King of Men said in another thread, "*Adds comrade enochville to list for re-education camps.*"
Let's have a go at it. I do this on condition that our conversations remain respectful. Condescending mockery is not welcome. If you agree to it, the main topic of the conversation will be that it is possible for God to exist. If that topic is not acceptable to you, we can choose another.
The word "atheism" comes from the words "a" meaning no or not, "theo" meaning god, and "ism" meaning belief or doctrine. Therefore, atheism is the doctrine that there is no god.
The word "agnosticism" comes from the Latin words "a" meaning no, not, "gnostic" meaning knowledge, and "ism" meaning belief or doctrine. Therefore, agnosticism means the doctrine that either one doesn't know whether God exists or that it is unknowable.
It is very bold to declare that something does not exist, as atheist do. Imagine me claiming that green ants do not exist. How could I possibly know such a thing? Can I confidently say that I have searched everywhere in the universe in everyplace they could hide? Of course not. There is another way I could claim that green ants do not exist: I could demonstrate that it is impossible for green ants to exist given the definition of ants or the properties of green pigment, etc. That is how some atheist claim to prove there is no god. But, how can I be sure that my understandings of the properties of green pigment are correct or that my definition of what constitutes an ant is all-inclusive? The most anyone might be able to say about God is he does not appear to have this characteristic or behave this way. But, one cannot say that they have proven God does not exist. Therefore, I find atheism untenable.
Agnosticism at least recognizes that although one can believe there is no god, one cannot know that there is no god.
I am a fully committed LDS with a very firm testimony of God, yet I confess I cannot be absolutely positive in the existence of God inasmuch as I cannot be positive that anything exists except that "something is happening". Allow me to explain.
Rene Descarte performed a famous exercise where he labored to identify some fundamental principle that he could not doubt. If he could identify this undoubtable truth, he would then use it to either infer or deduces other truths. We, like he, can doubt the reality of this world (i.e., we could be in the Matrix). All that we know about this world comes from our experience, and how can we trust that? We may see a rock, touch a rock, taste, smell, and listen to the rock. And all of our senses may tell us it is there, but all we have is consistency which does not constitute the existence of the rock. A virtual reality program could replicate the convergence of our senses, yet the rock is not there.
We don't know, I mean really know, where our sensations and perceptions come from. We think they come receptor cells and processed by nerves, but how did we learn that - through our sensations and perceptions. We are using our sensations to learn where our sensations come from. That is a closed system. (lest anyone say it - the reading of instruments is still sensation). All that we can say is that there is some consistency in the data of our experience. But, again consistency does not prove existence - this could all be a very consistent software program or dream.
So, we can doubt everything, everything except that something is happening. Descarte improperly assumed that this "something is happening" is thinking, and coined the phrase "I think, therefore I am". But, who is to say that these are thoughts and that I as an entity exist? It might be that a software program is running somewhere that produces this experience. It might be that I exist and am simply dreaming all of this. It might be that I exist as a human on planet earth and my senses are perceiving true matter (in other words, that what we take for granted really is here). There is no way to know for sure. We have no way to get out of the system to see if any of this is really here. God himself appearing to us and allowing us to touch and smell Him and experience him spiritually would shed no light on this. Because our five senses, our brains, our spiritual sense could all be part of a software program. Well, perhaps a person visited by God can transcend and "step out of the matrix" for lack of a better analogy. I don't know what that experience is like. But, as far as normal experience goes, even spiritual experiences, all are subject to the same doubts as above. Therefore, I admit, I cannot KNOW that God exists in the most absolute meaning of the word "know".
While we are experiencing this "something is happening," we can look for patterns, or consistencies in the experience. It is our perception that we interact with this experience through our senses. When we have a convergence of the data from our senses that something is there (i.e., we see a table, smell, taste, hear, and touch a table) we have a greater confidence that the table is there, at least within the rules of the Matrix, or whatever you what to call this experience. It is of course impossible to prove that the table is there. All we have are data points and have organized them into but one possible alternative (namely, "there is a table there"). We decide how many data points we need before we are willing to say that we "know" the table is there. But, in humility, we must acknowledge that all we really have is several questionable data points. We must remember that we have created the idea of "table" and have decided that our data points to its existence. There are always other alternative explanations for the data that we can never completely rule out. So, everything in this life, even those things that we are most sure of swim in these murky waters.
Therefore, since we cannot know anything (except that something is happening) everything else we even entertain to be true is done so on faith. Faith is not unique to religion, every last one of us do everything we do by faith. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we actually KNOW anything. We eat food because we have faith that it will sustain us, because the data points we have gathered in the past appear to reflect a pattern that consuming food sustains us. But, we don't know that the pattern actually reveals a law of this existence. The law that we think exists today could quit working tomorrow. We put on what we believe to be clothes because we have faith they will keep us warm. Yet, in everyday language we speak as though we know. We feel that when they is a convergence of the evidence, when there is consistency, when a few of our senses or our reason lead us to believe that something is true or that it exists, we feel comfortable saying that we know it is true or that it exists. Granted the word "know" still comes with the same provisions as discussed above. Well, with that understanding of the word, I can tell you that I know God lives, to the extent that I can say I know that anything exists. I have accumulated sufficient evidence for me to lead me to the point where I feel comfortable proclaiming that I know God lives. At minimum he exists within "the Matrix", possibly outside of that. For after all there may be no Matrix; what we are experiencing may be reality. Are there alternate explanations for my data points other than the existence of God? Yes, but this explanation seems most consistent and parsimonious to me.
Is there room for doubt? I suppose there is always room for doubt. That just means that there is always room for faith. And that will remain until we are able to transcend this realm of existence and see things as they really are.
I would not argue with you if you said that no one can KNOW god exists in the most extreme meaning of the word. I would say also that no one can KNOW that god does not exist. All must admit the possibility that he could exist. Now, as far as the convential use of the word "know" goes, meaning "I have accumulated sufficient evidence for me to conclude that something is true, acknowledging the possibility of alternative explanations", I posit that people can say that they know God exists. In other words, if you let people say, "I know Subway has a sale on Tuesdays" or "I know that the capital of the USA is Washington, D.C.", then you can let people say, "I know God lives."
Now, we may argue about the validity of data points, but that is the second part of this discussion. Let's discuss this first. Anyone else can throw in their two cents as well.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:It is very bold to declare that something does not exist
It is very bold to declare that something does exist.
I would turn your entire argument upside down. It works either way.
The existance of God cannot be proved either way. It is both logical to believe that God does exist and handles all the bits we don't understand. It is also logical to believe that God doesn't exist and everything we don't understand has a scientific explanation.
Without proof, which is highly improbable, neither side can say for sure that they are right.
*tosses two cents*
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
If you define atheism in such a way as to leave no room for doubt, and define belief in god in such a way that does leave room for doubt, then of course atheism is the less tenable position. So what?
I'm not going to put words into KoM's mouth, but I have never heard any of the other atheists I know say anything along the lines of "I know with 100% certainty that god does not exist." It is more along the lines of "I believe god does not exist" or "I do not believe god exists" (a fine difference). If you want to claim that would make these people agnostics instead of atheists, that's about as fair as saying you have to be 100% certain god exists to self-identify as part of your religion.
Your post seems well thought out, but unfortunately most of your arguement seems to boil down to defining the opposing viewpoint as having stricter requirements for validity or the burden of proof than your own. "I believe green ants don't exist" is a legitimate belief statement based on never having seen a green ant or evidence of one.
--Enigmatic
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It is not too wise to try to argue with King of Men. He is who he is, and we all enjoy him most of the time. But really. Don't try to argue with him if you're not ready to end up in a gulag.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
More likely a fjord. I don't think Norwegians have any gulags.
--Enigmatic
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Fine, a gulag built on a fjord.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've quoted this here before:
quote:In the knowledge game, "evidence" is every bit as noble a concept as "proof."
I don't need proof to believe that god does not exist, because in my experience there is no evidence to support the claim. In the general case, you can perfectly legitimately consider something to be nonexistent until there is evidence to support the claim that it exists. What constitutes "evidence" is different for each individual -- your testimony is enough for you; it might not be enough for me, even if I had a "revelation" of my own.
So it isn't "bold" at all to believe that god does not exist. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is in fact correct to do just that. To the extent that you recognize you could be wrong about god's existence -- or about anything -- I recognize that I could be wrong as well. But that's no reason for me to be an agnostic.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
ketchup: I believe I am ready for whatever he gives me.
Teshi and Enigmatic: I am coming to understand that the word atheism is has morphed and now means different things to different people. I shall try to do a better job identifying the sub population I am refering to. I believe the term used to mean what I said. Nietsche is a good example with his declarative, "God is dead".
As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I was not trying to prove that God exists, which I believe is not possible in its fullest meaning at least not in this frame of experience. I simply wanted to demonstrate "that it is possible for God to exist". Why? Because King of Men has a habit of talking to people like they are idiots for believing in fairy tales as if he KNEW they were impossible falsehoods.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I simply wanted to demonstrate "that it is possible for God to exist"
I think it's possible to prove that certain sorts of gods are logically inconsistent, and therefore are unlikely to exist. Luckily, the Mormon God is for the most part internally consistent -- so that while there's almost no evidence for His existence, no one can say with absolute certainty that He does not exist, either.
That said, the same argument applies to the whole "Invisible Pink Unicorn" spoof; it's possible to conceive of all sorts of internally consistent gods that are still highly unlikely to exist.
-------
By the way, you appear to misunderstand Nietzsche's original meaning. "God is Dead" does not mean that God does not exist or has been disproved; it means that a universal shared belief in God as a unifying and civilizing force is no longer a primary part of Western thought. You might even agree with this.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you can say that you "don't know god exists with absolute certainty" yet you are not an agnostic, then I can certainly say I "don't know that god doesn't exist with absolute certainty" and also not be an agnostic. If anything, the declarative claim that god does not exist (or that "god is dead") is the one you should be cutting slack to, not the other way around. Added: As I said above, atheism is in a sense the "default" position; unless there is evidence suggesting that something exists, it is sensible to believe that it does not exist.
That KoM is rude about it is bad, yes, but that in itself does not make his position untenable.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I am a Christian, for the record -- a United Methodist.
There are some things KoM has very good points about, and in my opinion one of them is that there is a problem when people say if they honestly believed God was telling them to kill their child would follow through and do so. I don't think the problem is necessarily that the people who say this are crazy or a danger to society, I think the problem is that they are not thinking it through.
Because there have been people in recent memory who believed God was telling them to kill their children and followed through with it. The example that comes most easily to mind is Andrea Yates. And when she said that she believed that if she killed her children God would lift them up and they would be saved, whereas if she let them live they would be damned, since she was a bad mother and couldn't raise them right, and go to hell, we don't say "Well then obviously she did the right thing!" We say she was suffering from post-partum psychosis and depression and it was a terrible tragedy and hopefully she will never be allowed near anyone's children again in her life.
So while I believe in God, and I believe that God can and does talk to people directly on occasion, I also believe that God does not and will not tell people to kill their kids. And if I ever become convinced that God is telling me to kill my non-existant children, or worse yet someone else's actual children, I hope and pray that my reaction will be to get myself commited because I am obviously having a mental breakdown and need to be kept from doing anything stupid and, quite frankly, evil.
Because there are mental conditions that can make someone believe they are hearing voices. And even if you are 100% sure that you are hearing God's will, and are willing to spend the rest of your life in prison or a mental hospital in order to carry it out, I am going to say there is a 99.999% chance that you are insane, and it is worth that .001% chance of going against God's will to get your ass into the hospital and let your children live.
So. . . do you believe there is a chance that God really did want Andrea's five children dead? What percentage would you put on it? She was 100% sure she was doing the right thing. And I sincerely hope that if you search your heart, you decide that when you're about 80% sure God wants you to kill your kids you listen to the 20% and go get help.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Because King of Men has a habit of talking to people like they are idiots for believing in fairy tales
That is a quirk of KoM, not of atheists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, taking the points in order - yes, it is certainly possible for a god or gods to exist. The good old Ęsir, who incidentally are a lot more sympathetic than Yahweh, could in principle exist, just as much as Allah or Shiva or the personal fetish of some tribesman in the Upper Congo. In fact, there's probably a computer game out there where they do.
Now, I think it is fair to say that the god described in the Bible cannot exist as described, because it isn't really internally self-consistent; but you can probably pick and choose a text that does give you a god which doesn't contradict itself. But as Tom points out, the god that the LDS believe in is not too terribly self-contradictory.
However, "God could in principle exist" is an extremely weak statement. As I pointed out above, so could the Ęsir; likewise the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a hollow world at the center of the Earth. (Well, actually the last might be a bit tricky - you'd think we'd see it from seismic data.)
The question is not what could conceivably exist; it's just too weak a criterion. The question is rather, what does in fact exist? Here we must turn to evidence. (And let us, for purposes of this thread, agree to abandon all Matrix references. They don't go anywhere.) Then I will say that there is no reliable evidence that any god or gods do in fact exist. This being so, and since gods as described in the various mythologies certainly look like they ought to leave a good bit of evidence around (the Christian god especially), there is no reason to believe in their existence, and good reason not to.
Now, about gulags : The fjords are too good for theists; we'll keep them for the tourists. The border with Russia, on the other hand, strikes me as an excellent place for a re-education camp.
Finally, would you consider someone an idiot for believing in the Easter Bunny? (Assuming he wasn't a child, that is.) Thank you, so would I. Is there any more reliable evidence for, say, Yahweh than there is for the Easter Bunny? Right then. I stand by "idiots".
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Enochville, many words mean different things to different people. This doesn't mean the word has "morphed" or even if it had that the definition you wanted to use in your first post was the "original one. From your own description of the root of the word:
quote: The word "atheism" comes from the words "a" meaning no or not, "theo" meaning god, and "ism" meaning belief or doctrine. Therefore, atheism is the doctrine that there is no god.
Technically, your last line should be "Therefore, atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god" if it is to follow logically from the sub-word definitions earlier. Either way though, that definition of atheism does not convey the 100% certainty that you seemed to be imposing on the rest of the discussion.
Incidentally, I'm not an atheist (although a broad enough definition of it could include me, it's not how I self-identify). And I'm not trying to bash you or your intent here. I just wanted to point out that you seem to be trying to tackle atheism without a very clear understanding of it. The vast majority of atheists are not as arrogantly certain of things as you paint them. (Yeah, okay, maybe KoM is. That's why he's the atheist. )
In addition to Tom's excellent point on the quote, "God is dead" isn't really an athiest statement anyway, because it seems to imply that God was alive previously. That's not something an athiest is likely to believe.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What is it called if you murder God? Theocide?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Deicide, I think. The -cide stuff all seems to be borrowed from Latin rather than Greek. What can you expect from a language having a word meaning "to kill every tenth man"?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Yep, it's deicide. Or at least that's what heavy metal would have you believe.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i guess the next question would be to ask why there is a good reason to not believe in gods.
and the next point would be to state that evidence for existance/non-existance for a god relies heviliy on how you would interpret something.
take the grand canyon for a small example. It is declaired that after millions of years of water runnign over the surface of rocks it has been cut into a beautiful structure. Christians would then say that because the mid-point of the grand canyon is just about 100ft higher above sea level than the starting point, and since water cannot flow upwards it must have been created by god. Same with the lack of dust on the moon and the difference in composition of the core/crust.
An atheist or agnostic or even a different religion may look at other factors. If in fact it took a million years possibly it was an underground passageway that collapsed in on itself and the evidence of a roof has been washed away. Just like the possibility of solar activity is technically possible for the reason of so little dust on the moon and that over millions of years the radiation proof fo such an activity no longer exhists and that difference in molten materials would cause an unbalance until it was hard... if the moon did come from the earth it may have come from an unbalanced protion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You aren't seriously trying to advance the ancient moon-dust strawman, I hope? No offense, but it sounds as though you actually consider it some kind of valid argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Christians would then say that because the mid-point of the grand canyon is just about 100ft higher above sea level than the starting point, and since water cannot flow upwards it must have been created by god.
Some Christians would say that God created a Universe in which the mere flowing of water over dirt could could create such a wonder. They might also say that the centerline of the entire canyon flows downhill in a very easily traceable path called the Colorado River.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
straw man suggest that evidence doesnt exist or is to weak to sustain itself. There is no dust on the moon. The dust was expected to be there and the theory has changed 4 times in text books to explain why it wasnt there. Until there is a proven explination as to why it isnt there it continues to be an interesting and valid arguement.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
They might also say that the centerline of the entire canyon flows downhill in a very easily traceable path called the Colorado River
that is what im talking about.. at its current state it is easily traceable. But if you conclude that it was created entirely without interevention or that the evidence of subterrainian pathways would have been eliminated in its million year expansion then the colorado river would not run its particular course
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wrong. Even creationists don't believe that nonsense any more, at least the marginally honest among them don't.
Now, it's true that 'strawman' wasn't the right word; 'nonsense' or 'fallacy' might have been better.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
need i point out that this nonsense or fallacy was a key point in the arguement for the old age of the moon before it landed. Secondly as i have stated there isnt an arguement that does not include the assumption that space debris has stayed uniform throught the billions of years in space on either side of the arguement. Straw man or nonsense doesnt describe this theory as the age of the moon was not in question but merely the interpretations of how and why what was once belived to be a fact and then turned out not to be a fact si seen. For it to be a nonsensical statement they would have to disprove that there is no dust on the moon seeing in any arguemment it is the possibility of a negative, not an abundance of posatives that proves an arguement true/false
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm sorry, that post makes no sense. Once more, with coherence. And paragraphs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But if you conclude that it was created entirely without interevention or that the evidence of subterrainian pathways would have been eliminated in its million year expansion then the colorado river would not run its particular course
Only if you forgot that the plateau has risen due to tectonic forces and that the entire Gulf of California was once not open to the Sea, which meant that the base of the river was lower.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:i guess the next question would be to ask why there is a good reason to not believe in gods.
Why is there a good reason to believe in gods? In the absence of evidence suggesting that god may exist, believing that god does not exist is the "default" position.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
for an arguement to be false it must have a conditional that makes the outcome wrong. Since the outcome is that it has little to no dust then the theory cannot be discounted.
on that page you posted notice how the first 2 points of why this theory is generally not accepted to be true contradict each other. The first point argues that dust actually came out to be less abundant than expected it is not valid. Yet the second one excludes arguements that have certain given assumption to be false. Because you would have to assume that dust constantly flies through all space equally in an amount less than previously expected you cannot claim that this theory is proven wrong because the space dust is less than previously expected. It would be the same as guessing the answer to a problem to be 6 before you see the problem.. but when your answer turns out to be two you creat a problem to equal 2.
About the moons age not the issue in question, it isnt. The issue in question is what is the good reasons for not believing in a god. The moon and the colorado river were just examples of how different people can interpret different signs as evidence for/agains a god.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:There is no dust on the moon.
There is dust on the moon, just not as much as some people thought there would be.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
Gulf of California was once not open to the Sea, which meant that the base of the river was lower.
quote:
the rise of a plate that s not on a fault but int he middle of a fault would cause the end of the fault line (mouth of river) to be raised, not the middle in which if you consider that the california plate is one dissapearing it is actually rising then folding in and under the pacific plate. This still does not explain why the river acts like this.
The leading theory to explain this is subrterrainian caverns had water flowign through it and the roof collapsed in after a few million years, leaving us the roofless grand canyon
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Atheism is attractive, I admit. I just can't bring myself to believe it, though. Too far fetched.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
There is dust on the moon, just not as much as some people thought there would be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
yes i stated there was, and i stated it wasnt as much as expected. the term no dust was in compared to the amount that was supposed to be on it. the wuestion is beeing avoided still
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*shrug*
I don't need to avoid those questions. Neither of your arguments (moon dust or the Grand Canyon) has anything to do with whether or not god exists.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
if youll notice the question and statement they were used with wastn the topic of weather god exhists or not. If you look at the world and see the work of a creaton that to you gods exhist. If you look at the world and see chance... intracate possabilities, then god does not exist. It cannot be argued one way or the other that gods do/do not exist with real evidence. All evidence on the mattter is based on heavy assumptions
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:By the way, you appear to misunderstand Nietzsche's original meaning. "God is Dead" does not mean that God does not exist or has been disproved; it means that a universal shared belief in God as a unifying and civilizing force is no longer a primary part of Western thought. You might even agree with this.
This is the most succinct and accurate interpretation of Nietszche's quote I've ever read. God, for the purposes of this quote, was Christendom. There is only part that is missing, which is Nietszche's horror and astonishment that people still go through the motions out of convention or even efficacy, not devotion or belief. The terror comes from not only Godlessness, but the fact that we are desecrating the body, a la Weekend at Bernie's and thereby degrading our lives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thank you, Irami. I've spent a lot of time confronting Nietszche and Schopenhauer lately, and part of that has been trying to come up with ways to summarize -- for my own brain -- what they had to say about the universe. I tend to think in ten-second chunks, and anything that takes me longer than ten seconds to explain to anyone else is something that I have trouble holding in my own mind. *laugh*
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
it is impossible for the universe to reach its current state without the vast amount of time that would have to have occured. By looking at it from an extreemly young point of viw you are admitting thatthere must be a creator to it because nothign can happen this way in so short a time. thus christians and other faiths look for evidence of extreemly young age to disprove the theory of evolution... If one conditional is false then the statement is false. That is the basis of a christian arguement. If the timeframe is false then the idea is false.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the rise of a plate that s not on a fault but int he middle of a fault would cause the end of the fault line (mouth of river) to be raised, not the middle
Wrong.
quote: in which if you consider that the california plate is one dissapearing it is actually rising then folding in and under the pacific plate.
The Colorado Plateau is a distinct mass of its own.
quote:This still does not explain why the river acts like this.
Really, I don't care what you believe about the Grand Canyon. I simply want you to stop claiming the word "Christian" solely for young-earth creationists.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Deicide, I think. The -cide stuff all seems to be borrowed from Latin rather than Greek. What can you expect from a language having a word meaning "to kill every tenth man"?
Incidentally, not mixing latin and greek morphemes is what I've suppose to have learnt this week in my linguistics class .
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm sorry ecthy, your post is a little clearer, but not much. Anyway, comrade enochville raised a much more interesting question than this ancient cretinist stuff. If you really want to argue about that, could you maybe make a new thread for it? Or this forum might be a better place, it's intended for that kind of thing.
Anyway, I'm all up for a good thorough examination of the meaning of evidence; I just can't get excited about all that creationist nonsense.
Friend starLisa, perhaps you would care to explain why you find atheism far-fetched?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: thus christians and other faiths look for evidence of extreemly young age to disprove the theory of evolution... If one conditional is false then the statement is false.
I have to ask, actually: why are you using the word "Christian" as if it were synonymous with "Creationist?"
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
it wasnt to christians alone. Since the arguement that my question was based on had to do with is there a god/no god i simply picked a faith that would view it as a creation of a god not accident/chance/coincedence(take your pick on words).
i only used californias plate because you used it.
To aknowledge atheists/radical creationists (doesnt matter the faith) as nonsense or far fetched simple folows princible of Achim's(sp, sorry) razor. Things that tend to be too far to one side or the other often are untrue, it is more a conservative beliefe that often proves right. This is by no means a law, its jsut philosophically where people tend to draw ideas of absurdity or far-fetched.
in my opinion to believe either would be far fetched. Since they both lack evidence to truey support themselves.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It cannot be argued one way or the other that gods do/do not exist with real evidence. All evidence on the mattter is based on heavy assumptions
There are no assumptions of the sort you suggest inherent in the belief that god does not exist.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
bleh getting used to quotes on this forum
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:To aknowledge atheists/radical creationists (doesnt matter the faith)
Atheism is not a religion.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
OK - I have a lot to catch up on. I was offline for a while while I ate.
twinky - The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, meaning just because you don't have evidence of a thing, doesn't mean you have evidence that the thing doesn't exist. I did not say it was a bold thing to believe that god does not exist, I said "It is very bold to declare that something does not exist". For those of you who believe you have no evidence that God exists, it is very reasonable for you to believe that he does not exist, but it is bold to declare with 100% certainty that God does not exist. This is a moot point now, because I understand that there are not many people who would stand by that statement.
TomDavidson said: "I think it's possible to prove that certain sorts of gods are logically inconsistent, and therefore are unlikely to exist." This is the point I was getting at when I said, "There is another way I could claim that green ants do not exist: I could demonstrate that it is impossible for green ants to exist given the definition of ants or the properties of green pigment, etc. But, how can I be sure that my understandings of the properties of green pigment are correct or that my definition of what constitutes an ant is all-inclusive? The most anyone might be able to say about God is he does not appear to have this characteristic or behave this way. But, one cannot say that they have proven God does not exist." Internal inconsistencies in the characteristics of God say more about man's misunderstandings than that God does not exist.
Everyone: I concede the point about my definition of atheism. It was the idea I was interested in, not the label.
ElJay: you are refering to a post of mine on a different thread, but I'll respond quickly. I was referring specifically to God's command to Abraham, not psychotic mothers. I'm sure someone while ask how I know that Abraham wasn't psychotic. I cannot KNOW, but I trust him.
King of Men: I know that "God could in principle exist" is an extremely weak statement. When I began this I did not know where to start with you. I am glad we can agree to this point. You didn't seem to believe that God could in principle exist in the way in which you were critizing people.
You said, "would you consider someone an idiot for believing in the Easter Bunny? (Assuming he wasn't a child, that is.) Thank you, so would I. Is there any more reliable evidence for, say, Yahweh than there is for the Easter Bunny? Right then. I stand by "idiots"". The difference is we know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, we don't know that God does not exist.
Then you said, "The question is rather, what does in fact exist? Here we must turn to evidence. Then I will say that there is no reliable evidence that any god or gods do in fact exist." This is the point I would like to discuss next, but not tonight as I have to sleep soon. Given my former post, what criteria does something need to meet for you to consider it evidence. Remember it is impossible to prove anything (except in mathematics and maybe philosophical theorems). All we have are data points. We have to decide whether they constitute "evidence" to support some claim. If you delve into the philosophy of science, you'll see that even true experiments cannot prove anything. You see I could tell you of certain data points I have. I'll say that it is evidence of God, you'll say that it is not and offer some alternative explanation. There is no data point, even theoretical data point that you would accept as evidence of God. So we would get no where. This situation is not perculiar to the question of God though. You could try to prove to me anything you want with as many data points as you want and if I were clever enough I could demonstrate that your so called evidence might support an alternate explanation.
Do you want two observers to describe the same occurence? I could cite visions seen by multiple people at the same time. Do you want replicability? People serially have gotten the same results from experimenting on the word. You want to experience it for yourself? You can, if you walk the same path others have.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote: There are no assumptions of the sort you suggest inherent in the belief that god does not exist
the assumption that he does/doesnt exhist is inherent in either belief
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote: Atheism is not a religion.
that is irrelevant
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:The difference is we know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, we don't know that God does not exist.
How do you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The easter bunny leaves paper footprints around my house at Easter.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:enochville wrote: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, meaning just because you don't have evidence of a thing, doesn't mean you have evidence that the thing doesn't exist.
I was wondering when you or someone else would say that. It's a cute catch-phrase, and strictly speaking it's true, but it doesn't mean anything for the purposes of this discussion -- because in this context there's no such thing as "evidence of absence."
If you have no evidence of a thing, then you have every reason to believe that that thing does not exist.
quote:enochville wrote: I did not say it was a bold thing to believe that god does not exist, I said "It is very bold to declare that something does not exist". For those of you who believe you have no evidence that God exists, it is very reasonable for you to believe that he does not exist, but it is bold to declare with 100% certainty that God does not exist. This is a moot point now, because I understand that there are not many people who would stand by that statement.
It is no more bold to make such a declaration than it is to make the equivalent oppposite declaration; you said that it was more bold and because of this atheism is untenable. That's false.
quote:Ecthalion wrote: the assumption that he does/doesnt exhist is inherent in either belief
That isn't an assumption.
quote:Ecthalion wrote: that is irrelevant
Then why did you equate it to one?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The difference is we know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, we don't know that God does not exist.
I'm reluctant to equate these two beliefs, so I ask this under protest, but: why?
How do we know that the Easter Bunny does not exist? Do we not, in fact, merely suspect quite strongly that he (?) is not real?
This brings us back to the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument; after all, if the IPU has taken elaborate steps to hide its existence from unbelievers, how can we disprove that it has not in fact taken those steps? In fact, the unquestioned fact that we can't see any evidence of it "proves" that the IPU must exist.
Or not, of course.
I think there's more evidence that some random god exists than that the Easter Bunny exists, but I don't think it's particularly strong evidence -- and the strongest evidence, which is the avowed personal testimonies of millions of people, is also contradictory and often exclusionary, thus degrading the quality of all such evidence.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Thanks for the clarification of "God is Dead".
I don't feel like responding to all the dust on the moon, Grand Canyon, and age of the universe posts. Those are but data points that can be cited as evidence of completely different ideas depending on how you organize them. Thus, illustrating my point in my last post.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
alas i must resign for the night... i will however keep track of this to see if anything interesting pops up
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'll respond to your other points later on, but first I'd like an answer to the question that several other people have raised : How do you know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist?
