the placebo effect

[_dartagnan]

Actually, human beings invented deism because evolution was still not understood at that point. If the past deists had access to the theory of evolution, they would not have needed to invent deism at all.

Do you have any idea how ridiculously arrogant this sounds? Your assertion flies in the face of the fact that a recent 2001 survey determines that deism is growing at a rate of 717%, making it by far the fastest growing religious classification. And this, in spite of our modern understanding of Darwinism.

And deists generally believe god wants humans to be moral creatures and that we all have spirits that will continue living after our deaths, and that God will judge us all in the hereafter. Darwin only touches on one aspect of all this; how man came to be.

Agnosticism is not based on the idea that there isn't strong evidence.

Yes it is. If something's existence cannot be known, they there cannot be strong evidence for it. The same goes for its non-existence. But there are different forms of agnosticism, such as agnostic theism, which maintains the existence of a God who is unknown to us.

I think there is very strong evidence that God does not exist.

Excellent. So let's hear it. I have yet to hear one single compelling piece of evidence that a creator of the universe doesn't exist.

[_beastie]

Do you have any idea how ridiculously arrogant this sounds? Your assertion flies in the face of the fact that a recent 2001 survey determines that deism is growing at a rate of 717%, making it by far the fastest growing religious classification. And this, in spite of our modern understanding of Darwinism.

And deists generally believe god wants humans to be moral creatures and that we all have spirits that will continue living after our deaths, and that God will judge us all in the hereafter. Darwin only touches on one aspect of all this; how man came to be.

You were talking about the INVENTION of deism. Deism was invented by people who could not explain the existence of complex creatures and yet saw no evidence of the existence of a God in this world. That is why the deist god is invisible - because there's no evidence of him in this world. He started it going, and then withdrew. The only evidence was the otherwise inexplicable existence of complex creatures.

Evolution not only explains how man came to be, but how man socially evolved, as well.

Yes it is. If something's existence cannot be known, they there cannot be strong evidence for it. The same goes for its non-existence. But there are different forms of agnosticism, such as agnostic theism, which maintains the existence of a God who is unknown to us.

I disagree. God is unknowable not because he/she cannot intervene in the world (which would give strong evidence), but rather because his/her being is completely outside our dimensions and hence, comprehension. The Flatlanders story explains this idea. I'll assume you're familiar with it. In the Flatlanders story, there is strong evidence of the existence of THE OUTSIDE THING (ie, the three dimensional ball) - the flatlanders could "see" it. But they had no way of conceiving what THE OUTSIDE THING was.

So if God really did intervene directly in human affairs, and that could be logically and scientifically demonstrated, that would constitute strong evidence, even though we are not capable of knowing that the thing that resulted in this evidence is "God". It could, after all, be an alien like Q from startrek, who is just messing with us. We, as lesser beings, could not possibly differentiate between Q and God.

Excellent. So let's hear it. I have yet to hear one single compelling piece of evidence that a creator of the universe doesn't exist.

The most compelling evidence, to me, is that the world without a god would look exactly like a world with a god.

If this were not so, faith would not be required. And even more than the necessity of faith, the hard fact is that believers cannot demonstrate how this world they claim has a god would be any different than this world without a god.

[_guy sajer]

There's a world of difference between science and the type of cognitive processes you've described. Frankly, I surprised we have to make this point to you.

I don't think you understand my point at all if this is what you think. Where did I ever say "science" was synonymous with these cognitive processes?

The transparency of science compared to the complete lack of transparency involved in personal feelings is but one example.

But intelligent design is not based on feelings at all. It is by far the best, if not the only, reasonable explanation. This is why humans had to invent deism. Even those who despise organized religion can't seem to get away from the evidence that a God truly does exist. And agnostics have to admit science has not provided any evidence strong enough to discount the possibility.

The atheist's counter-argument, comes up with whatever model it can think of it seems, and the only thing it is 100% sure about is that a God doesn't exist. It seems its entire worldview is designed to reject something as opposed to allowing for all possibilities. That doesn't hold water for me. It sounds too much like those who vote for a republican simply because they hate Hillary.

How can you be sure that your belief in intelligent design isn't a product of the same cognitive processes?

Because it isn't based on feelings. When I refer to similar cognitive processes I am speaking of atheists defending their positions which they admittedly cannot prove, anymore than a theist can prove God exists. They reject the evidence out of hand the same way a theists rejects evidence presented against his or her faith. In my view, atheists can be equally arrogant, bigoted and dogmatic in their atheism, the same as any bible-thumper.

I'd lay odds that the probability for this is vastly higher than the probability that science is driven by the irrational process you ascribe to it.

I never said "science" is driven by this. Only the particular arguments that insist God cannot exist. The irony here is that when a theist cannot fall back on proof, he at least comes clean and says it is based on faith. When an atheist cannot prove his points, he maintains them just as arrogantly and then refuses to admit that the fact-free void he is falling back on, is nothing like the theist's faith, but that is precisely what it is as far as I am concerned.

