Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

[ScriptureLover]

Daniel C. Peterson -

It looks as if you might need to devote 7.3 seconds more to intensive study of the subject before you can plausibly claim a thorough understanding of Mormonism.

Come on Daniel! You know that's almost enough time for earning a Ph.D! For Pete sake, go easy.........trim it to the Master's level of 4.8 seconds and quit being such a hard nose about it.

[Guest The Headless Laban]

Elihu -

When published it had witnesses statements. Joseph Smith himself tried to give it proof. He knew it needed proof.

And even though it came with this Biblical precedence of having it out of the mouth of two or three witnesses (Joseph came up with eleven), there are still critics to this day who simply dismiss them, and ignoring one of the finest discussions of their authenticity, namely Richard Lloyd Anderson's seminal volume discussing everything about the witnesses to the book! Even when so-called "proof" is presented, it is dismissed with bias. What on earth do you want then?

Biblical proof of 3 witnesses? That might work for those who believe in biblical proofs. What about the rest of the world?

Maybe a third party witness would have helped. Joseph's Smith's witnesses were his brothers, his dad, a few friends, the people he was living with, etc. Were any third party witnesses brought in? The closest thing to third party witnesses were Professor Anthon (who saw some characters) and Lucy Harris (who saw the 116 page manuscript), and we know how convinced they were.

[Tetraforce]

Maybe a third party witness would have helped. Joseph's Smith's witnesses were his brothers, his dad, a few friends, the people he was living with, etc.

You failed to notice that the friends were known to be most honest people. And even when his friends grew angry with Joseph that they left the church, they kept witnessing to their deathbed.

Why would a known honest man destroy his reputation over a crazy hoax, up hold his witness that covered a conspiring benefactor, snd never deny that witness even after they had been persecuted, others becoming angry with that conspirator, when all they would of have to do is tell people what they wanted to hear... that it was a lie.

No, I you see the facts about the witnesses there is not denying that they saw Joseph's Golden Plates and saw the angel that presented it, and truely believed the Book was divine.

[religiously free]

Me:

[Tetraforce]

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 16:15-17).

[religiously free]

tetraforce:

[religiously free]

tetraforce:

[religiously free]

Daniel you mentioned somewhere something about me not responding to your intital point re science & extraordinary life.

On Oct 8 5;48 post I wrote as a summary of your initial point the following:

Me: In otherwords the scientific evidence is not conclusive that there is design, but even if one were to see any design/apparent order that does necessarily lead one to conclude a creator.

and you wrote :

D:  Which is pretty much what I've been saying.

and I said

Here we are in total agreement.

I thought that pretty much covered the essential features of your initial point...and we came to an agreement on that.

[Daniel Peterson]

That is not the same thing as saying secular evidence can not prove the BOM true.  You used those words previously secular evidence "can not prove"  And Oaks said he was convinced secular evidence can not prove the BOM true.

I don't believe that secular evidence can prove the Book of Mormon true.

This isn't, er, quantum physics, you know. I don't think my position is particularly inscrutable. 0.0027 seconds of serious attention ought to be enough, to someone of your talent.

And one must then consider why isn't there sufficient evidence when there should be given what is claimed in the BOM.

I've spent most of my adult life sifting evidence from ancient and medieval records, and very much of it in areas wholly unrelated to Mormonism. I'll simply have to take your word for it -- undoubtedly you know much more than I do -- that evidence regarding ancient texts (particularly in Mesoamerica) "should be" clear and abundant. I'm sure that must be so. It simply must be so.

The evidence is very strong that it is false.

Again, I can only defer to your superior knowledge of the subject.

I've heard of FARMS position on the DNA.

And, for someone of your ability, hearing is plainly enough. No need to have first-hand knowledge. Is your expertise in genetics comparable to your familiarity with quantum theory?

In actuality discussing it as if there is the slightest chance it might be true is a joke.

An open mind is the devil's workshop. Or, anyway, it would be, if there were a devil. And if there were an open mind.

The  DNA evidence is pretty substantially significant and reliable.  It is strong evidence.

I'll pass that on to Drs. Whiting, Stephens, Meldrum, and Butler. Fools, all of them. Probably dishonest, too.

It is nonsensical sophistry. 

No doubt about it.

I'll add though that science making it easier to defend  religious supernatural claims is not evidentiary proof.

That's rather what I said from the very start. But, of course, you're saying it honestly, whereas I can't.

