A comment my uncle made about me leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brought to mind how the Book of Mormon asserts belief in God. There is one chapter (Alma, chapter 30) that specifically address atheism. The character advocating atheism is a moral nihilist1 and, it turns out, a theist in denial!2
The Book of Mormon's argument for God
First, there is a God because I "know" it,3 implying that knowledge is intrinsically established in the consciousness, irrespective of the senses. Therefore, consciousness, not existence, has primacy in deciding truth.
Second, there is no "proof" that God does not exist.4 The burden of proof always lies with the person denying an assertion.
Third, "all things" are a "testimony" that God exists.5 Even though, the consciousness establishes reality, irrespective of the senses, as a secondary confirmation, the majority of things that perceived through the senses have a nature that confirms the existence of God.
Fourth, there is the "testimony" of "all the holy prophets",6 that is, the authority of people who talk to perpetually-burning bushes or hear voices in their dreams, establishes the existence of a God. Note only the prophets that are "holy", i.e. whose claims match the correct one, provide "testimony".
Finally, the rotation of the earth and the stability of the planets in our solar system definitely tell us there is a God.6 Without God's power, objects with mass would not attract one another and find a stable configuration.
My response
Every point in this argument is wrong.
Existence has primacy over consciousness. No one can change the identities of things in reality by power of their consciousness. In fact, the consciousness originates in the senses' perceptions of reality. Asserting that you "know" something is no argument. How do you know it? How do you justify the validity of the means by which you came to know it?
The burden of proof lies on the person asserting the existence of something or some event, and the magnitude of proof necessary grows with the magnitude of the claim (does this make claims for an infinite being require infinite evidence, and hence impossible?). There is no proof that Siddhartha Gautama did not achieve Nirvana, that the angel Gabriel did not reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad, or that Vishnu does not pervade the universe. Yet each of these claims leads to contradictions if accepted in light of no proof against their occurrence. Shifting the burden of proof away from the positive claimant opens the door for all arbitrary claims.
All things are a testimony for the law of identity and for causality. The law of identity is that every thing in the universe exists with a specific identity delineating it from everything else. Any thing in the universe (and therefore the universe itself as a sum total of all in it) is necessarily finite and delimited. The Book of Mormon asserts that God has "all wisdom, and all power"7 and "infinite goodness",8-11 but all things in nature are finite and delimited. Something with all power (able to manipulate anything) is unseen anywhere in nature. The Book of Mormon attributes all good to God.12 Such a viewpoint contradicts causality and/or free will. If God is the cause of all good, but not all evil, then objects in reality act according to their identities (causality) except when God intervenes to cause good. Human beings act according to their decisions (free will) except when God intervenes to cause good, but all things testify to the law of identity and to causality. God would be a contradiction to those things, not testified of by those things.
Appealing to authority is not a valid argument. Which people are authorities? By what means do you verify an authority's credentials?
The stability of the solar system and the earth's rotation on its axis witness only to the universal laws governing the motion and interaction of objects and the particular identities of the objects involved. Achieving or maintaining such stability requires no external force, i.e. God.
A proper view of epistemology goes a long way in clearing up these misconceptions. In contrast with the character presented in the Book of Mormon, I reject moral nihilism and advocate an objective morality to further human life on this earth.
Update: Fixed link and typo.
References
1. Book of Mormon, Alma, Ch. 30, Verse 17. "[W]hatsoever a man did was no crime" (the context implies crime in the moral not legal sense).
2. Ibid., Verse 52. "I always knew that there was a God."
3. Ibid., Verse 39. "I say unto you, I know there is a God."
4. Ibid., Verse 40. "[W]hat evidence have ye that there is no God ...? ... [Y]e have none, save it be your word only."
5. Ibid., Verse 41. "I have all things as a testimony that these things are true."
6. Ibid., Verse 44. "[Y]e have the
testimony of ... all the holy prophets."
7. Book of Mormon, Mosiah, Ch. 4, Verse 9.
8. Ibid., 2 Nephi, Ch. 1, Verse 10.
9. Ibid., Mosiah, Ch. 5, Verse 3.
10. Ibid., Helaman, Ch. 12, Verse 1.
11. Ibid., Moroni, Ch. 8, Verse 3.
12. Ibid., Alma, Ch. 5, Verse 40. "[W]hatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
LOL
You missed the point, it's about faith and Korihor's lack thereof. He too used sophistry and self delusion to try to make his point. He lacked the courage to take something on faith. Alma's rebuttal is based his lack of faith and unwillingness to believe in the testimony of others.
You choose to believe the testimony of a different group of "prophets". Your choice. It seems empty to me. It denigrates our existance to say it is merely the product of random events.
William:
I'm deeply saddened by your decision, but I do understand it. After all, at some point in our lives, everyone evaluates their beliefs and comes to a conclusion on how those beliefs fit in with their own self-perceptions. I've done it just as you have.
You make a couple of points I'd like to address. The first is that, as I understand it, you believe that the burden of proof lies on God to prove Himself to you. Is this really what you believe? If you understand God as a Supreme Being, or any other being for that matter, why does He have to prove Himself to you in order to exist? Moreover, hasn't God already proven Himself to you? I'm sure that He has, you just need to look a little harder. Besides, the point of this life is not simply to have things proven to us, but rather to pursue all knowledge and understanding through our own limited means.
Additionally, there are things that cannot be proven but still exist. Einstein himself believed in God and found that the closer he got to understanding the universe, the closer he came to believe that there was a God at the head. Now, the nature of that God can come into question, but many of the great minds of our time, and times past, have believed in a God, whether by faith or by intellectual understanding. The point here is that God exists, and that it is up to you to find Him, and not the other way around.
I don't say any of this to make you feel bad. Rather, I'm simply trying to understand a conclusion that does not make sense to me as an intellectual. I'm interested to know why you believe that God has to prove that He exists. If you could help me understand that, I would be appreciative.
The proof found in bloganders.blogspot.com (right menu) both proves the existence of a Creator and His purpose.
Andrew, Since you are a Mormon (it seems) I think that the website www.netzarim.co.il will be of interest to you. It contains logical and scientific research about Ribi Yehoshua (the Messiah) from Nazareth and what he taught.
All the best, Anders Branderud
Post a Comment