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
That isn't an assumption
quote:
yes it is since neither has provable evidence
quote: Then why did you equate it to one?
notice that i placed it under an area encompasing all beliefs or philosophical thoughts.
from now on though to avoid confusion i will say Theists and atheists from now on, im sorry if it has caused any confusion
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Ecthalion wrote: yes it is since neither has provable evidence
As I've said at least twice on this thread already, "god does not exist" is the default position barring evidence suggesting that god does exist. "God does not exist" is not a statement that can be supported evidentially, nor should it be.
quote:Ecthalion wrote: notice that i placed it under an area encompasing all beliefs or philosophical thoughts.
from now on though to avoid confusion i will say Theists and atheists from now on, im sorry if it has caused any confusion
Okay. Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
King of Men asks: "How do you know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist?"
KNOW in the ultimate sense? I do not know that the Easter Bunny does not exist for the same reason that I do not know that green ants don't exist. As I have said many times before, it is a very bold statement to declare that something does not exist.
But know in the conventional sense? No adult even claims that he exists, or that he has ever visited them. Everyone says he was made up by storytellers. The concept doesn't make sense, etc. But, we cannot know in the ultimate sense that he does not exist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah so. Now then, what about, let's say, the Hindu god Shiva?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
enochville, I think the distinction you may be driving at is whether the experiential evidence of others can or should be accepted as evidence for the existence of god. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ah so. Now then, what about, let's say, the Hindu god Shiva?
Usually this question is formulated with Zeus instead of Shiva (although Huitzilopochtli is popping up more often lately).
My standard answer is that I don't know that X being called a god by Y people doesn't exist. The existence of X is perfectly consistent with my faith, although many particular stories concerning X are not.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
King Men:
I could repeat my answer for the Easter Bunny, except for the convential "knowing" part.
To explain how I know (conventional meaning) Shiva does not exist would require me to present all my data points that lead me to believe that the God of Abraham is the only and only true God. That will take a long time, but I will do it, just not tonight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To explain how I know (conventional meaning) Shiva does not exist would require me to present all my data points that lead me to believe that the God of Abraham is the only and only true God.
Do you believe that your data is more credible than the data we have from Baptists and Catholics who, while sharing your belief in the God of Abraham, otherwise think you're completely wrong?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
TomDavidson: I don't want to offend, but in a word, yes. I am going to bed now, but I'll pick this back up tomorrow afternoon.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Sorry to make you wait longer, but I have to get some things done before tomorrow and will be unable to present my data points today. But, I am eager to do it and will just as soon as I can.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In the general case, you can perfectly legitimately consider something to be nonexistent until there is evidence to support the claim that it exists.
Why can't you perfectly legitimately consider something to exist until there is evidence to support the claim that it does not? I have no solid evidence that you really exist, for instance, yet I continue to have faith that you do. Is this illogical?
The notion that we should assume nonexistence rather than existence is simply a part of the typical atheist faith. But it is not necessarily true, by logic. There's no reason to conclude there should be any default belief whatsoever.
What's more, it is flat out wrong to say there's no evidence for God. At the very least, there is the Bible, and countless people claiming they have observed God. This evidence proves nothing for sure, but it is definitely evidence of some sort. Hence, the atheist would need to claim more than simply that nonexistence is the default option when there is no evidence. Rather, the atheist must say it the default when there is some evidence but not enough. I think the atheist can only logically conclude this if there is really some other evidence that suggests nonexistence, and which is stronger evidence than the testimony of the Bible and individuals, among other things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Would you consider the stories told about the Easter Bunny as evidence for its existence?
As to the other, logical reasons are one thing; pragmatism another. If you postulate existence as the default, you are left in the absurd position of affirming the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, and my third arm (the one that grows out between my shoulderblades) - after all, you have no evidence against any of these. This may be logically tenable, but it's not a very useful position.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Would you consider the stories told about the Easter Bunny as evidence for its existence?
Yes, if the people telling them claimed they were true. It is perfectly logical for little kids to conclude the Easter Bunny exists when the only evidence they have is that their parents say he does. Then they grow older and find stronger evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
quote:If you postulate existence as the default, you are left in the absurd position of affirming the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, and my third arm (the one that grows out between my shoulderblades) - after all, you have no evidence against any of these. This may be logically tenable, but it's not a very useful position.
Why would not believeing in the IPU, the Easter Bunny, and your third arm be any more useful? A belief is only useful if there is some reason to believe it is better than other possible beliefs. If I have no reason to think the Easter Bunny doesn't exist and no reason to think he does, why would it be of any use to believe he doesn't? Practically speaking, I might as well believe he does.
Incidently, the only reason I believe none of those things exist is because I do have evidence against each of them.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:How do we know that the Easter Bunny does not exist? Do we not, in fact, merely suspect quite strongly that he (?) is not real?
Extending this theory even further, how do we know that what we think is reality is not, in fact, a highly sophisticated computer program meant to simulate reality while machines use our body heat for powering their own society in the near distant future?
*ducks and hides*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah! What is your evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
As for usefulness, of what possible use is a belief in the IPU, a green tea kettle in orbit around Pluto, little purple men from Mars, or Yahweh? Does it inspire you to find new technologies? Does it give you insight into the nature of the world? Does it make you a better person? (Incidentally, for the latter two, statistical proof is all to the good.)
And JT, I think you'll find a post on the last page asking to dispense with tiresome Matrix references.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, that was what made it funny.
But more than that, it was meant to illustrate that the whole "Easter Bunny" track was in the same family as the Matrix arguments we'd agreed to leave out of the discussion. So it was funny, but with a moral. Although having to explain it makes me think it wasn't all that well executed.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ah! What is your evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Because I believe invisibility is not something a natural creature can evolve to have.
That, in turn, is based on my belief that the laws of science are correct and are inconsistent with invisibility. And that is based on my trust in scientists, and so on down the line of proof.
This is how belief works. Note that we are not talking about knowledge - stuff that is proven. We are merely talking about BELIEFS, which are often based only on partial evidence, such as other beliefs that are themselves only partially supported by evidence. Whereas you need complete proof to know something, all you need for belief is more evidence in support of it than there is against it.
quote:As for usefulness, of what possible use is a belief in the IPU, a green tea kettle in orbit around Pluto, little purple men from Mars, or Yahweh?
Believing in the IPU or green tea kettles in space are almost totally useless to me. Similarly, believing that those things DON'T exist serves no use to me either. An IPU or green tea kettle in space would not effect me, whether it existed or not. Thus, what I believe in regards to their existence doesn't matter in any practical sense, one way or the other.
God, however, would effect me.
And a belief in purple men from Mars would be quite useful if they did exist, because as a voter, I would some day have to pick a government that would treat these men from Mars appropriately. I wouldn't want any War of the Worlds.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no. The Matrix could in principle exist, but it's a useless argument. The existence or not of the Easter Bunny can, I hope you'll agree, be settled by evidence. By referring to it, I was hoping to show that the existence of Yahweh can also be settled by evidence, and that there is no evidence in his favour that would be accepted for the Easter Bunny.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The existence or not of the Easter Bunny can, I hope you'll agree, be settled by evidence.
The only evidence for this argument is the lack of evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny, which doesn't actually prove anything.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right, right, now you're getting there. So do you believe in the Easter Bunny, or not? Come now, this isn't hard.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't have any interest in discussing whether or not the Easter Bunny exists, but you draw a separation between this argument and the matrix argument that simply isn't there.
But condescending to me will surely solve that problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But it is there! If the Matrix did exist, we'd never know about it, right? But we could detect the Easter Bunny, if it did exist. Therefore the question is in principle resolvable by evidence. Right?
Now, the lack of evidence doesn't strictly prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, as you point out. But it does mean that it is not reasonable to believe in the Easter Bunny. Right?
If you agree to the previous two points, then I think you'll also agree that it is not reasonable to believe in a god unless some proof of its existence can be found.
If I understood them correctly, comrade enochville agrees with me on this, but comrade Tresopax prefers to assert that belief is reasonable even without proof, because the lack of evidence does not disprove existence. My point is that lack of evidence doesn't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, either, but we don't think it reasonable to believe in it for all that.
Sorry about condescending, I misunderstood the point you were making.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
To me this argument about evidence is moot. Emotional evidence isn't accepted on the same level of visible evidence. So much emotional evidence is bunk so it is *all* labeled as untrustworthy.
But if you rely only on visible evidence, I don't believe you can come to a conclusion about God. What if life is a "Matrix", and nothing we see is true? What if we can only know the truth by reading our emotions accurately?
And what if that is the whole point of this life, to learn how to understand things that can't be seen?
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
I'm not at all a philosopher, but nonetheless I feel like this thread is inexorably heading towards, "How do we know what we know, and how do we know that we know it?" Descartes and his "I think, therefore I am" keeps coming up in my mind, for some reason, too.
Carry on. I want to know where this ends up. Posted by mle (Member # 8830) on :
It's very simple. There's no need for proof. It's called faith. What's the point of saying people shouldn't be religious because there's no proof God exists? You've argued in this very thread that nothing can be proved. It's the same with the courts whether people want to believe it or not.
Every time we come up with a new way to, supposedly, prove someone is guilty, there ends up in the public eye that the case is reputable.
Some examples: Once upon a time they might put a burning rock into someones hand and if they didn't get burnt they were innocent. Later, if you suspected someone had committed a crime you might try to scrutinize a confession out of them. If they didnt admit it youd just accept they were telling the truth. In the last hundred years, weve tried to invent ways to quite literally prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt someone is guilty. But some have eventually ended up in the public eye that they could be doctored. And soon they all will, but no one will notice because well have come up with new ways quick enough.
The only way to know if someone is guilty is get a confession out of them without scrutinization or anything for them to gain if they do confess. And to be honest, I dont think Gods going to come down and tell every single one of us that he exists and to stop bickering about it.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
OK - My first post set out to demonstrate that that it is possible for God to exist. The following posts set out to demonstrate that it is plausible or reasonable that God exists. Although KoM may consider that a weak goal, it is about as much as is possible for any one person to demonstrate to another. I believe one can go one step farther, to the point where one knows (convential meaning) that God exists, but that requires gathering the evidence for one's self and having the Lord manifest himself to you.
Now, although I think KoM understands this, it appears that at least some other posters still don't quite get the idea that all I am about to present is data points. Data points do not become evidence until one organizes them as support for their hypothesis. But, just because data points can be shown to support one hypothesis does not mean that there is not a different hypothesis out there that the data supports equally well or better. Example: a defense attorney may use the same evidence that the prosecutor uses to reach an entirely different conclusion. What I am getting at is that if your hypothesis is that God exists, the data points I present can be used to support it, but, if your hypothesis is that God does not exist, you will be able to find an alternative explanation for the data.
The key in determining which hypothesis is more plausible or reasonable is in asking yourself which hypothesis fits the data best. In other words, how hard is it to explain away the data (how many unlikely scenarios have to combine to be able to fit the data to the hypothesis). To do this honestly, we must start on a level playing field, without judging the case before we hear the evidence. In other words, it is just as likely that there is a god as there is not until we start entering the evidence.
In these terms faith is entertaining the possibility that God is real; doubt is refusing to entertain that possibility. I do not practice "blind faith" in which you put your trust in something without having any reason to. There are somethings that I am willing to follow God on or accept although I don't have any idea why, but even in those cases I do it because I already have sufficient enough reason to trust him even into areas in which I am blind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In these terms faith is entertaining the possibility that God is real; doubt is refusing to entertain that possibility.
Hm. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept this premise of yours. But lay on.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
It is taking longer to prepare my remarks than I thought. I have to go to work. More to come.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm fairly sure I'm not willing to agree with those definitions. They're almost exactly opposite of what I hold the words "faith" and "doubt" to mean.
But I shall endeavor to remember how you've defined them while reading your upcoming posts.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tresopax:
quote:A belief is only useful if there is some reason to believe it is better than other possible beliefs.
Holy crap! Did anybody else notice this? Tres is a utilitarian at heart!
quote:Why can't you perfectly legitimately consider something to exist until there is evidence to support the claim that it does not?
You can, but there is no logical reason to do so.
quote:I have no solid evidence that you really exist, for instance, yet I continue to have faith that you do. Is this illogical?
No, because you do have evidence that I exist -- some 8,000 posts on this forum, pictures of me on Foobonic and from other Hatrack gatherings, and so forth. Most importantly, though, you have plenty of evidence that human beings exist. If there were evidence for the existence of, say, Zeus, I would then consider it much more likely that the other Olympian gods existed as well... but there's only the one Yahweh.
quote:The notion that we should assume nonexistence rather than existence is simply a part of the typical atheist faith.
Nonexistence is the logical default position and has nothing to do with faith, or with atheism (which itself has very little to do with faith either).
quote:What's more, it is flat out wrong to say there's no evidence for God.
Good thing I didn't say that, then, eh? I was very careful to avoid doing so.
quote:At the very least, there is the Bible, and countless people claiming they have observed God. This evidence proves nothing for sure, but it is definitely evidence of some sort.
I addressed this in my very first post to this thread and at least once after that, noting that what constitutes legitimate evidence varies from one person to the next.
My personal position is that the experiences of others make it reasonable to ask the question "does god exist?" Indeed, I have done so, and at some length. I assign no such weight to the Bible, however -- and I say that as someone who read much of it in earnest.
quote:Hence, the atheist would need to claim more than simply that nonexistence is the default option when there is no evidence. Rather, the atheist must say it the default when there is some evidence but not enough. I think the atheist can only logically conclude this if there is really some other evidence that suggests nonexistence, and which is stronger evidence than the testimony of the Bible and individuals, among other things.
No, this is definitely false. All the atheist has to do is make two statements:
1) In the absence of evidence, nonexistence is the logical default position.
2) From my* perspective, there is no valid evidence for the existence of god.
It seems to me that the second statement is the one you differ on, and rightly so as you're a theist -- but I don't think you can legitimately suggest that I should become an agnostic because many other people believe something I don't, or because the Bible exists. The latter statement in particular would give me serious trouble.
*Where "my perspective" is the perspective of a hypothetical atheist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Part of the problem with using the "people believe God exists" as evidence for God's existance is that this is not this statement doesn't fully express the active part of people's beliefs here. A more complete statement would be "people believe that their God exists and that everyone else's doesn't"*. Therefore, belief in say a Muslim God directly opposes belief in a Christian one (or say LDS contradicts Baptist belief).
When a bunch of people believe "A, but not B" and a bunch of other people believe "B, but not A", using the combination of these bunches as proof of something makes little sense.
---
* - Yes, yes, I know that there are plenty of religions, my own included, that don't actually believe that. But this is Hatrack, we don't really consider those religions when we're talking about "religion".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...belief in say a Muslim God directly opposes belief in a Christian...
This isn't true, though. The world's three major monotheistic religions all revere the same deity. There are other elements of Islam and Christianity that are opposed, however.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The world's three major monotheistic religions all revere the same deity.
No they don't. The deity that Christians worship is a three-part one consisting of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The deity-hood of each of these three entities is central to their faith. Believing that directly contradicts the Muslim central belief that "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." The Muslims do not believe in either Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God.
edit: And, leaving that aside, my wider point is that experience of Allah directly contradicts experience of Jesus which directly contradicts experience of Yahweh which directly contradicts experience of Vishnu and of all the lost deities from religions that the major religions wiped out. Even within each of these religions, experiences of one sect directly contradict those of another sect.
[ November 07, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Allah" is Arabic for "God." I noted that there are additional incompatible elements, and the Trinity definitely qualifies, but the god -- Yahweh -- is the same one.
Added: I do think that your wider point is valid.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because I'm in an argumentative mood: I don't think you're giving enough weight to the concept of the Trinity. Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren't merely aspects of God, they are (while unified with God) separate, distinct entities who are worshipped as such. God the Father (or Yahweh if you prefer) is not the central figure from which the other two spring. He is equal to them. The three coming together makeup the Godhood. The Christian God is not adequately represented from a Muslim view as Allah with some attachments. At best, Allah makes up a third, an equal third, of the Trinity.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:A belief is only useful if there is some reason to believe it is better than other possible beliefs.
Holy crap! Did anybody else notice this? Tres is a utilitarian at heart!
Well, yes, I am a utilitarian. But the quote you cited is not utilitarian. All it says is what makes a belief useful, whereas utilitarianism is concerned with what makes an action right.
quote:1) In the absence of evidence, nonexistence is the logical default position.
What is the logical proof that justifies this claim, then? I think there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence any more than there is to assume existence.
And how can you say:
quote:
quote:What's more, it is flat out wrong to say there's no evidence for God.
Good thing I didn't say that, then, eh? I was very careful to avoid doing so.
But then a few lines later claim:
quote:2) From my* perspective, there is no valid evidence for the existence of god.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It seems to me that the second statement is the one you differ on, and rightly so as you're a theist -- but I don't think you can legitimately suggest that I should become an agnostic because many other people believe something I don't, or because the Bible exists. The latter statement in particular would give me serious trouble.
I don't want you to become agnostic - I think that would be a very problematic solution. In my view, refusing to believe without certain proof is a violation of your fundamental moral responsibility to try to have the most accurate beliefs possible in order to make the best judgements possible. If there is one belief that is better than another, I think you have a sort of moral responsibility to believe it, even if you cannot be certain it is true.
I don't want you to become agnostic - I just want to suggest that the reason you believe what you do is NOT because it is some default position, but rather because you have looked at the evidence you have and concluded that the evidence against God is stronger than the evidence for Him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you had noticed the little footnote, you would see that the latter statement was intended to be by a hypothetical atheist.
Now, about the default position : I think we agree that there is no evidence either for or against the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a green tea-kettle in orbit around Pluto. Do you think it is reasonable to believe in these entities?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But we DIDN'T agree that there is no evidence for or against the IPU. I specifically gave evidence against it - the evidence that leads me to believe it does not exist. I would say there is pretty overwhelming evidence against the IPU or the tea pot in space, including the laws of science and other things I believe to be true about the nature of the world.
If there were no evidence against it, it would be just as reasonable to believe in it as it would be to not believe. But there IS evidence, so that is not the case there.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I've only scanned through these posts, and the following point has already been made, and perhaps refuted, but I think it's worth noting.
There's no reason to believe that the IPU, tea pot, or easter bunny can't possibly exist. Perhaps in some alternate universe the IPU is currently ruling over some planet. There's no way to know, and quite frankly, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't affect me. However, if a god does truly exist, then that most certainly would have an effect on me, or at least my perspectives.
The evidence is there, depending on how you decide to interpret it. You can look at prophecies and decide that maybe Cyrus was predicted to conquer Babylon hundreds of years before he was born. Maybe other prophets were able to predict certain events in history. Maybe certain events in Jesus' life were accurately foretold thousands of years in advance. In essence, you can look at any set of numbers and interpret the meaning to support what you want to believe. In the end it really gets you nowhere, and imo, it boils down to what you want to believe. If you want to believe, then yes, you will find a great deal of evidence, though perhaps inconclusive evidence.
Either way, the original question, as I interpreted it, was not as much whether we could all agree that it's certainly possible for a god to either exist or not exist, rather, is a person that chooses to believe that god exists, as KoM describes, an idiot?
I would like to think the answer is no, considering the evidence points to neither conclusion in a definitive manner. So KoM, why is it so idiotic to believe in the existence of something that does not conflict with science and knowledge but attempts to provide answers to questions that science does not attempt to answer?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
camus, I think your description of this conversation relies on the mistaken assumption that most of us care what KOM has to say about this or consider it at all productive to try to discuss it with him.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The good old Ęsir, who incidentally are a lot more sympathetic than Yahweh
Just curious as to why you think the Aesir (The collective Norse gods) are more sympathetic than Yahweh or God?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Seen a certain way, Yahweh was basically evil. He was a genocidal babykiller who would let Satan screw with your life on a bet. The one virtue he really valued was (generally unthinking) obedience. He threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden because they acquired free will and thus he was afraid of them. He sent a bear to eat some kids because they made fun of the wrong bald guy.
The Aesir, on the other hand, were mostly indifferent to mortals. They helped out from time to time and Odin called for his sacrifices, but they were never ones for much direct intervention, such as causing or ordering their followers to visit horrendous atrocities on the innocent like Yahweh did.
Oh, and there's also the Holocaust, which Yahweh apparently couldn't be bothered to do anything about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd be interested to hear what you use aside from guessing to say that G-d threw out Adam and Eve because he feared them.
The Holocaust reference is baffling and distasteful and irrelevant.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:
quote:It is very bold to declare that something does not exist
It is very bold to declare that something does exist.
I would turn your entire argument upside down. It works either way.
It doesn't work either way. Logical, the proving that a thing does exist is far simpler than proving that a thing does not exist.
To prove that a thing exist (take for example a prime number greater than 1 million) all you need to do is find an example of one. To prove a thing does not exist is far more difficult.
The same applies if we are talking about "evidence" for the existence of God rather than strict proof. It is theoretically possible that evidence might exist which supports the existence of God. I find it very difficult, however, to imagine evidence which would suggest no God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'd be interested to hear what you use aside from guessing to say that G-d threw out Adam and Eve because he feared them.
The Bible. It specifically says (in Genesis 3:22) that God throws them out of the Garden because that they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and had become as like unto him, he is afraid that they will eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.
---
The Holocaust is directly relevant to the question as it shows that Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to live up to the contract he made with his chosen people and that he is also willing to stand aside while innocent people are systematically slaughtered. Holocaust Theology is one of prevalent concerns of Theodicy, i.e. the study of how the existence of a good or benevolent God is reconciled with the existence of evil. Perhaps you don't find it relevant, but the people who devote their lives to wrestling with this question seem to.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I am on a quick break, so I thought I would clarify one thing I said in my last post. I said, "In these terms faith is entertaining the possibility that God is real; doubt is refusing to entertain that possibility."
I recognize that faith is a very rich concept with many layers of understanding. Perhaps sometime I'll give a discourse on my understanding of faith. To be more clear in my quote above, I think I would have liked to say that the beginnings of faith is to entertain the possibility that God is real. I didn't discover this nuanced meaning of the word until after a lot of pondering and study. If you now entertain the possibility that what I've said about faith might be true, you by my definition would be exercising faith. It is in the rebellion to even entertain the possibility that one closes the door to faith.
I could say more, but I don't want to detract too much from my central thesis. I will say that where there is sure knowledge in the ultimate meaning of the word, there is no room for faith in that thing. But, evidences do allow you to extend your faith into deeper reaches of the unknown. This could be modeled as two concentric ever-expanding circles, where the inner circle is knowledge and the outer is faith.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The Holocaust is directly relevant to the question as it shows that Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to live up to the contract he made with his chosen people and that he is also willing to stand aside while innocent people are systematically slaughtered. Holocaust Theology is one of prevalent concerns of Theodicy, i.e. the study of how the existence of a good or benevolent God is reconciled with the existence of evil. Perhaps you don't find it relevant, but the people who devote their lives to wrestling with this question seem to.
God told us what he'd do if we (Jews) screwed up. We screwed up. He did what He said. What's your beef?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
enochville, what about those of us who say that God does exist, but that He considers your religion to be false?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:The difference is we know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, we don't know that God does not exist.
How do you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist?
He told me himself.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Well, yes, I am a utilitarian. But the quote you cited is not utilitarian. All it says is what makes a belief useful, whereas utilitarianism is concerned with what makes an action right.
The two aren't unrelated, but perhaps I should have said "pragmatic."
quote:What is the logical proof that justifies this claim, then? I think there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence any more than there is to assume existence.
This is pretty much a no-brainer to me, but I'm not sure I can elucidate why I think so. I suppose that must mean I take it as an axiom. I'll have to think on that one.
quote:And how can you say...
But then a few lines later claim...
The second snippet you quoted has a significant qualifier attached to it.
quote:I don't want you to become agnostic - I just want to suggest that the reason you believe what you do is NOT because it is some default position, but rather because you have looked at the evidence you have and concluded that the evidence against God is stronger than the evidence for Him.
Tres, here we come to what I think is the key distinction of this thread: what constitutes "evidence." That's why I've been careful to attach qualifiers to "evidence" when making statements about what I think constitutes valid, admissible, or worthwhile "evidence."
From my perspective, I have no evidence against god's existence because what I am willing to admit as evidence differs significantly from what you are willing to admit as evidence. I similarly have no evidence against the existence of the IPU. I have looked at what others consider to be the evidence for god's existence and deemed it inadmissible (added: or unsatisfactory) for my purposes. Therefore, I believe that god does not exist.
For me, it's loosely analogous to "innocent until proven guilty" -- "non-existent unless evidence suggests it may exist."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I thought as much. I disagree with that interpretation, and I think it could mean something quite different from what you said it meant (that G-d was afraid of Adam and Eve because he feared for himself, rather than fearing some other bad outcome), but that's why it's an interpretation.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seen a certain way, Yahweh was basically evil. He was a genocidal babykiller who would let Satan screw with your life on a bet. The one virtue he really valued was (generally unthinking) obedience. He threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden because they acquired free will and thus he was afraid of them. He sent a bear to eat some kids because they made fun of the wrong bald guy.
The Aesir, on the other hand, were mostly indifferent to mortals. They helped out from time to time and Odin called for his sacrifices, but they were never ones for much direct intervention, such as causing or ordering their followers to visit horrendous atrocities on the innocent like Yahweh did.
Oh, and there's also the Holocaust, which Yahweh apparently couldn't be bothered to do anything about.
Actually, God preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
Not sure how much you have read about the Norse pantheon, but Odin was not into helping out mankind. You are correct in saying that the Norse Gods were indifferent to mankind. They had no ties to them as does the Christian God.
Odin (Wodan or Wotan) is also referred to as the Betrayer of Men due to the fact the he would use them for his purposes and in the end, see them slain in order that they ascend to Valhalla so that he could use them again once Ragnarok comes. Loki is nothing more than Satan in another form (the God of Fire and trickery). Thor (Thonar or Donar) served his own purposes although he was loyal to the Aesir. Not much in the way of benevolent qualities to these Gods.
The only god who stands out as being pure was Baldur and he was slain by Loki and descended to Hella.
Didn't see any of the other Gods doing much about the Holocaust either. Perhaps men are the hands of God and through man, God does his bidding.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dr. Evil, Jesus preached that. Not Yahweh. As I said on the previous page, they are two distinct entities.
In primitive Christianity there was a large debate over whether the Old Testament should be considered scripture or even valid. The issue was in part decided by the people who were pro-Old Testament killing off the people who didn't agree with them and burning their books.
I think you may be more familiar with certain bits of Norse mythology and less so with the actual practice of their religion. Both Odin (for the nobles) and Thor (for the commoners) were counted on for aid of certain types. The Norse culture likewsie had the traditional gods and foddesses of fertility, childbirth, and the hearth, all of whom were assumed to aid mortals. However, outside these areas, man was mostly left on his own as fitting with the entire Logos behind the Norse Mythos.
Rakeesh, err...I was almost directly quoting out of the Bible. I fail to see how that makes it interpretaion. The Bible identifies what God does: He fears. It identifies whom he fears: Adam and Eve. And it identifies why he fears them: because, just as the snake tells them, they have become like unto God by eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and they could eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements:
quote:I'd be interested to hear what you use aside from guessing to say that G-d threw out Adam and Eve because he feared them.
quote:*shrug* I thought as much.
Are you sure there wasn't a checking the passage I laid out for you and a thinking "Crap, he's actually got a pretty good case." in between the two of them?
edited because, as always, I can't seem to put essential negatives in.
[ November 07, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
starL, I think my problem with that would be that the only way to show that the Jews who died in the Holocaust screwed up is by showing that they died in the Holocaust. I've never seen any evidence to consider even a lagre minority of them as not being observers of the commandments. And hey, plenty of other people got good and killed in the Holocaust as well.
Also, the God you're saying caused the Holocaust would be...well...evil, which is exactly my point.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I was almost directly quoting out of the Bible. I fail to see how that makes it interpretaion
Well, God originally told Adam that from the day he eats from the tree he would positively die. I guess I would interpret it as saying that God was exacting the punishment he warned of by preventing Adam from gaining immortality, not that he was afraid Adam would gain immortality without God's consent.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's not "from" the day he eats it though, but "on" or perhaps "in", right? And the Bible does say, from God's perspective that, just as the snake had said, Adam and Eve had become like unto him by eathing from the Tree of Knowledge, right?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I guess I don't see where you're going with this.
Instead of saying God was afraid of them, I would say God was afraid that His initial punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge would by bypassed if Adam were allowed to eat from the tree of life. I suppose you could argue that both are essentially the same thing. Is that what you're saying?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
camus, The base I started from was that the God shown in the Garden of Eden myth is evil. Where I'm going with this is that, if you don't start with the assumption that God is good, this is the most logical interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth (assuming that you value consciousness/free will). God tells them "Don't eat this, for on/in the day you eat it, you will surely die." The snake says "God's lying to you. He's afraid that if you eat it, you'll become like him." They eat it and gain the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus, the ability to choose between them, or to put it another way, free will. They do not, in fact, die in or on that day. God then banishes them from the Garden because he is afraid of them now that they have become like him and he doesn't want them to eat from the Tree of Life or they'd become immortal too.