The way religion  piggy backs onto scientific evidence and makes an intellectual leap from there to support its supernatural claims, says nil about the truth or credibility of those claims.

How you perceived that this is "the way" Barr and Polkinghorne and Davies and Tipler and others are doing it, based on only a few minutes spent browsing a website, will remain a thing of awesome wonder and admiration to me for the rest of my miserable disingenuous life.

You've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the reality of supernatural entities or entities, nor in the authenticity of the BOM.

That's not surprising, since I've made not the slightest attempt. (It wasn't really the subject of our, um, "conversation.") Some will know, however, that I'm on record, in print and even on tape and CD, with quite a bit of material relevant to this topic.

Please do back out.  The majority of your discussion has been sophistry,  not substance or evidence and I don't particular enjoy wasting my time with those types of discussions.

You've overpowered me, "religiously free." The juggernaut of hyperconfident dogmatic ignorance is, in a certain sense, irresistible.

[alienward]

Current trends in certain areas of science -- notably in cosmology, but possibly also in molecular biology -- have made belief in some kind of God much more easily defensible on scientific grounds than it has been since the ascent of Darwinism.

Hogwash. Even theists like Ken Miller have demonstrated ID to be nothing but nonsense.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hogwash.  Even theists like Ken Miller have demonstrated ID to be nothing but nonsense.

Ken Miller's a biologist, alienward. What serious work has he published about cosmology? (Which is the topic I raised.) Anyway, I'm not convinced that Ken Miller has won the debate even regarding abiogenesis and evolution.

And, furthermore, your arrival here seals the deal: I'm gone.

[alienward]

They would be truly remarkable "extraterrestrial mortals," particularly if they somehow managed to fine-tune the Big Bang.  (How did such extraterrestrial mortals manage to pull that off at a "time" before time, when there were no extraterrestrial locations -- in this universe, at least -- from which they could work?  And how would such extraterrestrial mortals have survived the Big Bang, anyway?  Mortals tend to die in infinitely smaller explosions than that one.)

Fine-tuned for what, flaming balls of gas, space, and rocks? One of the reasons fine-tuning arguments are such nonsense is the evidence actually indicates the universe isn

[religiously free]

me:  That is not the same thing as saying secular evidence can not prove the BOM true.  You used those words previously secular evidence "can not prove"  And Oaks said he was convinced secular evidence can not prove the BOM true.

D.P : I don't believe that secular evidence can prove the Book of Mormon true.

This isn't, er, quantum physics, you know.  I don't think my position is particularly inscrutable.  0.0027 seconds of serious attention ought to be enough, to someone of your talent.

Evidence can prove the BOM authentic. The problem mormonism has is that evidence which should be there which has been looked for has not been found, hence the reason to say one believes it can not be found. Evidence is what we observe and can verify with our senses in the natural world/universe. There is no such thing as religious evidence so secular evidence is simply evidence, therefore it is illogical talking about secular evidence.

Me:  And one must then consider why isn't there sufficient evidence when there should be given what is claimed in the BOM.

D.P. I've spent most of my adult life sifting evidence from ancient and medieval records, and very much of it in areas wholly unrelated to Mormonism.  I'll simply have to take your word for it -- undoubtedly you know much more than I do -- that evidence regarding ancient texts (particularly in Mesoamerica) "should be" clear and abundant.  I'm sure that must be so.  It simply must be so.

My word and many other people's word including the science related to DNA. I have read Spencer Well's book ..The Journey of Man on the DNA evidence re modern man and the theory 'Out of Africa' so I have some understanding re genetic evidence and what is says

Me:  The evidence is very strong that it is false.

D.P.  Again, I can only defer to your superior knowledge of the subject.

You previously said there can be no evidence to prove the BOM true. That being the case, you've admitted it you have no evidence to support the BOM. On the other hand if you read Spencer Well's book which has no axe to grind against mormonism you will learn the long held belief promoted by mormonism that N.A. indians were of Hebrew descent is not supported by the evidence. Now I realize loop holes can be found and denials made that that was ever the church's position but I have looked at the evidence that is source documents posted on the net which show church officials making it clear that their belief was N.A. indians were descendants of the fictional Lamanites of the BOM. I certainly am no expert on mormonism or on the evidence against. At some point upon being made aware and the evidence is strong and stacks up against mormonism and decision needs to be made. It appears you've made a decision and have decided finding evidence can not be done for mormonism. That indicates to me you are in denial because if you truly were honest and believed you'd still think you'd find evidence.

