The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_honorentheos]

To come back full circle, zerinus can't justify his belief such that it achieves the most basic definition of knowledge. Since he can't demonstrate justified true belief that the Book of Mormon is historical by his own definition. Without knowledge he can't demonstrate it even achieves the definition of truth he provided from LDS scripture.

Saying the Book of Mormon is true is a false statement. This being arrived at by using the criteria zerinus provided.

Thanks zerinus.

[_Maksutov]

You have me on ignore because you can't deal with challenges or criticism. Because you're weak and afraid. Perhaps we should pity you, but I won't. Your testimony is how you try to cheat your way into authority. You risk nothing, prove nothing and convince no one, Z-boy.

I don't have anybody "on ignore" (through the software). When people repeatedly make dumb comments, like you do, I just ignore them and move on to the next post.

Oh, I think you just told another lie. I understand. It's because you're weak and afraid, Z-boy. All you have is your opinion and your delusions that it is more valuable than anyone else's. You can't compete, you can't prove, so you spin around and around repeating yourself in an endless loop of inanity and failure. What a big holy man you are.

And how convenient for you to define things as dumb so that you can run away from them! What a lovely coat of paint you've put on your cowardice. I suppose it's also to make your lies respectable?

[_zerinus]

But we can't both be right. So one of us is wrong.

Agreed.

When two subjective experiences (assume mine was as unmistakeable as yours) contradict each other what should be used to differentiate?

Your experience may have been subjective, mine wasn't.

[_zerinus]

Absence of evidence is exactly what it states. I have no reason to believe the claim of history if you can not provide evidence. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise. If you can provide reliable archeological evidence that the history of the Book of Mormon happened as it is written, I am willing to change my mind.

You are wasting your time. I am not obliged to prove anything to anybody, and you are not obliged to believe anything I say.

[_Maksutov]

But we can't both be right. So one of us is wrong.

Agreed.

When two subjective experiences (assume mine was as unmistakeable as yours) contradict each other what should be used to differentiate?

Your experience may have been subjective, mine wasn't.

Another lie.

[_Maksutov]

Absence of evidence is exactly what it states. I have no reason to believe the claim of history if you can not provide evidence. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise. If you can provide reliable archeological evidence that the history of the Book of Mormon happened as it is written, I am willing to change my mind.

You are wasting your time. I am not obliged to prove anything to anybody, and you are not obliged to believe anything I say.

Yet another lie. Starbuck's efforts aren't wasted because they serve to demonstrate the childishness and dishonesty of Zerinus' strategy in proclaiming his own definitions of truth, faith, knowledge, Holy Ghost, etc. without attempting to defend or explain and in clear contradiction of the facts. The sort of irrational behavior that has been promoted since 1830 and justified countless absurdities and malignant cults.

All of your lying for the Lord does make you a true follower of Joseph Smith. I'll give you that.

[_zerinus]

Your justification for your belief comes from "the Spirit of God" communicating truth to your soul.

How do you demonstrate this? You don't. You just tell us that it happened. How does this outweigh the counter evidence that is accessible to everyone?

I don't accept that there is a viable "counter evidence". You have not demonstrated that there is.

You aren't overwhelming the justifications for the counter-proposition here, zerinus.

See above. I don't accept that there is "justifications for the counter-proposition".

The thing is, archeological evidence demonstrates something existed at the time claimed and the places claimed for the Book of Mormon and they don't match up.

That is not true. You need to demonstrate that.

The claims of the Book of Mormon do match up with theories, since falsified, about the native americans present in the 19th century.

Not true.

You lack evidence for your claims. The Book of Mormon isn't evidence, it's a proposition, remember?

The evidcence is the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

The evidence for this proposition is in conflict with the evidence available. Your proposition appears to have a truth-value of being false.

Wrong. You need to demonstrate that, and you haven't.

[_Jersey Girl]

Your experience may have been subjective, mine wasn't.

What is a subjective experience?

[_Maksutov]

Your justification for your belief comes from "the Spirit of God" communicating truth to your soul.

How do you demonstrate this? You don't. You just tell us that it happened. How does this outweigh the counter evidence that is accessible to everyone?

I don't accept that there is a viable "counter evidence". You have not demonstrated that there is.

You aren't overwhelming the justifications for the counter-proposition here, zerinus.

See above. I don't accept that there is "justifications for the counter-proposition".

The thing is, archeological evidence demonstrates something existed at the time claimed and the places claimed for the Book of Mormon and they don't match up.

That is not true. You need to demonstrate that.

The claims of the Book of Mormon do match up with theories, since falsified, about the native americans present in the 19th century.

Not true.

You lack evidence for your claims. The Book of Mormon isn't evidence, it's a proposition, remember?

The evidcence is the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

The evidence for this proposition is in conflict with the evidence available. Your proposition appears to have a truth-value of being false.

Wrong. You need to demonstrate that, and you haven't.

The salient phrase in your post was "I don't accept". It's as simple as that. You deny everything you don't like. You can do that because you bet nothing. You're pretty much a stubborn toddler who's folded their arms and says "I'm right!" in answer to every statement.

[_honorentheos]

zerinus,

That's fine you don't accept the results of the discussion. It should be interesting to at least some people that your own preferred theory of truth worked against you, though. The reason should have been obvious as Section 93 proposes essentially a correspondence theory of truth (one where the truth-value of a proposition can supposedly be determined by how well it corresponds to the observable world) but your justification for your proposition can't be observed. It wasn't a reasonable approach. But hey, it was scripture so I get why you went with it.

The question is really why anyone should then care when you make propositional statements. The answer? They probably shouldn't.