Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

[religiously free]

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

D.P:  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.

Daniel you are doing it again. You are attacking me instead of providing evidence. And I heard about FARMS but I also went to the site and read their specifics re DNA. Keep in mind Daniel, I'm not nearly as involved in all this as you are. But I'm the skeptic there is no reason I should be. What happens is I'm introduced to information via someone mentioning it. Sometimes I do a search to verify. I evaluate what I read as to credibility. In my informal gathering the evidence piles up ..on one side or the other. I'm not writing it all down, studying it, devoting all my time to it. That's not to say I have not done a sufficient job. I've read posts by extremely credible level headed intellgent people who have done tons of research, who have been deeply involved and these people were not filled with anger like is claimed about RFM. I gave them high credibility. These were highly intelligent at the level of university professors and some were who had an interest in promoting rational thinking, intellectual honesty. I'm not the one in a position of defending. All I'm doing is looking at the information available, evaluating it and forming an opinion. I read FARMS, Tanners web site, ex mormon brd, 2 think, other web sites, read some books Krakauer, Journey of Man, some religiously related books , some logic books etc but I don't memorize and since I'm not the one making the claim, why should I be expected to rattle off any information. Yes I have come to a conclusion but I'm open to new information, new evidence. You are the one making making the extraordinary claim of a super intelligent being, of the BOM being authentic. The onus is this is a an argument is on you to prove. You are also the one deeply involved in all this, probably spent years studying it, you are the one who should be more informed than me. The one who should be capable of providing the evidence. I realize that is a time consuming job so what I'll do in the future is a search on what you've written. I think that may be the best since, rather than carrying on these discussion where I ask for evidence, don't get any but instead the focus is shifted to personal attack.

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.

Do you mean to say FARMS is also totally voluntary, as well as many other jobs within the mormon organization. Where the heck does all that tithing go to.

 

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

I think you are too. I also get the sense you are getting worn down with all this. It's not exactly a fun thing to do ..being exposed to this stuff on a regular basis. Do you post here officially for the church or is this something you just want to do? If that is too private, of course don't answer. And as far as the rest of the post no need to answer either ..I can look for whatever you've written on this board or on the net if it's there.

[emaughan]

Where the heck does all that tithing go to.

The evil dark side of me would love for it to come to my direction.

One of the interesting things about the LDS church is that there is no "Priestcraft" (i.e. preachers for pay). The church does pay money for new buildings, maintanance, charitable causes, mission presidents and GAs will get a stipend, educational expenses such as BYU and institute classes, and mind control devices in preparation for our eventual world domination.

[religiously free]

" One of the interesting things about the LDS church is that there is no "Priestcraft" (i.e. preachers for pay). The church does pay money for new buildings, maintanance, charitable causes, mission presidents and GAs will get a stipend, educational expenses such as BYU and institute classes, and mind control devices in preparation for our eventual world domination."

Yes I was aware that unlike most christian denominations there is no salary for the equivalent role of a minister or priest. Actually even maintenance I've heard is often volunteer. Paying for new buildings is not really much of an expense, it's more an investment, a 2 fold investment . The more buildings there are in theory the more visibility and that should attract more members. And buildings can be sold eventually down the line at a profit. I hear in Europe churches are being turned into night clubs. Added to this they have young energetic volunteer missionaries for the equivalent in business a sales force for 2 years. Looking at them as a business they are doing well, not to mention no taxes. Of course they aren't the only church doing well in the world.

[Daniel Peterson]

Me:

[emaughan]

Yes I have come to a conclusion but I'm open to new information, new evidence. You are the one making making the extraordinary claim of a super intelligent being, of the BOM being authentic. The onus is this is a an argument is on you to prove.

I know I am jumping in BUT I think you fail to see our POV (or at least mine). Science is neutral on whether there is a God or not - science is simply a process, or method for increasing knowledge. To say that it is an extraordinary claim to believe in God can be easily reversed and say it is an extraordinary claim not to believe in God. If one is looking at science alone, the argument could go either way. It is interesting that you are choosing a side of the issue that has no scientific basis - much like ours. There are things that I see that almost certainly point to there being a "super intelligent being" behind the design of life, the stars and the universe. None of this though is "proof" or testable, but merely a glimpse of the grand picture that we are still so far from seeing clearly. There are clues that point in the direction that there is a God - but no proof.

