ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.I would agree with your definition, as long as there is no evidence, it's faith. Once you have evidence it becomes trust.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Do you actually believe hypotheses are faith statements? You would have to give your definition of faith first, but I never thought of them as faith statements. I define faith as belief in something without (even regardless of) empirical evidence/ reason.It is intersting to see the "scientific community" go crazy the second you say they have faith in something. As if having faith is bad.A hypothisis fits the biblical definition of faith.Oh I see, the reason you have such a big problem is because you are not like those crazy religous people that believe in myths. You believe in only fact based reality based things.
Eldwynn Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 You might want to reflect on the standards you are demanding, but are unwilling to employ yourself. It is at least uncivil and perhaps unkind to refer to a normal argument for a single set of standards applied to all inquiries as "stupid."Your rhetorical question about arguments being good enough to convince everyone is rather odd. We do not live in a world in which everyone agrees about anything. Indeed, why would a Mormon prophet who is not an archeologist suddenly have anything to say about archeology??I'm not so sure that your explanation of the Book of Mormon to your roommate was a scholarly one, nor that you have ever even read a scholarly article on either the Book of Mormon or the Bible. Otherwise you would be far more cautious about making such offhand comments.If you have factual, substantive questions about the Bible or Book of Mormon, there are people on this thread who are capable of addressing them in a reasonable way. That is what a discussion or dialogue is all about, and is supposedly what this Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board is here for.Stupid was a bad word, I apologize. It's not a logically sound argument, and shouldn't be used for perfectly good logic/philisophical reasons. It could be the case that neither the Book of Mormon nor the bible is inspired. Pointing at the bible's weakness only shows the weakness of the bible: not the strength of the BOM. I understand why it's done. People think that since they accept the bible, if you can point out that the bible is just as "weak" as the Book of Mormon, you think it will convince them that the Book of Mormon should be accepted too. It's a bad argument. Pointing out weaknesses in the bible only do just that- show how weak the bible is. However, the bible at least has the advantage of it's cities being confirmed locations, so you at least know it's based on a true representation of its setting (generally, of course not all the time e.g garden of Eden) contrasted to the Book of Mormon, where the cities are not understood to have actually existed by any but Mormon scholars. I am not going to argue with a Christian about whether Bethlehem existed- but show me where Zarahemla is? Moving on, you were misguided about my point about "convincing" everyone. Let's say you have two arguments (say "the earth is round"). One will only EVER convince African Americans of your point, and one demands no racial biases. Which one is better? Why should an argument that AT BEST could only convince those that accept the bible as the word of god even be considered? If the BOM is what you claim it to be, then it should convince everyone, regardless of their previous notions. Of course, no argument convinces everyone. There are morons in the world. Some people think evolution is false (many on this board), and some people think the holocaust never happened. However, your arguments should theoretically be able to convince everyone, otherwise you have to question whether or not it is a good argument or not. As for factual questions. Is there evidence of a final battle by hill Cumorah near a hill? Where at? If not, then why would such a massive battle, with plenty of swords and dead bodies, be so hard to find? Are there any native american documents that mention the names of characters in the BOM? And finally, when the golden plates were taken back, did they violate conservation of matter? Why not?
Zakuska Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I would agree with your definition, as long as there is no evidence, it's faith. Once you have evidence it becomes trust.Two very wise men once said...Romans 824 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.Alma 32:2618 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.21 And now as I said concerning faith
Eldwynn Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 It is intersting to see the "scientific community" go crazy the second you say they have faith in something. As if having faith is bad.A hypothisis fits the biblical definition of faith.Oh I see, the reason you have such a big problem is because you are not like those crazy religous people that believe in myths. You believe in only fact based reality based things.People use words in different ways. The way I always heard faith used growing up, and the way church leaders even sometimes continue to use it, is worrisome to me, and certainly is not the definition given above. To quote a dictionary and say that everyone uses faith in that sense, is pretty silly. It's why I asked how you defined it. I do not define faith in that hypothesis sense, but I understand why people do. Scientists take an idea, and form hypotheses. They then test these hypotheses and try their hardest to disprove them. Some religous people take the "law of tithing" on faith. They have faith that if they pay their tithing, they will be rewarded. They do not spend time statistically trying to prove this right or wrong. These are two very different ideas, and by calling both of them faith without defining it, is just an attempt to muddy the waters. You can't justify faith in the second way by pointing to how scientists use "faith" and saying you are just like them. It isn't. That a word has several different meaning does not mean that if you are doing one you by default accept the others as valid.
