Facebook conversation

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Can you explain why it couldn't be a "coincidence" (meaning, I assume, an encounter that was the result of seemingly random chance and not the result of divine intervention)?  What part is difficult for you to understand?

There are a lot of ways people make mistakes in probability, and I think you may be interested to think about two of them.

First, it's easy to think that every day is "normal."  Meaning, we should only expect "frequent" events.  But that isn't the case.  While we usually experience normal, expected events, we should also expect extremely rare and coincidental events to occur.  It would be unusual if they didn't.  If you only expect normal events to occur, then it's easy to give unexpected events extra (and possibly undeserved) meaning.

Second, it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur (i.e. the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy).  What if I told you that a woman named Kate Bradley won a lottery with odds of 350 million to 1.  That's pretty slim odds, and it may sound like a miraculous event.  But what if the day before the lottery drawing, I told you that over 50 million people had purchased over 200 million tickets for the lottery.  What would you say the chances of someone winning the lottery would be?  It's not unreasonable to assume that someone might.  But it would be amazing to name the specific person the day before.  But that's not what happened; we only cared about Kate Bradley after she won.

So think about stories about LDS missionaries.  Finding a long-lost relative or golden contact is like winning the missionary lottery.  And certainly after it happens, the odds of two specific people meeting in that specific time and place are astronomical.  But that's only after the story happens.

But look at it the way we looked at the lottery before the drawing.  There are 70,000+ missionaries in the world.  Each day, they go out and spend 12 hours doing everything they can to meet people.  They knock on doors.  They talk to people on buses.  They street contact.  Let's say the average missionary is meeting 10 people a day.  That would be 700,000 contacts each day.  Over the course of a year, that would be over 250 million "contact" points between missionaries and people on the street.  So now you can ask "Out of 250 million contacts each year, what are the odds that a missionary is going to run into a long-lost family member or golden contact?"  

I don't know what the actual odds are, but I would be more surprised if it didn't happen every once in a while.  Even if God has nothing to do with it, if you send that many people out and have them make every possible effort to talk to everyone they see, eventually you're going to make a connection.

Whether or not that makes sense to you, hopefully you can see why someone might respond toa story you consider miraculous with a response of "Yeah, that's what we would expect."

 

Thanks cinepro

Another one for the wrong side.  Hope you are proud.  He's a babe in the woods and you took advantage of his innocence.

Edited September 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

never mind 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Cinepro, how do you explain when the spirit tells someone to do something to save his/her life? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Cinepro, how do you explain when the spirit tells someone to do something to save his/her life? 

How do we explain all the faithful people that die prematurely? Did the spirit not tell them how to save their own lives? #Survivorship Bias

 

ETA: I am skeptical of most miracle claims, but if I'm honest, I do see the appeal. Often we have to chose which story we want to believe. At the end of the film Life of Pi, after being given two stories (a fantastic one, and a more plausible grim one), the viewer is asked which story we prefer. It concludes with "And so it goes with God."

Edited September 12, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SamuelTheLamanite]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do we explain all the faithful people that die prematurely? Did the spirit not tell them how to save their own lives? #Survivorship Bias

 

ETA: I am skeptical of most miracle claims, but if I'm honest, I do see the appeal. Often we have to chose which story we want to believe. At the end of the film Life of Pi, after being given two stories (a fantastic one, and a more plausible grim one), the viewer is asked which story we prefer. It concludes with "And so it goes with God."

If everything is explained by coincidence and bias where is God?  If you are skeptical of most miracles claims, then why do you believe in God? 

I admit you make sense, I seriously need to read faith promoting stories.  

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Daniel2]

In response to the OP:

Samuel, if I were to give you one piece of advice, it would be to stop trying to convince the individual/s you're speaking with that they're wrong and you're right.

I think discussion is productive when we try to understand one another, whether or not the outcome provides a change in anyone's opinion... but in a discussion like what it sounds like yours is, if "convincing someone of the error of their ways" is the goal, frustration is likely to follow.

When someone says something that disparages my beliefs, I may try to ask questions to understand them, or I may share my feelings and views, but rarely do I go out of my way to try to convince an individual who isn't open to change that I am right and they are wrong.   I may discuss and share views, opinions, ramifications, strengths, weaknesses, consistencies, similarities, etc... but it sounds like neither of you is open to the possibility that the other may be right, so if your goal is to convince this atheist he's wrong... well.... it sounds to me like you're going to be as frustrated as he is that he isn't going to convince you that you're wrong.

