Engaging Mormon Apologetics

[_Darth J]

I have answered most of these earlier in the thread including examples of how I correspond with orthodox doctrine- all as responses to you.

Oh?

You asserted that there is no orthodox interpretation of the scriptures in the LDS Church. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support that assertion?

You asserted that there was no death before the Fall in a certain sense, since animals allegedly do not mourn and cannot commit murder. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support that assertion?

You asserted that the LDS Church does not teach that there is such a thing as objective truth. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support your assertion?

You however have not responded to a single point I have made- the "murder" fake quotes, the repetition of the same points over and over- this is not a debate, it is a mud shoveling contest.

You said that the Church does not teach that there is such a thing is objective truth. I provided numerous examples to show that what you said is not accurate.

Your attempt to reconcile the doctrine that there was no death before the Fall was by a bunch of sophistry about how animals do not mourn and cannot commit murder. I provided examples of how biologists believe that many animal species, from dolphins to geese (these two in the Psychology Today article) mourn for the dead. I also provided examples of how it is not clear at all that animals don't murder each other. And I also provided examples from official church doctrine---which you dismissed as "quote mining"---that there was no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Therefore, not only was your premise about church doctrine wrong, your factual assertions to support your argument were also wrong.

You said that there is no orthodox interpretation of scriptures in the LDS Church. I provided an example from a manual for teachers in the Church instructing teachers to confine themselves to official interpretations of scripture and accurate teaching of doctrine.

You tried to explain why, from a semantics point of view, there was no "death" before the Fall only in a certain sense by trying to conflate death with "murder." I provided an example from the Pearl of Great Price (Moses) about why this assertion about death and murder being equivalent is not accurate.

You don't respond to a single issue, but you just keep shoveling it. Good for you.

The real problem, mfb, is like internet Mormons and militant cafeteria Mormons in general (two groups that often overlap, but are not exactly the same thing), you are not talking about any kind of Mormonism that is present on Sunday, during General Conference, or in the Ensign or church manuals. You are a firm believer in the Mormonism that you have invented. You are also a staunch defender of this kind of Mormonism as the "true" Mormonism, hence the "militant" in "militant cafeteria Mormonism." That is why you label anyone who references what the Church actually teaches as a "fundamentalist," while you continue to claim that your word games, sophistry, trying to find loopholes in church teachings, and frequently contradicting church teachings make you a self-described TBM.

I suppose that accepting your premises and underlying assumptions without question---regardless of whether they are accurate or not---would be a real debate instead of "shoveling it."

[_mfbukowski]

Hi there mfbukowski!

We know it’s there, but we can’t see it and we cannot build a machine to help us see it.

That is the problem. We can't see it, so we "invent" a "thing" called a "combined picture" which doesn't really "exist" unless you want to define it that way.

It's one drawing we can see two ways- an optical illusion where it is neither really a duck or a rabbit - technically of course it is a drawing drawn to trick our perception.

If you want to say there is a thing called a combined picture and it "exists" then fine, but I don't see it has much bearing on the discussion.

It is a special construction, specifically constructed and designed to be ambiguous on this point to illustrate the nature of language.

It's kind of like saying that one of those folded loop pieces of paper that twist on themselves are "one dimensional" because they have only one surface. It is really playing a trick, in my opinion. But what do we learn from this that is applicable to the question?

[_MrStakhanovite]

If you want to say there is a thing called a combined picture and it "exists" then fine, but I don't see it has much bearing on the discussion.

Okay, so I posit that this combined picture exists; even though there isn't any way to sense it. This is evidence of a priori knowledge.

(1) It’s intuitive that there is a way to view the picture as both rabbit and duck simultaneously, but such intuition does not rely on any piece of empirical datum.

A rejection of (1) would leave you with the burden of showing an empirical link. I posit that because there is no empirical link, the knowledge was arrived at without relying purely on sense data. If you want to say that this was invented, I would ask, “Where does this invention come from?” Can you picture in your mind’s eye what the combined picture would look like? No one can. Is this invention based off anything empirical? If so, what? If we can’t even clearly picture what we are imagining, where did this idea come from? How is possible to dream up something that isn’t even remotely related to what we experience? Is there anything in the Universe that comes close to looking like the combined picture?

