What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_marg]

previous: My quoted statement above is not a criticism.

Aquinas: Looks like if you're not reading something of mine, you are misreading it. I cited your "statement above" to show that you didn't read anything, not to show that you were criticizing me. Read what I wrote in context.

Your words: "I doubt, however, you will read any of it, as you obviously seem content with spouting out criticisms wihtout even reading what you criticize (see quoted statement above)

previously: You have an incorrect assumption that on this message board everyone has a God belief. I'm an atheist, at no time in my entire life did I have a God belief. I will look at your 5 proofs and comment later, it's currently late, tomorrow I'm on a day trip but the day after.

Aquinas: No, I didn't assume that all the members on the message board claimed a belief in God, but many do, and definately the person whom I addressed my argument to did claim belief in God. So in his case, my assumption was correct.

Your words: "I made a calculated assumption by posting in a message board with the name of a church that at least claims belief in the existence of God, that the premise "God exists" would be agreed upon." Note you did not limit the people to some on the message board..

previously: Yes, I'm going out on a limb by guaranteeing there is no transparent proof a god exists. I think it would have hit the news by now, if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all.

Aquinas: You provide no basis for your claim that a reality can be transparently proven to all, nor a definition of "transparent," a very ambiguous term in the sense you are using it. Can the "reality" of the earth's rotation around the sun be proven to a severly retarded person? No, thus not all transparent "realities" can be proven to all.


Just because a retarded person has difficulty comprehending what can consensually be appreciated by those not handicapped does not mean something is not transparent. The theory of the earth's rotation around the sun has undergone a testing and evaluation process before acceptance within the scientific community and now the public. The process included peer review and independent objective evaluation of the results. The results are open to anyone in the world even non scientists to evaluate and disprove or come up with a modified better theory. That's what I mean by transparency, the fact that the information is not hidden but if need be it can be presented to those interested.

If you are going to argue for the existence of a God it can not be something hidden up in your mind or the minds of select individuals who are not able to offer this evidence for all to examine should they so wish. As in the scientific method process, it has to be open to independent objective evaluation and/or verification. Since God is of interest to many people, if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently.

[_Aquinas]

previous: My quoted statement above is not a criticism.

Aquinas: Looks like if you're not reading something of mine, you are misreading it. I cited your "statement above" to show that you didn't read anything, not to show that you were criticizing me. Read what I wrote in context.

Your words: "I doubt, however, you will read any of it, as you obviously seem content with spouting out criticisms wihtout even reading what you criticize (see quoted statement above)

Aquinas: No, I didn't assume that all the members on the message board claimed a belief in God, but many do, and definately the person whom I addressed my argument to did claim belief in God. So in his case, my assumption was correct.

Your words: "I made a calculated assumption by posting in a message board with the name of a church that at least claims belief in the existence of God, that the premise "God exists" would be agreed upon." Note you did not limit the people to some on the message board..

Boring... not really edifying for me to prove to you why you are wrong, anyone else can read my original post(s) in context and easily see my meaning. You really don't mind wasting your time, do you?

Just because a retarded person has difficulty comprehending what can consensually be appreciated by those not handicapped does not mean something is not transparent. The theory of the earth's rotation around the sun has undergone a testing and evaluation process before acceptance within the scientific community and now the public. The process included peer review and independent objective evaluation of the results. The results are open to anyone in the world even non scientists to evaluate and disprove or come up with a modified better theory. That's what I mean by transparency, the fact that the information is not hidden but if need be it can be presented to those interested.

Your definition of transparency is fair enough, clears things up, but you didn't clarify what you had meant previously. You had claimed:

if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all.

That statement doesn't really fit the definition you just gave, because something being transparent (being available to all for study), doesn't have anything to do with who it can or can't be proven to... like the severly retarded. In fact, you will encounter many claims of science that many people are going to understand, but disagree with (like evolution or the earth being millions of years old), so whether someone agrees with a particular truth or not cannot be our standard of whether it is true; there will always be people who won't agree, even with science.

If you are going to argue for the existence of a God it can not be something hidden up in your mind or the minds of select individuals who are not able to offer this evidence for all to examine should they so wish.

