Sin from this sinner's perspective.

[estradling75]

Occam's Razor requires two(or more) equally compelling explanation for an event, before it can be applied in favor of the simplest. 

 

Your two explanations are God is having be born to places he choses...  Or God is letting it happen at random.

 

Well  I can find tons of scriptural support for God having a plan and being in control of all things.  I can not find any scriptural support for God being random for anything really being out of his control.

 

Now the case can be made that it appears random to us.  But the scriptures even cover that when they declare that God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts our not our thought.

 

Simply put the scriptural Evidence God having a plan is overwhelming...  The Evidence for it being random is our own faulty sense of what is going on right now with no eternal perspective.

[2ndRateMind]

Well, in a sense, of course, the random distribution of souls to bodies is fair, in the same way the selection of a lottery winner is fair. What I don't get is how the deliberate allocation of some to wealth, and some to poverty, could be fair. Truly, if God does this, His ways are not as mine, and won't become so, until He explains Himself.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 8, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

Well, in a sense, of course, the random distribution of souls to bodies is fair, in the same way the selection of a lottery winner is fair. What I don't get is how the deliberate allocation of some to wealth, and some to poverty, could be fair. Truly, if God does this, His ways are not as mine, and won't become so, until He explains Himself.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

That of course is your privilege...   The idea that God knows each of us very well and then puts us on this earth in situations to see 'if we will do all things that he commands.'  Is a very solid idea from LDS understanding of God.  The idea that many will fail to do so is also on strong footing (in fact until we repent it is everyone failing)

 

Those born to wealth are going to be tested to see if they will do all things that he commands. That wealth will be a factor that condemns them until they follow his commands.  Those born without wealth also will be tested to see if they will do all that he command.  How they handle their lack of wealth will be a factor for them.

 

Thus while they have different situations the Judgment of God can treat both equally in seeing how much/well they followed the commandments of God.

[Vort]

 

I am quite willing to admit that I have no evidence that there is no rule governing where which soul is born.

 

Note that you are here implicitly granting the idea of a "soul", what we Mormons would call a "spirit". Whether you believe that spirit to have been created by God ex nihilo*, or instead believe as Mormons do that the spirit is self-existent**, you must choose between two competing ideas: That this spirit is then given a mortal life situation completely at random, or that this spirit is given a mortal life in accordance with God's will.

 

In this case, Occam's Razor makes the choice extremely clear. And it's not in favor of random chance.

 

*By the way, Mormonism explicitly rejects ex nihilo creationism. Things do not just pop into being, willed into substance by the desire of God. Since this idea is at the root of many non-LDS ideas about God, it also is at the root of many atheistic rejections of the existence and nature of God. We Mormons consider such rejections to be strawman arguments, because they are arguing against the existence of God based on purported elements of his nature that we don't accept.

 

*Technically, Mormons believe that the spirit was created by God in an act of "premortal birth", though what that exactly means has not been clarified. It is the intelligence of man which is uncreated and "co-eternal" with God. It is this intelligence that is the ultimate root of decision in each individual. But for purposes of the present discussion, this is a distinction with no relevant difference.

 

Occam's Razor demands the simplest possible explanation for some phenomenon

 

Not quite. Rather, Occam's Razor says that, when presented with two arguments that explain observations equally well, it is the simpler argument that is to be given preference. As I mentioned above, the "random distribution" model does not at all account for the existence or role of God in the birth of a spirit (or "soul") on earth.

 

and, to my mind, the simplest possible explanation for the deployment of our souls across time and space is that they are randomly disposed. Mere caprice of fate, I submit, is the simplest and most economic explanation for when and where a soul is born.

 

What, then, do you suppose is the role of God in the birth of souls into mortality? He just rolls dice all day?

 

 

Now, if you want to suggest something different than this null hypothesis default position, that there is some rule, presumably a just one, that determines when and where we are born, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it.

 

Your "null hypothesis" really isn't null, because you are already implicitly granting (1) the existence of souls, and thus (2) the existence of God. I maintain that it is not reasonable simultaneously to believe in (1) and (2) and yet maintain that birth itself is a purely random event, unless you have a compelling model to justify such a belief. The onus really is on you to substantiate your "random assignment of souls" hypothesis.

 

But in any case, I do indeed have a much better model:

 

We decide the circumstances of our birth based on our premortal choices and actions, much as we decide our mortal circumstances today based on our choices and actions.

 

My evidence in favor of this model is identical to your evidence of random distribution. But the difference is, my model is based on a fundamental idea (called the "plan of salvation") which can be independently confirmed through divine revelation to all who sincerely seek to know. This doesn't mean my model is correct, of course; other models can also be based on the basic ideas of the plan of salvation. But my model makes sense to me.

 

One more observation: You assign a great deal more importance to money and social status than I do. The idea that things are "unfair" because people don't have the same amount of money is both obvious and irrelevant.