Questian 4 The Unbelievers: How do you account for Lehi's Trail and "land of Jerusalem"?

[Vex]

Seems like we are going to have to review what an assumption is. Here we go...

An assumption is something one takes to be the case as a premise, stated or unstated, so as to support something else. If I say, "I believe JS translated the golden plates through the power of God" (let's call it statement A) it can be said that I'm assuming several things from which I will enumerate a few:

1. Such a thing as a God exists.

2. The belief that JS translated the plates is taken to be true.

3. Such plates existed (or exist).

4. JS had some type of access to the power of God.

5. God has some type of power.

and on and on. All those beliefs must be accepted if one is questioned. Example: if we ask someone who sincerely stated A, "do you think there is a God?" it is clear that he should answer "Yes" since the existence of God is necessary in order to say A and believe it.

It's just plain silly to ask me for a CFR on assumptions believers HAVE to make in order to take a miraculous explanation over a more naturalistic one. Hestia never claimed I existed but one can safely assume he thinks I exist so as to direct a post to me and it would be rather stupid to ask for a CFR to someone who happened to say Hestia believes I exist.

Those are not the assumptions to which is being referred. You have assumed I support a 'super-natural' hypothesis. It is up to you to supply such evidence that I do--You have yet to do so. Because I think there is a better or more concise hypothesis does not automatically indicate that a 'super-natural' hypothesis is any better than your 'naturalistic' hypothesis nor does it automatically indicate that your 'naturalistic' hypothesis is any better than the 'super-natural'.

[jmordecai]

The Arab practice was to name a region after the tribe inhabiting it. See for example Midian or Hadhramaut.

Is it your position that every tribe in Arabia had a region named after it?

[volgadon]

Is it your position that every tribe in Arabia had a region named after it?

As far as I'm aware of most if not all tribes did. So we have a tribe with the right name in the right general area and in conjunction with a burial ground.

[elguanteloko]

Those are not the assumptions to which is being referred. You have assumed I support a 'super-natural' hypothesis. It is up to you to supply such evidence that I do--You have yet to do so. Because I think there is a better or more concise hypothesis does not automatically indicate that a 'super-natural' hypothesis is any better than your 'naturalistic' hypothesis nor does it automatically indicate that your 'naturalistic' hypothesis is any better than the 'super-natural'.

You said the following.. again:

Couple it with additional evidence from Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon and you'd have further issues in plausibility.

You have been criticizing my explanation with saying it is implausible... the ONLY way you can say that is if you have a better one. Just as I can't say your car is expensive without relation to some standard, and since you have been rejecting the standard itself I've presented (or failed to understand), then it seems rather reasonable to conclude you take the other opposing view here as more correct. If and only if I made that incorrect assumption have I been wrong. If I haven't, on the other hand, you stand as a... well, a playful person.

[jmordecai]

As far as I'm aware of most if not all tribes did.

CFR

[Vex]

You said the following.. again:

You have been criticizing my explanation with saying it is implausible... the ONLY way you can say that is if you have a better one. Just as I can't say your car is expensive without relation to some standard, and since you have been rejecting the standard itself I've presented (or failed to understand), then it seems rather reasonable to conclude you take the other opposing view here as more correct. If and only if I made that incorrect assumption have I been wrong. If I haven't, on the other hand, you stand as a... well, a playful person.

Not the ONLY way:

Implausibility I equate with improbability (which may have been an incorrect/bad word choice to use on my account); thus the more assumptions one has in any hypothesis the improbability increases; decreasing plausibility of the hypothesis. At a certain point the probabilities become so small that there is no difference between one set of hypothesis compared to another regardless of 'naturalistic' or 'super-natural' derivation. Eliminating any number of assumptions in a hypothesis then improves the probability.

If assumptions can be eliminated in any given hypothesis that hypothesis becomes more probable until all assumptions are either accounted for by verifiable facts or eliminated by a more concise set of assumptions.

