial spirit would interact with a material body. And if we get over those hurdles, we have to add a bunch of laws to our ontology: laws that govern the way the spirit acts, and laws that govern the way the spirit interacts with matter.

In response I stated this:

2.

At least three LDS posters have pointed out that we do not believe that there is any such thing as immaterial matter. We do not believe that spirit is immaterial. We believe it is matter. So, again, your contention in so far as the Mormon frame of reference is concerned is irrelevant as there is no problem of matter interacting with matter.

Your response:

3.

Fair enough. In my defense, it's "invisible matter," which gives rise to similar problems.

I then responded thusly:

4.

Really? Higgs Bosons are "invisible matter" do they also give rise to similar problems?

You later made this assertion about the spirit:

5.

And the soul seems like a very strange thing from a naturalistic standpoint: an invisible form of matter that does not displace the rest of the matter in our bodies at all, and which science has, thus far, found no positive evidence for.

In quote 1 you misrepresent the LDS understanding of spirit. But you also claim science has found nothing that a spirit could plausibly be composed of. The Traveller and other's have provided plausibility of matter existing that appears to us to be "invisible" and which could plausibly be spirit. Mormons do not know what spirit matter is exactly but science does provide plausibility for such a material to exist that conforms to what we do know about spirit matter, namely that "[t]here is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (D&C 131:7)

In quote 2 I again correct your misrepresentation of what a spirit is.

In quote 3 you claim that "invisible matter" gives rise to the same issues as immaterial spirit. First, you misrepresented the Mormon understanding of spirit matter once more. It is inaccurate to call it "invisible matter". Based on our scriptures, we clearly understand that spirit matter can be seen, albeit with "purer eyes". What that means is outside of the scope of this discussion, but we should be precise. Second, you are making the positive claim that invisible matter gives rise to the problems you presented in quote 1.

In quote 4 I challenge your assertion in quote 3 by asking you if Higgs Bosons, which science currently accepts as the "tacky stuff" that gives matter mass, which truly is "invisible matter" since it hasn't even been observed, gives rise to the same problems as spirit matter. You never responded to this question.

In quote 5 you claim that science hasn't found any evidence of invisible matter that doesn't displace matter. Traveller provided evidence that bosons are exactly those types of things. So, there is "invisible matter" in reality that doesn't displace other matter. In response to this claim, you created a straw man.

In each of these cases your arguments have consistenly misrepresented your opponents views and you have ignored evidence that counters your claims by making straw man positions and then attacking positions that your opponent hasn't made.

So, in summary, so far your contentions against the spirit have been this. 1. Immaterial spirit cannot exist. This was refuted because spirit is not immaterial. 2. Invisible matter has the same problem as immaterial spirit. This was refuted because science shows there is invisible matter and it isn't problematic with nature since it is reality. 3. There is no plausible substance in science for spirit. This was refuted because science provides several plausible things that might be spirit or at least there are classes of substance in our universe that do not adhere to Newtonian physics, yet they actual exist. 4. There is no evidence for invisible matter that doesn't displace other matter. This is refuted by the fact that bosons exist and they act in contradiction to your claim.

Conclusion: Your arguments against a spirit matter fail.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 2, 2010 by Finrock
Clarification of my argument

[Finrock]

Darwin arrived at that conclusion after humbly examining all of the evidence and finding that a massive amount of it had amassed behind evolution.

How do you know Darwin humbly examined all of the evidence?

Today, evolution is supported by something like 99% of biologists.

So? Something like 80% of Americans believe in God.

Biologists are not arrogant people.

How do you know? You've met all of them?

They are trained to be scrupulously critical of all claims pertinent to their field, and if evolution was a false theory based on arrogance it would have been run out of town a long time ago.

Regards,

Finrock

[Vanhin]

My best interpretation of those verses is: There is an experiment. When you try the experiment, a seed may or may not be planted. If the seed is planted, you should water it. To water the seed is (I think?) to study the scriptures. If you water the seed, you will receive the fruit of the tree, which is presumbly either worldly happiness or heaven.

Hey Roundearth!

Thank you for taking the time to read through those verses. I really appreciate you analyzing the message as well. Your summarization is very good.