If you accept (1) you are now forced to say that our perception is limited. If our perception is limited, that is a tacit admission that there is indeed, knowledge to be had outside our perception. No one says that their knowledge of physics is limited, and not imply there was more to learn or know, ergo perception is limited means that there are things to be perceived but can’t, since we can’t increase our perception like we can our knowledge.

If you are going to object on language grounds, you need to show some kind of demonstration of it. Name dropping and Wikipedia links are not demonstrations, but citations.

Thanks for your time!

[_mfbukowski]

Okay, so I posit that this combined picture exists; even though there isn't any way to sense it. This is evidence of a priori knowledge.

You know, I really do like you personally- but I have to be winding up this thread soon- it really isn't worth my time to continue. That is not to say I won't reply- but since you can't see my body language, I am sitting on the edge of my chair, looking at my watch every 15 seconds, and occasionally glancing at the door.

Honestly, this post doesn't hold much water on multiple fronts.

The whole notion of "evidence" for a priori knowlege is a non sequitur. A priori statements are statements which are true independent of evidence, like the proposition A=A. It is self evident. A priori propositions do not give us "knowledge" any more than 1=1+2 does. They are equations- definitions- they are not statements about reality. I have already discussed my view of the a priori, and I don't feel like repeating what I said.

(1) It’s intuitive that there is a way to view the picture as both rabbit and duck simultaneously, but such intuition does not rely on any piece of empirical datum.

A rejection of (1) would leave you with the burden of showing an empirical link.

An empirical link to what?

And what precisely is it that we would "know" about reality from an optical illusion? Any knowledge derived would rely on a third person observer who was perhaps a psychologist trying to learn something about the nature of perception. The illusion tells us nothing about anything- any more than a mirage tells us something other than the undisputed fact that our eyes sometimes deceive us.

I posit that because there is no empirical link, the knowledge...

What knowledge?

was arrived at without relying purely on sense data. If you want to say that this was invented, I would ask, “Where does this invention come from?” Can you picture in your mind’s eye what the combined picture would look like? No one can. Is this invention based off anything empirical? If so, what? If we can’t even clearly picture what we are imagining, where did this idea come from?

Where do category mistakes come from- from language itself. "Can you paint with all the colors of the wind" is poetic, but technically it is a category error. Wind does not have color. Where did THAT idea come from?

First also note that you are saying here that no one can imagine what such a picture would look like. We can't imagine it because it is a contradiction. A thing cannot be both a rabbit and a duck at the same time. It is incompatible with our experience and so, not "real"

How is possible to dream up something that isn’t even remotely related to what we experience? Is there anything in the Universe that comes close to looking like the combined picture?

No, and that is the point. You even said so immediately above- we can't imagine it. Why not? Because no one can experience it.

If you accept (1) you are now forced to say that our perception is limited.

For the billionth time on this thread, I have said repeatedly that illusions say nothing like this at all.

If our perception is limited, that is a tacit admission that there is indeed, knowledge to be had outside our perception. No one says that their knowledge of physics is limited, and not imply there was more to learn or know, ergo perception is limited means that there are things to be perceived but can’t, since we can’t increase our perception like we can our knowledge.

Same error you have been making for pages and pages- saying the same thing over and over. (Looking at watch more frequently now, standing up)

If you are going to object on language grounds, you need to show some kind of demonstration of it. Name dropping and Wikipedia links are not demonstrations, but citations.

Thanks for your time!

You're welcome.

Not sure what you are saying here. (takes a step toward the door...)

Incidentally if you can find one published philosopher who says that optical illusions give us a priori knowledge, I will not only stay, but I will retract my statement, and learn something as well.

Perhaps you should publish your findings- I think it is a revolutionary hypothesis.

[_mfbukowski]

You asserted that there is no orthodox interpretation of the scriptures in the LDS Church. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support that assertion?

Where is your example that there is? And besides, I am not sure that I ever said that. I am sure I said there is "no doctrine" which is perhaps also too strong a statement, but I think that Ostler was awfully close to being right when he made the same statement. There is what he called "orthopraxis" meaning that if you can answer the temple recommend questions honestly and correctly, you are an "orthodox" member. Note that you wondered earlier how you were different than me as an alleged "TBM". From your previous post, THAT is the difference.

