If plates then God

[huckelberry]

I think Gadianton meant was to find what is real you follow the evidence instead of making up excuses for not doing so.

That’s the thing. He and I…and you…each believe we have and are continuing to do so. The difference being that you and he have come to definitive conclusions apparently?

I haven’t.

Granted, that puts me in a position of living with a certain degree of faith/ambiguity and lack of absolute knowledge in certain respects. But enough to move forward with integrity, eyes wide open, and with hope and faith based upon enough evidence, in my mind, to do so.

Faith doesn’t give absolute knowledge. So Peter Unger, Gadianton, and other epistemologists make hay of that fact.

Regards,
MG

MG I think we all have to live with some ambiguity and uncertainty. The unknown lurks about us. We all have some sort of faith to deal with the threat.

[Gadianton]

MG,

Peter Unger (an epistemological compadre of yours?) argues that nobody knows anything and even that nobody is reasonable or justified in believing anything.

Are you in agreement with this?

No. Because if nobody knows anything and nobody is justified in believing anything, then Peter Unger is not justified in believing ^^^: his argument is self-refuting.

How close are you to the center point of nihilism?

Not nearly as close as you and Peter Unger are, apparently.

I suppose my recent post to Morley (just before yours) seems rather like the words of a backwoods yokel

More like an unimaginative first or second year college student who just learned to put the word "truth" in quotes and then believe whatever you want. Backwoods yokels are the guys like my right-wing friend.

Imagine a civil engineering team has been tasked with building a large and controversial bridge. Some believe it can be done, others believe it can't be done. Imagine if the team lead were a student of Peter Unger. Imagine how little would ever get done in trying to resolve the actual question.

[Flemming]

deez nuts

Regards,
MG

Regards?

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Peter Unger (an epistemological compadre of yours?) argues that nobody knows anything and even that nobody is reasonable or justified in believing anything.

Are you in agreement with this?

No. Because if nobody knows anything and nobody is justified in believing anything, then Peter Unger is not justified in believing ^^^: his argument is self-refuting.

Exactly. My point is that epistemology really doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Danged if you do and danged if you don’t. One is always caught between a rock and a hard place and nothing is ever known for a fact one way or the other.

I disagree with this. I think there are ways of knowing…or at least coming closer to whatever truth there might be. Does epistemology allow for that?

Do you allow for that?

What percentage of this group do you think would allow for closer approximation/understanding of ultimate truth vs. the position that ultimate truth cannot be known from the get go?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epistemologists

And again, I think one’s presumption from the ‘start point’ (ground zero) influences what one can and cannot accept as evidence.

Gold plates, angels, Book of Mormon, prophecy, free will, etc., etc.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

deez nuts

Regards,
MG

Regards?

I almost always close a post that way. Rain or shine.

Anything else to add?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Peter Unger (an epistemological compadre of yours?) argues that nobody knows anything and even that nobody is reasonable or justified in believing anything.

Are you in agreement with this?

No. Because if nobody knows anything and nobody is justified in believing anything, then Peter Unger is not justified in believing ^^^: his argument is self-refuting.

How close are you to the center point of nihilism?

Not nearly as close as you and Peter Unger are, apparently.

I am in no way a disciple of Peter Unger.

Would you say that you might find yourself on the epistemologists list I’ve posted?

If so, why? If not, why?

Or are you on the list and we just don’t know it?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

That’s the thing. He and I…and you…each believe we have and are continuing to do so. The difference being that you and he have come to definitive conclusions apparently?

I haven’t.

Granted, that puts me in a position of living with a certain degree of faith/ambiguity and lack of absolute knowledge in certain respects. But enough to move forward with integrity, eyes wide open, and with hope and faith based upon enough evidence, in my mind, to do so.

Faith doesn’t give absolute knowledge. So Peter Unger, Gadianton, and other epistemologists make hay of that fact.

Regards,
MG

MG I think we all have to live with some ambiguity and uncertainty. The unknown lurks about us. We all have some sort of faith to deal with the threat.