Some of the Gnostics interpreted the story this way. There was a greater god whom Yahweh was a rebellious servant of. Yahweh stole some of the soul essence and made people out of it. He was able to keep free will from his creations, but was not able to eradicate it from the fabric of the universe. But he kept them as unthinking beasts, as slaves for his pleasure. The snake came as a saviour to free these people from Yahweh's lies and lead them to acheive free will. Rather than free will being something evil that Yahweh wished we didn't have, it was our birthright that Yahweh tried to keep from us. However, he retained his power and used it to tie the Jewish people to himself in bonds of unthinking obedience where good was defined as "Whatever Yahweh does or says it is". That is, until the snake came again in the form of Jesus Christ to break Yahweh's bonds over people.
Frankly, I think that's a much more plausible reading of the Old Testament then one where Yahweh is actually a benevolent god.
edit: In a cultural mythological sense, I think that the Garden of Eden myths and it's analogs are disfunctional in terms of morality and psychology. The idea that paradise is being an unthinking beast who has everything given to them does not fit the reailty of human nature. We are fulfilled when we are active. Western society buys very strongly into this myth, however, and it has made us sick.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Evil: Actually, God preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
Not my God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:From my perspective, I have no evidence against god's existence because what I am willing to admit as evidence differs significantly from what you are willing to admit as evidence.
If this were true, though, you would have no reason to conclude God doesn't exist. Therefore you MUST have evidence against God, or your belief would be essentially random.
And again, this is because there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence when there is no evidence of nonexistence. You can choose to always assume nonexistence, but without any evidence or logical reason for that, it is just as random as choosing the opposite.
In all the examples given so far (the IPU, etc.) there has been amble evidence, as far as I'm concerned, of nonexistence. But consider an example where you would TRULY have no evidence one way or the other. Consider my hypothetical sister. Do you believe in her? I may have a sister. I may not. It would not violate any laws of nature, it would be completely normal, yet it would also be just as normal for me not to have a sister. In short, you have little-to-no evidence one way or another. Are you suggesting that it is logical to assume I don't have a sister, based on this lack of evidence? Would you assume that even after I told you I did, in the same way you assume God's nonexistence even after people claim to have seen Him? I don't believe it would be reasonable to do so. It would not be reasonable to favor one belief or the other in regards to the existence of my sister, until you had some piece of evidence to lean you one way or another. The same goes for God.
Thus, I have to conclude that because you don't believe in God, and because I don't think you come to random beliefs, you must have some evidence that God doesn't exist that is compelling you to believe so.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
That's certainly an interesting idea, though I still don't agree with the idea that the most logical interpretation of the God shown in the Garden of Eden is that of an evil god. You would have a fairly good argument for other portions of the Bible, but not just on the Garden of Eden account by itself.
For example: "for on/in the day you eat it, you will surely die" What is the measure of a day? Are we talking creative days, days according to God, or days according to Adam. Suppose a day is considered to be a thousand years, like in other instances. In that case, Adam did indeed die within a "day."
"Knowledge of good and evil" is a pretty vague statement that could mean many different things.
Depending on how you interpret those two things, the reason that God banished Adam and Eve would vary as well. Is he afraid of them, or is that just outcome that God warned of in the beginning?
I guess I don't really know why I said anything regarding this subject because I'm not really trying to argue with you. I do think a good case can be made that Yahweh has acted in more evil ways than beneficial ways. I just don't think the Garden of Eden story is one of the stories that would logically depict God as being evil.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: starL, I think my problem with that would be that the only way to show that the Jews who died in the Holocaust screwed up
Excuse me. I said nothing of the sort. The individuals who died in the Holocaust didn't screw up. Well, some of them might, but that certainly had nothing to do with what happened.
God made it clear that we (Jews) get judged both as individuals and as a nation. Yes, Virginia, there is collective punishment. And the Holocaust was hardly the first time.
You know, this is really between Him and us. He told us that if we obey His commandments, He'd treat us well. And that if we didn't... well, then it'd be pretty awful.
Not only did a lot of Jews abandon God's commandments relatively recently (historically speaking), but they even went so far as to create new "denominations" of Judaism that explicitly said it was okay not to keep the commandments.
On the other side of the equation, lest this be taken purely as a "it was because of Reform" argument, you had religious Jews curling up fetally in their academies, all but ignoring the mass abandonment of the Torah by fellow Jews. Did they seek to persuade the Reform Jews back? Not at all. They merely denounced them. And while the denunciations of the movement were correct, the abandonment of the individuals was not.
God made it clear that if we abandon Him, He'll step back and let history operate without interference. We have a choice. We're supposed to be shocked and outrage that we made the wrong choice and God did what He said He would? I don't think so.
That said, nothing of this mitigates the abominations that were perpetrated in the Holocaust. But the guilty parties are those who actually carried the crimes out. Not God.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:In all the examples given so far (the IPU, etc.) there has been amble evidence, as far as I'm concerned, of nonexistence.
As I said, this is where we differ. I don't think we have any evidence against the existence of the IPU. What we have is a complete lack of any evidence suggesting that it might exist.
Your analogy about your hypothetical sister doesn't hold, because as I said before I have plenty of evidence that human beings exist. If you tell me that you have a sister and I don't think you're a pathological liar, I'm likely to conclude that you do have a sister since I know that human beings exist and some of us have sisters. If you tell me that god exists, I have no reason to believe you or to accept your statement as evidence of god's existence.
Now, as I said, the consensus of large groups of people on the broad principles of religions X, Y, and Z make it reasonable to ask the question -- but that's something different.
quote:And again, this is because there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence when there is no evidence of nonexistence. You can choose to always assume nonexistence, but without any evidence or logical reason for that, it is just as random as choosing the opposite.
I don't get why it doesn't make sense to you to assume nonexistence. If you don't, then you just go around assuming that random things exist, willy-nilly, and this gets you nowhere. As an axiom ("in the absence of evidence, it is equally sensible to assume that something exists or to assume that it does not") it isn't at all useful.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: I am on a quick break, so I thought I would clarify one thing I said in my last post. I said, "In these terms faith is entertaining the possibility that God is real; doubt is refusing to entertain that possibility."
Faith is essentially an emotional thing. I'm convinced (mostly) that God exists. But it's not as though I'm committed emotionally to the idea. I think that belief is inherently irrational. "Credo quia absurdum" is close to redundant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't get why it doesn't make sense to you to assume nonexistence. If you don't, then you just go around assuming that random things exist, willy-nilly, and this gets you nowhere. As an axiom ("in the absence of evidence, it is equally sensible to assume that something exists or to assume that it does not") it isn't at all useful.
ahh...but twink, Tres has actually made a relatively spohisticated argument against that idea. To wit, certain beliefs should be believed, whether or not they are true, because it is useful to believe them. I don't know that I'd consider belief in God in general or in the Christian God specifically as intrinsically "useful" beliefs, but he did at least provide reasons why you would choose to believe that something existed without proof and conversely why you shouldn't believe in other things.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What I'm not seeing is how the two ideas are in contradiction. You could simply add weight to the "usefulness" of a belief, making usefulness a reason to consider it in spite of the absence of evidence. Added: Or a reason to consider information (scripture, beliefs of others) that you might not otherwise deem "evidence."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, you know what: I think I gave Tres too much credit there. Reading over his recent stuff closely, he is putting out the "It's equally valid to say exists/doesn't exist" nonesense that you say he is without any reference to the usefulness at all. My bad.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If you don't, then you just go around assuming that random things exist, willy-nilly, and this gets you nowhere
I wouldn't quite say that a belief in a god-like being is exactly the same thing.
It really isn't that inconceivable to imagine a creature that has superior intellect and abilities that we are unable as of yet to detect. It's not much different from something like String theory. At the moment we are unable to prove their existence, though mathematically we can't disprove their existence either. We have no real evidence to suppose they exist, but the theory does answer some of the questions that we have mathematically. So in the mean time, we view them as something that might exist. The default isn't necessarily that they must not exist.
I see the theory of God as being quite similar. I believe in it because it answers some questions about life and I haven't really found anything that I think is better. If a better theory comes along, then maybe I'll switch, or revise my current beliefs.
That's not to say that people should assume the existence of something without having evidence to support it, rather, not everyone defaults to the position of assuming non-existence, especially if the evidence is very circumstantial.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I wouldn't quite say that a belief in a god-like being is exactly the same thing.
No, of course not! I didn't say that. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Your analogy about your hypothetical sister doesn't hold, because as I said before I have plenty of evidence that human beings exist. If you tell me that you have a sister and I don't think you're a pathological liar, I'm likely to conclude that you do have a sister since I know that human beings exist and some of us have sisters.
"Human beings exists and have sisters, therefore I have a sister" does not follow logically. How can that then be a reason to believe the given conclusion about my sister?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
1) Human beings exist. 2) Human beings sometimes have sisters. 3) You are a human being. 4) I do not believe you are a liar. 5) You claim to have a sister.
Seems reasonable enough to me to accept that you have a sister.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"It really isn't that inconceivable to imagine a creature that has superior intellect and abilities that we are unable as of yet to detect. It's not much different from something like String theory"
But, see camus, there is a rather large difference. First of all, I'm pretty sure the scientific community isnt going to start a war any time soon based on the veracity of vibrating strings and their beliefs about what those strings want us to do. Second of all, the super string theory is a believe that has grown out of proven facts. Starting(in our century) with atoms, scientists have searched for progressivly smaller particles. Finding proof of one, say the electron, they then went on to search for more. The important difference here is HOW these theories are come upon. A belief in god isnt based on a history of facts, as is string theory. At least, not facts as have been discussed in this thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There seem to be two slightly separate discussions going on here. Let me summarise my understanding of each.
First, there is the original question enochville started, on the existence of God. Here we have agreed that this is in principle to be settled by evidence, and we are awaiting his data points, which, presumably, the atheists will attack as being no better than those in favour of Odin, Shiva, or the IPU according to taste.
Second, there is the discussion on whether it is reasonable to believe in an entity in the absence of evidence for or against. Curiously, the atheists seem to fall mainly on the 'no' side while the theists argue either 'yes' or 'but there is evidence' - the latter belonging more properly to the first discussion, perhaps.
The first discussion awaits enochville's data points; but meanwhile I'd like to advance the second a bit. At least one poster, I think Tresopax, has said that there is specific evidence against the IPU, which presumably doesn't exist against, say, Yahweh. I should very much like to hear what that evidence is. Then the same for Odin, and for the green teapot orbiting Pluto.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:1) Human beings exist. 2) Human beings sometimes have sisters. 3) You are a human being. 4) I do not believe you are a liar. 5) You claim to have a sister.
(1), (2), and (3) in this argument don't add anything to the argument. It only leads to the conclusion that it is possible I have a sister, which is really a non-conclusion, because everything is possible in a logical argument until some assumption is made to make some things impossible.
(4) and (5) alone would justfiy the conclusion that I have a sister, and without (4) and (5) the argument would not work. Furthermore, you have not allowed (4) and (5) [I am not a liar and I claim God exists] to be evidence for the existence of God, so why would you allow it to be evidence for the existence of my sister?
quote:The first discussion awaits enochville's data points; but meanwhile I'd like to advance the second a bit. At least one poster, I think Tresopax, has said that there is specific evidence against the IPU, which presumably doesn't exist against, say, Yahweh.
Well, as far as I understand them, invisible animals directly violate numerous laws of nature that I believe in, whereas God does not. God supposedly exists outside nature, and created nature.
As for Odin, his existence is inconsistent with the existence of God. So, I can only believe in one, and find the evidence much stronger for God, especially given almost nobody I know of has ever claimed to have witnessed Odin.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think some of this boils down to the fact that some people feel it is unlikely that the universe could exist without being created. Other people have no problem whatsoever believing that the universe exists without being created by something intelligent.
Which God is believed in does seem to have a lot to do with traditions handed down. I think part of this is the feeling of trust in the source of the information. Whether or not it is logical, humans are more likely to give credence to the stories of their family members than complete strangers or people from another culture.
I believe in the God I do because I trust the sources of that information. Having it appeal to the person is pretty important as well. Logical consistency and asthetic appeal, for example.
As for God in the Adam and Eve story being evil, if He *were* evil and feared Adam and Eve, why not kill them? Certainly such a God would have the power to. I personally see the reported longevity of the earilest humans in the Bible as evidence of God's mercy in His punishment. He wouldn't take it back, but he would be merciful in the execution of it. They still have to die, but they will generally get a pretty long life in the meantime.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, Of course they do. They establish that you having a sister is a commonplace (as in non-extraordinary) claim. When something is deemed commonplace, it doesn't take much evidence to reasonably believe that it's true.
Asserting a specific deity, on the other hand, is an extraordinary claim. It belongs to a whole different class than a claim like "I have a sister." The level of evidence needed for an extraordinary claim (e.g. "I was abducted by aliens.") to be considered reasonable is much higher than for a commonplace one.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Asserting a specific deity, on the other hand, is an extraordinary claim.
Why is it extraordinary?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
When a person has been raised with the idea of God, it seems a lot less extra-ordinary than when someone has been raised without the idea.
For those who are raised believing in aliens, an alien abduction isn't extraordinary. Since most people are not raised believing such a thing, it is generally considered extraordiary.
I happen to believe that a 14 year old boy was called by God as a prophet in the early 1800s and that he saw God, Christ, and angels, that he received an ancient scriptural record engraved on gold plates, and translated it through the power of God. Most people find that belief amazingly extraordinary. It doesn't seem so to me at all, really. Difference in perspective. I find the belief asthetically pleasing and logically consistent as well--things that come more easily to me *because* I do not find it extraordinary.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:(1), (2), and (3) in this argument don't add anything to the argument.
Yes, they do. They are in fact crucial. If you can't see this then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
quote:(4) and (5) alone would justfiy the conclusion that I have a sister
No, they would not. They at best justify entertaining the question. Replace "have a sister" with "was abducted by aliens." Do you see the distinction I'm driving at? If I don't think you're a liar and you claim to have been abducted by aliens, I'm not going to accept what you say at face value. I'm going to want some additional supporting evidence. If, on the other hand, you claim to have a sister, well, I know that humans exist and sometimes have sisters, and I don't think you're a liar, so it's quite reasonable to believe you.
"I don't think you're a liar" does not mean "I believe everything you say to be true."
Edit: Ha! I didn't even see Squick's post! Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As for God in the Adam and Eve story being evil, if He *were* evil and feared Adam and Eve, why not kill them?
I can think of a couple of reasons. Remember, this version has him as a rebel from the higher power. It's possible that he had stolen what he could get. Thus, killing them would destroy his creations and he wouldn't be able to make others. Plus, he may have already been working on a plan to enslave their descendents.
Or possibly, he was prevented by the snake or by higher forces. Perhaps the same rules that necessitated that free will be included in the universe against his will prevented him from doing this directly.
---
For me, it's strange that people consider the existence of god the important point. It's probably my Daoist nature, but I find the idea of whether or not the god is good to be much more important than their existence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because we do not have experience of specific deities.
Now, on the subject of the IPU, there are many natural laws we don't know yet; and, the IPU being invisible, naturally we would not quickly become aware of Her and investigate the laws that permit Her to be so. Besides, she is outside the natural laws, having created the Universe and nature.
About Odin, clearly your circle of acquaintances is not very broad; I myself know several Aesirtru, and have read eyewitness accounts of manifestations of them in ancient times. If you trawled the Internet, no doubt you could find some modern accounts too.
Finally, you seem to have missed the green teakettle in orbit around Pluto.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Why is it extraordinary?
Because, for one thing, it rests on no observable facts. For another, as I dealt with in the "All these religions claim to be the only true one" section above, the foundation that it rests on is explicitly contradicted by a reasonable application of this foundation across all situations. You believing that Jesus is the only god rests on the same grounds as someone else believing that Allah is the only god.
bev, Extraordinary as I'm using it here is (theoretically) not a matter of personal perception, but rather an epistemological concept. It's part of an established way of classifying claims.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I can think of a couple of reasons. Remember, this version has him as a rebel from the higher power. It's possible that he had stolen what he could get. Thus, killing them would destroy his creations and he wouldn't be able to make others. Plus, he may have already been working on a plan to enslave their descendents.
Oh, I see. You are working from a particular interpretation started by Gnostics. Of course, the LDS interpretation differs significantly from the rest of Christiandom as well.
quote:For me, it's strange that people consider the existence of god the important point. It's probably my Daoist nature, but I find the idea of whether or not the god is good to be much more important than their existence.
Huh. Interesting. I guess that makes sense, since it a Creator that doesn't even interact with Creation would make no significant difference in our lives.
I tend to strongly view God as a parental figure--*especially* since an important doctrine of my faith is the concept of our potential to become like God. After all, that is what parenting is about, raising offspring to become like yourself. For me, love is an important part of that--especially concern for the lasting happiness of the offspring far more than concern for temporary suffering.
From my perspective as a parent, coercing my child to eat her vegetables (wear a seatbelt, not play in the street, whatever) is important in the long view. The child may only be aware of the temporary discomfort--with no real perspective on the matter. That is how I tend to think of earthly suffering.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Extraordinary as I'm using it here is (theoretically) not a matter of personal perception, but rather an epistemological concept. It's part of an established way of classifying claims.
Please elaborate. I am not sure what this means.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Replace "have a sister" with "was abducted by aliens." Do you see the distinction I'm driving at? If I don't think you're a liar and you claim to have been abducted by aliens, I'm not going to accept what you say at face value. I'm going to want some additional supporting evidence.
I see the distinction you are driving at, but I think it is caused by the opposite thing that you are claiming it is caused by. You are suggesting that in order to believe something exists, it must first be established that that thing COULD exist, and then establish that we have good reason to believe it DOES exist.
But that's just not how logic works. Rather, it works in the opposite way: When you establish that we have good reason to believe something exist, you can believe it exists, unless there is some additional evidence that shows it COULD NOT exist. A valid argument is a valid argument until some additional evidence is found that negates it.
Or, in other words, you can believe in my sister because you have no reason to think she doesn't exist. But in the case of God, you DO have a reason to think He doesn't exist, so you don't believe in him. So, it's not a matter of the default being nonexistence. Rather, it's just that you have a reason to think nonexistence is more likely than existence. This reason is what Squicky said - God seems extraordinary, for whatever reason.
quote:Because, for one thing, it rests on no observable facts.
Many people have claimed to observe God. It would be circular to assume those claims are false, because the only reason to think they are false is because they are extraordinary, and the reason you are suggesting they are extraordinary is because they are unobservable, which would only be true if we dismissed their observations as being false.
[ November 07, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
God doesn't seem extraordinary. By scientific epistemology, the existence of any specific god is extraordinary, for exactly the reasons that I laid out. It's extraordinary because there has not been any materially observable evidence to support this claim. This is compounded by there been no valid theoretical basis for believing one of the mutually exclusive non-materially observable claims to evidence over any of the others.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you are a little confused on what logic can and cannot do, here. You cannot logically show that something could in principle exist without using some kind of axioms, which must then be your experimental evidence of the world. This is porbably the source of your confusion; if you use logic to show that something could exist, then that is already some evidence towards tis actual existence. But nobody has used anything of the sort to show that Yahweh could exist - we accept this as a postulate! And when you do that, there is no good reason to prefer existence as the default, and many to accept non-existence - to wit, the aforementioned absurd position of believing in green teakettles on Pluto.
Also, you did not reply to my assertion that the IPU, like Yahweh, is outside the laws of nature, having created them. Incidentally, is Yahweh visible, and if so, where? If not, why doesn't that contradict the laws of nature that apparently forbid the IPU from being invisible?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, People claiming to experience God neither moves the claim of God's existence out of the realm of extraordinary nor consitutes enough reason to consider God's existence established. The reason being, people claim all manner of things, both true and false. There's no reason to accept any one person claiming something as sufficient evidence for that claim. This is especially the case when people's claims on a particular matter are mutually exlcusive, as is the case in religion.
Thinking about it, I've realized that theoretically, assuming that there is only one God, there really is no way to move this claim from extraordinary to commonplace without also establishing that this specific god exists. If we were dealing with a polytheistic situation, establishing the existence of one god would show that the class of gods exists and thus make the existence of any other god less extraordinary.
However, in this case, the existence of a class of gods (unlike the existence of the very commonplace class of sisters) has not been established. Thus, the claim for the existence of any one specific god is dealing with a class that we have no reason compelling us to believe exists. Thus, it carries a much larger burden of evidence to be considered reasonable than a commonplace claim like "I have a sister."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You cannot logically show that something could in principle exist without using some kind of axioms, which must then be your experimental evidence of the world.
This is not true, though. If there are NO axioms in a given logical argument, then any proposition (P) could be true or false as far as we know. And if P is "X exists", then without any axioms whatsoever, we could only conclude that "X exists" is possibly true and possibly false.
The only reason you would logically need to establish that P is possible beforehand, would be if there were already some axiom (Q) casting doubt on the possibility of P. If that axiom Q were to exist, even as something like "P is an extraordinary claim", then Q would be evidence that P is false, and thus would be evidence that X does not exist.
So, I'm still thinking that you must have some evidence Q in mind, when you conclude that God doesn't exist unless I can give a good reason that it is possible. This Q seems to be a hidden assumption - but what is it?
quote:Also, you did not reply to my assertion that the IPU, like Yahweh, is outside the laws of nature, having created them. Incidentally, is Yahweh visible, and if so, where? If not, why doesn't that contradict the laws of nature that apparently forbid the IPU from being invisible.
I believe the evidence supports the existence of a God who created the universe. God creating the universe and an IPU creating the universe are mutually exclusive things. Therefore, that God created the universe would be pretty strong evidence that an IPU that created the universe could not also exist. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that God IS an Invisible Pink Unicorn, in which case the question is not one of existence, but rather of the nature of a thing that exists.
Now, as for an IPU that didn't create the universe yet exists outside the universe, I have no belief concerning that. I'd be equally torn between believing and not believing it exists, if I had any reason to care about whether or not it exists. Unfortunately, an IPU that didn't create the universe and doesn't influence the world in any way that would allow me to observe its existence would have little-to-no impact on my decisions in any way. It's not a belief I would need.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, but now you are referring to evidence. Drop that for a moment; I want to go back to the question of whether it is reasonable to believe in an entity without specific evidence in favour. Without evidence, is it reasonable to believe in the IPU?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, including anyone in the world telling you about said Unicorn, no, it isnt reasonable to make up the Invisible Pink Unicorn. In fact, considering the amount of evidence, including personal testimony of the people who do the most talking about her, that the IPU is a rhetorical device invented to make a point, there is, IMO, less reason to believe in the IPU than if youd never heard of the creature and the idea came to you out of the blue.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I still have more to read on this page to catch up, but want to comment to Mr. S.
quote: The Holocaust is directly relevant to the question as it shows that Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to live up to the contract he made with his chosen people and that he is also willing to stand aside while innocent people are systematically slaughtered.
You are still equating how God views death to how people view death.
quote:Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
It is not the end-all of everything. It is a time of reconciliation.
Farmgirl
quote:"Is he safe?" "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver... "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."- The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You are still equating how God views death to how people view death.
I think it's more that you're imposing your view of God's view of death onto a religion that has a very different perspective. Oh, and ignoring the whole living in starvation, abuse, pain, and despair aspect of the Holocaust as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I figured that if I carried it out more that the background I was coming from would become clear, but if you still want an explicit explanation, I can give it to you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Without evidence, is it reasonable to believe in the IPU?
Without evidence, it is just as reasonable to believe the IPU exists as it is to believe the IPU doesn't exist.
For any proposition P, if there is no evidence at all concerning P, then it is just as reasonable to believe P as it is to believe NOT P.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No it isn't. If you don't understand basic epistemology, could you at least read the posts I've made?
There is not a 50% chance that Jupiter is populated with 30 foot high talking purple dogs who are all named Steve.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:bev, I figured that if I carried it out more that the background I was coming from would become clear, but if you still want an explicit explanation, I can give it to you.
Nah, it's cool. I still think that what I said is important, but it may not be important to the point that you are making. I have never at any point claimed that it can be proved that there is, indeed, a God. At least, not at this point. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but the difference between Tres' post and Squick's post lies in the question of what constitutes admissible evidence. Tres says, I think, that his knowledge of accepted scientific theories suggests that Jupiter is not populated by 30' talking purple dogs, and that these theories constitute evidence.
quote:For any proposition P, if there is no evidence at all concerning P, then it is just as reasonable to believe P as it is to believe NOT P.
I think this statement is useless as an axiom, and in any case I wouldn't extend the question of existence to apply this broadly. I've restricted my statements to existence or non-existence precisely because I don't think they apply for any proposition P. And why should they? We don't need an axiom this universal, we're talking about a fairly specific set of questions here.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres says, I think, that his knowledge of accepted scientific theories suggests that Jupiter is not populated by 30' talking purple dogs, and that these theories constitute evidence.
That's exactly what I was going to say to Mr. Squicky. But why would this not be considered evidence? If it's something that I believe which makes it unlikely that P is true, then it should be considered evidence. If you don't want to term it "evidence" I guess that is okay, but whatever you do want to call it, it is that which distinguishes that which it is logical to believe in and that which it is logical to not believe in.
Either way, the deciding factor is not a principle that we should always believe nonexistence until evidence is given. It is these other beliefs of ours, whether you call them "evidence" or something else, that determine whether we should or should not believe in the existence of something.
quote:I think this statement is useless as an axiom, and in any case I wouldn't extend the question of existence to apply this broadly. I've restricted my statements to existence or non-existence precisely because I don't think they apply for any proposition P. And why should they? We don't need an axiom this universal, we're talking about a fairly specific set of questions here.
It's useful as an axiom because it is something that I would say is true for all cases... And if it is true for all cases, it must also be true for our fairly specific set of cases. Besides, sometimes when it comes to logic stuff it's easier to see how it follows (or doesn't follow!) if you write it in a more symbolic form.
[ November 08, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not evidence. That's prior probability. They are very different things. Evidence speaks directly to whether or not something exists. We have no evidence one way or the other about what the names of those giant purple Jovian dogs are. However, we can assess roughly how likely it is that they would all be called Steve. Taken that prior probability, it would take a really huge amount of evidence to convince us that said dogs exist, even to the point of doubting our senses if we observed them.
This is basic Bayesian analysis.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
In that case, I will ammend my claim to the following:
If there is no evidence for or against the existence of something, and the prior probability of existence and nonexistence are equal based on your prior beliefs, then you have no more reason to believe something exists than that it doesn't exist.
And thus it would be false to say that without any evidence of something, you should not believe in it - because if the prior probability of that thing makes it seem more likely to exist than not exist, you should still believe in it, evidence or not.
If people don't believe in God, it is not JUST because they lack evidence of Him. It must be because they also either (1) have evidence to the contrary, (2) believe the prior probability of His nonexistence is more likely than the prior probability of His existence, or (3) both.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You're looking at it backwards. I can't prove, in any mathematically meaningful sense, that God exists. Nor can I prove that an Invisible Unicorn exists.
(I can, however, prove that no Invisible Purple Unicorn exists, because the descriptives "invisible" and "purple" are contradictory, but be that as it may...)
On the other hand, I can look at the opposite premises, and something different happens. When I posit that no Invisible Unicorn exists, not a single problem is created. It doesn't place me in a situation where certain observable things are inexplicable. Nor even difficult to explain.
The same is not true with regards to the hypothesis that God does not exist. Let's take the concept of God and split it into two different things. One is "some anonymous force or intelligence which created the world non-randomly" and one is "the Creator of the world and the Giver of the Torah at Sinai".
See, personally, I think both of those are the same. But I can't prove it. All I can fairly say in this context is that the latter is a special case of the former.
So. If you posit that the universe happened completely randomly, without any planned design whatsoever, you wind up with the problem that's being acknowledged by non-fundamentalist advocates of intelligent design. To wit: we have discovered no natural processes that can account for life as we currently observe it to have come into being without intent.
Does this prove that there was intelligent design? No. But it certainly does indicate it strongly. It gives support to the hypothesis without proving it. And since nothing disproves it, it's at least reasonable to accept it as a valid theory.
Of course, the intelligent designer in question could be an Invisible Unicorn. Or a Purple one. Which leads to the other God concept. In this case, I claim that there is no reasonable explanation for Jewish claims to have received the Torah at Sinai if we exclude it from actually having happened.
Yes, that's not a proof. Obviously. But all attempts to explain it starting from the thesis that God didn't give the Torah at Sinai fall into the trap of unsupported claims about behavior that doesn't match anything recorded in any historical sources.
Okay, at this point, you can still resort to the Gnostic stuff, and I can see the attraction. There's a book called The Devil's Apocrypha: There Are Two Sides to Every Story which does more or less the same thing the Gnostics did. There's also Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, which is sort of a novelization of Milton. Both of these show God to be a "malign thug", as Mark Twain put it. I can't prove that it isn't so, but if it is, I think we're fairly well screwed. So we might as well procede on the assumption that life isn't utterly pointless.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The same is not true with regards to the hypothesis that God does not exist.
