Question for the Atheists.

[_Tchild]

Not at all. I said that the plates were necessary or played a part in the translation process. Without the plates, there would not have been source material for the Book of Mormon. They didn't have to be in close proximity in order for Joseph to translate them "by the gift and power of God". If he's using a seer stone in a hat to translate, why does it matter if the plates are on the table right beside him or in another location?

Think wireless router or "the cloud" for comparison. Think outside of the box, man!

Regards,
MG

It matters because supernaturalism or the "power of God" isn't required as an explanation when a perfectly apt and appropriate naturalistic (the Book of Mormon came from the mind of Joseph Smith) explanation suffices just fine. God wouldn't need plates in your scenario because Joseph could channel the information from a different plane.

If Joseph didn't need the plates MG, the translation could have occurred with the plates covered in another room, secretly buried someplace down in Mesoamerica, or on mars. They acted as a prop, precisely so that people could be convinced to make imaginary connections between the mundane and the supernatural.

See how it got you? -wink-

[_mentalgymnast]

...you are basically now agreeing that we are right about the state of evidence for God...

I don't think that I have at any time during this discussion stated that there is direct evidence for God. Only that it is reasonable to believe in God. You and Mad Viking, Sophocles and others here look at the lack of direct "hold in your hand" incontrovertible evidence for the Judeo-Christian God(head) as being enough evidence for disbelief in a creator/god responsible for human beings on earth.

You have also come to the conclusion that God will not or cannot reveal to you personally that He exists. The wall is built with brick and mortar.

Let me quote John Polkinghorne:

Theology’s concern is with the quest for truth about the nature
of God, the One who is properly to be met with in awe and obedi-
ence and who is not available to be put to the experimental test. As
with all the forms of personal engagement, encounter with the
transpersonal reality of the divine has to be based on trusting and
its character is intrinsically individual and unique. Religious expe-
riences cannot simply be brought about by human manipulation.
Instead theology relies on revelatory acts of divine self-disclosure.
In particular, all religious traditions look back to foundational
events from which the tradition takes its origin and which play a
unique role in shaping its understanding of the nature of deity. In
relation to cosmic history, theology’s central aim is to address the
question of why events have happened. Its concern is with issues
of meaning and purpose. Belief in God the Creator carries the
implication of a divine mind and will lying behind what has been
going on in the universe.

You can't prove to me that a god/creator of human beings on the earth doesn't exist, and I can't prove to you the opposite. The divide/chasm between the believers in a creator and non-believers cannot be bridged through debate and intellectual gymnastics or prowness. It's been tried over and over again to little or no avail.

As I said earlier, the faith journey is an individual one.

Best wishes to you and the other atheists on this board as you continue along your individual search for truth.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

You can't prove to me that a god/creator of human beings on the earth doesn't exist, and I can't prove to you the opposite. The divide/chasm between the believers in a creator and non-believers cannot be bridged through debate and intellectual gymnastics or prowness. It's been tried over and over again to little or no avail.

As I said earlier, the faith journey is an individual one.

Best wishes to you and the other atheists on this board as you continue along your individual search for truth.

Regards,
MG

For any proposition for which there is no compelling evidence and which cannot be absolutely proven false, the rational reaction is non-belief.

Otherwise, why disbelieve in anything that can't be absolutely disproved? You would necessarily believe in a thousand fairy tales and superstitions.

[_mentalgymnast]

Not at all. I said that the plates were necessary or played a part in the translation process. Without the plates, there would not have been source material for the Book of Mormon. They didn't have to be in close proximity in order for Joseph to translate them "by the gift and power of God". If he's using a seer stone in a hat to translate, why does it matter if the plates are on the table right beside him or in another location?

Think wireless router or "the cloud" for comparison. Think outside of the box, man!

It matters because supernaturalism or the "power of God" isn't required as an explanation when a perfectly apt and appropriate naturalistic (the Book of Mormon came from the mind of Joseph Smith) explanation suffices just fine.

Well, the naturalistic explanations may be sufficient for you, but they are less than sufficient for many others that have investigated the matter in good faith and with integrity. Naturalism vs. divine involvement in the translation of the Book of Mormon and evidences pro and con of its historicity have, as you well know, been debated now for many years by some pretty smart folks on both sides of the debate with no conclusive evidence of fraud or a "smoking gun" on the side of the Book of Mormon detractors.

Go to another thread if you want to bring up and rehash all the Book of Mormon stuff with others. I'm not interested continuing in that vein here on this thread.

God wouldn't need plates in your scenario because Joseph could channel the information from a different plane.

from FAIR:

...the existence of actual plates eliminates the idea that the Book of Mormon was "spiritually true," but fictional. There is a great difference between an allegorical or moral fiction about Nephites, and real, literal Nephites who saw a literal Christ who was literally resurrected.

...The plates' existence as material artifacts eliminated the possibility that Joseph was simply honestly mistaken. Either Joseph was knowingly perpetuating a fraud, or he was a genuine prophet.

If Joseph didn't need the plates MG, the translation could have occurred with the plates covered in another room, secretly buried someplace down in Mesoamerica, or on mars.

Yes to the first, no to the other two. They had to be in a location where the witnesses could give their testimony that they did indeed exist.

