Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[MG 2.0]

Mg, why did you quote my post and then respond with something that had nothing to do with what I wrote?

I read it—your response is intriguing, and it is a shame that it was not addressed.

I’ll take a stab at it to continue the thought process—accepting reality once it’s unavoidable is one thing, but is there value in seeking answers to how we should evaluate claims about truth, or God’s justice and authority (and those who claim to have it) beforehand? If not, “it is what it is” just replaces discernment rather than helping to develop it.

You've also made a good point.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

accepting reality once it’s unavoidable is one thing, but is there value in seeking answers to how we should evaluate claims about truth, or God’s justice and authority

The second part is intriguing in its own right, but I'll admit all I was really concerned about is the first part. I'm assuming we have perfect knowledge of the state we are in for now. I knew MG wouldn't answer the question, and he won't. Think back to that coworker who said the answer to the Book of Mormon can't possibly be "no".

MG wishes for others to consider a possible world that contradicts the person's own beliefs about reality. I'm happy to do this, in fact, I enjoy it. However, he can't do the same. When he says to consider the hypothetical where there really is a creator God, he doesn't constrain God to be Mormon or even Christian, but he implicitly forbids creator God from being anything that contradicts his own personal beliefs. This is odd since Mormons occupy such a thin slice of theists and he is but a single person. He is unwilling to entertain the possibility that creator God isn't Mormon; it's simply NOT a possibility that can even be entertained hypothetically.

This shows what a sham "crooked lines" are. Anyone who truly accepts the world has crooked line should readily accept the possibility that their own personal beliefs are wrong. He won't even entertain it for a hypothetical discussion. Lines can only be crooked such as to make evidence against his beliefs not count. It's a superficial and childish exercise.

On a more interesting note, I think traditional theology requires a straight-line God. Crooked lines really fit best in the world of empiricism. God, in theism, after all, is an a priori exercise.

Your last paragraph resonates deeply with me, regarding traditional theology having a straight-line God. You know I am an atheist, but, I am also a member of the Catholic church, which I joined before I married a life-long, multigenerational Catholic. As the information about 9/11 came out over the years, one of the things that has always stuck with me were the attempts by the 911 operators to comfort the people they were talking to who were calling from inside the towers. They invoked God, freely and with no restrictions. It was heartbreaking to listen to, years later, but I commend those operators for doing what they could to help. The trauma followed them, and so many others, for years.

In the aftermath, one thing I did NOT hear, from ANY Catholics, were anything like the 'crooked line' storylines mg has proposed here. The Mormons briefly put forward some stories about how being Mormon saved them from danger in the Towers, but these were pretty quickly quashed, and rightly so, as non-Mormons were aghast at such hubris and insensitivity. People mourned, but no one ever suggested this was a 'crooked line' God would make straight.

I find that Mormons tend toward needing empirical rationales, which leads to these bizarre arguments, such as mg suggesting the explanation for a pedophile being called as a bishop by Mormon leaders was that it allowed him to be caught, and therefore start the repentance process. No one, in my experience, following a more traditional theology would attempt to justify a religious calling in that way.

...This shows what a sham "crooked lines" are...

Couldn't agree more.

[malkie]

Just to emphasize:

""It is what it is" tells us nothing about God's existence, either for or against." is true only for a god who does not "interfere" in our existence.

If the hypothetical god is claimed to have an effect on our lived reality, then "It is what it is" - meaning that we cannot detect any effect of the god's existence - is a strong argument for non-existence. As they say, it's a great, perhaps impossible, task to prove a negative, but a proponent's consistent failure to provide verifiable "for" evidence is in itself a strong negative indicator.

There may still be proponents of the luminiferous ether hypothesis, but just as the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment tells us something about whether the luminiferous ether exists, "It is what it is" tells us something about Mormon god's existence, and that something is "against", rather than being either for or against.

[MG 2.0]

Just to emphasize:

""It is what it is" tells us nothing about God's existence, either for or against." is true only for a god who does not "interfere" in our existence.

