wenglund wrote:
What it means is that as yet no one (including you) has sufficent "proof" to factually settle the question either way. As such, we are talking about subjective differences of opinions and differences of faith, not objective differences of facts. Do you understand the important distinction (given your responses below, I fear not)?
A flat earther would say there is not sufficient proof of a round earth. I am talking about objective facts, which the church does make, and teaches one can know through subjective means. You continue to not get this, but I can understand the motivation for this.
This does not logically follow from what I said. Like with many minor aspects of my life, I haven't subjected my glimpses into the future to intensive scutiny--in large part because it isn't practical or necessary. So, whether there is proof to me of the source for those glimpses, or whether the glimpses are reliable or not to me, is yet to be determined, and likely won't be by me for reasons just explained.
That's fine, as long as one can be open to other explanations.
You conveniently omitted the context and the several clarifications. But, no biggie. Hopefully we are now on the same page.
No I didn't. You never limited it to faith/spirituality methods, nor would it make sense to, and YOU asked ME for what methodologies to compare it to. It's not my fault you want to back out now.
One cannot know the truth of these things, one way or the other, objectively to a factual certainty. They can know of their truth to varying degrees of faith.
No one is talking about impossible absolutes, but yes we can and do know with enough certainly. Why not try and elaborate how you think one can know with varying degrees of faith. I suspect you will not.
Please provide an example.
Moroni's promise. It says one can klnow the truth of ALL things with it, and particularly that the Book of Mormon is true, which has very object claims which cannot be eliminated, although I suspect you will try.
There isn't a single issue or fact being discussed here that is the least bit uncomfortable to me. Perhaps you are projecting.
Sure there is. You don't want to compare the scientific method to faith method, or any physical evidence.
You just expressed your current bias--which, from my perspective, is extreme. Were you not aware that you did?
What I see is someone who wants to avoid his own bias. I have my biases, but some of them would still like the church to be true. perhaps. Perhaps you could show me all my bias that I would want the church not to be true, particularly when I was first evaluating much of the evidence surrounding the church claims.
I will take this as a tacit admission that you can't directly answer my clearly qualified question, presumably because you either can't correctly comprehend the question or you don't have an answer to the question. Oh well, it was worth a try.
I already said I see no faith/spirituality methodologies that would give us reliable information about objective claims that the church and other religion make. You have yet to show any that do. We do have reliable information that is sufficient top show certain LDS claims as false. I also stated that many spirituality methods are good for using about subjective things like who I should marry.
Still waiting for your proof you said you had, but I suppose some of your later posts have admitted you don't have any.
Again,
If you want to limit it to other faith methods I will take that as an admission that your methods are not reliable.