Christopher Hitchens dies aged 62


Spartan117
 Share

Recommended Posts

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. This is something you have seemed to misunderstand.

I agree with you.

It's an extremely negative thing to not believe in God.

Oh, and if Vort wasn't giving you the silent treatment, he would tell you that he still doesn't believe in the sun as you have yet to prove it exists.

But we must use sensation in order to prove anything, to know anything, to understand anything. Therefore, denying the validity of sensory perception is to deny reality, to deny existence, and to deny all that has been known, is known, and ever will be known.

I actually DO agree with you on this statement!

And because it was so well spoken, I will also post the scientific formula for proving God exists.

Alma 32:26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

Alma even uses the word "experiment" for us to understand what he is saying.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

And following Alma relates to us a few variables that can sour the experiment and taint the results.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

And then Alma lists the results of the experiment when conducted properly.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

This is the same experiment that has been tried by millions and millions of people. This is not the experiment that is limited to a few random scientists at a university trying to earn a paycheck and a name for themselves in a scientific journal. This formula is available for everyone to try.

It's not always easy. It won't necessarily yield the results quickly. But it does work each time it is tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with you. It's an extremely negative thing to not believe in God.

Well, I suppose it could be considered in that light. Though that's not quite what I meant.

I did not mean 'positive/negative' in an 'uplifting/depressing' sense. Not at all.

By 'positive claim', I meant the 'claim for the existence of something', as opposed to a 'lack of a claim for existence' as Dawkins and the gang portend. Between those two, the burden of proof is really on those of us with faith in God to try to prove our beliefs to them (Dawkins & co.); we can't simply demand that they disprove God and, should they fail, claim that we're automatically right. That's not intellectually honest and that's not how it works. The burden of proof lies with we who make the claim, and not with those who we present it to.

Apologies for the ambiguity.

Oh, and if Vort wasn't giving you the silent treatment, he would tell you that he still doesn't believe in the sun as you have yet to prove it exists.

If Vort wasn't giving me the silent treatment, I'd likely be banging my head into a wall for shame at the human race. I'm glad he stopped before his silliness drove me to extremity.

This is the same experiment that has been tried by millions and millions of people. This is not the experiment that is limited to a few random scientists at a university trying to earn a paycheck and a name for themselves in a scientific journal. This formula is available for everyone to try.

It's not always easy. It won't necessarily yield the results quickly. But it does work each time it is tried.

I'd certainly agree that those are beautiful scriptures, and I think they're significant, certainly. Though I don't know that I'd exactly qualify them as 'scientific', as the process is really more subjective and personal than objective and factual. I'd not exactly call it 'science', because it's an intimate, personal matter, different for each individual, whereas 'science' is the same for everybody, by its very nature.

I genuinely appreciate your insightful commentary, Colirio. It's quite refreshing.

And Vort, if you're out there, remember: Jesus loves everyone, including those who deny the reality he's created. (Though personally, I find that it might be quite offensive to the lord.)

God Bless!

Ovis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But science is NOT factual unless we agree that it is. In fact much of what is considered science is no more factual than saying the sun revolves around the moon. You have laid your argument on a very uneven surface. Just as uneven as Vort's. Both rely on our belief as to whether you are right or wrong much more so than if you actually are right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the world do you guys pass High School without understanding the scientific method of establishing a theory by providing scientific evidence?

I am quite flabbergasted. I mean, surely the American Education System is not THAT bad???

Yes, gravity is not a fact - its a scientific theory. But, the stability of the evidence of gravitational computation is such that you can put man in a tin can and launch him to the moon with it! You can't say the same for the theory of God's existence. Religious folks can't even agree on what He's supposed to be! But we all know that... That's why we put a lot on Faith!

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the world do you guys pass High School without understanding the scientific method of establishing a theory by providing scientific evidence?

I am quite flabbergasted. I mean, surely the American Education System is not THAT bad???

Yes, gravity is not a fact - its a scientific theory. But, the stability of the evidence of gravitational computation is such that you can put man in a tin can and launch him to the moon with it! You can't say the same for the theory of God's existence. Religious folks can't even agree on what He's supposed to be! But we all know that... That's why we put a lot on Faith!

anatess, it has nothing to do with our education although I have doubts sometimes about how much it helps people learn to think instead of regurgitate.