Thus your hypothesis is in the same boat as a 'super-natural' hypothesis.

[blueadept]

To the OP, I asked a few years back what the best evidence for the BoM was and I was given this Lemuel-->NHM-->Bountiful evidence. IMO, it's the best evidence. As a critic though, the most amazing (difficult) part to the BoM story is if a journey for a tribe of Israel of that time period could possibly make a trip from the Arabian peninsula to the Americas. So the best evidence as presented tells me I should keep an open mind about the possibility it might be true. As a critic, I'm not ready to buy the whole thing yet though.

I agree with Mudcat's comment

To my knowledge there aren't any Mesoamerican cities/places that have altars that have inscriptions that match anything that would reflect similar naming. This seems a key point to me.

I would hope I could keep an open mind about finding reasonable evidence in the Americas. I'm not there at this point.

[elguanteloko]

Not the ONLY way:

Implausibility I equate with improbability (which may have been an incorrect/bad word choice to use on my account);

improbability, in this case, means nothing unless you are comparing two explanations (at least).

thus the more assumptions one has in any hypothesis the improbability increases;

I showed already why the assumptions of the believer are much more than those of the non-believer.

decreasing plausibility of the hypothesis. At a certain point the probabilities become so small that there is no difference between one set of hypothesis compared to another regardless of 'naturalistic' or 'super-natural' derivation. Eliminating any number of assumptions in a hypothesis then improves the probability.

again, I don't want to improve anything on my explanation because, when compared to the believer's, it is CLEARLY better, makes fewer assumptions, etc.

If assumptions can be eliminated in any given hypothesis that hypothesis becomes more probable until all assumptions are either accounted for by verifiable facts or eliminated by a more concise set of assumptions.

yes.

Thus your hypothesis is in the same boat as a 'super-natural' hypothesis.

LOL inference problems, I see.

I already showed why the believer's assumptions are much more numerous than mine.

[Vex]

improbability, in this case, means nothing unless you are comparing two explanations (at least).

I showed already why the assumptions of the believer are much more than those of the non-believer.

again, I don't want to improve anything on my explanation because, when compared to the believer's, it is CLEARLY better, makes fewer assumptions, etc.

yes.

LOL inference problems, I see.

I already showed why the believer's assumptions are much more numerous than mine.

Perhaps you missed it; I reduced your count of assumptions for a 'super-natural' hypothesis to 4 or 5. I'm finding it harder to reduce the number of assumptions required for your 'naturalistic' hypothesis. Surely there's an alternate hypothesis that can reduce the number of your required assumptions.

[volgadon]

CFR

However, the Nabataean administrator Syllaeus, who

[ERayR]

...give me a break.

Sorry if it is offensive.

Again, I'm NOT saying believing in super-natural or miraculous explanations is unreasonable at all. The point is that it is wrong to say that those types of explanations are the most reasonable to conclude. You can believe them but still know they aren't the most reasonable things to believe; they are a matter of faith and that's fine.

And I am say that if someone has had experience with their own spiritual experiences then it could very well be the most reasonable explanation. It may very well be a matter of faith but if one has received their own spiritual manifestations then to believe that others have had and do have these experiencs is not at all unreasonable.

I can see how someone who has never had such an experience would feel as you do. However, your lack of such experiences in no way negates anothers experience. It just make communication between you more difficult.

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps you missed it; I reduced your count of assumptions for a 'super-natural' hypothesis to 4 or 5. I'm finding it harder to reduce the number of assumptions required for your 'naturalistic' hypothesis. Surely there's an alternate hypothesis that can reduce the number of your required assumptions.

Oh, did you? let me check...

[elguanteloko]

For sake of argument let's assume JS hypothesis is accurate; here are the assumptions one must make:

1. Man is an eternal being and an offspring of God
2. God is a loving heavenly father (and hence will not lie)
3. God reveals truth through mortal men called prophets
4. a prophet in 19th century received revelation concerning a people here and by association their travels

4 or 5 assumptions (depending how you count it) necessary to fulfill that hypothesis.

