The Great White Exmo

[_Trevor]

Coggins's poetry is pure doggerel, and the ideas are simply ludicrous.

For most people in the world, there is no such thing as one true church. For the rest, their own church is the one true church, and none of them have particularly good evidence to back up the contention.

I think we should all be skeptical of people who claim to speak for God. Anyone can make the claim. What does it mean? How does one prove the claim true?

[_Coggins7]

Coggins's poetry is pure doggerel, and the ideas are simply ludicrous.

Actually, to really get at the truth about Scratch would require the use of language unfit for this particular forum.

For most people in the world, there is no such thing as one true church. For the rest, their own church is the one true church, and none of them have particularly good evidence to back up the contention.

You are, of course, entitled to your own perceptual and philosophical opinions on the matter...

I think we should all be skeptical of people who claim to speak for God. Anyone can make the claim. What does it mean? How does one prove the claim true?

Your problem here is that what counts as "evidence" as to religious, metaphysical, and philosophical claims is heavily laden with value judgments and preexisting philosophical biases. The question may be, not how one "proves" a metaphysical claim true, but the degree to which the critic of religion gets to determine what counts as evidence at the outset. That there should be evidence is not in question.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins,

You don't even have to be a "pseudo-sophisticate" to understand your hypocrisy. Here are the facts -

1. I stated that if the Mormon God turned out to be factual, I would not worship, respect, or love him.

2. You responded that my statement indicated pride and hubris, and the unwillingness to be held accountable for my choices.

3. You admitted that you would have a "falling out" with God if the EV God turned out to be factual.

So, unless you also label your own statement as indicating pride and hubris, and the unwillingness to be held accountable for your choices, that you are such an obvious hypocrite that the most unsophisticated could immediately recognize it.

by the way, I'm going to bring this up on every thread you create. I'm tired of you running off when you've been cornered.

What I said was that I would have a "falling out" with God if the EV god turned out to be factual within the purely rhetorical context in which the question was asked. I made quite clear to you that I was aware that the question was purely rhetorical and was nothing more than a mental exercise.

Now, in a purely rhetorical world, I can "play the field" to my heart's content and do thought experiments of this kind. But you must also be aware that I do not for a second believe that any such confrontation with God is remotely possible. I cannot be a j hypocrite because I am, in reality, practicing just what I am preaching. I saw this trap in the beginning, which is why I made clear my reservations about answering the question at all. I might be hypocritical if I were to answer such a question with the understanding that there is, in some existential sense, some possibility of the EV god being the real god that exists. I made clear that I answered the question within a purely rhetorical context. It is also the case that were I to discover I was in the Matrix, I would find it necessary at that point to cease believing in God and the Church altogether. If I were to discover that Wotan, or Zeus, or Huan Ti were the true gods, my support of the Church would similarly require drastic alteration.

However, it should be quite clear that I consider the possibility of Wotan or Zeus being the true gods roughly on par with the possibility of the Hellenistic trinitarian entity of the EV's being the true god.

You, however, having disavowed both the Church and the existence of God, have not done so rhetorically; you're claims that the Church is not true and that God does, or probably does not exist, are statements that you clearly mean to be taken as claims about the actual state of the universe.

That is the human ego, pride and hubris of which I speak and of which the Book of Mormon warns. You have not claimed, as a matter of linguistic and logical exercise, that the Church is a fraud and God does not exist. You have claimed that these things are so as a matter of making affirmative or negative statements about actual states of affairs asserted to exist in the universe.

If I am a hypocrite, then I am a rhetorical one. Your pride, whatever else it may be, is quite real.

[_Trevor]

Actually, to really get at the truth about Scratch would require the use of language unfit for this particular forum.

Seems to me that you were taking aim at more people than Scratch alone.

You are, of course, entitled to your own perceptual and philosophical opinions on the matter...

I should hope so!

Your problem here is that what counts as "evidence" as to religious, metaphysical, and philosophical claims is heavily laden with value judgments and preexisting philosophical biases. The question may be, not how one "proves" a metaphysical claim true, but the degree to which the critic of religion gets to determine what counts as evidence at the outset. That there should be evidence is not in question.

Your problem is that you don't see a problem with the fact that many different groups claim their own position is "The Truth." Obviously they all can't be, and there is no reliable way to test spiritual claims to refute them on these grounds. I think the problem goes beyond issues of materialist epistemology.

[_Coggins7]

Your problem is that you don't see a problem with the fact that many different groups claim their own position is "The Truth." Obviously they all can't be, and there is no reliable way to test spiritual claims to refute them on these grounds. I think the problem goes beyond issues of materialist epistemology.