You state the onus is on Dan to "prove" what he has stated is not proveable using science alone. If you do understand the LDS faith as well as you state, then you would realize that we believe that it is up to each individual to find out for themselves if there really is or is not a God. Only God can tell you He exists and this is through prayer and desire to know Him. Science is not going to prove His existance and I - according to my beliefs - do not believe science will ever prove this.

God does not want to rob His children of faith.

[Devin]

Religion adjusts its claims to fit in with science, science doesn't adjust its claims to fit in with religion.

If both come from god, what is the matter?

Again where does gases and element come from? Thats not even a question of why, but where. No answer?! And your content?

Guess thats why the scriptures are true when they say "man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge". There are answers but there's no point in agruing with someone who believes there are no answers. Like I said before, god has revealed answers to the question I posed, but some harden their hearts and chose not to listen.

Your posts have proved nothing but to convince us that there are no answers to....well nothing.

[Ray Agostini]

RF,

Since going to work this morning and coming back home I have read all the posts you did, and I'm yet to see any quality reading you've done on Mormonism. You quote some classic anti-Mormon literature, including the Tanners, and state how you rely on other "informed" posters on other boards, like the mostly anti-Mormon 2Think and the RFM hate-site. FYI FARMS and the Tanners did lengthy exchanges in the early 90s, so just to not be one-sided I hope you acquire that literature, available from FARMS, and study it extensively before you mouth off about a lack of evidence (we are talking about evidence here, not proof).

You wrote:

In my informal gathering the evidence piles up ..on one side or the other.

But I ask,

What FARMS literature have you read?. Or do you just read viewpoints which sustain your blind faith in atheism and anti-Mormonism? Can you please list some of the literature you've read from FARMS? Your credibility is really stretching.

However, I am impressed with your following statement:

Yes I have come to a conclusion but I'm open to new information, new evidence.

RF wrote:

Ray I've gathered all the information I need. I am the skeptic, if you have convincing evidence then list it.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? Any informed criticism of Mormonism must start with its founding text.

RF wrote:

Yet on the net it is very easy for me to find very credible counter evidence. I've come here and no one is giving me any sort of objective evidence. In fact I've read the party line by those in the know is that they are convinced the BOM can not be proven with objective evidence.

But have you read, for example, the Book of Mormon and the extensive literature on Mormonism and the Book of Mormon written by fairly objective outsiders and also informed LDS scholars. I have not seen ONE book or article yet listed by you, only all this anti-Mormon crap and what you've gleaned from others on internet boards. Let me give you just one example. Have you read Thomas O'Dea's The Mormons? Well if you haven't go have a read of that and note what he says about the production of the Book of Mormon. In brief, he does not accept that any outsider wrote the BoM, nor could Joseph Smith have written it, then speculates that it may have been done by some "automatic" process, ie, supernatural means.

You see RF here is what I make of you. You've come on here full on in anti-Mormon and sceptic mode, thinking you know everything there is to know about Mormonism and science, which is why you've drawn conclusions (wrong ones in my opinion), yet it is painfully and embarrasingly obvious that you're really on kindergarten level as far as your study and comprehension of Mormonism goes. And that will remain my feeling until you can demonstrate to me two things:

1) How long have you been studying Mormonism?

2) Please give me an extensive list of what you have read in your own personal studies, not what others have commented.

Let me give you a small example of what I have studied:

Since 1975 I have read History of the Church (seven volumes), three volumes of The Comprehensive History of the Church (six volumes), Perused all of the 26 volume Journal of Discourses and fully read about six volumes. About 75 per cent of FARMS literature, and about 75 per cent of all of the Tanners' literature. My personal library consisted of hundreds of monographs on Mormonism, both pro and con, most of which were read over a 29 year period.

