Does God have body parts and passions

[_moksha]

Why would progressing to a higher consciousness alter our desire to plug a comely paramecium with our specialized flagella or our desire to hunt down prey and rip into its carcass with our canine teeth and devour its bloody and raw flesh?

Why would such desires change even though we would both comprehend and control the mechanics of the universe? Progression-schmogression, we would still have a hankering to get it on with a bevy of perfected and nubile Celestial Wives.

[_ludwigm]

The hypothesis of God, for instance, gives an incomparably absolute opportunity to understand everything and know absolutely nothing.

[_spotlight]

Does God have a Plantaris muscle? It is rather vestigial in humans and a significant portion of the human population don't even have it. In other primates it is used for grasping with the feet.

[_Mittens]

Mormonism straw man perpetrated by below link and others
...
They seem to cling to a 17th century confession called the Westminster Confession, which most Traditional Christian haven't heard of or would careless what it taught

4 Christian creeds that teach God has no Body parts or passions...
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Creeds.html

Many Christian churchs hold to these creeds to this very day...

https://www.google.com/search?safe=stri ... P-KvgHz-CY

And if you don't ascent to the creeds you are excommunicated.

So no its not a "Mormon Strawman"... its the Christian churches themselves,

False link since confession isn't a Creed written in the 4th and 5th century and isn't accepted by Traditional Christian Jeffrey R Holland would like us to believe

[_Mittens]

Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions
Taken from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith
Tenth President of Mormonism
A course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums
1972-73

Lesson 6 page 39

It was Jesus who gave commandments to Adam after he was driven out of the Garden of Eden and who directed Enoch and Noah before the flood. It was Christ who named Abraham and made him that through his posterity all nations would be blessed. He, it was who called Moses to lead Isreal out of Egypt and who wrote with his fingers on the tables of stone. He had no body until he was born in Bethlehem.

[_jo1952]

The Book of Mormon teaches that Christ's sole/spirit did not enter His mortal body until after He was born. In other words, the idea which mankind came up with wherein the sole/spirit enters the body while it is still inside the mother's womb is not what Christ told Nephi.

3 Nephi 1:13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.

Meanwhile, the Endowment teaches that although Michael is created as Adam while participating inside of mortality, Michael is still existing outside of mortality. In other words, Michael "exists" in both the second and the third estate simultaneously. Although the mortal physical body dies, our sole/spirit never dies. It returns to the second estate where it has been existing all along. Alma also tries to teach this Real Truth; and gives us an important clue about WHO "God" is. However religious beliefs become a stumbling block to the religious, they can only see what they want to see. Alma explains that the souls/spirits of ALL men--whether they be good or evil--are taken home (as soon as they leave the mortal body) to that God who gave them life. The Endowment uses the example of Michael--who basically represents ALL of those who participate in mortality--the name "Michael" includes "el"--the Hebrew word for the name of "God":

Alma 40: 11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

[_spotlight]

As such, the goal posts for most belief systems, be they religion, science, philosophy, etc., are continually moving the goal posts. What was believed 100 years ago to be the truth, will be labeled as myth today.

Missing the point

The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives.[note 1] Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them.

For example, take geocentrism. One of the strongest arguments against heliocentrism was the apparent lack of stellar parallax (or an apparent shift in the position of the stars from season to season). Because there was no evidence, Greek astronomers assumed either that the stars were fixed in the sky (geocentrism), or were so far away parallax was not noticeable. For almost 2000 years there was no evidence for parallax, and it was not until the 1800s that parallax was proven to be correct and geocentrism soundly quashed.

Another example: the quantum theory doesn't explain gravity, but it does not invalidate the Schrödinger equation or the quantisation of energy; it merely says that the current formulation of the theory is incomplete and there are modifications to quantum theory already being formulated, ready for when the next big leap in observational evidence occurs.

