Socrates wrote:Why didn't He reveal all those truths when He came before? Why is He holding them back only until His second time here?
human thought has evolved. When He was here before the ideas of Big Bang and evolution didn't seem to expressed ideas. For some reason it certainly seems, if he is there, this is one big testing challenge for us.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Socrates wrote:Why does God hide Himself from us, from detection through our empirical and scientific abilities? If He's real, that is?
Other than His purpose in doing so is to be a benefit to us in the long run, perhaps in a way we don't quite understand, I don't really know. For some reason, as I understand it, God sees us employing faith as a necessity.
In the old testament, God seemed to be more than willing to prove his existence in dramatic ways.
Why is faith a good attribute? Believing something without evidence has another name - gullibility. It's an attribute that leads people to become victims of fraud.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Scottie wrote:Before we went into space and actually looked at the Earth, how could you, Stem, prove any different?
Why would I feel obligated to prove any different? I don't think I'd mind if anyone believed we're sitting on the back of turtles or not.
Just because we don't have the understanding currently to know exactly how the Universe came into existance doesn't mean that someday the Bible won't look as foolish and silly as turtles.
I don't disagree with this in principle, but since we don't know there is nothing to argue against the idea that God used it all for His creation, right?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Fence Sitter wrote:When I look at the deep space pictures of the Hubble and try and comprehend how big the universe is and how old it is, it is evident that even if God exist, we still are just a blip.
Good point. I don't disagree at all. Indeed, according to the book of Moses, Moses felt the same way without even looking at deep space pictures, but...
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Perhaps the big bang was a science experiment of some other advanced race.
That's my thought--since God is essentially part of an advanced race that we simply can't detect for whatever reason.
Well, if we're calling this scientist god, then he/she wouldn't be the god described in scripture. That god seems to be completely ignorant of even the most basic scientific principles.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote: Other than His purpose in doing so is to be a benefit to us in the long run, perhaps in a way we don't quite understand, I don't really know. For some reason, as I understand it, God sees us employing faith as a necessity.
Doesn't it bother you that that a being whose existence cannot be proven also requires faith in him as a necessity? And how convenient is it that the required faith is supposed to be a benefit to us?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Buffalo wrote:In the old testament, God seemed to be more than willing to prove his existence in dramatic ways.
or so we're told. I don't think the Old Testament suggests this was a regular occurance. The Old Testament, afterall, covers thousands of years of time, and is limited to a very small populace, relative to the world, and a very small region.
Why is faith a good attribute? Believing something without evidence has another name - gullibility. It's an attribute that leads people to become victims of fraud.
Except to faith employers, faith is evidence. But evidence itself doesn't equate to sure knowledge.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Well, if we're calling this scientist god, then he/she wouldn't be the god described in scripture. That god seems to be completely ignorant of even the most basic scientific principles.
I'm not really a literalist when it comes to scripture. It seems to me that which is written in scripture is written by men. What you ascribe to God is really just what should be considered the ideas expressed by those who claimed to be those who are God's servants.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:I don't disagree with this in principle, but since we don't know there is nothing to argue against the idea that God used it all for His creation, right?
First of all, define God for me.
There have been uncountable iterations of this God you speak of. Each of them seems to defy being detected in any way.
Could you please explain why I should believe that the Mormon/Christian God is the correct one and that the thousands and thousands of other gods in cultures spanning the existance of man are incorrect?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo