Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon.

[Sententia]

As DeepShadow already pointed out:Your assumption is that one need not have faith.
Faith is a given when proof cannot be offered FROM EITHER SIDE.

Your assumption is that "Common Sense" is an absolute.
When clearly it is subjective.

So my point stands:

You assume to much
​

I cut and pasted the common sense defintion from websters above... Not sure what your arguing here. It sounds like...

If you can't prove something then you can either believe it and accept it or deny it and not accept it and both are common sense. Like Fairys... We cant prove them but we can believe in the through common sense.

You just don't want to concede the point. Which is fine: what perceptions and facts do you puport that would allow me to make a sound and prudent judgement that a personal god does indeed exist?

 

[McBell]

I cut and pasted the common sense defintion from websters above... Not sure what your arguing here. It sounds like...

If you can't prove something then you can either believe it and accept it or deny it and not accept it and both are common sense. Like Fairys... We cant prove them but we can believe in the through common sense.

You just don't want to concede the point. Which is fine: what perceptions and facts do you puport that would allow me to make a sound and prudent judgement that a personal god does indeed exist?

Allow YOU?
None that I can give you.
As Deep shadow has already pointed out, not that you will listen any better when I present it:

The first is doable: God has spoken to me, personally, therefore belief in Him is, FOR ME, common sense. But after that it breaks down: my message from God is for me, not for you. Go get your own. I can't validate my message objectively to others, and I wouldn't do so if I could.

When you can empirically, objectively prove you love your wife/girlfriend/whoever, I'll try to prove to you that God spoke to me.
​

Interesting that you choose to ignore that which is in red...

 

[Sententia]

Allow YOU?
None that I can give you.
As Deep shadow has already pointed out, not that you will listen any better when I present it:

The first is doable: God has spoken to me, personally, therefore belief in Him is, FOR ME, common sense. But after that it breaks down: my message from God is for me, not for you. Go get your own. I can't validate my message objectively to others, and I wouldn't do so if I could.

When you can empirically, objectively prove you love your wife/girlfriend/whoever, I'll try to prove to you that God spoke to me.
​

Interesting that you choose to ignore that which is in red...

I didn't ignore it and I did address it when I replied to deep shadow. hehe. You still haven't elaborated on your sarcastic... "oh the common sense argument." Unless its to say... yeah thats a good argument unless you can actually hear god talking to you.... then isn't common sense to then believe.

You accused me of assuming too much. What did I assume too much of? Exactly? What point did you make that still stands? The definition for common sense? I did paste the defintion out of the very controversial Webster's. :areyoucra

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I didn't ignore it and I did address it when I replied to deep shadow. hehe. You still haven't elaborated on your sarcastic... "oh the common sense argument." Unless its to say... yeah thats a good argument unless you can actually hear god talking to you.... then isn't common sense to then believe.

You accused me of assuming too much. What did I assume too much of? Exactly? What point did you make that still stands? The definition for common sense? I did paste the defintion out of the very controversial Webster's. :areyoucra

Do you love anyone BalanceFx?
How would you go about proving that love?

 

[Halcyon]

How would you go about proving that love?

Flowers and chocolates!

But I guess if its a God, then a bucket of goats blood?

 

[McBell]

I didn't ignore it and I did address it when I replied to deep shadow. hehe.

Must have been in another thread or a Private Message...

You still haven't elaborated on your sarcastic... "oh the common sense argument." Unless its to say... yeah thats a good argument unless you can actually hear god talking to you.... then isn't common sense to then believe.

The typical, I have no proof so I claim the "Common Sense" argument.
It is no better than the "Faith" argument presented by theists.

You accused me of assuming too much. What did I assume too much of?

Your assumption is that one need not have faith.
Faith is a given when proof cannot be offered FROM EITHER SIDE.

Your assumption is that "Common Sense" is an absolute.
When clearly it is subjective.

What point did you make that still stands?

