Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Unless, of course, a witness who you found to be utterly reliable testified before you that Joseph Smith was a prophet.Then the bias is limited to your determination of the witness's credibility. I will certainly admit that there are very good reasons to doubt the credibility of spiritual witnesses which is why God makes a multitude of merciful allowances for His children.If you have not received a witness then you base your life on one of the conclusions you've drawn given the evidence you do have (eggs, grits, and cereal bowls). But don't even think about telling me that I didn't have a double chocolate donut while the sweet taste still lingers on my lips.The mistake is saying that I'm telling you you didn't have the donut. Which is in correlation because everyone is assuming I said joseph plagarized. I am saying. . . It is possible you had a donut, it is possible you didn't have a donut, but I'm not going to believe that you didn't have that donut when a possibility is out there that you did. Just like I'm not going to believe that joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon by divine revelation when the possibility is out there that he didn't. And I gave proof of the possibility. . . . but everyone is asking me to prove that Joseph Smith did read the book. . . that wouldn't be possibility, that would be reality. . . and I can only speculate on the reality of things based on the information I have.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The mistake is saying that I'm telling you you didn't have the donut. Which is in correlation because everyone is assuming I said joseph plagarized. I am saying. . . It is possible you had a donut, it is possible you didn't have a donut, but I'm not going to believe that you didn't have that donut when a possibility is out there that you did. Just like I'm not going to believe that joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon by divine revelation when the possibility is out there that he didn't. And I gave proof of the possibility. . . . but everyone is asking me to prove that Joseph Smith did read the book. . . that wouldn't be possibility, that would be reality. . . and I can only speculate on the reality of things based on the information I have.Um, yeah.But you are arguening against something solely becuase not of evidence, but becuase of possibility.You never once gave proof. you only gave a possiblity. In order for your possibility to offer any weight you would need to offer evidence not just speculation. That is why I remain unconvinced of anything you have to say. Other than the obvious. And the obvious is that "other possibilites exsist".I have to say "so what" to that.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Because I know I don't know all there is to know. Who possibly can. I'm still learning and growing.That's a dodge...sorry. We are talking about this particular topic. You suggested that your "reality" on the matter of JS = truth. Since we disagree on the reality, one of us is wrong about what is true.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Um, yeah.But you are arguening against something solely becuase not of evidence, but becuase of possibility.You never once gave proof. you only gave a possiblity. In order for your possibility to offer any weight you would need to offer evidence not just speculation. That is why I remain unconvinced of anything you have to say. Other than the obvious. And the obvious is that "other possibilites exsist".I have to say "so what" to that.Yes, "So what".. . I can't argue with that. Nobody has to be open-minded if they don't want to. So this contrary possibility doesn't hold any weight? Why not? What evidence is there that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired to write the BOM? What form of evidence is acceptable to you. . . testimony?
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 That's a dodge...sorry. We are talking about this particular topic. You suggested that your "reality" on the matter of JS = truth. Since we disagree on the reality, one of us is wrong about what is true.Or maybe you and I both are wrong.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Or maybe you and I both are wrong.It is not my intention to force my reality on you. I feel the need to point out again that I assumed an "apologetic" board was one where opposing information could be discussed because that is what apologetics do.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Or maybe you and I both are wrong.Right...I left that out.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 It is not my intention to force my reality on you. I feel the need to point out again that I assumed an "apologetic" board was one where opposing information could be discussed because that is what apologetics do.It is...but you need to be prepared to have everything questioned, including how you reached your conclusions.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 It is...but you need to be prepared to have everything questioned, including how you reached your conclusions.All I'm saying is I don't feel superior to anyone here, and my being here discussing things isn't about belief-pushing. I think what I'm hearing you say is that two realities are impossible on the basis that there is one truth. So because I have one reality and you have another reality which one of ours is the true reality, and because I think mine is, I must feel like my reality is superior. . . . well, I definitely don't think it's inferior, I was thinking it couldn't be compared like that, but I can see how then I would have to be forced to take a position.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 All I'm saying is I don't feel superior to anyone here, and my being here discussing things isn't about belief-pushing. I think what I'm hearing you say is that two realities are impossible on the basis that there is one truth. So because I have one reality and you have another reality which one of ours is the true reality, and because I think mine is, I must feel like my reality is superior. . . . well, I definitely don't think it's inferior, I was thinking it couldn't be compared like that, but I can see how then I would have to be forced to take a position.You're getting it....
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 So here is me taking a position, as far as Mormonism goes, I don't believe it to be reality. If you do, then I think you are wrong. And I'm here to say what why Mormonism is not true. . . not to say why I think my reality is. Adding. . . Also, my base is "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence" (which is the signature quote I omitted from using on my profile for possibly being too inflammatory).
