A Brief Assessment of the Lds Book of Abraham by Robert F. Smith

[PacMan]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just learned how to copy it to OneDrive free.  So now you can go to https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aj5g2S0y64JGjgW6UD46OsJ2QEaU

So, let me know if it works.  Thanks for forcing me to adapt.

Thank you!  It worked like a charm.  You are officially my hero for the day.

Do you have a translation of Facsimile 2 footnote 8?  I have been trying to find one, with no luck.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If true, then the Church would drop it's dependence on things like BoM historicity, and BoA for that matter. 

I don't understand this assertion.  It's not self-evidently clear or established.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But alas, the Church is stuck in the dogma it set up all the way up until the point it simply can't survive with such dogma. 

Again, the Church doesn't really do "dogmas" or "creeds," nor does it espouse acceptance of "truth claims without evidence or reason."

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It has always been so with religion and will likely always be so.

Bland assertions about stereotyped caricatures of "religion" such as the above are both inaccurate and unhelpful, and will likely always be so.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I know the definition of dogma, its just that it turns out the result of prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true is truth claims without evidence or reason.  

The Church does not advocate acceptance of "truth claims without evidence or reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church does not advocate acceptance of "truth claims without evidence or reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

This is news to me...

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Thank you!  It worked like a charm.  You are officially my hero for the day.

Do you have a translation of Facsimile 2 footnote 8?  I have been trying to find one, with no luck.

Theodule Devéria translated register 8 as "The Osiris s=es=enq."  That's the name of the owner of the Hypocephalus.  Devéria, Bibliothèque Égyptologique, 4:199-200.

W. M. F. Petrie commented that Fac. 2:8 contained the name AShishak, a popular name in Egypt from about 950 to 750 B.C., and such seems to be about the date of the other figures@ (cf. I Kings 11:40, 14:25ff.).  Petrie in Spalding, JSAT, 23.  He was wrong on the date of the hypocephalus.

LDS Egyptologist Val Sederholm reads it as "let the ba of Osir-Sheshaq be given life!"

Hugh Nibley and Mike Rhodes translate it as "May the soul of the Osiris Shishaq be granted life."  Nibley & Rhodes, One Eternal Round,  327.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This is news to me...

Your surprise is valid, but the actual position of LDS theology is that reason and evidence is irrelevant in the face of faith based on inspiration.  The bulwark of faith is the lack of any need to base it on reason or evidence.  Faith and reason are wholly different modes of thought.  It is a category mistake to confuse the two.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Quote

The Church does not advocate acceptance of "truth claims without evidence or reason."

This is news to me...

It shouldn't be.   We have voluminous exhortations in scripture and by modern prophets and apostles to study and ponder and pray and think.  We can look at the Church's enormous expenditures in time, money and effort in arranging for and encouraging the Saints to study and think.  Church meetings and lessons.  Seminaries and institutes.  Church schools.  The LDS.org website.  The Gospel Library App.  The Church is moving heaven and earth to encourage the Saints in their studying and thinking. 

We are repeatedly exhorted to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118, D&C 109:7, 14). 

"{B}ehold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you..."  (D&C 9:8).

“Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2).

Joseph Smith:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will.

Jeff Lindsay:

Quote

Latter-day Saints who study the responses of LDS writers to anti-Mormon criticisms know that there are many excellent resources which may refute or at least defuse many of the arguments hurled against us. These resources, found at places like the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS), The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRLDS.org), SHIELDS, and even my little Web site (including my Mormon Answers section), do not rely on blind faith and emotional feelings to deal with the critics - though there are some tough issues like polygamy for which we don't have good answers (ugh - I really don't like polygamy!). But for many issues, Mosser and Owen are correct in observing that there are "robust defenses." In fact, many of the defenses turn the tables on the critics and leave them in intellectually untenable positions. In fact, we could turn around and ask them a few tough questions of our own -- see, for example, "My Turn--Questions for Anti-Mormons."

L. Tom Perry:

Quote

We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

Quote

We seek for truth wherever we may find it.

And here:

Quote

For members of the Church, education is not merely a good idea—it’s a commandment.

