DiscussMormonism.com

Themis wrote:

KevinSim wrote:That depends entirely on whether there actually is a good God that controls the universe. If there is, and if my efforts result in putting me in communication with that God, then the possibility exists that I will do a much, much better job as preserving good things into the eternities than I could have by myself. In fact, I feel comfortable estimating that by myself I would not have helped preserve any good things into the eternities, while if I was working together with God, I could preserve at least some good things into the eternities.

On the other hand, if there isn't a God, then you are right to conclude that I would be accomplishing nothing. But so what? In such a case there wouldn't be any way I could have preserved any good things into the eternities, so I would have lost nothing.

You may scoff at my attitude, Themis, but I ask you, what is the alternative? If you yourself can't bring yourself to believe in God, or perhaps more accurately put, someone who is preserving forever some good things, then it falls to you to preserve forever some good things. The work of God must go forth, whether there actually is a God to carry it forth or not. Are you capable of carrying it forth by yourself? Or, to make it even more general, are you willing to work with a group of like-minded women and men who collectively take the responsibility to preserve forever some good things? If so, then more power to you. But I suspect that, like me, you will find the job too daunting. You may find the challenge beyond you, or even beyond the group of women and men you associate with. That being the case, you'd better hope that someone is up to the challenge because, as I said, the work must go forth. Future generations of the human race deserve for it to go forth.

You again make assumptions about the universe we really are not sure about. Going with the truth will be far better for humanity and your future posterity.

And what exactly is the truth, about God? By God I'm not talking about the absolutely omnipotent, absolutely omniscient, absolutely omnibenevolent creator of the universe believed in by traditional Christians. I think it's pretty clear that that deity does not exist. Nor perhaps am I talking about God as most Latter-day Saints see Him. Rather, when I say God, I'm referring simply to someone who knows how to preserve some good things into the eternity, and is in fact acting to preserve some good things into the eternity. What is the truth about the existence of such a preserver?

Themis wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Interesting pronoun that you used there, we. Are you saying that you're LDS, Themis?

Yes. Funny again to see you make so many assumptions.

Well, you got me that time. I had indeed assumed you were not LDS. I hope that teaches me to not make unwarranted assumptions about people!

Themis wrote:many members do not believe the church's truth claims. That does not mean I am going to leave it completely. I wish it could change at a faster rate.

I do believe the church's truth claims (as far as I understand them), but I too would not mind in the slightest if it started changing at a faster rate. I know right now Utah's governor Gary Herbert is using all the legal means at his disposal to try to keep gay marriage from coming to Utah, but I'd like to see the day when legally married gay couples don't get excommunicated for consummating their marriages.

Themis wrote:

Exactly! I've never said that I believe in God because there's a preponderance of evidence that God exists. I have fully admitted that, as far as I know, God might not exist. But what's the point of not believing that God exists? Sure, we may find that our beliefs align pretty well with what the evidence says, but what will be the result in the long run? Nothing of lasting good will come out of the human race. That just seems a little pointless to me.

You could pick any fairy tale you want. Your last two sentences is again an assumption you don't know.

Look, I admit I've made plenty of assumptions about God, but neither of those last two sentences are one of them. Why do you think they are? Do you really think that without anyone acting to preserve forever some good things from the human race, that some good things associated with the human race will last forever?

Themis wrote:There could be no God, or there could be countess other possibilities. The problem is we know the evidence does not support the existence of the LDS God.

I refer you to the article I posted right before this one. By God I'm not necessarily referring to God as most Latter-day Saints understand Him. All I'm talking about is someone who knows how to preserve forever some good things, and is in the process of preserving forever some good things. I'm not aware that the evidence says anything about the existence of such a being. Are you? In fact, if I had to make a guess, I'd say that the evidence is about 50/50 that such a deity exists.

Themis wrote:

Preserve how long? Five billion years, past the destruction of Planet Earth? Possibly, though I don't see much evidence of attempts to so preserve things. But what about one hundred and fifty billion years, past the end of the heat death of the universe? Is anybody attempting to preserve some good things past that point? I sincerely doubt it.

You and I don't know, so I will avoid making assumptions you are so known for making over and over again and then treating as true.