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 And finally, when the golden plates were taken back, did they violate conservation of matter? Why not?link20. Everything consists of matter '"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter" (D&C i 131:7; see also HC 5:393). At the time of the revelation this was a new \ idea, but is in line with modern scientific thought on the permanence I of matter. 'JOSEPH SMITH AND MODERN COSMOLOGY
nicolasconnault Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I would agree with your definition, as long as there is no evidence, it's faith. Once you have evidence it becomes trust.I think most epistemologists would disagree with that. Personally I argue that all faith begins with a degree of "evidence", if you take "evidence" to mean a piece of knowledge that supports a premise or belief. As I said earlier, faith is not a dichotomy, it's not something that switches on or off depending on some unique criteria like the existence or absence of evidence. Being humans, nothing can ever really be proven to us, we must decide whether a collection of facts justify a particular belief or opinion. Then, to save ourselves the exhausting mental effort of constantly re-evaluating our beliefs, we tend to stick to them, sometimes with incredible stubbornness (as is daily demonstrated on this board). Faith is therefore a ubiquitous element of our thought processes. When considering individual choices based on beliefs, one might draw a more useful distinction between active faith and passive faith, but once again this is more a dimension than a dichotomy.
nicolasconnault Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Scientists take an idea, and form hypotheses. They then test these hypotheses and try their hardest to disprove them. That is, unfortunately, rarely true. You need to learn more about the harsh realities of scientific research. Research is expensive and is often funded by organisations that have a vested interest in its outcomes. Low budget pilot studies are routinely conducted in the hope that their preliminary results will satisfy the organisation and attract a juicy research grant. This problem is more prevalent in certain fields of science than others, but it exists nonetheless. Your view of the ideal scientist is laudable, but unfortunately quite unrealistic.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 You can't justify faith in the second way by pointing to how scientists use "faith" and saying you are just like them. It isn't. That a word has several different meaning does not mean that if you are doing one you by default accept the others as valid.I did define it. I just did not spell it out. Do I need to?In the biblical sense of the word as faith is defined in Hebrews everyone uses faith some were in their life.
volgadon Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 As for factual questions. Is there evidence of a final battle by hill Cumorah near a hill? Where at? If not, then why would such a massive battle, with plenty of swords and dead bodies, be so hard to find?Where is the archaeological evidence of the massive battle at Ayn Jalud?
Zakuska Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I did define it. I just did not spell it out. Do I need to?In the biblical sense of the word as faith is defined in Hebrews everyone uses faith some were in their life.Heres an excellent Opinion piece in the New York times... on the subject...Taking Science on Faith By PAUL DAVIESPublished: November 24, 2007Tempe, Ariz.SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term
LeSellers Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 We disagree and that's ok. My point is that there are no witnesses that can verify the accuracy of what is translated. I belive you are wrong on this matter. As we have already seen in this topic, there were witnesses to the accuracy of the translation. THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSESBe it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.Oliver CowderyDavid WhitmerMartin HarrisOliver, David, and Martin testified that the voice of God revealed to them that the translation of the Book of Mormon is true. The voice of God is a good enough witness for me, I can't speak for you, however. You may need "more" than that. But "when you use faith, it is easy", to quote our "evangelical" friend. Lehi
Hughes Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 SNIPThat is my question. How can this be evidence for the BoM and the accurate translation of it?It's not a real question. The Book of Mormon as inspired translation of a real text is consistent with the evidence that Brant and others have provided. The claim that it's all a coincidence or something done by the Illuminati for their own inscrutable purposes, or Joseph's imagination does not explain it. It's a dodge, a way to avoid a serious confrontation with the challenges in Brant's six volume commentary, and the implications of Sorenson's detailed papers.Kevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PAI'm a little unclear how it can't be a real question. Since it seems to me that before even getting to establishing geology of the book, it's veracity as an accurate representation of the original text might be one of the first questions one asks? As I pointed out. It could be all about the Ford Motor Company or something, with no "credible evidence" to say one way or the other, the rest is just speculation based on faith (and completely blind).
