God Allowing Satan to Tempt: An Act of Mercy

[Snow]

Yes, words have meaning. But that meaning is clouded by everyone's individual understanding and perception of that meaning. That is what makes communicating with others so difficult and confusing. Even when you look up the exact definition of a word in a dictionary, you will find inconsistencies.

As long as people are using a word in as proper a sense as they know how, who's to say they do not know what it means? Context often changes the meaning of a word, and all words carry a base or superficial meaning to them as well as a deeper meaning. They can relate to things tangible and intangible.

My understanding of the word beautiful will be different than your understanding of the word beautiful. And, using that word in different contexts will change its meaning. If I were to call a baby beautiful, it would be taken in a different sense than if I were to call a song beautiful, or an old married couple beautiful, or a flower beautiful. In all these cases, the word means basically the same thing, but the understanding of it and the implications behind it change.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The definition or a definition is supernatural includes things pertaining to God and yet the poster claims that God's power is not supernatural. As a factual matter, he is simply wrong, regardless of whether or not you think a beautiful song is different than a beautiful flower.

So knowledge can pertain to information gathered through the senses, through personal hands-on experience, through reading books, AND through the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. All these things are knowledge, even though they are gained in different ways.

So says you but as a factual matter, knowledge gained from, say the senses, if far, far different than that "knowledge" that people claim comes from the Holy Spirit. If I say that a basketball hoop is 10 feet high - you can check it. You can measure it and validate that I have knowledge of the height of a basketball hoop. If a fundamentalist Mormon says that he KNOWSm by the Holy Ghost that Warren Jeffs is a prophet called of God, that's not knowledge - it's just something that he is convinced of.

When someone says they "know" something, you must take into consideration the context in which the claim is made, and how firm their conviction in that knowledge is. I can "know" the gospel is true without having a direct witness from God, but if I were to receive a direct witness from God that knowledge would take on a different form and have much more strength and validity.

So, when a fundamentalist in Arizona knows/believes that God wants him to marry young teen girls against their will, will you acknowledge that it constitutes "knowledge?"

... or is it only knowledge if you agree with it?

[Snow]

Good afternoon Snow! How are you? :)

I'm not going to dwell on this too much more because going in to this much further means focusing on something in exclusion of the point of this thread.

1. When speaking about the observable visible universe we are not excluding things that science cannot currently observe. It includes anything, whether science can currently observe it or not, that is possible in principle to be observed (Source).

When speaking of things that are supernatural you are not speaking about things that science cannot currently observe, but you are speaking of things that cannot be observed, not even in principle. You are speaking of things that are "...above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena (Source).

You are equivocating on what "visible" means as it relates to your supplied definition of "supernatural".

2. The definition you supplied assumes things relating to God are supernatural. Of course if that is true, then supernatural things are things that relate to God. But, if God's power isn't supernatural then you cannot relate supernatural powers as things that relate to God. Your responses on this point are both equivocating on what is meant in context of the definition and they are circular.

When I speak of God's power, I am speaking about the observable visible universe. I am speaking of something that is not "above and beyond what is natural." This means that given we had more intelligence we would see that it is just a part of the natural universe. Supernatural explicitly speaks to things that are not possible to observe, not even in principle. They are outside of the scope of nature.

But here is the bottom line and the answer to your question as to how I explain God's power (having weeded out the incoherent parts of your question):

I believe that as it relates to things of God the, "...'supernatural' is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science." I also believe, "...that the 'supernatural' consists of things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science..." (Source). This is not what your supplied definition of "supernatural" means.

So, God's power is priesthood. It may be "that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand" God's power, but it is still very much a part of the natural, physical universe.

Regards,

Finrock

Frankly, that's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Sure you can say that God's power is simply part of natural law we don't understand but the evidence that such is true and correct is roughly equivalent to the evidence that God's power is based on peanut butter.

You being able to imagine possibilities doesn't make them true or demonstrable.

[Finrock]

Good morning Snow! I hope you are having a great day. :)

First, I think you're funny and I mean that in a nice way. Your posts crack me up sometimes, your last one being one of them!

Frankly, that's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

This is not true. I've demonstrated this in earlier posts.

Sure you can say that God's power is simply part of natural law we don't understand but the evidence that such is true and correct is roughly equivalent to the evidence that God's power is based on peanut butter.

This statement isn't true. I've demonstrated this in earlier posts.