That you assume to much, please pay attention.

The definition for common sense? I did paste the defintion out of the very controversial Webster's. :areyoucra

Guess your not done being an arse after all.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Flowers and chocolates!

But I guess if its a God, then a bucket of goats blood?

Well Halcyon, the quality and quantity of time are important factors as well as gifts when describing one love to someone as well. Would you agree?

 

[Sententia]

Must have been in another thread or a Private Message...
The typical, I have no proof so I claim the "Common Sense" argument.
It is no better than the "Faith" argument presented by theists.
Your assumption is that one need not have faith.
Faith is a given when proof cannot be offered FROM EITHER SIDE.
Your assumption is that "Common Sense" is an absolute.
When clearly it is subjective.
That you assume to much, please pay attention.
Guess your not done being an arse after all.

Listing the accepted definition of common sense is not being an arse. Its insuring we are both on the same page. You say I assume this or that when in fact I do not.

Your argument is flawed - that is - in the absense of proof faith is needed in order to reject something fantastical.

Lets put your argument to the tests. You say... BalanceFx, in my house I have God over as a dinner guest every thursday. Now to reject such a notion do I need to have faith that god is indeed not at your house every thursday having dinner? No more then I need it when people tell me they hear god or they know in exquisite detail what happens after death.

Common sense is as defined by what is fact and by what can be percieved. What happens after death according to common sense is the person ceases to be, we get a box and put their body in it and we bury them. Or burn them... whatever. Their gone.

Thats common sense. Faith is an entirely different animal with many different meanings. In the context your using it is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I.e. God. To believe in god you need FAITH. To not beleive in god does not take faith.

You assume one needs faith to not believe in god. You not only assume too much, your very assumptions are flawwed and you use them to judge me.

 

[McBell]

You assume one needs faith to not believe in god. You not only assume too much, your very assumptions are flawwed and you use them to judge me.

LOL
Now you are merely attempting to dictate to me what I do and do not think/believe.
Is this more of your "common sense" being used?
Because I call it a strawman.

 

[Sententia]

LOL
Now you are merely attempting to dictate to me what I do and do not think/believe.
Is this more of your "common sense" being used?

See above. I think its explained in enough detail and does not bear repeating. My opinion is you are using flawwed logic to judge me... whatever you percieve yourself as doing, thinking and believing has nothing to do with me. Your current response is a red herring.

Seriously do you have an actual response to my previous post?

 

[McBell]

See above. I think its explained in enough detail and does not bear repeating. My opinion is you are using flawwed logic to judge me... whatever you percieve yourself as doing, thinking and believing has nothing to do with me. Your current response is a red herring.

Seriously do you have an actual response to my previous post?

I am still awaiting you to address your assumptions.
But instead, you make more assumptions, claim that your assumptions are what I believer/think, and now whine about my lack of reply to your strawmen.

Gotta love that "common sense."

 

[Sententia]

I am still awaiting you to address your assumptions.
But instead, you make more assumptions, claim that your assumptions are what I believer/think, and now whine about my lack of reply to your strawmen.

Gotta love that "common sense."

Listing the accepted definition of common sense is not being an arse. Its insuring we are both on the same page. You say I assume this or that when in fact I do not.

Your argument is flawed - that is - in the absense of proof faith is needed in order to reject something fantastical.

Lets put your argument to the tests. You say... BalanceFx, in my house I have God over as a dinner guest every thursday. Now to reject such a notion do I need to have faith that god is indeed not at your house every thursday having dinner? No more then I need it when people tell me they hear god or they know in exquisite detail what happens after death.

Common sense is as defined by what is fact and by what can be percieved. What happens after death according to common sense is the person ceases to be, we get a box and put their body in it and we bury them. Or burn them... whatever. Their gone.

Thats common sense. Faith is an entirely different animal with many different meanings. In the context your using it is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I.e. God. To believe in god you need FAITH. To not beleive in god does not take faith.

