157 replies to this topic

[elguanteloko]

ERayR, on 21 February 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

I then must be illiterate.

LOL I'm joking, of course.

but seriously now, I was talking about people who have some training in so-called "critical thinking".

[zelder]

Rejecting a supernatural explanation is not necessarily a result of having better critical thinking skills.  The statement implies that atheists and agnostics have better critical thinking skills than most people of faith.

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 21 February 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Obviously it was not as you stated point blank that some are 'just silly'.  Meaning that you didn't accept them as written.

na, I accepted them.

Quote

Now we're not talking about an illusionist are we?  We are talking about known facts and a reasonable hypothesis with minimal assumptions.

well, Vex, the point is that you have a set of events (with both JS and Chris Angel). Now, to explain them you have to go beyond the data (i.e. "JS wrote a book were it says that bla bla bla" and "Chris Angel did what seems to be walking on water" would be data and "JS looked at a map" and "Chris Angel used a device made of clear plastic to bla bla bla" would both be explanations to account for the data). The point was that in both cases there are explanations more likely to be true and explanations less likely to be true. From ALL of those explanations you are choosing to pick the one that involves super-natural events that is clearly not one of the most plausible just as saying Chris Angel really walked on water without any aid but his powers seems less likely than any other explanation I can come up with that doesn't "break the laws of nature", so to speak.
  

Quote

Actually you do; for as it stands there are far too many unknowns and if it did play out as those assumptions it would be similar to an individual going to Vegas, placing bets on all the Roulette tables (not just in 1 casino but all of them), and subsequently winning them all.  Astronomical in plausibility.  Couple it with additional evidence from Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon and you'd have further issues in plausibility.

Doesn't matter since my assumptions don't contradict known empirical observations while yours does. Take Christ's resurrection as another example. Saying Christ rose from the dead is the least likely of explanations compared with, say, Christ didn't really die on the cross (VERY unlikely) or who they all saw was in reality Christ's twin brother (quite unlikely still) because none of these explanations so obviously break known laws of nature such as "dead people don't rise by themselves after 3 days" or something.

Quote

Which begs the question and adds additional assumptions that do not increase the probability of contact; namely trust in the individual as authoritative on middle eastern geography.

that works with comparable assumptions. natural vs super-natural assumptions are NOT comparable in such sense.

Quote

As much as you're trying to reducto ad absurdum you fail.  Moroni (nor any other angel) never told him about NHM, nor of Bountiful.  Thus your critique must bear upon the translation process or the prophet himself; from which you're placing your bets on the plausibility of the improbable.

OK, "JS received ancient records from an angel and through some super powers he translated them, etc, etc, etc." You get the point, man. don't get all ridiculous on me now.

Edited by elguanteloko, 21 February 2011 - 05:26 PM.

[elguanteloko]

zelder, on 21 February 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

Rejecting a supernatural explanation is not necessarily a result of having better critical thinking skills.  The statement implies that atheists and agnostics have better critical thinking skills than most people of faith.

But I'm not saying rejecting super natural explanations is a matter of critical thinking. I'm saying rejecting super natural explanations as the most likely explanations is a matter of critical thinking. Big difference there.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

na, I accepted them.



well, Vex, the point is that you have a set of events (with both JS and Chris Angel). Now, to explain them you have to go beyond the data (i.e. "JS wrote a book were it says that bla bla bla" and "Chris Angel did what seems to be walking on water" would be data and "JS looked at a map" and "Chris Angel used a device made of clear plastic to bla bla bla" would both be explanations to account for the data). The point was that in both cases there are explanations more likely to be true and explanations less likely to be true. From ALL of those explanations you are choosing to pick the one that involves super-natural events that is clearly not one of the most plausible just as saying Chris Angel really walked on water without any aid but his powers seems less likely than any other explanation I can come up with that doesn't "break the laws of nature", so to speak.

That's a stretch and you know it.
  

Quote

Doesn't matter since my assumptions don't contradict known empirical observations while yours does.

CFR.  Show me where my observations contradict known empirical observation.