Not only is the "experiment" a road map for the faithful to follow in accomplishing happiness, or heaven, it is also offered as a method for those of little faith, who only can muster a "desire to believe", to know if something is true or not, concerning God.

You have already planted the seed, by even considering the words that I asked you to read, and by your further willingness to read the Book of Mormon. And continuing to read and ponder the words of the Book of Mormon, for instance, you are certainly nourishing the ground where the seed is planted. As long as you do not cast the seed out, or if you fail to nourish it, because of you disbelief, the promise is that the seed will begin to sprout and swell within you, and you will know for yourself, like we do, that the seed is good.

In your case, I propose that you study it with the intent of finding out for yourself if there is a God or not. See if the words, their meanings and their logic, will enlarge your understanding and compliment your intelligence concerning this matter.

That is the experiment. There is no rush, and I cannot say how or when God will speak to you. Our scriptures teach that it will be after your faith is sufficiently tried. However, I can promise you that if you truly seek it, God will make himself known to you, and in a way that you cannot deny it.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited March 2, 2010 by Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Good afternoon Roundearth. I hope all is well with you! :)

You too.

Conclusion: Your arguments against a spirit matter fail.

Yeah, it looks that way. My point in the post you responded to was just that I can make a new argument which says effectively: "Okay, bosons are immaterial matter that doesn't displace normal matter. But we still don't have anything that could plausbly make up the soul because [insert arguments I made against bosons composing the soul]." But I should have explicitly conceded that my original argument was not tenable.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Roundearth

Excellent point. To meet it, I need to elaborate on the argument I gave in my OP.

You haven’t actually added anything to your argument except more words: the concept and logic behind it haven’t changed. So, neither has my rebuttal changed.

You are still saying that “natural” and “existence” are synonymous. As long as you make “naturalism” a prerequisite for “existence,” you can only be referring to “natural existence.” This is not the kind of existence that a supernaturalist thinks God has anyway, so why should he or she care that you have shown that their supernatural God does not have “natural existence”? I certainly don’t care, and neither does Traveler, Snow, Finrock, Prisonchaplain or any of the others on this thread (even though none of us is apparently a supernaturalist).

You’ve produced an argument that is completely and utterly superfluous. The supernatural theist should have no qualms agreeing with you that his/her supernatural God does not have a “natural existence.” And, the natural theist need not concern him/herself with someone who thinks an absence of evidence for God proves that God does not exist.

The proposition of atheism is not in a position to proactively demonstrate its own veracity, because it can only be arrived at by ruling all alternatives. Thus, strong atheism is untenable as a logical proposition. It is explicitly the belief that a universal negative can be, and indeed, has been, demonstrated.

[Roundearth]

Okay, we need definitions.

arrogance - The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner

~wiktionary

Looking at the definition of hubris, a related term, is also helpful here.

Hubris (also hybris) means extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.

~wikipedia

The crucial part of the former definition is "making undue claims." For example, Darwin was arrogant if he asserted the theory of evolution based on insufficient investigation.

How do you know Darwin humbly examined all of the evidence?

He famously kept a journal of every fact that seemed to contradict his theory. An arrogant person would have ignored them.

So? Something like 80% of Americans believe in God.

The point is that biologists are authorities on whether or not evolution is true on not. So I'm not making an argument from numbers, I'm making an argument from legitimate authority.

How do you know? You've met all of them?

They can't be arrogant. You'd get shot down for publishing an article that made undue claims.

[Vanhin]

All of this reminds me of a "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode, where Picard quotes Hamlet to Q, who appears to be worried that humans have the capacity to progress beyond the Q eventually. Here's the quote.

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!" (II.ii.304-308).

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Hi, Roundearth

Hi.

You haven’t actually added anything to your argument except more words: the concept and logic behind it haven’t changed. So, neither has my rebuttal changed.

Hmm. Well, so you say. I think I improved my original argument and added a new, qualitatively different argument.