 

[DeepShadow]

Lol. You just said you know there is a god because he has spoken to you. The most powerful being you can conjure, god of all matter both seen and unseen and father of the universe has spoken directly to you.

Yes.

And you come back with no true scotsman fallacy?

You committed a fallacy--you requalified your definition of "god" after I pointed out your error--and I pointed out the fallacy. What else is there to say? We can't continue discussion until you fix your fallacy. If it bothers you that I point out errors, stop jumping to these kinds of conclusions.

You acknowledge a personal god can not be proven, not even by you who has actually talked to god.

Of course. Just like you can't prove that you love someone. Love and God are among the thousands of things in the world that exist and yet can't be proven. If you'd like a different example, how would you prove you've tasted salt? What does it taste like?

Now heres the crux... For a theory to be useful it must be posed to explain or to attempt to explain something. Ie... evolution was posed as a theory to how humans and other complicted organisms can evolve from non organic origins.

For theories, sure. Is there a theory of love? A theory of salt? You are forcing the entire world into a Prucrustean right-brained perspective. You can see the world through half a brain if you wish, but don't force others to do so.

For what purpose do you suppose a personal god theory is needed and to what event does it explain?

I never posited such a theory.

I stated that a a disbelief in a personal god is common sense. You refute this... ok

No, I didn't. I said that belief in God is common sense TO ME. You are perfectly entitled to say that disbelief is common sense TO YOU. The part where you are being an "arse" as Mestimia points out, is when you assume that your "common sense" is not subjective, which it most certainly is.

What is common sense?

And now you're begging the original question--another fallacy. Do you mind that I label your fallacies?

You see, the problem is that there are two questions here: what is common sense for YOU, and what is common sense for ME. For you, having had no experience of God, I can understand perfectly why you don't believe in Him.

It's kinda like those old logic puzzles where you have one person who always lies and one who always tells the truth, but you have to ask one of them a question and tell who's who. You do it by asking a question that contains a "you" element, thereby making it a different question depending upon who you ask.

Ahh. So what perceptions and facts do you puport that would allow me to make a sound and prudent judgement that a personal god does indeed exist?

Does that definition say these experiences must be objective? Well, does it? NO. Hence, I had my own. You need your own. I can't share my sense of God any more than I can share my sense of taste or smell.

 

[DeepShadow]

Common sense is as defined by what is fact and by what can be percieved.

Perceived, yes, but not objectively. Perceptions are just as often subjective, and therefore "common sense" varies with the individual. You are conflating common sense with objective validity.

 

[McBell]

Listing the accepted definition of common sense is not being an arse. Its insuring we are both on the same page. You say I assume this or that when in fact I do not.

Your argument is flawed - that is - in the absense of proof faith is needed in order to reject something fantastical.

Lets put your argument to the tests. You say... BalanceFx, in my house I have God over as a dinner guest every thursday. Now to reject such a notion do I need to have faith that god is indeed not at your house every thursday having dinner? No more then I need it when people tell me they hear god or they know in exquisite detail what happens after death.

Common sense is as defined by what is fact and by what can be percieved. What happens after death according to common sense is the person ceases to be, we get a box and put their body in it and we bury them. Or burn them... whatever. Their gone.

Thats common sense. Faith is an entirely different animal with many different meanings. In the context your using it is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I.e. God. To believe in god you need FAITH. To not beleive in god does not take faith.

*yawn*

Now you are being a boring arse.

 

[Sententia]

Yes.

Yes the most powerful and the greatest being you can imagine spoke to you. You never responded before... what language? Was it just pictures? Did he have an accent?

Its all moot really, just personal curiousity.

You committed a fallacy--you requalified your definition of "god" after I pointed out your error--and I pointed out the fallacy. What else is there to say? We can't continue discussion until you fix your fallacy. If it bothers you that I point out errors, stop jumping to these kinds of conclusions.

