is it possible that....

[QUOTE][B]Some people consider that John Smith did that also.[/QUOTE][/B]I've never heard of John Smith but I'm sure there are lots out there. Perhaps you mean Joseph Smith, Junior, born in Sharon, VT, founded the LDS church in Palmyra, NY, murdered with his brother Hyrum while unjustly imprisoned (for treason) in the jail of Carthage, Illinois, on 27 June 1844.I wonder about people who start religions that so offend their neighbors that the neighbors want to do them physical harm. I wonder more about the supposed hucksters who the neighbors find so offensive that the governor of the state authorizes an Extermination Order, encouraging any member of the group to be killed on sight. Finally, I wonder most about hucksters that spend months in jail dungeons and give up their own lives for the religions they found.The idea that Smith deliberately misled people is unlikely. I think it is obvious that he at least believed in what he did.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-22-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Spending too much time alone in the woods? You know, there are other books you can get to bring with you instead of the bible to read.[/QUOTE][/B]Another fine, logic-filled post from Nos. Isn't that called "Trolling"?

[QUOTE][B]Non sequitur(sic). As Mr. Spock said in the first movie, "Logic is not enough..."[/QUOTE][/B]What else, from a philosophical perspective, do you need?

[QUOTE][B]At least one A Priori object and an Intention![/QUOTE][/B]I think that the truth of the existance of the observer is a synthetic a priori statement because intentionality is contingent upon it. However I feel that the existance of God is an a posteriori truth. The core of most of my argument though against strong atheism is that the existance of God is a logical possibility therefore the principles of justified true belief, evidentialism, and their kin, while they work fine in science, are insufficient for a complete model of the universe. Of course, my position is non-falsifiable!

[QUOTE][B]If that is so than the existence of the tooth fairy is a logical possibility as well[/QUOTE][/B]That is correct. The only way to refute a logical possibility is through internal contradiction. Evidence is irrelevant in modal logic, which deals with only possibilities, ie, blind speculation.However you overlooked that I mentioned that it is my opinion that the existance of God is also an a posteriori truth.

[QUOTE][B]So, you must accept the possibility of the existence of a tooth fairy[/QUOTE][/B]Yes, to the same extent one believes in the validity of modal logic. I see it as a first step to establishing the validity of a concept but it isn't enough alone. For example we can use it to rule out a flat sphere but not a purple cat. [QUOTE][B]or else what you believe in is untrue.[/QUOTE][/B]Not necessarily because I am using more than modal logic. However modal logic undermines strong atheism. I may not believe in a tooth fairy but if there were a church that did it would be inappropriate to argue that they were incorrect, *and* my position would be as weak as their own and could only end in a stalemate (lack of evidence).The inherent problem with using the tooth fairy as an analogy, and you apparently haven't noticed this, is that the tooth fairy hypothesis for the disappearance of childrens' teeth is testable and therefore not "really" supernatural...at least not without modification to the concept of the toothfairy (like providing it with omnicisience and omnipotence, ie, giving it the specific parameters assigned to God). [QUOTE][B]Please define "posteriori truth"?[/QUOTE][/B]An a posteriori truth can be determined by experience. This is that highly subjective spirit witness thing that you reject.