You are still saying that “natural” and “existence” are synonymous. As long as you make “naturalism” a prerequisite for “existence,” you can only be referring to “natural existence.” This is not the kind of existence that a supernaturalist thinks God has anyway, so why should he or she care that you have shown that their supernatural God does not have “natural existence”? I certainly don’t care, and neither does Traveler, Snow, Finrock, Prisonchaplain or any of the others on this thread (even though none of us is apparently a supernaturalist).

You’ve produced an argument that is completely and utterly superfluous. The supernatural theist should have no qualms agreeing with you that his/her supernatural God does not have a “natural existence.” And, the natural theist need not concern him/herself with someone who thinks an absence of evidence for God proves that God does not exist.

I don't think you understand my argument. Let me point out that my argument concludes that God has no identity. God is not God, if I'm right. I'm not saying "here's nature, and that's what I'm going to call existence." I'm saying, "here's everything that exists, notice that it all has identity, and now notice that to have identity is to be natural."

The proposition of atheism is not in a position to proactively demonstrate its own veracity, because it can only be arrived at by ruling all alternatives. Thus, strong atheism is untenable as a logical proposition. It is explicitly the belief that a universal negative can be, and indeed, has been, demonstrated.

"There are no contradictions" is a demonstrable universal negative.

[Roundearth]

All of this reminds me of a "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode, where Picard quotes Hamlet to Q, who appears to be worried that humans have the capacity to progress beyond the Q eventually. Here's the quote.

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!" (II.ii.304-308).

Regards,

Vanhin

I do feel that way sometimes.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

That which is assumed is different from faith – how?

An assumption is not a belief: it is a heuristic tool for providing the proper framework of a logical conclusion. An assumption is an implicit “if” clause in a logical argument. It is only treated as true in a default manner.

Empiricism is devoid of “belief”: it is an epistemology that is only concerned with observable practicality*. That which is practical is treated as “true”; everything else is disregarded until such time as it can be demonstrated to be practical.

*Note that when I use the word “practical,” I’m obviously not using the societal sense of the word, but the logical sense of the word. So, something is “practical” insofar as it can produce observable results, not insofar as it provides important solutions to human problems.

Faith, however, is a belief. It requires the proactive affirmation of something for which there is no empirical evidence.

-----

Second – if we agree that there is possible and probable intelligence greater than ours (to any degree) then the can of worms is opened and the obligation to demonstrate (by some logic) that intelligence which can be possessed is bounded and at what point; is the obligation of those that purport it to be so.

Okay, but this is different from what you originally said: you said he had to disprove the existence of “advanced intelligence and science.”

We are not defining God by the level of His intelligence, but by the things He is capable of doing. Thus, a more appropriate question to ask would be whether or not increasing intelligence is capable of empowering a being to do what we purport our God to be able to do.

-----

For the sake of keeping things within some scope – I had defined greater intelligence as the intelligence possessed by a being or race of beings beyond the capability of any human individual or any collection of human individuals. Since there was no objection to that definition – I believe it stands.

Well, I believe I objected to it.

I repeat my earlier skepticism that God can be so succinctly defined by the quantity of His intelligence: for example, how intelligent must one be before one is capable of atoning for someone else’s sins? I do not think that all of God’s attributes can be explained as consequences of His greater intelligent: I think some radical type of change in substance will also have to be invoked at some point.

-----

Finely – my statement is that it is foolish to argue against something that you do not understand; very much applies to our friend Roundearth.

We don’t even have to specify what he’s arguing against, though, because his argument fails before it even gets that specific. It fails on simple logic, not on the peculiarities of Mormon beliefs. It is useless to continue to argue worldviews when there is a more fundamental reason why his argument fails.

[Snow]

Thanks for your response. This makes your concerns much clearer.

Well, it's not mumbo jumbo but it is a bit abstract. I recommend the books The Psychology of Self Esteem and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden, the leading expert in the field and one of the most respected psychologists living today. He argues the points I've been making about self esteem. I'm just going to recommend that you read one of those books since clearly I can't articulate his theory in a way persuasive to you. (He's a really good writer, btw.)

This may strike you as a cop-out. Then again, I don't think either of us really expected the other to convince the other of anything substantial in a mere online discussion.

(edit)

Yeah - read it (Pillars) when you were in the sixth grade.

