If plates then God

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whatever the case may be - baby cancer.

- Doc

What one might expect in a natural world. Been through that earlier in the thread also.

Regards,
MG

Oh, ffs. That’s what you cherry picked from that post? Stupid hick.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

It would be far less embarrasing to just hear someone say "i believe, even though i am aware that a clearminded and rational evauation of the situation suggests I shouldn't."

But that’s not what I’m saying at all.

Pretending otherwise really destroys such a poster's reputation as a rational, thinking person interested in truth and knowledge.

Your sophistry is showing.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What one might expect in a natural world. Been through that earlier in the thread also.

Regards,
MG

Oh, ffs. That’s what you cherry picked from that post? Stupid hick.

- Doc

What would you have me see as being the conclusion I ought to draw after reading your post?

You wonderful and thoughtful man.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

It would be far less embarrasing to just hear someone say "i believe, even though i am aware that a clearminded and rational evauation of the situation suggests I shouldn't."

But that’s not what I’m saying at all.

Pretending otherwise really destroys such a poster's reputation as a rational, thinking person interested in truth and knowledge.

Your sophistry is showing.

Regards,
MG

Lol.

Your need to attack and disparage others is pathological....

It's your go to when you can't respond. And even when you can.

[Marcus]

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.

Your preliminary issue is that you have no "line of evidence". I'm not talking quality of evidence. A preliminary issue, before we even get to evidence quality, is that you have no coherent line of evidence even offered.

one example: you insist there is physical evidence for the gospel in the form of ancient plates due to witnesses testifying having seen the plates. But at the same time, you insist that seeing the plates would be too much proof, and so nobody is allowed to see them. Did Emma see the plates -- did she leaf through thin sheets of gold filled with ancient-looking writing or not? There is no reason from historical accounts to believe she did more than feel the alleged plates under a cloth in a very simple interaction while moving them. The problem is, that makes perfect sense in light of your belief that we can't go around giving people too much evidence -- and too much would be enough to rationally believe sans faith. And that means that Emma isn't actually a witness to the plates as such that you'd have "in a courtroom". She's someone who just believed there were plates without enough direct evidence to believe in them. Just like us. Any of us can just have faith and believe the plates were real. But then we can just have faith and believe the gospel is real, without having to go through the middleman of the plates. The same faith is required to believe in the so-called evidence that is required to believe in what the evidence is allegedly proving. Even if a witness has a clear, detailed account of examining the plates, your argument for faith prevents any witness from establishing the materiality of the plates because it would take away our faith.

If the witnesses establish the truth of ancient plates with court-room certainty, then they are proven well enough and no faith is needed; if they don't, then the plates are just an unnecessary intermediary we can skip and have faith directly in the gospel, and if witnesses do establish the plates with certainty for anyone who knows how a court of law works, but skeptics have hardened hearts and don't believe it, then skeptics could also disbelieve the plates if Moroni didn't take them back and the Church showed them to us, and so the argument fails that the plates can't be shown as it would take away our faith.

It was a convoluted argument, motivated by having to start by assuming his conclusion. It's a process repeated many times, and it never goes well, as you have most eloquently demonstrated.

[Philo Sofee]

What one might expect in a natural world. Been through that earlier in the thread also.

Regards,
MG

Oh, ffs. That’s what you cherry picked from that post? Stupid hick.

- Doc

calm down Doc! He is only using the brethren's methods.....

[tagriffy]

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

Hi tagriffy,

Thanks for reposting that. The simple answer is yes, I would. I would also agree that a,b,and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions. That’s what I find interesting in this forum. Getting a deeper perspective on some of those differing views as I alternatively hold up a more supportive position for traditional and faith focused accounts/narratives of the restoration and the value of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas.

Regards,
MG

So why attribute not seeing the evidence the way you do to the individuals not wanting to have their worldview changed, which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin?

[tagriffy]

Nice try.

Throughout the thread I’ve explicitly laid out why it is unreasonable to have the evidence of the plates in the here and now.

Regards,
MaG

Yes, and you've largely ignored my responses, some of which I used Scripture to illustrate my point.

[MG 2.0]

But that’s not what I’m saying at all.



Your sophistry is showing.

Regards,
MG

Lol.

Your need to attack and disparage others is pathological....

It's your go to when you can't respond. And even when you can.

You’re using this as an ‘out’. Res Ipsa, same thing.

Ad hominem where there is none. Just ‘show’ on your part to create drama.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It was a convoluted argument, motivated by having to start by assuming his conclusion. It's a process repeated many times, and it never goes well, as you have most eloquently demonstrated.

That’s getting old too. Just another ‘out’.

Regards,
MG