Why do you think I don't know? Do you think I have not thought this stuff through?

Let me explain how I know the statement I made was true. Are you familiar with the game of Russian Roulette? Let me state a principle that leads to the statement I made. If one person, or one group of people, play Russian Roulette long enough, the gun will eventually go off. I can't prove that mathematically (since every time you pull the trigger there's a chance the gun won't go off), but it's true nonetheless. And let me state a corollary; this principle is true regardless of the number of chambers in the gun.

Humanity has had a certain amount of luck when faced with species-survival-threatening crises in the past. Most notably, with enough nuclear firepower between them to completely destroy the planet, the United States and the Soviet Union never escalated their tensions to the point of nuclear war, and in fact even now are significantly reducing their nuclear arsenals. It would appear there is no longer as much danger as there was in the past that Nuclear Winter will destroy most of life as we know it on the planet.

That does not mean that humanity will be so lucky in the future. And I think it's fairly safe to say that there will be plenty of crises in the future that threaten the survival of the human race, from global warming in the short run to universal heat death (around 100 billion C.E.) in the long run, and (if we somehow survive the heat death) beyond. Each time one of these crises hit, it's the virtual equivalent of someone putting the gun to her/his head and pulling the trigger. As I said up above, it is a true statement that someday the gun will go off. Do you dispute that?

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:I've given this discussion a lot of thought. I've been asserting that it's certainly possible that God simply cannot communicate with sound to as many people simultaneously as God can communicate with via the spirit. I've been asking myself, is this really the direction I want to take the discussion? I'm still not convinced that God's ability to create the universe (by some natural process) and God's ability to communicate by the spirit with large numbers of people simultaneously necessarily imply that God has the ability to communicate via audio with the same large numbers of people. But even if God did have the ability to communicate via audio with large numbers of people, I'm not convinced that God would choose to. Canpakes, you have described communication by feelings as inferior to communication by audio, but I don't see why God would not see it as perfectly adequate for God's purposes. If God has a complicated message to convey, then obviously there's something to be said for sending an angel to communicate that message with a prophet/spokesman. But once God has established an organization to take that message to the world, all God really needs to do is tell people yes or no, either God established some given organization as that message conveyor or God did not.

OK, so God can tell people yes or no. God can do this by using, 'Yes', or 'No'. Otherwise, a feeling or sensation is not conclusive to anything other than the recipient's need to affirm what they may subconsciously desire.

What if they subconsciously desire nothing? What you have said about subconsciously desiring one answer over the other is a perfect description of how I asked God over and over again whether or not the Book of Mormon was true. Every time I would get a good feeling, but every time I would realize I couldn't count on God having answered my question for the simple reason that I had wanted a yes answer, and hadn't been prepared for a no answer. Anyone who really thinks about the principle of asking God for a kernel of truth, would understand why I couldn't base my life on the many mini yeses I got when I prayed about the Book of Mormon. It wasn't until I was fully prepared for either a yes or a no answer that I got an answer I knew I could use as the kernel of truth at the foundation of my theology, and it was a humdinger in comparison to all the mini yeses.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:I don't see that trying to rationalize a sensation "as the definitive answer from God" opens me up to any guesswork at all. If God exists, God is certainly capable of giving a sensation that is clearly positive or one that is clearly negative. And how is anything "self-fulfilling" here? You keep trying to convince me that I'm using a circular argument, but you have not yet demonstrated where the circle is. Why should anyone believe I'm using a circular argument?

Please explain what would make a feeling determinable as 'clearly positive' or 'clearly negative'.

When you experience a clearly positive feeling you feel great; when you experience a clearly negative feeling you feel terrible. What's so hard to understand about that?

canpakes wrote:Any more circular? Are you sure that you want to put it that way? ; )

Yes I am; since it's pretty clear to mathematicians the world over that Euclid's rigorous proofs of his theorems were most definitely not circular, I have no problem whatsoever asserting that my argument is not any more circular than Euclid's arguments.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:I never said that my arguments and Euclid's are "equally valid"; I said that my arguments are no more circular (underline added) than Euclid's were, and that's completely true.

