JohnH

Karma: −231

JohnH May 25, 2011, 5:27 AM
2 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Lonely Dissent

missionaries don’t convert many outsiders,

More converts are obtained then are born into the church. Since missionaries are in pairs then last year there were an average of 10 converts per missionary pair. Does this count as many or few?

JohnH May 25, 2011, 4:37 AM
−7 points
in reply to: ChrisPine’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted
Your post only makes sense if God does not exist and if His prophets are not real. If the opposite assumptions are held, as they should by anyone of most religions and most especially someone that is LDS, then much of what you said falls apart. As if God is real and a book actually does contain His word then contradicting that book would be going against what is real and therefore not rational.

So it is not because an old book said so but because God said so and since it is God that said so one is able to confirm for oneself the truthfulness of not only the “old book” but also of the claim that it is wrong to forbid others from eating meat (or whatever else). Since God is all-knowing and we are not then when our limited understanding contradicts what God has said should we claim that God does not exist despite evidence that He does or should we think that we are mistaken in our views?

If God exists then that which is predicated on His non-existence becomes irrational and the rational thing to do is to change those views that contradict His. If there is no God to listen to then it is clearly irrational to listen to God, as He wouldn’t exist in that case. However, if there is Something to listen to then why is it irrational to listen to It?

Many of the conclusions drawn on this site depend on the non-existence of God and fall apart if He does in fact exist (and one is able to verify for oneself that He does). However, even with the existence of God it is still extremely useful to learn to be more rational (the stated goal of the site) as God does not command in all things but expects us to govern ourselves based on the principles He has given. I wish all men everywhere would take ideas seriously and attempt to be rational in their beliefs and in their actions.

JohnH May 25, 2011, 12:26 AM
2 points
on: Future of Humanity?
Nukes could be extremely useful in powering spacecraft, Pluto would be less than a year round trip. If the arsenals are to be reduced the nukes should be used for a Project Orion. Even without that, Nukes are useful in that they could potentially deflect asteroids.

Aggression and Competitiveness certainly have their place in a Capitalist society. The important thing is to direct such behavioral tendencies into business instead of into war or politics.

JohnH May 23, 2011, 9:58 PM
−2 points
in reply to: Estarlio’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

Alma 32:18 [I]f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it. But if knowledge was just a belief with 100% confidence, then that you knew it would mean you had quite a few causes to believe it.

I always took it to mean that if one knows something one has no cause to doubt it.

Belief as defined at dictionary.com does work with saying that one does not believe something one knows, being if a statement has proof then one does not believe it (see # 2).

It seems to be using belief-in as opposed to belief-that. If not then you are right that my definition of knowledge doesn’t work.

it was originally hot drinks in general which was changed later on when it became untenable

It appears to have been clarified in July of 1833 when the revelation was given in February of 1833.

JohnH May 21, 2011, 4:00 AM
−2 points
in reply to: Estarlio’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

meaning two things by knowledge, depending on the context in which you use it.

I think you are right in this assessment.

when you wanted to start talking about scripture again I suspect you’d end up saying either, ‘People don’t believe that which they know.’ Or, ‘People don’t believe that which they have faith in.’

??? - you lost me here. Why would I end up saying that people don’t believe that which they know? Why would I have to redefine belief?

You could do the same sort of thing with the more day to day predictions of prophets from the Church but you’d need to compare them against experts in whatever field the prediction was being made in since the real world provides more information than they’d have in the coin flip case

Take the Word of Wisdom for instance the experts in the health fields are still not able to agree as to whether coffee, tea, and alcohol are good or bad for you in the long run. The LDS Church however has consistently said they were. If the revelations from God are correct then one would expect that those that follow the revelations would be healthier than similar populations, which is indeed the case. Is this the type of thing that you mean?

