"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Shulem]

I find it relevant to add that there are lots of people who claim to have had personal revelations from an assortment of different mystical forces, magic objects, and psychedelics.

And magic rocks with holes in them. Those occult objects can really tune one into getting revelations. Just look at the revelations of Facismile No. 3. I trust Joe was looking through a magic rock when he got those doozies. The Book of Mormon is the result of looking through magic rocks and hats. What a joke! Especially the Isaiah KJV in the Book of Mormon. What a laugh. Mormonism is a sick religion -- polygamy, fraud, lies, etc.

Paul O

[_Alfredo]

I don't think much of it at all.

I'm sorry, Tobin. I haven't gotten out of you what you even think my argument against personal revelation is. It's an argument besides the question of whether God exists. It's possible that some sort of God could certainly exist and I would still rely on the same argument against personal revelation.

Please explicitly explain what I think my argument against personal revelation is and why the reasoning, itself, is flawed?

[_Tobin]

I don't think much of it at all.

I'm sorry, Tobin. I haven't gotten out of you what you even think my argument against personal revelation is. It's an argument besides the question of whether God exists. It's possible that some sort of God could certainly exist and I would still rely on the same argument against personal revelation.
Please explicitly explain what I think my argument against personal revelation is and why the reasoning, itself, is flawed?

Yeah, so I have to guess what your argument is. You can't clarify your position, respond or discuss. Fine. I really could care less what your argument might be if you haven't stated it by now. I don't read minds nor do I care to start trying.

[_Alfredo]

Yeah, so I have to guess what your argument is. You can't clarify your position, respond or discuss. Fine. I really could care less what your argument might be if you haven't stated it by now. I don't read minds nor do I care to start trying.

That I can't clarify my position would be your imagination. I'd be glad to explain, but I already did. You ignored the argument I made, which makes you seem full of crap, so I thought I'd give you the chance to show that you understand my argument and know exactly why it's wrong. Because, obviously, you must have one wallop of a counter-argument to feel like you can so confidently slide over it without thinking much of it.

Whether or not you feel the need to prove your personal revelation to anyone else, you can't even prove to yourself that this experience revealed its source.

My argument is that you have an unfathomable number of explanations for your experience, yet to choose only one for no good reason is fooling yourself.

There's no way you can tell whether your experience happened because Mormonism is true or because you met an alien who likes to pretend. You exist in a computer simulation. You encountered a quantum anomaly. Your mind randomly created some psychedelic drug.

Your experience could have been part supernatural, part misinterpretation. It's possible you experienced the God(s) of another religion and that it's a Mormon God could have been something you just made up. You're the victim of a spell. You've been tricked by a demon.

And so on...

The critical point is this... personal revelation is evidence for which there could be an infinite number of explanations, some natural, supernatural, or both... but you think you have good reason to trust one of these explanations over all others... Do you?

I predict the only reason you have is circular. All you can do to prove--even to yourself--that you can trust one explanation is to fallaciously appeal to trust in the same explanation.

That is, whatever standard you use to choose which explanation deserves your trust is a standard you adopted only because you've begged the question by trusting one explanation already. Something anyone of any belief can do.

I could go on explaining why thinking a circular explanation is acceptable leads to a logic vacuum depending on which circular explanation you pick... but I'd like to hear what you think about the argument itself.

[_Tobin]

My argument is that you have an unfathomable number of explanations for your experience, yet to choose only one for no good reason is fooling yourself.

And as I said, I don't think much of that argument:
1) A: How did you know it was the Mormon God? You only say that because of your background. T: I can only interpret things based on my background and what I know. If that background is wrong or my perception is wrong, then I must simply believe that in the future God will correct that. Because God sure didn't correct it at my last encounter.
2) A: It's a delusion. T: Sure, that's possible. But, I have no reason to suspect that's true - nor that the person with me also was delusional.
3) A: It could be anything. T: There are actual written records, streching back thousands of years, about people having similar experiences and whole religions based on it. So it is hardly unprecedented and I don't have to accept anything is possible when I have that.
4) A: Ah, it was the Devil. T: That one makes me laugh. So, in your world the Devil is more powerful than God? And the Devil wants to convert atheists back to religion? And wanted me to use such experiences to make changes and improve my life?

And I'm sure you have a million more idiotic reasons you won't seek God, speak with God, and do what God wants you to do. Your reasons are transparent and will disappear the moment you see and speak with God. That is the sad inevitable truth. You can parade around all you want in this life pretending there is no God, but you will see and speak with God eventually. And NONE of your reasons will mean a thing then.

[_Chap]

.... You can parade around all you want in this life pretending there is no God, but you will see and speak with God eventually. And NONE of your reasons will mean a thing then.