Quote

Take Christ's resurrection as another example. Saying Christ rose from the dead is the least likely of explanations compared with, say, Christ didn't really die on the cross (VERY unlikely) or who they all saw was in reality Christ's twin brother (quite unlikely still) because none of these explanations so obviously break known laws of nature such as "dead people don't rise by themselves after 3 days" or something.

Nah, no one is ever resuscitated from the dead.  Not in this day and age.  But this is neither here nor there.  So keep trying to reducto ad absurdom you're not helping your case any.

Quote

that works with comparable assumptions. natural vs super-natural assumptions are NOT comparable in such sense.

CFR where I have dictated a super-natural assumption.

Quote

OK, "JS received ancient records from an angel and through some super powers he translated them, etc, etc, etc." You get the point, man. don't get all ridiculous on me now.

Let me rephrase this in something you can recognize:  "So some guy sat at a window for hours at end attempting to come up with laws that govern the Universe and then one day he spontaneously got it all right."  Do you see the similarities?

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 21 February 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

That's a stretch and you know it.

pfff cool rebuttal. "You are wrong and you know it!" isn't going to fly with me.
  

Quote

CFR.  Show me where my observations contradict known empirical observation.

God, super-translating powers, angels of dead people that tell you information of dead civilizations, etc.

Quote

Nah, no one is ever resuscitated from the dead.  Not in this day and age.  But this is neither here nor there.  So keep trying to reducto ad absurdom you're not helping your case any.

...

Quote

CFR where I have dictated a super-natural assumption.

just did.

Quote

Let me rephrase this in something you can recognize:  "So some guy sat at a window for hours at end attempting to come up with laws that govern the Universe and then one day he spontaneously got it all right."  Do you see the similarities?

no, frankly I don't.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

pfff cool rebuttal. "You are wrong and you know it!" isn't going to fly with me.
  

Yeah, and neither is that analogy which you taut as being what we're discussing.

Quote

God, super-translating powers, angels of dead people that tell you information of dead civilizations, etc.

Again, CFR where I said that.  Not where you did.

Quote

...



just did.

No you didn't, but good try at attempting to put words into my mouth.  Care to try again?

Quote

no, frankly I don't.

Perhaps some reading of Einstein is in order then?  That is his great thought experiment--amazing that some one who purports to be such a logical individual cannot see the similarities between all the large breaks in science and what is termed revelation.  Care to revisit your hypothesis yet?

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 21 February 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

Yeah, and neither is that analogy which you taut as being what we're discussing.

Again, CFR where I said that.  Not where you did.

your super-natural explanation implies it... actually, requires it.

Quote

No you didn't, but good try at attempting to put words into my mouth.  Care to try again?

...

Quote

Perhaps some reading of Einstein is in order then?  That is his great thought experiment--

googled it but can't find it.  and, no, I'm not really interested in reading Einstein. What I've read I haven't liked (his non-scientific stuff, that is).

Quote

amazing that some one who purports to be such a logical individual

who's that? I don't know him or her.

Quote

cannot see the similarities between all the large breaks in science and what is termed revelation.  Care to revisit your hypothesis yet?

I'll need more than that. I have no idea how what you are saying goes against what I've been saying.

[Mudcat]

In response to the OP. Well the premise rest's soundly on the presumption that this particular place where they found and altar that had NHM inscribed on it was Nahom.

I was rather partial to jmordecai's criticism, IMO he has done an adequate job of putting a 400lb. gorilla in the room and I haven't seen adequate response yet.

My own thought is this. In the BoM we see "altar" appear only a few times.
  

Quote

     2 Nephi 16:6

      Then flew one of the seraphim unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar;
    
      1 Nephi 2:7

      And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.
    
      Alma 17:4

      And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him.
    
      Alma 15:17

      Therefore, after Alma having established the church at Sidom, seeing a great check, yea, seeing that the people were checked as to the pride of their hearts, and began to humble themselves before God, and began to assemble themselves together at their sanctuaries to worship God before the altar, watching and praying continually, that they might be delivered from Satan, and from death, and from destruction—

In the KJV we see this same word appear 355 times.

Certainly in 1 Nephi 2:7, we see the construction of an altar documented. Though this altar seems to be a different one than referenced in the video.

