mentalgymnast wrote:Particularly in Joseph's usage of a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon. I don't know that I'd say he used it simply as a prop, however. For a period of time in the Book of Mormon translation process it acted/performed as something more or less comparable to a modern day computer.
How so? I see no meaningful similarities between the two. We know how a computer works. We know how they are made. There is no mysticism or supernatural forces at work with a computer. With the translation story of the Book of Mormon, there are a host of assumptions that must be ignored just to get to the point where one can accept that even Joseph was the recipient of the text. The funcionality of the supposed U&T is NOTHING like a computer.
No personal computers back in Joseph's time. Is it too far fetched to think that there would have been a "device" of some sort that would have acted as a computing interface between Joseph and the source of intelligence which was the power behind the translation? A device that Joseph felt like he was already adept at using successfully at times and felt some confidence in using?
Mad Viking wrote:Neither you or a god have demonstrated that there is a god trying to communicate with me by ANY means (supernatural or otherwise). Hell, existence hasn't even been established, let alone this being's desire or capability to communicate with me. So... why would I even begin such an endeavor? Let's establish their existence first. So... have you got any evidence that this being exists?
Not any evidence that I can place directly in your hands and say, "Here's proof!"
But there are interesting bits of research out there by some reputable folks that cause one to take pause and consider the possibilities.
Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies says, "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe."
Paul Davies is an advocate of the principle of "fine tuning" of the universe.
"You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge."
...the incredibly diverse phenomena we see in nature are the result of such a small number of physics laws, each of which assumes such a simple mathematical form, that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper...
No, I can't place evidence for a creator right in your hands, but there is a lot of observational science, using the five senses, that lead one to consider the possibility that a creater/god responsible for human beings on the earth may not be such a far fetched idea.
Regards, MG
I suppose what gives me pause to question, if anything, is why atheists don't remain agnostics instead.
mentalgymnast wrote:I suppose what gives me pause to question, if anything, is why atheists don't remain agnostics instead.
Regards, MG
I question anyone on either side who claims absolute knowledge of God's existence. There seems to be a lot more that claim to know he exists than those that claim to know he does not.
"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."
In fact, rejecting the belief that you can know something based on some kind of communication outside the five senses (whether or not you believe in the existence of gods) is what agnosticism is.
mentalgymnast wrote:I suppose what gives me pause to question, if anything, is why atheists don't remain agnostics instead.
Regards, MG
I question anyone on either side who claims absolute knowledge of God's existence. There seems to be a lot more that claim to know he exists than those that claim to know he does not.
One little tweak I'd make to what you've said here. I'd say, "There seems to be a lot more that claim to know/believe he exists than those that claim to know he does not.
Mad Viking wrote:Neither you or a god have demonstrated that there is a god trying to communicate with me by ANY means (supernatural or otherwise). Hell, existence hasn't even been established, let alone this being's desire or capability to communicate with me. So... why would I even begin such an endeavor? Let's establish their existence first. So... have you got any evidence that this being exists?
mentalgymnast wrote:Not any evidence that I can place directly in your hands and say, "Here's proof!"
But there are interesting bits of research out there by some reputable folks that cause one to take pause and consider the possibilities.
This brings us back to the same point in the conversation that we've been at several times. All of the things that you are pointing to as vague evidence have explanations that do not require all of the forgone assumptions and complexities that a god requires. Why bother with the added, and unjustified assumption of a god? Arguing from ignorance isn't justified in either case. Furthermore, if we are to give a god credit for all of the beauty we observe in the universe, shall we also blame him for the ugliness? Shall he be held accountable for this ugliness?
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
Fence Sitter wrote:I question anyone on either side who claims absolute knowledge of God's existence. There seems to be a lot more that claim to know he exists than those that claim to know he does not.
I still don't understand how someone who doesn't believe in god(s) can be classified as suddenly asserting with absolute knowledge that there are no gods.
Atheists, by definition, disbelieve in the existence of gods. Disbelieving something vice asserting something aren't necessarily related actions.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.
An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.
Seems rather straightforward. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods, with some possible reservations. But why not just remain an agnostic?
Sophocles wrote:In fact, rejecting the belief that you can know something based on some kind of communication outside the five senses (whether or not you believe in the existence of gods) is what agnosticism is.
So an agnostic must be a strict empiricist, by definition? Are all agnostics strict empiricists? I know a person or two who are agnostic and yet are open to the possibility of a realm of experience beyond the five senses.