Yeah, yeah. When your big brother turns up, he will sort us all out. We are all shaking in our socks.

[_tapirrider]

No, what it has demonstrated is that for the populations tested (a very important distinction), the primary ancestory is Asian. The fact is a microscopic segment of population in the Americas (remember it has a population of 900million - 1 billion) were tested (demonstrating a clear bias), and not the general population of the Americas. Why? Because this science is new and not able to deal with genetic backgrounds of the population at large. For example, part of my ancestory is Native American and I wasn't tested and wouldn't have been because I appear causasian. And so this "science" does not rule out the possible ancestory of all the Native American descendants.

The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing
http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/TheSci ... esting.pdf

You claim ancestry of American Indian but say that you were not tested because you appear caucasian. Be realistic. You are not an enrolled tribal member of a Federally recognized tribe in the United States.

[_Alfredo]

And as I said, I don't think much of that argument:
1) A: How did you know it was the Mormon God? You only say that because of your background. T: I can only interpret things based on my background and what I know. If that background is wrong or my perception is wrong, then I must simply believe that in the future God will correct that. Because God sure didn't correct it at my last encounter.

More mysterious clues. It's not good enough of an answer to say that your background is good enough because that's all you've got. This justifies the personal revelations of all religions.

Also, concerning your belief that God will eventually correct any misinterpretation:

"I predict the only reason you have is circular. All you can do to prove--even to yourself--that you can trust one explanation is to fallaciously appeal to trust in the same explanation."

2) A: It's a delusion. T: Sure, that's possible. But, I have no reason to suspect that's true - nor that the person with me also was delusional.

OINK! Another person?! The suspense thickens... Are you going to describe it or what?

3) A: It could be anything. T: There are actual written records, streching back thousands of years, about people having similar experiences and whole religions based on it. So it is hardly unprecedented and I don't have to accept anything is possible when I have that.

4) A: Ah, it was the Devil. T: That one makes me laugh. So, in your world the Devil is more powerful than God? And the Devil wants to convert atheists back to religion? And wanted me to use such experiences to make changes and improve my life?

Not in my world. But you can't deny it's possible. The Devil loves to lie. Especially when you convert to the wrong religion... Doesn't matter how much your life improves, because you're going to hell under this possible paradigm. I'll be laughing, as well, because you can't disprove the unfalsifiable. It's just as legitimate an option as the paradigm you chose.

And I'm sure you have a million more idiotic reasons you won't seek Satan, speak with Satan, and do what Satan wants you to do. Your reasons are transparent and will disappear the moment you see and speak with Satan. That is the sad inevitable truth. You can parade around all you want in this life pretending there is no Satan, but you will see and speak with Satan eventually. And NONE of your reasons will mean a thing then.

Yep. A million more idiotic reasons. You didn't respond to the computer simulation either.

The sad and inevitable truth is that your thoughts about God are designed to protect themselves in a vacuum.

Once you presume it was the Mormon God you met and not aliens, Allah, or Satan... you presume trust in a belief system that will always prefer trust in itself and will redefine every idea until it gets it. You can never know if it was trustworthy in the first place because every test you think confirms trust was defined by the paradigm you're testing and are already designed to always "pass". You let the paradigm define which ideas to accept or reject and it pretends that it's the only correct idea.

If you don't believe your belief system is such a thing. Have a hypothetical debate with yourself. How would you dissuade a Satanist who had the same experience you did and mirrored every defense you give for God as for Satan?

What argument could you give that the Satanist couldn't produce just as valid a version in his own defense?

[_Tobin]

...

I'm not going to get into it with you Alfredo since your responses are nothing I could ever take seriously, are transparently shallow, and completely bonkers. I'm satisified with the experience, and have faith that God is more intelligent, powerful and capable than the "Devil" theory.

I had to laugh when you said God is alien. That is completely obvious since of course any experience with God is alien or outside our normal experiences. People simply don't experience this everyday. And it is clear you haven't thought very carefully along this line since God must be alien. This universe is 13 billion years old. Imagine intelligent life that evolved a few billion years ago. How advanced, transcendent and intelligent would they be compared to us? They would in every definition be God by most accounts. In fact, it is most probable that God exists merely because of that fact.

[_Sophocles]

Imagine intelligent life that evolved a few billion years ago. How advanced, transcendent and intelligent would they be compared to us? They would in every definition be God by most accounts.

I think that's the premise of the movie/comic book series Thor. It only works on primitive societies like the ancient Norse, though. If these superhuman aliens showed up today, it would be more like Superman.

In fact, it is most probable that God exists merely because of that fact.

I'm not sure what "fact" Tobin is referring to, but his posts are reading more and more like the arguments on this page.