Hughes Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 We disagree and that's ok. My point is that there are no witnesses that can verify the accuracy of what is translated.I belive you are wrong on this matter. As we have already seen in this topic, there were witnesses to the accuracy of the translation. Oliver, David, and Martin testified that the voice of God revealed to them that the translation of the Book of Mormon is true. The voice of God is a good enough witness for me, I can't speak for you, however. You may need "more" than that. But "when you use faith, it is easy", to quote our "evangelical" friend. LehiI agree that we have different beliefs. The point where beliefs can agree is on physical evidence. In this case, the angels provided none. So, while you may believe, and it's "good enough" for you. It's certainly not any sort of credible evidence.
SilverKnight Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I agree that we have different beliefs. The point where beliefs can agree is on physical evidence. In this case, the angels provided none. So, while you may believe, and it's "good enough" for you. It's certainly not any sort of credible evidence.While the Bible has bucketloads of credible evidence right?Let me guess, we're back to mormons having 'Blind Faith' and you having some sort of 'Real Faith' right?If nothing else, you are persistent.
Hestia Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 So, while you may believe, and it's "good enough" for you. It's certainly not any sort of credible evidence.You continue to question evidence which others point out to you while failing to recognize the limitations of your evidence. Move on to something else or leave the thread.
selek Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 So, while you may believe, and it's "good enough" for you. It's certainly not any sort of credible evidence.This conversation is growing increasingly nonsensical. Hughes, you have committed two penultimate "intellectual" sins in this thread: arguing from a double standard and special pleading- attempting to redefine words for your own purposes.cannot simply redefine words for your own partisan purposes.A rule for one must be a rule for all. A standard you impose upon our holy writ must apply to your own- anything less is a "special pleading"- also known as "stacking the deck". In short, every argument you've made attempting to discredit the Book of Mormon could be (and has been) used to undermine the credibility of the Bible.You cannot attack the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's angelic visitations without calling into question the visits to Mary and Martha. You cannot pretend that the Lord does not intercede with his chosen prophets without calling into question Paul's Road to Damascus moment. You cannot pretend that God does not interact with men without calling into question the writings of Moses and Abraham. Second- you cannot redefine words simply to suit your partisan agenda. The Book of Mormon story- both that of its origin and the message it contains- meet every reasonable standard of the definition of "credible".The means by which the book came to our hands are hallmarks of Christian theology- angelic intervention, prophetic/inspired wisdom, and the Lord God taking an active, caring interest in his creations- all of which are considered "credible" by most believing Christians.Just to lay the matter to rest, here is the dictionary definition of "credible": cred
Hughes Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 This conversation is growing increasingly nonsensical. Hughes, you have committed to penultimate "intellectual" sins in this thread: arguing from a double standard and special pleading- attempting to redefine words for your own purposes.cannot simply redefine words for your own partisan purposes.A rule for one must be a rule for all. A standard you impose upon our holy writ must apply to your own- and every argument you've made attempting to discredit the Book of Mormon could be (and has been) used to undermine the credibility of the Bible.You cannot attack the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's angelic visitations without calling into question the visits to Mary and Martha. You cannot pretend that the Lord does not intercede with his chosen prophets without calling into question Paul's Road to Damascus moment. You cannot pretend that God does not interact with men without calling into question the writings of Moses and Abraham. Second- you cannot redefine words simply to suit your partisan agenda. The Book of Mormon story- both that of its origin and the message it contains- meet every reasonable standard of the definition of "credible".The means by which the book came to our hands are hallmarks of Christian theology- angelic intervention, prophetic/inspired wisdom, and the Lord God taking an active, caring interest in his creations- all of which are considered "credible" by most believing Christians.Just to lay the matter to rest, here is the dictionary definition of "credible": cred
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Credible evidence, seems to me to be something tangible that everyone can see or test. Such as an empty tomb.Oh I see, that is so credible. An empty tomb proves what Hughes? It only proves that there is nobody in it. It does not prove how or were the body moved too.