Pres. Nelson:

Quote

Your mind is precious! It is sacred. Therefore, the education of one’s mind is also sacred. Indeed, education is a religious responsibility. Of course, our opportunities and abilities will vary a great deal. But, in the pursuit of one’s education, individual desire is more important than is the institution you choose; personal drive is more significant than is the faculty.

Pres. Hinckley:

Quote

There are few things more pathetic than those who have lost their curiosity and sense of adventure, and who no longer care to learn.

Oh, there are so many, many more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this assertion.  It's not self-evidently clear or established.

Again, the Church doesn't really do "dogmas" or "creeds," nor does it espouse acceptance of "truth claims without evidence or reason."

Bland assertions about stereotyped caricatures of "religion" such as the above are both inaccurate and unhelpful, and will likely always be so.

The Church does not advocate acceptance of "truth claims without evidence or reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree.  But I realize if challenged for the burden taken upon itself it calls evidence things that I nor science would ever call evidence.  And then we get stuck with things like "how is your personal subjective internal witness, as you call it, evidence for BoM historicity"?  I only offer that as an example because at one point that's what you gave me, at least as one point of evidence, when I said the burden is upon you to provide evidence.  So you may call that evidence...but alas, I don't think it can reasonably be said to be such.  You could be mistaken, lying, or treating personal bias as something substantively from some unknown and unknowable figure.  

Edited September 17, 2020 by stemelbow

[Ryan Dahle]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We have voluminous exhortations in scripture and by modern prophets and apostles to study and ponder and pray and think.

You can add this to your list:

"Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits but requires it. An individual who concentrates on either side solely and alone will lose both balance and perspective."

- Elder Boyd K. Packer

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree. 

A rote disagreement isn't worth much more than a rote false characterization of our faith.  

As between my lifelong experience in and study of the Restored Gospel, and your tendentious and conclusory say-so that flatly contradicts my observations, I'll go with the former.

Quote

But I realize if challenged for the burden taken upon itself it calls evidence things that I nor science would ever call evidence. 

Dandy.  Neither you nor "science" is the final arbiter of what does and does not constitute "evidence."

Quote

And then we get stuck with things like "how is your personal subjective internal witness, as you call it, evidence for BoM historicity"? 

There is quite a bit more to the "evidence" that my "personal subjective internal witness."

The Spirit is the ultimate basis for my faith, but far from the only basis for it.

Quote

I only offer that as an example because at one point that's what you gave me, at least as one point of evidence, when I said the burden is upon you to provide evidence. 

CFR, please.

Quote

So you may call that evidence...but alas, I don't think it can reasonably be said to be such.  You could be mistaken, lying, or treating personal bias as something substantively from some unknown and unknowable figure.  

Again, the Spirit is the ultimate, but not sole, evidentiary basis for my beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 17, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A rote disagreement isn't worth much more than a rote false characterization of our faith.  

As between my lifelong experience in and study of the Restored Gospel, and your tendentious and conclusory say-so that flatly contradicts my observations, I'll go with the former.

Dandy.  Neither you nor "science" is the final arbiter of what does and does not constitute "evidence."

Surely I'm not.  But Science IS the final arbiter of what constitutes scientific evidence.  

Quote

There is quite a bit more to the "evidence" that my "personal subjective internal witness."

I disagree of course.  

Quote

The Spirit is the ultimate basis for my faith, but far from the only basis for it.

CFR, please.

um....did you intend this as a joke considering your next line:  

Quote

Again, the Spirit is the ultimate, but not sole, evidentiary basis for my beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

If not a joke, then your CFR is met by this very next line you offer.  

Edited September 17, 2020 by stemelbow

[smac97]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Surely I'm not.  But Science IS the final arbiter of what constitutes scientific evidence.  

"Science" is a nebulous term.  It is a compendium of knowledge.  It can't "arbitrate" anything.

And in any event, "Science" cannot really be used to empirically prove or disprove seminal religious claims like the existence of God, the Plan of Salvation, the atonement and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Science" is a nebulous term.  It is a compendium of knowledge.  It can't "arbitrate" anything.