I consider this hypothesis to be the equivalent of what a statistician would call the "null hypothesis" in a statistical significance test.
...actually, now that I think of it, I think statistical significance testing makes a decent analogy in this instance.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:The same is not true with regards to the hypothesis that God does not exist.
I consider this hypothesis to be the equivalent of what a statistician would call the "null hypothesis" in a statistical significance test.
...actually, now that I think of it, I think statistical significance testing makes a decent analogy in this instance.
How so? I'm asking regarding both of your statements. How do you see "God does not exist" as a null hypothesis? And why do you think that statistical significance testing works as an analogy here?
It's the watch in the sands thing, twinky. If you find a watch laying in the middle of a sand dune, you don't take "it just growed that way" as a null hypothesis. But even if you don't want to give "it was made" any special status, you can still take, "It just growed" and "it was made" and see which one explains more and which one results in the most problems.
Saying that the watch "just growed" actually gives more information. If you feel constrained to say that it wasn't made by anyone, you need to come up with an involved theory that would explain how the watch came to be. A theory of that sort could be applied to other things, and is therefore very satisfying. Scientific, too.
On the other hand, saying that the watch was made only tells us that there's a maker out there. It tells us very little about that maker. Nothing about the maker's motives. Nothing about where the maker came from. It's not very scientific, because it's not falsifiable, and because it requires postulating a maker that you haven't seen, or indeed perceived in any way. All you have to go on is the watch, and you have a nifty theory (for all that no watch has ever been seen spontaneously coming into being; nor any part of a watch) that doesn't require postulating some mythical "maker".
But no one sane, in that situation, would actually contend that the watch "just growed". And that's because we recognize a level of complexity that can't reasonably be considered to be random.
The only real difference between the watch and life on our little planet is that the idea of a "maker" isn't emotionally charged. The idea of God, on the other hand, represents thousands of years of wars and atrocities being committed ostensibly in the name of God. It represents people who think they have a right to force their beliefs on us.
In the case of life on Earth, it's almost impossible, sociologically, to separate the idea of a Creator from the God who is so often used as an excuse for groups to force their morality on others. It's almost enough to make me want to argue against intelligent design, even though it seems obviously true. When I look around and see people trying to legislate their morality on others, it's almost exclusively for God-based reasons, and that scares the heck out of me.
But all that is sociology. Scientifically, I don't think labeling "there is no God" as a null hypothesis is reasonable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:How do you see "God does not exist" as a null hypothesis?
Because, as I've been saying, I consider that to be the default position in the absence of evidence that god exists. I'm not surprised that you think this is invalid, since as a theist you clearly think there is plenty of evidence that god exists. The distinction lies in what each of us is willing to admit as evidence -- or in our working definitions of the word.
Cast in a certain light, you could say that I was agnostic while I was considering whether the evidence presented to me by theists through discussions and readings of various scriptures constituted valid evidence. From this perspective, when I decided that it did not, I became an atheist.
That isn't an accurate description of my life, though, because I was raised as a theist.
quote:And why do you think that statistical significance testing works as an analogy here?
I view the alternative hypothesis, "god exists," as the active claim. Since I don't think the claim "there is no god" can be evidenced, it reminds me of the statistical concept of the null hypothesis -- in a significance test, all evidence supports or does not support the alternative hypothesis. There is no evidence for the null hypothesis, it's simply what you revert to if the alternative hypothesis is rejected. The alternative hypothesis is the one that requires supporting evidence -- sufficient evidence to make the null hypothesis, "there is no god," unlikely to be true.
This is one sense in which I think Tresopax's sister analogy actually works. If Tresopax does not claim to have a sister, I'm not going to suddenly start thinking that he has one. "Tresopax does not have a sister" is the unstated null hypothesis here that I stick with in the absence of his claim to have one. However, knowing that human beings sometimes have sisters, I might ask him if he has any siblings. I don't have a reason to believe he has a sister, but I do have a reason to ask the question.
Now, I don't think his analogy is valid for the question of god's existence, since -- and this is key -- I don't admit the claims of others that god exists as valid evidence. I consider them a valid reason to ask the question, but to my mind they don't lend any weight to the "god exists" hypothesis. I don't expect others to share this view; what constitutes acceptable evidence varies wildly from one person to the next. I'm not surprised that the theists in this thread don't seem to share my view, because I think that which one you think is more "likely" depends in a large part on your beliefs and way of thinking.
For instance, the "watch in the sands" -- and all other variants/descendants of Aristotle's "first cause" argument -- doesn't do anything at all for me. I don't think that "the universe contains localized pockets of extreme complexity" implies "the universe was created by an intelligent creator."
The watch in the sands analogy in particular isn't valid because, while the watch may be analogous to life on Earth from a complexity standpont, the universe is not equivalent to the sands. There are innumerable other pockets of localized complexity in the universe. Regardless of whether they are as complex as our pocket, they are vastly more so than the analogy's grains of sand.
I wouldn't say that the hypothesis test is a great analogy, but for the purposes of explaining what I think in a slightly different way I think it works well enough.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: (I can, however, prove that no Invisible Purple Unicorn exists, because the descriptives "invisible" and "purple" are contradictory, but be that as it may...)
This, however, proves nothing about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may Her hooves never be shod. Possibly you are thinking of the schismatic cult of the Very Stealthy Maroon Pegasus. In any case, being simultaneously Invisible and Pink is merely one of the many miraculous feats of the IPU, and certainly no more difficult than being, for example, simultaneously Three and One.
quote:So. If you posit that the universe happened completely randomly, without any planned design whatsoever, you wind up with the problem that's being acknowledged by non-fundamentalist advocates of intelligent design. To wit: we have discovered no natural processes that can account for life as we currently observe it to have come into being without intent.
Ah, well, that's where you go wrong. Dozens of plausible methods for abiogenesis have been proposed. We don't yet know which one is correct, or it might be something we haven't thought of yet. But I really don't think you want to insert your god into a place where science hasn't quite penetrated yet. It has always ended in tears before - so often, in fact, that there's a name for it. God of the Gaps, anyone?
quote:Of course, the intelligent designer in question could be an Invisible Unicorn. Or a Purple one. Which leads to the other God concept. In this case, I claim that there is no reasonable explanation for Jewish claims to have received the Torah at Sinai if we exclude it from actually having happened.
Excuse me? How do you explain the claims of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jesus, and all the other more or less successful religious leaders, and what makes Moses different?
quote:Yes, that's not a proof. Obviously. But all attempts to explain it starting from the thesis that God didn't give the Torah at Sinai fall into the trap of unsupported claims about behavior that doesn't match anything recorded in any historical sources.
Except for all the other people who have claimed direct contact with God, of course. Come on, this is really, really weak.
quote:There's also Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, which is sort of a novelization of Milton. Both of these show God to be a "malign thug", as Mark Twain put it.
Well, now we're on a more-or-less literary disagreement, but I don't think "To Reign in Hell" shows any such thing. Both Yahweh and Satan are shown acting honourably and reasonably on the information they possess. It's Asmodeus (IIRC, maybe it was Azrael?) who lies to both of them and poisons their relationship.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's the watch in the sands thing, twinky. If you find a watch laying in the middle of a sand dune, you don't take "it just growed that way" as a null hypothesis. But even if you don't want to give "it was made" any special status, you can still take, "It just growed" and "it was made" and see which one explains more and which one results in the most problems.
But the watch is clearly much more complex than the sands around it - that's why you think it out of place. What is the Universe as a whole more complex than? There's no basis for comparison. basically, you are saying that the sand is too complicated to have 'just growed' - which is not reasonable.
In any case, that just begs the question of who designed the designer. An entity complex enough to have designed the Universe is plainly to complex to have 'just growed'. Hence Ųverland's famous rebuttal, speaking to a man who had just said "When I see a car in the street, I know that someone made it" : "Indeed you are correct, sir. When I see a god on the street, I know that someone made it up."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: (I can, however, prove that no Invisible Purple Unicorn exists, because the descriptives "invisible" and "purple" are contradictory, but be that as it may...)
This, however, proves nothing about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may Her hooves never be shod. Possibly you are thinking of the schismatic cult of the Very Stealthy Maroon Pegasus. In any case, being simultaneously Invisible and Pink is merely one of the many miraculous feats of the IPU, and certainly no more difficult than being, for example, simultaneously Three and One.
Quite. But then, you know what I think about that, so perhaps it wasn't the best example to use.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Of course, the intelligent designer in question could be an Invisible Unicorn. Or a Purple one. Which leads to the other God concept. In this case, I claim that there is no reasonable explanation for Jewish claims to have received the Torah at Sinai if we exclude it from actually having happened.
Excuse me? How do you explain the claims of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jesus, and all the other more or less successful religious leaders, and what makes Moses different?
One guy finds some plates. One guy hears a voice in a cave. A dozen people see a guy who had been executed. A few million people hear the voice of God and see miracles. Hmm... which of these things is different?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Yes, that's not a proof. Obviously. But all attempts to explain it starting from the thesis that God didn't give the Torah at Sinai fall into the trap of unsupported claims about behavior that doesn't match anything recorded in any historical sources.
Except for all the other people who have claimed direct contact with God, of course. Come on, this is really, really weak.
This isn't a matter of a single person or handful of people making claims and then other people jumping on the bandwagon. You need to look at the concretes, KoM. God is in the details. So to speak. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:There's also Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, which is sort of a novelization of Milton. Both of these show God to be a "malign thug", as Mark Twain put it.
Well, now we're on a more-or-less literary disagreement, but I don't think "To Reign in Hell" shows any such thing. Both Yahweh and Satan are shown acting honourably and reasonably on the information they possess. It's Asmodeus (IIRC, maybe it was Azrael?) who lies to both of them and poisons their relationship.
Please. Unilaterally creating "Yeshua" and forcing him on everyone else in Heaven that way? Even those who fought against the rebellion weren't all happy about it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It's the watch in the sands thing, twinky. If you find a watch laying in the middle of a sand dune, you don't take "it just growed that way" as a null hypothesis. But even if you don't want to give "it was made" any special status, you can still take, "It just growed" and "it was made" and see which one explains more and which one results in the most problems.
But the watch is clearly much more complex than the sands around it - that's why you think it out of place.
Life is that much more complex than the watch, let alone the sand. The issue of whether life as we know it was created by design is not logically bound up with questions of how existence came about. You're inventing strawmen.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What is the Universe as a whole more complex than? There's no basis for comparison. basically, you are saying that the sand is too complicated to have 'just growed' - which is not reasonable.
True, it's not reasonable. Which is why I'm not saying it. Never have; never will. Rocks get worn down into sand. It's observable. One species does not become two species. Of course, speciation isn't necessarily impossible. But it's unfalsifiable. It's never been observed, and there's no way to prove that it never happened. By definition, that puts it outside the realm of science. Or so I've been told here.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In any case, that just begs the question of who designed the designer.
Indeed. So? Going back to the watch, postulating a maker begs the question of where the maker came from. But I can say, "I don't know" and go on to learn everything I can about the watch and how it works. I can create new watches. I can invent things that are an extension of technology I've gleaned from studying the watch. If I find a wall clock, I can use some of the knowledge I've gained from studying the watch to inform me about the wall clock, being as how it's got so many similarities.
And even if there was such a thing as speciation, even if evolution really worked, extrapolating it back to a point is an act of faith. It's not falsifiable and it has no basis other than a desire that it be so.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: An entity complex enough to have designed the Universe is plainly to complex to have 'just growed'.
Why? Never mind the fact that this is a side issue that's of no import here. Never mind the fact that the sciences of genetics and biology and such can go on just as well without positing random mutations and speciation. Why would an entity of that sort have to be complex at all?
In fact, in Judaism, we say the exact opposite. That "God is One" is a statement denoting a complete lack of complexity in God. Utter Oneness, to the extent that it doesn't even mean anything to talk about this or that "part" of God. That even metaphors such as God's mercy or God's anger are things God created, rather than "part of God".
Obviously, you couldn't care less about what Judaism says on the matter, but I wanted to point out that you tossed on an assumption about God needing to be complex without bothering to substantiate it.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hence Ųverland's famous rebuttal, speaking to a man who had just said "When I see a car in the street, I know that someone made it" : "Indeed you are correct, sir. When I see a god on the street, I know that someone made it up."
Pithy. But pithy doesn't speak to its truth.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Finally, it's here! Here is my list of data points which I will use as evidence for the existence of God.
I'll begin with the existence of the earth, and the universe, and all of us. The skeptic will say we all could be here without the existence of God. I acknowledge that, but I will not give up the point that if there is a God who created the universe, the universe itself stands as a witness of what God has done. I will not take that away from him, even though by itself it is inconclusive. (And don't get hung up on the Big Bang and the billions of years that have transpired. That may simply be the way that God did it. The "seven days" may be more accurately translated seven time periods that could be of any length, even unequal lengths. And as for evolution, I am not convinced that the word of God precludes evolution as the mechanism by which he created our bodies.) I brought this up to counter the idea that we dont have any physical evidence of his existence. So, it is not that we have no physical evidence of his existence; it is simply that we might be able to explain his work without acknowledging him.
I'd like to pause a moment on that point. Don't think that we can ever achieve an ultimate explanation of anything (photosynthesis, gravity, the creation of the universe, etc.) All we ever do is move back one step in the process. Example: Why did the apple fall to the ground? Illusory explanation: Because the gravity of the apple and the earth caused the two to collide, and due to fact that the earth is more massive, the apple did almost all of the moving. Some may be content with this answer, but we have really only moved the question of why did it fall back one step. The next question would be: Well, why do these objects have gravity? And so, on. So, the fact that we think we understand the formation of the universe back to a singularity, which is a point where the laws of physics break down so that we can no longer extrapolate before that time, does not explain where the singularity came from and the laws of physics that came after the universe cooled off. Most physicists will say, well, there is no need to suspect that a God created it. Well, yes. But, there is always room for him. This paragraph was a throw back to the Gods existence is possible argument. But, I knew someone would bring it up later.
The next point that I would like to counter is the argument that nobody has ever seen or heard God. The scriptures are full of examples of people who have seen God, see: link for a list of some of the references. Now, the skeptic will say, How do we not know that these people were delusional or deceived? or How do we know that the supernatural events spoken of in the Bible, such as Moses talking with God in the burning bush, are true? Well, we dont know, but lets give some reasons why we might accept them at their word. Lets take these questions one at a time.
I am a graduate student nearing the end of my PhD program in Clinical Psychology. I say that to indicate that I have a fair amount of experience with psychological disorders including psychosis. People who are psychotic typically have other symptoms in addition to hallucinations (I should be inserting all sorts of caveats, but I wont for claritys sake). From what little textual evidence is available, it seems that the prophets were not psychotic. And unlike other oracles in ancient times, they werent drunk or on opium at the time they spoke with God or prophesied in his name. Their writings are very sane, not like the writings of people with psychosis. Now, could they have been deceived or be purposely deceiving us? It is possible, but I dont think so. Ill dedicate more to that later.
It is very difficult to demonstrate the reality of these things in the Bible. Here are some common attempts and why they are troublesome. Christian apologists point to archaeological evidence, but all that shows is that the Israelites were a people in the Middle East, had synagogues and a temple, etc. It offers no evidence that the supernatural events happened. Others point to the writings of contemporary historians which add credence to the major wars and leaders, but again they dont show that the beliefs of the Israelites were true. (If any one knows of any non-Biblical ancient text that collaborate the story of a healing, etc. that is recorded in the Bible, please let me know.)
Apologists also point to fulfilled prophecy. I must confess this is one area that I dont know a lot about. The prophecies can be grouped into five types: 1) ones that were both given and fulfilled within the same testament, 2) ones that were given in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament 3) ones that were given in the text and are yet to be fulfilled, 4) ones that are being fulfilled now or since the writing of the Bible, but are so typical of the earths history that it could have been reasonably assumed that they would happen again, such as earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars, and 5) ones that are being fulfilled now or since the writing of the Bible, and are specific.
Now, I dont want to take away these prophecies from evidence for the Lord. If they are genuine, they are a witness that God does exist and talk to his children. The problem is most of these Biblical prophecies are relatively easy to explain without resorting to a supernatural explanation. Skeptics of prophecies of category one could claim that the versions of the scriptures we have were written after the fulfillment of the prophecy, and so the prophecy could have been written in as if it were given before the fulfillment. Skeptics of category 2 prophecies could claim that the New Testament writers wrote into their books things that did not happen to make it look like Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled. (There is another way that these prophecies could be fulfilled the people who were to fulfill the prophecy, learned of the prophecy and then went out and did what it took to fulfill it. Some consider that cheating. I dont; hey, the prophets said that they would do it and they were enabled to bring it to pass.) Skeptics of category 3 prophecies would say that these prophecies are no evidence of God, at least yet, because who can say whether they will be fulfilled or not. Category 4 prophecies are only stating the very probable for which one doesnt need supernatural help to predict. I suppose that within this category also should go what I call Nostradamus-type prophecies that are so cryptic they can be made to prophesy nearly any event in recent world history.
Category 5 prophecies are the interesting ones. I could only find one that was fulfilled in such a way that it was public to all. Just as the scattering of the people of Israel was prophesied, the Bible also prophesied that the people of Israel would be regathered to the land of Israel.
"... the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee" (Deuteronomy 30:3).
"... Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel" (Ezekiel 17:11).
In 1948, Israel became an independent nation for the first time since the Babylonian takeover in 606 BC (more than 2500 years). In the 1990's around half a million Jews have returned to Israel from the former Soviet Union. Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament has been revived. By 300 BC the language of the Jews had changed from Hebrew to Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew had remained an unspoken and dead language until recently. Dead for about 2200 years, in 1948, it was proclaimed the national language of Israel.
Today there are around 5 million Jews in the land of Israel, about one third of the estimated total number in the world. There are still about 5 million in the United States and about another 5 million scattered around the rest of the world, but mostly in the former Soviet Union, where there is still of steady stream of Russian Jews returning to Israel.
The Book of Mormon prophecies about the Jews returning to Israel are even more specific than those in the Bible and also were given well before the 1940s.
There are other ways to know whether the Bible is true. These methods revolve around testing the word itself and the effect it can have on you. But, I will save that discussion for later in this post.
New Data Points
Now, up until this point, I have not presented much, if any, evidence that cannot be just as easily explained as if there were no God. That is the circumstance most of the world is in and what atheists have been explaining away for a long time. But, thankfully for us, God has provided more tangible evidences of his existence in our day. He again called prophets and restored ancient scripture that we can examine for evidence that God does exist. By having modern prophets we can avoid the ambiguities of not knowing whether a prophecy was written before or after its fulfillment, and we can examine more closely the men behind the mantle.
To set the stage for the data points I am about to give you which I shall use as evidence not only that God exists, but He is the God of Abraham, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all the world and the witness of the Bible is true, I will need to provide a brief synopsis of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Joseph Smith A Witness of Gods Existence
In the spring of 1820, in Palmyra, New York, Joseph Smith was a fourteen-year-old, farm boy, with a minimal frontier education. Owing to the religious revivals that were taking place near where he lived, his community was stirred up to join with the various Christian churches who were preaching at the time. Young Joseph was trying to decide which denomination he should unite with by going to their various meetings and testing their teachings against the Bible. His mother and a few of his siblings joined the Presbyterian Church; his father did not unite with any of the churches. Joseph came across a scripture in his study, James 1:5, which says, If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Joseph decided that he should ask God in prayer which church he should join. He wrote about his experience in the mid-1830s, and this is what he said happened:
I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me...When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven.
When Joseph left the grove, he possessed the knowledge that God and his Son were actual personages, that the Godhead was composed of separate individuals, and that God hears and answers prayers. You can read the full account here: web page. Youll notice that he is quite sane in his language. Further evidence of his sanity will be forthcoming. Youll also notice that this event is too complex to be attributed to his mind playing tricks on him. It would either be a psychotic episode, an unusually coherent combined auditory and visual hallucination from some mind altering substance, a deception by others, or a deception by him. It is not likely he was psychotic, because even his most bitter enemies never accused him of showing signs of a mental illness. I have never heard of anyone having a coherent auditory and visual hallucination from drug use. And in any case, no one has ever accused him of drug use, and that is not due to a lack of things being written about him by his contemporaries. It is very difficult to imagine how a human being could have deceived Joseph this way in the 1820s. Furthermore, this was not a one time event, he saw many more heavenly messengers in different locations throughout his life. My fellow Christians may believe he was deceived by the devil, which acknowledges the supernatural. But, they are not my main audience, but I could address that at a later time. Suffice it to say for now that in everything, Joseph invited and persuaded men to believe in and worship Jesus Christ as their Savior, and the devil would never do that. Ill add to the list that his vision might be a dream or sweet imaginings. Well, I will demonstrate that is not likely either, due to all that followed, which I will highlight episodes from later. Now, this still leaves open the possibility that he was deceiving us. Well, if that were the case, he brought in a lot of other people into that deception, for I will tell you of others who were visited by heavenly messengers at the same time as Joseph and even though they eventually became his enemy, they never denied the reality of their heavenly visitations. If you bear with me, I believe I can make the case very strongly that God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, did in fact visit the prophet, just as he said.
The Book of Mormon An Evidence of Gods Existence
But, first, lets introduce the Book of Mormon. That same link I gave in the last paragraph gives Josephs account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. When Joseph was 17, an angel by the name of Moroni, showed Joseph where an ancient record was deposited in a nearby hill. This is what Joseph said about the visitation:
While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.
He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.
Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.
He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.
He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;
Also, that there were two stones in silver bowsand these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummimdeposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.
After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:
For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.
In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when "they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people," but soon would come.
He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.
Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spokenfor the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilledI should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.
After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so until the room was again left dark, except just around him; when, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended till he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance.
I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger. Joseph went to the hill and found all as the messenger had said. He was met by Moroni there and instructed to return each year for further instruction. From 1824 to 1827, Joseph returned to the hill each year as specified. On September 22, 1827, he met the angel and received final instructions regarding the record. Moroni gave the record to the Prophet to translate. Joseph said, "The same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected" (JSH 1:59). The messenger did not limit his instruction solely to these annual meetings, but made contact with Joseph on numerous occasions (Peterson, pp. 11920). In all, the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith at least twenty times. Joseph informed associates that other Book of Mormon prophets also visited him, including Nephi, son of Lehi (Cheesman, pp. 3860). Lucy Mack Smith recalled that her son Joseph was enabled from this tutoring to describe "with much ease" the ancient inhabitants of America, "their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship" (p. 83). I invite you to read the full account. At the end of the four years, Joseph obtained the plates and translated them in I believe a little more than 60 working days. The way the translation process worked was he sat across the table from a scribe with the golden plates in front of him and would read aloud the translation which the scribe would write down and repeat to Joseph what they wrote down to make sure the scribe got it right and then they would move on to the next passage. The scribes found it remarkable how at the beginning of a translation session, Joseph would just pick up where he had left off the day before without needing the last passage read back to him. For more on the translation process: web page
The translation was published as the Book of Mormon. Mormon was an ancient American prophet who compiled the writings of prophets who came before him. When you hold a copy of the Book of Mormon in your hand, you are holding the result of a modern day miracle. Well, you may not think so, but the fact of the matter is it is here and you have to explain its existence some how. And as marvelous and miraculous as this story is, I think you will find that Josephs explanation is more reasonable than any other. I believe you will soon see that it is not very plausible to believe this 21-year-old farm boy from rural New York state was capable of writing it, nor that anyone else living in the early 19th century could have written it either. You can view the Book of Mormon here: [URL=http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents ]web page[/URL]
Everything hinges on the veracity of that book. If it can be demonstrated that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be, then it testifies that Joseph was a true prophet of God giving the ability from God to discover and translate this ancient book. And if these things are true, then we know that God and Jesus Christ exist, and the Bible is true, for the Book of Mormon testifies of it and teaches the same doctrines.
I quote from the introduction to the Book of Mormon (the introduction was of course written in modern times).
The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of Gods dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.
After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.
In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved.
Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
In addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord provided for eleven others to see the gold plates for themselves and to be special witnesses of the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon. Their written testimonies are included herewith as The Testimony of Three Witnesses and The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10: 3-5.)
Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lords kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.
The term principal ancestors of the American Indians may mean principal in the sense that it is through them that the promises were made to the inhabitants of these continents. OK, now that you know what the Book of Mormon purports to be, lets get into the evidences of its veracity.
Witnesses of the Gold Plates
After Joseph finished translating the Golden Plates, the angel Moroni took them away, but not without first providing witnesses to their existence, thus following the ancient pattern, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (2 Corinthians 13:1; Matthew 18:16; Deut. 19:15). God follows this pattern so that we may have more confidence in his prophets. Go here for an answer to, Why were the Book of Mormon gold plates not placed in a museum so that people might know Joseph Smith had them?: web page
Here is a copy of the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses:
THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris
THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it. CHRISTIAN WHITMER JACOB WHITMER PETER WHITMER, JUN. JOHN WHITMER HIRAM PAGE JOSEPH SMITH, SEN. HYRUM SMITH SAMUEL H. SMITH
It is significant to note that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimonies, even after they left the church and had nothing to gain from maintaining their witness. David Whitmer later signed an affidavit reaffirming his testimony when some paper spread a false report that he recanted his story. I include the following links to help you rule out any alternate theory you may have about these mens testimonies.
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 1: Motives," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Critics often dismiss the first-hand testimonies of Book of Mormon witnesses by questioning their motives. web page
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 2: Oliver Cowdery," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Because Oliver Cowdery had a falling out with Joseph Smith and left the Church for a time, should his testimony of the Book of Mormon be suspect? web page
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 3: Martin Harris," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. Martin Harris, a witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, has been maligned and dismissed by critics. What is the real story? web page
Michael R. Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 4: David Whitmer," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, March 2003) FAIR Brochure. David Whitmer left the Church and never rejoined. Did he recant his testimony of the Book of Mormon? web page
Textual Evidences in the Book of Mormon
One of the strongest evidences that neither Joseph Smith, nor anyone else in 1829 could have written the Book of Mormon is the presence of chaiastic structures found in the Book of Mormon, which is an ancient Hebrew literary form that was not well understood by anyone in the world until much later. See: web page. Please read those articles. Before you can understand the significance of this data point, you need to know what a chiasm is and how nearly impossible it is that a fraudulent work written in 1829, that purports to be written by descendants of the Hebrews, would have this Hebrew poetic form in it. Once we research this, I think youll admit that although it is in the realm of possibility, the odds are very slim. The die hard skeptic will so, so he got lucky and won the lottery. OK, lets take a look at what other highly unlikely things that Joseph just happened to get right. How many times does a guy have to win the lottery before you conclude something greater than chance is happening here? And if you conclude it is not chance, think how could he possibly know how to get these things right through fraud when almost no one in the early 1800s knew about them?
There are other evidences that the writers of the Book of Mormon were very familiar and fluent with the culture and writing style of the ancient Hebrews. Links follow.
Spackman examines the Book of Mormon's use of a Hebraism where a negative rhetorical question is used to indicate a positive meaning. Spackman illustrates this form from both the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament. web page
The following is a discussion of the Hebrew root of some names used in the Book of Mormon. web page It is important to note that Joseph did not study Hebrew until years after he translated the Book of Mormon. I am not sure that anyone would have known enough to incorporate all of these rich Hebrew influences if they were going to try to create a fraudulent text much less had the skill to pull it off.
You can find links to articles on Hebrew idioms and language structures found in the Book of Mormon here: web page. I use these linked articles because it would take me a long time to prepare a similar document myself and I dont want to plagiarize their work.
The Book of Mormon purports to have been written by several prophet-authors. There is strong evidence that each of these prophet-authors had a different writing style, adding credence to its origins: web page . Granted, clever authors would know to do this and might have the ability to pull it off, but Joseph Smith certainly couldnt. And when you rule out him, what early 19th century author would you suspect? Joseph didnt even know anyone important at that point in his life.
