- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought to start a new thread about our relationship with G-d, mostly in response to the thread “Purpose of mortal life”. I believe that mortal man’s relationship with G-d is governed by 5 logical principles: 1. G-d will not do for any person that which they can do for themself.
2. G-d will do for any person that which they cannot do for themself.
3. G-d will not do anything for or to any person, that which is not beneficial to them.
4. G-d will do anything for or to any person, that which is beneficial to them.
5. G-d will not do anything for or to any person without their acceptance and investment. (Agency)
I do not give these principles because I think I know all or the only possible answers but rather because I believe I can prove each to be true and logical concerning a just and merciful G-d and I have never found proof that any exception to such definite statements would disprove the logic of any of them. I would be most interested if anyone could add to this list. Often individuals speak of G-d doing his work on his time according to his wishes. I am of a different mind in such matters – it is my belief that seemingly exceptions are based in our ignorance or in essence our seeing only in part, the circumstances that are relevant.
I welcome any and all criticism or other comments. As a side note – I am not afraid of any criticism, nor do I find angst in comments contrary to my opinions. I have discovered that I learn more from those that have some disagreement with me than those in complete concurrence. I also do not feel it necessary to force my opinions on anyone. If they are not interested in discussing things more in detail or reviewing with me, my logic or their logic – I have no intent to “convert” anyone against their will. I am honored to review the logic of anything I post and admit when my logic has failed. My only purpose is a quest for truth and to understand the logic others are employing. But I have discovered that often, for reason I do not understand, some are offended when asked to explain their logic in more detail.
People can logic themselves into any position. For instance, I can use logic to show that one and two equals zero. Different people can arrive at contrasting conclusions but I don’t think people on either side of a debate would see their own conclusion as being illogical.
I think what we call logic has more to do with remaining internally consistent within a limited framework. Just because someone can use internal consistency to show the logic of something in a limited framework doesn’t mean that something is universally true.
Watcher wrote:
I have never found proof that any exception to such definite statements would disprove the logic of any of them
Singling out one of your principles…
Something happens to someone. No real specific event, just any event you can imagine. You start with the premise that god won’t do anything to a person that isn’t beneficial to them.
It’s going to be difficult to find exceptions because you can always work your way backwards from the conclusion. Logic starts with assumptions and people have a very human need to preserve their assumptions. The assumptions provide the framework, the framework allows people to come up with predictable formulas, formulas help people make sense of the universe around them, formulas provide people with a sense of security, and logic is the glue that holds the whole thing together.
Say something really terrible happens to someone. You could say that god didn’t do the terrible thing, therefore it’s not an exception to the rule that god won’t do anything to a person that’s not beneficial to them. If believing that everything that happens is god’s will is a part of your framework, then logic might dictate that the really terrible thing that happened was actually beneficial to that person, just in a way they can’t yet recognize. Maybe it’s beneficial to the person by helping them overcome the trial.
Point being, logic makes lots of things true when working within a limited framework, logic is based on assumption, and we all have the tendency to work backwards from a conclusion.
Right. I very much agree with what Nibbler has written. I have an example. I have a pastor friend that was offended by something that Pope Francis had said about the childhood of Jesus. Pope Francis had said something about Baby Jesus being a helpless infant and dependent upon the adults around him.
My pastor friend says that 1) Jesus is G-d, 2) G-d is eternal, 3) G-d is all knowing, 4) G-d is all powerful. My pastor friend’s religious beliefs and assumptive world appear to be built upon these assumptions.
He then logically argues that Baby Jesus could never have been helpless because that would contradict the rule about G-d being all powerful. He is willing to accept that maybe Jesus was pretending to be a helpless infant in order to not totally freak everyone out. Similarly, it would be impossible for anyone to ever teach Jesus anything because G-d is all knowing.
nibbler wrote:
I think what we call logic has more to do with remaining internally consistent within a limited framework. Just because someone can use internal consistency to show the logic of something in a limited framework doesn’t mean that something is universally true.
I’ll focus on your principles 3 and 4, as those are the ones that I feel I most agree with… with an asterisk. I believe that whatever God does is for our benefit eventually. I’ll give two anecdotes that hopefully illustrate why I believe as I do. Both of them have to do with death. All of what I say from here on hinges on the belief that all deaths are the acts of God deliberately moving people onto the next stage of eternity.