If the hypothetical god is claimed to have an effect on our lived reality, then "It is what it is" - meaning that we cannot detect any effect of the god's existence - is a strong argument for non-existence. As they say, it's a great, perhaps impossible, task to prove a negative, but a proponent's consistent failure to provide verifiable "for" evidence is in itself a strong negative indicator.

There may still be proponents of the luminiferous ether hypothesis, but just as the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment tells us something about whether the luminiferous ether exists, "It is what it is" tells us something about Mormon god's existence, and that something is "against", rather than being either for or against.

I pointed out in a recent post of yours (page before this one) that your arguments/logic were sound. This time around I wonder if you might be claiming a ‘win’ from ignorance. One can expect a theist to provide incontrovertible evidence for God if starting from the beginning premise of neutrality.

But to then, knowing that you are, in essence, ignorant…not knowing one way or the other…if there is a God, and then claiming absolute victory, isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

Maybe this isn’t what you’re are doing? You are actually allowing wiggle room for logical/reasonable belief and/or faith?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

On a more interesting note, I think traditional theology requires a straight-line God. Crooked lines really fit best in the world of empiricism. God, in theism, after all, is an a priori exercise.

I’d like to explore this some more—and I may garble the thinking, so please bear with me and point out flaws as you see them.

I think you are right, theology does default to “straight lines” about God, and specifically about God’s character—God is good, God is just, God is truthful. But I also think that can be misapplied—instead of using straight lines as standards to test claims, they can become assumptions that override testing.

So if a claim depicts God acting unjustly, rather than test the claim, the response can turn into “it is what it is,” or “maybe justice looks different from God’s view.” And that isn’t really humility acting in obedience—it’s resignation with an abandonment of discernment.

I think true humility is taking an approach that says “I may be wrong, so I must test my beliefs carefully,” rather than “I may be wrong, so there’s no point in testing at all.”

All that said to say that any faith that requires suspension of conscience or truth-telling through following a crooked line to “straighten” things that have happened risks bruising discernment and conscience to survive.

[Limnor]

Your last paragraph resonates deeply with me, regarding traditional theology having a straight-line God. You know I am an atheist, but, I am also a member of the Catholic church, which I joined before I married a life-long, multigenerational Catholic. As the information about 9/11 came out over the years, one of the things that has always stuck with me were the attempts by the 911 operators to comfort the people they were talking to who were calling from inside the towers. They invoked God, freely and with no restrictions. It was heartbreaking to listen to, years later, but I commend those operators for doing what they could to help. The trauma followed them, and so many others, for years.

In the aftermath, one thing I did NOT hear, from ANY Catholics, were anything like the 'crooked line' storylines mg has proposed here.

This.

I’d call this “presence.” Instead of needing to fully understand any “why’s,” God is present. I think it’s why Jesus wept when Lazarus died and didn’t resort to explaining. He was just present and moved.

[Marcus]

Your last paragraph resonates deeply with me, regarding traditional theology having a straight-line God. You know I am an atheist, but, I am also a member of the Catholic church, which I joined before I married a life-long, multigenerational Catholic. As the information about 9/11 came out over the years, one of the things that has always stuck with me were the attempts by the 911 operators to comfort the people they were talking to who were calling from inside the towers. They invoked God, freely and with no restrictions. It was heartbreaking to listen to, years later, but I commend those operators for doing what they could to help. The trauma followed them, and so many others, for years.

In the aftermath, one thing I did NOT hear, from ANY Catholics, were anything like the 'crooked line' storylines mg has proposed here.

This.

I’d call this “presence.” Instead of needing to fully understand any “why’s,” God is present. I think it’s why Jesus wept when Lazarus died and didn’t resort to explaining. He was just present and moved.

Yes, I like that term. Even as an atheist, I've felt and experienced so much more of this 'presence' through my Catholic extended family. They know the wide range of beliefs held by our many family members, including me, and maybe not all Catholic families are like this, but in my experience there has never been anything but full acceptance and love for all. It was an eye-opener for this 7th generation Mormon-raised women.

