$30k challenge to Interpreter’s “Team Bayes”

[MG 2.0]

If we are going to evaluate whether the text was written anciently or in the 19th century we have to consider "God could have tricked us" as part of the evaluation.

My preference in this instance is that instead of referring to a ‘trickster god’ as critics are wont to do, that we look at Early Modern English as an example where we find so called ‘Easter eggs’ as little gems that shine out in the midst of the text that let us know, simply, that there is something going on that defies easy explanation. We are then left to ourselves to come to the conclusions that we do. Faith is left intact as a result. And doubt is in the running also, if we so choose. This example that you refer to is perfectly orchestrated, just as so many other things are having to do with belief in God. We are always left with a choice, AND there are, more often than not, always two sides of the coin.

I get tired of hearing ‘god tricked us’. There are other ways of approaching it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Ultimate truth? We're talking probabilities here, bub.

I understand.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This is like evaluating the probability of the Book of Mormon being written anciently vs modernly. On Kyler's analysis even if it's more probable it came fr the 19C, it doens't matter, because God did. It's as if he wants to circumvent his own analysis.

Plus, as Dr Moore points out, he has a ton of other problems that render the whole evaluation a complete mess.

I read through those earlier and don’t remember seeing any of the ‘problems’ that haven’t been analyzed and spoken to at other times and in other venues. That being the case, he brings them up again as if they are novel or extraordinary. Of course there will be unsuspecting ‘marks’ that won’t know this or take the time to do their own research,etc. The good Dr. then has another fish to gut and fry to his liking.

If you don’t accept the possibility of a reality outside what



these anatomical parts of the human body tell you, then, in my opinion you’re limiting yourself to what may be out there. The impossibility (since they are are more often than not unverifiable to the eye) of the miracles that Dr. Moore and others take as ‘gospel truth’ is at least partially due to the fact that they rely…maybe a wee bit too much…on the ocular sense, exclusive of what other sensory systems might be in play…including the ‘spiritual sense’.

But of course, for one reason or another, that’s hokum to strict materialists or those that look for reasons to disbelieve in a creator God.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

, exclusive of what other sensory systems might be in play…including the ‘spiritual sense’.

This is where the discussion about Mormon credulity comes into play. If you’re logically consistent and accept all unverifiable spiritual claims then you should also believe the claims of Islam, Scientology, 7th day Adventists, Johovas Witnesses, etc.

But you don’t believe any of them. ExMormons are simply being internally consistent in our beliefs. You’re giving special treatment to the religion you already have a favorable bias towards.

[MG 2.0]

, exclusive of what other sensory systems might be in play…including the ‘spiritual sense’.

This is where the discussion about Mormon credulity comes into play. If you’re logically consistent and accept all unverifiable spiritual claims then you should also believe the claims of Islam, Scientology, 7th day Adventists, Johovas Witnesses, etc.

But you don’t believe any of them. ExMormons are simply being internally consistent in our beliefs. You’re giving special treatment to the religion you already have a favorable bias towards.

Are you, in a sense, throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Are you, in a sense, throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

In practice you don’t lose much of the worthwhile stuff. Unlike what Peterson thinks, exMormons don’t immediately forget the teachings of Jesus. They don’t start raping and murdering once they stop going to church on Sundays. The baby, in my opinion, is safely intact once the bath is drained.

[Res Ipsa]

, exclusive of what other sensory systems might be in play…including the ‘spiritual sense’.

This is where the discussion about Mormon credulity comes into play. If you’re logically consistent and accept all unverifiable spiritual claims then you should also believe the claims of Islam, Scientology, 7th day Adventists, Johovas Witnesses, etc.

But you don’t believe any of them. ExMormons are simply being internally consistent in our beliefs. You’re giving special treatment to the religion you already have a favorable bias towards.

This is just MG’s normal game. You know that bit about not answering the question that has been asked but answering the question that should have been asked? MG takes it farther. When he doesn’t like what a topic is about, he tries to turn it into the topic he thinks we should be discussing. Trying to change the topic to “You materialists are sooooooo close minded “ is one of his favorites.

[drumdude]

He has definitely derailed the topic of the thread a bit.

[MG 2.0]

This is where the discussion about Mormon credulity comes into play. If you’re logically consistent and accept all unverifiable spiritual claims then you should also believe the claims of Islam, Scientology, 7th day Adventists, Johovas Witnesses, etc.

But you don’t believe any of them. ExMormons are simply being internally consistent in our beliefs. You’re giving special treatment to the religion you already have a favorable bias towards.

This is just MG’s normal game. You know that bit about not answering the question that has been asked but answering the question that should have been asked? MG takes it farther. When he doesn’t like what a topic is about, he tries to turn it into the topic he thinks we should be discussing. Trying to change the topic to “You materialists are sooooooo close minded “ is one of his favorites.

Hey Res, good to have your input.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

He has definitely derailed the topic of the thread a bit.

Almost everyone in these parts goes off on a tangent here and there. If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment.

Regards,
MG