The first one, my best friend’s father just recently had his life cut short by an unexpected heart attack that happened right in front of my friend. Understandably, it was very traumatic for my friend and it’s an experience he’ll never be able to forget. His father’s death has also caused a rift in their family as his children maliciously squabble for control of his estate. Aside from eventually receiving their inheritances, there are no immediate benefits in sight. If one was to look at their current state, it would be easy to say that God did something that was not beneficial to them.
However, I want to believe that somehow it will work out for their good in the end. Which leads me to my next example…
My mother died from cancer when I was 18. Her passing came just six months before I left on my mission. My mission was hard enough as it was, but I still had not emotionally recovered before going. So, my mission was made much harder, as well as a few bad experiences were caused that would not have happened otherwise. Ultimately, Salt Lake decided to send me home early for mental health. Had she not passed, perhaps I would’ve had a slightly easier mission and had the fortitude to handle the rest of it.
The silver lining to the story, is that I met my wife during the time that I would have still been on my mission. If I had served my mission for the full two years, I would have never met my wife. So in a way, the two worst experiences of my life led to me meeting the person who has been the best for my life.
So my conclusion is very similar to how I answered another thread you started. It’s impossible to know the all of the reasons of what God does for/to us. I also feel it’s impossible to fully understand how He works. We can only speculate and maybe scratch the surface of understanding Him. It is enough for me to trust that He is in control and everything will work out in the end.
A brief thought also about your fifth principle. Logically, death goes against the idea that God never does anything without a person’s acceptance, as most people don’t choose when or how they die.
This topic was a main part of my own faith crisis, perhaps the main part. It became clear to me God was not what I was taught, which led to the related dominoes falling. It was also a main part of my faith transition – probably the catalyst for moving from crisis to transition. Long story short, while in a deep agnostic state during my crisis I realized I do believe there is a God (interestingly enough thanks to Carl Sagan and “star stuff”) and then it became a matter of developing what I believe God is (and isn’t) and what God does (and doesn’t do). That’s still under development like the rest of my transition but I do have a pretty good handle on what I believe God is and what God does. That said, as I’ve previously stated my views are very much Deist. I believe God is the Creator and set things in motion but is for the most part hands off (and not at all involved in intimate details of our lives as some believe). I can buy into your 1 through 4 with that, but I don’t buy 5 even if I were a true believer. If there is a God and if God acts upon people They* would do so with or without the individual’s consent, acceptance, or investment. The believer could argue that God may only bless those who worship Them but would still seem to believe God acts upon everyone with curses, sufferings or “bad things” (as in Why Bad Things Happen to Good People) regardless of level of belief or commitment except perhaps doing more to the nonbeliever. In other words, it rains on the just and the unjust (and likewise the sun shines on the just and the unjust). The reasonable person, especially a church member who lives in an area where church members are a very small minority as I do, need only look around at their neighbors to see there appears to be little (no) favoritism or especial disfavor.
*I am using they/them here as gender neutral pronouns. That does not preclude that I might also believe that God might consist of multiple entities or could be considered a couple as in Heavenly Parents.
Watcher wrote:
I welcome any and all criticism or other comments. As a side note – I am not afraid of any criticism, nor do I find angst in comments contrary to my opinions. I have discovered that I learn more from those that have some disagreement with me than those in complete concurrence. I also do not feel it necessary to force my opinions on anyone. If they are not interested in discussing things more in detail or reviewing with me, my logic or their logic – I have no intent to “convert” anyone against their will. I am honored to review the logic of anything I post and admit when my logic has failed. My only purpose is a quest for truth and to understand the logic others are employing. But I have discovered that often, for reason I do not understand, some are offended when asked to explain their logic in more detail.
My above response was me as a person, church member, and forum member. This one is that as well, but also wearing the moderator hat.
We’ve touched on the logic thing before. I’m not sure anyone is especially “offended” by being asked to explain their logic as much as it being a case of logic not necessarily applying. There just isn’t much logical about religion (at least the Abrahamic ones). Also, it’s sometimes very difficult to explain why I believe what I believe, and sometimes it’s a matter of an individual not wanting to share intimate details about why they believe what they believe (for many reasons which might include trauma).
