If you’ve watched enough Jacob Hansen in his debates with other religionists and watched complete episodes of his YouTube channel then you are qualified to have an opinion.
Regards,
MG
Oh, stop with the apologetic pap.
I haven't read every book about the Bible, but that doesn't disqualify me from discussing biblical scholarship. I don't know all of mathematics, but that doesn't prevent me from correctly teaching someone introductory calculus. And I haven't read every history book about ancient Egypt, but that doesn't mean I cannot discuss Egyptian history intelligently and accurately.
The issue is not whether someone knows everything about Jacob Hansen. The issue is whether they understand the particular argument they are evaluating.
Simply declaring that I must watch some unspecified number of debates and complete YouTube episodes before I am "qualified" to express an opinion is an arbitrary standard, not a logical rebuttal.
An argument stands or falls on its evidence and reasoning, not on how many hours of YouTube someone has watched.
Amen.
The more i read, the more i realize that Apologetic arguments do nothing but specialize in logical fallacies. Thank you for refuting this one.
Oh, stop with the apologetic pap.
I haven't read every book about the Bible, but that doesn't disqualify me from discussing biblical scholarship. I don't know all of mathematics, but that doesn't prevent me from correctly teaching someone introductory calculus. And I haven't read every history book about ancient Egypt, but that doesn't mean I cannot discuss Egyptian history intelligently and accurately.
The issue is not whether someone knows everything about Jacob Hansen. The issue is whether they understand the particular argument they are evaluating.
Simply declaring that I must watch some unspecified number of debates and complete YouTube episodes before I am "qualified" to express an opinion is an arbitrary standard, not a logical rebuttal.
An argument stands or falls on its evidence and reasoning, not on how many hours of YouTube someone has watched.
Amen.
The more i read, the more i realize that Apologetic arguments do nothing but specialize in logical fallacies. Thank you for refuting this one.
If a person is listening to Jacob Hansen and taking him seriously, then they’re demonstrating that they aren’t very good at discerning good sources of information from bad sources of information. It’s a confession of sorts. It highlights a naïvété and gullibility that should cause the individuals loved ones some concern.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.