The point I have been making has been leading to one thing. There is only one thing that is absolute truth. Science changes its opinions as often as women change hairstyles so we can not consider it the last word on anything. We can consider it the present word but that's about it. I believe God is the truth that will never change. He is not turned this way and that by the winds of what is believed at the time. He will always be who He is. If we listen to Him we can learn all truth including what is actually true in science. Science and religion are all the same thing if they are truth. Some day we will find that many of the things that we believe are absolutes really werent. We will never find that God was not the truth. We will never find that what He tells us is false although we will find that He has given us bits and pieces at times since we have been too stubborn to learn the whole truth and we have also been a bit stubborn at hearing what He has actually told us.

As far as getting to the moon we can get there and still not understand, properly, the principles that got us there. I can get to NY and still not understand how a car or plane works.

A huge amount of science is based on what seems to work. A pretty good example is the speed of light. We base a lot of theory on it being the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt that it is. When we discover its not then wheeeee! We got a taste of that from the colliders seeing a particle seem to go faster than it should have. Talk about panic!

In the end there is only one thing we can trust to be true and that is God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anatess, it has nothing to do with our education although I have doubts sometimes about how much it helps people learn to think instead of regurgitate.

The point I have been making has been leading to one thing. There is only one thing that is absolute truth. Science changes its opinions as often as women change hairstyles so we can not consider it the last word on anything. We can consider it the present word but that's about it. I believe God is the truth that will never change. He is not turned this way and that by the winds of what is believed at the time. He will always be who He is. If we listen to Him we can learn all truth including what is actually true in science. Science and religion are all the same thing if they are truth. Some day we will find that many of the things that we believe are absolutes really werent. We will never find that God was not the truth. We will never find that what He tells us is false although we will find that He has given us bits and pieces at times since we have been too stubborn to learn the whole truth and we have also been a bit stubborn at hearing what He has actually told us.

As far as getting to the moon we can get there and still not understand, properly, the principles that got us there. I can get to NY and still not understand how a car or plane works.

A huge amount of science is based on what seems to work. A pretty good example is the speed of light. We base a lot of theory on it being the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt that it is. When we discover its not then wheeeee! We got a taste of that from the colliders seeing a particle seem to go faster than it should have. Talk about panic!

In the end there is only one thing we can trust to be true and that is God.

Anne, you make excellent points here.

But, see, the difference between science and religion is that Science base truths on observable, testable, or proven phenomena that can be applied without the need for Faith or Belief. You don't have to believe that gravity exists to be able to calculate the acceleration of an 8lb bowling ball dropped from the Eiffel Tower. It is true by virtue of its repeatability. So that you may not understand, completely, WHAT gravity truly is, but you can put your trust in the stability of its measurement that you can get 10 non-believing people to drop an 8 lb ball from the top of the Eiffel Tower and all 10 will get the exact same results. The cool thing about Science is that, it doesn't claim to know the whole and complete truth. It is a body of truth that is always open to "revelation"... it changes and evolves line upon line, precept upon precept as new phenomena is observed and measured. It treats new phenomena as another opportunity to refine truth.

Whereas religion base truths on things that cannot be tested and applied without the need for Faith or Belief. So that, you can ask 10 different people to do a James 1:5 and read the Book of Mormon and not all of them will come off it thinking it is true. Religion is more "closed" than Science because it presumes that it already knows the complete truth. So that, when new phenomena occurs that doesn't fit what religion established as truth, it is automatically rejected before studying it for its merits.

God is only true for those who have Faith in Him and attribute the "Why" of life's events on His influence. There are those who attribute life's events on a chakra, complete with its own diety. And still there are those who attribute any of life's events on the cosmos brought about by natural selection and evolution without the benefit of intelligent design by some fictitious creator having to fill the void of the "Why".

In all of this, Science provides only those truths that can be scientifically applied. It looks for truths in the "How" but doesn't delve beyond that into the things of the "Why". There are those who live their lives content with that. And they live great, good, wonderful lives. I find that commendable. Because, there's really no difference in these people than those people who live their lives knowing the "how" and applying a completely different "why" than us LDS folks who believe we know the whole truth.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dictionary.com's definition of "science":

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

In all of this, Science provides only those truths that can be scientifically applied. It looks for truths in the "How" but doesn't delve beyond that into the things of the "Why".

I don't know that I agree with this statement. Would you consider psychology to be science? What about criminology?

