Top products from r/mormondebate

Physicist here so don't pretend I don't know what science is. (Though like the ancient Pythagoreans I'm sure as soon as I discuss something that has been proven that goes against a purely scientific worldview out comes the pitchforks.) And though I love science, unlike some people here I am willing to admit to the limits of science. Science can lead to all truth in the same way that rational numbers define all numbers: it can't! and Godel proved it.

The real problem with science is that it has been mathematically proven by Godel that there are more things that are true then are provable and thus you can't ever have a scientific theory that can determine the truth or falsity of all things. As soon as you write down that theory, assuming it allows for arithmetic, Godel's incompleteness theorem immediately shows if the theory is true there will be true statements about reality that are beyond provability. Read Godel Esher Bach or Incompleteness or work through it yourself in this textbook as I have.

So like I said above, science is great in it's sphere (and in that sphere let me emphasize it is awesome!) but leads to all truth in the same way that rational numbers leads to all numbers. (And the analogy is precise since Godel used the famous diagonizational argument in his proof.) Russell and Whitehead set out to show in the early 1900s that if we could determine the axioms of reality then through logic work out everything that was true and Godel spoiled the party.

It it would be one thing if these truths were trivial things, but they are not. Some examples of true or false statements that may fall into this category of being unprovable are:

• Goldbach's conjecture and an uncountable number of mathematical theorems (by the diagonalization argument) for that matter.. (Search the pdf for Goldbach)
  
  
• Issues related to the halting problem in computer science.
  
  
• Issues related to recursive logic and artificial intelligence.
  
  
• And again, this list goes on uncountably.
  
  Now, at this point critics almost always tell me: but Joe, Godel's incompleteness theorem is only relative to your set of logic. (Ie... we can prove Goldbach by just adding axioms needed to do so.) Fine. But two things: (first) adding axioms to prove what you want willy nilly is not good science. (Two) You now have a new set of axioms and by Godel's theorem there is now a new uncountable set of things that are true (and non-trivial things like I listed) that are beyond proof.
  
  Now usually comes the second critique: But Joe, this doesn't prove God exists. And this is true. But at least it has been proven God gives you a chance. It has been proven that an oracle machine is free from the problems that hold science and logic back from proving the truth of all things. At least something like God gives you a chance (whereas science falls short).
  
  Or, like Elder Maxwell says so well: it may only be by the "lens of faith" that we can ever know the truth of all things. He maybe be right, and hence the importance to learn by study, and also by faith...

> When was the last time you ran a doubleblind? Even if it was with the dousing rods, do you know what assumptions were made? What hypotheses were and how they were nullified? Or are you blindly following the analysis done by someone else?

So your saying because I didn't do the double blind study myself that "I'm blindly following the analysis by someone else"? I do double blind tests all day long - I'm a software developer and my test subjects are internal customers at the company I work at.

When I watch someone test things - the software always works, however when I deploy it site wide sometimes it doesn't. I know that sometimes I make assumptions that are wildly inaccurate, but my peers who review my work point out my problems all the time and I make changes to fix these issues. When I'm watching often I'll have them click on things that normal users wouldn't. When I'm testing it or I'm watching someone test my program - its not a properly controlled test.

Dousing might work, but the evidence suggests it doesn't. A parapsychologist named Chris French has published several peer reviewed double blind studies about super natural things like dowsing and concluded that dowsers cannot actually find water. Don't take his word for it - read the study and conduct the experiments yourself - its right here - you can watch him conduct the study on youtube too.

Conducting a double blind test of whether a bent coat hanger can find treasure is pretty simple. Find some treasure around the house (that a friend can bury), find an unbiased friend and have him hide said treasure without you looking and have another friend watch you find the treasure with the bent coat hanger. The 3rd friend won't be able to give you any context clues to find the treasure and the second friend won't be there either to do the same. That's a rational/logical way to approach something.

The double blind study is really what makes the scientific method a reasonable way to find truth. And what it doesn't find (because mistakes were made) - peer review will find. None of your examples actually investigate truth.

Example A and B stop at the evidence presented to them, and neither actually proceeded to investigate these claims themselves - which is the next logical step.

Thank you so much for this post. This is exactly what I hoped "Keeley" would create--an honest discussion about the science and the spirituality of these issues.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the numerous factors that come into play when determining an individual's sex. Indeed, there are far more than were mentioned in this post. Hormonal, genetic, and environmental factors can all lead to an individual with any combination of male and female characteristics in their brain, genitalia, and body structure.

In the LDS faith, we start with a truth claim that is either true or it isn't. That claim is this: "All human beings--male and female--are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son OR daughter of Heavenly parents, and as such, each has a divine nature or destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." (The Family: A Proclamation To The World, emphasis added).

