Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[DeepShadow]

There is no objective evidence for god or the supernatural -- that isn't ignorance, that's a fact, but if you want to argue semantics, go ahead, I'll bow out because it isn't worth arguing with someone who won't even consider the idea of there not being a god or prophets.

I consider the possibility all the time, but that's irrelevant. You have asserted the claim there is no God. Now you are saying that there's no objective evidence for God. This is not the same thing. The latter is a statement of fact, and I do not disagree. The former is an assertion for which you have yet to provide evidence, and thus the burden of proof remains with you. I THINK you are trying to connect them with the implicit assumption that if there is no objective proof of something, it does not exist? Is that correct?

The burden of proof lies with you -- it is initially a Mormon claim (Joseph Smith = prophet).

I did not make the OP, and have no interest in proving my beliefs to you. My evidence for God is subjective--I have about as much proof that God exists as that my wife loves me. Am I supposed to prove to you that my wife loves me?

 

[Nymphs]

I consider the possibility all the time, but that's irrelevant.

Says you, but not the rest of us. Again, you totally ignore that possibility that there isn't or you wouldn't have said that.

You have asserted the claim there is no God. Now you are saying that there's no objective evidence for God. This is not the same thing.

Actually, it is the same thing.

The latter is a statement of fact, and I do not disagree. The former is an assertion for which you have yet to provide evidence, and thus the burden of proof remains with you. I THINK you are trying to connect them with the implicit assumption that if there is no objective proof of something, it does not exist? Is that correct?

Arguing semantics? Yeah, no. Already told you I wouldn't do that.

I did not make the OP, and have no interest in proving my beliefs to you. My evidence for God is subjective--I have about as much proof that God exists as that my wife loves me. Am I supposed to prove to you that my wife loves me?

If you have no interest in proving your beliefs, why are you here in this thread? Basic logic there...I could care less about proof about your wife loving you, because your love doesn't effect me, my family, my country, laws, etc.

Bad analogy, bad comparison. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Ingledsva]

I did not make the OP, and have no interest in proving my beliefs to you. My evidence for God is subjective--I have about as much proof that God exists as that my wife loves me. Am I supposed to prove to you that my wife loves me?

...

If you have no interest in proving your beliefs, why are you here in this thread? Basic logic there...I could care less about proof about your wife loving you, because your love doesn't effect me, my family, my country, laws, etc.

Bad analogy, bad comparison. They have nothing to do with each other.

Indeed it is. However, you also could have pointed out that a wife is real, and we therefor can ask her if she loves him, and check what she has done in the past, to come up with a qualified answer.


Whereas the world's hoard of invisible god beings will never have any real proof, just people's beliefs.



*

 

[McBell]

Actually, it is the same thing.

No, it isn't.

Arguing semantics? Yeah, no. Already told you I wouldn't do that.

One wonders why you are so quick to dismiss clarification of positions.

Never mind.
You have not presented an argument.
You have done nothing more than make unsubstantiated claims.

If you have no interest in proving your beliefs, why are you here in this thread? Basic logic there...I could care less about proof about your wife loving you, because your love doesn't effect me, my family, my country, laws, etc.

Good question.
If you have no interest in proving your claim, why are you in this thread?

Your blatant double standards are hurting your credibility.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Was I supposed to address how there is no objective evidence of God? I totally agree. I've never said there was any objective evidence of God. There's also no objective evidence that I love my wife, in the sense that I've never done anything that could not be duplicated by a very clever sociopath. Likewise for her affections for me--it's possible she's just really good at faking it. I have LOTS of subjective evidence, but nothing objective.

It's the same with God. I have no objective evidence, but if I limited my decisions and actions to things I have objective evidence for, I would not be able to eat breakfast in the morning.

It's not belief in god that I argue (it's a pointless argument to me), it's the things religionists attach to god that I argue. God with...personality? Desire? Prophets? Messiahs? Commandments? It's not that I don't believe such a god is defined by such things, it's that I don't believe god would be LIMITED by them. If there is a god, these things are FAR too small to be of any importance.

I believe your love is genuine. But it stops at god. Anymore than that is just fantasy.

 

[Watchmen]

What a sad desperate looking reply.

Protip:
Instead of flat out ignoring the meat of the post you reply to, try addressing it.

