Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

Yes, I also think the angel scenario is also a billion to one chance, and thus outside the realm of statistical probability. If I did not have a personal witness from God, I'd have no explanation for the data at all, and I'd have to write the whole thing off as a mystery.

Again, the data does not support an angel, or a miracle, but I believe it does support a genuine historical document.

I'll try one last time, FX: where does the burden of proof lie in a forgery case? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the article is genuine? Or is the burden on you to establish it's a fake?

In court, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution--that would be you. If you want to convince people the book was forged by Smith, you need actual evidence of a forgery, and you need enough to account for ALL the data.

Thats not true.

BalanceFX is satan. The world is round. God exists.

To prove Im not satan you also have to prove both that the world is round and that god exists?

I never claimed the entire BoM is false. Just most of it.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

I got a game to test. Anyone else want to try and explain this to FX?

Sure balance... depite that there is no evidence for god, jaredites or any archelogical evidence whatsoever... Deepshadow here believe the BOM to be a true and historically accurate account of mesoamerica.

These facts are backed the arguments of 20 abstract facts in the Bom found in order in one of 100 (possibly 1000s) of ancient hebrew texts by Dr Kurtz and some common names found in the BoM that are also found elsewhere.

Get it now? Do you FX? Its not a forgery! 20 Abstract ideas! 50 common names... Roads... Come now... This is joe... think he could write this or even know it?

Me: Sure... I dont see why not. You are painting your evidence in a biased point of view so that the person viewing your evidence could not conclude otherwise. Giving all the data in context, Im sure the majority would not be swayed in any convincing manner. In any event I am surely not. You have proven nothing to me, and seem to lack any evidence to do so. Thus I conclude your belief to be based on faith, and when every preacher, elder, reverend and father has told me it takes strength to maintain your faith I now know what they were talking about.

Im weak when it comes to faith. Very, very weak.

[DeepShadow]

It's that kind of snide post that makes me want to ignore you, but I'll try wone last time: where does the burden of proof lie in an accusation of forgery?

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

It's that kind of snide post that makes me want to ignore you, but I'll try wone last time: where does the burden of proof lie in an accusation of forgery?

I dunno even what your arguing. I keep trying to get you to clarify it in some meaningful way.

Lets summarize...

Do you believe every word in the BoM to be true?

Do you believe the 1000s of edits made may have altered that truth?

Do you believe the story of the gold plates and their reason for disappearing?

Do you believe the Jaredites are not allegorical but are true?

Do you believe in god?

Do you believe SOME of the BoM to be true?

Do you believe Joe could have known everything needed to write the BoM without any supernatural means?

My answers.... scroll down... in case you dont want to cheat...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

My answers: No, Obviously, NO!, NO, NO, Yep, Of course.

[Apex]

FX, are you even paying attention to what Shadow is trying to explain to you? These last several pages are you ignoring the bulk of what he has been saying and pulling out random statements like "Joe could have known all this", or Shadow is biased therefore unreliable, etc..

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Apex

FX, are you even paying attention to what Shadow is trying to explain to you? These last several pages are you ignoring the bulk of what he has been saying and pulling out random statements like "Joe could have known all this", or Shadow is biased therefore unreliable, etc..

Yes. What am I ignoring?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

?!?

It's in reference to the post directly above it. Someone asked what the 20 points were, and I answered.

Thank you, BTW.

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

Note that it's not enough to find all 20 elements in a book, you have to find them in a farewell speech, and some of them in a specific order. The chances of doing that randomly are 20 factorial, or pretty slim.

If the probability of each element is independent, but I think you can see that they're not: some of the order and subject matter is just common sense: for example, you're not going to summon the people together at the end of your speech. There are only so many ways that the listed elements can be assembled for a speech that's coherent from beginning to end, which I think is a given for it to be presented in written form in the first place.

Also, I'm not sure why the order matters so much, since you mentioned that no actual example of a "Hebrew farewell speech" has every element you mentioned, and that they show some variation from the order you've given.

And BTW - several of the elements you mentioned referred to being Greek rather than Hebrew. Should they really be included in the list?

In the end, though, I'm not sure how compelling this sort of thing is. So portions of the Book of Mormon match an ancient literary form (though how well I think is debateable, based on what you've provided)... in a book of its size, I'd expect a few coincidental matches like this. We wouldn't put much weight to it when a novel gives coincidental matches to things like Aztec military tactics, Maori funerary rites, or other similar things... why should we put weight on this?

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

You keep saying "easy and realistic" as if your Merl scenario was actually logical. The chances of Joseph getting the information he needed to write this book--without any trace of evidence left behind--are billions to one!

But what are the relative chances of this compared to the odds that a civilization would have arose in the Americas, had metal weapons and armour, and fought all-out wars without leaving any trace of evidence of that?

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

I'll try one last time, FX: where does the burden of proof lie in a forgery case? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the article is genuine? Or is the burden on you to establish it's a fake?

In court, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution--that would be you. If you want to convince people the book was forged by Smith, you need actual evidence of a forgery, and you need enough to account for ALL the data.

Personally, I'd say it depends on the situation. There is one burden of proof for someone who doesn't want to pay for his newly-acquired Picasso on the grounds it's a forgery, and another burden of proof for someone who announces that he just found a new Picasso that nobody knew about.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

I dunno even what your arguing. I keep trying to get you to clarify it in some meaningful way.

None of these questions is relevant to a scientific discussion. This is about burden of proof. Until you answer my question, find someone else's time to waste.