These are just two that are brought to mind that often look for the "why" as well as the "how."

By the definitions given above, would an experiment into discovering how faith works, why it works, and what results come from the exercise of faith be considered a scientific experiment?

Annewandering's statement was beautifully worded and bears repeating:

Science and religion are all the same thing if they are truth. Some day we will find that many of the things that we believe are absolutes really werent. We will never find that God was not the truth. We will never find that what He tells us is false although we will find that He has given us bits and pieces at times since we have been too stubborn to learn the whole truth and we have also been a bit stubborn at hearing what He has actually told us.

As much as 2+2 yields a result, the experiment upon the word of God yields a result. Just as 10 people can drop bowling balls to test the law of gravity, millions of people have discovered for themselves the reality of the Living God through the experiments proposed by His prophets.

Just like scientists have created a few imperfect measuring tools for testing the world around us, we have several imperfect spirit measuring tools. Alma chapter 5 provides a great checklist to monitor our spiritual progression and regression. The baptismal and temple recommend interviews are excellent resources to see how far we have come and whether some tweaks need to be made in our lives.

Those measuring tools are just as real as microscopes and beakers and likewise give us definitive answers to the best of their ability. In similar fashion, all of the measuring tools have limitations and faults in their precision. Those using those tools have been known to manipulate the data for their own perceived gain.

The experiment upon the word of God yields results just as real as any scientific experiment ever performed, and yet of significantly greater importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true by virtue of its repeatability.

Actually that is probably true but not necessarily.

The cool thing about Science is that, it doesn't claim to know the whole and complete truth. It is a body of truth that is always open to "revelation"... it changes and evolves line upon line, precept upon precept as new phenomena is observed and measured. It treats new phenomena as another opportunity to refine truth.

Gosh, I wish I heard that occasionally from scientists.

Whereas religion base truths on things that cannot be tested and applied...

I beg to disagree. Just because not everyone finds the truth by testing and applying, does not mean that it can not be found that very way. You do not have to have faith to test. Hope or even curiosity may be all that is needed.

God is only true for those who have Faith in Him and attribute the "Why" of life's events on His influence.

Well that is flat out wrong. God is true no matter what. Us not understanding truth does not negate that truth. Truth stands on its own without our belief.

Added so that the post will post! Apparently since I inserted thoughts into the body of the quote it thinks I havent written anything. Sooo my question in the past is probably being answered on that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the definitions given above, would an experiment into discovering how faith works, why it works, and what results come from the exercise of faith be considered a scientific experiment?

I was referring to GRAVITY.

As much as 2+2 yields a result, the experiment upon the word of God yields a result. Just as 10 people can drop bowling balls to test the law of gravity, millions of people have discovered for themselves the reality of the Living God through the experiments proposed by His prophets.

Just like scientists have created a few imperfect measuring tools for testing the world around us, we have several imperfect spirit measuring tools.

2+2 yeilds a result that is consistent for EVERYBODY. So is dropping bowling balls.

If application of the tenets of God would lend consistent results for EVERYBODY then it becomes Science. But, millions of people have discovered for themselves the reality of God - but NOT MANY of them discovers it in a similar process - and, just to prove a point - they can't even agree on who are considered prophets and what they're proposing.

Alma chapter 5 provides a great checklist to monitor our spiritual progression and regression. The baptismal and temple recommend interviews are excellent resources to see how far we have come and whether some tweaks need to be made in our lives.

Those measuring tools are just as real as microscopes and beakers and likewise give us definitive answers to the best of their ability. In similar fashion, all of the measuring tools have limitations and faults in their precision. Those using those tools have been known to manipulate the data for their own perceived gain.

The experiment upon the word of God yields results just as real as any scientific experiment ever performed, and yet of significantly greater importance.

Corilio... only LDS people believe in Alma chapter 5. If you try to use that to oppose Dawkin's God Delusion, you are going to be laughed out of the park... by other Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galileo was also 'laughed out of the park'. Did it make him wrong?

Ahhh, see. That's why you're not "getting" me. In this post and the previous post (which I can't quote because it disappears). Because, NEVER, in any of my posts in this thread did I ever question what is TRUE or FALSE or WRONG or RIGHT. That's not the issue here.

The issue here is trying to PROVE what is true through the scientific method (the only method by which you can establish evidence to validate a theory without benefit of faith).

