CS: I don’t think God hides from anyone, but the entire idea about being here is to learn to live through faith.
RP: Based on what?
CS: Based on what God has revealed and the way He revealed it. In short, the Lord’s mission statement is, simply,“For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
Do you truly not see how inadequate this response is? It's a circular argument that goes nowhere and convinces no one but yourself. "We're here to live through faith. Why? Because God has revealed it. How do you know that? Because we're here to live through faith."
CS: Science has always been more blind than insightful. It only believes what it can see or detect.
RP: Yet here you are communicating with others through science and technology. Do believe your doctors are more blind than insightful? Do you pray instead of depending on medical science when you and your loved ones get sick?
CS: I believe you misunderstand. What I meant to say is that science will always have more questions than answers. The existence of “dark matter” and black holes, galaxies, anti-matter, quantum physics and the like have opened new and exciting areas of investigation. But are there are new questions and new discoveries which show man has only scratched the surface of what we think we know. Once one advances past the known universe, will there be untold billions more blinking back at us from incalculable distances. Will ours be surrounded by other, older and larger systems?
I take from your response that you think "new and exciting areas of [scientific] investigation" is in reality a hopeless quest that ultimately answers nothing. You prefer to stay mired in fixed ways of thinking. Intellectually, it's easier to believe in unproven absolutes than not having all the answers to your questions. That makes you an intellectual sloth.
CS: I understood it was a decisive victory...for the ancient scripture professor. The geologists showed up with their textbooks and the professor showed up with a Dutch science journal he’d been reading. There, in a peer-reviewed article, was the evidence.
RP: What article? what evidence? what debate? Details, please. A general summary is not very convincing.
CS: It had to do with earthquake faults, one of which ran under Salt Lake City’s Wasatch front. The point wasn’t that the professor of ancient scripture beat a professor of science; it’s that the changing nature of scientific knowledge is very rapid. Textbooks contain old information while journals contain the new. How can we trust something that’s changing that rapidly so much while rejecting the entire moral foundation of revealed religion as mere superstition?
The nature of scientific inquiry is questions. Science doesn't ask you to "trust" ("believe, have faith in," etc.) its findings. It does ask you to have an open, questing, and skeptical mind. The only thing you can trust is that change is inevitable. Clinging to a "fixed" moral foundation based on so-called revelation from God because you don't like change is the ultimate in head-in-the-sand thinking.
RP: What university is this? Wattsamatta U? Again, details would be nice.
CS: Brigham Young University
Wattsamatta U, indeed.
CS: The truth is that if God emblazoned incontrovertible evidence across the heavens, many would still reject Him.
RP: If the evidence were incontrovertible, why would anyone reject it? I wouldn’t. Speaking of which, why doesn’t God provide such evidence?
CS: God provides evidence, quite overwhelming for me, actually. It’s that he doesn’t provide proof positive and for the reason stated. In God’s eternal worlds, disobedience is answered immediately and justice is exercised without delay. Not so in our world, where we’re under a temporary quarantine. We’re placed in bodies that make our spirits enemies of God and justice is delayed to give us enough time to overcome and master them. And while you may accept something pertaining to God if presented with proof, you’d be the exception. If you’d care to see some evidence, drop me a PM, which would give me time to come up with some examples. But whether you would or wouldn’t, most men and women of science would not suddenly become spiritual and subject themselves to God. And by not accepting the evidence, the Lord would proffer them, they would bring about their own condemnation.
"Examples" of evidence is not evidence. It's hearsay, evidence that's not even acceptable for trying a case in a court of law. But it's supposed to be good enough to convince unbelievers.
And again, you're using a circular argument. "I need faith to believe in God - only then will he provide evidence. Why do I need evidence? So I can believe in God."
But if you do happen to have such convincing evidence, you can post it here for all to see. I'm not the only atheist and skeptic here. Many more would benefit from your "evidence." No "drop me a PM." Put it out here for everyone to see.
RP: If God is [deliberately] hiding from humanity, that puts the blame on him if people don’t believe in his existence. That’s one devious and vicious god you’re describing.
CS: Devious? Vicious? No, Jesus said He stands at the door and knocks. He who answers and invites Him inside are those who find. God represents himself through prophets and His Son. Jehovah, or Christ, is the great mediator between the Father and mankind.
The last time God came a-knockin' at our door, my mother answered and then proceeded to drag me and my siblings into the WTS cult. What a delightful spiritual experience that was! But my mother's answering the "knock" is as valid as yours. That's the trouble with "revealed truth." Just 'cause you say so doesn't make it so.
Again, you're arguing as though I've already accepted as truth the existence of God, Jesus, and prophets. I do not accept their existence as a point already conceded. If you want to convince, you must drop back 10 yards and punt.
CS: When our evangelical friends talk about Hell and burning I cringe. At our stage of development we’re not capable of bringing down that kind of judgment.
RP: If God has “revealed” the existence of hellfire to evangelicals, why are they wrong and you right? And who exactly are “we” when you talk about bringing down judgment on unbelievers?
CS: God has revealed no such thing to evangelicals, as a never-ending Hell would be counter to His very nature. By “we” I mean, of course, the human race. We’re in no position to be so harshly judged at our spiritual and intellectual immaturity. It would be like punishing an infant, which is what we are. To merit eternal punishment, our spiritual development would have to be at a much higher level.
How do you know for a fact that God has not revealed information to evangelicals? If God has revealed truth to you, he can reveal to others. All that appears necessary for such a claim to be true is the fact that you say it's true. Are you truly that arrogant?
BTW, you wrote earlier "How can we trust something [scientific inquiry] that’s changing that rapidly so much while rejecting the entire moral foundation of revealed religion as mere superstition?" If spiritual development is also in flux, then by your own words, it must also be "untrustworthy."
CS: It would be like killing an infant for having the colic!
RP: But your god would damn them all the same.
CS: Not at all. There's too much talk of damnation. Like I said, we need men of science. We need skeptics.
Another non-answer.
RP: You just said science is “more blind than insightful.” So why do “we” need it? And why do “we” need skeptics? If science is blind and skeptics are to be judged and damned, why are they necessary?
CS: Many think that religion is an open and shut book, and when the Millennium comes, we will find ourselves at the end of a very long and arduous road. But it will be just the opposite. Science has given us an intellectual edge among the nations, but spirituality has given us other needs. The two are not mutually exclusive, but work together for the benefit of man. We need science now to give us the edge in survival. As the Millennium progresses, we’ll learn more about science until we see that it and religion work in tandem.
So we need godless science and scientists to keep ahead of the Jones's in other nations. (These scientists who will, BTW, be damned, or condemned or punished or whatever word suits your sensitive conscience). Meanwhile, you sit on top of the heap believing you enjoy God's exclusive favor and on tope of that, you have the gall to condemn the rest of humanity for not answering God's "knock."
You're one piece of work, my Mormon friend.