I think if indeed this altar that the video has posited, was of Nahom. Then one should ask themselves if this represents the normal course of things.

To my knowledge there aren't any Mesoamerican cities/places that have altars that have inscriptions that match anything that would reflect similar naming. This seems a key point to me.

Also, given the limited amount of references to altars in the BoM. The BoM, doesn't give good evidence that such people were altar constructors on any significant level, IMO.

Edited by Mudcat, 21 February 2011 - 08:06 PM.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

your super-natural explanation implies it... actually, requires it.


...

Are you going to answer my CFR (I'll give you a hint; quote my super-natural explanation that you seem to be under the delusion I have given)?  I've already called for it twice.  I'm still waiting.  Fulfill the CFR or concede, it's your choice.

Quote

googled it but can't find it.  and, no, I'm not really interested in reading Einstein. What I've read I haven't liked (his non-scientific stuff, that is).

http://www.pitt.edu/...ight/index.html
It's termed "Einstein's Great Thought Experiment"

Quote

who's that? I don't know him or her.

Obviously since you have yet to actually engage the issues with your hypothesis.

Quote

I'll need more than that. I have no idea how what you are saying goes against what I've been saying.

A 16 year old boy postulated the relativistic effects that would occur at the speed of light.  Not a well trained professor in physics.  Not a team of physicists, and not some lost dissertation that happened to fall into his hands.

[zelder]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

But I'm not saying rejecting super natural explanations is a matter of critical thinking. I'm saying rejecting super natural explanations as the most likely explanations is a matter of critical thinking. Big difference there.

I might agree with you if the Nahom issue was the only issuse to consider but there are several.

The BOM containes Hebrew Chiasmus poetry structure only discovered about 60 years ago.  Computer generated wordprint analysis suggests that the book does indeed have different authors even though Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery testify that Smith dictated the entire book to them.  The book has hebrew phrase structure "plates of brass", "works of righteousness", "taxed with a tax" etc etc.   There are all kinds of evidences suggesting that the book was what Smith said it was.  Of course the witnesses also testify of of the supernatural.  I don't think it is difficult to believe or irrational to believe when it is all put together.  All things considered, Smiths story is the only story that holds water.

[jmordecai]

zelder, on 21 February 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

Computer generated wordprint analysis suggests that the book does indeed have different authors...

I agree.

1 Ne. 22:20 is Peter (cf. Acts 3:22-23)
Alma 5:52 is John the Baptist (cf. Mat. 3:10)
Mosiah 16:10 is Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53)
and of course Isaiah, to name a few.

Quote

The book has hebrew phrase structure "plates of brass", "works of righteousness", "taxed with a tax" etc etc.

I also like the Greek phrase structures like:

"God the Father" (title only found in the NT, yet is used 7 times in the OT era BM.)
"Kingdom of God" (title only found in the NT, used 31 times in the OT era BM.)
"Kingdom of Heaven" (title unique to the book of Matthew, yet used 16 times throughout the BM.)
"Lamb of God" (title unique to John's Gospel, used 33 times in BM, as early as 600 B.C.)
"Mysteries of God" (phrase unique to Paul and John's writings, used as early as 600 B.C. in the BM)

Quote

All things considered, Smiths story is the only story that holds water.

Don't think you considered all things.

[Vex]

jmordecai, on 21 February 2011 - 10:57 PM, said:

I agree.

1 Ne. 22:20 is Peter (cf. Acts 3:22-23)
Alma 5:52 is John the Baptist (cf. Mat. 3:10)
Mosiah 16:10 is Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53)
and of course Isaiah, to name a few.



I also like the Greek phrase structures like:

"God the Father" (title only found in the NT, yet is used 7 times in the OT era BM.)
"Kingdom of God" (title only found in the NT, used 31 times in the OT era BM.)
"Kingdom of Heaven" (title unique to the book of Matthew, yet used 16 times throughout the BM.)
"Lamb of God" (title unique to John's Gospel, used 33 times in BM, as early as 600 B.C.)
"Mysteries of God" (phrase unique to Paul and John's writings, used as early as 600 B.C. in the BM)



Don't think you considered all things.