[I Have Questions]

Just to emphasize:

""It is what it is" tells us nothing about God's existence, either for or against." is true only for a god who does not "interfere" in our existence.

If the hypothetical god is claimed to have an effect on our lived reality, then "It is what it is" - meaning that we cannot detect any effect of the god's existence - is a strong argument for non-existence. As they say, it's a great, perhaps impossible, task to prove a negative, but a proponent's consistent failure to provide verifiable "for" evidence is in itself a strong negative indicator.

There may still be proponents of the luminiferous ether hypothesis, but just as the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment tells us something about whether the luminiferous ether exists, "It is what it is" tells us something about Mormon god's existence, and that something is "against", rather than being either for or against.

I pointed out in a recent post of yours (page before this one) that your arguments/logic were sound. This time around I wonder if you might be claiming a ‘win’ from ignorance. One can expect a theist to provide incontrovertible evidence for God if starting from the beginning premise of neutrality.

But to then, knowing that you are, in essence, ignorant…not knowing one way or the other…if there is a God, and then claiming absolute victory, isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

Maybe this isn’t what you’re are doing? You are actually allowing wiggle room for logical/reasonable belief and/or faith?

Regards,
MG

Would you say that a Scientologist holds a logical and reasonable belief?

[Limnor]

Yes, I like that term. Even as an atheist, I've felt and experienced so much more of this 'presence' through my Catholic extended family. They know the wide range of beliefs held by our many family members, including me, and maybe not all Catholic families are like this, but in my experience there has never been anything but full acceptance and love for all. It was an eye-opener for this 7th generation Mormon-raised women.

Maybe what we’re calling presence is that God dwells in people, and we can recognize Him not as institutionally bound by belief or doctrine, but by how people show up and carry one another through suffering with compassion and love.

[Limnor]

Just to emphasize:

""It is what it is" tells us nothing about God's existence, either for or against." is true only for a god who does not "interfere" in our existence.

If the hypothetical god is claimed to have an effect on our lived reality, then "It is what it is" - meaning that we cannot detect any effect of the god's existence - is a strong argument for non-existence. As they say, it's a great, perhaps impossible, task to prove a negative, but a proponent's consistent failure to provide verifiable "for" evidence is in itself a strong negative indicator.

There may still be proponents of the luminiferous ether hypothesis, but just as the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment tells us something about whether the luminiferous ether exists, "It is what it is" tells us something about Mormon god's existence, and that something is "against", rather than being either for or against.

I pointed out in a recent post of yours (page before this one) that your arguments/logic were sound. This time around I wonder if you might be claiming a ‘win’ from ignorance. One can expect a theist to provide incontrovertible evidence for God if starting from the beginning premise of neutrality.

But to then, knowing that you are, in essence, ignorant…not knowing one way or the other…if there is a God, and then claiming absolute victory, isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

Maybe this isn’t what you’re are doing? You are actually allowing wiggle room for logical/reasonable belief and/or faith?

Regards,
MG

I’m not reading malkie’s point as claiming certainty or “absolute victory.” Nor do I think he is saying “we don’t know, therefore God does not exist.”

What he seems to be saying is that “if” a god is defined as non-interventionist, then “it is what it is” really does tell us nothing either way.

But “if” a god is defined as interventionist, as the Mormon god is—through guidance of its leaders, prayers being answered, and binding himself to covenants with claimed observable outcomes—“then” continued failure to detect that intervention counts as evidence against that specific claim. It’s not ignorance, it’s expectation failure.

You have to redefine your god if you intend to counter malkie’s claim, and you seem to have done so, by changing the starting position to total neutrality and saying that absence of evidence should never count against belief—and faith should retain “wiggle room” indefinitely.

But that only works if the god under discussion is non-interventionist and isn’t expected to fulfill the outcomes listed above.