All I said was personal god... we seemed to be misunderstanding each other so I clarified it to prevent future misunderstandings. That is all. Seriously relax. Im not satan... hehe. By all means point out what you classify as errors. We can always get to the root of what you disagree about and see if we can resolve it. Im not here to prove your insane or that I'm right.... I'm just stating my POV and sharing and debating. I do love a good debate. As far as fallicious arguments go... hey if you think I have one please point it out so I can restate. I dont believe its fallicious but maybe Im wrong. Its happened before ya know.

Of course. Just like you can't prove that you love someone. Love and God are among the thousands of things in the world that exist and yet can't be proven. If you'd like a different example, how would you prove you've tasted salt? What does it taste like?

These are very bad examples. Love has meanings which directly ties it to god so its just a red herring to compare the two. It has 9 accepted meanings according to webster and one of them is GOD. The taste of salt eh... Also a bad example... Someone can ask me how does salt taste and I can say here taste this... and wala we have a common ground... is what we both percieve to be the taste of salt really what the taste of salt is may be a great philosphospical argument but does not in any way prove god.

I cant answer the same person who asks me about god with here... look at this... you see that is what god is. Why? Because there is no proof of god. Theres salt everywhere but wheres god?

For theories, sure. Is there a theory of love? A theory of salt? You are forcing the entire world into a Prucrustean right-brained perspective. You can see the world through half a brain if you wish, but don't force others to do so.

I covered this but implying I see the world through half a brain based on your line of reasoning is ludicrous. Theory of salt... Go to your pantry or kitchen table or the nearest ocean... we dont really need a theory. We got that down pat. Salt exists, we know its chemical make up, we know what taste buds are sensitive to it and most people use it every day much to the dismay of their doctors. Worldwide in all different countries and languages there is one meaning of salt. Of god? 1000s. Literally. You have how many millions in your religion that accept your god and your way of worship? Imagine all the millions worldwide that believe in different gods and hear different messages. Just because you believe it doesnt make it so. It just means you have faith. And I will reiterate here... FAITH is needed for both your religion and a belief in god. Faith is NOT needed for a disbelief in either.

I never posited such a theory.

I realize that... I was asking you... what is the purpose of a personal god? Why do think we need one? What is the whole basis of your theory? Why do I need a personal god in my life?

No, I didn't. I said that belief in God is common sense TO ME. You are perfectly entitled to say that disbelief is common sense TO YOU. The part where you are being an "arse" as Mestimia points out, is when you assume that your "common sense" is not subjective, which it most certainly is.

Ahhh My common sense is subjective. I see. So we need to delve in to why god is common sense to you and why it is not common sense to me. I get it. Completely. So why is your belief in god just common sense?

You see, the problem is that there are two questions here: what is common sense for YOU, and what is common sense for ME. For you, having had no experience of God, I can understand perfectly why you don't believe in Him.

LOL. I grew up religious my whole life. I prayed to god more then you could imagine. I've almost been dead twice, once as a child from cancer... I had to learn to walk again... I had kids make fun of me for having no hair. Ive been stabbed. I know quite a bit more about god then you assume. Although I will admit... I've never heard or seen him.

Does that definition say these experiences must be objective? Well, does it? NO. Hence, I had my own. You need your own. I can't share my sense of God any more than I can share my sense of taste or smell.

But you can share you sense of taste of smell. Its quite easy. People have dedicated their lives to exactly such things. How you interpret such tastes and smells is another story.

Your sense of god is your idea. Your mind. There is no reason or useful purpose for a personal god. History has proven the exact opposite. Today literally 1000s of gods get worshiped and people see ghosts, demons, angels and the spirt of mary on their toast. You believe your god is the god. The personal god. You believe he talks or communicates with you and thus you believe as common sense.

It is your sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

Educate me. Why is it sound and prudent judgement to believe in your god and not anyone elses or in none at all?

