Occams' Razor supports Mormonism?

[Guest]

Even if there seemed to be fairly good evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, "Ockham's razor" would still dismiss it. You kind of have to think, how many times has evidence, even very good evidence ultimately pointed to a wrong conclusion, and how many times has a supernatural explanation been clearly the right one? (based on evidence). Which scholarly journals (that J reads even) have ever established the existence of a supernatural being? What court room has ever confirmed a supernatural cause? But oh well, if we can't thoroughly explain away a parallel to Nehor (as an example), then that must mean, on grounds of parsimony, that an industructable shining man, Moroni, sent from a planet near Kolob where another industructable man rules and populates the universe with countless wives, appeared to Smith and gave him a golden Bible. And concerning the apologists' attempt at "plausibility", "Ockham's razor" would, I think, not even allow that as implausibility, in regard to supernatural causation, would always be a simpler position.

J is off in another thread too, where she wonders how many times the critics have been wrong. How many times have Bible scholars been wrong? And based on that, when will supernatural explanations start coming into the mainstream at Claremont?

[_Blixa]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

What are you talking about, Nehor? The Book of Mormon echoes commonly held beliefs about ancient Americans from that time period and area. Have you read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews?

I, too am nonplussed by Nehor's assertion. The Book of Mormon strikes me as very 1800's on every level and I have to say I've read a sh**load of 1800's literature. More than anyone would ever want to, probably.

[_Runtu]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

What are you talking about, Nehor? The Book of Mormon echoes commonly held beliefs about ancient Americans from that time period and area. Have you read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews?

I, too am nonplussed by Nehor's assertion. The Book of Mormon strikes me as very 1800's on every level and I have to say I've read a sh**load of 1800's literature. More than anyone would ever want to, probably.

Yep, even the things John Clark claims were "bullseyes" that Joseph Smith could not have known about turn out to be common beliefs among 19th-century frontier Americans. The Book of Mormon fairly screams 19th century.

[Reflexzero]

I, too am nonplussed by Nehor's assertion. The Book of Mormon strikes me as very 1800's on every level and I have to say I've read a sh**load of 1800's literature. More than anyone would ever want to, probably.

Yep, even the things John Clark claims were "bullseyes" that Joseph Smith could not have known about turn out to be common beliefs among 19th-century frontier Americans. The Book of Mormon fairly screams 19th century.

I see 19th century Americana, but I also see author(s) that are more familiar with ANE beliefs than those dwelling within 19th century frontier America should have probably known.

It’s a fascinating book that I don’t think can be dismissed and/or classified as simply 19th century frontier fiction nor 600 BCE – 400 CE scripture. It appears to me to be a complicated mixture of both. That’s what frustrates me sometimes about the damn thing on days that I want to believe and days that belief seems silly. I can’t quite pigeon-hole the text into an easily classifiable spectrum that fits one side nor the other.

Maybe I should just stick with reading Edgar Cayce’s crap.

[_Blixa]

Maybe I should just stick with reading Edgar Cayce’s crap.

Or The Search for Bridey Murphy.

(edit: I guess Bridey Murphy isn't exactly the same as Edgar Cayce, but the two things always stuck together in my mind...)

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I see 19th century Americana, but I also see author(s) that are more familiar with ANE beliefs than those dwelling within 19th century frontier America should have probably known.

It’s a fascinating book that I don’t think can be dismissed and/or classified as simply 19th century frontier fiction nor 600 BCE – 400 CE scripture. It appears to me to be a complicated mixture of both. That’s what frustrates me sometimes about the damn thing on days that I want to believe and days that belief seems silly. I can’t quite pigeon-hole the text into an easily classifiable spectrum that fits one side nor the other.

Maybe I should just stick with reading Edgar Cayce’s crap.

Most any work of fiction would fall into this category if the "author" adamently claimed it came about through bizarre supernatural means and not from their own imagination. Look what the Koran has created? Look at the mythology that George Lucas created with his Star Wars franchise. Now imagine if he claimed space aliens visited him and handed him the screenplay, it didn't just come from his imagination. Star Wars fans would be a hundred times more zealous than they are now.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I see 19th century Americana, but I also see author(s) that are more familiar with ANE beliefs than those dwelling within 19th century frontier America should have probably known.

It’s a fascinating book that I don’t think can be dismissed and/or classified as simply 19th century frontier fiction nor 600 BCE – 400 CE scripture. It appears to me to be a complicated mixture of both. That’s what frustrates me sometimes about the damn thing on days that I want to believe and days that belief seems silly. I can’t quite pigeon-hole the text into an easily classifiable spectrum that fits one side nor the other.

Maybe I should just stick with reading Edgar Cayce’s crap.

Most any work of fiction would fall into this category if the "author" adamently claimed it came about through bizarre supernatural means and not from their own imagination. Look what the Koran has created? Look at the mythology that George Lucas created with his Star Wars franchise. Now imagine if he claimed space aliens visited him and handed him the screenplay, it didn't just come from his imagination. Star Wars fans would be a hundred times more zealous than they are now.

Maybe. Then again, there's just seems to be too much 20th Century PhD ANE knowledge floating around inconspicuously throughout the text. I think that's what ultimately amazes me; especially given the obvious KJV quotes, etc. Why go through the trouble of weaving such esoteric knowledge and tidbits (such as sheum/seum) within the text while also allowing 19th century Protestantism through as well?

I think the book is a paradox.

[_Zoidberg]

Most any work of fiction would fall into this category if the "author" adamently claimed it came about through bizarre supernatural means and not from their own imagination. Look what the Koran has created? Look at the mythology that George Lucas created with his Star Wars franchise. Now imagine if he claimed space aliens visited him and handed him the screenplay, it didn't just come from his imagination. Star Wars fans would be a hundred times more zealous than they are now.

You know, I offered the same scenatio to Pahoran. I think he's a fan... well, see for yourself what he had to say about it:

But if in fact that had been how it was put forward, then yes, anyone who disputed the assertion would in fact assume the burden of proving it false. And since its claims are of an entirely mundane nature, it would be possible to test them on scientific grounds.

For example, the nature of light is such that it is not possible for a beam of laser light to exist that is powerful enough to cut through steel and case particle-energy weapon pulses to ricochet, but that only extends for 90 centimetres. Such a beam would necessarily continue until it was scattered by something. That's quite apart from the fact that, assuming the practical problems in generating the beam could be overcome, the energy it would develop simply by going through the air would be enough to cook anyone standing too close to it.