and the winner is...... SCIENCE

[_barrelomonkeys]

Okay, well I am frustrated all to hell this morning. I even dreamt of this crap. Joy.

So, I need to read quite a bit.

Gad, I did follow that Godel thread and read it a number of times. To be perfectly honest again I am intensely discomfited that I just have no idea what to think and need to read a hell of a lot more and come to some understanding of what everyone else is discussing. I've actually only recently begun to think about these questions and really don't know where to go from here other than to read and try to come to some greater understanding of what everyone else is talking about. It is maddening to have no clue what others are discussing and I have frantically been trying to play "catch up".

Then of course I wonder why I bother because I just didn't care at one point. Of course since everyone else appears to be "in the know" of these matters I feel compelled to find out myself. Just because it drives me batty to have no understanding of what others seem to grasp.

Gad, I appreciate your response and perhaps this is why I still have some sense of a hold out for this nebulous God of theory to never be dispelled.

Ren, you're absolutely correct that discoveries makes God unnecessary. I just still haven't hashed this out fully in my mind and am uncomfortably aware that I just haven't given this enough study or thought. As I told you last night I am certain with 99.99999999999999999999999999 probability that there is no such thing as a "God".

So I may have something to say later on this thread?

[Guest]

I even dreamt of this crap. Joy.

Ahh man, I know that well. That IS fustrating...!

Ren, you're absolutely correct that discoveries makes God unnecessary

Exactly. I think it's less about considering the problem of 'God', and more about considering the problem of 'science'. i.e. What science actually is, and how it really works.
Once you make the desision that 'unnessesary' = something that we have no good reason to beleive exists - in scientific terms, then that's when you determine that science CAN reach a conclusion regarding such a concept as a Deistic God.

...but anyway - go think about something else for a while... :)
...maybe something that's actually important...! Heh.

Of course since everyone else appears to be "in the know" of these matters I feel compelled to find out myself. Just because it drives me batty to have no understanding of what others seem to grasp

That's only because - as you say - you haven't been considering it 'properly' for that long really...
All this is very well within your grasp. As are most things...

Pffft - and here I am assuming that I grasp ANY of this nonsense...!

[_karl61]

Okay, well I am frustrated all to hell this morning. I even dreamt of this crap. Joy.

So, I need to read quite a bit.

Gad, I did follow that Godel thread and read it a number of times. To be perfectly honest again I am intensely discomfited that I just have no idea what to think and need to read a hell of a lot more and come to some understanding of what everyone else is discussing. I've actually only recently begun to think about these questions and really don't know where to go from here other than to read and try to come to some greater understanding of what everyone else is talking about. It is maddening to have no clue what others are discussing and I have frantically been trying to play "catch up".

Then of course I wonder why I bother because I just didn't care at one point. Of course since everyone else appears to be "in the know" of these matters I feel compelled to find out myself. Just because it drives me batty to have no understanding of what others seem to grasp.

Gad, I appreciate your response and perhaps this is why I still have some sense of a hold out for this nebulous God of theory to never be dispelled.

Ren, you're absolutely correct that discoveries makes God unnecessary. I just still haven't hashed this out fully in my mind and am uncomfortably aware that I just haven't given this enough study or thought. As I told you last night I am certain with 99.99999999999999999999999999 probability that there is no such thing as a "God".

So I may have something to say later on this thread?

Book of Mormon: if you have been reading this board (and it appears that you have) you likely know more about the Church than twenty-five thousand BYU students. I think you are super bright and the first step of being bright is acknowledging you don't know a lot about the subject you would like to know more about. Look at the people at MA&D. They appear to know everything but really don't as you read their thoughts when they post.

[_karl61]

Here Book of Mormon: another hawt for you - nobel prize winner of physics Richard feynman

[Guest]

Book of Mormon: if you have been reading this board (and it appears that you have) you likely know more about the Church than twenty-five thousand BYU students. I think you are super bright and the first step of being bright is acknowledging you don't know a lot about the subject you would like to know more about. Look at the people at MA&D. They appear to know everything but really don't as you read their thoughts when they post.