You being able to imagine possibilities doesn't make them true or demonstrable.

Yes, this is true. The implication, of course, is that I've only postulated an imagined possibility. This implication is false. I haven't just postulated an imagined possibility, but I've demonstrated a reasonable probability based on scripture.

To close this chapter of what has been admittedly entertaining in some respects, but lacking in enlightenment, I offer these final thoughts. Here is the overall tenor of this post and your other posts and I state the following as a matter of fact as opposed to stating it emotively:

For this post it's essentially a declaration, "I, Snow, decree that your ideas are mumbo jumbo and I further decree there is no evidence to support it." This is proof by assertion, logically fallacious, and wholly valueless.

Your posts in general have taken the classical pseudoskeptical stance where you make claims but bear no burden of proof (i.e. This is just a bunch of mumbo, jumbo). Period.

Unfortunately (and it is truly unfortunate because I'm convinced you are an intelligent person) your posts have not added much to the advancement of knowledge and understanding. They've mostly served to tear down ideas or make an attempt at ridicule. What is unfortunate for me, at least, is that I was truly looking forward to something better. I was looking forward to a discussion where my opponent offers something of substance in return rather than just asserting my position is wrong. Unfortunately I very seldom get what I want!

Perhaps next time? :)

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Seminarysnoozer]

Think about it. Auditory language is a function of air from the lungs being passed over the vocal cords to produce sound shaped by the tongue mouth and lips. Satan got no lungs, got no vocal cords, got tongue, mouth or lips.

If Satan is using magical (supernatural powers) to influence us, where did he get it? If it came from God then God is responsible for evil.

I think mostly it is a secondary influence, the result of the fall. The primary influence was Satan communicating directly to Eve and Adam and then the fall took place. At that moment the body changed. The physical body as all things in this world became the dominion of Satan. Each of our bodies naturally drifts toward Satan and his influence. I don't think he has to do anything more, necessarily. And our spirits can resist against that desire to follow evil ways and even gain control of that drive. That is the test.

Now, mostly, I think "Satan's influence" is just a standard at the opposite end of "Eternal Life." It is the sign post of the direction one would head by listening to the body more than the spirit (Satan's influence) or listening to the spirit more than the body (Holy Ghost's influence).

[Snow]

Good morning Snow! I hope you are having a great day. :)

First, I think you're funny and I mean that in a nice way. Your posts crack me up sometimes, your last one being one of them!

This is not true. I've demonstrated this in earlier posts.

This statement isn't true. I've demonstrated this in earlier posts.

Yes, this is true. The implication, of course, is that I've only postulated an imagined possibility. This implication is false. I haven't just postulated an imagined possibility, but I've demonstrated a reasonable probability based on scripture.

That's it? That's you're rebuttal - to say nuh-uh, huh-uh, nuh-uh. How seriously am I supposed to take that?

Let's take just one of you nuh-uhs. You claimed that you demonstrated that God acts by natural law. I've read your posts and you did no such thing. You merely claimed it. Claiming it is not demonstrating.

If I am wrong, let's have the proof.

Note: this is a set-up. You can't even demonstrate that God acts, let alone demonstrate that God act by one mechanism or the other. For that matter you cannot even demonstrate that God is good or that God even exists. If you could, you would be the first ever.

To close this chapter of what has been admittedly entertaining in some respects, but lacking in enlightenment, I offer these final thoughts. Here is the overall tenor of this post and your other posts and I state the following as a matter of fact as opposed to stating it emotively:

For this post it's essentially a declaration, "I, Snow, decree that your ideas are mumbo jumbo..."

Did you read what you wrote? Some things are so self-evident that much explanation is hardly necessary. Here's what you said:

"When speaking about the observable visible universe we are not excluding things that science cannot currently observe. It includes anything, whether science can currently observe it or not, that is possible in principle to be observed"

Your first sentence means that the visible universe includes things that science can currently observe. Your 2nd sentence says it includes anything whether or not science can observe it, which doesn't exactly agree with the first sentence; though the phrasing of both sentences is a bit tortured, I suspect in attempts to make it sound weightier than it really is. You give a source that is hardly relevant as it speaks about deep space objects that may not be seen due to their distance and the expansion of the universe - which has nothing to do with the point at hand. You then go on to claim that by "supernatural" I means things "things that cannot be observed, not even in principle." Uh - no, that's not what I mean. I believe that claims of supernatural intervention can theoretically be tested. I can think of all sorts of tests for it. Here's just that sort of test - several years ago we had a poster who attended The Toronto Blessing. They, the adherents, had claimed that God anointed their mouths and turned their teeth to gold. That sort of thing can be tested. It was in fact tested and found to be false. Granted, it it turned out to be true that their teeth and been turned to gold by non-observable means, it would be hard to demonstrate that the deed had been done by the Christian God, but doesn't mean that no part of the claimed phenomena could be tested.