[QUOTE][B]BTW, a flat sphere is possible if it is represented on a 2D plane such as a sheet of paper or a video screen.[/QUOTE][/B]Then you would have a representation of a sphere, not a true sphere. A flat sphere is a contradiction by most definitions of a sphere. We could play word games and imply that the representation of a sphere is a "virtual sphere" or we could imitate Plato (I think) and imply that no spheres in our world are real spheres but imitations of the sphere ideal, which only fits the definition of a sphere and therefore the 'flat sphere' is a representation of a representation and somewhat moot. [QUOTE][B]This is basically what you are asking me to do.[/QUOTE][/B]Hank doesn't have a spiritual witness. [QUOTE][B]Just because some may set up a church around a belief that that makes it true?[/QUOTE][/B]Not necessarily true, but necessarily impossible to prove false. Therefore atheism is not founded upon logic. In fact the entire position of atheism makes no sense to me at all. [QUOTE][B]Though, unlike your god the existence of Elvis can quite easily be proven[/QUOTE][/B]Not as easily as you might think. I say that because there would be believers that there was never any Elvis willing to claim anything no matter how strange: for example, that the guy shaking his pelvis in all the old Elvis videos was William Shakespeare. [QUOTE][B]I could use the excuse that the tooth fairy works through the parents.[/QUOTE][/B]Which would be valid so long as it is taken in context. Similar to saying that all dreams are real, as they are all physical phenomena of the brain.However you would, again, have to include God-like parameters in the toothfairy construct. [QUOTE][B]Is that a real physical experience which can be confirmed by objective means or an imaginary mental one which can't be and very well be a delusion?[/QUOTE][/B]It cannot be "imaginary" because it implies that the experience is invalid and an a posteriori truth must be correct to be sound. That would require the "imaginary" to be of equal value as the "real".Also you're flirting with circularity here. If you want to conclude that God is not an a posteriori truth in order to support the belief that there is no God, then you must conclude that all witnesses of God are either imaginary or false, and the only clear support for either assertion is the use of the nonexistance of God as an axiom. [QUOTE][B]If mental than all dreams are true by your reasoning.[/QUOTE][/B]But all dreams are true, in their own context, because they happen. Relevancy of dream material to the waking world is a different matter.

[QUOTE][B]My personal opinion is that we all found our personal religions. How many people you do you that have combined many religions into one that means much to them. I have never met a Christain that was 100% Christain[/QUOTE][/B]Valid point. It is dependant upon how loosely "Christian" is defined. If the definition requires that the Christian be a Freewill Baptist then only Freewill Baptists are Christians. If Bob is the definition of a Christian then Bob is the only Christian.But I think this is only another wordgame.

Nos, when you're ready to put some thoughts forth beyond acerbic and fundamentally useless one-liners I'll give you a worthy response.Until then, you're not "debating" anyone here, just trolling. Instead of arguing substantial points you're throwing out self-satisfying insults and intellectual junk-food. Now that I've seen you repeat your holy mantra a dozen times with no justification or basis for that bald assertion, that:"All religious beliefs are equal, equally delusional."I just don't see much justification to continue actually thinking when I reply to your posts, because I *know* you won't give me the same courtesy. Can you even justify your presence in half of the threads you participate in, other than to heckle legitimate participants? What sound arguments have you made since you got here? This is what, your third week?I'm making a plea to invoke the Kent Hovind clause on ad-hominems. And besides I think that getting one of us a 48-hour suspension will probably contribute to the quality of this forum far more than attempting to have an actual debate with you, an attempt that has failed with surprising consistency since you arrived.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]If one can't express an honest opinion on here than it may as well be a theocracy.[/QUOTE][/B]Opinions are part of this but I'm here to debate.I try to give replies of substance but when I don't receive equally thorough replies I get frustrated because I'm wasting my time.The terrible fact is that I'm not particularly interested in your *opinion*; or anyone elses'. I want to hear why you are right and why I am wrong. That's why I'm here, not for one-liners and snide comments. Yeah I said opinions are part of this, in that your opinion is your thesis for your argument (hopefully about a paragraph in length) consisting of valid logical structures. [QUOTE][B]I keep asking you for credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence for your beliefs[/QUOTE][/B]Sometime back around Day 1 I informed you that this is essentially theology we are debating, and not science, therefore scientific evidence is right out the window. The proper thing for you to do would be to either honorably excuse yourself because you don't want to fight a nonfalsifiable position or dig in for the duration and accept that you won't hear any scientific evidence.However when you said that JS came from back from the dead to write a Civil War prophecy after the fact then surely you could have found some historical evidence for that. None. Bald assertion.When you implied that the Church revised its history you offered no historical evidence. It was another bald assertion.When you stated that Shakespeare translated the KJV you not only presented no evidence you got rebuffed by a fellow non-theist.As I see it, you don't have much room to preach about evidence.Also, why is it that you usually ignore more than half of messages and call it either "non sequitur" or "irrelevant crap deleted"?Before you can properly blow of my material you have to have evidence that is 'non-sequitur' or 'irrelevant'. [QUOTE][B]and all you give me back are fairy tales and an imaginary friend and you expect me to take you seriously.[/QUOTE][/B]See, these are yet more bald assertions.