You asserted that there was no death before the Fall in a certain sense, since animals allegedly do not mourn and cannot commit murder. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support that assertion?

I think that it is clear the church teaches there was no death before the fall and I agree. Actually I wasn't around before the fall, so I have now two hypotheses which might be right.

Actually, dittos on the rest of your arguments.

You asserted that the LDS Church does not teach that there is such a thing as objective truth. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support your assertion?

I told you I believed in objective truth.

Your attempt to reconcile the doctrine that there was no death before the Fall was by a bunch of sophistry about how animals do not mourn and cannot commit murder. I provided examples of how biologists believe that many animal species, from dolphins to geese (these two in the Psychology Today article) mourn for the dead. I also provided examples of how it is not clear at all that animals don't murder each other. And I also provided examples from official church doctrine---which you dismissed as "quote mining"---that there was no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Therefore, not only was your premise about church doctrine wrong, your factual assertions to support your argument were also wrong.

See the above; plus each quote you gave me about animal "murder" finally hedged their position AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT.

The real problem, mfb, is like internet Mormons and militant cafeteria Mormons in general (two groups that often overlap, but are not exactly the same thing), you are not talking about any kind of Mormonism that is present on Sunday, during General Conference, or in the Ensign or church manuals.

This is an absurd suggestion. Read Ostler on orthopraxis.

You are a firm believer in the Mormonism that you have invented.

Not true! I am clearly within all guidelines for having a recommend.

And what kind have you invented?

[_Darth J]

You asserted that there is no orthodox interpretation of the scriptures in the LDS Church. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support that assertion?

Where is your example that there is?

I already gave one example from one of the Church's manuals for teachers. Here's another example:

Dallin H. Oaks
January 1995 Ensign

Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages. (For example, see D&C 77 on the book of Revelation and D&C 113 on some prophecies in Isaiah.) These public revelations usually illuminate scriptural passages that are doctrinal rather than those that are descriptive or directive.

And besides, I am not sure that I ever said that.

From page 12 of this thread: "In the Mormon church, there is no such thing as an "orthodox interpretation" of the scriptures."

I am sure I said there is "no doctrine" which is perhaps also too strong a statement, but I think that Ostler was awfully close to being right when he made the same statement. There is what he called "orthopraxis" meaning that if you can answer the temple recommend questions honestly and correctly, you are an "orthodox" member. Note that you wondered earlier how you were different than me as an alleged "TBM". From your previous post, THAT is the difference.

You're doing exactly what I have already explained on this board about militant cafeteria Mormons.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12998&p=322228&hilit=militant+cafeteria+Mormon+apologist#p322228

"Observers of militant cafeteria Mormonism will recognize my previously-referenced appeal to the authority of another apologist, rather than a general authority of the Church, on the proper interpretation of church doctrine."

Here, you're relying on the "authority" of Blake Ostler. Really, mfb, you should read through my posts about militant cafeteria Mormons. "Know thyself," as the ancient Greeks would say. (Although they probably said that in ancient Greek, not English.)

You asserted that there was no death before the Fall in a certain sense, since animals allegedly do not mourn and cannot commit murder. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support that assertion?

I think that it is clear the church teaches there was no death before the fall and I agree. Actually I wasn't around before the fall, so I have now two hypotheses which might be right.

Irrelevant. Prophets and apostles have spoken on what God has revealed about the Fall, whether or not you were there. If you believe in the Church's teachings, you don't need a hypothesis.

Actually, dittos on the rest of your arguments.

Hmmm. What?

You asserted that the LDS Church does not teach that there is such a thing as objective truth. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support your assertion?

I told you I believed in objective truth.

From page 2 of this thread: "Certainly I think it would not be impressive to Mormons, considering we have no ontology whatsoever."

Wikipedia defines ontology as "is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences."

Now, I know this is just Wikipedia, but I don't know what is wrong with this definition. Here's someone else explaining ontology:

Ontology as a discipline is a method or activity of enquiry into philosophical problems about the concept or facts of existence. Ontology as a domain is the outcome or subject matter of ontology as a discipline. Applied scientific ontology construed as an existence domain can be further subdivided as the theoretical commitment to a preferred choice of existent entities, or to the real existent entities themselves, including the actual world considered as a whole, also known as the extant domain. Ontology as a theoretical domain is thus a description or inventory of the things that are supposed to exist according to a particular theory, which might but need not be true. Ontology as the extant domain, in contrast, is the actual world of all real existent entities, whatever these turn out to be, identified by a true complete applied ontological theory. As a result, we must be careful in reading philosophical works on ontology, when an author speaks of "ontology" without qualification, not to confuse the intended sense of the word with any of the alternatives.

http://www.formalontology.it/

If the LDS Church has no ontology whatsoever, then that means that the LDS Church has no concept of facts or existence.

