Hypothetically, if the "real" God appeared, I'd be obliged to acknowledge its existence. But that's very unlikely, since the god that people worship is nothing more than a character in a story. The fact that the story has such widespread appeal is because we're genetically programmed to recognize and obey a pack leader, as are all other social animals. Ironically, it's our superior intelligence that makes us susceptible to seeing gods behind things we don't understand. Countless cultures have created all sorts of gods that were responsible for storms, pleasant weather, crop failures, bountiful crops, illnesses, healings and just about every speck of light that appeared in the night sky....
And the best the apologists can sum up in response:
mopologist wrote:
gemli: "The fact"
LOL.
gemli's response:
gemli DanielPeterson a day ago
LOL? It's a fact that theological stories have widespread appeal. Of course, widespread appeal is practically a requirement for all sorts of weird beliefs, such as the ones required by thousands of other religions that don't buy the Mormon story.
He has taken a toll on that group there is no doubt. The constant drone of refusing to read some obscure book by Sorenson or some other institutionalized robot is all they have. Has anyone ever read anywhere that they admit they could be wrong? At least Gemli admits he would have to recognize in some form that if a deity appeared to him the reality of it. Mormonism must pound that out of them much like Ken Ham said during his debate with Bill Nye. Nothing could change his mind. Bill on the other hand said one rabbit fossil in the precambrian would give him pause.
Thank you for posting; it was timely for me. To whit, this morning after having wrapped my annual reading of Summa Theologiae, I was taking a stroll around the lake and had a few thoughts about God I’d like to share.
So, it’s no secret, and has been discussed to death that god-talk, as it were, mostly resorts to various fallacies that permeate its arguments. I noticed throughout ‘Summa’ Aquinas mostly relies on fallacy of equivocation and argument from authority. His reliance on outdated metaphysical concepts and unquestioned religious dogma leads him down a path of circular reasoning, where theological assumptions are treated as self-evident truths. Sound familiar? It’s like he could write for the Interpreter!
I suppose intellectual contortions and ad hoc explanations for the existence of a transcendent deity, despite the lack of empirical evidence, speaks more to religious conviction than to any logical coherence. Anyway, I wrapped up my vigorous constitutional, and found myself, somewhat appropriately on the loo, thinking of Aquinas’ First Mover argument.
For the uninitiated, and Mormons, the argument hinges on the assumption that everything in the world is in motion, and that it’s turtles all the way down to the Big Bang, and, well, who pressed the button? Can’t have motion without a First Mover knocking the first domino over. Newtonian physics aside, and unsatisfactory philosophy, Aquinas and Mormonsim relies on outdated metaphysical concepts and and philosophical analysis.
There’s no doubt Aquinas was intelligent, his arguments well structured, and he was able to synchronize lots of interesting tidbits of religion into an argument, but, it doesn’t stand the test of time.
Why do I bother to type that out, rehashing posts that have stated what I just wrote, over and over and over again? Well, it’s because I love what Gemli does and I want to juxtapose my boring post with that of Gemli’s posting. He’s the jester to Peterson’s court. His quick wit and clever tongue entertains, weirdly, the blogger and his courtiers with humorous antics and a clever repartee. When Gemli passes, he’ll leave behind a legacy of laughter and levity in the often humorless court of Sic et Non. He doesn’t need to trudge through Summa Theologiae and discuss Aquinas on his merits, because it’s all nonsense. It’s verbose and well-written, but it’s nonsense. Gemli doesn’t need to hold court on theology, he just needs to dance in it.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Gemli has 12914 comments. Assuming they are all in response to DCP that is a giant great American novel.
He could bind them and sell as a review of the series, A reasonable leap into the light.
Assuming DCP takes 2 minutes to read and then respond to each of Gemli's comments, DCP has spent over 430 hours of his precious time. If anything that is a very conservative number.
Think about it, DCP has spent at least 3 months working full-time to sneeringly and sarcastically respond to Gemli on the internet.
Is it any wonder why DCP can't finish any of his promised books? God bless Gemli!
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Hypothetically, if the "real" God appeared, I'd be obliged to acknowledge its existence. But that's very unlikely, since the god that people worship is nothing more than a character in a story. The fact that the story has such widespread appeal is because we're genetically programmed to recognize and obey a pack leader, as are all other social animals. Ironically, it's our superior intelligence that makes us susceptible to seeing gods behind things we don't understand. Countless cultures have created all sorts of gods that were responsible for storms, pleasant weather, crop failures, bountiful crops, illnesses, healings and just about every speck of light that appeared in the night sky....
And the best the apologists can sum up in response:
mopologist wrote:
gemli: "The fact"
LOL.
gemli's response:
gemli DanielPeterson a day ago
LOL? It's a fact that theological stories have widespread appeal. Of course, widespread appeal is practically a requirement for all sorts of weird beliefs, such as the ones required by thousands of other religions that don't buy the Mormon story.
I've seen the use of, "it's a fact" a few times. It might just be a quirk. I often say, "just" and then edit because I've realised it's not suitable.
I don't think people would "have to acknowledge" a real god. I think people would still doubt because it is inbuilt in us not to trust.
