A case for strong atheism

[Traveler]

.......

My case for strong atheism rests on the law of identity. A is A. A thing is itself. The law of identity is a self-evident proposition, and serves as the base of all knowledge. To deny it, therefore, is to contradict oneself. It is to assert that one is right to deny the law of identity - not right and wrong at the same time. The law of identity has two corollaries: First, that everything acts in accordance with its nature. Second, that to exist is to be defined.

........

Wow, this thread was started yesterday and already I cannot keep up with it. Most likely my views on this subject will be lost.

Some years ago I publicly debated the head of the Utah chapter of atheist (Chris Allen) on this very subject – Does G-d exist. Interesting he used basically the same arguments that you are using; especially in defining G-d. The truth is that I do not believe such a definition of G-d could exist.

Before I attempt to enter into this discussion I would like to ask one question of any and all our atheist friends responding to this thread. Keep in mind that outside of this one small planet there has never been found any real evidence of any life or living thing. Beyond earth there is not a shred of evidence that life does exist somewhere else. Despite absents of positive evidence – I have yet to engage any scientific or enlightened thinker that does not believe that life does indeed exist somewhere other than earth.

MY QUESTION: Do you believe that it is possible and perhaps even probable that somewhere in this universe that is a being or race of beings superior to man – super meaning capable of doing “things” no man (individual or collective) is capable of doing?

If you do not mind, please present any proof to support your belief – if you believe it possible or if you believe it is not possible.

Thank you

The Traveler

Edited February 25, 2010 by Traveler

[Roundearth]

MY QUESTION: Do you believe that it is possible and perhaps even probable that somewhere in this universe that is a being or race of beings superior to man – super meaning capable of doing “things” no man (individual or collective) is capable of doing?

I don't have enough evidence even to speculate on.

[Traveler]

I don't have enough evidence even to speculate on.

Interesting. But is not this exactly what you are speculating?

The Traveler

[Vanhin]

Roundearth,

I want to say that this particular thread is a joy to participate in, in large part because of your ability to reason and your respect for your opponents. I wonder what you think about the debate so far with you new LDS friends here?

I wanted to take the opportunity to increase your understanding of our doctrine, because it seems timely on a couple of points. The first is the following:

If there is an immaterial soul...

* What is an immaterial soul composed of?

* How does the immaterial soul interact with the material body?

* Why hasn't science found any convincing evidence that there is an immaterial soul?

* Memory has a physical base. In what sense are our souls "us" if they go on to the afterlife without any of our memories?

You should be pleased to know that we do not believe in an "immaterial soul". I quote from our scriptures:

There 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; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131:7-8)

If our bodies are resurrected...

* How does God deal with the problem that our bodies decay?

We don't really know for sure, but our scriptures never describe the physical body of God as "flesh and blood", but "flesh and bone" instead. That might be a clue.

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (D&C 130:22)

A fusion of the above mentioned spirit matter and physical matter seem to prevent death and decay. To this our answer is simply we don't know how. But we do believe that whatever the phenomenon is, it is not outside the limits of the laws of the Universe. In other words, there is an explanation for it that does not include "magic".

* How does God deal with the problem that sometimes, parts of person A's body become parts of person B's body?

* If parts of our bodies are regenerated by God with new matter, in what sense are those bodies "us" - i.e., "our" bodies?

Again, our revealed knowledge on the specifics are currently limited, but I did want to point out something else. In Mormonism, we are not our bodies - our bodies are not "us". Our spirit, is who we are, and we are intelligent beings who existed prior to receiving bodies of flesh. And as a side note, we also don't believe in creation out of nothing (ex-nihilo).

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; (D&C 93:29-33)

So, not only does a fusion of the elements with our spirits produce immortality, it is the only way that we can experience, or receive a "fulness of joy". We have entered mortality to obtain bodies of flesh, so that we can continue our progression. But every part of us exists in the real world, and takes up space. This doctrine differentiates us from that vast majority of other Christians.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 25, 2010 by Vanhin

[rameumptom]

One of the problems with your atheist theories being held on this list is, LDS do not necessarily believe God is "supernatural." Many LDS believe that God is part and parcel with the universe, or is at least co-equal with the universe. We do not believe in ex nihilo creation, rather that God took of the existing matter to create the earth we dwell upon. So, many of your arguments are moot.

