(February 22, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Surgenator Wrote: If God and the rules cannot be separated, you cannot know which came first. Hence, you don't know the moral rules god enforces are actually moral. Faith is your only defense.
Of course I don't know which came first. If both are eternal without beginning, coming first makes no sense. Enforcement is either immediate or postponed (in mortality it is postponed for reasons I indicated earlier); but God enforces them all. As for knowing all the laws; maybe not, but the ones that have been revealed by prophets I know to be moral and yes, of course I have faith. I never denied that. As for it being a defense; I don't need to defend it. As I have said, I don't believe I am able to convince anyone in here of anything. I'm just here to express a point of view knowing ahead of time that nothing I say will be accepted. I participate because it is interesting and I am learning something.
Quote:You say: "How about we define objective-moral-law as the application of a rule for a given situation where the situation and punishment do not depend who, where or when the situation partook?"
I'm ok with that except that the word "application" implies and applier. To me, in terms of an eternally objective moral law, that means God.
Quote:So that is where your stuck. The applier and what the rule states are two different problems. I'm arguing about how the rule can be objective. Your arguing about how the administrator can be objective (maybe). Lets address one problem at a time please.
You're right. That is where I am stuck. I don't see how you can separate the two, and you cannot see how I cannot.
Quote:I find what the other responder said to be very interesting. Ontology is "the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such." (from the dictionary) In this case, the existence of God which I believe in and you do not. There's the rub. We will not be able to come to an agreement because of that fact.
Quote: It is not like I cannot be convinced a God exist. I just need evidence, not unsupported stories, to convince me. Are you even open to the idea that your wrong?
Believe me, I understand the desire for more information (evidence)concerning God. God will not provide proof of His existence because we are in the middle of a test. The answers to the test aren't provided until the test is over. Thus, faith is a requirement for the test; whether one believes the words of the prophets or not. As I have said before, we are responsible for those things that have been revealed and there are consequences for ignoring the prophets. So, waiting for evidence, from my point of view, can be hazardous to your eternal health. No. I'm not open to that idea. Eternity and infinity, the non-destructibility and eternal nature of matter, spirit, intelligence and all that goes with that makes too much sense to me. Since I believe that intelligence like matter can neither be created or destroyed (it can only change state) and that there are different levels of intelligence, this means to me there is an intelligence that is all knowing and that is God.
Quote: Before we get too deep into philosophical distinctions, building upon mutually agreed propositions is valid with both theories of justifications. It is cleared that you want to bypass the justification of your belief in the prophets. However, internal consistency is not enough to justify anything real. If it were, the existence of super heroes are justified because the comic books are internally consistent.
Yes, and I am sure in your mind the scriptures do indeed read similarly to a comic book. There is no other evaluation possible is there?
Quote: I also know that there are inconsistencies in the Mormonism. I prefer not argue about these but only to point out there consistency is not something mormonism has.
OK, I went an looked at the list of things written by Packham. He is very good a coloring things he does not understand to make them look absurd and some of the things in there are outright lies. If you want answers to some of the things Packham says, then may I suggest you check out FairMormon. I'd give you the link but I'm not allowed yet. But that is another subject and I'm not interested in debating that stuff. What I do in here is, if I notice a topic that interests me, I'll comment on it. I'll repeat myself again. I'm not in here to convince anyone of Mormonism. That would indeed be a waste of time.
