I'll pick God.

[_mentalgymnast]

Thanks for the comments thus far. Believe it or not, I am able to entertain and sympathize with many of the thoughts that each one of you has expressed. Thanks TD, Sethbag, and Schmo for jumping in also. A comment that Sethbag made is what it all comes down to in my view.

...there's no reason I should believe in him, her, or it without being shown some compelling evidence.

I agree. As we look at what each one of you has said up to this point, there are what appear to some, valid reasons to question the truth claims of the LDS church and the church's views concerning God, Jesus, the plan of salvation, etc. C'mon, Kolob with a six foot one God residing thereabouts? You get the picture. And some of you have illustrated that picture quite well.

When all is said and done, there is or isn't an intelligent creator. From a scientific standpoint, the anthropic principle is interesting. Shows that the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it. Quite a coincidence. But it is possible to explain it away as some have done here. So science is apparently not going to definitively prove or disprove the existence of a creator god.

Back to Seth's comment. When all is said and done, I would have to agree that unless a purported benevolent god is willing to provide evidence of "his" reality here and there...that is pretty persuasive...we should not be expected or even held accountable in any way to believe. We could choose to believe because it gives us comfort/security, etc., but there would be no reason to be held liable in any way if we chose not to believe. Some of you, again, give what appear to be at face value, some good reasons to doubt the existence of the Christian version of God. And the Mormon version in particular.

For me, the Book of Mormon is that "evidence" that has been given to act as an anchor of faith in a world that from a secular, humanistic standpoint would lead some towards doubt and disbelief. Joseph Smith really went out on a limb when he stated that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book and would lead a man/woman to Christ more than any other book. He said the book would act as a keystone. Keystone to what? To faith in God and Christ.

He also said, in passing, that "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest". This obviously takes time and patience.

So...anthropic principle...multiverse/string theories aside, the "evidence" for our day of God's continued dealings with mankind (an artifact, if you will) and a restoration of the fullness of the gospel in particular, is the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon wasn't existent, I would look at the LDS church as being an interesting institution with some interesting teachings and doctrines pulled from here and there (Swedenborg and others)...but I would be dependent on little or no actual physical evidence of its truthiness. Afterall, J.S. was not and has not been the only one who seriously would have us believe that deity appeared to him and gave him instructions, forgave his sins, etc.

As been said ad nauseum, if the Book of Mormon is true, then the church is more than likely true...yada, yada, yada. If the Book of Mormon is a fabricated hoax then there is no reason to believe the rest of the story. I find the Book of Mormon to be not only an interesting book, but very possibly what it purports to be. Until I can be convinced otherwise, I pick God. Yes, even the LDS version of God. One in whom we, as his children, are created in his own image.

Coincidentally (?), this fits in pretty darn well with the anthropic principle. We are what the universe is all about.

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

When all is said and done, there is or isn't an intelligent creator. From a scientific standpoint, the anthropic principle is interesting. Shows that the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it. Quite a coincidence.

Is it a coincidence when one person out of several million picks the correct numbers for a lottery?

Of course. But what should we focus on, the one person who picked the correct numbers, or the millions who didn't?

The reason I say this is that it concerns me when people equate the earth to the entire universe with statement like, "Shows that the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it." No, the universe is not fine tuned for life as we know it. So far, only Earth seems to be (I say "seems to be" because saying it was fine tuned implies that someone went out of their way to fine tune it). In the overwhelming majority of the universe, life (as we know it) is not possible.

So saying the universe is fine tuned for life is like saying all humans pick winning lottery numbers. That really would be quite a coincidence.





And what first post in a page be with an appropriate shoving of the ad away from the post? ...Cluttered, that's what.

[_The Dude]

As been said ad nauseum, if the Book of Mormon is true, then the church is more than likely true...yada, yada, yada. If the Book of Mormon is a fabricated hoax then there is no reason to believe the rest of the story.

Then it should be easy -- if you can honestly approach it as a naïve investigator instead of as one who is an entrenched, heavily invested believer.

I find the Book of Mormon to be not only an interesting book, but very possibly what it purports to be.

What do you mean? Starting from a naïve position, you find the Book of Mormon so convincing that it wins you over to the believer's position? Or do you mean, starting from a believer's position, you are satisfied with remaining a believer until you can be convinced otherwise?