And in any event, "Science" cannot really be used to empirically prove or disprove seminal religious claims like the existence of God, the Plan of Salvation, the atonement and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure.  Science can't be used to find the existence of things that do not exist, like God.  Until there is some way to verify God does, I suppose we're left guessing, or assuming our personal baises are the best method to accept these religion notions; or we can simply say, these ideas lack evidence, and as such there is no reason to believe them.  To each their own, huh?

 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Science can't be used to find the existence of things that do not exist, like God. 

How do you know that God does not exist?  "Science" can neither prove nor disprove such a thing.

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Until there is some way to verify God does, I suppose we're left guessing, or assuming our personal baises are the best method to accept these religion notions; or we can simply say, these ideas lack evidence, and as such there is no reason to believe them.  To each their own, huh?

We can look at the evidence at hand and draw reasoned conclusions therefrom.

But in the end, we must walk by faith.  Not ignorant faith.  Not blind faith.  But still faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Ryan Dahle]

 

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Science can't be used to find the existence of things that do not exist, like God. 

To the contrary, science can in some cases provide strong evidence that certain types of things do not exist in certain contexts. For instance, science can fairly conclusively rule out the possibility that someone is inebriated by administering a test to measure their blood-alcohol content. In other words, science can indeed prove the negative in many contexts. It just depends on the context and what is trying to be proved. 

When it comes to God, science can currently neither prove nor disprove his existence. That, of course, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Your assertion that he doesn't is simply an assumption which you surely know isn't held by many of those that you converse with on this board. I could easily flip around the statement and say that science cannot prove the existence of many things that exist, like God. 

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Until there is some way to verify God does, I suppose we're left guessing, or assuming our personal baises are the best method to accept these religion notions; or we can simply say, these ideas lack evidence, and as such there is no reason to believe them.  To each their own, huh?

Just because something lacks direct scientific evidence, doesn't mean there are no reasons to believe in it. Otherwise, most of us would have to give up belief in many of things that matter most to us as humans. For instance, love and morality can neither be proven nor disproven using the scientific method. 

[stemelbow]

On 9/18/2020 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

 

To the contrary, science can in some cases provide strong evidence that certain types of things do not exist in certain contexts. For instance, science can fairly conclusively rule out the possibility that someone is inebriated by administering a test to measure their blood-alcohol content. In other words, science can indeed prove the negative in many contexts. It just depends on the context and what is trying to be proved. 

When it comes to God, science can currently neither prove nor disprove his existence. That, of course, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Your assertion that he doesn't is simply an assumption which you surely know isn't held by many of those that you converse with on this board. I could easily flip around the statement and say that science cannot prove the existence of many things that exist, like God. 

Turning around the burden of a claim onto another is a very common practice, I realize.  I find it a problematic practice and lacking logical reason.  If you claim God's existence then it's your burden to support the claim, it's not my burden to disprove it.  That's simply not how it works.  To say his existence is provable because people say they believe him, then you simply have punted.  That's not evidence for the claim.  

Admittedly I'm not following your point on whether inebriated or not.  To me it seems it's a deflection.   

On 9/18/2020 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

Just because something lacks direct scientific evidence, doesn't mean there are no reasons to believe in it. Otherwise, most of us would have to give up belief in many of things that matter most to us as humans. For instance, love and morality can neither be proven nor disproven using the scientific method. 

If you wish to argue God is an abstract concept, then be my guest.  Until then the burden remains.  If GOd exists, it is he who claims such, to provide evidence.  

[Ryan Dahle]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Turning around the burden of a claim onto another is a very common practice, I realize.  I find it a problematic practice and lacking logical reason.  If you claim God's existence then it's your burden to support the claim, it's not my burden to disprove it.  That's simply not how it works.  To say his existence is provable because people say they believe him, then you simply have punted.  That's not evidence for the claim.  

Admittedly I'm not following your point on whether inebriated or not.  To me it seems it's a deflection.  

I think I misread you, initially, so it wasn't a deflection, just a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were saying that science can't prove a negative, but that's not what you said. 

As for burdens, that is really a matter of perspective. You claim that God doesn't exist. So if you wanted to support that claim and convince others of its truthfulness, you would have a burden to prove your assertion. Likewise, if someone claims that God exists and wants to convince others of that assertion, then they have a burden to provide evidence for their claim. What types of evidences (scientific, spiritual, or a combination of them) are valid and sufficient for belief will, of course, depend on the audience.

