Who Knows wrote:I'm curious what you mean by 'probability'. Do you mean something like this: The Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore it's probable that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it is.
Yes, something like that.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Unfortunately, that isn't how probability logic works.
But that is the way LDS members are conditioned to think, and it is anti-intellectual through and through.
Don't think! Feel.
Good feelings are easy to manufacture, especially when truths are difficult to prove.
The kinderhook issue is in the same ballpark as the Book of Abraham, and like the Book of Abraham issue, the apologists have the weaker argument. They are the ones who have to scramble and explain why one of Smith's most trusted friends would have invented nonsense that didn't really happen, and include it in his journal.
But unlike the Book of Abraham, the kinderhook translation wasn't canonized, so the theological ramifications are hardly equal.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan wrote:Unfortunately, that isn't how probability logic works.
Really? Seems like perfectly good conditional probability to me. If P(A|B) is high (say .9) and P(B) is high (say .9), then P(AB) is also fairly high (.81).
if
Probability(Book of Abraham is true given that Joseph Smith was prophett) = .9
and
Probability(Joseph Smith was a prophet) = .9
then
Probability(Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Abraham is ture) = .81
I'm fairly decent at statistics you know. Took a stochastic processes grad class and pointed out a mistake on the final to the professor.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:Probability(Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Abraham is ture) = .81
I'm assuming "ture" is Reformed Egyptian for "absolutely false.....he even lied about Abraham's mothers' maiden name".
:P
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
dartagnan wrote:Unfortunately, that isn't how probability logic works.
Really? Seems like perfectly good conditional probability to me. If P(A|B) is high (say .9) and P(B) is high (say .9), then P(AB) is also fairly high (.81).
if Probability(Book of Abraham is true given that Joseph Smith was prophett) = .9 and Probability(Joseph Smith was a prophet) = .9 then Probability(Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Abraham is ture) = .81
I'm fairly decent at statistics you know. Took a stochastic processes grad class and pointed out a mistake on the final to the professor.
How about
Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99
...the Book of Abraham is the one we get to examine scientifically and can be most confident about
Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet given that the Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...implications
Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the Book of Abraham is not true)=.9801
Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet) > .9801
Last edited by W3C [Validator] on Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tarski wrote:How about Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...the Book of Abraham is the one we get examine scientifically Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet given that the Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...implications Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the Book of Abraham is not true)=.9801 Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet) > .9801
Your hypothetical works. I just reject the usefulness of putting the necessary effort into P(Book of Abraham is not true) based on my reasoning that the a-priori probability P(Joseph Smith was a prophet) > .9.
And no Bond, "ture" is a reference to tureing machines which are like turing machines but able to to perform hypercomputation--except when it comes to spell-checking :P
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Tarski wrote:How about Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...the Book of Abraham is the one we get examine scientifically Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet given that the Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...implications Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the Book of Abraham is not true)=.9801 Probability(Joseph Smith was not a prophet) > .9801
Your hypothetical works. I just reject the necessity of putting the necessary effort into P(Book of Abraham is not true) based on my reasoning that the a-priori probability P(Joseph Smith was a prophet) > .9.
Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99
...the Book of Abraham is the one we get to examine scientifically and can be most confident about
Tarski wrote:Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...the Book of Abraham is the one we get to examine scientifically and can be most confident about
Then I reject your second probability premise of the implications. I think that's part of what apologists are studying whether its about missing papyrus or whatever other theory they have.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Tarski wrote:Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99 ...the Book of Abraham is the one we get to examine scientifically and can be most confident about
Then I reject your second probability premise of the implications. I think that's part of what apologists are studying whether its about missing papyrus or whatever other theory they have.
In other words, you think that the Book of Abraham not being true implies little about Joseph Smith's prophethood?
I think it implies lots. It is like a particle accelerator test of a big theory. The test fails so it falsifies the theory (Joseph Smith is a prophet)
We don't assume the big theory to conclude that the result must be wrong-- do we?
I think ABMan's right, he's just assigning the wrong probability to the Book of Mormon being true.
In fact, he should back up.
Probability that there is a god - i'll be generous and say it's 50/50 so 50%
Probability that god communicates to humans - again, being generous, lets say 50%
Probability that receiving a 'spiritual witness' is god's affirmative answer to a question - 5% (based on the fact that different people receive different answers ('spiritual witness') to the same questions.
So, we're down to .0125.
Now, I'll say the probability of Joseph Smith being a prophet if the Book of Mormon is true is 90%.
And the probability of the Book of Abraham being true if Joseph Smith is a prophet is again 90%.
So what does that leave us with? A 1% chance (if my calculations are correct).
:)
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...