Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[honorentheos]

I'd attempted to describe Lorentz's observations as part of the chain leading to the description of chaos theory as such, but point taken. His impact on natural systems modeling was revolutionary and where I interact with it. But I wasn't careful in my description so fair enough.

[Gadianton]

Would they all have to have been named "Joseph"?

If they aren't, imagine how even more complicated and nuanced MG's creator god would be.

(the lowercase "g" in honor of his recent abandonment of his God)

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I made a jokesy comment to Honor a few days ago about Mormonism being in superposition. For me, and with no caveats, I’ve settled on this:

Reality itself is in superposition and is in a quantum state where Everything Everywhere All at Once is happening. In other words, all choices are being made all the time, and the choices ‘we’ make collapse all other choices down to the one ‘we’ made so, in effect, ‘I’ am exerting free will, while ‘Every Other I’ has also made ‘Every Choice’ as their universes deviate from one another.

Barring that. If indeed this is the only existent reality then I’m left with the fact that it’s causal and thus determinant. Whether or not it’s fundamentally physical is probably irrelevant.

If a god is part of anything I said above then it is probably an advanced species of some sort that is practically unknowable for all intents and purposes.

- Doc

[sock puppet]

The Plan of Salvation never made any sense to me for this very reason. No one fully understanding the consequences of rebelling against God, sides against Him, and what kind of Omniscient God offers 1/3 of his creation the opportunity to make such a decision and its attendant consequences, knowing how they will decide? Of course, this kind of plan makes sense to people who want to claim they control the power of God to seal up eternal blessings or punishments to others.

This is a hard doctrine. My take is that there is much we do not know and understand in regards to the plan of salvation and exaltation. Yes, I know this sounds like a cop out. * * *

The only real alternative to putting it in God’s hands when it comes to some of these hard doctrines regarding free will in the before and the now and the hereafter is to throw up our hands and either sat there is no true free will or there is no all knowing and Omniscient God.

And that in many ways, from where we sit, is a logical and comprehensible choice/option to take.

No argument there.

Regards,
MG,

Not only does it sound like a cop out, it is a cop out. When theists invoke 'God works in mysterious ways,' 'we cannot comprehend God or his ways,' etc., they are masking the fact that their God, as portrayed by the religious charlatans they choose to follow, is nonsensical. When theists say about the Genesis description of the world's creation that God's "days" are not 24 hours on an earth clock, they are impeaching the ability to rely on any of "God's" word choices. If a "day" to God is a thousand (or a million) years, then maybe adultery is, to God, eating rice on Wednesdays. (Maybe Joseph Smith figured that out and that is what gave him, in his own mind, license to "marry" multiple women (34 by one historian's count), one just 14 years of age, some already married to other men, etc. When God used the word "adultery" how could we mere mortals know what the hell God meant?)

When your religion requires pretzel logic, your grasping at straws and you ought to consider that it doesn't matter how much you've invested your life into a religion, that doesn't make it "true." Consider the fallacy of sunken costs and whether that is what drives you. All you have left in life is today and the days remaining thereafter until you die. Make good use of them; don't resign yourself to the shackles of a religion simply because you may have foregone living life to its fullest for the years you've been under the spell of a religious cult.

[Res Ipsa]

You [have] said that you cannot conceive of the existence of objective truth that humans have no access to.

I accept the fact that there is objective truth that humans have no access to.

Regards,
MG

You have already said that you cannot conceive of a reality where objective truth exists but humans have no access to it. I have no trouble conceiving of realities where humans have complete access to objective truth, have no access to objective truth, or have partial access to objective truth. You claimed that I was unable or unwilling to conceive of some hypothetical reality, which was 100% false. In fact, it is you who is unwilling or unable to conceive of a hypothetical reality. It's interesting that, rather than respond to what I said, you simply tried to muddy the waters by playing games with words.

[Res Ipsa]

…your compulsive disparagement of non-believers says otherwise.

If my insistence on putting theology into my posts and then pointing out that this is what Mormons believe causes you grief, that’s on you, Res Ipsa.

So, now you are claiming that disparaging non-believers is part of Mormon theology? I'm going to need a CFR on that.

Don't gaslight me, bro. You haven't been "pointing out" what Mormons believe. You've been making factual claims that you claim are objectively true based on your claim that you have special access to objective truth that non-believers don't have. And the more people challenge those claims, the farther and farther away from Mormonism you wander.

None of your disparagement causes me grief. Your attempts to respond to my argument by dismissing them as some kind of emotional overreaction is a red herring. Your disparagement of non-believers is simply evidence that you don't really believe all those nice "Im okay, you're okay" words you've said in this thread. It's evidence that your use of David Brook's words is a cynical excuse to dismiss everyone else's beliefs because, unlike you, they live in a subjectively created reality. As I've argued throughout, you can talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk.[/quote]

I’ve made it rather clear here and there that I’m not disparaging you. I do, however, point out that I think certain positions and modes of thinking in regards to reality and whether or not we have free will that are expressed here are not in conformity to what I believe or what the LDS church teaches.

I try to leave it at that.

You can't disparage non-believers as a group without disparaging me. I'm a member of that group. But your conscience can rest easily -- your disparagement isn't causing me any pain. It's evidence in support of an argument.