Obviously, for me, I feel the burden of proof has been met by a combination of spiritual and scientific evidence. You, of course, would disagree. 

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think I misread you, initially, so it wasn't a deflection, just a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were saying that science can't prove a negative, but that's not what you said. 

As for burdens, that is really a matter of perspective. You claim that God doesn't exist. So if you wanted to support that claim and convince others of its truthfulness, you would have a burden to prove your assertion. Likewise, if someone claims that God exists and wants to convince others of that assertion, then they have a burden to provide evidence for their claim. What types of evidences (scientific, spiritual, or a combination of them) are valid and sufficient for belief will, of course, depend on the audience.

Obviously, for me, I feel the burden of proof has been met by a combination of spiritual and scientific evidence. You, of course, would disagree. 

Ok.  Sounds good.  I would not suggest God does not exist in that it's proven he is not there.  I'd say he does not exist because there is no valid reason to show he does exist.  So by default there is no reason to believe there's a god.  IF at some point a reason appears, then perhaps I'd have to re-evaluate the notion.

I don't know that it's worth getting into but it's interesting you would suggest there is scientific evidence.  As I see the arguments to propose such scientific evidence I don't understand how someone would see it opposite.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Turning around the burden of a claim onto another is a very common practice, I realize. 

Well, you are the one making as assertion: that God does not exist.  In most contexts, the "burden" is on you to substantiate that assertion.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I find it a problematic practice and lacking logical reason.  If you claim God's existence then it's your burden to support the claim, it's not my burden to disprove it. 

I agree.  But if and when you affirmatively deny the existence of God - as you have done - then "it's your burden to support the claim."

The Latter-day Saints are more than happy to share what we believe meets the "burden" of supporting out claims about the existence of God, His character and attributes, His relationship with us, the Plan of Salvation, the role of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.  We go out of our way to share what we have.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's simply not how it works. 

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

To say his existence is provable because people say they believe him, then you simply have punted.

Here is what Ryan said: "When it comes to God, science can currently neither prove nor disprove his existence."

Nobody is saying we have "proven" the existence of God.  Once again you distort and mischaracterize our position.

You critics aren't listening to us.  It is a real impediment to communication.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's not evidence for the claim.

Out of curiosity, what "evidence for the claim" would you find acceptable?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If you wish to argue God is an abstract concept, then be my guest.  Until then the burden remains.  If God exists, it is he who claims such, to provide evidence.  

We have.  

(Cue No True Scotsman in 3...2...)

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, you are the one making as assertion: that God does not exist.  In most contexts, the "burden" is on you to substantiate that assertion.

I agree.  But if and when you affirmatively deny the existence of God - as you have done - then "it's your burden to support the claim."

Let me clarify my position.  I say God does not exist as a default position substituting the more accurate position I hold which is there is not sufficient evidence and reason for God's existence.  On the other hand to claim God does exist is a positive claim that requires a burden of proof.    

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Latter-day Saints are more than happy to share what we believe meets the "burden" of supporting out claims about the existence of God, His character and attributes, His relationship with us, the Plan of Salvation, the role of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.  We go out of our way to share what we have.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

Here is what Ryan said: "When it comes to God, science can currently neither prove nor disprove his existence."

He also said, "I feel the burden of proof has been met by a combination of spiritual and scientific evidence."  So i'm curious what constitutes scientific evidence as he's sees it.  

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is saying we have "proven" the existence of God.  Once again you distort and mischaracterize our position.

You critics aren't listening to us.  It is a real impediment to communication.

Out of curiosity, what "evidence for the claim" would you find acceptable?

We have.  

Ok.  So if you have provided evidence and I do not think it's evidence for God at all, what else might I conclude besides that is not evidence and the burden remains upon you?  

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

(Cue No True Scotsman in 3...2...)

Thanks,

-Smac

Again I think you may need to rethink that fallacy.  

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I would not suggest God does not exist in that it's proven he is not there.  I'd say he does not exist because there is no valid reason to show he does exist. So by default there is no reason to believe there's a god.  IF at some point a reason appears, then perhaps I'd have to re-evaluate the notion.

