Runtu wrote:I guess for me the "lacking an alternative explanation" part is the key. In my judgment, the alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon are far more compelling and have far more solid evidence for them than do the supernatural explanation for the book's emergence.
And, in mine, they are not and do not. That is where we differ.
Scottie wrote: I'm not sure that comparing the orbits of the planets is a comparable scenario. That is something which it is possible to prove. Mormonism is impossible to prove or disprove.
I disagree. Due to a lack of internal consistency within the gospel and beliefs of Mormons, the Mormon religion could not possibly be true, given that it is supposed to be the word and church of a perfect god.
It can also be proven untrue by way of a natural world model (the only one of which we have empirical evidence).
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
The Nehor wrote: [ If I could prophesy on demand I would do such a study. Problem is it just comes and I either know something or say something and it happens.
Well then Nehor, without demonstration or without a reliable source to confirm, I (and others) will be justified in dismissing or reaching other conclusions about you and your claims.
As I fully expect you to. You asked more why I believed, I didn't expect to make converts with what I said.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Scottie wrote: I'm not sure that comparing the orbits of the planets is a comparable scenario. That is something which it is possible to prove. Mormonism is impossible to prove or disprove.
I disagree. Due to a lack of internal consistency within the gospel and beliefs of Mormons, the Mormon religion could not possibly be true, given that it is supposed to be the word and church of a perfect god.
It can also be proven untrue by way of a natural world model (the only one of which we have empirical evidence).
I disagree with this. Every possible criticism you can throw at the church has at least a barely plausible rebuttal. Often times the explanation is, "we just don't know the mysteries of God and how He works.". How can you possibly prove that wrong?
This isn't saying that you shouldn't make up your own mind about the validity of the evidence. You should, and if you believe that Mormonism is false, that is perfectly acceptable. But to say you can prove that it is false, well, that's just not true. You can't.
Is there such a thing as evidence for something, which does not exist?
You're putting the cart before the horse. How we tell that sometime exists, one of the ways anyway, is through evidence. Dismissing evidence of the existence of something because you know that something does not exist is just being closeminded at best and begging the question at worst. There is such a thing as evidence for propositions that are, in actuality, wrong if that is what you are asking.
Take this fairly standard way to define evidence:
S is evidence of P if and only if an instance of S is more probable if P is true than if P is false.
Now I'm not saying I endorse this view, but taken this route then presents under the tree would be evidence of Santa. Does that mean one ought to believe in Santa? No. We can still say the evidence isn't sufficiently compelling. An observation can raise the probablity of a theory without raising its probability to a threshold where it becomes reasonable to accept it.
Scottie wrote:There IS evidence to indicate the Book of Mormon is true. You may not believe it to be the most persuasive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.
Thank you, Scottie.
I said evidence, not proof.
Two equally informed people can disagree about the power of the evidence -- and, of course, people who are not equally informed can differ, too -- but it is simply false to say that there is no evidence at all.
As for exhibiting the evidence, I'm doing the best that I can. I've published scores and scores of pages on the subject, given scores and scores of lectures (some recorded). And I have a Big Project underway. I can't and don't guarantee that everybody will find it persuasive, but many have, and I do.
I don't know. Are presents under the tree christmas morning, evidence of santa claus? :)
Exactly!!!!!!
Thanks, Who Knows.
Evidence can pretty much mean whatever we want it to mean, up to a point, kind of like statistics.
Say I go outside, and there's spaghetti on the ground.
Reasonably, I can say someone probably made a mess, and it needs to be cleaned up.
Or .... I could say that I had a visit from The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it proves that He visits those who believe in Him, and I must repent.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk
Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
Scottie wrote: I'm not sure that comparing the orbits of the planets is a comparable scenario. That is something which it is possible to prove. Mormonism is impossible to prove or disprove.
I disagree. Due to a lack of internal consistency within the gospel and beliefs of Mormons, the Mormon religion could not possibly be true, given that it is supposed to be the word and church of a perfect god.
It can also be proven untrue by way of a natural world model (the only one of which we have empirical evidence).
I disagree with this. Every possible criticism you can throw at the church has at least a barely plausible rebuttal. Often times the explanation is, "we just don't know the mysteries of God and how He works.". How can you possibly prove that wrong?
This isn't saying that you shouldn't make up your own mind about the validity of the evidence. You should, and if you believe that Mormonism is false, that is perfectly acceptable. But to say you can prove that it is false, well, that's just not true. You can't.
Well, we've established that we disagree on this point.
Let me just say that we're likely talking in degrees here. You could make a case that absolutely nothing is provable, but if we held to that framework, no conversation or thought is necessary.
I'm talking about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" proof. Is it really reasonable to doubt the church is not true? Not given an objective view of all the available evidence (assessed with logic and reason, without an "I want it to be true" agenda). Not by a long shot.
But we can agree to disagree.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Although I'm positive that everyone on here is aware of this, I think that it's also important to note that the burden of proof rests with Mormonism. Mormonism makes such extraordinary claims regarding the nature of the universe, the nature of human beings, the requirements that we must all follow, etc. etc. that it is imcumbant upon the makers of those claims to back them up.
To me, the kind of work that apologists are engaged in - creating whatever space they can to maintain the plausibility of the church in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary, just doesn't cut it. Neither do I accept that the positive emotions I felt during my teenage years amount to anything near the kind of evidence required to accept the truthfulness of the church's claims.
If someone makes such extraordinary claims about how I have to live my life, I owe it to myself to demand more than mere plausibility and warm emotions.
Runtu wrote:I guess for me the "lacking an alternative explanation" part is the key. In my judgment, the alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon are far more compelling and have far more solid evidence for them than do the supernatural explanation for the book's emergence.
And, in mine, they are not and do not. That is where we differ.
Of course. I believe reasonable people can disagree over these issues. I don't think that one must automatically believe as I do once one is exposed to the evidence. I spent a lot of time on FAIR/MAD, a.r.m., and other boards defending the same things you defend. I once thought as you do, that the evidence supported my beliefs. That I no longer believe that says nothing about who is smarter, more thoughtful, or more arrogant.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:S is evidence of P if and only if an instance of S is more probable if P is true than if P is false.
Ah, i like that. That's what i was looking for. Thanks.
Unfortunately, we're back to square one I guess. Evidence for one person, may not be evidence for another. Using your formula above, DCP may believe that Nahom (S) is evidence of the Book of Mormon (P) because he feels that S is more probable if P is true (which is his assumption). Whereas I would disagree.
I have no qualms with saying there is no evidence of the 'truthfulness' of the Book of Mormon. I have not seen an "S" for the Book of Mormon.
Last edited by canpakes on Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...