DiscussMormonism.com

My favorite example of multiplying long odds to arrive at any possible answer is the Drake equation. Odds of finding another intelligent life in the universe.

https://www.space.com/25219-drake-equation.html

There are thoughtful folks who apply this equation to yield 1 and exactly 1 planet like earth in the universe - earth itself! And then there are similarly thoughtful versions that yield millions of other earths.

It is totally fascinating, totally scientific, and totally useless for answering *the* existential question: "are we alone in the universe?"

Philo Sofee wrote:

They all only ever do HALF of Bayes Theorem. That's the problemu. It's Bayes all the way, using all the evidence available, no matter how uncomfortable, or bust.

That’s an excellent point, Philo. And a very expressive way to put it!

Exiled wrote:I personally love the missing evidence theories the mopes like Gee try to serve up. I mean if one is to make s___ up, why not go all the way? Also, it works so nicely that I'm going to try and incorporate it into my legal practice tomorrow.

Your honor, my client obviously didn't commit the murder. I refer you to exhibit A. I know it's blank but that is merely a representation of the powerful evidence that I have that someone else did the heinous act. I know that there is video evidence and 20 witnesses that say otherwise. But, but, your honor, my client says he didn't do it and the missing evidence clearly shows that somebody else must have committed the dastardly act that is before this honorable court. Your honor, I invite you to use your feelings on this one. I know my invisible evidence is true and faithful and will completely and totally exonerate my client. If you would but choose to believe, or dare to believe the invisible evidence and all of the possibilities that you can insert at your pleasure, I know you will see things my way and declare with soberness and humility, that my client is not guilty. Thank you.

And your honour, please remember the guidance that you must doubt your doubts about my as-yet-unseen evidence. But any doubts you have about the contrary evidence that would convict my client, well, you should believe those doubts. I rest my case.

When the church's ideas concerning doubts are expressed in legal language with a courtroom theme, the obvious ridiculousness of their teachings really shine brightly. It opens up the mind to see how silly their proposals are on how to deal with evidence and lack of evidence. Someone (maybe me, but I don't know legalese very well) ought to take each and every doctrine and idea and put it into legal thinking to see if its odd, correct, or downright ludicrous. McCormick did that with the idea of faith with absolutely devastating effect. I've never seen it in the same light since. McCormick has the amazing website "Proving the Negative."
http://www.provingthenegative.com/

Were apologists able and willing to legitimately address the issues this atheist brings up and in the manner he does, actually exploring and demonstrating the weaknesses and strengths, they may persuade me to get back in line with the church and what it says reality is.
Scroll down a little bit and on the left hand side is all his incredibly numerous articles addressing all kinds of interesting issues.
To witness an actual and realistic debate between Midgley and McCormick I would pay money on to witness.

Philo Sofee wrote:When the church's ideas concerning doubts are expressed in legal language with a courtroom theme, the obvious ridiculousness of their teachings really shine brightly. It opens up the mind to see how silly their proposals are on how to deal with evidence and lack of evidence. Someone (maybe me, but I don't know legalese very well) ought to take each and every doctrine and idea and put it into legal thinking to see if its odd, correct, or downright ludicrous. McCormick did that with the idea of faith with absolutely devastating effect. I've never seen it in the same light since. McCormick has the amazing website "Proving the Negative."
http://www.provingthenegative.com/

Were apologists able and willing to legitimately address the issues this atheist brings up and in the manner he does, actually exploring and demonstrating the weaknesses and strengths, they may persuade me to get back in line with the church and what it says reality is.
Scroll down a little bit and on the left hand side is all his incredibly numerous articles addressing all kinds of interesting issues.
To witness an actual and realistic debate between Midgley and McCormick I would pay money on to witness.

I think that is a great idea to put the church on trial, so to speak. First off, let's set the standard of proof for the church's claims to be a more likely than not standard (the evidence for the church's claims should be more than 50% favorable to pass the test). This is the standard for civil cases. I am unaware of any of the claims that can come close to passing this test, given the unlikelihood of christianity being reality. Even so, if christianity is reality, what evidence is there for the Book of Mormon being historical? Prof. Jenkins exposed that deficiency clearly and succinctly. To follow along with this thread, the Book of Abraham is a joke. Joseph Smith didn't translate anything, using the word translate properly. He made it up. Just like the Book of Mormon was made up. Just like the priesthood authority story was made up. Just like polygamy and polyandry were made up, and on and on.

However, I like your idea. I think you could start with a list like the CES letter and systematically go through the (thousands? millions?) of problems asking periodically if it is more likely than not that Mormonism's claims are correct. However, the real question is whether or not they are even remotely possible. I don't think Mormonism's claims would even pass a 1% threshold and perhaps using a more likely than not test would grant Mormonism more than it really deserves. So, perhaps do the exercise using a 1% metric?