Until I can be convinced otherwise, I pick God. Yes, even the LDS version of God. One in whom we, as his children, are created in his own image.

I thought so. Nice testimony, anyway.

[_mentalgymnast]

So saying the universe is fine tuned for life is like saying all humans pick winning lottery numbers. That really would be quite a coincidence.

Bernard Carr (cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London):

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

Sounds rather matter of fact.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

As been said ad nauseum, if the Book of Mormon is true, then the church is more than likely true...yada, yada, yada. If the Book of Mormon is a fabricated hoax then there is no reason to believe the rest of the story.

Then it should be easy -- if you can honestly approach it as a naïve investigator instead of as one who is an entrenched, heavily invested believer.

I find the Book of Mormon to be not only an interesting book, but very possibly what it purports to be.

What do you mean? Starting from a naïve position, you find the Book of Mormon so convincing that it wins you over to the believer's position? Or do you mean, starting from a believer's position, you are satisfied with remaining a believer until you can be convinced otherwise?

Until I can be convinced otherwise, I pick God. Yes, even the LDS version of God. One in whom we, as his children, are created in his own image.

I thought so. Nice testimony, anyway.

It's more of a statement of position coming from one who was a naïve TBM years ago. Then a skeptical believer. Then a non-believer. Then a plausible/hopeful believer. In other words's, a person of faith.

I would count myself as having been one that's been traveling Fowler's stages of faith and come out somewhere in stage 5.

Conjunctive faith involves the integration into self and outlook of much that was suppressed or unrecognized in the interest of Stage 4's self-certainty and conscious cognitive and affective adaptation to reality. This stage develops a "second naïvété'' (Ricoeur) in which symbolic power is reunited with conceptual meanings. Here there must also be a new reclaiming and reworking of one's past. There must be an opening to the voices of one's "deeper self." Importantly, this involves a critical recognition of one's social unconscious-the myths, ideal images and prejudices built deeply into the self-system by virtue of one's nurture within a particular social class, religious tradition, ethnic group or the like.

Unusual before mid-life, Stage 5 knows the sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments and acts. What the previous stage struggled to clarify, in terms of the boundaries of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in mind and experience. It generates and maintains vulnerability to the strange truths of those who are "other." Ready for closeness to that which is different and threatening to self and outlook (including new depths of experience in spirituality and religious revelation), this stage's commitment to justice is freed from the confines of tribe, class, religious community or nation. And with the seriousness that can arise when life is more than half over, this stage is ready to spend and be spent for the cause of conserving and cultivating the possibility of others' generating identity and meaning.

The new strength of this stage comes in the rise of the ironic imagination-a capacity to see and be in one's or one's group's most powerful meanings, while simultaneously recognizing that they are relative, partial and inevitably distorting apprehensions of transcendent reality. Its danger lies in the direction of a paralyzing passivity or inaction, giving rise to complacency or cynical withdrawal, due to its paradoxical understanding of truth.

Stage 5 can appreciate symbols, myths and rituals (its own and others') because it has been grasped, in some measure, by the depth of reality to which they refer. It also sees the divisions of the human family vividly because it has been apprehended by the possibility (and imperative) of an inclusive community of being.

Regards,
MG

[_The Dude]

Let's assume for a minute that there is a multiverse. Could one inquire about the super-physical rules that govern the multiverse? Those rules must have been fine tuned for our life-giving universe to arise within the multiverse. Either that, or you have to posit a meta-multiverse, where some multiverses have rules that allow some life-supporting universes to arise, and other wholly-dead multiverses full of totally dead universes could also occur by chance.

It's turtles all the way down.

[_Some Schmo]

Bernard Carr (cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London):

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

Sounds rather matter of fact.

Sure, but that doesn't give it any weight. I could claim any number of false dichotomies but that doesn't make them valid.

On the other hand, if there is no Easter Bunny, where does that leave chocolate egg distribution? “If there is only one method of delivery,” Schmo says, “you might have to have bunny couriers. If you don’t want the Easter Bunny, you’d better have a Santa Claus who’s pretty free with his chocolate.”

How could anyone possibly dispute that?

;)