I'll pick God.

[_mentalgymnast]

And as an add-on, what is it about the current understandings which are taught in the LDS church about God that seem so abhorrent to you?

I'll start with this one, MG, "Celestial plural marriage". A place where women still remain subservient cows at the bidding of arrogant bulls. If I ever read a man-made doctrine in any religion - this has to be it.

Ray, would you mind going through all four questions so I know where you're coming from?

Thanks,
MG

[_Ray A]

When did Polkinhorne join the Church, MG?

[_Ray A]

2. What are your thoughts in regards to the multiverse theory?

Sorry, MG, but I'm taking these one at a time. The multiverse theory, is still only a theory (I'm not discounting it). So the Book of Mormon applies to all Multiverses? And if someone in Multiverse 17 rejects it, he/she is damned "for all eternity"?

[_Sethbag]

"It's amazing what a bunch of smart guys will to to try and push God out of the picture. It's been done here by some pretty smart folks...It's interesting to observe that many who leave the church behind also leave God behind, or claim agnosticism...

It's not much work at all excluding God. If one considers the evidence for the existence of God, he essentially excludes himself.

And, as previously noted, once one no longer believes in God, other that some purely social reasons, why else should one stay in an religion which trumpets their belief in this non-existent deity? What exactly does an LDS testimony mean to an atheist? Why should one stay in Joseph Smith's church once one believes that Joseph Smith was either a conman, or a madman, or some combination of both?

Each one of you in one way or another seems to have issues with the Mormon concept of God...to put in in a nutshell.

I'm an equal opportunity non-believer. I don't disbelieve in Elohim any more fervently than I disbelieve in Mithras, Zeus, Thor, Krishna, Ganesh, Lord Xenu, and a list a thousand miles long of every other deity (or at least fictional character...) ever imagined in the heart of man, which nevertheless never really existed.

The LDS church only gets so much attention in my posts because it's the religion I just happen to have been born into, raised up in, and to which all of my relatives on my side, and almost all of my relatives on my wife's side, belong to. But all the other churches aren't true either, and for the same reason: they're all manmade.

Would each one of you be willing to take the time and comment on a few questions?

1. What are your thoughts in regards to the “strong” anthropic principle?

There are different versions of what constitutes weak and strong anthropic principle. I'll use the version in the article you linked:

The “strong” anthropic principle makes a much bolder statement. It asserts that the laws of physics themselves are biased toward life. To quote Freeman Dyson, a renowned physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the strong anthropic principle implies that “the universe knew we were coming.”

I disagree with this interpretation of what the anthropic principle means. And I certainly disagree with any notion that the universe "knew we were coming", unless someone can provide evidence of this.

To me, the anthropic principle does not imply that life was inevitable. It only says that, however improbable some might believe it to be for a universe to exist which can support life, we automatically have won the jackpot and live in such a universe, as evidenced by our very existence.

That is, whether there is one universe, or many, observers of such a universe are bound to exist only in universes where their existence is possible. And then, if anything is inevitable, it's that eventually, some of this life will sit around scratching their head, or whatever it is they think with, wondering how it just so happened to be that they exist.

2. What are your thoughts in regards to the multiverse theory?

It might describe reality, or it might not. I, for one, do not require such a theory to explain our universe. To start with, I haven't yet seen anyone demonstrate, conclusively, that it's even possible for a universe to come about that isn't like this one in terms of the fundamental physics.

You read about people saying hey, if the strong force were any stronger, there wouldn't be any hydrogen, so there couldn't be water, long-lasting stars, etc. Ok. Now, is it even possible for the strong force to be any more or less strong than it currently is? Give me one good reason to believe that we "lucked out" with our strong force, rather than that this is the only possible way it could even be.

3. Do any one of these two ways of looking at the cosmos appeal to you more than the other? If so, why?

So far, the best evidence I've seen is that we exist. I don't think any compelling evidence exists for why we exist in a metaphysical sense, or whether there is in fact a "purpose" for our existence that we don't invent for ourselves.

We exist because our star exists, and because around it there was enough material that our planet was able to form, and it did so, and there were enough elements on this planet that water was able to form, there was oxygen, and various other chemicals, and somehow an event, or events, of abiogenesis occurred, and at some point an abiogenesis event lead to life that survived to evolve into the diversity of life as we know it today. That's why we exist.

4. If you were to entertain the thought of there being an intelligent, benevolent creator behind the anthropic principle, which version of that creator would make the most sense to you individually?

This question is irrelevant. If there's a benevolent Creator, then there's a benevolent Creator, and she, he, or it exists in whatever form they exist, without being caused, or influenced, by whatever I believe in my mind. And if there is no such Creator, benevolent or not, my opinion cannot change that.