For example -

1.) Mr. A believes that Man exists as a progression of his previous life as an... earthworm and after he is bad, then when he dies he might get reincarnated as a rock. What method did he apply to come up with this particular truth? He read a book that stated it, he heard people talk about it, he bounced it against his conscience and found that it makes sense, he applied the concept to his life and it was good. He then establishes it as true.

2.) Mr. B believes that Man exists as a progression from pre-mortal spirit... organized by a God. He spends life on earth as Man with a body created by God, and will become a perfected being after death. What method did he apply to come up with this particular truth? He read it from a book, heard it from missionaries, prayed about it and bounced it against his conscience and found that it makes sense, he applied the concept to his life and it was good. He then establishes it as true.

3.) Now, here comes Dawkins that base all the truth that he knows on observable, undisputable, scientific evidence. The evidence is so solid that even religious organizations adjusted their view of God to accomodate this conclusion. Truth to Dawkins is simple. It doesn't require contortions to fit it to somebody else's idea of diety.

Now, who got it right? And if so, how do you know?

My answer? NOBODY KNOWS! Yes, you can say, "I KNOW the Church is True" but until you die you really can't know with 100 percent scientific certainty. If you do, then there's no reason for Faith. So, I accept Dawkin's position as valid (it is about the only thing that is credibly scientific), I accept the Dalai Llama's position as valid, and I put my faith on what I know is true for myself.

Yes, TRUTH doesn't change. But the question is - are you sure you know what that truth is?

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, I wish I heard that occasionally from scientists.

Anne, you don't know what SCIENCE means if you think that of scientists. I don't even really know how to take that statement.

The scientific method teaches you first and foremost - you don't establish a fact - you establish a theory. My kid was in 3rd grade when they went through that in school - and he's in Public School even. They don't call it the FACT of Relativity, the FACT of electromagnetism, the Big Bang Fact, the FACT of Energy... they call it THEORY with Laws governing those theories... all subject to change once new discoveries come up with things that break those laws. They have Science Fairs in all levels of school from 3rd grade through college every single year for that purpose - to come up with new discoveries to challenge current theory or more evidence to solidify the current theory or even new evidence to make new theories!

Just because they don't accept non-scientific evidence doesn't mean that they're close-minded know-it-alls.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, I know what science means. Have you ever had to debate what theory means to a scientist? I have and it is just annoying. I have never had one ever say that a theory was less than a fact. I know better but they dont seem to. They have explained to me over and over that theories like evolution are fact but they have to call it a theory even though its a fact. Sounds pretty stupid doesnt it? It does to me too.

Anyway science is fluid but God is not. Funny how the world looks at it the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, I'm not sure if I have insulted you in some way or not, but, I do apologize if anything I said has been taken that way. It seems that you continue to attempt to insult the level of education of other posters and so I can only assume that you must have felt insulted by one of us.

I apologize if it was anything I said. I'd rather we both be edified by the conversation than attempt to "debate" truth. Debating only tends to imbed each party further into their own perceptions.

If application of the tenets of God would lend consistent results for EVERYBODY then it becomes Science. But, millions of people have discovered for themselves the reality of God - but NOT MANY of them discovers it in a similar process - and, just to prove a point - they can't even agree on who are considered prophets and what they're proposing.

Are you saying that Alma's experiment doesn't work? Have you followed his experiment and have concluded that his findings were false?

If so, I would suggest you read again and be sure you cover the variables he listed there. Because just like 2+2, Alma's experiment works 100% of the time when followed according to his words.

Corilio... only LDS people believe in Alma chapter 5. If you try to use that to oppose Dawkin's God Delusion, you are going to be laughed out of the park... by other Christians.

I thought we were discussing religion on an LDS website and could therefore discuss truth as it pertains to like-minded individuals rather than having to pretend that we don't have an understanding of God's revealed truth.

Like your example of gravity as you claimed, I merely was using one or two examples of how we CAN measure spirituality using imperfect tools just like any other experiment.

You spoke of science being measured. I was demonstrating that spirituality can likewise be measured like any other experiment.

Yes, TRUTH doesn't change. But the question is - are you sure you know what that truth is?

Yes, I am. As the scripture says:

Jacob 4:13 Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.

I might be able to dispute what my eyes see, my ears hear, what my fingers touch, etc. But I can say without reservation that when the Spirit touches a soul to reveal truth that there is no denying the reality of such an event.