Unlike most Christians and Jews, We believe that we are ontologically of the same stuff as God. Just as an acorn develops into an oak tree, we believe we can also evolve into gods.

As for evidence, we believe in evidence. First, there are eye witnesses. There were 15 individuals who physically witnessed the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, 4 of whom also witnessed an angel at that same time.

Hundreds of witnesses saw angels, and experienced spiritual events during the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836. Even people not in attendance saw a bright light on the roof of the building from their homes, and saw beings in white walking on the roof. Either it was a massive hallucinogenic fraud (which affected people not involved), or it is a genuine evidence.

The Book of Mormon becomes evidence, in that, if it is really true, then it becomes evidence of God's existence (since it came about through non-standard means: an angel). Not only LDS scholars, but many non-LDS scholars have spoken directly about themes in the Book of Mormon that tie in directly with ancient Hebrew/Egyptian themes that Joseph Smith could not have known about. For example, 40 authentic Semitic/Egyptian names, unknown in Joseph Smith's day, have been verified in the Book of Mormon. Scholar William F. Albright was impressed to find Egyptian names, like "Paanchi" in the Book of Mormon, given Egyptian wasn't translated by Champollion into French until the same year (1829) the Book of Mormon was translated into English.

Such are evidences. One or two correct names could be chalked up to lucky guesses. 40+ correct names is statistically improbable.

So, we have evidences like this to show that God lives. Because if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith really did see angels and Jesus Christ, and is therefore an eyewitness of God.

The final evidence that individuals receive is from the Holy Spirit. It testifies to us both intellectually and spiritually of the truth of God's existence. It is an experience that comes upon one person at a time.

Even in the real world, we do many things by faith. I believe scientists who tell me that quarks or dark matter exist (I've never personally seen them), because they've run experiments to indirectly measure them. Yet, if I were to be trained and I followed closely their step-by-step instructions, I can duplicate those experiments that give evidence. So it is with spiritual experiences. One must receive the proper training, and be willing and open-minded to precisely follow the directions in order to receive spiritual evidence.

I can't directly share my own experiences with you. I can tell you that I've received personal revelation on many levels that assure me that God exists.

[rameumptom]

So Finrock, how do you determine which God is true? And how do you reconcile your conclusion against the millions of believers who reached the conclusion that their God is true through the same means which you used?

You're both right, contradiction alone doesn't negate the possibility of existence. However, you have a problem in that you're trying to define an intangible being. Providing evidence for the existence of God (any God) is hard enough. When you try to define this being, things just get confusing because you're trying to define something that has no objective evidence of existing. It would be like me telling you that not only do unicorns exist, but they're green with red horns. Someone else may insist that they are blue with yellow horns. Meanwhile, we have both failed to demonstrate that they exist in the first place.

It is no different than the varying theories to explain the Grand Unifying Theory, subatomic particles, what happened before the Big Bang, etc.

Individuals create theories to explain God. While others mentioned different Gods, I would suggest an alternative: different aspects of one God. The story of the blind men being led to an elephant comes to mind. The one who felt the trunk said the elephant is like a snake. The one who felt its ear said an elephant is like a fan. The one who felt its leg, said an elephant is like a tree trunk, etc. Each is correct, but with many theories, it is incomplete. Some people seek to fill in the missing parts with more theory, and this is often where we get a variety of theories on God.

Then again, LDS are panentheists. We believe there are many gods, but only one God we worship.

A lot of it has to do with how God reveals himself, and how much God reveals himself. Alma 29:8 suggests God reveals different amounts of truth to each people, according to what they are willing to receive. It also suggests that God reveals himself differently to different people. He appeared as a burning bush to Moses, as a man to Abraham, and as a descending dove to Jesus Christ. Yet we are to understand that these are all the same God.

The key is in understanding that in this life, we will never fully know or understand God. However, the world can reveal him (or aspects/attributes of him) to us in many ways, as we search for him.

[rameumptom]

A problem with this interesting discussion is that Round Earth is assuming traditional Christian concepts, such as the immaterial soul/spirit.

If there is an immaterial soul...

* What is an immaterial soul composed of?

* How does the immaterial soul interact with the material body?