Me:  I've heard of FARMS position on the DNA.

D.P.:  And, for someone of your ability, hearing is plainly enough.  No need to have first-hand knowledge.  Is your expertise in genetics comparable to your familiarity with quantum theory?

I think Spencer Well's knowledge of genetics is excellent ..I tend to defer to unbiased experts with high credibility. FARMS lacks the unbiased credibilty, they not experts in genetics and they are paid to to be apologists for mormonism. I don't think I need say more.

me: In actuality discussing it as if there is the slightest chance it might be true is a joke.

D.P.:  An open mind is the devil's workshop.  Or, anyway, it would be, if there were a devil.  And if there were an open mind.

There are degrees of being open mindedness.

me:The  DNA evidence is pretty substantially significant and reliable.  It is strong evidence.

D.P. I'll pass that on to Drs. Whiting, Stephens, Meldrum, and Butler.  Fools, all of them.  Probably dishonest, too.

Fools no, probably in denial, possibly intellectually dishonest.

Me: It is nonsensical sophistry.

D.P. No doubt about it.

It appears you took this one line out of context and I don't feel like looking back to find out what exactly I was referring to. I suspect it was when I was talking about religious evidence and saying it is nonsensical. I'm glad you now appreciate it for what it is.

Me:  I'll add though that science making it easier to defend  religious supernatural claims is not evidentiary proof.

D.P. That's rather what I said from the very start.  But, of course, you're saying it honestly, whereas I can't.

Me: The way religion  piggy backs onto scientific evidence and makes an intellectual leap from there to support its supernatural claims, says nil about the truth or credibility of those claims.

D.P. :  How you perceived that this is "the way" Barr and Polkinghorne and Davies and Tipler and others are doing it, based on only a few minutes spent browsing a website, will remain a thing of awesome wonder and admiration to me for the rest of my miserable disingenuous life.

I am able to perceive/make assumptions because this piggy backing on science by religion is a common tactic in religious argument as an attempt to add credibilty to religion. I saw Polkinghorne do it, I'm aware it is a common tactic, I adduced that others who probably share similar views to Polkinghorne which you have so referred me to might also likely do it.

Me:  You've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the reality of supernatural entities or entities, nor in the authenticity of the BOM.

D.P.:That's not surprising, since I've made not the slightest attempt.  (It wasn't really the subject of our, um, "conversation.")  Some will know, however, that I'm on record, in print and even on tape and CD, with quite a bit of material relevant to this topic. 

So why are you bothering arguing with me if you are not attempting to provide evidence? Just say to me, I do have evidence, please see these sources. Or actually give me a tiny snippet of the evidence you have. Oh yes, I forgot you've already told me in this thread you believe evidence can not found to authenticate the BOM. So of course, if that's your position what point is there then to read what you've written it will be limited to opinions and beliefs and most doubtedly biased pro mormon.

Me:  Please do back out.  The majority of your discussion has been sophistry,  not substance or evidence and I don't particular enjoy wasting my time with those types of discussions.

D.P You've overpowered me, "religiously free."  The juggernaut of hyperconfident dogmatic ignorance is, in a certain sense, irresistible.

If the BOM was authentic you would have been a source of intellectual honesty and provider of evidence to show it as such. Because there is no evidence for authenticity, you simply can't provide any and hence must rely on put downs, and various other sophistic games to protect your position and invested interest.

BTW...I really can't continue as much as I would like to..I'm going away and haven't got the time to reply to all your posts. Some of them I've had to cut short, sorry about that.

[religiously free]

D.P writes to alienward:  And, furthermore, your arrival here seals the deal: I'm gone.

I'm impressed alienward, you must be quite logical and knowledgable..that's the only reason I can see for D.P. quitting on you so fast.

[Kozaru]

D.P writes to alienward:

[religiously free]

D.P writes to alienward:

[alienward]

Ken Miller's a biologist, alienward.  What serious work has he published about cosmology?  (Which is the topic I raised.)  Anyway, I'm not convinced that Ken Miller has won the debate even regarding abiogenesis and evolution.

I had responded to this from Daniel Peterson:

Current trends in certain areas of science -- notably in cosmology, but possibly also in molecular biology -- have made belief in some kind of God much more easily defensible on scientific grounds than it has been since the ascent of Darwinism.

