LDS

[carlitos]

Your belief is the very same as the faith in con artists.

Didn't you post something recently about forum rules re. ad hominem attacks?

Your belief ≠ You. So no.

And allow me to be at least the second person to ask about those colons. What gives?

 

[RandFan]

I made no reference to blind faith, a qualifier you have added.

Faith without evidence is blind.

No it doesn't. The cosmological argument, the design argument, and the ontological argument by no means preclude "logic and reason."

These are all nonsense and have been debunked a long time ago. They have been roundly rejected by scientists and philosophers.

http://new.exchristian.net/2011/07/debunking-kalam-cosmological-argument.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

Debunking the ontological argument

Didn't you post something recently about forum rules re. ad hominem attacks?

A.) That is not an ad hominem attack. I'm pointing out that I cannot distinguish the faith you have in something you cannot demonstrate and faith in a con man. B.) The rules do not preclude one from attacking beliefs.

 

[abaddon]

Your belief ≠ You. So no.

And allow me to be at least the second person to ask about those colons. What gives?

Thirded. What's the deal with adding the colons to quotes?

 

[Sideroxylon]

No it doesn't. The cosmological argument, the design argument, and the ontological argument by no means preclude "logic and reason."

Well it depends on how conclusive you think those arguments are as whether a leap of faith is required.

You will find plenty of discussion of those positions in this section of the forums. If you took up an informed argument on one or more in a dedicated thread you would get many takers.

 

[kerikiwi]

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

How do you know it is not yet time and how do you know of the advanced knowledge?
Is the advanced knowledge and understanding important to the well being of its future recipients? If so, why is it being withheld?
When it is finally revealed, will it be retroactive, like the baptisms of the dead?

 

[Jomante]

Faith without evidence is blind.

I think faith with evidence to the contrary is blind faith. Faith with no evidence is just...faith.

 

[kerikiwi]

I think faith with evidence to the contrary is blind faith. Faith with no evidence is just...faith.

Faith, with no evidence, is blind faith.

Faith with evidence is just faith.

Faith, with evidence to the contrary, is a class of its own.

 

[RandFan]

I think faith with evidence to the contrary is blind faith. Faith with no evidence is just...faith.

I could not disagree more. If you tell me you believe something but have no evidence then your faith is blind. BTW: The term originates from the Bible.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[RandFan]

Faith, with no evidence, is blind faith.

Faith with evidence is just faith.

Faith, with evidence to the contrary, is a class of its own.

Psychologists and psychiatrists refer to it as delusion.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

 

[Jomante]

Faith, with no evidence, is blind faith.

Faith with evidence is just faith.

Faith, with evidence to the contrary, is a class of its own.

Psychologists and psychiatrists refer to it as delusion.

Good point

 

[Janadele]

Is the advanced knowledge and understanding important to the well being of its future recipients? If so, why is it being withheld?

Those who have no understanding, or limited understanding, or reject truths already revealed, cannot expect to be given further revelation and knowledge.

 

[RandFan]

Those who have no understanding, or limited understanding, or reject truths already revealed, cannot expect to be given further revelation and knowledge.

Those who have no understanding are either comatose or dead. The rest is The Emperor's new clothes.

 

[jsfisher]

Those who have no understanding, or limited understanding, or reject truths already revealed, cannot expect to be given further revelation and knowledge.

Nice dodge. Sure beats intelligent discourse.

 

[kerikiwi]

Those who have no understanding, or limited understanding, or reject truths already revealed, cannot expect to be given further revelation and knowledge.

This post in no way addressed the two questions of mine which you quoted.
Can you actually answer the questions?

 

[skyrider44]

Well it depends on how conclusive you think those arguments are as whether a leap of faith is required.

You will find plenty of discussion of those positions in this section of the forums. If you took up an informed argument on one or more in a dedicated thread you would get many takers.

Thank you. One poster has auto-rejected those arguments, blithely sweeping away the reasoning of the likes of Alvin Plantings and Blaise Pascal (among others) and announcing that arguments in support of theism had been dismissed long ago.

Note the following:

"But even if the arguments [for classical theism]. . .cannot move us to believe in a classical theistic God, it would be premature to conclude that no argument can in principle establish the existence of such a being. From the fact that human thinkers have failed to establish God's existence in the past, it does not follow that it cannot be established in the future." (The Big Questions: Philosophy for Everyone, "Does God Exist?" Nils Ch. Rauhut, p. 288)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thank you. One poster has auto-rejected those arguments, blithely sweeping away the reasoning of the likes of Alvin Plantings and Blaise Pascal (among others) and announcing that arguments in support of theism had been dismissed long ago.

