John Gee claims in his new book intro that there's no need for his new book

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
Those biases reflect what type of knowledge is allowed at the table and whether or not that impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

Knowledge based on evidence is always superior to any other kind. I see what you are doing here, and it won't work anymore than it did for Bill. The only thing valid across the board is evidenced knowledge, not wishful thinking knowledge. We have exactly no real evidence for a Nephite or Lamanite reality. It is the stick in the craw of Mormonism. Without it, the knowledge Mormonism claims is vastly inferior. It is why apologetics gives such desperate arguments when they think there is actual evidence. None of it has ever panned out be validly accepted.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG
Those biases reflect what type of knowledge is allowed at the table and whether or not that impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

Knowledge based on evidence is always superior to any other kind.

The evidence is also dependent/tied to what type/kind of evidence is allowed at the table and how that then impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

If a creator God isn’t allowed a seat at the table that has an impact/influence, for example.

Regards,
MG

[_Finn the human]

Knowledge based on evidence is always superior to any other kind.

The evidence is also dependent/tied to what type/kind of evidence is allowed at the table and how that then impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

If a creator God isn’t allowed a seat at the table that has an impact/influence, for example.

Regards,
MG

Whenever I’m leading a round table discussion with regard to evidence I always try to make sure all the major players are invited. But, I specifically exclude creator Gods. This is a bias that I will readily admit, but since I have acknowledged the bias it’s as though it doesn’t exist. Thus I am justified and I can get closer to the truth.

[_Gadianton]

Brilliant, Finn. Had he the capacity, you would have taught MG a lesson with this.

[_mentalgymnast]

Whenever I’m leading a round table discussion with regard to evidence I always try to make sure all the major players are invited. But, I specifically exclude creator Gods. This is a bias that I will readily admit, but since I have acknowledged the bias it’s as though it doesn’t exist. Thus I am justified and I can get closer to the truth.

What truth?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Brilliant, Finn. Had he the capacity, you would have taught MG a lesson with this.

Maybe you could help me out?

Regards,
MG

[_Gadianton]

I've tried to explain basic things to you before MG, and I've failed.

[_Philo Sofee]

I've tried to explain basic things to you before MG, and I've failed.

But you are gold teaching for all the rest of us, so never quit responding....

[_mentalgymnast]

I've tried to explain basic things to you before MG, and I've failed.

I think I can understand how you might feel. There have been many times where I’ve tried to explain things, at great length on this board, to go away convinced I’m talking to a brick wall. Similar to how I may have felt, at times, when I was teaching school, albeit replacing little kids with big kids.

Biases impact outcomes. Having determined that there isn’t a creator God is a bias that will impact any roundtable discussion. Just as having come to a determination that one is open to belief in a creator God will steer one in the direction of looking for supporting views/evidence.

One can try and wiggle out of admitting to bias, but I think it’s a rather fruitless endeavor.

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
One can try and wiggle out of admitting to bias, but I think it’s a rather fruitless endeavor.

No one is doing this here. My bias is always with that which has evidence. Evidence changes what biases one can have rationally. If one has biases in face against evidences, then one gives up any credibility they may imagine they possess. Evidence is the only way to actual reality. It also demolishes wishful thinking. You know this, you just can't face up to its implications. We've seen this for years with you and your attempts to get us to accept something on testimonial heresay imagining it to be on the same par as actual evidence. It's not.