You seem to be under the impression that because someone once wrote a book about self-esteem that I, Snow - a believer, am low on self-esteem, and that if I become an atheist, I will improve my self-esteem.

For someone who calls on others to provide evidence you seem woefully unacquainted with with concepts of reason, evidence and proofs.

Here's a few things that you should support or demonstrate in order to support your conclusions:

Snow's self-esteem is lower than optimal.

Brandens ideas are true.

Your interpretation of Branden is correct.

Snow abandoning faith = elevation of Snow's self-esteem

Believers' self-esteem, ceteris paribus is lower that non-believer's self-esteem.

etc

etc

etc

In short, you haven't even made an argument ( The Argument Sketch ), all you have done is posted a conclusion and asked people to accept some assumptions that are not in evidence, and that are just as likely false than true. The humorous part is that YOU are the one that is pretending to be scientific but YOU are in fact purely dogmatic.

I'll give you some quotes from Six Pillars:

Self esteem is important:

(p3)

Sketch of how self-esteem works:

(p4-5)

Whatever - it's irrelevant. Obviously you cannot answer the question - how would I be better off. I know you can't because in three opportunities you have failed to do so.

Does it bother you that you have no proof of your faith based assertions?

Negative influence of religion:

(p 290)

Dude! You are on a MORMON board. That quote refers to a Catholic belief that is the opposite of what Mormons believe. In our faith, the self is not an enemy to be annihilated. The self is divine.

[Snow]

Hi, Snow.

By the rules of empirical epistemology, Roundearth is correct: the burden of proof is not on him; it’s on us. Roundearth’s position is a status quo argument: i.e. his argument is that current knowledge is all there is, and anything that current knowledge does not support should be treated as non-existent.

So, by the rules of empirical epistemology, his worldview does not require supporting evidence, but ours does. And, this is perfectly justified: his argument is just the null hypothesis, so it is upheld by default each time our argument fails to find supporting evidence. It may seem unfair that we have to do all the work, but this is fully consistent with the epistemology, and there is no double standard.

However, he errs in trying to claim the benefits of being the null hypothesis, while not accepting the consequences. If he argues that the burden of proof is yours, then he also accepts that the power of proof is yours. That is, your “hypothesis” can (in principle) be demonstrated; but his cannot.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I’m sure you’ve heard that before? Unfortunately for Roundearth, the only support for atheism that can be found (even in principle) is an absence of evidence for God. So, atheism can only be regarded as the tentative conclusion arising from the observation that no evidence for God has been found yet.

I don't know if that is true or not. There are no "rules" in an absolute sense in epistemology. There is merely opinion and differences of opinion. I think Plantinga would disagree, for example.

The bottom line is that I actively believe something and Round actively believes something. Round maintains that his position is so superior that it requires no proof. It is simply hypocritical.

Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists outside your (my) mind. We could call that the null set - that nothing extraneous exists. If the burden lies with he who claims that there is an existence outside the mind, we're all up a creek because no such proof exists. The best you can do is not think about it too much.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Snow

[Finrock]

Traveler may want to correct me here, but my understanding is that dark matter annihilates when it comes into contact with "normal" matter.

I think you are confusing dark matter with anti-matter. From my understanding there are basically two types of dark matter. However, I believe the dark matter that is hypothesized to be most prominent in the universe and in which we are interested in is what is referred to as "nonbaryonic dark matter".

"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe" (Source).

Something else that is interesting about nonbaryonic dark matter is that it "...does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, [and] is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent" (invisible matter anyone?). Further, "[t]he vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and that it does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction" (Source).

What relevant (relevant to our discussion that is) conclusions or inferences can be drawn from this data? I think there are at least a couple but on the surface it seems to further dilute your position. However, because it's my bed time further exploration of this by me will have to wait for another time.

Regards,

Finrock

[FunkyTown]

I think this conversation has gotten off-track. The OP's question was 'Is it reasonable to assume there is a God?'

This has gone off to talking about things that are, essentially, meaningless. There's not enough common ground to really discuss anything more advanced than the very basics.

