MG wrote:The evidence was/is there to see. No one came...and has not to this point...come to your defense with any proof that you had not committed an egregious/obvious example of creating a false narrative.
Good grief, another argument from ignorance. This must be the standard defense tactic taught in Sunday School these days.
MG wrote:You are unwilling to look at the possibility of a creator/God...at this point...so you are just as dogmatic and set in your ways as the religionist. You will never change. What does that make you?
I am where I am due to the evidence. Show me where that evidence is wrong or misinterpreted and how it points to the existence of a god and you'd have me. I would prefer to exist beyond the grave rather than not, but reality is not affected by my desires.
I really think this whole thing we're going round and round with...intellectual dishonesty...side tracks us from being able to express our views without feeling hindered by those that believe differently.
The manner of establishing one's views is based upon positive evidence, not arguments from ignorance. People are trying to explain to you why your arguments are not significant or valid. That is why the subject has been broached. What you see as a "side track" is the point you are missing, why your arguments aren't... arguments at all.
You'll notice that I'm not continually making accusations of intellectual dishonesty to those that are agnostic/atheists...even though I may have my reason(s) to do so (but they might be unwarranted because I've never met you in person and don't really KNOW you). I simply, on this board and only reading your words, accept the possibility that you are being intellectually honest with what you have as your reservoir of experience/knowledge.
Ah, so I thought maybe you were confusing intellectual dishonesty with sincerity but now I see you are taking the idea of esoteric knowledge gained by obedience to the gospel as existing and being higher than "worldly" knowledge gained by ordinary folk. This is referred to by us ordinary/lessor folk as confirmation bias. You cannot verify this kind of personally gained knowledge objectively.
I gave an example of this with the healing from cancer of two TBMs one that dies and the other that lives.
Here is another simple example. Suppose I make an analogy to the promise in the Book of Mormon to a coin toss. I write in a book that if you will ask god whether the book is true he will answer you thus: Go and flip a coin eight times. You will get eight heads in a row and that is how you will know the book is true. So of the people that read the book and perform this test 1 out of 256 will walk away with a testimony of its truth. From that individual perspective they think they know the promise is true. But it is not objective. They have to include the experiences of others for whom the promise failed to achieve an objective understanding.
Again, recently, my experience is causing me to question just how honest others are around here. Some folks anyway. It's been showing up more and more as I'm on the look out for people 'making stuff up' in one way/form or another.
They are simply making models in their minds to explain your responses. That's what the mind does. No need to get offended. Simply offer more input and the model will become more accurate.
I REALLY believe, however, that it's a dangerous game to play when you dogmatically believe...as you seem to...that you KNOW the truth, no holds barred. And come hell or high water, you just aren't going to change.
It would be dogmatic if my position were based on anything other than the evidence. But it is not. Again you can show how the evidence or the interpretation of the evidence is wrong but an argument from ignorance is not evidence and it is logically fallacious.
Of course you have ALL the evidence on your side, right?
The classical laws of Newton work more than 90% of the time. Yet we recognize that they are wrong. A position to be proven wrong needs but one piece that doesn't fit properly to toss it out.
Book of Abraham disproves Joseph was a prophet. Not quite the same as a law of physics. He could have been a prophet that fell prior to the Book of Abraham incident. So it's a little different but if you are going to say that there is evidence that he is a prophet it can't be an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance does not establish anything. A personal testimony does not establish anything either not even for the person that experienced it because it is not objective. So what positive evidence do you have?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