We either started as spirit sons and daughters with eternal genders that will be ours for eternity, or we didn't. We either have the potential to become divine creators ourselves, which circumstance would necessitate our genders be eternal because of the role of literally begetting our own spirit children one day, or we don't. We either have one or the other gender spirit, or we don't.

If you don't believe that spirits have gender, that we came to this Earth with those eternal genders, and that we'll leave with them, then you are absolutely right. Pigeon-holing those born with physically ambiguous traits is very unproductive and perhaps even harmful.

If you do believe that spirits have eternal genders, then teaching this concept is liberating and exalting. It allows the individual to overcome his circumstances to realize his divine potential. His eternal gender transcends the physical condition he lives day-to-day, and allows him to access a portal to the way his days will be after this life is over. To taste a bit of heaven, where he is freed from the prison in which he finds himself on Earth. Also, for some, realization of their eternal gender might be a faith building experience that allows them incredible self-actualization that they could not attain through any other means.

If you believe that people were sent here to learn and grow, so that they could reach their full divine potential and return to their Father in Heaven, then you also must believe that some of the souls who find themselves in an odd, ambiguous physical situation on Earth needed this experience in order to learn what they needed to learn. If is their unique challenge, to overcome and to discover their divine nature. Keeley, the character of my novella, is only 12 by the end of the story, but has already become an introspective, deeply spiritual child who is dedicated to doing the Lord's work. One of the messages of the story is that perhaps, without this challenge, that achievement might not have come so deeply and so quickly as it did.

I'm interested to hear your reply!

Did you try following the sources?

Here's one: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hor-Book-Breathings-Translation/dp/0934893632

Here's a second: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Abraham&oldid=490135804


It looks like the PDF was taken down from Mormon Canon in lue of copying the text. That's fine, but there's an updated version. It includes these additional sources as well:

Here's a third: http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

Here's a fourth in the document: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha-17UFyH90&feature=relmfu#t=2m10s

And here's the rebuttal to connection implied in the fourth: http://www.irr.org/mit/ashment-pt1.html

I apologize for the conclusion, but this is not the Ah Ha! moment you think it is.

>> Again, your actions are no different then people who email me the big bang isn't true.

Why do you keep trying to turn this into a personal argument. Do you have something to say against the actual smoking guns?

>> Pointing to YouTube video that don't appear in your text and the level of disingenuous that entails pretty much is a microcosm of the high level of intellectual scholarship going into this literary masterpiece posted on pastbin of yours

For the last time, stop making this personal and start focusing on the issues.

I want to get this out in the open right now. I have never claimed to be a literary genius, or even moderately adept. I have never claimed to have all of the answers. I have never claimed that some deity is telling me what to say. I have never claimed that what I say represents what you will need to know to make it into heaven. I have never claimed to be a prophet of an almighty God or Goddess.

What I have done is post what I believe are smoking guns. If you believe they aren't, then show me why. Trying to attack me won't work. Calling me names won't work. Who knows, maybe you're right; but that doesn't make these issues any less relevant. Nor does it make it seem like you're addressing the real problems. Good luck Joseph, you're on your way to being a real apologist. Misdirection and hand waving while pretending to logically defend an faith based position.

----

Now. Do you think the first point is wrong or not? If not, let's keep going until you find one that is. If so, defend your position.

>You seem to lean quite heavily on Bayesian Methodology. If you're interested, I'd like to discuss this a little bit more. You seem to be willing to apply probabilities to historic events.

Here is an outline of Bayes Theorem and its relevance to Histoical analysis.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/CarrierDec08.pdf

I recommend anything Richard Carrier.

Here is a book with the methodology in action.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1616145595

I probably suffer from some extreme confirmation bias as I was completely sold on this method before I ever heard of Richard Carrier. The New Testament was the first book in the canon that are started looking at using bayesian reasoning and it was a result of that analysis that I left Mormonism. I had stopped believing in Jesus before I began examining Mormon unique topics.

When I found Richard Carrier it was simply a validation on the way I aproached the question, he just did it way better than myself.

But I guess you can thank my BYU professors for my atheism. They sold me on statistics (although I was already taking statistics courses in highschool). Statistics has always been very intuitive for me. Learning it formally was such a delight.

If you are new to Bayes Theorem I would say start here. Best explanation I have found online for beginners.

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes

First of all, my disagreement was over whether or not the idea of Adam's polygamy is "well-accepted in Mormon theology." It most certainly is not. If it was "well-accepted" you wouldn't have to go back 150 years to find someone actually teaching it.

> Either it is supported by the church, or it isn't.

Come on. You know as well as I do that there are things that the church once supported that later fell out of favor and vice versa. Armand Mauss wrote a whole book about this phenomenon.