To which the same can be said of you.

[zelder]

jmordecai, on 21 February 2011 - 10:57 PM, said:

Don't think you considered all things.

Who has time to quote everything written on the subject?  Is there an alternative explanation that does not have holes?  Who wrote the book?

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 21 February 2011 - 07:40 PM, said:

Are you going to answer my CFR (I'll give you a hint; quote my super-natural explanation that you seem to be under the delusion I have given)?  I've already called for it twice.  I'm still waiting.  Fulfill the CFR or concede, it's your choice.

You said the following: "Actually you do; for as it stands there are far too many unknowns and if  it did play out as those assumptions it would be similar to an  individual going to Vegas, placing bets on all the Roulette tables (not  just in 1 casino but all of them), and subsequently winning them all.   Astronomical in plausibility.  Couple it with additional evidence from  Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon and you'd have further issues in  plausibility."

You assume an explanation for JS and the BoM that is more plausible than what I've been offering but yet you haven't stated it clearly saying what I've been saying is adding "more assumptions" implying you have a better explanation.

Quote

http://www.pitt.edu/...ight/index.html
It's termed "Einstein's Great Thought Experiment"

Oh, I've seen this before.... and?

Quote

Obviously since you have yet to actually engage the issues with your hypothesis.

...

Quote

A 16 year old boy postulated the relativistic effects that would occur at the speed of light.  Not a well trained professor in physics.  Not a team of physicists, and not some lost dissertation that happened to fall into his hands.

I still don't get the point. what am I to conclude from this? there are some pretty smart 16 year olds?

[jmordecai]

zelder, on 21 February 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

Who has time to quote everything written on the subject?  Is there an alternative explanation that does not have holes?  Who wrote the book?

Scribes wrote the book. Joseph dictated it from the KJV and his imagination, (and possibly other sources).

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."
- Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, p.345

"That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question."
- B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.243

[jmordecai]

Vex, on 21 February 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

To which the same can be said of you.

I don't have to consider all things. It's not the hits that make the Book of Mormon, it's the misses that discredit it.

[Robert F. Smith]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:

It was clearly implied that I accepted ALL of those assumptions at least for the sake of argument right now to illustrate the point.

Next time you watch Chris Angel think of what the most likely explanation to his (be it said, lame) tricks are. Did he really walked on water or was it just a trick? What is the most likely explanation? Is the one who thinks that it's just a trick or has a very imaginative, 'natural' explanation on the same grounds than he who thinks he is doing real magic?

I told you I accepted them all; I don't need to reject any or to make the explanation simpler to illustrate the point.

2-4 need not be the case. The map itself didn't need to go anywhere as long as someone saw it and that person traveled. That makes 5 unnecessary. On 6, the person who saw the map could have told JS about the place for some reason not so long before he wrote it down.

...but yet again, I told you that I accepted all of the first assumptions to show the point. As unlikely you think these explanations are, the "An angel told me to" explanation is even less likely.

But doesn't your position lead to an infinite regress in which no matter what sort of evidence is brought forward, it must always be dismissed simply because  "An angel told me to," etc.  This would mean that anyone saying that there is no physical evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon could not be answered -- at least not under your strictures.  Is that either reasonable or practical?  Is it fair that all physical evidence be excluded because of the vaunted supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon?  Sounds circular and self-contradictory to me.

Moreover, does the same apply to a Bible-believer who attempts to argue for some sort of evidence that the Exodus of Israel from Egypt actually took place as described in the Bible?  Could a reasonable discussion of such issues actually be carried on in such an atmosphere of automatic exclusion?

[elguanteloko]

First of all, I just want to congratulate Robert F. Smith for the thoughtful response here. My pleasure to discuss this with you, sir.

Robert F. Smith, on 22 February 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

But doesn't your position lead to an infinite regress in which no matter what sort of evidence is brought forward, it must always be dismissed simply because  "An angel told me to," etc.