Criticisms of the Book of Mormon text
What do the critics of the Book of Mormon point to as far as the text goes? If the Book of Mormon was translated by God, why has the Church seen the need to make changes to the text in subsequent publications? There have been minor changes and are explained here: web page
How do we account for the King James "Sermon on the Mount" in the Book of Mormon? [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai286.html ]web page[/URL]
Why does the Book of Mormon sound like the King James Version of the Bible? [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai285.html ]web page[/URL]
Archaeological Evidence
This essay demonstrates several of the ways in which the Book of Mormon fits an ancient Mesoamerican context. web page
Another powerful witness is that the Book of Mormon describes in great detail an ancient trade route in the Arabian peninsula and the location of a bountiful area where Nephi would be able to find wood suitable to build a ship and ore with which to make tools. This confirmed ancient location and place name matches the Book of Mormon text remarkably well. The burden is on the critics to explain how Joseph Smith could possibly have fabricated the account about Nahom and the journey in the Arabian peninsula described in First Nephi. web page and web page
Once labeled by critics as anachronistic, references to cement in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7, 9, 11) can now be seen as further evidence of the authenticity of the text. This is because today the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact. web page
My goodness, there is so much, I am having a hard time choosing what to share. I found this website that lists a lot of archaeological evidence: web page
On that page you will find the following topics: The Valley of Lemuel: Another "Blunder" Becomes Evidence FOR the Book of Mormon Writing on Metal Plates The Buried Plates: Evidence of Authenticity Genes Linking Eurasians and Native Americans Writing in Reformed Egyptian? Mulek, Son of King Zedekiah? The Use of Cement in Ancient America Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Olive Culture Wars in Winter? Mesoamerican Fortifications Numerous Hebraic Language Structures Names in the Book of Mormon "The Land of Jerusalem"--a fatal blunder?? The Great Catastrophe: Volcanism in Book of Mormon Lands Gardens, Towers, and Multiple Markets Mesoamerican Temples Laban's Treasury The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Writings More from Mesoamerica... Weights and Measures in the Book of Mormon Book of Mormon Nuggets - index to a group of separate pages
More on DNA and the Book of Mormon [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html ]web page[/URL]
Critics of the Book of Mormon cite supposed anachronisms. Here are several articles that refute their arguments: web page
Authorship Claims of the Book of Mormon
Some critics claim that the book View of the Hebrews served as a template for the Book of Mormon. Youll know that claim is utterly ridiculous if you ever look at View of the Hebrews. It is a book that claims that Native Americans are descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, but the similarities stop there. I think the only reason this argument has stayed alive is that most people never bother to actually go find a copy of the book.
Ill conclude my treatment of the Book of Mormon with a few articles that refute various possible origins of the Book of Mormon.
Daniel C. Peterson, "The Protean Joseph Smith," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, August 2002) Dan Peterson looks at the history of the theories of how the Book of Mormon came to be. In this 2002 FAIR Conference presentation, Peterson concludes that nothing the critics have offered is as believable as Joseph Smith's own explanation. web page
Matthew Roper, "Right On Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, August 2001) A great presentation that focuses on evidences first thought to disprove the Book of Mormon, but later serve to prove its truth. web page
[This post was edited to improve readability.]
[ November 10, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: enochville ]
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Joseph Smith
Fulfilled Prophecies
Lets look at some of the data points on Joseph Smith. One of the evidences of a true prophet is fulfilled prophecies. This page lists several: web page Those prophecies are listed below: Accurate Prophecies of the Civil War The Saints to Flourish in the Rocky Mountains The Liberty Jail Prophecies The Saints to Escape Enemies Within 5 Years The Stephen A. Douglas Prophecy A Prediction of Destruction in Jackson County, Missouri Condemned to Execution, Joseph Prophesies of Deliverance Prediction of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon The Prophetic Book of Mormon The Prophetic "Word of Wisdom" Prophetic Miracles Involving Newel K. Whitney The Hearts of the Children to Turn to Their Fathers Prediction of Stakes in Boston and New York Joseph Predicts His Death Dan Jones to Serve a Mission in Wales Sidney Rigdon to Be a Spokesman Healing and Prophecy with the Johnsons in Kirtland Escape of Stephen Markham Apostles to Depart from Far West on 26 April 1839 Isaiah 11 about to be fulfilled?
Did the prophet Joseph ever give any prophecies that did not come true? See the articles listed here: [URL=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai065.html ]web page[/URL]
Visions of Joseph Smith
The following is from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Ancient prophets were typically called through a revelatory processvisions and/or revelations: "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream" (Num. 12:6). The prophet Joel anticipated that visions would increase in the last days, saying, "Old men shall dream dreams, [and] young men shall see visions" (Joel 2:2832). Blessed like John on the isle of Patmos and Paul who spoke of the third heavens, the Prophet Joseph Smith affirmed, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject" (TPJS, p. 324; cf. HC 6:50). He also declared that "the best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching" (TPJS, p. 191). President John Taylor said that Joseph Smith had contact with prophets from every dispensation: "Because he [Joseph] stood at the head of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which comprehends all the various dispensations that have existed upon the earth, and that as the Gods in the eternal worlds and the Priesthood that officiated in time and eternity had declared that it was time for the issuing forth of all these things, they all combined together to impart to him the keys of their several missions" (JD 18:326).
A new dispensation requires the conferral of priesthood and keys, in accordance with the law of witnesses: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1). During the restoration sequence when priesthood and keys were conferred by angelic ministrants, the Prophet was accompanied by one or more witnesses. Oliver Cowdery was a principal figure in the fulfillment of this law of witnesses (see Witnesses, Law of); others were David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Sidney Rigdon. Distinguishing dreams from visions and associating visions and visitations, Joseph said, "An open vision will manifest that which is more important" (TPJS, p. 161). Crucial visions received by the Prophet Joseph Smith are the source of many cardinal doctrines and teachings of the Latter-day Saints.
[You already know of the first vision and the visits by the angel Moroni, so I wont repeat them here.]
JOHN THE BAPTIST. While translating the Book of Mormon at Harmony, Pennsylvania, on May 15, 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery became concerned about baptism for the remission of sins as described in 3 Nephi 11. They went into the woods to pray for enlightenment. Both record that a messenger from heaven, identifying himself as John the Baptist, laid hands on them and ordained them to the Aaronic Priesthood, saying, "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness" (JSH 1:69; D&C 13; cf. TPJS, pp. 17273).
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN. John the Baptist also informed Joseph and Oliver that "this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter." John stated "that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us" (JSH 1:70, 72). This restoration occurred during the latter part of may or early June 1829, someplace between Harmony and Colesville on the Susquehanna River (see Melchizedek Priesthood: Restoration of). Of this visitation, Joseph Smith later testified, "The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, & Eliasgave the Keys to Peter, James & John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him . How have we come at the priesthood in the last days? It came down, down in regular succession. Peter, James & John had it given to them & they gave it up [to us]" (WJS, p. 9).
THREE WITNESSES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. By revelation Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris were selected to be witnesses of the plates and the authentic translation of the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 11:3; 27:12; Ether 5:24; D&C 5:1118; D&C 17). During the latter part of June 1829, in company with Joseph Smith, these three men went into the woods adjacent to the Whitmer home in Fayette, New York, and knelt in prayer. When the promised revelation was not immediately received, Martin Harris stated that he felt he might be the cause of their failure. After Martin Harris withdrew, the others knelt in prayer again. David Whitmer described the visitation of Moroni: "The angel stood before us. He was dressed in white, and spoke and called me by name and said “Blessed is he that keepeth His commandments .“ A table was set before us and on it the Records of the Nephites, from which the Book of Mormon was translated, the breast plates [and also the Urim and Thummim], the Ball of Directors [Liahona], the Sword of Laban and other plates. While we were viewing them the voice of God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct" (quoted in "Letter from Elder W. H. Kelley," Saints“ Herald 29 [Mar. 1, 1882]:68).
Afterward, Joseph found Martin Harris, and together they experienced a similar manifestation. The Three Witnesses later endorsed a statement describing their experience that has been appended to all copies of the Book of Mormon. They swore that they had seen the angel and the plates and that "we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us" (see Book of Mormon Witnesses). Subsequently, eight others were privileged to see and handle the plates, but without the presence of the angel or having heard the voice of God.
VISION OF GLORIES. While preparing the text of his translation of the Bible, Joseph Smith, with Sidney Rigdon, moved to the John Johnson home in Hiram, Ohio, on September 12, 1831. As the two men worked on the Gospel of John, it became apparent to them that many important points concerning the salvation of individuals had been lost from the Bible. Joseph wrote, "It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term "Heaven,“ as intended for the Saints“ eternal home must include more kingdoms than one" (HC 1:245). On February 16, 1832, in an upper room of the Johnson home, while he and Sidney Rigdon were examining the passage from John 5:29, they saw a multifaceted vision (D&C 76), commencing with a vision of the Father and the Son in the highest glory. This scene was followed by a series of visions, including Perdition and the sons of Perdition and then the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms of glory. One witness, Philo Dibble, present in the room recalled that the two men sat motionless for about an hour. One would say, "What do I see," and describe it, and the other would say, "I see the same" (Juvenile Instructor 27 [May 15, 1892]:303304). It is apparent that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not impart all that he saw in vision, for he later said, "I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them" (TPJS, p. 305).
KIRTLAND TEMPLE VISIONS. From January 21 to May 1, 1836, many of the Saints in Kirtland experienced an outpouring of the Spirit, a "Pentecostal season." On January 21, the Prophet assembled with others in the west schoolroom on the third story of the Kirtland Temple. Here Joseph beheld a vision of the Celestial Kingdom of God (D&C 137). He beheld the Father and the Son and several ancient worthies, including Adam, Abraham, and his own mother and father (both still living), and his brother Alvin, who had died in 1823 (verse 5). As Joseph marveled over Alvin“s station in the Celestial Kingdom, the voice of the Lord declared, "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the Celestial Kingdom of God" (verse 7). He was also instructed concerning the destiny of little children. The Prophet recorded, "I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of heaven" (verse 10). During the dedication of the Kirtland Temple on March 27, 1836, many testified of the presence of angels. The Prophet specifically identified the ancient apostles Peter and John as present among them (Backman, The Heavens Resound, 1983, pp. 299300; cf. JD 9:376).
One week later, on April 3, 1836, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had retired to the Melchizedek Priesthood pulpits on the west side of the first floor of the temple. The curtains were dropped around the pulpit area as the men prayed. "The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened" (D&C 110:1). The Lord stood before them on the breastwork of the pulpit. "His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah" (D&C 110:3). The Savior accepted the newly completed structure and promised that his name and glory would be present and that thousands of persons would receive an outpouring of blessings because of the temple and the Endowment received by his servants in that house (D&C 110:69).
Following the Savior“s appearance, three other messengers presented themselves. Each bestowed specific priesthood keys on the two leaders. Moses came and "committed [to them] the keys of the gathering of Israel" (verse 11). As Moses departed, Elias, possessing the keys of "the gospel of Abraham," appeared and administered the keys of this dispensation, saying "that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed" (verse 12). Further priesthood keys were restored by Elijah, who declared, "Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachitestifying that he [Elijah] should be sent to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers" (verses 1415; see also Abrahamic Covenant; Gospel of Abraham).
OTHER HEAVENLY MANIFESTATIONS. A variety of accounts affirm that other persons also witnessed such appearances not only in association with the Kirtland Temple but in an earlier period during meetings in the log schoolhouse on the Isaac Morley farm and in the School of the Prophets, held in the Newel K. whitney store (K. Anderson, pp. 107113, 16977; Backman, The Heavens Resound, 1983, pp. 240, 26468, 284309). The visions discussed herein are but a few of the myriad manifestations that gave the Prophet direction. Joseph mentions having seen others in vision, including Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, but does not detail their association (D&C 128:2021). President John Taylor identified yet others who ministered to the Prophet, notably Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (JD 17:374; 18:32526; 21:65, 94, 161; 23:48).
One writer has commented, "He had visions of the past as well as of the future. As a seer, he knew things about the past that are not part of our own scripture, but which he spoke of in discourse" (Madsen, p. 44). "I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman" (TPJS, p. 158). To Joseph Knight, Sr., the Prophet commented on the vistas opened to him through the Urim and Thummim, which he found deposited with the gold plates. Knight explained, "He seemed to think more of the glasses or Urim and Thummim says he, "I can see anything; they are marvelous"“ (Jessee, 1976, p. 33). Accordingly, after reading Foxe“s Book of the Martyrs, Joseph remarked that he had "seen those martyrs, and they were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed, and they will be saved" (Stevenson, p. 6). He saw in vision marchers in Zion“s Camp who had perished from cholera in Clay County, Missouri. He related their condition, observing to the survivors, "Brethren, I have seen those men who died of the cholera in our camp; and the Lord knows, if I get a mansion as bright as theirs, I ask no more" (HC 2:181n). The organizations of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Quorum of the Seventy were made known to him "by vision and by the Holy Spirit," and he established those priesthood offices in February 1835 (HC 2:182). In an earlier vision, he "saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who are now upon the earth, who hold the keys of this last ministry, in foreign lands, standing together in a circle, much fatigued, with their clothes tattered and feet swollen, with their eyes cast downward, and Jesus standing in their midst, and they did not behold Him. The Savior looked upon them and wept" (HC 2:381). He saw a vision enabling him to designate the "central place" in Independence, Missouri (TPJS, p. 79). Of a vision of the resurrection of the dead, he explained, "So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly" (TPJS, pp. 29596).
He also saw the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples in vision before their construction and gave detailed instructions to the architects, describing the windows and their illumination (JD 13:357; 14:273; HC 6:19697). He foresaw the struggles of the Saints in crossing the plains, their establishment in the Rocky Mountains, and the future condition of the Saints (HC 5:85n86n).
He remarked late in his life, "It is my meditation all the day & more than my meat & drink to know how I shall make the saints of God to comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge, before my mind" (WJS, p. 196).
The skeptics have quite a task to explain away all these visions, especially those with other mortal participants. Furthermore, the experience of having a vision is replicable. The Prophet taught that the Lord has revealed nothing to him that he will not also reveal to any of us as soon as we are able to bear it. A later prophet at the turn of the previous century testified that the Lord Jesus Christ visited him in the Salt Lake temple. There are countless other examples, but recipients of such visits are instructed to hold such experiences sacred and not to share them with others unless prompted by the Spirit. Dont scoff at that; I have given you sufficient examples to assure you that heavenly visitations do occur. If you doubt the visions Ive told you about, youd doubt those as well.
The nice thing about Josephs visions is that something was always restored through them and we can test those things. In some of the visions doctrines were restored that were believed by the earliest Christians but had long since been forgotten by the early 1800s. Restored doctrine that had been hidden from the world lends credence to Josephs visions. These are discussed in the next section. The priesthood, which is the power and authority given by God to act in His name, was restored through heavenly visitation as well. The miracles Joseph and others have performed through the power of the priesthood are evidence that he really had those visions as well. Unfortunately, I cant find a good article that summarizes Josephs miracles for you to review right now. So, if anyone is interested, Ill keep looking.
Restoring Doctrines Believed in the Early Christian Church
Yet, another evidence for Joseph being led by God was in his restoring doctrines that were held by the earliest Christians, but were lost or corrupted by descendants of the ancient church. For example, the uniquely Mormon doctrines of a life with God as his spirit children before we came to earth, the spirits of the dead being taught the gospel and baptized by living proxy, the three degrees of glory, how we can become like God, and our concept of the Godhead as consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three separate personages, are all found in newly discovered ancient texts written before 4th century AD when Constantinople made the bishops throughout his empire codify the beliefs of the now state religion. It is interesting to note that churches that were not within the Roman Empire (Coptic church of Alexandria, Armenian Church, etc.) held on to some of those early Christian doctrines that were purged out of Constantinoples church. For a discussion of these topics see the articles listed on this page: web page . There is no way Joseph could have known about these ancient doctrines except by God. The texts werent even discovered until the 20th century and not all of the doctrines survived in the contemporary non-Catholic tradition churches of Josephs day.
Josephs Character
I thought Id throw in a link to articles about Joseph Smiths character, just in case that might help you rule out other alternatives to explain these remarkable events: web page
Implications
If the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet, what does that imply? Both testify that God exists, that Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of the truthfulness of the Bible as far as it was handed down to us correctly. Both reveal things as they really are (i.e., the true nature of God and how to appropriately worship him). Furthermore, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord says of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that it is, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased (D&C 1:30).
What we can know about God
What can we know about God, if we acknowledge that the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet? The following comes from Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage.
We do believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, but we believe that they are separate and distinct beings, united in purpose, and together they form the Godhead. Therefore, we do not believe in the Trinity, at least as I understand it. To me it is the most incomprehensible doctrine, that they are three different manifestations of one entity. Here is what we believe:
The Godhead: Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have revealed themselves to man: (1) God the Eternal Father; (2) His Son, Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man. On the occasion of the Savior's baptism, John recognized the sign of the Holy Ghost; he saw before him in a tabernacle of flesh the Christ, unto whom he had administered the holy ordinance; and he heard the voice of the Father. The three personages of the Godhead were present, manifesting themselves each in a different way, and each distinct from the others. Later the Savior promised His disciples that the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, should be sent unto them by His Father; here again are the three members of the Godhead separately defined. Stephen, at the time of his martyrdom, was blessed with the power of heavenly vision, and he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Joseph Smith, while calling upon the Lord in fervent prayer, saw the Father and the Son, standing in the midst of light that shamed the brightness of the sun; and one of these declared of the other, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" Each of the members of the Trinity is called God, together they constitute the Godhead.
Unity of the GodheadThe Godhead is a type of unity in the attributes, powers, and purposes of its members. Jesus, while on earth and in manifesting Himself to His Nephite servants, repeatedly testified of the unity existing between Himself and the Father, and between them both and the Holy Ghost. This cannot rationally be construed to mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and in person, nor that the names represent the same individual under different aspects. A single reference to prove the error of any such view may suffice: Immediately before His betrayal, Christ prayed for His disciples, the Twelve, and other converts, that they should be preserved in unity," that they all may be one" as the Father and the Son are one. We cannot assume that Christ prayed that His followers lose their individuality and become one person, even if a change so directly opposed to nature were possible. Christ desired that all should be united in heart, spirit, and purpose; for such is the unity between His Father and Himself, and between them and the Holy Ghost.
This unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike. Under any given conditions each would act in the same way, guided by the same principles of unerring justice and equity. The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God. Even in bodily appearance the Father and the Son are alike; therefore said Christ when importuned by Philip to show to him and others the Father: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me."
Personality of Each Member of the GodheadFrom the evidence already presented, it is clear that the Father is a personal being, possessing a definite form, with bodily parts and spiritual passions. Jesus Christ, who was with the Father in spirit before coming to dwell in the flesh, and through whom the worlds were made, lived among men as a man, with all the physical characteristics of a human being; after His resurrection He appeared in the same form; in that form He ascended into heaven; and in that form He has manifested Himself to the Nephites, and to modern prophets. We are assured that Christ was in the express image of His Father, after which image man also has been created. Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body, infinitely pure and perfect and attended by transcendent glory, nevertheless a body of flesh and bones.
The Holy Ghost, called also Spirit, and Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Comforter, and Spirit of Truth, is not tabernacled in a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit; yet we know that the Spirit has manifested Himself in the form of a man. Through the ministrations of the Spirit the Father and the Son may operate in their dealings with mankind; through Him knowledge is communicated, and by Him the purposes of the Godhead are achieved. The Holy Ghost is the witness of the Father and the Son, declaring to man their attributes, bearing record of the other personages of the Godhead.
Some of the Divine AttributesGod is OmnipresentThere is no part of creation, however remote, into which God cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time. The senses of each of the Trinity are of infinite power; His mind is of unlimited capacity; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more than one place at any one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an "immaterial being," under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits; and it is not surprising, therefore, to learn from the scriptures that He moves from place to place. Thus we read in connection with the account of the Tower of Babel, "And the Lord [i. e., Jehovah, the Son] came down to see the city and the tower." Again, God appeared to Abraham, and having declared Himself to be "the Almighty God," He talked with the patriarch, and established a covenant with him; then we read "And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham."
God is OmniscientBy Him matter has been organized and energy directed. He is therefore the Creator of all things that are created; and "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." His power and His wisdom are alike incomprehensible to man, for they are infinite. Being Himself eternal and perfect, His knowledge cannot be otherwise than infinite. To comprehend Himself, an infinite Being, He must possess an infinite mind. Through the agency of angels and ministering servants He is in continuous communication with all parts of creation, and may personally visit as He may determine.
God is OmnipotentHe is properly called the Almighty. Man can discern proofs of the divine omnipotence on every side, in the forces that control the elements of earth and guide the orbs of heaven in their prescribed courses. Whatever His wisdom indicates as necessary to be done God can and will do. The means through which He operates may not be of infinite capacity in themselves, but they are directed by an infinite power. A rational conception of His omnipotence is power to do all that He may will to do.
God is kind, benevolent, and lovingtender, considerate, and long-suffering, bearing patiently with the frailties of His children. He is just and merciful in judgment, yet combining with these gentler qualities firmness in avenging wrongs. He is jealous of His own power and the reverence paid to Him; that is to say, He is zealous for the principles of truth and purity, which are nowhere exemplified in a higher degree than in His personal attributes. This Being is the author of our existence, Him we are permitted to approach as Father. Our faith will increase in Him as we learn of Him.
Mind, Heart, and Results of Living it
There is another category of data points that I must add to my list, even though they will be easier to explain away for the skeptic. However, if you come to believe that God exists through my other data points, then you might be willing to admit these as permissible evidence as well. It turns out that God has provided an experiment of sorts that one can do to learn whether he exists. Ill mostly be using a text from the Book of Mormon (Alma 32:16-43), but the Bible outlines the same pattern.
16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe. Humility is a prerequisite. For without humility, one is not teachable. Pride is the opposite of humility, and the person who is full of pride is focused on himself, showing off how much better he is than everyone else and is contentious and defensive, having to win the argument. So, acknowledging our lack of knowledge and possessing a willingness to entertain the thoughts of another shows humility and prepares us to receive further light and knowledge.
17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?
20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.
I am convinced that it is an act of mercy that God requires the development of faith to learn of him. For, as the Lord taught Joseph, Unto whom much is given, much is required. If we know the will of God with a perfect knowledge and disobey it, we are under greater condemnation than if we were only acting according to faith. But, as we demonstrate that we are capable of living a higher law, we are blessed with knowledge which is delicious to the taste and very desirable. Furthermore, as we grow in faith we also grow in gratitude, empathy, and charity all Godlike characteristics that God wants us to develop. For He is our Father and is training us to become like him. This is something we asked him to do for us before we were born.
21 And now as I said concerning faithfaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
Faith begins as a willingness to entertain the possibility that what is being shared with you is true. It is taught in Romans 10:17, So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. As you entertain the thought, you begin to use your intellect and your memory to actively look for supporting evidence. The implications of what it would mean if it were true are examined, and you begin to desire to believe and hope that it is true because of the ways it would bless you life.
22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.
23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.
24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast outnow I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true
25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.
26 Now, as I said concerning faiththat it was not a perfect knowledgeeven so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
Alma is saying that as your desire to believe grows, it will make room in your mind to consider the words and ponder their meaning.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselvesIt must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
In this context, the word is any doctrine taught by the prophets of the Lord. It might be that there is a God, or that the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. Now, if the doctrine is true, and you dont refuse to consider it because of unbelief, then the idea will grow within you. This means that youll start to make connections in your mind in which this doctrine helps to shed light on other thoughts youve had or experiences youve gone through. Youll start experiencing epiphanies, or Ah-hah! and Eureka! moments where things suddenly make sense. And these experiences will cause you to feel joy, enthusiasm, peace, and confidence in your heart and delight in the doctrine. These are the fruits of the Spirit. So, we have two categories of witnesses here: our mind (i.e., the doctrine makes sense to us) and our heart (i.e., feelings of joy, enthusiasm, peace, and confidence).
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
These results will cause you to want to believe more and put more confidence in what is being taught. Nevertheless, you still dont have a perfect knowledge of the doctrine, you only know that it is good.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
True doctrine will cause your mind to become active and make lots of connections that make sense as previously described. False doctrine doesnt go anywhere or lead you to any further discoveries. You are unable to relate it to anything you already know to be true.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
You have a perfect knowledge that the doctrine is true, but you still dont have a perfect knowledge of the doctrine. You dont gain that until you have acted on the doctrine and have seen the results.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
Nourishing the word means to keep studying it and act upon it. Christ taught in John 7:17, If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. In other words live the gospel and see if you dont get the promised rewards. To know if God really is there, pray unto him and see if he does not hear and answer your prayers. There is a great promise in Malachi about tithing. The Lord says in Malachi 3:10, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. This approaches the scientific method in that we are looking at cause and effect. Now, there is a difference between faith in general and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For, it is only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that can save us from the demands of justice for our sins. But, those of us who have exercised faith in Christ, accepted his payment for our sins and have repented, have felt the marvelous effects which are too numerous to mention here. We have confidence that the Bible is true because of our answered prayers. This brings us to our next category of evidence the results the trying out the word on multiple occasions.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.
39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.
40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.
If you dont act on the word, youll never gain the confidence you need in that doctrine to withstand the challenges to its validity that youll face. And it is not because it wasnt true, it is because you did not do what you needed to do to get your sure witness that it was true.
41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.
42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.
43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.
The rewards for going through the process are too wonderful to express in words. In is like trying to explain what salt tastes like to someone who has never tasted it. In fact, I dont think people even believe there is such joy so great until they experience it for themselves.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught so many doctrines like this one that shows such a depth of understanding of the human condition and a wisdom so great and messages from the Lord so powerful and intimate, that I must conclude that he was taught from on high.
There are other data points I have which are too sacred to mention in such a forum. But, I feel that what I have shared should be sufficient.
Summary There is one simple hypothesis that explains all the data points presented thus far: that God lives, calls prophets to reveal his commandments, the solemnities of the eternities, and the proper way in which to worship him, namely, through his Son, Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of the truthfulness of the Bible, so all the evidence of the Bible can be entered in, and it becomes clear that it is the God of Israel that exists and none else.
Now, I am sure this posting will generate a lot of discussion and I will be overwhelmed with trying to respond to everyone. So, I ask a few simple requests, please read all that I have gone through the trouble of preparing for you (on the links that list several articles on a topic, one or two articles should suffice). I think many questions or responses will be addressed by the accompanying articles. I linked to those articles because: 1) I dont want to plagiarize their work, 2) they say the same things I would say in a very reasoned and concise way, and 3) it would take me a very long time to dig up all of their references myself. Most alternate explanations you could come up with for the data, or other challenges to the veracity of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon are addressed somewhere on these pages: web page which is a Mormon apologetic site, or web page which is a Mormon apologist. Please consult these first. Also, I would prefer to handle only atheist or agnostic type questions on this thread. Perhaps we could start another thread for the objections believers might have. I want to do it this way because otherwise, a Christian will ask me a question to which Ill respond with the shared assumption in God and the authority of the Bible, etc., and then some atheist will critique my response with challenges to those basic assumptions. This is the thread in which to challenge those assumptions, lets have another thread where we discuss things within the shared belief in God.
[This post has been edited to increase readability.]
[ November 10, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: enochville ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
enoch, If you could fix the length of some of your links, your posts would be a lot easier to read. I'd recommend wrapping it in a url tag (you do this using the Instant UBB Code buttons on the Full Reply/Edit form. Alternatively, you could use Tiny URL.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And it's generally considered bad form to paste the entire bible into your post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
enochville, that's a bit ... um ... lengthy. Here's a considerably shorter rebuttal of the points you've made, as I understand them:
quote:I'll begin with the existence of the earth, and the universe, and all of us. The skeptic will say we all could be here without the existence of God. I acknowledge that, but I will not give up the point that if there is a God who created the universe, the universe itself stands as a witness of what God has done.
Out of respect for any God which may exist, I'll let this one stand. As you observe, however, it's not actually proof of God's existence, but rather merely proof that we exist and, if God created us, "evidence" that we were created. In other words, it's a tautology.
quote:Don't think that we can ever achieve an ultimate explanation of anything (photosynthesis, gravity, the creation of the universe, etc.) All we ever do is move back one step in the process....So, the fact that we think we understand the formation of the universe back to a singularity, which is a point where the laws of physics break down so that we can no longer extrapolate before that time, does not explain where the singularity came from...
This ultimately boils down to what's called a "Prime Mover" argument -- the rationale that if all effects have a cause, something must be that cause. And something must have been the first cause. The problem with this argument, which has been pretty soundly refuted, is that it contains the seeds of its own destruction: to wit, that the First Cause itself, by the terms established in the argument for its existence, must have been caused by something. And if not, then indeed something must have existed a priori, even if it was just that First Cause -- thus "proving" that not everything needs a cause, and eliminating the need for a First Cause.
quote:The next point that I would like to counter is the argument that nobody has ever seen or heard God. The scriptures are full of examples of people who have seen God....Now, the skeptic will say, How do we not know that these people were delusional or deceived? or How do we know that the supernatural events spoken of in the Bible, such as Moses talking with God in the burning bush, are true? Well, we dont know, but lets give some reasons why we might accept them at their word.
quote:People who are psychotic typically have other symptoms in addition to hallucinations (I should be inserting all sorts of caveats, but I wont for claritys sake). From what little textual evidence is available, it seems that the prophets were not psychotic.
You make some assumptions here: a) that the prophets wrote the scriptures; b) that the authors believed what they wrote down; c) that the prophets, as described, do not exhibit psychotic behavior. I'm not sure that you have satisfactorily addressed any of these three assumptions, although -- like C.S. Lewis -- you attempt to apologize for 'em.
quote: Category 5 prophecies are the interesting ones. I could only find one that was fulfilled in such a way that it was public to all. Just as the scattering of the people of Israel was prophesied, the Bible also prophesied that the people of Israel would be regathered to the land of Israel.