No, I do not see a "problem" with the fact that some six billion human beings with free will have different conceptions of the universe and are willing to make claims of certainty regarding them. The only problem arises, again, from a naturalistic, materialist frame of reference. If the Church is true, and if one can receive a testimony of it, then all that remains is to test the claim. The Gospel contains both the proof one seeks and the tools, or means through which such sure knowledge can be approached. We are not, in the Church, dealing with the fact that numerous people make claims of certainty. The Plan of Salvation presupposes this. We are only interested in which of these claims are correct, and the means through which this can be ascertained.

Interestingly, the vast heterodoxy of religion, philosophy, and belief is precisely what the Church claims we should expect in mortality, is precisely the kind of environment the Church teaches preexistent sprites were to expect during their mortal probation, and is precisely part of the complexities and challenges faced by a mortal being in a world in which a plethora of ideas compete for attention and acceptance.

The alternative to this would be Gospel truth that would be easily accessible, obvious, and clearly set off in a observable, publically accessible way, from all other claims to truth.

[_Zoidberg]

Coggins, perhaps you should read some more literary classics before attempting to write poetry. I recommend The Three Musketeers.

[_Mister Scratch]

Coggins's endless immaturity, and his startling inferiority complex is really quite excruciating. Perhaps if the Mopologists over at the aptly named MADboard had treated him with more sympathy, he would let up on these silly rampages. Instead, he carries on endlessly, hoping to fill the void left by his lack of formal education. How sad!

[_beastie]

What I said was that I would have a "falling out" with God if the EV god turned out to be factual within the purely rhetorical context in which the question was asked. I made quite clear to you that I was aware that the question was purely rhetorical and was nothing more than a mental exercise.

Now, in a purely rhetorical world, I can "play the field" to my heart's content and do thought experiments of this kind. But you must also be aware that I do not for a second believe that any such confrontation with God is remotely possible. I cannot be a j hypocrite because I am, in reality, practicing just what I am preaching. I saw this trap in the beginning, which is why I made clear my reservations about answering the question at all. I might be hypocritical if I were to answer such a question with the understanding that there is, in some existential sense, some possibility of the EV god being the real god that exists. I made clear that I answered the question within a purely rhetorical context. It is also the case that were I to discover I was in the Matrix, I would find it necessary at that point to cease believing in God and the Church altogether. If I were to discover that Wotan, or Zeus, or Huan Ti were the true gods, my support of the Church would similarly require drastic alteration.

However, it should be quite clear that I consider the possibility of Wotan or Zeus being the true gods roughly on par with the possibility of the Hellenistic trinitarian entity of the EV's being the true god.

You, however, having disavowed both the Church and the existence of God, have not done so rhetorically; you're claims that the Church is not true and that God does, or probably does not exist, are statements that you clearly mean to be taken as claims about the actual state of the universe.

That is the human ego, pride and hubris of which I speak and of which the Book of Mormon warns. You have not claimed, as a matter of linguistic and logical exercise, that the Church is a fraud and God does not exist. You have claimed that these things are so as a matter of making affirmative or negative statements about actual states of affairs asserted to exist in the universe.

If I am a hypocrite, then I am a rhetorical one. Your pride, whatever else it may be, is quite real.

You might not embarrass yourself so much if you bothered to proof before you hit submit. But, of course, you're far more entertaining this way.

So you assert that:

However, it should be quite clear that I consider the possibility of Wotan or Zeus being the true gods roughly on par with the possibility of the Hellenistic trinitarian entity of the EV's being the true god.

And then claim the difference between our statements is:

You, however, having disavowed both the Church and the existence of God, have not done so rhetorically; you're claims that the Church is not true and that God does, or probably does not exist, are statements that you clearly mean to be taken as claims about the actual state of the universe.

Oh. My. God.

So you stating that the possibility of the EV God existing to be on par with the possibility of Zeus being the true god is NOT a claim that the EV God does not exist, and is NOT meant to be taken as claims to the actual state of the universe??

Once again. Oh. My. God. You can't make this stuff up.

Coggins, my response to the question about what would happen IF the LDS church turned out to be true was also clearly rhetorical, because I also consider the possibility of the Mormon God existing to be on par with the possibility that Zeus is the true God.

Care to try again? This time, try reading what you just typed before hitting "submit".

[_Trevor]

preexistent sprites

It is high time Mormons recognized the premortality of sprites.

[_Trevor]

No, I do not see a "problem" with the fact that some six billion human beings with free will have different conceptions of the universe and are willing to make claims of certainty regarding them.

Still, you have no way of knowing that you are correct, and the Fundamentalist polygamists have it wrong. The quandary remains. How does one overcome it? How can one reliably know that a Mormon cosmology is more accurate than a Theosophist one?