And, as we’ve also touched on before, this isn’t necessarily the place for debate or criticism. Criticism by other church members is what led many of us here in crisis. The purpose of our topics and discussions is to help those who are struggling come to a better place for their own well being by mostly validating and supporting what’s going on with them. Having been lost in my own relationship with God (and I was still in that place when I came here) an invalid response for me here would have been “Explain your logic as to why you don’t believe there is a God.” A valid response might have been “Yeah, I’ve been there too (or I can see how you might feel that way). Here’s where I am in that regard right now….”
Occasionally threads are started just to discuss a topic and that’s OK sometimes. Frankly without that at times it would be a bit dead around here (and on occasion is). But more often topics are started because someone is struggling with something and is seeking help. This is a perfectly acceptable topic for someone struggling with their relationship with God, and since some of us have had that struggle the discussion is good. It’s also perfectly acceptable for someone who is trying to figure it out – “What is man’s relationship to God? I really don’t know what I believe.” But this forum is not the place to have debates just for the sake of having the debate or to prove a point.
I believe there is no objective, collective answer to the question of humanity’s relationship to God and that an individual’s relationship depends entirely on that individual’s experiences, personal spiritual orientation, etc. My faith (hope in the unseen) is that there are Gods, that they care about us, that this life does not determine our eternal fate, and that it will make sense after this part of an eternal existence. I cannot be certain of that, since it is in my realm of faith (and I am fine with that and don’t need to force knowledge into realms that require faith), but it is my hope. Also, fwiw, I use the term “humanity” rather than “man” intentionally. Religious history overwhelmingly has privileged men over women, male over female, I believe it is time to retire that bias, especially in a religion that teaches women and men both can become gods. Even we aren’t at the stage of talking openly about equality in that area, but at least we have the theological framework to do it.
Also, on a more personal note as one of the founding administrators, there is no way to prove these things logically that will work universally. They can be proven to ourselves, if we need that to happen, but, in this forum, one of our core guiding principles is that we do not seek to prove our point of view to other participants at the expense of or in opposition to their points of view. We do not seek “the one True answer” about anything.We support each other, which I do for you in this case by accepting that your “proof” is a valid expression of your own perspective, but if you are attempting to prove to the participants here that you are right and they are wrong, you are working against our mission. I would love to have you continue to be part of this community, but we cannot and will not allow participation that opposes our mission. Please understand that and decide if you can support our mission. If so, you are welcome here; if not, we wish you success and support in another forum that fits your own needs better.
nibbler wrote:
People can logic themselves into any position. For instance, I can use logic to show that one and two equals zero.Different people can arrive at contrasting conclusions but I don’t think people on either side of a debate would see their own conclusion as being illogical.
I think what we call logic has more to do with remaining internally consistent within a limited framework. Just because someone can use internal consistency to show the logic of something in a limited framework doesn’t mean that something is universally true.
Watcher wrote:
I have never found proof that any exception to such definite statements would disprove the logic of any of them
Singling out one of your principles…
Something happens to someone. No real specific event, just any event you can imagine. You start with the premise that god won’t do anything to a person that isn’t beneficial to them.
It’s going to be difficult to find exceptions because you can always work your way backwards from the conclusion. Logic starts with assumptions and people have a very human need to preserve their assumptions. The assumptions provide the framework, the framework allows people to come up with predictable formulas, formulas help people make sense of the universe around them, formulas provide people with a sense of security, and logic is the glue that holds the whole thing together.
Say something really terrible happens to someone. You could say that god didn’t do the terrible thing, therefore it’s not an exception to the rule that god won’t do anything to a person that’s not beneficial to them. If believing that everything that happens is god’s will is a part of your framework, then logic might dictate that the really terrible thing that happened was actually beneficial to that person, just in a way they can’t yet recognize. Maybe it’s beneficial to the person by helping them overcome the trial.
Point being, logic makes lots of things true when working within a limited framework, logic is based on assumption, and we all have the tendency to work backwards from a conclusion.
As a mathematician I will tell you that I have delt with such logic as you have suggested and am confident to tell you in advance that such logic if deeply flawed. Usually, such flaws are constructed by using the logic for one type of number theory with another type of number theory. Most often this is done with mixing real and complex numbers.