You then claim that I equivocate on the meaning of "visible." Uh - no again. By visible, I mean visible. I do not mean anything other than visible.

Your post just goes down from there. You say that a standard definition of the word supernatural is wrong and launch into some justification of your view. So what. It's just a game of semantics. The definition is still the definition regardless of whether or not you like it. Words, by common consent and usage, mean things, your displeasure notwithstanding.

and I further decree there is no evidence to support it." This is proof by assertion, logically fallacious, and wholly valueless.

Perhaps you didn't catch it but it was an implied challenge. If you have evidence, provide. I'd like to consider it and if it is persuasive, I'll acknowledge it and alter my point of view.

Your posts in general have taken the classical pseudoskeptical stance where you make claims but bear no burden of proof (i.e. This is just a bunch of mumbo, jumbo). Period.

You are either using the word pseudo-skeptic as a loaded term or you don't know what it means. You are the one making claims. My position is that until evidence of your claims is forthcoming, skepticism is the appropriate stance. I'd be happy, even eager, to change my mind but I don't easily fall prey to word games.

Unfortunately (and it is truly unfortunate because I'm convinced you are an intelligent person) your posts have not added much to the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

I'd disagree. Challenging dogma serves a vital role. It cause people, especially me, to examine their beliefs and superstitions in light of facts, science, rationality, not relying solely on what someone told you to believe. My testimony is infinitely stronger by virtue of the rigors to which I subject it.

They've mostly served to tear down ideas or make an attempt at ridicule.

Yeah - people get their self-worth wrapped up in other's opinions of their views and so respond negatively to challenges of their ideas.

What is unfortunate for me, at least, is that I was truly looking forward to something better. I was looking forward to a discussion where my opponent offers something of substance in return rather than just asserting my position is wrong. Unfortunately I very seldom get what I want!

Perhaps next time? :)

Kind Regards,

Finrock

As was I (looking forward to something better). I know that there are plenty of posters around who would munch around for days on this kind of bland diet of insubstantial banter but I read and said enough over the years that I crave something meatier and don't care to expend the effort of the usual rigamarole of social niceties of warm and fuzzy conversation. I don't think you and unintelligent. I don't think you are bad or dishonest or uninformed. I just don't get much value from the pontification.

The guy that coined the word pseudoskeptic also coined the phase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mormonism makes extraordinary claims and extraordinary promises that are subject to testing.

[Finrock]

Good evening Snow! I hope you are happy tonight. :)

First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Now here is a post with some substance in it!

Although the first two quotes were some of your last points, I wanted to address them first. I quote you below:

As was I (looking forward to something better). I know that there are plenty of posters around who would munch around for days on this kind of bland diet of insubstantial banter but I read and said enough over the years that I crave something meatier and don't care to expend the effort of the usual rigamarole of social niceties of warm and fuzzy conversation. I don't think you and unintelligent. I don't think you are bad or dishonest or uninformed. I just don't get much value from the pontification.

Thank you for your kind words. Although I haven't participated on this forum for "years" I have participated in some religious forum of some type for many, many years. As a result of seeing too much negativity, too much sarcasm, and too much effort put in to tearing down beliefs, and hardly any effort put in to truly understanding an opposing perspective, I've decided to expend a tremendous amount of effort in trying to foster an environment online that is conducive to edifying conversations. This means that I go out of my way to make sure people understand that I respect them and their agency, even when I disagree with what they are saying. If you are going to converse with me then be prepared to accept the fact that I respect you, I respect your agency, and I will not forget that even though we are disagreeing that you are still my brother and I have no desire to hurt you in anyway and I wish you to be happy and well. If this is too much for you, then you are probably better off not conversing with me (although that would be a shame). :)

Yeah - people get their self-worth wrapped up in other's opinions of their views and so respond negatively to challenges of their ideas.