There, that only took one small paragraph as a synopsis. Let's see yours, since you come here with such BIG claims about how much you know about Mormonism.

[alienward]

I know I am jumping in BUT I think you fail to see our POV (or at least mine).  Science is neutral on whether there is a God or not - science is simply a process, or method for increasing knowledge.  To say that it is an extraordinary claim to believe in God can be easily reversed and say it is an extraordinary claim not to believe in God.

This is false. One of the reasons it is false is you can

[religiously free]

RAy I addressed your entire post point by point but unfortunately by the time I went to post, the site was frozen and I couldn't recover it.

Essentially what it boiled down to is your post was an ad hominen. A shift of focus of attack onto me, accusing me of lack of knowledge rather than addressing issues or giving evidentiary support to BOM. You also accused me of things I didn't do. You claimed I quoted anti mormon sites yet that is false, I quoted pro mormon words both from D. Oakes and Polkinghorne, not once did I quote an antimormon site. You claimed that I came presenting myself as extremely knowledgeable in science and mormonism, yet that is not true. I have clearly made it known I'm not an expert in either but I have sufficient knowledge to justify an opinion that the BOM is false and not divinely inspired.

Even though the onus is not on me to disprove or prove, I am not making any extraordinary claims...I will list a few bits of evidence off the top of my head.

Please understand the onus is on you not me. You are the one with the extraordinary claim. And the evidence you present should be in accordance with the claims you make.

Some evidence which supports BOM not divinely inspired:

1)Credible witnesses came forward who had heard the 'Golden Bible' and recognized it as Mr. Spaulding's words and ideas. He had died but reportedly had lost a manuscript. In particular the reason they noticed was because of Spaulding's s distinctive repetition of the words "and it came to pass"

2)The belief in those days were that N.A. Indians were of Hebrew descent and some books of the day had been written presenting this view, therefore no wonder it was a belief presented by BOM. JSmith and future leaders

3) The BOM has portions of a particular tranlated english bible version along with its later discovered translated errors. How could that be, even the gold plates from which Smith reportedly translated from reformed egyptian..and as well the gold plates were reportedly made well before the translated english bible. Yet coincidentally that was the bible used in J. Smith's day.

4) Modern DNA evidence indicates the indigenous people of N. & S. America are of Asian descent not Hebrew, which doesn't support the claim promoted by church leaders from J. smith and forward.

[Daniel Peterson]

Essentially what it boiled down to is your post was an ad hominen.  A shift of focus of attack onto me, accusing me of lack of knowledge

You've made sweeping statements about the balance of the evidence, but there's no evidence that you have a balanced view of the evidence. (The Spaulding theory? Now there's something that everybody accepts!)

You've made dramatic charges about the lack of relevant training and the financial support of the FARMS DNA writers, and your charges are demonstrably false.

You've issued large declarations about the relationship between science and religion, yet you admit to knowing "nothing" about quantum theory, one of the most directly relevant and centrally important developments of the science of the past century.

Your lack of relevant knowledge is difficult to overlook.

[religiously free]

Daniel, I would respond to your posts but they are ad hominems... rather than presentation of evidence or refutation of what I say. You are not convincing me of anything with regards to BOM's authenticity. However I am appreciating your idea of a discussion is to attack the messenger not the message, which is a tactic by those with little support for their position.

I would go through your post point by point if it was truly a sincere discussion to reach logical truths.. How many times do we need say to one another we are wasting each others time? You have already told me you didn't want to discuss with me for that reason, I have said the same as with you. I notice when you are asked for details such by alienward regarding cosmology you back out. You essentially have done the same with me, given me no details. I have given you the benefit of doubt and said I will eventually research what you have written on this site and elsewhere so that you need not repeat and waste time for my benefit. When you move past presenting ad hominems..I will address your posts.

[Daniel Peterson]

When you know something about the relevant areas, you'll be capable of addressing my posts.

I don't interact at all with alienward because his perpetual sneer grew irritating months ago. He sometimes raises issues that I would like to discuss, but I won't discuss them (or anything else) with alienward.

