KevinSim wrote:
My response is that I really don't see that much difference between either a Deist model of God or a Calvinist idea of God, and no God at all. Think about it.
If the Calvinist model really is accurate, and therefore God really does choose "who to reveal the truth to or not independent of human effort," then what's to keep such a deity from doing anything at all? Why would such a deity have any qualms about putting lies about himself into the scriptures? Sure, we think that would be a bad thing to do, but there are plenty of people who think choosing favorites where individual merit (or at least some effort on the individual's part) doesn't come into the equation is also a very bad thing to do. There's absolutely nothing we can know about that type of a deity, because what seems good to us might not be good to that deity, so we could never ever have a clue as to what type of deity he really was.
The Deist model is just as bad, and the whole appeal of the Deist model was that it gave an explanation for how the world and universe came into being, and we don't need that anymore anyhow.
So, why even consider the possibility that either the Deist model or the Calvinist model might be right? What's the difference, as far as we mortals are concerned, between those two models and no God at all?
I'm reminded of one atheist's argument some time back that belief in God was like belief in what he postulated as invisible pink unicorns. Belief in either a Deist God or a Calvinist God is no different from belief in invisible pink unicorns. Sure, either of those two types of God or invisible pink unicorns may in fact (hypothetically) exist, but why would anybody in their right mind care whether they did?
It just seems to me to make more sense to believe in the existence of a deity that we can actually draw conclusions about.
My only point here was to point out that Mormons do assume certain things about their God in order for them to have faith in this Moroni challenge. As you rightly pointed out, under several historical models of God, this challenge wouldn't work.
If it is, you should inform SETI. :)
In all seriousness, though, I have no idea whether or not you can objectively demonstrate that you've "been abducted by aliens." A lot of people turn skeptical when someone says s/he (or someone else) has "been abducted by aliens," and I'd probably include myself in that group. But I certainly don't know any inherent reason I could use to conclude that someone that would make that claim must be out of that someone's mind.
I guess that someone's ability to objectively verify that someone had "been abducted by aliens" would depend on the care the aliens had been taking to keep people from knowing they exist. The greater the care they'd taken, the harder it would be to objectively verify the someone had been abducted.
Again, I would venture to guess that you would apply a vastly different standard of evidence to proving a claim of alien abduction than you do to believing the Mormon faith. Again, thinking about the alien abduction claim and about Santa Claus (or Adam or whatever) and then talking to the sky about it WOULDN'T be sufficient proof, even if you did have a warm feeling in your heart.
To make this more concrete, I had a lady on my mission that claimed that Jesus, angels, and demons used to talk to her through the TV. How much credence should be given to her claims versus those of Joseph Smith? Who is to say that God spoke to him and not her or vice versa? What standards of proof would you need to believe the lady versus Joseph Smith?
The idea of subjective truth has been around for a long time. Descartes thought he had discovered the subjective truth that he existed back in the 1600s. His argument turned out to be flawed, but there's a certain amount of attractiveness to it that has won him disciples all the centuries since and probably will continue to win more for the rest of eternity.
The principal advantage of objective truth is that large groups of people can agree on a set of easily observable, easily verifiable, facts. The principal disadvantage of objective truth is that, technically, not one person out of that large group really knows that any of the rest, or even the non-animate observable universe, really exists.
But peple who listen to Descartes (and I do to some extent) would say that regardless of what we see in the observable universe, each one of us can be certain that that one exists, and I think I agree with Descartes that far.
If you have actually undergone an experience that makes you believe you've been abducted by aliens, then that's a real phenomenon, and it's perfectly understandable that you might be interested in exploring its implications. It might be wise for you to consider the possibility that you hallucinated the whole thing, but it would be unwise in my opinion to let that possibility overshadow everything else.
One of the triumphs of science is to realize that there is a real, predictable, and independent universe that exists even when nobody is looking. We can argue about the finer details of philosophy, but I think all of us realize this implicitly, thanks to the advances of science.
Respected how? I personally believe that anybody's strong beliefs should be respected, to some degree. So I guess I need to know what you mean specifically by respected.
Hypothetically: Let's say I believe that Elvis is still alive and faked his own death. I also believe that women are the spawn of Satan and should be burned alive if they have sex outside of marriage. Should either of those beliefs be respected, even if I believe them strongly?
Once again, that depends on the care the aliens had taken to keep people from knowing they exist.
There are elves living on the moon. You just don't know about them because they are magical.