When we were children, we thought as children. The OP has no knowledge of God. He has knowledge of things of this world. Why are people trying to attack things he knows rather than build upon them? That doesn't seem to me to be the best way of establishing any type of meaningful dialogue.

[Vanhin]

I think this conversation has gotten off-track. The OP's question was 'Is it reasonable to assume there is a God?'

This has gone off to talking about things that are, essentially, meaningless. There's not enough common ground to really discuss anything more advanced than the very basics.

When we were children, we thought as children. The OP has no knowledge of God. He has knowledge of things of this world. Why are people trying to attack things he knows rather than build upon them? That doesn't seem to me to be the best way of establishing any type of meaningful dialogue.

Apparently, as far as the original poster is concerned, this thread is not off track and is fulfilling his purpose from many angles. His purpose is and was to "to hone [his] critical thinking skills and to learn from [us]." (http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/30582-case-strong-atheism.html#post480666). I think he has had plenty of stimulating "debate" from smart latter-day saints, and has learned quite a bit from us as well.

I've yet to see Roundearth complain about any of this, and he even seems capable of handling the volume of responses. So, don't be stirring up any trouble right now, and let him be the one to tell us when we are "off track". :)

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited March 3, 2010 by Vanhin

[rameumptom]

Careful. Saying that "psychology" backs a position like that would require more support than simply Maslow (and as we'll see below, I don't even think Maslow supports you). Maslow represents the humanistic school of thought, which is just one of at least half a dozen prominent schools of thought on human behavior. Psychology is a very fragmented field at present.

Does Maslow put self esteem on the lowest levels of his hierarchy of needs? Here is a primary source: Classics in the History of Psychology -- A. H. Maslow (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow puts self-esteem in the fifth, i.e. second highest, level of his hierarchy, "esteem needs". Clearly, your claim that Maslow puts self self esteem in the lower levels of the hierarchy is false.

Actually, it isn't self-esteem that I was referencing as in the lowest levels, but your previous definition that religion reduces a person's self-esteem in a form of slavery. You stated that when a person isn't honest with his/her own mindset and freedom, they were harming personal self-esteem.

I was establishing that self-esteem is not on the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy. Rather that it is higher up, requiring a person to move beyond him/herself and primitive needs. You, OTOH, were trying to equate religion as a primitive need that destroyed self-esteem. Given many studies that show religion as increasing overall happiness and even longevity, I think you were stretching.

Self-esteem is a higher function in the hierarchy, because people must go beyond themselves to something higher. And so it is with religion, also. To sacrifice for another does not damage self-esteem or freedom of self.

I've been reading psychology books for more than 30 years now. While you seem to have read a couple of books, as you mention there are many viewpoints in psychology. So, your claim of religion creating a low self-esteem is anecdotal at best, and severely wanting at worst.

As for the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, you can read their testimonies in the front of any copy of the Book of Mormon.

Edited March 3, 2010 by rameumptom

[Vanhin]

Roundearth,

Here are links to 11 of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon for easy access. This is from the Internet Edition of our Scriptures.

Testimony of Three Witnesses

Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Regards,

Vanhin

[FunkyTown]

Apparently, as far as the original poster is concerned, this thread is not off track and is fulfilling his purpose from many angles. His purpose is and was to "to hone [his] critical thinking skills and to learn from [us]." (http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/30582-case-strong-atheism.html#post480666). I think he has had plenty of stimulating "debate" from smart latter-day saints, and has learned quite a bit from us as well.

I've yet to see Roundearth complain about any of this, and he even seems capable of handling the volume of responses. So, don't be stirring up any trouble right now, and let him be the one to tell us when we are "off track". :)

Regards,

Vanhin

Van? Do you think that discussing sacred things with the intention, not of coming to a further understanding of God, but of 'honing our critical thinking skills' is appropriate? If we're not seeking to come to a greater understanding of God, or to express to other people the truth of God in a way they understand, does that lessen or improve their holy nature?

[Traveler]

Hi, Traveler.

An assumption is not a belief: it is a heuristic tool for providing the proper framework of a logical conclusion. An assumption is an implicit “if” clause in a logical argument. It is only treated as true in a default manner.