I will attempt to explain what I have done with the 5 principles that define a logic structure by which we can realize that the relationship of G-d and man follows principles of logic. If we assume that G-d is both merciful and just – how can we create a structure of understanding? What is merciful and just is quite ambitious and has no means of metrics. I spent a lifetime as an engineer and scientist (now retired) and came to realize that if we have no means of observing and logically categorizing or cataloging our observations – we cannot say we understand or can utilize what we think we are observing.
What I have attempted to do is to provide that framework of logical principles form which someone can catalog and categorize their personal experiences with G-d. That is assuming that G-d is merciful, just and as Isaiah prophesied – that he makes his “secrets” known unto man (us).
Here are the principles relisted for convenience:
1G-d will not do for any person that which they can do for themself.
2. G-d will do for any person that which they cannot do for themself.
3. G-d will not do anything for or to any person, that which is not beneficial to them.
4. G-d will do anything for or to any person, that which is beneficial to them.
5. G-d will not do anything for or to any person without their acceptance and investment. (Agency)
Principles 1 and 3 reflect a metric for justice. Principles 2 and 4 reflect a metric for mercy. Principle 5 is a corresponding logical reflection of agency. None of the principles are intended to be applied separately but rather all used together in combination (as an aggregate only – never singularly) . As both as scientist and theologian I believe that we should utilize both disciplines in this time of restoration of knowledge to better understand our relationship with G-d.
I did not intend these to be the answer to all questions but rather to provide a structure anyone can use to navigate our spiritual and physical journey through mortality to both think critically now and have hope for what is to come.
Watcher wrote:
As a mathematician I will tell you that I have delt with such logic as you have suggested and am confident to tell you in advance that such logic if deeply flawed. Usually, such flaws are constructed by using the logic for one type of number theory with another type of number theory. Most often this is done with mixing real and complex numbers.
That’s kind of my point. It’s much easier to notice a shift in number theory when the subject is math. Especially when you’re familiar with multiple number theories.
It’s much, much harder to recognize a shift in perspective when it comes to spiritual matters because it’s very hard to see past our own perspective. You could be talking about one spiritual theory for man’s relationship to god but be unaware of a myriad of other spiritual theories. When you try to take the logic from one spiritual theory and apply it to the others you get the deep flaws you’re talking about.
Old-Timer wrote:
Also, on a more personal note as one of the founding administrators, there is no way to prove these things logically that will work universally. They can be proven to ourselves, if we need that to happen, but, in this forum, one of our core guiding principles is that we do not seek to prove our point of view to other participants at the expense of or in opposition to their points of view.We do not seek “the one True answer” about anything.We support each other, which I do for you in this case by accepting that your “proof” is a valid expression of your own perspective, but if you are attempting to prove to the participants here that you are right and they are wrong, you are working against our mission. I would love to have you continue to be part of this community, but we cannot and will not allow participation that opposes our mission. Please understand that and decide if you can support our mission. If so, you are welcome here; if not, we wish you success and support in another forum that fits your own needs better.
I have discovered that life is much easier and more successful if one utilized the correct tool that is needed for a specific job. My purpose is to both provide and discover tools that can be used to navigate problems we discover and attempt to find resolution. There is an advertisement on TV where a person is working on a car and asks for a specific tool and is handed a feather. They proceed to try to fix the car with the feather.
I have also discovered that if one employs logic they will come to logical conclusions. These conclusions can be compared to others that think they have come to a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions most always converge and seldom diverge. My wonderful wife loves to watch a particular channel on TV (Hallmark) where two individuals always follow the same formatted path to love. One particular saying that is often used in these presented dramas is “I must follow my heart”. Personally, whenever I have attempted to follow such advice, it has proven to be illogical, diverse and ineffective. If my personal experiences seem critical it is because for me such things do not work so well. If other are offended at my learning from my failures – the failure is likely mine for expressing or communicating incorrectly. But this seems to be what the logical purpose of this forum is trying to do.
As for the forum – I personally am never (no longer) angered by discussions. Even if words are critical and intended to be slanderous towards me. The reason is that in my experience, getting upset over what someone else has said – has never been beneficial to me. Having learned and experience this simple lesson – I am somewhat confused when it is rejected rather than considered – but that is the right of every person. To listen and accept what they want and reject what they will.
