157 replies to this topic

[ERayR]

elguanteloko, on 23 February 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

First, that's a tautology. Secondly, I'm saying your interpretation of certain real events is less likely than other explanations... NOT that those experiences weren't real. If I'm hallucinating my dead grandmother, I am indeed seeing my grandmother there in front of me; that is one thing. ANOTHER thing is to say she actually is there. You haven't answered the question: what is the most likely for you to believe: a powerful being exists somewhere that you don't know where it is, he has the power to communicate with you through some means that you don't know exactly what they are, he is good enough as to be telling you truthful information, etc... OR saying you just missinterpreted the ORIGIN of certain sensations? Take into account that we can make people feel "spiritual" through completely non-religious methods (in a lab or something) but we haven't got evidence of God's existence, His power, His benevolence, His omniscience, His power to communicate, etc.

again, what's more likely to believe?



Many people believe in many sort of different gods, spirits, etc and they all get "confirmation" of those beliefs everywhere they see. confirmations that imply others are wrong in their own confirmations. We can also replicate much of the "spiritual experience" in labs. Taking into account the many different beliefs and the number of people that adhere to them, seems that even if you choose one religion or belief, you are likely to be getting it wrong. You still think it is the most likely thing to believe that your position is the good one? Probably you might want to look out the window more often.

Sigh.  I tried but you refuse to see.  Just what evidence can you show that it is more likely that these experiences are chemical sensations rather than there is a powerful being initiating spiritual communication.  You have not proven that just because the sensations are possible that it is the most logical conclusions nor have you proven that the two experiences are the same.  You make the unwarrented assumption that your view is the most logical.  You have not yet made a compelling case for that stance.

[jmordecai]

volgadon, on 22 February 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

-Robert Hoyland "Arabia and the Arabs", pg. 45-47.
Add to this the fact that the Nihmites did have a region named after them.

Equating a list of the dominant regional tribal kingdoms in Arabia cited by Gallus in 24 BC does not evidence that every tribal name in Arabia doubled as the name of its location in 600 B.C.

Furthermore, the Pliny quote of the Himyarites is notable as they didn't even rise to power until 100 B.C. With little data you are making generous assumptions and generalizations that the very author you quoted warned about in his introduction.

The author makes the point that data from one era or region may not apply to another:
"There is the ever present danger of generalization over time and place... it may well therefore be wrong to use it to elucidate earlier centuries or to characterise other regions of Arabia."

While the first millennium trade routes helped connect the regions, the author explains that the peninsula's geography mostly kept the regions isolated in development:
"The deserts of the interior, especially the Empty Quarter, to some degree isolated east Arabia and southwest Arabia from each other and from north and west Arabia, and so the populations of each region originally evolved fairly independently of each other."

This is important as your list of kingdoms from all over the peninsula, include such as the Minaean kingdom from the NW region. Thus your assertion: "The Arab practice was to name a region after the tribe inhabiting it" erroneously asserts that there was some unified tribal-place-naming convention throughout the peninsula in 600 B.C.

The Aston's book acknowledge that Nihm was at least four generations from Bakil. What predominance they had, if any, in 600 B.C. is unknown. For all we know they were a family clan. We certainly have no evidence or reason to believe they were a regional kingdom meriting a place name. Thus with no data, to say that the Nihm were called NHM in 600 B.C. because we have a 1st century BC list of regional Arabian Kingdoms is not admissible.

That Nehhm appears to be labeled a region in a late 1700's map is not evidence it was a named region in 600 B.C.

Edited by jmordecai, 24 February 2011 - 12:03 PM.

[LeSellers]

jmordecai, on 24 February 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

The Aston's book acknowledge that Nihm was at least four generations from Bakil. What predominance they had, if any, in 600 B.C. is unknown. For all we know they were a family clan. We certainly have no evidence or reason to believe they were a regional kingdom meriting a place name. Thus with no data, to say that the Nihm were called NHM in 600 B.C. because we have a 1st century BC list of regional Arabian Kingdoms is not admissible.

Yet it does move the earliest date of acknowledgment back another 75 years (from ad 50). Your own knowledge of these matters is now improved because, a day or so ago, you were claiming it was 2,300 year from Nephi's experiences, and now the gap is only 550 years.

Again, I ask, when we find that datum you insist on, what will you do?

The water's warm.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 24 February 2011 - 12:09 PM.