What make your story of god which has no more proof than jack and the beanstalk more real?

What makes jack and the beanstalk a fantasy but your stories of your god reality?

 

[Sententia]

*yawn*

Now you are being a boring arse.

Seriously this is just a personal attack. I told you your logic is flawwed. I have quoted both faith and common sense to you and addressed your assumption concerns while you constantly call me an arse.

You can disagree with me but in your words you just beligerantly insult me. Im used to it as an atheist but I dont believe I deserve it. If you dont have anything to say why do keep hitting reply? Is that how you were brought up? Is that your religious morals shining through?

I have asked you seriously for a reply and all I get is insults.

 

[McBell]

Seriously this is just a personal attack. I told you your logic is flawwed. I have quoted both faith and common sense to you and addressed your assumption concerns while you constantly call me an arse.

You can disagree with me but in your words you just beligerantly insult me. Im used to it as an atheist but I dont believe I deserve it. If you dont have anything to say why do keep hitting reply? Is that how you were brought up? Is that your religious morals shining through?

I have asked you seriously for a reply and all I get is insults.

LOL
My "religious morals?"
AS I said, you assume to much.
But instead of addressing that, you continue to attack your strawmen.
When you stop attacking your strawmen and actually start addressing the point I brought up, we can continue.
Till then, I shall refrain from replying seeing as it upsets you so.

 

[Sententia]

LOL
My "religious morals?"
AS I said, you assume to much.
But instead of addressing that, you continue to attack your strawmen.
When you stop attacking your strawmen and actually start addressing the point I brought up, we can continue.
Till then, I shall refrain from replying seeing as it upsets you so.

Ok... again... you said you need faith to not believe in something for which there is no proof. That is simply you misunderstanding what faith is. Please clarify your definition of faith if you disagree.

Common sense may be subjective but subjective to what? What perceptions do you have that would allow you to conclude that a belief in god is nothing more then common sense?

Im repeating myself while you call my argument a strawman and insult me. Stay silent then if you wish, I believe I already offered you that way out.

Heh... Elaborate then how a personal god argument is common sense. Ok... just sense... Tell me how it really is and what you know. Tell me its not your opinion but fact and I should be living my life according to HIS plan.

Go for it. Show me the error of my ways. Or back down and just goto your corner. You have faith and nothing more.

You can continue to insult me or you can address what perceptions you have that would allow you to conclude that a belief in god is nothing more then common sense?

You want to say common sense is subjective... and if its based on perceptions then I wont argue with you but what perceptions would allow you to believe in god. Perhaps you see, hear, feel, touch, smell and taste a god? Perhaps your have another sense we dont... ESP. Elaborate.

The end is you have faith or some skeweed perception you cant prove but believe which is faith.

When I say you have faith and nothing more thats what I believe.

 

[DeepShadow]

Yes the most powerful and the greatest being you can imagine spoke to you. You never responded before... what language? Was it just pictures? Did he have an accent?

Its all moot really, just personal curiousity.

I have no means of describing it. That's why I used the example of what salt tastes like. Your attempt to refute:

Someone can ask me how does salt taste and I can say here taste this... and wala we have a common ground...

Actually supports my point: you cannot DESCRIBE the taste of salt. Hence you have to give someone some salt to taste. I cannot give you any of my experience with God, hence I have no way to describe it.

I cant answer the same person who asks me about god with here... look at this... you see that is what god is.

Assuming you had something to give them.

I covered this but implying I see the world through half a brain based on your line of reasoning is ludicrous.

Then tell me, why are you confining a right-brained activity (spirituality) into a left-brained mode of thinking? I love God, and I love science, but to pit the two of them against each other is silly.

I realize that... I was asking you... what is the purpose of a personal god? Why do think we need one? What is the whole basis of your theory? Why do I need a personal god in my life?