They acted as a prop, precisely so that people could be convinced to make imaginary connections between the mundane and the supernatural.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

See how it got you? -wink-

Not quite that simple, my friend.

Anyway, I'm not going to pursue Book of Mormon issues at any length on this thread. I think at this point we've come to either and impasse or resolution, depending on your POV , concerning the stated topic at hand on this thread.

It's been fun, and I've enjoyed the discussion, but I've invested a lot of time the last few days on this board.

Time to get on with real life again for now.

Carry on with others and continue the debate/discussion, if you wish.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

I don't think that I have at any time during this discussion stated that there is direct evidence for God. Only that it is reasonable to believe in God. You and Mad Viking, Sophocles and others here look at the lack of direct "hold in your hand" incontrovertible evidence for the Judeo-Christian God(head) as being enough evidence for disbelief in a creator/god responsible for human beings on earth.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by hold in your hand. Also it really is more lack of belief then actual disbelief. I know the differences may not be understood by you, but then by your logic you and I have astronomical amounts of disbelief in all the claims we lack belief in due to lack of evidence. If you want to be consistent then you should also default to belief in all unproven claims that lack evidence. I would suggest that the atheist/agnostic is the one who is being honest and consistent.

You have also come to the conclusion that God will not or cannot reveal to you personally that He exists. The wall is built with brick and mortar.

Incorrect. It's only that I don't think God has communicated with me, even with all my spiritual experiences. I just think you and others incorrectly been interpreting certain experiences as coming from God.

Let me quote John Polkinghorne:

"Religious expe-
riences cannot simply be brought about by human manipulation"

You bolded this, but I sincerely hope you do not believe this BS. Human manipulation can bring about religious experiences. This is a very common practice, and one I think Joseph was particularly good at. I would also suggest his skills in this area started young and very much associated with his stone in a hat.

You can't prove to me that a god/creator of human beings on the earth doesn't exist, and I can't prove to you the opposite.

I haven't ever tried to prove the non-existence of God, but you have tried to illogical convince us that defaulting to belief in God from lack of evdience is reasonable.

The divide/chasm between the believers in a creator and non-believers cannot be bridged through debate and intellectual gymnastics or prowness. It's been tried over and over again to little or no avail.

You might try being less biased and more open minded and logical. Stop the mental gymnastics. :)

Best wishes to you and the other atheists on this board as you continue along your individual search for truth.

Truth is what I am interested in, and I hope things go well for you.

[_Themis]

Naturalism vs. divine involvement in the translation of the Book of Mormon and evidences pro and con of its historicity have, as you well know, been debated now for many years by some pretty smart folks on both sides of the debate with no conclusive evidence of fraud or a "smoking gun" on the side of the Book of Mormon detractors.

Smoking gun, NO. You will have to go the the Book of Abraham for that. It's interesting that many smart apologists can only really argue the evidence is not sufficient, but I think it is more then enough to reasonably conclude 19th fiction. This does not even bring in all the other evdience.

[_Mad Viking]

You and Mad Viking, Sophocles and others here look at the lack of direct "hold in your hand" incontrovertible evidence for the Judeo-Christian God(head) as being enough evidence for disbelief in a creator/god responsible for human beings on earth.

It's not just a lack of tangible evidence. It simply doesn't make any sense to me. The system as it is, is illogical in light of a creator god. I'm not interested in worshiping a god who would set up the system described by christianity/Mormonism/etc. Reserving judgement on the existence of god (atheism) is the logical course. You must accept a whole host of illogical and unsubstantiated assumptions on blind faith if you do otherwise. Which... brings us back to pretty much where we started... I must ask, "Why"?

[_Tchild]

Well, the naturalistic explanations may be sufficient for you, but they are less than sufficient for many others that have investigated the matter in good faith and with integrity.

Those who disagree with the supernatural aspects of the Book of Mormon do not lack integrity. I was a believing member my whole life and a full believer once in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as claimed by the LDS church.

Go to another thread if you want to bring up and rehash all the Book of Mormon stuff with others. I'm not interested continuing in that vein here on this thread.

You are right, I am not trying to detract, only to point out a connection that you yourself made; that the Book of Mormon translation is evidence of God. I merely pointed out that a naturalistic explanation is sufficient and that witness of plates are not proof of God, only of metal plates, and that the translation method used by Joseph Smith was not really translation in the traditional sense because Joseph did not even look at the plates for chunks of his "translation". You may call it channeling by the "power of God", that it is proof of God or whatever you prefer. I am merely stating that a naturalistic explanation suffices over a supernaturalistic one, and that the translation of the Book of Mormon as evidence of God is severely lacking.

Anyway, I'm not going to pursue Book of Mormon issues at any length on this thread. I think at this point we've come to either and impasse or resolution, depending on your POV , concerning the stated topic at hand on this thread.

Right, this is about atheism and the lack of evidences that would lead one to the conclusion that God exists. in my opinion, the translation of the Book of Mormon is not an evidence as you yourself mentioned.

Time to get on with real life again for now.

What is more important than discussing personal religious issues on an anonymous message board??

[_mentalgymnast]

What is more important than discussing personal religious issues on an anonymous message board??

You've got me there.

Regards,
MG