[Beowulf]

[religiously free]

D.P:  When you know something about the relevant areas, you'll be capable of addressing my posts.

And when you post something with substance I will have something to address. You know full well ad hominems are easy and the other person spends all their time and energy defending themselves rather than any actual issues.

D.P. I don't interact at all with alienward because his perpetual sneer grew irritating months ago. He sometimes raises issues that I would like to discuss, but I won't discuss them (or anything else) with alienward.

I can relate, sneers, ad hominems make one grow weary, shift focus and the discussion goes no where.

[Daniel Peterson]

"religiously free," let's just take a single issue before you depart several days ago on your two-week vacation.

You made a demonstrably false statement about the FARMS DNA authors. I demonstrated it false. Doing so was not ad hominem.

You apparently need, among many other things, to read up on the nature and definition of logical fallacies.

[religiously free]

D.P. "religiously free," let's just take a single issue before you depart several days ago on your two-week vacation.

My vacation starts tonight approx 8 p.m. my time. I was warning people that I was leaving in case I don't come back here. I also should have devoted more time to other things than I have to this board.

D P : You made a demonstrably false statement about the FARMS DNA authors. I demonstrated it false. Doing so was not ad hominem.

And pray tell what was that ..which was so demontrably false. If you demontrated something which bears significantly on the authenticity of the BOM I'd be interested. Are you referring to your statement that FARMS are not paid forr the work related to the DNA evidence? And so you think you have demontrably refuted my claim because I mentioned that them being paid had a bearing on their reliability. I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, as again as usual you are not specific but continue to shift your main focus onto me.

The main point being made by me was that evidence must be weighed as to its' reliability. Whether FARMs people are paid or not is not the only criteria. The type of relationship the investigators have to the information is also important to it's reliability. Their expertise, i.e. has their work been open to objective critical scrutiny by independent sources with required expertise? Do the investigators have a particular invested interest in the investigation. That's not to say that FARM's evidence can not be looked at but it must be evaluated in light of other information which adds or dilutes their expertise and credibility. Now, constantly going after me and my knowledge has no bearing on whether the BOM is authentic. An ad hominem as I'm sure you knw is not a put down of the other person but rather a shift of focus to in the arguement to the other person rather than addressing the issues.

D.P: You apparently need, among many other things, to read up on the nature and definition of logical fallacies.

Again another ad hominem. Whether I need to read up on ad hominems has absolutely no bearing on the authenticity of the BOM. Your main focus every single time you address me...is to attack me and that is considered the fallacy of ad homimens as it puts the other person on the defensive in which they have to spend their time defending themselves rather than discussing the actual issues.

[pseudogratix]

RF, I am afraid you really ought to consider studying up on logical fallacies. Here is a site to get you started: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

[Ray Agostini]

RF,

You're still not answering my questions, for example whether or not you've read the Book of Mormon, and you still refuse to give me a list of quality literature you've read on Mormonism. However, let me briefly address some points you made.

Some evidence which supports BOM not divinely inspired:

1)Credible witnesses came forward who had heard the 'Golden Bible' and recognized it as Mr. Spaulding's words and ideas. He had died but reportedly had lost a manuscript. In particular the reason they noticed was because of Spaulding's s distinctive repetition of the words "and it came to pass"

Spaulding is DEAD, not only physically, but all of the Spaulding theories. They simply have not stood up to testing, and since you don't realise that, which even most criticis of Mormonism realise, that's why I said you're still on a kindergarten level in understanding these things. It was not ad hominem; how else can I tell you the truth?

2)The belief in those days were that N.A. Indians were of Hebrew descent and some books of the day had been written presenting this view, therefore no wonder it was a belief presented by BOM. JSmith and future leaders

You have not, and no one has established that Joseph Smith used this "belief" in producing the Book of Mormon. The closest they have come is using the very poor comparison of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, but before you jump to conclusions about VOH have a read of the UNparallels, written by John Welch of FARMS. That's the problem with these theories, they come unstuck when you look more closely. Furthermore, how did Joseph compose the rest of the BoM, the overwhelming majority of it, which have no comparisons whatsoever to VOH? Pot luck? Good guessing? What you have done here is wildly speculate = in Joseph Smith's day these beliefs were prevalent, ergo Joseph used them to compile the BoM. No hard evidence presented, and no consideration of many other factors which contradict this theory.