Hello thestyleguy, my questions do not so much relate to Mormonism or any religion per se. I'm mildly curious to understand the beliefs of different religions but my personal questions (and search for answers) can not be found within the scope of any institutionalized religion.

That is rather startling that I would know more about the Church than BYU students? I think that may be an overstatement. :)

[_barrelomonkeys]

Exactly. I think it's less about considering the problem of 'God', and more about considering the problem of 'science'. I.e. What science actually is, and how it really works.
Once you make the desision that 'unnessesary' = something that we have no good reason to beleive exists - in scientific terms, then that's when you determine that science CAN reach a conclusion regarding such a concept as a Deistic God.

...but anyway - go think about something else for a while... :)
...maybe something that's actually important...! Heh.

Well perhaps I'm going about asking the wrong questions? Science seems (for me) to find answers (often I'm startled that I wasn't even aware of the question!) and yet I still have trouble linking scientific discovery with "God". This quite possibly can be because my mind thinks in terms of literature and poetry and some fantastical mystery (yet science is the fantastical mystery) is compelling to me? This could be a possibility and one I have attempted to consider. I also discounted the notion of "God" incredibly early in my life and perhaps this too plays into my difficulty with coming to terms with my questions and sorting this out. I'm not certain!

That's only because - as you say - you haven't been considering it 'properly' for that long really...
All this is very well within your grasp. As are most things...

Pffft - and here I am assuming that I grasp ANY of this nonsense...!

Well perhaps I'm just intrigued with a bit of mystery and haven't really searched for hard answers because that may strip me of my wonder? I really can't say.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Beastie, I apologize for hijacking your thread.

[_Ren]

Beastie, I apologize for hijacking your thread.

Might not be that much of a hijack. Beastie can decide though...
To me, the thread is about the relationship between science and religion. And I think that's what we are discussing really.

The question is why try and 'twist' science in a way that it naturally does not lead?
...the answer? Probably for the kind of reasons you've been mentioning... Belief is often lauded as it's own virtue, regardless of 'the truth'...

This quite possibly can be because my mind thinks in terms of literature and poetry and some fantastical mystery (yet science is the fantastical mystery) is compelling to me?

...yes, I think this is a good point. A thread was made a while back about God being a 'monikor'. I think this is the kind of thing you're describing here.
...if 'God' is meant to represent such things as 'wonder of the universe', or 'the mysteries of existence' (whatever they may be at the time - I cannot belevie that science will ever answer ALL the possible questions there...), then it's less about whether science can 'disprove' God.
...i think the question becomes whether a universe that is seen in purely scientific terms can still be 'wonderous', or 'mysterious'.

For me, the answer to that question is astoundingly yes. It's not even about whether science can explain 'everything'. For me, it's more about the fact that what science has already laid before us is so 'wonderous' and so 'mysterious'.

Science says that matter is all highly bunched up energy, fuzzy, and can not only squash itself down into singularities that can swallow light, but can also end up developing into creatures that write poetry, literature, look around at the rest of the universe with their mouths agape, make up God concepts, and waste their time on message boards arguing about it all...!

...what's not to wonder at?! :)

I'm thinking about the 'Night Sky' entry in your blog. Is belief in the 'master controller' required to feel the wonder you did as you gazed out at the stars...?
...of course, I'd say the answer is no. All you have to do is be able to appreciate how marvellous and rich existence is. Both theists and atheists have the ability to do it, in equal measure I'd say... The 'details' of the appreciation are different perhaps, but the 'depth' of the appreciation has little to do with the belief. I think it has more to do with the person...

I also discounted the notion of "God" incredibly early in my life and perhaps this too plays into my difficulty with coming to terms with my questions and sorting this out. I'm not certain!

Yes. It's a lot different for me. I've very much beleived in God most of my life thus far. And when I lost faith, the issue of whether there was a God was one of the fore-front things on my mind for many years.
...we've perhaps come at the issue from two different directions...