[SkepticTheist]

thesometimesaint, on 20 February 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

facie ad faciem:

Yes, and no. A single piece of evidence is seldom sufficient to establish proof. But when tied to other substantial pieces of evidence it can be presented as a basis for a logical theory. That is why I find the evidences for the BoM quite good.

I don't know as there will ever be proof of any religious book, because of the inherent non-falsifiability of the Supernatural.

If by supernatural, you mean that which in the Mormon religion is not yet known, not yet understood, or not yet seen, or that which in its current state, science cannot detect, I can agree.  But I don't like the word Supernatural.  I say Mormonism is not a supernatural religion, but a rationalist one, willing to accept as fact by faith things that science simply has not yet caught up with in its ability to detect things such as that in the natural world.

Ed Goble

[elguanteloko]

ERayR, on 24 February 2011 - 09:17 AM, said:

Sigh.  I tried but you refuse to see.  Just what evidence can you show that it is more likely that these experiences are chemical sensations rather than there is a powerful being initiating spiritual communication.

again, I'm NOT saying your spiritual experiences are NOT caused by God. I'm saying your explanation is the least likely to be true. Doesn't get much clearer than that and you make the same mistake over and over and over again on what I'm saying.

Quote

You have not proven that

"proofs" are used in math and in some types of logic, not in science. Inductive reasoning doesn't produce "proofs".

Quote

just because the sensations are possible that it is the most logical conclusions nor have you proven that the two experiences are the same.

  

Can you replicate in controlled conditions the power of God and corroborate his existence? No. Can you replicate "spiritual experiences" in controlled conditions? Yes. Which is safer to believe?

Quote

You make the unwarrented assumption that your view is the most logical.

  

...I gave reasons over and over again which you still don't get.

Quote

You have not yet made a compelling case for that stance.

...

Edited by elguanteloko, 24 February 2011 - 12:46 PM.

[jmordecai]

LeSellers, on 24 February 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Again, I ask, when we find that datum you insist on, what will you do?
Lehi

So you admit NHM is not the hit the ardent claim it is.

That's my point. If the data ever makes the case, fantastic.

[Vance]

jmordecai, on 24 February 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

So you admit NHM is not the hit the ardent claim it is.

That's my point. If the data ever makes the case, fantastic.

Lack of evidence is NOT proof of absence.

All the evidence that IS available supports this as being a hit.

And NONE of the evidence that IS available is against this being a hit.

So, now explain why we MUST accept your position?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance, on 24 February 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Lack of evidence is NOT proof of absence.

All the evidence that IS available supports this as being a hit.

And NONE of the evidence that IS available is against this being a hit.

So, now explain why we MUST accept your position?

I have never understood the critics postion to explain away Nahom. I will admit that this hit does not prove the BoM to be true all it does establish is that Nahom is of ancent date and not known to JS. I am unaware of any documentation that JS had access to any maps that had NHM. Until a critic can come up with evidence that JS had access to this type of info all fo the exlpaining away does nothing but through up smoke.

[jmordecai]

Vance, on 24 February 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Lack of evidence is NOT proof of absence.

All the evidence that IS available supports this as being a hit.

And NONE of the evidence that IS available is against this being a hit.

So, now explain why we MUST accept your position?

I already explained my position, so I don't intend to explain it again. I CFR'd for evidence that a place called Nahom existed in 600 B.C. That has yet to be demonstrated.

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 24 February 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

I have never understood the critics postion to explain away Nahom. I will admit that this hit does not prove the BoM to be true all it does establish is that Nahom is of ancent date and not known to JS. I am unaware of any documentation that JS had access to any maps that had NHM. Until a critic can come up with evidence that JS had access to this type of info all fo the exlpaining away does nothing but through up smoke.

That you don't understand the critics position doesn't by default prove Nahom was a place. My arguments have nothing to do with whether or not Smith had access to maps. If he did, I think he would have used Nehhm. But it's obvious he didn't since he identified the sea in Isaiah 9:1, JST (2 Ne. 19:1) as the Red Sea. I've made other points, like how the Jews survived a 7 year passage across the Empty Quarter that remain unanswered.

Edited by jmordecai, 24 February 2011 - 03:09 PM.

[Vance]

jmordecai, on 24 February 2011 - 03:08 PM, said:

I already explained my position, so I don't intend to explain it again.

I didn't ask you to explain your position.

I asked you to explain why we MUST accept your position?

You have absolutely no evidence to support your position.

Edited by Vance, 25 February 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[jmordecai]

Vance, on 24 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

I asked you to explain why we MUST accept your position?

You have absolutely no evidence to support your position.

