Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[IHAQ]

What kind of person would you need to be to seriously consider a universe without <insert your favourite flavour of deity> in charge of it?

A pessimist.

I’m pretty sure there are plenty of optimistic atheists. Your slant that it is only a belief in a deity that gives you cause for optimism suggests a deep dissatisfaction with your earthly existence, only alleviated by the hope that something better awaits when you’re dead, is…well…very pessimistic!

[IHAQ]

KevinSim, what happened on your mission to make you consider there wasn’t a God?

We're talking 43 years ago, and my memory's not perfectly clear on the whys behind it, but if I had to guess it was probably just being out of my stable reassuring Latter-day Saint home and in the real world with only one companion for support. I began to wonder, what if all the things I had been taught were wrong?

Interesting that your spiritual epiphany 3 years earlier when God supposedly witnessed to you His existence and chosen religious sect, wasn’t reliable in maintaining your belief in God. I don’t think you seek God so much as you seek the comforting bosom of a community - and I don’t say that as a criticism. It’s just me pointing out that the flavour of that community isn’t as important as the community itself. You’d be just as comforted in an Amish community, or any other community of like-minded people where “family” is a central focus. It’s the community that’s “true”, not the Church. Your mission showed you that.

[Chap]

I would suggest that the simplest explanation is that there is no God, and that your "rushing, tingling sensation" was produced by your body, with no supernatural agent required.

Now see, it was because I started thinking things like this that I started thinking atheistic thoughts back on my mission in 1979. But is that really the simplest explanation? If there is no God, then how did we get our free will, our non-determinism? Non-determinism cannot come out of a completely deterministic universe. Somebody with free will has to have existed in this universe from the moment of the Big Bang. If it wasn't God, then who was it?

Okay, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that we do have what do you call free will.

It certainly does not follow that there always has to have been some conscious entity in the universe that has free will. The universe could perfectly well have been nondeterministic right from the start, but simply not yet have had in it any living creatures in it complex enough for the idea of free will, or the lack of it, to have had any meaning. It would clearly be nonsensical, for instance, to ask whether a life-form as simple as a coronavirus does or does not have free will.

So I don't think your argument for the necessary existence of a deity is valid.

[sock puppet]

How is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints controlling my mind?

If you start to remember the electrodes, the voltage will automatically increase. To decrease the intensity, just say out loud, "I do believe in prophets".

Does he have to say it 3 times, clicking his heels together?

[malkie]

Now see, it was because I started thinking things like this that I started thinking atheistic thoughts back on my mission in 1979. But is that really the simplest explanation? If there is no God, then how did we get our free will, our non-determinism? Non-determinism cannot come out of a completely deterministic universe. Somebody with free will has to have existed in this universe from the moment of the Big Bang. If it wasn't God, then who was it?

Okay, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that we do have what do you call free will.

It certainly does not follow that there always has to have been some conscious entity in the universe that has free will. The universe could perfectly well have been nondeterministic right from the start, but simply not yet have had in it any living creatures in it complex enough for the idea of free will, or the lack of it, to have had any meaning. It would clearly be nonsensical, for instance, to ask whether a life-form as simple as a coronavirus does or does not have free will.

So I don't think your argument for the necessary existence of a deity is valid.

Thanks, Chap - I was simply going to ask KevinSim to justify his statement, but I like your answer better

An apparently coherent characteristic at one level may conceal a great deal of incoherence at another. There are numerous examples of this at the level of everyday phenomena.

For example, as far as the user of an electrical source is concerned, current seems to flow smoothly through conductors - e.g., in the case of a battery powering a flashlight. However, at the atomic and subatomic level, a snapshot of the electrons (and, perhaps, holes) shows them performing a crazy jostling dance that has them, as individuals, moving in apparently random directions at any given moment in time.

And don't get Einstein going on the movement of molecules of gas in apparently still air.

Are you sitting still, KevinSim? You seem to be, but you are on a rotating sphere, with a velocity of a substantial fraction of 1600 km/h due to the rotation. Add 108,000 km/h due to earth's orbit around the sun, etc.

Even if you recognize these motions, their apparent smoothness at the level of human observation hides a huge amount of "turbulence" that can be detected by instruments.

All of this is to say that what you infer about an entity with free will may be completely wrong because you are inferring from the wrong level.

(Sorry - I got a bit carried away there )

[Fence Sitter]

God told my wife's best friend that her first husband would be her eternal mate. He also told her the same thing on each of her next three husbands. She is not a widow.

Why in the world would that friend believe God would be obligated to tell her anything about how long each of these husbands would be her mate?

You have a bad habit of taking other people's statements and turning them into questions to avoid responding to the statement.
Why do you do that?

No one said anything about the friend feeling God was obligated to do anything. She believes she talks to God, literally, so she asks Him questions.

I have thought about writing a short story where a young man encounters a Latter-day Saint man who tells him he asked God if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and God told him it was true. This acquaintance urges him to ask God himself and find out for himself. Shortly afterwards a young woman tells him a very similar story, but this time she says that God told her the FLDS Church is the one that's true. This really confuses the (sort of) investigator, and he finally goes to God by himself, expresses his frustration, and begs God to tell him what the truth actually is. God replies by saying, "It's the Church of Christ, Temple Lot. And yes, I do know what I'm doing. I had reasons for pointing (previous acquaintance) to the LDS Church and for pointing (FLDS girl) to the FLDS Church, and you just need to trust me that I have reasons to point you to the Church of Christ, Temple Lot." My point is that each of us has to rely on what God tells each of us personally. I have no right to tell the FLDS girl that it wasn't God talking to her. Similarly, it's a huge mistake to assume God was mistaken when S/He gave Her/His answer to me.

What do you do when you encounter someone who believes God has told him everyone else is wrong about their religious beliefs?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Great. Would you be interested in participating on a new thread that will examine and deconstruct LDS truth claims?

Doc, is that an attempt to answer my second question? I asked two questions, and I'd kind of like them answered before I move on to your question.

That’s because you didn’t answer my question, but instead parsed out my question into a nonsense question of your own. My question was, “If the Church wasn’t true, whatever truth means to you, would you want to know and would you put in the work to study it out in good faith?”

I suppose it’s really a two-part question so I’ll try again.

1) If the Church wasn’t true, whatever truth means to you, would you want to know?

2) Would you put in the work to study it out in good faith? <- good faith just means honesty, with sincerity, no game playing

Acting in good faith would be to take a ‘truth issue’, set hard boundaries on it (it means *this*, it took place *here*, something is concretely defined *as such*) and then examining it with your faculties firmly rooted in a desire to pursue truth in a reality-based sense, not a feelings-based sense.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

Maybe "being in control" would be a better phrase. I'd say "making sure some good things are being preserved forever," but last time I said something like that long time posters brought up unpleasant comments about things I've posted in the distant past!

I like "making sure some good things are preserved forever." That's a lovely sentiment and a worthwhile aim.

[Moksha]

Does he have to say it 3 times, clicking his heels together?

It helps.

[KevinSim]

That’s literally not what you said. I see we’re not quite to the point where you’re keeping your story straight.

Of course that's literally not what I said. I was adding details to show you the two stories were not mutually exclusive. What does any of that have to do with a good faith discussion of matters regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?