Argue that it's true

[_The Nehor]

Nature is a cruel bitch.

Perhaps, but she's good looking.

[_GoodK]

Seems like religion is the wrong word to use. Can anyone argue that Mormonism is true anymore? I asked a lot of questions at MAD eluding to things like Adam being the first human, Joseph being incapable of concoting such a story (i.e my post on the 1826 trial), and how the word anti-mormon is used to discredit critics and encourage the "persecution" complex Mormons have. What I really was wondering, books like Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon seem to claim that the truth claims of the Book of Mormon are testable and substantiated by evidence. Is this reasonable? Anyone here have an opinion on the types of evidence being offered by Mormon Apologists?

[_The Nehor]

Seems like religion is the wrong word to use. Can anyone argue that Mormonism is true anymore? I asked a lot of questions at MAD eluding to things like Adam being the first human, Joseph being incapable of concoting such a story (I.e my post on the 1826 trial), and how the word anti-mormon is used to discredit critics and encourage the "persecution" complex Mormons have. What I really was wondering, books like Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon seem to claim that the truth claims of the Book of Mormon are testable and substantiated by evidence. Is this reasonable? Anyone here have an opinion on the types of evidence that is being offered by Mormon Apologists?

Short of God appearing I don't think there is a way to test the Book of Mormon in an academic sense. I maintain belief in a spiritual test. I think apologists can attempt to make the LDS claims to truth plausible. Whether they do or not depends on what your standards are in this area. Most critics are not impacted much by it but LDS are due to pre-existing beliefs.

These pre-existing beliefs would be akin to me receiving a visitation by aliens. If I did I would most likely satisfy my mind as to their existence. When someone else shows up and makes a similar claim that they were visited I am more likely to believe them than someone who has not had that experience. However it's still possible the other person is wrong or lying.

Where these pre-existing beliefs come from of course varies as well.

[_GoodK]

Short of God appearing I don't think there is a way to test the Book of Mormon in an academic sense. I maintain belief in a spiritual test.

As far as agreeing with you... I'm almost there, but what about those Muslims who claim to have confirmed the truthfullness of Islam by a "spiritual test"? Or just ordinary Christians?

I think it's fair to say religion has monopolized the spiritual experiences department to the point that people seem to be under the impression that a spiritual test is sufficient enough proof of an unfalsifiable (and unrelated) doctrine. I would argue that you can employ that same spiritual test without taking beliefs on faith and still feel that warm, fuzzy feeling in your chest.

[_huckelberry]

"We are all atheists in regards to Zeus"

We are?

As a theist I find that I have a belief in Zeus though I do not believe Zeus is the best description of God. It is perhaps not the worst either. But naturally I think that. I believe in God not in dogma.

I think the argument that religions do not agree in their pictures of God is a very weak argument against Gods existence. It does argue that if God exists we do not have extensive knowledge of God.

Allusion notes that the proofs of Gods existence are quite weak. Allusion can be interesting but I think he mistakes the nature of the proofs he speaks of. Traditionally they have been called proofs though they do not in fact prove. I was going through a Catholic introduction class out of curiosity. It was taught by a philosopy prof from the local liberal arts college. It is not an institution particularly friendly to rellgion so one could say this prof was there despite of not because of his faith. His observation was simple. The proofs do not prove they are instead suggestive of reasons one might choose faith. To acutally make that choice would be a combination of things beyond those arguments. Nobody is going to be logically compelled to believe by the traditional proofs. I think, at least in speaking, Allusion sounds like he is demanding more from them they the are understood by believers to offer.

I saw that much of this thread was concerned that believers see atheists as bad. I thnk when atheist live with courage they share the fundamental quality of faith.(I am happy to live with them) On the other hand if atheism is used as an excuse for cynicsm it can open the door to things evil. We all know that belief as well can be distorted into opening doors to the same.

[_GoodK]

"We are all atheists in regards to Zeus"

We are?

As a theist I find that I have a belief in Zeus.

Interesting. I could explore this a little more, but what's the use? If you believe in Zeus, I guess there isn't a rational argument that could convince you not to believe in him.

I also suppose that since you are so willing to believe in Zeus, you're faith in the God of Abraham isn't much of a leap.

GoodK

[_The Dude]

"We are all atheists in regards to Zeus"

We are?

As a theist I find that I have a belief in Zeus though I do not believe Zeus is the best description of God. It is perhaps not the worst either. But naturally I think that. I believe in God not in dogma.

I think the argument that religions do not agree in their pictures of God is a very weak argument against Gods existence. It does argue that if God exists we do not have extensive knowledge of God.

And how many believers are willing to admit that? Not many! Certainly not the LDS, nor the stubborn Christians I taught when I was an LDS missionary. Most of them think they have a very extensive knowledge of God and the other kinds of believers are just damn wrong. That near-universal level of confidence is a strong argument against any such position being correct, wouldn't you agree?