But it's interesting that you said that you "try." You didn't say "I leave it at that." That indicates to me that you know that you do disparage non-believers in your posts. So, if you really believe all this "I'm okay, you're okay" talk, why are you still doing that?

Let me be clear, I’m not trying to disparage the fact that you are a disbeliever in Mormonism and/or the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

You can believe that the moon is made of cheese for all I care. People have all kinds of beliefs and non beliefs. That’s the beauty of a world in which we are free to choose our own adventure. Just as in the children’s book series each book has a plot line that develops as a result of certain choices along the way.

Essentially, that seems to be the way the world works.

Don’t take it personally that I am stating my beliefs and positions and bringing out the fact that they may not run in tandem with yours.

No harm, no foul.

Again, a red herring with a garnish of pretty sounding words. If you really believe all of that, why do you disparage non-believers in your posts?

[MG 2.0]

Consider the fallacy of sunken costs and whether that is what drives you. All you have left in life is today and the days remaining thereafter until you die. Make good use of them; don't resign yourself to the shackles of a religion simply because you may have foregone living life to its fullest for the years you've been under the spell of a religious cult.

The arguments on this board against free will all come down to this constant refrain that you and others make after all is said and done. That “living life to the fullest” demands that one leave the CofJCofLDS.

How that might apply to free will and making choices is an interesting question in and of itself.

We ALL have only today and the days remaining thereafter “until [we] die”. We all should “make good use of them”. Are you saying that because one has made what they believe to be covenants with God that they are somehow at a disadvantage in making good use of time and that we are somehow caught in shackles that keep us from being the kind of person we have the potential of being?

I’ve mentioned the arrogance I’ve observed a time or two on this thread. Your comments seem to demonstrate the fact that those, such as yourself, that have “left the cult” are somehow privy to special knowledge that allows you to judge your fellow human beings and call them deluded and something ‘less than they can be’ because they adhere to religious doctrines and principles. As I mentioned to another poster, this the height of conceit, arrogance, and hubris.

This conversation about free will and the adamant condemnation of its existence seems to be attached to feelings and judgements being made in regards to whether or not a creator God exists to whom we owe allegiance and are accountable. After all, if we are not accountable to a God we are perfectly willing to define free will however we want even to the point of explaining it away.

Life can then be, as you say, “lived to its fullest” as one discards the chains of obedience or conformity to religious doctrines, principles, and practices. Me thinks that this choice of “living life to its fullest” is an exercise of free will in and of itself.

I would like to think that you’re being honest with yourself and others but there is a part of me that doubts your sincerity and confidence in the path you’ve taken and are out to ‘convert’ others to your worldview/lifestyle.

The paragraphs I’ve quoted from you seems to point towards this as being a distinct possibility.

Anyway, as I’ve said, I think I’ve said just about all I have to say in this thread directly discussing free will and such. But I have to take issue with what you have said and simply say that I think you are confused and mistaken. That is if we’re not dealing without outright half truths and lies.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

None of your disparagement causes me grief.

Res Ipsa, again I am not disparaging you. Live life as you see fit. Believe what you want to believe or not believe.

You do seem to be aggrieved. For that I feel for you in the sense that you are carrying this burden around. Just let it go.

It doesn’t need to be this way.

It will not do you harm to allow others the free will to believe that they are living their lives exercising what they believe to be a God given gift.

Why try to convince them otherwise?

I’d like to let this rest.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Would they all have to have been named "Joseph"?

If they aren't, imagine how even more complicated and nuanced MG's creator god would be.

(the lowercase "g" in honor of his recent abandonment of his God)

I haven’t abandoned God. In fact, I seek to know more of Him.

I do think that God is much bigger than you would like to think.

But at the same time I believe that he acts within the bounds of truth and objective reality. If this is so, we need to consider how this might interact with free will.

And as I’ve said, I think I’m done on the topic of free will. I would like to hear from others that are either on the fence or support the belief, that many people have, in regards to the inherent ability that humans have to consciously exercise their will to make choices between good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong, etc.

To me, free will exists. I’ve experienced its effects in my life. Those that would explain it away I think have either ulterior motives or personal reasons to do so. And I’ll leave it at that.

Sock puppet’s response and others along the way lead me to think that this is true.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

Consider the fallacy of sunken costs and whether that is what drives you. All you have left in life is today and the days remaining thereafter until you die. Make good use of them; don't resign yourself to the shackles of a religion simply because you may have foregone living life to its fullest for the years you've been under the spell of a religious cult.

The arguments on this board against free will all come down to this constant refrain that you and others make after all is said and done. That “living life to the fullest” demands that one leave the CofJCofLDS.

How that might apply to free will and making choices is an interesting question in and of itself.

The argument is if it's an illusion and what does that mean if it is? God only gets inserted when a party in the discussion inserts God as evidence there must be free will. It's a subject that gets debated by non-theists and, frankly, more honestly because the prior need to include God interferes with the ability to consider the evidence. Case in point, this thread.

Leaving God out is my preference. The trouble is some folks just can't do that. I wonder why?

ETA: I should acknowledge I made the point your inability to exclude God or consider positions that require Mormonism to be a lie are evidence against free will. So in that case I did insert the topic tangential to the point I was attempting to make that your options for making choices were obviously bounded. But that applies to all of us. I was just talking with you in that instance.