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 So here is me taking a position, as far as Mormonism goes, I don't believe it to be reality. If you do, then I think you are wrong. And I'm here to say what why Mormonism is not true. . . not to say why I think my reality is.Very good...with respect to the subject at hand - how does it support your position, where do you think the rest of us are going wrong on the subject, and why do you think our approach isn't (at least) as good as yours? In other words...can reasonable minds simply disagree?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Yes, "So what".. . I can't argue with that. Nobody has to be open-minded if they don't want to. So this contrary possibility doesn't hold any weight? Why not? What evidence is there that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired to write the BOM? What form of evidence is acceptable to you. . . testimony?Yeah so now I am not open mined becuae you fail to give a convincing evidence that JS plagarised a book.Nice.The possibilty in and of itself carries no weight. It wont carry any weight until you provide evidence that furthers that possibility. Merely asserting a possibilites does mean any thing.It is possible that one day I will read the lord of the rings. How ever it is not probable and in "reality" it most likely will not happen.Do you see how it works. You need to show that JS did use that book for the possibility to carry any weight.Just like is it possible thatwe are both wrong. How convincing is that though? It isn;t. You think in your mind you are right and nothing is going to change that until there is more evidence. Same thing for me. I am not really all that interest in mere possible explinations of things unless you have data that converges to back up that possibility.For some reason you are having a hard time grasping this.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Very good...with respect to the subject at hand - how does it support your position, where do you think the rest of us are going wrong on the subject, and why do you think our approach isn't (at least) as good as yours? In other words...can reasonable minds simply disagree?Well, one would think that reasonable minds would come up with the same conclusions eventually if there is one truth.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah so now I am not open mined becuae you fail to give a convincing evidence that JS plagarised a book.Nice.The possibilty in and of itself carries no weight. It wont carry any weight until you provide evidence that furthers that possibility. Merely asserting a possibilites does mean any thing.It is possible that one day I will read the lord of the rings. How ever it is not probable and in "reality" it most likely will not happen.Do you see how it works. You need to show that JS did use that book for the possibility to carry any weight.Just like is it possible thatwe are both wrong. How convincing is that though? It isn;t. You think in your mind you are right and nothing is going to change that until there is more evidence. Same thing for me. I am not really all that interest in mere possible explinations of things unless you have data that converges to back up that possibility.For some reason you are having a hard time grasping this.No, the refusal to explore possibilities is what is close-minded. What weight does your possiblity carry that strengthens it?
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Well, one would think that reasonable minds would come up with the same conclusions eventually if there is one truth.So, are you suggesting that we, whom you believe are wrong, are not "reasonable"?
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The mistake is saying that I'm telling you you didn't have the donut. Which is in correlation because everyone is assuming I said joseph plagarized. I didn't say that you said I didn't have the donut. I was trying to indicate that there is no way you can say that. You simply don't have the required knowledge to make such a presumption.I am saying. . . It is possible you had a donut, it is possible you didn't have a donut, but I'm not going to believe that you didn't have that donut when a possibility is out there that you did. Just like I'm not going to believe that joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon by divine revelation when the possibility is out there that he didn't. And I gave proof of the possibility. . . . but everyone is asking me to prove that Joseph Smith did read the book. . . that wouldn't be possibility, that would be reality. . . and I can only speculate on the reality of things based on the information I have.Which is precisely why I said that speculating is fun but relatively meaningless. Without further information or the testimony of a reliable witness, all we can do is acknowledge possibilities. If, however, you come by a reliable witness, it forever alters the way in which you respond to the issue at hand.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 So, are you suggesting that we, whom you believe are wrong, are not "reasonable"?I think your conclusions are not reasonable, not that you aren't able to reason.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I didn't say that you said I didn't have the donut. I was trying to indicate that there is no way you can say that. You simply don't have the required knowledge to make such a presumption.Which is precisely why I said that speculating is fun but relatively meaningless. Without further information or the testimony of a reliable witness, all we can do is acknowledge possibilities. If, however, you come by a reliable witness, it forever alters the way in which you respond to the issue at hand.Well, then what was this all about . . ." But don't even think about telling me that I didn't have a double chocolate donut while the sweet taste still lingers on my lips." So what reliable witness and testimony did you turn to to solidify your possibility?
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I think your conclusions are not reasonable, not that you aren't able to reason.This runs afoul of my question then - can reasonable minds disagree? In other words, is it reasonable for two people to look at this same exact evidence and still reach a different conclusion, in your mind?
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 This runs afoul of my question then - can reasonable minds disagree? In other words, is it reasonable for two people to look at this same exact evidence and still reach a different conclusion, in your mind?Yes, because it depends on where one is at in their understanding of things, that determines the conclusion.
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Well, then what was this all about . . ." But don't even think about telling me that I didn't have a double chocolate donut while the sweet taste still lingers on my lips." Asked and answered: "...that there is no way you can say that. You simply don't have the required knowledge to make such a presumption." i.e. Your asserting such a "possibility" would be unreasonable given that you are working from a speculative paradigm and don't have the information you need to come to the correct conclusion.So what reliable witness and testimony did you turn to to solidify your possibility?My witness is not relevant to your pursuit of truth - only to mine. If you seek a witness, the missionaries can tell you where to begin.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Asked and answered: "...that there is no way you can say that. You simply don't have the required knowledge to make such a presumption."My witness is not relevant to your pursuit of truth - only to mine. If you seek a witness, the missionaries can tell you where to begin.What if I were here giving the same statement about my "evidence" to substansiate my possibility?
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Who says they left it out? I thought it was clear we don't have the entire BoM.Bad answer. Is it random that what we've had for the last 180 years left out those doctrines?
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 So is everybody telling me that if I shake the magic 8 ball and get a no answer, I should disregard everything else. . . Just try to look at it from that point of view. . . I know all of you would like to give a long testimony on God and Faith here.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.