  

This is a very fair criticism but let it be clear, again, that I'm not saying the believer has to abandon his miraculous explanations at all, brother. When enough evidence of the ontological beings/powers the believer claims exist are presented, and the paradigm shifts, then the sort of explanations LDS apologists claim can be advanced. Until then, too bad, so sad. If you want my opinion, though, religious people will be MUCH better just making their claims as unfalsifiable as possible. Even if you are right, making constant claims and ad hoc additions of and to super-natural explanations is just going to discredit religious belief EVEN IF at the end you guys turn to be right.

Quote

This would mean that anyone saying that there is no physical evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon could not be answered -- at least not under your strictures.  Is that either reasonable or practical?  Is it fair that all physical evidence be excluded because of the vaunted supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon?  Sounds circular and self-contradictory to me.

Again, these sort of super-natural explanations make assumptions so far out there that they can't reasonably be used to be presented to the unbeliever as evidence. Ontological beings like God, angels, the super-powers of prayer and divine communication, etc are all things that must be assumed prior to your spiritual explanation of certain events. Take the Chris Angel analogy presented earlier. What things must we assume first before saying Chris Angel really has the super-power to walk on water? The apologists' explanations are full of these same type of assumptions, also.  

Quote

Moreover, does the same apply to a Bible-believer who attempts to argue for some sort of evidence that the Exodus of Israel from Egypt actually took place as described in the Bible?  Could a reasonable discussion of such issues actually be carried on in such an atmosphere of automatic exclusion?

I don't see the problem here, really, as long as the Bible-believer isn't making super-natural assumptions. Again, there isn't any "automatic exclusion" going on here. The believer can have her spiritual explanations for certain sets of events but to claim they are the most rational things to believe is just not possible, bro.... EVEN IF it ends up being the true explanation.

[Robert F. Smith]

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

lol really?

Yes.  No joke.  Note Alexandra David-Neel's observations on TIbetan Buddhism (before Chinese occupation) and supposed "miraculous events":

"None in Tibet deny that such events may take place, but no one regards them as miracles, according to the meaning of that term in the West, that is to say as supernatural events.
"Indeed, Tibetans do not recognize any supernatural agent.  The so-called wonders, they think, are as natural as common daily events and depend on the clever handling of little-known laws and forces.
"All facts which, in other countries are considered miraculous or, in any other way, ascribed to the arbitrary interference of beings belonging to other worlds, are considered by Tibetan adepts of the secret lore as psychic phenomena."      (David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet, 291, who goes on to explain in subsequent pages that psychic phenomena are produced "in accordance with some natural laws," 292).

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

yes, by naming it something different (i.e. "more fine or pure matter") which illustrates nothing at all. Just changing the names of things isn't explaining them.

True, but it does cohere much better with modern physics, does it not?  You can attribute that to the odd beliefs of Pratt or the arbitrary theory of Joseph, which may be easier for you than believing in a supernatural origin of such views.

elguanteloko, on 21 February 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

Sure but then don't act as if it was the reasonable thing to think... it isn't. Plus I don't even think this is the case. If you seriously ask a mormon of medium education what he thinks the more likely and 'objective' explanation is for such type of events I don't think he'll give the "spiritual explanation" answer.

See above. The apologists are the ones offering a VERY UNLIKELY explanation of certain events and we don't need to be refuting every silly explanation that pops up here and there and we told you why.

I can ask any number of yokels what their view is about this or that religion to which they adhere to some greater or lesser extent, but am not certain that that would be an appropriate way in which to determine  the formal theology of the group.  Certainly Sterling McMurrin did not follow that method in setting about to write his books on the theological and philosophical foundations of Mormonism.  Nor did Truman Madsen,  Blake Ostler, or others.  That is not to say that sociology is not worthwhile for its own purposes.  But for that we go read Armand Mauss and the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Much bears on how such questions are posed.  If, instead of "gods" and "angels," we concern ourselves with advanced civilizations and sentient beings from other planets in other systems, would we be as likely to define everything they do as "magic" or "supernatural"?  Might a long-distance communication device defined as an "interociter" be more acceptable than some form of "revelation"?  Might a virtual-state transducer which has a LED readout be more acceptable to you than a stone-in-a-hat style of translation?  Are we dealing more with form or content here?  What is more objectionable, the substance, or the packaging?

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 22 February 2011 - 02:38 AM.