It is only when one has not experienced that feeling that they could possibly debate its reality. I do not type such a statement in order to make anyone feel less or inferior. It is simply the truth.

Again, I would encourage anyone who doubts to try the experiment for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, I know what science means. Have you ever had to debate what theory means to a scientist? I have and it is just annoying. I have never had one ever say that a theory was less than a fact. I know better but they dont seem to. They have explained to me over and over that theories like evolution are fact but they have to call it a theory even though its a fact. Sounds pretty stupid doesnt it? It does to me too.

Anyway science is fluid but God is not. Funny how the world looks at it the other way.

Well, I am a scientist... my mom and dad are scientists... all my siblings are scientists... all 8 of my dad's siblings are scientists... both my mom's siblings are scientists...

Maybe we have a completely different understanding of who are scientists. But NOBODY who has a claim on the label scientist can make such a claim if they don't know the difference between fact and theory.

God is not fluid - for those who have faith in Him. But, every single person who deposit their faith in God have to be fluid in their understanding of what God is all about - we do have a term for it - revelation. Scientific FACT like God is not fluid (God made the world around us, did He not?). Every scientist's goal is to get closer to that fact through experiment - which makes science just as fluid as religion with a foundation on revelations.

The really crazy thing about it is religious folks scoff at science for their "facts" while scientific folks scoff at religion for their "facts". Think about it - if you're a scientist and you're talking to a religious person who tells them God is a Fact - it does make religious folks sound really know-it-allish. But, the really sad thing is - if science and religion would just work together we will all be a lot closer to understanding God. Because, Anne, things like Evolution Theory may not be facts, but they provide very strong evidence to the origins of the world around us - and if we religious folks would explore valid scientific discovery and supplement our religious beliefs with it, we can get closer to understanding how God made us. So that, me, for example, who was contemplating the differences between Catholic and LDS beliefs on Genesis prior to my conversion, completely found the doctrine of pre-mortal life as a big A-ha! moment because finally... here's a doctrine that makes so much better sense when combined with established science.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, anatess, as far as I am concerned truth is truth. Period. I dont care who comes up with it. I just trust God more than scientists who are always changing their ideas on what is truth.

Revelations are Gods word but often what is revealed is not a truth but a guide for that particular circumstance. Therefore in another circumstance it might be revealed to do something different. Polygamy comes to mind.

In the end science will get it right. :) I am not anti science but then again it is not infallible. :)

Psychology is more my thing. My mom was a Chemistry/Math major. I learned to do assaying "at her knees" as I grew up. Science is not a foreign thing to me. :) Just for information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, I'm not sure if I have insulted you in some way or not, but, I do apologize if anything I said has been taken that way. It seems that you continue to attempt to insult the level of education of other posters and so I can only assume that you must have felt insulted by one of us.

I apologize if it was anything I said. I'd rather we both be edified by the conversation than attempt to "debate" truth. Debating only tends to imbed each party further into their own perceptions.

No, I never felt insulted by any one of you. I thought the discussion was going on just fine. Have I insulted you? I'm not trying to insult the level of education of you nor Anne - I'm merely pointing out that your comments pertaining to science does not jive with what science is all about. I did question what Americans are learning in school, though. Because, c'mon, Fact versus Theory and the scientific method of experimentation to prove a theory is elementary.

I'm not debating truth. Nobody here is debating truth - well, I think you and Anne are, but you're on the same side so that's why I tried to tell you guys that's not the point of this thread at all. We're all LDS here - that is, Vort, Ovis, Anne, you, and me. We shouldn't have to debate what is true because, we all agree on what that is.

We are discussing here how can people like Dawkins and Hitchens believe that God is a product of delusion based on scientific experiment and observed phenomenon.

Are you saying that Alma's experiment doesn't work? Have you followed his experiment and have concluded that his findings were false?

If so, I would suggest you read again and be sure you cover the variables he listed there. Because just like 2+2, Alma's experiment works 100% of the time when followed according to his words.

<snipped the rest>

Yes, Alma's experiment doesn't pass scientific mustard. Why do I say that? Well, I can't explain it any better than President Howard Hunter:

“There are many things which are invisible to our senses and not subject to positive proof. The scientific approach to proof is by experimentation in the laboratory. The result of this scientific method has a greater influence upon our thinking than we realize, because it produces positive proof resulting in knowledge. We cannot overlook the great good this approach by science has upon the lives of persons, but how about those things which lie outside of the realm of positive, tangible proof? This question brings us to the higher law. It is through the assurance that comes from faith.