That is, out of all the versions of "God" that are available to choose from, which one would you pick for your own?

I have no idea. But it would have to be a God that wasn't an asshole like Elohim. And it would have to be a God who took communicating with us a little more seriously, if we were to be held to account for our belief, or non-belief, in him, her, or it. And this God's love for us wouldn't always be made to seem so conditional, and random.

And as an add-on, what is it about the current understandings which are taught in the LDS church about God that seem so abhorrent to you?

Let's see. Old Testament genocides and atrocities. Angels with flaming swords ordering Joseph Smith to have sex with other women behind his wife's back. Requiring us to believe stuff like the Book of Abraham, which, on the evidence, is simply unbelievable. Requiring us to believe that the men who lead the church do so at the direction of Almighty Elohim the Creator of the Entire Universe, when throughout all of the church's history from Joseph Smith on down, they seem to have taught "truths" that were riddled with the opinions of man, mingled with mythology-based scripture, to the extent that it's impossible to take these guys seriously.

I mean seriously, Noah's Ark? Talking snakes in the Garden of Eden with the "first" man Adam, only 6000 years ago? Blood atonement?

And it's simply impossible for me to believe that early leaders of the church like Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith, and others were following the example of a benevolent God in keeping harems of women who were really no better than chattel, to be given and taken from men based on the pretenses of other men. Who was it, Heber C. Kimball, I think, who once pronounced that he thought no more of taking another wife, than he did of buying a cow?

Yeah, that's how Elohim the Kolob-dwelling Sky God treats "his" women. This crap is simply unbelievable - can you therefor blame me if I take the evidence seriously, and not believe it?

[_Sethbag]

At the end of the day, my mind is open to evidence that a God exists. Such evidence, in my view, has never been presented - by anybody.

Any God who might exist, but who cares so little that we understand his, her, or its nature, that it leaves plenty of evidence of naturalistic explanations for things, and no evidence at all for his, her, or its own existence, and who provides such unreliable, and such easily counterfeitable, means of communication with it as "prayer" and "spiritual witness", is running in stealth mode, and obviously doesn't want us to believe in him, her, or it. Or else he, she, or it is just dicking with us.

Either way, there's no reason I should believe in him, her, or it without being shown some compelling evidence. And wishful thinking does not qualify.

[_The Dude]

It's amazing what a bunch of smart guys will to to try and push God out of the picture. It's been done here by some pretty smart folks...It's interesting to observe that many who leave the church behind also leave God behind, or claim agnosticism...

In other words, when smart people loose faith in Mormonism, they go back to some very basic beliefs. Interesting? Really?

1. What are your thoughts in regards to the “strong” anthropic principle?

2. What are your thoughts in regards to the multiverse theory?

3. Do any one of these two ways of looking at the cosmos appeal to you more than the other? If so, why?

I want a view of the cosmos that is grounded in evidence, that takes little or no faith or speculation to hold it together, and wherever possible I want something that is simple. There does not exist a cosmic view that satisfies these personal criteria, and so I do not have a strong attraction to any of them. The only thing I can really conclude from my existence is that I exist. No cosmic principle follows from that without tons of faith or speculation. No miltiverses, like millions of alternate lottery tickets with loosing numbers. No cosmic laws biased towards my existence, like laws of physics biased to produce certain factors because of the particular ticket I hold. No specific religious gods, intelligently tweaking the interactions of molecules to produce my winning numbers.

4. If you were to entertain the thought of there being an intelligent, benevolent creator behind the anthropic principle, which version of that creator would make the most sense to you individually? That is, out of all the versions of "God" that are available to choose from, which one would you pick for your own? And as an add-on, what is it about the current understandings which are taught in the LDS church about God that seem so abhorrent to you?

What should I base my choice on -- Wishful thinking? The first problem with the LDS God is that It has the eternal form of a Homo Sapien, but we know that the Homo Sapien is not an eternal form, but is just one of countless transient forms of biological evolution. It's a cosmic blip. The LDS God is the most anthropocentric thing I can imagine, completely the inverse of a cosmic view.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG....

I know you didn't ask me but here you go... :-)

1. What are your thoughts in regards to the “strong” anthropic principle?

I don't have any sense the universe "knew we were coming", or that there was (is) a being directing the development of the universe, let alone creating it. However I do have the sense that the very essence of our universe is one of potential and creativity. In other words, I don't think it was inevitable that "we" would exist but I do think it was inevitable that the universe would unfold (develop/evolve). My own personal opinion is that in our universe it may have been inevitable that the awareness of itself would emerge... not that this has anything to do with a creator/man/God person.