[QUOTE][B]It doesn't have to be scientific, just credible.[/QUOTE][/B]What about those prophecies? Prior to the war they were printed out on cards entitled "The Pearl of the Great Price" and used by missionaries throughout the US and England. Also they were recorded in the journals kept by those missionaries. Finally it can be found in the 1856 edition of Doctrine and Covenants and forward-- some copies of which are still in private hands, other copies of which are most likely to be found in the collections of secular libraries. Even if the Church did revise its history those sources could not have been altered. And if that isn't enough for you, check the "Journal History" of the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury for 5 May 1861 -- about the time of the onset of the war -- and find the following quote:"We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851.... In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfillment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.... Have we not had a prophet among us?".Pulled from the following (biased) site:
LDS FAQ: Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith, the Mormon ProphetNow, where is your evidence that Smith did not write that, and where is your evidence of revision? [QUOTE][B]You don't have any proof that he actually wrote any of it himself.[/QUOTE][/B]You don't have proof that Hammurabi had anything to do with his Code, and that was thousands of years ago, yet it is taken at face value. We have first-hand accounts of historical witnesses to church history, and it was only in 1832.By your logic we will just have to discard any literary works prior to about 1900 since we don't have "proof" that any of them were written by who they claimed to be. There goes cultural archeology and any attempts at the study of literature. That's going to be really bad here in the States because your reasoning makes the US Constitution invalid. [QUOTE][B]Please, it is a common tactic to make themselves look better. [/QUOTE][/B]I presume, then, you have no evidence? That the above is yet another useless, baseless claim, a mere assertion?Worse, you're stereotyping. It is starting to look like you assume that all Christians are dishonest because it is a tenet of your religious perspective. If that's true then it puts you right down there with the worst Fundies. [QUOTE][B]Prove me wrong, show me your so-called "spirit witness"? [/QUOTE][/B]Show me a tau lepton. You know how to find the effects of the spirit you just won't actually go about it.

[QUOTE][B]They are not about to say "Yes, we have revised this, but we still want you to accept it as the truth..."[/QUOTE][/B]Sorry excuse. You know that LDS scriptures have been published more or less continuously since the 1830s. Surely you also must realize that there are surviving copies in non-church hands.Don't throw out silly accusations that you don't have any basis for. [QUOTE][B]Apples and oranges again.[/QUOTE][/B]Bald assertion (again).Are you going to contribute anything of substance or are you just going to continue repeating yourself? [QUOTE][B]Easy, is there a super collider around where you live?[/QUOTE][/B]I think being "shown" (your word) a tau lepton would be worth the plane ticken. [QUOTE][B]And how do I go about finding this "spirit"?[/QUOTE][/B]I gave you instructions a long time ago. I'd repeat them if I thought you'd follow up, but of course, I know better. [QUOTE][B]What are it's physical properties?[/QUOTE][/B]We're not dealing with physical phenomena. Remember Day 1? [QUOTE][B]Or it's energy state? Oh, I almost forgot, all I have to do is believe that your "spirit" is real and it will be real. No other proof is needed.[/QUOTE][/B]Useless snide remarks. In other words, drivel.

[QUOTE][B]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE][/B]I would take your posts a little more seriously if you would use the form "Irrelevant BECAUSE...."You are a troll, aren't you?[Irrelevant crap deleted]