Stone Boxes and Metallic Plates

[_PrickKicker]

And there you have the logic of the Mormon...

Doubt until proven is a Mental disorder, but Faith when based on fairytales and mythology is REAL.

'tis far better to have the logic of a Mormon than to be in your predicament where logic doth not dwell at all.

(and to be honest, any fundamental exploration will reveal that "doubt" is not a natural position - to doubt without just cause is irrational and unreasonable, and even quite illogical - though i am sure your "just cause" is as valid as any.....indeed)

Oh dear, Josephs slipping back into God mode... "'tis far better to have the logic of a Mormon than to be in your predicament where logic doth not dwell at all."

Hear ye hear ye, the daye of the Lorde God of Israel is nigh at hande,
And it came to pass that the idea of using the term 'came to pass' did no occur to me had, came and passed.

[_subgenius]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doubt

no problem there, still does not mean that it is the natural position.

If someone said they saw a gremlin in their basement, would you be doubtful(Uncertain), and if yes why? Assume this person has never been known to lie or even joke around.

depends...like i said before "without just cause"
so, if "someone" was known to me as a sober, honest, and level-headed person, it would be reasonable for me to believe that person's claim until evidence or circumstance gave cause otherwise. Me simply looking in their basement and seeing "nothing" would not be a reasonable cause for me to "doubt".

[_subgenius]

Oh dear, Josephs slipping back into God mode... "'tis far better to have the logic of a Mormon than to be in your predicament where logic doth not dwell at all."

Hear ye hear ye, the daye of the Lorde God of Israel is nigh at hande,
And it came to pass that the idea of using the term 'came to pass' did no occur to me had, came and passed.

your concession is duly noted, thank you.

[_subgenius]

ldsfaqs and subgenius,
Can one, or preferably both of you sum up what it means for something to be "necessary but not sufficient"?

in terms of logic, causation, or material equivalence?
(i think i smell another poster about to affirm the consequent...or deny the antecedent....whichever...you guys seem to enjoy proposing either).

[_Themis]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doubt

no problem there, still does not mean that it is the natural position.

Did you actually read the definition. It includes uncertain and questionable.

depends...like i said before "without just cause"
so, if "someone" was known to me as a sober, honest, and level-headed person, it would be reasonable for me to believe that person's claim until evidence or circumstance gave cause otherwise. Me simply looking in their basement and seeing "nothing" would not be a reasonable cause for me to "doubt".

I don't know many people who would not be uncertain or questioning for the example I gave. If there is a natural position I think it would be closer to doubt then belief. If a friend says they saw a deer in their yard I would believe them, even though I would still not be certain. I don't think doubt and belief are absolutes, but more a range between the two. I think your problem may that you have been bombarded in life that doubt is bad and evil, when it is neither.

[_Sethbag]

ldsfaqs and subgenius,
Can one, or preferably both of you sum up what it means for something to be "necessary but not sufficient"?

in terms of logic, causation, or material equivalence?
(i think i smell another poster about to affirm the consequent...or deny the antecedent....whichever...you guys seem to enjoy proposing either).

Ok, so let's examine this one:

If Joseph Smith, then stone boxes.
Stone boxes.
Therefore, Joseph Smith.

It looks like your side is affirming the consequent. At least, that seems to be the point of the OP.


ps: by "Joseph Smith", I mean something like "Joseph Smith's truth claims are true", and by "stone boxes", I mean something like "stone boxes were actually used by ancient peoples". I shorthanded it to make the statements clearer.

[_Sethbag]

I think this deserves a bump.

[_subgenius]

I don't know many people who would not be uncertain or questioning for the example I gave. If there is a natural position I think it would be closer to doubt then belief. If a friend says they saw a deer in their yard I would believe them, even though I would still not be certain. I don't think doubt and belief are absolutes, but more a range between the two. I think your problem may that you have been bombarded in life that doubt is bad and evil, when it is neither.

i have no problem with doubt, but only when it is the reasonable position...however, you have made it clear that you prefer the unreasonable position.
For example:
If a person whom you had confidence in, whom you considered to be an honest and a sober person, not a practical joker, and as competent as any other person you regard - what if this person told you they had a gremlin in their basement?
You would either believe them or doubt them, correct?
The reasonable position given the circumstances is to believe them, the unreasonable position would be to doubt them. The former position would justify looking in the basement for yourself..out of curiosity or for the experience of seeing a gremlin.
The latter position would not be justified as well, if you doubted it then why bother looking? If you considered this person's story implausible or unbelievable what possible reason could be offered which would explain you looking in the basement for yourself?
If your only reason to doubt them is "well, i have never seen a gremlin" or "well, everyone knows that gremlins are not real, right?" then you would be unreasonable when compared to what you know about the person who told you they had seen one. This is a fundamental flaw in many people today, and it is not counter to a position of naïvété - when there is nor just cause to believe that this person is being dishonest or is being swindled ,then the only reasonable position is to believe them.
To say otherwise is illogical or dishonest...perhaps both.

[_PrickKicker]

i have no problem with doubt, but only when it is the reasonable position...however, you have made it clear that you prefer the unreasonable position.
For example:
If a person whom you had confidence in, whom you considered to be an honest and a sober person, not a practical joker, and as competent as any other person you regard - what if this person told you they had a gremlin in their basement?
You would either believe them or doubt them, correct?
The reasonable position given the circumstances is to believe them, the unreasonable position would be to doubt them. The former position would justify looking in the basement for yourself..out of curiosity or for the experience of seeing a gremlin.
The latter position would not be justified as well, if you doubted it then why bother looking? If you considered this person's story implausible or unbelievable what possible reason could be offered which would explain you looking in the basement for yourself?
If your only reason to doubt them is "well, i have never seen a gremlin" or "well, everyone knows that gremlins are not real, right?" then you would be unreasonable when compared to what you know about the person who told you they had seen one. This is a fundamental flaw in many people today, and it is not counter to a position of naïveté - when there is nor just cause to believe that this person is being dishonest or is being swindled ,then the only reasonable position is to believe them.
To say otherwise is illogical or dishonest...perhaps both.

Do you believe in Ghosts?

[_subgenius]

Ok, so let's examine this one:

If Joseph Smith, then stone boxes.
Stone boxes.
Therefore, Joseph Smith.

It looks like your side is affirming the consequent. At least, that seems to be the point of the OP.

this is not what the OP proposed at all, please stick with what the OP actually stated.

ps: by "Joseph Smith", I mean something like "Joseph Smith's truth claims are true", and by "stone boxes", I mean something like "stone boxes were actually used by ancient peoples". I shorthanded it to make the statements clearer.

you seem to be amused with yourself, perhaps i will leave you with it, as it is apparent you don't need anyone in your discussion, you will just make up your own.