JohnH May 20, 2011, 5:40 AM
−6 points
in reply to: Estarlio’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

meaningful faith

what do you mean by meaningful faith?

knowledge would just be a high degree of faith

Knowledge would be certainty. However, this site works with the assumption that certainty is impossible so I am trying to get everything to work under that assumption.

I am looking at my computer right now so I am certain it exists were I to look away I would be slightly less certain of its existence. That difference in certainty of the current existence of the computer seems to constitute faith as used in scripture and lectures on faith. However, I am still certain that the computer did exist while I was looking at it even if I am not looking at it currently, I know it existed then (I would say that my degree of certainty of it currently existing would still constitute knowledge, but as used it would seem to be in some sense faith).

According to this site I can not say that I know with certainty that I am male. I wonder what the confidence level is that I exist or that you exist. I have seen examples of saying that one can not be certain of the prime numbers or of 1+1=2. To me all these things are certainties, I know them even if in reproducing that knowledge to an outside observer I might err in doing so. This is what I mean by knowledge, if you can come up with a better way of explaining it in terms of this site where there is no certainty other then what I have explained then please do so.

JohnH May 20, 2011, 5:29 AM
−4 points
in reply to: Estarlio’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted
Did you not understand that the peril of knowledge is only if one does not follow what one knows? Knowledge is not something to be feared but to be sought after and this is true of all knowledge. Of course with knowledge comes responsibility to use that knowledge well and this is again true of all types of knowledge.

if we become unworthy of returning to God that removes a lot of the reason for being here. Why not be embodied and immediately die? The purpose of life then having been completed.

I actually had a discussion on Less Wrong already that covered this. The only purpose of life is not just to gain a body but also to see if we would choose to follow what is right. I do not know what the state of those that die before they are able to make such choices is except that they are saved and exalted. I see I did not explain that this life is for testing to see what we will do without the constant certainty we had before.

If his revealing himself helps people to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils them, then in his not revealing himself to me I have lost something.

This is a personal thing, if Him revealing Himself to you helps you to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils you then in His not revealing Himself to you, you would have lost something. The only way it would hurt more than help is if you were to listen and to not follow, just as the only way it would help more than hurt is if you were to listen and to follow.

I’d be more than happy to give symmetrical power to an AI, assuming I had godly powers.

Would you then be willing to entrust that AI with control of some world populated with billions of people?

If you take it to the extreme, omnipotence and reason are mutually exclusive criteria. (Outside, perhaps, of an inability to commit logical contradictions, but that doesn’t really seem to be involved here.)

We would need to precisely define omnipotence as it is often understood to be an nonsensical concept. Also, the type of omnipotence that God actually has (as understood by me, a Latter-Day Saint) is nothing like what other Christians claim He has.

There are more restrictions then just an inability to commit logical contradictions. If I have said something contradictory then please point it out so I can see if that is what I actually meant and if it is, if that is actually what the doctrine is.

I’ve seen no proof of right and wrong. A feeling certainly isn’t proof; asides from anything else I’ve felt different ways about ethical issues at different points in time.

This goes back to why God reveals Himself, so that we can find out what is actually right. If you are doing what is right to the best of your understanding and knowledge as it currently is then that is fine. If with a greater understanding things you thought were right turn out to have been wrong then you are not accountable for doing what was wrong if you actually thought it was right. The ability to judge what is right and wrong is given to everyone.

JohnH May 20, 2011, 5:29 AM
−4 points
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

X is true—that you have not taken

I assume you mean by this that I have not proven to your satisfaction that X is true? I have presented to you most things that are easily with in my reach to show that God is real or to show ways to prove to yourself that God is real.

Consistency doesn’t make it apply to reality but I feel it is a necessary prerequisite to doing so.

could you please tell me what brought you to this belief?

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Moses 1:39

Then the knowledge that God is a glorified and perfected man, that is when it says “in our image and likeness” it wasn’t being figurative and that when Christ says He only does what He saw His Father do He was speaking literally. Also, “the glory of God is intelligence”. Also, the fact that if God did not act consistently then He would cease to be God, as per the Book of Mormon. Also, the fact that when Jesus said that life eternal was knowing God He was telling the truth and God is knowable.