LOL oh boy! I'm not wasting more time with you. Count how many ontological assumptions (you might want to google that) you are making and then come back. Back to the drawing board!

[elguanteloko]

And I am say that if someone has had experience with their own spiritual experiences then it could very well be the most reasonable explanation. It may very well be a matter of faith but if one has received their own spiritual manifestations then to believe that others have had and do have these experiencs is not at all unreasonable.

I can see how someone who has never had such an experience would feel as you do. However, your lack of such experiences in no way negates anothers experience. It just make communication between you more difficult.

Here's the thing, ERayR. You have had certain experiences and I have too (I was a believer until no long ago). How do you choose to interpret those experiences is what is the issue here just as how you interepret certain facts is the issue. If I start seeing my dead relative right now in front of me, what am I to conclude from that? Souls exist and her soul was somehow perceived by my eyes? am I hallucinating? Which of these two is the most likely explanation? How do you justify your interpretation of the experiences in such a super-natural way? I've seen pens dropped a million times and falling to the floor. If you tell me that, under normal circumstances, you dropped a pen and it traveled upwards until you couldn't see it, EVEN IF THAT WAS THE CASE, do you think the reasonable thing to believe would be for me to believe such an explanation? Bro, you are still not getting that I am NOT saying it is irrational or wrong to believe in miraculous explanations at all or even that they are false beliefs; I'm not saying that. I am saying that we can compare certain explanations of some events and see that the believer's explanation of the divinity of the work of JS's translation is just not the most justified position to adopt even if you choose to adopt it because of personal experiences.

[Vex]

LOL oh boy! I'm not wasting more time with you. Count how many ontological assumptions (you might want to google that) you are making and then come back. Back to the drawing board!

And at the end of the day there still remains only 4 or 5 assumptions (ontological or not; the fact remains those assumptions are just that: assumptions). We can expand them if you wish, but by doing so you open your own hypothesis up to expansion.

For instance: If one hypothesis assumes there is a being known as God, there is automatically the Null hypothesis that must assume there is no being known as God. The assumptions are the same whether ontological or not.

A non-ontological example would be: One hypothesis assumes that an individual existed in the first place, while the other assumes that no such individual existed.

[elguanteloko]

And at the end of the day there still remains only 4 or 5 assumptions (ontological or not; the fact remains those assumptions are just that: assumptions).

Just assumptions, right? Well, next time you go to your doctor tell him all the other assumptions that, according to what you are saying here, he has to consider as well since every single assumption he makes carries the same weight as any other. What kind of (and how many) assumptions you make is important and they are not all the same... as I told you already.

We can expand them if you wish, but by doing so you open your own hypothesis up to expansion.

you can waste your time however you want, no problem.

For instance: If one hypothesis assumes there is a being known as God, there is automatically the Null hypothesis that must assume there is no being known as God. The assumptions are the same whether ontological or not.

We are talking about assumptions that are clear additions to what we can see. So, we have no evidence of God... but the believer assumes he exists (and requires it for his miraculous explanation). We have no evidence of souls... but the believer must assume them as well. We have no evidence of such a guy as Moroni... but we must assume him as well. Etc. What is the non-believer assuming? Boats to transport someone? Maps that are known existed? Person X told JS of something he saw on a map?

consider the following made-up dialogue between a child named Vox and a doubter of his fancies:

Vox: look that car moved! There must have been twenty invisible monsters moved it.

Non-believer: ...or someone might be driving it.

Vox: oh, you are only assuming that invisible monsters are not moving it. Thus, you are assuming as much as I am. Namely, that there are no twenty invisible monsters moving it. Both explanations seem just as valuable, then.

If you don't see what's wrong here then I'm sorry for you.

