If plates then God

[I Have Questions]

Nope, it's a simple conclusion arising from an impartial examination of the evidence which leads right-minded folk to be skeptical about their existence.

It’s interesting how the critics are always the right minded impartial observers. I suppose it may be due, at least partially, to lines of evidence which are acceptable and focused on vs. others.

Regards,
MG

Who said anything about critics? I know lots of members who are skeptical of the plates story. They’re not critics, but they are right-minded and capable of independent thought and an ability to assess evidence on its merits.

[Res Ipsa]

Rather than deal with all the evidence, you simply make stuff up about your God that you can't possibly know.

I appreciate the fact that you have views which don’t allow for a loving and compassionate God.

I don't appreciate the fact that persist in blatantly misrepresenting my views. Your superficial politeness is disingenuous to the extreme when you engage in this kind of substantive rudeness.

[MG 2.0]

You misrepresented what I said. That makes a difference. I’ve already mentioned that your premise which sits on a sandy foundation isn’t worth pursuing.

Regards,
MG

Explain exactly how I’ve misrepresented what you said. If you can.

One more time.

Go back to: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm

On this thread.

I think my views were fully expressed there along with other posts before that. You said that I said one thing when I actually said another and then further clarified what I was saying.

You’re beating a dead horse.

Twisting things up in knots.

Regards,
MG

[tagriffy]

Nope, it's a simple conclusion arising from an impartial examination of the evidence which leads right-minded folk to be skeptical about their existence.

It’s interesting how the critics are always the right minded impartial observers. I suppose it may be due, at least partially, to lines of evidence which are acceptable and focused on vs. others.

Regards,
MG

To a certain extent that is true. However, the real point here is that the evidence taken as a whole leaves a lot of room for rational skepticism. A question I've asked you a couple times--without answer--goes along the lines of: If we were talking about anything other than the plates, and this is the kind of evidence we have at play, wouldn't you be skeptical about it?

[MG 2.0]

Again your exclusion of women in this discussion is laughably sexist.

At times I have referred to both men and women separately and at other times a generic “men” referring to everyone.

Sorry that offends you.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It’s interesting how the critics are always the right minded impartial observers. I suppose it may be due, at least partially, to lines of evidence which are acceptable and focused on vs. others.

Regards,
MG

To a certain extent that is true. However, the real point here is that the evidence taken as a whole leaves a lot of room for rational skepticism. A question I've asked you a couple times--without answer--goes along the lines of: If we were talking about anything other than the plates, and this is the kind of evidence we have at play, wouldn't you be skeptical about it?

There have been a lot of questions coming my way. Sorry I bypassed yours. Could you be somewhat specific as to examples? And how the lines of evidence would necessarily dovetail?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I appreciate the fact that you have views which don’t allow for a loving and compassionate God.

I don't appreciate the fact that persist in blatantly misrepresenting my views. Your superficial politeness is disingenuous to the extreme when you engage in this kind of substantive rudeness.

?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Whew!

That was fast and furious.

Caught up for now.

Later.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Again your exclusion of women in this discussion is laughably sexist.

At times I have referred to both men and women separately and at other times a generic “men” referring to everyone.

Sorry that offends you.

Regards,
MG

Lol. And you were a public school teacher? Since you apparently missed your training sessions it's your lucky day to have the education handed to you so you can improve your manners.

Some people argue that the use of male generic language is not a problem because people know that it is meant to include both men and women. However, this has been proven not to be the case. ...studies have found that when male generic language is used people are far more likely to picture men. One study asked children to pick pictures for a textbook with titles such as “Urban Man” or “Urban Life”. When the titles included male generic language the kids almost always picked pictures of men, but when they were gender-neutral they picked pictures of both men and women.[2]

This lack of mental and linguistic representation excludes women and downplays women’s contribution to society. [1]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UGF3x85-z1

[tagriffy]

To a certain extent that is true. However, the real point here is that the evidence taken as a whole leaves a lot of room for rational skepticism. A question I've asked you a couple times--without answer--goes along the lines of: If we were talking about anything other than the plates, and this is the kind of evidence we have at play, wouldn't you be skeptical about it?

There have been a lot of questions coming my way. Sorry I bypassed yours. Could you be somewhat specific as to examples? And how the lines of evidence would necessarily dovetail?

Regards,
MG

Back on my post of 1313 27 Sep, I wrote:

The problem is the evidence can be rationally interpreted in a number of different ways, We can't take the evidence as a whole and say a) Joseph was telling the truth, b) what he described was objective physical reality (this seems to be your notion of "truth"), and c) that this is a justified true belief. There is just far too much room for skepticism, to the point you already have to be inclined to believe a) and b) are true to accept it.

Put another way: Res Ipsa pointed out in a previous post that Joseph "carefully controlled the context in which anyone was permitted to be exposed to the plates." If anyone else in any other context were to do something like that, wouldn't you at least be a little suspicious?