Empiricism is devoid of “belief”: it is an epistemology that is only concerned with observable practicality*. That which is practical is treated as “true”; everything else is disregarded until such time as it can be demonstrated to be practical.

*Note that when I use the word “practical,” I’m obviously not using the societal sense of the word, but the logical sense of the word. So, something is “practical” insofar as it can produce observable results, not insofar as it provides important solutions to human problems.

Faith, however, is a belief. It requires the proactive affirmation of something for which there is no empirical evidence.

-----

Okay, but this is different from what you originally said: you said he had to disprove the existence of “advanced intelligence and science.”

We are not defining God by the level of His intelligence, but by the things He is capable of doing. Thus, a more appropriate question to ask would be whether or not increasing intelligence is capable of empowering a being to do what we purport our God to be able to do.

-----

Well, I believe I objected to it.

I repeat my earlier skepticism that God can be so succinctly defined by the quantity of His intelligence: for example, how intelligent must one be before one is capable of atoning for someone else’s sins? I do not think that all of God’s attributes can be explained as consequences of His greater intelligent: I think some radical type of change in substance will also have to be invoked at some point.

-----

We don’t even have to specify what he’s arguing against, though, because his argument fails before it even gets that specific. It fails on simple logic, not on the peculiarities of Mormon beliefs. It is useless to continue to argue worldviews when there is a more fundamental reason why his argument fails.

Bluejay - I am impressed – thank you for your well thought out post. I have selected the word "intelligent" for several reasons. (See D&C 93:36 for one reason). Specific to your question – it is only because of the fall of man that man cannot atone for their own sins or anyone else’s – but then it can be argued that because of the fall a veil separates man from the “intelligence” necessary for atonement.

Here is another thought – Anything that can be understood in “nature” can be replicated by those intelligent enough to control the parameter.

As to assuming and faith. My point is that there is much we assume in life that we just accept by faith. Science is full of such notions. Take electrons for example. There are imbedded into the general concept of electrons many layers of inconsistencies that cannot be explained that science in general accepts on “faith”. Are electrons a wave (energy) or a particle (matter)? Electron tunneling, orbital shape consistency within atoms, and resistance variations – all of which are unexplained within our scientific model; yet even the scientific inept still believe (have faith) that turning on a switch will result in a light coming on. Then in the next breath at the slightest hint of inconsistency in understanding the divine model they point and say that such disproves there is no G-d and that any faith is false.

A final thought about the internet – say something intelligent or even brilliant and many will agree and find little reason to add to it. But say something completely unreasonable and downright stupid and everyone will get involved and respond. The point here is that large egos feed on attention and will say most anything to get and maintain it.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Van? Do you think that discussing sacred things with the intention, not of coming to a further understanding of God, but of 'honing our critical thinking skills' is appropriate? If we're not seeking to come to a greater understanding of God, or to express to other people the truth of God in a way they understand, does that lessen or improve their holy nature?

Are we thinking short term or long term? There are two reasons the scriptures admonish us to teach the doctrines of Christ. First: that they may come to a greater understanding of sacred and eternal things and second as a warning so that all judgments are just.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

Are we thinking short term or long term? There are two reasons the scriptures admonish us to teach the doctrines of Christ. First: that they may come to a greater understanding of sacred and eternal things and second as a warning so that all judgments are just.

The Traveler

In which case we should be concentrating on teaching doctrines, Traveler.

Would you say that teaching doctrines is the focus right now?

[Vanhin]

Van? Do you think that discussing sacred things with the intention, not of coming to a further understanding of God, but of 'honing our critical thinking skills' is appropriate? If we're not seeking to come to a greater understanding of God, or to express to other people the truth of God in a way they understand, does that lessen or improve their holy nature?

FunkyTown,

I don't see anything inappropriate about this conversation, and I see it as furthering the understanding of God, which fills both of the purposes of the OP, which were to "hone [his] critical thinking skills" and "learn from [us]".