A non-ontological example would be: One hypothesis assumes that an individual existed in the first place, while the other assumes that no such individual existed.

amm... this is actually an example of an ontological assumption. I seriously recommend you know what you're saying BEFORE you say it and stop making yourself look like a fool. If we clearly see the individual and there's no relevant reason to doubt it then we don't take that as an assumption. You don't need to 'assume' someone's writing to you this post, for example, because that is not in dispute. God, dead people's souls, super-translating powers, etc, are a bunch of thing all very disputable and based on thin air.

[Vex]

I think you're missing the point. Let us set the terminology so we don't talk past each other. An assumption is something that may, or may not be true in reality. There is no evidence to say one way or the other.

Just assumptions, right? Well, next time you go to your doctor tell him all the other assumptions that, according to what you are saying here, he has to consider as well since every single assumption he makes carries the same weight as any other. What kind of (and how many) assumptions you make is important and they are not all the same... as I told you already.

Not necessarily, all assumptions must be treated equally until there is some form of evidence to remove an assumption from a hypothesis. If we take your Doctor's example and execute it; we would find that as soon as I walk into the office he has begun making assumptions concerning my condition, eliminating others based on known facts. For instance since I walked into his office he can eliminate the assumption that my illness is related to forward mobility or coordination. He also still has left open to assume any number of possible sicknesses via a set of assumptions until those assumptions are removed by either testimony (see witnesses), tests (experiments), and observations (firsthand witness). He does not diminish his list of assumptions until doing so.

Taking it to another extreme I can relate my symptoms that I suffer (secondhand witness)symptoms from a common cold. The doctor now has a narrowed list of possibilities and begins assessment of my condition. He checks my glands to ensure they're not swollen (a sign of infection), He may order blood work to check for specific antibodies, He may even ask me if I have traveled outside of the area and been exposed to other sicknesses. His assumptions stand until they are either verified or dismissed.

By the same standard if a Doctor fails to diagnosis properly we run aground into logical fallacy; that he eliminated a set of assumptions without due cause. By prematurely eliminating a hypothesis without enough evidence to do so narrows one's vision to miss what actually might be the cause.

you can waste your time however you want, no problem.

I'm sorry you find a Null Hypothesis a waste of time.

We are talking about assumptions that are clear additions to what we can see. So, we have no evidence of God... but the believer assumes he exists (and requires it for his miraculous explanation). We have no evidence of souls... but the believer must assume them as well. We have no evidence of such a guy as Moroni... but we must assume him as well. Etc. What is the non-believer assuming? Boats to transport someone? Maps that are known existed? Person X told JS of something he saw on a map?

You're close, but slightly off (in my opinion). I agree that a believer must assume divinity and by association some characteristics of divinity; however one does not need to assume that Moroni existed if divinity is assumed. One need only assume the pattern is established with deity in which 'things' are revealed unto mortals. The process by which that or any other revelation is received becomes secondary to the hypothesis (this does not preclude alternate hypothesis from requiring Moroni or other individuals to exist). Similar in that you do not have to assume boats traveled between continents for various purposes in a 'naturalistic' hypothesis the process by which an individual or object travels is the only assumption. For instance you would need to assume that some cargo (be it man or map) had reason to travel--whether it was to get to JS directly, or just by happenstance is of no concern. One would further need to assume that the cargo would travel within the vicinity of JS (it would prove of little benefit to find out the cargo traveled to America only to find out that the cargo went in the opposite direction of JS). The 'naturalistic' assumptions must then force or guide JS to the cargo in question; dictating a motive be it curiosity, nefarious means, or some other motive.

consider the following made-up dialogue between a child named Vox and a doubter of his fancies:

If you don't see what's wrong here then I'm sorry for you.

(Humorous side note: I can't see what you wrote when I quote you). You miss the point, let me use your example to show you why, I shall explain a made-up dialogue between a child named Vox and a doubter of his fancies:

The both see a car move without an individual in it.

Vox: The car was parked on a hill and so gravity acted upon the faulty parking brakes.