“The classic example of faith is ascribed to the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ (Heb. 11:1.)

“This statement does not presuppose a perfect knowledge, but describes faith as that which gives to one an assurance or a confidence in things which are yet in the future. These things may be in existence, but it is through faith they are realized. Faith gives a feeling of confidence in that which is not visible or susceptible of positive proof.” (Conference Report, Oct. 1962, p. 23)

And if we want to put it into personal application - I, of course, applied Alma's experiment and found truth.

The problem with Alma's experiment in the light of atheists performing a scientific experiment is that it breaks a basic rule of scientific experimentation - you first have to believe for it to work. Scientific experiments are supposed to be conducted without bias. Because, atheists can gain the same result by putting their faith in some other explanation... like the power of Freud's psychic apparatus or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, I have agreed with almost everything you have said in your last two posts. Very well worded. I especially appreciate the quote you used from President Hunter as he also alludes to the higher law.

In answer to your question about education, of course we understand what the world teaches of science. Just as we are all on the same page concerning the LDS teachings as you said, we are also on the same page concerning scientific approaches that the world uses. The difference is that I am trying to ELEVATE science to greater understanding. Why cheapen it by not building on established truth?

Scientific experiments are supposed to be conducted without bias.

Exactly.

That is exactly my point.

I am saying that scientists who conduct their experiments on the foundation of God not existing are guilty of bias.

Now, again, I understand what the world teaches. I understand what the great and spacious building would have us to believe.

I am saying that the great and spacious building does NOT own science. God owns the natural laws that scientists set out to discover, not the great and spacious building!

Why must one accept the world's view of what science "should be" in lieu of what we already KNOW to be established truth?

Why must we discount our knowledge of God in order to discover the laws He created?

EDIT:

A great quote from Brigham Young that I just happened upon out of nowhere tonight! Crazy! I thought I would edit my post to include it:

Every art and science known and studied by the children of men is comprised within the Gospel. Where did the knowledge come from which has enabled man to accomplish such great achievements in science and mechanism within the last few years? We know that knowledge is from God, but why do they not acknowledge him? Because they are blind to their own interests, they do not see and understand things as they are. Who taught men to chain the lightning? Did man unaided of himself discover that? No, he received the knowledge from the Supreme Being. From him, too, has every art and science proceeded, although the credit is given to this individual, and that individual. But where did they get the knowledge from, have they it in and of themselves? No, they must acknowledge that, if they cannot make one spear of grass grow, nor one hair white or black [see Matthew 5:36] without artificial aid, they are dependent upon the Supreme Being just the same as the poor and the ignorant. Where have we received the knowledge to construct the labor-saving machinery for which the present age is remarkable? From Heaven. Where have we received our knowledge of astronomy, or the power to make glasses to penetrate the immensity of space? … From [God] has every astronomer, artist and mechanician that ever lived on the earth obtained his knowledge (DBY, 246).

Edited by Colirio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, anatess, as far as I am concerned truth is truth. Period. I dont care who comes up with it. I just trust God more than scientists who are always changing their ideas on what is truth.

Revelations are Gods word but often what is revealed is not a truth but a guide for that particular circumstance. Therefore in another circumstance it might be revealed to do something different. Polygamy comes to mind.

In the end science will get it right. :) I am not anti science but then again it is not infallible. :)

Psychology is more my thing. My mom was a Chemistry/Math major. I learned to do assaying "at her knees" as I grew up. Science is not a foreign thing to me. :) Just for information.

I am sorry and apologize because I have not been involved in this conversation and likely missed a lot of important points. But I did want to comment that as a scientist and engineer as well as a High Priest of the order of Melchizedek I do not believe that what a religious person says should be trusted any more or less than what a scientist says. But throughout history there has been far less changing of ideas in the scientific community than in the religious community.

As a student of history it appears to me that it has been the efforts of religious individuals and societies to influence science that have created the most confusion in truth. For example: over 4,000 years ago scientist knew figured out that the earth was round and that the sun was the center of the solar system and calculated quite accurately events like solar eclipses. It was the religious community that tried to mystify such things.

When it comes to operating activities within the "Church" - I trust our appointed and ordained leaders. When it comes to principles concerning our physical universe - I tend to trust scientist.