Agreed, but you seem to know very little about Aquinas' philosophy and seem to be equating it with Mormon theology, which is a mistake as it is drastically different (for one, Aquinas is Catholic); for there are no philosophical truths "hidden" from our understanding.

As in the scientific method process, it has to be open to independent objective evaluation and/or verification. Since God is of interest to many people, if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently.

Are you kidding me? You just earlier wrote condisendingly about people who appeal to the Bible as a primary source for truth, without establishing first principles (i.e. God exists) but here you are appealing to modern newspapers! Yes, forgive me, newspapers are indeed the vehicle of truth! I don't know what I was thinking...

Most people are not interested in truth (that's why they killed Socrates and why we killed Jesus) they are interested in feeling good. Newspapers appeal to what people want to here, not to what is true.

[_marg]

Boring... not really edifying for me to prove to you why you are wrong, anyone else can read my original post(s) in context and easily see my meaning. You really don't mind wasting your time, do you?

You're absolutely right, people can read your words which is why I quoted you.

previously I wrote: Just because a retarded person has difficulty comprehending what can consensually be appreciated by those not handicapped does not mean something is not transparent. The theory of the earth's rotation around the sun has undergone a testing and evaluation process before acceptance within the scientific community and now the public. The process included peer review and independent objective evaluation of the results. The results are open to anyone in the world even non scientists to evaluate and disprove or come up with a modified better theory. That's what I mean by transparency, the fact that the information is not hidden but if need be it can be presented to those interested.

Your definition of transparency is fair enough, clears things up, but you didn't clarify what you had meant previously. You had claimed:

"if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all."

That statement doesn't really fit the definition you just gave, because something being transparent (being available to all for study), doesn't have anything to do with who it can or can't be proven to... like the severly retarded.

And you think I'm wasting your time? I wrote: That's what I mean by transparency, the fact that the information is not hidden but if need be it can be presented to those interested.

In fact, you will encounter many claims of science that many people are going to understand, but disagree with (like evolution or the earth being millions of years old), so whether someone agrees with a particular truth or not cannot be our standard of whether it is true; there will always be people who won't agree, even with science.

Scientific theories which become accepted are well supported with evidence and are best fit explanations of observable phenomenon. Strong theories gain consensus acceptance within the scientific community. It is not necessary that every scientist accept those consensually accepted theories. The theories are transparent to the scientific community, a community worldwide which has the expertise and knowledge to evaluate. There is no sinister, devious plot to hide information once theories are presented for peer review. Scientific theories are not simply asssertions. Asssertions of the sort in religions which offer no transparent evidence to warrant the supernatural claims made.

previously I wrote: If you are going to argue for the existence of a God it can not be something hidden up in your mind or the minds of select individuals who are not able to offer this evidence for all to examine should they so wish.

Agreed, but you seem to know very little about Aquinas' philosophy and seem to be equating it with Mormon theology, which is a mistake as it is drastically different (for one, Aquinas is Catholic); for there are no philosophical truths "hidden" from our understanding.

Every religion makes claims to the supernatural, God being one. No supernatural claims are transparent with evidence, that's just the nature of supernatural claims. The wouldn't be supernatural otherwise.

previously I wrote: As in the scientific method process, it has to be open to independent objective evaluation and/or verification. Since God is of interest to many people, if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently.

Are you kidding me? You just earlier wrote condisendingly about people who appeal to the Bible as a primary source for truth, without establishing first principles (I.e. God exists) but here you are appealing to modern newspapers! Yes, forgive me, newspapers are indeed the vehicle of truth! I don't know what I was thinking...

Aquinas, I said I was going out on a limb in guaranteeing that the existence of God has not been proven and I gave my reasoning. I did not make any claim that a God does not exist, my claim was that God's existence I'm certain hasn't been proven. My justification being that if it had the news would be so large as to hit the newspapers. I don't have a burden to disprove God. I'm making no claim with regards to a God other than I have yet to see evidence for one. The burden to proof God is on those making the affirmative claim..that a God exists. The debate has been going on for many many centuries, and as of yet there is no proof which has consensus acceptance.

