The Chronicles of Gemli

[_Gadianton]

Part 2 of our special Thanksgiving Debate.

Let's get to it! Gemli's opening statement on the main branch of discussion is worth reading in its entirety, but we'll need to snip it:

Darwinism doesn't disprove God. The most vehement assertions of atheists don't disprove God. The Big Bang and Quantum mechanics don't disprove God. The point is that nothing can disprove God, and neither can anything prove God...The word "God" is used to represent what we don't know...But that's not the salient point. It's the fact that even the most religious scientists never include a God factor in their equations.

Ouch! This post hit so hard it brought first-string debater Kiwi57 out of hiding. To "God represents what we don't know" he says:

Not by believers, it isn't. However, you use words like "religion" and "theism" to represent subjects you proudly know nothing about, and even more proudly refuse to learn - and nevertheless continue to rant incoherently about.

He's back with a vengeance! But is he on target? Consider this branch from earlier in the thread:

I think you credit science with way too much explanatory power. How much can science tell us about what is true, good, and beautiful?

Ah yes. Remember the NOMA principle this blog defends? The point of Jack's comment here and the NOMA principle is to negatively define God by what isn't in the domain of science. It's the edge of the cliff rather than a "gap". Once we know what science says, and that seems stable, and if we're afraid to tread on that ground, we declare all the other stuff "God", because we're pretty sure science can't go there.

And speaking of ignorance of theology, shouldn't Kiwi57 have a sit-down with the rest of his team about who is behind the creation of the universe, and thus, the cause of all natural events? And so Kiwi57 fails to make the point.

Moving on, this debate gets into some pretty long statements from both sides about what atheists are claiming in their disbelief. To pick a few Gemli statements representative:

The reason that atheists are unconvinced is that theistic claims are designed to be impossible to test, and nearly always violate physical laws that reliably define the world we live in.

God violates so many laws of physics, rationality and common sense that I'm sure the 2nd law is in there somewhere.

God's existence is a definite claim that some people make. The claimants have an obligation to demonstrate that their claim is true. But no one, neither theist nor atheist, can present evidence for an invisible being that defies detection.

I beg to differ. Theistic claims have evolved (yes, evolved) to eliminate those which expanding scientific knowledge has made obsolete

There may seem to be tension in his statements, but I think it's a matter of context, and the apologists have a knack for changing the discussion. I think it's clear he's saying that as knowledge progresses, claims about God are either outright falsified, change so they can't be falsified, or are left to fly in the face of known science, while at the same time being extraordinarily difficult to test.

There weren't many good responses to these points. Several called for Gemli to justify an apparent past statement he made about God violating the Second Law of thermodynamics. Anyone familiar with Hugh Nibley and who has read FARMS Temple and Cosmos knows that it's a sacred fact of Jesus' ministry to violate the Second Law.

The best counter to one of Gemli's points came from first-string debater Kiwi57:

Gemli: "But we know that stars aren't points of light affixed to the celestial sphere"

So what? Informed people know that that's not a "theistic claim," but obsolete science.

Gemli mentioned stars as points of light along with resurrection. The debate ended before Gemli could respond, but Kiwi57 and the blog author have apparently forgotten that primitive ideas about the natural world, not to mention all kinds of other hearsay and myth such as the flood, found its way into ancient texts that happened to have religious significance. Christianity comes along and declares these texts to be the infallible word of God. Perhaps "primitive science" may have been the origin for many ideas found in the Bible, but it is theology that elevates primitive conjectures to the unquestionable pronouncements of God.

And so Gemli clearly has won this debate.

From time to time we award style points for for grace of presentation. Style points can be taken away also. Perhaps the hardest part of this debate to read was Jack quoting Shakespear, in order to impress the blog author, who, embarrassed, moved along without commenting. That gets the Mopologists a -1. Gemli on the other hand, gets a +1 for this statement:

We've made up reasons for centuries that have nothing to do with reality, and we hold on to them like grim death.

It's just too silly a notion to take seriously, and the fact that I'm having to argue the point means that humanity is doomed. Hooray for your side.

LOL!

So we wrap up Black Friday with the current score:

Debate wins:

Gemli 3

Apologists 0

Style points:

Gemli 1

Apologists -1

[_Lemmie]

thanks, Gad! Stunning analysis as usual.

Could we consider a category for comments one is most likely to regret in the future? I nominate the blogger himself:

Learn from kiwi57, gemli.

This is an opportunity for you.

[_Philo Sofee]

This is better than Saturday Nights at the fights! Thank you for this stellar commentary and analysis.

[_Philo Sofee]

Sic et non
The insistence of some militantly reductionist adherents of naturalism, that “mind” is merely a more or less illusory product of purely chemical/physical processes...Why should I pay any more attention to the neurochemical events in an atheist’s brain than to his digestive process?

