God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

As for Mormonism, I think I've mentioned once or twice we're being exceptionally generous to MG by allowing him to claim to worship a "creator God"...

Gee whiz, thanks!

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Your life experience puts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and especially the apostle Paul, as the final arbiter of what 'Christian truth' entails and/or is allowed to entertain, maintain, etc.

I agree that we all have priors. I’m not asking for “one ring to rule them all.“ I’m just suggesting that dialogue requires allowing priors to be examined, including by people who don’t share them.

I really don’t appreciate you collapsing my “priors” into a single source. Paul didn’t write about much of what we have discussed. I’ve been drawing from Kierkegaard, Plantinga, and others to explore different viewpoints. That’s not a “single-prior” viewpoint. That’s engagement across centuries of thought. So for you to suggest that my life experience just treats Paul as final arbiter, pants my sources as far narrower than they actually are.

For me, if my priors can’t survive cross-examination outside my own framework, then they aren’t convictions, they’re just assumptions I like, and I’d want to be aware of any faulty assumptions I have.

Your comments here indicate that you are trying to protect your own framework as self-validating, but what I’m advocating is epistemic curiosity and the willingness to test those assumptions.

What’s also interesting is in the past you have said something akin to “bring something better.” But when something “better” (or at least rigorous) is brought, like Kierkegaard, Plantinga, or metaphysics, your response is “no framework gets to judge mine.”

[Limnor]

As for Mormonism, I think I've mentioned once or twice we're being exceptionally generous to MG by allowing him to claim to worship a "creator God"...

Gee whiz, thanks!

Regards,
MG

I think, though Gad can correct me if I’m wrong, the “generosity” is due to the definition of “creator God” as opposed to “organizer God.”

[Gadianton]

It seems like you’re challenging institutional apologists to engage more directly

I'm more of just pointing out what I see. I think apologetics is a problem, it's all about revenge and getting even, for Mormons. It would be intriguing to see Mormons who are simply interested in greater understanding, not necessarily defending or attacking. There was a great YouTube video from the "Mormon Philosophy Society" or something like that a few years ago. I linked to it here but later couldn't find it. Mormon intellectual societies rise to live six months and then fail, and then rise again as another name down the road. But one of the best guys they've got basically got up and said Mormons don't do theology because it doesn't fit with anything. It was a fancy way of saying it doesn't make any sense. Of course he still believes it, Mormons "know it's true" to their core, and a guy like that has likely never flinched at a single Mormon belief and moves on with full confidence, simultaneously with a tremendous academic knowledge that I could only scratch the surface of. He was basically saying it's pointless for Mormons to try and do theology, and I agree. I can't really challenge them to do something that's impossible.

I think it's interesting MG is saying that I demand him to submit to my beliefs. I don't demand anybody to submit to my beliefs, I'm just shooting the breeze on a discussion board, not caring if anybody believes me. I'm not the type that wants people to believe me. The idea of "followers" just seems wrong, and implies more responsibility than I'd ever want to take.

Yes, Mormons laugh at creation ex nihlo. Their Old Testament study manual explains that "create" in Hebrew means "organize" elements already there. When they think of "God", the word is inextricably tied to a bearded, fatherly guy they've envisioned since childhood, it's like a label for that guy, rather than a definition of something, or an abstract container word.

[I Have Questions]

Your life experience puts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and especially the apostle Paul, as the final arbiter of what 'Christian truth' entails and/or is allowed to entertain, maintain, etc.

I agree that we all have priors. I’m not asking for “one ring to rule them all.“ I’m just suggesting that dialogue requires allowing priors to be examined, including by people who don’t share them.

I really don’t appreciate you collapsing my “priors” into a single source. Paul didn’t write about much of what we have discussed. I’ve been drawing from Kierkegaard, Plantinga, and others to explore different viewpoints. That’s not a “single-prior” viewpoint. That’s engagement across centuries of thought. So for you to suggest that my life experience just treats Paul as final arbiter, pants my sources as far narrower than they actually are.

For me, if my priors can’t survive cross-examination outside my own framework, then they aren’t convictions, they’re just assumptions I like, and I’d want to be aware of any faulty assumptions I have.

Yes. That’s how intellectual honesty works.

Your comments here indicate that you are trying to protect your own framework as self-validating,

That’s called intellectual dishonesty, and yes that’s what MG’s comments indicate.

…but what I’m advocating is epistemic curiosity and the willingness to test those assumptions.

Well it is a discussion board after all. Isn’t that why everyone comes here? Unless the object of participation is…well…simply to troll. MG isn’t here to discuss things with you, he’s here to tell you he’s right and you’re wrong.

What’s also interesting is in the past you have said something akin to “bring something better.” But when something “better” (or at least rigorous) is brought, like Kierkegaard, Plantinga, or metaphysics, your response is “no framework gets to judge mine.”