3) The BOM has portions of a particular tranlated english bible version along with its later discovered translated errors. How could that be, even the gold plates from which Smith reportedly translated from reformed egyptian..and as well the gold plates were reportedly made well before the translated english bible. Yet coincidentally that was the bible used in J. Smith's day.

This was pointed out by Stan Larson back in the 80s. The New Testament also has similar problems in regard to its "embellishment" and expansion of the Old Testament, sometimes in ways which caused orthodox Jews to charge plagiarism and corruption of ideas. The parallel is significant. No one is claiming that Joseph Smith got the BoM directly from reformed Egyptian, and there's no doubt ideas and concepts were expanded in an inspired way, which is sometimes called "prophetic redaction", in other words a prophet doing a "modern translation" has the right to update a text. For example if we had a modern prophet who could redact the book of Revelation in today's language it might not be recognisable to the Biblical book.

4) Modern DNA evidence indicates the indigenous people of N. & S. America are of Asian descent not Hebrew, which doesn't support the claim promoted by church leaders from J. smith and forward.

That is now becoming old hat, but here's the bottom line: This has not disproved the BoM at all. But if you had read the articles available right here on FAIR, which examine both sides of the debate, you'd know that this has not damaged the BoM claims.

[alienward]

Alienward, you know as well as I do that this is the standard expression that God's handiwork is visible in all of nature around us.

Before you start trying to tell me what I know, get your facts straight. In that expression,

[religiously free]

Beowolf:  Alienward, you know as well as I do that this is the standard expression that God's handiwork is visible in all of nature around us.

While I accept this sentiment, it is not a scientific proof for the existence of God. People who believe in God accept the sentiment as is. Those who don't (like yourself) get all huffy and say that it is not proof.

Of course it isn't. No one said it was.

The person making the claim of god has burden of proof, because they are making the extraordinary claim. Extraordinary used here, does not mean what % of people take a position. It is for example the most unusual, least likely, out of this world, not what we normally experience, not what one would expect given the circumstances that sort of thing.

If something says they have faith in god and no proof other than what they see around them...fine. End of story.

The problem occurs when someone presents an argument to support that god exists, and then thinks they have succeeded yet they haven't.

For example saying that DNA is complex and could only have been created by an intelligent force. Yes that is an argument for but the counter to it is .. if that is the reasoning then following it through to it's logical conclusion.. the seemingly intelligently creator must also need a creator.

Let's say we don't take it as far as requiring proof to be accepted. We require only strong evidence to accept a claim. What may happen by the religious debater is that science is used to support their religious claim. But on it's own the religious claim has no merit. Let's say science makes some speculations based on evidence. The religious argument may take that evidence or speculation and use it to leap to a religious conclusion. For example science is looking for extraterrestial intelligence but hasn't found any ..then the religious argument essentially piggy backs onto what science has provided up to that point and leaps to the conclusion that 'religion has the answer..since science is looking for intelligence it must exist..therefore the intelligent entity is god. Science would not make such a leap because it doesn't have the evidence. Whereas religion not only makes the leap but takes over from where science doesn't go. It uses science to support its claims.

Another tactic I've noticed by the religious argument is to downplay the importance of evidence. When evidence doesn't exist then the illogical religious reasoning is to claim that the use of reason as opposed to evidence is a superior result oriented method in the quest for knowledge. This leap to a (religiously supported) conclusion I have seen given a name...it's called religious evidence or theological evidence which are misnomers because when presented as such for arguments they are not evidence at all. Evidence needs to be testable, observable, verifiable, objective and able to have universal consensual agreement if it is to have merit in the search for knowledge.

[religiously free]

RaY:  l  You're still not answering my questions, for example whether or not you've read the Book of Mormon, and you still refuse to give me a list of quality literature you've read on Mormonism. However, let me briefly address some points you made.

