Flip Side of the Coin

[_KevinSim]

On the other hand, I'm sure you can appreciate that saying "I can't cope with the idea of no God" is not a very persuasive argument to someone who can cope with the idea.

Cylon, here you say you "can cope with the idea," but down below, when asked if you're up to the task of carrying out the work of God you say:

Well, given the second law of thermodynamics, no, I don't think I or any other mortal is up to the task of building something that lasts eternally.

That doesn't look to me like you're coping with it. That looks to me like you're looking at the second law of thermodynamics, concluding that the work of God is impossible, and then giving up on what your conscience requires you to do.

What does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with anything? You think it limits what we can do, just like people used to think the Theory of Relativity limits what we can do. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we thought. Then we found out that some particles can go faster than the speed of light. All the limits imposed by the second law of thermodynamics are are a set of general rules we need to find ways past in specific ways in order to carry out the work of God.

You still may find the work of God too difficult to carry out yourself. You still may balk at the responsibility of preserving some good things into the eternities. Nonetheless I say we have an obligation to preserve some of those good things into the eternities. If you can't do it by yourself, or if perhaps you can't do it by yourself in conjunction with the rest of humanity putting in their share of the work, then you'd better hope that somebody else is contributing enough to solving the problem that it can get solved. Because the job has to get done. And in my opinion hoping that that somebody else can make up the difference between what is required to accomplish the task, and what you (and others) can personally do to in your own way work towards accomplishing that task, is not that much removed from having faith in a God that can accomplish eternal goals.

Kevin, thanks for engaging me on this, I've enjoyed our conversation. I disagree with you on a lot of things, but you seem like a good guy. If you lived near me I'd have you over for dinner.

You're welcome! I'd love to have a meal with you.

[_Cylon]

YOU have already admitted here as well you are not sure at all but choose to believe.

When have I ever said I am not sure? I have said I have doubts, true enough, but that's not the same thing as saying I am not sure.

Uh, yes it is.
Doubt: a feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.
If you are uncertain about something, you are unsure of it. Maybe that's not what you meant when you said you had doubts, but that's what the word means.

I can't control my doubts, but I can control what I believe in.

I can't control what I believe in, at least not that directly. My beliefs are an output of all the different experiences I've had. They can be changed, but not just by me deciding to change them. I cannot at this moment just choose to believe in Santa Claus. I could say I believe in Santa Claus, but that would not make it true (although if I repeated it enough to myself it's certainly possible that I could become to believe it). But it's not nearly as simple as just choosing what to believe in. You can choose to some extent what information you expose yourself to, and you can choose to disregard certain evidence if you think it's unreliable, but our beliefs are shaped by much more than just our conscious thoughts about a subject.

[_Cylon]

On the other hand, I'm sure you can appreciate that saying "I can't cope with the idea of no God" is not a very persuasive argument to someone who can cope with the idea.

Cylon, here you say you "can cope with the idea," but down below, when asked if you're up to the task of carrying out the work of God you say:

Well, given the second law of thermodynamics, no, I don't think I or any other mortal is up to the task of building something that lasts eternally.

That doesn't look to me like you're coping with it. That looks to me like you're looking at the second law of thermodynamics, concluding that the work of God is impossible, and then giving up on what your conscience requires you to do.

What does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with anything? You think it limits what we can do, just like people used to think the Theory of Relativity limits what we can do. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we thought. Then we found out that some particles can go faster than the speed of light. All the limits imposed by the second law of thermodynamics are are a set of general rules we need to find ways past in specific ways in order to carry out the work of God.

You still may find the work of God too difficult to carry out yourself. You still may balk at the responsibility of preserving some good things into the eternities. Nonetheless I say we have an obligation to preserve some of those good things into the eternities. If you can't do it by yourself, or if perhaps you can't do it by yourself in conjunction with the rest of humanity putting in their share of the work, then you'd better hope that somebody else is contributing enough to solving the problem that it can get solved. Because the job has to get done. And in my opinion hoping that that somebody else can make up the difference between what is required to accomplish the task, and what you (and others) can personally do to in your own way work towards accomplishing that task, is not that much removed from having faith in a God that can accomplish eternal goals.

Look, I'm willing to discuss things with you regardless of our disagreement, but as soon as you start speculating on what I really think deep down, you're not operating on good faith. Who the hell are you to tell me what my conscience says? Trust me, as far as dealing with the implications of the possibility that there is no God and no afterlife, the thought that I might not build something that will outlast the probable lifespan of the universe is not even on my radar. It has nothing to do with how well I'm coping with issues of theism/atheism.

by the way, if the reference you made to particles that can go faster than the speed of light is about the neutrinos at the CERN reactor last year, it turns out the laws of physics are still intact after all. Now, I'm not in any way saying that our current understanding of the universe is comprehensive and can't be wrong, but until there is evidence to say it is, I'm going to go with the best evidence we have. All of your arguments here have been based on a set of axioms (God exists and his intent for us is to build things that will last eternally) that you haven't even tried to prove. You can go on an on about what that means for us, but without establishing the reality of your foundational axioms, there's no reason for anyone who doesn't already agree with you to listen.

[_KevinSim]

Oh, gee, let me see, perhaps live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

And how do I tell what are the words "that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"? I can conclude that what the LDS GAs say are those words must be the mentioned words, or I can pray and ask God what the words that proceed from His mouth are. The latter method is precisely the method I used to find out the GAs do speak for God. So it looks like either way, God endorses the LDS GAs.