OK, so be it. But you introduced the Euclidean gambit. My statement was that your argument was circular. You are admitting that it is circular with your statement above.

Canpakes, how do you go from my "statement above" to the conclusion that I am "admitting that it is circular"?

canpakes wrote:However, it is noted that an argument can be 'logically valid' even if circular.

Why is that?

canpakes wrote:As it is, your premise needs just as much proof as your conclusion; in short, it delivers nothing, which is what I am asserting about it and which makes it very different than Euclidean proofs.

Wow, Canpakes, you really haven't been listening to me, have you? One of Euclid's premises, his axioms, was the parallel-point axiom. If me not proving my premises is in fact what "makes it very different than Euclidean proofs," then that would imply that Euclid actually proved the parallel-point axiom. He did not. So when it comes to one's premises (in this case one's axioms) needing "just as much proof as" one's conclusion, Euclid's arguments are just as flawed as mine are. However, I think it's safe to say that Euclid's arguments are not flawed in this regard, and therefore my arguments are also not flawed in this regard.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Once again, you talk about "the circular nature of" my core argument, without ever explaining where the circle is.

Here you go:

God exists + (unprovable assertions which have no actual bearing on the initial assumption or conclusion) = God exists.

Are you saying that my arguments are circular because I have started with the assumption that God exists, and then concluded that {God exists + (unprovable assertions which have no actual bearing ...)}? When have I ever concluded that God exists based on a line of conclusions that began with my assumption of the existence of God?

Granted that I started by assuming that God exists, and then moved on to say I'd asked God a question, and got an answer. But I've made it clear in subsequent posts that what I meant was that God had answered me if in fact my assumption that God exists was true. I've never said, "And therefore God exists." I have admitted a number of times that I don't strictly know whether or not God exists. All I've said is that if God exists, and if God wants me to know Her/His will, and if God can answer prayer, then I can conclude that the answer I got to my question did in fact come from God. Where's the circle in that?

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:I will say it again; all you have ever said is that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my argument, and I assumed God existed at the end of my argument. Euclid and the non-Euclideans both did precisely the same thing...

Waitaminute... Euclid wrote proofs about God's existence? ; )

Ho ho ho.

canpakes wrote:Silliness aside, Euclid has a much better track record of creating a useful or provable argument than you, even if you want to call some of his proofs 'circular'.

I don't want "to call some of his proofs 'circular'"! I never called Euclid's proofs circular! All I've done was demonstrate that my arguments were no more circular than Euclid's arguments; Euclid's arguments were clearly not circular, so my arguments are clearly not circular.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:True, a superficial resemblance to the structure of a Euclidean proof doesn't make the argument a proof, or make it valid, or keep it from being circular, but when the only attempt the critic has ever used to explain why the argument is circular applies just as well to Euclidean and non-Euclidean proofs as it does to the argument in question, then the accusation that the argument in question is circular falls kind of flat.

Oh, all right, fine, then - it's circular, ineffective and fails to deliver your conclusion provably.

Canpakes, how many times do I have to keep saying this? All you have ever done, in your efforts to convince people that my arguments are circular, is say that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my arguments, and I also assumed God existed at the end of my arguments. Euclid did exactly the same thing with his parallel-point axiom; he assumed it was true at the beginning of his proofs, and he also assumed it was true at the end of his proofs. It would greatly surprise the mathematical community to discover that Euclid's proofs used circular logic; I think we can safely conclude that Euclid's proofs did not use circular logic; I have therefore showed that your attempts to show that my arguments are circular do not in fact show that they are circular; in short, your logic is flawed.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:I get what you are trying to say Canpakes, but when I said that Latter-day Saints see the purpose of this life to be service, and naturally extrapolate that the purpose of the next life will also be service, I'm including both service as you see it (feeding a hungry family, performing medical services for indigent folks) and service as I've described above (liberating people from sin).

I don't see why either service set would be necessary in the afterlife. And 'liberating people from sin' is not a service that you or I can give.