My expertise is irrelevant to authenticity of BOM. By directing your focus to what I have done you are shifting the discussion away from the issues and evidence. and that is the fallacy of ad hominem.

Me:  Some evidence which supports BOM not divinely inspired:

Spaulding is DEAD, not only physically, but all of the Spaulding theories. They simply have not stood up to testing, and since you don't realise that, which even most criticis of Mormonism realise, that's why I said you're still on a kindergarten level in understanding these things. It was not ad hominem; how else can I tell you the truth?

I first learned of this theory by a science university professor who had been mormon, wife & kids still were. He is a very level headed rational intelligent logical individual who actually took such an interest in this that he said he was developing a theory and might consider writing a book. On my own initiative I verified what he said by finding affidavitsThis theory is certainly is not dead. You yourself do not think J. Smith could have written the BOM. I'll tell you what is dead..it is the theory that J. Smith was visited by an angel who instructed him to write the BOM.

Ok I must quit here..so will post this for now.

[alienward]

This was pointed out by Stan Larson back in the 80s. The New Testament also has similar problems in regard to its "embellishment" and expansion of the Old Testament, sometimes in ways which caused orthodox Jews to charge plagiarism and corruption of ideas. The parallel is significant.

Yes, when you acknowledge the KJV plagiarism in the BoM.

No one is claiming that Joseph Smith got the BoM directly from reformed Egyptian,

Although it

[Beowulf]

For example science is looking for extraterrestial intelligence but hasn't found any ..then the religious argument essentially piggy backs onto what science has provided up to that point and leaps to the conclusion that 'religion has the answer..since science is looking for intelligence it must exist..therefore the intelligent entity is god. Science would not make such a leap because it doesn't have the evidence. Whereas religion not only makes the leap but takes over from where science doesn't go. It uses science to support its claims.

This is certainly not the case. (That religion uses science to support its claims.)

Religion is an OLDER thought process than science. I know of no believers in God who trace their belief to the fact that SETI is looking for extraterrestrial intelligences, and therefore there must be something out there. Instead they turn to the prophets of old (and if they are LDS, the prophets today) to witness that God exists, because they have seen him.

This is not evidence in the scientific sense, and never can be.

Unbelieving scientists cannot comprehend this, because they assume that scientific evidence must be available for everything.

BTW, if you wonder where I stand on science/religion, I am not a creationist, or a universal-flood-ist, or any of the other pseudo-science claims that some believers put forth. I think it is all nonsense. On the other hand, I accept that Noah was a real person, that Adam and Eve lived, and so on. Regarding the details, I reserve judgment (I have speculative theories, like everyone else, but I will not present them here). How different is this from your vaunted scientist who won't go beyond the evidences?

This all reminds me of Sagan's First Contact. In the film version, the female character played by Jody Foster has to tell the skeptical Congressional Inquiry that they have to take her story on faith. She saw. And she came back to tell everyone. But no one has any proof except her word. (I always found this scene highly amusing because Carl Sagan was famous for his lack of belief in God. Yet here he is using the identical argument used by all the prophets throughout history!)

In one sense, though, the prophets who have seen God face to face, whether it be Enoch, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, John the Revelator, or Joseph Smith, have one step up on poor Jody Foster. When they witness to us that God exists, because they have seen him, we can feel the Spirit of God witnessing to us too that, yes, their message is true. We all can have that connection to deity.

Yours Respectfully,

Beowulf

[Daniel Peterson]

D P : You made a demonstrably false statement about the FARMS DNA authors. I demonstrated it false.

And pray tell what was that ..which was so demontrably false.

You said, "they not

[religiously free]

Daniel, that is what I surmised you were referring to..addressed this in my previous reply.

You are still attempting to shift the focus onto me rather than the issues. This forces me if I do address what you say into a position of defending myself instead of dealing with the substance of a discussion. Generally it is a tactic when one has a weak position to wear the other down and not address substance. If you had a strong position you could present it instead, but apparently it appears you don't.