Most people are not interested in truth (that's why they killed Socrates and why we killed Jesus) they are interested in feeling good. Newspapers appeal to what people want to here, not to what is true.

Please see the above.

[_Bryan Inks]

Can science tell me anything about love?

Yes.

Can I prove what love is?

Yes.

Can you experience the same love that I have?

Yes.

All three of your questions are answerable with affermatives. The only one in which ambiguity may appear is your third question and then it is not so much ambiguity as to your question, but ambiguity as to what meaning you give to that emotion.

Science has proven that emotions (including those "spiritual witnesses" that religious people rave about) are merely bio-chemical reactions in the brain.

Because of this scientific evidence, you can prove that love is merely a chemical reaction brought on by an external stimulus to fulfill your addiction to that chemical.

Because we are all alike at the bio-chemical level, the love that I feel is the exact same love that you feel, however, I may give my emotion a different meaning or "taint" than you would.

Not to nit-pick or anything.

[_Mephitus]

That is one thing that has been a theoretical on my mind. Since A: DMT is naturaly produced in the brain and B: illegal

What would happen with a blood test during religious events?

[_Bryan Inks]

That is one thing that has been a theoretical on my mind. Since A: DMT is naturaly produced in the brain and B: illegal

What would happen with a blood test during religious events?

Given exactly that reason, I used to joke that I wanted to become a DEA officer so I could "sting" General Conference.

Can you imagine the feather in the cap? "Thousands arrested, including the entire leadership of the LDS Church in Largest Drug Raid in History"

Mmmm.

Even more interesting, is that it isn't just during spiritual moments. The substance of DMT is in your system constantly. It is during the spiritual moments that larger than normal doses are released.

But, since it is a Schedule 1 substance, meaning the Government has decided that DMT can serve no possible use in medicine or science, it is illegal to possess or consume.

So, translate all of that into standard English?

"If you are a human being that is alive and has a brain, you are guilty of a Federal Crime."

Fun isn't it?

[_Mephitus]

Sono_hito dreams of a rhetoricaly funny news report

[Mayan Elephant]

Just because a retarded person has difficulty comprehending what can consensually be appreciated by those not handicapped does not mean something is not transparent.

Another strawman, my severly retarded person example was clearly not an attempt to prove why I thought scientific truths were not transparent, but that in the original claim you gave:

if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all.

You indicated that, a reality (the subject of your sentence), can be transparently proven to ALL. The claim that realities can be proven to everyone is what your definition avoided in attempt to knock down a strawman, trying to make it look like I was trying to say that severly retarded people aren't able to understand realities because they aren't transparent. No, your sentence was wrong, because not all are going to believe scientific claims, even if they are supported by evidence and put through a rigorous peer review process. Thus, they cannot be proven to all. I do agree, however, that scientific claims can be proven to be true, even if someone doesn't understand (like the severly retarded) or is moronic enough to deny them. But so it is with God's existence as well. Read Aquinas.

That statement doesn't really fit the definition you just gave, because something being transparent (being available to all for study), doesn't have anything to do with who it can or can't be proven to... like the severly retarded.

See above, what I was pointing out is that your "definition" was also an attempt to strawman my argument without dealing with the real flaw of your original statement.

Scientific theories which become accepted are well supported with evidence and are best fit explanations of observable phenomenon. Strong theories gain consensus acceptance within the scientific community. It is not necessary that every scientist accept those consensually accepted theories. The theories are transparent to the scientific community, a community worldwide which has the expertise and knowledge to evaluate. There is no sinister, devious plot to hide information once theories are presented for peer review. Scientific theories are not simply asssertions. Asssertions of the sort in religions which offer no transparent evidence to warrant the supernatural claims made.

Glad to see your actually addressing something I wrote (although there was nothing explicit or implicit in my response about scientific theories being sinister or devious, you seem to be again projecting onto me other arguments you have had). I can agree with most of this, but this still has no bearing on your original claim:

if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all.