Your attempt to reconcile the doctrine that there was no death before the Fall was by a bunch of sophistry about how animals do not mourn and cannot commit murder. I provided examples of how biologists believe that many animal species, from dolphins to geese (these two in the Psychology Today article) mourn for the dead. I also provided examples of how it is not clear at all that animals don't murder each other. And I also provided examples from official church doctrine---which you dismissed as "quote mining"---that there was no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Therefore, not only was your premise about church doctrine wrong, your factual assertions to support your argument were also wrong.

See the above; plus each quote you gave me about animal "murder" finally hedged their position AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT.

I know that some of them hedged their position. However, you did not. Your statement that animals cannot commit murder was unequivocal, as was your statement that animals do not mourn. Both of these assertions were to support your reasoning as to why "death" did not exist prior to the Fall. Not because death did not objectively exist, but because animals allegedly have no understanding of death.

The real problem, mfb, is like internet Mormons and militant cafeteria Mormons in general (two groups that often overlap, but are not exactly the same thing), you are not talking about any kind of Mormonism that is present on Sunday, during General Conference, or in the Ensign or church manuals.

This is an absurd suggestion. Read Ostler on orthopraxis.

See? You're relying on the authority of an apologist, instead of church teachings. Read Darth J on militant cafeteria Mormonism.

You are a firm believer in the Mormonism that you have invented.

Not true! I am clearly within all guidelines for having a recommend.

That's the new standard for orthodoxy, is it? Says who? Blake Ostler, of the First Quorum of the Not A General Authority?

And what kind have you invented?

Oh, I've run out of ways to invent a Mormonism that I can make myself believe is true. Now I just enjoy Mormonism, and more specifically LDS-ism (since the LDS Church is just the biggest part of the Mormonism Venn diagram) for what it is.

[_mfbukowski]

I already gave one example from one of the Church's manuals for teachers. Here's another example:

Dallin H. Oaks

Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages. (For example, see D&C 77 on the book of Revelation and D&C 113 on some prophecies in Isaiah.) These public revelations usually illuminate scriptural passages that are doctrinal rather than those that are descriptive or directive.

Fine. Obviously I have no problem accepting the above definition. What it says is canonized scripture which interprets other scripture. But that doesn't include any old statement by any general authority or church manual. Prophet seers and revelators in public declarations of interpretation of scripture? No problem. I never meant to exclude that since it is already canonized scripture or near, like for example the Proclamation on the Family. But if you want to count that as a "victory", good for you. That is not to say that I do not accept GA statements or manual statements, just that I reserve the right to privately (not publically) disagree with such statements. And such a position is not precluded by any church positions in that category.

You're doing exactly what I have already explained on this board about militant cafeteria Mormons.

And why should I care? There is no such thing as a "cafeteria Mormon". People have beliefs which may agree or disagree with their own churches. It is common. Catholics take birth control, some Jews eat hot dogs, some Muslims take an occasional drink.

We follow our own consciences. And if we didn't, you would call those who are not what you call "cafeteria Mormons" "mindless robots".

We are instructed by the church to get our own testimonies of each principle, and some of us still are learning. The church has no problem with that principle. You are being fundamentalist again.

Here, you're relying on the "authority" of Blake Ostler.

Absurd. He has no authority. I partially agree with him, and for what it's worth, I believed the same principles before I ever knew he existed.

Prophets and apostles have spoken on what God has revealed about the Fall, whether or not you were there. If you believe in the Church's teachings, you don't need a hypothesis.

Huh? Irrelevant. I believe in church teachings and will have as many hypotheses for ways of understanding them as I wish.

You asserted that the LDS Church does not teach that there is such a thing as objective truth. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support your assertion?

I told you I believed in objective truth.