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Credible and credible evidence are different. If the thread was a question of whether or not the evidence was credible to Mormons (who already believe), then I'd agree with you. Credible evidence, seems to me to be something tangible that everyone can see or test. Such as an empty tomb.Do do realize that there are very logical explanations for an empty tomb... like people stealing the body, or given enough time, a body and all other organic matter turns to dust...Didn't you at one point say that the lack of evidence isn't evidence? How is the lack of a body evidence for anything other than a missing body? How can you test that the tomb is empty, do you have a time machine where you can personally go back and witness that it is an empty tomb? If you do have a time machine I'd like to borrow it so I can go back about 10 years and kick the snot out of myself for some things I wouldn't have done yet...Would you care to explain how everyone can witness an empty tomb?
nicolasconnault Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Credible and credible evidence are different. If the thread was a question of whether or not the evidence was credible to Mormons (who already believe), then I'd agree with you. Credible evidence, seems to me to be something tangible that everyone can see or test. Such as an empty tomb.You know, argumentation is a bit like playing chess. You can recognise people's level of skill by how they play. The beginners just throw random moves and don't take the game seriously. Novices play with overconfidence, convinced that every move they make will bring them victory and be unanswerable. Experts plan ahead, lead their opponent, are willing to sacrifice material to gain the final victory.I and others have offered valid rebuttals to your single-track argument, but you have ignored them. That's called cheating.
Pahoran Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Credible and credible evidence are different. If the thread was a question of whether or not the evidence was credible to Mormons (who already believe), then I'd agree with you.The point you are missing is that many people find the evidence credible enough to strengthen wavering beliefs, revise existing beliefs and even set them on the path to conversion.Credible evidence, seems to me to be something tangible that everyone can see or test. Such as an empty tomb.Because it's just not physically possible to remove a cadaver, is it? Or to construct a tomb and not use it?If you were the least bit consistent in your highly selective scepticism, you'd recognise that an empty tomb is so easily explained in naturalistic terms that it can't even be considered evidence of anything else. In fact, not only are there cenotaphs all over the world, there are even two right there in Jerusalem that are both claimed to be the one and only tomb of Jesus. Manifestly they cannot both be, and it is possible that neither of them is. This means that at least one, and possibly both, of them are empty for entirely non-miraculous reasons.And this is why discussion with you is so useless, Hughes. Towards LDS evidences, you are sceptical to the point of paranoia; towards evidences that support your own belief system, you show a charmingly childlike eagerness to accept that borders on outright gullibility.I recommend you try a little consistency.Regards,Pahoran
Kevin Christensen Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I'm a little unclear how it can't be a real question. My explanation is in the parts of my argument that you left out. Notice this from Kuhn.
SilverKnight Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Credible evidence, seems to me to be something tangible that everyone can see or test. Such as an empty tomb.Tangible like empty caves in Arabia?
selek Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Credible and credible evidence are different. Really? How?Both must meet the definition of "credible"- and must be believable. Rather than different, logically, they would need to be near synonymous.Remember- no special pleading if you're arguing in good faith.If the thread was a question of whether or not the evidence was credible to Mormons (who already believe) This is a circular argument (yet another form of logical error and special pleading). They are Mormon precisely because they find the evidence to be credible- not the other way around. With this foray, you are also edging perilously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy., then I'd agree with you. Yet the fact that the believers are Mormon does not invalidate that the story meets the definition of the word "credible". Credible evidence, seems to me to be something tangible that everyone can see or test. Such as an empty tomb.More special pleading on your part, Hughes.Is the "empty tomb" credible evidence to the Jews or the Muslims? We both know that it is not- therefore your "credible evidence" is simply more partisan wrangling.I'm sorry- but if a non-partisan, objective standard of evidence were applied across the board, then the "empty tomb" is no more decisive than the "empty cement box" from whence came the Plates of Mormon.There is no archaeological evidence which supports the "empty tomb" in Jerusalem (beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, IIRC) as the actual resting place of Jesus' body. It's based wholly upon supposition and oral tradition, not fact.- That you and I believe that tradition does not make it proven- only credible. So- you are faced with the penultimate dilemma- either having your cake or eating it.The vociferous standard you seek to use to undermine the Mormon faith bears equal utility against your own.For every "round" you fire at the Mormon faith, others can use precisely the same ammunition against your own.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.