Which is flawed because you still haven't been able to demonstrate how you can prove realities to all. Again, you don't have an adequate understanding of Catholicism, to think that simple "assertions" are all we need rely on. Indeed, you are correct, faith is a LARGE part of Catholicism, and there are certain things that cannot be proven without faith, for instance, that Jesus accended into heaven. No philosophical argument that relies on reason alone can prove that claim, we take it on faith. However, some beliefs can be demonstrated soely by reason, like the existence of God, and after that principle has been established, His oneness. I'm somewhat surprised you seem to have never heard of Aquinas' 5 proofs for the existence of God before, as they are still taught in most, if not all, philosophical programs (which are greatly composed of athiest professors by the way). Yes, people who know what they are talking about take them seriously, you obviously do not know what you are talking about, that's why it's no surprise you aren't curious enough to even begin reading them.

Every religion makes claims to the supernatural, God being one. No supernatural claims are transparent with evidence, that's just the nature of supernatural claims. The wouldn't be supernatural otherwise.

Before I address this further, what is you definition of supernatural? Is it synonymous with immaterial, meaning any immaterial thing's exisitence is not demonstratable with evidence (the evidence being derived from material things)?

Aquinas, I said I was going out on a limb in guaranteeing that the existence of God has not been proven

Hmmm... I wonder what compelling empirical evidence you must have seen to go out on such a limb, as to confidently say you can "guarantee" your claim?... let's see the evidence you present...

if it had the news would be so large as to hit the newspapers.

Marg, if you require reason based on empirical evidence to take anything seriously, how do you take yourself seriously?

[_Runtu]

The church provides more happiness than any other approach and also seems to work as it indicates.

More happiness for whom? And you know this how? Personal experience? If you are BIC, how do you know this, even accounting for personal experience?

More happiness for me and my family. Yes, from personal experience. The last question is one I refuse to answer. Call it a tacit admission of defeat if you will. I don't care.

What do you mean by "work as it indictes"?

You plant the seed and it grows. You learn many things from the scriptures, the prophets, and so on. You find happiness.

I don't begrudge anyone who finds happiness in the church. Now that I'm out, I realize that I spent a lot more time telling myself I was happy than I actually did being happy. Others have had different experiences, obviously.

[_marg]

Marg, if you require reason based on empirical evidence to take anything seriously, how do you take yourself seriously?

The real question to ask is, why am I treating you seriously. And I’m seriously considering that one given the evidence I’ve seen on how you disingenuously engage others with your nonsense.


Previously I wrote: Just because a retarded person has difficulty comprehending what can consensually be appreciated by those not handicapped does not mean something is not transparent.

Another strawman, my severly retarded person example was clearly not an attempt to prove why I thought scientific truths were not transparent, but that in the original claim you gave:

There is no strawman Aquinas. But you weave a tangled web of nonsense and to untangle it requires effort on you which is doubtful to be worth it.

When you focused on the word “all” and transparent I explained further. “Just because a retarded person has difficulty comprehending what can consensually be appreciated by those not handicapped does not mean something is not transparent. The theory of the earth's rotation around the sun has undergone a testing and evaluation process before acceptance within the scientific community and now the public. The process included peer review and independent objective evaluation of the results. The results are open to anyone in the world even non scientists to evaluate and disprove or come up with a modified better theory. That's what I mean by transparency, the fact that the information is not hidden but if need be it can be presented to those interested.”

Quote:
if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all.

You indicated that, a reality (the subject of your sentence), can be transparently proven to ALL.

Aquinas you are so disingenuous in discussion…and ignore or avoid my later comments.

The claim that realities can be proven to everyone is what your definition avoided in attempt to knock down a strawman, trying to make it look like I was trying to say that severly retarded people aren't able to understand realities because they aren't transparent.

I avoided nothing, I elaborated further and you are now ignoring that.

No, your sentence was wrong, because not all are going to believe scientific claims, even if they are supported by evidence and put through a rigorous peer review process. Thus, they cannot be proven to all. I do agree, however, that scientific claims can be proven to be true, even if someone doesn't understand or is moronic enough to deny them. But so it is with God's existence as well. Read Aquinas.

