Do you see the circular nature of this argument?

God exists because the Bible tells me so, and the Bible wouldn’t lie, it’s the word of God. etc.

Agreed.

>So here are some questions for you Tortdog. If your entire lifestyle and eternal beliefs depended on whether or not the surface of the moon was exactly as the astronauts described, wouldn’t you start to wonder if their claims are exactly accurate. Wouldn’t you rather see see the moon for yourself before you could be sure? It all depends on what the stakes are really. I can accept what others claim a lot easier when the stakes are low. As for corroborating evidence, there is a lot of corroborating evidence that little green aliens exist. So does that mean you believe without ANY doubt that there are aliens (assuming you haven’t encountered one yourself of course.) And furthermore, are you saying that one should have a testimony of the church just because all of their family and friends do?

Absolutely! The neat thing is that God HAS provided man with a means to test whether He lives. There is a method. It’s up to man to choose to get it done.

Now, some men don’t like that method. They want to go about it a different way. Since the goal is to determine whether a Supreme Being exists, if a methedology is laid out by that Supreme Being, wouldn’t it be wise to use that method rather than one of our own creation?

>And of course God’s history with man is important (once God’s existance is established), however, I’m sure you realize that many things that were applicable in the Old Testament are not applicable to the LDS church today (the Law of Moses for example). Been sacrificing animals lately? The Bible says you should right?

The Bible relates a time in which the law required man to sacrifice animals to God. The Bible further relates that this law would be fulfilled, and that more sacrifice would be required. So we follow the laws required of man for our days.

Right?

>just because I am the only witness to a storm on an island does not mean the storm did not hit.

Agreed. However, I am not talking about what is true or untrue, rather under what circumstances should our observation be convincing to others. If no scientific evidence can be found to support a storm on that particular island, than you could not expect that everyone would believe you.

So here are some questions for you Tortdog. If your entire lifestyle and eternal beliefs depended on whether or not the surface of the moon was exactly as the astronauts described, wouldn’t you start to wonder if their claims are exactly accurate. Wouldn’t you rather see see the moon for yourself before you could be sure? It all depends on what the stakes are really. I can accept what others claim a lot easier when the stakes are low. As for corroborating evidence, there is a lot of corroborating evidence that little green aliens exist. So does that mean you believe without ANY doubt that there are aliens (assuming you haven’t encountered one yourself of course.) And furthermore, are you saying that one should have a testimony of the church just because all of their family and friends do?

And of course God’s history with man is important (once God’s existance is established), however, I’m sure you realize that many things that were applicable in the Old Testament are not applicable to the LDS church today (the Law of Moses for example). Been sacrificing animals lately? The Bible says you should right?

What makes you so sure that Washington crossed the Delaware?

It has to those who have seen Him.

Not necessarily ‘THE’ cause, but a pretty good one of the few I’ve seen.

“First, to my knowledge, that’s just a theory.”

Right, whereas the existence of God has been proven beyond all resonable doubt – oh wait a second…

>I would say that the probability is equal to 1 since the Universe is, and therefore its’ creation is self-evidently highly probable.

That is based on your supposition that the big bang was the cause for the Universe. First, to my knowledge, that’s just a theory. Not a proven fact as you assume here. Second, even were there a “big bang,” that theory does not exclude the possibility that it was part of some ordered event.

My own view is that the order of the Universe is far more persuasive that there is a creator/manipulator of the universe than that it is by happenstance. Chaos is the natural state of things, not order. The order evidences a creator.

Nerm:

>since the relevance of God cannot be established via the scientific method, the only legitimate evidence one can accept is direct contact from God himself.

I think that’s pretty close to my belief.

>Thus a more appropriate discussion would be whether or not communication from a spiritual source is merely an emotional feeling (and therefore not to be considered scientific evidence) or an actual sensation that can be considered proof of something being real.

Mostly agreed, even though definition of emotional gets us into science as well.

>Is communication from the Holy Ghost as real as communication from a fellow human being via the various mediums we are already familiar with? Under what circumstances is an audible voice (or other perceived form of communication) to be considered coming from an external source that is real?

Things necessary to be answered.
On the latter, do you need the scientific method to prove that someone is talking to a group of people? Do I need the scientific method to inform me that a speaker is talking to me at a conference if I am with others who are also hearing the address? Isn’t it enough to ask the fellow next to me if he is hearing the same thing?

Direct observation is a very powerful device (and one used in the scientific method).

>Even if an agreement could be established in answer to the above questions, what if I have witnessed evidence through what could be considered an acceptable means(such as direct contact)but my friend has not? This could also apply to testimonials of alien encounters or any other concept not univerally accepted by the scientific community. One cannot be expected to accept that something is real or even relevant based on probabilities or for the lack of alternate explanations.

That goes to witnesses of events. Just because only a few people have visited the moon does not make it less likely to exist as they described it. Just because I am the only witness to a storm on an island does not mean that storm did not hit. Which gets us to your next point:

>Of course, multiple corroborating testimonials could bring one to ponder the possibility of something being relevant and thus worth exploring.

Maybe even MORE than possibility.

>If hypothetically speaking, many people I knew and trusted, claimed to have had direct contact with aliens I might begin to wonder, at least, if aliens exist and what relevance they might possibly have.

Agreed. In fact, if more than a few people whom I know to be trustworthy (and sane) witnessed these encounters. I don’t believe that I would need to personally witness the aliens. Their testimony would be sufficient.

>However I would need an alien to directly interact with me in order to accept that they exist.

That goes to YOU and YOUR personal needs to believe. It does not alter reality.

>Meanwhile, I assume the question of whether or not the scripture was is error was originally meant to be rhetorical. Perhaps a better debate would be what the actual meaning and application this scripture has in the LDS church.

No. It was a direct question so that I could assess the beliefs of the person I was addressing.

>Perhaps a better debate would be what the actual meaning and application this scripture has in the LDS church.

Only if you do not believe that God’s history with man thousands of years ago is also important.