It is interesting how you are so quick to jump on the word absurd to declare a fallacy yet completely ignore the fact that there is zero objective empirical evidence for god.

And you claim the high ground?
Pathetic really.

This is the saddest, most pathetic reply on this thread. Just downright . . . absurd.

 

[Watchmen]

It's not belief in god that I argue (it's a pointless argument to me), it's the things religionists attach to god that I argue. God with...personality? Desire? Prophets? Messiahs? Commandments? It's not that I don't believe such a god is defined by such things, it's that I don't believe god would be LIMITED by them. If there is a god, these things are FAR too small to be of any importance.

I believe your love is genuine. But it stops at god. Anymore than that is just fantasy.

I guess that depends on what you believe the nature of god to be.

 

[Tumah]

So where do you stand?

In theory, I would say he is no different then Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'ullah or any other prophet or reformer outside Jewish Scriptures. He didn't like how things were going and/or wanted to be a leader, so he changed things around.

 

[Thursdayw]

God is perfect and so is His Word. Also He told man everything he needed to know about heaven and earth and how to worship Him. He left nothing out. To add to what God has written or to take out of the Word should not be done PERIOD. There is no excuse because our perfect Lord said it all. He does not change His Word to either take back what is written or to add to His word. This is something a lot of Christians have either done themselves or let man sway their thinking and the Truth. May our Lord guide you and not man. Amen

 

[Tumah]

God is perfect and so is His Word. Also He told man everything he needed to know about heaven and earth and how to worship Him. He left nothing out. To add to what God has written or to take out of the Word should not be done PERIOD. There is no excuse because our perfect Lord said it all. He does not change His Word to either take back what is written or to add to His word. This is something a lot of Christians have either done themselves or let man sway their thinking and the Truth. May our Lord guide you and not man. Amen

The irony here is through the roof.

Are you aware that Judaism makes the exact same argument against Christianity?

 

[Thursdayw]

Please explain how that is so.

 

[Tumah]

Please explain how that is so.

Sure.

God is perfect and so is His Word. Also He told man everything he needed to know about heaven and earth and how to worship Him. He left nothing out. To add to what God has written or to take out of the Word should not be done PERIOD. There is no excuse because our perfect Lord said it all. He does not change His Word to either take back what is written or to add to His word.

And He did all this before Jesus came around.

 

[Thursdayw]

Yes He did. And in his word He told us to expect the Messiah to come and He has come to us for our salvation since we can not live a perfect life without sin. Jesus not only taught us how to live He read from and taught reading from the scriptures. Jesus took the sins of the world with Him and died for all of us. :bow:

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

God is perfect and so is His Word. Also He told man everything he needed to know about heaven and earth and how to worship Him. He left nothing out. To add to what God has written or to take out of the Word should not be done PERIOD. There is no excuse because our perfect Lord said it all. He does not change His Word to either take back what is written or to add to His word. This is something a lot of Christians have either done themselves or let man sway their thinking and the Truth. May our Lord guide you and not man. Amen

If you are referring to the Bible, I must remind you that that collection of books was indeed written by man.

 

[Thursdayw]

Written by man through God's divine guidance and His Word.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Written by man through God's divine guidance and His Word.

If God can speak to men (i.e. prophets), why doesn't he speak to all of us?

 

[Tumah]

Yes He did. And in his word He told us to expect the Messiah to come and He has come to us for our salvation since we can not live a perfect life without sin. Jesus not only taught us how to live He read from and taught reading from the scriptures. Jesus took the sins of the world with Him and died for all of us. :bow:

He did tell us to expect a messiah. Only, He didn't mention the messiah coming twice. Nor did He mention that there is no salvation from sin except through his messiah.

Since, as you quoted, no one can add or subtract to G-d's perfect Word, is it permitted for a Jewish person to eat pig?

 

[McBell]

This is the saddest, most pathetic reply on this thread. Just downright . . . absurd.

I understand that you are unable to understand the meat of my post.

No worries.

 

[Watchmen]

I understand that you are unable to understand the meat of my post.

No worries.

And I understand you don't see the humor in mine. Absurd.

 

[Nymphs]

Indeed it is. However, you also could have pointed out that a wife is real, and we therefor can ask her if she loves him, and check what she has done in the past, to come up with a qualified answer.


Whereas the world's hoard of invisible god beings will never have any real proof, just people's beliefs.



*

Yeah, that!