Non-Believer: Or a computer controlled the car, telling the transmission to engage, and the engine to deliver power to the wheels via the transmission.

Without knowing the particulars we have two viable hypothesis, both with equal footing. 1 Vox assumes that the brakes were faulty and that the car was parked on a hill. 2 the Non-believer takes more assumptions to get the same effect; incorporating an inherent null hypothesis (that the car was not on a hill). Now let us use the same events but put in the account of eye witnesses closer to the car.

Witness 1: I heard something strange coming from the car. Not an engine starting, but more of a strange hum.

Witness 2: I saw a manual gear box in the car and it looked to be in gear

Witness 3: When I was walking up the hill I saw a peculiar thing flash under the car shooting out white and blue sparks.

Now Vox and the Non-Believer must evaluate the witness accounts with their own hypothesis:

Vox: The Brakes could still be faulty and the car can still be parked on the hill, however the transmission is in gear so that might be a tall order. I assume that the starter motor somehow became electrically hot and forced the car to move thus explaining the sparks and hum.

Non-believer: The hum was the new motor the computer used to control the car in moving forward. Witness 2 was incorrect in seeing a manual gear box but was an automatic gear box altered to look like a manual. Thus when the computer kicked the new motor on the hum and sparks were seen.

Hopefully that illustrates the point I have been making now for the better part of 5 pages. Just because a hypothesis is 'naturalistic' does not mean that it is the 'best' one automatically. I could take this example even further but I get the feeling you'll just state something along the lines of "your posts are of little worth and do not contribute to the discussion."

amm... this is actually an example of an ontological assumption. I seriously recommend you know what you're saying BEFORE you say it and stop making yourself look like a fool. If we clearly see the individual and there's no relevant reason to doubt it then we don't take that as an assumption. You don't need to 'assume' someone's writing to you this post, for example, because that is not in dispute. God, dead people's souls, super-translating powers, etc, are a bunch of thing all very disputable and based on thin air.

I was aware of that before I posted but I was too tired to alter it so I left it.

[ERayR]

If I start seeing my dead relative right now in front of me, what am I to conclude from that? Souls exist and her soul was somehow perceived by my eyes? am I hallucinating? Which of these two is the most likely explanation?

I am sorry that I have not been as clear as I could have been. In answer to your question (Which of these two is the most likely explanation?) I am saying that for you the most likely explanation may be that your hallucinating because you may not have any experience with spiritual experiences. My experiences with the spiritual might make me see it as a spiritual experience that is real.

It is all right for us to come to different conclussions as long as we don't deride each others view. I may wonder at your inability to recognize spiritual experiences and you may think me a bit odd because of my spiritul experiences but as long as we allow each other to have and enjoy our own experiences then it will be OK.

[elguanteloko]

I think you're missing the point. Let us set the terminology so we don't talk past each other. An assumption is something that may, or may not be true in reality. There is no evidence to say one way or the other.

You get it wrong from the onset. Do you think that saying twenty invisible monsters moved that car over there is just as likely as saying a person is driving it? (let's say the car is so far we can't see if someone's driving it or not) What do you think is the most probable explanation? Why? I don't even think I have to explain anything to you but just make you think a little.

Not necessarily, all assumptions must be treated equally until there is some form of evidence to remove an assumption from a hypothesis.

What a naive position!

If we take your Doctor's example and execute it; we would find that as soon as I walk into the office he has begun making assumptions concerning my condition, eliminating others based on known facts. For instance since I walked into his office he can eliminate the assumption that my illness is related to forward mobility or coordination. He also still has left open to assume any number of possible sicknesses via a set of assumptions until those assumptions are removed by either testimony (see witnesses), tests (experiments), and observations (firsthand witness). He does not diminish his list of assumptions until doing so.

Did he dismiss the assumption that you might have had bombs attached to yourself? Or that you might be a mass murderer so as to call security and dismiss the chance that you might have a gun or something? Or that you have an unknown illness that shows no sings or symptoms but is going to make you explode in 5 more minutes? Or that you come with a fake illness? Or that you are his son?