This makes sense. There are practical ways to deal with the unknown, and to try to minimize certain types of uncertainty. Believing in fantastical stories which clearly have no real evidence backing them up is not a legitimate part of that effort. Conflating the two types of effort is a very simplified and, in my opinion, not a rational or realistic approach.

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Imagine a civil engineering team has been tasked with building a large and controversial bridge. Some believe it can be done, others believe it can't be done. Imagine if the team lead were a student of Peter Unger. Imagine how little would ever get done in trying to resolve the actual question.

Any hope of crossing the bridge would be greatly diminished.

At least it wouldn’t have existential implications.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

MG2.0

Supposedly, a few extended families of bilingual Jews migrated to the Americas in 600 BCE, where they prospered and grew and created an empire that was as successful and sophisticated as any on earth. It would have rivaled contemporary empires in China, India, Persia, and Rome. They built roads and temples, smelted iron and worked steel, they grew vast cities and developed a complicated society. They fought wars that involved millions of people on each side. Even though they were here for 1000 years, they disappeared without a trace. They left no literature, pottery, place names, horse bones, mythology, chariot wheels, rusted swords, theology, or DNA. There is no archeological, scientific, social, literary, artistic, or historical evidence of their existence.

Another group, a few hundred years later, sailed to North America from Norway. They settled on the tip of Newfoundland in a place now known as L'Anse aux Meadows. The settlement there only lasted for a few years. In spite of this, archeologists have found jewelry, needles, lamps, evidence of smelting, textiles, and buildings--all consistent with the Viking culture of the time.

On one hand, we have a vast and wealthy empire, a major civilization that supposedly dominated an entire hemisphere for a thousand years--which leaves no discernible trace. On the other, we have a ragged group of Norsemen who put up a few shacks and occupy a remote outpost for a few years in an inhospitable spot in Newfoundland--and there are artifacts all over the place.

Were you not a Mormon, MG, what conclusions would you draw, my firend?

I hope that I would want to learn more rather than jumping to a conclusion that could impact my life in such a powerful way.

I don’t think you would. You haven’t done that for the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita. Why would you do it for The Book of Mormon?

If I was serious about God and learning whether or not He speaks to prophets and if Jesus is the Christ, I would read the Book of Mormon, study it, and ask God if it was true. I might find myself asking some of the questions that have been raised in this very thread having to do with Book of Mormon provenance.

As did I. As have many, many others. I prayed daily for years for an answer that was different from the one I was getting. I wanted God to tell me the Book of Mormon was genuine. The answer that I got was that it wasn’t. Why do you think you’re the only one to have ever prayed?

Could Joseph have written this book or is it the work of God?

No. And no. Both obviously so.

Of course if I wasn’t serious about gaining further knowledge and/or understanding of God and His ways I might find myself jumping to a more secular/humanistic conclusion.

As many have.

Ha! Because you know all about secular humanism?

Would you place yourself into that general category? And as a result, what is the state of being in regards to your own faith in a creator God? In Jesus Christ as Son of God? As a nonbeliever in the Book of Mormon’s status as scripture (in its pure sense) are you still able to maintain a belief in God that motivates you to action?

Both none of your business and immaterial to the discussion. You’re trying to change the subject.

Not to say that many folks do respond to this call to action as believers in Jesus Christ.

Really? So, the millions of folks the LDS missionaries teach who read and pray and then piously reject Mormonism’s claims don’t count?

Are you one of them? Or has your non belief in the restoration and the Book of Mormon taken/led you away from faith? If so, are you the ‘better man’ for it?

Yes, yes, and yes. I’m Immeasurably better for it. Thank you for asking.

As it is, I think I am. Although it appears that at least one person here would just as well look at believers as being “yokels”.

Not a discussion I’m part of. Take it up with someone else.

[MG 2.0]

MG I think we all have to live with some ambiguity and uncertainty. The unknown lurks about us. We all have some sort of faith to deal with the threat.

That is only human. And that faith can take many different forms. Some not having anything to do with religion in its traditional sense.

Regards,
MG