It is my opinion that we are discussing the subject of God in terms that Roundearth understands, and that his understanding has in fact increased because of it. I don't think chiding the participants, when everyone seems to be enjoying each others contributions, is very helpful. Except for this particular contribution, which is in fact "off-track", even your very own contributions have been quite enjoyable up to this point.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

In which case we should be concentrating on teaching doctrines, Traveler.

Would you say that teaching doctrines is the focus right now?

Let's see... So far, the participants have taught to our new friend doctrines that he did not know before, such as the following:

1) God is corporeal being, with a body of flesh and bone.

2) God is an exalted Man.

3) The spirits of mankind are the offspring of God.

4) Spirit is matter.

5) Mortality is part of God's plan for his children.

6) Through this mortal experience, man receives a body and an opportunity to exercise inherent free will.

7) God can and does make himself known to man.

8) Man can become like God.

9) Mormonism believes in modern prophets, who have seen God.

10) Joseph Smith saw and described God.

11) Mormonism believes the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

12) Through a process of faith, as taught in that book, man can receive knowledge about and from God.

13) Reading and pondering the Book of Mormon is part of this process of faith.

14) And probably a few other points I did not list.

How is doctrine not being taught here? Many of those points were made by people who have been discussing these things with Roundearth in ways that satisfy the OP.

There's no reason to harass the participants here. Come on, let's just maintain mutual respect.

Also, think about it, when has Snow been on the right side of the argument before? This is momentous, despite his clear abrasiveness. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Blackmarch]

I would like a citation, yes.

Random House 2010 Dictionary

Right, but when we ask whether the atheist "has to" do something, we are asking whether he is bound by logic to do something - at least as I was using the phrase.

Fair enough. I was thinking that humans aren't exactly logical beings, no matter the set of beliefs they hold (altho that could affect the degree of how much logic theyd ecide to use.

Well, the only thing that could justify self-sacrifice on that level would be an incoming harm of equal magnitude...

That's fine, however, I'd point out that "harmful" and "self" is dependant on the individual's view.

IOW, you would basically have to be in a position where you're going to die either way.

Everybody is in a position that they will die either way.

Theres no avoiding death (at least not yet).

Most things people do is because it seems logical/reasonable to them at the time.

Depends on the moral code. On my code, it's okay to do something to someone else only when they violate a contract (under normal circumstances, naturally).

Fair enough- so if they don't agree to any contract, then they are free to do whatever they wish?

But on your account, correctness and incorrectness are still up to an individual - the superbeing. So what's the different?

One has all knowledge and therefore can exercise perfect logic, and has the ability to enact their code upon all (whether its based off of some absolute morality pre or co-existant with God somehow or if that entity made their code absolute by their ability), and the other does not ultimately have that ability.

Anyway, even if correctness and incorrectness are up to the individual on my account, there's still correctness and incorrectness.

Correct. the quandary is when two different sets collide and conflict.

Something is correct given an end. If your aim is to find the answer to the problem 2+2, 4 is correct.

This works in this process, assuming that all parts and processes given are the same as we have been taught (considering this is an abstract or mental process that uses specific laws within itself). This also works because we have all knowledge in regards to all items of "2+2". Unfortunately in real life things are a little more complex. HOwever what is considered "Good" depends largely on the recieving party.

That standard is implausibly high to me. It implies that we don't have good evidence for much. I don't have good evidence for my belief that I am a human and not an Alpha Centaurian with really bad amnesia.

It is a very high standard... one that is likely not practical or affordable, but then perfection is also likewise generally not affordable or practical either.

Occam's razor is a useful tool when evaluating evidence. It says that you don't have to disprove all contrary interpretations, you just have to eliminate all but the one that explains the data most simply.

which is a good rule of thumb that's helpful once you've reached the point where

perfect logic can't be used anymore (and have to start plugging in assumptions, using what you have), but it's not a gaurantee. NIce thing about being human is we can put down perfect logic and use imperfect logic to different degrees to get to a point that seems to work.

Huh? So my belief that there is a neon pink unicorn yodelling on the moon is established, justified, and perfectly reasonable?

It's reasonable and justified to you is it not? What may be reasonable to you may not be reasonable tome (and vice versa).

Let me put it another way: it must be very, very precise if mathematicians can use it.

only when bound by statements that define it.