Let's be clear, Kevin. I do not believe it possible to prove the existence or non-existence of God.

I do believe it possible, however, to disprove certain "types" of Gods by critiquing the underlying assumptions.

For example, the claim that God is a "loving father," I think is overwhelmingly disproved by the mountains of evidence to the contrary, that is, using common definitions in our traditions as to what the attributes of a "loving father" are.

A "loving father," for example, does not kill his children because they disobey him.

A "loving father," does not withhold vital succor because his child failed to ask him in a sufficiently obsequiece (sic) fashion.

As for intelligent design, it is ultimately based on feeling (or theory as it were) as it does not lend itself to empirical hypothesis testing. Believers can construct as many simple or complex theories but utlimately, for most of them, it comes down to how they "feel."

[_Trevor]

Fair enough, but not all models are developed or based upon facts. Some are developed and based upon assumptions, and some for the sake of explaining scientifically why something else happens. So in this sense I think there is enough similarity between the two. Both sides argue from positions that cannot be proved empirically. And from my experience, the athiest can be just as pig-headed and dogmatic in his beliefs as the theist.

Scientific models, as far as I am aware, are tested against observable phenomena where possible, and at least founded upon mathematical language where it is not. I don't really see religion working by a similar method, but then I don't know everything.

By the way, not all religions are theistic, and not all scientists are atheists. I do think, however, that the scientific method has proven more reliable than revelation in describing the world.

[Guest]

A "loving father," for example, does not kill his children because they disobey him.

Assuming God has or would kill his children, I agree that this means he is not loving. But I am not one who believes in biblical literalism, and the proponents of ID are avoiding this altogether by postulating the existence of God without speaking of his character. It is strictly an effort to offer an alternative theory to the existence of the universe.

As for intelligent design, it is ultimately based on feeling (or theory as it were) as it does not lend itself to empirical hypothesis testing.

True, but this is not necessarily problematic if we realize all truth is not empirically testable.

Perhaps we do not have the means to test such hypotheses? How do we know Neutron Star is a sixth state of matter? Nobody has every seen it. It is a hypothesis presented by science teachers as fact, but nobody makes a stink of the fact that it cannot be tested empirically.. For this reason I see no problem in teaching ID in public schools as an alternative theory. Not fact, theory.

Believers can construct as many simple or complex theories but utlimately, for most of them, it comes down to how they "feel."

When it comes down to ID, I disagree. For me at least, it isn't based on any feeling at all. It isn't based on prayer. I didn't get the chills when I envisioned God creating the heavens. This is based on my own ponderings on life, and my efforts to explain how things came to be in such a perfect and magnificent state. The big bang and all the other reigning scientific theories strike me as desperate if not down right ridiculous.

[_dartagnan]

Beastie, I don't see why a God who exists must be completely unknowable to us. This seems to operate on several assumptions that are just as untestable as the existence of God. So why do you believe it?

This sounds more like medieval Christian theology.

The most compelling evidence, to me, is that the world without a god would look exactly like a world with a god.

I fail to see how this constitutes evidence. You first need to explain how a world without a God exists at all. What is your explanation for the existence of the universe?

To which theory do you subscribe?

[_guy sajer]

A "loving father," for example, does not kill his children because they disobey him.

Assuming God has or would kill his children, I agree that this means he is not loving. But I am not one who believes in biblical literalism, and the proponents of ID are avoiding this altogether by postulating the existence of God without speaking of his character. It is strictly an effort to offer an alternative theory to the existence of the universe.

As for intelligent design, it is ultimately based on feeling (or theory as it were) as it does not lend itself to empirical hypothesis testing.

True, but this is not necessarily problematic if we realize all truth is not empirically testable.

Perhaps we do not have the means to test such hypotheses? How do we know Neutron Star is a sixth state of matter? Nobody has every seen it. It is a hypothesis presented by science teachers as fact, but nobody makes a stink of the fact that it cannot be tested empirically.. For this reason I see no problem in teaching ID in public schools as an alternative theory. Not fact, theory.

Believers can construct as many simple or complex theories but utlimately, for most of them, it comes down to how they "feel."

When it comes down to ID, I disagree. For me at least, it isn't based on any feeling at all. It isn't based on prayer. I didn't get the chills when I envisioned God creating the heavens. This is based on my own ponderings on life, and my efforts to explain how things came to be in such a perfect and magnificent state. The big bang and all the other reigning scientific theories strike me as desperate if not down right ridiculous.

ID may be a theory, but it is a non-testable one. It should NOT be taught in public schools--it is NOT science. It is a religion masquerading as science.

Alien visitations is a theory as well to explain certain physical phenomena (have you read "In Search of Ancient Astronauts?") Why do you privilege ID over alien visitation?

Open the door to this one, my friend, and you'll soon see the entire camel trying to shove his body under the tent, and you'll find your children being taught all sorts of religious nonsense toward which you feel decidedly less friendly.

Ok, then, what is the nature of God? What are his attributes? How well do these attributes explain the world around us?