These questions only have meaning if you assume something doesn't exist. The world could get along fine without Cleveland, but no one's saying, "Why would we need another city?" as a way to question whether there's a Cleveland.

I realize that... I was asking you... what is the purpose of a personal god?

What is the purpose of you? If you lost that purpose--or hadn't found it yet--would you cease to exist?

Beings don't appear in the universe because there's a need. They exist, or they don't.

Why do think we need one?

Good question. I'm still in the process of finding that out. That's what spirituality is, a process of discovering those kinds of things.

What is the whole basis of your theory?

I never had a theory. You keep saying I do.

Why do I need a personal god in my life?

How on earth should I know? Why are you asking ME why YOU need a personal god in your life? If it bothers you, ask yourself the question. Better yet, ask God.

If it doesn't bother you...don't sweat it!

Ahhh My common sense is subjective. I see. So we need to delve in to why god is common sense to you and why it is not common sense to me. I get it. Completely.

Good. So now you see why Mestemia made the original comment about "common sense." For you to assume that your view is common sense and spiritual views are not is silly and asinine.

So why is your belief in god just common sense?

I already told you: He spoke to me. By your own definition posted from Websters, that would make it commons sense to believe in Him.

LOL. I grew up religious my whole life. I prayed to god more then you could imagine. I've almost been dead twice, once as a child from cancer... I had to learn to walk again... I had kids make fun of me for having no hair. Ive been stabbed. I know quite a bit more about god then you assume. Although I will admit... I've never heard or seen him.

Sorry you thought I was making assumptions about what you knew about God, but I wasn't. Note my specific wording: you had no experience of God. Going to church, hours of prayer, even apparent miracles are not the same as personal revelation. And since we seem to have semantic difficulties, let's be clear: when I speak of "revelation," I'm referring particularly to the root meaning of "reveal." God has not "revealed" Himself to you. Until He does, you have no experience of him, just as I said.

But you can share you sense of taste of smell. Its quite easy.

No, I might be able to share the object that is being smelled, but not the actual sense.

Your sense of god is your idea. Your mind. There is no reason or useful purpose for a personal god. History has proven the exact opposite. Today literally 1000s of gods get worshiped and people see ghosts, demons, angels and the spirt of mary on their toast. You believe your god is the god. The personal god. You believe he talks or communicates with you and thus you believe as common sense.

It's really sad to see you sink back into making these baseless statements. You have absolutely no basis for saying my mind is the source of my God. At all. Where is all your talk of objective evidence now?

In this discussion, I have NEVER presumed to tell you that you should believe as I do. I have never told you that your feelings were delusional, that you had decieved yourself, that my way was better than yours. But that is what you have just said to me.

Can't you hear the hypocrisy in this? You KNOW this to be true? Your COMMON SENSE tells you that I'm wrong? How can you know what's going on in my mind if you haven't experienced it for yourself? Aren't you accepting this explanation of my self-deception on...gasp!...FAITH?

I have respected your common sense. Given that--by your own admission--God has never revealed Himself to you, it seems perfectly logical that you would not believe. Were I in your shoes, I probably wouldn't believe either.

Were our positions reversed, I'd spare you the insult of saying that your belief in God was the result of your self-deception. Because such an observation would be outside the realm of common sense.

It is your sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

Yes.

Educate me. Why is it sound and prudent judgement to believe in your god and not anyone elses or in none at all?

a) I don't believe in anyone else's gods because--so far as I know--none of them have revealed themselves to me. It's possible that many people have had revelations of the same God that I have. Based upon conversations with them, it even seems likely. But we can never prove it objectively.

b) I don't believe in no gods at all because one of them revealed Himself to me. At that point, it was common sense to believe.

What make your story of god which has no more proof than jack and the beanstalk more real?

What makes jack and the beanstalk a fantasy but your stories of your god reality?

This is getting tiresome. I have no personal experience with Jack and/or the beanstalk. I have had personal experience--a revelation--of God.