That science can be "wrong" in this way is a feature, not a bug, as one of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science builds upon itself, whereas pseudoscience rails on one claim and doesn't let up, despite evidence to the contrary.[note 2] These pseudoscientists present "science" as a monolithic entity with no differentiation between different sciences and the uncertainties and overlaps associated with each field. For example, an economic study of the minimum wage that uses the scientific method cannot be replicated as easily as, say, a basic chemistry experiment that can be repeated in a lab - like finding the boiling point of a chemical. Thus, the economic study may not be "wrong," but has a lower degree of certainty attached to it than the chemistry experiment. Inability to make this distinction is often the result of the failure to think in a Bayesian fashion, in which the subtleties of errors are more accurately appreciated. Thus the "science was wrong before" argument conflates different types of errors within science, confusing incompleteness of theories with being outright wrong. This, as Isaac Asimov called it in his essay The Relativity of Wrong,[2] is a form of being wronger than wrong.

Basic logical flaws

But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at even the basic logical level. First, this phrase can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and that neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[3] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.

This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. (If hypotheses and theories which have been tested time and time again and been proven correct can be "wrong", what does that say about unproven, or even disproven, claims?) Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims, at all. But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!" If "science has been wrong", and this disproves the effectiveness of earwax, doubly does it disprove the effectiveness of ear candles.

For these reasons, "science was wrong before" is an objection that is not even wrong, and tends to be used as a last-ditch escape hatch when the crank has run out of concrete objections or talking points.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

[_Maksutov]

As such, the goal posts for most belief systems, be they religion, science, philosophy, etc., are continually moving the goal posts. What was believed 100 years ago to be the truth, will be labeled as myth today.

Missing the point

The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives.[note 1] Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them.

For example, take geocentrism. One of the strongest arguments against heliocentrism was the apparent lack of stellar parallax (or an apparent shift in the position of the stars from season to season). Because there was no evidence, Greek astronomers assumed either that the stars were fixed in the sky (geocentrism), or were so far away parallax was not noticeable. For almost 2000 years there was no evidence for parallax, and it was not until the 1800s that parallax was proven to be correct and geocentrism soundly quashed.

Another example: the quantum theory doesn't explain gravity, but it does not invalidate the Schrödinger equation or the quantisation of energy; it merely says that the current formulation of the theory is incomplete and there are modifications to quantum theory already being formulated, ready for when the next big leap in observational evidence occurs.

That science can be "wrong" in this way is a feature, not a bug, as one of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science builds upon itself, whereas pseudoscience rails on one claim and doesn't let up, despite evidence to the contrary.[note 2] These pseudoscientists present "science" as a monolithic entity with no differentiation between different sciences and the uncertainties and overlaps associated with each field. For example, an economic study of the minimum wage that uses the scientific method cannot be replicated as easily as, say, a basic chemistry experiment that can be repeated in a lab - like finding the boiling point of a chemical. Thus, the economic study may not be "wrong," but has a lower degree of certainty attached to it than the chemistry experiment. Inability to make this distinction is often the result of the failure to think in a Bayesian fashion, in which the subtleties of errors are more accurately appreciated. Thus the "science was wrong before" argument conflates different types of errors within science, confusing incompleteness of theories with being outright wrong. This, as Isaac Asimov called it in his essay The Relativity of Wrong,[2] is a form of being wronger than wrong.

Basic logical flaws

But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at even the basic logical level. First, this phrase can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and that neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[3] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.

This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. (If hypotheses and theories which have been tested time and time again and been proven correct can be "wrong", what does that say about unproven, or even disproven, claims?) Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims, at all. But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!" If "science has been wrong", and this disproves the effectiveness of earwax, doubly does it disprove the effectiveness of ear candles.

For these reasons, "science was wrong before" is an objection that is not even wrong, and tends to be used as a last-ditch escape hatch when the crank has run out of concrete objections or talking points.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

With Jo and Frank and Nipper you have to address the D-K effect before you can get anywhere. Thankfully there are others reading who can appreciate your exposition.

[_MetalSlasher]

I'm pretty sure God has body parts so he can give out hugs.

[_spotlight]

I'm pretty sure God has body parts so he can give out hugs.

And perform gonadectomies for those of lesser kingdoms.