[_KevinSim]

You have highlighted the difference between a religion and a cult.
You can talk openly about the rituals and ordinances of a religion.
A cult on the other hand, has things thanears required to be kept hidden.

Shreeek! The LDS Church is a c-c-c-cult? NOOOooooo! Why am I just now finding this out? I never in a thousand years would have guessed my church could possibly be a cult!

Some people say Aspies are bad at sarcasm, but I think I did an adequate job up there.

The cult argument is just criticizing a minority by complaining it isn't more like the well-respected majority.

I heard one poster a few weeks back who said it's a much bigger deal to Latter-day Saints if someone leaves the LDS Church for another church than it is to most Christians if someone leaves a Christian church for another Christian church, and the poster said that that also indicated that the LDS Church is a cult. I pointed out that if "Fiddler on the Roof" reflects Jewish life at all, then for Jews it's a much bigger deal if someone leaves the faith for Christianity than it is for Mormons when someone leaves the LDS faith for some other group. Does that make Judaism a cult?

Furthermore, when I was (briefly) a student at the University of Utah back in 1992 I read an article in the U of U newspaper about a Native American tribe who welcomed some anthropologists into their inner circles, and then got upset when the anthropologists published their observations about the tribe; apparently the Native Americans thought the researchers had told them they wouldn't reveal some of their inner workings, and the tribe was upset when they did. Does that make that tribe a cult?

Nothing in the temple is really hidden. You can find out all you want to know about it by contacting Sandra Tanner at the Utah Lighthouse Ministry Bookstore at 1358 S West Temple in Salt Lake City. The ministry's office phone number is 801.485.8894. The last time the temple ceremony changed, back in the mid 1990s, the details went so quickly to Utah Lighthouse Ministry that it made me suspect it was leaked. If the LDS Church did really leak its ceremony to ULM, you can hardly accuse it of keeping the ceremony hidden.

If I take a look at "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult?s=t&ld=1087" the definitions are, "(1) a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies, (2) an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult, (3) the object of such devotion, (4) a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc., (5) Sociology a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols." It doesn't say anything about a cult keeping things hidden or cult members getting overly upset when members leave the cult. Basically the term cult, like the term politician, is a term that doesn't mean very much except that you want to use it to make the object look bad.

If I were investigating the Native American tribe mentioned above, to find out whether I wanted to join it or not, I wouldn't decide it was a cult due to the things it tried to keep hidden and therefore shun it. I would give the tribe the benefit of the doubt, and consider the possibility that it might have good reasons to keep its rites hidden.

So, if you discover that you are gay, Elder Oaks is saying that is akin to 'discovering' you want to rob a bank...

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with wanting "to rob a bank"; there's only something wrong if you actually rob a bank.

[_KevinSim]

Examples?

Perhaps I should have said, "But Evangelicals believe in a thing about God." They believe God has the power to cause souls to cease to exist if He wanted to, and yet God chooses not to use this power to cause the unsaved to cease to exist, to put them out of their misery, so to speak. Instead, the unsaved will suffer unbearable agony every single moment for the rest of eternity.

If one can't know that a good God would cause the unsaved to cease to exist if that God could, rather than let them suffer agony forever, what can that one know for certain about what a good God would do?

[_KevinSim]

By your own reasoning your God does not exist since people are not getting answers to foundational questions or they are getting conflicting answers.

Themis, I've explained in the past that it doesn't make sense for God to answer unless the person asking the foundational question is fully ready to base the whole rest of her/his life on whatever answer God provides. How do you know that the group of people who are in this way ready are in fact getting conflicting answers? Whether they are in fact ready is something only the individual askers (and God) know; how can you tell who they are and aren't, in order to come to your conclusion that they're getting conflicting answers?

I choose to have faith that the people who really are ready to transform their lives based on God's answer, actually do get an answer from a good God who controls the universe. I don't see anything unreasonable about that belief.

[_RockSlider]

Examples?

Perhaps I should have said, "But Evangelicals believe in a thing about God." They believe God has the power to cause souls to cease to exist if He wanted to, and yet God chooses not to use this power to cause the unsaved to cease to exist, to put them out of their misery, so to speak. Instead, the unsaved will suffer unbearable agony every single moment for the rest of eternity.

If one can't know that a good God would cause the unsaved to cease to exist if that God could, rather than let them suffer agony forever, what can that one know for certain about what a good God would do?

wow ...

anyway, I thought the question was is the good/LDS god a different god than say the Baptist God? I thought you said, absolutely yes.

I would have assumed that most Mormons would say, no, its the same god, its just that we have a better understanding of his/her attributes.

[_KevinSim]

I am not sure you did, but then it still amounts to the same from your perspective of what you are wanting and choosing to believe in. This is what we call self deception. I will get back to my other post in a couple of days.

It's only deception if the object is false. I will concede that I am willing to gamble everything on the existence of God. Frankly I don't see any danger in making that gamble.

[_Tobin]

I am not sure you did, but then it still amounts to the same from your perspective of what you are wanting and choosing to believe in. This is what we call self deception. I will get back to my other post in a couple of days.

It's only deception if the object is false. I will concede that I am willing to gamble everything on the existence of God. Frankly I don't see any danger in making that gamble.

You are making a good bet Kevin. I know.