Therefore God has a purpose, He acts consistently, and He is understandable, and He was human but is now perfectly intelligent. Therefore He has reasons for everything that He does.

JohnH May 19, 2011, 5:57 PM
1 point
on: The Aliens have Landed!
Why would we be willing to believe that they will stop the torture if we killed ourselves? Further, if we killed ourselves why wouldn’t they delete or kill the people being tortured?

They gave us the diagrams of themselves if I understand correctly and from the story we have the understanding to tell they tell the truth. What is to stop us from building massive super computers that can simulate some way of torturing trillions of them unless they stop simulating the torture of us? By communicating this possibility to the aliens and letting them know that if they don’t stop by the time the torture computers are built we will immediately begin construction on yet another torture computer to double the amount of torture then, if the aliens have the morality that they are assuming of us, they will immediately stop torturing the simulations.

JohnH May 19, 2011, 3:47 PM
6 points
in reply to: Armok_GoB’s comment on: What bothers you about Less Wrong?

There is a category of religiously inspired posts that creep me out and set of cult alarms. It contains that post about staring from Scientology and that Transcendental meditation stuff that while I found it interesting and perhaps useful doesn’t seem to belong on LW and now recently these Mormon posts abut growing organizations. shudder

I actually agree with this statement.

JohnH May 18, 2011, 11:51 PM
−5 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

the prohibitions of section 89 are at least laughably incomplete

Please remember it was given in 1833 and that there is continuing revelation such that many other substances not listed in the section 89 are likewise banned. Also, please note that in vs 3 it states that it is given for a principle so that if one is too weak to resist the addiction of X then that person should avoid X, that is the principle (well, the one that gets the most attention at least)

God does not command in all things and we are to be taught correct principles and then govern ourselves. Hence the reason that vegetarianism is perfectly acceptable to the church. Also the reason that God was not required to list all of the substances that would in the future need to be banned.

JohnH May 18, 2011, 11:20 PM
−9 points
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

It’s a reasonable assumption, that’s why.

What of the other things that are allowed yet still have caffeine?

you do not see the need to provide reasons other than God or revelation

I have the belief that there are reasons for what God does and what is in revelation. I do not claim to know all of the reasons, though and think that some of the reasons people assume for such things aren’t consistent.

If God is real and is all knowing then when He says something then that is the way it is. How is that not consistent?

JohnH May 18, 2011, 11:02 PM
−8 points
in reply to: Vladimir_M’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

those supposed total alcohol death statistics

I just put up what I found from what are generally considered reliable sources.

the idea that total abstinence would make everyone (or even the majority of people in Western countries) healthier is just ludicrous.

If you say so. Every population study that I have seen puts latter-day saints that practice at or above the life expectancy of the other longest lived population groups such as Asians.

JohnH May 18, 2011, 10:44 PM
−9 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted
Caffeine is not what is prohibited, that is an assumption that many people make but that is not well founded as there are many things that contain caffeine that are allowed.

It actually is wine and strong drink for the alcohol.

Shouldn’t the Mormons ban ice?

Considering it is a revelation from God that statement should be changed to “Shouldn’t God ban ice?”.

As to the rest, we believe in continuing revelation, therefore it is completely consistent for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to have clarified the position. Anything more then that is between the individual member and God and if shared is speculation.

JohnH May 18, 2011, 9:25 PM
−7 points
in reply to: Estarlio’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

You seem to be invoking, admittedly with some degree of displacement, the term in its own description.

I know, probably should be changed to “anything that is held to be true with such a level of confidence so as to not make any difference from 100%”. That removes the term but doesn’t seem to change the meaning.

faith would be something like believing with a greater certainty than the evidence justifies

hmm. That would certainly be faith but it doesn’t fit exactly with how it is used in, say “Lectures on Faith”. The confidence is the faith, it really is that broad of a concept.