I didn’t say all would believe scientific theories. Try reading what I say. The results are open to anyone in the world even non scientists to evaluate and disprove or come up with a modified better theory. [/b]That's what I mean by transparency, the fact that the information is not hidden but if need be it can be presented to those interested.


Quote:

That statement doesn't really fit the definition you just gave, because something being transparent (being available to all for study), doesn't have anything to do with who it can or can't be proven to... like the severly retarded.

I’m sorry but I’m finding it extremely difficult to understand your convoluted thinking, if one can even call it thinking.

See above, what I was pointing out is that your "definition" was also an attempt to strawman my argument without dealing with the real flaw of your original statement.
Quote:
Scientific theories which become accepted are well supported with evidence and are best fit explanations of observable phenomenon. Strong theories gain consensus acceptance within the scientific community. It is not necessary that every scientist accept those consensually accepted theories. The theories are transparent to the scientific community, a community worldwide which has the expertise and knowledge to evaluate. There is no sinister, devious plot to hide information once theories are presented for peer review. Scientific theories are not simply asssertions. Asssertions of the sort in religions which offer no transparent evidence to warrant the supernatural claims made.


Glad to see your actually addressing something I wrote

That’s more than I can say about you.

(although there was nothing explicit or implicit in my response about scientific theories being sinister or devious, you seem to be again projecting onto me other arguments you have had). I can agree with most of this, but this still has no bearing on your original claim:

My comment was in relation to the word “transparency” If information is hidden or only available through design to a select few, it is not transparent.

if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all. [/i

Which is flawed because you still haven't been able to demonstrate how you can prove realities to all.

The key word which you disingenuously ignore is [i] can. All scientific theories are open to critical evaluation and all are dependent on evidence to warrant them. This is not what religious claims do with regards to their supernatural claims.

Again, you don't have an adequate understanding of Catholicism, to think that simple "assertions" are all we need rely on. Indeed, you are correct, faith is a LARGE part of Catholicism, and there are certain things that cannot be proven without faith, for instance, that Jesus accended into heaven. No philosophical argument that relies on reason alone can prove that claim, we take it on faith. However, some beliefs can be demonstrated soely by reason, like the existence of God, and after that principle has been established,

Not so quick..you need more than reason to establish facts of things existing or events happening you need evidence as well. If all it takes is reasoning, then anyone could claim whatever they wish and say they reasoned the existence of something into being. We could reason the existence of aliens, of ghosts, of toothfairies, of the spaghetti flying monster…it doesn’t mean they exist.

His oneness. I'm somewhat surprised you seem to have never heard of Aquinas' 5 proofs for the existence of God before, as they are still taught in most, if not all, philosophical programs (which are greatly ted by athiest professors by the way). Yes, people who know what they are talking about take them seriously, you obviously do not know what you are talking about, that's why it's no surprise why you aren't curious enough to even begin reading them.

Yes, I did take an intro philosophy course and I believe it might have been mentioned but it was pointed out the flaw in the reasoning. Without looking at the argument I know that one can not reason things into existence. I know that words can be used in manipulative ways to confuse. It might seem to you that the reasoning is justification to claim God exists, but evidence is what is needed Aquinas for things which are claimed to exist. And by the way, I’m not saying there is no God, nor many Gods if that’s what one believes, I’m saying there is no evidence for any particular God or Gods, or any other supernatural claim.


previously: Every religion makes claims to the supernatural, God being one. No supernatural claims are transparent with evidence, that's just the nature of supernatural claims. The wouldn't be supernatural otherwise.

Before I address this further, what is you definition of supernatrual? Is it synonymous with immaterial, meaning any immaterial thing's exisitence is not demonstratable with evidence (the evidence being derived from material things)?

Supernatural is beyond the known physical laws. If it can be explained within natural laws, it’s no longer supernatural.

Previously: Aquinas, I said I was going out on a limb in guaranteeing that the existence of God has not been proven

Hmmm... I wonder what compelling empirical evidence you must have seen to go out on such a limb, as to confidently say you can "guarantee" your claim?... let's see the evidence you present...

Because Aguinas I know one can’t reason without evidence things into existence. There are all sorts of God beliefs, each one no better, with no more evidence to support the claim than the other.