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

[_zerinus]

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.

Wrong! Your argument amounts to saying that I can't prove the the Book of Mormon is true, therefore it isn't! Well, I never claimed to be able to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. I can only bear witness that I know it is true. The proof can only come direct from God.

[_spotlight]

"In the name of the Lord God of Israel," prophesied Joseph, " unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in Missouri, in a few years the government will be entirely overthrown."
http://www.ebookdb.org/reading/22G0G226 ... 27769/Wife
page 56 top

Since prophesy that comes via the HG is false, we can reasonably assume that a witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon by the HG is also false.

[_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.

Wrong! Your argument amounts to saying that I can't prove the the Book of Mormon is true, therefore it isn't! Well, I never claimed to be able to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. I can only bear witness that I know it is true. The proof can only come direct from God.

Odd.

You agreed that knowledge is having true, justified belief.

You now admit you aren’t able to justify your belief, merely assert it is true. Yet you claim to still have knowledge.

It sounds like you are now obligated to provide a definition of knowledge with which you agree and we can work with.

[_zerinus]

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

What is a subjective experience?

Ask IHAQ. He is the one who said that my experiences were subjective.

[_zerinus]

zerinus,

That's fine you don't accept the results of the discussion.

I am not aware that I did.

It should be interesting to at least some people that your own preferred theory of truth worked against you, though.

Wishful thinking. No such thing happened.

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) . . .

That also depends on the "observer". Some people can observe things that others can't. Moses saw God face to face. So did Abraham and Joseph Smith. That does not happen to everybody. That does not mean that for those who experienced it, it was not real, or that we cannot believe and accept their experiences to have been real.

. . . 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.

It can be observed, but not always by everyone.

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

Not true. See above.

[_honorentheos]

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) . . .

That also depends on the "observer". Some people can observe things that others can't. Moses saw God face to face. So did Abraham and Joseph Smith. That does not happen to everybody. That does not mean that for those who experienced it, it was not real, or that we cannot believe and accept their experiences to have been real.

...

It can be observed, but not always by everyone

Observer-dependent truths are relative truths. You didn't like those, remember?

[_zerinus]

Odd.

You agreed that knowledge is having true, justified belief.

Agreed.

You now admit you aren’t able to justify your belief, merely assert it is true. Yet you claim to still have knowledge.

I can justify it for myself. It doesn't mean that I can prove it to you.

It sounds like you are now obligated to provide a definition of knowledge with which you agree and we can work with.

Wrong. See above.

[_Jersey Girl]

What is a subjective experience?

Ask IHAQ. He is the one who said that my experiences were subjective.

I'm asking you to explain the term you yourself used in your post. If you're unable to do so, just say it.

[_Starbuck]

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.

How is it that you demand demonstrable evidence for honorentheos claims, but when you are pressed for evidence of your claims you declare it a waste if time?

[_zerinus]

Observer-dependent truths are relative truths. You didn't like those, remember?

They are not relative. They are selective. They are available to everyone who is willing to fulfil the conditions. The promise of the Book of Mormon is not "relative". It is dependent on whether we fulfil the conditions. Some do, and some don't.