Allusion notes that the proofs of Gods existence are quite weak. Allusion can be interesting but I think he mistakes the nature of the proofs he speaks of. Traditionally they have been called proofs though they do not in fact prove. I was going through a Catholic introduction class out of curiosity. It was taught by a philosopy prof from the local liberal arts college. It is not an institution particularly friendly to rellgion so one could say this prof was there despite of not because of his faith. His observation was simple. The proofs do not prove they are instead suggestive of reasons one might choose faith. To acutally make that choice would be a combination of things beyond those arguments. Nobody is going to be logically compelled to believe by the traditional proofs. I think, at least in speaking, Allusion sounds like he is demanding more from them they the are understood by believers to offer.

EA said the "proofs" are weak. It sounds like you agree, and you think all believers agree that the 'proofs' are weak and not properly named. Rephrased, I don't think EA makes any misteake at all; he speaks correctly and you agree with him. The so-called "proofs" are weak.

I think you make the mistake of thinking all believers are like you. No, Huckleberry, you are special. :)

I saw that much of this thread was concerned that believers see atheists as bad. I thnk when atheist live with courage they share the fundamental quality of faith.(I am happy to live with them) On the other hand if atheism is used as an excuse for cynicsm it can open the door to things evil. We all know that belief as well can be distorted into opening doors to the same.

Well, I can only agree with this.

[_The Nehor]

Short of God appearing I don't think there is a way to test the Book of Mormon in an academic sense. I maintain belief in a spiritual test.

As far as agreeing with you... I'm almost there, but what about those Muslims who claim to have confirmed the truthfullness of Islam by a "spiritual test"? Or just ordinary Christians?

I think it's fair to say religion has monopolized the spiritual experiences department to the point that people seem to be under the impression that a spiritual test is sufficient enough proof of an unfalsifiable (and unrelated) doctrine. I would argue that you can employ that same spiritual test without taking beliefs on faith and still feel that warm, fuzzy feeling in your chest.

I can't speak to anyone's claims in this regard but my own but I do take my own very seriously.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Doctor “Deuteronomy 23:1 will keep me out of heaven” Steuss

Didn't expect anyone to know what Deuteronomy 23:1 says, did you? I'll have you know, I almost choked to death because of you.

My heart goes out to the 9 or 10 souls that will be denied the privilege of inheriting your manly facial hair.

[_huckelberry]

Dude, I think you understood what I intended in my post pretty well but still I thought I might try to clarify a bit. I mentioned two things which I thought would show I thought we had some limited knowledge and that portion though limited has importance. I noted that faith can be distorted into ways opening doors to evil and I noted some descriptions of the divine are to my view better than others.

If I find myself discussing faith with others whose shape of faith is different than mine I think I remember that we share things that are important. Yet I may say I think this or that is wrong. There may be occasions when damn wrong might seem a possiblity to my mind. (Mr god hates fags comes to my mind first)

If I say I believe in Zeus it is the essential idea of which Zeus is a form of which I believe in. I do not believe much of the stories about him or that there is a special palace on Olympus. There is some similarity to the fact that there are stories in the Bible I do not believe happened in a literal form as well. The flood is to my mind the clearest example. Yet I do believe the central story there actually is true. Jesus born lived teaching crucified and raised from the dead. My beliefs are not so general as to have no form despite the fact that I see our knowledge as quite limited. I think the historical evidence points to the Jesus story as true. At the same time I understand well that there are other ways of putting the historical information together without finding a divine Jesus.

Do I imagine all believers see these questions like me? Well I have already strongly implied that I see believers as a very diverse lot. I have seen a variety of believers make claims about evidence which to my mind are indefensible. I have seen people claim the evidence for Jesus is much more a lock than I can see. (I see substantial elbow room for skeptical views) I have even seen Christians claim the flood clearly is true because of evidence. I think that is fantasy land evidence. Yet there is a wide spread of understandings about this in the world. There are even people who hold to faith who see less history and certainty than I do.

Do I agree with Allusion on the proofs? You may be correct that if there is a difference in our view it is difficult to tease out. An approach to the question I sometimes consider is the one Paul Tillich used. The traditional proof point to the idea that God is the fundamental ground of being. Such an observation means that god exists is a given. However both Tillich and past comments from Allusion both observe that such a god may be quite remote from theism. Tillich also proposes that God is our ultimate concern. How those two ideas relate or fail to relate becomes the basis of how we think about God.

Tillich of course represents a small minority view, one I only partly share.I am more orthodox in my views. I actually like the comments in the Catholic Catachism. I am not RC but respect the care the keep toward such questions. Just so I do not feel all alone I will offer quote from cc, Professions fo Faith,sec 33,34,35

33 The human person: With his openness to truth and beauty , his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about Gods existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul , the seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, can have its origin only in God.

34 The world , and man attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather tat they participate in Bing intsef which alone is without origin or end. Thus in differnet ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things a reality that "everyone calls God."

35 Mans faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence however,can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

Huckelberry continues, as a strenght of proof, showing something is not opposed to reason is distincly shy of the top of the stength scale. At the same time this statement indicates that it is normal for believers to be that way due to various things converging to a point of belief. The converging considerations are not individually certain nor is certain knowledge the result of this convergence, instead something called faith (in a sense of a working hypothesis which continues to function for the believer harmoniously with the rest of reality)