* Why hasn't science found any convincing evidence that there is an immaterial soul?

* Memory has a physical base. In what sense are our souls "us" if they go on to the afterlife without any of our memories?

Rameumptom: LDS believe that the soul/spirit is material. It is made of matter, just matter that is invisible to the mortal eye. Since the spirit is material, it can naturally act upon the material body. Since the spirit is material, there is no reason to have evidence for an immaterial spirit. We believe that a temporary veil of forgetfulness is placed upon our memory in this life. It is not a permanent situation.

While flocks of geese occasionally land, breaking a cycle, they will eventually reform and migrate in the other direction. Waves crash and break on the shore, but the waters reform to create another cycle of waves. We are temporarily devoid our pre-mortal memories, but they will return to us in the proper time.

If our bodies are resurrected...

* How does God deal with the problem that our bodies decay?

* How does God deal with the problem that sometimes, parts of person A's body become parts of person B's body?

* If parts of our bodies are regenerated by God with new matter, in what sense are those bodies "us" - i.e., "our" bodies?

Rameumptom: LDS teachings include the concept that God fills the universe with the Light of Christ/Intellgence (Moroni 7, D&C 88, 93). It is God's power by which all things are 're-energized', organized, and that prevents complete entropy from occurring.

As for resurrection, it only requires the specific pattern from one DNA strand to reconstitute a physical body. There's no reason for us to believe that all the molecules that have ever belonged to our body will become a part of us again. Only the pattern needs to be retained.

Buckminster Fuller once said that at various times in his life he weighed 7 pounds, 70 pounds, 170 pounds and 240 pounds. He lost weight and dropped back down to 170 pounds and asked himself, "Bucky, who were those 70 pounds?" He realized he was more than just a physical body. The physical body is just a vessel for the spirit, which contains our personality and memories. A body regenerated with new particles is no different than our current bodies. The particles in my current body are not the same ones I had at birth or at 20 years of age. First off, there's a lot more of me. Second, our body sheds and replaces cells/molecules continually. It seems that something holds the whole thing together, even while a continual cyclical process of creation/destruction occurs. I would suggest that this is the spirit, animated by the Light of Christ.

[Vanhin]

A problem with this interesting discussion is that Round Earth is assuming traditional Christian concepts, such as the immaterial soul/spirit.

We've already covered that.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Lay down some specifics, and I am sure the discussion will be all but boring.

Okay. There are three tenets of your religion, as you describe it, that I find implausible.

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.

Second, pre-mortal existence. How would we exist in the pre mortal realm? That is, what would we be? If we were spirits, then we run into the half dozen or so problems I outlined briefly in the last paragraph. If we were bodies, then it's hard to say in what sense those bodies were "us." So there is no scientific answer to this question, as far as I know. Further, where is the pre mortal realm? Any answer we give to this question seems to imply that there is an important area that man cannot, in principle, know about. Finally, how did we get from the pre mortal realm to Earth, and why haven't we detected anybody making this journey before?

Third, immortality. The idea of an immortal body seems impossible, since the whole universe will eventually suffer heat death / collapse.

[Roundearth]

Interesting. But is not this exactly what you are speculating?

The Traveler

I'm learning that my OP was largely directed at a more Christian conception of God. So, no. The claim that there are superbeings is merely arbitrary, not false.

[Roundearth]

One of the problems with your atheist theories being held on this list is, LDS do not necessarily believe God is "supernatural." Many LDS believe that God is part and parcel with the universe, or is at least co-equal with the universe. We do not believe in ex nihilo creation, rather that God took of the existing matter to create the earth we dwell upon. So, many of your arguments are moot.

But God couldn't take of the existing matter to create the Earth if he is the universe. The universe has no such ability. We do not see matter spontaneously reforming itself in ways contrary to the laws of physics. If you insist that God does have that ability, then you are agreeing with me that God is supernatural, since that is obviously outside all natural potentialies.

I would also point out that this is a pantheistic theory, not a theistic one. You don't really believe in God if this account of your views is correct.

Unlike most Christians and Jews, We believe that we are ontologically of the same stuff as God. Just as an acorn develops into an oak tree, we believe we can also evolve into gods.

