DiscussMormonism.com

KevinSim wrote: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?

Of course they are assumptions, and big ones at that. We have no idea of all that is possible. You are not even being consistent with this. You claim to believe an entity, for which we have no evidence, possibly exists, which is really an admission that you don't know what all is possible. If so they it makes no sense to say

Nothing of lasting good will come out of the human race.

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?

Why makes this huge assumption, that is clearly wrong. Many people are working on this regardless of whether it is possible or not.

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.

No, I am not aware of any evidence. If you are also not aware of any, then 50/50 is a guess as you say. Look if such a being exists you probably cannot doing anything to help or hinder. If this being does not exist then you are wasting time and resources on things that certainly don't work.

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

I am sure you have, but I can also see you making many many assumptions, so I am skeptical you have thought it through without huge bias of what you want.

et 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.

Sure, but I bet you probably don't buy lottery tickets. Why is that? Now if you don't buy a ticket, what is your odds of winning?

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.

I don't think we have enough information to figure out the math to see if we got lucky. I tend to view it as just human nature. Both sides knew what it meant to go to war. Without such destructive capabilities I suspect we would have had at least one more world war by now. Sure there are many dangers to humanity. I believe some research suggests certain difficulties in surviving have helped us evolve the way we did. It will continue to do so into the future, although now we are at the point we can have more input into those changes. We may be within centuries or thousands of year of having to classify humanity as something other then Homo Sapien. How about Homo Novus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMx-EGI3vi8

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?

We don't know the math, and it's actually those difficulties that kill off so many that make the species better and influence evolution. It's not really equivalent to the gun analogy. That is suggesting it is an all or nothing. You even admitted a nuclear war may only kill off most, not all. Same with global warming and even an asteroid. Unless it is huge, but we are looking for them these days. Life has existed for billions of years. Even if humans cease to exist, other species may continue. Maybe one of them will gain similar levels of intelligence or better. Maybe humans will. We don't know what the future is, but we can try to have some influence on how it unfolds. I suspect we will continue to find solutions, and will begin to change ourselves over time.

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

Thanks! They have been.

canpakes wrote:

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

Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

canpakes wrote:... ergo, God exists, therefore God exists.

Nicely circular.

I'm starting to see a consistent pattern here. It's like my critics want my reasoning to be circular, so that they don't have to take it seriously. So they manufacture circularity, by adding things to my reasoning that I never said, that they think will make that reasoning circular. But there's nothing circular in the things that I've actually said.

KevinSim wrote:Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

In your OP you wrote:

KevinSim wrote:That being the case, what's God going to do when someone comes to God in prayer, to ask God a question fully prepared to use whatever answer God provides as the very foundation of that someone's entire theology? God knows full well that if S/He doesn't give that someone an answer, then that someone would never have any hope of ever discovering God's will. So I believe that in any such case, God must give that someone the foundation to her/his theology that that someone needs.

I asked God such a question, and got an answer. That is why I am a Latter-day Saint today.

canpakes wrote: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

KevinSim wrote:Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

KevinSim wrote:I'm starting to see a consistent pattern here. It's like my critics want my reasoning to be circular, so that they don't have to take it seriously. So they manufacture circularity, by adding things to my reasoning that I never said, that they think will make that reasoning circular. But there's nothing circular in the things that I've actually said.

KevinSim, you did say that you received an answer that you believe could only have come from God. You also have given on multiple occasions your process for deciding that God exists, which I listed above (essentially, God exists, therefore, God exists).

Here are quotes from your previous posts, with links to each post -

"I am fully confident that God either did answer my question back in 1976 or that God will eventually answer my question some time in the future. To say that God won't do either is, as far as I'm concerned, tantamount to saying God doesn't exist, and I refuse to seriously consider that possibility."

viewtopic.php?p=814304#p814304


"I have faith in the type of God that would want me to know Her/His will in my life, and would therefore answer a question asked Her/Him in order to discover that will. I asked God a question in Autumn 1976 and I only got one answer; God by Her/His nature would answer that question; so I have concluded that that answer must have come from God."

viewtopic.php?p=820167#p820167


"Quite frankly I'm not all that interested in the possibility that there might not be a God. I have chosen to have faith that there is a God, and am determined to believe there is one no matter what happens to me in my life."

"Because I have faith God wants me to know Her/His will, I conclude that when I asked God a question God will provide an answer, sooner or later. I have tried to stay open to answers God might give me, and even so there has only been one answer that had a chance of coming from God; therefore I have concluded that that answer must have come from God."

viewtopic.php?p=820762#p820762

KevinSim wrote:Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

Previously on "Why I am a Latter-day Saint".....

KevinSim wrote:...there has only been one answer that had a chance of coming from God; therefore I have concluded that that answer must have come from God.

Now what Kevin?

canpakes wrote:

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.

I didn't mean not desire an answer; I meant not desire one particular answer over another one. Obviously someone who's asking a question wants an answer, but my point is that one can only expect an answer from God to a question if that one is as ready to base the rest of that one's life on one answer as s/he is to base her/his life on another.

canpakes wrote:

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?