Perhaps not directly, but we can certainly liberate them indirectly. We can point them to the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and tell them that by means of that Atonement and by means of having the Holy Spirit in one's life, they can become liberated from sin's enslaving chains. But why would people have any less of a need to be liberated in the afterlife than they are while they're alive?

canpakes wrote:quote="KevinSim"] One is baptized once, one takes the sacrament each week, and both ordinances point that one in the direction of liberation.

Still, we have the twin issues that the decision to eschew sin is that of the individual who would sin, and the ordinances described only serve as a reminder to not do so - if allowed to be interpreted in that manner by the individual. Full control remains with another, not you or I as a 'service' that we would perform.[/quote]
I'm not sure I'd say, "only serve as a reminder"; I think there could be more to the ordinances than that. But you're right that we wouldn't be directly liberating the mentioned people; still, we can be of service by pointing them to the means of liberation.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:"Perfection is not achievable"? I believe in a God who can perfect us. Do you really believe that God cannot perfect someone who is trying as hard as s/he can to do the will of God?

In theory, God could do as God wills, whatever that is. As relates to scripture recorded by man - 'no', not while mortal, if we take the Bible at face value and place any trust in the Atonement.

Perhaps we don't agree on what perfection means. You said that God cannot perfect someone, "if we take the Bible at face value and place any trust in the Atonement." But the way I look at it, it's the Atonement that makes perfection possible; I don't see placing trust in the Atonement as ruling out God's ability to perfect. By perfection, do you mean living a life completely free of sin? I don't define perfection so strictly. By perfection I mean getting to the point where we are completely free from sin after that point. The Atonement cleanses us from all sin we committed before that point; the Holy Spirit keeps us from committing any sin after that point. That's perfection in my eyes.

canpakes wrote:utside of faith, the answer is also 'no'. Why would that be the purpose of a mortal existence?

To liberate. As I told you, Jesus said that they who sin are the servants of sin. If one is not perfect, that means that one is still sinning, and is therefore still the servant of sin. Jesus came to liberate the captives.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Baptism for the dead "not a necessary activity of the living"? How did you come to that conclusion?

Technically, 138: 30-31, v. 48 notwithstanding.

Chosen messengers proclaimed "liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel." That doesn't say that baptism is not necessary for their complete liberation. Furthermore, verse 48 makes it clear that baptism (and other ordinances) is necessary for their complete liberation.

canpakes wrote:Beer is OK, though. Drink up! : )

I have a very addictive personality, so beer would not be a good idea for me regardless of what the Word of Wisdom actually says.

Bazooka wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Oh, I answered it all right. I put a lot of effort into answering that question. I told you about my father and his cancer, and about how I didn't see why the doctor couldn't just cure him, instead of putting him through so much agony with the chemotherapy. That was my answer to that question.

It's a good doctor who can explain to her/his patient in a general sense what the reasons are for different kinds of treatment. But it's a very foolish patient who shops between different doctors based on how much sense those explanations make. At some point we need to just trust our doctors to have done a thorough study of the problem they're treating, and to know the best course of action to take. This is true for biological and spiritual physicians.

I'm still not sure if you've answered yes or no.

At least you got an answer. I asked you a question well before you asked your question about handshakes, and you still haven't given me any answer at all. You haven't forgotten about it; you use it in your sig.

Bazooka wrote:"I have faith in God. I never said I knew how to prove there was a God. Then I said I asked God a question. How do you get anything circular out of that?" Kevin Sim

Bazooka, are you going to get around to answering this question?

Bazooka wrote:Why do you need to trust in doctors when the LDS Priesthood has the power and authority to heal the sick?

I'll answer this if you'd like, but first let me point out that you're way missing my point. Priesthood power is one of the main tools used by the spiritual doctor that I was referring to, that was analogous to the physical doctors I was talking about.

Kevin, that you don't see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning in your quote in my signature line speaks volumes.
Unfortunately, because you don't, this thread has gone in circles for 15 pages.

Bazooka wrote:Kevin, that you don't see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning in your quote in my signature line speaks volumes.

I don't "see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning" because it isn't there! I stated that I assumed there is a God, yes. In order for it to be circular reasoning of any kind I would have to say (or imply) somewhere, "Therefore, there is a God." And I have never said that. So where is the circle?