The reason is because appointed and ordained leaders tend to follow proper procedures in dealing with the truth concerning the operation of the church. Likewise scientist are more likely to follow the proper principles for understanding the physical (empirical) universe. For some strange reason ecclesiastical leaders seem to short cut the path to truths of the empirical universe and likewise many scientists seem to short cut the path to spiritual truths.

So in general I have taken the Joseph Smith scientific method to all truth. If I cannot spiritually or physically validate something - it is neither scientific nor revelation to me.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is truth but people dont necessarily interpret what He tells us accurately. Science is the same. If something in truth then good but scientists interpret their results all the time and arent always right. I keep thinking of the probe to Uranus. One scientist, I remember hearing, said about 50% of what they thought were facts were wrong. To have gotten any right is an accomplishment but it does make a person pause to realize they got so many wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that scientists who conduct their experiments on the foundation of God not existing are guilty of bias.

This is a tough one. Because, you can't conduct an experiment on the foundation of something existing without proof - it starts off with a giant assumption that already skews the experiment. Conducting experiments on the foundation that God does not exist is not bias because, science has no way of proving that God exists. Just like conducting experiments on the foundation that Big Foot does not exist is not guilty of bias either.

But, just like Scientists do not conduct experiments based on the foundation that God exists, they don't conduct experiments based on the foundation that He does NOT exist either - not in that sense. They conduct experiments based on the foundation that something exists but they don't claim it is God, they claim it's an unkown variable which, in most cases pertaining to general scientific theory, becomes an irrelevant variable in the experiment. For example, God's existence has no relevance in the scientific experiments to validate the Theory of Evolution - it only has relevance for the religious folks who deign to assign a Why to the existence of intelligence.

Make sense?

And that's really where Ovis' versus Vort's pow-wow went round and round on - how Ovis tried to explain to Vort that the first step in the scientific process is to find evidence of God's existence without having to rely on "faith" for that evidence. And this went into a crazy spiral on the meaning of "exist" with Vort promoting that the evidence of the Sun's existence is as solid as the evidence of God's existence which doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must one accept the world's view of what science "should be" in lieu of what we already KNOW to be established truth?

See, the thing is, WE know it to be true. Other people don't. You first have to convince them it is true.

Science can easily be demonstrated. The truth of the scriptures - not as much.

Why must we discount our knowledge of God in order to discover the laws He created?

I don't understand this question. Scientists who already believe in God do not discount their knowledge of God. But they don't rely solely on science to discover the laws He created. They rely more on faith. People who don't believe in God do not perceive a need for discovering the laws that God created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tough one. Because, you can't conduct an experiment on the foundation of something existing without proof - it starts off with a giant assumption that already skews the experiment. Conducting experiments on the foundation that God does not exist is not bias because, science has no way of proving that God exists. Just like conducting experiments on the foundation that Big Foot does not exist is not guilty of bias either.

But, just like Scientists do not conduct experiments based on the foundation that God exists, they don't conduct experiments based on the foundation that He does NOT exist either - not in that sense. They conduct experiments based on the foundation that something exists but they don't claim it is God, they claim it's an unkown variable which, in most cases pertaining to general scientific theory, becomes an irrelevant variable in the experiment. For example, God's existence has no relevance in the scientific experiments to validate the Theory of Evolution - it only has relevance for the religious folks who deign to assign a Why to the existence of intelligence.

Make sense?

And that's really where Ovis' versus Vort's pow-wow went round and round on - how Ovis tried to explain to Vort that the first step in the scientific process is to find evidence of God's existence without having to rely on "faith" for that evidence. And this went into a crazy spiral on the meaning of "exist" with Vort promoting that the evidence of the Sun's existence is as solid as the evidence of God's existence which doesn't make sense to me.

The curious thing is that the scientific world is all in a twitter over the 'fact' that Hawkings has proved that God was unnecessary to the creation of the universe. Why are they so excited and so quick to point this out if they arent interested in proving God does not exist?

Oh for the day that we realize there is no such thing as religion or science. There is just truth. Part of that truth is that God exists and we are His children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for the day that we realize there is no such thing as religion or science. There is just truth. Part of that truth is that God exists and we are His children.

Scientists have long since realized this. Religionists continue to live under the oppression of false prophets and their lies. Very unfortunate for the masses living under it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share