And I did. Remember the part about pragmatic truth being "absolute" because certain things always work? I am not going to look it up again. I can't help it if you can't even remember your own questions.

From page 2 of this thread: "Certainly I think it would not be impressive to Mormons, considering we have no ontology whatsoever."

You don't know what you are talking about and I don't feel like explaining it and educating you. The short answer is that the statement stands, and ontology has nothing to do with how we know things.

If you want to prove to me that there are categories of propositions which are absolutely true ontologically, knock yourself out. It would be a very peculiar position for an atheist.

Ontology as a discipline is a method or activity of enquiry into philosophical problems about the concept or facts of existence. Ontology as a domain is the outcome or subject matter of ontology as a discipline. Applied scientific ontology construed as an existence domain can be further subdivided as the theoretical commitment to a preferred choice of existent entities, or to the real existent entities themselves, including the actual world considered as a whole, also known as the extant domain. Ontology as a theoretical domain is thus a description or inventory of the things that are supposed to exist according to a particular theory, which might but need not be true. Ontology as the extant domain, in contrast, is the actual world of all real existent entities, whatever these turn out to be, identified by a true complete applied ontological theory. As a result, we must be careful in reading philosophical works on ontology, when an author speaks of "ontology" without qualification, not to confuse the intended sense of the word with any of the alternatives.

Uh huh. Find me a few scriptures on that, will you please? Preferably in modern revelation.

I know that some of them hedged their position. However, you did not. Your statement that animals cannot commit murder was unequivocal, as was your statement that animals do not mourn. Both of these assertions were to support your reasoning as to why "death" did not exist prior to the Fall. Not because death did not objectively exist, but because animals allegedly have no understanding of death.

Your quotes give no evidence that they do. And my point was a logical one anyway, about the nature of the meaning of language. It was not a scientific point which could never be proven scientifically -- which is what you are looking for.

Show me where science can tell us that murder to a Chimpanzee means the same as it does to a human!

No evidence could ever show that. First just tell me the chimpanzee word for "murder" and we will have a start. How about the elephant word for "mourn"?

The real problem, mfb, is like internet Mormons and militant cafeteria Mormons in general (two groups that often overlap, but are not exactly the same thing), you are not talking about any kind of Mormonism that is present on Sunday, during General Conference, or in the Ensign or church manuals.

Gosh I guess what you call "cafeteria Mormons" disappear on Sundays and during general conference? Wow- you are quite a magician!

If that is the real problem, great. The category does not exist. Poof. Real problem gone.

[_Darth J]

Hi, again, mfb. I'm glad it turned out not to be so urgent for you to be going, as you said earlier.

I already gave one example from one of the Church's manuals for teachers. Here's another example:

Dallin H. Oaks

Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages. (For example, see D&C 77 on the book of Revelation and D&C 113 on some prophecies in Isaiah.) These public revelations usually illuminate scriptural passages that are doctrinal rather than those that are descriptive or directive.

Fine. Obviously I have no problem accepting the above definition. What it says is canonized scripture which interprets other scripture. But that doesn't include any old statement by any general authority or church manual.

So you mean that official church publications are not sources of doctrine? Is that what the Church says?

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/comm ... n-doctrine

Prophet seers and revelators in public declarations of interpretation of scripture? No problem. I never meant to exclude that since it is already canonized scripture or near, like for example the Proclamation on the Family. But if you want to count that as a "victory", good for you. That is not to say that I do not accept GA statements or manual statements, just that I reserve the right to privately (not publically) disagree with such statements. And such a position is not precluded by any church positions in that category.

Well, sure. And who needs prophets, seers, and revelators when we've got Blake Ostler?

And if you privately disagree with the teachings of church leaders, then are you really being honest in that temple recommend interview when you say that you sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators?

You're doing exactly what I have already explained on this board about militant cafeteria Mormons.

And why should I care? There is no such thing as a "cafeteria Mormon".

Then there's no such thing as an anti-Mormon.

People have beliefs which may agree or disagree with their own churches. It is common. Catholics take birth control, some Jews eat hot dogs, some Muslims take an occasional drink.

We follow our own consciences.

Really? Is that what LDS leaders teach?

James E. Faust
July 2000 Ensign

I have heard some say, “Well, I can believe all of the revelations but one.” It is hard to understand this logic. If one believes that revelations come from a divine source, how can one pick and choose? Acceptance of the gospel should be complete and absolute, with full heart and soul.