KevinSim wrote:

Bazooka wrote:Kevin, that you don't see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning in your quote in my signature line speaks volumes.

I don't "see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning" because it isn't there! I stated that I assumed there is a God, yes. In order for it to be circular reasoning of any kind I would have to say (or imply) somewhere, "Therefore, there is a God." And I have never said that. So where is the circle?

The circle is trying to discuss anything with Bazooka. No matter how many times you answer the question, he'll just ignore the answer and repeat what he's already said.

KevinSim, welcome back. Hope that times have been going well.

Bazooka wrote:Kevin, that you don't see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning in your quote in my signature line speaks volumes.

Regarding Bazooka's quote, where KevinSim wrote:"I have faith in God. I never said I knew how to prove there was a God. Then I said I asked God a question. How do you get anything circular out of that?"

KevinSim wrote:I don't "see the self-evidentiary circular reasoning" because it isn't there! I stated that I assumed there is a God, yes. In order for it to be circular reasoning of any kind I would have to say (or imply) somewhere, "Therefore, there is a God." And I have never said that. So where is the circle?

Actually, you do imply 'Therefore, there is a God' when your full argument is repeated.

Remember that your claim is this:

I have faith that God exists,
I asked God a question,
I got an answer that could only have come from God

... ergo, God exists, therefore God exists.

Nicely circular.

KevinSim wrote:What if they subconsciously desire nothing? What you have said about subconsciously desiring one answer over the other is a perfect description of how I asked God over and over again whether or not the Book of Mormon was true. Every time I would get a good feeling, but every time I would realize I couldn't count on God having answered my question for the simple reason that I had wanted a yes answer, and hadn't been prepared for a no answer. Anyone who really thinks about the principle of asking God for a kernel of truth, would understand why I couldn't base my life on the many mini yeses I got when I prayed about the Book of Mormon. It wasn't until I was fully prepared for either a yes or a no answer that I got an answer I knew I could use as the kernel of truth at the foundation of my theology, and it was a humdinger in comparison to all the mini yeses.

Why would you ask a question and not desire an answer? The act of posing a question to a Supreme Being confirms that you would like to know the answer, regardless of whether or not you expect to receive one.

KevinSim wrote:When you experience a clearly positive feeling you feel great; when you experience a clearly negative feeling you feel terrible. What's so hard to understand about that?

I experience clearly positive feelings either eating pizza or riding on roller coasters. Neither sensation proves anything; in fact, if I were to do both at the same time, I might end up with a completely opposite 'feeling'.

On a related note, you will experience some of your most intense feelings within dreams. What is that confirming?

KevinSim wrote:Yes I am; since it's pretty clear to mathematicians the world over that Euclid's rigorous proofs of his theorems were most definitely not circular, I have no problem whatsoever asserting that my argument is not any more circular than Euclid's arguments.

Then Euclid's arguments are not circular, yet yours remain circular. We've already gone over why they are.

You'd have better luck constructing your argument as if it were a proof, then trying to demonstrate how it proves anything; conversely, why it is not circular. At the moment, this is it, distilled in its simplest form:

I have faith that God exists,
I asked God a question,
I got an answer that could only have come from God

... ergo, God exists = God exists.

KevinSim wrote:

canpakes wrote:However, it is noted that an argument can be 'logically valid' even if circular.

Why is that?

Quoting from the following page: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que ... ng-invalid

According to modern logical jargon, validity is a property of an argument, such that an argument is said to be valid when its conclusions follow from its premises. According to this narrow definition, "Circular reasoning", "begging the question," or (to be latin about it) "petitio principii" is in fact a valid form of argument, but only in a trivial and vacuous sense.

KevinSim wrote:All you have ever done, in your efforts to convince people that my arguments are circular, is say that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my arguments, and I also assumed God existed at the end of my arguments. Euclid did exactly the same thing with his parallel-point axiom; he assumed it was true at the beginning of his proofs, and he also assumed it was true at the end of his proofs.

You are conflating a superficial resemblance in intent with the logical effectiveness of the argument. These are not the same thing.

Why do you not defend the content of your argument? Because the content constructs a circular reasoning.