I wasn't aware of the two theories you're discussing with him about the probability and occurrences of miracles vs. random events, but as I read your discussion points, the questions in my head were really around asking "So what?  Does anyone TRULY base their beliefs on miracles?"  I mean, the LDS church doesn't promote the occurrence of miracles as a reason to believe.  In fact, LDS scriptures usually condemn such events as "sign seekers."  Mormonism is big that faith precedes the miracle, not the other way around.  Even as a devout Mormon, I would usually roll my eyes whenever some other religion posted a 'miraculous' event (Christ appearing in toast, for example, or crying statues, etc.).  More subtle 'miracles' such as whether or not God answers prayers are ultimately a matter of personal faith and conviction in the believer.  Even if I were to believe in the theories this other atheist is proposing, I don't think it's productive to use them as an argument to attempt to dissuade a believer.  In fact, when religion offers comfort, structure, guidance, meaning, and purpose to someone's life, it doesn't even always matter to me whether or not it's true.  Truth is secondary to value, and the fruits of living a life well-lived speak for themselves, even if it isn't/weren't true.  The only times I challenge someone's religious Faith is if/when I feel it's negatively and/or unjustly affecting one's own happiness or those of others (a value I also invite others in challenging me to defend the values and beliefs I promote, as well).  If/when religion doesn't, why the need to tear down and destroy if it's a force for positivity and change in someone's life...?

My thoughts,

D

Edited September 12, 2017 by Daniel2

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks cinepro

Another one for the wrong side.  Hope you are proud.  He's a babe in the woods and you took advantage of his innocence.

https://www.lds.org/music/text/childrens-songbook/the-wise-man-and-the-foolish-man?lang=eng&_r=1

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

If everything is explained by coincidence and bias where is God?  If you are skeptical of most miracles claims, then why do you believe in God? 

I admit you make sense, I seriously need to read faith promoting stories.  

Belief is a strong word for me. I hope and exercise faith that there is a God, but I do not know. I have tasted both good and bad fruit (via Alma 32) from my time in the church. Ultimately I love the sense of being spiritually connected and that is enough for me for now.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Belief is a strong word for me. I hope and exercise faith that there is a God, but I do not know. 

You don't know? Sounds like an Agnostic position, are you agnostic?   

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 I have tasted both good and bad fruit (via Alma 32) from my time in the church. Ultimately I love the sense of being spiritually connected and that is enough for me for now.

So you know by the power of the Holy Ghost that our church is true, right? Or what do you mean by being "spiritually connected"? 

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Mormonism is big that faith precedes the miracle, not the other way around.  Even as a devout Mormon, I would usually roll my eyes whenever some other religion posted a 'miraculous' event (Christ appearing in toast, for example, or crying statues, etc.).  More subtle 'miracles' such as whether or not God answers prayers are ultimately a matter of personal faith and conviction in the believer.  Even if I were to believe in the theories this other atheist is proposing, I don't think it's productive to use them as an argument to attempt to dissuade a believer.  In fact, when religion offers comfort, structure, guidance, meaning, and purpose to someone's life, it doesn't even always matter to me whether or not it's true.  Truth is secondary to value, and the fruits of living a life well-lived speak for themselves, even if it isn't/weren't true.  The only times I challenge someone's religious Faith is if/when I feel it's negatively and/or unjustly affecting one's own happiness or those of others (a value I also invite others in challenging me to defend the values and beliefs I promote, as well).  If/when religion doesn't, why the need to tear down and destroy if it's a force for positivity and change in someone's life...?

My thoughts,

D

Miracles help strengthen your faith, that is why we hear miracle stories during Testimony meeting. I think most Mormons believe the church is true because they feel it in their hearts , but miracles do help grow their testimony. 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You don't know? Sounds like an Agnostic position, are you agnostic?   

So you know by the power of the Holy Ghost that our church is true, right? Or what do you mean by being "spiritually connected"? 

I'd consider myself an agnostic theist. And you could say that I know that certain aspects of the church have been good in my life and some bad. I mean I feel elevated when I do certain things that are called spiritual. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'd consider myself an agnostic theist. And you could say that I know that certain aspects of the church have been good in my life and some bad. I mean I feel elevated when I do certain things that are called spiritual. 

For you what is the good and the bad? 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Cinepro, how do you explain when the spirit tells someone to do something to save his/her life? 