The weatherman insists that it is going to rain when the clouds blacken, the wind brings them over and they begin to pour, why pay attention to them idiots? Uh, because of the *evidence*..... I mean, that might be some kind of reason I would suppose. In the book (2016) "The Illusion of God's Presence," a book Sic et Non will not read, and if he does, will militantly dismiss rather than fathom and integrate, the latest most up to date evidence on neuroscience is presented such that a mere sophomore can grasp its essentials. The proof is given of a fundamental sort that the brain gives us our mind. It truly is, actually, literally, all physical. Sean Carroll (2016) "The Big Picture" shows that we have literally taken it down to as far as is physically possible with matter, into the smallest constituents, then learned what is underneath matter. It is pure pattern. There is nothing there, physically, refined spirit or otherwise. There is literally nothing except matter and energy. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of this argument.
But this militant faithist, Sic et Non, imagines somewhere, somehow, his god will come through for the theology of Joseph Smith, so he militantly cackles and clucks his way into irrelevance for being a militant teacher of militant faith truth. He is and has become an militant apologist of obfuscation. An amazing performance of militant obdurate, deliberate ignorance so that perhaps militant faith religion might somehow squeeze something relevant into it someway.

[_Lemmie]

While we are waiting to return to our (hopefully!) regularly scheduled commentary from Gadianton, I thought it would be interesting to share some tidbits from the comments. For example:

DanielPeterson Mod > Qwerty • 3 hours ago

I've noticed that some others tend to use the word "obviously" to try to sneak highly disputable assertions past readers without doing the heavy lifting of providing evidence and supporting analysis.

Thanks for providing yet another example of this interesting gambit, Qwerty.

[my emphasis]

Note that this comment from our illustrious blogger is attached to a blog entry which HE entitled:

An undeniably true prophecy from Joseph Smith

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... iUxWyXc.99


You canNOT make this stuff up.

[_Philo Sofee]

WHEE!!!!!!!

It's as humorous as the militant faithists imagining that there is no validity to naturalism because they always label the scientists as "militant materialists," or "militant" this or that. If they are always militant about it, they can't very well be credible can they?! They are being asked by today's Galileos to just look into the telescope for themselves, and they refuse to saying all manner of irrelevantisms such as well Shakespeare for one said there is more than you dream of in your philosophy, so we have no need to do the crude thing and actually look and see for ourselves. or else they will describe the climate of Cuba, the economy of Iceland, or the gay sex in Australia.... anything but actually look at the evidence themselves and learn what it entails.

[_Gadianton]

Yeah, the "learn from" imperative has been leveled a few times. Well, Kiwi is first string for a reason.

[_Gadianton]

Gemli must be taking a long holiday, spending time with friends and family being thankful, rather than looking for a fight online.

There have been a number of science threads, but very few comments by the apologist debate team. They should post more and work on their skills during the break.

Anyway, as an "intermission", I present some of the current bad reasoning of the apologists.

Sadly, there are some folks who believe that, because science doesn't venture into questions having to do with the purpose of life, such questions must be irrelevant. And, as a result, they intuit that life has no purpose--except, perhaps, that which individuals conjure up through an ad hoc attempt to find meaning in their own lives.

The first sentence is hands-down false. The second sentence is mostly false, but if we grant the benefit of the doubt that this person is trying to say religion gives life external purpose and that's really meaningful, while atheists make their own meaning, and that's not objectively meaningful and hell, it could be anything, no matter how stupid, then there's a pretty good practical response to this.

Think about how much meaning any religion with an external, God-created purpose gives you, excepting Mormonism. Think of your close neighboring religions that believe God predestined most of mankind to hell. Being predestined to hell technically gives your life meaning because it fulfills God's will and pleasure. Even when agency is allowed, finding the kingdom of God is like threading a needle, so most of humanity will end up in hell screaming in pain. And even if that's not the case and most are saved, the criteria has nothing to do with being tried and tested, but a ten second salvation prayer and eternity in heaven without marriage and sex access to an eternal companion.

A very nice Muslim woman on my mission explained very nicely to me once, that if I don't accept "the prophet" then it's really bad. I'll be under the ground being bit by scorpions and spiders forever. Move on to Buddhism and the belief that our purpose is to escape individuality (basically, escape being "saved") and dissolve away like a wave pulled back into the ocean. If you really believe that only a God-given external purpose matters, then you must at minimum accept any major religious traditions interpretation of reality as giving REAL purpose to everyone's life, even if, and perhaps especially if, it goes against your own silly personal whims, wants, and needs.

Most nit-wit Mormons will only allow real purpose to be -- guess what? Whatever goes along with what's best for them personally. Not just Mormonism, but whatever their own brand of Mormonism is. So take the good life they'd want to make for themselves based on their own subjective whims and that's the only reality they will accept as a valid external purpose. God isn't the author of purpose for the Mormon rube, but more like a philanthropist willing to give them the cash to have whatever they wan't.

So, Mormons, you ought to give up on this "God gives us purpose" bit because you don't believe it. If a super powerful being came to you and said that Mormonism is out, but you have the choice of either atheism being true, or we roll a six-sided dice with six other God-fearing religions and the one that lands face up is true, every single last one of you idiots will pick atheism. Trust me.