We are back to our good old friend intellectual dishonesty.

[Limnor]

He was basically saying it's pointless for Mormons to try and do theology, and I agree. I can't really challenge them to do something that's impossible.

I think it's interesting MG is saying that I demand him to submit to my beliefs. I don't demand anybody to submit to my beliefs, I'm just shooting the breeze on a discussion board, not caring if anybody believes me. I'm not the type that wants people to believe me. The idea of "followers" just seems wrong, and implies more responsibility than I'd ever want to take.

Yes, Mormons laugh at creation ex nihlo. Their Old Testament study manual explains that "create" in Hebrew means "organize" elements already there. When they think of "God", the word is inextricably tied to a bearded, fatherly guy they've envisioned since childhood, it's like a label for that guy, rather than a definition of something, or an abstract container word.

I don’t hear you demanding submission, nor trying to recruit followers. I like talking to you because you challenge my thinking.

I wouldn’t call your point about Mormon theology being impossible a breezy comment, though. I’m curious what you mean by impossible—do you mean incoherent on its own terms, or incompatible with established theological processes? Or both? Or something completely different?

I don’t have any intention of dragging this next part out, but I did want to acknowledge the disagreement between creation ex nihilo and organization.

I know that I can’t point to a specific verse that says “from nothing.” But because the New Testament talks about our “being” as depending entirely on God, I think that leans logically toward an ex nihilo conclusion. If words like “from him and through him and to him are all things,” includes persons in their deepest ontological core, then eternal intelligences become difficult to justify from the text.

A while ago you asked about what people envision when they pray. Huck answered that there is presence, which I experience similarly. But I also envision a throne that is so bright that I can’t even look at it. And when I think of God the Father, it is through Jesus that I think about the manifestation or physical thing to see.

[I Have Questions]

I don’t see engagement as conceding a single framework over any other. I see it as critical self-examination. Declining to cross-examine is different from being cross-examined. That’s all I was getting at.

I think we each need to accept that we have our own 'priors'. I'm pushing back on the idea that one set of priors...what counts as evidence, what kind of God is even possible, what metaphysics are ‘serious’/acceptable...gets to referee everybody else’s views. I see that going on here. That's fine as far as it goes I suppose. We should simply be 'up front' with that fact.

This is called "projection"

[Marcus]

I think we each need to accept that we have our own 'priors'. I'm pushing back on the idea that one set of priors...what counts as evidence, what kind of God is even possible, what metaphysics are ‘serious’/acceptable...gets to referee everybody else’s views. I see that going on here. That's fine as far as it goes I suppose. We should simply be 'up front' with that fact.

This is called "projection"

Completely agree. Projection inevitably gives away mg's inner indignation. He feels he and he alone should be allowed to referee the hoppy taw.

[Rivendale]

I agree that we all have priors. I’m not asking for “one ring to rule them all.“ I’m just suggesting that dialogue requires allowing priors to be examined, including by people who don’t share them.

I really don’t appreciate you collapsing my “priors” into a single source. Paul didn’t write about much of what we have discussed. I’ve been drawing from Kierkegaard, Plantinga, and others to explore different viewpoints. That’s not a “single-prior” viewpoint. That’s engagement across centuries of thought. So for you to suggest that my life experience just treats Paul as final arbiter, pants my sources as far narrower than they actually are.

For me, if my priors can’t survive cross-examination outside my own framework, then they aren’t convictions, they’re just assumptions I like, and I’d want to be aware of any faulty assumptions I have.

Yes. That’s how intellectual honesty works.

Your comments here indicate that you are trying to protect your own framework as self-validating,

That’s called intellectual dishonesty, and yes that’s what MG’s comments indicate.

…but what I’m advocating is epistemic curiosity and the willingness to test those assumptions.

Well it is a discussion board after all. Isn’t that why everyone comes here? Unless the object of participation is…well…simply to troll. MG isn’t here to discuss things with you, he’s here to tell you he’s right and you’re wrong.

What’s also interesting is in the past you have said something akin to “bring something better.” But when something “better” (or at least rigorous) is brought, like Kierkegaard, Plantinga, or metaphysics, your response is “no framework gets to judge mine.”

We are back to our good old friend intellectual dishonesty.

Troll indeed. Look at his last new discussion thread. Showering accolades on the newly anointed apostle while simultaneously not inviting open discussion. It was a deliberate jab to provoke and to show how superior the Mormon lifestyle and intellect is.

[Limnor]

Well it is a discussion board after all. Isn’t that why everyone comes here? Unless the object of participation is…well…simply to troll. MG isn’t here to discuss things with you, he’s here to tell you he’s right and you’re wrong.

I’d accept being wrong if he backed it up.

But I still haven’t seen a coherent response to this (among other claims):

Essentially your claim is that clarity beyond a certain point makes faith impossible, but you haven’t justified that claim. Why would greater revelation eliminate trust?