Until when are you going to realize the obvious fact that we don't have to take ANY action on things we have absolutely no real reason to believe? You can choose to believe in them... but that's silly.

These basic questions should be enough; questions you should have thought for yourself quite some time ago.

[elguanteloko]

I am sorry that I have not been as clear as I could have been. In answer to your question (Which of these two is the most likely explanation?) I am saying that for you the most likely explanation may be that your hallucinating because you may not have any experience with spiritual experiences.

My experiences with the spiritual might make me see it as a spiritual experience that is real.

First, that's a tautology. Secondly, I'm saying your interpretation of certain real events is less likely than other explanations... NOT that those experiences weren't real. If I'm hallucinating my dead grandmother, I am indeed seeing my grandmother there in front of me; that is one thing. ANOTHER thing is to say she actually is there. You haven't answered the question: what is the most likely for you to believe: a powerful being exists somewhere that you don't know where it is, he has the power to communicate with you through some means that you don't know exactly what they are, he is good enough as to be telling you truthful information, etc... OR saying you just missinterpreted the ORIGIN of certain sensations? Take into account that we can make people feel "spiritual" through completely non-religious methods (in a lab or something) but we haven't got evidence of God's existence, His power, His benevolence, His omniscience, His power to communicate, etc.

again, what's more likely to believe?

It is all right for us to come to different conclussions as long as we don't deride each others view. I may wonder at your inability to recognize spiritual experiences and you may think me a bit odd because of my spiritul experiences but as long as we allow each other to have and enjoy our own experiences then it will be OK.

Many people believe in many sort of different gods, spirits, etc and they all get "confirmation" of those beliefs everywhere they see. confirmations that imply others are wrong in their own confirmations. We can also replicate much of the "spiritual experience" in labs. Taking into account the many different beliefs and the number of people that adhere to them, seems that even if you choose one religion or belief, you are likely to be getting it wrong. You still think it is the most likely thing to believe that your position is the good one? Probably you might want to look out the window more often.

[ERayR]

First, that's a tautology. Secondly, I'm saying your interpretation of certain real events is less likely than other explanations... NOT that those experiences weren't real. If I'm hallucinating my dead grandmother, I am indeed seeing my grandmother there in front of me; that is one thing. ANOTHER thing is to say she actually is there. You haven't answered the question: what is the most likely for you to believe: a powerful being exists somewhere that you don't know where it is, he has the power to communicate with you through some means that you don't know exactly what they are, he is good enough as to be telling you truthful information, etc... OR saying you just missinterpreted the ORIGIN of certain sensations? Take into account that we can make people feel "spiritual" through completely non-religious methods (in a lab or something) but we haven't got evidence of God's existence, His power, His benevolence, His omniscience, His power to communicate, etc.

again, what's more likely to believe?

Many people believe in many sort of different gods, spirits, etc and they all get "confirmation" of those beliefs everywhere they see. confirmations that imply others are wrong in their own confirmations. We can also replicate much of the "spiritual experience" in labs. Taking into account the many different beliefs and the number of people that adhere to them, seems that even if you choose one religion or belief, you are likely to be getting it wrong. You still think it is the most likely thing to believe that your position is the good one? Probably you might want to look out the window more often.

Sigh. I tried but you refuse to see. Just what evidence can you show that it is more likely that these experiences are chemical sensations rather than there is a powerful being initiating spiritual communication. You have not proven that just because the sensations are possible that it is the most logical conclusions nor have you proven that the two experiences are the same. You make the unwarrented assumption that your view is the most logical. You have not yet made a compelling case for that stance.

[jmordecai]

-Robert Hoyland "Arabia and the Arabs", pg. 45-47.

Add to this the fact that the Nihmites did have a region named after them.

Equating a list of the dominant regional tribal kingdoms in Arabia cited by Gallus in 24 BC does not evidence that every tribal name in Arabia doubled as the name of its location in 600 B.C.

Furthermore, the Pliny quote of the Himyarites is notable as they didn't even rise to power until 100 B.C. With little data you are making generous assumptions and generalizations that the very author you quoted warned about in his introduction.

The author makes the point that data from one era or region may not apply to another:

"There is the ever present danger of generalization over time and place... it may well therefore be wrong to use it to elucidate earlier centuries or to characterise other regions of Arabia."

While the first millennium trade routes helped connect the regions, the author explains that the peninsula's geography mostly kept the regions isolated in development:

"The deserts of the interior, especially the Empty Quarter, to some degree isolated east Arabia and southwest Arabia from each other and from north and west Arabia, and so the populations of each region originally evolved fairly independently of each other."

This is important as your list of kingdoms from all over the peninsula, include such as the Minaean kingdom from the NW region. Thus your assertion: "The Arab practice was to name a region after the tribe inhabiting it" erroneously asserts that there was some unified tribal-place-naming convention throughout the peninsula in 600 B.C.

The Aston's book acknowledge that Nihm was at least four generations from Bakil. What predominance they had, if any, in 600 B.C. is unknown. For all we know they were a family clan. We certainly have no evidence or reason to believe they were a regional kingdom meriting a place name. Thus with no data, to say that the Nihm were called NHM in 600 B.C. because we have a 1st century BC list of regional Arabian Kingdoms is not admissible.

That Nehhm appears to be labeled a region in a late 1700's map is not evidence it was a named region in 600 B.C.

[LeSellers]

The Aston's book acknowledge that Nihm was at least four generations from Bakil. What predominance they had, if any, in 600 B.C. is unknown. For all we know they were a family clan. We certainly have no evidence or reason to believe they were a regional kingdom meriting a place name. Thus with no data, to say that the Nihm were called NHM in 600 B.C. because we have a 1st century BC list of regional Arabian Kingdoms is not admissible.

Yet it does move the earliest date of acknowledgment back another 75 years (from ad 50). Your own knowledge of these matters is now improved because, a day or so ago, you were claiming it was 2,300 year from Nephi's experiences, and now the gap is only 550 years.

Again, I ask, when we find that datum you insist on, what will you do?

The water's warm.

Lehi

[SkepticTheist]

facie ad faciem:

Yes, and no. A single piece of evidence is seldom sufficient to establish proof. But when tied to other substantial pieces of evidence it can be presented as a basis for a logical theory. That is why I find the evidences for the BoM quite good.

I don't know as there will ever be proof of any religious book, because of the inherent non-falsifiability of the Supernatural.

If by supernatural, you mean that which in the Mormon religion is not yet known, not yet understood, or not yet seen, or that which in its current state, science cannot detect, I can agree. But I don't like the word Supernatural. I say Mormonism is not a supernatural religion, but a rationalist one, willing to accept as fact by faith things that science simply has not yet caught up with in its ability to detect things such as that in the natural world.

Ed Goble

[elguanteloko]

Sigh. I tried but you refuse to see. Just what evidence can you show that it is more likely that these experiences are chemical sensations rather than there is a powerful being initiating spiritual communication.

again, I'm NOT saying your spiritual experiences are NOT caused by God. I'm saying your explanation is the least likely to be true. Doesn't get much clearer than that and you make the same mistake over and over and over again on what I'm saying.

You have not proven that

"proofs" are used in math and in some types of logic, not in science. Inductive reasoning doesn't produce "proofs".

just because the sensations are possible that it is the most logical conclusions nor have you proven that the two experiences are the same.

Can you replicate in controlled conditions the power of God and corroborate his existence? No. Can you replicate "spiritual experiences" in controlled conditions? Yes. Which is safer to believe?

You make the unwarrented assumption that your view is the most logical.

...I gave reasons over and over again which you still don't get.

You have not yet made a compelling case for that stance.

...