"I supose a believer could argue that..."

[_sock puppet]

For a believer, why is faith (belief in the absence of evidence) not enough?

[_thews]

For a believer, why is faith (belief in the absence of evidence) not enough?

For an Atheist, how is belief (belief based on the rejection of evidence) enough?

The evidence I'm referring to is your own existence and the matter that surrounds you. If something cannot come from nothing, one must just accept matter always existed, and, based on that foundation, both you and the matter that surrounds you are a result of random occurrences.

To the LDS, the question is, in my opinion, how can one place faith in Joseph Smith while rejecting parts of his truth claims?

[_Some Schmo]

For a believer, why is faith (belief in the absence of evidence) not enough?

Because they're human and don't really believe the narrative they're pushing.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

For a believer, why is faith (belief in the absence of evidence) not enough?

For an Atheist, how is belief (belief based on the rejection of evidence) enough?

The evidence I'm referring to is your own existence and the matter that surrounds you. If something cannot come from nothing, one must just accept matter always existed, and, based on that foundation, both you and the matter that surrounds you are a result of random occurrences.

To the LDS, the question is, in my opinion, how can one place faith in Joseph Smith while rejecting parts of his truth claims?

What?

[_thews]

What?[/i]

You aren't very bright... maybe you should just stick to posting cow pictures and drawing with crayons.

[_Chap]

If something cannot come from nothing,

How do you know that? In fact it appears that your hypothetical may be empirically falsifiable. Have you heard of vacuum energy?

one must just accept matter always existed,

I am not sure how that follows, even if it is true that "something cannot come from nothing". But that is not important.

and, based on that foundation, both you and the matter that surrounds you are a result of random occurrences.

And that (if true) would be worrying how? Are you perhaps imagining something like this:

"Hey honey! I've been reading a science book, and it says that you and the matter that surrounds you are a result of random occurrences. So I'm going to shoot you, rape our daughter, then go out and sell crack to schoolkids!"

But maybe you are one of those dangerous people who would do that kind of thing if you didn't believe in a deity who created you with a purpose in mind - if so, please go on believing.

[_EAllusion]

Thews -

Is the existence of God a random occurrence? Did God pop out of nothing? If so, why isn't this a problem for you?

Future Thews -

God is a self-existent entity outside of the physical universe?

Ok, then why can't the universe qua the aggregate of all things have this property too? And if it can, then there is no reason to conclude on the basis of existence of matter that your god is more likely than not, right?

Future Thews -

Blargh.

[_harmony]

Blargh.

LOL! (oh, for an appropriate smiley!)

[_thews]

If something cannot come from nothing,

How do you know that? In fact it appears that your hypothetical may be empirically falsifiable. Have you heard of vacuum energy?

To the OP, the question was whether or not belief was enough. My point is that belief (leap of faith) is required for both the Atheist and Theist. True *nothing* doesn't exist, nor does it have properties. LDS Apologists hinge a lot of what they can't explain on future discoveries; like some sort of evidence being found in a Mayan excavation. I find the same arguments from Atheists when they use new scientific discoveries they claim will eventually come up with a theory that explains how the universe could be created. Dr. Wilson's post is a good example: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21791

When you use data to supposedly make the claim that *nothing* can become something based upon observed properties, the properties are something. Again, true *nothing* doesn't exist, so the foundation for any argument that explains how matter was created from nothing has to have some starting point where something happens... to something that already existed. This is an exercise in futility in my opinion and is impossible to theorize, as its foundation is finite. If you wish to place faith that some future theory will adequately explain this, then maybe a Nephite coin will reveal Mormonism was really true as well.

Again to the OP, I find the Agnostic perspective the most theoretically correct stance to this argument. The argument accepts one simply can't know either way, which is honest and avoids belief in something that can't/hasn't yet been proven.

one must just accept matter always existed,

I am not sure how that follows, even if it is true that "something cannot come from nothing". But that is not important.

It's very important and requires that what is possible is acknowledged. If you claim *something* can come from *nothing* based on properties of the *nothing*, then *nothing* is *something*. If you claim to have an infinite thought process which can understand this, I would disagree.

and, based on that foundation, both you and the matter that surrounds you are a result of random occurrences.

And that (if true) would be worrying how? Are you perhaps imagining something like this:

"Hey honey! I've been reading a science book, and it says that you and the matter that surrounds you are a result of random occurrences. So I'm going to shoot you, rape our daughter, then go out and sell crack to schoolkids!"

But maybe you are one of those dangerous people who would do that kind of thing if you didn't believe in a deity who created you with a purpose in mind - if so, please go on believing.

You missed the point entirely and had to result in a failed attempt at sarcastic humor. The point is very simple... if we are a result of random chance occurrences, the fact that we can process our own thought is also random. If you wish to believe that *nothing* did *something* to create the universe, and as a result random chemicals mixed together to eventually produce us and everything that supports life, I can't prove you wrong, but it is based on belief, which was the question asked. If it's enough for you, then the end result is yes.