The Evidence Thread

[_Res Ipsa]

Is there a reason no one is willing to publicly acknowledge that the simple matter I presented above (ancient records inscribed on precious metal plates, deposited in stone) *is* evidence?

If there is nothing but silence on a matter that straightforward, I see little reason to continue in this thread.

Welcome back, Hagoth. What exactly do you claim that the two examples provided are evidence of?

[_Res Ipsa]

This thread leads to the question for everyone here: is there *anything* that would be acceptable as evidence for the assertion that the Book of Mormon is true?

Confirmation from the Spirit of God?
Historical details?
Prophecies?

Or is this a meaningless exercise?

If the existence of an omnipotent God is a necessary condition for the Book of Mormon to be "true," then I would require something like proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Book could not have been produced without such a God. I believe such a high standard of proof is warranted because such a God is capable of manufacturing or tampering with evidence.

Following on this line, I would consider something as evidence supporting the proposition that "The Book of Mormon is True" as something that supports the proposition "The Book of Mormon could not have been produced without God" more than it supports "The Book of Mormon could have been produced without God." If the evidence is in the nature of a correspondence between something written in the book and something in the real world, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that the book is true to show that any such correspondence could not be the result of a combination of knowledge and coincidence.

I would not consider confirmation from Spirit of God as evidence.

Historical details could be evidence, depending on the nature of the details. For example, references to "Jerusalem" in the Book of Mormon would not be evidence because, at the time the book was written, it was generally known that Jerusalem was a city. The finding of other sets of metal plates similar to those described by Smith written in something that could qualify as "reformed egyptian" would qualify as evidence.

Prophecy could qualify as evidence, depending on the nature of the prophecy. The person claiming the Book of Mormon to be true would bear the burden of showing that any correspondence between a Book of Mormon prophecy and the real world cannot be explained by a combination of knowledge and coincidence.

I think that the vast, vast majority of discussions about evidence for the Book of Mormon are a waste of time because they are not intended to show what is most likely based on all the available evidence. Instead, they are intended to show that it is "possible" that the Book of Mormon is true. I'm willing to concede that right off the bat, because the truth of the Book of Mormon requires the existence of an all powerful God. And for such a God, all things are "possible."

What doesn't happen in these discussions, in my opinion, is a serious effort to think through what it means for something to be evidence and where we should be placing the burden of proof. Especially neglected is any serious discussion of other role of chance and coincidence. Any scientific experiment places the burden on the person making a claim to prove that experimental results are not the product of chance. And it's a fairly heavy burden. (Generally, 95%). Yet, proponents of the Book of Mormon simply dismiss the role of chance with a hand wave.

[_Quasimodo]

I'm easy. The day some lucky archeologist finds the remnants of a massive battle with many thousands of human bones, interspersed with swords, helmets, chariot wheels and horse bones in the Western Hemisphere, I'm calling the missionaries.

That wouldn't just be evidence, that would be proof. So far, we have nothing. Not even one steel sword. Zilch, Nada.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm easy. The day some lucky archeologist finds the remnants of a massive battle with many thousands of human bones, interspersed with swords, helmets, chariot wheels and horse bones in the Western Hemisphere, I'm calling the missionaries.

That wouldn't just be evidence, that would be proof. So far, we have nothing. Not even one steel sword. Zilch, Nada.

I think that would meet my evidentiary standard as well.

[_I have a question]

I'm easy.

We know.

The day some lucky archeologist finds the remnants of a massive battle with many thousands of human bones, interspersed with swords, helmets, chariot wheels and horse bones in the Western Hemisphere, I'm calling the missionaries.

Just take a minute there.

Firstly, if the Book of Mormon is exactly what it is claimed to be, I would still take exception with parts of it, and parts of Mormonism. Just because something is 'true' doesn't mean it is 'right'. For instance, it may be true that I have tunnelled into your wine cellar and avail myself of your vintages whilst you slumber each evening, but is it right?

[_Zakuska]

I'm easy. The day some lucky archeologist finds the remnants of a massive battle with many thousands of human bones, interspersed with swords, helmets, chariot wheels and horse bones in the Western Hemisphere, I'm calling the missionaries.

That wouldn't just be evidence, that would be proof. So far, we have nothing. Not even one steel sword. Zilch, Nada.

They did find a Roman Sword on Oak island a few weeks back. ;)

[_Themis]

Themis,

This is probably the last I'm going to say on the Nahom issue, but it would appear that we're largely talking past each other.

1) I would actually be a bit surprised if the tiny dot on the map where the altar is located was the exact same site as the place where Ishmael was buried. I do believe, however, that they are in the same *general* location. Because....

That is the point I was trying to get across to CCC.

2) It's the name of the tribe/people that intrigues me more, *not* the three-letter inscription on the altar. I refer you back to the list of seven peoples/regions I offered for consideration earlier. Connect those dots if you wish.

If not, I wish you well.

I am not sure what dots you have, but the name might be interesting to the believer. I doubt the non-believer would see it as evidence. It's not likely NHM would be Nahom.

This thread leads to the question for everyone here: is there *anything* that would be acceptable as evidence for the assertion that the Book of Mormon is true?

Confirmation from the Spirit of God?
Historical details?
Prophecies?

The first no, but the other two maybe. People have listed many things that would constitute great evidence for the Book of Mormon being true. They have never come forth and great evidence against abounds.

[_Themis]

Is there a reason no one is willing to publicly acknowledge that the simple matter I presented above (ancient records inscribed on precious metal plates, deposited in stone) *is* evidence?

If there is nothing but silence on a matter that straightforward, I see little reason to continue in this thread.

Res asks a good question, but why do some think these ideas did not exist in Joseph's world.

[_Res Ipsa]

Is there a reason no one is willing to publicly acknowledge that the simple matter I presented above (ancient records inscribed on precious metal plates, deposited in stone) *is* evidence?

If there is nothing but silence on a matter that straightforward, I see little reason to continue in this thread.

Res asks a good question, but why do some think these ideas did not exist in Joseph's world.

Hadn't gotten there yet. (Plod, plod, plod....)

[_Quasimodo]

I'm easy. The day some lucky archeologist finds the remnants of a massive battle with many thousands of human bones, interspersed with swords, helmets, chariot wheels and horse bones in the Western Hemisphere, I'm calling the missionaries.

That wouldn't just be evidence, that would be proof. So far, we have nothing. Not even one steel sword. Zilch, Nada.

They did find a Roman Sword on Oak island a few weeks back. ;)

Thanks, Zakuska!

I did read that story, but I think I remember that it was the recollection of someone that heard it from someone else. Has the sword actually turned up?

I usually stay on top of any stories related to archeology. I haven't seen it reported in any of the sites that I consider reliable. It would certainly be very big news if it were true.