Ok, but why would he want to. A perfect God would not choose nudge a perfect world out of perfection.
Again, presupposition of His motives; if He wanted us to become stronger, we must have had opposition, which could not have taken place in the paradisaical Garden of Eden.
It seems that for every observation you might be called to explain, you can say "God could have done that", and in response to any speculation of whether God would choose to do that you can accuse "presupposition of His motives". What can your theory not explain?
Intelligence is no match for experience; He could have programmed robots to be perfect Gods, I suppose, but they wouldn't be children, because they wouldn't have the spark of life. (Yes, I know, my entire argument has as a predicate the existence of a non-physical (for certain definitions of "physical") entity that controls the physical aspects of life.) As for "initial conditions"... I'm hesitant to answer this point, because the explanation may well exceed the inferential distance.
That is not at all a response to the first major criticism: "It seems unlikely that some of his children would take so much more fire than others to refine."
Experience is not mysterious thing. It is a means of accumulating data that an agent could be designed to start with. It is a way of traing behaviors that an agent can be designed to start out executing. We would design an agent to grow more powerful from experience because we do not know now what data and behaviors to give it. A perfect God would know.
What can your theory not explain?
Got it! I've been racking my brain, and I've come up with an answer: my theory would be proven false by the discovery of sentient extraterrestrial life that did not look like us.
Hello fellow Less Wrongians!
Given your comments on my organizing communities series, I get the feeling that many of you are wondering why:
I'm happy to hold discussions about any of these questions or related ones. However, I haven't responded to many comments on the main series of posts because:
I wanted to created this thread as a center for questions you might have about my faith. This is not an attempt to preach -- I would be perfectly happy not having a discussion purely about religion at all. But since there seem to be many comments, well, fire away.
Some basic facts: I am a student at Stanford. I am 22. I converted to Mormonism when I was 19. I used to be atheist/agnostic. I am very much a believer, not just in it for the social perks.
Well, as it is written, AMA (= Ask Me Anything)
(Thanks Kevin for the suggestion.)
Edit: Wow, there are a lot of comments. This has been a helpful chance to clarify my thinking. I hope you have learned something useful -- perhaps using the question is 'Is there anything surprising here that he said?'.
Edit 2: Here are some answers to repeated questions. Again, this really helped me distill and clarify myself and I've enjoyed the discussion.
Why do you believe? It's a combination of
I would estimate that before this all happened, my odds ratio was about 2000:1, and now it's about 1:10. I would ballpark the odds ratios of each of the above 3 events as ~12.5:1, ~25:1, and ~62.5:1. (I was considering likelihood but didn't think in that precise of terms at the time, so any concretization is open to charges of ex post facto. And these are still ballparks.)
There are lots of arguments against Mormonism on factual and historical grounds; there are also counterarguments which I feel pretty much balance them out. (The feeling of balancing each other out was contemporaneous.)
What things could make you consider leaving the faith?
Why do you think your conversion story is disappointing to many of us?
Several possible reasons:
[1] Specifically: