Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,494 Excellent


About Meadowchik

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Applied Mathematics, Travelling, People, Raising Children, Writing

Recent Profile Visitors

2,707 profile views
  1. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give an example of a spiritual concept you believe in that is not supported by science?
  2. I don't think big-g God is provable, but it might be supportable. I think that good beliefs are supported by evidence. For instance, being kind cannot be proven to be the best approach to others in general, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it as a general principle.
  3. Personally I don't think that science, including reason, can prove the existence of God, but it can help in the journey of searching. I would think that truth from the the Creator would be evinced in all Creation, or truths of the Universe evinced in all things. I shrink from the idea that only esoteric sources can tell about it or have some special authority on it. Wanting science to support it may not be the final decider for all belief, but it may be the beginning of good belief. Thus those who seek that minimum of support are in my opinion wise and blameless in that goal.
  4. Well it depends on the convo when one decides to argue a point. I was simply stating my opinion, not arguing for it then.
  5. Suppose the genuine plates popped up and pass as such. Or suppose similar plates of the same people or contemporaries showed up, in something which could be considered Reformed Egyptian, which identified people and places also in the BOM? To me that would be compelling. It would kind of be like believing in a horse-like unicorn, then it showing up in the fossil record, but much more complex.
  6. The most obvious would be to start with the original object, the plates Joseph Smith claimed to translate from. Yet the fact that those are not available removes that opportunity. In fact this may well be considered the greatest, most profound evidence that The Book of Mormon is not to be evaluated scientifically, being that the plates were intentionally withheld, either by the translator or some more mysterious power. Either Joseph Smith, or God, or whoever else, etc..., did not intend it to be examined by any means other than the spiritual. Why would the producer of The Book of Mormon (whoever brought it forth to our modern attention) then remove it from our access if they want it to be examined scientifically as a historical artifact? I think that anyone who is asked to evaluate its historicity is wise to turn their decision on this point. Furthermore, if someone other than Joseph Smith like some unidentified mysterious power withheld it, why would that entity thus merit our serious consideration of it as producing to us a historical artifact?
  7. I said fallacious arguments will never be enough. They are not the same as substantial "detail and evidentiary argument."
  8. Sounds like an excellent thread topic. Go to, and I'll be there!
  9. As I said, imo it amounts to sharpshooting.
  10. Also, @Bernard Gui, we're talking about accepting something as an authoritative message of Truth of the Universe and all Time and everything. The standard being high is a matter of respecting that Capital-letter Potentiality and respecting other people, too, since such conclusions tend to deeply impact our relationships with them.
  11. His summary points only amount to sharpshooting, in my opinion. It is fallacious arguments which will never be enough.
  12. I don't think it does, but thanks for your summation.
  13. Only because the state of proposed evidence is so weak.
  • Create New...