Question for the Atheists.

[_Mad Viking]

For the Book of Mormon to be legit, the preceding lack of evidence and illogical nature of the Mormon god must be overcome.

For the "Mormon god" to be legit, the Book of Mormon needs to pass muster in regards to it's evidentary value to those that in turn accept it as being the word of God. So I think it's kinda the other way around in reference to your statement. Your perceived illogical nature of the "Mormon god" is overcome as one gains a belief/testimony that the Book of Mormon is scripture on par with the Bible.

Regards,
MG

Are you refering to "Moroni's promise" here?

[_Tchild]

Oliver was the scribe while Joseph dictated.

Sorry, right, got it turned around in my zeal. Joseph dictated (using the standard brain to mouth method) and Oliver scribed the words.

Oliver Cowdery:

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of
Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of
the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift
and power of God, by the means of the Urim and
Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy
Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled
with my hands, the gold plates from which it was
transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled
with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is
true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came
forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the
revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel
come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every
nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains
principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will
walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be
saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom
of God on high.

Oliver's subjective criteria doesn't mean that supernaturalism was involved, all the flowing adjectives notwithstanding.

For Joseph to "think from his own mind-brain"...period, as you say, we would have to discount the testimony of witnesses who claim that there were plates involved in the process. If there were plates, there's more going on than Joseph looking into a hat and coming up with something simply from his own mind-brain.

But have you discounted the testimony of those who said that Joseph dicated while looking into a hat or when the plates were covered and out of sight? Without a source, anything that came from Joseph's mouth originated from his brain, just like it does for all authors.

You failed to mention the plates. I'm sure you are aware that Joseph's testimony and the other witnesses proclaim plates as part of the translation process. Things are a bit more complex than your simple statement of supposed fact. You may benefit from listening to the following presentation given at FAIR by DCP dealing with the witnesses.

It has been discussed plenty. The "witnesses" of the plates are not proof of authenticity nor of supernaturalism, only that something metallic was seen/touched/hefted.

More troubling, the plates have been disappeared and cannot be used as proof of anything, much less of a God of Joseph Smith's description.

What if God exists but he doesn't inhabit a body such as you propose MG, nor does he ascribe to any of prohibitions as taught by the LDS church?

God might exist, but it may not be the God you imagine. If you do not believe God exists except as anything other than as Mormonism has defined him, then, you and I MG are both atheists to that "other" concept of God. So how does it feel to be an atheist in that regard?

[_mentalgymnast]

I would not mind at all to find out God existed. You seem to be the one who can not handle the opposite, so even with lack of evidence you want to default to belief that God exists.

Perfect example of what I was referring to earlier. You accept the experts/evidence that supports your atheistic leanings but reject the experts/evidence that that would leave the door open to a god/creator.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... rne_EN.pdf

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlaye ... m=10621232

by the way, in reference to interview with Paul Davies in the second link (excellent interview from four years ago) here are a couple more quotes from him:

...Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

and

...the laws of physics 'seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.'

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/index-physics.html

Paul Davies would like to explain the order from within our own universe without relying upon the multi-verse theory or a god outside of the universe. The fact is, however, that he leaves the door open to design.

So yes, in respect to Mad Viking's and your own views that there is no direct evidence that you can hold in your hands that God exists, you're right, excluding the Book of Mormon. But there is reason to practice a reasonable degree of plausible and meaningful faith based upon cutting edge science.

I would daresay that defaulting to a plausible and meaningful faith in God is at least as reasonable as defaulting to atheism.

If anyone is interested in a whole lot more of Paul Davies' video presentations, go here:

http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Paul-Davies/25

and scroll down the page.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

But have you discounted the testimony of those who said that Joseph dicated while looking into a hat or when the plates were covered and out of sight?

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

[_mentalgymnast]

Are you refering to "Moroni's promise" here?

That, and other evidentary material.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I would not mind at all to find out God existed. You seem to be the one who can not handle the opposite, so even with lack of evidence you want to default to belief that God exists.

Perfect example of what I was referring to earlier. You accept the experts/evidence that supports your atheistic leanings but reject the experts/evidence that that would leave the door open to a god/creator.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... rne_EN.pdf

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlaye ... m=10621232

by the way, in reference to interview with Paul Davies in the second link (excellent interview from four years ago) here are a couple more quotes from him:

...Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

and

...the laws of physics 'seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.'

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/index-physics.html

Paul Davies would like to explain the order from within our own universe without relying upon the multi-verse theory or a god outside of the universe. The fact is, however, that he leaves the door open to design.

So yes, in respect to Mad Viking's and your own views that there is no direct evidence that you can hold in your hands that God exists, you're right, excluding the Book of Mormon. But there is reason to practice a reasonable degree of plausible and meaningful faith based upon cutting edge science.

I would daresay that defaulting to a plausible and meaningful faith in God is at least as reasonable as defaulting to atheism.

If anyone is interested in a whole lot more of Paul Davies' video presentations, go here:

http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Paul-Davies/25

and scroll down the page.

Regards,
MG

In addition to the article I linked to above written by John Polkinghorne (first link in post), here is an interview he did with Krista Tippet of Speaking of Faith fame.

http://being.publicradio.org/programs/quarks/

Regards,
MG

[_Buffalo]

Are you refering to "Moroni's promise" here?

That, and other evidentary material.

Regards,
MG

First off, "other" implies that a warm snuggly feeling counts as evidence. It doesn't.

Second, what other evidence?

[_Themis]

Paul Davies would like to explain the order from within our own universe without relying upon the multi-verse theory or a god outside of the universe. The fact is, however, that he leaves the door open to design.

I think most atheists do leave the door open.

So yes, in respect to Mad Viking's and your own views that there is no direct evidence that you can hold in your hands that God exists, you're right, excluding the Book of Mormon.

Ignoring the fact that the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction, you are basically now agreeing that we are right about the state of evidence for God/s/Gia/etc.

But there is reason to practice a reasonable degree of plausible and meaningful faith based upon cutting edge science.

And what plausible reasons would those be?

I would daresay that defaulting to a plausible and meaningful faith in God is at least as reasonable as defaulting to atheism.

Your being hypocritical becuase you do not do this with all the other claims out there. Defaulting to lack of faith or belief is the only way you can avoid being a hypocrite. And how does one know God wants our belief or faith if God/s/gia are not even giving us enough evidence for their existence.

[_Mad Viking]

Are you refering to "Moroni's promise" here?

That, and other evidentary material.

Regards,
MG

Moroni's promise requires a pre-existing Mormon god belief.

[_just me]

Moroni's promise requires a pre-existing Mormon god belief.

This is true. Faith is a prerequisite.