I guess Daniel Peterson is saying that even though he raised the topic of

[Daniel Peterson]

You previously said there can be no evidence to prove the BOM true.

[religiously free]

Daniel although I'd love to respond, I just can't put in the necessary time to address each comment of yours.

I read your post and essentially the gist of it is I just don't understand. Yet I don't believe you were specific. I appreciate you may have spent lots of time explaining publicly or privately, to others who you thought didn't understand, though I've never read anything you've ever said or written other than what is on this board in last week or so. But I hope you can appreciate that from my perspective you haven't convinced me of anything. Nor do I find you forthright in your answers. Perhaps if you are tired of saying the same things over & over ..then you might have some answers prepared which you could copy and paste, that would explain in at least a bit of detail.

This tactic of yours of putting the other person down and telling them they don't understand when they are the ones bringing up evidence, perhaps is of benefit to the believers who read here, makes them feel reassured or good. I suppose you are looked upon as the intellectual great debater by fellow mormons, I'm guessing on that. Maybe your main objective is just to reinforce mormonism to believers or perhaps doubting believers and get rid of skeptics by wearing them down. What your purpose is, I don't know but you've spend a heck of a lot of time with me trying to convince me over and over again that I don't know much if anything. Yet I know I have done a fair amount of investigation of mormonism. You've offered virtually nil to illustrate your knowledge or my lack. You seem like a nice person. I have nothing personally against you.

[Ray Agostini]

  Yet I know I have done a fair amount of investigation of mormonism.  You've offered virtually nil  to illustrate your knowledge or my lack.

I hope you'll excuse my butting in here, but RF can you tell me what you have read on Mormonism, and how long you've been studying it?

[religiously free]

RAy:  I hope you'll excuse my butting in here, but RF can you tell me what you have read on Mormonism, and how long you've been studying it?

No sorry I have to go do some other things, I'm leaving for a 2 wk holiday tomorrow. bye bye

[Ray Agostini]

RAy:  I hope you'll excuse my butting in here, but RF can you tell me what you have read on Mormonism, and how long you've been studying it?

No sorry I have to go do some other things, I'm leaving for a 2 wk holiday tomorrow. bye bye

That's okay, I can wait until you get back. See how much you can read in that time It will save you being dishonest when you answer. If you're coming to Australia look me up, I'd LOVE to have a conversation with you about all this.

[religiously free]

That's okay, I can wait until you get back. See how much you can read in that time

[Daniel Peterson]

You've offered virtually nil  to illustrate your knowledge or my lack.

Au contraire. For example, the contrast between what you said in your dismissal of the FARMS DNA authors and the truth about them could hardly have been clearer. You didn't come off looking very well informed. You've indicated that you've only heard about what they've written, yet you confidently dismissed them on the basis of charges that turned out to be completely false.

Incidently, as one who is privy to the entire FARMS budget, I'm going to take a real risk by revealing some confidential financial information: The amount paid to Whiting, Stephens, Meldrum, Butler, and McClellan for their writings on Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon was $0.00. And not just approximately $0.00. I'm talking about precisely $0.00.

You seem like a nice person.

I'm exceedingly nice. A real sweetie. Beloved of my mother, sundry aged aunts and uncles, my dog, my pet tortoise, and -- sometimes -- even of my wife and children.

[emaughan]

As an agnostic, I believe in respecting the rights of my fellow man and living within laws that men of goodwill created.

Good. As an agnostic though, do you not at least accept the possibility that there is an after life?

My point is made taking a purely athiestic stance. If there was no afterlife, this life would be totaly meaningless. I do not base this on subjective opinion, but I use math. Any finite number (years of life in this case) approaches zero when compared to infinity.

I guess I would credit it to evolution.

Evolution could explain some of our socialized behaviors, but not all. The strong prohibition against adultery goes against evolutionary ideals (spreading my genes in as many places as I can). Homosexuals could be a great benefit to those that do choose to breed by working for society without creating competitors for my future children. Yet most societies have been morally opposed to homosexuality. Christian ideals of being kind to the weak and oppressed has no evolutionary benefit that I can think of - for the society or the idividuals competing to reproduce. There are other religions that share simular ideals and ideals that make no evolutionary sense.

Our ancestors who just went around acting like a menace to society, were killed off by society.

Fortunately my ancestors escaped to Utah before they were killed off for being menaces to society.

P.S. I do not believe that their is no God, and that our actions here have eternal ripples that will cary us forward through the eternities ahead.