The problem is with your verbiage. You seem to recognize that you can't "prove" God doesn't exist, but you also seem to feel justified in claiming that he doesn't exist based on a mere absence of evidence. That, of course, is the typical challenge for hardline atheism and why many people instead opt for agnosticism. It is illogical to categorically deny the existence of something as potentially elusive as God. Your statement that "he does not exist because there is not valid reason to show he does exist" is not logical. All anyone can reasonably say is that they don't believe God exists or that they don't currently have reason to believe he exists. 

Some things, like the the potential existence of alcohol in one's body, can be reasonably ruled out through an absence of scientific evidence. If a BAC test shows up negative (i.e. no alcohol is found in one's blood), then it is reasonable to categorically claim that the individual is not drunken from alcohol. This is how this point (which I raised earlier) relates to the discussion at hand. God isn't the type of phenomenon that you can rule out through a mere absence of evidence. You can't categorically claim he doesn't exist simply because you haven't found sufficient evidence that he does. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that it's worth getting into but it's interesting you would suggest there is scientific evidence.  As I see the arguments to propose such scientific evidence I don't understand how someone would see it opposite.

I think we just have different assumptions about what science is, how it works, and how it may relate to the question of God's existence. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The problem is with your verbiage. You seem to recognize that you can't "prove" God doesn't exist, but you also seem to feel justified in claiming that he doesn't exist based on a mere absence of evidence. That, of course, is the typical challenge for hardline atheism and why many people instead opt for agnosticism. It is illogical to categorically deny the existence of something as potentially elusive as God. Your statement that "he does not exist because there is not valid reason to show he does exist" is not logical. All anyone can reasonably say is that they don't believe God exists or that they don't currently have reason to believe he exists. 

Atheism is simply agnosticism--it's merely the lack of belief either way.  Atheism simply suggests there is no evidence for the proposition that God exists.  Aganosticism simply suggest there is no evidence for the proposition that god exists therefore we don't know.  It's the same.  The default is simply to accept the non-existence until there is reason to accept the existence...of anything.  It is the default position there is no bigfoot until there is reason to accept his existence.  Or the default position is scientology is not true until there is reason to accept it.  Positive claims of some thing's existence requires sufficient evidence for the claim...there is no need to disprove its existence if there is no evidence for its existence.  The default position is it's not there.  

If someone says, I believe there are elves hiding in the rocky mountains.  It is quite reasonable for any and all to conclude these elves do not exist until there is reason given to say they do exist.  Why because everything we see and know does not suggest a hidden enclave of elves.  

Every argument I have seen to substantiate God's existence are lacking.  There is no reason to believe he exists, as a result.  That is not the hardline stance of He does not exist, in the sense that it's completely proven he can't possibly be.  Saying he does not exist is simply a replacement for there is no evidence for his existence, in my usage. 

5 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think we just have different assumptions about what science is, how it works, and how it may relate to the question of God's existence. 

That certainly may be.  

[Ryan Dahle]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Atheism is simply agnosticism--it's merely the lack of belief either way.

Well, obviously there is more than one definition to these terms, but I think your lack of distinction isn't a typical one. Most definitions of atheism construe it as more than a mere "lack of belief either way". For example:

Quote

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question. ...

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). 

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

In other words, your definition seems to be atypical and not the norm. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Saying he does not exist is simply a replacement for there is no evidence for his existence, in my usage. 

I think your idiosyncratic usage is built on a logical fallacy and is therefore unhelpful in discussing your views with those who don't share your assumptions. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Let me clarify my position.  I say God does not exist as a default position substituting the more accurate position I hold which is there is not sufficient evidence and reason for God's existence. 

This seems like special pleading.  You have been scolding others for making assertions without concomitantly meeting your nebulous expectations about a "burden" of "evidence."  But somehow it's totally okay for you to make assertions about the existence of God without having to shoulder any "burden" of "evidence."

Convenient, that.

Quote

On the other hand to claim God does exist is a positive claim that requires a burden of proof.

Right.  I state that I believe God exists, and that is a "positive claim that requires a burden of proof."