I'm not scared of disagreement. I've learned the hard way with my brothers (one being Vanhin who posts on here frequently) that I need to face challenges to my beliefs and opinions in a positive way, rather than choosing to get my feelings hurt and/or pridefully getting angry. As a result, I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't mind being called names, or ridiculed, or whatever. What I mean by I don't mind is that it doesn't hurt my ego or pride. However, I'm here to teach and to learn. Neither can occur if the parties involved don't respect each other. And I try hard to make sure I am not the cause of a disrespectful environment or atmosphere. To my disappointment I don't always succeed in this, but still I try. So, when I see things that are detrimental to that goal of teaching and learning, I point them out and try to get those things weeded out of the conversation so that the goal of teaching and learning can occur. Otherwise, for me, there is no point in participating.

OK, so now to the rest of your post...

That's it? That's you're rebuttal - to say nuh-uh, huh-uh, nuh-uh. How seriously am I supposed to take that?

Yeah, because I've already addressed this in previous posts. I figured since you didn't acknowledge it before then you likely wouldn't acknowledge it now.

Let's take just one of you nuh-uhs. You claimed that you demonstrated that God acts by natural law. I've read your posts and you did no such thing. You merely claimed it. Claiming it is not demonstrating.

Yeah, my point exactly! :)

If I am wrong, let's have the proof.

Note: this is a set-up. You can't even demonstrate that God acts, let alone demonstrate that God act by one mechanism or the other. For that matter you cannot even demonstrate that God is good or that God even exists. If you could, you would be the first ever.

First, you know as well as I do that I cannot empirically demonstrate that God exist. But, surely this isn't your expectation or requirement to be convinced? If so, then your expectation is unreasonable and we might as well pack it up and go home. Second, do I really have to do this for a fellow believer? I'm operating under certain assumptions. I'm assuming we both agree that God exist. I'm assuming that we both agree scripture is a reliable source to learn about the attributes of God. If these assumptions are false, then we are dead in the water, regretfully.

Did you read what you wrote? Some things are so self-evident that much explanation is hardly necessary. Here's what you said:

"When speaking about the observable visible universe we are not excluding things that science cannot currently observe. It includes anything, whether science can currently observe it or not, that is possible in principle to be observed"

Yes, I read it many times. Let me make sure your quoting my corrected version...yes, you are.

Your first sentence means that the visible universe includes things that science can currently observe. Your 2nd sentence says it includes anything whether or not science can observe it, which doesn't exactly agree with the first sentence; though the phrasing of both sentences is a bit tortured, I suspect in attempts to make it sound weightier than it really is.

First of all, my first version of that post was even more tortured and this isn't a result of me trying to dress up my language to make it sound important, it's a result of my fallibility. I hope you can look past that.

Actually, not exclude in my first sentence means "include". Why I didn't write "include" instead of "not exclude" I suspect I was trying to emphasize the contrast between the points. So, the proper meaning is that the observable visible universe also includes things that science cannot currently observe but which can be observed in principle. In contrast, the supernatural includes things that cannot be observed, not even in principle. Meaning the supernatural is impossible to observe because it is outside of nature.

You then go on to claim that by "supernatural" I means things "things that cannot be observed, not even in principle." Uh - no, that's not what I mean. I believe that claims of supernatural intervention can theoretically be tested. I can think of all sorts of tests for it. Here's just that sort of test - several years ago we had a poster who attended The Toronto Blessing. They, the adherents, had claimed that God anointed their mouths and turned their teeth to gold. That sort of thing can be tested. It was in fact tested and found to be false. Granted, it it turned out to be true that their teeth and been turned to gold by non-observable means, it would be hard to demonstrate that the deed had been done by the Christian God, but doesn't mean that no part of the claimed phenomena could be tested.

Testing claims of supernatural occurrences is not the same as observing something supernatural. I can test a supposed physical result from some claimed "supernatural" source, but I can't test the "supernatural" source. At least that is what science claims.

You then claim that I equivocate on the meaning of "visible." Uh - no again. By visible, I mean visible. I do not mean anything other than visible. Your post just goes down from there. You say that a standard definition of the word supernatural is wrong and launch into some justification of your view. So what. It's just a game of semantics. The definition is still the definition regardless of whether or not you like it. Words, by common consent and usage, mean things, your displeasure notwithstanding.

