Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 By this same reasoning, missing links in evolution make hallucination probable.Gee, isn't non-scientific, theory-driven history fun!?! Thanks, -Wade Englund-Very poor reasoning here. BOM historicity is linked to what the witnesses experienced, but evolution isn't.
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Please provide evidence that a race of people known as the Nephites existed. Wade claims that the existence of The Book of Mormon is proof enough. If that is the case, then 'The Catcher in the Rye' is proof enough that Holden Caufield existed.H.Classic example of begging the question.
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Well, at least you are being honest. If God and angels, then we have nothing but the honest word of those who have heard and seen what God and angels produced.I think you have kind of proven Dan's points.H.And Wade accuses me of having a thesis-driven approach and using confirmation bias.
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Did Troy exist before it was found?Does Atlantis exist?
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Please don't project your fundamentalist, black/white limitations onto what I can or cannot legitimately claim. While the Book of Mormon isn't definitive evidence (in other words, the "truth" of it isn't factually knowable at this time either way), it is sufficient basis for increasing confidence and faith, while also allowing room for disbelief and loss of faith. To each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Reasoned discourse has constraints, whether you like it or not. Now, I would gran that from a faith perspective, the BOM could be seen as evidence that God cares for humans, etc. But from a historical point of view, the BOM supplies no information about ancient America, until it can be established as a trusted source.
wenglund Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Classic example of begging the question.Either you don't understand the meaning of "begging the question," or you are mistaken as to what the question is that is supposedly being begged.And Wade accuses me of having a thesis-driven approach and using confirmation bias.It wasn't an accusation, but an acknowledgment of what you essentially admitted. It is also substantially different from my approach. If you think otherwise, you are welcome to make your case.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Wade,It seems even more obvious that you have confused the subject with the object, the question with the answer. The question actually addressed was; "What traces of existence did the Nephites leave behind?" As someone who reasonably believes the Book of Mormon to be an ancient, non-fictional account of Nephites, it made perfect sense for me to answer by offering the Book of Mormon as just such a trace.You can't "reasonably believe" the BOM is authentic based on the book itself.
wenglund Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Does Atlantis exist?This evades the original question.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Look everybody; the Jaybear is trying to lecture someone about civil, rational and substantive discussions!Again, the question asked was, "What traces of existence did the Nephites leave behind?" The very best and most unambiguous of all "traces of existence" are written records.The Book of Mormon is the Nephite record; thus it is, in fact, a valid answer to the question.Regards,PahoranSo you mock Jaybear's intelligence and then follow that with a stunning bit of question begging. Nice! Do you have another example of Nephite writing that isn't in dispute?
wenglund Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Wade, You can't "reasonably believe" the BOM is authentic based on the book itself.I don't base that belief soley on the book, itself, but the book, as with any book, ought reasonably be factored in when assessing its authenticity.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited March 20, 2012 by wenglund
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Either you don't understand the meaning of "begging the question," or you are mistaken as to what the question is that is supposedly being begged.It wasn't an accusation, but an acknowledgment of what you essentially admitted. It is also substantially different from my approach. If you think otherwise, you are welcome to make your case.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I know the meaning of begging the question. You obviously don't because you are the one committing it. I made no such acknowledgment. You and others here missed a very important distinction. You are referring to my method of resolving the vision vs. hallucination issue, which isn't the same as my method for analyzing the evidence for the three and eight witnesses seeing the plates in vision. You conflated the two issues to make a straw man. I corrected Bill on that matter, but you must have missed it.
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I don't base that belief soley on the book, itself, but the book, as with any book, ought reasonably be factored in when assessing its authenticity.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Then you have strayed from the issue. So far you have only given the BOM as proof that the BOM is historically true. You have only succeeded in distracting the discussion and avoided the question. Why is it so hard admitting there is no evidence outside the BOM that the Nephites existed? Edited March 20, 2012 by Dan Vogel
Dan Vogel Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 This evades the original question.Thanks, -Wade Englund-No. The point is you are assuming the Nephites fall into the Troy category instead of the Atlantis category.