Note the following:

"But even if the arguments [for classical theism]. . .cannot move us to believe in a classical theistic God, it would be premature to conclude that no argument can in principle establish the existence of such a being. From the fact that human thinkers have failed to establish God's existence in the past, it does not follow that it cannot be established in the future." (The Big Questions: Philosophy for Everyone, "Does God Exist?" Nils Ch. Rauhut, p. 288)

Thanks

Now, about your list of specific anachronisms in the BoM that to your knowledge, have been demonstrated, with evidence, to exist..?

 

[Pup]

"But even if the arguments [for classical theism]. . .cannot move us to believe in a classical theistic God, it would be premature to conclude that no argument can in principle establish the existence of such a being. From the fact that human thinkers have failed to establish God's existence in the past, it does not follow that it cannot be established in the future." (The Big Questions: Philosophy for Everyone, "Does God Exist?" Nils Ch. Rauhut, p. 288)

That's a question about whether it's possible to have sufficient evidence for a god, not whether or not there is evidence for one. One could be an atheist and reject all current arguments for the existence of a god, while still holding the position that it's theoretically possible. Or one could reject all current arguments and hold that it's theoretically impossible too.

Not sure your point.

 

[skyrider44]

Faith without evidence is blind.

These are all nonsense and have been debunked a long time ago. They have been roundly rejected by scientists and philosophers.

You make a misleading sweeping generalization. They have not been "roundly rejected" by some "scientists and philosophers." See Post 3295.
The links you posted show a specious degree of selectivity.

: A.) That is not an ad hominem attack. I'm pointing out that I cannot distinguish the faith you have in something you cannot demonstrate and faith in a con man.

Actually, I agree with you, although comparing the validity of my beliefs to those of a con man is less than civil.

: B.) The rules do not preclude one from attacking beliefs.

Agreed, otherwise I suppose circa 75% of the responses to Janadele's posts would be out of bounds.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you. One poster has auto-rejected those arguments, blithely sweeping away the reasoning of the likes of Alvin Plantings and Blaise Pascal (among others) and announcing that arguments in support of theism had been dismissed long ago.

Note the following:

"But even if the arguments [for classical theism]. . .cannot move us to believe in a classical theistic God, it would be premature to conclude that no argument can in principle establish the existence of such a being. From the fact that human thinkers have failed to establish God's existence in the past, it does not follow that it cannot be established in the future." (The Big Questions: Philosophy for Everyone, "Does God Exist?" Nils Ch. Rauhut, p. 288)

I hold no such position. I've seen each these arguments addressed at least a dozen times. They are flawed arguments.

In the past great minds believed in god. Today most don't. They don't because it is not reasonable to believe in god. In the past we lacked so many answers for how the universe works so we fell back on god to answer it. Over the years the gaps for god to hide in have been shrinking and shrinking. There is no more a need for great minds to cling to religion. If these arguments were persuasive they would lead to consensus of belief in god among those who are good at formal logic. It has lead to the converse.

Now consider this, when the theories of Red Shift and Solar Wind (to give two of many examples) were first introduced they were roundly rejected by scientists at the time. But, like all truths, they had the power of logic on their side.

If these arguments had any validity they would lead to increased belief in god among scientists. They don't. The trend is ever decreasing belief in god.

source A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

 

[RandFan]

You make a misleading sweeping generalization. They have not been "roundly rejected" by some "scientists and philosophers." See Post 3295.

They have failed to cause scientists to believe in god.

The links you posted show a specious degree of selectivity.

That is fallacy. You need to address the arguments made and not dismiss them as you have done here.

Actually, I agree with you, although comparing the validity of my beliefs to those of a con man is less than civil.

IMO: The evidence that the Mormon Church is predicated on a scam is more than abundant.

Agreed, otherwise I suppose circa 75% of the responses to Janadele's posts would be out of bounds.

This is a skeptics site. We exist to challenge beliefs. That's what it is all about. Do you honestly know nothing of James Randi and all that he has done to challenge beliefs? Skepticism and critical thinking call for the hard truth.

If you don't want to know what is in your sausage don't go to a sausage factory. If you don't want your beliefs criticized don't go to a skeptics forum.