DiscussMormonism.com

juliann never ceases to amaze me:

As for the Razor....that again is a double standard. It isn't allowed when it supports Mormonism.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 8263&st=80

How in the world it could support Mormonism is beyond me. Even if the examination of paternal DNA reveals that Native Americans are descended from Israelites and horse remains from the Book of Mormon time frame are found in abundance, it would not really help Mormonism unless they find a way to ensure that God visits every 14-year old who reads James 1:5 and wants to know the truth.

When are those guys going to move past affirming the consequent?

Zoidberg wrote:juliann never ceases to amaze me:

As for the Razor....that again is a double standard. It isn't allowed when it supports Mormonism.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 8263&st=80

How in the world it could support Mormonism is beyond me. Even if the examination of paternal DNA reveals that Native Americans are descended from Israelites and horse remains from the Book of Mormon time frame are found in abundance, it would not really help Mormonism unless they find a way to ensure that God visits every 14-year old who reads James 1:5 and wants to know the truth.

When are those guys going to move past affirming the consequent?

I asked Juliann the same question. I can't for the life of me think of any Mormon claim supported by Occam's Razor.

I don't know how Occam's Razor could possibly support Mormonism being accurate in any way.

In fact I think Occam's Razor would suggest that Mormon claims are false.

Runtu wrote:

Zoidberg wrote:juliann never ceases to amaze me:

As for the Razor....that again is a double standard. It isn't allowed when it supports Mormonism.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 8263&st=80

How in the world it could support Mormonism is beyond me. Even if the examination of paternal DNA reveals that Native Americans are descended from Israelites and horse remains from the Book of Mormon time frame are found in abundance, it would not really help Mormonism unless they find a way to ensure that God visits every 14-year old who reads James 1:5 and wants to know the truth.

When are those guys going to move past affirming the consequent?

I asked Juliann the same question. I can't for the life of me think of any Mormon claim supported by Occam's Razor.

There could be Mormon claims that are supported by it. Like the claim that smoking is "not good for man". On the other hand, if you make that "smoking is not good for man because God said so", it is definitely not supported by the Razor because in order to make that claim, you have to make an unnecessary assumption of the existence of God.

Zoidberg wrote:juliann never ceases to amaze me...

The feeling of amazement will pass, I assure you. Her performance is actually starving for novelty.

The Dude wrote:

Zoidberg wrote:juliann never ceases to amaze me...

The feeling of amazement will pass, I assure you. Her performance is actually starving for novelty.

Yes, she's like a broken record in many ways.

Runtu wrote:

Zoidberg wrote:juliann never ceases to amaze me:

As for the Razor....that again is a double standard. It isn't allowed when it supports Mormonism.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 8263&st=80

How in the world it could support Mormonism is beyond me. Even if the examination of paternal DNA reveals that Native Americans are descended from Israelites and horse remains from the Book of Mormon time frame are found in abundance, it would not really help Mormonism unless they find a way to ensure that God visits every 14-year old who reads James 1:5 and wants to know the truth.

When are those guys going to move past affirming the consequent?

I asked Juliann the same question. I can't for the life of me think of any Mormon claim supported by Occam's Razor.

The Book of Mormon is the most touted one. Do you accept it at face-value or dig into deeper and deeper claims of how it was authored by Martin, Hyrum, Sidney, Lucy, and/or Solomon using a rather impressive library of books?

That is anyways the most common use I have seen. Personally, I think Occam's Razor is generally useless outside of the realm of science. History tends towards complication, not simplicity.

The Nehor wrote: The Book of Mormon is the most touted one. Do you accept it at face-value or dig into deeper and deeper claims of how it was authored by Martin, Hyrum, Sidney, Lucy, and/or Solomon using a rather impressive library of books?

That is anyways the most common use I have seen. Personally, I think Occam's Razor is generally useless outside of the realm of science. History tends towards complication, not simplicity.

Actually, I believe the Razor is pretty useful in all aspects of life (other than religion), as well as the scientific method. And, of course, it only applies to possible explanations offered by people, not to objective reality.

As for the Book of Mormon, it is not so much the contents of the book that you're being asked to accept at face value, of course. Here's what you have to assume in order to even entertain the idea that the contents of the Book of Mormon can be taken seriously: it is a precise translation of an ancient record written in characters no one's ever heard of, while the record itself is nowhere to be found and there is very little hope of it actually being found because it is currently in possession of angel Moroni. Plenty of new assumptions right there. But in order to offer an explanation that the Book of Mormon was authored by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries, one need not make any new assumptions. We already know that humans are capable of writing fictional books that sound like a historical record.

It's not so much about simplicity as it is about making extra assumptions. Of course, "God did it" seems like the simplest explanation. But it doesn't really answer the question of how it was done. Which is what we want to know.

Zoidberg wrote:

The Nehor wrote: The Book of Mormon is the most touted one. Do you accept it at face-value or dig into deeper and deeper claims of how it was authored by Martin, Hyrum, Sidney, Lucy, and/or Solomon using a rather impressive library of books?

That is anyways the most common use I have seen. Personally, I think Occam's Razor is generally useless outside of the realm of science. History tends towards complication, not simplicity.

Actually, I believe the Razor is pretty useful in all aspects of life (other than religion), as well as the scientific method. And, of course, it only applies to possible explanations offered by people, not to objective reality.

As for the Book of Mormon, it is not so much the contents of the book that you're being asked to accept at face value, of course. Here's what you have to assume in order to even entertain the idea that the contents of the Book of Mormon can be taken seriously: it is a precise translation of an ancient record written in characters no one's ever heard of, while the record itself is nowhere to be found and there is very little hope of it actually being found because it is currently in possession of angel Moroni. Plenty of new assumptions right there. But in order to offer an explanation that the Book of Mormon was authored by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries, one need not make any new assumptions. We already know that humans are capable of writing fictional books that sound like a historical record.

It's not so much about simplicity as it is about making extra assumptions. Of course, "God did it" seems like the simplest explanation. But it doesn't really answer the question of how it was done. Which is what we want to know.

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.

The Nehor wrote: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.

How is it so improbable that it was created in the 1800's? A lot of it is borrowed from the Bible, and the other parts use words that people in the 1800s were familiar with. Sure, they've done an authorship attribution analysis of the Book of Mormon at BYU. Of course, they had no conflict of interest over there at BYU; what are you talking about? :)

But when similar techniques were used by D.I. Holmes from the Association of History and Computing, he found no evidence of multiple authorship within the Book of Mormon. His findings are summarized here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsbom1.htm