[_karl61]

One on the wonders of science is the ability to keep people ticking or help them. I think that helping with moods, even temporarily, is a great thing. How many heart surgerys have been done and kept grandparents ticking for another ten years. One of the things that I read, that leaped out at me, is that when ever someone was ill in the gospels it was because of demons yet now we know it's not demons but likely has some natural and predictable explanation and possible solution. The work of the Gods is being done everyday at hosptials.

[_beastie]

Don't worry, monks, I don't consider it a derailment at all. I've just been too preoccupied to take the time to respond seriously on this thread.

I agree that science and logic - the tools which, in my opinion, revolutionized humanity by providing methodology to discipline our thinking, which is otherwise too susceptible to bias and other flaws - are able to provide pertinent information in regards to god-issues. And yes, I agree that theism, in particular, is susceptible to this and unjustified in insisting that it is in a totally separate, "untouchable" realm.

Here's an example from a related discussion that may illustrate my point.

As many of you know, I find the topic of the setting of the Book of Mormon in a restricted area in ancient Mesoamerica quite interesting. I have studied the topic enough to have a fairly good foundational grasp of the subject - the apologia as well as ancient Mesoamerica.

Apologists like to insist that science (which, in this case, would mainly be archaeology and anthropology) cannot provide reliable conclusions about whether or not the Book of Mormon could have taken place in ancient Mesoamerica. Many make this claim due to the fact that the vast majority of Mesoamerican writings were destroyed at the conquest. (this in particular is a claim based in ignorance because dirt archaeology can sometimes provide even more reliable information than text, due to the problem of bias and propaganda) Others make this claim due to the fact that there will continue to be more discoveries, more ancient ruins and likely writings, discovered in the area as time goes on. So, in a slightly different way, apologists are attempting to make the Book of Mormon totally outside science, when it logically would otherwise be inside the bounds of science. (other than the supernatural stories therein)

But it simply isn't true. The Book of Mormon, as a text, provides plenty of background cultural information for us to evaluate in terms of coherence with ancient Mesoamerica. And Mesoamerican scholars do know quite a bit about ancient Mesoamerica, due to the findings already in place. For future findings to suddenly provide support to the Book of Mormon would require not just future findings, but future findings that completely overturn just about every currently accepted notion about ancient Mesoameria. In the past, when knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica was far more limited due to limited archaeology as well as not having yet deciphered any language, such complete overturnings were possible and did occur. But today, due to the increased knowledge, such complete overturnings are extremely unlikely. Yes, revisions will be made - but not the sort of TOTAL revision that the Book of Mormon would require.

So, no, all the discovery hasn't been done (and no critic has ever claimed it has) - but we do possess enough information to make a sound judgment about how likely it is that the Book of Mormon could have taken place in ancient Mesoamerica. in my opinion, that likelihood approaches zero.

Is this information convincing to those who believe in the Book of Mormon for spiritual reasons? Of course not. As has been pointed out before, all apologists try to do anymore (since the advent of all this knowledge) is to try and present a scenario in which it can be stated that it hasn't been categorically PROVEN that the Book of Mormon isn't true.

Well, so what. We haven't categorically proven there isn't a teapot floating out somewhere in the universe, either, or there isn't an invisible spaghetti monster in our ozone. Believers take affront to such comparisons, but the only reason these comparisons sound ridiculous and their own beliefs do not is because they are culturally acclimated to their own beliefs.

So perhaps we can't categorically prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn holding the earth in her hoof. But science and logic can certainly make a persuasive enough case that only those who are determined to believe in an illogical premise regardless of the lack of support for such a premise would continue to cling to it.

I don't mean this to sound harsh. I have long searched for god myself. And I certainly understand why the belief in god and an afterlife is comforting. There have been many times since I lost faith I wished I could believe again due to the need for that emotional comfort. And I fully recognize that the vast majority of humanity believes in some godbeing and afterlife, and some of the greatest minds on this planet have so believed.

But I also think the only reason these godbeings don't look as ridiculous as the pink unicorn is likely solely due to our cultural acclimations.