Loading 0 Votes - +

RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms

I do in fact have gaydar; been using it for years now, but it wasn’t like I had to search for missionaries nor were they gay.

They look the same and stand out every where in the world.

It’s almost like being in a foreign country and spotting an American, they stick out like a sore thumb, except with missionaries, it’s the same and they’re all uniform. Suit, tie, backpack, get closer see a name badge, definitely missionaries.

Though you are correct, Mormon’s can pick up on cues in casual conversation, I’m sure just as any person with a cultural connection can. This girl was born in Tehran and points out all of the Iranians that I wouldn’t notice.

One of the most interesting things about Armenia are all of the old and wearing down Soviet statues. A lot of Yerevan was build up by the Soviets, very easy to recognize it and a lot of it is in terrible shape.

As for what you wrote earlier, know human is infallible. This is one of the core teachings of my faith, but my point was that it can be rationalized to someone else as some thing else, except for me. I won’t deny the possibility of a seizure which you describe, I highly doubt it, but I don’t deny the possibility of it because we believe that God uses methods that are not merely “super natural” so to so. Many Mormon’s believe that God used evolution in the creation of man, so it’s not beyond us to believe in science as a tool.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:

my point was that it can be rationalized to someone else as some thing else, except for me.

I’m not sure why I’m having such a hard time making this clear. What I’ve been saying is that the “except for me” clause here is unjustified.

Why are you an exception, here? You can’t simply refer to your beliefs about your god, because you were using this experience to justify your beliefs in the first place. That would circular reasoning.

Logically, you shouldn’t be making this exception.

You say you “highly doubt” it was anything like a temporal lobe seizure, but that just begs the question… why do you doubt this?

People known to have them recognize them as not being supernatural because the experiences are improbable… a feeling of jamais vu in one’s own home, or “seeing” sounds or “hearing” colors. They don’t doubt them because they “feel” natural. The only way they can doubt the experience is to reason that a TLS is a better explanation than the alternatives.

If you’re standing in your own living room and have an overwhelming feeling you’d never been there before, you might propose an explanation like something from The Matrix—you might think it’s indicating that the world you’re seeing isn’t real, that the feeling is correct. That you’d never actually been there, and the “machine” had switched histories on you.

But TLS is a far simpler and more natural explanation. Only a crazy person would discard it in favor of the wacky Sci Fi scenario.

But those are exactly grounds for you to dismiss your own experience. The simple, natural explanation of TLS (or something similar) is a better explanation. The experience itself is simply not adequate evidence for your conclusion—in the same way that jamais vu isn’t adequate evidence for living in the Matrix.

Many Mormon’s believe that God used evolution in the creation of man, so it’s not beyond us to believe in science as a tool.

Not really relevant, either. We’re talking about your reasoning, which depends on your beliefs, not “many Mormons”.

I admit I’m a little curious how far this extends. I had some discussions in that direction with Brandon a few years ago, and his take on similar subjects seemed very odd. We didn’t discuss the Mormon take on evolution—he’s indicated that Mormons accept evolution, the discussion never got around to anything about how this is supposed to work.

I guess some definitions are in order. I take the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” to fall much the same way as Richard Carrier does. He argues for his definitions here.

In short, I argue “naturalism” means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, “supernaturalism” means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.

The god of mainstream Christianity is clearly “supernatural”, in these terms. It’s a “mental thing”—a disembodied mind—that pre-existed all the “non-mental things”, and directly caused them to come about.

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution, but they adopt a supernaturalist stance on it. Their god directs evolution by his will.

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

America's involvement with the ISIS crisis should be?

11 votes, 0 comments