It isn't so important to explain it, so much as it is important to realize that only God really knows the facts of the event.  Divine intervention may or may not have occurred, but how would we know that?  Only via personal testimony of the Holy Spirit.  When we bear testimony of that, the Spirit may also bear such testimony to others.  In every case, it is personal and non-transferrable.  Proving the event by evidentiary  means may be impossible.  Does that make sense?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It isn't so important to explain it, so much as it is important to realize that only God really knows the facts of the event.  Divine intervention may or may not have occurred, but how would we know that?  Only via personal testimony of the Holy Spirit.  When we bear testimony of that, the Spirit may also bear such testimony to others.  In every case, it is personal and non-transferrable.  Proving the event by evidentiary  means may be impossible.  Does that make sense?

Yes you are making a lot of sense right now, but you earlier told me that BY sometimes couldn't tell the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. In your view is it possible that we can get a false personal testimony about something?  

You sound like a very intelligent person, please reply to Cinepo's post above. I need to read a rational apologetic perspective. The post where he wrote "There are a lot of ways people make mistakes in probability, and I think you may be interested to think about two of them".  

Please 

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/8/2017 at 10:49 PM, Meerkat said:

One day, Some friends invited us out for an all day sail on Commencement Bay.  We had been cut off from two of our sons, and this was a welcome break from discouragement.  We met in Gig Harbor that morning, sailed all day long and docked at Anthony's for dinner.  Putting our names on the list, we took the long walk to Owens Beach to visit a bit before dinner.  It was dusk.  I saw a shadow jogging toward me.  It was one of our boys we hadn't seen or spoken with in a long time.  He lived twenty miles North in Federal Way.  We lived 20 miles East in Puyallup.  Yet here, at 7pm, after a day on the water, our boy we had been praying for ran straight to us.  "Dad," he said, "What are you doing here?"  Then he said said "That's a real odd cooincidence."  Mmm Hmm.

It's not.  God answers our prayers all the time.

Thank you for being on my side. 

On 9/8/2017 at 2:03 PM, clarkgoble said:

In that latter sense both "there is a God" and "there is no God" are propositions for which there's not unambiguous public evidence for.

SeekingUnderstanding above is calling himself an agnostic theist.

I am surprised how quickly times are changing.  

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes you are making a lot of sense right now, but you earlier told me that BY sometimes couldn't tell the difference between the spirit and his own thoughts. In your view is it possible that we can have a false personal testimony about something? 

Certainly we can be wrong, just as Brigham was wrong.  Can happen to anyone.  Sometimes we only see that in retrospect, when we take stock of ourselves.  I vividly recall on day 3 of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War in June of 1967, I was walking out of the communal dining hall on my kibbutz, and it had just been announced over Israeli radio that the ancient city of Jerusalem had just been taken by Israeli paratroops.  I saw David the kibbutz electrician walking the opposite direction.  He stopped briefly and said to me in Hebrew:  "We thought there was no God.  Perhaps we were wrong."  Then he continued on his way.  He was taking stock due to that ancient city being in the hands of the Jews for the first time in about 2 thousand years.  He knew that I was a believing Christian.  I did not know that he was an atheist, but it was clear that he was now rethinking his disbelief.

8 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You sound like a very intelligent person, please respond to Cinepo's post above. I need to read a rational apologetic perspective. The post where he wrote "There are a lot of ways people make mistakes in probability, and I think you may be interested to think about two of them".  

Please 

I like and agree with cinepro's post on probability.  However, there are times when coincidence is just not an adequate explanation -- as in the case of the rise of the modern Israeli state, and the gathering of the Jews.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/7/2017 at 8:20 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Perhaps you could tell him that Satan changed the randomness for miracles...that if Satan hadn't existed we'd see Miracle more often ...blame it on Satan

Tsk, tsk, Johnnie.  You are being very unkind here.  In any case, in LDS theology there are no miracles, but only spectacular events that we don't understand.  Everything is natural, including God.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Certainly we can be wrong, just as Brigham was wrong.  

You told me above "how would we know that? Only via personal testimony of the Holy Spirit" 

So how would we know that? because you are now telling me we can be wrong.  

Is revelation sometimes unreliable? I am confused about your views. 

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  However, there are times when coincidence is just not an adequate explanation -- as in the case of the rise of the modern Israeli state, and the gathering of the Jews.

Thank you, but what do you mean by the rise of modern Israeli state? I know our country has helped Israel a lot, and needs to keep helping it. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You told me above "how would we know that? Only via personal testimony of the Holy Spirit" 

So how would we know that? because you are now telling me we can be wrong.  

My goodness is revelation sometimes unreliable? I am getting more confused. 

Life is confusing.  That is its nature.  We need to learn to accept that and deal with it.  We won't have an infallible connection with the Holy Spirit.  We simply do the best we can.  Brother Brigham was right most of the time.  That is the best we can hope for.

Just now, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Thank you, but what do you mean by the rise of modern Israeli state? I know our country has helped Israel a lot, and needs to keep helping it. 