I would bring one other thought to this discussion – The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and modify behavior. I personally like that definition even though it is not of my making. I am not saying that it is right and I can prove it. I am offering it as a tool and food for thought. Because I have included it in my opinions of intelligent things, I realize that others can learn and modify their initial intended purpose as well as I can learn and modify my initial intended purpose in posting if we are intelligent. Not that I am right – but as another possibility to consider.
Watcher wrote:
I have also discovered that if one employs logic they will come to logical conclusions.
This is not always true. Or perhaps a conclusion may be logical, but not necessarily correct. As an engineer myself, I also place a high value on logic. However, there are serious limitations to logic alone. In the field of artificial intelligence there is a phrase “garbage in, garbage out”. No matter how amazing your algorithm or logic is, if the data you input is bad or biased, the outputs will be lacking as well. Similarly, we humans are limited by our own biases, assumptions, range of experiences, and beliefs. There are many intelligent, logical people who have argued in favor of several theories about God’s relationship to man. There are many other intelligent and logical people who have argued for conflicting theories or even against the idea of God altogether. Some of these people use the exact same logical principles but arrive at opposite conclusions. The problem is, all of us humans start with different datasets containing our own biases and experiences. So no matter how sound our logic is, our conclusions often reflect those biases. So the best we can do is follow our own logic with the awareness that it is influenced to some degree by our own biases, and remember to be open minded and empathetic to the experiences of others who are working with different data.
Quote:What I have attempted to do is to provide that framework of logical principles form which someone can catalog and categorize their personal experiences with G-d. That is assuming that G-d is merciful, just and as Isaiah prophesied – that he makes his “secrets” known unto man (us).
Here are the principles relisted for convenience:
1G-d will not do for any person that which they can do for themself.
2. G-d will do for any person that which they cannot do for themself.
3. G-d will not do anything for or to any person, that which is not beneficial to them.
4. G-d will do anything for or to any person, that which is beneficial to them.
5. G-d will not do anything for or to any person without their acceptance and investment. (Agency)
Principles 1 and 3 reflect a metric for justice. Principles 2 and 4 reflect a metric for mercy. Principle 5 is a corresponding logical reflection of agency. None of the principles are intended to be applied separately but rather all used together in combination (as an aggregate only – never singularly) . As both as scientist and theologian I believe that we should utilize both disciplines in this time of restoration of knowledge to better understand our relationship with G-d.
I did not intend these to be the answer to all questions but rather to provide a structure anyone can use to navigate our spiritual and physical journey through mortality to both think critically now and have hope for what is to come.
This is an interesting framework to categorize your beliefs. I used to have a similar framework consisting of what I considered the foundational truths that I was most confident in and from which I could logically reason every other part of my testimony. It was good to have a structure to “catalog and categorize” my experiences, like you said. Though in my case I eventually had personal experiences which caused me to revisit those foundational axioms and my beliefs took a different turn.
But I do think it can be a worthwhile exercise to categorize beliefs into a framework like this. Likely many members of the forum have their own frameworks that have led them to what they currently believe. Such a framework can provide structure to bring our personal beliefs together as a unified whole that allows us to then make sense of new knowledge and experiences as we gain them.
Nobody here is acting in anger to anything that has been said here. Period. I repeat: If your belief is that your conclusions are logical and correct, other people’s conclusions are illogical and incorrect, and you need to convince others of that stance, this is not the correct place for you. That literally is in direct opposition to our mission. That is not what we created this site to do. That approach does not “fill the measure of (this site’s) creation”. It literally opposes and works against it.
I can’t say it more clearly. Please decide if you can accept that other people’s faithful views can be different than yours and be logical and acceptable – and if you can participate here without a missionary mindset of converting other people to “the truth” as you see it. If so, you are welcome to stay; if not, there are multiple other sites that suit your own mission better.
As a personal suggestion, Watcher, I would say to pause for a few days and look through our archived posts to get a feel for how we operate and how our discussions typically flow. That might help you understand our mission and see if you believe you can support it as we structure it. “StayLDS” can sound like a traditional, orthodox apologetic site, so I understand if we are not what you expected when you came across us. Reading through our archives could help clarify our mission and whether or not you can support it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.