wenglund Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Reasoned discourse has constraints, whether you like it or notReasoned discussions don't include the kind of constraint proposed by H., whether you like it or not.Now, I would grant that from a faith perspective, the BOM could be seen as evidence that God cares for humans, etc. But from a historical point of view, the BOM supplies no information about ancient America, until it can be established as a trusted source.The question to which I was responding, as originally asked, didn't specify a particular perspective or point of view, and didn't speak to the debatable matter of "trusted source," and so your comments here are mistakenly presumptuous and irrelevant. Instead, the question was open to personal opinion, which is what I offered.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited March 20, 2012 by wenglund
wenglund Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Then you have strayed from the issue. So far you have only given the BOM as proof that the BOM is historically true.You are evidently mistaken not only about the issue to which I was responding, but also how I responded to the issues. For the third time, the BoM historicity wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was: "What traces of existence did the Nephites leave behind?" I then answered that question with: "the Book of Mormon." So, no, I didn't give the BoM as proof that the BoM is historically true. Did you finally get this?You have only succeeded in distracting the discussion and avoided the question. Why is it so hard admitting there is no evidence outside the BOM that the Nephites existed?Wrong. I honestly and reasonably answered a question presented on this thread. You didn't like the answer perhaps because you were confused about what question I was answering, and you also misunderstood my answer. That is your problem, not mine. Take ownership and man up to your mistakes, and stop trying to shift blame.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
wenglund Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 No. The point is you are assuming the Nephites fall into the Troy category instead of the Atlantis category.Wrong. You don't want to answer the original question because it exposes a flaw in your theory-driven approach. Unlike you, I am not assuming which category the Nephites fit into, but instead I let the evidence drive the categorizing, as one reasonably should.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
LDSToronto Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Mark Wright is one of the main scholars who takes this view. The article I linked to is over three hundred pages of evidence showing that Moroni may have been a rule of the Mayans.Maybe I missed something, but the word "Moroni" does not appear once in that dissertation. Neither does "Mormon" or "Nephite".I also showed you where to get more information and posts from Mark Wright.If that is acceptable as a CFR, I am cool with that. But, I will cite this example of "search for yourself" next time I am CFR'd.Listen up please and try to follow the argument, ok?I'm following, though I admit this scholarly stuff probably comes easier for you given your graduate studies. Please help me understand how the article you cited shows what you said it shows, because I am not seeing the same thing you are.H.
LDSToronto Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 The Book of Mormon is the Nephite record; thus it is, in fact, a valid answer to the question.The Book of Mormon refers to Nephites. This does not make it a record of actual Nephites.H.
LDSToronto Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Wade,I am willing to be wrong here, but when you refer to "question-begging" or "begging the question", you seem to be using the colloquial form - that is, a statement A leads to a question B. Rather, I am using the term "question-begging" or "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy petitio principii, or 'assuming the initial point' You can look it up on wikipedia if you are unfamiliar.H.
wenglund Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 The Book of Mormon refers to Nephites. This does not make it a record of actual Nephites.H.While the "actuality" of the Nephites is a matter of opinion, the Book of Mormon is a record of the Nephites either way.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Wade,I am willing to be wrong here, but when you refer to "question-begging" or "begging the question", you seem to be using the colloquial form - that is, a statement A leads to a question B.Rather, I am using the term "question-begging" or "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy petitio principii, or 'assuming the initial point' You can look it up on wikipedia if you are unfamiliar. H.I am using the term in relation to logical fallacies, and I am quite familiar with it. If you think otherwise, then make your case.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Minos Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 The next insult will be followed by a thread lock-down.
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I asked if you accepted historical evidence. Your definition of faith and religion is meaningless if it can apply to things that are conventionally not included. IIRC, you were involved in a debate about mass hysteria, which isn't the same as group hallucination, although it shows how closely humans are psychologically linked.I'm sorry- I don't understand this post. Perhaps you could re-phrase it.
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 You can't "reasonably believe" the BOM is authentic based on the book itself.I am dumbfounded. You have just denied the need for your own articles and even being here. It's just incredible. The BOM is inauthentic because it is inauthentic. This discussion is a waste of time. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Yep, that's a pretty good summary of how I see it.Maybe I missed something, but the word "Moroni" does not appear once in that dissertation. Neither does "Mormon" or "Nephite".Nope of course you are right- it wouldn't be in his dissertation, but that IS what he believes- see the link above. It was a quick reply and I confused the dissertation with the thread I thought the above quote was in.
Recommended Posts