KevinSim wrote:As I stated in my previous post, I see no reason whatsoever for the requirement that the person asking God have "faith in Christ," so that does away with assumption (3). Is there a significant difference between (2) and (4)? As I did away with (3), so I'd dispose of (6); I see no reason why the asker would be required to assume that ghosts exist; all the asker has to do is assume that God exists, and that God can communicate with said asker.
The "Holy Ghost" is ... well ... a ghost. To believe that people get answers from this ghost, you have to believe in ghosts -- at least one. So, 6 stands.
2 and 4 are similar but not quite the same. 2 could be true without 4 being true if god only answered a prayer once every 10,000 years. Also, 4 could be true without 2 being true because god could be listening to prayers and not answering them.
These are just a few examples of the many, many assumptions you make if you believe Moroni's promise to be "true"
Maybe I'm misunderstanding (7), but it looks to me like a tautology; the only effort the asker is required to do is ask the question, say the prayer. How can you get an answer to a prayer that you don't say?
Again, what if god would reveal things to people without personal effort?
So the only significant assumptions I see are (1), (2), and (5).
8. God answers prayers in response to the specific inputs of the person praying.
9. God answers prayers on an individual level
10. The answers of god can be trusted
11. No other gods than the Christian god can answer a prayer
There are a few more assumptions for you. As I said before, there are many, many that go into this model of revealing "truth".
I guess I just find it more reasonable to assume that God exists than to assume that a chant about a "third eye" is going to lead one to truth; or to assume that thyme, red candles, herb dishes, and red wax will lead one to truth.
You only have more "basis" because you were raised to believe in god and to believe that voodoo is nonsense. For the practitioners of voodoo, they would likely argue just the opposite.
I mean, what's the reasoning behind talking about a "third eye"? Is there some inherent reason why such an eye will lead to truth more certainly than a third ear would, or perhaps a second nose? And I think Plato made a very persuasive argument that real truth comes from inside someone's mind, not from anything external at all.
Is there some reason why a "Holy Ghost" is more effective than a "Holy Leprechaun" or a "Sacred Hobgoblin" at revealing truth?
And what's with the thyme and herb stuff? There are lots of edible things out in the world; why should thyme and herb dishes lead us to truth more certainly than, say, carrots and zucchini? And why does it have to be edible things that lead us to truth?
Again, why should "praying" be a more effective means than, say, chanting in a magical circle for communicating with god?
On the other hand, the simple fact is that if the universe doesn't have someone in it that knows how to preserve forever some good things, and that isn't acting to preserve forever some good things, then there's no way that I know of that anybody can ever find out for certain the truth about anything. Or, KeithB, can you perhaps think of some way of finding out the truth for certain about anything?
The scientific method is historically the best method that we have for determining "truth", if by truth we mean the observable and seemingly invariant laws of nature.
Still, it's hard to know what objective "reality" really is. We could be living in the Matrix or in the dream of a giant potato. However, no one would believe in this form of reality without evidence.
It just seems to me that if one really wants to know the truth about eternal things, then that one has two choices. That one can assume a forever preserver does in fact exist, and go to that forever preserver with a question, the answer to which that one can use as a certain foundation for that one's knowledge of eternal things; or that one can spend that one's life attempting to become the mentioned forever preserver.
I don't think that things need to be preserved forever in order for things to be true about that thing while it's in a particular state. For example, even if your computer eventually breaks, it still worked an had certain properties at one point in time.
KeithB, can you think of any alternative?
Yes, and I have pointed out several of these alternatives to you.