That claim is implausible to me. People can evolve into universes? There is no evidence of that, and the nature of our bodies seems to prohibit it. There is a tiny oak tree inside a seed, but there is no tiny universe inside me.

As for evidence, we believe in evidence. First, there are eye witnesses. There were 15 individuals who physically witnessed the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, 4 of whom also witnessed an angel at that same time.

Hundreds of witnesses saw angels, and experienced spiritual events during the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836. Even people not in attendance saw a bright light on the roof of the building from their homes, and saw beings in white walking on the roof. Either it was a massive hallucinogenic fraud (which affected people not involved), or it is a genuine evidence.

The Book of Mormon becomes evidence, in that, if it is really true, then it becomes evidence of God's existence (since it came about through non-standard means: an angel). Not only LDS scholars, but many non-LDS scholars have spoken directly about themes in the Book of Mormon that tie in directly with ancient Hebrew/Egyptian themes that Joseph Smith could not have known about. For example, 40 authentic Semitic/Egyptian names, unknown in Joseph Smith's day, have been verified in the Book of Mormon. Scholar William F. Albright was impressed to find Egyptian names, like "Paanchi" in the Book of Mormon, given Egyptian wasn't translated by Champollion into French until the same year (1829) the Book of Mormon was translated into English.

Such are evidences. One or two correct names could be chalked up to lucky guesses. 40+ correct names is statistically improbable.

I would like citations for these claims (online stuff, preferably) so that I can look into them myself. Until then, I'll just point out that (a) many religions have evidences like these, and (b) eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and © Smith may have put work into preparing for the Book of Mormon, and/or just gotten lucky. I am instictively skeptical of this sort of evidence since, in the past, it has always turned out to have large holes in it upon investigation.

The final evidence that individuals receive is from the Holy Spirit. It testifies to us both intellectually and spiritually of the truth of God's existence. It is an experience that comes upon one person at a time.

Well, many religions make this sort of argument. Mystics, Christians, pantheists, etc. all have their own experiences of the divine. It is more likely that there is something going on neurologically than that all of these people are experiencing God. You could argue that these people are all misinterpreting their experiences - but then how do you know you're interpreting yours correctly?

Even in the real world, we do many things by faith. I believe scientists who tell me that quarks or dark matter exist (I've never personally seen them), because they've run experiments to indirectly measure them. Yet, if I were to be trained and I followed closely their step-by-step instructions, I can duplicate those experiments that give evidence. So it is with spiritual experiences. One must receive the proper training, and be willing and open-minded to precisely follow the directions in order to receive spiritual evidence.

That isn't really faith. I take their word for it because I don't have time to do the experiments myself. I don't give that sort of evidence more weight than it deserves.

[Roundearth]

a dictionary. I could throw in all the other applicable sub definitions if you'd like.

I would like a citation, yes.

ok then set up any non self-contradictory morality works for me here. However I would note that "athiest" merely inolves the lack of belief or the denial of the existance of God. Generally it has no bearing on being logical, illogical, rational or irrationaal.

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.

not necessarily, although i imagine that is part of the route such an individual would take as that does seem reasonable (self preservation tends to be high on any species list). He might through reason might come to the conclusion that for his goals purposes and intents would better be served by the removal of his existance, and would so go about achieving that. Simply put morality is a set of values that a person uses to judge something as bad or good or proper or improper.

When you remove a force that at some point ultimately determines something right or wrong for everything, then there is nothing that is inherently right or wrong. only right and wrong according to an individual- and when that happens justice does not exist.

Well, the only thing that could justify self-sacrifice on that level would be an incoming harm of equal magnitude. IOW, you would basically have to be in a position where you're going to die either way.

What ultimately gives the right or makes it ok to do something to another individual?

(Or makes something ultimately wrong?)

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).

Because then correctness/incorreectness is up to the individual.

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

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

what makes something correct? or right?

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

you have to disprove every possible other intrepretation of the evidence as well.

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.

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.

no to reach an absolute proof or a perfect correctness.

you don't need any evidence to establish a belief, altho having evidence to support is better.

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

it generalises something incomprehensible. and when it is used it's used in a way that defines it.

I didn't say it was vague to the point of uselessness.