I wouldn't count this one, since it falls pretty strongly into the "self-fulfilling prophecy" camp. One of the reasons the nation of Israel is currently located where it's located was specifically because of awareness of this prophecy.
quote: I believe you will soon see that it is not very plausible to believe this 21-year-old farm boy from rural New York state was capable of writing it, nor that anyone else living in the early 19th century could have written it either.
Orson Scott Card himself has made this argument. Here's the problem I have with it: you are attempting to claim that it is MORE likely that God would choose to send messengers to a young "farmboy" after thousands of years of silence during which the world was allowed to fall away from His plan, reveal to that farmboy golden plates containing messages of import to all mankind, etc. than it is that a young farmboy could have done a really good job writing a book.
For example, you cite the use of chiasm in the BoM as "evidence" of its scriptural inspiration; the simple fact is that the chiasmus is a fairly obvious literary device used throughout even the KJV translation, and anyone attempting to mimic the KJV would almost certainly use that device -- even if they weren't conscious of its name.
More relevantly, there are lots of religions out there whose followers claim that the perfection and beauty and accuracy of their scriptures are evidence of their truth. Leaving aside whether they're right, the simple fact is that clearly it is easier to write a book that some people consider to be evidence of the existence of God than it is for a New Jersey farmboy to be visited by God; the former can be said to have happened at least seven or eight times, while the latter has only happened once.
Obviously, this isn't exactly "proof" of anything -- except, of course, proof that it's nearly impossible to say which of two incredibly unlikely events is more unlikely, especially if you're going to try to hang an argument on that baseless opinion.
You go on to cite a number of apologetic sources as "refutations" of common objections to LDS claims. The problem is, these sources are in general not open to peer review and are not exactly "scholarly;" it would be difficult, for example, to find a non-LDS mesoamerican archaeologist who finds the details in the BoM credible.
Addressing all these claims would be excessively long -- and would be likely to offend a number of the devout LDS on this board -- so I won't do it. I'll say that I, personally, am skeptical of almost all of them, and have reasons for that skepticism; if you're curious about any one or more of those reasons, drop me an email and I'll try to address them.
----------
As it stands, in other words, I think your argument -- which largely boils down to "God may or may not exist, but the LDS church seems pretty possible to me, and it says God exists" -- winds up preaching to the choir. I don't think that was your intent.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm sorry, but this discussion is just not sufficiently important to me that I can be bothered to read all that. Do you think perhaps you could give just one data point at a time?
quote:One guy finds some plates. One guy hears a voice in a cave. A dozen people see a guy who had been executed. A few million people hear the voice of God and see miracles. Hmm... which of these things is different?
None of them, because we only have the word of one guy, the writer of the Pentateuch, for the 'millions'. Which, incidentally, are absurd on the face of it. That's rather more than the entire population of Egypt at the time. All marching through the Sinai desert? Sure.
In other words, this is circular reasoning : You are trying to use features of the Torah to prove that the Torah is trustworthy. But we can only trust the features if the Torah is trustworthy.
quote:This isn't a matter of a single person or handful of people making claims and then other people jumping on the bandwagon. You need to look at the concretes, KoM. God is in the details. So to speak.
Well, actually, I think it is.
quote:Please. Unilaterally creating "Yeshua" and forcing him on everyone else in Heaven that way? Even those who fought against the rebellion weren't all happy about it.
Well, it doesn't seem that different from what happened in the creation waves anyway. Anyway, why shouldn't he delegate a bit of authority? He'd done that already with the creation of the Lords of the North and the other cardinal points; the only difference is that Yeshua didn't arise from pure chaos in an early generation.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
TomDavidson: I am familiar with the Prime Mover argument, which you should notice I did not make. I did not say that a Prime Mover must exist because something must have started the universe. I said that there is room for a Creator, even if you accept the Big Bang. Which as I noted, doesn't argue for his existence, it just doesn't rule it out. I only brought it up because I new someone would try to use the scientific explanation of the origin of the cosmos as evidence that there is no god.
You said, "You make some assumptions here: a) that the prophets wrote the scriptures; b) that the authors believed what they wrote down". I acknowledged that we can't know that the scriptural accounts in the Bible are true. The fact that the prophets may not have written the scriptures or believed what they wrote are but different hypotheses that were globally acknowledged in my admission that we could not know that the Biblical accounts are true.
Again, I don't discount self-fulfilling prophecies. But, that is just a point we differ on.
You said, "Orson Scott Card himself has made this argument. Here's the problem I have with it: you are attempting to claim that it is MORE likely that God would choose to send messengers to a young "farmboy" after thousands of years of silence during which the world was allowed to fall away from His plan, reveal to that farmboy golden plates containing messages of import to all mankind, etc. than it is that a young farmboy could have done a really good job writing a book."
Your phrase "really good job writing a book" demonstrates that you don't comprehend what was accomplished with this book. I'll grant you that mere mortals have written great collections of wisdom, instructions, and stories and claimed that they were divine in origin. But, this ignores the things I listed that no early 19th century farmboy could have done.
You said, "For example, you cite the use of chiasm in the BoM as "evidence" of its scriptural inspiration; the simple fact is that the chiasmus is a fairly obvious literary device used throughout even the KJV translation, and anyone attempting to mimic the KJV would almost certainly use that device -- even if they weren't conscious of its name."
Although chiasms are found in the Bible, they are far from common in the Bible, are not fairly obvious, and I definately disagree that someone trying to mimic the KJV would almost certainly use that device. It is extremely easy, after an event has taken place to say, "of course it happened, it was obvious that it was going to happen" and then find some reason why it was almost certain to happen. I think you are really ignoring the real odds of a real farmboy, with a real minimal education, could have written the Book of Mormon.
OK, so chiasms are in the Bible and he could have used them as a pattern. That still leaves you with having to explain how Joseph was able to describe an ancient Arabian trade route, accurately name an ancient burial ground in Arabia, and accurately give the location of a very unique place in Arabia that has sufficent trees to build a ship and nearby ore to make tools. No one in 19th century America knew these things.
I'll go along with your criticisms of MesoAmerican culture. With the other textual and archaeological data points, I am aware that there are alternative explanations and we would just differ on the probabilities.
I said in an earlier post, "What I am getting at is that if your hypothesis is that God exists, the data points I present can be used to support it, but, if your hypothesis is that God does not exist, you will be able to find an alternative explanation for the data. The key in determining which hypothesis is more plausible or reasonable is in asking yourself which hypothesis fits the data best. In other words, how hard is it to explain away the data (how many unlikely scenarios have to combine to be able to fit the data to the hypothesis)."
I never set out to prove that God exists, because there is no conclusive evidence that cannot be interpreted in another way. So, all we have to work with is probabilities and likelihoods, which are "baseless opinions" as you say. I have no way to move your opinion on the likelihood of something, so there we are.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
King of Men: was this meant for me?
"I'm sorry, but this discussion is just not sufficiently important to me that I can be bothered to read all that. Do you think perhaps you could give just one data point at a time?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes. I mean, I'm as ready for a good intellectual discussion on the existence of gods as the next man, but Jesus H Christ! I didn't intend to read a doctoral dissertation! Especially not one that seems to consist mainly of Bible quotes. Friend starLisa is at least concise!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Fix the link! I'd like to be able to read the thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:OK, so chiasms are in the Bible and he could have used them as a pattern. That still leaves you with having to explain how Joseph was able to describe an ancient Arabian trade route, accurately name an ancient burial ground in Arabia, and accurately give the location of a very unique place in Arabia that has sufficent trees to build a ship and nearby ore to make tools. No one in 19th century America knew these things.
Did you, anywhere in that mass of text, show that anyone but Mormon scholars believe that such a place indeed existed? Anyway, what about all those trees and ships mentioned in the Bible? I don't see why comrade Smith shouldn't have believed the Bible - what did he know about modern Arabia, after all? For all he knew, the Fertile Crescent was still Fertile.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I fixed the links. In regards to the length: Unlike many posts, I am not simply stating some philosophical argument. I am entering "evidence", and in order to do that it takes a while (that is one reason why trials take so long). It is not enough in this case to present a laundry list of data points, because you would have no sense of the context, significance, or likelihood that the data could be explained in some other way.
I write out of the context of my experience and you hear out of the context of yours, and since most of the readers aren't familiar with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I had to provide enough information for you to get at least a basic understanding. I do not feel that I gave you much if any frivolous stuff to read. In fact, due to length, I did give you two laundry lists of archaeological data and fulfilled prophecies. You will need to read the info on the links to get the context and significance.
I am sorry, but it takes work on your part as it does any juror to sift through what has been presented. In fact, I really feel that I would need to give you more evidence of young Joseph's writing samples fom his journal and letters to his wife to build the case more strongly that Joseph could not have authored the Book of Mormon. The more you study these "evidences" the more convinced you become that this could not be a fraud. But, people balk at the work involved.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Why are "Joseph Smith wrote it" and "God wrote it and it is entirely true" the only two choices, though?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes. I mean, I'm as ready for a good intellectual discussion on the existence of gods as the next man, but Jesus H Christ! I didn't intend to read a doctoral dissertation! Especially not one that seems to consist mainly of Bible quotes. Friend starLisa is at least concise!
And my posts tend to be among the longest. So for me to be considered concise by comparison is really saying something.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
twinky: They aren't. I spelled out the possibility that some other early 19th century person could have written it in the larger post. I suppose that I can reiterate that possibility every time I mention it. Now, I discount the possibility that anyone else in the 1800's could have written it, not only Joseph Smith, because among other things (all listed in my post) no one living knew about the places of Nahom and Bountiful in southern Arabia, which the Book of Mormon, spells out their locations by saying start at Jerusalem, travel this many days in this direction, then this many days in this direction, etc. Please read my posts.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. I missed that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I remember my sophomore year in college, flyers went up for a talk to be given in one of the dorm lounges called "Proof of the Resurrection".
A friend of mine who saw the flyer came to me, hysterical. She was Jewish, but utterly ignorant of Judaism. She knew I wasn't. She told me that I simply had to go and show them they were wrong. ::eyes rolling::
(Incidentally, if I'm less than cogent or make a lot of typos, it's because I'm stoned to the gills on vicodin right now. Vitamin V, I call it. Took one last night and one again this morning. It's helping with my back, but my shin is still hurting. They should put a "not effective on shins" warning on the bottle.)
Anyway, Ellen was insistent, and getting on my nerves, so I told her I'd go. So I went. And what was their "proof"? They read from one of the gospels (Luke, maybe?) the passage where they find the cave empty. Wow. I remember them reading a line like, "There was an angel sitting on the rock and his garb was white as snow." I remember that because my reflexive reaction was to murmur "and everywhere that Mary went, that angel was sure to go".
But anyway, that was their proof. I mention it because it's an awful lot like enochville's "proofs". Though... shouldn't the plural be "prooves"? Like the plural of hoof is hooves? But I digress.
Anyway, Christianity itself still hasn't fulfilled its burden of proof, so Mormonism, which derives from it, certainly has a ways to go. I mean, if Christianity didn't claim to derive from Judaism, it wouldn't carry that kind of burden, but since it does, it does, and it hasn't. If you get my drift.
And I should probably wait to post until later today. I just know I'm going to look at this and be completely appalled.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
No, you make a good point.
What up with the English language? Proof => proofs; hoof => hooves; goose => geese; moose => moose?
What the deuce?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
enochville, Your sanity/psychosis argument doesn't hold up. Feelings of transcendental experiences such as "seeing God" can be created through some relatively minor stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain. This is a non-controversial fact in psychology. Here's an article talking about this experience being induced in laboratory conditions.
That is not to say that there can't be authentically caused transcendental experiences or that Joseph Smith's were due only to brain misfirings, but you've set up a false dichotomy where either they are authentic or the person is psychotic. Hallucinations in general and these specific types of hallucinations have been consistently shown to occur outside of the schizophrenic population.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
King of Men said,"Did you, anywhere in that mass of text, show that anyone but Mormon scholars believe that such a place indeed existed? Anyway, what about all those trees and ships mentioned in the Bible? I don't see why comrade Smith shouldn't have believed the Bible - what did he know about modern Arabia, after all? For all he knew, the Fertile Crescent was still Fertile."
I did not provide evidence that non-Mormon scholars have written anything about Nahom and Bountiful. I don't think they have cared enough to research these places, but the articles that I did cite (which you have obviously not read) speak of physical places and properties of those places that could be easily verified. Just because evidence comes from the prosecution doesn't mean you can't trust it. Evaluate the quality of it for yourself.
By the way, this argument has nothing to do the the ability to build ships in the Middle East in general. Please read the articles.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I went back and read your posts more carefully than last night's cursory skim, enochville. Among other things, I don't see how the believability of Joseph Smith's personal revelations is significantly greater than the believability of Mohammed's personal revelations. This leads me to a question: are most new converts to Mormonism already Christians (even if lapsed)? This seems pretty likely to me -- if a religion is going to grow in the United States as fast as Mormonism has, it pretty much has to get most of its converts from other Christian denominations.
That should tell you something, if it is in fact the case: Mormons are for the most part only convincing people who already accept the Bible. The requirements in terms of supporting evidence for converting Christians of other denominations are presumably significantly different from the requirements for converting someone who does not believe in god, or who believes that god does not exist.
I do have some fairly significant issues with the factual content of your posts, but I'm more interested in the above question than I am in discussing those.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Mr. Squicky:
Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it. First, as you mentioned, just because an electrode activating a neuron can cause you to perceive a light, doesn't mean that everytime you see a light, it is a mental creation. Second, I believe there is a qualitative difference between the experiences that this researcher was able to produce and experience Joseph had with his visitations. Moving from laboratory induced experiences to influences from the natural world, the scientist posits,
"Might it surprise anyone to learn, in view of Persinger's theories, that when Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni before founding Mormonism, and when Charles Taze Russell started the Jehovah's Witnesses, powerful Leonid meteor showers were occurring?"
Joseph did not see some hovering light in the distant night sky, he saw an angel in the form of a glorified man standing in the air beside his bed. And this wasn't just a quick impression from his peripheral vision. The visitation lasted all night long and Moroni was there so long that Joseph had the opportunity to study his robe and his hands and feet. Furthermore, a message was conveyed just as one man talks with another that was very coherent, complex, and long. You don't get all that from looking at a meteor in the distant sky with potentially a very non-focused electrical field passing through you.
Furthermore, these visions came to him in different states, not in some special place where electrical disturbances are common. And, some of his visions involved other human observers.
In regards to the last point, the scientist says, "One classic example was the apparition of Mary over the Coptic Church in Zeitoun, Egypt, in the 1960s," he continues. "This phenomenon lasted off and on for several years. It was seen by thousands of people, and the appearance seemed to precede the disturbances that occurred during the building of the Aswan High Dam.
Persinger says there were balls of light that moved around the cross atop the church. "They were influenced by the cross, of course. It looked like a circle with a triangle on the bottom. If you had an imagination, it looked like a person. Upside down, by the way, it was the classical UFO pattern."
Again, Joseph's visions are crystal clear and very close, like normal life except the Heavenly Beings have a white glow about them. They were not some amorphous, distant light that people can, through the power of suggestion, interpret to be something.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There are other ways to know whether the Bible is true. These methods revolve around testing the word itself and the effect it can have on you. But, I will save that discussion for later in this post.
I do think this is the mainstay of your argument. However, the Koran is likewise claimed, by Moslems, to have similarly addictive properties. How do you account for this? If the reply is going to be on the order of "They are playing foolie-foolie games with their own heads," well, consider yourself answered.
Or, to put it another way, if I managed to utterly and completely convince myself that Jennifer Lopez had fallen totally in love with me and was about to arrive at mu door, wearing nothing but her famous smile, why, I think I'd be quite happy for a while too. That would not prove the truth of the proposition. The only difference is that with your hypothesis of "God exists", there is no obvious test, so you won't be quickly disappointed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Joseph did not see some hovering light in the distant night sky, he saw an angel in the form of a glorified man standing in the air beside his bed. And this wasn't just a quick impression from his peripheral vision. The visitation lasted all night long and Moroni was there so long that Joseph had the opportunity to study his robe and his hands and feet. Furthermore, a message was conveyed just as one man talks with another that was very coherent, complex, and long. You don't get all that from looking at a meteor in the distant sky with potentially a very non-focused electrical field passing through you.
Two problems. The first one is, "Sez Joseph Smith." The second one is, many "alien abductess" have reported extremely similar experiences, including the pretty little moral messages.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
starLisa: In no place did I cite the authority of the Bible as evidence of anything. I understand that when arguing a point you have to have a common ground with the person you are debating. Since the validity of the Bible is in question, it would make no sense to use the Bible as proof to someone who doesn't accept the Bible. That is why I never said, God exists because the Bible says so. I used verses to explain things, not to prove things.
A data point for us to consider was did the Biblical prophets see God. I used the Bible to show that there are stories of people seeing God. Then, I went about trying to show why we can believe the Bible using events outside the Bible.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
OK, this is my last response for now because I have got to get some work done.
Twinky: You said, "That should tell you something, if it is in fact the case: Mormons are for the most part only convincing people who already accept the Bible. The requirements in terms of supporting evidence for converting Christians of other denominations are presumably significantly different from the requirements for converting someone who does not believe in god, or who believes that god does not exist."
I suspect that most of our converts were already Christians. This is not surprizing since a third of the world are Christian and we are not allowed by the governments of China, nor any Middle-Eastern country, to proselyte there.
I will agree with you that the way a Mormon missionary approaches a conversation with a Christian is different than the way he approaches a non-Christian. If I had prepared my posts for Christians, I would be quoting from the Bible all the time and citing it as an authority.
One side note, there are more Mormons outside the United States than inside.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
enochville, I suggest that if you read the literature on this phenomenom, especially when taking into account the reconstructive nature of memory, you will likely find that how Joseph Smith described his experiences is susceptible to this explanation. Subject's recounting of their experiences undergoing this manipulation have displayed detail and specificity as well as time distortion effects. Smith could possibly have had a temporal lobe abnormality that made him highly susceptible to this experience. If memory serves, he had some pretty strange ideas, obsessions, and visions prior to receiving the LDS revelation (I'm thinking of the treasure hunting thing specifically).
All of which, as I said, is not to say that his experiences are necessarily not authentic, but rather that I think you're not justified in dismissing these possibilities on the grounds that you're using.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Engrossing as this has been to read (or at least skim), I would like to point out that I think we are missing the point. If we could "prove" God, either by evidence or logic (and I thank God that we can't), we lose the gift of being free to choose to believe in God.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, as entertaining as it is to watch people see who can pee farther than anyone else...I'm going to go do something more constructive with my time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I suspect that most of our converts were already Christians. This is not surprizing since a third of the world are Christian and we are not allowed by the governments of China, nor any Middle-Eastern country, to proselyte there.
Absolutely (apart from quibbles about Middle Eastern countries; there are plenty of Arab Christians). But are Mormons converting, for example, many American Muslims? My suspicion is that you are not, but I'm not sure that there's any way to check.
quote:One side note, there are more Mormons outside the United States than inside.
Sure, but the ratio of non-Americans to Americans is much higher than the ratio of non-American Mormons to American Mormons.
Finally, to lend a bit of support to Squicky's point, your description of Joseph Smith's account of his first revelation states that he wrote the account more than a decade after the fact. I'm 24. I hope that if I wrote a detailed description of how I was, say, abducted by aliens when I was 14, you would not take me at my word. I realize that is far from your only "data point," but I don't think that the detail of his account(s) lends much -- if any -- credence. For me, the detail of the descriptions actually detracts from them somewhat -- for instance, I'm skeptical that he could remember exactly and with such detail the precise verses of the Bible that Moroni quoted, let alone how they were altered from their "KJV" form... unless he was frantically taking notes the whole time the angel was there. I think it's just as reasonable to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's revelations as it is to be skeptical of Mohammed's, or skeptical of the large number of very similar alien abduction stories. Indeed, I'm highly skeptical of all three.
quote:If we could "prove" God, either by evidence or logic (and I thank God that we can't), we lose the gift of being free to choose to believe in God.
In that case I'd say that you (the royal "you") should be willing to accept criticism when you tell those who believe god does not exist that you do in fact know the Truth with a capital T. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm saying that you (again, the royal "you") can't have it both ways.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Mr Squicky: Even if, as you have hypothesized, Joseph had temporal lobe damage, your model cannot account for the fact that on several occasions, there were other witnesses to the same visitation. That goes for King of Men's alien abduction stories as well. Any account that is as specific as Joseph's doesn't have a collaborator. I am not talking about people seeing a distant UFO.
kmbboots: I don't think we are missing the point. I have said time and time again in this thread that we can not prove God exists because it is impossible to prove anything, except a very few things. I think it is good for us to be free to choose to believe in God. The point of this discussion is to show that it is plausible and can be reasonable to believe in God. I am doing this in the hopes of getting King of Men to stop calling people who believe in God idiots. I don't mind being called an idiot myself, but it makes me upset when he ridicules people who have a fledgling faith in God. I feel that they are on the right track. I don't even mind him challenging people to think. I just don't like him calling them idiots.
King of Men: I do not believe that Mormons have a monopoly on God. Muslims pray to the same God I do and receive answers to their prayers which confirms their faith in God. The difference is we have asked God if Joseph Smith was a true prophet. We invite all people to bring with them the truths they have and see if we can add to them. We do not believe that the Koran is the word of God, and I would contend that no Muslim has ever asked Allah whether the Koran is his word and received a witness from Him that it is true. They just assume that it is and as far as I know, they don't believe in asking God questions like these.
They would need to prepare their minds to be receptive to whatever answer God would give them as well. They don't have to already believe it is not his word before they can receive the answer that it is not true, but they need to be open to finding out from God that it might not be true. Anyway, the process is, they must read and learn all they can about the issue (i.e., find out why people believe it is the word of God and why others do not believe it is the word of God), then they must study it out in their own mind and come to their own conclusion, then they must ask God if their conclusion is right. If it is right, they will feel a peace in their heart, a comfort with the idea, and a surety that it is true. If their conclusion is not true, they will have no such feeling, but will be either unsettled or will feel that it is not right. If they don't feel anything, they should study it out some more and be sure that they are willing to act on whatever answer they receive. I have experienced both types of answers as I've prayed about decisions in my life.
I know someone is going to ask the hypothetical, "and what if they feel that Joseph Smith is not a prophet or that Muhammed was?" People need to follow the answers they believe they received. But, I believe that God will lead them to the same answers he has led everybody else who has ever asked him these direct questions.
Now, as you noticed, answers to prayers are not the crux of my argument. I recognize that they are easily attributed to other sources than God. I will not contest this point, but for me this is one of my evidences for God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: Any account that is as specific as Joseph's doesn't have a collaborator.
That's just not true. Plenty of the Catholic visions have been both specific and to multiple people. Cult members have reported experiencing group visions that are very specific.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:But, I believe that God will lead them to the same answers he has led everybody else who has ever asked him these direct questions.
Your confidence in this statement only works if you assume that everyone who has gotten a different answer than you never "really" asked or wasn't really open to the answer.
And your assertion that members of other religions never ask God for confirmation of their truth is just plain ignorant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I am doing this in the hopes of getting King of Men to stop calling people who believe in God idiots.
enochville, I have yet to see anything in this thread that would persuade KoM that we are not idiots.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Your confidence in this statement only works if you assume that everyone who has gotten a different answer than you never "really" asked or wasn't really open to the answer.
Or no answer at all:
quote:If they don't feel anything, they should study it out some more and be sure that they are willing to act on whatever answer they receive.
This is egregiously insulting. Do you have any idea how condescending this statement is? As long as you're accusing KoM of being insulting -- which he is, intentionally, and quite openly so -- you should strive to be a little more cognizant of statements you make which are, to be perfectly frank, just as bad.
"If you look for god and don't find god, you didn't look hard enough. Keep looking."
I'm not sure I can continue this discussion civilly, because I find that position utterly abhorrent and totally indefensible.
Added: Well, "abhorrent" is too strong a word. But that statement is very upsetting.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
twinky: Joseph's visit by Moroni when he was 17 had a unique quality. Moroni visited him three times that night and once the next morning and each time Moroni repeated the same things he said during his first visit and added a few other words each time. After that many times of hearing the same message, I have no doubt that he remembered the verses that were quoted to him.
Now, he was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ when he was 14 and that account wasn't in as great of detail. Actually, there are four different written accounts of his first vision. Critics cite that as evidence that the story isn't true. For me, it is more evidence that the vision did take place. You don't tell about an experience from your life the exact same way every time. You focus on different aspects or details of the story depending on how you're telling it to. The same is true for Joseph's First Vision. There is nothing in any of the stories that contradict the other stories and all of them basically say the same thing. For more on this see: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/firstvision.pdf
Side note: I don't usually have the URL button. I was able to get it once, but it has disappeared again and I can't get it back, even when I click on "UBB Code is enabled" to the left of my message box. Does anyone know how I can get it back? I use Firefox.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Twinky: I am truly sorry for offending you and for offending anyone else. I will try to do better.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
enochville, The URL button doesn't show up in the quick reply form. If you click on the Full Reply Button to type out your posts, you'll find it in there. Conversely, you could type in the UBB code yourself, which isn't too difficult. It goes (replacing <'s and >'s with ['s and ]'s) <url=www.somedarnplace.com>some text</url>.
edit: My time on these boards has convinced me that LDS is just about the most unconsciously insulting religion I've ever come across. The way most LDS seem to regard people who don't share their religion is terribly dismissive. Most of us here are sort of used to it, but if you could keep in mind that we don't actually think that there is something wrong with us or our efforts to find God, it might go a long way towards mitigating that offensiveness.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: Twinky: I am truly sorry for offending you and for offending anyone else. I will try to do better.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I think it's very important to admit -- particularly in the case of ideologies that a person believes to be True with a capital T -- that other people can conduct an equally valid search for such Truth and come up with a different answer or come up empty-handed, and that that is in no way a reflection on how earnest or thorough the search was. I think it is possible to believe that your religion is True without believing that everyone should share it, or even that everyone would share it if they had the same experiences as you.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
MrSquicky: Again, I am sorry. I do not believe anything is wrong with anyone and I respect all honest efforts to find God. Typically, I am very respectful and sensitive to the feelings of others. Yet, in the setting of these message boards, where I am challenged on every point, I sometimes get defensive, which I suppose is common for many people, but no excuse. I should have known better than to start this thread. I should have realized that it would lead me to this point. This is probably why message boards discourage arguments about religious beliefs. I acted out of frustration when I saw KoM pick on Rusta Burger and wanted to show him that it is not ridiculous to believe in God. MrSquicky, please don't judge all LDS by me. And if others have demonstrated these same characteristics on these boards, I again bet it is because they got defensive and caught up in the debate. Please accept my apology. I will not be responding to anymore messages on this thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jeez, enochville, I was specifically try to not bust your chops there. I think, in general, you've done a very good job here. I wasn't offended by your statements. It seems to me from my experiences here that the "People who aren't LDS either didn't look for God or didn't do it hard or long enough." is a very common, accepted idea in LDS culture. I didn't think you said it with any idea that it would be offensive.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... And the Muslims genuinely believe that if only you weren't so pig-headed, you would see the truth of Allah as soon as you prayed. (And, incidentally, this is not at all compatible with the stuff you've been spewing, because it specifically denies the divinity of Jesus.) Can we please say enough with the "I'm convinced that" arguments? Do you have any actual evidence to present?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oops, I didn't see the 'not responding anymore' bit. Well then, as the last man standing, I shall declare victory. Imagine pulling out of a thread just because you inadvertently give offense! Or, I dunno, maybe because your brilliant arguments don't look quite so wonderful in the harsh light of day?
I stand by 'idiot'; I add 'coward'.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Such a graceful and gracious "winner."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
KoM, I think you do enochville a grave disservice. He's neither an idiot nor a coward; there's a huge difference between bowing out to avoid acrimony and withdrawing out of cowardice -- and nowhere has he displayed even the tiniest shred of idiocy. Please do the man the favor of some basic respect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
enoch, Looking over what I wrote, I realize I expressed myself very poorly. I'm sorry that it came across the way that it did. You had done a very good job of expressing your personal thoughts on a very touchy subject here while remaining clear and respectful, which is a difficult thing to do. That little bit was perhaps disrespectful, but, as I did a bad job of expressing before, I don't think you meant it to be or expected that people would take it that way.
On Hatrack, most people are very good at accepting appologies. Even if you had intened to be disrespectful with that, if you appologized and seemed to mean it, most people here would let it go. I know for sure that twinky and dkw would. If you don't want to continue, that's fine, but know that it's most likely you can without any ill feelings.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: KoM, I think you do enochville a grave disservice. He's neither an idiot nor a coward; there's a huge difference between bowing out to avoid acrimony and withdrawing out of cowardice -- and nowhere has he displayed even the tiniest shred of idiocy. Please do the man the favor of some basic respect.
*waits to see if KoM is even capable of that* *realizes he may be waiting longer than he's willing to* *gives up waiting*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: KoM, I think you do enochville a grave disservice. He's neither an idiot nor a coward; there's a huge difference between bowing out to avoid acrimony and withdrawing out of cowardice.