The ingredient you're missing is asking God a question. If you haven't asked God a question, then your feelings on roller coasters or your dreams mean nothing. On the other hand, if you've asked God a question, really prepared to base the whole rest of your life on whatever answer God provides, and if the only answer you get is a dream that clearly answers your question one way or the other, then you would be wise to seriously consider the possibility that that dream may be God's way of answering that question.

canpakes wrote:

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 said that my arguments are circular because I believe in the existence of God at the beginning of my arguments, and I also believe in the existence of God at the end of my arguments. That's no more circular than Euclid's arguments, who also assumed the truth of his parallel axiom at the beginning of his arguments, and also assumed the truth of that axiom at the end of his arguments. So no, this doesn't show how my arguments are circular. Then you said that my arguments were circular because of the following.

canpakes wrote: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.

But as I pointed out in my previous post, I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God." So this doesn't show how my arguments are circular either. In other words, Canpakes, no you haven't "already gone over why they are" circular. You have never explained to me how my arguments were circular in a way that stood up to scrutiny.

canpakes wrote:

KevinSim wrote: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.

Wow, that's bizarre. I guess if logicians and philosophers want to define the word valid that way they can certainly do that. But whether it's valid or not, circular arguments certainly don't prove anything.

canpakes wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with "resemblance in intent." In the actual course of Euclid's proofs, he assumed the truth of his parallel axiom at the beginning of his proofs, and he also assumed the truth of that axiom at the end of his proofs. If Euclid can do that and not be guilty of circular reasoning, then so can I.

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

I have defended it. I have demonstrated that neither your previous argument nor your current one shows that my reasoning is circular in any way. If you're so convinced that my arguments are circular, please explain to me where precisely the circle is.

Bazooka wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

In your OP you wrote:

KevinSim wrote:That being the case, what's God going to do when someone comes to God in prayer, to ask God a question fully prepared to use whatever answer God provides as the very foundation of that someone's entire theology? God knows full well that if S/He doesn't give that someone an answer, then that someone would never have any hope of ever discovering God's will. So I believe that in any such case, God must give that someone the foundation to her/his theology that that someone needs.

I asked God such a question, and got an answer. That is why I am a Latter-day Saint today.

I stand by this. In any such case God must "give that someone the foundation to her/his theology that that someone needs." This is not the same as saying that this someone "got an answer that could only have come from God." This is recognizing that if there is a good God who controls the universe, then that good God must answer the question, so if the asker only got one answer to her/his question, the asker can be sure it's the answer God wanted her/him to have.

canpakes wrote:

canpakes wrote: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

KevinSim wrote:Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

KevinSim wrote:I'm starting to see a consistent pattern here. It's like my critics want my reasoning to be circular, so that they don't have to take it seriously. So they manufacture circularity, by adding things to my reasoning that I never said, that they think will make that reasoning circular. But there's nothing circular in the things that I've actually said.

KevinSim, you did say that you received an answer that you believe could only have come from God. You also have given on multiple occasions your process for deciding that God exists, which I listed above (essentially, God exists, therefore, God exists).

Here are quotes from your previous posts, with links to each post -

"I am fully confident that God either did answer my question back in 1976 or that God will eventually answer my question some time in the future. To say that God won't do either is, as far as I'm concerned, tantamount to saying God doesn't exist, and I refuse to seriously consider that possibility."

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 04#p814304


"I have faith in the type of God that would want me to know Her/His will in my life, and would therefore answer a question asked Her/Him in order to discover that will. I asked God a question in Autumn 1976 and I only got one answer; God by Her/His nature would answer that question; so I have concluded that that answer must have come from God."

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 67#p820167


"Quite frankly I'm not all that interested in the possibility that there might not be a God. I have chosen to have faith that there is a God, and am determined to believe there is one no matter what happens to me in my life."

"Because I have faith God wants me to know Her/His will, I conclude that when I asked God a question God will provide an answer, sooner or later. I have tried to stay open to answers God might give me, and even so there has only been one answer that had a chance of coming from God; therefore I have concluded that that answer must have come from God."

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 62#p820762

Canpakes, if you will look closely at these quotes you will see that none of them necessarily imply that the answer I received "could only have come from God." Nor have I ever said that God exists, and therefore God exists. I have made it clear in my posts that I take the existence of God on faith. So in a very real sense, I don't know whether or not God exists, and I've made no secret of that lack of knowledge. You seem to think that I have stated that I know God exists. I'd appreciate it if you would tell me what I've said to make you think that I'm stating that I know God exists.

Bazooka wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Except that I've never said that "I got an answer that could only have come from God."

Previously on "Why I am a Latter-day Saint".....

KevinSim wrote:...there has only been one answer that had a chance of coming from God; therefore I have concluded that that answer must have come from God.

Now what Kevin?

Bazooka, there's a huge difference between an "answer that had a chance of coming from God" and "an answer that could only have come from God." And have you been reading none of the other posts I've been making on this thread? I've bent over backwards emphasizing that everything I've said is based on the assumption that there is a God. Saying that "there has only been one answer that had a chance of coming from God," and saying that "therefore I have concluded that that answer must have come from God," was for me saying that if there was a God then that answer must have come from God. Granted I didn't spell it out that way, but from other things I've said it shouldn't have been that hard to figure out that that's what I meant.

KevinSim,

Reading your OP, it is quite evident that you didn't use circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning would be something like this:

(1) I have faith that God exists,
(2) I asked God a question,
(3) God answered
(4) Therefore God exists [this is the circular part]

Granted, I haven't read the resulting 15 pages of discussion, but the OP at least doesn't display circular reasoning.

I think Bazooka is either just trying to annoy you by insisting you're using circular reasoning, or he doesn't understand what circular reasoning is.