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

[Roundearth]

Something I wrote in another post seems relevant here:

In my philosophy, your life is an end in itself. People should be rational to do well at their work, they should work to do well in life, and they should do well in life to become happy. The rational man spends his life more or less singlemindedly on his work. As a result, he moves from achievement to achievement, and his joy builds as he creates and is admired by everyone. His effort is not dimmed by the belief that if he does not do well in this life, he has another life to make up for it. At the end of his life, he is not afraid, because he knows that he will simply pass out of existence - and he has no regret, because he has lived well. This sort of existence is not meaningless.

[Finrock]

Roundearth,

It is obvious you are misunderstanding the LDS position. For instance in response to an LDS poster you said the following:

But God couldn't take of the existing matter to create the Earth if he is the universe. The universe has no such ability. We do not see matter spontaneously reforming itself in ways contrary to the laws of physics. If you insist that God does have that ability, then you are agreeing with me that God is supernatural, since that is obviously outside all natural potentialies.

You've misunderstood rameumtoms posts. He did not say that God is the universe. He is saying that God is not outside of the Universe. He is a part of it just as we are.

Further, you made the following comment:

Okay. There are three tenets of your religion, as you describe it, that I find implausible.

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.

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.

We are not pantheistic, we are indeed theist and we are also Christians.

Again, I encourage you to take some time to seriously understand our theology if you are going to try to contend against it. To continue to argue against straw men and misinterpretations isn't rational and it is counter productive.

Regards,

Finrock

[Roundearth]

Right now, I'm just trying to learn, and pointing out problems where I see them. Just chatting.

You've misunderstood rameumtoms posts. He did not say that God is the universe. He is saying that God is not outside of the Universe. He is a part of it just as we are.

He said: "Many LDS believe that God is part and parcel with the universe, or is at least co-equal with the universe." That sounds like pantheism. There's also the fact that he said this is what some Mormons believe. I have the gist of what Mormonism is, but for all I know there's a goodly percentage of pantheistic Mormons.

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.

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

Again, I encourage you to take some time to seriously understand our theology if you are going to try to contend against it. To continue to argue against straw men and misinterpretations isn't rational and it is counter productive.

One of my purposes here is to learn, as I stated in the OP. I'm learning, from this forum and from other sources, and I think I'm hitting the target a lot of the time. I'll happily read something if you point me to it. Edited February 26, 2010 by Roundearth

[Finrock]

It seems like I don't understand LDS all the way through. Agreed. I'm no longer sure that the arguments in my OP apply to your God. Right now, I'm just trying to learn, and pointing out problems where I see them. Just chatting.

He said: "Many LDS believe that God is part and parcel with the universe, or is at least co-equal with the universe." That sounds like pantheism. There's also the fact that he said this is what some Mormons believe. I have the gist of what Mormonism is, but for all I know there's a goodly percentage of pantheistic Mormons.

"Co-equal with the universe" is probably what confused you. Equal and co-equal are not the same terms. The "co" in front of equal designates a separate object or being. I think a better term to use would have been co-eternal.

Further, what each individual Mormon may or may not believe cannot be gauged. However, I am certain that rameumptom was not making the assertion that some Mormons are pantheist. And even if some Mormons are, they are holding to an unofficial and non-doctrinal position.

Vanhin explained in one of his posts how we understand who and what God is. God is a man. He has a physical body with parts. He has a head, eyes, ears, nose, hands, feet, etc. These are not figurative parts, but actual parts. God takes up space. He can physically be in only one place at any given time. God has emotions and passions. He feels sorrow, happiness, etc. He is not the universe. He is not amorphous.

Okay, but it's "invisible matter," which gives rise to similar problems.

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

I'm learning, from this forum and from other sources, and I think I'm hitting the target a lot of the time. I'll happily read something if you point me to it.

Here are some places to go:

Specific Articles:

God

Attributes of God

Spirit

Spirit

Matter

Broad Scope of Articles:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Guide to the Scriptures

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Roundearth,

I also thought you might find this article interesting as well and I believe it will give you some useful insight in to how, generally speaking, Mormons approach science:

Science and Religion

Here is a quote from the article:

"James Talmage said, 'What is the field of science?" His answer: "Everything. Science is the discourse of nature and nature is the visible declaration of Divine Will…. There is naught so small, so vast that science takes no cognizance thereof…. Nature is the scientist's copy and truth his chief aim" (c. 1895). "Among our young people," Talmage wrote elsewhere, "I consider scientific knowledge as second in importance only to that knowledge that pertains to the Church and Kingdom of God…. Nature, as we study it, is but the temple of the Almighty'" (c. 1900).