So there is; I thought it was clear that I don't believe his assertions of the former.
quote: -- and nowhere has he displayed even the tiniest shred of idiocy. Please do the man the favor of some basic respect.
I disagree. His argument rests, basically, on "I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong, and if they'd only pray in the right way they'd recognise it." If there is a better way to display parochial stupidity, I'm not sure what it is. Threatening entire cities with the punishments of God for voting out a school board, maybe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: His argument rests, basically, on "I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong, and if they'd only pray in the right way they'd recognise it."
No, it doesn't. His argument as presented here rests on what he believes are evidences of the likely validity of the Book of Mormon, from which he extrapolates the existence of God. You can argue the quality of that evidence -- as indeed I have -- but it certainly doesn't amount to "if you pray, you'll know I'm right."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
enochville (if you're still reading) I, for one, will be disappointed if you leave. I think you are a thoughtful, intelligent person of the type that is an asset to any conversation. When people object to your post or to part of it they aren't saying you should leave, they are saying they'd like to see you address their point(s). Or at least that's what I'm saying when I do it. I suppose I shouldn't generalize. Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
For clarification's sake, I'll post once more on this thread. I am not leaving Hatrack; but, I will not be taking part in this thread anymore. I am not offended, a coward, or an idiot. When twinky took offense, it reminded me that I never should have started the thread in the first place. For one, as this board's user agreement states, "You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs," which my discussion was getting dangerously close to if not already crossed. Two, I came to see that nothing will stop King of Men from calling believers idiots. Three, I don't want to offend others or make my fellow LDS look bad. I don't mind sincere disagreements, but when I talk about my religious beliefs I prefer a less contentious atmosphere. I take responsibility for starting this discussion and for my lack of foresight.
However, any of you are welcome to email me if you want to discuss the topic of this thread further.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:as the last man standing, I shall declare victory
KoM, I'm curious about what exactly you think you have won. Is it respect? Is it converts? Is it a sense of pride?
It's interesting because you are so close to achieving all three of those things. We can almost respect your intelligence and knowledge. I think it's very possible for people to question and change their beliefs based on the arguments you make, but I don't think it's ever actually happened. I don't really suppose that you're lacking in pride, but successfully accomplishing the previous two things would probably lead to a justified sense of pride.
I almost always take time to read your posts. Sometimes they are humorous and often times fairly clever. I recognize that there is a lot of valuable information in what you have to say, but it's hidden beneath layers of condescension and ridicule. If you made only a few subtle changes to your posting style, I think you would gain much in return. However, it is clear that you have no intention of doing such a thing. So that brings me back to the question of what you hope to gain or achieve in these discussions.
I'm not actually suggesting you change anything. In fact, I find much of what you say very interesting, and I even enjoy the way you say it, most of the time. All I really want to know is, what do you get out of it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The last-man-standing bit was intended somewhat tongue in cheek - I do recognise that one is hardly the winner in a debate just because the other guy doesn't want to argue anymore. As for the rest, I dunno, maybe it's the pleasure of being absolutely honest? It's not as though I'm faking being contemptuous of religion.
quote:when I talk about my religious beliefs I prefer a less contentious atmosphere.
Ah - you prefer people to nod wisely and agree with your every word? Or even, dare I say it, to not point out the gaping flaws in your arguments? As for the contentious atmosphere, gosh a'mighty, if you didn't want a discussion, why did oyu start the thread in the first place?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It's not as though I'm faking being contemptuous of religion.
I don't doubt your sincerity. I just don't understand what you get out of it (and I don't believe the part about the pleasure of being absolutely honest as your motivation). And if it were just your contempt for religion, I don't think it'd be a big deal. That contempt can be very understandable. It's your contempt for people that find a value in religion that, I think, reeks of ignorance. I'm not talking about ignorance in terms of science, history, or any particular field of study. Instead, I'm talking about ignorance, or maybe it can be better described as the inability to understand other people's perspectives on life and what they find to be important.
quote:Ah - you prefer people to nod wisely and agree with your every word? Or even, dare I say it, to not point out the gaping flaws in your arguments? As for the contentious atmosphere, gosh a'mighty, if you didn't want a discussion, why did oyu start the thread in the first place?
I think you're using a different definition (or making up your own definition) of "discussion."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I just don't understand what you get out of it (and I don't believe the part about the pleasure of being absolutely honest as your motivation).
Why not? I mean, I'm guessing here, because even your own motivations are always a bit of a guessing game, but it is my best guess. Do you have a better theory?
quote:And if it were just your contempt for religion, I don't think it'd be a big deal. That contempt can be very understandable. It's your contempt for people that find a value in religion that, I think, reeks of ignorance. I'm not talking about ignorance in terms of science, history, or any particular field of study. Instead, I'm talking about ignorance, or maybe it can be better described as the inability to understand other people's perspectives on life and what they find to be important.
I don't see how you can be contemptuous of a belief, and not of the people who hold that belief. If the belief is silly and evil, then the believers are either stupid or ignorant for holding it, yes? Neither quality inspires respect.
And I quite understand that my neighbour's daughter finds her teddy bear important. Which is not to say that I would necessarily risk my life to save it from being run over. And if she were an adult, well, really.
quote:I think you're using a different definition (or making up your own definition) of "discussion."
Well, I wasn't being particularly nasty until this page.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't see how you can be contemptuous of a belief, and not of the people who hold that belief
and that pretty much sums up your problem. Talk to any parent and you'll find that it's entirely possible to love a child while disapproving their actions.
quote:And if she were an adult, well, really.
Why does that matter? You judge everyone based on how you think they should see the world without ever considering that your perspective may not be the only correct view. You judge them without even trying to understand why they may feel that way.
quote:Neither quality inspires respect.
Some people and some actions may not warrant your respect, but does that mean you should go out of your way to try to demean them? Just because you want to believe that certain people are inferior to you, that justifies the way you treat them?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Talk to any parent and you'll find that it's entirely possible to love a child while disapproving their actions.
I did say contempt, which is rather stronger than disapproval. And I generally cut children quite a bit more slack than adults.
quote:Why does that matter? You judge everyone based on how you think they should see the world without ever considering that your perspective may not be the only correct view. You judge them without even trying to understand why they may feel that way.
I do think that when it comes to 'God exists' there is only one correct view. It's not really something you can compromise on, is it? 'God exists on alternate Wednesdays', maybe?
And why should the cause of someone's feelings matter? If they're wrong, they're wrong.
quote:Some people and some actions may not warrant your respect, but does that mean you should go out of your way to try to demean them? Just because you want to believe that certain people are inferior to you, that justifies the way you treat them?
Who's going out of their way? I post on Hatrack anyway, and this is the way I post when people say not-very-bright things. I would not want anyone to feel that they had caused me trouble, so please set your mind at ease : I am not at all discommoded by responding to theists.
As for treating people as inferiors, well, intelligence is the one aspect that everyone discriminates on, whether they admit it or not. I'm just more open about it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I did say contempt, which is rather stronger than disapproval. And I generally cut children quite a bit more slack than adults.
My brother is 26 (hardly a child). He is addicted to drugs. Contempt is a mild way to describe how my family feels about his addiction. We manage to still love him. We feel that a person isn't entirely defined by his actions. Hopefully we are not the only ones capable of thinking that way.
quote:If they're wrong, they're wrong.
So you have enough knowledge to know that they are wrong? I find it ironic that you cling to your beliefs (ie. all theists are idiots) more strongly than some of the most ardent of theists. So which is more dangerous to society, the one that refuses to admit that he is wrong, or the one that is willing to admit his understanding is incomplete?
quote:As for treating people as inferiors, well, intelligence is the one aspect that everyone discriminates on, whether they admit it or not. I'm just more open about it.
But you certainly are not open to the possibility that there may be people in the world that are more intelligent than you that disagree with certain views of yours. Either that or you define "intelligence" too narrowly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I suppose I might manage not to actively hate my sister, should some cult manage to suck her in. I do believe I would still argue quite violently with her, though.
quote:So you have enough knowledge to know that they are wrong? I find it ironic that you cling to your beliefs (ie. all theists are idiots) more strongly than some of the most ardent of theists.
Well, I've heard all the arguments, and I've made up my mind. If someone presents a new argument that I haven't heard before, I'll consider it carefully. So far that hasn't happened on this forum. It is permissible to make up one's mind about evidence, you know. In this case I dismiss it, and then act on that dismissal.
quote:But you certainly are not open to the possibility that there may be people in the world that are more intelligent than you that disagree with certain views of yours.
No, I'm not, actually. And this is for three reasons : First, I really am very intelligent. Second, so are my colleagues, some of them even smarter than me, and they agree with me on the subject. In fact, of all the scientists I know personally and admire as intelligent, not one is a theist. Third, whenever I argue with a theist, if that theist is honest, sooner or later the argument comes down to "Well, this is what I believe because it makes me feel good." (enochville did reach this point quite quickly, which does at least argue a certain basic honesty.) That's just not a very good way to convince me of intelligence.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You make me laugh, KoM. It's amazing how much you cling to your intelligence. I mean, there are so many parallels between you and the greatest of the world's religious fanatics. I don't see how you are any better than the people you have so much contempt for. Frankly, there isn't a shred of scientific evidence that can change my belief in God. I believe that God acts according to the laws of nature. My belief is not the typical, "God said it should be done and *poof* there it was" kind of belief. That just doesn't make sense to me. Do you not think that an all-powerful being could not possibly manipulate things in such a way that there would be absolutely no evidence of involvement? Why would he do that? Who cares? I don't. It doesn't matter to me. I believe what I believe because I've seen what following the things I've been taught has done for my life. I've also seen what ignoring those teachings does to me. I much prefer the way things go for me when I do the things I've been taught. Intelligence is nothing to me. Understanding is everything. I want to understand people. I want to understand what drives them to act the way they do, what makes them happy, what makes them sad. And frankly, your actions reveal some of the most base and primitive characteristics of human nature. I don't care what you believe. It is not religion that causes war and hatred. It's unyeilding, unfeeling attitudes such as your own, regardless of what brings that attitude out, that causes all the the evil in this world. Frankly, you are nothing to me, KoM. Just a tiny little man who thinks he's everything. And I'm sorry if you'll never be anything more than that to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, well. You didn't really need to prove my point for me, but thanks anyway.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Well, I've heard all the arguments, and I've made up my mind. If someone presents a new argument that I haven't heard before, I'll consider it carefully. So far that hasn't happened on this forum. It is permissible to make up one's mind about evidence, you know. In this case I dismiss it, and then act on that dismissal.
I guess I'm confused. Sometimes you say that some type of god cannot possibly exist and anybody that entertains the idea that he may exist is an idiot and that there is no possible way that you are wrong. Then you say that the great part of science is that they never admit that they know all that there is to know. They fully realize that they may have an incomplete understanding due to limited resources and knowledge and so stand ready to revise any theory when new information is found. Then you go back to saying that all theists are most definitely wrong. And then you come back and say that you are open to ideas (although you already know they are wrong). It's one thing to believe firmly in the evidence you have. It's quite another to believe that someone is completely wrong even though you can't prove it.
quote:First, I really am very intelligent.
This I do not doubt, though I think you'd be very interested in this link. Interesting link
quote:if that theist is honest, sooner or later the argument comes down to "Well, this is what I believe because it makes me feel good."
No. The argument comes down to, "Well, we can't really prove or disprove God's existence. Because of that limitation, this is why I choose to believe in God." That in itself does make any statement about intelligence. It's your concept of what you believe an intelligent person is that convinces you of intelligence, or the lack thereof.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah, well. You didn't really need to prove my point for me, but thanks anyway.
Man. So funny Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Humility, now, there's an interesting virtue. I'm not certain about this, but I believe it's only with Christianity that it gets its status as a Really Good Thing, at least in Western culture. (I admit to not being quite certain how Buddhists and Hindus feel about it. I know the latter are big on mortification of the flesh, but do they also think humility is a good thing?)
Now, I do think you might have done better to link to this page, which gives the actual definition of the word. Including the etymology :
quote:Middle English, from Old French, from Latin humilis, low, lowly, from humus, ground.
Isn't it interesting that a religion which survived on donations and by supporting the power of kings, should seek to convince its listeners that being lowly is a good thing?
quote:Sometimes you say that some type of god cannot possibly exist and anybody that entertains the idea that he may exist is an idiot and that there is no possible way that you are wrong.
I do not think I have actually said this; as I agreed at the start of this thread, it is certainly possible in principle for any number of gods to exist.
quote:Then you say that the great part of science is that they never admit that they know all that there is to know. They fully realize that they may have an incomplete understanding due to limited resources and knowledge and so stand ready to revise any theory when new information is found.
Right. Remind me again which part of the information presented on this thread was new? The other good thing about science is that when a theory is discredited, it's damn well dropped. That's how we make progress.
quote: Then you go back to saying that all theists are most definitely wrong. And then you come back and say that you are open to ideas (although you already know they are wrong).
I do not think I said the latter. I said "If any theist should present new evidence, I would consider it carefully." Emphasis on new. I do not see where in this I pre-dismissed anything.
As for all theists being definitely wrong, well, they are, based on the available evidence. I don't really feel it's necessary to make that kind of qualifier every time I post something, but I hope that makes my position clearer.
quote:No. The argument comes down to, "Well, we can't really prove or disprove God's existence. Because of that limitation, this is why I choose to believe in God." That in itself does make any statement about intelligence.
I prefer my own formulation, but I think yours is about equivalent. It comes back to the argument I had with Tres earlier in the thread : In the absence of evidence, is it reasonable to believe in an entity? If you say yes, then you are logically bound to also believe in the IPU, etc, etc. Or if you prefer only to believe in feel-good things, which admittedly the IPU is not ("No, of course she's not safe. She's the Unicorn. But she's Good. Safe, indeed! *snort*") there's things like "Jennifer Lopez loves me dearly," or "The aliens will land tomorrow and solve all our problems". (Ok, that one is fairly closely related to religion.) I call such a position foolish.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
I think the problem is that KoM hasn't actually identified what he really believes yet. I'll see if I can help.
Atheists are usually characterized by one or two of three statements: "I believe there is no God," "I don't believe there's a God," and "I believe there is no evidence of God."
Anybody who actually takes one of these views would be tolerant of intelligent people (like the majority of Hatrackers) who claim to be convinced of the existence of God through evidence, because none of those views precludes it as a possibility. Unfortunately, KoM isn't tolerant; therefore, his view can't be any of those three. Modus Tollens saves the day.
It's "There is no God," or "There is no evidence of God." Maybe both. I lean more toward the latter in KoM's case. There is no evidence; therefore, your evidence is false or cannot support your hypothesis. QED.
If this isn't the case, maybe someone can please explain to me how it's possible to hold one of the three main atheist viewpoints and still be full of contempt for anyone who disagrees.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Isn't it interesting that a religion which survived on donations and by supporting the power of kings, should seek to convince its listeners that being lowly is a good thing?
Who associates humility with being lowly? I was thinking primarily of the first definition: not arrogant or prideful. I don't think Christianity is the only group that feels that's a good thing. Well, at least I hope not.
quote:As for all theists being definitely wrong, well, they are, based on the available evidence.
I'm sorry but no matter how smart you think you are, you are not qualified to make that statement.
quote:In the absence of evidence, is it reasonable to believe in an entity?
Oh yes, I keep forgetting that your interpretation of evidence is the only one that's correct.
Added: As much fun as this discussion is proving to be, I have other plans for the evening which I believe will be even more fun than conversing with you. I would love to continue this later, though I don't know what exactly that would accomplish.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence. I don't mean to say that it should be accepted it without question - but if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me. They don't need to include it in their list, but they need to understand that it's perfectly acceptable for a rational person to do so.
It's that hurdle KoM's having troubles with for the most part. I think he doesn't want to acknowledge it, either, because then he'd have to admit that the lot of us theists are actually rational beings.
Not all evidence can be objective. Specifically, predictions that have to do with how the experimenter reacts to certain actions simply cannot be objective. To test them, you have to become a subject, and that's all there is to it. I acknowledge that this is outside the realm of science (which demands objective repeatability), but it's not outside the realm of a general search for truth.
I love my children. I can't prove it, and I can't provide anyone with an objective, repeatable experiment, but I have plenty of subjective evidence. Some truths can't be obtained any other way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence.
I refuse to take into account contradictory evidence. All those Moslems, Satanists, Aesirtru, and whatnot make exactly the same claim for their particular fairy tale. They all seem very sincere. But all that subjective evidence cancels out, leaving nothing. If the world were split into miserable atheists and happy theists, you might have a case. But it itn't. There are plenty of unhappy theists about, some of them unhappy to such a degree that they will kill themselves over a point of politics. So this argument proves nothing except that some people are happy. Gee, what a surprise.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
Now you're confused with what this thread is about.
If I have subjective evidence that I love my children, and someone else has subjective evidence that I hate them, yes, that would cancel out, in a sense. You wouldn't be obliged to believe either of us. But it doesn't mean that we're both irrational. We could both be perfectly rational and still have opposing beliefs.
That's what this thread was about: whether theists can be rational. It's not about what's actually true, funny enough, but you keep trying to make it into that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence? And you're quite right, I don't accept the subjective evidence that people give for their religions, for the reasons I outlined above. The point is, neither should you.
As a matter of fact, I think your point, about having to become a subject, cuts both ways. Have you tried, lately, dropping your belief in your god, and seeing what kind of person that makes you?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
I think that hating a group of people because of what they believe is irrational. You seem to be doing that. My goodness, you're irrational. You're the most irrational person I've ever seen in my entire life! Holy cow! What an irrational being! There's never been another person on earth more irrational than you! Do you realize how much energy and time you waste trying to convince believers of their lack of intelligence? I "waste" less time on religion that you do in pointless arguments. It's all really funny to me.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence? And you're quite right, I don't accept the subjective evidence that people give for their religions, for the reasons I outlined above. The point is, neither should you.
Once more, with feeling: some truths are inaccessible without an appeal to subjective evidence. Surely you believe this. Not everything is objectively, independently testable. Science has its limits on truth-seeking.
That being the case - that some subjective evidence must be considered - who are you to tell me what kind of subjective evidence I ought to consider (even if none at all) and then, when I don't, call me irrational? A rational person is at liberty to accept whatever kind of evidence is available. He should take its reliability into account, of course, and I do.
I'm not asking you to accept my subjective evidence. I'm asking you to accept that I have subjective evidence. You don't even have to believe me to do that - just say, "Okay, but that doesn't apply to me." Anybody who can see the fine distinction between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" ought to be able to figure this out.
quote:As a matter of fact, I think your point, about having to become a subject, cuts both ways. Have you tried, lately, dropping your belief in your god, and seeing what kind of person that makes you?
Not lately, no. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work out. Nowadays, I've amassed too much evidence to disbelieve outright - I just can't do it and be honest with myself.
What you're really after, I think, is this question: "Have you recently tried acting opposite what the scriptures prescribe?" Yes, I have. And guess what - their predictions held, and I was unable to reject the hypothesis that they were giving me good counsel. I'm not going to go into detail - this isn't a confessional - but yes, I've tested most of these predictions both ways.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
If one believes in something irrationally which is true, does that make it any less true?
No one is completely rational, not even you - have you succeeded yet in tearing away any of us from our beliefs? Very few, if any...yet you keep trying. It seems that you believe something will happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
No, it is not. Sort of by definition, you know?
The question is one of evidence. Also, whether evidence needs to be of "proof" strength, or whether strong circumstantial evidence can suffice.
KoM, you don't get to define the terms ahead of time to force a result to your liking. That's not honest. Anyone can say, "I define evidence this way, and that kind of evidence is lacking; therefore this isn't rational." You're just chasing your tail with that. Trying to justify a conclusion that you've already decided on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
No, it is not. Sort of by definition, you know?
Thank you. Now we can move on to the evidence, right?
quote:The question is one of evidence. Also, whether evidence needs to be of "proof" strength, or whether strong circumstantial evidence can suffice.
I'm willing to accept circumstantial evidence; I am asserting that there is none - because contradictory evidence cancels out. If everyone in the world said "Well, I can feel that the god of Abraham is the right one", then that would be strong circumstantial evidence. But since that isn't the case - in fact, plenty of people give 'internal' evidence that directly contradicts that faith - internal evidence is plainly not good enough. If two witnesses agree that there has been a killing, but disagree on the culprit, where the death took place, what time it was, the murder weapon, and the identity of the victim - then I think few DAs would prosecute. Sufficiently contradictory evidence is useless.
It's also rather interesting that people tend very strongly to 'feel' that the god their father worshipped is the right one. Bit of an interesting correlation, that.
quote:Not lately, no. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work out. Nowadays, I've amassed too much evidence to disbelieve outright - I just can't do it and be honest with myself.
What you're really after, I think, is this question: "Have you recently tried acting opposite what the scriptures prescribe?" Yes, I have.
Um, no. Apart from going to church, which I guess you can do for the purely social aspects, atheists and theists define living well in pretty much the same ways. So if that's all you require, why not drop the extraneous belief? You've only got so much brain, you know - filling it up with distracting clutter is a bad idea.
quote:If one believes in something irrationally which is true, does that make it any less true?
Less true, no. More rational, also no. Rationality is the stronger criterion; and because we cannot ultimately determine truth, the only useful one.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm willing to accept circumstantial evidence; I am asserting that there is none - because contradictory evidence cancels out. If everyone in the world said "Well, I can feel that the god of Abraham is the right one", then that would be strong circumstantial evidence.
I completely disagree. I don't think it'd even be weak circumstantial evidence. Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? It isn't "a lot of people feel that way". It's "observable circumstances are consistent with the premise". Strong circumstantial evidence is when it's not only consistent with the premise, but when it is strongly consistent. In other words, when the circumstance becomes increasingly difficult to explain without the premise.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But since that isn't the case
<sigh> See, you know what happens when you assume? You wind up continuing down a silly path. Your "since that isn't the case" is empty, because no one claimed it to be the case. Except you.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It's also rather interesting that people tend very strongly to 'feel' that the god their father worshipped is the right one. Bit of an interesting correlation, that.
But increasingly irrelevant to the question at hand. "Emotions are not a tool of cognition". I know there are people who try and use them that way, but you can't blame me for people like that. They exist in all quarters.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
starLisa, I suggest you take another look at comrade trouser's post :
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence. I don't mean to say that it should be accepted it without question - but if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me.
Since that is what I was arguing against before you jumped in, I (once more completely failing to read your mind; so sorry!) assumed this was the circumstantial evidence you referred to. If not, are you going to be putting forth ID again? We;ve already got a thread for that, but let me assure you, you have not convinced me that there is anything at all that cannot be accounted for without the Easter Bunny.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: starLisa, I suggest you take another look at comrade trouser's post :
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence. I don't mean to say that it should be accepted it without question - but if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me.
Since that is what I was arguing against before you jumped in, I (once more completely failing to read your mind; so sorry!) assumed this was the circumstantial evidence you referred to. If not, are you going to be putting forth ID again? We;ve already got a thread for that, but let me assure you, you have not convinced me that there is anything at all that cannot be accounted for without the Easter Bunny.
I wasn't referring to that post. I was referring to your post in which you were responding to me. I had no idea that you were lumping in something someone else said. For the record, I completely disagree with Lord Trousers. "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." --Anatole France
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Good, it seems we agree at least a little more than I thought. However, if I am correct in believing that you are going to propose the Torah, plus Intelligent Design, as your circumstantial evidence - then I'm going to stand by 'that ain't evidence', for the reasons I outlined earlier in this thread and the ID one. If you have something else, speak up now, or forever hold thy peace!
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
Out of curiousity, starLisa: which part do you disagree with? I'm not trying to start an argument - it just wasn't clear from what you wrote.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm willing to accept circumstantial evidence; I am asserting that there is none - because contradictory evidence cancels out. If everyone in the world said "Well, I can feel that the god of Abraham is the right one", then that would be strong circumstantial evidence. But since that isn't the case - in fact, plenty of people give 'internal' evidence that directly contradicts that faith - internal evidence is plainly not good enough. If two witnesses agree that there has been a killing, but disagree on the culprit, where the death took place, what time it was, the murder weapon, and the identity of the victim - then I think few DAs would prosecute. Sufficiently contradictory evidence is useless.
Good gracious, I thought you said you were intelligent.
YES, it cancels out - to the outside observer, trying to judge who is right. That I have to keep bringing this up tells me you're not really making an effort. (Are we that far beneath you?) We're not trying to decide who's right, we're trying to decide who's rational.
I only have so many ways to emphasize text on a web forum, and you're reaching the limit. If I have to make this statement again, it'll be in all caps. I don't like to yell. Please try to understand this one single point, okay?
I'll put it in a more abstract setting: suppose you are given a set of five dots and asked to fit a function to it with least squares error. You have some prior knowledge about the problem. Suppose you fit a line. Another person is given the same problem, but has slightly different prior knowledge. He draws a quadratic.
Do these conclusions cancel each other out? Are you both wrong? Possibly. Are you each rational? YES. The point is that both people, given the same data, came up with different answers. This stupid little example - the likes of which, by the way, comes up an awful lot in my graduate studies - proves that it's possible for rational people to disagree. It's even possible for them to disagree with you.
Back to your example: If two witnesses agree that there has been a killing, but disagree on the culprit, where the death took place, what time it was, the murder weapon, and the identity of the victim - are they both irrational in their beliefs about the crime?
Maybe. It's much more likely you've got the wrong person or people as witnesses, so this is sort of a nonsense example. The thing is, religions don't differ that much - they generally have much more in common than not. Religion is more like two people disagreeing on the culprit, agreeing on most of the other general details, and disagreeing on a lot of small details. In that case, I'd say both witnesses are rational. Small details tend to look very different from different points of view.
quote:It's also rather interesting that people tend very strongly to 'feel' that the god their father worshipped is the right one. Bit of an interesting correlation, that.
It's a commentary on the reliability of the evidence. If you've got sufficient evidence of less than perfect reliability, though, you can still believe and be perfectly rational. Bayesian inference systems like Kalman filters do this all the time.
quote:
quote:Not lately, no. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work out. Nowadays, I've amassed too much evidence to disbelieve outright - I just can't do it and be honest with myself.
What you're really after, I think, is this question: "Have you recently tried acting opposite what the scriptures prescribe?" Yes, I have.
Um, no. Apart from going to church, which I guess you can do for the purely social aspects, atheists and theists define living well in pretty much the same ways. So if that's all you require, why not drop the extraneous belief? You've only got so much brain, you know - filling it up with distracting clutter is a bad idea.
This misunderstanding is my fault. There are things that theists define as living well that atheists just don't.
Here's an example. My scriptures say that an appeal to Christ will immediately begin to bring about relief from guilt. Atheists wouldn't experience that, having no reason to appeal to Christ. I have - and I've tried it both ways. I've let guilt fester, I've tried other ways to make it disappear, and done other things in this area borne of stubborn pride. Only an appeal to Christ works and brings peace. I've experimented on both sides of this prediction, and found that it held.
Any single example can be explained by something else, but I've done it many times. Of course, we could admit dementia as an explanation. The thing is, I've experienced some things that can't be explained by that. Here's an example - a time where I suddenly knew something that, based on material science, I shouldn't have known.
In my church, we (fathers) give blessings to our little children. Officially, it's to name them, but we say other things as the Spirit directs.
I was blessing my son Joseph. I said some things that were surprising to me, things that taught me about myself and about him - but it was what I didn't say that was most useful. In the middle of it, I suddenly knew that he was a very intelligent little boy. The knowledge was accompanied by a feeling so strong that I couldn't speak for a while.
Yeah, so he was three months old at the time.
Fast-forward almost two years. He had never said a word, or even pointed. He walked around grunting a lot. We started getting worried, because if language is significantly delayed, it impedes a child's aptitude to reason later in life. My mother brought up autism, which we hadn't considered yet, and we freaked out and took him to a doctor.
There are a few different treatments for language delay, and we picked one under the assumption that there was an intelligent kid in there who didn't know how to express himself. In other words, my extra knowledge helped us make a critical decision about his development. We taught him sign language, and his language skills exploded.
So is he really intelligent? Fast forward to now: he's 3 1/2 years old, and he reads Dr. Seuss books to himself. We know it's not all memorization because he backs up and sounds out words when he realizes he gets them wrong, and he reads books he hasn't had read to him. We didn't even teach him - we taught his sister, who is two years older. He must have been listening to that, and memorizing words and drawing inferences about letter sounds when we read to him.
It's not the only time I've had knowledge poured into my head from an outside source, but it's one of the most dramatic, and the one of a few that best isolates all the variables. If enough evidence like this piles up, believe me, it makes a believer out of you.
[ November 14, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: lord trousers ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes, and you remember the hits and forget the misses. About your guilt, I'm sorry your church programmed you so well. If I feel guilty about something, I generally try making amends to the one I've offended, instead.
There do exist points on which reasonable men might differ; but the existence of a god is not one of them. Your point about prior assumption is spot on : If you did not already believe in a god, none of the stuff you've quoted to me would be evidence for one. So if you dig one level deeper, you think you have evidence of your god, because... you believe in your god. Doesn't sound quite so rational when you put it that way, does it?