You declare that God does not exist, but that is not a "positive claim that requires a burden of proof."

Again, convenient.

If you were agnostic, I could accept that.  But you are affirmatively denying the existence of God, while simultaneously excusing yourself from any need to meet a "burden" of "evidence" for that proposition.

Quote

Ok.  So if you have provided evidence and I do not think it's evidence for God at all, what else might I conclude besides that is not evidence and the burden remains upon you?  

You could refrain from such facile, simplistic thinking.

You could find my proffered evidence insufficiently probative, or inadmissible under an objective standard, or too vague, or contradictory, and so on.

Instead, you unilaterally declare that if you - in your sole and unexplained and apparently entirely arbitrarily-exercised discretion - don't accept such "evidence," then it's not evidence at all.

Quote

Again I think you may need to rethink that fallacy.  

Re-thunk.  You assert "No evidence exists."  I point to evidence, and you say "that's not evidence," while never getting around to explaining the criteria you have for it (other than "not that").

And round and round we go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 21, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, obviously there is more than one definition to these terms, but I think your lack of distinction isn't a typical one. Most definitions of atheism construe it as more than a mere "lack of belief either way". For example:

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

In other words, your definition seems to be atypical and not the norm. 

Well sure the terms don't really matter much at least until we can agree on them.  I'm not really interested in making a fuss about it.  But I simply see it as I don't see sufficient reason to think God exists, every argument posed as support for God's existence seems weak and faulty.  Without reason to accept the proposition defaults me into the realm of "well I guess there's no such thing there".  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This seems like special pleading.  You have been scolding others for making assertions without concomitantly meeting your nebulous expectations about a "burden" of "evidence."  But somehow it's totally okay for you to make assertions about the existence of God without having to shoulder any "burden" of "evidence."

Convenient, that.

Again, it's simply the default position to conclude something is not there if there is not a sufficient reason to think it is.  It's Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy all over again.  If someone declares something is there, then it is that person's burden to show it's true or given reason for such.  If they do not, then the default is simply it's not there.  IF someone declares you have a monster in your house, you simply don't have to prove it's not there if you have no reason to think it's there.  You can safely declare there is no monster, even if the person who is claiming a monster says "there's a monster, you simply can't see it".  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  I state that I believe God exists, and that is a "positive claim that requires a burden of proof."

You declare that God does not exist, but that is not a "positive claim that requires a burden of proof."

Again, convenient.

If you were agnostic, I could accept that.  But you are affirmatively denying the existence of God, while simultaneously excusing yourself from any need to meet a "burden" of "evidence" for that proposition.

I would only declare my position is there is not sufficient reason to think God exists, as such it's a safe assumption to think God is not there.  Just as you can safely conclude there is no monster in your house.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You could refrain from such facile, simplistic thinking.

You could find my proffered evidence insufficiently probative, or inadmissible under an objective standard, or too vague, or contradictory, and so on.

Instead, you unilaterally declare that if you - in your sole and unexplained and apparently entirely arbitrarily-exercised discretion - don't accept such "evidence," then it's not evidence at all.

And?  I mean I could be wrong.  But so could the presenter of said "evidence".  We can discuss that.  But that hardly means it's a no true Scotsman fallacy.  it likely is we might disagree on what constitutes evidence, or one or both of us are confused about what constitutes evidence.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Re-thunk.  You assert "No evidence exists."  I point to evidence, and you say "that's not evidence," while never getting around to explaining the criteria you have for it (other than "not that").

And round and round we go.

The only criteria I would look for is:  "Evidence in general means information, facts or data supporting (or contradicting) a claim, assumption or hypothesis "

Its possible I could be wrong about any information, facts or data and whether it supports the claim.  And it could be that he who declares something as evidence is wrong about whether it is information, facts or data that supports the claim.  I don't even know that we have a disagreement on the nature of what constitutes evidence so much as a disagreement about any stated evidence is really evidence.  For instance, on the BoA, in the Ritner thread, you declared "As for "the strongest piece of evidence," I think it's the Book of Mormon, and the spiritual witness I have about it."  And I responded, I think rightly, that this is not evidence for the BoA.  Indeed, I wouldn't say that is evidence at all for the BoA.