JohnH 18 May 2011 20:47 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: ChrisPine’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

… this is certainly not what I had in mind.

I assumed it was, based on the “not in moderation”.

But the Mormon church also forbids a glass or two of wine with dinner, once a week.

Yes it does. You are free to read section 89 where it is so forbidden to see why.

In any case, one can look at the rings of trees, match them up to older trees, match those up to still older trees..

Not sure the trees would have died. Also not sure of the exact nature of the flood. The myth is an extremely common one and myths are usually based on some sort of fact. That we haven’t definitively shown what this was based on does not mean that it did not exist.

it is unethical to eat animals, for example, which the church would find to be incorrect

I just showed that the church would not find this to be incorrect. I actually know some members that hold this exact position and they are members in good standing. Like I said some of the presidents of the church have held this position.

Something being culturally being less acceptable has nothing to do with whether it is incorrect or not. That the culture within much of the church would be biased against holding a vegetarian or vegan position it is true but that is nowhere near the same as saying the church itself holds the position to be wrong.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by “playing logic games”

I assume that you do not hold that position then. I have had multiple discussions with people that did hold that position and it is one of the more annoying things to deal with.

I’m not even sure which one is responsible for more deaths per year,

Alcohol causes about 23,000 fatalities a year. Pools appear to cause about 3,500 fatalities per year. Tobacco causes about 400,000 fatalities per year. Cars cause about 40,000 fatalities per year.

Many of the alcohol deaths are also car fatalities as well.

Per usage alcohol has a higher death rate then either tobacco or pools. Over the long term tobacco clearly has a higher death rate. I am unsure as to if marijuana has a similar long term usage effect. To be consistent society should either make alcohol and tobacco illegal or legalize all other substances with a similar amount of harm. I personally think each state should be able to make the decision.

JohnH 18 May 2011 14:40 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: khafra’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted
Some of the nations were opened up before 1990. Further, this is not saying one country opened up but many. Perhaps you are not aware that in 1976 it appeared as though communism would last forever and saying not just one but that all of Soviet bloc would not be communist in 14 years was viewed as an impossibility.

if you’re charitable enough to forgive 3 failures for each 1 amazingly correct prediction, the prophet cannot lose.

Where are the failures?

JohnH 18 May 2011 14:29 UTC
2 points
in reply to: anonym’s comment on: Tolerate Tolerance
For me, this appears to be correct.

JohnH 18 May 2011 14:20 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: Celer’s comment on: Tolerate Tolerance
If one is intolerant of intolerance then one is just as intolerant as those that are claimed to be intolerant from which one should not tolerate oneself.

Not wishing to associate with someone is not indicative of being intolerant of them, though assuming they are not intelligent may be.

JohnH 18 May 2011 5:38 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Estarlio’s comment on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

why doesn’t god provide whatever portion of the evidence doesn’t quite tip me over that vital point yet preserves enough meaning to actually be evidence?

It is my understanding that He does.

’The more sure you are the more liable you are

yep.

all meaningful faith would be based primarily on some form of knowledge.

Which it is. An experience once provided does give knowledge of the thing, however it is possible to doubt your experiences. Also, the experiences only provide knowledge of one thing and there will remain many things that are not known with the same surety, some of which may be difficult to understand, and these things must be taken on faith until they too become known.

arbitrarily selected confidence it’s going to become worse for us if we don’t follow the relevant commandments.

I would think that it is a continuum such that someone totally unaware of anything about the subject is not liable for anything while those that have received knowledge of everything are liable for all of it.

Confidence in something not tested is faith. Anything not known with whatever level of confidence constitutes near enough to certainty to not matter for you is taken on faith. Knowledge is anything that is known with that level of confidence to constitute certainty. I am pretty sure that is a consistent translation of the terms into something understandable in this setting, I could be wrong.