Returning to your analogy about the least-squares fit, yes, one of those people is, in fact, wrong. You can determine which one by taking more data points, or measuring the ones you have more precisely. Now, before you start shouting, if they both have some theoretical justification for their fit shape, then neither is necessarily being irrational; however, the one whose fit is worse should be prepared to give up his theory. (Assuming of course that the data are good enough that a fit would be conclusive.) But if there is no reasonable theory at all, then yes, I'd say they are both being irrational, at least if they stick by their proposed fit shapes come hell and high water. The analogy begins to break down here, because different fit shapes are a bit like religions, but there's no fit shape to match atheism, except maybe 'these data are completely random'. But even then you'd get some kind of fit, which come to think of it may mean it's a good analogy after all.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Rationality is the stronger criterion; and because we cannot ultimately determine truth, the only useful one.
Love is rarely rational. Yet life is so much darker without it.
quote:So if you dig one level deeper, you think you have evidence of your god, because... you believe in your god. Doesn't sound quite so rational when you put it that way, does it?
When I dig down to the core of it, my evidence of God is that He told me that He exists. How is that irrational?
Elder Boyd K. Packer:
quote:The skeptic will say that to bear testimony when you may not know you possess one is to condition yourself; that the response is manufactured. Well, one thing for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith, humility, and obedience to qualify him for the visitation of the Spirit.
You can stand there arrogant in your armour of unbelief and ridicule those of us who believe. You can lecture us rudely about your superiority, your pride, because you cannot see what we can. And how can we respond? As well try to describe the sunrise to a blind man. But we still know something that you will never let yourself know.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, yes, and you remember the hits and forget the misses. About your guilt, I'm sorry your church programmed you so well. If I feel guilty about something, I generally try making amends to the one I've offended, instead.
I suspected this response. Thanks for assuming that I don't. At any rate, I'm talking about specific offenses against God (which, again, atheists don't have to worry about) and against myself.
I don't forget the misses. It turns out - and I'd probably be burned alive by some for claiming this - but scriptural predictions, for me, have a success rate in the low 90's. Yes, sometimes they don't work. (Gasp!) The thing is, they've proven themselves so useful that 1) I'm not prepared to give them up on the sub-10% that don't turn out, and 2) the correct ones' overall usefulness indicates that it's not necessarily God's problem.
quote:There do exist points on which reasonable men might differ; but the existence of a god is not one of them.
Quite a strong statement. Speaking of circular reasoning...
quote:Your point about prior assumption is spot on : If you did not already believe in a god, none of the stuff you've quoted to me would be evidence for one. So if you dig one level deeper, you think you have evidence of your god, because... you believe in your god. Doesn't sound quite so rational when you put it that way, does it?
...and if you dig one level deeper, you can always find some reason to dismiss someone else's subjective evidence of God, because... you believe there isn't any.
Isn't rational thought wonderful?
quote:Returning to your analogy about the least-squares fit, yes, one of those people is, in fact, wrong. You can determine which one by taking more data points, or measuring the ones you have more precisely. Now, before you start shouting, if they both have some theoretical justification for their fit shape, then neither is necessarily being irrational; however, the one whose fit is worse should be prepared to give up his theory.
Yep.
quote:(Assuming of course that the data are good enough that a fit would be conclusive.) But if there is no reasonable theory at all, then yes, I'd say they are both being irrational, at least if they stick by their proposed fit shapes come hell and high water. The analogy begins to break down here, because different fit shapes are a bit like religions, but there's no fit shape to match atheism, except maybe 'these data are completely random'. But even then you'd get some kind of fit, which come to think of it may mean it's a good analogy after all.
Of course it is. It so happens that inductive bias, as described in information theory and machine learning, is an extremely good model of human bias in general. There are some results from the study of bias that you, thinking your beliefs the only possible rational ones, might not like. Here's one: you can't learn or generalize without bias. Another: you can't prove that one bias (or one person's bias) is better than another in general. There's no logical way to approach it.
You can't prove that one person's evidence standards are better than another's. You can make an argument that's convincing to some - and usually to yourself - but that's about it.
Where the analogy breaks down is that, in the mathematical model, only objective evidence, available to both people, is considered. In the human model, this isn't necessarily so. We're often concerned with truth that has no objective evidence - and I'm not talking about just religion.
I'm sorry, but as much as you'd like it to be so, neither you nor anyone else who has ever lived has built his entire belief system from concrete first principles and objective evidence only. As soon as you realize your own bias, you might be ready to forgive theists of theirs.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I'm going to post once in this thread and leave it as is. This will probably offend just about everyone here (I apologize to those I like in advance), but it needs to be said(written).
Arguing over the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
Cool. I'm retarded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: My scriptures say that an appeal to Christ will immediately begin to bring about relief from guilt. Atheists wouldn't experience that, having no reason to appeal to Christ. I have - and I've tried it both ways. I've let guilt fester, I've tried other ways to make it disappear, and done other things in this area borne of stubborn pride. Only an appeal to Christ works and brings peace.
Hm. I'm reasonably sure I've found other workable alternatives. Which ones did you try before resorting to Christ?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence.
I refuse to take into account contradictory evidence. All those Moslems, Satanists, Aesirtru, and whatnot make exactly the same claim for their particular fairy tale. They all seem very sincere. But all that subjective evidence cancels out, leaving nothing.
You realize, don't you, that there's no validity to that argument. Competing and conflicting claims can mean three things:
One is right
The other is right
Both are wrong
Why do you think the third option has some sort of special status?
You're lazy, O King. Faced with competing and conflicting claims, you can look into them and really compare them to see if one has a stronger claim than the others. After that, you can make declarative statements about your results.
Alternatively, you can say, "It's not worth my time, so I'm not going to bother." And then just stay away from the argument.
But you want to be able to make the declarative statements without bothering yourself to actually look at the competing claims. That's lazy.
I repeat: a guy in a cave and a dozen bereaved friends don't have a claim that compares to a couple million people all seeing and hearing the same thing at the same time.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Out of curiousity, starLisa: which part do you disagree with? I'm not trying to start an argument - it just wasn't clear from what you wrote.
It was this:
quote:if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me
Correlation isn't causation. If you do something you believe in, in a community of people who share those beliefs, it's going to probably make you and the people around you happy. So long as you aren't hurting anyone. That's independent of the beliefs in question.
If you were a Wiccan, in a community of Wiccans, then keeping the Wiccan Rede would make you and the people around you happy just the same. Using the word "evidence" -- even "evidence for me" -- is a misuse of language.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Here's an example. My scriptures say that an appeal to Christ will immediately begin to bring about relief from guilt. Atheists wouldn't experience that, having no reason to appeal to Christ.
I've heard of Christian Scientists. This is the first time I've heard of Christian Psychologists.
If you're feeling guilty, then you need to look at where the guilt is coming from. If it's coming from something that you're doing which isn't right, well... there's an obvious solution there.
A guy walks into a doctor's office and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor tells him, "So, nu? Don't do that!"
In other words, if the guilt is coming from something you're doing wrong, stop doing it. If it's coming from anything else, like being guilty that you have all four working limbs when there are others who don't, you simply need a therapist. Or a reality check.
Also, it isn't just atheists who have no reason to appeal to your deity. Do try and remember that.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If you were a Wiccan, in a community of Wiccans, then keeping the Wiccan Rede would make you and the people around you happy just the same. Using the word "evidence" -- even "evidence for me" -- is a misuse of language.
Out of curiosity, do you reject the idea of subjective evidence in general?
"Correlation isn't causation" applies to deductive logic only. We're talking about inductive logic, where if you have enough different correlations, you're justified in assuming causation.
You're in danger of making the same mistake as KoM in this regard. While I have to put forth my evidence one point at a time and he has the opportunity to dismiss each in turn, I didn't come to my conclusion serially. I take the evidence as a whole, and in that form, it's very convincing to me.
Going back to the curve fitting analogy, it's like this: you have an intial hypothesis that the points are uncorrelated. For each point, rather than considering them as a whole, you evaluate each independently and dismiss them all because you can show that any of them could have been produced randomly. Well, duh. Each independent point can be produced by a uniformly random process.
You have to consider "enough" points to even begin to make a judgment between noise and data, "enough" is defined subjectively, and there's no way to prove that one person's "enough" isn't. "Enough = 0" - each point independently, which is KoM's stance with regards to religion - isn't provably bad, but it's provably very limiting. With "enough = 0," it's simply impossible to make any generalizations (which is what fitting a curve is) except "this is random."
KoM obviously doesn't always do this, because he's capable of generalization. (Otherwise, he'd be a mindless vegetable.) People who use "enough = 0" don't want to find a generalization.
Personally, I believe that the accuracy of the predictions of the scriptures, my peace with God, the happiness I claim from keeping the commandments, enochville's material evidences, and the things I sometimes just know (always accompanied by a feeling I associate with the Spirit of God) which turn out to be extremely useful, all combine to make a very convincing argument - for me.
---
I'm not going to quote the "guilt" part. While I appreciate your attempt to help me psychologically, I realize that it was a miscommunication.
I've just realized that people in my faith - and probably most Christians - pile more connotation into the word "guilt" than most people. We mean the "guilt" that most people do - the shame of conscience which convinces you that you were wrong and that you need to change - and also a loss that's sort of independent from that. That basic guilt of conscience is supposed to fade with time, and if someone's made restitution and changed, and it's still an incessant, emotionally debilitating presence, then yes, that person needs a therapist.
The rest of it, which we also often call "guilt," is a loss of a sense of peace with God. For me, accepting Christ brought a sense of peace into my life that I didn't have before. Keeping the commandments of God keeps it around, and I feel it more strongly when I pray or read the scriptures. Doing something wrong - as well as making me feel guilt of conscience - drives it away.
It's that that doesn't return without an appeal to Christ. What I've tried is the same kinds of things I do to alleviate guilt of conscience, and that never works.
I can't really describe it better than that. The feeling of peace with God is experientially defined.
quote:Also, it isn't just atheists who have no reason to appeal to your deity. Do try and remember that.
I didn't say "my God," I said "God." People who believe in a god of some kind almost invariably appeal to it somehow. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Anyway, I apologize for any offense.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If you were a Wiccan, in a community of Wiccans, then keeping the Wiccan Rede would make you and the people around you happy just the same. Using the word "evidence" -- even "evidence for me" -- is a misuse of language.
Out of curiosity, do you reject the idea of subjective evidence in general?
Would you define that for me, please? I can't answer your question unless I know what you mean by subjective evidence. If you mean emotional responses that can easily be caused by things that a person experiencing them isn't aware of, then yes, I reject it.
I had a friend who was into Wicca. She's also a Ph.D. in Physics or some such. I asked her, "How can you be so sure that the magick you say you've experienced is real, and not just something taking place in your head? Her response was: "Why would that matter?"
See, for her, the effect was the important thing. She wasn't making objective claims on the basis of her subjective feelings. Only subjective claims, which is entirely legitimate. She labeled what she experienced as "magick", so fine.
You're making objective claims on the basis of subjective feelings. But you must realize that feelings can come from any number of things.
Look... let me give you an example. I'm an Orthodox Jew. I'm also a lesbian. As you might surmise, this doesn't exactly grease the social wheels for me in the Orthodox Jewish community.
Now... I'm firmly convinced that I'm not doing anything against Jewish law. I'm good with God. I'm not so good with the community. So when I go into a synagogue and feel people staring holes into my back, I feel uncomfortable. One might say that if walking into a synagogue makes me feel anxious and uncomfortable, maybe there's something wrong with Orthodox Judaism. Maybe I'm feeling something spiritual in that synagogue that my soul recognizes as icky.
But that's not the case. And I happen to be aware of what it is that's causing me discomfort. But take someone 25 years younger than me, who is an Orthodox Jewish high school student and a lesbian, but hasn't really figured out what she's feeling yet. She might get the same nervous feelings going into the synagogue and not realize what's causing them.
The same thing is true for you. You say that accepting your deity made you start to feel less guilty. Hasn't it occurred to you that this reaction is inevitably what will happen if you are convinced that accepting your deity is the right thing to do? Regardless of the truth or falsity of the proposition?
Emotions are a automatic reaction which works off of our values. To the extent that we attain or keep our values, we are happy. To the extent that we lose or faily to gain our values, we are unhappy.
If you think that being wealthy makes you bad (you know, camels, needles, eyes, etc), then being wealthy is going to make you feel guilty. You aren't feeling guilty because of the money, but because you have internalized a set of values which considers poverty praiseworthy and wealth... not so much.
Most people never really look at their values. They just internalize them unconsciously from their environment. And that means that they're going to have emotional reactions that they can't account for rationally. The most common response to that is to look for any explanation, rational or not.
I'm convinced that God exists. I'm convinced that He gave us His Torah and that He wants us to live according to it. But have I ever had some sort of spiritual vision of Him? Not that I'm aware of.
And it's not as though I'm closed-minded to the very idea. I mentioned that Wiccan friend of mine. I have actually experienced "magick". One time, but that was enough. It's not an experience that I'd like to repeat. Nor can I prove to anyone (myself included) that it wasn't some kind of illusion or delusion.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: "Correlation isn't causation" applies to deductive logic only. We're talking about inductive logic, where if you have enough different correlations, you're justified in assuming causation.
Not necessarily. The number of correlations isn't important if each one is attributable to other things. Lots times zero is still zero, right?
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: You're in danger of making the same mistake as KoM in this regard.
<sigh> I can't win for losing. I'm tempted to just say "a pox on both your houses" and be done with it.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: While I have to put forth my evidence one point at a time and he has the opportunity to dismiss each in turn, I didn't come to my conclusion serially. I take the evidence as a whole, and in that form, it's very convincing to me.
I have the same problem with Mr. King. He revels in it, too.
Though I'm not sure what you can mean by not coming to your conclusion serially. If it was a lot of different correlations, it sounds like you did come to the conclusion serially.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Going back to the curve fitting analogy, it's like this: you have an intial hypothesis that the points are uncorrelated. For each point, rather than considering them as a whole, you evaluate each independently and dismiss them all because you can show that any of them could have been produced randomly. Well, duh. Each independent point can be produced by a uniformly random process.
You have to consider "enough" points to even begin to make a judgment between noise and data, "enough" is defined subjectively, and there's no way to prove that one person's "enough" isn't. "Enough = 0" - each point independently, which is KoM's stance with regards to religion - isn't provably bad, but it's provably very limiting. With "enough = 0," it's simply impossible to make any generalizations (which is what fitting a curve is) except "this is random."
KoM obviously doesn't always do this, because he's capable of generalization. (Otherwise, he'd be a mindless vegetable.)
Heh.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: People who use "enough = 0" don't want to find a generalization.
On the other hand, human beings are quite capable of looking at the constellation Cygnus and honestly claiming to see a swan there. That's induction, but I'd claim that it's delusional. I can see how Ursa Major could look like a dipper, but a bear? Pull the other one.
That's the problem here, I think. You claim that you have a lot of data points. I think you're taking the same one or two data points and just repeating them a lot. Heck, you couldn't even be a Christian if you were sufficiently well versed in Judaism to understand Christianity's inherent flaws.
Listen, the night before last, Locke and Sayyid (from the show Lost were in my dream. Honestly. Locke was on my side of whatever was happening, and Sayyid definitely was not. Which is kind of funny, because when I'm awake, I'd much rather have Sayyid watching my back than Locke.
Is it strange that I dreamt two characters from a show I like a lot? Okay, maybe it's a little strange that I didn't dream about Kate, but never mind that. The thing is, my environment is full of TV shows. If I were to dream about Santa Claus, well, 'tis the season, and all. It doesn't imply anything real.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: Personally, I believe that the accuracy of the predictions of the scriptures,
Uh... yeah. Like the part about a patrilineal descendent of David becoming king and ushering in an era of peace? Whereas you don't have a patrilineal descendent of David, by your own claims, and being called a king by some occupying government doesn't make you one, and I must have missed that era of peace. And then there's the parable about the tree and how bad things can't come from a good tree, which combined with the horrendous history of Christendom seems like a self-imposed verdict.
I hear this "prophecies fulfilled" thing from Christians all the time, and hardly any of them have a glimmer about what the prophecies in question were really saying. Sorry, but it's irksome.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: my peace with God, the happiness I claim from keeping the commandments,
Don't get me started on those commandments. But like I said before, happiness doesn't come from anything objective. You'd be just as happy keeping the real commandments if you were an Orthodox Jew. It's a matter of your values.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: The rest of it, which we also often call "guilt," is a loss of a sense of peace with God. For me, accepting Christ brought a sense of peace into my life that I didn't have before. Keeping the commandments of God keeps it around, and I feel it more strongly when I pray or read the scriptures. Doing something wrong - as well as making me feel guilt of conscience - drives it away.
Well, it would, wouldn't it? You must see that it's going to do that completely independent of whether your religious beliefs are true or not.
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: It's that that doesn't return without an appeal to Christ. What I've tried is the same kinds of things I do to alleviate guilt of conscience, and that never works.
That's because you're in an environment where the Christian ethos is taken as a given. KoM is right about that. It's a matter of indoctrination. You feel good when you do what you think is right. And you think this stuff is right because you're soaking in it (Palmolive reference, dating myself again).
You may not notice it, any more than the average person notices air, or any more than a fish notices the water he swims in, but I assure you that it's there. Heck, I grew up in the US, and I get warm fuzzies from the Christmas carols every year. It doesn't mean that it's not annoying to me. But it's the water I was born swimming in, and it feels nice to me despite my knowing better.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
Well, look at that. Do you notice that you're doing it again? Taking my evidence apart and dismissing it in pieces?
See, if you conveniently ignore this bit over here, this other bit is easily explainable.
I think I'm done.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So what you're actually saying is, if nobody had told you about Jesus, you woulld not have this additional guilt that requires little OCD-ish rituals to still? What an amazingly good argument for your faith.
Lisa, I think I mentioned this already, but there are not millions of people claiming to have witnessed Moses smash the Golden Calf, or whatever event you refer to; there is one man, the author of the Pentateuch, claiming millions of witnesses. And, incidentally, lying through his teeth in an extremely obvious manner. Come now; the population of Memphis, at the time, might have been as much as twenty thousand. Even a single million, marching through the Sinai desert? Ridiculous.
By the way, the ID thread has been a bit derailed, but I would appreciate your thoughts on my last post directed to you. I am really quite interested in your thought process there.
Posted by lord trousers (Member # 8741) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So what you're actually saying is, if nobody had told you about Jesus, you woulld not have this additional guilt that requires little OCD-ish rituals to still? What an amazingly good argument for your faith.
First, you (probably understandably) misunderstand what I mean by guilt. I explained it a few posts back. If nobody had told me about Jesus, I wouldn't have this extra peace of soul - which, besides making me feel nice and stuff, helps me become a better person (in ways that, were I to describe it, would detract from the current discussion). When I do something wrong, I lose it. It's something extra, and the extra something is good.
You're presupposing that the something extra is extra guilt. That's the wrong way to look at it. I suppose you could claim that the first derivative is identical, and it might be - but you're missing a positive constant.
"OCD-ish" is a gross misrepresentation. I get on my knees and ask for forgiveness, using regular English words. Though it's a cute thing to think about theists, we're not all flagellants.
Also, I'm saying that this prediction the scriptures make about peace of soul, sin and repentance, given the other evidence, is good evidence. You can't isolate them from each other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no. Each piece of evidence has to be able to stand on its own; otherwise you are building a house of rotten planks.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Each premise has to be true in order for the conclusion to be true. However, you cannot ignore a premise which has been stated and then claim that the conclusion must be false, you must instead evaluate the premises.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right, and I have evaluated each piece of evidence presented. However, as I think comrade trousers pointed out, this is not deductive but rather inductive logic. Now, he is correct in claiming that many small pieces do add up; but only if each small piece is reliable in the first place! You cannot evaluate them as a whole; there is no emergent truth.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lisa, I think I mentioned this already, but there are not millions of people claiming to have witnessed Moses smash the Golden Calf, or whatever event you refer to; there is one man, the author of the Pentateuch, claiming millions of witnesses.
Yeah, and you were wrong before, too. And... this is kind of interesting... if you claim it again, you'll be wrong yet again. You might notice a pattern here.
At some point, all the Jews became convinced that we'd always known the Torah to have been something that we handed down from teacher to student, parent to child, etc. That's a lot of people. A lot of very stubborn people.
You'd certainly have records of the fight. Hell, even in Egypt, where things were autocratic to an amazing degree, they weren't able to completely wipe out the memory of Akhnaton. There's a limit to what can plausably be seen as having been covered up. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, in which case no limits apply anyway.
You're looking at today, when Jewish sectarians are prevalent. But even the sectarians of 2000 years ago (the last time it was this bad) all agreed that the Torah had been given by God to Israel at Sinai.
No reasonable mechanism can account for such a universal belief. Even the Samaritans, who were vicious enemies of the Jews around the time of Ezra (who some claim to have "redacted" the Torah), have almost exactly the same Torah (the written part, anyway), which they also remember as having been given to Israel at Sinai.
You can't just say: "Well, it happened gradually", because you'd have a record of that.
Can I "prove" that God gave us the Torah? Nah. But assuming the converse leads you into circumstances that are virtually impossible to explain. That'll do for me.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And, incidentally, lying through his teeth in an extremely obvious manner. Come now; the population of Memphis, at the time, might have been as much as twenty thousand. Even a single million, marching through the Sinai desert? Ridiculous.
Silly man. So you reject the possibility of miracles, and then point out that (barring miracles), there's no way a couple of million Israelites could have spent 40 years trekking through the Sinai desert. To which I can only say: duh. Circular reasoning is somewhat lacking in impressiveness.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: By the way, the ID thread has been a bit derailed, but I would appreciate your thoughts on my last post directed to you. I am really quite interested in your thought process there.
My knowledge of biology as a field is pretty much on the level of your knowledge of Judaism, I'd guess. I'm no expert myself. All I can do is rely on sources that seem reasonable to me, and make what logical arguments I can. For my part, I'd like you to take a look at the material Hogan included in his book. While he's not an expert either, he's brought a lot of sources together, and maybe some of what he wrote will answer some questions for you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are being evasive. I am not an expert in biology either; but come on, I'm not asking difficult questions. All I want to know is what you require for speciation to have occurred, in addition to the child being unable to breed with the parent. I'm perfectly happy to have you quote from some source; but if you cannot give some kind of rationale, then I request that you admit speciation has, in fact, been observed.
As for Hogan : As I said, I'm no expert on biology. But I am an expert on physics, and Hogan gets it just plain wrong. I don't see why he should be any more reliable for biology. And for that matter, this bit here :
quote:No mutation that added information to a genome has ever been observed to occur, either naturally or in the laboratory.
is mere misdirection : Where does he define 'information'? If he means Shannon information, which is the usual sense of the word, then he's just plain lying, because hundreds of such mutations have been observed. If he means something else, he should make it clear. And, I might add, he clearly isn't aware of the mutation that allows some bacteria to eat plastic. (Polystyrene? Nylon? One of the synthetics, anyway.) An ability that they didn't have before, expressed by a mutation creating a new protein - added information if ever there was any.
OK, so I looked at your book; now why don't you answer my question? Or if you do insist on referring the amtter to 'experts', then I suggest that you do so all the way, and let the biologists decide. Oops - they already have, and it's evolution all the way. You can't have it both ways.
quote:At some point, all the Jews became convinced that we'd always known the Torah to have been something that we handed down from teacher to student, parent to child, etc. That's a lot of people. A lot of very stubborn people.
A lot of very stubborn, almost completely illiterate people. Come now : The reason Akhnaton couldn't be removed entirely was because there was a relatively large literate class, a lot of papyrus, and that wonderful desert sand for maintaining the scrolls. A bunch of nomads, carrying only such literature as could fit in their heads? Two generations, and you could convince them they'd always believed in Santa Claus. Moreover, I don't think you have a real sense of the time between the events described in Exodus, and the time when the Israelites were a city-dwelling people with a written history. The difference between 1020 BC (reign of Saul) and 1400 BC (approximate Exodus) would take us back to a time well before the founding of the US. How many people, today, in a highly literate society that values education, really know very much about the War of Independence? Much less the Thirty Years' War, which is a much closer analogy to the time involved.
Another point : If there were even two million Israelites at Exodus, how the devil did they manage to get their asses kicked to the point that Sennacherib could besiege Jerusalem? Two million people should be something like three hundred thousand fighting men; that's about the size of the Roman army at the height of the Principate. Come now, this is ridiculous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, in spite of my earlier words, I've read up to chapter four of the book. It's mainly the good old 'lack of transitionals' argument, with plenty of references to 'trade secrets' and very little naming of names. A quick trip to TalkOrigins would have saved you a lot of trouble; I quote pretty much at random :
quote:The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count. Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches. Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though. Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
Plenty of transitionals in the literature; all you have to do is look.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:A lot of very stubborn, almost completely illiterate people
There are plenty of primitive peoples who have passed down some very accurate oral history. However, regardless of the illiteracy of the general population, the religious leaders were highly literate men who kept records.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In the historical time of Saul, yes. In the nomadic times of Exodus, no.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:At some point, all the Jews became convinced that we'd always known the Torah to have been something that we handed down from teacher to student, parent to child, etc. That's a lot of people. A lot of very stubborn people.
A lot of very stubborn, almost completely illiterate people.
<laugh> And you base that on what? A lack of inscriptions? Most inscriptions were on stelae, which were explicitly forbidden in the Torah. And we did write on parchment, which has a poor shelf life.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Come now : The reason Akhnaton couldn't be removed entirely was because there was a relatively large literate class, a lot of papyrus, and that wonderful desert sand for maintaining the scrolls.
<blink> What scrolls? Have scrolls been found that refer to Akhnaton? Wow... that sounds like a pretty major discovery. Mind giving me a link?
Or do you mean clay tablets?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A bunch of nomads, carrying only such literature as could fit in their heads?
Again, based on what?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Two generations, and you could convince them they'd always believed in Santa Claus. Moreover, I don't think you have a real sense of the time between the events described in Exodus, and the time when the Israelites were a city-dwelling people with a written history.
Heh. I don't have a real sense of the time? You're funny.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The difference between 1020 BC (reign of Saul) and 1400 BC (approximate Exodus) would take us back to a time well before the founding of the US. How many people, today, in a highly literate society that values education, really know very much about the War of Independence?
Our society was a tad more literate than the US is, O King.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Much less the Thirty Years' War, which is a much closer analogy to the time involved.
Another point : If there were even two million Israelites at Exodus, how the devil did they manage to get their asses kicked to the point that Sennacherib could besiege Jerusalem? Two million people should be something like three hundred thousand fighting men; that's about the size of the Roman army at the height of the Principate. Come now, this is ridiculous.
I have to agree. Given your comment about my not grasping time spans, I just think it's cute that you managed to bring Sennecherib (c.700 BCE) into it.
Israel and Judah had split about two and a half centuries before that. The first couple of generations after the split were filled with vicious and devastating civil wars between the two kingdoms, and Egyptian invasions. This slammed them sufficiently that they needed to team up to fight against the Moabites.
Then, about 50 years before Sennecherib hit the scene, the Assyrians began to conquer the known world. They attacked both kingdoms (but mostly the northern one) again and again. They conquered it in pieces over the years and deported the inhabitants to the north, populating their territory with conquered people from the north.
Sennecherib's father, Sargon II, completed the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel, and probably took most of Judah as well. There are inscriptions showing their conquest of Lachish, which, after Jerusalem, was the biggest city in Judah.
So by the time Sennecherib came by, just about all that was left was Jerusalem. No millions of people. Not any more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In the historical time of Saul, yes. In the nomadic times of Exodus, no.
Based on what?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Based on, if the nomadic Jews had a literate class, then they were assuredly unique. And I stand by my point about the two million : Such a people would have been invincible; I don't care how many civil wars they had. The most deadly civil war in recorded history, the Thirty Years', which also had intervention by outside forces and was fought in extremely nasty ways - 'Magdeburg quarter, meaning 'kill every last one', is still an expression in Germany - killed perhaps as much as a fourth of Germany's population. Taking my earlier estimate of 300k fighting men, that gives us 225k remaining. Dividing by two for two kingdoms, we get about 100k. That is an enormous, mind-bogglingly huge army. If the Assyrians had defeated any such people, you may rest assured they would have bragged about it. (And yes, they did; to the tune of 'oh, and by the way, the Israelites are now paying tribute. Go us.' Not exactly what you'd do if you had just defeated the largest army the world had ever seen. I mean, we're talking about some hill bandits destroying an army that is a goodly fraction of the modern US armed forces, here.)
quote:Our society was a tad more literate than the US is, O King.
You are seriously claiming literacy greater than 95%, several hundred years before Christ? As you are so fond of saying, based on what?
I still await your response on the speciation.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:You are seriously claiming literacy greater than 95%, several hundred years before Christ?
You are seriously claiming that the United States has 95% literacy? Based on what?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Come on, this is really, really weak.