2. What are your thoughts in regards to the multiverse theory?

Not enough evidence and irrelevant to our particular existence. :-)

3. Do any one of these two ways of looking at the cosmos appeal to you more than the other? If so, why?

No,

4. If you were to entertain the thought of there being an intelligent, benevolent creator behind the anthropic principle, which version of that creator would make the most sense to you individually? That is, out of all the versions of "God" that are available to choose from, which one would you pick for your own?

I would come up with my own. (smile). Actually I resonate pretty strongly with the ideas of Spinoza (Einstein) and for the most part find the idea of Pantheism to make sense. I'm sort of a "nature religionist" or something along these lines. LOL! (I consider God as Source or Essence or Mystery).

And as an add-on, what is it about the current understandings which are taught in the LDS church about God that seem so abhorrent to you?

Oh dear... where to begin. I'll give you a few out of a few dozen.

The whole Plan of Salvation, the idea of a Test, the problem of suffering, the assertion that God is a human male (a rather primitive primate), the racism, misogyny, Jesus suffering for my sins, families being torn apart for eternity, the LDS version of Heaven, the narrow authoritarian one way fits all world view, patriarchy, polygamy, God's cruelty, the thwarting of creativity, elitism; the messy, convoluted, complicated, "truth"... enough for now. (smile).

~td~

[_Gadianton]

1. What are your thoughts in regards to the “strong” anthropic principle?

2. What are your thoughts in regards to the multiverse theory?

3. Do any one of these two ways of looking at the cosmos appeal to you more than the other? If so, why?

The two aren't necessarily in tension where one appeals more than the other. If I understand it, there are "multiverse" explanations that do the work of the SA.

4. If you were to entertain the thought of there being an intelligent, benevolent creator behind the anthropic principle, which version of that creator would make the most sense to you individually?

An SA that explains humans physically is small victory, even going an ID route. To borrow from Runtu's thread, even in a physically contrained universe, life will probably always be completely random in terms of human narratives (morality etc., even what constitutes an "observer" and sentience in the first place).

I would say that religions are more or less rational according to their investment, the more invested, the less rational. For instance, some kinds of pantheism with a vague notion of order and hint of meaning or an absolutely minimalist version of deism and even the most drained traditional theology (decoupled from "church tradition") are more rational than an infinite chain of Men who live with thousands of wives near Kolob type planets operating a giant pyramid scheme where "that which has been done on other worlds" is done over and over again into eternity, filling the universe with more and more exalted men.

As far as being judgmental, I am far more sympathetic and interested in the beliefs of the deepest tribes of the amazon than the beliefs of Mormons who have very high education levels yet insist on believing in absurd fairy tales.

[_mentalgymnast]

When did Polkinhorne join the Church, MG?

Listen to the Speaking of Faith episode if you would like to learn more about this man's background/beliefs.

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

It's interesting to observe that many who leave the church behind also leave God behind, or claim agnosticism (as a safety net for their apostasy).

As others have noted, you've got it backwards. First comes doubt in god, then the inevitable discarding of religious thought, not the other way around.

I'm always entertained by the notion that people are agnostic or atheist for reasons of comfort (as demonstrated by your safety net comment). Religion is about comfort, not rational doubt.

But if you put God back into the picture, it then becomes much more viable to look at the church as being an important part of God's plan for his children here on this earth.

That's like saying, "If we assume that there really is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, it then becomes much more viable to regard leprechauns as playing an important role in wish granting." There are an infinite number of possibilities if we grant faulty assumptions; the problem is obviously not with the possibilities as much as with the bad assumptions in the first place. That's why not believing in god leads to apostasy, not apostasy leading to agnostic atheism.

If you were to entertain the thought of there being an intelligent, benevolent creator behind the anthropic principle, which version of that creator would make the most sense to you individually?

What difference does it even make? How is what I would want in a god relevant in the least?

That's like asking, "If you could choose what kind of parents you had, which ones would make the most sense to you?" Why, will that make them become my fantasy? It sounds a bit like, "What would you do if you had a billion dollars?" It may be fun to speculate about it, but it has absolutely no relationship with reality, so why would that even factor into your thinking if you're sincerely trying to arrive at the truth?

The very reason I became agnostic and eventually stopped believing in god completely was the fact that, from a very young age, I thought that there was no way to know what kind of god god was. He leaves no evidence of himself. I could speculate all I want, but all I'm really doing is making stuff up and writing mythical fiction, because there is nothing concrete to go on.