Joseph B. Wirthlin
November 2005 Liahona

We can foolishly ignore the prophets of God, depend on our own strength, and ultimately reap the consequences. Or we can wisely draw near to the Lord and partake of His blessings.

Henry B. Eyring
June 2008 Ensign

Another fallacy is to believe that the choice to accept or not accept the counsel of prophets is no more than deciding whether to accept good advice and gain its benefits or to stay where we are. But the choice not to take prophetic counsel changes the very ground upon which we stand.

And if we didn't, you would call those who are not what you call "cafeteria Mormons" "mindless robots".

No. I would call the above sentence a straw man. And I would call people who don't look for loopholes to get around church teachings a believing member of the Church.

We are instructed by the church to get our own testimonies of each principle, and some of us still are learning. The church has no problem with that principle. You are being fundamentalist again.

There is a difference between developing a testimony and picking and choosing which teachings you want to think are true. The Church does have a problem with the latter. You're being a militant cafeteria Mormon again.

Here, you're relying on the "authority" of Blake Ostler.

Absurd. He has no authority. I partially agree with him, and for what it's worth, I believed the same principles before I ever knew he existed.

I know he has no authority. That's why I used quote marks. And, true to form of what you vigorously deny that you are, you rely on an apologist to define orthodox Mormonism instead of church leaders.

Prophets and apostles have spoken on what God has revealed about the Fall, whether or not you were there. If you believe in the Church's teachings, you don't need a hypothesis.

Huh? Irrelevant. I believe in church teachings and will have as many hypotheses for ways of understanding them as I wish.

See, you're not having a hypothesis to understand them. You're having a hypothesis to find a loophole in what they said.

You asserted that the LDS Church does not teach that there is such a thing as objective truth. Where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support your assertion?

I told you I believed in objective truth.

And I did. Remember the part about pragmatic truth being "absolute" because certain things always work? I am not going to look it up again. I can't help it if you can't even remember your own questions.

Again, where is your example from the teachings of the Church to support your assertion?

From page 2 of this thread: "Certainly I think it would not be impressive to Mormons, considering we have no ontology whatsoever."

You don't know what you are talking about and I don't feel like explaining it and educating you. The short answer is that the statement stands, and ontology has nothing to do with how we know things.

I'm not making a statement about epistemology, either. Nor are President Kimball, President Uchtdorf, or any of the other church leaders I quoted. They were making statements about what is known, not how it is known.

If you want to prove to me that there are categories of propositions which are absolutely true ontologically, knock yourself out. It would be a very peculiar position for an atheist.

You have this habit of making bold, unsupported statements in support of your arguments, such as here where you assert with no proof whatsoever that I am an atheist. Here are a couple of things I've said on this board:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13757&hilit=theist

However, I would like to believe that there is some kind of intelligence in the universe that could reasonably be called "God," and this is related to my feeling that I would like to believe that we don't simply cease to exist when we die.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13596&hilit=winner

I think there is a God, and I think he has a particular relationship with the human race. I hope there is life after death. I can't offer a rational explanation right now for why I think those things. I think that Jesus of Nazareth has a unique place in humanity, and I still think he in some way bridged the gap between humanity and God---although I feel that he died for "sin" in the general sense of mankind's separation from God, not for "sins." And I think that God could care less what religion a person follows. If there is a God that has some special purpose for humanity, then I think whatever salvation is, it is individual, not institutional. I do not believe that rituals are relevant to whatever salvation is.

Ontology as a discipline is a method or activity of enquiry into philosophical problems about the concept or facts of existence. Ontology as a domain is the outcome or subject matter of ontology as a discipline. Applied scientific ontology construed as an existence domain can be further subdivided as the theoretical commitment to a preferred choice of existent entities, or to the real existent entities themselves, including the actual world considered as a whole, also known as the extant domain. Ontology as a theoretical domain is thus a description or inventory of the things that are supposed to exist according to a particular theory, which might but need not be true. Ontology as the extant domain, in contrast, is the actual world of all real existent entities, whatever these turn out to be, identified by a true complete applied ontological theory. As a result, we must be careful in reading philosophical works on ontology, when an author speaks of "ontology" without qualification, not to confuse the intended sense of the word with any of the alternatives.