Regards,

Finrock

[Vanhin]

I would also like to point out that the meaning of "immaterial matter" is quite loose. What we mean in all cases is that we don't believe in things that do not actually exist. So, electromagnetic radiation, energy, and matter are all possible considerations when dealing with the Mormon concept that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter". At least quantum physics recognizes elementary particles (photons) in light. There is within the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation bands that are not visible to our eyes, for example, and yet the radiation exists and is quite real.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Finrock]

Because then correctness/incorreectness is up to the individual.

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

In mainstream Christianity you would be correct. But, LDS theology allows for an understanding that is different. Please consider the following:

"Unlike traditional Jewish and Christian theologies, which place God outside of, and antecedent to, nature, however, LDS theology places God within nature.

"Divine" laws are instituted by God to govern his creations and kingdoms and to prescribe behavior for his offspring. Such law, in the terms of Acquinas's categories, would be divine positive law (i.e., law existing by virtue of being posited or enacted by God). Some Latter-day Saints believe that "eternal" law is self-existent, unauthored law, which God himself honors and administers as a condition of his perfection and Godhood. It should be noted that the adjectives "divine" and "eternal" do not have fixed usages in writing (see Time and Eternity).

Latter-day scriptures and other sources do not explicitly state that eternal law exists independently or coeternally with God. This characteristic of eternal law is sometimes inferred, however, from two concepts that do have support in scripture and other LDS sources:

1. God is governed (bound) by law. Latter-day scriptures state that "God would cease to be God" if he were to allow mercy to destroy justice, or justice to overpower mercy, or the plan of redemption to be fulfilled on unjust conditions (Alma 42:13). Scriptures further state that "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say" (D&C 82:10), implying that God by nature and definition-not by any external coercion-is righteous and trustworthy. Some Church writers have said that "[God] himself governs and is governed by law" (MD, p. 432) and that "the Lord works in accordance with natural law" (DS 2:27). They likewise speak of "higher laws" that account for providence and miracles.

2. Intelligence and truth were not created; they are coeternal with God. "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence" (D&C 93:29-30). Joseph Smith expanded upon this teaching in his king follett discourse, stating that "we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos…. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element…had no beginning, and can have no end…. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coeternal with God himself" (TPJS, pp. 350-53). If truth and intelligence were not created by God and are coeternal with him, it may be that they are ordered by and function according to eternal laws or principles that are self-existent. This may be implied in Joseph Smith's phrase "laws of eternal and self-existent principles" (TPJS, p. 181).

Consistent with the eternal laws, God fashions and decrees laws that operate in the worlds he creates and that set standards of behavior that must be observed in order to obtain the blessing promised upon obedience to that law. Joseph Smith taught that "[God] was the first Author of law, or the principle of it, to mankind" (TPJS, p. 56).

Source

Regards,

Finrock

Edited February 27, 2010 by Finrock
Clarifying my meaning.

[Traveler]

I'm learning that my OP was largely directed at a more Christian conception of God. So, no. The claim that there are superbeings is merely arbitrary, not false.

What I am doing is showing the ridiculous and unsustainable notion that you are trying to defend – that is the notion of strong atheism or that there is no G-d.

Thank you for abandoning that position and retreating to the worn-out notion that the traditional Christian Trinitarian concept of G-d is logical non-sense; to which I agree.

What I am not sure is if you are willing to consider and explorer possibilities concerning G-d that you obviously have not encountered in all your current and past experiences.

The Traveler

[Guest The_Doctor]

Now, to infinite beings. An infinite being would necessarily be a being that exceeded all limits, which means that it could not be defined. This means that it would have no firm identity, and therefore that it could not exist.

That reminds me of that bit from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when they argue the babel fish is proof God doesn't exist.

[Vanhin]

Concerning the existence of eternal law. Latter-day scriptures and other sources state that eternal law exists independently or coeternally with God.