[_Gadianton]

When it comes down to ID, I disagree. For me at least, it isn't based on any feeling at all. It isn't based on prayer. I didn't get the chills when I envisioned God creating the heavens. This is based on my own ponderings on life, and my efforts to explain how things came to be in such a perfect and magnificent state. The big bang and all the other reigning scientific theories strike me as desperate if not down right ridiculous.

Why does the big bang strike Kevin as ridiculous? As Stephen Hawking popularized it, the Catholic Church adopted the big bang as consistent with doctrine. Why is the big bang incompatible with intelligent design?

[_beastie]

Beastie, I don't see why a God who exists must be completely unknowable to us. This seems to operate on several assumptions that are just as untestable as the existence of God. So why do you believe it?

This sounds more like medieval Christian theology.

I don’t know how much more to clarify it other than with the examples I already gave (Q and Flatlanders), but I’ll try.

Let’s say that someone wants to evaluate how accurately a text was translated from French to English. Certain prerequisite knowledge is required to logically make that evaluation – a strong knowledge of both English and French. One cannot logically evaluate something that is based on information one does not possess.

In the book Flatland, the creatures are two dimensional and live on a two dimensional world. Everything they perceive is processed through the limitations of living in a two dimensional world. Other worlds exist, as well, including the one-dimensional world, Lineland, and a three dimensional world, Spaceland. A Flatlander visits Lineland and tries to help the monarch there to understand that a two dimensional world exists, but the monarch is incapable of doing so, because of the monarch’s limitations due to being a one dimensional being living in a one dimensional land. Then a visitor from Spaceland, a sphere, visits this character in Flatland, and tries to convince HIM of the existence of the three dimensional world. The Flatlander cannot comprehend Spaceland until he actually sees Spaceland, due to his own limitations of living in a two dimensional world. Up until the time he actually witnesses Spaceland, what the sphere tries to tell him is as incomprehensible as what he, the Flatlander, tried to tell the monarch of Lineland. If I recall correctly, the sphere bounces in and out of view, but it doesn’t look like a ball in the two dimensional world, but rather just a two dimensional shape that oddly appears an disappears and changes shape (depending on the angle it was seen by the two dimensional being). So until the Flatlander actually witnessed Spaceland, his “understanding” of the sphere was so restrained by his natural limitations that he really did not “know” what the sphere was at all.

We are the Flatlanders. We live in a world constrained by the dimensions we inhabit. God would be a Spacelander. If a God exists and visits us, our perception of that godbeing is as limited as the Flatlander’s perception of the sphere. It is so limited that we do not “know” God at all. We may tell ourselves stories about that being, just like the Flatlander tried to comprehend the sphere bouncing in and out of his view range in his two dimensional world, but those stories are all naturally so constrained by our own limitations they are hopelessly distorted.

So evidence may point to the existence of X, and that may be very strong evidence of the existence of X. But being naturally constrained by the limitations of being mortal, finite, beings living in a world of limited dimensions, the “story” we tell about X is hopelessly flawed and distorted. Even if the being claimed to be “God”, we do not possess the prerequisite background knowledge to logically evaluate that claim, because we are beings from, so to speak, a two dimensional world. Unless and until we WITNESS Spaceland – at death, I suppose – we are blind.

Now, if there were solid evidence of, say, miraculous healings when people pray to God, and these healings could not be explained by science or nature, then that would constitute strong evidence of X, which people call God. But we still know nothing about that X. As I said, for all we know, from our limited perspective, it could be a being from an alien race so far advanced from us it looks magical, like Q in Startrek.

I fail to see how this constitutes evidence. You first need to explain how a world without a God exists at all. What is your explanation for the existence of the universe?

To which theory do you subscribe?

No, I don’t “need” to explain how a world without a God exists at all, any more than the people who lived prior to Darwin “needed” to explain how complex creatures came to be. I do not adhere to a God of the gaps, and it sounds like you do.

[_Pokatator]

No, I don't believe Prophets are under a higher law. Joseph taught that they are not. Don't have the quote handy but he did say that we can't expect to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob unless we do what they did. Any 2 bit dirtbag can claim to be a Prophet but that's what the whole Holy Ghost thing is for. Joseph repeatedly taught that he was a man and had faults. I take him at his word. President Hinckley has said that he thinks he is an ordinary man with a special witness. I don't think this is some pseudomodesty. I think he believes it and that he's correct.

I'm not sure what the point is of comparing yourself to Joseph. The goal is to become Christ. Christ can judge his own servants. He doesn't need my help.

With all due respect, Nehor, in reference to the bolded statement above.

Why does the church have worthiness interviews? Why are there requirements for entering the temple? Why can't just anyone go to the temple?

I thought that all of Mormondom was supposed to be a higher law of some kind.

Why are there 3 degrees of glory if there is no higher or differing degrees of laws to live to?

While I can agree that all mankind is based in some degree of sin or non-perfection, I can't buy into the idea that the spokesperson for God does not rise to some kind of higher standard.

I would expect Joseph Smith to at least live up to higher law that a Deacon or Temple Patron would have to. In my view he did not.