Well, what you may intend to mean and what a definition from a dictionary intends to mean can be two different things and this is precisely what happened. When merriam-webster speaks of the observable visible universe it is using observable and visible in a technical sense. Your posts are trying to separate visible from the sense that it was being used. So we have to look at what these terms mean in their scientific context. This is why I provided the sources I did. When science speaks of the observable visible universe they don't mean to say that this includes only those parts of the universe that have currently been observed, but any part of the universe that can be observed in principle. Your merriam-webster definition is phrased differently than most entries I find online, but it means the same thing that the others do. Your posts seemed to be taking advantage of the phrasing of the merriam-webster definition to make supernatural mean something other than it means. So, this wasn't an issue with what the dictionary is saying, but how your post was distorting what the dictionary is saying. Consider some other definitions of supernatural provided by other dictionaries, and Wikipedia:

* "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. (Dictionary dot com

* "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces." (thefreedictionary)

* "Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world:" (answers dot com)

* "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material;" (wordreference)

* "Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature" (onlinedictionary)

* "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god" (yourdictionary)

* "being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena." (Wikipedia).

I mean, only the merriam-webster definition that you provided alters from the similar language used in the entries I've quoted (the last one coming closest to the merriam-webster definition). All of these definitions concur exactly with how I have been defining and using the term supernatural. Supernatural specifically speaks of things outside of nature, outside of the universe, period. So, when you take the standard definition of supernatural rather than the distorted one your post are attempting to attribute to it and compare this definition of supernatural to what we know about God from the scriptures, then it is clear that God does not operate outside of the Universe and nature. His power is not outside of the Universe and nature.

Perhaps you didn't catch it but it was an implied challenge. If you have evidence, provide. I'd like to consider it and if it is persuasive, I'll acknowledge it and alter my point of view.

No, I didn't catch it. It seems to me that it would be easier to just make a direct challenge. As for my evidence, here, see this post. It's already been provided.

You are either using the word pseudo-skeptic as a loaded term or you don't know what it means. You are the one making claims. My position is that until evidence of your claims is forthcoming, skepticism is the appropriate stance. I'd be happy, even eager, to change my mind but I don't easily fall prey to word games.

I used pseudoskepticism for a very particular purpose. As opposed to skepticism which says, "that until evidence of your claims is forthcoming, skepticism is the appropriate stance" pseudoskepticism makes negative claims but doesn't bear the burden of proof. You've made several negative claim about the content of my posts, yet you've provided very little or none at all as to evidence for your negative claims. I gave as an example your claim that what I was saying is a "bunch of mumbo, jumbo." You are asserting a position and in doing so you need to justify it. A pseudoskeptic asserts a negative position, but justifies it not at all.

I'd disagree. Challenging dogma serves a vital role. It cause people, especially me, to examine their beliefs and superstitions in light of facts, science, rationality, not relying solely on what someone told you to believe. My testimony is infinitely stronger by virtue of the rigors to which I subject it.

Well, I think your principle here is great! I agree. However, your post hasn't demonstrated this principle in action. Until now, your post has mostly just asserted that my position is false. That isn't challenging. I'm mean you've thrown down the gauntlet only you've done very little than just that, thrown down the gauntlet.

The guy that coined the word pseudoskeptic also coined the phase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Mormonism makes extraordinary claims and extraordinary promises that are subject to testing.

That's cool by me. I've no problems with this. I'm just saying start doing some testing instead of just saying the word testing!

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Edited April 15, 2010 by Finrock
Added a sentiment I wanted to express.

[Hemidakota]

I do not think that we would choose evil without two elements present:

The first element is the presents of Satan to beguile us. This means that we must be falsely convinced or enticed to sin before we would choose it. In this Satan has the advantage because our 5 physical senses dominate our attention.

The second element is the veil that removes all remembrance of who we are and what we achieved prior to our coming to mortality. Without this spiritual knowledge our only connection is by faith and faith in temporal condition is uncertain. Again Satan has the advantage.

If we were about choosing evil without Satan beguiling us we would have done so in our first estate.

The Traveler

What will our future generational offspring do in the millennium when there is no veil covering of evil spirits?

[Seminarysnoozer]

What will our future generational offspring do in the millennium when there is no veil covering of evil spirits?

Of note ... what also happens? The body changes to a different form, one that doesn't die.

[marts1]

What difference, immortal, translated bodies maybe? There will be death during that time, just won't be like we know it now.