For example, from the "other sources" category we find many references in teachings of current prophets and apostles on this, and the Guide to the Scriptures also explains that this light is a "divine energy, power, or influence" that "gives life and light to all things" and "is the law by which all things are governed" (see Guide to the Scriptures: Light, Light of Christ, and see also D&C 88:6-13). Our scriptures teach that the "light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D&C 93:29)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

What I am doing is showing the ridiculous and unsustainable notion that you are trying to defend – that is the notion of strong atheism or that there is no G-d.

I haven't abandoned strong atheism, as far as I can tell. What you're calling God has no supernatural powers, is not infinite, and in short is just a regular guy with really cool technology. I think I can reasonably say "that's not God." Now, some tenets of your religion seem to be supernatural - like "invisible matter" - and I'll continue to argue against those. I will also argue against abilities that you claim these superbeings have that seem to be supernatural or clearly impossible. My antipologetic is not abandoned, just evolving.

What I am not sure is if you are willing to consider and explorer possibilities concerning G-d that you obviously have not encountered in all your current and past experiences.

I'll consider any coherent idea with evidence for it. Edited February 27, 2010 by Roundearth

[Roundearth]

I would also like to point out that the meaning of "immaterial matter" is quite loose. What we mean in all cases is that we don't believe in things that do not actually exist. So, electromagnetic radiation, energy, and matter are all possible considerations when dealing with the Mormon concept that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter". At least quantum physics recognizes elementary particles (photons) in light. There is within the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation bands that are not visible to our eyes, for example, and yet the radiation exists and is quite real.

Regards,

Vanhin

I think you need to understand how this post looks from an unbeliever's perspective.

To me, this sounds a lot like: There's an invisible sort of matter in us that apparently doesn't displace normal matter at all. Only we don't know how it works, why it's invisible, why it doesn't displace the rest of our matter, or even what it's composed of exactly. Our concept of it is very loose, though, so that's okay. And it might be quantum. You can't prove it's not quantum.

I am not mocking you. I just want to show you how this looks from my perspective, so we can have more effective discussions.

To me, that is still very implausible. You would need to give rough answers to the questions indicated above before I would take this idea seriously. As far as I'm concerned, you've still got a supernatural hypothesis on your hands here.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Roundearth

[Traveler]

Okay. There are three tenets of your religion, as you describe it, that I find implausible.

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.

Second, pre-mortal existence. How would we exist in the pre mortal realm? That is, what would we be? If we were spirits, then we run into the half dozen or so problems I outlined briefly in the last paragraph. If we were bodies, then it's hard to say in what sense those bodies were "us." So there is no scientific answer to this question, as far as I know. Further, where is the pre mortal realm? Any answer we give to this question seems to imply that there is an important area that man cannot, in principle, know about. Finally, how did we get from the pre mortal realm to Earth, and why haven't we detected anybody making this journey before?

Third, immortality. The idea of an immortal body seems impossible, since the whole universe will eventually suffer heat death / collapse.

Since I am a scientist, I thought I would respond to this. If we are willing to accept two very interesting theories about things, mainly the Big Bang theory and quantum theory, which, BTW, are “tightly coupled”, we are faced with some interesting problems about time and space. These problems can best be explained, according to the principle you have accepted in another post – mainly Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor by considering the possibility that there exist other dimensions beyond the 3 dimensions we are most familiar with.

If, for example, that which is spirit is in reality matter that exists in 4 dimensions, then there is no 3 dimensional means to prove, or for that matter, disprove such existence. I would also point out that any affect a 4 dimensional being would have on a 3 dimensional being would of necessity seem and appear “super natural” to a 3 dimensional being.

Let me apply this directly to the Big Bang theory (and our expanding universe – which interestingly is best explained as a 4 dimensional sphere) we discover that our current universe is too large for a Big Bang by several degrees of magnitude. That is, once again a principle of Ockham’s razor that containing all the energy and matter of our universe is most unlikely without the Big Bang going off prematurely. The current theory that shows the most promise is that our universe resulted from the collapse of an 11 dimensional universe.

My point is that you are being very selective and shallow in what you say you are willing to accept as possible; especially if you are touting Ockham’s razor. There is a high likelihood that there are indeed “things” that exists that cannot be explained or even conceived within the limits of our 3 dimensional physics and comprehension.

The Traveler