I'm not speaking about the USA.  In 1841, having been sent to Palestine by Joseph Smith, Apostle Orson Hyde knelt on the Mt of Olives and dedicated Palestine to the final gathering of the Jews and to the rebuilding of their temple.  Today there is an Orson Hyde Garden on the Mt of Olives, with a plaque on which is that dedication (in Hebrew and English).  Today the State of Israel is 70 years old, and more Jews live there than in any other place on Earth.  Read Romans 11.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For you what is the good and the bad? 

I only speak of my experience in the church, but the guilt and shame associated with normal sexuality ("Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings" might work for some, but it's pretty difficult when going outside can do it for me), the rhetoric around how we teach modesty (women are responsible for men's feelings),  female inequality, and issues surrounding homosexuality have all produced bad fruit in my life. On the other hand, I love Joseph's expanded vision of heaven , of a parents who love us and wants us to become as they are, of hell being temporary and of our own making, sealing the entire human race together, and many other aspects of our theology. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Life is confusing.  That is its nature.  

In a replicable experiment you always get the same results, I believe it is the same with the revelation. I am trying to understand your views. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 We won't have an infallible connection with the Holy Spirit.  We simply do the best we can.

If the spirit tells us to do something life changing such as going on a mission we must be sure it was the spirit. We can't afford to be wrong, especially if it is something that requires a lot of sacrifice. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Brother Brigham was right most of the time.  That is the best we can hope for.

Yes I believe he was right most of the time, but how do you know that? 

Edited September 13, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In a replicable experiment you always get the same results, I believe it is the same with the revelation. I am trying to understand your views. 

Experimental replication is a principle of science, not religion.

Quote

If the spirit tells us to do something life changing such as going on a mission we must be sure it was the spirit. We can't afford to be wrong, especially if it is something that requires a lot of sacrifice. 

God isn't concerned that we always be right, but rather that we be sincere and make some effort.  Every human is different in his capacity, and God allows for that.  Life isn't intended to be a military academy experience.  'Along the way, God hopes that you will enjoy it, despite the difficultiies.  Live with a smile and sense of humor.  Notice how broadly Pres Uchtdorf smiles and try to do the same.

Quote

Yes I believe he was right most of the time, but how do you know that? 

The proof is in the pudding.  Just look at what Brigham accomplished.  A lesser man could not have done it.  Here is what one of his close friends said of him:

Quote

Salt Lake City, Utah Territory
To the New York Herald
Dear Sir:
I can’t undertake to explain Brigham Young to your Atlantic citizens, or expect you to put him at his value. Your great men Eastward are to me like your ivory and pearl handled table knives ... more shiny than the inside of my watch case; but with only edge enough to slice bread and cheese ... and all alike by the dozen, one with another.

Brigham is the article that sells out West with us -- between a Roman cutlass and a beef butcher knife, the thing to cut up a deer or cut down an enemy every bit as well.

You, that judge men by the handle and the sheath, how can I make you know a good Blade? 
Jedediah M. Grant

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

the proof is in the pudding.  Just look at what Brigham accomplished.  A lesser man could not have done it.  Here is what one of his close friends said of him:

I hope someone here doesn't come up with a rational explanation to Young's accomplishments. 

[Robert F. Smith]

49 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I hope someone here doesn't come up with a rational explanation to Young's accomplishments. 

But that is inevitable, since many great leaders have come and gone in history.  What is unique with Brother Brigham is that he pretty much hewed to the path laid out by Brother Joseph, bringing both the secular and sacred together in Deseret/Zion.  Other great leaders have brought either the sacred or the secular victory, but not both at the same time.  That is why Brigham was known as the "American Moses."

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/11/2017 at 3:46 PM, cinepro said:

Can you explain why it couldn't be a "coincidence"

Cinepro. Can probability theories explain Nahom?   

 

[cinepro]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Cinepro. Can probability theories explain Nahom?   

 

I'm not sure you've understood what I've said so far.

"Probability theories" don't explain anything.  It's simply the likelihood of something happening.

If you're asking "is the probability of NHM occurring greater than or less than the probability required to indicate divine intervention?", then the obvious questions would be "What is the probability of the inscription being unrelated to the Book of Mormon?"  and "What is the probability required to indicate divine intervention?"

Until both those questions are answered, the only conclusion is that we don't know if NHM is "just a coincidence" or not.

Also related to this is the question of how many "claims" (or "shots") the Book of Mormon makes in its 500+ pages, and even if the book had a 19th century origin, how many "hits" would we expect it to get right just through chance and other influences?