Uh huh. Find me a few scriptures on that, will you please? Preferably in modern revelation.

But I'm not purporting to explain the gospel in terms of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture (or in your case, minus the scripture).

I know that some of them hedged their position. However, you did not. Your statement that animals cannot commit murder was unequivocal, as was your statement that animals do not mourn. Both of these assertions were to support your reasoning as to why "death" did not exist prior to the Fall. Not because death did not objectively exist, but because animals allegedly have no understanding of death.

Your quotes give no evidence that they do. And my point was a logical one anyway, about the nature of the meaning of language. It was not a scientific point which could never be proven scientifically -- which is what you are looking for.

Actually, yes, they do give some evidence that animals may commit what could reasonably be called murder. Your issue seems to be that you just want to make your factual assertions to prove a point, and not be bothered with whether they really are factual or not.

Show me where science can tell us that murder to a Chimpanzee means the same as it does to a human!

No evidence could ever show that.

That was not your original point. Your point was that the reason "death" did not exist before the Fall is that animals do not have a conception of death. If animals mourn for their dead, as many biologists believe and contrary to your unequivocal assertion, then it stands to reason that animals understand death at some level. If murder means deliberately killing one of your own kind, and not for food, then yes, there are abundant examples of murder in the animal kingdom. As was pointed out in the articles to which I linked, it depends on how one defines murder. You were not talking about murder in the sense of convicting a chimpanzee of a crime, but in the context of understanding what death is, as it pertains to death before the Fall.

First just tell me the chimpanzee word for "murder" and we will have a start. How about the elephant word for "mourn"?

You're back to the sophistry that language defines reality. Chimapanzees do not, as far as we know, have a "word" for anything. Therefore, chimpanzees exhibit no behavior whatsoever, since exhibiting a behavior necessitates the actor having a word to describe it.

The real problem, mfb, is like internet Mormons and militant cafeteria Mormons in general (two groups that often overlap, but are not exactly the same thing), you are not talking about any kind of Mormonism that is present on Sunday, during General Conference, or in the Ensign or church manuals.

Gosh I guess what you call "cafeteria Mormons" disappear on Sundays and during general conference? Wow- you are quite a magician!

No, I am talking about the difference between cafeteria Mormons and TBM's, which is very similar to Dr. Shades' explanation of chapel Mormons versus internet Mormons.

If that is the real problem, great. The category does not exist. Poof. Real problem gone.

That actually seems to be your point on this thread.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You know, I really do like you personally- but I have to be winding up this thread soon- it really isn't worth my time to continue.

No problem, I’ll make a few closing remarks here and we can book mark this discussion for another time.

The whole notion of "evidence" for a priori knowlege is a non sequitur.

No sir, it follows pretty well. In the discussion about knowledge, a priori knowledge is a proposition that can be known independent of experience, not independent of evidence. Your example of the tautology A=A is just one type of A priori knowledge, not the only type.

First also note that you are saying here that no one can imagine what such a picture would look like. We can't imagine it because it is a contradiction. A thing cannot be both a rabbit and a duck at the same time. It is incompatible with our experience and so, not "real".

A Picture that is both a rabbit and a duck is not in any way a contradiction, in biological taxonomy maybe, but not a drawing.

Incidentally if you can find one published philosopher who says that optical illusions give us a priori knowledge

Not all optical illusions, just some. Where to start?

I suppose I could invoke certain understandings of Plato’s Meno and Kant’s work, but I don’t think arguments for a priori knowledge gain any real force until after Darwin. The first case I’m aware of that gives a positive argument for a priori knowledge in a naturalized epistemology was a guy in the 40s named Konrad Lorenz. A recent and thoughtful defense that includes the broader symmetrical argument I’ve been using is given by Tommasso Piazza in his, “A Priori Knowledge: Toward a Phenomenological Explanation” it was this work that I crafted my specific argument from, way more simplistic than the account he gives and much more inarticulate.

I got the duck/rabbit picture from Robert Burton’s fantastic book, “On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not” and it was his discussion about how we cannot see the rabbit and duck at the same time, even though that is how the picture really is.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I also wanted to add that I know you see experince = evidence, but I'm not going to redefine the meaning of the word to presuppose your beliefs.