Prophesy: Atheist Rebuttal

Cory,

You say that trying to test God's existence through use of Prophecy would be "mocking" him.  I don't see why.  If our purpose is to have faith in him, then the act of testing his message is the act of verifying his existence. It's nothing more than emphasizing why we should believe.

My article was setting parameters for what a prophesy must fulfill for me to accept it as proof. If it comes true or not is secondary to if it fits within the guidelines required upon it to be considered proof.
In  your rebuttal you've outlined yourself how Joseph Smith's prediction doesn't fit the parameters I lined out. The civil war ended, it wasn't a world war, it didn't lead to famine, plague, and earthquake, and there wasn't an end to all nations (there wasn't even an end to the United States), and not even the Mormons have stayed in holy places until Jesus' return (which also hasn't happened). In order for this prophecy to be considered "fulfilled", you have to stretch your considerations of what is considered to be accurate "hits". It's just not specific enough, and it really didn't come true to the letter that it needs to.  You may argue that the events in the prophecy are still being fulfilled, but that leads directly in opposition to my statements that the prophecy needs to be be fulfilled, and must be fulfilled accurately and legitimately. The fact that we can argue about whether or not specific events in history can be considered legitimate fulfillment or not, is proof enough that the prophecy was not at all specific enough.

I need to make clear that I am in no means an expert on the LDS religion, and even more specifically on the Doctrine and Covenants.  Most of my information, I have gotten from various web sources, and I am privy only to the information they provide. In an attempt to be fair yet critical, I have tried to get my information from non-biased sources. I honestly don't want to attack your religion, and I hope I don't seem like I am. Unfortunately, the subject matter of my response is about the Mormon-specific topic you brought up, so I'm sure to some who may read this...I may come off that way.

That being said, here is my take on Joseph Smith's revelation about the Civil War known as, "Doctrine and Covenants 87".

The first issue that I have was with the timeline at which the "Doctrine and Covenants" was written.  Reading about the history of the writings, it's not hidden that the book has gone over several revisions.  According to:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/scripture/editions.html section 87 wasn't added to the book until the 1876 edition.  The scripture claims to be written in 1832, but according to the above website, it wasn't published until 44 years later. That would have given plenty of time to have seen the Civil War unfold, write about it, and attribute it to a much earlier time period. Unfortunately, I think the vagueness and inaccuracies of this prophecy are indicative that it wasn't actually written 44 years later.  If it were, why wouldn't it be more accurate and specific?

My other findings (and what I believe to be more accurate)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr., state it was first published in 1851. That's still 19 years later, and still plenty of time to see the raising political unrest of the South, and as you pointed out, "My sources concede that the likelihood of all-out war was not readily obvious to most contemporary observers until 1848-50" If this is the case, then it would stand to possibility that Smith's predictions weren't actually made until 1851, which would explain the accuracy of the Civil War prediction and also explain the ambiguity of the final outcome forecast.

Regardless of speculation of when D&C 87 was actually written, the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" was written in 1828, 4 years before D&C 87 was attributed to be penned. That would give ample time for Joseph Smith to understand the political unrest the southern states, especially South Carolina, were feeling. 
It doesn't necessarily take Calhoun's threat of succession in 1932 to see there was a problem.
It stands to reason that if an apocalyptic war was going to happen at that time, South Carolina would be a logical place for it to start.  By way of comparison, if I were to presently make a prediction about the apocolypse, I would probably make a statement saying that it was going to start between Israel and Palestine. I would also go so far as to say that Israel would call upon the United States for help, and that it could lead to many nations going to war.
A guess made by educated insight is much more likely to occur than a guess that's randomly made.  This is exactly why I stated that it needs to be very specific, beyond probability, and not something we can control or have a way of knowing beyond god's insight.

In terms of repeatability, over the course of his lifetime, Joseph Smith made dozens of prophecies, some of them came true, and most of them did not.  Of those that did, most of them are either not terribly remarkable, or vague enough to be open to interpretation.
One notable set of prophecies I look at (D&C 130:14-17 and History of Church, v2, p 182) was the prediction of the second coming of Christ to be when (or before) he was 85 years old, which puts it at or before 1890. As far as I know, not even the LDS Church believes this has happened yet and it's well over 100 years past due.

In your arguments you said,  
"What if the divine interaction was to rig the game? God's natural, logical methods are in evidence all around us - the motion of the planets, the conditions for life on earth, etc. - so why would his methods at fulfilling a prophesy be any different?"
If the world follows a natural, logical process, then God doesn't need to be part of the picture. I'm sorry Cory, but as I have said before, I can't take lack of evidence as being proof of God's existence. It just doesn't make any sense.

You are absolutely right, it's possible that IF God exists, his "miracles" may not be subject to being testable. And, in the context of my argument, then God's "miracles" aren't appropriate to be used as evidence of his existence.

You are also absolutely right when you say, "Being able to explain something after the fact does not necessarily prove that God wasn't involved."  I am not disproving god at all with any of my arguments. God may very well exist.  But my argument is (and always has been) that God or gods sound like mythology to me, which is a man-made concept. Just like any other fantastical story: for me to believe that god is anything more than that, I need some proof.


You also said,  
"If a doctor gives some patient with a terminal disease some finite amount of time to live, and that patient - a religious person who prays devoutly - suddenly recovers and the doctor discovers that some extremly rare condition of events occured to cure the illness, is it because God knows the body more intimately than anyone (being that He designed it) or is it just some fluke chance - fluke because the odds of beating such a disease are slim but the doctor can explain how the body healed itself?"
This paragraph is a little off subject, but I want to acknowledge it, because it will be covered in another part of my series, specifically about miracles and prayer.

Nice topic!  I'm sure we'll have a lot more back and forth. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

-Mike