I don't have the burden to disprove what hasn't been proven.

[Vance]

jmordecai, on 24 February 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

I don't have the burden to disprove what hasn't been proven.

Ok, so you don't have a reason why we should abandon our position then.

Good to know.

And just to summarize.  We have proof that the place was known as NHM from 50 AD to the present.  That is about 1960 years of name stability that we can prove.  We're 75% (with proof) there.

And you with no proof and NO evidence have zip.

Our position is rather comfortable.  Thank you.

Edited by Vance, 24 February 2011 - 04:07 PM.

[jmordecai]

Vance, on 24 February 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

Ok, so you don't have a reason why we should abandon our position then.

Good to know.

And just to summarize.  We have proof that the place was known as NHM from 50 AD to the present.  That is about 1960 years of name stability that we can prove.  We're 75% (with proof) there.

And you with no proof and NO evidence have zip.

Our position is rather comfortable.  Thank you.

I can't help you if you can't comprehend my arguments.

My CFR for a place in 600 B.C. remains unanswered.

Despite your assertion, evidence for a place in 50 AD was not given .

Unless you bring new tangibles and data points instead of immature bickering, I'm going to ignore you the rest of this thread.

[LeSellers]

jmordecai, on 24 February 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

So you admit NHM is not the hit the ardent claim it is.

Not in the least. As far as I can tell, there is no reason at all to assume that the NHM was not a vi toponym. All the evidence points to its being just what we Saints believe it to have been. And, as I have said several times, we have pushed the archeological evidence to within a few hundred years.

jmordecai, on 24 February 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

If the data ever makes the case, fantastic.

"Fantastic" does not answer my question. What will you do when we find it?

Lehi

[blueadept]

LeSellers, on 25 February 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

"Fantastic" does not answer my question. What will you do when we find it?

Lehi

If similar reasonable evidence was found in the Americas, I would hope I would join the church.

[LeSellers]

blueadept, on 25 February 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

If similar reasonable evidence [about the location of Nephi's Nahom] was found in the Americas, I would hope I would join the church.

So would I, so would I.

My follow-up question is, why require that it be found in the Americas, too?

NHM is so incredibly convincing, given it was virtually unknown to a XIX New Englander, and that the description of both NHM and Bountiful are so spectacularly, and impossibly, accurate, that it/they alone ought to tip the balance for anyone who sees them.

Calculating the odds of Joseph's coming up with the details of Lehi's Arabian trek that so closely match the actual terrain and cultural facts make any possibility of its being a coincidence trivial to the point of vanishing.

A further follow up is how much such "similar reasonable evidence" would it require? Do we need to find graffiti saying "Nephi is a total jerk!" or "My father brought me all the way from Jerusalem to this jungle?!? I want to go home!!", or would a simple sign saying

Bountiful Temple
——
Next Exit

be adequate? I probably sound flip, but I am truly interested in just how much physical evidence it would require, because, as far as I've been able to determine, most people who claim that a little bit more would do it, when it appears, do not follow through. Most take jmordecai's stance: "it's not really proof, it's just your interpretation."

The only real proof of the Book of Mormon is Moroni's promise. And, while it's simple, relatively few are able to apply it as written.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 28 February 2011 - 09:20 AM.

[TAO]

LeSellers, you should perhaps also include the River and Valley Laman and Lemuel in the evidences... as well as 'the empty quarter'.

[Avatar4321]

They ignore it.

[blueadept]

LeSellers, on 27 February 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

So would I, so would I.

My follow-up question is, why require that it be found in the Americas, too?

Every good story should have a plausible beginning which, IMHO, NHM at least provides the ground work not to throw out the rest of the book.  IMO, the incredible part of the story is believing it was feasible for a people of that time to make such a sea journey covering that distance.  I'm glad members are overwhelmingly convinced with NHM.  As a critic, I prefer evidence after what I consider the miracle part of the story of the BoM.  It's unreasonable for critics to challenge if Lehi/Lemuel existed.  It is reasonable to challenge if they existed in the Americas though.

I simply hope that I would be open to consider such evidence which is a reasonable position for a critic.

[jmordecai]

LeSellers, on 25 February 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

As far as I can tell, there is no reason at all to assume that the NHM was not a vi toponym.

Based on what? Does every Yemen tribe double as a toponym?

Quote

"Fantastic" does not answer my question. What will you do when we find it?

Hypotheticals don't contribute to the discussion. Do you intend to offer any additional tangibles and data points that answer my CFR?